Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer

Raptus

I think the section on Chaucer's involvement in the "raptus" of Cecilia Champain/Chaumpaigne is lacking. The page incorrectly says that it is unknown what the word mean when in fact the possible meanings of the word, as well as the probably meaning (abduction and rape) are not unknown at all; the Wikipedia page on "raptus" has a comprehensive list itself. At the very least the possible meanings should be noted and the readers left to decide for themselves. This was likely a case of rape as we understand it; that is how Chaucer scholars now interpret it (Amtower and Vanhoutte 2009, 85-86). Also, this section doesn't mention that Chaucer was acquitted but that he paid Chaumpaigne £10bvbrgbnnghb rtbntrhnn and in return she signed a document releasing Chaucer from all actions in the case of "de raptu meo". This was a substantial amount of money and paying it suggests some admission of responsibility (Amtower and Vanhoutte 2009, 113-114).

Basically, this section barely discusses the details of the incident and seems to gloss over the fact that Chaucer was seemingly an accused rapist or kidnapper, was acquitted, but was required to compensate Cecilia. If readers are going to be left to make informed conclusions about this case they need to have all of the tools to do so. In terms of in-depth sources, should anyone choose to check this, the best are probably Donald Howard (1987) and Derek Pearsall (1992) and the 1993 Christopher Cannon article about the case "Raptus in the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered Document Concerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.208.56 (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Life

I have made two amendments to the 'Life' section to improve clarity. Could someone who knows the subject check that the material about John Chaucer and Hamo de Copton (which I have left untouched) is clear and accurate.Chrisemms (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

what is a pilgrim

what is a pilgrim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.215.62 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Have a read of Pilgrim to find out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pornography?

Everything I have read, been taught, and studied about Chaucer says his work would be considered pornography back when they were released. The poems (if read as pure symbolism) are full of erotic imagery. However, there seems to be nothing in his page reflecting this... have I learned wrong? ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though you are confusing the modern notion of pornography -- a word which wasn't even invented until 400 years after Chaucer's death -- with a broader sense of "erotica" -- or with what Chaucer himself called "ribaudrie" or ribald, risqué writing. Some of the Canterbury Tales -- the Miller, or the Wife of Bath's tale, are ribald or risqué it is true, but they're not erotic. When Chaucer takes tales from sources, such as French Fabliaux, which were often very explicit, he usually waters them down quite a bit. Perhaps the one of Chaucer's projects which could conceivably be thought of in (at least metaphorical) pornographic ways would be his translation of The Romance of the Rose -- an early work for which he himself very explicitly apologized in The Legend of Good Women. Beyond that, of course there are, on a symbolic level, many varieties of sexual imagery in Chaucer, but this would be true of almost any imaginative writing in English, looked at in similar terms. So I don't think this is something missing from the account of Chaucer here, at any rate -- it is certainly discussed in the entries on the relevant individual tales and poems. Clevelander96 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Is it Equatorie of the Planetis or Equatorie of the Planets? Both spellings are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.24.175 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)