The cult of Charlemagne has a long tradition. When he was canonized on December 29, 1165, his veneration had already been firmly established and became the foundation for Emperor Frederick Barbarossaâs (1122â1190) political and religious valorization of Staufian rule.1 The use of Charlemagne in politics and religion merged in the German epic compilation Karlmeinet, which is based in the northern Rhine region, in the following century.2 The second epic in the cycle, Morant und Galie, dates to about 1220â30, during Frederick IIâs reign, or earlier in the Staufian period. Morant und Galie incorporates the image of Charlemagne as a secular and religious power, focusing on the trial of the wrongfully accused Queen Galie and Charlemagneâs best knight Morant.3 The main accusation is treason, facilitated by adultery and heresy. During the trial, the villains who wrongfully accuse queen and knight attempt to destabilize the power of the court, and Charlemagneâs authority in particular. Treason becomes the focal point of the trial in which Charlemagneâs reactions to the accusations lead him to convict his wife and his loyal knight without ordeal. Ultimately, despite his jealousy and rage, he listens to his council and adheres to the law, announcing that the final judgment belongs to God. Humanity, law, and faith: these three aspects shape Charlemagne not only as the arbiter of the law but also as a devout king.
In The Kingâs Two Bodies, Ernst Kantorowicz anchors his premise of the metaphorical kingâs body by using Charlemagne as an example of ideal medieval kingship. Bea Lundt supports this idea when she talks about the image of Charlemagne on a grand scale: âDie Körpermetapher erweist ja gerade die gedankliche Basis seiner Herrschaft, die universal, religiös und damit nicht an konkrete Räume und Grenzen gebunden sindâ [The body metaphor proves Charlemagneâs theoretical basis of his rule which is universal, religious and not tied to concrete areas and borders].4 However, Morant und Galie links Charlemagne by language, place, and specific legal proceedings to the northern Rhineland, venturing a claim on him not only as an abstract historical and legal figure but as a tangible and empathetic person, imbuing him with very human emotions, such as excessive love for his wife. In effect, this connection ties the metaphorical notions of the king as judge and the historical Charlemagne to a specific region. His weaknesses (arrogance, love for his wife, and irrational anger) give Ruhart the pretext to commit treason. The political useâbecause treason is a political crimeâof the social relationships that the king has to his wife and the court shows the danger of treason within a socio-political environment.
According to numerous scholars, the origins of the epic center on Cologne or Aachen, which validates the city and the surrounding region, or possibly a noble family or bishop, so that Charlemagne functions as the forefather of current political systems and legal proceedings.5 Although the epic cycle was most probably dedicated to this one region, the political and social use of Charlemagne as a figure of law transcends geographical and temporal specificity. Even though Charlemagne is a historical figure, more than anything else, he has become a utopian role model for social expectations. In the case of Morant und Galie, these social expectations circle around law as the foundation of a coherent and organized society. Treason, however, undermines the basis of the social and legal contracts, and it falls to an idealized king to reestablish them. However, the idealization in this epic undergoes a process, or at least the depiction of Charlemagne does. At first, he is prey to his emotions and ignores the strictures or legal proceedings; however, he listens to his council and decides to fulfill his legal obligations, and, therefore, lawfulness guarantees peace in the epic.
While the entire work revolves around the legal proceedings of the queen and the knight, the gendered spaces in which these legal proceedings occur highlight the inequities inherent in the judicial system. The law is not the same for the queen as for the knight. Morant, surrounded by family and loyal supporters, has oath helpers and can actively manage his trial ending in the ordeal by combat. On the other hand, Galie who has just married Charlemagne after his successful campaign in Spain, is only recently converted; she has no social network to support her, and, thus, is treated as an outsider and a foreigner. The villains take the opportunity to lay false charges of heresy at her feet, in addition to the manufactured charges of adultery, in a bid to undermine Charlemagneâs belief in her, exploiting the political and social weaknesses of king and court. As a woman and wife, Galie is in a tenuous position in Charlemagneâs court, in which he is her judge and, simultaneously, the supposedly injured party.6 Morant must fight the ordeal for both of them, successfully extracting a confession of the false charges from the villains. In both instances, Charlemagneâs actions and the gendered trial proceedings, treason destabilizes the courtly environment. It is the central threat of the narrative that occurs from inside the courtly structure because the villains are Charlemagneâs supporters, unlike in other heroic and bridal quest epics where outsiders threaten courtly stability.7 In Morant und Galie, treason is an internal threat to existing political power structures.
The first epic of the Karlmeinet cycle, Karl und Galie, deals with Charlemagneâs youth, upbringing, and marriage to the Spanish princess Galie, while Morant und Galie, centers on the wrongful accusations of adultery and heresy brought by the villain Ruhart. The epic is specifically a Prozessepos [an epic of trial proceedings], detailing legal language of the thirteenth century.8 As Elisabeth Linke explains:
Im Bereich der weltlichen Epen ist dieses Denkmal in der Reihe der ausgesprochenen âProzessepenâ von besonderer Bedeutung. Hier wird in einem Fall der mittelalterlichen Literatur ein fränkischer Rechtsprozess des gottesgerichtlichen Zweikampfes als Haupthandlung mit aller Fülle der Rechtswörter, Formeln und Reden in ursprünglich meisterhafter Komposition gestaltet.
[In the realm of secular epics, this work is of exceptional significance in the series of âtrial epics.â Here the proceedings of a judicial Frankish trial by combat are exemplified as the main storyline with an abundance of legal terms, formulas, oaths and speechesâan original composition].9
Unlike other epics and romances that include ordeals as motifs or plot points,10 Morant und Galie focuses entirely on the legal, religious, and social aspects of the case.11 Treason ensues from internal courtly strife and the godless nature of the villains, threatening to destabilize that very structure only to be redeemed and rectified by the ordeal. In the end, the ordeal is the only solution to the trial, indicating that while Charlemagne is the arbiter of the law, he leaves the final judgment to God,12 and framing the epic in a secular and religious context.
The prologue of Morant und Galie sets the scene for all the ethical and moral dilemmas that need to be solved by the court case, introducing the accused and their accusers:
[While one lives one hears it sung and said that loyalty is low and honorable standing weak, evil minds are loud, virtue outmoded, falseness shows itself everywhere brazenly with force. Virtue and honorable standing have been pushed into the background: because disloyalty is enduring. Injustice grows. Some betray their relatives for the sake of a reward].
