"Why
praise Jews; History and Satire in the Middle Ages," Journal of Medieval History
XII (1986), pp. 291-296.
Why praise Jews:
satire and history in the middle ages
by Robert Levine
Modern
readers, including highly sophisticated, professional historians, have not
always understood that medieval praise of Jews, in its rare occurrences, never
signifies categorical approval of Israelites. Instead, such praise functions as
a condemnation, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, of Christians whose
behavior is not even equal to that of the lowest members of society. The
elaborate story told by Richard of Devizes about the murder, towards the end
of the twelfth century, of a young Christian by a Jew at Winchester provides a
clear illustration of the problem.
In
attacking groups, medieval writers of historical literature often praised
another group, in whose praise they had no interest; in fact, the group being
praised might be generally despised. Jews are pitied by Wykes, for example
(Luard 1869:142-3), during a thirteenth-century pogrom, not for their own
sakes, but to build up a sense of Simon de Montfort's horrible greed; the
operative emotion in Richard of Newburgh's description of riots against the Jews
in London is repugnance towards the mob, not positive feeling for Jews (Howlett
1884:294-5); King Richard is outraged that his ceremony is being spoiled, and
when the Jews are attacked at Lyme Regis in 1190, Richard of New-burgh is
upset, not at the act itself, but at the motivation: greed (Howlett 1884:308).
In fairness to Richard, his story contains no admirable characters in these
transactions, however, as Cecil Roth has demonstrated, "at no other time
in the bloodstained record of the middle ages were the English horrors of
1189-90 surpassed" (1964:90) .
A
brief anecdote in Gerald of Wales' Itinerarium Cambriae, in which a Jew
and some Christians exchange bad jokes in poor Latin while traveling together,
is all that H.G. Richardson can offer as evidence of "good will and moral
sociableness between Jews and Christians" in the middle ages (1960:47).
Otherwise, categorical, nearly universal, hatred of Jews characterizes medieval
literature, particularly among the historians; in the light of the supreme
brutality towards Jews displayed by Englishmen of the late twelfth century,
the strange anecdote involving Jews told by Richard of Devizes, in his
chronicle covering September 1189 to October 1192, would seem to be a virtual hapax
legoumenon, at least as Antonia Gransden describes it (1964:251)
Richard mentions in a
satirical manner the characteristics of a number of English towns but is most
eloquent on Winchester, to him the most favored place in England. Richard's
choice of a Jew as the vehicle for the panegyric is curious and seems to
reflect pro-Jewish sentiments.
One
may only make such a suggestion by suppressing the rest of the anecdote, as
well as a number of other passages in Richard's book; Nancy Partner is closer
to the truth when she asserts that Richard's text is a parody (1977:177):
It would be a grave mistake to
think Richard was concerned to vindicate the Jews, about whom he has nothing
good to say; he simply took the occasion of the Winchester case to satirize, in
passing, a popular hagiographical book.
His
nineteenth-century editor recognized Richard's tone towards Jews, when he described
"the ludicrous account of the alleged crucifixion of a boy by the
Winchester Jews", as "satire disguised as fact" (Howlett
1884:cxxii), but he does not designate the object of the satire. Clearly, the
anecdote is an involved one, rich in literary allusions, and tricked out in a
complex literary form that makes determining the tone a task more strenuous
than that which normally faces the reader of medieval chronicles. The problem
resembles the one solved by B.J. Whiting, when he demonstrated that the Tows of
the heron meant exactly the opposite of what everyone had thought it meant.
Ironic
praise and blame is, of course, one of the lessons classical rhetoricians took
pleasure in teaching. Quintillian illustrates irony by advising the orator to
criticize under a pretence of praise, or praise under a pretence of blame
(Inst. Orat. 8.6.54): laudis adsimulatione detrahere et vituperationis
laudare concessum est. Isidore follows suit (Lindsay
1911:2.21.41): ironia ...fit autem cum laudamus cum quern aituperare
volumus, aut aituperamus quem laudare volumus. Lucan, who was often
considered an historian and not a poet in the middle ages, had composed an encomium
of Nero, that many medieval commentators understood to be ironic (Marti 1956),
although not every medieval reader was convinced that Lucan intended the praise
as blame.
