.
In the 1870s, a scholar discovered a legal entry that said Chaucer was released from an
appeal of “raptus.” If you’re asking if that means “rape,” it surely can.
But the general scholarly attitude was that the poet is above human failings.
The
charge was often explained as "abduction." Perhaps the abduction was necessary
for the lady's protection, or he was really doing her a favor because one of
Chaucer's friends wanted to marry her and couldn't get her guardian's
permission. Only a "vicious imagination," it was claimed, would be
needed to see Chaucer as the cause of a lady's ruination. In 1926, a
Chaucer biographer even claimed our poet "figured as the hero" of the
action.
In
1947, however, an enterprising lawyer surveyed the 19th- and 20th-century interpretations
and concluded that the scenarios created to achieve a "not guilty" point of view
were "entirely unsupported by evidence." Then he gave an analysis of
the intent of 14thcentury
legal terms and procedures. To appeal
meant to accuse. It was an appeal for justice to be done. To release
meant to remove the demands of the appeal.
Many
a man, upon being accused of rape, has learned that defense against the charge
is difficult. If the man was unmarried, taking the lady as his spouse could
satisfy the charges. But here’s the judgment in a case from Chaucer's era: A
woman named Alice accused a man named John of having ravished her virginity. He
was found guilty. John had a wife, so marriage could not resolve the problem.
Fortunately for John, Alice withdrew her appeal, because the judgment handed
down was that Alice was to "tear out John's eyes and cut off his
testicles."
How
likely does it seem that Chaucer, a mature, well-respected servant of the king,
would risk such punitive measures in order to abduct the woman a friend wanted
to marry?
Chaucer's position at court (his favor with
the king) could not protect him, if
he were found guilty, because the king had no jurisdiction in cases between two
citizens. The woman executed "a formal release under seal duly enrolled in
the Chancery," and five prominent friends of Chaucer witnessed the action.
Chaucer
chose to settle out of court, which demonstrates "a strong presumption of
guilt," though it’s not actual proof. The amount of cash given over is not
known, but we can reasonably assume the amount must have been substantial. Generosity
would be good for the poet's reputation at court.
Thanks to the 1940s legal work, lay
folk—average readers as well as literary critics—were now in possession of
accurate information to guide their assumptions. But the outcome surprises me. First,
because the case is rarely mentioned. For example, in the authoritative Chaucer
entry for the Encyclopædia Britannica
(1968), it gave not a hint of it. Second, because scholars defend the poet’s
reputation. In the 1996 Britannica,
only two sentences refer to the incident and it suggests that Chaucer was not
guilty as charged.
Though
the 1940s efforts have been mainly ignored over the years, another reference to
the raptus case was published in 1993. It not only confirmed the
original analysis as an "important study," but added yet another bit
of documentation.
Somewhat
confusing, legally, was the fact that Chaucer, after being found guilty of a
felony, was not indicted subsequently by the King's court: such an
indictment was “almost as a matter of course."
How
could that be? The Chancery release was transcribed differently a few days
later for the King's Court: "Whether by coercion, persuasion or some more
complicated manipulation" the wording was modified. Raptus was
"quietly, but emphatically, retracted," and the number of witnesses
named reduced from five to three. The seriousness of the charge was undeniably
minimized. It may be that this record at the Court of King's Bench "was
meant to withhold the very information the original release was designed
to disclose." This memorandum was the one "most likely to be read
[referred to] than any other version of the release."
Even with this new evidence, and although "raptus in 14th-century
English law meant forced coitus," many scholars "have repeatedly
tried to protect Chaucer's reputation." With proper interpretation of
legal terms as they were used in Chaucer’s day, we ought to be able to
recognize that Chaucer was not the hero of the case, nor was he a fool, risking
all to be a romantic go-between. It is
possible that he had a flaw, a moment (an evening?) of weakness.
The lady’s name BTW is Cecilia.
No comments:
Post a Comment