Ganelon: the Poetics of Guile and Greed CHOLARS CONTINUE TO

Home , Blancandrin, Ganelon, Naimon, Roland

JUDITH LILLIAN KELLOGG

Ganelon: The Poetics of Guile and Greed

CHOLARS CONTINUE TO PONDER over Ganelon's motivation for betraying Charlemagne's rear guard in the Chanson de Roland. Some S point to Ganelon's bitter resentment against Roland over a private feud which predates the action of the poem; others note a source of added tension in Roland's mocking, presumptuous behavior in designating his stepfather for the mission to Marsile. Critics also suggest that Ganelon is envious of the preferential treatment Charlemagne shows towards his nephew when the emperor suggests that Roland is too valuable a knight to risk on such a mission. These occurrences indeed intensify Ganelon's hatred for Roland, but they do not account for the traitor's particular method of revenge or for the Saracen strategy for wooing Ganelon to their side. To understand how this treacherous vassal plays out his hostility in the way he does, I propose to examine Ganelon's character in the light of Gerard J. Brault's suggestion that "it is Avarice that leads him to betray Roland and, by implication, Charlemagne and God."1 Ganelon is an easy victim for the temptations that Marsile lays before him. However, the betrayal sequence indicates that the interaction between the two villains is more complicated than the simple fall through greed of an irresolute and faithless knight. If one notes Ganelon's and the Saracens' subtle play on the economic connotations of key terms in the negotiation, it becomes apparent that Ganelon has his own ways to direct and manipulate the out- come of the dealings. Other aspects of Ganelon's behavior and language throughout the poem also point to Ganelon's grasping mentality. Once we can establish the extent of his economic motivation, we can then put his behavior into historical perspective. We find that the eleventh- and twelfth-century cultural context, with its newly emerging views on avarice, provides further insights into why Ganelon's particular mentality is subversive, not just to Charlemagne's rear guard, but to the very fabric of the feudal/epic world which Charlemagne represents.

Ganelon's use of language provides a perspective on the way his economic concerns influence his behavior. This interconnection can be better understood after some initial observations about an ideal knight's rela-

1 Gerard J. Brault, ed. The Song of Roland, vol. I (University Park; London: The Penn- sylvania State University Press. 1978), 103.

161 162 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 tionship to language. In an age where the lay aristocracy was generally illiterate, binding agreements between knights had to be made orally.1 This ritual verbal exchange between individuals was considered an absolute contract, and the sacredness of the act was usually affirmed by the accompanying symbolic exchange of an object or a mutual gesture. In discussing the gesture of hands during the act of homage, F. L. Ganshof indicates how closely tied the feudal mentality was to concrete acts or tokens:

D'après les conceptions juridiques du haut moyen âge, comme, d'ail- leurs, dans tous les systèmes juridiques peu évolués, des déclarations de volonté, et même le concours de volontés exprimées par des paroles, ne suffisent pas à créer des droits, que nous rangerions dans la catégorie des droits réels, sur des choses ou sur des personnes. Un acte matériel, généralement symbolique, est indispensable. Cet acte, dans le cas de l'hommage, c'est l'immixtio manuum. Quand on songe à ce "climat" juridique et quand on a présente à l'esprit la faible capacité d'abstraction des gens du temps, quand on connaît leur goût du concret, on comprend qu'à leurs yeux devenir vassal, c'est avant tout faire un geste des mains.2

Such a contractual agreement occurs when Charlemagne designates Gane- lon as ambassador to Marsile. The emperor reinforces the verbal exchange by giving Ganelon his right-hand glove as a symbol of a mission entrusted. Because the bestowal of this token is the concrete embodiment of the sacred trust of the king for his official emissary, the Franks are shocked when Ganelon drops the glove before he departs on his mission to the pagan leader (vv. 331-5).3 The relationship between word (promise), symbol (glove), and subsequent action (successful mission) is so close that the barons know immediately that disaster is imminent, that "De cest message nos avendrat grant perte" (v. 335). Within this interwoven system of word, symbol, and act, it is important that each of the participants fully understand the meaning of each pledge and that each verbal or symbolic exchange have a single meaning which is sanctioned by custom and mutual agreement. The face value and the true value of an exchange must be identical for the system to function.

1 On the binding power of oaths, see F. L. Ganshof, Qu'est-ce que la féodalité? (Brux- elles: Office de Publicité, 1957), pp. 44-45, 95-98. It is significant also to note (pp. 80-1) that the early written documentation of ceremonies of fealty consists of records of oral contracts. The oath and the accompanying ritual were binding, not the written record, which merely verified that the oral and symbolic exchange had taken place. 2Ganshof, pp. 99-100. 3Text references are to the Brault edition. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 163 With Ganelon, however, a jarring element of ambiguity and double meaning enters. In this case, he accepts the mission, telling Charlemagne, "Dreiz emperere, veiz me ci en present, Ademplir voeill vostre comandement. " (vv. 308-9) However, his dropping of the glove betrays his bad faith, the fact that his words do not necessarily represent his private thinking. And yet, once the mission has been entrusted and accepted, the barons have no way to deal with the multiple layers of meaning implicit in the discrepency between word and intention. They are locked into the literal nature of the codes which structure their relationships with one another. Eugene Vance underscores the ominous consequences of verbal deception in the epic world: "We must remember that ideally, the cement of feudal society was an oath of faith between man and man, and when language becomes detached from a commitment of faith—faith of any kind—it becomes a tool of subversion."1 Ganelon's lying does not merely have personal consequences but can function to abuse and thus subvert those most sacred institutions of feudalism—oaths and promises.