English readers are most
familiar with praise intended as blame from their readings in Chaucer's
Canterbury tales when the narrator praises the Monk for his hearty appetite,
the Friar because, "he was an esy man to yeve penaunce," when he says
of the greedy, syphilitic Somnour:
He was a gentil harlot and a kynde;
A bettre felawe sholde men noght fynde,
when
he calls the Pardoner, "gentil," when he calls the gold-loving
Doctour of Physic, "a verray, parfit praktisour," and when the Clerk
praises the attitude of the Wife of Bath, all of this praise is certainly
blame, not merely of the pilgrims as individuals, but of the profession, or
category to which they belong.
Richard
of Devizes' most recent editor, John Appleby, describes the Latin historian in
terms that might equally well apply to Chaucer: "mocking, irreverent,
witty, and rather cynical" (1963:11). Unlike Chaucer, however, Richard
unequivocally despises the French (Appleby 1963:14); his attitude towards the
Jews, however, appears to have been more difficult to determine, although he
refers to them as "bloodsuckers", and associated them with vomit and
excrement in the early pages of his chronicle, significantly, in the course of
ironically praising Winchester for its tolerance of Jews during a time of
pogroms throughout England (Appleby 1963:4):
sola tantum suis vermibus
pepercit Wintonia. Populus prudens et providus ac civitas semper civiliter
agens. Nichil unquam egit prepopere, nichil plus metuens quam penitere; rerum
exitus estimat ante principia. Noluit indigeriem qua premebatur imparata
periculo sui per partes violenter evomere, cavitque visceribus, dissimulans
interim modeste (vel physice) molestiam, donec oportuno medendi tcmpore totam
liceat sibi morbi materiam simul et semel egerere.
Winchester alone spared its
worms. They were a prudent and far-sighted people and a city that always
behaved in a civilized manner. They never did anything over-hastily, for fear
they might repent of it later, and they looked to the end of things rather than
to the beginnings. They did not want partially to vomit forth the undigested mass
violently and at their peril, even though they were urged to do so, when they
were not ready. They hid it in their bowels, modestly (or naturally)
dissimulating their disgust meanwhile, till at an opportune time for remedies
they could cast out all the morbid matter at once.
By
translating principia as "beginnings," Appleby loses the lexical
confusion with "principles" that would underscore the irony of the
passage; however, the passage, even in translation, hardly offers unambiguous
praise, and certainly undermines Gransden's assertions that Winchester was
Richard's favorite town, and that he had some sympathy for Jews.
When
he tells the story of the boy-martyr, Richard begins by describing a scene in
which a Jew advises a young Christian boy in France to leave his native land
for what he believes to be greener pastures in England. Clearly taking
advantage of youthful innocence, the Jew envisions the boy as a scapegoat,
delivering at the same time Ovidian (Fasti 1, 493) advice in the best rhetorical
tradition (Appleby 1963:65):
Et impositis manibus super capud eius, ac
si esset hircus emissarius, post stridores quosdam gutturis et tacitas
imprecationes, iam de preda securus, adiecit: 'Forti patria est, ut piscibus
equor, ut volucri vacuo quicquid in erbe patet'.
He put his hands on his head,
as though he were a scapegoat, and, after several deep groans and silent
prayers, certain already of the victim, he said: `Be of stout heart; forget
your people and your native land, for every country "is a fatherland to
the strong man, as the sea is to the fishes and as whatever appears in the
empty sky is to the bird".'
The
anonymous Jew goes on to give mock-fatherly advice to the boy, denouncing London
(in words borrowed from Horace Satire 1.2), as well as a number of other
English cities, reserving all his praise, such as it is, for Winchester. The
praise he delivers, however, certainly must be taken cum grano salis, as
one takes the praise delivered by Erasmus' Mora. According to the Jew, Winchester
is Judeorum Jerosolima, where Jews enjoy tranquility, where bread and
wine are not only plentiful, but free, and where everyone behaves ideally, even
ecclesiastics and women (Appleby 1963:67):
Surit in ca tante monachi
misericordie et mansuetudninis, clerus consillii et libertatis, cives
cibilitatis et fidei, femine pulcritudinis et pudicitie, quod parum me retinet
quin ego vadam illuc cum talibus Christianis fieri Christianus.
Monks are there of such
mercifulness and gentleness, clerks of such wisdom and frankness, citizens of
such courteousness and good faith, women of such beauty and modesty, that for a
little I would go there myself and be a Christian among such Christians.
Virtue
in Winchester, then, is great enough to lead to the conversion of the Jews; clearly
Richard is playing with commonplaces here, combining the adynaton with the
stock-in-trade of panegyrists, as his crafty Jew fabricates a utopia for the
credulous imagination of his intended victim.
