On Raptus, Quitclaims, and Precedents in Staundon v. Chaucer–Chaumpaigne: An Afterword

Abstract

ABSTRACT The two documents we presented in The Chaucer Review 57.4 (2022) changed everything we knew about Chaucer’s relationship with Cecily Chaumpaigne. We showed that in this case raptus does not refer to rape or violent crime but to procurement in the form of poaching a servant, an action made illegal by the Statute and Ordinance of Laborers (1349/51). The new records clarify that Chaucer and Chaumpaigne were co-defendants not opponents, being sued together by Thomas Staundon, Chaumpaigne’s former employer. The present article explains in greater depth how Chaumpaigne’s two quitclaims are concerned with procurement, not rape or abduction, and labor law. This article also introduces precedents and analogues, demonstrating that medieval lawyers might regard the procurement of an employee under the Statute of Laborers to amount to raptus custodie, or ravishment of ward. Finally, we suggest that the case of Staundon v. Chaucer–Chaumpaigne belongs to the long history of the noncompete clause.