An early instance of Ganelon's compromised attitude toward feudal language and sacred custom appears during the council in which Charle- magne decides how to respond to Marsile's promise of surrender (laisses 13-16).2 Roland is quick to see that Marsile does not respect the sanctity of oaths and pledges. He reminds the Franks that earlier this pagan king had sent oral promises and signs of peace (olive branches) similar to those he now sends and then had failed to keep his word. Instead, he killed the two messengers sent to him in good faith. Marsile is presented as a man for whom words and signs are to be used pragmatically, without necessary correlation to their traditional meanings. But Ganelon ignores Roland's warning and urges acceptance of the pagan's offer. He sees the gain to be made and says that it is worth taking Marsile's pledge at face value because the return will be good. The word prod carries specific connotations of profit and gain:

1 Eugene Vance Reading the "Song of Roland" (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 33. 2For a discussion of this passage, see Edward C. Schweitzer, Jr., "Mais qu'il seit entendud: Ganelon's and Naimon's Speeches at the Council of the French in the Chanson de Roland." Romance Notes, 12(1971). pp. 428-34. 164 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980

E dist al rei: " Ja mar crerez bricun, Ne mei nealtre, se de vostre prod nun!" (vv. 220-1) Naimes immediately agrees with Ganelon's speech, but he has misunder- stood the spirit of his words. He interprets the speech in a most conventional and honorable way. Ironically, he qualifies his speech with "Saveir i ad, mais qu'il seit entendud" (v. 234: "His words seem wise to me, if understood"). He makes the point that Charlemagne has already conquered the pagans territories, so the further gain to be made is that of Marsile's hum- ble submission. That he is speaking from sincere motives of Christian faith is indicated by his concern over the sin of fighting against one who asks for mercy. His concluding words further define his conventional outlook. He refers to the surety with which the hostages can be taken as pledges, and he sees the gain referred to by Ganelon as the peace which will ensue from accepting Marsile's offer:

"U par ostage vos en voelt faire soürs, Ceste grant guerre ne deit munter a plus." (vv. 241-2)

Naimes has been responding to the most literal meanings of Ganelon's words, but it becomes increasingly clear as the action progresses that the same words which seem so unambiguous to Naimes carry complex connotations for Ganelon. By his subsequent actions, Ganelon indeed will show that he is one who will derive as much personal gain as possible from his encounter with Marsile. The fact his actions will irreparably weaken Charlemagne's army is of less concern to him than his own interest in both gaining wealth and destroying Roland.

In contrast to Naimes, Marsile has no trouble understanding Gane- lon's language. They are two of a kind. The prelude to Ganelon's treach- ery, in fact, is a verbal sparring match of double entendre in which both come to understand that they can play the same game and are ready to proceed with it. Ganelon and Blancandrin have already discussed betraying Roland on the journey to Sarragossa, although Ganelon ostensibly remains loyal to Charlemagne. After Ganelon delivers Charlemagne's message, the pagans retire to an orchard to take counsel. Here, Marsile seizes whatever advantage he can from Ganelon on the basis of the latter's hatred for Roland. Blancandrin's use of the word prod as 'gain' at this point suggests that the pagans are thinking along the same lines as Gane- lon: Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 165

Dist Blancandrins: "Apelez le Franceis, De nostre prod m'ad plevie sa feid." (vv. 506-7) Furthermore, Marsile has discovered Ganelon's weakness—his covetousness—and proceeds to test his susceptibility without ever openly calling bribery by its proper name. He first apologizes for his previous impulse to strike Ganelon and says that he will make it up to him hand- somely. He then gives the decisive pledge of rich sable furs, with the explicit statement that there will be more available "demain" if Ganelon will go along with him.