However,
the Jew qualifies his vision, admitting that people in Winchester have one
vice, and only one: they lie. If a competition for liars were held, Richard's
Jew contends that the people of Winchester would defeat even scholars and -
Jews (Appleby 1963:67):
Unum est vitium et illud
solum, cui de consuetudine nimis indulget. Salva pace literratorum dixerim et
Judeorum, Wentani mentiuntur ut vigiles. Nusquam cnim sub celo de tam facili
tot rumores falsi fabricantur ut ibi; alias per omnia sunt veraces.
There is one vice there and one alone,
which is by custom greatly indulged in. I would say, with all due respect to
the learned men and to the Jews, that the people of Winchester lie like
sentries. Indeed, nowhere else under heaven are so many false rumours made up
so easily as there; otherwise they are truthful in all things.
Now the plot returns, and the boy goes off to
England, to work in Winchester until he is murdered, apparently on the eve of
Good Friday, near the Jew's Passover.
When
the boy's friend accuses the Jew of murder, crying out to an assembled crowd in
the words of Lamentations 1.12, videte si est dolor sicut dolor meus (Appleby
1963:68), the Jew is brought to trial swiftly, but unsuccessfully. A woman who
saw the boy go down into the Jew's storeroom, sine regressu, testifies against
the Jew, but because she herself had violated canon law by working for Jews,
her testimony is declared invalid. In his final burst of invective, Richard
adds the charge that the Jew bought his freedom (Appleby 1963:69):
Judeus optulit purgationem
conscientiae propter infamiam. Iudicibus aurea placuit. Dedit Phinees et
placavit, et cessavit quassatio.
The Jew offered to clear his conscience
by oath concerning the infamy. Gold won the judges' favour. Phineas gave it and
pleased them, and the matter was dropped.
At
this point in his edition (1963:69), Appleby glosses Phineas with a reference
to Numbers 25, where one finds a virtuous Jew named Phineas, who is led by his
zeal for God to run a spear through an Israelite and the whore with whom he is
copulating. Appleby neglected to note the existence of a second Phineas, who
was one of the two worthless sons of Eli mentioned in I Samuel, 2.12. The Glosa
ordinaria explicitly
articulates the antithetic possibilities in the name "Phineas" (MPL
113:544):
Duos Phinees sacerdotes
legimus: alterum justum Eleazari filium, alterum injustum, filium Heli.
Sacerdotes qui custodiunt os suum, ne exeat inde aliquod pravum, in filio Eleazari
signantur. Qui autem os habent obturam, vel imperitia, vel peccatorutn
conscientia, filio Heli figurantur.
The
virtuous Phineas founded a family of hereditary priests; the son of Eli is
portrayed as a greedy, gluttonous, worthless priest, who abuses his office, and
dies through the machinations of a vengeful God. By failing to specify which
Phineas he intended to invoke, Richard of Devizes manages to smear all Jewish
priests, and Jews in general.
In
addition, if Richard associated Phineas with Ovid's Phineus, particularly as
the Third Vatican Mythographer interpreted Ovid's figure, then the gloss on
his name and actions might reinforce the connection between Jews and greed
(Bode 1834:174) : Phineus igitur, a fenerando dictus, in modum aaaritiae ponitur.
Gransden's
clear misreading of this elaborately sardonic episode is significant, and, in a
sense, understandable; recoiling in justifiable horror at the unrelenting abuse
to which medieval Jews were subjected, nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians
have searched diligently through chronicles, histories, poems, and miscellaneous
documents, to find some traces of pro-Semitic sentiments expressed within the
Christian community. Although the texts that they have offered failed to allay
entirely the anxieties even of those who discovered them, nevertheless these
rare passages have served as signs of Christian tolerance, however fragile and
discontinuous, of Jews in the middle ages. Unfortunately, these passages are
far more clearly examples of a rhetorical strategy designed to blame certain
groups of Christians, rather than to offer praise to the Jews.
For example, in his recent
edition of twenty-four poems composed in thirteenth-century Arras, Robert
Berger expresses puzzlement at finding praise of Jews in a poem whose first 150
lines had been devoted to denouncing rich men: “Cet éloge des Juifs semble tout
à fait exceptionnel au Moyen Age. En tout cas je n'en ai pas trouvé d'autre
(1981:2289)”. The lines praising Jews are not an excursus in the middle of the
poem, but lead directly to the final moral admonition (Berger 1981:228-9):
Les Juis ne resanlent mie,
Car se il ont ami n'amie
Ki soit kens en povrete,
A celui font mont grant bonte,
K'il le relievent par .111. fois;
A leur parens for huis ne cloent,
Tant de bien for font k'il s'en loent;
Si doivent faire li rice home.
