Before I actually start the main meat of my post, I just wanted to comment on my confusion at the Jews in "The Play of the Sacrament," specifically at their worship of "Machomyght" (Mohammed, the Muslim high prophet). Unfortunately, there is no Wikipedia page for this text (DAMN YOU INTERNET), so my research had to be slightly deeper into the internet than I'm used to. For one thing, it wrongly portrays Mohammed as the "god" of the Muslim faith, rather than just their main prophet. Another interesting piece of info that I found linked the transferring of this Mohammed worship to the Jews as simply another way for Medieval Christians to both express anti-Semitism, as well as distance themselves further from the Jews, by essentially bunching them together with the seemingly barbaric Muslims. Anyway, just something that threw me off when I read this the first time. Thanks internet.
Now, for my real post. I will be focusing on Kruger's article, "The Bodies of Jews in the Late Middle Ages." It is understood from Scripture that Jesus' salvation for mankind came from the torture and destruction of his earthly body, i.e., the body of a Jew. What many Christians seem to forget, or at least unfortunately overlook, is that Jesus was himself a Jew. To quote Annie (a Jewish girl) from the show Community, during the first Christmas episode of the show, upon picking up a Baby Jesus figurine, "We know you were one of us!" For one thing, the fact that Jesus was a Jew demonstrates the impossibility of EVER completely separating the two faiths. But that's beside the point. In his article, Kruger focuses on the incredibly physical aspect of late Medieval Christian literature, specifically, the depiction and treatment of bodies. "The Play of the Sacrament" shows us a rich Jew (stereotype) purchasing the Eucharist from a wealthy Christian man, in order to disprove the fact that it is, indeed, the body of Jesus Christ. Kruger makes note of the Jewish practice (or, at least, the literary depiction of this) of "destroying other (Christian) bodies and using body parts (especially blood) to heal their own diseases and perform other magical acts." (Kruger, p. 303) In attempting to destroy the Eucharist, the most Christian body of all (and the foundation on which the whole faith is based), Jonathas and his cronies are definitely guilty of this literary stereotype for Jews: "Yea, yet they saye as fals, I dare laye my hedde: How they that be ded shall com again to Judgement, And owr drefull Judge shal be this same brede, And how life everlasting them shuld be lent." (ll. 433-436) "Now, serys, ye have rehersyd the substaunce of their lawe, But this brede I wold might be put in a prefe, Whethere this be he that in Bosra of us had awe." (ll. 441-443)
Clearly, this is heresy at its finest, especially with agency for this attributed to Aristorye, for selling them the host in the first place. The irony does not stop there, though, and my main question is, how ironic really is this play? We see, in accordance with Kruger's contention of Jewish destruction of Christian bodies, Jonathas healed by the same Christian body he destroyed, which ties into the "healing" described by Kruger. While the play is relatively straightforward, and it seems like quite a bit of propaganda for the Christian faith as one willing to forgive and heal, the amount of ironic scenes where the Jews are, in essence destroying both a Christian as well as a Jewish body, leads me to believe that this is even more anti-Semitic than I originally thought.
I actually found this play surprisingly less anti-Semitic than what I expected. Don’t get me wrong, it is still quite anti-semitic: as you named, the misattribution of “Machomyghte”, the rich stereotype, the Jews en masse. But we just finished the Siege of Jerusalem, a poem in which the Christians utterly destroy the Jews and pillage and burn their city. This play recognizes the common Jewish Christian origin, rather than rendering the Jews aliens; Jesus refers to himself as “yowr king” when speaking to the Jews (line 720). The playwright does not wish to distance the Christians from the Jews. Yes, he wants to convert the Jews to Christianity, preserve Christianity. But to be honest, this is actually quite a peaceful, Christian thought, as opposed to the usual “those who disagree are mine enemy, might is right, destroy mine enemy to prove me right”. The play speaks to welcoming the Jews into the Christian religion, unite the severed hand to the rest of the body, “To all yow that desire in eny wise/To aske mercy, to graunt it redy I am” (766-7) (I will admit that Jesus is quite harsh here but again, baby steps guys. This was the fifteenth century). This piece is more on the side of reinforcing Christian values, that was the purpose, but it does so without punishing the Jews sorely, they are given redemption, as Christians, reborn, whole and pure and now nobles (Jonathas is referred to in the end as “Ser Jonathas”, speaking to his new and elevated status in society) (line 960). So the play does not so much try to put the Jews down, as elevate Chrisianity.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree about building up Christianity in this play. I was originally going to post about how this is just an insanely vivid pro-Christianity propaganda play, what with the healing of Jews and the conversion of Jews and the forgiveness of pretty much all guilty parties (as long as they do penance). I just thought it was kind of funny how the "magical" practices of the Jews in this play would be considered "miraculous" and faith-based by the Christians. Just kind of an interesting double-perspective.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that this is an anti semitic play, I dont think that it is a particularly positive in its portrayals of Christians either. While it does propagate the idea that Christianity is the "correct" realm of religion to believe in, it definately also touches upon the failings of Christian people as individuals as well. Atistorius is by no means perfect although he is Christian, he is in need of personal correction himself. His materialistic side is highlighted in the play by him being a merchant and also, more importantly by the way he SELLS the host. This has really deep implications because not only does it point out that religion is something that people wish to sell but also something which people wish to profit from, at times. It is only at the end of the poem that the bishop is the one who realizes the true essence of religion and tries to shed Aristorius of his materialistic component (by making him give up being a merchant) but throughout the play we must also remember that the main Christian character is not perfect either. Thus, while the main message (as Adam points out) is that it is extremely in favor of Christian preservation and pro-Christianity, he also paints a picture of how the correct Christian should and should not behave, and shows, through the character of Aristorius, that this is not always the case.