"Guaz vos en dreit par cez pels sabelines. Melz en valt l'or que ne funt cinc cent, livres. Einz demain noit en iert bele l'amendise." (vv. 515-7) By temporarily witholding his handsome gift, Marsile implies that he will give Ganelon a little time to meet certain conditions. Ganelon is quick to snap at the bait. Though his acceptance is couched in the most honorable language, in its double connotations it is precisely the response that Mar- si le seeks:

Guenes respunt: "Jo nel desotrei mie. Deus, se lui plaist, a bien le vos mercie!" (vv. 518-9)

On the one hand, Ganelon is making a polite acceptance of the rich pledges and wishing that God look kindly upon the Saracens. But mercie also carries connotations of making a payment (merci from mercēdem, acc. of mercēs, 'pay, wages, fee'; 'bribe'; 'rent'; 'reward'; 'cost').1 In essence, Ganelon is saying that he wishes the pagans a good return (repayment) for the pledges invested in him and that he is willing to help them. At this point treason becomes inevitable; both the pagans and Gane- lon proceed directly toward their bargain. Through a series of questions about Charlemagne's greatness, Marsile allows Ganelon to remain loyal to his king but to tell the Saracens just what they need to know. Ganelon insists that Charlemagne is an awesome emperor but that his military

1 For further discussion of merci, see R. Dragonetti, La technique poétique des trouvères dans la chanson courtoise (Bruges: De Tempel, 1960), p. 82; Ēmile Benveniste, "Prix et salaire." Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes (Paris: Minuit, 1969), pp. 163-170; Erich Köhler, L'Aventure chevaleresque, trans. E. Kaufholz (Paris: Gallimard, 1974), p. 195. 166 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 strength depends on Roland. When Marsile finally asks how he might kill Roland, Ganelon needs no more prodding; he gloats "Ço vos sai jo ben dire" (v. 582) and then succinctly details the military strategy necessary for the Saracens to destroy the Frankish rear guard.

Throughout the betrayal sequence of the poem, Ganelon has aligned himself not with the Franks, who take words and pledges at face value, but with the pagans, who, as Roland had pointed out, use words and pledges as a cover for their true motives. Ganelon has shown the Saracens that he will cooperate with them; they merely have to find out how much he must be paid. The mercantile aspect is stressed at several points in the poem. When Roland realizes the nature of Ganelon's betrayal, he speaks explicitly of the price that has been paid to the traitor:

"Sire cumpainz, mult ben le savïez Que Guenelun nos ad tuz espïez; Pris en ad or e aveir e deners. Li emperere nos devreit bon venger. Li reis Marsile de nos ad fait marchet, Mais as espees l'estuvrat esleger. " (vv. 1146-51)

The poet himself later intervenes to remark that Ganelon "sold his people out" at Saragossa:

Karles li magnes en pluret, si se demente. De ço qui calt? N'en avrunt sucurance. Malvais servis le jur li rendit Guenes Qu'en Sarraguce sa maisnee alat vendre. (vv. 1404-7)

Even Charlemagne unsuspectingly played into Ganelon's obsession with gain and offered him additional prod for what he took to be a successfully accomplished mission:

Ço dist li reis: "Gracïet en seit Deus! Ben l'avez fait, mult grant prod i avrez." (vv. 698-9)

Such are the overt ways in which Ganelon, by his actions and use of language, displays his materialism, but he also betrays his overriding obsession with wealth in the fact that he projects that motive onto others. Ganelon sees wealth as the sole basis of power and esteem in Charle- magne's world. He says to Blancandrin that Charlemagne's men are loyal, Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 167 not because of the Emperor's great leadership, loyalty, kindness, or char- isma, but because he buys their favor with gifts:

Guenes respunt: "Par la franceise gent. Il l'aiment tant ne li faldrunt nïent. Or e argent lur met tant en present, Muls e destrers, e palies e guarnemenz. L'emperere meïsmes ad tut a sun talent. Cunquerrat li les teres d'ici qu'en Orïent." (vv.396-401) Feudal warfare was sustained essentially by a gift economy. Charle- magne in the Chanson de Roland rewards a number of his vassals for their bravery and service. During battle, he tells his men:

"Seignors barons, jo vos aim, si vos crei. Tantes batailles avez faites pur mei, Regnes cunquis e desordenet reis! Ben le conuis que gueredun vos en dei E de mun cors, de teres e d'aveir. (vv. 3406-10) He compensates his knights well, but that is not the ideal vassal's primary consideration in supporting his overlord, as Roland indicates when explaining to Olivier his motivation for facing the Saracen army without summoning Charlemagne for aid:

Ben devuns ci estre pur nostre rei: Pur sun seignor deit hom susfrir destreiz E endurer e granz chalz e granz freiz, Sin deit hom perdre e del quir e del peil. Or guart chascuns que granz colps i empleit Que malvaise cançun de nus chantet ne seit! (vv. 1009-14) Roland first stresses his loyalty to Charlemagne as his king and feudal lord. He also fears that his reputation will be compromised if he shows any hesitation about the need to do battle. Nowhere is the desire for material reward ever mentioned when Roland discusses upholding his knightly obligations. Ganelon reduces men's motives to his own economic ones; he even sees Charlemagne's love for Roland as based essentially on the fact that Roland brings him land and booty. In contrast to the simple economic motives ascribed by Ganelon, one need only look at the moving protestations of love and trust among feudal barons, such as Roland's above, to see that in this poem their loyalty is founded on a profoundly idealistic base, though gifts do, ultimately, support them. 168 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980

Ganelon also sees his own personal economic concerns as full justifi- cation for his betrayal of the rear guard. Later, at his trial, he defends himself by saying that Roland had originally wronged him in gold and goods:

