Song of Roland Notes (Medieval French)
Questions:
1) What is the function of repetition in the Chanson de Roland?
2) ‘Paien unt tort, e chrestïens unt dreit.’ To what extent do you consider Roland’s claim to be
substantiated by La Chanson de Roland?
3) What picture of feudal society does the Chanson paint?
4) What is the relationship between Christian values, feudal values and treachery?
5) Is Roland the hero of the Chanson that now bears his name?
6) What role does orality play in shaping the Chanson de Roland?
7) ‘Plot and characterisation function as means to an end in the Chanson de Roland.’ To what
extent do you consider this a reductive assessment of the poem?
8) ‘In the Chanson de Roland structure and meaning are indissolubly linked.’ Discuss.
9) Discuss the role of each of the following in giving coherence to the Chanson de Roland:
Roland; Ganelon and Baligant.
10) ‘Ideological unity is undercut by aesthetic diversity.’ How adequate is this assessment of La
Chanson de Roland?
11) To what extent is the Chanson de Roland at once simple and complex?
12) ‘In the Chanson de Roland, dramatic e ect takes precedence over didactic message.’
Discuss. (2010)
13) ‘Similarity and di erence are central problems in the Oxford Roland.’ Discuss.
14) 'Ganelon is the man of words, Roland the man of action.' Discuss with reference to the Oxford
Roland.
15) ‘The inherent violence of the world depicted in the Chanson de Roland is presented with
remarkable restraint and sobriety.’ Discuss.
16) Even the author of the Chanson de Roland cannot resist the didactic tendency of medieval
poetry.’ Discuss.
17) What is Charlemagne’s role in the Chanson de Roland?
18) What is Ganelon’s role in the Chanson de Roland?
19) What is Roland’s function in the Chanson de Roland?
20) ‘In the Roland, we both see and hear the characters, as if we were direct witnesses to the
action, but we rarely have access to their thoughts and motivations.’ To what extent is this
true, and why?
21) ‘Forasmuch as it is classi ed as a chanson de geste, its high percentage of direct speech
could make it, as it were, a chanson de paroles.’ How adequate is this view of La Chanson de
Roland?
22) Should the Chanson de Roland be referred to as such?
Introduction to the poem
- Not sure when written, but 1098-1100 most common estimate (at time of First Crusade.
Possible that inclusion of a relic in Charlemagne’s sword (vv. 2501-9) is an allusion to the
revelation of Peter Bartholomew that led to the discovery of the lance of the cruci xion in
Antioch in 1098). p. 8
- CdR set in northern Spain. p. 8
- Summary pp. 10-13
- Author uncertain, although Turoldus named at end (author, source, copyist?). Burgess sees
Turoldus as author relating his own version of an heroic poem that would have already existed
in a variety of di erent forms. p. 14
- Epic poem = chanson de geste. p. 14 Paragraphs called "laisses”.
- CdR performed by a jongleur to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument (“vielle”). p. 16
- Author says Saracens live in the valley (a place associated with the devil). p. 21
Summary by laisse
- 1-11: Charlemagne conquering a lot of territory, and Marsile tries to deceive him into making an
unwise peace.
- 12-16: Deliberations of Charlemagne’s council of nobles concludes that peace is a good move.
- 17-19: Debate who should carry Charlemagne’s message.
1
ffff fi ff fi
,- 20-26: Roland nominates Ganelon, who now detests him.
- 27: Ganelon rides o .
- 28-45: Ganelon discusses with envoy Blancandrin and when rides with him to Marsile, who
agrees to the plan to betray Roland.
- 46-52: Oaths sworn and gifts exchanged between Ganelon and the in dels.
- 53-57: Ganelon returns and speaks with Charlemagne. Charlemagne has disconcerting
dreams.
- 58-65: Roland nominated to rearguard.
- 66: Charlemagne leaves.
- 67: Charlemagne’s sense of foreboding regarding Ganelon.
- 68-79: Pagan strength and individual pagan commanders make pledges.
- 80-82: Oliver sees huge pagan army.
- 83-87: Oliver tells Roland to blow his horn to call for help, but Roland refuses.
- 88-92: Franks make battle preparations.
- 93-128: Battle rages.
