1
The Feast of Corpus Christi and ‘the Other’ in the
13
th/ 14
th-century and in the 21
st-century
Name student: Jeroen Krijnen Student ID: 11893346 Supervisor: Jaqueline Borsje Second Examiner: Carolina Ivanescu Religious Studies Master’s Thesis
2
3
Table of contents
Preface 5
Introduction 6
1. The origin and the development of the Feast of Corpus Christi 10
1. The body of Christ and ‘the Other’ during the last supper and
during the passion 10
2. St Paul’s interpretation of the body of Christ and ‘the Other’ 11
3. Medieval theologians on the ecclesiastical body of Christ and ‘the Other’ 12 4. The ecclesiastical body of Christ and ‘the Other’ in ritual murder legends 13
5. Theological discord about the Eucharistic body Christ 14
6. Eucharistic devotion and institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi 15
7. The Eucharistic body of Christ and ‘the Other’ in host
desecration legends 17
2. The Jew as ‘the Other’ in medieval anti-Judaistic tales 21
1. Van Sente Waerneer (1287) 21
i. Context and content of Van Sente Waerneer 22
ii. The portrayal of the relation between Werner’s parents
and the ecclesiastical body of Christ 24
iii. The portrayal of the relation between Werner’s tormentors
and the ecclesiastical body of Christ 26
iv. The portrayal of the relation between Werner
and the ecclesiastical body of Christ 28
v. The portrayal of the relation between the Jews and the
Eucharistic body of Christ 29
vi. The portrayal of the Jews’ fate 30
2. Chronique et annales de Gilles le Muisit (1349) 31
i. Context and content of the Annals 31
ii. The portrayal of the Jews in general 32
iii. The portrayal of the relation between the duke’s friend 33
iv. The portrayal of the relation between the Jews and the
Eucharistic body of Christ before the host starts bleeding 34
4
Eucharistic body of Christ when the host is bleeding 35
vi. The portrayal of the Jews’ fate 36
3. Het Sacrament van Mirakel (1370) 38
i. Context and content of Het Sacrament van Mirakel 38
ii. The portrayal of the Jews in general 41
iii. The portrayal of the converted Jews 42
iv. The portrayal of the relation between the Jews and the
Eucharistic body of Christ 44
v. The portrayal of the relation between the Jews and the
Eucharistic body of Christ when the host starts bleeding 45
vi. The portrayal of the Jews’ fate 45
3. The portrayal of ‘the Other‘in the liturgy of Corpus Christi 2016 in Cologne 47
1. The portrayal of ‘the Other’ with liturgical furniture 48
2. The portrayal of ‘the Other’ in the homily 51
3. The portrayal of ‘the Other’ in the closing ceremony 55
4. Media Feast of Corpus Christi 2016 in Cologne 58
4. Conclusion 62
5. Bibliography 64
1. Primary sources 64
5
Preface
In the past year I had the opportunity to conduct extensive research about the Feast of Corpus Christi and ‘the Other’ in the 13th/ 14th-century and in the 21st-century. I experienced this as a curious, engaging and challenging time. I would like to thank my supervisor Jacqueline Borsje for her advice, motivation and patience. Furthermore, I would like to thank my fellow students, of whom some became dear friends of mine, for their suggestions, encouragement and amusement. A special thanks to my parents who, despite severe health challenges, always supported me through expressing their confidence in me.
For this master’s thesis I consulted several sources written in the Latin language. I am grateful to Rosanne Hoenderdos for translating a part of the Annals by Gilles le Muisit in the Dutch language, as I am not able to read the Latin language. In this thesis, I will translate excerpts of her Dutch translation of the Latin text into the English language. Furthermore, I will translate Luc Dequeker’s Dutch translations of Latin excerpts of Het Sacrament van Mirakel into the English langue. My translations in the footnotes will be indicated with: ‘My translation, Jeroen Krijnen’ (henceforth J.K.).
6
Introduction
On the 26th of May 2016 a Eucharist celebration took place at Roncalliplatz, a square in front
of Cologne Cathedral. As every year, it was celebrated on the occasion of the Feast of Corpus Christi, a solemnity in which the body and blood of Christ ritually transubstantiated in the
host is honoured.1 Everything seemed to be as usual, except for one object which attracted my
attention: a refugee boat placed in the midst of a platform at which the Eucharist was celebrated. It replaced the rectangular wooden table which was used as an altar in previous and later years. By using the refugee boat as an altar, the archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Woelki, intended to create awareness for the cry for peace and justice of refugees.
I was touched by the fact how refugees, of whom many stand outside the Catholic Church, were included into the Church at a Catholic feast by means of an object visualizing their suffering. I was furthermore impressed about how a means of transport aroused such a high attention that the feast was taken up in (inter)national media. The Washington Post for instance headed: ‘The stunning way a Catholic cardinal marked the deaths of refugees in the
Mediterranean’.2 German media placed the discussion of the celebration in the internal
political debate about refugees. The deutschlandfunk headed: ‘Fronleichnam [the German
term for the Feast of Corpus Christi]: Solidarität mit Flüchtlingen – Ärger mit AfD’.3 The
headlines show that the boat as such was not perceived important. Rather the ‘issue’ it referred to was taken up, namely the attitude towards refugees. This also triggered political parties questioning the necessity of an affirmative relation towards fugitives. As such, the low material value of the boat seemed to be transformed to a high symbolic value. The Feast of Corpus Christi 2016 in Cologne thus provided a material message calling for an attentive attitude towards suffering people from abroad.
The orientation towards the fate of refugees gave the feast an inclusive character. It integrated people coming from different cultural backgrounds, into a new cultural practice characterised by a Catholic ritual uniting the gathered congregation at Roncalliplatz. Against this background the question arises how people outside the Church were treated in the context of the Feast of Corpus Christi in the past. When taking a look at history, we see that especially in
the 13th and 14th-centuries Jews were frequently accused as violators of the consecrated host
1 McManners 1993: 263. 2 Noack 2016.
7
in connection to the feast.4 Medieval anti-Judaistic tales such as host desecration legends
narrating about Jews ritually maltreating the piece of bread strengthened the idea that they were ‘enemies’ who should be excluded from Church and society. A number of persecutions
followed of which the Rintfleisch-pogrom5 in Franconia (a region in northern Bavaria) in
1298 is one of the first in Germany that was justified by the accusation of Jewish host desecration. The pogrom is named after ‘König Rintfleisch’ who led a massacre against Jews
after a seeming host desecration in the city of Röttingen.6
In this thesis I study the relation between people inside the Church with those on the verge and those outside, who may be of a different religious and/ or ethnic identity. I will focus my research on the role assigned to the two last mentioned groups in connection to the Feast of Corpus Christi. The research corpus I am working with is bipartite. It consists of material containing ideologies, ideas and traditions demonstrating a clear perception of people outside the Church and their relation towards people inside the Church. I decided to study three
anti-Judaistic medieval narratives of the 13th/ 14th-century as first part of my research corpus. I
want to understand how the tales apply Christ’s body (interpreted as Church and Eucharist) for the portrayal of people outside the Church as well as the liminal members of the Church. I
will analyse (1) Van Sente Waerneer, a Middle Dutch legend of the 13th-century, narrating
about the 16-years-old Werner who was supposed to be ritually murdered on Maundy Thursday 1287 by the Jewish community of Bacharach (a little city 90 miles south of
Cologne) who were said to use his blood for their Passover celebration.7 Moreover, I will
scrutinize the developments around (2) an accusation of a host desecration in 1349 in Cologne. The historian Gilles le Muisit (1272-1352) is the first person referring to a host
desecration in his Chronique et Annales.8 I take his work as basis for the research around the
developments in Cologne. Furthermore, I will study Luc Dequeker’s reconstruction of (3) Het Sacrament van Mirakel, a tale about Jews of Brussels and Louvain who were said to maltreat hosts with knives and spikes on Good Friday 1370 in a synagogue in Brussels.
