Forgiveness of Sins
Jim Rhodes in “Religion” states that Canterbury Tales is Chaucer’s platform to “test religious institutions and ideas in the same way that he interrogates other systems of belief”[1]. In this case, it is apparent that Chaucer’s pilgrims with religious ideals and beliefs are displayed in this text, yet Chaucer does tend to satirize most characters. For instance, the Merchant who sells relics and the idea of selling faith, which in the Middle Ages was known as indulgences in order to transcend to Heaven. The merchant then serves as Chaucer’s critic of the Church system. Likewise, the Prioress herself is a satirized character as well.
Furthermore, Rhodes points out that the process in forgiveness of sins is “that purgatory was a place where remission of sin could occur after death and that penance and charitable works performed here on earth, by oneself during life or on one’s behalf following death, shortened one’s stay”[2]. Considering this, the little boy’s strong devotion to Virgin Mary and the Christian faith and the fact that he submits charitable work through being a choir boy led to his tragic death:
“Upon his beete ay lith this innocent,
Biforn the chief auter, whil the masse laste,
And after that the abbot with his covent
Han sped hem for to buryen him ful faste.
And whan they holy water on him caste,
Yet spake this child, whan spreind was holy water,
And song ‘O alma redemptoris mater‘.”[3]
Significantly, the boy sings the “alma redemptoris mater” which in English is Loving Mother of our Savior[4]. Although this shows his devotion to the Virgin Mary, it is because of that devotion that he was once again able to show signs of his soul existing within the living plane in Earth and allows him to deliver a message to the Church before transcending. Therefore, the boy’s death is fate because he had to die in order to tell others that miracles exist, and most importantly praise the Virgin Mary’s motherhood.
The Jews soliciting in the area saw that his death was needed in order to get rid of the noise in their area, signifying how short the little boy’s life is, or how short his stay on earth is. Although it is cruel, in a way the Prioress is trying to say that through him, sins will be forgiven; ironically, it won’t be for the Jewish because of the anti-semitic route the tale takes place.
The Dehumanization of Jews
The tale the Prioress tells is the story of Hugh of Lincoln. This story takes away the self-determination and agency of Hugh of Lincoln and the Jew who killed him. The Jew in the Asian Ghetto, upon hearing the little boy sing in the praise of the Virgin Mary is faced with “The serpent Sathanas,/ That hath in Jues herte his waspes nest,/ Up swal”[5]. Later, once Hugh of Lincoln is killed, the song praising the Virgin Mary incessantly “passed thurgh his throte,” taking away his free will as he is now an agent of God[6]. While neither party acted on their own accord, the Jews are the only ones punished for it. It should also be noted that while the boy is given a name, “Hugh of Lincoln,” the Jewish murderer’s name is not given. Historically, a false confession was drawn from a Jewish man named Chopin by John of Lexington, but by Chaucer not providing that detail, he could have been potentially implicating all Jews by association. Additionally, by only mentioning Hugh’s name, which admitted does give Chaucer’s account some historical weight, it further dehumanizes those that live anonymously in the ghetto.
The Prioress’s Brooch
There is a note of irony here, especially found in the Prioress’s brooch. Upon it, it is inscribed “Amor vincit omnia” or “Love conquers all”[7]. Clearly, love does not conquer all for the Prioress, but rather love conquers all just for Christians. If Chaucer indeed did believe that Prioress’ brooch was a sign of faith, the brooch can be seen as indicative that Jews are subhuman and aren’t worthy of god’s love. However, if there is a case to be made that Chaucer is not anti-Semitic, the brooch exists to show that the Prioress is disingenuous, and Hugh of Lincoln’s death was meant to be a satire that shames the Prioress and everyone that claims that only good things and sweetness come from Christianity.
Belief and Martyrs
Even though only one Jew in Chaucer’s tale killed Hugh of Lincoln, multiple Jews were punished. This mimicked the real life circumstances that motivated Chaucer’s tale, when nineteen Jews were executed for the death of Hugh of Lincoln in 1255 by King Henry III. They killed not only the alleged murderer but “thise Jewes for to sterve/That of this morde wiste”[8]. In the story, it is not specified that the Jew urged by Satan had any accomplices, but the Christian rulers killed everyone who even knew that this crime happened, the definition of guilt by association. Additionally, it’s not clear if this guilt was merely the knowledge of the crime after it was committed instead of prior, meaning that Jews were killed for merely learning about the alleged crime ex post facto. Considering Chaucer wrote the Prioress’s Tale 135 years later, long after the Jews were exiled by King Edward I, forgiveness from Christians may not have looked particularly attractive to the Jewish people. Those feelings of distrust lasted well into the Elizabethan Era, when noted Chaucer fan, William Shakespeare, wrote The Merchant of Venice. His character of Shylock was only to be excused after a number of sacrifices, one of which included being converted to Christianity. Not surprisingly, Christianity’s focus on martyrdom is also a key component in Judaism, called kiddush ha-Shem. It translates to “death before debasement, the rope before the cross”[9]. There is a chance that these wrongfully convicted and executed Jews would rather have died for a sin they did not commit than live a devotional life they did not believe in.
[1] Rhodes page 82.
[2] Rhodes page 91.
[3] Canterbury Tales “The Prioress’s Tale” lines 635-641.
[4] Alma Redemptoris Mater Wikipedia
[5] Canterbury Tales “The Prioress’s Tale” lines 558-560.
[6] Canterbury Tales “The Prioress’s Tale” line 548.
[7] Canterbury Tales “General Prologue” line 162.
[8] Canterbury Tales “The Prioress’s Tale” lines 629-630.
[9] Snyder page 11.
Gayk, Shannon. “To wonder upon this thyng.” Exemplaria (2010): 138-156.
Snyder Matthew J. “Historical Trauma, The Critic, and the Work of Mourning in Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale.” In Turning Points and Transformations: Essays on Language, Literature and Culture, edited by Christine DeVine, Marie Hendry, Amanda Anderson, Jennifer Page, and Jennifer Roy, 3-12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