Honor, virtue, and loyalty are the grounding concepts of courtly society. Within this system, the social structures and legal ties that bind them function as the surety that these concepts are upheld. Yet, the world has fallen to evil. Betrayal of family and, to a larger extent, the courtly community is the internal threat that has to be faced, rather than that from some foreign enemy. The social integration (or lack thereof) of each character points to their success in the trial proceedings or their death. Ruhart violently rids himself of all social ties and fails in denouncing the queen and knight, whereas Charlemagne reintegrates himself after losing his composure. On the other hand, Galie, initially an outsider, is quickly integrated and proves her innocence. Law-abiding behavior and social mindedness are the guarantees for peace.
The three traitors, Ruhart, Hertwich, and Fukart bring an accusation of adultery, (followed by one of heresy when adultery does not seem sufficient) against Queen Galie and the first knight Morant to Charlemagne. Besides being jealous over Charlemagneâs favoritism for his queen and knight, the three traitors are also greedy; their ultimate goal is to depose Charlemagne. The prologue laments this greed for material wealth:
[Out of the struggle for worldly belongings comes the great evil in the world, now more than ever. If we were to judge it truly, we can say honestly that it is inborn and not chosen. I do not mean all of us who are alive now. Some would rather be ruined than they would dare to betray someone. Thus, are people found at all times who avoid such things. But one also finds the ones that would try. In such a way, people were and will always be different. This is also told by the Latin quote: Quod nova testa capit, inveterate sapit. âWhatever a new bowl contains, that scent will always adhere.ââ just as a fruit has to taste of the earth and the air in which it has grown. In the same way, people are known by their inherited traits and milieu].
Weakening the king by accusing the queen and his best knight of adultery and heresy is supposed to give them enough opportunity to gain a political foothold in the court. The juxtaposition of Ruhartâs actions with the ethical statements form the cornerstone of the epicsâ legal and moral dilemmas. The Latin saying âQuod nova testa capit, inveterate sapitâ [Whatever a new bowl contains, that scent will always adhere] (vv. 35â36) features as the central argument foreshadowing Ruhartâs betrayal and punishment; the concept of inherent evil that adheres to the person throughout his life threads through epic. Morant and Galie represent the other part of this spectrum that intrinsic goodness, despite potential suffering, leads to a reward. They reflect the authorâs argument: âsulche liezen sich verdriven,/e si sich genieden/ dat si iemanne verriedenâ [Some would rather be ruined than dare to betray someone] (vv. 24â26). Morant, who has some legal standing, does not turn away from Galie when she needs a champion because Charlemagne, overcome by rage, believes the traitorous Ruhart and impulsively calls for punishment without due process (vv. 3344â56). The trajectory of Charlemagneâs judicial and moral development can be traced from his favoritism to the instant rejection of those he loves. The framework for his growth to a wise and just king are the legal proceedings in which he eventually learns to moderate his actions and emotions. He inhabits the middle ground between the binaries of good and evil, represented by Morant und Galie and Ruhart, respectively.
The first part of the epic details the legal wrangling over Morant engaging in a trial by combat against the traitors. Eventually, the trial is put on hold because the traitors want to avoid the trial by combat that would require them to fight Morant. Therefore, Ruhart uses a disguise to bring additional charges of treason and heresy before Charlemagne. In his grief and in a moment of weakness that taints his entire kingship, Charlemagne convicts the queen and the knight without any legal proceeding at all. But his court reprimands him, holding him to judicial standards to which he adheres in ordering the trial by combat the traitors sought to avoid. Once they are defeated, the culprits are sentenced to be dragged by horses, beaten, and then hanged.
The court case also exposes the inherent nature of human fallibility because Charlemagne loses control of his emotions at the false accusation of his beloved wife that he is too willing to believe; indeed, it is the law that binds both him and his court to undergo the correct proceedings to see that justice is done. Basic human emotions like grief and jealousy are confined and controlled through the legal proceedings and ritualized courtly expectations ending in an ordeal by combat.14 The ordeal is closely tied to all three charges brought against the accused:15 adultery, heresy, and treason are all special crimes, and, in the thirteenth century, ordeals could be used in all three instances in the Holy Roman Empire.16 According to Sarah Neumann, treason is a complicated umbrella term containing various crimesâfrom insult, refusal of service, assault, adultery, to attempted murderâand in cases of high treason, such as this, the focus is not on the crime or the perpetrator but the victim.17 In this perpetrator-victim constellation, when trust and fealty break, political and social structures are in danger of dissolving. Furthermore, Neumann maintains that the king cannot be an uninterested party and the perpetrator cannot hope for just proceedings, and, since social standing is also a motivating factor, the trial by combat is the only acceptable solution.18 Neumann sees treason as a declaration of war and finds the violence of the ordeal an appropriate challenge. However, the ordeal is not only a political and social tool, but a religious one as well. Leaving the decision to God, at least in Morant und Galie, portrays Charlemagne as a victim but also as a ruler, resolving social and political tensions on a secular and religious level simultaneously.19
In the historical context of the thirteenth century, âthe bond between offenses of a traitorous nature and the judgment of God through battleâ was so strong that Frederick II excluded accusations of treason when he abolished trial by combat for southern Italy in his Konstitutionen of Melfi (1231).20 Even though other ordeals (water and fire) were outlawed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,21 the trial by combat continued in a limited capacity for treason. Rudolf His states that treason was considered crimen lese maiestatis from the Carolingian period up into the High Middle Ages.22 The historical reality of legal proceedings and court cases is enmeshed with fictional and fanciful embellishments in the epic. Not only are treason and trial by combat portrayed accurately on a legal basis they are also, in the words of Sarah Neumann, âincredibly gripping.â23 The visual drama of the ordeal exemplifies Charlemagneâs moral development within the narrative from an overly emotional, weak ruler who does not adhere to the law, to a king who finally accepts the social and religious expectations of his environment.
The queenâs dilemma between swearing an oath of purity and finding a champion who will fight for her in the ordeal is historically accurate. In historical reality, the oath of purity or Juramentum Purgatorium was designed for cases in which there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Robert Bartlett states:
In all these cases, the absence of evidence, or witnesses, or even of accusers has been a necessary precondition for the use of ordeal. But such situations need not lead to the ordeal if an oath were acceptable. The oath, the corner-stone of medieval judicial procedure, was, in some sense, an ordeal, but one which relied upon Godâs eventual rather than immediate judgment. Where this kind of ordeal was employed, however, the others need not be. Exculpation by oath alone and exculpation by ordeal were mutually exclusive; hence, where oaths were unacceptable, the ordeal became a natural recourse.24
The accused would swear to the falsehood of the accusation, usually with the help of a relic or sacred object to prove their innocence. The thinking behind this was that the oath taker would be punished by divine forces if they committed perjury. In some cases, oath helpers, mainly family members, supported the oath taker.25
Therefore, the freedom to take an oath was limited to certain people and was socially stratified. Freedom was defined in terms of the Latin liber as, not an autonomous person, but one who is âconnected in a loving bond.â26 The freedom of a person was based upon his or her integration in a network of relatives (blood relationships). These relatives ensured and made a pledge regarding the innocence of the accused person. Freedom was essentially âintegration into an interdependent relationship.â27 Morant, as man and courtier, has full social integration, whereas Galie, as recent convert with no familial ties who is judged by her husband, the king, is not afforded the same freedom. Therefore, the ordeal by combat with Morant as her champion is the only way for her to answer the wrongful accusations of adultery and heresy.
