Ganelon: the Poetics of Guile and Greed CHOLARS CONTINUE TO

JUDITH LILLIAN KELLOGG Ganelon: The Poetics of Guile and Greed CHOLARS CONTINUE TO PONDER over Ganelon's motivation for betray- ing 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 abso- lute contract, and the sacredness of the act was usually affirmed by the accompanying symbolic exchange of an object or a mutual gesture. In dis- cussing 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 mes- sage 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 out- look. 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.

Load more