Ci finerai ore me soume;
Or nos doinst Dex se en bien clore
K'en paradis nos voelle enclore.
Rich
men interested in going to Paradise, then, should show the same sense of
community that animates the Jews. Since no Jews had settled in Arras, as Berger
shows with meticulous documentation, the poet is not likely to have been
singing their praise out of personal experience, or in expectation of a reward.
The likeliest explanation for the presence of a passage praising Jews is that
it was meant to condemn greedy Christians, exactly as the previous 150 lines
had done; that the despicable Jews should show more communal spirit than
Christians should produce shame, embarassment, guilt, and consequently improved
behavior in Jewless Arras.
Praise of peasants is also
likely to be blame of some other group; for example, in the course of his
hagiographical verse-biography of St Thomas of Canterbury, Guernes de
Pont-Sainte-Maxence makes what seems to be a remarkably democratic assertion
(Walberg 1964:11.2541-5):
Fiz a vilain ne fust en nul lin ordenez
Senz l'asens sun seignur, de qui terre il fust nez,
E Deus a sun servise nus ad tuz apelez!
Mielz valt fiz a vilain qui est prouz a seriez,
Que ne fait genïilz hum failliz a debutez.
Guernes
is not offering categorical praise, however, to the third estate, but is
objecting to the infringement of ecclesiastical authority by the first estate;
that is, the king had promulgated a law requiring seigneurial approval for
ordaining peasants.
The
rhetorical technique, by means of which a speaker argues for the superiority of
an inferior in order to abuse the superior is at the heart of one of Horace's
liveliest poems, Satire 2.7, in which Horace speaks in the persona of his slave
Davus, who proceeds to castigate his master, proving in the course of the poem
that the master is a slave, and that he, Davus, is truly free. A rougher
version of this strategy occurs in an historical poem of the fourteenth century:
Guillaume
de Saint-André, in the course of praising Bretons at the expense of the French,
praises pigs for approximately the same reason the poet of Arras praised Jews:
their laudable community spirit (Charrière 1839b:436-7):
Car les Bretons, tres bien le scoy,
S'entre-doivent touz d'un acort
Amer et craindre jucque la mort;
Pour ce sont-il en general
Nommez pourceaulx, non par mal,
Car pourceaulx telle nature ont;
Quant l'un fort crie, les autres vont
Tous ensemble pour l'aider ...
Medieval
praise of jews, peasants, and pigs, then, does not signify enthusiastic
approval of members of these categories, but rather a condemnation, sometimes
explicit, sometimes implicit, of Christians whose behavior is not even equal
to the lowest forms of animal life. Perhaps, then, Antonia Gransden was
prevented by her own, "pro Jewish sentiments", from recognizing the
intentions of Richard of Devizes, and we may say, with the glossator who was
annoyed that anyone would take Lucan's encomium of Nero as earnest praise: recte
autem intelligentibus hic laus est vituperatio (Marti 1956:8).
Literature
Appleby,
J, 1963. The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes. London.
Berger,
R., 1981. Littérature et société arrageoises au XIIIe siècle. Arras.
Bode,
G.H., 1834. Scriptores rerum mythicarum. Celle.
Charrière,
E., 1839 a and b. Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin, 2 volumes. Paris.
Gransden,
A., 1973. Historical. writing in England. Ithaca, New York.
Howlett,
Richard (ed.). 1884. Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and
Richard I, R.S. 82. London.
296
Lindsay,
W.M. (ed.) 1911. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies. Oxford.
Luard,
H. 1869. Chronicon vulgo dictum Chronicon Thomae Wykes, R.S. 36.4.
London.
Marti,
B.M. 1956. Lucan's invocation to Nero in the light of the medieval
commentaries. Quadrivium 1:7-18.
Partner,
N. 1977. Serious entertainment. Chicago.
Richardson,
H.G. 1960. The English Jewry under Angevin kings. London.
Roth,
C. 1964. A history of the Jews in England. Oxford.
Walberg,
E. (ed.) 1964. Guernes de Pont-St.Maxence, La vie de saint Thomas.
Paris.
Whiting,
B.J. 1945. The Vows of the heron. Speculum 20:261-8.