The Song of Roland and Its Audience

Hans-Erich Keller The Song of Roland and its Audience HIS PAPER WILL FOCUS upon the dating of the Oxford version of the Song Tof Roland, which I maintain is in all probability a relatively faithful copy of the hypothetical poem which Cesare Segre has labeled "omega" in his stemma. 1 I also wish to comment in particular upon the dating of the latter, the antecedent of the Digby 23 manuscript. 1. Notwithstanding objections on the part of many scholars, and without in any way precluding the existence of earlier versions consisting of a song about the battle of Roncevaux in the eleventh century which unfortunately do not survive today, I find it most difficult to avoid the conclusion that the text preserved at the Bodleian Library at Oxford dates from the last quarter of the twelfth century. To support this contention, I will purposely circum- vent the particular linguistic controversy which involved Jules Horrent and Ronald Walpole in the Fifties2 as well as the paleographical dispute which pitted Ian Short against Charles Samaran in the early Seventies,3 and will present new material which suggests a solution to the problem from three angles heretofore unexplored. I would first like to offer a personal observation which I consider significant: while examining the oldest extant fragments of Wace's Roman de Brut, also preserved at Oxford, which already in 1898 were dated by the Keeper of Manuscripts there as being of the latter part of the twelfth century, I was struck by their very close paleographical similarity to Digby 23 and their affinity to a most important fragment of the Voyage de Saint Brendan which was probably written during the first half of the thirteenth century and is contained in the same collection at Oxford as the Brut fragments.4 To cite but just a few examples, all three manuscripts very frequently use an acute accent on the letter í (as in Roland, v. 69, dís 'ten', Brut, v. 7034, mís 'put', Brendan, v. 19, seínz 'saint'), or on ú with the meaning of 'or' (as, for example, in Roland v. 102, Brut v. 7074, Brendan v. 1510); in addition, it is always found on the preposition á; all three manuscripts consistently employ the sign to indicate pre, per, par, or pur; and all three utilize the abbreviations or é for the vernacular form est, as found in Latin manuscripts. In 1974, a reexamination led the Assistant Keeper of Western Manuscripts of the same library to the conclusion that the Brut fragments were certainly written no later than the beginning of the thirteenth century and could even be attributed to the late twelfth century.5 On 259 260 Olifant/Vol 6, Nos. 3 & 4/Spring & Summer 1979 the basis of the paleographical closeness to Digby 23 which can be remarked in these fragments, it would appear that, at least from an im- pressionistic point of view, the Oxford Roland would seem not to be older than the last quarter of the twelfth century. A second consideration derives from the orthography of the Oxford manuscript. Thanks to the research of Jules Horrent, we know that it is definitely tainted with Anglo-Normanisms.6 Several years ago I discovered that verse 3986, which reads "Truvee li unt le num de Juliane," had been erroneously corrected to truvét in most editions,7 despite the fact that Mildred K. Pope positively asserts that the form with -ee in the masculine of the past participle is one of the leading features of Anglo-Norman scripta, and one which can occasionally be found before the end of the twelfth century. Verse 3986 would thus suggest an additional indication that the Oxford Roland must be considerably younger than Charles Samaran is inclined to believe. Finally, the German Ruolantes liet should be considered, although its date of composition, too, has been debated for more than a century. Most scholars would readily agree that this poem depends on a hypothetical version, Segre's intermediary type "beta," which is another offshoot of his "omega." Until recently, however, no one was positive as to when and where the priest Conrad composed his adaptation of the Song of Roland into Middle High German. Evidence for a correct dating emerged very slowly, and I could only recently establish8 that the Ruolantes liet was in all probability composed at the court of Henry the Lion (Duke of Saxony and son-in-law of King Henry II Plantagenet) at Brunswick, not before 1180, and in most likelihood even after his return with his wife from England in 1185, following the exile which Barbarossa imposed upon him in 1180. The epilogue of the Ruolantes liet relates that the wife of Henry the Lion, Matilda (1156-1187), requested a translation of one of the versions of the French poem which was circulating in England at that time. The latter could only have been a "beta" version (see below); nevertheless, Conrad's indirect rendering of it into Middle High German via