Sexual Violence in "The Physician's Tale"

Geoffry Chaucer’s “The Physician’s Tale” should be set within the canon of sexual violence with other such works as "The Reeve's Tale" and "The Shipman's Tale", yet its place has been largely dismissed. The very fact that a rape does not actually occur in the tale seems to exclude it, in the eyes of scholars. Yet these scholars fail to see that the prevention of sexual violence through the intervention of Virginius is as much a rape as the intended one. Virginia’s body is a possession of her father and when he is denied his implicit owner’s right of selling it, he destroys it to keep it from being stolen.

Ritscher notes that in medieval times, rape laws "reflected the patriarchal view that considered women as the property of their husbands and conduits of male inheritance" (1). A woman’s body, and thus also her virginity, was the property of her father until her marriage and within the contract of their union, her body was a commodity exchange. Virginia is merely a commodity, devoid of any real personality beyond her admirable traits. Jacobs notes Chaucer’s use of the “already well-known metaphor to redefine even the most casual dalliance in contractual terms” (6). The “well-known metaphor” she refers to here is that of the marital debt, the owing of sexual satisfaction between a husband and wife. The language of business and commerce permeates Chaucer’s tales, and is implicit in the tale of Virginia. There is no relationship between Apius the judge and Virginia, he merely sees her out walking on day and declares that he will possess her. She is an object for his desire, not a love interest. This is not the courtly love of the Knight; it is the coveting and desire to own. This theme of commerce is the basis for the tale. Without it, Apius cannot hope to ever possess Virginia.

From the beginning of his 'courtship' of Virginia, Apius intends to own her, yet he does not attempt to do this in the normal way, of marrying her and then possessing her. He attempts to go outside the law, of which he should be most intimately cognizant of, and simultaneously uses the law as a loophole for his evil plan. By enlisting the aid of a third party, that of the peasant, Claudius, Apius is capable of creating a unique situation in which he has the power to strip Virginia of her status. The churl says that Virginius has taken Virginia, “My servant, which is my thral by right” (Chaucer 183). By placing her in the position of servant and slave, he removes all the defenses that Virginius might be able to use, that is to say his being “strong of freends and of greet richesse" (3). Apius then refuses to allow Virginius time for a defense and simply grants Virginia to the churl, and thus to himself. Jacobs notes in her only comment on this tale that, "the corrupt law administered...similarly takes from Virginia and her father the opportunity to negotiate a contract of their own" (68).  As a slave, her body would then belong to the churl, who could use it as he saw fit. While marriage and sexual contracts of the time were supposed to also protect female slaves, in reality they only protected them from people who were not their owners.

By using the law in such a corrupt manner, Apius forces Virginius to resort to desperate measures. He clearly has no intention of giving his only child up to a life of servitude and lechery and decides to kill her rather than let this occur. In the scene in which Virginius throws the decapitated head at the judge, Chaucer omits to note the crime for which Virginius will be hanged. Is it the destruction of property that is not his to destroy, or is the murder of his daughter? I speculate that it is the destruction of property (and personal vendetta for having his toy taken away) that lends Apius to condemn him. It is only Apius condemnation of Virginius that leads to his imprisonment and not his scheming and corrupt judgment for the body of Virginia.

Virginia's role as merely a commodity is evident in the way the physician describes her. She is described in terms of her beauty and virtue only. In fact, Virginia's name does not appear in the text until her father tells her that he is sentencing her to die. She is described in vivid detail at the beginning of the tale. Interestingly, her head is given quite a bit of detail. The reader learns about her wisdom and discernment, her beauty and piousness. This is particularly striking given the way in which she is executed, that is, by decapitation. It is as though by cutting her head off, he intends to preserve that part of her from which her goodness flows and present that part of her to the judge.

By killing his daughter, Virginius metaphorically rapes her. McSheffery comments that connotations of the Latin word raptus, from which the modern word rape is derived, "could mean abduction or taking away- with no sexual violation implied" or it could mean, "the carrying away of a woman in order to violate her sexually" (1).  Rose's argument complicates this slightly, noting that, "whether we take "rape" to mean abduction of someone else's property in a person or forced sexual intercourse, the crucial element in both is compulsion" (9). Yet Virginia consents, largely because she has no choice. The question then is whether she is compelled to do so. Yet in looking at the text, the answer is quite clear. Virginia asks her father, "Is ther no grace? Is ther no remedye?" and he responds, "No, certes" (236-237). She is told she must agree and so she does, but she is still merely following orders.