- 129-135: Debate between Roland and Oliver as to whether to blow horn. Archbishop says
Roland should, and he does so.
- 136: Emperor sounds his horn.
- 137: Ganelon detained.
- 138-139: Charlemagne rides to Roland’s help.
- 140: Roland mourns situation.
- 141-143: Roland returns to battle with fury. Marsile’s men take ight, but still other pagans he
has to deal with.
- 144: Roland realises that the Franks will be annihilated.
- 145-150: Oliver injured and dies.
- 151: Roland faints at Oliver’s death.
- 152: Only a very small number of Franks remain.
- 153: Roland rages.
- 154-5: Gautier killed. Archbishop seriously wounded, but carries on the ght.
- 156: Roland blows horn and Charlemagne responds.
- 157-161: Pagans afraid as Charlemagne will soon return. Roland ghts with such ferocity that
the pagans give up trying to kill him, throwing their javelins as him as they ee and mortally
wounding him.
- 162-168: Roland and archbishop alone in eld. Injured Roland goes to recover bodies of dead
companions and archbishop dies in Roland’s arms, causing him to faint.
- 169-170: Rogue Saracen tries to attack Roland but Roland kills him.
- 171-176: Roland dies.
- 177-8: Charlemagne arrives on the scene of battle, sees the pagans in ight and decides to
chase them.
- 179-184: God sends an angel to Charlemagne to tell him to avenge himself. God keeps the sun
from setting to allow Charlemagne to chase the pagans, when he slaughters. Charlemagne
makes camp and goes to sleep without a guard.
- 185-6: Gabriel comes to Charlemagne in a dream and informs him of a huge battle to be waged
against him.
- 187-203: Marsile gravely injured (right hand cut o by Roland). Pagans from other countries
arrive to join the ght. 195: Bramimonde loses faith in the pagan gods. Pagans meet
Charlemagne.
- 204-214: Charlemagne returns to Rencevals, discovers Roland’s body and faints. Roland
prepared for burial, as are other nobles.
- 215-229: Charles about to leave but receives new of pagans. His men get ready and are split
into several divisions.
- 230-244: In dels prepare their army.
- 245-265: Franks make nal encouragements to one another and attack the pagans.
- 266-8: Emir tries to get Charles to give up the battle in return for accepting a treacherous o er
of vassalage. Charles injured but Gabriel comes and saves him and he kills the Emir.
- 269-272: In dels ee and are slain. Charles takes Saragossa.
- 273-5: Charles returns home. Aude dies upon hearing of Roland’s death.
- 276-296: Trial of Ganelon. Nobles resolve to acquit Ganelon under Pinabel’s in uence, but
Thierry disagrees and does battle with Pinabel. Thierry kills Pinabel in duel, so Ganelon tied to
four horses and pulled apart.
2
fi fifl ff fi fi ff fl fi fiflfi fl fl ff
, - 297: Queen of Spain baptised.
- 298: Gabriel tells Charlemagne to invade Bire to help King Vivien in Imphe. Charles says his life
is wearisome. Tale ends.
