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.
Wolfgang G.van Emden
[See also: ASPREMONT; AUBERT, DAVID; CHANSON DE GESTE; FIERABRAS;
JONGLEUR; KING CYCLE; PSEUDO-TURPIN; QUATRE FILS AYMON; VOYAGE
DE CHARLEMAGNE À JERUSALEM ET À CONSTANTINOPLE]
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.
Medieval france: an encyclopedia 1530