Treason as threat and ordeal as solution strengthen the kingâs position in court and uncover the false accusations in front of God and the world. The punishment of the three liars and real traitors for their slander and deception follow the legal precedent. The Mainzer Landfrieden, from 1235, lists the following as punishment for treason:
Das Majestätsverbrechen ist grundsätzlich todeswürdig, doch kann der König aus Gnade eine gelindere Strafe, wie Verstümmelung, besonders Blendung, Verbannung oder Haft, eintreten lassen.â⦠Soweit die Todesstrafe angedroht oder verhängt wird, beschränken sich die Quellen häufig auf ganz allgemeine Wendungen. Mitunter wird aber auch die Todesart angegeben, und zwar bis zum Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts regelmäÃig Galgen oder Enthauptung.28
[Crimes against the crown are worthy of death, but the kingâin his mercyâcan impose a milder sentence such as mutilation, especially blinding, banishment or imprisonment.â⦠On the whole, when someone is threatened or sentenced to death the sources limit themselves to general phrases. Occasionally, the type of death is mentioned, up to the fourteenth century this was regularly the gallows or decapitation].
According to His, these punishments could also include the wheel and being drawn and quartered,29 but he attests these sentences mostly for the end of the fourteenth century to the beginning of the fifteenth century.30 In the thirteenth century, banishment and loss of property were more common in an Imperial context, and, depending on the severity of the crime, hanging and decapitation were the ultimate sentence. The epic reflects the legal punishments, as the three villains are hanged for their crimes, along with the penalty of being drawn and quartered.31
Galie and Morant are accused of three crimes, and, in the context of the thirteenth century, the charge of heresy was also considered a crime against the crown: âDie Gesetze Friedrichs II betrachten die Ketzerei als ein Vergehen gegen die göttliche Majestät und stellen sie dem crimen laesae maiestatis zur Seiteâ [The laws of Frederick II regard heresy as a crime against the divine majesty and place it in the same category as the crimen laesae majestatis].32 Frederick II set up laws on heresy at his coronation in 1220 that were intended for the Italian part of the realm, but they did not gain as much of foothold in the northern, predominantly German-speaking, regions. The successive laws in 1220, 1232, and 1238 increase the punishment for heresy from banishment to loss of property and death by burning.33 In Frederickâs laws, as in the epic, heresy and treason are the same thing. Even though these punishments were not as vigorously upheld in regions across the Alps, the epic, originating from the Northern Rhine region, does show the influence of historical reality. The villains meet their end according to the laws for high treason. Because the laws and punishments reflect historical reality, the epic and Charlemagneâs representation in it gains an added dimension of authenticity. The poem validates and enhances the image of its patron through the authentic judicial context.
Ruhart, the traitor, possesses no redeeming qualities and displays no nuanced behavior. Michael Heintze analyzes the entirety of the European Charlemagne cycle with particular interest in what he terms the traitor-family lines (Verrätersippen). He concludes that the older French chansons de geste, like those discussed by Ana Grinberg in this volume, contain several distinctive traits shared by traitors and their families. Heintze notes their isolation, a certain amount of secular and political power, the attempt to dissuade Charlemagne from fighting against Saracens, and the removal of faithful vassals from the kingâs inner circle. He argues that the younger chansons de geste build on these themes, and, while families still act as traitors, the isolation of a single traitor increases: they have immense power, they work hand in hand with Saracens, but they emphasize the absolute break with all oaths of fealty and honor, they misuse the Christian faith for their own purposes, and they strive to remove loyal subjects from the kingâs side.34 Ruhart and his conspirators, therefore, fit the established pattern of traitorous villains within the Charlemagne cycle. Ruhart, a courtier, is socially isolated since he murders his entire family, tries to remove Morant and Galie from the kingâs regard, and abuses the Christian faith for his own purposes.
Ruhartâs first transgression summarizes all of his subsequent actions: he stabs his wife and child on Easter without compunction: âzů sime kinde inde sime wive./ got geve leit sime live,/ mit eime metze he si erstach/ an den gůden paschdachâ [to his child and wife he went, God grant him mercy, he stabbed them with a knife on good Easter day] (vv. 111â114).35 No other reason, beyond dislike, is given for that first double-murder. He simply does not care for them much: âdu he gevromede desen mort/ an sime wive inde kinde,/ die he vil cleine mindeâ [that he committed this murder of his wife and child, he did not think of it much] (vv. 126â128). This murder foreshadows his behavior for the rest of the narrative. Ruhartâs one-dimensionality is replicated in the other protagonists so that the other two traitors fade into the background and become part of a trinity of treason in which Ruhart functions as the main culprit. This highlights the trial proceedings as the actual main protagonist in which humans are merely acting out their roles. This focus on specific themes and prominent character traitsâsuch as the good but grieving ruler, the innocent queen, the valiant champion, or the traitorous liarâsolidifies the social and political message of the work itself: Charlemagne learns to become a wise judge and king by adhering to the law. Instead of relying on character development (except the religious and judicial development of Charlemagne), the epic reflects social and political power structures specifically in the foundational legal terms, exposing ideals of gender, justice, and religiosity.
The primary emotional motivation for Ruhartâs crimes is jealousy, similar to Marjodo and Melot in Tristan. Ruhart and his companions (Fukart and Hertwich) envy the attention and favors bestowed upon Morant by both Charlemagne and Queen Galie. Nevertheless, Ruhart is not the only one who acts incorrectly. The kingâs almost excessive favoritism for his wife and Morant suggests a particular weakness in his ability to balance the power structures at his court. Although Ruhartâs deeds are more flagrant, Charlemagne lacks the foresight that bestowing his love and regard unequally can lead to jealousy in his courtiers. It is foresight and wisdom that Charlemagne has to learn in the end. By favoring Morant and Galie above all others at court, the king destabilizes the established power structures and opens the door to treason. Excessive love and, in return, excessive jealousy should not be traits of a king and, in this epic, the judicial proceedings help balance the moral failings of the king.
