In Defense of Chaucer

It is a fact that both of the two most famous writers of late Medieval/early Modern English have long been suspected of rape. Now it appears that there are good reasons to question both accusations. Chaucer's court case has come under investigation by scholars of medieval England, and it turns out not to be a rape case but a labor dispute -- the Latin word 'raptus' in this case meant something more like 'enrapture' than 'rape.' The charge turns out to be that Chaucer had lured a worker away from her previous employer before she had finished her proper term of service.

There, [scholars] found the original writ in the case, from 1379. It showed that Staundon had brought an action against both Chaucer and Chaumpaigne, under a law known as the Statute of Laborers, which had been enacted after outbreaks of the plague had restricted the labor market. It was intended “to combat rising wages, and to prevent the poaching of servants” with the promise of better terms, the scholars write in their blog post.

Chaucer, the writ stated, had hired her unlawfully, and then declined to return her to Staundon’s service as requested, causing him “grievous loss.”

Those two documents, Sobecki and Roger wrote in a blog post summarizing the discovery, opened up “a radically different reading of ‘raptus.’” Instead of rape, they argue, it can be read as “the physical act of Chaumpaigne leaving Staundon’s service.”

It has long been known that the Great Plague raised the power of laborers to bid for higher wages. The real charge against Chaucer is that he offered her a better deal than she had been getting, and she and he were both sued by her former employer as a result.

The other great writer of that era was Sir Thomas Malory, who was caught up and prosecuted for raping the same woman twice -- but the accusation came not from her, but from her husband. There are reasons to think that the real offense there was that he and she were acting like Lancelot and Guinevere, an affair that might have inspired his lengthy treatment of both that matter and Tristan and Isolde. They come off as some of the most attractive characters in the novel even though both of their long love affairs are technically matters of adultery in cases of arranged marriages. 

The scholarship on the Chaucer matter is really excellent, and the article is enjoyable and detailed. A feminist scholar interviewed on the subject is not ready to give up the grievance, which she views as more important than the actual facts:

[She] called the new documents “very exciting” but said the “exoneration narrative” some saw in them was overplayed.

“I am eager to see how the conversation unfolds,” she wrote in an email, “but I remain insistent that the questions feminists have raised about the intersection of rape culture and women’s labor should shape our collective approach to these documents.”

By all means, let us not change our interpretation because of the facts.