While reading through the blogs for "Roland", I noticed that Ines and Jolie had both touched upon the topics concerning Roland and Ganelon as potential Others in the poem. Although I agree with both posts, I wanted to suggest that there could be a deeper psychoanalytical reading of the text that is not apparent on the surface and can be argued by taking a deeper look at the text.
Dorothy Sayers introduction states "Roland has pointed out that the proposed mission is dangerous and that Marsilion is not to be trusted, he does not at once volunteer to bell the cat himself" (p. 11). Instead, Roland volunteers Ganelon, his step father adding that "I'll take your place if the King says I can (p.62), knowing full well that the King does not want Roland to partake on the mission.
It is interesting that Roland volunteers his stepfather. As Sayers also notes there is an unstated reason why Ganelon and Roland feel such animosity towards each other. Reading the text on a psychoanalytical level, it is apparent that Ganelon's relationship to Roland (being his stepfather indicates that Ganelon has in some way usurped the role of Roland's father and bedded Roland's mother). Here the poem presents an interesting take on the idea of projection. It can be argued that Roland feelings stem from an assumed Oedipean love for his mother and an unvoiced desire to kill his stepfather Ganelon. Therefore, Roland's volunteering Ganelon for the mission may not be as innocent as it seems.
On the other hand, it can be presumed that this is not the first instance of familial jealousy the two have shared. Ganelon's jealousy seems deeply seeded. Roland is after all Charles' right hand man. Ganelon anger is almost immediately too severe. He threatens Roland’s life because Roland has volunteered him. Yet, succeeding in this mission could bring Ganelon fame and glory. "I'll wreck on thee such ruin and such wrack / That thy life long my vengeance shall not slack" (p.62). There is more to Ganelon's anger than being volunteered for the task. He is jealous that Roland is so special to the King that he cannot be sent on this mission. Ganelon wants to occupy Roland's place.
Finally, Roland and Ganelon serve as two parts to a whole, the narcissistic duo. Roland is the cherished knight, loved by all. He has prowess in battle and is most importantly faithful to the end to the King. Ganelon is the complete opposite; he betrays the King and all of France over his jealousy of his stepson. When Roland nominates him for the mission all of the French quickly agree. "Quoth Roland: 'Guenes my step-sire is the man.' / The French all say: 'Indeed, he is most apt; / If he's passed over you will not find his match'" (p.62). Roland and Ganelon are complete opposites that make one uniform whole. What one is not, the other is. Roland without a doubt is all that Ganelon hopes to be, and perhaps in Roland there is a desire to be everything that Ganelon is.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Cross and the Crescent
In class we discussed how similar the two sides were in this story. The Saracen's were as strong, beautiful and valiant as the Christians, but the simply weren't Christian and such was the difference. After reading Roland, I enjoyed going back and reading about the historic battle from which this story sprung. The fact that it was a small guerrilla band of Basques, who were indigenous to Spain conquered by Charlemagne, makes Roland an astonishing change to history. The two sides were both Christian and the ambush was carried out by an inferior force during nighttime, which melted away following the attack. Hardly the story's force of 400,000 Saracens. In fact, these forces were different in all aspects except their religion.
So why would the story be twisted so heavily? Roland was written in the middle of the 12th century directly between crusades, and the enemy of course at the time was the Saracens. It becomes an obvious choice for the enemy of the story to be Roland. The story looks a lot like propaganda at this point, and what is the greatest strength of propaganda but to other the enemy and create him monstrous?
The acts of both sides are violent. But we actually see more violence from the Christians. Charlemagne smiles as his catapults tear down towers of a city. Roland desires to dye his sword "red high as the hilt with gore" (83). The Archbishop Turpin himself lays about with his crook and "flings him dead wherever he finds room" (114). The difference between this and the violence by the Paynims is that it all is done in the name of the right and honorable. Every attack by the Paymins is underhanded. The entire battle is based on treachery, and even the individual violent acts such as the death of Oliver has to be treacherous. The incident appears almost cowardly as Marganice "from behind deals Oliver a blow"(145). It seems as if no one could best a Christian in an honorable way. On the other hand the Christian might is blessed and virtuous never to be described as cowardly.