The kingâs favoritism and weakness to control his court reflects on Ruhart, who commits many sins, but the most heinous of which is the âpilgrim scene.â Ruhartâs crime directly correlates to Charlemagneâs indecisiveness. Ruhart kills a pilgrim coming back from Jerusalem, skins him, and puts on his face and clothes as a disguise.36 His behavior can only be explained one way in the epic framework: he has aligned himself with the devil. Since he is evil from the start, he cannot change or atone for his sins at the end. Ruhart is the real heretic, and he uses this ruse to extract himself from the ordeal; in his new disguise, wearing the flayed face of the pilgrim, he attempts to bring more accusations against Galie and Morant, but this time, he does not stop at mere adultery. He accuses them of heresy, arguing that Morant and Galie have accepted the Muslim faith. Nadine Krolla describes the dual threat of heresy and treason from an insider and outsider perspective. Narratives in the Charlemagne Cycle use the external confrontation of the Saracen enemy repeatedly, and in those instances, the danger to the courtly world comes from the outside.37 In Morant und Galie, the threat is inverted and internalized. The real heretic is Ruhart, who has made a pact with the devil; disguised as a holy pilgrim, the threat now comes from the inside to destabilize the courtly world, whereas Galie, a recent convert, is now a devout Christian.38 Ruhart is driven by jealousy and a hunger for power, but his accusations are designed to exploit the kingâs weaknesses specifically. The excessive love for his wife is used in the false charge of adultery, and her and Morantâs supposed heresy manipulates Charlemagneâs continual fight against non-Christians.
Ruhart violates natural law by taking on another personâs form, which is a reference to the prologue wherein the narrator states that whatever first filled the bowl will retain its taste long after. Following this premise, Ruhart cannot change into a devout pilgrim without being discovered because his very existence and behavior is predetermined and unchangeable. The fact that Ruhart cannot repent and convert violates not only natural but also spiritual laws. His one-dimensionality acts as a foil to the kingâs moral development; where Ruhart fails, Charlemagne ultimately succeeds. Ruhartâs social and spiritual isolation points to the one aspect that enables Charlemagne to overcome his own failings. Charlemagne not only has to adhere to the law but enact it with the entire court in mind. He has to listen to his council, his family, and act as a part of his community, something that Ruhart is unable to do.
The internal threat from Ruhart and his conspirators, therefore, becomes the challenge for Charlemagneâto distinguish lies from truth, faith from heresy, fealty from treasonâa challenge he cannot learn by himself and of which he is unaware at first.39 Without the court and the rest of his social network who believe in due process, the king convicts Morant and Galie. But before Charlemagne can call for their punishment, his nephew stops him. This reintegrates the king into his court. The act of listening and understanding a different view point, of seeing beyond his own roiling emotions, differentiate him from Ruhart. He learns to balance his own perspective with that of others and implements the correct legal proceedings. Ruhart, still in disguise, has to offer himself for the ordeal, where Morant during the battle discovers his disguise and extracts a guilty plea. Ruhart states:
[âIt is just an equitable that I admit my guilt in all these deeds and various evil words. I have killed innumerable women and men. Now it will be avenged. I have forced open many minsters, uncovered altars and exposed the saints. Everything I found therein went immediately to the Jews. What I could claim from priests, monks and nuns, even if they disliked it, was lost from the start. Thus, the devil had me long in his thrall to whom I belongâ].
Ruhartâs sins are numerous (not excluding the murder of his family). His direct declaration of aligning himself with the devil in front of the court shows Charlemagne that Ruhart has broken allegiance and fealty to him and God. Ruhart is the true heretic at the heart of the epic. He represents the sin within the court rather than an outside threat, the spreading disease of sinfulness that can only be healed by a just and equitable leader who can control his emotions.
The pilgrim scene also shows two essential aspects of Charlemagneâs moral development. Linke identifies the primary problem in Morant und Galie as the kingâs excessive egotism and self-love. His instability and self-centeredness generate a weakness in the social and political structures at court. A weak king provides a power vacuum that leads to opportunistic behavior on the part of his subjects. Ruhartâs treason is a reaction to Charlemagneâs failings. The arrogance of both characters is proportionate to each other. Linke explains that Charlemagneâs egotism is exaggerated beyond all kinship and familial ties so that he is blinded and acts unjustly.40 Similarly, Ruhart rejects all familial relationships through violence and treason. This two-pronged treason drives Charlemagne to the brink of his capabilities as ruler and man. A king, no matter how powerful, cannot isolate himself socially. As the epic shows, he has to learn inner truths, those of moderation and emotional control, and truths about his environment. His social and familial integration must be balanced with his judicial responsibilities with emotional challenges.
Ruhart, despite his avoidance technique, cannot escape the ordeal. The legal process and the trial by combat serve as the solution to the internal strife that his actions generate. The ordeal becomes the pivotal moment of rebalancing the social and political structure of the court. In this sense, Morant und Galie is a very straightforward work. Its binary composition leaves no doubt about the culprit. The political and historical message conveys the intricate placement of the king as a judge in the legal proceedings. In the epic cycle, the audience follows Charlemagneâs development from a young, newly married king, to the emergence of his moral and judicial weakness, to his irrationality that is then tempered by the laws, and, finally, to the moment when the law is validated by Godâs favor in the ordeal. The work serves as a validation for Charlemagne as a German king and emperor who, within the legal context of the thirteenth century, upholds the law despite emotional distress. He is a human figure, not saint-like, but in the semi-utopian setting of the epic, he does become the ideal for a thirteenth century ruler.
While the judicial proceedings and Charlemagneâs development go hand in hand, the epic creates tension by showing the gendered spaces in the legal process. Morant has the opportunity to redeem himself actively by choosing the trial by combat, but Galie does not. Her choices are limited, yet everything hinges on her and the false accusations. Adultery as treason is the ultimate destabilizer of the courtly social structures, which is negatively enhanced by her social standing as a foreigner and recent convert. Galie asks her husband (and judge) to allow her to use the Reinigungseid [oath of purity] to prove her innocence. Charlemagne denies her request. Galie laments this fact:
[âMy lord, I have sworn you faithfulness according to Christian marriage customs, and I will keep to it as long as I live. No one should accuse me of a lapse under the semblance of truth. I will gladly swear an oath of purification before your free men, which are trusted and known to you, for the misdeed of which you have accused me and for which I am to be sentenced. I take this upon me at the risk of my life.â Charlemagne, the noble king, swore by God and Holy Mary that he would not accept an oath of innocence from Galie, because he felt unmerciful towards her evil deeds. He had those at his disposal who were ready to prove, according to the law, that she was guilty].
