Larry S. Crist Deep Structures in the Chansons De Geste: Hypotheses for a Taxonomy 1

Home , Chanson de Guillaume, The Song of Roland

Larry S. Crist Deep Structures in the chansons de geste: Hypotheses for a Taxonomy 1. 1. This paper is presented as a continuation of the discussion, at our last annual (Noëltide) meeting, of the paper of Kenneth C. Mealy and of Guy R. Mermier,1 a resume of which can be found in the February 1975 issue of Olifant.2 It attempts to work along lines sketched out concerning the medieval French epic by Paul Zumthor, in his already- classic Essai de poétique médiéval3 and by P. Van Nuffel: "Problèmes de sémiotique interprétative: L'Epopée."4 My debt to both of these scholars5 is massive; but neither can be called to blame for what is to follow. I begin from the hypothesis that the modern critical distinction between epic and romance (a distinction deeper than that of the physical form of the vehicle: irregular strophic form [laisses] vs. non-strophic rhymed couplets) is based on a "real" epistemological difference between, in the French middle ages, the "epic" way of expressing experience (and thus, doubtless, of experiencing) and the "romance" way. For the purposes of this initial prospection, I exclude the "lyric" mode. I

1Kenneth C. Mealy, "Huon de Bordeaux: An Examination of Gen- erative Forces in Late Epic Diction", Olifant, 2(December, 1974)2, 80-90; Guy R. Mermier, "More About Unity in the Song of Roland", Olifant 2(December, 1974)2, 91-108. 22(February, 1975)3, 161-74, esp. 166-68, 170. 3(Paris: Seuil, 1972), pp. 322-38, notably the diagram on p. 326 (reproduced by Mermier, p. 105, and referred to in Olifant, 2[February, 197513, 167). 4LR; 27(1973), 150-72.

5And, quite evidently, to the work of A. J. Greimas, especially his foundation work, Sémantique structurale [rev. ed.] (Paris: Larousse, 1974 [1966]). I use this somewhat lumpy (but not much more lumpy than the standard, "Weltanschauung") term in lieu of the more usual "vision" because of the temporally-later "ideological" connotations of this latter word; see Walter J. Ong, S.J., "World as View and World as Event", in American Anthropologist, 71 (1969), 634-47. 3 4 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 take "epic" and "romance" in the generally accepted sense, and thus exclude as well works with "chronicle" or "religious/hagiographic" subject matter. My goal here is to attempt to deal with the question of (at least one part of) the structural definition of the epic and in part, therefore, with the inner difference between "classic" (canonical) chansons de geste and later—post-thirteenth century—ones. Cast in the form of remarks shifting often between surface and deep structures, the paper has no pretension of offering a fully rigorous treatment. It should be seen as asking questions, posing working hypotheses, and raising further questions towards a methodological study of the chansons de geste along this particular semiotic line. I also try to suggest some ways to handle the "drift"7 from poems regarded unanimously (or at least without significant dissent) as epic to such chansons de geste as the later Huon de Bordeaux (along with its pre- face and sequels), or to the even later (mid-fourteenth century) Baudouin de Sebourc; a "drift" in which the material form—assonanced or rimed laisses of diverse length—remains but in which the narrative structure is quite changed.8 One would hope to be able, further, to note (to see and to formalize) to what degree such structures do change, and in what manner (what is the process). - o -

1.2 The remarks that follow take their origin in discussions through- out the course of a seminar on the "epic genre" in the fall of 19749 and later continued on my own (as a comparison of the works I treat here with the list, below, of those looked at in the seminar will reveal). My desire was to arrive at a "naive" reading of a number of "epics," excluding any commentary but our own (and that previously read or heard and thus already incorporated into us); thus as naïve as

7Mealy's word (p. 180), taken from Sapir, and here used by me in a somewhat different—but, I hope, not outrageously so—manner. 8This drift is a phenomenon present at the very early period of French medieval literature, in the physical form of the Roman d'Alexandre, whose earliest form is one of regular stanzas (as in the hagiographical poems), but which is soon changed to the "epic-form" laisse (first decasyllabic, then dodecasyllabic: alexandrine), without any extant stage being what would generally called an epic. 9I wish here to express my thanks to the student participants: Barbara Brewka, Mary Beth Dunn, Richard Söderström, William Wadsworth. Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 5 possible. Operating from relative ignorance was expressly desired. This also saved time for more primary reading. It was presumed that everyone had a relatively good acquaintance (through direct reading, it goes without saying) with the "canonical" epics: the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid and, since we were all in French, the Roland. Other works discussed and read, if not by all, at least by the presenter, were:

