Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Deviations from the Marian Tale

Reading the Prioress's Prologue and Tale in conjunction with the selections from Rubin's Gentile Tales was a very helpful reminder of the importance of historical context. Just as the question of whether Chaucer was a misogynist or simply expressing the commonly held views of his time in the Legend of Good Women arose, the Prioress's Tale made me wonder whether she should be read as a flagrant anti-semite or simply the typical Christian in the fourteenth century. The Rubin tale both clarified and complicated this question for me: the fact that this was a commonly held opinion of the time does answer part of the question, but the very drastic changes she makes to the traditional Marian tale raise even more questions. The Prioress makes several changes: first of all, the boy is Christian (497) and not a Jew, and he is not thrown in an oven by his father but rather is murdered (quite differently, but very violently all the same) by "an homicide" (575) that was "yhired by Jews" (575). This change seemed very striking to me: whereas it is still obviously expresses some anti-Semitism, the fact that the Jews hired a murderer to kill the boy rather than committing the crime themselves is very different from (and to me, much less transgressive than) a Jewish father throwing his own son into an oven. The Prioress also describes that "oure firste foo, the serpent Sathanas" (560) was the one to provoke the Jews to action. This too is very significant: by having Satan be the instigator, it makes the Jew's actions seem somewhat less forgivable, since Satain also even compelled many Christians to deviate from their path to God in the Bible. Finally, the last striking difference I found was the fact that the boy does not live at the end of the tale, but rather eventually passes (the Prioress says that the monk removes the grain from his tongue and "yaf up the goost ful softely" [672]). Again, this is an incredibly important change to the traditional tale, in which the boy comes out of the oven unscathed due to the protection of the Virgin Mary. It seems so strange to me that in the traditional tale, a Jewish boy is saved by the Virgin, yet in the Prioress's tale, a Christian boy dies. These three changes all to me seem actually much more sympathetic to Jews than the traditional Marian tale described by Rubin. Is it possible that this tale really is not about anti-Semitism at all?

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the changes you mention make the incident less incriminating against the Jews. In addition, the text even evokes pity for some of the Jews, by noting how they were cruelly tortured and executed immediately just for knowing about the murder (cf. 628-634). However, on the other hand, the anti-semitism is still distinct and tangible - the narrator openly indicts the Jews through the use of apostrophes, and alludes to Harold's horrendous slaughtering of the innocents - presumably to draw attention to past Jewish cruelty and at the same time implicitly extend the charge of abominable cold-bloodedness to all Jews (cf. 574-575). It seems there are contradictory elements at work yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In your post, you point out that the Prioress depicts Satan as the instigator of the murder. You also mention that the fallen angel compelled many Christians to deviate from their paths. To your comments, I would like to add that her use of the word “oure” in line 558 seems to draw a connection between the Prioress and the Jews. This link, like your observations, hints at a depiction of the Jews that is perhaps somewhat less unsympathetic than that of the Marian tales.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Within a Christian context death is a welcome thing. It is merely the portal through which man moves from his corporal state to his heavenly one. So can the Virgin Mary's saving of the boy be seen as metaphoric and figurative? And isn't this supported by the narratorial insertion : O martir, sowded to virginitee,
    Oh martyr, firmly united to virginity,
    580 Now maystow syngen, folwynge evere in oon
    Now canst thou sing, following continuously
    581 The white Lamb celestial -- quod she --
    The white celestial Lamb -- said she --
    582 Of which the grete evaungelist, Seint John,
    Of which the great evangelist, Saint John,
    583 In Pathmos wroot, which seith that they that goon
    In Pathmos wrote, who says that they that go
    584 Biforn this Lamb and synge a song al newe,
    Before this Lamb and sing a song all new,
    585 That nevere, flesshly, wommen they ne knewe.
    (Are) those who never, in a carnal way, knew women.
    586 This poure wydwe awaiteth al that nyght

    And isn't every use of the word "oure" strictly when speaking of fellow christians?

    ReplyDelete