Charlemagne is unwilling to believe in his wifeâs faithfulness because he has witnesses who can prove her guilt. Galieâas a recently converted heathen princessâcannot claim blood relationship with anyone at court and, as a woman, she suffers a dependent relationship to her husband, who is her judge at the same time. She has no oath helpers because she is not oath-worthy.41 The enforced passivity leads to a disastrous situation for the queen. Unable to take the oath and with no other legal help she notes her alienation:
[âI, poor woman will ask God for your eternal life when you will depart one day. Alas, poor woman I am. How am I so wretched in this land and I donât know anyone who I could tell about my disgrace and who would be able to be my champion in an ordeal by battle. I do not have any relations who act as legal help. Why was I ever born? Charlemagne, by your goodness, change your mind. Have mercy for Morant of Riviere that he does not have to lose his life for this slander].
The gendered aspect shows that Galie is isolated from the social network because of who she is, a foreign woman. Her deeds are automatically mistrusted. Ruhart, the actual traitor, isolates himself willingly and purposefully. Even his attempt at reintegration is just another endeavor at power and control. Galie as a woman has no active choices, whereas the men do. Luckilyâand as an alternative to the oathâGalie has a champion who will fight for her, and there are several instances in the epic in which she speaks to Morant to remind him of his duty to defend her and the law. Furthermore, it questions the successful integration of recently converted people. Galie converted to Christianity and left her home out of love for Charlemagne. He seems weak and easily duped by the three traitors. He cannot see through various deceptions and disguises and has to rely on divine will and the law for the truth. His moral blindness reinforces the primary focus of the narrative. The legal proceedings establish the belief that secular and divine law prevails even in the face of human fallibility.
While Charlemagne exhibits a certain amount of selfishness, the emphasis on the right of the law and the will of God ameliorates this specific weakness of the king. Even though the epic uses the image of Charlemagne for a political purpose, the equally strong focus on the legal process transforms the body of the king, as the embodiment of the law, into an abstract concept. The idealization of the legal process provides the reader with the perfect example of a ruler who bows to the law and, through the ordeal by combat, to Godâs decision. Charlemagne overcomes his blindnessâthe figurative and literal disguises of Ruhart in words and bodyâthrough the legal proceedings, thereby answering the epicsâ ethical issues. Treason is the ultimate threat to a kingâs rule, and the epic didacticizes the path to a just outcome in which the king maintains his power.
Of course, the treasonous characters in the work stand no chance in the light of the judicial proceedings. Treasonâin the form of adultery and Âheresyâis the essential and pivotal crime for this work. No other offense would have been suitable in this regard because it threatens the very essence of the court and Charlemagne as its embodiment. Adultery is the secular threat to that foundation. At the same time as it is a personal dishonor to the king, it also puts the court and the realm at risk politically.
Ruhart, the villain, is the quintessential transgressor; he breaks divine law by aligning himself with the devil and simultaneously violates natural law by killing the old pilgrim and taking his face. The beginning of Morant und Galie states explicitly that whatever form a being takes, it is still the same and will not escape its final judgment. Alternatively, in the words of Horace: âQuo semel imbuta est recens servabit odorem testa diuâ [The jar will long retain the flavor of that with which it was first filled]. He and his co-conspirators also receive a traitorâs execution. In that sense, Morant und Galie argues for stasis in a time of changing attitudes. The choice of ordeal in this instance is less controversial than a trial by fire would be because, by then, the other ordeals had lost favor with the Church, as indicated by the rulings of the Lateran Council in 1215. At the same time, it reaffirms and enacts a regional specificity (Northern Rhine region) in matters of divine and common law. On the other hand, the epic shows the transition towards secularization and the kingâs role in that process. Furthermore, it displays the legal confirmation of Cologne or Aachen and the surrounding regions by using the image of Charlemagne as the ancient forbear âUrahn,â the human representative of divine will against heresy and guardian of the law, even if it is his wife who is accused. Morant und Galie is governed by the principles of law and the body of the king as the ideal embodiment of that law, a function that unifies divine and secular beliefs. However, it also looks at human fallibility, especially mortal weakness and the search for truth. However, the epic firmly adheres to the law as the will and ultimate decision of God, exemplified by Charlemagne as its arbiter.
The epic outlines the stratification in nobility, rank, and gender, reinforcing social behavior and expectations. Even though she is queen, Galieâs rights during the trial are curtailed because she is a womanâshe is not allowed to swear oaths. Morantâs network of relatives and supporters defend him and manage to gain a trial by combat, which shows his standing in court and society. The traitor Ruhart is (even though of some noble descent), unmasked during the fight and revealed for his evil. God is victorious, Charlemagne bows to the wisdom of both secular and divine law, and the traitors are appropriately punished. For all its authenticity in its legal proceedings, the work retains a certain utopian sense of justice. It is, in the end, a work of validation, a highly visual affirmation of Charlemagneâs rule and, ultimately, that of the patron or patrons who commissioned it.
Appendix
Structure and legal proceedings of Morant und Galie:42
Prologue 1â96
1 1â62 About the transience of all human virtue
2 63â72 Motif: the innocent queen wrongfully accused of adultery
2 73â96 Personal stance of the poet, prayer, address to the audience and citing of sources
I Introduction of the Protagonists 97â729
1 97â200 Introduction of the three traitors Ruhart, Fukart, and Hertwich
2 201â729 background story
â 630â729 The traitors bring the charge of adultery before Charlemagne
II Initiation of the Accusation 730â1551
1 730â894 Collective accusation of the three traitors
â 740â79 The traitors bring the charge of adultery before Charlemagne and the court (die Fürsten)
â 816â22 The traitors âchallengeâ Morant
â 895â1551 Background story to the legal hearing
2 895â948 The traitors ask for Morant to come to court so he can be killed
â 949â75 Charlemagne insists on a legal trial including family
III Hearing 1552â3030
1 1552â1957 Personal arguments between king and the three traitors
â 1552â70 Prosecution speech by the king
â 1578â96; 1607â72, 1700â1810 speeches for the defense by Morant und Galie with offers for proof of innocence
â 1879â94 Obligation and prayer of Morant und Galiesâ guarantors
2 1958â3030 Hearing of the accusation in open court
â 1962â86 Prosecution speech by Fukart
â 1987â2000 Response by Galie with proof of evidence; 2001â8 Fukart declines the trial by combat; 2071â2112 Garnier accepts the trial by combat
â 2230â45 The traitors try to dissuade the king to include any relatives in the proceedings
â 2246â55 Berant, one of the relatives, points to the validity of the decision of the court (die Fürsten)
â 2422â32 The king demands surety for the rest of the trial
â 2486â2504 Dietrich of Ardanien asks Morant to prove himself in combat
â 2512â30 Galie asks Morant to defend the law
â 2531â56 Morant tries to exculpate himself
â 2557â64 The traitors taunt him
â 2577â89 The king demands a trial by combat; 2616â36 The king demands a judgment by both parties
â 2637â70 D. of Ardanien calls for an unbiased trial
â 2699â2726 H. of Daubespine represents Morant
â 2727â50 Duke Mile represents the opposition
â 2751â91 Americh speaks in favor of Morant
â 2795â2812 Raymunt speaks for the opposition
â 2813â24 Durenstein summarizes the proceedings thus far
â 2870â90 Agreement of the alden with Ruhartâs party; 2900â17 with Morantâs party
â 2924â34 Request of the alden for Durenstein to represent the judgment before the court
â 2966â83 Durenstein announces the judgment before king and court
â 2990â3002 The king rewards Durenstein
IV The Pilgrim scene 3031â3690
1 3031â3324 Cunning of the accusers to avoid the ordeal
â Killing of pilgrim, Ruhart wears pilgrimâs skin to court to fool the king, Ruhart brings renewed accusations of adultery, with an additional accusation of heresy.
