One of the greatest quotes – and its misinterpretation
 |
| Credit: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/567101778051494831/ |
One of my favourite quotes is from the film Kingdom of Heaven. It is said by King
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem to Balian of Ibelin when the latter comes to Jerusalem
and meets the King for the first time.
“A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also
move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember
that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone,
even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you
stand before God, you cannot say, ‘But I was told by others to do thus,’ or
that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember
that.”
King Baldwin, despite his young age and illness
(he suffered from leprosy), was a good man and a wise ruler – not just in the
film, but in the real life as well. He did everything to save his people and his
kingdom which was dying in its last days – everything he could and considered
to be right.
There’s a Buddhist tale about a Buddhist monk
who was sailing on a ship when the crew found treasures – gold, jewellery,
diamonds and other gems, floating in the sea. They got them on the board. The
mind of one sailor was poisoned by the treasure and he planned to kill the
others so that he could keep everything. The monk, however, saw his intentions and
killed him. By killing this one man not only he saved the other crewmen’s life,
but he also saved that one sailor by taking over his sin and punishment for
murdering.
Did the Buddhist monk think that murdering
someone is right? Obviously not – he knew that he would become guilty and that
he would have to serve the punishment. But he considered his own life, fortune
and fate to be less important than that of the sailor. In the end, he did good – a
“greater good” –, despite committing a sin.
To say something is “for the greater good” is very
difficult and dangerous. Who has the right to decide on what that “greater good”
is? Who knows the outcome of our actions? In some certain cases, however, there
indeed is a “greater good” – just as there was in Kingdom of Heaven.
When the King asked Balian of Ibelin to “eliminate”
Guy de Lusignan and marry Lusignan’s widow, the King’s sister, Princess Sybilla of
Jerusalem, he did this keeping in mind this “greater good”. He wanted to save
his kingdom. Balian, citing the King’s words, refused to murder Guy de Lusignan
and the chance to be the new king of the Holy Land.
When I watched the film for the first time I
thought Balian was right and that this decision shows how a good and true
person he was – he resisted the call of wealth and power, the call of Jerusalem’s
crown, and he remained “pure”. Now I think he was wrong. He was merely selfish: he
didn’t care about Jerusalem, he only tried to save his own soul and disclaimed
responsibility for the kingdom and for Princess Sybilla. Or – in the light of his role as the captain of Jerusalem during the Muslim siege – let’s say he valued his own soul more than the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the life of her subjects. On the other hand,
this scene highlights another person’s character, greatness and true
personality – the King’s. He wanted to save his kingdom and in order to do
this, he wouldn’t mind to “say in front of God that virtue was not convenient
at the time” – and, after Balian said no, even though he knew that this meant
the end of Jerusalem, he didn’t force him to do something against his will.
Agree that this is on par with some of the greatest movie quotes ever, i wonder if its an actual quote from history or if it was just written dialogue for this movie
ReplyDeleteI tried to find out whether the filmmakers took inspiration from a historical person, but it appears to me that it really is just a dialogue written for this movie. This doesn't affect its greatness though :)
DeleteIt is a Kingdom of Conscience, or nothing.
DeleteThis is essentially the argument against utilitarianism: If we save humanity by inhumane means, we will have lost our humanity.
Deletevirtue was not convenient at the time- Can someone simplify it.
ReplyDeleteA little late to the game here, but I'll take a shot. The point of virtue ethics is to live a virtuous life through practicing a set of virtues: diligence, temperance, patience, etc. For Christians this means following the examples of Christ. We practice these virtues until they become a part of our nature, allowing us to, hopefully, live good and fulfilling lives before the end. What the author of this article ironically failed to realise is that Bailin is practicing virtue ethics by sparing Guy, exactly what Baldwin was stressing for in this quote. Had Bailin killed Guy and possibly "saved" Jerusalem then it would have completely defeated the entire purpose of Bailin's character since he would have chosen a political convenience over practicing the virtue of compassion.
DeleteThis quote, whether accurate or not, has stayed with me. Good words
ReplyDeleteI disagree in sacrificing a soul for a life. Eternal damnation by willingly committing sin in exchange for delaying the inevitable death is not virtuous. Death should not be feared because it is constant and how we all complete this life. Sin is sin and never the right course. Life is temporary and should be protected but souls are eternal and not bargaining chips.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this post; Balian was doing the right thing by not commiting murder and damning his soul. If you'll recall the comment from The Hospitalier to Tiberius: "If it lives only for a while, Tiberias, it still has lived. " Killing Guy would have damned his soul and attainted the Kingdom's existence as one perpetuated on further Sin. Not that any kingdom ever existed without bloodshed.
ReplyDelete0necmahie-za_Kansas City Scott Greiner https://wakelet.com/wake/cnDYMnT_yXZ-EsDnDsCBb
ReplyDeletevijiralba
Just in this quote, movie, and in life there is no right answer; except those which you choose to live with. The dilemma of the movie and key points are both accurate depending on the perspective of the one making the decision. Had balian chosen to kill, it was one life for the lives of many. One could argue however, by abstaining in killing, knowing the bloodshed that would come, he committed sin and that bloodshed is his to bare. Inaction or omission is still an active choice that can be equally harmful. The only question is. Are you willing to face the consequences of your actions, for they will come either way.
ReplyDeleteYou Said (Quoted) in the article "he (Balian) resisted the call of wealth and power, the call of Jerusalem’s crown, and he remained “pure”. Now I think he was wrong. He was merely selfish: he didn’t care about Jerusalem, he only tried to save his own soul and disclaimed responsibility"
ReplyDeleteHe most certainly did not, he fought very hard and smart for the safe passage of 'every soul' out of Jerusalem - those were his terms, and they were granted.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS IN YOUR HEART AND IN YOUR HEAD, AND IN RIGHT ACTION, not in some 'special place'
Bible passage: "Lift a rock or raise a stone and I'll be there" this was why he gave up Jerusalem - only for the people. That is very: good, wise, humble giving for Balian to do. Sorry not seeing selfing here at all.
Perhaps more troubling was the influx of Saracens now modern day muslims who according to their manifesto will kill all people who are not of their beliefs. By them going to war at least they got some of them? Perhaps Balian was wrong not to kill the 'to be king' and keep the historic holy lands pure and without constant local issues.
Delete