.@euanroger shows us part of why these records weren't available for ages—they're rolled up wads of scrolls that look half-fossilized
@euanroger Thomas Staundon appears to have employed Chaumpaigne as a servant; Chaumpaigne appears to have departed before the end of their contract to be a servant for Chaucer instead; all of this stuff under the Statute/Ordinance of Laborers. Oct 16, 1379.
So a different reading of raptus becomes possible, ER says: "the physical act of Chaumpaigne leaving Staundon's service." And the quitclaim we already had gives Chaucer legal safety.
Something relevant to 2022 here: these laws that are at issue around labor were to help keep wages from skyrocketing in an era of labor shortages thanks to the Black Death.
So I'm still waiting here to see what the explanation might be for the $$ transfer from Chaucer > friends > Chaumpaigne. More legal shenanigans to keep Chaucer safe from accusations of poaching a servant?
ER says he and Sobecki have some theories about that $$ in their about-to-drop article, though this does seem to be a bit of a loose thread.
...did Sobecki just give us the phrase "the fallacy of...phallusy"?
Now over to @Ajprescott, zooming in from The National Archives for labor history context
Not only were the records incredibly difficult to use, AP says, but they also smelled delightfully of coffee, thanks to a coffee club whose supplies were stashed in the same room. ☕️
As I'm processing—if what we have is the legal vestiges of Chaucer getting a young woman into a better employment situation, with dubious legality, that still speaks to an eye for gender, choice, and coercion—and may make more sense of his care, variety and nuance on the topic!
And now we have Christopher Cannon, the finder of the 'til-now most recent doc, 30 years ago—the quitclaim that *doesn't* mention raptus but only "stuff"—and who pushed against our reading it as merely abduction.
Apparently when he gave his talk initially at NCS, a senior medievalist got up and explained that raptus DID mean abduction, not rape, but Aranye Fradenberg intervened—for which CC is still grateful. Calls the reopening of that question "painfully slow."
CC introduces Sarah Baechle, expert on consent, Chaucer and medieval lit. She draws our attention to the voyeuristic aspects of Chaucer's depictions of rape, looking in particular at Philomela and Tereus.
CC now introducing Carissa Harris, like SB one of the experts in Chaucer and sexual assault. She says she didn't think that knowledge about the meaning of "raptus" in this case was possible, and is excited at the new info here. Draws our attention to medieval working women.
She and SB have both highlighted how Chaucer's writing solidifies and reinforces rape culture. Brings up women's labor and is interrupted by a glorious cat. Has us think about the maidservants in Chaucer.
What's required of maids? Who's entitled to their labor? How does it braid with rape culture?
Now to @SamanthaLKSeal, author of Father Chaucer, who's worked on Chaucer's whiteness, antisemitism and rape. Speaks to how this may absolve Chaucer the legal individual, but not how our fields' biographers have used Chaumpaigne for titillation.
Seal walks us through the various sickening summaries of the hypothesized episode by biographers; I'll add my own experience of John Gardner being my favorite author growing up, and the slap in the face that his amused and leering account of Chaumpaigne was to me.
He wrote in what was, in retrospect, not actually a children's book, with a girl with blonde frizzy hair who got to be unfemininely strong & fight a dragon. Reworked fairy tales. And then he drooled over the imagined body of Chaumpaigne, high-fiving Chaucer across the centuries.
In q&a @Ajprescott stresses that Chaumpaigne was of pretty much of equal social class to Chaucer; had a brother in the king's household. So she probably had a senior position in Chaucer's household. Might also explain the big names dragged in to witness the quitclaim.
And AJP notes that after Chaumpaigne's mother's remarriage she and her siblings used their mother's new name Pickerell interchangeably. So we need to follow up on that in records.
(There could be so many more out there with a Cecily Pickerell! Rolled up in wads of fragility, grossness and coffee aroma.)
Adding in belatedly another far-more-excellent livetweet thread:
https://twitter.com/no_good_wyfe/status/1579851464985710592
For the record any time you refer to HIM as Chaucer and HER as Cecily, rather than Chaumpaigne, I twitch and cringe. And it disturbs the very adorable cat on my lap. Stop saddening the cat.
SPECIAL ISSUE DROPPED: scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/chaucer/i…
ER hopes this leads to more funding and support for these types of records, for a push for, say, an online Chaucer Life Records. AJP stresses again "what terrible condition these files are in." One example has a note on it, "never open except for repair."
Sobecki: "To all my literary colleagues out there: find a historian, find an archivist buddy...we just simply need to know more about each other's work, and where we can enhance our researches."
Site has been partially updated, including a page I'd had in drafts for ages on gross biographical criticism, thanks to @SamanthaLKSeal's push. Excitement now crashing into exhaustion; I'm out for the day.
https://twitter.com/annawaymack/status/1579877248571650063
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
