After reading the second half of The Siege of Jerusalem, I noticed some rather large contrasts within the reading from this section to the first. The first contrast is the depictions of the Romans vs the Jews. It was posed as a question in a post last week, and I think it's an important aspect of the poem to point out. While the Jews are continuously dehumanized and portrayed as weak sub-human creatures through the violence in the poem, the Romans are repeatedly portrayed as valiant, strong, and "lion" like men. For example, "Than with a liouns lote he lifte up his eyen, to Titus tourneth anon, and hym the tale schewed. And as Sire Sabyn hadde seid, he hym sone granteth, with his brother and the burnes, as he hym blesse wolde" (1001-1004). A similar quote with a Roman exemplifying incredible strength both mentally and physically, "Sire Sabyn of Surrye, whyle the saute laste, Leyth a ladder to the wal and alofte clymyth, wendeth wyghtly theron -though hym wo happned- and up stondith for ston or for steel-ware" (1197-1200). While the Jews are portrayed as weak heathens throwing rocks and stones, the Romans are described with strength and incredible resistance to these "terrible" creatures.
Another contrast that I saw between the beginning and the end was in the resolution of the tale. While it's not completely at the end, the explanations for all the deaths, omens, and negative things that have happened to them, "And than the vilayns devysed hem and venguance hit helde, and wyten her wo the wronge that they wroghte whan they brutned in the burwe the byschup Seint Jame; noght wolde acounte hit for Crist, the care that they hadde" (1237-1240). I thought that this was a rather abrupt resolution for all of the "woe" that the people had experienced in this war. After all of the incredibly detailed scenes of violence and grotesque deaths, the poem quite suddenly just brings it back upon the people saying that it was their sins that created this violence. In the first section of the poem we saw violent images of Christ's deaths and then similar violent descriptions in the war scenes, thus creating a sort of parallel between the two, but then in this line the author suddenly states that their suffering is nothing compared to Christ's. We get these valiant images of the Romans, but then this bold contrast to even their suffering to that of Christ's. It seems as if there is almost a totem pole of "goodness" that is created in the poem--the Jews are on the bottom with what would appear to be the Romans on top (the valiant lions). But then, we are thrown this passage, we see that the Romans and their suffering and courage is actually nothing to that of Christ. The question that I would pose, then, is what do you think the literary purpose is for all of the violent imagery and then this sudden resolution basically stating that their suffering wasn't that bad? Were the grotesque and disturbing images in the war supposed to be meant as an example that no suffering is as great as Christ's? Or is this merely a coincidence that I am way over-reading into.....?
I enjoyed reading Clare's post, particularly because the first paragraph responds to the question that I posed in my post last week about the portrayal of the Romans in relief of the dehumanized Jews. Obviously, Clare provides us with some very strong textual moments that characterize the Romans as incredibly mentally and physically powerful. However, I think it is important to notice that the Romans are not completely immune to pain and weakness.
ReplyDeleteParticularly, the following two stanzas illustrate the exhaustion and injury of Waspasian's men:
"Waspasian stynteth of the stoure, steweth his burnes
That were forbeten and bled undere bryght yren;
Tyen to here tentis myd tene that they hadde,
Al wery of that werk and wounded ful sore.
Helmes and hamberkes hadden of sone,
Leches by torchelight loken here hurtes,
Waschen woundes with wyn and with wolle stoppen,
Qith oyle and orisoun, ordeyned in charme"
(lines 845-852)
As the above passage illustrates, Waspasian's men are wounded ("forbeten and bled") and tired. Moreover, they are in need of medical attention, a detail that further establishes the physicality of their pain. Though the Roman soldiers clearly assert their dominance over the Jews by brutally killing them, they do suffer their own injuries. Alas, the Romans are not entirely unbreakable, and in my opinion this actually makes them seem more human. If they did not suffer, they would seem machine-like and, as a result, devoid of personality. They would then have one thing in common with the Jews, as the Jews appear devoid of personality as a result of their dehumanization. So, though this particular moment in the text digresses from the prevalent characterization of the Romans as all-powerful and immune to injury, it renders the Romans more human and thus more relatable and identifiable.
It might also be worthwhile to consider the relationship between the physical bodies of Romans and the political/military body of the Roman army, as seen in the incident where Titus weirdly...shrinks? Falls ill? As his father leaves to assume the throne.
Delete"The freke for the fayndom of the fadere blysse,
with a cramp and a colde caught was so hard
that the fyngres and feet, fustes and joyntes
was lythy as a leke and lost han here strength" (1029-32).
Celebrating the accession to the imperial throne causes Titus to be stricken somehow - the event which makes him next in line as emperor also reduces the vitality of his human body. But even more strangely, this diminution of his body causes the boundaries of the Roman army to become permeable.
