One of the more interesting threads that class picked up was about exactly how permeable the boundary between Christians and Pagans is. The pagans can, of course, convert and become Christian but up until this point we do not see "Ganelon that wrought the treachery" slip through the border in the other direction.
Narratively, no matter what the second half brings, Ganelon can never and will never be thought of as a pagan. If he was to do so, the entire structure of The Song of Roland would fall to pieces. The Song, at it's very core, is a narrative of difference and while the Pagans(Them) could be consumed by the Christians (Us), the reverse will never be true because then we'd have a narrative based on positive relation and not negative relation.
Jonathan Goldberg, discussing Bowers v. Hardwick in the introduction to Sodometries (sadly not available online, but if anyone wants to read it, I can easily make copies), says that "homosexuals and heterosexuals are so immutably different that their acts could never be the same - even when they are" (11). This seems most evident in laises 67-79, when the Paynim's are being introduced one by one. Margaris of Seville, described as "so beautiful is he, she that beholds him has a smile on her lips...And there's no Paynim his match for chivalry" (89), reads very much like a description one would expecting to read in reference to the French hordes. While there is slight undercutting by mentioning that no Paynim is his match - obviously the lowest of the Christians would outshine him, his beauty is still presented as favorably as, say, Oliver's wit.
On the other hand, Estorgan and Estramarin are "foul felons both and knavish traitors" who seel to assail Roland(88). The exact words used to describe Ganelon are used to describe these particular Paynims. That should make them at least structurally similar characters yet Ganelon never loses his status and becomes a Paynim. He can't. His acts will never be the same - even when they are.
The only driving distinction between Ganelon and the Pagans is simply a negative relation. This negative relation between Us/Them is in name only, however, that does mean it's also a false relation. Margaris will never be Oliver because without him would have no way to construct Oliver. Ganelon will never be pagan because such a transition would show the flimsy relation of the boundary the entire poem is based on. The road into Us is one way only and, more importantly, must be one way only.
Showing posts with label Ganelon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ganelon. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Ganleon’s Embodiment of the Monstrous & Roland’s Transformation into an Other
The introduction to, “The Song of Roland,” stresses that the story takes place during a time period where notions associated with the construct of masculine strength or ‘virtue’ were elevated to such a degree that they cultivated a society of ‘war,’ engraining people’s actions, interactions, and ideology. This mode of thinking or way of being, I think, after reading the first section of this story, made the character’s acts even more severe, desperate, and held repercussions that pushed them towards embodying the ‘monstrous’ or the ‘other.’ Ultimately, characters such as Ganleon and Roland, live in a society or culture that seems to heighten their human capacity to hate or love, while transforming them into beings that become monstrous, or ‘other.’
From the very beginning the reader becomes suspicious of Ganelon, for little by little we discover the treacherous trap he builds for his fellow men, siding with Marsilion out of the anger and jealousy he feels towards Roland. On page sixty-four, verse twenty-five, Ganelon drops Charlemayn’s glove, and the men take it as an omen, symbolic, not as an ‘act that instills authority,’ but one that foreshadows an evil event or circumstance in the future. From this point on, Ganelon begins his transformation into the ‘monstrous,’ and this is reinforced by the way he advises Marsilion, and sets up the trap for the French’s downfall. To be considered ‘Monstrous,’ I think, not only involves appearing as an animal, shocking, hideous, or frightful, but having a ‘monstrous’ nature, that deviates from the established, accepted, and ‘natural’ order. Ganelon does this repeatedly when assuming the identity of a ‘valiant’ knight in the beginning, through his manipulation of Charlemayn, in the way he betrays Roland and his other fellow knights, and by his acts that continuously push the French into a trap and foretells their doom during the first section of the story. Ganelon never makes a ‘heroic deed,’ nor does he exhibit notions of ‘masculine virtue,’ and if we were to associate the ‘jealousy’ or hate he has towards Roland as stemming from his ‘monstrous nature,’ and heightened by the culture he lives in, he embodies the ‘monstrous,’ for it is his nature that quite literally transforms him into a monster. On page one-hundred-twenty-one he is disfigured and treated like an animal for his acts: ‘his beard is plucked from his face’; his body is beaten and one hears the ‘pounding’ and ‘thumps’; and ‘chain’ or collar is put around his neck as if he were an animal. Ganelon is also seen like a ‘bear in a cage.’ In Christianity, if we were to take the fight of David against the bear, as symbolizing the conflict of Christ and the Devil, Ganelon’s association with the bear reinforces his embodiment of the ‘devil,’ of evil and cruelty, notions we may associate with the ‘monstrous.’ Although Roland represents those forces that oppose Ganelon and all that he stands for, he surpasses ‘masculine virtue,’ nobility, and power, and moves into a realm where he embodies the ‘other,’ something that’s more than human and monstrous.
