Kuhl — Chaucer's Burgesses. 
659 
of contemporary documents no references to the eight 
councilmen 1 from the guilds of the Fullers and the Masons 
are found that pertain to other than affairs of their respec¬ 
tive guilds. 2 The only exception might be in the case of the 
Dyers. But here again we should probably say that a per¬ 
son engaged in the fulling of cloth would not, other things 
equal, be the equal socially of a Dyer of cloth. There is, 
as a matter of fact, an interesting entry preserved which 
indicates that the Dyers carried on business for themselves. 
In 1383 (Chaucer was Comptroller at this time) a London 
Dyer (Henry Grenecobbe) had permission to ‘Take, custom 
free, five sacks of wool from the Isle of Thanet, ... to 
London, there to be made into cloth.” 3 But let us grant that 
the poet did have two alternatives when he made his selec¬ 
tion. The important thing is the fact that this selection 
was carefully made, which is at the same time a full reply 
to those critics who have wondered why so few political 
allusions are to be found in the Canterbury Tales. 4 
II 
We are now prepared to take up the individual guilds 
and discuss their representatives to the City Council, as 
well as the “Masters” of the various crafts. Obviously, one 
should hardly expect to find much material on an obscure 
burgher of the fourteenth century. To be sure, if Chaucer 
had included among the nine and twenty pilgrims repre¬ 
sentatives from the more prominent companies, the mate¬ 
rial would be plentiful enough. But, as we have just seen, 
our poet was extremely cautious in his selection. Instead 
of choosing from prominent companies he saw fit to select 
from those—by no means obscure—which appeared neu¬ 
tral to the two factions which were striving for supremacy 
at the time the Canterbury Tales were taking shape. 
1 For names see Letter-Book, H, p. 43. 
2 There is one exception of minor importance. J. Lesnes was on a com¬ 
mission pertaining to guardianship (Ibid., p. 29). This sort of thing was 
very common, as dozens of other cases occur in the Letter-Book. 
3 Cal Pat. Rolls, 1381-5, p. 306. 
4 For a discussion of this latter point see Hulbert, Chaucer's Official Life , 
Menasha, Wisconsin, 1912, pp. 70-71. Coulton (p. 69) states that 
“Professor Raleigh has pointed out that his (Chaucer’s) avoidance of 
all but the slightest allusions to even the greatest of contemporary events 
may well seem deliberate.” Professor Legouis likewise in his admirable 
study of Chaucer (Paris, 1910) speaks of Chaucer’s silence (pp. 26-8). 
Chaucer’s silence becomes, to a certain extent, explicable when one 
recalls the facts I have just pointed out. 