4 Chidester 2000: 232.
5 Pogrom (to destroy) is a Russian term I for will make use of to denote comparable events.
6 Merback 2005: 601. ‘König Rintfleisch’ is the name of a poor knight. According to him, he got a message from
heaven in which he was commanded to kill Jews. More information about ‘König Rintfleisch’ and the Rintfleisch-pogrom can be found at Lotter 2009.
7De Keyser 1963: 226-230.
8
Although Brussels and Cologne belonged to different political territories in the 14th-century
(Brussels belonged to the duchy of Brabant and Cologne was a free imperial city), both Het Sacrament van Mirakel and the Chronique et Annales mention a connection between the cities. In the first narrative, the Jews accused of host desecration were said to have summoned
a Christianized Jew to leave Brussels and hide the hosts in the city of Cologne.9 In the second
narrative, a Christianized Jew is mentioned who would have sent three hosts from Brussels to Cologne, where they were said to be desecrated by the local Jewish community. Thus, the city of Cologne is a common thread, connecting the narratives of both tales.
In order to understand, how people outside the Church are portrayed in relation to Christ’s
body in the 21st century, I decided to study two material products associated with the Feast of
Corpus Christi 2016 in Cologne. I will analyse (1) a documentary of the Eucharist celebration
on the 26th of May 2016 and (2) the homily preached by Cardinal Woelki during that
celebration. I will indicate how the two material products portray the refugee in relation to the Church and the Eucharist.
My research question will be: ‘How is ‘the Other’ portrayed in material products of the
Catholic Church related to the Feast of Corpus Christi in the 13th/ 14th-century and in 2016?’
The following subquestions will be dealt with during the analysis of the above-presented research material: (1) ‘Who is the Other?’, (2) ‘How does the material create the Other?’ and (3) ‘How does the material establish a relation between ‘the Other’ and the Catholic in the context of the Feast of Corpus Christi?’. One method I make use of will be discourse
analysis.10 This research tradition examines ‘systems of social meaning’ by exploring the
content and structure of texts and verbal accounts. Furthermore, the methods study ‘the
performances, linguistic styles and rhetorical devices’ of the research material.11 Moreover, I
will do close reading, a method originated in biblical exegesis, in which the semantic field of specific words or text passages, as well as grammatical and lexical textual structures are
examined. 12
I will study my research corpus in a theoretic frame using the approach of ‘the Other’ by Jean-Francois Staszak as well as the approach of materiality by Sonia Hazard. Staszak argues that ‘the Other’ can be created geographically or by practices and constructs. In the first case ‘the
9 Dequeker 2000: 10. 10 Ritchie & Lewis 2003: 48. 11 Ibid., 25.
9
Other’ is construed through contrasting civilizations, continents or races. 13 In the second
case, ‘the Other’ is construed segregationally through spatial constructs, such as ghettos, prisons or asylums and through spatial practices, such as symbolic or material violence in which ‘the Other’ is created through its defeat by a dominant group. I will make use of Staszak’s theory to demonstrate how the ideologies, traditions and ideas of the examined material products shape the perception of the Jews/refugees as ‘the Other’ in regard to Catholics united in a common shared belief. In order to interpret the impact of materiality on the creation of ‘the Other’, I will use Sonia Hazard’s new material approach in which she
treats material as an assemblage of heterogeneous entities.14 Her theory is part of a new field
of research, beyond traditional anthropocentric views on materiality. According to her,
material assemblages are equally constructed by human as well as non-human entities.15 I will
use Hazard’s theory to indicate how the Eucharist in chapter two as well as the boat and the Eucharist in chapter three are assemblages of heterogeneous entities.
In the first chapter of this Master’s thesis, I will outline the origin and the development of the Feast of Corpus Christi and its connections towards ‘the Other’. In the second chapter, I will examine the above-mentioned medieval sources. Through discourse analysis, I will show how the material products fulfil Staszak’s criteria for the creation/ portrayal of the Jews as the untrustworthy ‘Other’. By using Hazard’s approach, I will go beyond written, vocal or other semiotic elements of discourse studies, through treating the research material as assemblages of heterogeneous entities providing further elements which create ‘the Other’. In the third
chapter, the documentary of the Eucharist celebration held on the 26th of May at Roncalliplatz
and the homily by Cardinal Woelki will be discussed. I will use Staszak’s theory to denote how the refugee as the ‘Other’ is portrayed and included into the celebration. Moreover, I will apply Hazard’s theory to denote further elements creating the Jews as ‘the Other’. In my conclusion, I will review my findings and attempt to answer the research question.
13 Staszak 2008: 4. 14 Hazard 2013: 65. 15 Ibid.
10
1. The origin and development of the Feast of Corpus Christi
In the present chapter, I will outline the origin and the development of the Feast of Corpus Christi (Latin for ‘body of Christ’). I will work thematically, by studying various interpretations of Christ’s body independently from each other. I will start with the Last Supper at which Jesus of Nazareth symbolically gives his body to eat and his blood to drink. After having examined St Paul’s ecclesiastical interpretation of the body of Christ, I will discuss some medieval theological writings as well as some ritual murder legends dealing with Jews portrayed as ‘enemies’ against the unity of Christians. In a further step, I will
outline the theological dissent around the Eucharistic body of Christ arising in the 9th-century
(in this step, I deviate from the chronological order for the sake of thematic clarity). Moreover, Juliana of Liège’s visions prior to the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi in
1264 will be studied. I will end this chapter by scrutinizing some 14th-century host desecration
legends in which Jews are accused of maltreating the body of Christ through piercing a consecrated host.
1.1 The body of Christ and ‘the Other’ during the last supper and the passion
The Feast of Corpus Christi is a celebration ‘devoted to the body of Christ’, which means that
the belief in his physical presence in the consecrated host is commemorated.16 This invocation
of Christ’s presence is achieved during the Eucharistic prayer at holy mass, when a priest acting as Jesus’ deputy takes a host in his hands and utters: ‘For this is my body, which will
be given up for you’.17 In a similar manner, the priest takes a chalice with wine and water in
his hands while uttering: ‘For this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal
covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.’18 These
words of consecration refer to passages from the evangelists Mark, Matthew and Luke narrating about the last meal Jesus held with his disciples before his crucifixion. (John the
Evangelist narrates about the last supper, but does not mention the words of consecration.)19
During the repast he took bread in his hands, broke it, gave it to his disciples and stated: ‘Take
it; this is my body’.20 Furthermore, he took a cup in his hands, gave it to his disciples and
stated: ‘This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’21 In the further
16 Chidester 2000: 232.
17 International Committee on English in the Liturgy 2010: 34.
18 Ibid. 19 Jn 13:2.
20 Mk 14:22; Mt 26:26; Lk 22:19. 21 Mk 14:24; Mt 26: 27-29; Lk 22: 20.
11
course of Jesus’ passion, his historical (physical) body is set into a relation with other persons engaging in either verbal or physical violence against him. On the one hand, the gospels mention Jews who verbally act against Jesus’ body, such as the scribes and high priests who
make fun of him or the gathered crowd at the pretorium urging Pilate to crucify him.22 On the
other hand, there are the Roman soldiers who carry out physical violence against Jesus’ body
by whipping and crucifying him.23 Of course, Judas Iscariot should not be forgotten, who
betrays Jesus in Gethsemane by kissing him and handing him over to the chief priests and a
band of soldiers.24 In that way, the gospels create Judas as ‘the Other’ who distances himself
from the disciples and allows for violence against Jesus carried out by the Roman soldiers who crucify him. Luke the Evangelist explicitly associates Judas with the devil when stating
that ‘Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve’.25 John the Evangelist states that
‘the devil [had] already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot [...] to betray him, Jesus.’26 Hence,
the evangelists Luke and John mark Judas as a demoniac outsider.
