Year: 1917
Type: article
Abstract: For some years I have suspected that the little Lewis to whom Chaucer dedicated his Treatise on the Astrolabe was perhaps not his own son, but the son of his friend Sir Lewis Clifford.The hypothesis is worth considering.It is generally admitted that, when Chaucer specifies "the year of our Lord 1391" in Part II, section 1, he is designating the current year.The inference may be accepted without hesitation, in default of any conceivable reason to the contrary.Further, there are no good grounds for interpreting Chaucer's March 12, 1391, as March 12, 1392.In an astronomical work like the Astrolabe, the presumption is that he began his calendar with January 1, not with March 25.The presumption is strengthened by the fact that such was the practice of Nicholas of Lynn, one of the authorities to whom he acknowledges indebtedness.Nor is this all.Immediately after mentioning March 12, 1391, Chaucer mentions December 13.Obviously he refers to the following winter, for we cannot suppose that he is working backward in the calendar.December 13, 1391, would, of course, be earlier, not later, than March 12, 1391-2.This consideration raises the general probability to a practical certainty.'We may therefore take it as settled that the Astrolabe was written in 1391.There is no likelihood that the iProfessor Samuel Moore, who argues strongly for 1392, has overlooked this point (Modern Philology, X, 203-5).
Source: Modern Philology
DOI: 10.1086/387079
Author: G. L. Kittredge
Language: English
Subfield: History
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2084479853