Item: Geoffrey and Cecilia

Circumstantial evidence concerning Chaucer and Cecilia, his accuser, appears to add up to his guilt and her benefiting from a substantial monetary settlement. We'll never have conclusive evidence so I, for one, go along with the guilt/settlement scenario.
     Then there is the matter of Chaucer addressing "little Lewis, my son." The boy is ten years old, ten years after the raptus case. Lewis could be Chaucer's son by Cecilia. And, recall that in fourteenth-century thinking, if pregnancy results from coitus, cooperation is assumed. So, if Cecilia finds herself pregnant, wouldn't she examine her participation? Wouldn't she conclude that she must have been willing to some degree?
     What I'm getting at is that a relationship between Cecilia and Chaucer could have existed. Because Chaucer's wife's pension ceased after June 1387, her death is assumed. That's four years before Lewis' tenth birthday. Circumstances make a Geoffrey/Cecilia relationship possible.
     A firm connection clearly exists between Chaucer and the name "Cecilia." One of the pilgrim stories--The Second Nun's Tale--recounts the life of St. Cecilia. Chaucer scholar, George Cowling, long ago, proposed that the "Life of St. Cecile" was meant to honor Cecilia Chaumpaigne. It may be more than honoring her; she may have required it from the poet. She may have wanted the assault upon her admitted, and Chaucer's repentance acknowledged. (Her patron, St. Cecilia, brought many men to conversion.) I believe Chaucer covertly confirms such requirements!
     This blog aims to question long-held assumptions. We'll look at Chaucer's words as if he really meant what others have taken to be errors.
     Speculation says that the Cecilia piece had been written for another occasion and the poet simply included it in the Tales. If he did so without adapting the original presentation, that explains a lot. For example, why the usual formula that introduces other tales is not used; why the narrator surprisingly addresses "you who read what I write"; why the speaker refers to being "an unworthy son of Eve"; and why the sinful "contagion of my body with earthly lust and false affection"--rather than spoken by a narrating nun--now becomes appropriate.
     There is no invitation from the Host, followed by a story and a conclusion linked to the next tale. Nevertheless, Cecilia's story was meant to be there, because the very next tale begins, "When the life of St. Cecilia was ended, Ere we'd ridden five miles . . ."
     The Second Nun's Tale begins with an exhortation against idleness, the devil's trap. A prayer to the Virgin, for her assistance, follows. Then the translation of the story of St. Cecilia, as found in The Golden Legend (a collection of saint's lives), begins.
     Though it's easy to overlook, Chaucer attaches an extra stanza to conclude the translated introduction. Why the added lines that only reiterate Cecilia's virtues? The answer is what makes research so exciting. The last line masks a hidden meaning! That Middle English line reads:
     Now have I yow declared what she highte.
"Highte" contains two different messages. The line can be read, "I have declared to you what she was named." That's just more repetition.
     But Chaucer uses an alternate definition of "highte" elsewhere to say "command." Here his added words announce, "I have declared to you what she commanded."  The preliminaries to the tale declare, I am the sinful one; she is persevering in good works. Thus, he has fulfilled her demand.
      Without doubt, Chaucer has immortalized  Cecilia. Her name will be remembered as long as the Canterbury Tales circulate.

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.