1.2 St Paul’s interpretation of the body of Christ and ‘the Other’
In the four decades after Jesus’ death, roughly two movements arose who remembered him. On the one hand, the Jesus movements emerged in Palestine and Southern Syria. Members of that formation understood Jesus as a prominent figure in the tradition of Moses and Elijah and
collected several accounts of his deeds. 27 On the other hand, the Christ movements emerging
in northern Syria, Asia Minor and Greece came into existence. For them, Jesus was Christ, a divine being whose death constituted a redemptive event for those people believing in his
teachings.28 Referring to the Last Supper, the Christ movements engaged in communal meals
of bread and wine which they re-interpreted as the body and blood of Jesus given for them.29
In this way they commemorated his death on the cross as a sacrifice for them and fulfilled his
order to break bread and drink wine ‘in remembrance of me [Jesus].’30
According to the Apostle Paul (c.3-62 CE), the bread and wine of the meals re-interpreted as Jesus’ body and blood were mistreated, caused by a wrong understanding and practice of the
22 Mt 27: 23, 27:42; Mc 15:13, 15:30; Lk 23:21, 23:35; Jn 19:7. 23 Mt 27:28-30, 27:35; Mc 15:15-17, 15:24; Jn 19:2-3, 19:23. 24 Mt 26:47; Mk 14:45; Lk 22:47; Jn 18:3. 25 Lk 22:3. 26 Jn 13: 2-3. 27 Chidester 2000: 29. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 39. 30 Lk 22:19; 11 Cor. 11:23-25.
12
repast.31 His view becomes apparent in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul states
that a lot of Christians of Corinth celebrated the meal to honour Jesus’ resurrection instead of memorizing his death which should however have priority as ‘Christ, our paschal lamb, has
been sacrificed’.32 Therefore, he accuses the Corinthians of desecrating ‘this most sacred
ritual’ and declares them ‘guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord’ causing death,
illness and weakness among them.33
Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s death is related to his understanding of ‘the body’. He states that Christ’s crucifixion is a necessary requirement for baptized Christians to be resurrected from an earthly, physical and sinful body modelled according to Adam to a heavenly, spiritual and
pure body modelled according to Jesus. 34 Next to this dual understanding of the body, Paul
interprets the unity of Christian believers, the Church (ekklesia), as one body of Christ consisting of its members’ physical bodies waiting to become transformed into spiritual ones. In the First Epistle to the Christians of Corinth, Paul brings his interpretation to the point when stating that Christ is present in the unity of believers, who ‘by one Spirit...were all
baptised into one body [of Christ]’.35
1.3 Medieval theologians on the ecclesiastical body of Christ and ‘the Other’
In the centuries after Paul’s explanation of Christ’s body, a multitude of theologians continued reflection upon the concept ‘body of Christ’. The historian Robert Stacey mentions
the Carolingian period (5th until 9th-century) in which scholarly debate resulted in a dual
understanding of Christ’s body.36 On the one hand, (1) it would refer to the Eucharist
conceptualized as corpus verum Christi according to which the host consecrated during the Eucharist celebration constitutes the ‘true’ body of Christ. On the other hand, (2) it would refer to Paul’s ecclesiastical understanding conceptualized as corpus mysticum Christi according to which the unity of Christians united in the Church constitute the mystical body of Christ. Christ’s body thus refers to the (1) Eucharist as well as to the (2) Church.
The theological reflection upon the concept ‘body of Christ’ went parallel with the belief that
the Church understood as Christ’s body would be exposed to danger.37 Whereas Paul located
31 Chidester 2000: 40. 32 1 Cor. 5:7. 33 1 Cor. 11:27-30. 34 Chidester 2000: 41. 35 1 Cor 12: 13. 36 Stacey 1998: 13. 37 Ibid.
13
the source of threats against the body within the Christian community, several theologians of later decades located the source of danger outside of it. Scholars such as St John of Chrysostom (349-407) emphasized the role of Jews as enemies of the Church. In Adversus Judaeos (‘Against Jews’), a collection of fourth-century homilies addressed at the Church of Antioch, he warns Christians to partake in Jewish liturgy as ‘they [Jews] are pitiable and
miserable...and still sit in darkness.’38 These types of accusations were also spread in the 9th
-century by Agobard of Lyons (769-840) who accused Jews of exposing Christians to blasphemy. In De Insolentia Judeorum (‘On the insolence of Jews’) he states that Jews from Lyons ‘irreverently began to preach to the Christians what they ought to believe and hold,
openly blaspheming the Lord God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’39 Peter the Venerable
(c.1092-1156) is another, later, representative of the anti-Judaic discourse who questions the
humanity of Jews, when considering: ‘I really do not know if a Jew is a man’.40
In order to complete the set of purported external ‘enemies’ against the Church, we should shortly take a look at a group of people at a geographically more distant location: the Muslims
in Palestine. On his summons to the first crusade on the 27th of November 1095 at the Council
of Clermont, Pope Urban II (reign 1088-1099) instructed French knights to free Christians in
Jerusalem who would be threatened by ‘Muslim forces of evil’.41 Until 1272, Christian
knights fought against this distant threat in eight other crusades. Muslims living in close proximity to European Christians were also exploited and kept inferior. Every attempt to integrate people of Islamic faith into the Church through conversion (as was possible in Byzantium) was not encouraged by Western rulers, as a conversion would free Muslim slaves
from their servitude.42
1.4 The ecclesiastical body of Christ and ‘the Other’ in ritual murder legends
When taking a look at the 12th-century, we see that the above-sketched interpretation of the
Jews (and the Muslim) as an antagonist of the Church did not stay at a theological level. Robert Stacey indicates that ‘these theological developments helped [...] to give rise to new
38 St John of Chrysostom (n.d.) (online translation). Adversus Judeaos was published in modern English on
sourcebooks.fordham.edu. According to the website, the modern English translation of the Latin text is ‘unable to track down the translator.’ The text belongs to the Internet Medieval Source book located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.
39 Agobard of Lyons (n.d.). De Insolentia Judeorum, translated into modern English by W.L. North, published on
www.carleton.edu.
40 Chidester 2000: 233. 41 Ibid. 193.
14
mythical structures into which traditional Christian anti-Judaism could be channelled’.43 This
means that a scholarly developed interpretation became cultivated in popular culture. The ritual murder legends rising in 1144 in England are an example of such a ‘mythical structure’. De Vita et passione sci Willelmi martiris norwic (‘The Life and Passion of St William of Norwich’) written in 1150 by the Black Monk Thomas of Monmouth (beginning twelfth century-1172) is one of the first ritual murder legends narrating about a crucifixion (as a specific type of murder) of an innocent Christian boy in 1144 by a community of Jews as a
violent expression to everything Christian.44 The content of later tales where mostly modelled
according to the structure of the 1150 narration.