ReplyDeleteI definitely found the Judeo-Christian relationship a little strange in this tale. I think Donald makes a really good point about the textual purpose of the play. The tale culminates in a mass acceptance and reception into Christendom. And the irony Adam points out is certainly palpable. One thing that really struck me was the initial textual mirror between Aristorius and Jonathas. Aristorius boasts of all the places he’s been and thus wields the greatest of treasures from his travels. But it is Jonathas who speaks directly of the actual things he possesses – spices and precious gems. There is an interesting pairing of spatiality and materialism. They seem almost indistinguishable by textual structure but what is to be said of the actual meaning behind each introductory speech? Is there a little sentence/solace action going on here? Perhaps it can simply be reduced to a distinction of material mentality attributed to the Jewish people but I sense a deeper meaning. It feels as though this is a literary attempt at bridging the people of each religion.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it is these characters that set the major events in motion – establishing a merger between each people. There is a trade of material wealth for spiritual transcendence, though both take on physical manifestations – 100 pounds / the body of Christ. It is as though one trades away the physically insignificant for the physically transcendent. This harkens to Livingston’s discussion about the renunciation-mentality in the Siege of Jerusalem. The conversion of the Jews solidifies doing away with their pre-Christ identities and their rebirth as Christians. However, I find the end of the poem a little strange. Aristorius grieves deeply for his sin. “I have offendyd in the sin of cov[e]it is[e]: / I sold our Lordys body for lucre of mony / And deliveryd to the wickyd, with cursyd advice… / I were worthy to be putt in brenning fire” (901-907). He is deeply troubled by his actions and feels he should burn for his sin. But it was by these same actions that led to the conversion of perceived sinners. I just find it strange that Aristorius finds only sin and condemnation for his actions when he ushered the conversion and affirmation of Christianity. I find the universal suffering between Aristorius and Jonathas (along with the other Jews) more evidence of union between faiths – with Christianity of course coming out on top.
Violence in this text is thus very complex. There are the physical acts of stabbing the “cake” and severing Jonathas’s hand but conversion itself represents a sort of imposition of force as well – on a spiritual level as opposed to physical.
I thought Kruger's article was extremely helpful to our understanding of the the close relation of the Jewish and Christian religions. his focus on the "complex relationship between the Christian and the Jewish" and the "binding together of the bodies" thus making the Christian and the Jew both the tormented and the tormentor is an important observation when studying religious writings. This relationship is also seen in the characters Jonathas and Aristorius. Even these two men are difficult to distinguish (as Maddie mentions in her post) and the audience feels confusion as to which ( if either men) are worthy of forgiveness. Kruger concludes that "the body thus shows itself to be, at one and the same time, wonderfully invulnerable and horribly corruptible" thus further emphasizing the closeness of the Jew and the Christian. As Sean correctly points out, the Jew (in the case of the passion) was both the aggressor and torturer as well as the tortured. We constantly put these divisions between the Jew and the Christian, when Croxton's Play of the Sacrament shows through multiple facets (Christ, the host, and the characterization of Aristorius/Jonathas) the "intimate connection of the Jewish body to the Christian body."
ReplyDeleteI also loved the Community reference by the way.....
ReplyDelete