Despite sparing her maidenhead, Virginius violates the maiden's head, separating it from the rest of the body. This connotation is difficult to dismiss. Virginius would rather keep his daughter's virginity for himself than have it stolen away. This is the rape that makes this tale worthy of being placed in the sexual violence canon. Even more evidential is the fact that Virginia consents to this ravishment. Jacobs declares that, "The marriage law described by Gratian was relatively simple: Consent plus consummation made a marriage" (2). Therefore, Virginia as having both consented and lost her maidenhead is married.

This loss of virginity is presented as most instances in the " Canterbury Tales" are, that is in terms of a kind of warfare. Allman argues that all situations of sexual union in the tales are in the vein of men dominating women. In particular, he comments that lovemaking is presented "in terms of cutting, stabbing, bleeding, and dying" (39). Virginia's tale certainly reverberates with such a theme, though in somewhat of a reverse manner. Instead of the consummation of her marriage representing slaughter, her slaughter is a metaphor for the consummation of her marriage. The penetration of her body is by sword, a common euphemism in many cultures for male genitalia. Her father says, "Neveere thou deservedest/ To dyen with a swerd or with a knyf" (216-217). The connotations of blood and violence here are blatant and echo the would-be rape by Apius. To take this metaphor even farther, Virginia goes so far as to ask her father to "with his swerd he wolde smyte softe" (252). Since the point of Virginius' blow is to kill her, Virginia asking for a soft blow makes very little sense unless it is taken in context of its sexual meanings. To be struck slowly in the neck with a sword would cause more pain than asking for a quick or hard blow. The only interpretation that makes sense here is a sexual one.

Virginia consents, telling her father, "Dooth with youre child youre wyl" (249). Virginia's consent to dying rather than being dishonored has drawn some scholarly attention.  Beidler notes that it is particularly significant that "Chaucer himself added to his sources...the part where Virginia actively chooses her own death" (278). This is important because Chaucer's Virginia remains in the tale until her death. She does not go silent or disappear, like the poor maiden in the "Wife of Bath's Tale". This is in contrast to Livy's Virginia who does not remain in the tale and does not consent, but merely laments that she never married. In this way, the authorial intent is possible to gauge. By having Virginia remain in the tale, he is capable of having her acquiesce. By having her agree to death, Chaucer can then set up her death as a metaphor for another marriage and the violence of love and possession.

In addition to this, Virginia is intended to stand out from Dorigen of "The Franklin's Tale", which is the tale immediately preceding it. Beidler compares Dorigen and Virginia, both women placed in situations in which they must choose death or dishonor. Virginia has brought about her situation through no action on her own part, indeed she was acting out of piety in going to temple with her mother. It is her innate goodness that attracts the attentions of Apius. By contrast, Dorigen is a shameless flirt, who brings the attention on herself. The physician is drawing a distinction between the Franklin’s heroine and his own. Dorigen is only capable of thinking of what she should do, but is incapable of carrying out the action. Virginia does not compare herself to other women in history; she merely decides to die. Beidler argues that this is "meant to reflect back and put into proper light the shallowness of Dorien's character" (278).

Yet, how much of this is undone by the very fact that Virginia really has no choice in the matter? Dorigen has no father telling her she must die; she arrives at this conclusion on her own. Even though she is incapable of acting on her desire, she is still the driving force behind it. Virginius declares, "Take thou thy deeth, for this is my sentence/ For love and nat for hate, Thou must be deed!" (224-225). Chaucer chooses to use the word, "sentence", placing Virginius in the role of judge. His is the sentence, and regardless of whether Virginia agrees or not, his desire will be carried out. This is evident by the last part of the quotation, Virginia must be dead. He sees no other alternative, though surely some other arrangement might have been made through his many connections and his status. Chaucer gives the reader the idea that there is another way out by claiming that Virginius "wolde have preeved it as sholde a knyght/ and eek by witnessyng of many a wight/ that it was fals that seyde his adversarie" (192-195). This is an indication that there are full many people who know the truth and would be willing to give witness. Rather than pursuing a course of action that would allow him to retain his daughter and her virginity, he gives as quick a sentence as Apius, one to which Virginia has no choice but to agree.