Crucifixion was however not the only manner of attributed murder. In Van Sente Waerneer (1287), the 16-years old Werner is tortured and executed as followed: si ghaven dien kinde meenge wonde. Met kniven ende met messen bede.45 There is no mention of a crucifixion. This tale, as well as some previous ones such as The Martyrdom of the Little St Hugh of Lincoln (1255), led to persecutions of Jews in Oberwesel and Lincoln. The dispersal of the ritual murder legends meant that the interpretation of the Jews as the enemy of Christ’s ecclesiastical body went on developing on a popular level.
1.5 Theological discord about the Eucharistic body Christ
In the last two paragraphs, we mainly discussed Christ’s ecclesiastical body and the relation to
the Jews as ‘the Other’. In the above paragraph, we ended in the 13th-century. In the present
paragraphs, we will discuss Christ’s Eucharistic body and the relation to the Jews as ‘the Other’. Therefore, I will shortly deviate from the chronological order of this chapter and go back in time, to discuss some important information which contributes to the understanding of how Christians viewed the Eucharist.
From the early Middle Ages onwards, a growing theological dispute on the meaning of the
Eucharistic body of Christ was going on. This development already started in the 9th-century,
when a materialist movement among scholars such as Paschasius Radbertus (9th-century)
stressed the carnal character of the consecrated host. According to the movement, bread and
wine transform into ‘exactly the same body that Christ had received from the Virgin Mary’.46
43 Stacey 1998: 14. 44 Ibid.
45 De Keyser 1963: 226-230. Transl.: 'They wounded the child with many wounds, with knives and blades.’ (My
translation, J.K.)
15
In the following two centuries, this material understanding was however contested by scholars who underlined Christ’s spiritual instead of his physical presence. One of them was the theologian Berengar of Tours (999-1088) who discussed the physical impossibility of Christ’s carnal presence in the host as ‘a portion of the flesh of Christ cannot be present on the altar
unless the body of Christ in heaven is cut up and a particle...is sent down to the altar.’47
Instead, he argued that Christ could only be spiritually present. Berengar’s view however encountered resistance. At the Council of Vercelli held in September 1050 by Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), he was accused of heresy and forced to renounce his symbolic-spiritualistic
view by accepting the carnal interpretation of the consecrated host.48 The inner-church debate
about the consecrated host of the Eucharist continued in the 12th-century when the theologian
Hugh of St Victor (1096-1141) refused to make the Eucharist theoretically understandable neither through an interpretation underlining the physical character nor through an interpretation emphasizing the spiritual one. He proposed a mystical interpretation, because ‘here [in the consecrated host of the Eucharist] is a marvel indeed. The flesh that is eaten
below remains whole in the heavens’.49
1.6 Eucharistic devotion and institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi
At the beginning of the 13th-century, the ambiance within the Church was marked by a great
inner-ecclesiastical disagreement about the right interpretation of the consecrated host of the Eucharist. The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215 by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) tempered the debate. It solemnly proclaimed the teaching of transubstantiation according to
which Christ would be present in the consecrated host.50 On the one hand, the council allayed
the above-mentioned theological dissent. On the other hand, the council reacted to the growing popularity of the Eucharist. This trend went parallel to a developing adoration of saints and relics that however trigged private devotion which was believed to go against the doctrine of the Church. In order to prevent a similar private uncontrollable veneration of the host, the teaching of 1215 should steer the cult around the Eucharist into a direction that was
in line Church doctrine.51
47 Ibid.
48 Mc Clintock & Strong 1880. The information about the Council of Vercelli is to be found on
www.biblicalcyclopdia.org. This is a digitalized version of Mc Clintock & Strong’s 1880 Biblical Cyclopaedia.
49 Chidester 2000: 230. 50 Ibid.
16
The popularity of the Eucharist especially gained a foothold at several beguinages in Northern Europe, where women from the Beguine Order practiced an intense devotion concentrated on
Christ’s passion and the object representing him: the consecrated host.52 One of them was
Juliana of Liège (1192-1258). Since 1220 she would have received several visions that contained a moon missing a wedge. This image would refer to the absence of a feast of the
Eucharist. 53 The clergy of Liège embraced Juliana’s proposition to establish a feast in honour
of the Eucharist, as it would strengthen the belief in the doctrine of the 1215 council in a
‘public, joyous and affirmative manner.’54 In 1246, Prince-Bishop Robert of Thourotte
(beginning 13th-century - 1246) established the Feast of Corpus Christi in Liège held on the
second Thursday after Pentecost.55 Some religious factions however forced Juliana to leave
the city, as they believed the Eucharist could not be captured in one feast.56 Nevertheless, the
feast spread to neighbouring countries. Pope Urban IV (1261-1265) finally acknowledged the Feast of Corpus Christi as a celebration for the Catholic Church by a papal bull in August 1264.57
Meanwhile, medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) elaborated on the 1215 doctrine of transubstantiation. Aquinas emphasized that transubstantiation refers to the belief of bread and wine remaining unchanged while its essence is transformed into the body
and blood of Christ.58 His theological concept also had an impact on the liturgy of the Feast of
Corpus Christi: in five hymns created for the solemnity’s liturgy, Aquinas poetically described how to approach the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In the hymn Adoro te devote he depicts how God is present in bread and wine when stating in the first
verse: Adoro te devote, latens deitas, quæ sub his figuris vere latitas.59 In this way, the 1215
proclaimed doctrine of transubstantiation became employed in the Catholic liturgy of the Feast of Corpus Christi by poetic means. The theological concept expressed in poetical language may have contributed to the fact that a wide range of clergymen (and other people who understood Latin at that time) could come to a better understanding of the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist.
52 Rubin 2000: 16. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 18. 55 Dequeker 2000: 25. 56 Rubin 2000: 17. 57 Ibid. 15. 58 Chidester 2000: 230.
17
1.7 The Eucharistic body of Christ and ‘the Other’ in host desecration legends
As mentioned above, various medieval theologians pointed to Christ’s ecclesiastical body being endangered by Jews who were supposed to have a violent stance towards the Church. Having discussed the development of the Feast of Corpus Christi, I will now consider whether Christ’s Eucharistic body was also supposed to be exposed to danger. If this is the case, the question arises where the danger came from. Therefore, we have to go shortly back in time in the next section.
