By virtue of its genre, The Song of Roland is at its heart an exposition on heroism. Yet its titular hero Roland presents a complicated picture of heroism, since Roland’s decisions directly lead to the death of the Frankish rearguard. In contrast, his companion Oliver seems much better suited to the role of the hero. When the two are first introduced, Oliver is described as “the valiant and the noble,” whereas Roland is not ascribed any complimentary adjectives (ll. 175-6). Oliver is similarly praised throughout the text as valiant, brave, wise, and courtly (ll. 559, 576, 672, 1093, 3186, 3755). Roland himself describes Oliver as the finest knight in all the lands (l. 2214). In comparison, Roland, while often spoken of favorably, receives far fewer such epithets. He is “the valiant” in line 623, “the brave” in 987, and is “valiant” and “noble” in line 2916. From these descriptions, it is clear that Oliver is more than qualified to advise Roland in actions and perhaps even more qualified than Roland to be making battlefield decisions. His advice, however, is ignored.
Upon seeing the vast numerical advantage the pagans have over the remaining Frank forces, Oliver urges Roland three times to blow his oliphant to summon back Charlemagne and the main army (laisses 83-5). These passages debating whether or not the oliphant should be used are worth careful consideration for what they suggest about lordship and honor. The repetition of Oliver’s argument underscores its importance in the text and allows Roland to present three slightly different reasons for refusing to blow the horn. The first time, Roland explains that he personally would be shamed and his good name tarnished. In the second refusal, Roland notes that his kinsmen and France itself would be dishonored. In the final refusal, Roland returns to familial dishonor as an excuse. Roland is presented as essentially self-motivated; his primary concern is not with the Franks’ victory, but rather with preserving his family’s honor. In each of these laisses, Roland expresses the belief that the pagans will surely all die – a conviction that Christianity will doubtless prevail over the misguided pagans.
Oliver counters by insisting that there is no shame in seeking to even out the battlefield to give the Franks a chance to truly decimate the enemy (ll. 1082, 1086-7). Following this exchange, we are told that “Roland is brave and Oliver is wise; / Both are marvelous vassals” before turning to the events of the battle itself (ll. 1093-4). Events prove Oliver’s advice sound, and Roland proposes finally blowing his horn in laisses 129 and 130. Now, however, Oliver insists that to do so would be shameful. Having already foolishly entered a battle they were ill-equipped to win, announcing their defeat will only bring dishonor. Oliver is the one character, besides the villainous Ganelon, who chastises Roland. Oliver deems Roland reckless in his zeal to prove his bravery (ll. 1725-6). Had Roland followed Oliver’s advice to summon the main army, the Frankish forces would have lost fewer men and emerged victorious to fight again. Instead, many of Charlemagne’s greatest vassals, including the twelve peers, are killed in this first engagement with the enemy forces.
Both Oliver and Roland demonstrate a vassal’s duty to fight for his lord, but where Roland is brash and zealous, Oliver thinks more strategically and more long-term. We have already been told that Oliver is brave and valiant, so the text does not seem to criticize him for this kind of thinking. It is interesting, however, that the text also does not seem to condemn Roland either, except for Oliver’s harsh words on the battlefield. Roland is the focus of Charlemagne’s grief and the focus of Charlemagne’s vengeance against Ganelon. Ganelon is punished for depriving Charlemagne of his vassal, but as the reader knows, Roland himself is largely responsible for his own death and for the deaths of the rest of the rearguard. Despite this, Roland dies a martyr, and it is Roland, not Oliver, who is escorted to heaven by St Gabriel (l. 2396).
We are told that bravery and wisdom are both excellent qualities in a vassal, but the question of which is better remains somewhat ambiguous. We can infer that the battles with Marsile’s supporters would have turned out quite differently (and probably better for the Franks) had Oliver been in charge, but Roland is obviously the focus of the chanson. Should we interpret the text to mean that honor is derived from bravery and battlefield prowess rather than wisdom and ultimate victory? Or should we read this to mean that intention is of key importance – that Ganelon is punished for intending Roland’s death and Roland is rewarded for intending to serve God by fighting the pagans? Or perhaps we should view these campaigns as a larger battle for Christianity – earthly military victories are not as important as spiritual victories and the defense of Christianity by any means necessary.
-Christine Bertoglio
One of the things I found most striking in regards to the violence was how it manifest itself not only in the real-life battle scenes but also dream visions as well. Early on, Charles has a dream vision where he is bitten by a vicious boar and then a leopard. It's almost as if the lives of these characters are so infused with violence that they cannot escape savage scenes, even when in sleep.
ReplyDeleteThe descriptions given to the fallen warriors are unrelenting and brutal. Roland's exchange with Aelroth points this ideal out most effectively. "He breaks his shield and tears his hauberk open; He splits his breast and shatters all his bones, Severing from his back his entire spine" (1199-1201). The carnage continues for several more pages as more warriors succumb to lethal battle wounds, almost all of them being cast off dead from their horses.