Gilgamesh Huon de Bordeaux Mahabharata (Narasimhan's Cid abridgement) Táin Bo Cuailgne Chanson de Guillaume Beowulf Raoul de Cambrai Voltaire, La Henriade Niebelungenlied Chateaubriand, Les Natchez, Les Nial's Saga Martyrs, and parts of the Mé- Song of Igor's Campaign moires d'outre-tombe Ronsard, La Franciade Zola, Germinal D'Aubigné, Les Tragiques Malraux, L'Espoir I had no pretension of unifying this list, except that everything on it had been called, at some moment, an epic; nor did we come anywhere near making the unification. But we were struck by one frequently occurring "motif," which can be called that of the prise de conscience ("be- coming aware"/"having one's consciousness rise") of an actor, usually the actor-"hero," which moves that actor and with him his set of actors (class/community/society) toward victory in a struggle: thus Achilles is shocked out of his inactivity by the death of Patroclus and moves into decisive action; thus Aeneas will obey the divine summons, will leave Dido and proceed on his pious duty to found Rome. Henry of Navarre will, we know, change his religion for that of his ancestor St. Louis:10 be this a religious or a political decision, it involves a prise de conscience and has definite political effects (effects in the polis/society). This prise de conscience may in itself be neither necessary nor sufficient to make of a given text an epic (this latter being, we recog- nize, a hypostasis), but it is a phenomenon interesting and ultimately helpful to pursue. We adopted another working hypothesis, one coming likewise from the observation, on the level of surface structures, that epic usually in- cludes wars or, at least, some sort of battles, that is canonical societal

10Outside the récit, but part of its real historical/geschichtlich context, this plays thereby a part in the work itself. That is, Henry is characterized as in fact a real historical personage; the history outside the récit, being presented by the discours as real, serves to define Henry. 6 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 conflicts. The epic world is very binary; it is one in which oppositions are great and exclusive: one is A or X; there are no tenable non-A or non-X categories.11 Our hypothesis posed that epic deals with insertion of persons (actors) in societal conflicts, not with personal conflicts with society (this latter being part of the structural characterization of romance): epic romance /actor + society vs. (actor +) society/ vs. /actor vs. (actor +) society/ Thus both Achilles and Aeneas, who were functioning more or less as non- Greek~Roman as well as non-Trojan~Carthaginian, return to their proper categories (presented as ideologically correct by the discours) and the story can progress—the story of the Greeks and their vanquishing of Troy (victory by destruction) and of the Trojans and their founding of Rome (victory by construction), and not merely of Achilles or of Aeneas--who are thereby seen to be metonymous, as noted in the formula above, with their "countries" (societies). And thus Henry of Navarre cannot shift to a non-Protestant/non-catholic position and get off the hook:12 he must move to the opposite category, i.e., from /Protestant/ to /Catholic/. One may quite plausibly suspect that the "meaning" of these two words/cat-

11This seems to be one of the things Karl Uitti is getting at in his book, Story, Myth, and Celebration in Old French Narrative Poetry, 1050-1200 (Princeton, 1973), in his discussion of the Roland in particular, a point then picked up again in the appendix on Jean Bodel's Saisnes, and one whose pertinence as 1 see it here escaped me in my review in Olifant, 1(February, 1972)2, notably pp. 27-28. This phenomenon of binarism is present in a starkly dialectic form in a set of base texts for the middle ages, viz., the New Testament, more precisely the Gospels (specifically the synoptics): "[Q]ui enim non est adversum vos, pro vobis est" (Luke 9:50 [= Mark 9:39]) vs. "Qui non est mecum contra me est . . ." (Luke 11:23 [= Matthew 12:30]). The structure is: Lk(+ vs. -)