It was in Cologne, where a new tale of the Jewish role as antagonist of the body of Christ emerged. This happened in a time when the above-mentioned theological dispute about the Eucharist was developing. In 1126, Rupert (around 1070 – 1129), abbot of Deutz Abbey (situated in a borough of Cologne), argues that Jews were enemies of the Eucharist, willing to violate the consecrated host. In Anulus sive Dialogus inter Christianum et Iudaerum (1126) he states that the continuation of Jews maltreating Christ’s body through violating the
consecrated host in their synagogues is even worse than having killed him on the cross.60
It was in the 13th-century, when the belief of a supposed maltreatment of the Eucharist
developed rapidly. It started with the tale Adam of Bristol (late 13th-century), one of the last
ritual murder legends. The legend also contains Eucharistic elements that established a narrative foundation for later host desecration legends. On the one hand, the tale narrates about Jews violating the ecclesiastical body of Christ when Adam, a member of the Church, is said to be crucified by a community of Jews of Bristol. In line with similar tales, the tortured body miraculously manifests itself when Christ is said to utter the words ‘I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob...whom you persecute’ through the throat of the tortured
Christian boy.61 On the other hand, Robert Stacey indicates that the tale also contains several
associations between the Christian boy and the consecrated host of the Eucharist. The tale may convey the idea that the Jews would also endanger the Eucharist as the body of Christ, in addition to the Church as embodied in the boy. How? Stacey argues that in various narrative manners, Adam is identified with Christ, just as the consecrated host is identified with Christ. Furthermore, Stacey mentions the priest’s confession of sins before approaching the crucified body of Adam identified as Christ which corresponds to the Christian’s confession of sins at holy mass before approaching Christ’s Eucharistic body. The Eucharistic parallels can be
60 Abulafia 1994: 132. 61 Stacey 1998: 17.
18
explained from the legend’s period of origin, coinciding with the 13th-century development of
Eucharistic importance, which became framed into the narrative of ritual murder legends.62
The first narrative of a host desecration appeared in the year 1290 in Paris.63 Mitchel B.
Merback recounts the tale mentioning a Jew who supposedly seduces a Christian woman to steal a host from holy mass. In the further course of the tale, the Jew would burn the host and violate it with nails, hammers and knives upon which it starts bleeding and transforms into a crucifix. After the Jew has thrown the host into a lavatory, the ‘crime’ is revealed by another Christian woman (in variant versions of the Paris legend the ‘crime’ is revealed by the Jew’s son) who summons a priest. Finally, the Jew is executed on a pyre and his family is converted to Christianity. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) allowed Parisian citizens to build a commemorative shrine on the place of the purported host desecration in order to house the
violated host.64
The tale of Jewish host desecration intensified the hatred of Christians against Jews which
already started in early theological writings of the 4th-century and developed on a popular
level through the spreading of ritual murder legends from the 12th-century onwards. Luc
Dequeker, who did research on an apparent 14th century host desecration in Brussels, also
points to the host desecration legends as instruments giving shape to Christian anti-Judaism
that were amongst others responsible for the persecution and genocide of Jews.65 At the end
of the 13th-century, massacres took place in Germany and Austria, such as the
Rintfleisch-progrom of 1298 in Franconia, the northern region of Bavaria, at which around 5000 Jews
were killed. The pogrom started on the 20th of August 1298 and was executed by
Judenschläger (‘Jew-Killers’) under the direction of König Rintfleisch (‘King Rintfleisch’) as a reaction to the rumour of a host-desecration carried out in the city of Röttingen by a Jewish
community.66 David Chidester mentions a similar group of Judenschläger that destroyed
hundreds of Jewish communities in the southern region of Bavaria between 1336 and 1339.67
In many of these cases, shrines for the Bleeding Host were built at the locations where the host desecration was said to have taken place. The impression was given that the violence against the Jews was a reaction to their violent stance towards the Eucharistic body of Christ, 62 Ibid. 22. 63Merback 2005: 598. 64 Ibid. 65 Dequeker 2000: 8. 66 Lotter 2009. 67 Chidester 2000: 234.
19
which started bleeding after they had maltreated it. However, Merback critically questions this assumption. According to him, host desecration legends were rather used as an instrument to justify the elimination of Jews carried out for economical or political reasons. Religious
reasons would play a marginal role.68 I have doubts about Merback’s statement. Religious
reasons may have played an important role for the anti-Judaistic violence. In the Middle-Ages, Jews were frequently portrayed as perpetrators of Christ’s death. Medieval exegesis, art and drama dealing with Christ’s passion, created a context in which Jews were often
portrayed as the ostensible murderers of Christ (instead of the Roman soldiers).69 This
generated a malevolent attitude against Jews, due to the suspicion of having murdered a prominent figure around whom Christian practice of religion is centred. Due to this prevailing malicious attitude towards Jews based on religious reasons, it is plausible to presume that the physical violence against Jews was religiously motivated as well.
During the pogroms against Jews in southern Germany and Austria in the first half of the 14th
-century, they keep on being portrayed as a sign of offense in other parts of Germany. At that time, an increasing anti-Judaistic trend is perceptible in the city of Cologne, where Jews are more and more portrayed as a sign of offense. For instance, between 1308 and 1311 the so-called Judensau, a wood carving depicting Jews as a sow, was applied at one of the seats of
the choir stalls of Cologne Cathedral.70 In that way, medieval symbolism belonging to the
image of a sow, such as vice and the devil, were transferred to Jews and damaged their reputation. In 1349, Cologne Jews were explicitly related to violence against the Eucharist as the body of Christ. They were accused of a host desecration. This allegation is traceable in Chronique et Annales by Gilles le Muisit (1272-1352) mentioning Cologne Jews maltreating
a host.71 Although several historiographic writings mention a host desecration carried out in
Cologne, the actual tale itself is unfortunately not traceable, despite extensive research by the author of this thesis. However, the fact that several historians and scholars mention a host desecration in Cologne indicates that a tale of an ostensible Jewish maltreatment of a
consecrated host must exist. At the end of the 19th-century, the apparent host desecration in
Cologne is taken up by Carl Brisch who mentions that Cologne Jews were accused of Hostienschändung und ähnliche Verbrechen.72 More contemporary historians such as Luc Dequeker mention (he does not discuss it) the host desecration purportedly carried out by
68 Merback 2005: 602. 69 Jordan 1987: 47. 70 Marquardt 2004. 71 Lemaître 1906: 225.
20
Cologne Jews in the year 1349. In addition to accusations of ritual murder and well-poisoning, the accusation of a purported host-desecration was used as a justification for a
pogrom directed against Cologne Jews on the 23rd and 24th of August 1349, during which
Jews were murdered; their property was plundered and incendiary took place. 73
This chapter shows that the Feast of Corpus Christi is marked by a development interpreting Christ’s body in an ecclesiastical and Eucharistic manner. Ritual murder legends and host desecration legends set a narrative context in which Jews were portrayed as a threat to the respectively prevailing interpretations of the body of Christ. The ecclesiastical interpretation first originated by St Paul who stated that the unity of believers (Church) constitutes Christ’s
body, due to a common shared baptism. From the 4th – 13th-century (and onwards), several
theologians such as John of Chrysostom and Peter the Venerable stated that the Church would be endangered by Jews. These accusations became framed into ritual murder legends rising in
England in the 12th-century, in which Jews were blamed for executing innocent Christians.
From the 9th - 13th-century, the Eucharistic interpretation was subject to a theological dispute
between real and symbolic interpretations of Christ’s presence in the consecrated host. The 1215 doctrine of transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) led to a growing popularity of the Eucharist. In the midst of this development, Pope Urban IV (1261-1265) acknowledged the Feast of Corpus Christi for the Catholic Church. However, also the Eucharist was supposed to be endangered by Jews, as various host desecration legends indicate. In the next chapter, I will analyse a tale of ritual murder and two tales of host desecration and indicate how the Jews as ‘the Other’ are portrayed there.
