Christians are right...but which ones?

Roland is convinced that Christianity is the true religion and all others are false. The whole Chanson de Roland echoes his conviction. At first, it might seem that Roland is referring to a monolithic Christianity, i.e. one that is uniform in theology and unified in culture. To go further, he believes in the Christianity of the Franks, also known as Latin Christianity. What, then is his attitude (and by extension, the rest of the Franks) to other non-western, or non-Frankish Christians?

Sharon Kinoshita addresses this issue in her article, “Pagans are wrong and Christians are right”. Since the Franks depicted in La Chanson de Roland have more in common with the Crusaders than with the Franks of Charlemange’s era, their understanding of eastern Christianity is as misinformed as their understanding of Islam. Referring to Greek and Armenian Christians in the east, Kinoshita says, “In some ways, the westerners found their eastern coreligionists as strange as the Muslim enemy they had come to fight” (8). It was cultural and ethic differences, rather than theological ones, that caused the Franks to regard their brother Christians in the east as “the other”. Though the Franks may not have cast them in the same light as the idolatrous pagans, they did not consider them as fitting in the scheme of the Latin church. It seems, then, that the Franks were more concerned with the superiority of their national identity, then with the truth of their faith.

Of course, this is not far removed from the present day. Many Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox war with one another (whether in theological debate or in outright violence) while condemning other religions as false. Cultural identity is as important to them as it was to the Franks. And cultural identity, more so than theology, shapes their view of the world and “the other”. Christians may be right, but which ones?

Pious knights

What religion meant for these knights? Religion was their way for salvation, the perfect excuse to kill and to sack Saracens, of course... but did they actually know something about Christ, God or anything? The Bible was in Latin, but even in vernacular languages, most of the people were illiterate, even among nobility. They probably knew about Trinity and they probably knew something about Jesus v.e. his miracles. However, it is improbable the knew about deep theological questions or the about the meaning of their own believes.

It is actually amazing that those kind of people, with their very undetermined faith, were absolutely certain to be in the right side. They did not need to actually know the meaning of their believes, but only they needed to know that they were right.

Priest were also part of this status quo. They did not want to enlighten the knights, but to put them to fight to some other people, like the Saracens, and to avoid them to fight between themselves. In that way they turned Christianity in to an hieratic religion, and knowledge was reserved only for God himself and his clergy.

The only possible result of that way of thinking is the creation of blind certainty of being right only because somebody else said so, and beginning to get used to stop thinking by oneself. Rightness or wrongness is not any more an issue that requires analysis and thinking, but the result of certain interpretation of of a book written in mysterious language by a god ans told by a privileged class of priests.

Is it possible to see that kind of faith nowadays? 

Would Roland have understood a pluralistic world?

While reading our secondary text for this week, I found myself wondering if it would have mattered to the medieval European Christians if they had truly understood the faith of their Muslim enemies. In the eyes of a Crusader, does it truly make a difference if the opposing forces are pagan or monotheistic?

In a society that sees itself as the rightful descendants of martyrs and apostles preparing for the end of the world and the world-wide reign of Christianity, their enemies will automatically and necessarily be defined not what they are, but what they are not. Since they are not Christians, regardless of the particulars of their religious practice, they are, to Roland and his comrades, the evil Other and to be treated as such. This is not an epic that allows for a range of acceptable belief systems, but rather a story that traffics purely in good/bad, us/them, light/dark, Christian/Saracen binaries. While it is interesting and illuminating to see how the categories of Muslim and pagan were repeatedly blended, I wonder if the author of The Song of Roland wouldn't consider it besides the points.

(Obviously, it is a given that the Muslims of this time period - as well as our own- would probably prefer not to be conflated with pagans, sorcerers and the Antichrist, but they are not given much of a choice in this text.)

Others Together

Within the first lais of The Song of Roland a religious distinction is made between King Marsile and King Charles. King Marsile “does not love god,” which almost immediately makes King Marsile and his followers “others.” As the text continues, the pagan men are described on many occasions in dark terms, ie. “blacker than ink (1933)”. This imagery seems to dehumanize the “other” and move him toward the monstrous, thus underscoring King Charles and Christianity as relatively positive.

Interestingly, there appears to be another significant “other” portrayed in this text. It seems that Oliver is an “other” when contrasted with Roland; he is a necessary counterpart. When Oliver urges Roland to blow his horn, Oliver provides a challenge that highlights Roland’s courage and nobility. Shortly after, the poet attributes their disagreement to their differing inclinations “Roland is brave and Oliver is wise; both are marvelous vassals. (1093-1094)” Oliver, unlike King Marsile and his men, is described in honorable terms and therefore can be viewed as a sort of civilized “other.”

When taking both types of “others” into consideration neither prevail on their own. Oliver is killed during battle, and Charlemagne wins the battle. In this case, neither variation of “other” can adequately relay morals or values alone. The “others” appear to be used as a device to emphasize the value of a counterpart.