Mk(+) vs. Matt(-) in which Luke incorporates both poles and thereby neutralizes the disjunction. 12As one might suspect, were one to fall into the intentional fallacy, Voltaire, to judge by his expressed ideology (in his more clearly didactic works), might have "preferred." Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 7 egories as used in this very political poem is other than one of strict "sectarian" denotation, and that the context of the poem, as well as the larger context of Voltaire's works, shifts the words from their usual religious isotopy to a political one as defined in the poem and elsewhere by Voltaire. In any case, the important fact is that Henry must choose, and a "pox on both your houses" is excluded, thus assuring the poem its epic quality.13 It is this shift of epic actors, from one pole of opposition to the other, that I am now going to examine in four early chansons de geste: the Roland, the Guillaume, the Couronnement de Louis, and Raoul de Cambrai. - o -

2. Van Nuffel qualifies the medieval French epic14 as one having exclusive disjunction, with a deep structure (his term is "taxonomic nucleus"):

in which the horizontal axes are those of contraries, the diagonal those of contradictories, and the vertical ones those of implication (if one is Republican, one is implicitly not a Democrat).15 - o -

13It might be argued that Henry did, in fact, so change, and that Voltaire was only presenting history wie es eigentlich gewesen. The logical reply would be that, to present a political problem, Voltaire chose a subject in which such a shift did in fact take place, rather than one in which the shift was to a position neutralising the opposition (to → /neither-Protestant-nor-Catholic: deist, atheist/). This would raise the question of whether such a poem would be epic. An idle question, since Voltaire did not write it. 14Represented by those chansons de geste he examines, namely the Roland and some of the Guillaume cycle poems. 15I have added, in brackets, the "received" symbols for these positions. I change the four symbols he uses in capitals to the standard minuscule and add the capital letters as signs for the axes of implication. To keep from cluttering up subsequent diagrams, the axes will 8 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. l/October 1975 2.1. Roland.16 Van Nuffel notes that, in his model, each axis of implication defines a "society" in complete disjunction from the other (p. 153); the good and the bad are so classified once and for all. This is true in a sense in the Roland, since in the first mention of Ganelon he is qualified as "ki la traïson fist" (v. 178), which Van Nuffel shows as:

This is a schema in which one of the poles is empty, as it should be, given the general model of Van Nuffel's above. But between the two models, a logical step has been skipped. By the simple exercise of replacing the semantization "defend Christendom" (s ) by, for example, /blue/ and "defend Mohammed" by /red/, and then marking the related contradictories on the bottom line, that of the sub-contraries strictly speaking, by /non-red/(s1) and /non-blue/(s2), we can see that this axis has marked polarities also (e.g., /green vs. orange/). It can, however, be simply neutral (I), as where both s1 and s2 =/yellow/. The epic generally not "allowing" neutrality (our sort of pre-analytic "feeling"), we will have to see if such neutrality on this axis ever occurs. But at this point we must read the schema more generally as:

Zumthor's schema is perfectly corollary here, since it applies to the qualifications of the actors rather than to their functions. I reproduce it, adding some exemplary material in brackets, on the opposite page. This schema with its semantizations, including the moral typifi- cation of positive (to be desired) and negative (to be avoided, rejected, combatted) sides, represents the medieval—specifically French—Christian grill or ideologeme,17 an attitudinal reading of the world, as expressed in the "monologism" (or "one-sided presentation") of the canonical early medieval French epic. It is the movement, the shift in "position" of certain actors along the axis of the sub-contraries, which permits the not be marked by lines; one must remember that they exist, nonetheless. 16I use the latest—and monumental—edition, by C. Segre (Milano/ Napoli: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1971). 17See Van Nuffel, p. 152, who takes the term from Julia Kristeva, Le Texte du roman [on Antoine de La Sale's Petit Jehan de Saintré] (The Hague: Mouton, 1970), par. 0.1.1.2. (pp. 12 sqq.). Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 9

eventual victory of whichever of those forces in opposition on the axis of the contraries has been marked as "good" (here, in the Roland,= /Chris- tians/) by the culture and so semanticized in the poem. Certain movements may not be shown explicitly in the text. Gane- lon is presented, in a sense, as already in the position of s1 when he enters on the scene; his first action shows him beginning in s2 (discussion of this below). There is no explicit s1→s2. The→s1 shift, or rather the act semanticizing it, is anticipated—even as a given—but not yet actualised; it is present in the discours but is still future in the récit (and in the diegesis).18