Neither side is normal in this fight. Both are are othered. The Paymins are obviously othered by Christian religion and by treachery making them the extreme villains of this story. The Franks are also elevated in this story by their death. By being absolved of all sin before death and facing it in such a heroic way, they become martyrs elevated above all others and on a direct path to heaven. In the exact opposite direction fly the Paymins as they sail to hell. They fight on the same field and yet the difference in treatment becomes too great to overwhelm. By othering both sides the author forces the reader to focus on the difference between them and in essence choose either "right" or "wrong".
It would have been interesting to see how this would have been written by a "Paymin" instead of the Christian author. In my opinion, though, it would simply have been a reverse of where the dead spiritually ended up and how the violent acts were described.
So why would the story be twisted so heavily? Roland was written in the middle of the 12th century directly between crusades, and the enemy of course at the time was the Saracens. It becomes an obvious choice for the enemy of the story to be Roland. The story looks a lot like propaganda at this point, and what is the greatest strength of propaganda but to other the enemy and create him monstrous?
The acts of both sides are violent. But we actually see more violence from the Christians. Charlemagne smiles as his catapults tear down towers of a city. Roland desires to dye his sword "red high as the hilt with gore" (83). The Archbishop Turpin himself lays about with his crook and "flings him dead wherever he finds room" (114). The difference between this and the violence by the Paynims is that it all is done in the name of the right and honorable. Every attack by the Paymins is underhanded. The entire battle is based on treachery, and even the individual violent acts such as the death of Oliver has to be treacherous. The incident appears almost cowardly as Marganice "from behind deals Oliver a blow"(145). It seems as if no one could best a Christian in an honorable way. On the other hand the Christian might is blessed and virtuous never to be described as cowardly.
Neither side is normal in this fight. Both are are othered. The Paymins are obviously othered by Christian religion and by treachery making them the extreme villains of this story. The Franks are also elevated in this story by their death. By being absolved of all sin before death and facing it in such a heroic way, they become martyrs elevated above all others and on a direct path to heaven. In the exact opposite direction fly the Paymins as they sail to hell. They fight on the same field and yet the difference in treatment becomes too great to overwhelm. By othering both sides the author forces the reader to focus on the difference between them and in essence choose either "right" or "wrong".
It would have been interesting to see how this would have been written by a "Paymin" instead of the Christian author. In my opinion, though, it would simply have been a reverse of where the dead spiritually ended up and how the violent acts were described.
Friday, September 7, 2007
An Imposing Culture
In Orientalism, Edward Said asserts “One ought never to assume that the structure of Orientalism is nothing more than a structure of lies or of myths which, were the truth about them to be told, would simply blow away.” (Norton 1995) His sentiment resonates with the complex and interwoven nature of West/East colonialism, but the nature of difference in The Song of Roland is far flimsier. The author constructs the political relationship between the Franks and the Spanish without a language barrier and without misunderstand of the hierarchical structure of vassalage and lordship. The pagan knights are considered equally valiant, and they would easily be integrated into the Frankish political ranks, if only their professed religion were Christianity.
The cultural oversimplifications indicate that while there is clear demarcation of the pagan Other from the Christian, it is an insubstantial barrier to cross. It merely requires a confessional change. It’s significant that the French/Westerners see no insurmountable cultural difference. Their only concern is that the pagans profess their devotion to Christianity. In a sense, the cultural, racial, and geographical differences their opponents present are an illusion, and that the truth of Christianity will eliminate the interrelated structures of difference.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Why Can't Ganeleon Be the Other
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.
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.
I Have to Keep Reminding Myself that They're Monsters
While l0oking over some of the medievalist blogs linked to this one, I came across a classroom anecdote relevant to this course, and particularly relevant, I think, to The Song of Roland. Briefly, in a discussion of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, a student remarked about the Green Knight, "I have to keep reminding myself he's a monster," which (apparently) prompted further discussion off of the question, "What happens when something occupies the place where a monster should go but isn't in fact that monstrous?"
I think this connects to Roland insofar as in this text, the "Paynims" occupy the place where a monster should go but aren't, to some extent, that "monstrous," that is, that unfamiliar and profoundly differentiated. I, for one, often had to remind myself that they are meant to be effectively monsters; what is more, the poet also has to periodically remind himself of this fact.
Another way of possibly getting at this is via Beowulf (sorry to be continually getting ahead of our reading list in this post...). In that poem, Beowulf, and the Geats and Danes generally, confront two classes of enemies: supernatural opponents like Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, who are very definitely monstrous and almost otherworldly, and merely human opponents, rival tribes like the Swedes or the Heathobards, who part of the same culture and society.
