Newly - discovered medieval court document suggest that " Church Father of English literature " Geoffrey Chaucer probably did not commit a crime often attributed to him .
For years it has been debated what took place between Chaucer , author ofThe Canterbury Tales , and Cecily Chaumpaigne , the daughter of a London baker . The debate concentrate on aroundmedieval administrative recordsknown as cheeseparing Rolls of the English Chancery , particularly one from May 4 , 1380 , in which the regal authorities ’s secretariat give up Chaucer from “ all style of actions related to my raptus ” ( “ omnimodas acciones , tam de raptu meo ” ) .
Raptus , as a novel analysis of old and Modern evidence published in The Chaucer Review preeminence , has been used in legal term to denote rape , abduction , and everything in between . The bank bill , relating to Chaumpaigne , has been the subject of disputation since it was first discoveredby Frederick J. Furnivall in 1873 . A 2d legal line from a few day later , but not discovered until 1993 , references the same case but omits the word " ictus " . Taken together , the document have been seen as grounds that Chaucer was guilty of raping Chaumpaigne .
new discovered records in The National Archives have drop doubt on this survey , indicate Chaucer and Chaumpaigne were actually conscientious objector - defendants .
The first piece of evidence , the paper ’s conscientious objector - writers Euan Roger and Sebastian Sobeckiwrite in a blog post on the finds , was a guarantee date April 9 1380 . It demo that Chaumpaigne appointed two attorneys in a case against one Thomas Staundon . The written document shows that Chaumpaigne was not a plaintiff in the guinea pig , but was defending herself against charges brought under the Statute and Ordinance of Labourers ( 1349/51 ) .
This rather unusual bit of legislation , brought in by King Edward III , came about following a especially brutish moving ridge of the pest in 1348 which wiped out between an eighth and athird of the European universe . To hear and command inflation , the legislation prevent laborers from accepting wages above those set in 1346 , despite the rather diminished supply of labor which would push up its note value .
The statutealso decreed"that every person , able in body and under the old age of 60 geezerhood , not having enough to live upon , being call for , shall be bounce to serve him that doth require him , or else be committed to jail until he shall find surety to serve " , essentially wedge anybody who dislikes jail metre to take study for pre - Black Death wages . Anyone count to move to another , better - paid job would also find oneself themselves on the wrong side of the law .
It was this latter situation that saw Chaucer and Chaumpaigne on the awry side of the jurisprudence . A further effectual text file discovered by the squad named the two as cobalt - defendants against Staundon ’s claim that " the aforementioned Geoffrey admitted and retain Cecily Champayn , formerly the servant of the said Thomas , in his inspection and repair at London , who has departed from the same overhaul before the end of the accord term , without reasonable campaign or licence of Thomas himself , into the service of the say Geoffrey " .
The author write that the word rapture , previously remember to mean rape , could have referred to abduction in the context of use of the charges being brought by Staundon : that of Chaumpaigne being poached by Chaucer .
It is possible that the servant had been abducted , rather than merely offer better wages or conditions , by Chaucer . It was common at the time to charge both abductor and abductee under the Statute of Labourers for this . However , there is not much in the style of evidence to back this reading up either , with no grounds of trespass action find against Chaucer , nor any course of action taken against him for physical abduction .
" It is , of course , impossible to rule out an act of forcible or sexual fury in the events that bring place around Chaumpaigne ’s move from Staundon ’s service to Chaucer ’s , or the possibility that she was coerced into agree to a handout against her will , " the squad pen in their blog berth for the National Archives .
" However , the new grounds present in our clause point that the specific legal accusations brought against Chaucer in 1379 - 80 in the Margaret Court of King ’s Bench were not charge of rape , and they probably did not refer to a physical abduction ( or at least there is no evidence for this among the court ’s records ) , but rather relate to a labour difference of opinion . "
The findings are published inThe Chaucer Review .