2 3325â3690 Renewed and final decision for a lawful trial
â 3325â33 lament of the king
â 3344â56 the king convicts M and G without ordeal
â 3479â98 Charlemagneâs nephews, Baldwin and Rolant, lament the innocently accused
â 3504â14 Fukart tries to influence the king to oppose his nephews
â 3521â40 Baldwin and Rolant defend the right of the accused
â 3541â62 justification of the king and agreement to a trial by combat
â 3563â70 Fukart regrets the kingâs change of mind
â 3571â84 the âpilgrimâ offers himself for combat
â 3585â99 Rolant believes that it is a deceptive offer
â 3627â60 conversation between king and Fukart about Ruhartâs absence
â 3678â90 the âpilgrimâ and the other traitors talk with each other
V Trial by Combat 3691â4694
1 3691â4042 Preparation for the fight
â Both parties are lead to the fighting place. Fukart tries to convince the other traitors to desist. The âpilgrimâ readies himself for the ordeal. Prayer and swearing on the relics before the fight. Charlemagne gives Morant the exact words he has to swear, Morant touches Galieâs dress and swears for both of them.
2 4043â4694 The Ordeal
â Spear fight on horse, then sword, separated into eight parts and interspersed with prayers.
â 4631â38 Morant discovers Ruhartâs disguise
â 4639â61 Ruhart admits his guilt
â 4662â76 conversation with MorantâRuhart about the punishment of the guilty
â 4682â94 Morant tells the king of the outcome of the ordeal
VI General reconciliation and sentencing of the culprits 4695â5581
1 4695â4818 Charlemagneâs lament and reconciliation with Galie
2 4819â5063 Sentencing of the culprits
â After Fukart and Hertwich are caught they are tied to horses and dragged back to Paris, Ruhart is dragged as well, they are beaten, then hanged.
Knut Görich, âKarl Der GroÃeâEin âPolitischer Heiligerâ Im 12. Jahrhundert?,â in Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages: Germany and England by Comparison (Religion Und Politik Im Mittelalter: Deutschland Und England Im Vergleich), ed. Ludger Körntgen and Dominik WaÃenhoven, 117â155 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 117. The ideal image of Charlemagne as an exemplary ruler and unifier of Imperial power proved to be a potent image for the Staufer dynasty. Manipulation of that image (i.e. Charlemagneâs canonization), was an invaluable asset for promoting the Staufer dynasty as part of Charlemagneâs legacy.
Cola Minis gives an overview of the Karlmeinet cycle and the plot lines of the epics: âDiese frühe Dichtung ist zum ersten Mal (1858) in drei Hss. überliefert: In der groÃen von Adelbert von Keller herausgegebenen Karl Meinet-Kompilation (Charlemagne inde Galie: Charlemagne gewinnt Galie, die Tochter Galaffers, des Admirals von Toledo; Morant inde Galie: Karl wird König im deutschen Reich; als Karl gegen die Sachsen zieht, stirbt Galie in Paris; Eroberung des Langobardenreiches, wieder Krieg gegen die Sachsen, Karl baut die Pfalzen Ingelheim, Rheinbrücken, Köln und Mainz, im Jahre 801 wir Karl von Past Leo III. zum Kaiser gekrönt; Rolandslied: Das noch nie herausgegebene kurze Epos von dem bekehrten Heiden Otinelius/Hospinelus; Karel ende Elegast: Karls Persönlichkeit und Tod) = die Darmstädter Hs. A, 15. Jh.; in der 1921 von Erich Kalisch herausgegebener Kölner Handschrift = Hs. C, 15. Jh.; in der von Karl Lachmann 1838 herausgegebenen ndrh. Fragmenten aus der Bibliothek des Legationrats Meusebach = Hs. M, 13.-14. Jh.â In: âZur Sprache Des Prozesses in âMorant Inde Galie,ââ in Gedenkschrift Für Ingerid Dal, ed. John O. Askedal, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, and Kurt E. Schöndorf, 75â85 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988), 76â77.
Because this work is lesser known in an Anglophone environment and has not been translated into English, I have added an appendix to this chapter that outlines the work in its entirety. The bolded sections of the outline delineate the court proceedings and legalities.
Bea Lundt, âDer Mythos Vom Kaiser Karl: Die Narrative Konstruktion Europäischer Männlickeit Im Spätmittelalter Am Beispiel von Karl Dem GroÃen,â in Männer, Macht, Körper: Hegemoniale Männlichkeiten Vom Mittelalter Bis Heute, ed. Martin Dinges, 37â51 (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2005), 40. My translation.
Hartmut Beckers, Theodor Frings, and Elisabeth Linke believe that Morant und Galie can be dated to 1200 or 1220/30 with a general location of Cologne (written for the patricians of Cologne) or sometimes Aachen. Bernd Bastert, on the other hand, argues for an earlier dating in his evaluation. Because the extant manuscripts date from the first quarter of the fourteenth century upwards, he argues that the epic could have also been written for the archbishop of Cologne at the end of the thirteenth century, or that it was written for a Rhenish noble family at the beginning of the fourteenth century. He draws this conclusion because the legal and procedural content of the epic would have been equally attractive to clerics, the nobility, and the Patriciate of a city. For more information on dating, see: Bernd Bastert, Helden Als Heilige: Chanson de Geste-Rezeption Im Deutschsprachigen Raum, vol. 54, Bibliotheca Germanica (Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 2010), 94.