73 Bönisch 2015: 4. More information concerning Jews and well-poisoning can be found at: Barzilay 2017: 1 –
21
2. The Jew as ‘the Other’ in medieval anti-Judaistic tales
In this chapter I am going to study how Jews are portrayed as ‘the Other’ in Van Sente Waerneer, Chronique et Annales de Gilles le Muisit and Het Sacrament van Mirakel. The first- and last-mentioned narrative accounts concern medieval anti-Judaistic narratives, whereas the second one is medieval annal-writing. I will distinguish between the ascribed relation of the mentioned Jews to (a) Christ’s ecclesiastical body and (b) Christ’s Eucharistic body. Moreover, I will study two groups of Jews: on the one hand, I study the portrayal of Jews as untrustworthy ‘Others’ outside the Church who purportedly maltreat Christ’s Eucharistic and Christ’s ecclesiastical body. On the other hand, I study the portrayal of Christianized Jews as liminal ‘Others’ said to be converted to Christianity, but in some cases purportedly maltreat Christ’s Eucharistic and Christ’s ecclesiastical body
In order to examine how the texts portray Jews as ‘the Other’, I will make use of a theory by Jean-François Staszak. He states that ‘the Other’ is created in a discursive manner, which is a
strategy through which ‘the Other’ as opposed to ‘the Self’ can be construed.74 This means
that the way how the texts narrate about Jews serves as a means of segregation between the Jews as ‘the Other’ and Christians as ‘the Self’. This is achieved by using language to apply a certain role to Jews, entailing specific character traits and designations, which distinguish/ exclude them from the Christian community. As the following analysis will show, language serves as an instrument by which Jews as ‘the Other’ are discursively excluded from Christians as ‘the Self’.
Before diving into the examination of the tales, I want to emphasize that I do not study historical facts, but rather narratives presented as historiography which have an ideological aim. I will analyse the Christian/ internal discourse.
2.1 Van Sente Waerneer (a narrative about a purported event in 1287)
In 1893, Napoléon de Pauw edited Van Sente Waerneer, based on versions of a 13th-century
and a 14th-century tale written in Middle Dutch language. In this chapter, I will study a
paraphrase of De Pauw’s work written in modern Dutch language by Paul de Keyser in 1963. The paraphrase is about the 16-years-old boy Werner, who is said to be murdered by Jews living in Bacharach (a village in the south-west of Germany which belonged at that time to the archdiocese of Trier) around Easter in the year 1287. It is an example of medieval
22
Judaistic narratives employed against European Jews, based on the accusation of crucifying Christ by murdering Christian boys. The narrative about Werner’s murder is mentioned in one chronicle, one hagiography and four literary sources which will be chronologically introduced below.
2.1.1 Context and content of Van Sente Waerneer
The oldest historical source mentioning the accusation of Jews of having murdered Werner is the (1) Gesta Boemundi, a Latin chronicle of the diocese of Trier named after Archbishop
Boemund (died December 1299). It is dated at the end of the 13th-century and gives a
chronicle of the years 1260-99.75 A literary source deals with two 13th-century (2) Middle
Dutch verse legends about Werner, found in manuscript-form in Oxford and Oudenaarde. Regarding the tale’s language, it can be considered as an example of the territorial expansion of the cult of Werner. Another literary source concerns (3) a Middle High German verse
legend written on a wooden tablet in the 14th-century located in the Chapel of St Werner in
Bacharach. Today, the object does not exist anymore. The content of the source is only to be found in Latin in (4) De S. Wernhero Puero, a hagiography written in 1429 by Winand von Steeg, a priest in Bacharach. It is a report about the ritual murder of Werner addressed to the Roman curia, the Archbishop of Trier and Palatine Louis III (1378-1436). It was meant to initiate a canonization of Werner (which did not take place, as Pope Martin V (1417-1431)
was not convinced of Werner’s holiness).76 Furthermore, (5) Passio antique s. Wernheri and
(6) Nova Historia are the titles of two Latin prose legends also belonging to the literary
versions of the tale. They can be dated at the beginning of the 15th-century, as they are also
written by Winand von Steeg.77 The reference to a supposed host desecration is a unique
feature of these two prose legends. In contrast to the other sources, they mention that Jews would have murdered Werner, to obtain a consecrated host, which he is said to have
consumed on Holy Thursday.78
De Pauw’s work is based on the two Middle Dutch verse legends from manuscripts in the
Bodleian Library in Oxford (Leven van Sinte Warneer, 13th-14th-century) and the library of
Oudenaarde (Leven van Werner end 13th, beginning 14th-century).79 The last-mentioned tale
was supposedly written in the 13th-century by Martijn van Torhout, a priest who may have
75 Pauer & Rautenberg 2006: 9. 76 Ibid.
77 Ibid. 5. 78 Ibid. 12.
23
heard about Werner from a preacher. De Pauw used both the Oxford version and the Oudenaarde version for Van Sente Waerneer. His work was published in Middelnederlandsche Gedichten en Fragmenten, a collection of three volumes of Middle Dutch poems and fragments, published by the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie between 1893-97. The tale about Werner of Bacharach is to be found in the second volume called Geestelijke en Zedelijke Gedichten van het zoogezegde Rijmboek van Oudenaarde uit het Klooster van Eename en toegeschreven aan Martijn van Torhout (1893) in VIII Van sente Waerneer (211). In 1963, Paul de Keyer’s paraphrased De Pauw’s Van sente Waerneer which he published as De legende van S. Werner. De uitgave van ‘Sente Waerneer’ in het licht van de briefwisseling Nap. de Pauw – Guido Gezelle.
I will now summarize De Keyser’s paraphrase, dealing with the 16-years-old Werner from Bacharach, the son of the Jews Ysaak and his wife. After the boy’s birth, his parents brought him to a church (the paraphrase does not mention where the church is located), where he was baptised. After Ysaak and his wife realized that they were living in an illegal marriage, they confessed this to their bishop who divorced them. In a new marriage, they got new children, but abandoned Werner. After a while of wandering around, Werner is said to accompany a priest for a communion of the sick, during which he sees how a consecrated host miraculously returns into the priest’s drum for the host. Later (the paraphrase does not explicitly mention the moment), Werner arrives at Ysaak’s house where he is welcomed by Ysaak’s wife, who sends him to the basement. There, Werner is said to be attacked and murdered by the Jews who were there. Following the paraphrase, the murder follows the purported pattern of annually killing a kristen kind, blank, blozend en rooskleurig to obtain their blood by which
the Jews could produce ‘their sacrament’ at the Passover feast.80 After three days of
maltreatment, Werner died. His corpse was hidden in a bush behind a range of stones on Maundy Thursday. This happened after a failed attempt to throw him in the River Main, where his corpse kept floating on the water. When he was found a short while afterwards, a consecrated host in his corpse was said to spread a sweet smell. The boy was then buried in a chapel dedicated to Saint Cunibert (600-664), the ninth bishop of Cologne, located in Bacharach. There, his remains were said to perform miracles which made many pilgrims visit his grave.81
80 Ibid. 228. Transl.: ‘...a Christian child, white, blushing and rosy...’ (My translation, J.K.). 81 Ibid. 226-230.
24
Generally, Van Sente Waerneer is similar to the content of other historical and literary sources. However, a difference can be found regarding Werner’s corpse. Whereas Van Sente Waerneer situates the hideout in a shrub, De S. Wernhero Puero mentions a stream in which
he was left behind.82 This is supposed to have taken place after a failed transport (due to
divine intervention) of his corpse to the city of Mainz.83 Furthermore, the Gesta Boemundi
mentions a farmer who is said to have found Werner’s corpse in a field.84 The Gesta
Boemundi differs from De Keyser’s text as it gives information about the finding place as well as the person discovering Werner. The paraphrase only states: toen het lichaam korte tijd nadien ontdekt werd...85 In that case, one can only speculate about the finding place and person.