Triumph over the Mind and Spirit

The Song of Roland seizes upon conversion as an opportunity to triumph over pagans, not just in killing them (triumph through death) but also is asserting that their truth of God and eternity is correct (triumph through life?). And when asked which is worse, to be beaten in death or beaten – perhaps more accurately, captured – in life, Roland definitely leans toward the greater victory being in the one that lasts (infinitely) longer.

The Archbishop Turpin is praised for two skills: that of battle and that of conversion. Roland himself praises the more highly (placing it last of his eulogy before a final blessing) that “Since the apostles there was never such a prophet / For maintaining the faith and winning men over” (v. 2255-2256). Previous to this point we have witnessed Turpin slay countless pagans in battle, but it is this quality that Roland ultimately praises, as if to say that it is far more worthy of praise than mere victory in battle.

The conversion of Bramimonde, perhaps appropriately, begins with the defeat of her husband in battle. She despairs of her gods (which the poet completely inaccurately names as Muhammad, Turvagant and Apollo – but who ever said that medieval Christians had a completely accurate view of Islam?), casting her idols into ditches and otherwise defacing them on pp. 110-111. The emir, Baligant, makes the same transition during his fight with Charlemagne – he “begins to realize / That he is wrong and Charlemagne is right” (v. 3553-3554). It seems that victory in the physical realm is only a stepping stone to victory in the spiritual realm. On the next page (p. 143) the emir attempts to assert feudal lordship by urging Charles to give in and become his vassal, but Charlemagne responds by urging Baligant to give in and accept Christianity, showing that Charlemagne values spiritual dominance over feudal (or martial) conquest.

As the clinching point for his victory, rather than forcibly baptizing Bramimonde along with the hundred thousand pagans left in Saragossa, Charlemagne decides that she will be persuaded to convert. “She will be taken as a captive to fair France; / The king wishes her to become a convert through love” (v. 3673-3674). What he intends is something more than a triumph over someone in battle (through killing them) or a triumph over someone’s free will (by forcing them to be baptized). It is a triumph over the mind and spirit and the ultimate vindication that he is in the right. And indeed, the poem cannot be complete until the last page whereon Bramimonde “has heard so many sermons and parables” (v. 3979) that she desires Christianity actively, not just as an alternative to death. It is the last line of the contained story (before a final epilogue-esque bit about Charlemagne) that “She is a Christian, convinced of the truth” (v. 3987) – this is the symbolic victory Glyn Burgess speaks of in the Introduction, and it is vastly more cathartic to the end of the story than the less than satisfactory (due to the loss of Roland) actual, physical victory over paganism.

Roland's Resident Evil

Going back to “The Song of Roland” had for me something shocking. The description of the fight against this enemy, the whole picture presented by the author has some grotesque quality, even for the standards of some contemporary Hollywood films.

All that blood makes us think in movies like “Resident Evil”, in where this very beautiful girl –actually the only reason to watch the movie –kills lots of people in a feast of violence. I saw half of the first of those productions. The girl is beautiful indeed, but she is not beautiful enough to make me see the entire movie. In the film, all that violence has a perfectly moral justification: the people whom the girl kills are not actually humans, not anymore. They were infected by a virus and now they are just vicious animals or demons, and also if they bite somebody, he or she becomes one of them!

“Roland” and his friends are in a position very similar to Milla Jovovich’s in her own plot. They are fighting a resident evil. Saracens are not just conquerors; Christian knights and kings were involved in conquest wars between themselves, but that was totally different. It was just a change of administration of some land. However, Saracens were idolaters who worship Apollo and idols inhabited by demons; so ultimately, they were worshiper of the Devil himself.

There was no point in saying that Muslims actually are forbidden to create a realistic sculpture even for decorative purposes only. The authors of those times only understood two alternatives: Christian or Pagan. If you were not a Christian you were a Pagan, and Pagans are idolaters who are condemned to hell and they also can condemn your own soul if you become one of them – Jews were a complex third alternative, but Jews didn’t want to spread Judaism and maybe that was something in their favor. Muslims wanted to spread the Islam, so they wanted to convert Christians into Muslims.

For the medieval zeitgeist, that was as bad as or even worse than the zombies of Milla Jovovich’s film. A Christian converted to Islam did not only changed his o her status or loyalties, but also condemned him or herself for the eternity! And condemned people could also bring God’s anger to a land under the shape of bad crops, plagues and in unimaginable ways.

The war against Pagans-Saracens was a holy war. It did not matter if they were the followers of Mohamed and the worshipers of Allah, or the followers of Apollo, or the disciples of the Devil. For medieval Europeans, those were just one and exactly the same thing, and details were irrelevant.

The salvation of the soul was in jeopardy, and that was more important than actual life itself.

Roland killing Saracens was more beautiful for them than Milla Jovovich killing zombies for some of us. The difference was that Saracens were a clear and present danger for Christians and not just a weird fantasy. His violence was saint and a true Christian virtue. Luckily, those Christian virtues remain in the middle ages… do they?