Secondary Reading
The Song of Roland: On Absolutes and Relative Values (Marianne Ailes):
- Opportunities for di ering interpretations increased by fact poet refuses to create black and
white main characters and by the very nature of the work, which is open to question, and with it
the appropriate critical approach (oral or written?). p. iii
- 'Absolute moral framework’ of the Roland—right and wrong polarised. Shame culture—
concerned about what others will think of them. Behaviour which is wrong brings shame,
behaviour which is good brings honour. pp. 5-6
- Feudal values expressed by a number of characters. e.g. lines 3444-50 Charlemagne ful ls
feudal commitment he had uttered in 3409-10. p. 7
- If for modern reader values of heroism appropriate for a warrior and feudal society might sit ill
alongside Christian values, was not the case when the Roland was written. God presented as
ultimate feudal lord. By ghting for Charlemagne, every soldier also ghting for God,
Charlemagne’s own feudal superior. Turpin exempli es this union of Christian and feudal values
(lines 1128-9 dying for king and sustaining the Christian faith are linked). p. 8 George Fenwick
Jones has seen these lines as presenting a hierarchy of values, with fealty above religious duty,
but the paratactic structure does not imply hierarchy. p. 9 Lines 1008-1016: Roland de nes his
concept of feudal duty within the context of the Christian faith. Battle provides opportunity to
serve both God and Charlemagne. p. 10 Oliver urges army to strike pagans ‘pur Deu’ and whilst
shouting Charlemagne’s battle cry (lines 1177-9). Jones in “The Ethos” suggests that the
concern with revenge is unchristian, but in the context of a medieval epic vengeance means
vindication (Naimes in 3013 asks God to grant vengeance). pp. 10-11 Feudal and Christian
values linked in joining of hands at Roland’s death—act of prayer and feudal submission. Two-
way relationship between lord and his vassal is model of relationship between Christian and his
God. Christian obeys God, and God protects him. p. 11 Roland’s giving of his glove to God has
feudal signi cance—surrendering to God what God has granted him (life) and also a sign of
remorse (line 2365—‘pur ses pecchet’). p. 13 Roland’s sword is his weapon of defence and
contains religious relics in its pommel. These relics de ne the purpose for which the sword is to
be used (2349-50 and 2352-3–to kill pagans and ght for Charles). p. 14 History of the sword
further links God, Charlemagne and Roland (2318-21: angel of God told Charlemagne to give it
to a noble warrior). p. 15 Pagan allegiance to devils can be seen in parallel way (Abisme owes
his shield to a devil, like Roland’s sword given to him through an intermediary). Ori amme given
by St Peter, underscoring moral and religious signi cance of the con ict. p. 16 God intervenes
directly (sun miracle that echoes God’s intervention to help Joshua; protects Oliver; intervenes
in nal judicial combat). ‘As a subject, an agent in the text, God is not just part of the moral
framework of the text. He is also part of its realisation in the narrative.’ pp. 17-18 We must
remember that tolerance is not a Christian ideal (e.g. Christ on money-changers in the temple).
No room for compromise in the Roland—it is willingness to compromise which leads to the
disaster at Roncevaux when Charlemagne is persuaded to return to France. Modern Christians
can read the Bible for ethical guidance without an intermediary; in the middle ages, people
looked to the teachings of the Church—if the Church called for a crusade, then ghting for God
was the right and proper thing to do. Obeying one’s feudal lord was also obeying God, the
overlord of Charlemagne. p. 19 Killing of unbelievers in the regaining of God’s own territory was
an act of defence—feudal implications here. Voice of God heard through Charlemagne and
Turpin, both of whom are approving of Roland. ‘If obedience to God is the primary virtue and
faith in Christ the only requirement to de ne a believer as a Christian, the warriors of the Song
of Roland are Christian heroes.’ p. 20 Each generation seeks to reconcile Christian ethos with
the prevailing morality of the age. p. 21
- Roland’s death marks him out from the rest—he alone is taken up to God by angels—positive
epithets attached to him. p. 24 Roland recognisable by his demeanour and expression alone
(1636-41). p. 25 Roland presented as a hot-headed youth in some medieval texts (e.g.
Fierabras, Girart de Vienne). p. 26 Roland is fallible, making an error of judgement/an
irresponsible decision based on his own pride. Ganelon’s criticisms of Roland’s pride come
from his hatred, but also Ganelon’s treachery only works because he can read Roland’s
3
fi fi ff fi fi fififi fi fifl fi fl fi fi
, character and what he can do, so cannot completely reject his assessment. Roland’s apparent
boastfulness in council scene is an exordium for the purpose of attracting attention (Brault),
showing that he should be listened to and leading directly into his main point, his previous
experience of Marsile’s treachery. Roland is not being unduly belligerent in saying the Marsile is
lying. pp. 28-9 Naimes is not foolish in suggesting peace (he expects the security of high-born
