It seemed that we were split in class regarding what was shocking and not in regards to "The Prioress's Tale." In Chaucer's time, the content would not have been quite as shocking as it is to us. However, the description of the child being thrown into an excrement pit would have raised a few eyebrows. The murder of an "innocent," regardless of ignorance, child would also have shocked a few people, especially those with young children.
When relating this tale to "The Physician's Tale," the ability to be shocked does decrease. Virginia, a completely innocent girl, is killed just because of the judge's obsession with her. She is not ignorant by any means like the child in "The Prioress's Tale," so we are apt to feel more sympathy for her than the child. Regardless, the fact that one victim is more innocent than the other does not greatly impact the shocking nature of the tales.
That being said, I think Virginia deserves at least a little more sympathy than the child just due to the fact that she was completely innocent of anything and could not help the fact that she was gifted, or cursed, with beauty.
The only character I feel bad for in "The Prioress's Tale" is the mother. I agree with Dr. Mitchell-Buck; the three stanzas devoted to the mother's distress are quite moving. Still, where was the person telling the child not to go through that part of town singing Christian hymns? He was told what it was about, but no one instructed him on what it would mean to sing that among the Jewish.
I agree, why didn't anyone explain to him what he was saying? Is it a criticism to the concept "raise up a child in the way in which he will go"? If so, then I am less moved by the mother's distress. If not, then this is perhaps an early criticism of rote memorization, where mindless repetition will be the downfall of those who practice it, even if it is a church sanctioned element of liturgy.
ReplyDelete