Dist Guenelon: "Fel seie se jol ceil! Rollant me forfist en or e en aveir, Pui que jo quis sa mort e sun destreit; Mais traïson nule n'en i otrei." (vv.3757-60)

Even if Ganelon did have a legitimate private feud with Roland, the fact that his resolution of the conflict involves devastation for his overlord seriously undercuts his defense. Small details in the poem reinforce the deeply ingrained quality of Ganelon's calculating spirit. For instance, although Ganelon displays sincere admiration for Charlemagne throughout the entire interchange with Marsile, in his description of the King's virtues, he manifests a quantifying mind. In reference to Charlemagne, he remarks, "Sa grant valor, kil purreit acunter?" (v. 534). The verb acunter (to count) is used in only two other places in the Chanson de Roland, and both are contexts in which numbers of the enemy are being counted.1 Only Ganelon is shown using this verb of calculation to describe an abstract notion of value. Ganelon is further singled out as different from the norm of knights in the Chanson de Roland by the concrete images that surround him. The poet subtly creates an appropriate context for this materialistic man by inserting several short, though lavish, descriptions of his fine dress of furs and silk.

E li quens Guenes en fut mult anguisables. De sun col getet ses grandes pels de martre E est remés en sun blialt de palie. (vv. 280-2)

Afublez est d'un mantel sabelin, Ki fut cuvert d'un palie alexandrin. (vv. 462-3)

Nowhere else in the poem is any warrior described except in fighting gear. Even Baligant, though also singled out with a dazzling description of his elaborate, rich dress, is still arrayed for battle. As Michael Nagler has shown for the Greek epic, in oral-formulaic diction, very precise meanings

1Vv. 1034, 1038. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 169 can be conveyed by the poet through juxtaposition of image and context.1 Such trappings of the outer man as dress, gesture, and physical relationship to other people and objects can convey significant information about inner characteristics. Nagler states, "certain it is that poetically important meanings can be very deeply associated with what we have been calling the oral formula." This is done through the "complicated interaction of diction, meanings, and narrative situations.'"2 He elaborates, "One of the obviously crucial skills in the artistry of oral verse composition is when and how to bring into play the meanings inherent in the traditional diction."3 Such meaning-laden diction is found in the description of Gane- lon's dress, precisely because it sets him so clearly apart from the rest of the Franks. This description, coupled with the fact that Ganelon is offered furs for the betrayal of Roland, indicates how carefully the poet surrounds Ganelon with images suggestive of his greed and emphasizes his failure as a warrior in Charlemagne's community of men.

By comparing Ganelon to Roland, it is possible to isolate the underly- ing traits which set Ganelon apart from the knightly community to which he belongs. Whereas Roland is motivated above all by his deep sense of personal and communal honor and faithful love for Charlemagne, Gane- lon is moved by the desire for personal revenge and the promise of profit. Whereas Roland fights loyally for his community and for his king, thereby unifying the Franks, Ganelon is concerned with his own individualistic gain, at the expense of all else. Honorable means to his ends are not his concern. To facilitate these materialistic ends, he introduces an element of ambiguity into language. His language further betrays a definite quantifying aspect. Ganelon, then, displays elements of character which clash with Roland's idealism and which the epic world cannot comfortably accom- modate. Since much of his deviant behavior involves material considera- tions, one might ask whether at some level Ganelon reflects economic ten- sions in the society which produced the Chanson de Roland. In other words, can one say that within the context of this anachronistic, idealized picture of the feudal world, the Chanson de Roland supports Erich Köhler's observation that "la littérature, même dans ses plus grandes oeu- vres d'art, reste toujours le miroir d'une société à un moment de son évolution'?'4

1Michael Nagler, "Towards a Generative View of the Oral Formula," American Philo- logical Association: Transactions and Proceedings, 98 (1967), pp. 269-311. 2Nagler, p. 303. 3Nagler, p. 307. 4Erich Köhler, "Quelques observations d'ordre historico-sociologique sur les rapports 170 / Olifant, Vol. 8, N o . 2 / Winter 1980 The Roland poet, through Charlemagne, movingly suggests the tran- sitional quality of the poem in the lament over the dead at Rencesvals. Upon arriving at the battleground, Charlemagne calls out for his twelve peers, one by one:

Carles escriet: "U estes vos, bels niés? U est l'arcevesque e li quens Olivier? U est Getins e sis cumpainz Gerers? U est Otes e li quens Berengers, Ive e Ivorie, que jo aveie tant chers? Que est devenuz li Guascuinz Engeler, Sansun li dux e Anseïs li bers? U est Gerard de Russillun li veilz, Li .XII. per, que jo aveie laiset? " De ço qui chelt, quant nul n'en respundiet? (vv. 2402-11)

The catalog of great warrior's names is met only by the hushed silence of death. The haunting quiet of the battlefield reinforces the sense that these heroes and the ideals which they stood for are gone forever. Later in his planctus over Roland, Charlemagne suggests that no warrior like Roland will again appear in France, and that without a Roland and the military might he embodies, Charlemagne's heroic era is moving into eclipse:

