perhaps fail to
call forth in us the sympathy which we feel for Milton in his old age
doing battle against a Philistine reaction, or for Spenser overwhelmed
with calamities at the end of a life full of bitter disappointment.
But at least we may look upon it with the respectful pity which we
entertain for Ben Jonson groaning in the midst of his literary honours
under that dura rerum necessitas, which is rarely more a matter of
indifference to poets than it is to other men.

In 1386, as already noted, Chaucer, while continuing to hold both his
offices at the Customs, had taken his seat in Parliament as one of the
knights of the shire of Kent. He had attained to this honour during
the absence in Spain of his patron the Duke of Lancaster, though
probably he had been elected in the interest of that prince. But John
of Gaunt's influence was inevitably reduced to nothing during his
absence, and no doubt King Richard now hoped to be a free agent. But
he very speedily found that the hand of his younger uncle, Thomas Duke
of Gloucester, was heavier upon him than that of the elder. The
Parliament of which Chaucer was a member was the assembly which boldly
confronted the autocratical tendencies of Richard II, and after
overthrowing the Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk,
forced upon the king a Council controlling the administration of
affairs. Concerning the acts of this Council, of which Gloucester was
the leading member, little or nothing is known, except that in
financial matters it attempted, after the manner of new brooms, to
sweep clean. Soon the attention of Gloucester and his following was
occupied by subjects more absorbing than a branch of reform fated to be
treated fitfully. In this instance the new administration had as usual
demanded its victims--and among their number was Chaucer. For it can
hardly be a mere coincidence that by the beginning of December in this
year, 1386, Chaucer had lost one, and by the middle of the same month
the other, of his comptrollerships. At the same time, it would be
presumptuously unfair to conclude that misconduct of any kind on his
part had been the reason of his removal. The explanation usually given
is that he fell as an adherent of John of Gaunt; perhaps a safer way of
putting the matter would be to say that John of Gaunt was no longer in
England to protect him. Inasmuch as even reforming Governments are
occasionally as anxious about men as they are about measu