Roland telescopes these two classes of "other" into one. Obviously, the Saracens take on a monstrous role: they are the postulated enemies of God, diametrically opposed to the Christian French in that sense. The poet attributes to them an extravagantly demonic religion that periodically acquires associations of Satanism and dark sorcery. Some of their champions get explicitly labeled as evil, followers of sin and vice as an apparent moral imperative: "Then first rides out a Saracen, Abisme..../ Better he loves murder and treachery / Than all the gold that is in Galicie" (108). From time to time, something like a racial differentiation appears; Abisme is "black...as melted pitch," and the "accursed tribesmen" from "Ethiope, a land accursed and vile" who swarm up against the last French survivors are likewise "Negro tribes," "black as ink from head to foot" (125). In such instances, the poem marks its oppositional figures as a different order of humanity, if not almost entirely inhuman.
And yet, while being in certain instances so profoundly "othered," the Paynims simultaneously participate in the same social context as the French. If in some ways they are more weird and demonic than real 11th-century Muslims would have been, in other ways they are far closer to the French and have more in common with them. They share the same feudal codes and institutions, the same tactics, weaponry, and conventions of battle, and many of the same standards of behavior. For every near-monstrous Saracen peer, there is at least another who is "a good knight and gallant" (114). More than once, the poet has to near-audibly stifle his explicit admiration and avowal of kinship with these Paynim foes and remind himself that they are "monsters": "Were he but Christian, right knightly he'd appear" (87), or, as the poet says of Baligant, Charlemagne's double as the leader and exemplar of the entire Saracen world, "Were he but Christian, God! what a warrior" (172).
I think it's safe to say, then, that this dynamic of mingled "othering" and commonality with the "Paynims" problematizes Roland considerably, or (a better way to put it) makes it a lot more interesting. In reading about the Crusades, for example, I have come across the idea that the Franks persistently made Islam out to be such a bizarre, polytheistic demonic mishmash (even after they had been living in the Middle East for some time and could no longer plead ignorance in the way that the poet of Roland presumably could) in order to outwardly project their own awareness of some of the polytheistic aspects of Christianity as they practiced it- the Trinity, the cult of the saints, and so forth. (On that note, it's interesting, as Dorothy Sayers points out in her introduction, that Roland depicts a rather austere Christianity in which the saints or the Virgin are relatively downplayed and characters, even layman like Roland, speak to God directly, without mediation or intercession.) We "other" or project outwards aspects of ourselves with which we are uneasy or cannot come to terms. The question I want to ask, then, is whether (in what ways, or in what degree) the Paynims in Roland act as a mirror to 11th-century French society , embodying both the aspects of that society that its members wished to celebrate and those that they wanted to deny or obscure?
I think this connects to Roland insofar as in this text, the "Paynims" occupy the place where a monster should go but aren't, to some extent, that "monstrous," that is, that unfamiliar and profoundly differentiated. I, for one, often had to remind myself that they are meant to be effectively monsters; what is more, the poet also has to periodically remind himself of this fact.
Another way of possibly getting at this is via Beowulf (sorry to be continually getting ahead of our reading list in this post...). In that poem, Beowulf, and the Geats and Danes generally, confront two classes of enemies: supernatural opponents like Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, who are very definitely monstrous and almost otherworldly, and merely human opponents, rival tribes like the Swedes or the Heathobards, who part of the same culture and society.
Roland telescopes these two classes of "other" into one. Obviously, the Saracens take on a monstrous role: they are the postulated enemies of God, diametrically opposed to the Christian French in that sense. The poet attributes to them an extravagantly demonic religion that periodically acquires associations of Satanism and dark sorcery. Some of their champions get explicitly labeled as evil, followers of sin and vice as an apparent moral imperative: "Then first rides out a Saracen, Abisme..../ Better he loves murder and treachery / Than all the gold that is in Galicie" (108). From time to time, something like a racial differentiation appears; Abisme is "black...as melted pitch," and the "accursed tribesmen" from "Ethiope, a land accursed and vile" who swarm up against the last French survivors are likewise "Negro tribes," "black as ink from head to foot" (125). In such instances, the poem marks its oppositional figures as a different order of humanity, if not almost entirely inhuman.
