Chaucer, the Prioress, and Anti-Semitism

[joesixpack]

Was Chaucer anti-semetic, or was he using the Prioress' anti-semitism to say something about her?

I've read a few things about this tale that seem to indicate that it was more a story about the woman's hypocritical character than it is about jews, and I tend to want to believe that for two reasons.

The first is because the Prioress' vitriolic description of the jews is so 'over the top' that it becomes almost comical. The second reason is that I hate to think that one of my favorite writers is such an anti-semite.

Anyone here have an opinion about that?

[hgc]

Couple of things to consider...

In Chaucer's time, there were no Jews in England. They had been thrown out the previous century. To Chaucer Jews were probably just an exotic collection of distant well poisoners descended from Christ killers. How was he to know any different?

Chaucer's characters, the tellers of tales, sniped at any and all elements of society, particularly at each other. Just read the miller's and the reeve's tales. Was Chaucer anti-miller? Anti-reeve?

Personally, I separate the artist from the art. I enjoy art and literature because it enlightens me. I avoid Woody Allen movies of late because they suck, not because he married his step-daughter.

[joesixpack]

Chaucer's characters, the tellers of tales, sniped at any and all elements of society, particularly at each other. Just read the miller's and the reeve's tales. Was Chaucer anti-miller? Anti-reeve?
Ummm... I'm sure you didn't mean that to be insulting, but that presumes a lot of stupidity on my part, and it tweaks my ass a bit that you suggest it. If my nose seems a bit out of joint in this reply, that'll be the reason.

The trouble with reading Chaucer in the original language is that it's easy to read past a lot of the nuance. Things like sarcasm, irony, and double entendre are a lot less apparent to the modern reader than they would have been to the original audience. I think that many modern readers make the mistake of thinking Chaucer lacked subtlty because some of his humor was so coarse. I always prefer to keep a modern translation handy while reading the original because it helps put everything into context.

I don't think Chaucer was trying to paint an unflattering picture of nuns or prioresses in general when he created the character of the prioress. The general consensus among scholers is that he was creating a character who was a counterfit. She was a woman who pretended to be pious, but was in reality, vain, materialistic, and cruel.

Though there were no jews in England in Chaucers time, there is no reason to believe he never knew any. Chaucer traveled widely on the continent and met many people. It is also not impossible that he knew converted jews in England. I don't automaticly assume he viewed jews as "...well poisoners descended from Christ killers."

Chaucer spent a lot of time in Italy where he probably became familiar with the Decammeron. I know at least one of the stories in the Canterbury Tales is simply an english retelling of a tale from Boccoccio. Many of the Canterbury tales, in fact, are re-tellings of other well known stories of the day. The Proiress's tale is one of these. The big difference between the older versions of this tale and the Prioress's retelling is the level of violence against the jews at the end. Was he "sniping" at jews with this tale, or was he showing us something about the Prioress's vindictive and very UN-pious nature? I suspect the latter.

Here's a couple of good essays worth checking out;

http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/wickham.htm

http://www.gloriana.nu/prioress.html

There, I feel better now.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by joesixpack
... I hate to think that one of my favorite writers is such an anti-semite.

Good luck trying to dodge that bullet with Lovecraft. The man was just short of a Nazi in his fear and revulsion of anyone not Anglo and at least middle-class. Doesn't make him less of a writer, though.

[hgc]

Originally posted by joesixpack
Ummm... I'm sure you didn't mean that to be insulting, but that presumes a lot of stupidity on my part, and it tweaks my ass a bit that you suggest it. If my nose seems a bit out of joint in this reply, that'll be the reason.

...

There, I feel better now. Well, that was an earful, and I am duly chastised. Next time I'll look more closely at the question.

Thanks for the wealth of information and the links. You clearly know your Chaucer. I've only read him in translation.

[joesixpack]

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem shrill.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Good luck trying to dodge that bullet with Lovecraft. The man was just short of a Nazi in his fear and revulsion of anyone not Anglo and at least middle-class. Doesn't make him less of a writer, though.

Not to mention Ezra Pound, who was genocidally antisemitic and a traitor to his country, yet a great poet.

RULE #1: Never try to find out too much about a great writer's personal life. You're bound to be disappointed.

[Soapy Sam]

joesixpack-
A couple of points to consider-

A writer may adopt a viewpoint in a story without necessarily espousing the same view in real life.

