Thursday, September 26, 2013

Joining the Great Debate: Chaucer and The Prioress's Tale

After reading, what is considered Chaucer's magnum opus, Canterbury Tales my perspective on the medieval times changed dramatically. Because of the style it is written in, Chaucer gives readers an insight into the lives of those who lived during the Middle Ages and, if one reads carefully, offers his own critique of the societal practices and norms that existed during his time in each tale. To examine this phenomenon I will focus this blog on one of his most popular (and controversial) tales, The Prioress's Tale. In a response to Doc's questions and as an extension of today's discussion, I'd like to add my own ideas and opinions as to what Chaucer was really trying to say and the point he was making using this tale.

In my opinion, I believe the actual point of this tale is an attempt made by Chaucer to indirectly mock the hypocritical messages that exist in Christianity. I find his descriptions of the Jewish so over-exaggerated that through these descriptions, his sarcasm can be seen. Lines such as "First of our foes, the Serpent Satan shook Those Jewish hearts that are his waspish nest..." which describe the Jews are, to me, very strategic. Not only does it provide readers with an easily identifiable 'antagonist' or 'evil' character but, I believe, it also subtly brings to light the widely popular Christian opinion of the Jews that existed then. To further prove this claim, I believe that Chaucer is using this tale to highlight one of Cohen's seven theses (included in his Monster Culture). If you recall, the sixth theses is entitled 'Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desire'*. So, with this in mind, if one were to re-read this tale I believe the detailed descriptions of the Satanic Jews brutal murder of the innocent, Christian boy could actually be seen as a secret Christian's desire to murder the Jews.

Now, in regards to the second question posed, I believe (again) that Chaucer is intentionally mocking the Church's belief that nonbelievers should be punished and suffer. If we keep my last paragraph's tie into Monster Culture in mind, it becomes evident at how the same theses can be applied to prove my claim. Because Chaucer uses, again, extremely descriptive and/or over-exaggerated lines to depict the Christian boys murder, it represents secret desires of Christians to murder Jewish boys in this manner. Furthermore, it is used in such a satirical way to make the point that the Church (as represented by the Jewish's Ghetto in the tale) is encouraging of the use of force in such a way that they use it to justify their faith.

For my final paragraph, I'd like to bring up a somewhat off-topic, yet totally on-topic point regarding the legitimacy and over-arching ideas embedded in this piece. If you remember, in our discussion today we noted the Prioress's being described and referred to as, first and foremost, a woman (instead of a nun) as especially significant. With that in mind, I kept thinking about the men (mostly, except for the kick ass Wife of Bath's) who were on the pilgrimage and who were so taken with the Prioress's tale that they felt their soul cleansed and faith renewed after the tale was over. Now, just a few tales ago (ie. Miller and Reeve) Chaucer was making the greater societal point that women were stupid, deceiving, and, therefore, not to be trusted. So that leaves me dumbfounded at how the pilgrims were so easily persuaded by the Prioress and now I wonder, what does this tell us about true, Christian society during this time? I believe it, again, reiterates the implicit shakiness of the faith and the Church's role. After all, these folks are being brought together on a religious mission for Pete's sake... how did they already lose their faith? My conclusion: They never had the honest, genuine faith to begin with and were motivated to pilgrimage by their own intrinsic need for greed or popularity or some other human fallacy.


*COMBER! This is where reading your dissertation may have actually not been a good thing. I have no idea if I thought of this myself or am remembering this from your piece, so sorry if I'm accidentally stealing your genius ideas!

Works Cited

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. England: Penguin Books, 1951. Print.

1 comment:

  1. Your comment about how the murder of the child by the Jews was a secret desire for the Christians to murder the Jews made so much sense since Christians feared the Jews so much during the Middle Ages. Keeping in mind monster theory, it makes me feel as though Chaucer had not intended either side (Christians or the Jews) to be the "Good" side. From this aspect, The Prioress' Tale sheds bad light on both religions in a way.

    ReplyDelete