And yet, while being in certain instances so profoundly "othered," the Paynims simultaneously participate in the same social context as the French. If in some ways they are more weird and demonic than real 11th-century Muslims would have been, in other ways they are far closer to the French and have more in common with them. They share the same feudal codes and institutions, the same tactics, weaponry, and conventions of battle, and many of the same standards of behavior. For every near-monstrous Saracen peer, there is at least another who is "a good knight and gallant" (114). More than once, the poet has to near-audibly stifle his explicit admiration and avowal of kinship with these Paynim foes and remind himself that they are "monsters": "Were he but Christian, right knightly he'd appear" (87), or, as the poet says of Baligant, Charlemagne's double as the leader and exemplar of the entire Saracen world, "Were he but Christian, God! what a warrior" (172).
I think it's safe to say, then, that this dynamic of mingled "othering" and commonality with the "Paynims" problematizes Roland considerably, or (a better way to put it) makes it a lot more interesting. In reading about the Crusades, for example, I have come across the idea that the Franks persistently made Islam out to be such a bizarre, polytheistic demonic mishmash (even after they had been living in the Middle East for some time and could no longer plead ignorance in the way that the poet of Roland presumably could) in order to outwardly project their own awareness of some of the polytheistic aspects of Christianity as they practiced it- the Trinity, the cult of the saints, and so forth. (On that note, it's interesting, as Dorothy Sayers points out in her introduction, that Roland depicts a rather austere Christianity in which the saints or the Virgin are relatively downplayed and characters, even layman like Roland, speak to God directly, without mediation or intercession.) We "other" or project outwards aspects of ourselves with which we are uneasy or cannot come to terms. The question I want to ask, then, is whether (in what ways, or in what degree) the Paynims in Roland act as a mirror to 11th-century French society , embodying both the aspects of that society that its members wished to celebrate and those that they wanted to deny or obscure?
Song of Roland - On With the Show!
In regards to the Monstrous being a type of show, I want to address the “showiness” to Song of Roland. There are several events that seem to be a performance, and it detracts from the reality of the situation. In a sense, it makes the reader question the motivations behind the characters.
It’s best to begin with the proposed truce between Charlemagne and Marsilion. One of the requests of Charlemagne is that he takes Marsilion to France to be converted to Christianity. This is, of course, a major blow to the Muslims. However, why is it important to force conversion on Marsilion? Even if Marsilion becomes a Christian, what proof is there that he will willingly accept his belief? The whole converting the conquered king to Christianity is a performance for society to see a powerful man be brought to shame. It presents the French society with concrete knowledge that they have conquered and to incite pride for their country. In addition, the conquered country loses part of its identity-that of being Islamic. The Muslims now have to conform to the imposed law of the French.
Then, there’s Roland’s brave action of volunteering to meet Marsilion with the proposed truce. He is refuted by Oliver that he is too rash and will probably incite a duel. Nonetheless, this small action by Roland demonstrates his courage and will to be placed in what has been discussed as a hazardous mission. This provides Roland his performance of chivalric duty to his king and his obedience to stay when Charlemagne refuses to send him. It also makes Roland appear less negative when he volunteers his step-father to the task, since he had already offered his own service.
Finally, that of Roland’s lack of action and then action with the blowing of the horn. When Oliver requests Roland calls for aid, Roland replies, “Now God forbid […] That living man should say he saw me go Blowing of horns for any Paynim foe!” (93). Roland’s lack of action in this scene is because of his show of being courageous and proud. He feels it would be shameful to use the horn and call for help in front of the enemy. He does not want the enemy to know of his weakness. Once Roland is ready to sound the Olifant, he announces, “I’ve struck good blows this day” (117). Now that Roland has shown his good, he can use the horn. Roland is ready to die, because as the Archbishop Turin states earlier in battle, “ If you should die, blest martyrdom’s your guerdon” (95). By Roland’s performance of bravery and brutal killings, he has a straight passage into heaven.
By seeing the reasons for the actions made for certain key actions in the story, one wonders at the purity of the tale. In the process of certain showy actions, many were killed. One can say that if it wasn’t for the showiness of Roland volunteering Ganelon, Ganelon would not have been so passionate to swear revenge on Roland and cause a mighty blow to the French army. One questions if anyone’s actions in the story were done genuinely and not for an alternative purpose.