"Amis Rollant, de tei ait Deus mercit! Unques nuls hom tel chevaler ne vit Por granz batailles juster e defenir. La meie honor est turnet en declin. " (vv.2887-90)

If Charlemagne in the Chanson de Roland can be seen as the great epic monarch, lord over an ideal feudal barony, then his lament over his nephew reflects an important cultural and political phenomenon of the period in which this version of the poem was recorded (ca. 1100). The type of society glorified in the poem is moving into a new phase of development in which the purely military, heroic man of action will become obsolete. Historically, the warrior society represented by Charlemagne's world is "beginning its decline" (v. 2890) as Turoldus records his tale, partly because economic changes have occurred which will permanently alter class relationships throughout Western Europe. The end of the eleventh century marks "l'ouverture d'une phase nouvelle dans l'histoire entre la chanson de geste et le roman courtois," Chanson de geste und Höfischer Roman (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1963), p. 20. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 171

économique européenne, celle d'un développement général, continu, accéléré."1 This is the beginning of the period which Marc Bloch calls the transition from the first (ca. 850-1050) to the second feudal age (ca. 1050-1250).

The first feudal age developed within a loosely knit society in which commerce played a relatively insignificant rôle and money was scarce. The more enlightened leaders of the Carolingian Empire had tried to reestab- lish a peaceful, ordered state modeled on Rome, but this attempted "renaissance" collapsed after the death of Charlemagne, and there ensued a long and troubled period in the ninth and tenth centuries in which the characteristics of vassalage became distinct.2 This unsettled and violent period coincided with multiple invasions of the Christian world by Sara- cens from the south, Scandinavians from the north, and Hungarians from the east.3 Since this "dark age" was a period of perpetual war or threat of war, men were forced into protective relationships with those closest to them and so gave up their loyalties to a central state as embodied in monarchy and empire. Instead, less powerful warriors gathered around more powerful leaders. Among the warrior elite, these relationships were guaranteed by oaths of homage which promised military support from vassals in exchange for material gifts, especially land, from lords. In theory, these gifts of land were given for a vassal's lifetime, after which they would revert back to the original donor to be redistributed. A lord's power depended on the wealth he had to give to his vassals, and in an age where there was little circulation of money, then conquest, pillage, and slavery provided the mainstays of the economy. Those bound to work the soil produced what they could; those who waged war took what they could from them. In this way wealth was circulated: acquired by aristocracy, it was redistributed largely in the form of gifts.

A complex set of factors caused economic and social relationships to change in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. An increase in population allowed vast new arable territories to be opened. The northern invasions subsided, and society entered a period of relative calm where pillage

1Georges Duby Guerriers et paysans, VII-XIIe siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), p. 204. Other good discussions of important aspects of this period in transition besides those of Duby and Ganshof include Marc Bloch, La Société jèodale, 2 vols. (Paris: Albin Michel, 1949); Jean-François Lemarignier, La France médiévale: institutions et société (Paris: Colin, 1970); and the works of Henri Pirenne. 2Bloch, I, pp. 247-250. 3Duby, pp. 129-175. 172 / Olifant, Vol 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 could no longer sustain the warrior nobility. Through this combination of factors, a surplus production was possible, which was a necessary condi- tion for the growth of towns. These were largely populated by the artisan and merchant classes, which were becoming more numerous and indispensable to great lords. As nobles became more sedentary, they also developed a taste for the luxuries that trade and industry could provide. A middle class grew up in the flourishing towns, and money began to flow once again.

With the flow of money, great princes found it more profitable to exploit the land than to wage war. As the peasants' resources for exploiting the land increased, lords' resources for exploiting peasants did like- wise. Whereas earlier a seigneur had profited largely from the production on his own central domain (demesne or manor) worked by peasants from his outlying properties who were required to labor for a certain number of days each year, he now began to take less service directly from them, while exacting more rent. His greatest source of profit, however, became the bannum, his personal jurisdiction over people, "une sorte de pillage, légitime, organisé," which included his right to oversee justice, collect dues, levy tolls, and retain monopolies on such essential services as mill- ing and livestock breeding.1

Thus, for the great landed princes as well as for merchants, peace became profitable, and such institutions as the Paix de Dieu indicate the pressure from clergy to contain the violence which had formerly been the essential occupation of feudal aristocracy.2 The Paix de Dieu, an institu- tionalized limitation on warfare, suggests a new attitude toward peace. When war was fought against invading pagan forces or to expand territorial borders, it was accepted as a good and a necessary activity. But when the conquest and pillage began to unravel the fabric of Christian society, they became intolerable.