hostages); nor is Roland a warmonger (his position is based on experience). Naimes is wrong,
but not morally wrong as he is not in full possession of the facts. p. 30 When Oliver suggests
that Roland would not be a good ambassador, ‘ ers’ is not generally a negative term in
chansons de geste, and ‘pesme’ may mean no more than erce, a positive attribute in war but
not on a peace mission. This does not mean that he has a fatal aw, just that he is not an ideal
ambassador as the role is not a heroic one. p. 31 Motives behind Roland’s nomination of
Ganelon unclear (277—Roland demonstrating trust in stepfather by reminding listeners of the
link between them). p. 32 Roland does mock Ganelon’s threat (no imminent danger or sexual
excitement—common causes of laughter in chansons de geste). Roland fails to treat Ganelon
with tact/sensitivity. p. 34 Roland’s acceptance speech and spiteful aside to Ganelon is both an
acceptance of the nomination on the basis that he would expect to be in the place of greatest
danger and also anger against Ganelon because the nomination has been motivated by hatred
and malice. This adds psychological depth/realism. p. 35 Contrast here with Ganelon’s
acceptance of his nomination as messenger, in which his anger against Roland is seen rst and
his dutiful acceptance is only given two lines (308-9). pp. 35-6 We know Roland’s anger to be
justi ed, whereas less clear that Roland’s motivation was malicious. His refusal to take half the
army for the rearguard is re ecting what the rearguard is for: to protect the main body of the
army. p. 36 Horn scene: Roland’s comments must be understood in the context of a belief that
in ghting he is serving both his feudal and heavenly lords. p. 36 Roland’s concern for
reputation is not questioned by the poet—indeed, reputation con rms right and wrong. p. 38
Both Oliver and Roland concerned with feudal and Christian service, but di er in how they
consider this should best be carried out. p. 40 Alfred Foulet: Roland is carrying out God’s will
and that this cataclysmic event is necessary to spur Charlemagne on to greater victory.
However, no evidence that Roland consciously sacri cing himself for the greater good. Romans
8:28: ‘God works all things for good to them that love the Lord’. God can bring good out of
anything, not that everything tends to the greater good. Oliver’s words do have sense—as a
result of Roland’s decision the French are dead and Charlemagne will be deprived of their
service. Neither Roland nor Oliver wrong—both following their understanding of what would be
honourable. Two contrasting ideas of honour here. p. 42 Jones: focus on honour in horn scene
shows the text is not Christian. Yet these are connected. Turpin: summoning Charlemagne back
allows him to ful l his role as a garant and also allow them to have a proper Christian burial,
both of which are matters of honour. p. 46 Roland’s lament for the dead after the horn scene
(planctus) is important for of expression of emotion in the chanson de geste. Does ‘pur Mei’
mean ‘because of me’ or ‘for me’? Whichever case battle has clearly changed Roland in his
manner (new acknowledgement of human frailty, he accepts a degree of responsibility for his
own actions). p. 47 Not pride itself but lack of diplomacy that precipitates Ganelon’s initial
response, and this does not detract from Roland’s heroism. p. 48 Roland is human insofar as
he is not fallible and cannot foresee the consequences of his actions. p. 49
- Ganelon: Ganelon is a traitor, but it does not follow from this that he can do no right. In the text,
Ganelon is morally wrong in his actions against Roland, whatever the e ectiveness of his
defence. pp. 50-1 Trial scene makes clear dispute between Roland and Ganelon stretches back
a long way and that Ganelon’s actions are those of a traitor who has put his own petty quarrel
above duty to his lord and God. Ganelon accepts duty to Charlemagne and is simultaneously
angry towards Roland, which does not mean he does not mean his submission to
Charlemagne. p. 51 Ganelon has noble qualities (people sad at his departure, say he is wise)
but this potential for a more noble Ganelon remains unful lled. p. 52 Reaction of Ganelon’s kin
to his nomination shows weakness in the feudal system—loyalty to one’s own lord might be
greater than loyalty to one’s lord’s lord. p. 53 Lines 317-18: ‘trop’ might mean ‘very’ and so is
not necessarily a criticism of Ganelon. p. 54 Negative characters have unrealised potential for
good. p. 56 Ganelon’s greeting in 428-9 parallels Blancandrin’s earlier hypocritical greeting in
123-4. p. 56 Ganelon plans a strategy that will lead to Christian defeat by turning Marsile’s
attention to Roland. Kissing implies strong link between Ganelon and Marsile and was not
approved of. Although Ganelon swears oath on Christian relics, something terrible about
swearing such an oath on relics. pp. 58-9 Gift exchange occurs after oath has been sworn—
they are not bribes or tokens of diplomacy but rather more personal. Ganelon given sword by
4
fi fi
fi fl fi fi fi fi fl fi ff ff fi
Questions:
1) What is the function of repetition in the Chanson de Roland?