the medium of Latin is still the text which most closely resembles the Oxford Roland. In the second half of the twelfth century, then, there were already at least two versions of the Song of Roland circulating in England: one of Segre's hypothetical type "alpha," from which Digby 23 derives, and one of a hypothetical "beta" version of which the earliest literary offshoot known today is the German Ruolantes liet. A primary difference between the two Keller/The Song of Roland and its Audience 261 hypothetical types, and perhaps even more of them which have been lost, lies in the fact that the "alpha" Roland must not only have contained the voluntary conversion of the Saracen queen Bramimonde, which none of the offshoots of the "beta" version contain, but also Ganelon's trial by the grand jury composed of Charlemagne's barons. Of all of the "beta" versions, only Conrad's adaptation mentions a conversion per se, but even he does not treat it as such. Another significant difference lies in the exclusive selection of the Christian name Juliana for Bramimonde in the Oxford Roland, a feature which must have derived from an "alpha" version since it does not figure in any of the derivatives of the hypothetical "beta" Roland: as I have noted elsewhere, the name Juliana is quite important inasmuch as Saint Juliana was particularly venerated in England.9 2. But what made the Song of Roland so popular in the kingdom of Henry II that even at that date it was known in England in at least two different versions, this despite the frequent mention of Saint Denis as well as the monastery of Saint-Denis? The Angevine circles were certainly delighted that it was Geoffrey of Anjou who carried the royal banner in the decisive battle against Baligant, the highest representative of the pagan world, and that the same Geoffrey even comforted the Emperor at the time of his greatest suffering (the scribe of the Oxford manuscript even introduces Henry II himself into the bargain in v. 2883 as Geoffrey's brother!]. Yet the interest of the Plantagenets in this poem lies elsewhere, as has been demonstrated long ago, for Horrent already observed in 1951 that "Le mystérieux Henri de la Chanson de Roland d'Oxford pourrait n'être que la projection dans le passé du prince régnant en Angleterre à l'époque de notre remanieur. Celui-ci aurait inventé de faire rejaillir sur un ancêtre imaginire de son roi de même nom que lui la gloire de Roncevaux."10 I could not be more in agreement, for this supports my contention that the Oxford Roland derives in all probability from Segre's "omega," a poem which achieved its popularity due to the political ambitions of Henry II, since they aimed precisely at the thaumaturgical function of kingship advocated by the poem—especially in its last part, the trial of Ganelon. In this respect, the hypothetical "alpha" and "beta" versions do not essen- tially differ; the popularity of both attests to their political actuality. Let us then briefly recall the problems at stake near the end of the Oxford text when Charlemagne questions his barons as to whom loyalty is due while in the military service of the suzerain. It is significant that in the Song of Roland the sword had to decide, as in the old Germanic laws, but this could very well be an anachronistic feature since it was typical for the 262 Olifant/Vol. 6, Nos. 3 & 4/Spring & Summer 1979 atmosphere in which the "omega" poem was created. However, the court of Henry II was much clearer as to the question of loyalty: here every crime was spelled out. As the historian François-Louis Ganshof explains: La féodalité anglaise est une création de la Conquête de 1066; les relations féodo-vassaliques, telles qu'elles existaient dans le Duché de Normandie, ont été étendues par ses successeurs d'une manière plus complète que partout ailleurs, mais de façon é servir les desseins de la royauté. De manière plus complète qu'ailleurs, en ce que tout le sol fut approprié par la Couronne et que l'alleu, la pleine propriété, s'est trouvée complètement exclue; la "franche aumône" (angl. frankalmoin) elle-même, ailleurs alleu ecclésiastique privilégié, est en Angleterre considéré comme une tenure à charge de prières. Toute terre a constitué une tenure aboutissant directement ou indirectement au roi: il n'y a pas eu de fief, au sens français du mot (fief de chevalier, "vavassorie," "sergenterie") qui ne dépendît directement ou indirectement du roi.11 But, as Walther Kienast has remarked,12 as long as the Norman barons were at home on both sides of the Channel not every act of open disobedience against their king could be judged as high treason, for the monarch himself in his function as Duke of Normandy and ruler over vast territories in the west of France too often disobeyed his own overlord, the King of France; he therefore could hardly condemn his own vassals in each instance.

Load more