Chaucer's determined accuser

How could a woman in fourteenth-century England make an accusation? Appeals (accusations) covered only three crimes against a woman: the death of her husband, the death of her child in utero, and rape.
     In the case of rape, she must travel to the next town immediately and inform a trustworthy person. Next she must notify an official of the law. Then she had forty days to make her formal accusation. It took a woman of determination to accomplish all the law required. And if a pregnancy resulted from the rape, the man would be exonerated. Why? Because they believed conception occurred only with mutual cooperation.
     The record of Chaucer's release makes it a logical assumption that he had earlier been accused. Watts, a lawyer/researcher of the 1940s, states that both Chaucer and his accuser had to have agreed on the term raptus, in full knowledge of the word's primary meaning. Two things are certain: first, Chaucer had been threatened with prosecution for rape; second, the woman--Cecilia--had released him from further demands on her part. (We will say more about "Cecilia" after a bit.)
     The matter is significant. Cecilia executed "a formal release under seal duly enrolled in the Chancery," with five prominent friends of the poet as witnesses. Among them were the King's Chamberlain, Sir William Beauchamp and John Phillipott, who became Mayor of London.
     After finding the first legal record, two more pertinent entries came to light. A John Grove and Richard Goodchild transacted a general deed of release to Geoffrey Chaucer eight weeks later. A second release--by Cecilia--was given to Grove and Goodchild, which establishes a connection between the three men--Chaucer, Grove, and Goodchild. A subsequent document indicates that John Grove is to pay the sum of £10 to Cecilia. On July 2 the money is noted as paid. These entries indicate, to Watts, that the two men were uninformed agents on Chaucer's behalf, assisting without full knowledge.
     The lawyer reasons that Cecilia, having successfully obtained a settlement from Chaucer, in an afterthought, also made demands on Grove and Goodchild.
     If Chaucer conspired with the two men to trick or force Cecilia into a rendezvous, it looks bad. Chaucer did not have the option of marrying the lady. But a sufficient sum of money might resolve the situation. One more discovery by Watts demontrates this as possible when Cecilia dropped her appeal.
     Knowing the hazards of being accused, one can see how even an innocent man might make a settlement rather than risk a judgment. (See previous entry!) Settling out of court, as Chaucer did, though not actual proof, as the lawyer notes, it still provides "a strong presumption of guilt." Finding the additional transaction causes Watts to speculate: Chaucer relinquished the rights to his father's London house (June 19, 1380). This could be directly related to raising a generous settlement. The amount of cash involved is not known, but we can reasonably assume it to be substantial.
     (Want more details? See my Pilgrim Chaucer: Center Stage, pp. 36-42.)
  
Next time, we'll consider Geoffrey and Cecilia's relationship.