1 Duby, p. 199: he elsewhere goes so far as to say: "De fait, je serai pour ma part incliné à voir dans la seigneurie banale, qu'elle fût presque tout entière concentrée, comme en Angle- terre, dans les mains royales, ou qu'elle se dispersât comme en France entre de nombreux seigneurs, le principal moteur de la croissance interne de l'économie européenne. Les maîtres du ban, en effet, avaient recueilli les prérogatives des anciens souverains, mais aussi leurs devoirs" (pp. 256-7). 2On the Paix de Dieu, see Duby, pp. 185-187; M. Bloch. II, pp. 201-213; R. Howard Bloch, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali- fornia Press, 1977), pp. 108-19. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 173

While the advent of peace was profitable for high aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, it seriously threatened lower aristocracy—those less powerful vassals dependent on their occupation as warriors to define their class privilege. When armies were needed, barons found it more to their advantage to hire mercenaries with the money now available to them than to deal with the cumbersome system of interwoven obligation. Since the exclusive military rôle which had once guaranteed their social status was fast becoming obsolete, knights would have to find new ways to cling to their class identity as warriors. This consolidation of power by great barons and monarchy at the expense of lower nobles marked a reversal of the trend which had characterized the first feudal age. During the first feudal age, the king's influence had diminished while petty nobles accumulated power through "le lent mûrissement de ce qui constitue le cadre dominant de l'économie médiévale, la seigneurie."1 Since during this time of perpetual war and anarchy vassals grouped themselves around those who could best protect them, their most direct allegiance was to their own territorial lord, and not to the king.2 Political power became more and more fragmented until the most essential governing unit was the local castellan. In this stratified system, the summit was in some ways the weakest point. Because of the innumerable layers of reciprocal bonds of fealty beneath him, the king had few direct ties with the population as a whole. Around 1016, a German prelate in Burgundy described the powerlessness of the monarch. M. Bloch's translation reads:

Le roi n'a pius du roi que le nom et la couronne ... il n'est capable de défendre contre les dangers qui les menacent ni ses évêques, ni ses autres sujets. Aussi voit-on les uns et les autres s'en aller, mains jointes, servir les grands. Par là ils obtiennent la paix.3

In the course of the late eleventh century, this devolution of power slowly reversed itself. Lemarignier sees the period 1025/O28-1077 as the low point in the power of great barons and the monarchy, and the time at which France was experiencing a pronounced state of feudal anarchy, territorial fragmentation, and decline of the central state. He describes this period as

1Duby, p. 54. 2Ganshof, p. 129, on obligations to those directly above and below in the feudal hierarchy. 3Bloch, I, p. 247. 174 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 a kind of trough between the waves formed by Marc Bloch's two feudal ages, when the great lords once again began to consolidate their power.1

By the second feudal age the king and the great barons, who possessed financial resources far greater than any private person or community, began to reinstitute strong territorial centers of power as had not been seen since the collapse of the Carolingian Empire. Such territories as Nor- mandy, Burgundy, Champagne, and Anjou were becoming great powers in their own right in Northern France. By the twelfth century, it was to the great princes' advantage to support the interests of the towns; trade through their territories provided the great lords with a principal source of income in the form of tolls and duties, and the increasingly prosperous bourgeois community gave further revenue through taxes and credit. The burghers tolerated the authority of the princes because they needed guar- antees of peace and promises of protection from local lords as they strove to consolidate their own communities. Such alliances of bourgeoisie with both great barons and monarchy, though mutually beneficial for princes and merchants, necessarily undermined one of the cornerstones of feudal order—the fidelity and responsiveness of superior to inferior within the feudal hierarchy.

Thus, by the time the Chanson de Roland was composed, two inter- dependent tendencies were at work in French society. On the one hand, the tight bonds of allegiance between members of the aristocracy were break-

1 Jean-François Lemarignier, Le Gouvernement royal aux premiers temps capétiens (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1965), p. 67. According to J. R. Strayer, "The Development of Feudal Institutions," Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History (Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press), pp. 77-89, this growing concentration of power in the higher ranks of the aristocracy is manifest in three concurrent developments: the realization, the systematizing, and the bureaucratization of feudalism. The "realization" of feudalism shifted the previous emphasis on the vassal and the service he rendered his lord to the fief and the income it provided. The feudal relationship thus became less intensely personal and more tied to material sources of wealth. The breakdown of personal ties allowed the development of certain feudal aids whereby money replaced military service. This in turn benefitted the higher aristocracy at the expense of local lords, for money was necessary to build any kind of strong territorial state. "Systematizing" occurred when those more powerful intensified their efforts to decrease local influence by invoking such feudal systems as the "pyramid." By insisting on their posi- tions as feudal superiors, lords at the top of the pyramid could more easily intervene in local affairs by claiming an innate right to protect rear vassals, thus completely bypassing and sometimes subjugating their own direct vassals. Strayer sees Louis VI and Louis VII's efforts to protect lesser vassals and weaker lords against their powerful neighbors as an important early indicator of the growing strength of the monarchy. Furthermore, a specialized and Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 175 ing down. Military service was often replaced by a money payment (scu- tage) as the monarchy grew stronger, money began to flow, and the seig- neurial classes became accustomed to comfortable and extravagant life styles, Progressively, the individual knight was detached from his original active function in a larger, collective, military community. On the other hand, while traditional warrior institutions were breaking down, urban centers were evolving their own distinct collective forms, such as com- munes, guilds, and later, universities. Towns fostered a whole new set of municipal institutions, along with a flourishing commercial economy and a place of relative security for a growing middle class. Ultimately, the rise of towns in France was detrimental to the interests of the class they had formerly served, and these urban centers, allied with royalty and high aristocracy, greatly weakened the power of the lower and middle aristocracy. Henceforth, lower nobility would find itself squeezed between the interests of monarchy and great barons from above and bourgeoisie from below.