Also- anti semitism is no worse (and no better) than any other form of racial bigotry. The horrific events of 1933-45 have given it a particularly foul image in our lifetime and the strongly pro-Israeli stance of western intelligentsia has nurtured a reflexive horror of anti semitism in most of us.

But Chaucer knew nothing of Buchenwald or Auschwitz. He no doubt shared the cultural biases of his day, in his politics as well as his humour. (It is our latter day puritanism which is shocked by his bawdy humour and fails to note the general absence of , for instance, blasphemous humour).

I counsel you to go right on enjoying the man's work and don't worry about his politics- as I listen to Lohengrin with never a qualm about Wagner's ideology or those of his other fans.

[joesixpack]

Soapy Sam, A couple of points to consider,
A writer may adopt a viewpoint in a story without necessarily espousing the same view in real life.That's why it's called "Fiction". Writers sometimes promote their views through their writings, too. My question was, what was Chaucer trying to say with the Prioress's tale? Was he saying someting about the Prioress, or something about Jews? Also- anti semitism is no worse (and no better) than any other form of racial bigotry. Yes, I know, but anti-semitism is what the Prioress's Tale is all about, and that's what I'm asking about. The horrific events of 1933-45 have given it a particularly foul image in our lifetime...But Chaucer knew nothing of Buchenwald or Auschwitz. He didn't know about historical events of the 20th century (kind of goes without saying) but he surely knew about the pograms, blood libels, and expulsions that took place on a regular basis throughout Europe.

Honestly, I didn't think I'd get so many flip answers on this discussion board. It's probably my own fault. I said "I'd hate to think that one of my favorite writers is such an anti-semite". What I should have said is "I'd like to think that one of my favorite wtiters was enlightened enough to poke fun at the biggotry of his day".

It is our latter day puritanism which is shocked by his bawdy humour and fails to note the general absence of , for instance, blasphemous humour Though not strictly blasphemous, the Summoners Tale and the Pardoners Prologue certainly poke fun at the Church.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not to mention Ezra Pound, who was genocidally antisemitic and a traitor to his country, yet a great poet.

RULE #1: Never try to find out too much about a great writer's personal life. You're bound to be disappointed.

Hmm...

I've been wondering about this of late. I've met a good number of fiction writers in my life, and the only two I found to be decent people were Ray Bradbury and Tim Powers. Most writers seem to be complete jerks. I wonder if it's an expected result of getting rejected by publishers, at least in modern times.

Nothing to do with Chaucer, of course.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by epepke
Hmm...

I've been wondering about this of late. I've met a good number of fiction writers in my life, and the only two I found to be decent people were Ray Bradbury and Tim Powers. Most writers seem to be complete jerks. I wonder if it's an expected result of getting rejected by publishers, at least in modern times.

Nothing to do with Chaucer, of course.

To be fair, it might be a matter of publicity. "All I wanted was to talk to him about his wonderful book, and he..." well, yes, but you happen to be no. 1,244,254 who wanted to talk to him about his wonderful book that week, and he was getting tired of it all. Read Harlan Ellison's "Xenogenesis", an essay about horrible fans, to get a better idea...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
To be fair, it might be a matter of publicity. "All I wanted was to talk to him about his wonderful book, and he..." well, yes, but you happen to be no. 1,244,254 who wanted to talk to him about his wonderful book that week, and he was getting tired of it all. Read Harlan Ellison's "Xenogenesis", an essay about horrible fans, to get a better idea...

No, actually my experience is in other contexts. I usually don't initiate conversations about books with authors beyond, say, "I love your work," because I figure that they put what they wanted into the book.

As far as "Xenogenesis," I've read that, but I've also talked to people who had other experiences with Ellison. One was a girl who, at the con where he gave the speech, asked him what he thought of the "50 Short Years with Harlan Ellison" T-shirts. He said he thought they were cute. Then she bought one and wore it to his speech, thinking to honor him. When he came out with his flame, she left the room crying.

Doubtless there are plenty of socially inept and inconsiderate fans; I've met quite a few I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw. However, this seems an awful lot like a sucker punch on the part of Ellison to me. It also seems to me that he looked for a way to be offended at that; it did not occur to me at all to take the T-shirt at anything other than face value, that 50 years of Ellison was too little time. Perhaps he only came up with the interpretation after talking to the girl, but it seems to me rather boorish behavior on his part nonetheless.