The various narratives about the supposed murder of Werner by Jews of Bacharch had a great influence on the local population. It caused a reaction culminating in a range of persecution
waves in the area Rhine-Moselle.86 According to Pauer & Rautenberg, the violence, killing
around 321 – 600 Jews, was one of the biggest persecutions since the first crusades starting in
the year 1096.87 The spreading violence against Jews was however contested by King
Rudolph of Habsburg (1218-1291). After having received 20.000 Mark by the Jews living in the area around Bacharach, he tried to reduce the cult of Werner by demanding the burning of
the corpse of Werner.88
2.1.2 The portrayal of the relation between Werner’s parents and the ecclesiastical body of Christ
Having situated the tale about Werner in its historical-cultural context, I will now study how Van Sente Waerneer creates Jews as ‘the Other’. In the tale, two ‘types’ of Jews can be found, who can be interpreted as ‘the Other’ due to specific characteristics ascribed to them. The first group concerns Werner’s parents, said to be married as a Christian couple, however nochtans op onwettige wijze, waardoor de kerk bedrogen werd.89 Thus, they outwardly convey the impression of being formally part of the Church, as they are said to have ritually sealed their marital union following Catholic regulations. However, the tale also surfaces the illegal
82 Pauer & Rautenberg 2006: 11. 83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 De Keyser 1963: 229. Transl.: ‘When the corpse was found a short while afterwards...’ (My translation, J.K.) 86 Pauer & Rautenberg 2006: 5.
87 Ibid. 28. 88 Ibid. 30.
89 De Keyser 1963: 226. Transl.: ‘...however in an illegal manner, through which they deceived the Church.’ (My
25
context in which the marriage took place. In that way, the impression is given that Werner’s parents knowingly (indicated by besef je wel dat we samen onwettig leven?) used the
sacrament of matrimony under false pretences.90 They seem to have an indifferent attitude
towards the ecclesiastical sacraments. This characteristic ascribed to Ysaak and his wife can be considered as a criterion by which they excluded themselves from the Church and take up the role of ‘the Other’. This happens through the supposed rejection of ecclesiastical teachings meant to unite the community of faithful into a common practice and understanding of matrimony.
Following the tale, Ysaak and his wife however regret their illegal matrimony and confess it to their bishop. He divorces the couple according to the teachings of the Church and advises
them to restrain from sins.91 A while after their divorce the bishop remarries Werner’s
parents. In their new matrimony, the couple has more children to which they are said to be more affectionate than to Werner. Therefore, they expel him from their home and wish to not
see him again.92 Through this outwardly expressed behaviour and inwardly present sentiments
ascribed to Ysaak and his wife, the image of ‘bad parents’ arises. Their deed also has implications for the Eucharistic body of Christ. Because Werner became part of the Church through his baptism, his parents do not only disown their son, but also expel an outstanding
member of the Church die zo uitblonk boven allen door zijn deugden.93 In a Paulinian way,
they could even be accused of harming all members of the Church, for ‘if one part (of Christ’s
ecclesiastical body) suffers, every part suffers with it’.94 Thus, the Ysaak and his wife again
seem to be consciously responsible for their exclusion from the Church through expelling and harming a member of it.
Through both their initial indifferent attitude towards the sacrament of marriage and their disaffected care for a member of the Church, their own son, the paraphrase distances them from Christ’s ecclesiastical body. Ysaak and his wife are however said to regret their illegal marriage and confess it to their bishop who divorces them. Moreover they are said to marry again. Through these aspects, Werner’s parents are portrayed as members of the Church. Regarding the purportedly ambiguous relation towards Christ’s ecclesiastical body, they thus appear to be liminal ‘Others’.
90 Ibid. 226. Transl.: ‘Do you know that we live illegally in sin?’ (My translation, J.K.) 91 Ibid. 227.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid. Transl.: ‘...who excelled through his virtues...’ 94 1. Cor. 12:26.
26
2.1.3 The portrayal of the relation between Werner’s tormentors and the ecclesiastical body of Christ
The second ‘type’ of Jews who can be considered as ‘the Other’, concerns the tormentors maltreating Werner in the basement of Ysaak’s house. In the case of his parents, specific descriptions of attitudes and practices resulted in their portrayal of ‘the Other’. With regard to Werner’s violators, there are two appellations repetitively applied to them evoking certain associations that create a portrayal of ‘the Other’. The term meester is the first appellation. When Werner returns to the house of his parents (the tale does not mention the reason for his
return), his mother states: Welkom, lieve Werner, uwe meester wacht op u.95 In a later
stadium, she states that je meester needs his (Werner’s) help. While describing the maltreatment of Werner conducted by the Jews present in the basement of the house, the author explains that every year, the Jews maken zich meester of a Christian child to be
murdered.96 By applying the term meester, a clear power relationship between the Jewish
tormentor as the master and Werner as the pupil is insinuated. Regarding the term meester one would assume that the tormentor derives his otherness in a respectful manner from an appellation opening a wide range of positive associations such as prudence and support. In that way, one would expect a power-relationship, in which Werner is in safe hands. Werner’s maltreatment by the Jews however does not fulfil the expected role of a master. As we will see below, the meester rather seems to abuse the authority belonging to his appellation. Through this incongruity of expected behaviour and practiced behaviour, the Jews can be interpreted as ‘the Other’ who cannot be trusted in a master-pupil relation, just as the earlier parent-child relation.
We know that when Werner arrives at his parents’ house, his tormentors start maltreating him. They are said to [grijpen] het kind met geweld vast en [vertrappelen] het...[en slaan] het kind met messen en priemen.97 Throughout the further description of the torture, the text uses terms of abuse to condemn their behaviour. Werner’s tormentors are called de joden...de honden...de vuile joden...de stinkende honden.98 By applying the term ‘dog’ to the Jews, an appellation with biblical roots is chosen. ‘Dog’ is frequently mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, such as in
95 De Keyser 1963: 228. Transl.: ‘Welcome, dear Werner, your master is waiting for you’. (My translation, J.K.) 96 Ibid. Transl.: kidnap. This word is only a suggestion. The expression ‘zich meester maken’ cannot be
translated into English language.
97 Ibid. 229. Transl.: ‘...violently grab the child and trample it...and hit the child with knives and lancets.’ (My
translation, J.K.)
27
Psalm 21:17 which states: ‘for many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have pierced my hands and feet’. In the New Testament, the Apostle
Paul applies the term to the enemies of Philippi.99 According to the Church Fathers, the term
‘dog’ refers to both vice and virtue.100 It came to be known as a term of insult referring to
Jews, Muslims and Christian heretics.101 ‘Dog’ also had a positive connotation with regard to
their guard-function as protectors of their masters. In the case of the tale, the term is however an invective, suiting the violent acts carried out against Werner. Both in the case of the Jews called meester as well as in the case of the Jews called honden, an appellation is used emphasising their role as the evil religious ‘Other’ threatening a member of the Church.
