. Bearing the marks of the enthusiasm engendered by the First Crusade, the Chanson de Roland is probably the earliest preserved chanson de geste, and the masterpiece of the genre. It seems to have been composed ca. 1100 by an anonymous poet (unless the mysterious Turoldus of the last line is considered to be the author—a controversial matter), who may well have been a Norman. Like other chansons de geste, it was certainly intended for singing, to a stringed instrument called a vielle, by a jongleur; whether this performer was also the composer is a debated question.
The earliest extant version, 4,002 decasyllabic lines grouped into some 290 assonanced laisses (stanzas of irregular length; the exact divisions are in some cases a matter of editorial controversy), is preserved in one Anglo-Norman manuscript of the second half of the 12th century, Oxford, Bodl., Digby 23 (O). Another manuscript, the FrancoItalian V4, preserves an assonanced text of the same type down to a line corresponding to line 3,683 of O, after which it joins the rhymed versions. Ms O came to the Bodleian in 1634, having belonged to Sir Kenelm Digby; it was rediscovered in the early 19th century by Francisque Michel, who published the editio princeps in 1837 and who gave the poem its modern title (it has none in the manuscript). This edition undoubtedly contributed to the resurgence of the study of medieval literature in the 19th century: the poem, with other chansons de geste, inspired Victor Hugo for parts of his Légende des siècles, and Gaston Paris chose to lecture on it at the Sorbonne in 1871 as a contribution to the restoration of French national feeling and morale after the Franco-Prussian war.
Although isolated, the Oxford Roland was a poem of great influence. It is imitated stylistically by many other chansons de geste, and its main personages play important roles elsewhere. Thus, Girart de Vienne, by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, sets out, some eighty years later, to explain how the hero came to be the sworn comrade of Oliver and the betrothed of the latter’s sister Aude, as he is in the Chanson de Roland. Roland, Charlemagne, Oliver, and even Ganelon are important figures in Fierabras, the Voyage de Charlemagne, the Chanson d’Aspremont, and other poems that make up the King Cycle (the cycle of epics devoted to Charlemagne and his exploits), but also in epics of the Rebellious Vassal Cycle, such as the Quatre fils Aymon and Girart de Vienne, in which Charlemagne ceases to be idealized as he is in the Chanson de Roland.
Toward the end of the 12th century, there was an important rhymed remaniement (twice as long as O), based on the assonanced version and preserved in five major manuscripts, the end of V4, and some fragments. This version, which seems to have largely replaced the assonanced version (summarized below), has lengthy extra episodes recounting an escape by Ganelon on the return journey to France and the death of Aude, the latter being much expanded with exploitation of the link with Girart de Vienne, a premonitory dream, and a death preceded by a conver sation with her brother, whose corpse speaks and invites her to join him and Roland in Heaven. Later, the material goes into prose versions, such as that compiled or written by David Aubert in 1458 (Croniques et conquestes de Charlemaine). It is no doubt a sign of the popularity of the subject that from the early 13th century there was a college of the twelve peers of France, magnates (six ecclesiastical, six lay) who took part in the lits de justice of the Parlement.
The poem’s influence is also to be seen in non-French versions of the subject. It was adapted into Middle High German (the Ruolandes liet by the Pfaffe Konrad, whose version was used by Der Stricker for his Karl der Grosse and by an anonymous author for Karl Meinet), Old Norse (the Karlamagnús saga), Middle English (Song of Roland fragment), medieval Welsh (Can Rolant), and Dutch (fragments only); there are related Latin texts in verse (Carmen de prodicione Guenonis) and prose (the Pseudo-Turpin chronicle); others in Occitan (Ronsasvals) and Spanish; later, via the Franco-Italian tradition, the subject reaches Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto, not to mention the Italian puppet theater, which survives to this day. Three of these texts were most likely composed in France. The Latin Carmen de prodicione Guenonis (482 lines) has been the subject of controversies over both dating and localization but was certainly composed after the Oxford text and probably in France. Preserved in a single manuscript, it is a school exercise in rhetoric that focuses on Ganelon’s treason and the battle proper. The anonymous Occitan Ron-sasvals (1,802 lines; one 14th-c. manuscript, in Apt) likewise centers the action on the battle itself. Although it alters characterizations and introduces Oliver’s son Galien into the battle, it is a well-constructed and emotionally elevated work. In the same manuscript with Ronsasvals is the heroic-comic Rollan a Saragossa, which recounts in 1,410 lines Roland’s amorous encounter with Bramimonde in Saragossa and his ensuing rift and conciliation with Oliver.