2) ‘Paien unt tort, e chrestïens unt dreit.’ To what extent do you consider Roland’s claim to be
substantiated by La Chanson de Roland?
3) What picture of feudal society does the Chanson paint?
4) What is the relationship between Christian values, feudal values and treachery?
5) Is Roland the hero of the Chanson that now bears his name?
6) What role does orality play in shaping the Chanson de Roland?
7) ‘Plot and characterisation function as means to an end in the Chanson de Roland.’ To what
extent do you consider this a reductive assessment of the poem?
8) ‘In the Chanson de Roland structure and meaning are indissolubly linked.’ Discuss.
9) Discuss the role of each of the following in giving coherence to the Chanson de Roland:
Roland; Ganelon and Baligant.
10) ‘Ideological unity is undercut by aesthetic diversity.’ How adequate is this assessment of La
Chanson de Roland?
11) To what extent is the Chanson de Roland at once simple and complex?
12) ‘In the Chanson de Roland, dramatic e ect takes precedence over didactic message.’
Discuss. (2010)
13) ‘Similarity and di erence are central problems in the Oxford Roland.’ Discuss.
14) 'Ganelon is the man of words, Roland the man of action.' Discuss with reference to the Oxford
Roland.
15) ‘The inherent violence of the world depicted in the Chanson de Roland is presented with
remarkable restraint and sobriety.’ Discuss.
16) Even the author of the Chanson de Roland cannot resist the didactic tendency of medieval
poetry.’ Discuss.
17) What is Charlemagne’s role in the Chanson de Roland?
18) What is Ganelon’s role in the Chanson de Roland?
19) What is Roland’s function in the Chanson de Roland?
20) ‘In the Roland, we both see and hear the characters, as if we were direct witnesses to the
action, but we rarely have access to their thoughts and motivations.’ To what extent is this
true, and why?
21) ‘Forasmuch as it is classi ed as a chanson de geste, its high percentage of direct speech
could make it, as it were, a chanson de paroles.’ How adequate is this view of La Chanson de
Roland?
22) Should the Chanson de Roland be referred to as such?
Introduction to the poem
- Not sure when written, but 1098-1100 most common estimate (at time of First Crusade.
Possible that inclusion of a relic in Charlemagne’s sword (vv. 2501-9) is an allusion to the
revelation of Peter Bartholomew that led to the discovery of the lance of the cruci xion in
Antioch in 1098). p. 8
- CdR set in northern Spain. p. 8
- Summary pp. 10-13
- Author uncertain, although Turoldus named at end (author, source, copyist?). Burgess sees
Turoldus as author relating his own version of an heroic poem that would have already existed
in a variety of di erent forms. p. 14
- Epic poem = chanson de geste. p. 14 Paragraphs called "laisses”.
- CdR performed by a jongleur to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument (“vielle”). p. 16
- Author says Saracens live in the valley (a place associated with the devil). p. 21
Summary by laisse
- 1-11: Charlemagne conquering a lot of territory, and Marsile tries to deceive him into making an
unwise peace.
- 12-16: Deliberations of Charlemagne’s council of nobles concludes that peace is a good move.
- 17-19: Debate who should carry Charlemagne’s message.
1
ffff fi ff fi
,- 20-26: Roland nominates Ganelon, who now detests him.
- 27: Ganelon rides o .
- 28-45: Ganelon discusses with envoy Blancandrin and when rides with him to Marsile, who
agrees to the plan to betray Roland.
- 46-52: Oaths sworn and gifts exchanged between Ganelon and the in dels.
- 53-57: Ganelon returns and speaks with Charlemagne. Charlemagne has disconcerting
dreams.
- 58-65: Roland nominated to rearguard.
- 66: Charlemagne leaves.
- 67: Charlemagne’s sense of foreboding regarding Ganelon.
- 68-79: Pagan strength and individual pagan commanders make pledges.
- 80-82: Oliver sees huge pagan army.
- 83-87: Oliver tells Roland to blow his horn to call for help, but Roland refuses.
- 88-92: Franks make battle preparations.
- 93-128: Battle rages.
