While reading the first part of the Siege of Jerusalem, I was struck by the motivations underlying the war itself. As Michael Livingston points out in his introduction, what made a war “just” was a prevailing question in late medieval society. During my reading, I found myself questioning Livingston’s suggestion that for the Seige poet, Titus and Vespasian’s siege was the one just war, with subsequent military activity inherently unjust (29). Livingston writes that other wars “are not actions of God, but of man, executed for what often amounted to very mortal, rapacious ends” (30). Yet the account the poet gives us suggests that even this war to avenge Christ is not entirely just.
If we consider the motivations for the war, we see immediately that regardless of Titus’ and Vespasian’s beliefs, an economic factor – the Jews’ refusal to pay tribute – is the primary inspiration for the war. Nero summons his knights to council “for his tribute was withholde” (l. 266). While the council elects to send the new Christian converts to lead efforts against the Jews, other knights might just as easily have been chosen. The Emperor’s primary concern is his money – a “mortal, rapacious end” if ever there was one. While the refusal to pay tribute has political implications that threaten the Empire, it is difficult to believe that Nero is even thinking on this level about the greater good. Nero himself is certainly no Christian. When he sends Titus and Vespasian off with numerous ships, armaments, and soldiers, he is not considering vengeance for Christ’s suffering. As we will discover in the second half, the depraved Nero eventually commits suicide when the citizens of Rome turn on him after he commits numerous atrocities against his own people, including Christians (l. 919-20). Are we really to believe that any war started by such a man can be “just”?
Clearly the poet wants us to understand the necessity of avenging Christ’s death and to view Titus and Vespasian’s military actions as just. He tells us that “the deth of the dereworth Crist dere schal be yolden” and that “ne Jewe for Jhesu sake, jouke in you more” when the Romans arrive in Judaea (l. 300, 304). Nevertheless, I think it is a stretch to suggest that the poet views this as a just war in comparison to other “religiously motivated” wars. Without the Jews’ refusal to pay tribute, the war would not have occurred. Regardless of any Christian desire to avenge Christ, earthly concerns ultimately create the opportunity for such action to occur. Furthermore, there is no divine inspiration for the war, nor is there any direct indication that God is somehow demanding or compelling war to take place. The second half may complicate this picture, but at this point, I find it hard to believe that this is the epitome of the just war. Perhaps instead, we might consider this war as the one that comes as close as possible to being “just,” but that ultimately, just war really is not possible. Did anyone else have any other reactions to the depiction of war as we’ve seen it thus far?
Perceptive observations, Christine! The portrayal of Roman-ness is quite shaky throughout the poem because, in part, Rome is a city that is weirdly dispersed over historical time. As the Introduction makes clear, there are many “Romes” relevant to the Siege poet – the Rome of the historical siege of Jerusalem (which was pagan), the Rome of Augustine’s 5th century /City of God/ and its subsequent portrayal in providential history, the Rome of the Great Schism and the late 14th century, which opposed the dominance of France and was therefore a great ally of England…. The poet’s Romans have to do a lot of work to somehow match up to these multiple and contradictory roles! One spot that seemed a little funny to me in this regard is Vespasian’s pre-battle pep talk, when he declares, “by resoun to Rome the realté fallyth, / Bothe the myght and the mayn, maistre or ellys, / And lordschip of eche londe that lithe under Heven” (510-12). Why does “reason” dictate that supreme rule falls to Rome? Vespasian has just declared that no one should be paying any mind to Nero and his claims, so in what is Rome’s right grounded -- given that it’s a pagan, persecutorial power? I’m not sure we’ll find an answer to that which completely fits the logic of the poem. But we can at least observe, based on the fallibility and messiness and contradictions of the Romans in the poem, that the work of catalyzing identification and solidarity across historical time is complicated. Even if the poet did want to affirm univocally Roman right and prestige, the poem’s representation of historical difference, of paganism and Roman imperial power and violence, makes the reader’s complete affirmation of these Romans difficult.
ReplyDeleteI think this discussion of the shaky moral standing of the decision to war against Jerusalem can be tied in nicely with the depiction of the staggering human cost of battle. While the decision to go to war is clearly informed by a legitimate interpretation of Christian doctrine, the narrator makes the point of emphasizing how hastily the declaration of war is issued, which challenges the legitimacy of the declaration. As professor Orlemanski points out in her other response, the narrator makes a point to liken the remains of the battle (human, animal, material) to a mold. This mold is a an sort of all-encompassing medium of decomposition to which beasts, men, and their armor have all been reduced. This depiction of war seems to be hinting at a universal human cost that is endured during battle; a cost that should be carefully considered before religious zeal hastily guides leaders to a brash and potentially unwise course of action.
ReplyDelete