The poem is based ultimately on the historical ambush by Christian Basques or Gascons that destroyed Charlemagne’s baggage train on August 15, 778, during his return from an unsuccessful campaign in Spain. It recounts the heroic death of the emperor’s nephew Roland in an unequal fight with an enormous host of Spanish Saracens and Charlemagne’s vengeance and imposition of Christianity on the vanquished. Faced with inevitable defeat in the last Saracen stronghold left after a campaign of seven years by Charlemagne, King Marsile of Saragossa sues for peace, giving false guarantees. In anger at being nominated by his hated stepson Roland for the dangerous peace negotiations, Count Ganelon persuades the Saracens to commit their 400,000 men to overwhelm the French rearguard of 20,000, to be led by Roland, whom he describes as the Frankish “hawk.” In spite of Charlemagne’s fears, provoked by prophetic dreams, the French host sets off, leaving the rearguard behind. When Roland’s comrade Oliver hears the Saracen army’s approach, Roland emphatically rejects his friend’s advice to sound his elephant-tusk horn (the olifant) to recall the main army; he fears personal and family dishonor, a point of view that Oliver does not accept. After great deeds and initial successes by the French, led by Roland, Oliver, and the battling archbishop Turpin, the weight of numbers reduces the Christians to sixty survivors; Roland now at last decides to sound the horn, but Oliver angrily says that this would indeed be dishonorable now that the battle is on, and he accuses Roland of a monumental error of judgment, motivated by recklessness. Turpin points out that it can no longer be a matter of help, only of vengeance and Christian burial for the dead, so that no dishonor is involved. Roland’s sounding of the olifant brings the army back but fatally injures the arteries of his temple. After witnessing the deaths of Oliver, with whom he is reconciled at the last, and Turpin, Roland himself dies as a conqueror, the Saracens having fled on hearing the trumpets of the returning army. Angels bear his soul to Heaven. Charles returns and, with the aid of a divine miracle that prolongs the daylight, catches up with the Saracens and kills all of Marsile’s surviving men.
As the emperor prepares next day to leave for dulce France with the bodies of Roland, Oliver, and Turpin, we suddenly learn that Marsile’s overlord, the emir Baligant, summoned seven years earlier, when Charles had first invaded, has arrived. (This development has not been prepared in any way, and the status of this long episode is a subject for controversy.) Charles fights a second great battle, in which he finally kills Baligant. Saragossa is taken, and the remaining Saracens are converted or killed. Charles returns to Aix-la-Chapelle, where Oliver’s sister Aude, whom Roland was to have married, dies at the news of his death. Ganelon, accused by Charlemagne of treason, is protected by his powerful kinsman Pinabel, who nearly secures his acquittal by his threatening influence; but Tierri d’Anjou proves by judicial combat against Pinabel that Ganelon has committed treason, against the emperor as much as against Roland, and Ganelon is quartered by horses. As he sits alone at night, discouraged and desolate, Charles is summoned by the Archangel Gabriel, who is throughout the poem God’s messenger to the patriarchal figure of the emperor, to further efforts against the Muslims far away. Charles is deeply unwilling to go, but we know that he will not fail.
However he himself composed, the poet of the Chanson de Roland drew on what were surely well-worn formulaic expressions and metric techniques belonging to a tradition of sung epic. How he uses these expressions and techniques is what sets him apart. His exploitation of the laisse is particularly striking: in the Roland, the laisses remain relatively short, fewer than fourteen lines on average, so that most have a unity that is often absent in later poems. Each is like a good paragraph, dealing comprehensively with one motif or unit of narration; the first and last lines often link thematically across the boundaries of the laisses and are frequently lapidary and memorable. Although epic is primarily a narrative genre, the laisses are sometimes grouped in twos or threes (laisses similaires and laisses parallèles), where a single event or conversation is repeated on different assonances to produce an emphasis on important elements of story or motivation, as well as to provide a lyrical pause. Other poems have such devices, but the Roland-poet is a particularly skillful exponent of the technique: see, for example, the first horn scene, which is formally perfect in a static mode, or the three laisses leading up to the death of Roland, where the technique is used in a more dynamic way. The poet is a master of concise, evocative use of words, within the limitations imposed by the formulaic epic tradition; he rarely uses formulae in a mechanical way, and his use of repetition links laisses and episodes with recall and echo. Flashback techniques are sometimes reminiscent of the cinema, as when Roland sounds his horn and we see the effect alternately on the main army and on him. The poet revels in colors, bright light reflecting from armor and weapons, the sound of trumpets and horns. His sober, economical, yet vivid descriptions give an immediacy to his scenes; hearers or readers feel that they are spectators of events. This remains true in spite of the omnipresent epic idealization—exaggeration of numbers of combatants and the power of blows, the emphasis on single combats and battle scenes.
