Keeping and Transcendence

In the preceding chapters we have come upon instances in which the central goal of an individual seems to be not to give, (or to take), but to keep – recall Roland's concern with his sword Durendal. The importance of inalienable lands – technically the “honor” of a lord – was also mentioned. In these cases, the individuals are not interested in giving these items away, despite the honor that accrues to giving. It is better to keep than to give. And the violence that centers around these objects is for once less about aggressive taking than defensive protection.

Indeed, from a long-term viewpoint, the exploits of William the Conqueror, Robert Guiscard, or the poetic version of the Cid, could be seen as centering on taking and giving, but all in the ultimate pursuit of integrity: an integrity which would allow an end to dependency and even horizontal reciprocity. More prosaically, these individuals want political independence in the form of a heritable, “keepable” title and a crown.

Of course, heritable titles and lands are the antithesis of the fluid social settings where performative identity can be easily established. It seems initially quite ironic that each of these exemplars of performance should manage in one form or another to solidify his positions through the acquisition of a sacred status which is ultimately no longer given or taken, but simply kept.