King Arthur frequently finds himself in this position when Guinevere is accused of everything from murder to treason. In this volume, see: Inna Matyushina, âTreacherous Women at King Arthurâs Court: Punishment and Shameâ; Melissa Ridley Elmes, âTreason and the Feast in Sir Thomas Maloryâs Morte Darthurâ; and Larissa Tracy, âThe Shame Game, from Guinevere to Cersei: Adultery, Treason and Betrayal.â
Nadine Krolla, Erzählen in Der Bewährungsprobe: Studien Zur Interpretation Und Kontextualisierung Der Karlsdichtung âMorant Und Galie,â vol. 239, Philologische Studien Und Quellen (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2012), 48â49. Krolla cites Jan Dirk Müller in this instance and maintains that in bridal quest and heroic epic, unlike courtly romance, the challenge to the court usually comes from another court or force from the outside. This cannot be said of all bridal quest epics. Herzog Ernst and Salman und Morolf, for example, show internal treasonous and deceitful behavior. In Herzog Ernst, Ernst is at first falsely accused of treason, which then turns into a real betrayal of his stepfather, the emperor, whereas in Salman und Morolf, the newly converted queen commits adultery and flees with her lover.
Elisabeth Linke, âDer Rechtsgang in Morant Und Galie,â Beiträge Zur Geschichte Der Deutschen Sprache Und Literatur 75 (1953): 1â130 at 1. All translations are mine.
In this context, Tristan by Gottfried von Strassburg comes to mind wherein Queen Iseut undergoes the trial by fire, one of many episodes in the disastrous affair between her and Tristan. However, unlike Galie, Iseut is guilty of adultery, even if she avoids being convicted after succeeding in her ordeal.
Scholars such as Theodor Frings, Elisabeth Linke, Dagmar Helm, Hartmut Beckers, and Cola Minis have primarily undertaken philological work in regard to dialect origin, placement, and history of the manuscript; see: Dagmar Helm, âDie Literarischen Denkmäler âMorant Und Galieâ Und âKarl Und Galieâ Und Ihre Ausgaben Im Vergleich,â Beiträge Zur Erforschung Der Deutschen Sprache 6.1 (1986): 126â135, 130.
To note here: although Charlemagneâs image in the High Middle Ages attained the level of a saint, which was reflected in the German epic cycles, in Morant und Galie, it is not the main focus. Bastert states that, instead both epics, Karl und Galie and Morant und Galie, show the path of the ruler to establish his domain and safeguard his kingshipâthe focus is on interior politics. Helden Als Heilige: Chanson de Geste-Rezeption Im Deutschsprachigen Raum, 336.
Theodor Frings and Elisabeth Linke, eds., Morant Und Galie (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976), vv. 1â12. All translations are mine.
According to Vickie L. Ziegler, if there was an accusation of adultery, the trial by fire would be chosen. She puts the ordeal into its historical context: âIt is especially appropriate for women because of their limited capacity for battle. Accusations of adultery frequently forced medieval courts to resort to ordeals, since adultery is planned to occur when no witnesses are present. Even if there were witnesses, it was hard to get reliable testimony from them â¦â. Such ordeals were used when the case in question could be settled in no other way and when rational proofs had failed.â Ziegler, Trial by Fire and Battle in ÂMedieval German Literature (Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2004), 6. In Tristan, Queen Iseut undergoes the ordeal with the hot iron, and Morant und Galie adheres to different judicial proceedings, relying on oaths, oath helpers, and champions to clear the queenâs name.
See: Robert Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). For a more in-depth look in the German speaking regions, see: Peter Kreutz, Recht Im Mittelalter: Grundzüge Der Ãlteren Europäischen RechtsgeschichteâEin Studienbuch, vol. 10, EinführungenâRechtswissenschaft (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2010).
The queen allegedly commits a personal sin against her husband, endangers the social courtly structure with her supposed behavior, and turns away from divine law. Adultery was a crime that, in German speaking countries, was typically handed over to the ecclesiastical courts. The Sachsenspiegel (1225) only punished the crime on a secular level with beheading when âHandhafter Ehebruchâ [red handed deed/ adultery with witnesses] could be proven. See: Rudolf His, Das Strafrecht Des Deutschen Mittelalters, Neudruck der Ausgabe 1935, vol. 2 (Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag, 1964), 169. However, in the epic, Ruhartâthe actual evil doerâfalsely accuses the queen. Galie and Morant are and remain innocent of this crime throughout the narrative. Since there are no witnesses, purification oaths replace actual witnesses, ultimately ending in Morantâs claim for a trial by combat to clear his name and that of the queen.
âNicht die Tat selbst, sondern ihr Angriffspunkt begründet also den Verrat.â Sarah Neumann, Der Gerichtliche Zweikampf: GottesurteilâWettstreitâEhrensache, vol. 31, Mittelalter Forschungen (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2010), 139.
For all crimes, therefore, the trial by combat is the logical conclusion to show Morantâs innocence. Peter Kreutz states that Godâs judgment is asked through the ordeal, either by combat of two champions, the trial by fire, or waterâin each case, the guilty party would not succeed in the test [âZahlreiche weitere Formen des Gottesurteils waren verbreitet, mit gewissen regionalen Unterschiedenâ]. Kreutz, Recht Im Mittelalter: Grundzüge Der ÂÃlteren Europäischen RechtsgeschichteâEin Studienbuch, 95â96: âIm Hochmittelalter wurde das Ordal allmählich abgelöst durch eine andere Form der Wahrheitsfindung, den Eid. Je nachdem, welchen Rang der Beschuldigte bekleidete, konnte er sich allein (Einereid) oder durch eine bestimmte Zahl von Eideshelfern, die mit ihm schworen, von dem gegen ihn erhobenen Vorwurf entlastenâ [In the high Middle Ages the ordeal was slowly replaced by other forms of finding the truth, the oath. Depending on the rank of the accused, he could exonerate himself by swearing alone (Einereid) or with a certain number of oath helpers who swore with him]. Although oaths slowly gained a stronger footing throughout the high Middle Ages, ordeals were not abandoned, despite the ruling of the Lateran Council of 1215. Typically, the number of oath helpers was set by the law books. The oaths of purity and innocence increased during the high Middle Ages but did not exclude an ultimate judgment ending in an ordeal. Furthermore, not everyone was oath worthy since this was determined through social rank and standing.
Ziegler, Trial by Fire and Battle in Medieval German Literature, 8. Ordeals encountered a significant amount of skepticism from the Carolingian period onward (Archbishop Agobard of Lyons rejected ordeals that did not have precedence in the Bible). To force a miracle by using ordeals was considered suspect. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 argued against clerics participating in ordeals, while secular courts also abandoned the practice.