- 129-135: Debate between Roland and Oliver as to whether to blow horn. Archbishop says
Roland should, and he does so.
- 136: Emperor sounds his horn.
- 137: Ganelon detained.
- 138-139: Charlemagne rides to Roland’s help.
- 140: Roland mourns situation.
- 141-143: Roland returns to battle with fury. Marsile’s men take ight, but still other pagans he
has to deal with.
- 144: Roland realises that the Franks will be annihilated.
- 145-150: Oliver injured and dies.
- 151: Roland faints at Oliver’s death.
- 152: Only a very small number of Franks remain.
- 153: Roland rages.
- 154-5: Gautier killed. Archbishop seriously wounded, but carries on the ght.
- 156: Roland blows horn and Charlemagne responds.
- 157-161: Pagans afraid as Charlemagne will soon return. Roland ghts with such ferocity that
the pagans give up trying to kill him, throwing their javelins as him as they ee and mortally
wounding him.
- 162-168: Roland and archbishop alone in eld. Injured Roland goes to recover bodies of dead
companions and archbishop dies in Roland’s arms, causing him to faint.
- 169-170: Rogue Saracen tries to attack Roland but Roland kills him.
- 171-176: Roland dies.
- 177-8: Charlemagne arrives on the scene of battle, sees the pagans in ight and decides to
chase them.
- 179-184: God sends an angel to Charlemagne to tell him to avenge himself. God keeps the sun
from setting to allow Charlemagne to chase the pagans, when he slaughters. Charlemagne
makes camp and goes to sleep without a guard.
- 185-6: Gabriel comes to Charlemagne in a dream and informs him of a huge battle to be waged
against him.
- 187-203: Marsile gravely injured (right hand cut o by Roland). Pagans from other countries
arrive to join the ght. 195: Bramimonde loses faith in the pagan gods. Pagans meet
Charlemagne.
- 204-214: Charlemagne returns to Rencevals, discovers Roland’s body and faints. Roland
prepared for burial, as are other nobles.
- 215-229: Charles about to leave but receives new of pagans. His men get ready and are split
into several divisions.
- 230-244: In dels prepare their army.
- 245-265: Franks make nal encouragements to one another and attack the pagans.
- 266-8: Emir tries to get Charles to give up the battle in return for accepting a treacherous o er
of vassalage. Charles injured but Gabriel comes and saves him and he kills the Emir.
- 269-272: In dels ee and are slain. Charles takes Saragossa.
- 273-5: Charles returns home. Aude dies upon hearing of Roland’s death.
- 276-296: Trial of Ganelon. Nobles resolve to acquit Ganelon under Pinabel’s in uence, but
Thierry disagrees and does battle with Pinabel. Thierry kills Pinabel in duel, so Ganelon tied to
four horses and pulled apart.
2
fi fifl ff fi fi ff fl fi fiflfi fl fl ff
, - 297: Queen of Spain baptised.
- 298: Gabriel tells Charlemagne to invade Bire to help King Vivien in Imphe. Charles says his life
is wearisome. Tale ends.