Clearly, this movement towards an urban, commercial, monetary economy, dependent on the newly rising middle class, was an important force in restructuring power relationships within the social hierarchy, with particularly disastrous effects for petty nobles. It also had a curious offshoot in religious thinking, for it is at this same period that avarice comes to supplant pride as the deadliest of the seven sins.1 This shift in mental outlook is a clear product of the commerical evolution and the ascension to power of a class not included in the neat pre-commercial divi- sion of society into those who fought, those who prayed, and those who worked. When "those who sold" entered society as a distinct class, it was natural that acquisitiveness would become more apparent. After all, the accumulation of wealth was the one way by which those from the lower

extensive bureaucracy grew up around the mote powerful overlords as their financial resources increased and their personal ties to their vassals decreased. These specialized administrative, judicial, and financial officers were salaried; unlike vassals, their power derived from their office and not from fiefs. These salaried bureaucrats were often of lower class origin. In the same way. then, that mercenaries were replacing knights, salaried officials were having a greater say in the running of government, at the expense of aristocratic counse- lors. 1For discussions of this process, see Morton Bloomfield, The Seven Deadly Sins ([Lansing]: Michigan State College Press, 1952) John Yunck, The Lineage of Lady Meed (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963); Lester Little, "Pride Goes before Avar- ice: Social Change and the Vices in Latin Christendom," American Historical Review, 76 (1971), pp. 16-51. 176 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No. 2 / Winter 1980 classes, denied admittance by birth into the exclusive ranks of nobility, could hope to gain stature and power. Religious writings and visual arts contemporary with the Chanson de Roland mark the clear beginning of this new emphasis on avarice as a sin to be particularly feared. Not surprisingly, in painting and sculpture Avarice is most often depicted as a middle class figure.

He is usually seen at a counting table, sorting out and counting his coins. He places them in sacks and chests. Sometimes he has a sack attached to his belt; sometimes sacks or chests are under the table. . . . Depictions of Avarice give some of our earliest glimpses of the merchant class.1

In contrast to the clutching, compulsive, hoarding figure of Avarice, Pride had typically been depicted as a splendid, though fallen, feudal knight whose prototype is associated with Prudentius.

In Prudentius manuscripts, several drawings appear in sequence. The magnificent figure of pride is shown riding hard, head high, when sud- denly the horse stumbles and pride is thrown without ceremony but with great force to the ground. Then humility comes along, takes the sword offered by hope, and delicately lops off the head of pride. Again, when pride appeared without any reference to Prudentius, and the artist was limited to showing the figure only once, the usual way to present to the viewer as much as possible at a single glance was to show pride as a rider plunging over the neck of his stumbling horse.2

The sin of pride was associated particularly with the aristocracy, for it typically involved abuse of secular power, the exclusive privilege of the knightly class. For instance, failure to check excesses in private war, or failure to use one's power to protect the weak and defenseless were considered great faults for a noble. The archetypal prideful figure is, of course, Lucifer, who in the lore of the period was often seen as glorious and awesome in his own right. However, he fell when he sought power not due to him and rebelled against the greatest of all feudal lords, God himself.3 Bloomfield discusses why such rebellion involves the entire fabric of medieval society.

1Little, p. 37. 2Little, p. 32. 3For complex feudal characteristics built into the early medieval concept of the relationship between God and Satan, see R. W. Southern. The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1953), pp. 231-6. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 177

Pride ... is the sin of rebellion against God, the sin of exaggerated individualism. In a disciplined and corporate society, which the Middle Ages held as an ideal, exaggerated individualism, rebellion against the will of God, was considered particularly heinous. The modem world since the Renaissance, w ith its emphasis on individualism, has tended to look upon pride as a venial sin . . . . A civilization in which order and balance were the chief ideals could not look upon the vice of pride lightly: it struck at the roots of society, both human and divine.1

Although pride in the feudal era represented a sin essentially of abuse of power, the explicit connection between power and money with which we are so familiar in our own age had not yet been established. Even a man who was well rewarded for knightly service was not rewarded primarily in liquid assets, and, theoretically at least, he was not even given land out- right. Rather, he maintained his claim over the land and its subjects by the continued favor of his overlord, or, if he became strong enough in his own right, by force. Power itself was divided up and redistributed, being treated very much like a concrete possession.2 With a commercial economy, however, the conditions of power changed. Money and power became essentially inseparable. But problems arose because Christian doctrine could not morally accomodate commercial values. Oaths had rendered the transfer of power sacred in feudal society, whereas no such religious sanctions existed for the transfer of money. According to sacred doctrine, buying and selling were by nature sinful.