"Whan they sey hym so, many segge wepyth;
They sent to the cite and soughten a leche
That couthe kevere the kyng, and condit delyveryn" (1034-6)
When the body of Titus becomes weak, the Romans immediately enter the city and search for doctors amongst the besieged Jews, eventually finding Josephus. Whereas the action of the poem prior to this point has been all about building up a geography of division - driving Jews off the field, building towers and forts, placing ladders against the walls of the city - somehow, this illness is enough for the Romans to pass into the city in peace and offer safe passage in return for any enemy who can heal their leader. The Romans thus bring Josephus in, and he decides to heal Titus by showing him a man whom he hates. But this man ends up being a "burne of the borwe" - a man of the city. Thus, Titus' hatred for a Jew of Jerusalem restores his vitality, the loss of which had resulted in a breaking-down of the political barriers between Romans and Jews. The idea of whole political structure and whole physical body are clearly and continually intertwined.
Both Clare and Morgan have brought up valid points in regards to the suffering experienced by both the Jews and the Romans. The question of is there a point to their suffering is an interesting way to analyze this last half of the poem. As Morgan has shown, the Romans did experience pain and suffering, making them more human and not some automaton army destroying all in their path. But the suffering the Jews experience is far worse. Even though they are portrayed with animal-like imagery, or are reduced to body parts and blood, their pain far outweighs that of the Romans. There are even moments of sympathy for the Jews in the text. Look at the passage with Marie. The townspeople, infuriated that someone is cooking something, burst into her home only to discover that she has killed her own child for food. “Alas! In this lif how longe schul we dwelle? Yit beter were at o brayed in batail to deye than thus in langur to lyve and lengthen our fine.” (1098-1100) There is no condemnation from the woman’s neighbors, nor from the narrator. Rather this stands as an example of how suffering and starvation can affect people. The author could have used this image to demonize the Jews even further, but rather it stands as a poignant example of humanity brought to its lowest low. But here I feel, they still remain human. Though the Jews are reduced to less-than-human throughout the text due to the violence they encounter, I do not feel that the author means for his audience to ignore or forget the fact that these are people experiencing these hardships, not animals.
ReplyDeleteWe had discussed in class last week about the discrepancy in suffering between the Romans and the Jews. In the first half, the Romans seemed almost invincible, and suffered no injuries while the Jews were routed. In the second half, I think we see a much more realistic representation of war. As Morgan points out, the Romans do suffer injuries and fatalities as the war continues. Clare draws our attention to several lines about Sabinus' strength, but if we read a few lines further, we find that despite this strength, he ultimately suffers from a blow so hard "that the brayn out brast at both nosethrylles" and he falls dead into the same ditch that the Jews have tossed their dead into (l. 1203). In fact, this description of his death is similar to that of one of the Jews, who had "the gretter pese of the panne the pyble forth striketh, / That hit flow into the feld, a forlong or more" (l. 827-8). I think Sarah is correct to suggest that despite their suffering, the Jews remain human and we are meant to think about them as humans brought low by suffering. As horrifying as some of the depictions of violence are in this poem, I think they serve a purpose beyond shock value. While it is difficult to classify the poem into any one genre, it is clear that the poet has an interest in history, and perhaps we can understand these horrifying images as an attempt to convey the real brutalities of war.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy reading of these scenes was that the poet was making litotic constructions when he undermines the extreme violence that happens during the war against Jerusalem. The speaker appears to bring more attention to the physical mutilations by undercutting them. Rodger Nicholson writes that the Jew works figuratively to set control on a dangerous cultural encounter (451), which was the threat that Turkish Islam posed to Christian Europe (462).
ReplyDeleteThe poet uses the Jews as a symbol to contextualize contemporary events, but he also uses understatements as another device that can give further structure to the poem. Once the Jews become a symbolic representation of the “other,” there are two clear groups that command our attention as readers. As Nicholson writes, “The Jew’s undeniable, but officially occluded presence must have worked to remind the European that the border [of Christendom] is dangerously permeable and difficult to maintain,” (450). Most of the war against Jerusalem takes place on the walls of the city, which is a liminal space. Each border affirms cultural definitions and draws attention to the ways that the two groups clash. This gets reflected in the contradictions in the poet’s rhetoric. Within the controlled universe of the poem, the speaker runs an experiment that tests the lesser of two evils: the negative component of imperialism (that may threaten Christian Europe) and resentment toward the Jews.
I found it interesting that Clare chose focus on the parallel between violent images of war depicted in the text and the suffering of Christ. Nicholson points out how the nature of this one-sided parallel provided in The Seige of Jerusalem appeals to modern readers because it forces us to aknowledge a secret guilt we all share. This is due to the fact that the this one sided parallel doesn’t do justice in provided scope into the other side of things. “There is a kind of blindness in seeing things this way, of course, since it casts the other as a necessary but minor figure in the allegorical drama” as Nicholson puts it serves to ground ones reading in this singular order of perception while the other is minor yet not insignificant.
ReplyDeleteThe poem ending provides a nice entrance into considering this new parallel. As Clare points out, it makes about the people and how the evil which plagued them was born of their own sin. The “borders” Nicholson invokes to demonstrate the singularity of differing views concerning The Seige of Jerusalem yet acknowledges them as spheres of influence coexisting, in the description of Christ’s sacrifice as an act of love “Love him droof and love him broght/ For to finden pat he soght/ When love thyrlede heven Kynge/ Pan love passeth alle pynge.”