Roland is transformed into the ‘other’ by those notions associated with ‘masculine virtue,’ such as being noble, valiant, courageous, etc. On page seventy-nine he is equated with the ‘grey-hound,’ a dog, and becomes synonymous with not only fidelity and nobility, but watchfulness; he, like Christianity’s Good Shepherd, is the guardian of the flock, the French knights; this elevates him within his army, and I believe, pushes him towards encompassing the ‘other’ because he is different from those that surround him. Perhaps, an inherent quality within a character must be present, one that works towards alienating him or setting him apart from the majority, in order for him to exist not as a human, but as an ‘other?’ Roland’s character seems to illustrate this idea, and his acts on page one-hundred-twenty, reinforces this. Here, in verse 135, “Roland’s mouth with running blood is red…sounds his horn in anguish and distress,’ calling King Carlon. Roland is not only taking on the role of a protector, but is surpassing his human capacity. There’s an intensity so fierce in this passage, a strong tension between mortality and immortality, a state that suggests Roland could be something more than ‘human,’ for although he’s bleeding at the mouth, and has ‘burst asunder the temples in his head,’ he continues to sound his horn; his cry is the final act that reveals Ganleon’s monstrous nature, instills some hope in his men, and reinforces his ‘masculine virtue.’ In addition to this, once again, Roland is set apart from the majority, for he is elevated at a spiritual level, and this facilitates his transformation into the ‘other.’ Moreover, Roland becomes synonymous with God’s strength when associated with the ‘horn’: “The lord is my rock…my buckler, and the horn of my salvation” (Psalm 18:2). Also, the horn is associated with righteousness or strength that only God can grant: “There I will make the horn of David bud” (132:17). Simultaneously, Roland is God’s strength, and is also instilled with the strength of God, further elevating him on a spiritual plane, and transforming him into an ‘other.’
It will be interesting to see how elements within, “The Song of Roland,” push his human capacity, and facilitate his transformation into an ‘other.’ Although certain factors seem to point to his death, I predict his character will move away from his embodiment of the ‘other,’ into something more subliminal.
From the very beginning the reader becomes suspicious of Ganelon, for little by little we discover the treacherous trap he builds for his fellow men, siding with Marsilion out of the anger and jealousy he feels towards Roland. On page sixty-four, verse twenty-five, Ganelon drops Charlemayn’s glove, and the men take it as an omen, symbolic, not as an ‘act that instills authority,’ but one that foreshadows an evil event or circumstance in the future. From this point on, Ganelon begins his transformation into the ‘monstrous,’ and this is reinforced by the way he advises Marsilion, and sets up the trap for the French’s downfall. To be considered ‘Monstrous,’ I think, not only involves appearing as an animal, shocking, hideous, or frightful, but having a ‘monstrous’ nature, that deviates from the established, accepted, and ‘natural’ order. Ganelon does this repeatedly when assuming the identity of a ‘valiant’ knight in the beginning, through his manipulation of Charlemayn, in the way he betrays Roland and his other fellow knights, and by his acts that continuously push the French into a trap and foretells their doom during the first section of the story. Ganelon never makes a ‘heroic deed,’ nor does he exhibit notions of ‘masculine virtue,’ and if we were to associate the ‘jealousy’ or hate he has towards Roland as stemming from his ‘monstrous nature,’ and heightened by the culture he lives in, he embodies the ‘monstrous,’ for it is his nature that quite literally transforms him into a monster. On page one-hundred-twenty-one he is disfigured and treated like an animal for his acts: ‘his beard is plucked from his face’; his body is beaten and one hears the ‘pounding’ and ‘thumps’; and ‘chain’ or collar is put around his neck as if he were an animal. Ganelon is also seen like a ‘bear in a cage.’ In Christianity, if we were to take the fight of David against the bear, as symbolizing the conflict of Christ and the Devil, Ganelon’s association with the bear reinforces his embodiment of the ‘devil,’ of evil and cruelty, notions we may associate with the ‘monstrous.’ Although Roland represents those forces that oppose Ganelon and all that he stands for, he surpasses ‘masculine virtue,’ nobility, and power, and moves into a realm where he embodies the ‘other,’ something that’s more than human and monstrous.
Roland is transformed into the ‘other’ by those notions associated with ‘masculine virtue,’ such as being noble, valiant, courageous, etc. On page seventy-nine he is equated with the ‘grey-hound,’ a dog, and becomes synonymous with not only fidelity and nobility, but watchfulness; he, like Christianity’s Good Shepherd, is the guardian of the flock, the French knights; this elevates him within his army, and I believe, pushes him towards encompassing the ‘other’ because he is different from those that surround him. Perhaps, an inherent quality within a character must be present, one that works towards alienating him or setting him apart from the majority, in order for him to exist not as a human, but as an ‘other?’ Roland’s character seems to illustrate this idea, and his acts on page one-hundred-twenty, reinforces this. Here, in verse 135, “Roland’s mouth with running blood is red…sounds his horn in anguish and distress,’ calling King Carlon. Roland is not only taking on the role of a protector, but is surpassing his human capacity. There’s an intensity so fierce in this passage, a strong tension between mortality and immortality, a state that suggests Roland could be something more than ‘human,’ for although he’s bleeding at the mouth, and has ‘burst asunder the temples in his head,’ he continues to sound his horn; his cry is the final act that reveals Ganleon’s monstrous nature, instills some hope in his men, and reinforces his ‘masculine virtue.’ In addition to this, once again, Roland is set apart from the majority, for he is elevated at a spiritual level, and this facilitates his transformation into the ‘other.’ Moreover, Roland becomes synonymous with God’s strength when associated with the ‘horn’: “The lord is my rock…my buckler, and the horn of my salvation” (Psalm 18:2). Also, the horn is associated with righteousness or strength that only God can grant: “There I will make the horn of David bud” (132:17). Simultaneously, Roland is God’s strength, and is also instilled with the strength of God, further elevating him on a spiritual plane, and transforming him into an ‘other.’
It will be interesting to see how elements within, “The Song of Roland,” push his human capacity, and facilitate his transformation into an ‘other.’ Although certain factors seem to point to his death, I predict his character will move away from his embodiment of the ‘other,’ into something more subliminal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)