Such a morality had been formulated either in the Christian period, when Christians did not benefit from the flourishing urban-commercial society in which they lived; or in the patristic era, when that urban- commercial society was crumbling, and theologians were investing intellectual and emotional capital in an unworldly city; or, finally, in the feudal era, when commerce and city life were moribund. What was utterly new in the eleventh century was that a thoroughly Christian society, a society, that is, whose political, intellectual, and spiritual leaders as well as its members were Christian, a society that, moreover, was built on an agrarian economy, started to become an urban-commerical society.

1Bloomfield, p. 75. 2Joseph Strayer Feudalism (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1965), p. 12, notes that as political power is fragmented in the earlier feudal age, it becomes treated "as a private possession. It can be divided among heirs, given as marriage portion, bought and sold. Private contracts and the rules of family law determine the possessor of judicial and administrative authority. Public power in private hands is accepted as a normal and inevitable arrangement; no one considers it peculiar or undesirable. " 178 / Olifant, Vol. 8, No.2 / Winter 1980

When the guardians of tradition searched the old morality for guidance, they found only strong opposition to the life of commerce.1

In France at this time, both the aristocracy and the Church shared a distain for commercialism, even while they were indirectly reaping its benefits. Class consciousness determined that any but the time-honored rôles as fighter, overseer, and bestower of gifts jeopardized one's knightly rank: "Tandis que s'accélère le progrès de l'économie monétaire, la morale des gentilshommes condamne avec plus d'insistance que jamais l'esprit de profit, le goût d'accroître ses ressources. ' '2

Thus, in the context of this eleventh- and twelfth-century view of avarice, Ganelon's failure through greed is not arbitrary but involves a whole network of moral associations with specific ties to economic concerns. Ganelon displays other of the seven deadly sins—most notably anger and envy—but his basic sin is avarice. Nowhere is he accused of the particularly aristocratic sin of pride. Though he may abuse his position as ambassador, he does not overtly seek power for its own sake, but merely uses it as a tool to gain revenge and riches.

Ganelon's deception is made possible not because of a single, over- whelming instance of temptation, but because of basic character traits which will come to be associated with the new bourgeoisie: an individualistic desire for profit, a quantifying mind, and a deceptive, manipulative use of language. Other individuals among the aristocracy may have shared Ganelon's covetousness and unscrupulousness, but in the Roland the depiction of Ganelon's deceptive acts shows an awareness of what kinds of problems arise when a man dominated by a profit motive gains a position of power. When such a mentality is adopted by an entire influential class of tradesmen, the traditional codes which bind aristocracy are themselves threatened.

1Little, pp. 30-31. 2Duby, p. 287. Not only were moral sanctions imposed on aristocracy to refrain from oven money-making, but legal sanctions were imposed as well. In discussing the rights and limitations of nobles, M. Bloch states, "Quelle que f û t la force des droits acquis de naissance, elle n'était pas telle, cependant, qu'ils ne dussent se perdre par l'exercice de certaines occupa- tions censées incompatibles avec la grandeur du rang" (II. p. 72). Derogation was defined by lawyers and theologians as any act on the part of a nobleman which could jeopardize his privileged rank. Such a loss of status could result from his engaging in any occupation which would bring him a profit. See also M. M. Postan, ed., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 572-3. Kellogg / Ganelon: Poetics of Guile and Greed 179

Given the economic overtones of Ganelon's betrayal and the economic developments beginning to take place in France at the time the Chanson de Roland was composed, Charlemagne's lament over his nephew at Rencesvals becomes doubly significant.

"Ki tei ad mort France ad mis en exill. Si grant dol ai que ne voldreie vivre. De ma maisnee, ki pur mei est ocise! " (vv. 2935-37)

The man most responsible for Roland's death is, of course, Ganelon, who also has desolated France by destroying her military might. But Charle- magne, the figurehead and protector of feudal French society, can also around the year 1100 lament the passing of a traditional way of life. When Turoldus recorded the Chanson de Roland, the class which formed the substance of his song was undergoing a significant transformation. This epic glorifies a military idealism, economic interdependence, and absolute loyalty between vassal and monarch which by 1100 had broken down con- siderably. Ganelon, then, can be seen as a type for forces which would drastically modify feudal ideals. As the urban-commercial economy cre- ated a widespread use of money, the rise of a newly powerful class threatened the supremacy of the aristocracy and thus rendered obsolete the order which Charlemagne represented. By his avarice, Ganelon suggests the commercialism of which the aristocracy was so wary. At this point, Gane- lon only hints at these qualities, but the clear direction in which he points is marked overtly in later versions of the Chanson de Roland, where Gane- lon the traitor also becomes more and more explicitly Ganelon the trader.

Judith Lillian Kellogg University of Hawaii at Manoa