{"id":5165,"date":"2026-05-04T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chr.org.uk\/anddidthosefeet\/?p=5165"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:13:57","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T09:13:57","slug":"geoffrey-chaucer-the-charge-of-raptus-may-4th","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chr.org.uk\/anddidthosefeet\/geoffrey-chaucer-the-charge-of-raptus-may-4th\/","title":{"rendered":"Geoffrey Chaucer & the Charge of Raptus May 4th, 1380"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For many years, there has been a cloud over Geoffrey Chaucer’s name.  On May 4, 1380, Close Rolls of the English Chancery reveals that Chaucer was released from \u201call manner of actions related to my raptus<\/em>\u201d. (\u201comnimodas acciones, tam de raptu meo\u201d). The case involved Geoffrey Chaucer and Cecily Chaumpaigne, the daughter of a London baker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Raptus can mean rape or kidnapping.  We know he was not charged for the offence. But the original records suggest he was accused of it and possibly paid his way out of difficulty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I attended a lecture 2 years ago relating recently discoveries by Euan Roger<\/a> and Sebastian Sobecki<\/a>. It shone light on the long misunderstood case, and cleared Chaucer of rape or kidnapping.  The scholars were investigating medieval records, which academic opinion thought not worth pursuing.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geoffrey Chaucer and Cecily Chaumpaigne<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

But in the papers they discovered that Chaucer and Cecily Chaumpaigne were on the same side in the legal dispute. Rather than being a case of Chaucer mistreating Champaigne, they were jointly accused of Raptus by her former employer, Thomas Staundon,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking the long view, the accusation came ultimately from the shortage of labour following the Black Death of 1348. It killed over one third of the population of the UK. With the loss of life, the ruling classes found they were having to pay higher wages to labourers, and goods. So, having control of Parliament, they passed legislation called the Statute of Labourers. This insisted that people should work at the same pay rate and conditions as before the Black Death. Labourers had to swear to keep to the old conditions, and drastic consequences, including imprisonment, awaited those who transgressed. It was one of the major causes of the Peasants Revolt of 1381. The legislation was still in use 30 years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, it would seem that Cecily left her employer, Staundon, to work for Geoffrey Chaucer. Presumably at a more realistic higher pay rate. Her former employer pressed charges against her and Chaucer for breaking the financial rules and poaching a worker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a very crude summary of a fascinating piece of historical detective work. To find out more, read The Chaucer Review<\/a> Volume 57, Number 4, 2022<\/a> Penn State University Press<\/a>. Or follow this link https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/pub\/2\/article\/867751<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For my post of Chaucer and St Valentine’s Day follow this link.<\/a>
For my post on peasants-revolt-june-13th-1381<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Peasants’ Revolt June 13th, 1381<\/a><\/blockquote>