Upon his
trial, Guenelun says before the king, “By my cunning I held myself secure./To
that fighter Rollant my challenge threw,/To Oliver, and all their comrades
too;/Charles heard that, and his noble baruns./Vengeance I gat, but there’s no
treason proved.” This climactic event of Guenelun’s trial happens at the end of
the poem, and his claim is that his actions were not treasonous but rather that
he attained the revenge on his stepson that he was worthy of receiving. Thus,
he claims that his actions are justified because in the name of revenge he did
what was just even though essentially, he turned his back against his
countrymen and people. To settle the score, the king decides that Thierry and
Pinabel must fight it out and that the winner of the battle shall decide
whether Gunelun is to win or lose. He says, “Sire, on you this cause depends;
Command therefore this noise be made an end.” Ultimately, he is leaving the
fate of Guenelun up to the outcome of a battle. This seems to be the typical
way of sorting out disputes: the notion that the strongest in battle is also
the strongest in terms of moral decision making. However, this whole situation
is intriguingly paradoxical and leaves much to be desired in terms of gaining
an answer to whether this society is moral or not. If the actions of Guenelun
are indeed justified in the name of vengeance, then the whole moral fabric of
their society remains in tact because as previously mentioned, it is the strong
man who wins and therefore by winning the battle against Rolland he is
therefore the moral man. Theoretically, another battle was not necessary to
prove Guenelun’s moral competence, nonetheless the king favors another battle
to prove that Guenelun is wrong and that he is wanted dead by God. The story
has it so that Guenelun is proven unjustified in his act of revenge and is
proven to be a traitor. Thus the question that comes to the forefront is
whether violence is something which is used to justify previously arrived at
decisions (namely, did the King already believe that Guenelun was guilty but
wanted it proven) or rather whether it actually is the deciding factor for what
is moral. Surely, if the latter were true, then Guenelun’s defeat of Rolland
would have already placed him in the winning position of moral behavior and
another battle to prove his intentions would not be necessary. However, maybe I am wrong. What does everybody think?
Very thoughtful post, Reem! I think another way to pose some of the questions you’re raising is to ask about the FRAMEWORKS for violence in the Chanson de Roland. So, we definitely have the framework of war (a kind of holy war, waged against non-Christians); then there’s the framework of judicial combat, which gives meaning to the fight between Thierrey and Pinabel; there’s the framework of legal punishment, which encompasses Ganelon’s horrible punishment; finally, there’s the questionable context of Ganelon’s own violence against Roland – is it vengeance or is it treason that frames and gives social meaning to it? One of the questions that your post raises is, Under what circumstances does might make right? After all, in his death Roland can be understood to be defeated twice over – both by the pagans and by Ganelon. How do we interpret Roland’s valorization by the Chanson when there seems to be at the same time such a strong emphasis on the conjunction of righteousness and victory, truth and power?
ReplyDeleteThis is actually something I thought about as well, not only in reading this story but also in reading the Physician's Tale, as well as several modern-medieval "fantasy" novels and works. This concept of a "trial by battle" in order to prove someone's innocence, moral correctness, or simply to prove that someone is right, seems to be a very common theme in these kinds of writings. After reading this, I was immediately reminded of a scene from Game of Thrones (the books and the show) in which a character who was accused of treason and murder, but was allowed to demand a trial by combat, which, by using a champion in his place, he won, and was therefore deemed innocent. In going back to Ganelon's trial in the Song of Roland, the religious aspect of the trial would have to come into play. Since Charlemagne was considered a king, a judge, as well as the Holy Roman Emperor, he would have some "Divine Voice" in making his judgments. Therefore, God would look with favor upon whoever was morally just or innocent, and allow that combatant to win.
Delete