Executed with precision, variety, and evocative language, this poem, like other chansons de geste, nevertheless exploits to a considerable extent essentially dramatic techniques. Some 40 percent of the text consists of direct speech; we learn about the characters by what they say and do rather than by the poet’s analysis. Although we do not usually expect to find detailed psychological analysis in epic poetry, the characters of the Chanson de Roland ring remarkably true, at least over the range of emotions and beliefs the poet needs to show. They express themselves in dialogue that is concise, telling, and suitable. The traditional formulaic style does not prevent the individualization of the characters; compare, for example, the first words of Roland with those of Ganelon. This characterization remains subordinate to the development of the action, but it is done with precision.
The importance of the issues that the poem addresses, and the passion with which they are debated; the precision and affectivity of the language; the dignity, order, and sober understatement of the most moving moments; the dramatic technique that involves the hearer—all this makes the Chanson de Roland one of the great epics of the world and a brilliant opening to the rich 12th century.
In spite of its clarity, the Roland provokes debate. One of its liveliest controversies is over the interpretation of the moral conception of the subject. Traditional exegesis held that Roland’s decision not to recall his uncle is caused by pride, by desmesure, the epic fault of failing to keep a proper sense of proportion, which leads to fatal consequences; when he sees the slaughter caused by his decision, he repents or at least changes course to remedy his mistake as far as possible by recalling Charlemagne, and his self-inflicted death leads to his apotheosis and to the Christian revenge. More recently, scholars have questioned this view, seeing Roland as being right in his decision; on this hypothesis, he deliberately sacrifices his men and himself in order to ensure that Charles, who is seen as being ready to abandon the war prematurely because weary of it, achieves the final victory. Roland is seen either as a fervent Christian saint and martyr, an imitator of Christ, or, on the contrary, as exhibiting the pagan virtues of a Germanic tradition of heroism, with a thin veneer of Christianity.
The Baligant episode has also caused controversy. It is not prepared for earlier in the poem, and many scholars believe it to have been added by the remanieur to whom we owe the Oxford version, while others argue for its authenticity as part of the conception of the subject at an earlier stage of development; some find it stylistically different from the rest of the epic, while others see homogeneity. What can be said is that the episode adds to the Christian dimension of the poem, reflecting the structure of some saints’ lives, in which the death of the saint is put in the context of the struggle of the Church Militant. This does not mean, however, that the view of the hero as profoundly religious in his actions is necessarily the right one: it is a matter of deciding whether Roland attains his apotheosis by his original merits or by repentance.
A final controversy over the Chanson de Roland, and the other chansons de geste, concerns origin and method of composition. The old question as to how the kernel of historical truth underlying the poem could have reached the author, and in so distorted a form, has in the last thirty years been associated with the problem of oral as against written composition. This controversy, between “Traditionalists” and “Individualists,” is discussed in the article on CHANSON DE GESTE.
Brault, Gerard J., ed. and trans. The Song of Roland: An Analytical Edition. 2 vols. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. [Conservative edition, with controversial detailed commentary and annotation.]
Segre, Cesare, ed. La chanson de Roland. Milan: Ricciardi, 1971; rev. trans. (into French) by Madeleine Tyssens. Geneva: Droz, 1989. [Most scholarly and detailed modern edition, with many references to other versions.]
Burgess, Glyn, trans,. The Song of Roland. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990.
Burger, André. Turold, poète de la fidélité: essai d’explication de La chanson de Roland. Geneva: Droz, 1977. [“Individualist” approach.]
Cook, Robert Francis. The Sense of the Song of Roland. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Crist, Larry S. “A propos de la desmesure dans la Chanson de Roland: quelques propos (démesurés?).” Olifant (1974): 10–20.
Duggan, Joseph J. A Guide to Studies on the Chanson de Roland. London: Grant and Cutler, 1976.
Faral, Edmond. La chanson de Roland: étude et analyse. Paris: Mellottée, 1934.
Le Gentil, Pierre. La chanson de Roland, trans. Frances F.Beer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. La chanson de Roland et la tradition épique des Francs, trans. (from Spanish) by the author and I.-M.Cluzel. 2nd ed. Paris: Picard, 1960. [“Traditionalist” approach.]
Owen, Douglas David Roy. “The Secular Inspiration of the Chanson de Roland.” Speculum 37(1962):390–400.
Vance, Eugene. Reading the Song of Roland. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
van Emden, Wolfgang G. “‘E cil de France le cleiment a guarant’: Roland, Vivien et le theme du guarant” Olifant 1 (1974): 21–47.
This is the complete article, containing 2,670 words
(approx. 9 pages at 300 words per page).