We thus see that the relation between the Jews in Ysaak’s basement and Werner as a member of Christ’s ecclesiastical body manifests itself through two expressive ascriptions clarifying the power imbalance between the two agents. On the one hand this is achieved by the term meester, a role which fits the Jews portrayed as the ‘dominant Other’ exercising his power over a member of the Church. On the other hand, the appellation honden emphasises the violent attitude towards Werner. Both appellations strengthen the role of the Jews as the dominant and brutal ‘Other’.
De Keyser’s paraphrase does not mention Werner’s parents during the torture and murder of the boy in Ysaak’s basement. Thus, they do not seem to be directly involved in the violence against their son. The practices marking the Jews in Ysaak’s basement as ‘the Other’ can thus not be applied to Werner’s parents. However, regarding the fact that Ysaak’s wife pushes Werner into the basement, after he arrived at the house, she is portrayed as a person who functions as the enabler of her son’s maltreatment. She delivers Werner to his executioners. In this way, Ysaak’s wife can be compared to Judas, who hands over Jesus to the Roman soldiers in the narration of his passion in the four canonical gospels. In a later stadium of the narrative, a Christian handmaiden staying in the house of Werner’s parents is mentioned, who is said to have noticed Werner’s maltreatment. When Ysaak’s wife gets wind of this, she is said to try to convince the handmaiden to enter the basement, who however refuses. The narrative does not mention the reason for the intention of the wife of Ysaak. Perhaps she wanted to prevent that the handmaiden informed other people about Werner’s maltreatment. Thus, Ysaak’s wife is portrayed as a person who tries to ensure an undisturbed continuation of the happenings in the basement. Through her role ‘behind the scenes’ as the enabler of
99 Phil. 3:2.
100Ferreiro 1998: 63-73. 101 Ibid.
28
Werner’s maltreatment and the ‘guard’ for its continuation, the text portrays her as ‘the Other’ who is co-responsible for the torture and death of her son. The text does not mention Werner’s father Ysaak during the torture and death of his son.
2.1.4 The portrayal of the relation between Werner and the ecclesiastical body of Chirst
Regarding the above-said, Ysaak and his wife seem to be liminal ‘Others’ in the tale. They shortly appear to be trustworthy members of the Church regarding their second marriage which is said to have taken place under ‘legal’ ecclesiastical conditions. However their apparent untrustworthiness dominates their portrayal regarding (1) their first illegal marriage, (2) the abandonment of Werner and (3) his mother’s role at his maltreatment. The relationship of Werner’s parents towards the Church thus seems to be ambiguous. The tale portrays their son Werner having a clearer stance towards the Church. This happens through the reference to his baptism, a sacrament functioning as a premise to become incorporated into Christ’s ecclesiastical body. Hence, Werner has a Christian religious origin, whereas he also has a Jewish ethnic identity as he is born of Jewish parents. Thus, both Werner and his parents blur the lines between a Christian protagonist and a Jewish protagonist. However, Ysaak and his wife are foremost portrayed as untrustworthy members of the Church, whereas Werner is portrayed as an innocent member of it.
Except for the information of Werner’s Jewish ethnic origin, the tale mainly focuses on his belonging to Christ’s ecclesiastical body. On the one hand, he ‘actively’ integrates into the Church. This happens, when he accompanies a priest of Bacharach to a communion of the sick, where he is said to engage in kneeling. The paraphrase states: Terwijl ze knielden, knielde hij ook.102 The boy is thus portrayed as a Christian who actively and visibly shares in a common (Christian) practice expressing awe and humility. On the other hand, Werner is ‘passively’ integrated into the Church by the priest he accompanies. After the boy informs the cleric about a Eucharistic miracle he witnessed (Werner sees the host handed over to the sick returning into a drum), the priest nam [Werner] toen aanstonds zonder dralen [...] in zijn armen.103 The boy thus seems to be acknowledged by a representative of the Church (even known as deputy of Christ) through a gesture expressing affection and protection. The priest also ‘incorporates’ Werner into the Church by a verbal act. When embracing the boy, the
102 De Keyser 1963: 227. Transl.: ‘While they were kneeling, he also knelt.’ (My translation, J.K.) 103 Ibid. 228. Transl.: ‘...embraced Werner at once without delay.’ (My translation, J.K.)
29
cleric states that he is loved by God ons aller Vader. 104 Assuming that the priest refers to
members of the Church when talking about ons allen, then also Werner can be considered to be part of the ecclesiastical body as he is affirmed to participate in a commonly shared divine love.
2.1.5 The portrayal of the relation between the Jews and the Eucharistic body of Christ
Thus far, we have discussed the role of Ysaak and his wife, their son’s tormentors and Werner himself. The relation between the three ‘types’ of Jews towards Christ’s ecclesiastic body differs. Both, Werner’s parents, portrayed as liminal ‘Other’s and their son’s tormentors, portrayed as ‘Others’, seem to have a rather malicious attitude towards Christ’s ecclesiastical body. Werner, the third ‘type’, appears to be a respected and beloved member of the Church. Let us complete this chapter by taking a look at the relation between Werner’s parents and their son’s tormentors towards Christ’s Eucharistic body.
Whereas the portrayed power-relationship between the Jews and the Church seems to be more advantageous for the Jews, it is certainly not the case when it comes to their relation towards the Eucharist. After Werner’s death, one would not expect a consecrated host present in his body being able to manifest itself, due to its ruined ‘habitat’. (The text does not mention how and when Werner eats the consecrated host. Perhaps this happened during the earlier mentioned communion of the sick.) However, it reveals itself in a remarkable manner as it is
said to spread a sweet smell.105 What does this mean? On the one hand, it shows that the
outrage of the Jewish maltreatment of Werner is not infinite, but has its limits. This is indicated in an embarrassing manner, as the boy’s tormentors do not seem to be able to destroy an object of such a low material strength. On the other hand, the motif emphasizes the apparent power of the consecrated host as Christ’s Eucharistic body, able to withstand the heaviest maltreatment. In that sense, the Jews mentioned in the tale could relate to the Eucharistic body of Christ as its promoters, because their acts are said to cause a reaction by the host which would lead to a strengthening of the doctrine of transubstantiation as proclaimed in 1215.
After the reference to the host in Werner’s body, the Jews in the basement and Werner’s parents seem to be ‘switched off’ in the tale. Their ‘contribution’ to the narrative of the tale
104 Ibid. 229. Transl.: ‘...the Father of us all...’ (My translation, J.K.) 105 Ibid. 230.
30
stops at this point. We do not know how the Jews react upon the remarkable manifestation of the host. Beyond the tale, we however know how the local population reacted towards the local Jews accused of having murdered Werner. As the above-discussed historical sources show, their response caused a great number of Jewish victims.
2.1.6 The portrayal of the Jews’ fate
How does Van Sente Waerneer talk about the fate of the Jews? Indeed, we stated that the Jews do not actively contribute to the narrative after the Werner’s body reacts. However, the last three sentences shortly portray the fate of the Jews after the host desecration. The tale mentions an angry mob ranging against the Jews, of whom a great number was killed. This information is of a rather superficial nature. The author’s emotions are not mentioned. Moreover, it does not specify who the people are and which Jews and how many of them have been murdered. The information only insinuates a relationship between Christians and Jews, characterized by the fury of the first group against the second one. The second and last sentences are more subjective, regarding the use of the term gruweldaden (‘attorcities’). Thus, the reader gets to know how the Jews’ fate is characterized. However, the fact that the term pogrom is set between quotation marks reduces the gravity that the term stands for (it refers to a total destruction). In that way the discourse around the Jews becomes less expressive.