Religion and violence go hand in hand, and Oliver's death is a good example. Roland, a fierce warrior who has killed many enemies to that point, pauses to mourn his friend. "Roland the brave weeps for him and mourns; Never will you hear greater grief on Earth." (2022-23) This after Oliver beseeches God to grant him entry into paradise, which he firmly believes, due to his actions, is something he is entitled to. The name of God and one's own honor are intertwined throughout.
Something I found throughout the whole thing, and something that will appear again in the Morte D'Arthure, is how violence has entered and transformed the knightly chivalric code. None of these men are afraid of death; They embrace violence as an embodiment of their honor, and charge fearlessly into battle time after time to slay their mortal foes.
-Kevin Hall
The idea that the epic must advocate either bravery in battle or wisdom in counsel as better than the other seems like something of a red herring. The implication of the poem is rather, to my reading, that honor is derived not from either bravery or wisdom, but rather from the proper execution of one’s functions in either of these fields, predominant participation in one of which is determined by one’s social ties and temperament. One might begin to define this view based on one of the quotes you include in your post: “Roland is brave and Oliver is wise; / Both are marvelous vassals” (ll. 1093-1094). Roland, that is, has proved himself here and in previous battles and so is an asset to his lord. Oliver, at the same time, has proved himself both here and in previous situations as a wise advocate for caution (l. 1725) and so is also an asset to his lord.
ReplyDeleteThe expectations of each knight are thus determined by previous performances, but their having been put in crucial situations in the first place is determined by their (homo)social relationships, amongst which family ties appear to play a significant part. You rightly point out that the Frankish army does not seem to be a direct meritocracy and so Roland and Oliver’s vassal contributions are disproportionately appreciated and, later, mourned. Oliver is denied the top position despite his frequently mentioned positive qualities and as a result of the fact that Roland is ostensibly Charlemagne’s nephew (nevuld; e.g. l. 216). Ganelon, it might also be noted, is Roland’s “stepfather” (parastre; l. 276); this relationship perhaps lies behind the importance and, later, condemnation attributed to his traitorous actions. The noting of these family relationships, whether historical or not, demonstrates the importance of social position in determining who gets assigned to positions of command, trust, counsel, etc.
What one does with these position is also of significant concern, but expectations appear predetermined by both a general paradigm in which the vassal-lord relationship is paramount and a qualifying structure that allows for certain idiosyncrasies, e.g. Roland’s perhaps excessive bravery. Like you, I can find no condemnation of Roland in the text. I can only suppose that this derives from a perspective that views the song’s hero as having dispatched his duties well both (1) given the expectations of someone in his social and familial position and (2) in spite of his recognized and regrettable tendencies towards arrogance (e.g. l. 226-229, 256-257). This is perhaps the medieval equivalent of “cutting x some slack”; Roland’s endeavor is, as you note, ultimately validated by his God, through the messengers Michael and Gabriel (ll. 2390-2396). It is doubtful, to my mind, that the poet would have included this scene if (s)he thought Roland’s arrogance irredeemably damaging. It is more likely that such approbation operates within a model in which bravery and wisdom are both equally legitimate tracks to honor; success (Roland) or failure (Ganelon) in either is more notable if one is of prominent social/familial standing and it is possible for one’s generally beneficial character to redeem oneself for even the most grievous tactical oversights.
I also found the depiction of honor and shame to be interesting. It is clearly the central problem of the story; the speaker’s love of honor and aversion to shame is reemphasized over and over. Although certain acts are definitively categorized as shameful or honorable, the distinction seems at first arbitrary. Ganelon is a traitor, and serves as a clear-cut example of one who acts shamefully. However for his treachery, the Saracens embrace Ganelon as a lord and praise him as “most Valiant and Wise” (648). To receive the assistance of a traitor is one thing, but to praise him as a hero for doing so seems implausible. The Spanish reception of Ganelon far transcends the modern idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Also, Ganelon proposes to Marsile that his plan of ambushing the rearguard would be “a noble act of chivalry” (594). I was surprised to hear this plan described as noble. It is certainly cunning and promises to be effective, but what makes it noble or chivalrous? Perhaps military effectiveness is the only precondition for chivalry. It seems that military imagination is very limited. Victory in all forms is glorious, and its agents are heroes. The more you damage your enemy, the more you amplify your own glory. This is how one man, Ganelon can be considered as both a contemptible traitor and a valiant hero depending on which military group you are talking to.