It’s best to begin with the proposed truce between Charlemagne and Marsilion. One of the requests of Charlemagne is that he takes Marsilion to France to be converted to Christianity. This is, of course, a major blow to the Muslims. However, why is it important to force conversion on Marsilion? Even if Marsilion becomes a Christian, what proof is there that he will willingly accept his belief? The whole converting the conquered king to Christianity is a performance for society to see a powerful man be brought to shame. It presents the French society with concrete knowledge that they have conquered and to incite pride for their country. In addition, the conquered country loses part of its identity-that of being Islamic. The Muslims now have to conform to the imposed law of the French.
Then, there’s Roland’s brave action of volunteering to meet Marsilion with the proposed truce. He is refuted by Oliver that he is too rash and will probably incite a duel. Nonetheless, this small action by Roland demonstrates his courage and will to be placed in what has been discussed as a hazardous mission. This provides Roland his performance of chivalric duty to his king and his obedience to stay when Charlemagne refuses to send him. It also makes Roland appear less negative when he volunteers his step-father to the task, since he had already offered his own service.
Finally, that of Roland’s lack of action and then action with the blowing of the horn. When Oliver requests Roland calls for aid, Roland replies, “Now God forbid […] That living man should say he saw me go Blowing of horns for any Paynim foe!” (93). Roland’s lack of action in this scene is because of his show of being courageous and proud. He feels it would be shameful to use the horn and call for help in front of the enemy. He does not want the enemy to know of his weakness. Once Roland is ready to sound the Olifant, he announces, “I’ve struck good blows this day” (117). Now that Roland has shown his good, he can use the horn. Roland is ready to die, because as the Archbishop Turin states earlier in battle, “ If you should die, blest martyrdom’s your guerdon” (95). By Roland’s performance of bravery and brutal killings, he has a straight passage into heaven.
By seeing the reasons for the actions made for certain key actions in the story, one wonders at the purity of the tale. In the process of certain showy actions, many were killed. One can say that if it wasn’t for the showiness of Roland volunteering Ganelon, Ganelon would not have been so passionate to swear revenge on Roland and cause a mighty blow to the French army. One questions if anyone’s actions in the story were done genuinely and not for an alternative purpose.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
A Short Post: Begging a Comment on Christianity
What was it that struck me most about The Song of Roland? There were so many possibilities to examine within this story, but there was one which I could not move beyond. The story is of war, of conquest, of kings and caliphs and knights, but most of all, it is about change. The primary change which Charlemagne hoped to accomplish was victory and the acquiring of lands, but in order to do this, the newly acquired lands must be unified. What better way to merge two cultures than through faith?
The Saracens are Moslem and the men of Charlemagne are Christian. There are factions within the Saracens, some supporting Charlemagne to gain his aid in battling their enemies, others battling them all and hoping to maintain their faith. We discover this conflict in belief right away with the lines, “Marsilion holds it, the king who hates God’s name, / Mahound he serves, and to Apollyon prays” (P.51). This beginning of the story instantly sets up who is the “other,” and this determination is based upon a discord and misunderstanding of the faiths. For the Christians, it would be easier to fight a bloody battle against pagans, those who worship gods as opposed to God. Polytheism is not an accurate depiction of the Moslem religion, however, as they too believe in one god, Allah, not many gods, and certainly not the Greco-Roman antique, Apollo/ Apollyon. But it is easier for Christians to understand the differences by creating such a great divide, and by making the Saracens given to the worship of old gods, it alienates them from Charlemagne and his people. Besides, war is not the time for people to reach understandings and learn more about their cultures, rather after the conquest is when the sharing of knowledge is accomplished (I can only imagine what bloodshed could be spared if this was done in reverse order).
In order to reach an agreement with Charlemagne, Marsile agrees to convert to Christianity. He says, “On my behalf King Charlemayn beseech, / for his God’s sake to show me clemency…the law of Christ I’ll then and there receive, / in faith and love I will his liegeman be” (P. 54). When Cordova is conquered, a new order takes place, and “in all the city no paynim now appears / who is not slain or turned to Christian fear” (P. 54). The conquest of Cordoba is accomplished by warfare, but in a secondary sense, by religion. It is faith that helps the supporters of Charlemagne win their battles and determine who are allied with them. These beliefs are then adopted by those who have been conquered. In short, those who accept the God of Charlemagne are rewarded with land, victory, and the grace of Christianity. Religion creates connections where diplomacy fails, thus determining who is for and who is against whom, and in those political allegiances, who is a true believer and who is conquered and made into one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)