Jürgen Weitzel discusses the impact of the crimen maiestatis in the early Middle Ages in âDas Majestätsverbrechen Zwischen Römischer Spätantike Und Fränkischem Mittelalter,â in Hoheitliches Strafen in Der Spätantike Und Im Frühen Mittelalter, ed. Jürgen Weitzel, Konflikt, Verbrechen Und Sanktionen in Der Gesellschaft Alteuropas, vol. 7 (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2002), 47â83. The concept of treason, however, is an umbrella term for various different offenses of a traitorous nature from Carolingian times to the thirteenth century, as Weitzel states; Sarah Neumann agrees in Der Gerichtliche Zweikampf: GottesurteilâWettstreitâEhrensache, 138.
âFür die erzählerische Sinnstiftung birgt das Zweikampfmotiv zunächst einen groÃen Vorteil: Es ist ungemein griffig. Der gerichtliche Zweikampf ist ein Stück ritualisierte Gewalt und als solches von hoher Bildhaftigkeit; es ist eine Inszenierung, deren konkrete Bestandteile abstraktere gesellschaftliche Ordnungsvorstellungen transportierenâ [The ordeal by combat proves a great advantage for expressive narration: It is incredibly gripping. It is a form of ritualized violence and therefore highly visual. The concrete components of its theatricality bear more abstract concepts of societal stratification]. Sarah Neumann, âVom Gottesurteil Zur Ehrensache? Deutungsvarianten Des Gerichtlichen Zweikampfes Im Mittelalter,â in Das Duell: Ehrenkämpfe Vom Mittelalter Bis Zur Moderne, ed. Ulrike Ludwig, Gerd Schwerhoff, and Barbara Krug-Richter, 93â104 (Konstanz: UVK-Fachverlag für Wissenschaft und Studium, 2012), 95.
For example, the famous oath of purity was the one that Pope Leo III gave before Charlemagne on December 23, 800. For an in-depth analysis of the purity oath in legal proceedings, see: Richard Loening, Der Reinigungseid bei Ungerichtsklagen im deutschen Mittelalter (Aalen: Scientia, 1982).
Günter Jerouschek, âDie Herausbildung Des Peinlichen Inquisitionsprozesses Im Spätmittelalter Und in Der Frühen Neuzeit,â Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 104.2 (1992): 331.
Jerouschek, âDie Herausbildung Des Peinlichen Inquisitionsprozesses,â 331. Jerouschek, also points out that, from a legal standpoint, the importance of the âReinigungseidâ underwent a change in the thirteenth century. Innocent IIIâs attempts at legal trial reforms gave the oath of purity a subsidiary role and was only used when there was no evidence to substantiate the accusations (but still involving infamia); see: Jerouschek, âDie Herausbildung Des Peinlichen Inquisitionsprozesses,â 335.
For an in-depth look at the punishment of the wheel, see: Mitchell Merback, The Thief, the Cross and the Wheel: Pain and the Spectacle of Punishment in Medieval and Renaissance Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 158â197.
âBei einer Verschwörung (conspiratio, samensop) der Holsteiner gegen ihren Grafen 1306 wird der Rädelsführer geschleift, gerädert und dann gehängt. Im Stift Würzburg werden 1399 mehrere Aufrührer gevierteilt, im Stift Lüttich ist die Vierteilung von Aufrührern neben Rädern und Enthauptung seit dem Jahre 1416 bezeugtâ (His, Das Strafrecht Des Deutschen Mittelalters, 2:41). [During a conspiracy of the Holsteiner against their count in 1306, the ringleader is dragged, put on the wheel, and then hanged. In the monastery of Würzburg several rabble-rousers are drawn and quartered in 1399, in the monastery Lüttich the drawing and quartering of rioters is attested since the year 1416]. Ernst Schubert agrees that these punishments, especially drawing and quartering, were used for crimes of treason. However, he attests drawing and quartering to the later Middle Ages and only in the rarest of cases. So rare in fact, that city chronicles always had a special note when the punishment was enacted. Schubert cites the 1438 case of a citizen, Hans Bausback, who had committed treason in Würzburg. He cites another case in 1519 in Regensburg where a former judge had committed treason, but his sentence was commuted from drawing and quartering to the sword at the last minute. See: Schubert, Räuber, Henker, Arme Sünder: Verbrechen Und Strafe Im Mittelalter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007), 96.
These punishments were in the law books up until the eighteenth century. See: Georg Steinberg, âHochverrat,â Handwörterbuch Zur Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 1064â1068 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2012), 1064.
Michael Heintze, König, Held und Sippe: Untersuchungen zur Chanson de geste des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts und ihrer Zyklenbildung, vol. 76, Studia Romanica (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1991), 413â447. See, in this volume: Ana Grinberg, âReligious Identity, Loyalty, and Treason in the Cycle du roi,â and Albrecht Classen, âTreason and Deception in Late Medieval German Romances and Novels Königin Sibille, Melusine, and Malagis.â Samuel Claussen addresses what he calls the âGanelon problemâ in Castilian romances in âRoyal Punishment and Reconciliation in Trastámara Castile,â also in this volume.
This scene is reminiscent of the bridal quest epic Salman und Morolf in which King Solomonâs brother wants to help his king to bring back Queen Salme, who had run away with a lover. Morolf goes to an old Jewish merchant to ask his advice, but instead stabs the old man, flays him, and wears his skin as disguise. He calls himself a âpilgrimâ and ventures to Salmeâs castle where he is discovered. Unlike Morant und Galie where the religious aspect of the âpilgrimâ comes to the forefront and his status as pilgrim ensures that Charlemagne and the court believe his words, the scene in Salman und Morolf has more disturbing implications, mainly those of gratuitous and casual violence perpetrated against Jews. For more information, see: Tina Marie Boyer, âMurder and Morality in Salman Und Morolf,â Journal of English and Germanic Philology 115.1 (2016): 39â60; Fredericka Bain, âSkin on Skin: Wearing Flayed Remains,â in Flaying in the Premodern World: Practice and Representation, ed. Larissa Tracy, 116â37 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2017); Sarah Bowden, Bridal-Quest Epics in Medieval Germany: A Revisionary Approach (London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 2012).
â... in Morant und Galie ist es die übermäÃige Selbstliebe des Königs, die über alle echten Beziehungen hinaus gesteigert wird, so daà er in Verblendung unrecht handeln muÃâ (Linke, âDer Rechtsgang in Morant Und Galie,â 16).
According to Ziegler, âOathworthiness depended to a large degree on status and reputation. If an individual were known to be untrustworthy, he could not clear himself with an oath. ⦠Another group that could not clear itself through oaths comprised individuals who either by birth or circumstance, through no fault of their own, were not oathworthy. This group had two main categories: foreigners and slaves. The stranger is not grounded in the community: there is no one to vouch for his characterâ (Trial by Fire and Battle in Medieval German Literature, 5). Also see: Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, 30â32.