sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chanson de geste, French literature, Ganelon, Pinabel

184 White

Chapter 7 The Evils of the Court: Judicial Melodramas in Medieval French

Stephen D. White

Early in a sequel to La de called Gaydon (c. 1230), the emperor is threatened once again by treason as he retreats with his army from Spain.1 There, as all versions of the Roland-story relate, the traitor had enabled the emperor’s enemies to ambush and kill not only 20,000 men in the rearguard of Charlemagne’s army but also the twelve peers of , including Count Roland, Charlemagne’s nephew and favourite.2 Although forced to retreat without conquering the , Charlemagne, in Gaydon’s brief recapitulation of the Roland-story, had nevertheless remained in Spain long enough to avenge Roland’s death on Ganelon, whom his court had judged a traitor and executed after a certain Thierry, whom the Oxford- Roland identifies as a brother of Geoffrey of Anjou, had killed Ganelon’s kinsman and champion in a judicial duel, otherwise known as a trial by battle (1–13; see also 44–5, 424).3 As Gaydon begins, Thierry, identified here as Geoffrey’s son, has taken the name Gaydon (“The Jay”), after a bird of that type, which had alighted on his helmet at the moment of his victory over Pinabel (425–7). Although Thierry/Gaydon is Charlemagne’s new favourite at the outset of the poem, he is not to retain his privileged status for long. While Charlemagne is staying up late at night in his tent with some of his barons, a messenger from Gaydon brings him a gift of 30 apples.4 After

1 Gaydon: du XIIIe siècle, ed. Jean Subrenat and co-trans. with Andrée Subrenat, Collection Ktemata 19 (Louvain, 2007). In the text of this article Arabic numer- als within parentheses refer to line numbers in this text. 2 On the relationship between Gaydon’s allusions to the Roland story and different versions of the story itself, see Jean Subrenat, “Position Littéraire de Gaydon,” in Gaydon, pp. 19–23; and notes to lines 16–18 and 46–9 at pp. 694–696. For the Oxford-Roland, which is by far the best-known version of the story, see La chanson de Roland, ed. Ian Short (Paris, 1997); and , trans. Glyn S. Burgess (Harmondsworth, 1990). On other versions of the story, see Margaret Buckland, Strange Words: Retelling and Reception in the Medieval Roland Textual Tradition (Notre Dame, IN, 2007). 3 Whereas the Oxford version of La chanson de Roland locates Ganelon’s trial at Aix in , Gaydon places it in Spain. 4 Gaydon, line 125: “Trente parmains” (a kind of apple called a “pearmain” in English).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/97890044311367_011 The Evils of the Court 185 promising to reward the messenger the next morning, the emperor gives one of the fruits to the young nobleman who was carving up the apples but who, after taking a bite, drops dead, with his eyes popping out of his head: a sure sign of poisoning (179–259). Furious, the emperor sends for Gaydon, whom he charges with treason the next morning (260–316, 396–449). The charge is then corroborated by a baron called Thibaut d’Aspremont, who undertakes to prove it by fighting (547–76). After Gaydon denies the accusation (590–5), it is agreed that the two men will fight a judicial duel to determine whether he should be executed as a traitor (737–81). However, audience members following the story already know which party to the duel is in the right. The author has already explained how Thibaut, a brother of the dead traitor Ganelon, has conspired with seven of his kinsmen to poison Charlemagne, pin the blame on Gaydon, and have him executed for the crime, so that Thibaut can not only avenge Ganelon but otherwise advance his own interests and those of his kinsmen by taking over Charlemagne’s realm and distributing lands to them. Indeed, it is Thibaut himself who has infused the apples with poison – an art learned from his wicked uncle, the abbot of Saint-Denis (27–177). In the battle right prevails, when Gaydon forces Thibaut to confess to his terrible treason and then kills him, thereby winning an acquit- tal (1044–1989), though the story goes on for nine thousand more lines until Gaydon’s conflict with Charlemagne is finally resolved (10817–68).5 When analyzed as a law case, Gaydon’s case is structurally identical to doz- ens of other imaginary treason trials in which a male or female defendant usually enjoying great favour at court is falsely accused of treason, but eventually wins an acquittal and proves that the accuser is the real traitor.6 In

5 On the judicial duel in Gaydon, see Marguerite Rossi, “Le motif du duel judicaire dans Gaydon: Traitement littéraire et signification,” in Mélanges de littérature du moyen âge au XXe siècle offerts à Mademoiselle Jeanne Lods, vol. 1 (Paris, 1978), pp. 531–546; Jean Subre- nat, Etude sur Gaydon: chanson de geste du xiii siècle (Aix-en-Provence, 1974), pp. 367–387. 6 In a different kind of literary trial scene, the charge of treason is not totally groundless, but the defendant is nevertheless able to disprove it in battle – in person or by champion – because he or she did not have treasonous motives and/or because the appellant’s charge was motivated by hatred, envy, and spite. On literary law cases generally, see Ste- phen D. White, “Prosecuting and Proving Sexual Infidelity at the Court of King Arthur: The Case of Guinevere v. Lanval,” in Per Andersen, Mia Münster-Swendsen and Helle Vogt (eds.), Law and Private Life in the (Copenhagen, 2011), pp. 1–26; “The Ambigu- ity of Treason in Anglo-Norman-French Law, c. 1150 to c.1250,” in Ruth Karras, Joel Kaye, and E. Ann Matter (eds.), Law and the Illicit in Medieval Society (Philadelphia, 2008), pp. 89–102, 267–269; “The Problem of Treason: The Trial of Daire le Roux in Le roman de Thèbes,” in Pauline Stafford, Janet L. Nelson, and Jane Martindale (eds.), Law, Laity and