Secondary Reading
The Song of Roland: On Absolutes and Relative Values (Marianne Ailes):
- Opportunities for di ering interpretations increased by fact poet refuses to create black and
white main characters and by the very nature of the work, which is open to question, and with it
the appropriate critical approach (oral or written?). p. iii
- 'Absolute moral framework’ of the Roland—right and wrong polarised. Shame culture—
concerned about what others will think of them. Behaviour which is wrong brings shame,
behaviour which is good brings honour. pp. 5-6
- Feudal values expressed by a number of characters. e.g. lines 3444-50 Charlemagne ful ls
feudal commitment he had uttered in 3409-10. p. 7
- If for modern reader values of heroism appropriate for a warrior and feudal society might sit ill
alongside Christian values, was not the case when the Roland was written. God presented as
ultimate feudal lord. By ghting for Charlemagne, every soldier also ghting for God,
Charlemagne’s own feudal superior. Turpin exempli es this union of Christian and feudal values
(lines 1128-9 dying for king and sustaining the Christian faith are linked). p. 8 George Fenwick
Jones has seen these lines as presenting a hierarchy of values, with fealty above religious duty,
but the paratactic structure does not imply hierarchy. p. 9 Lines 1008-1016: Roland de nes his
concept of feudal duty within the context of the Christian faith. Battle provides opportunity to
serve both God and Charlemagne. p. 10 Oliver urges army to strike pagans ‘pur Deu’ and whilst
shouting Charlemagne’s battle cry (lines 1177-9). Jones in “The Ethos” suggests that the
concern with revenge is unchristian, but in the context of a medieval epic vengeance means
vindication (Naimes in 3013 asks God to grant vengeance). pp. 10-11 Feudal and Christian
values linked in joining of hands at Roland’s death—act of prayer and feudal submission. Two-
way relationship between lord and his vassal is model of relationship between Christian and his
God. Christian obeys God, and God protects him. p. 11 Roland’s giving of his glove to God has
feudal signi cance—surrendering to God what God has granted him (life) and also a sign of
remorse (line 2365—‘pur ses pecchet’). p. 13 Roland’s sword is his weapon of defence and
contains religious relics in its pommel. These relics de ne the purpose for which the sword is to
be used (2349-50 and 2352-3–to kill pagans and ght for Charles). p. 14 History of the sword
further links God, Charlemagne and Roland (2318-21: angel of God told Charlemagne to give it
to a noble warrior). p. 15 Pagan allegiance to devils can be seen in parallel way (Abisme owes
his shield to a devil, like Roland’s sword given to him through an intermediary). Ori amme given
by St Peter, underscoring moral and religious signi cance of the con ict. p. 16 God intervenes
directly (sun miracle that echoes God’s intervention to help Joshua; protects Oliver; intervenes
in nal judicial combat). ‘As a subject, an agent in the text, God is not just part of the moral
framework of the text. He is also part of its realisation in the narrative.’ pp. 17-18 We must
remember that tolerance is not a Christian ideal (e.g. Christ on money-changers in the temple).
No room for compromise in the Roland—it is willingness to compromise which leads to the
disaster at Roncevaux when Charlemagne is persuaded to return to France. Modern Christians
can read the Bible for ethical guidance without an intermediary; in the middle ages, people
looked to the teachings of the Church—if the Church called for a crusade, then ghting for God
was the right and proper thing to do. Obeying one’s feudal lord was also obeying God, the
overlord of Charlemagne. p. 19 Killing of unbelievers in the regaining of God’s own territory was
an act of defence—feudal implications here. Voice of God heard through Charlemagne and
Turpin, both of whom are approving of Roland. ‘If obedience to God is the primary virtue and
faith in Christ the only requirement to de ne a believer as a Christian, the warriors of the Song
of Roland are Christian heroes.’ p. 20 Each generation seeks to reconcile Christian ethos with
the prevailing morality of the age. p. 21
- Roland’s death marks him out from the rest—he alone is taken up to God by angels—positive
epithets attached to him. p. 24 Roland recognisable by his demeanour and expression alone
(1636-41). p. 25 Roland presented as a hot-headed youth in some medieval texts (e.g.
Fierabras, Girart de Vienne). p. 26 Roland is fallible, making an error of judgement/an
irresponsible decision based on his own pride. Ganelon’s criticisms of Roland’s pride come
from his hatred, but also Ganelon’s treachery only works because he can read Roland’s
3
fi fi ff fi fi fififi fi fifl fi fl fi fi
, character and what he can do, so cannot completely reject his assessment. Roland’s apparent
boastfulness in council scene is an exordium for the purpose of attracting attention (Brault),
showing that he should be listened to and leading directly into his main point, his previous
experience of Marsile’s treachery. Roland is not being unduly belligerent in saying the Marsile is