Intrinsic to the tale are the shift in power structures. Virginius, as a knight, should have been roughly equal in status to the judge. By showing up to court, he places himself in a position under the authority of Apius. Apius sentencing Virginius to give up his daughter takes away his parental authority. Virginia is noted particularly as a young woman who would need no governance. She has no need for a governess to keep her in line, because she does that herself. Fletcher notes that, "Virginius' sentence therefore not only fixes his daughter's relation to the authoritative structures contained within the tale, but it establishes her relationship to the auctoritas (sic) of the tale. As a result of these determinations, Virginia loses her agency" (304). Fletcher's comment here is that Virginia's ability to consent is stolen, she has no choice in the matter at all. She consents, but is never given the option of doing so.  

Fletcher's argument has more grand connotations, however. The final act of the physician is to give a sentencing, or moral, of the story. This moral does not extol women to behave piously and obediently like Virginia. It does not praise her inherent goodness or filial duty. It comments instead on Apius and his wicked ways. The tale begins with Virginius, who leads us to Virginia and despite the fact that the entire tale has been about her, she is ignored in its final lines. Fletcher writes that, "As the sentences of Claudius, Apius, and Virginius put an end to her fleshly substance, so too does the tale's sentence put an end to her textual existence" (305). Yet there is some hope in that the Host revives her by commenting on what a fine woman she was. In this way, we can perhaps make an assumption that Chaucer has not completely dismissed her, even if he has allowed the physician to do so. By commenting on her goodness, it is again a contrast to Dorigen, who receives no commendation from the Host. This is Chaucer's way of drawing the attention back to Virginia one last time. The Host comments on the evilness of Apius and Claudius, but then laments that an innocent maiden should be slain for no good reason.

Virginia's consent, or lack of consent, and escape from being raped, or being raped anyway, means she dies a virgin with her maidenhead intact, or dies sullied with her maiden head removed. The various degrees of nuances give way to numerous interpretations. Chaucer "dirties" his version of this story, making it impossible to choose a side. According to the Physician's end to his tale, surely Apius is at fault, but the Host comments following the tale that "yifts of Fortune and of nature/ Been cause of deeth" (295). This suggests that it is Virginia's beauty that causes her death and seems to take the blame from Apius. Virginius kills his daughter to protect her, but he never tries to find another option that will save her. He is protecting his investment and using his right as the owner of her body, to destroy it rather than have it dirtied. Virginia is so very good that even the gods have stepped in to make her even more fantastic. Is her innate goodness and extraordinary beauty to blame? This would place the blame on the gods and nature. The only truly innocent party is Virginia, but she is only a commodity and not really a person at all.

Works Cited

Allman W. “Rough Love: Notes toward an Erotics of the Canterbury Tales”. The             Chaucer Review 38.1(2003):36-65.  Print.

Beidler, Peter.  “The Pairing of the “Franklin’s Tale” and the “Physician’s Tale””.  The             Chaucer Review 3.4 (1969): 275-279. Print.

Fletcher, Angus. “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale”. The Chaucer             Review 34.1 (2000): 300-308. Print.

Hopkins, Amanda. The Erotic in the Literature of Medieval Britain. Cambridge:             Boydell and Brewer Ltd, 2007.

Jacobs, Kathryn. Marriage Contracts from Chaucer to the Renaissance Stage.             Gainesville: 2001.

McSheffrey, Shannon. "Meanings and Uses of Raptus in Chaucer's Time," Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998): 101-65. 

Ritscher, Lee. The Semiotics of Rape in Renaissance English Literature. New York:             Peter Lang Publishing, 2009.

Rose, Mary Beth. Gender and Heroism in Early Modern English Literature. Chicago:             University of Chicago Press, 2002.