ReplyDeleteThe contrast between the characters of Oliver and Roland is one that deserves greater investigation and I think Christine raises several good points in regard to their actions and words within the text. This is the Chanson de Roland not of Oliver; if Oliver is presented as the warrior with a clearer head than Roland, a warrior who dies a heroic martyr-like death just like Roland, then why is this not the Chanson d’Oliver? Why has Roland been chosen as the hero of this tale? Oliver names Roland as being irascible: "Your temperament is most hostile and fierce, I am afraid you might pick a quarrel." (laisse 18) Roland certainly behaves like a cocky young man, certain of his invincibility: laughing at Ganelon's threats (laisses 21-22) and of course, infamously (or famously based on one's perspective), refusing thrice to sound the horn until it is too late.
ReplyDeleteThe chanson fails to explain exactly why Roland is to be considered the most heroic, but perhaps this is because, to a modern eye, it makes no sense. Why praise Roland when the equally comparable Oliver stands at his side? Could it be argued that it is Roland’s relationship to Charlemagne that is the tipping point? He is the nephew of the great king: in the centuries following the death of Charlemagne, his descendents (and many who were not actually related) would proclaim their lineage in order to bolster their own credentials. As this epic is written many years after the end of Charlemagne’s actual reign, such a tactic could and perhaps would have been understandably familiar to the men and ladies of the courts who heard this chanson. As well, Christine points out that Roland uses familial honor or dishonor as an excuse for not blowing the horn. Taking into consideration his connection to Charlemagne, could this be the missing piece? “God forbid that my kinsmen should incur reproach because of me or that the fair land of France should fall into disrepute,” proclaims Roland in laisse 84. Perhaps Roland’s decision not to blow the horn reflects well on him, and not badly, precisely because he is still protecting his lord: by refusing to take an action which could potentially dishonor his family and therefore his lord uncle, Roland continues to defend and protect his lord’s honor until the last possible moment. This honor is tied up with, not separated from the Franks’ victory, for there can be no true victory if one’s honor does not remain intact. By asserting his desire to avoid dishonor, Roland is in fact assuring that Charlemagne’s victory cannot be tainted by his cowardice and so, ultimately, Roland gains his own victory, both in heaven and on earth. He becomes the hero of his tale.
Something I found to be of interest involved the idea of hyper masculinity, the status quo of nobility during the time period, and how women are characterized. Obviously, there seems to be some evidence that suggests they were pushed to the margins and forced to cope with this existence. Bramimonde, for example, is a relative outcast due to the complexity of her character: she is both a woman and a Saracen. Literary scholar Richard Serrano discusses this as well when he argues that, since the male characters by the end of the epic have died, Bramimonde instead "defines the nature of Charlemagne's connection to the world." Also, the lack of specificity when it comes to female characters of note is especially problematic. Not once throughout the poem are you presented with the name of Roland's mother or Ganeleon's wife. I was curious as to whether this ambiguity was deliberate. Kevin also brings up a really great point when he discusses how wildly violent the three dreams of Aude la belle were (it almost seems as if they are more explicit and dangerous then the physical events that unfold) so are they simply devices used to offer a window into the hyper violent mentality that seemingly pervades or is there something else to Aude la belle. Her dying, "seemingly on cue," leaves more questions than it does answers when attempting to decipher the feminine role.
ReplyDeleteThe final scene where Ganelon’s trial takes place demonstrates how honor and shame determine the codes of several different social classes. Roland attempts to destroy his sword Durendal (which contains many Christian relics) lest it fall in to pagan hands (l. 2336) or those of a man who deserts in battle (l. 2309). His sword embodies his life of service to Charlemagne in battle and it would be a disgrace to France itself should anything happen to the sword. The narrator’s description of Roland’s final act to defend the integrity of a symbol of French and Christian supremacy depicts the dignity and honor of Roland’s character. Because he embodied the most important traits of a vassal and served God and Charlemagne so well in battle, the resolution of the story must balance out the loss to the Franks.
ReplyDeleteGanelon’s trial the Franks echo what is brave and what is shameful. Charles himself cries out for justice and honor to prevail after being robbed of the flower of France (l. 2430) and the Franks themselves are the ones who call to begin the council (l. 3779). Throughout the Chanson, the “Franks” serve as a type of chorus, and yet the manner in which the narrator uses that poetic device also implies a type of menace and violence inherent in a mob. At this moment in the story, the Franks are a collective of victorious warriors who change gears and act as citizens and demonstrate what the most honorable role is for a common Frank.
Charlemagne is a conduit between God and the Franks, and his commitment to his duty as king isolates him from those he rules. He refrains from direct involvement in the judicial process despite his emotional investment at such times where he feels his vassals betrayed him (l. 3814). This opens the floor for the remaining honorable vassals, who defend Roland and bring justice to Ganelon.
In this final scene, we see several social groups interacting with one another after the battle as finished. Ganelon’s trial and execution indicate the importance of duty to the next guy and to the king, and most of all to God (which is why Ganelon’s betrayal is particularly wretched). Honor and dignity govern each social class, even though it manifests itself in different ways.