lying. pp. 28-9 Naimes is not foolish in suggesting peace (he expects the security of high-born
hostages); nor is Roland a warmonger (his position is based on experience). Naimes is wrong,
but not morally wrong as he is not in full possession of the facts. p. 30 When Oliver suggests
that Roland would not be a good ambassador, ‘ ers’ is not generally a negative term in
chansons de geste, and ‘pesme’ may mean no more than erce, a positive attribute in war but
not on a peace mission. This does not mean that he has a fatal aw, just that he is not an ideal
ambassador as the role is not a heroic one. p. 31 Motives behind Roland’s nomination of
Ganelon unclear (277—Roland demonstrating trust in stepfather by reminding listeners of the
link between them). p. 32 Roland does mock Ganelon’s threat (no imminent danger or sexual
excitement—common causes of laughter in chansons de geste). Roland fails to treat Ganelon
with tact/sensitivity. p. 34 Roland’s acceptance speech and spiteful aside to Ganelon is both an
acceptance of the nomination on the basis that he would expect to be in the place of greatest
danger and also anger against Ganelon because the nomination has been motivated by hatred
and malice. This adds psychological depth/realism. p. 35 Contrast here with Ganelon’s
acceptance of his nomination as messenger, in which his anger against Roland is seen rst and
his dutiful acceptance is only given two lines (308-9). pp. 35-6 We know Roland’s anger to be
justi ed, whereas less clear that Roland’s motivation was malicious. His refusal to take half the
army for the rearguard is re ecting what the rearguard is for: to protect the main body of the
army. p. 36 Horn scene: Roland’s comments must be understood in the context of a belief that
in ghting he is serving both his feudal and heavenly lords. p. 36 Roland’s concern for
reputation is not questioned by the poet—indeed, reputation con rms right and wrong. p. 38
Both Oliver and Roland concerned with feudal and Christian service, but di er in how they
consider this should best be carried out. p. 40 Alfred Foulet: Roland is carrying out God’s will
and that this cataclysmic event is necessary to spur Charlemagne on to greater victory.
However, no evidence that Roland consciously sacri cing himself for the greater good. Romans
8:28: ‘God works all things for good to them that love the Lord’. God can bring good out of
anything, not that everything tends to the greater good. Oliver’s words do have sense—as a
result of Roland’s decision the French are dead and Charlemagne will be deprived of their
service. Neither Roland nor Oliver wrong—both following their understanding of what would be
honourable. Two contrasting ideas of honour here. p. 42 Jones: focus on honour in horn scene
shows the text is not Christian. Yet these are connected. Turpin: summoning Charlemagne back
allows him to ful l his role as a garant and also allow them to have a proper Christian burial,
both of which are matters of honour. p. 46 Roland’s lament for the dead after the horn scene
(planctus) is important for of expression of emotion in the chanson de geste. Does ‘pur Mei’
mean ‘because of me’ or ‘for me’? Whichever case battle has clearly changed Roland in his
manner (new acknowledgement of human frailty, he accepts a degree of responsibility for his
own actions). p. 47 Not pride itself but lack of diplomacy that precipitates Ganelon’s initial
response, and this does not detract from Roland’s heroism. p. 48 Roland is human insofar as
he is not fallible and cannot foresee the consequences of his actions. p. 49
- Ganelon: Ganelon is a traitor, but it does not follow from this that he can do no right. In the text,
Ganelon is morally wrong in his actions against Roland, whatever the e ectiveness of his
defence. pp. 50-1 Trial scene makes clear dispute between Roland and Ganelon stretches back
a long way and that Ganelon’s actions are those of a traitor who has put his own petty quarrel
above duty to his lord and God. Ganelon accepts duty to Charlemagne and is simultaneously
angry towards Roland, which does not mean he does not mean his submission to
Charlemagne. p. 51 Ganelon has noble qualities (people sad at his departure, say he is wise)
but this potential for a more noble Ganelon remains unful lled. p. 52 Reaction of Ganelon’s kin
to his nomination shows weakness in the feudal system—loyalty to one’s own lord might be
greater than loyalty to one’s lord’s lord. p. 53 Lines 317-18: ‘trop’ might mean ‘very’ and so is
not necessarily a criticism of Ganelon. p. 54 Negative characters have unrealised potential for
good. p. 56 Ganelon’s greeting in 428-9 parallels Blancandrin’s earlier hypocritical greeting in
123-4. p. 56 Ganelon plans a strategy that will lead to Christian defeat by turning Marsile’s
attention to Roland. Kissing implies strong link between Ganelon and Marsile and was not
approved of. Although Ganelon swears oath on Christian relics, something terrible about
swearing such an oath on relics. pp. 58-9 Gift exchange occurs after oath has been sworn—
they are not bribes or tokens of diplomacy but rather more personal. Ganelon given sword by
4
fi fi
fi fl fi fi fi fi fl fi ff ff fi