18A term taken from Christian Metz, "Quelques points de sémiologie du cinéma," in Essais sur la signification au cinéma," v. 1 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1968), meaning "l'ensemble de la dénotation [in his specific framework:] filmique: le récit lui-même, mais aussi le temps et l'espace fictionnels impliqués dans et à travers ce récit, et par là les person- nages, les paysages, les événements et autres éléments narratifs, pour autant qu'ils sont considérés en leur état dénoté" (p. 101). He takes the concept from Etienne Souriau, ed., L'Univers filmique (Paris: Flammarion, 1953), Préface, p. 7 (Metz's n. 31, p. 100). The diegesis is, in a way, the "reality" (in a naïve [non-perjorative term] view) out of which the text proceeds. Ganelon's marriage with Roland's mother, and the old quarrel between himself and Roland to which Ganelon refers at one point are in the diegesis. The story is the plot, specific moments/tranches, out of the diegesis (and therefore in chronological order). The récit is the sequence in which these tranches are presented in the text. The discours is meta-récit. the author's "intervention" in these moments as they "really are/were." The foregoing discussion, after 10 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 The poem's central "problem" is based on an internal discrepancy of structures, Ganelon's construction of things as they are being diver- gent from the base one. His definition of relations is a simple one; with contraries only Ganelon s1↔s2 Roland it represents a simple "private" family (≈ feudal) quarrel. But the interpretation of the poem held by the emperor and sus- tained by Thierry's victory at the trial is one which places Roland (and Ganelon and Charles) in a hierarchical relationship in s1

Ganelon's reading valorises only: /not opposed to Charles/ in the form: /opposed (only) to Roland/ = s1↔s2

In the diegesis there is a definite chronological progression, the first part of which is missing, as I have noted, in the récit. One must presume a Ganelon beginning in s1, since he has, as part of the army, fought for Charles in Spain for seven years. Yet as soon as he is presented as actor, it is as a personage not simply and without discussion subject to the emperor on the question of an armistice and particularly in his rôle therein. He is not fully in the Christian cause, neither for continuing the fight against the Saracens nor for accepting, in his person, the emir's proposal as taken up by Charles. He is thus merely in the s2, /non- Saracen/, position, in its specific semantization indicated on the schema. Ganelon's position, shown at his trial, is that of setting aside hierarchy as non-pertinent and of insisting that he was not opposing Charles when he took vengeance on Roland. By this position, he refuses implication in the direct quotation, is mine, not Metz's. Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 11 the society and recognizes only a semantically distinct "individual" (≠ "societal") axis; a move from the set /Christians/= ([(Ganelon + Roland)+Charles] + God) to (Ganelon↔Roland), which implies non-recognition of the hierarchically superior category and thus impossibility of neutralization of the opposition. The (political) message of the poem is that Ganelon, by opposing one of the emperor's men—and indeed one holding an official charge— did in "fact" objectively commit treason against Charles. But Ganelon's shift did not bring him fully into s2: Ganelon a traitor, yes; a rene- gade, no: the poem's ideology does not make of God a super-feudal lord. The opposition may thus be one of Saracens and Christians, but the essential problem is political, not theocratic or theological. Ganelon's shift, which brings him a short-lived victory in vengeance (corollary with an equally temporary Saracen victory), a shift defined by the poem as one of treason against all the Christians, is causa- tive of the final, Christian, victory, since the treason brings about Roland's death—this latter being Ganelon's only "intent" (subjective)— which in turn causes Charles to wreak complete vengeance on Marsile. Vengeance in the private sphere gives rise to vengeance in the public, in the societal, sphere. The Christians' victory here, moreover, is equivalent (≈) to God's victory, but this is implied and not yet semanticized. This final step, the semantization of God's victory, will be realized in the second part of the poem (I use a simple bipartition here, /Roland present (alive) vs. Roland absent (dead)/). The "traditional" view of Roland shows him as an actor who shifts as well, from /not sounding the horn (-)/→/sounding the horn (+)/ ≈ /démesuré (-)/→ /repentant (?) (+)/ the second pair being homologous (equivalent, member for member) to the first. This is a view I do not hold,19 but I will show, at least, how it can be schematized: /Christians/ s1 s2 /Saracens/

19See my "A propos de la desmesure dans la Chanson de Roland: quelques propos (démesurés?), in Olifant, 1(December, 1973)2, 10-20. 12 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 Shift 1. Roland opposes the Saracens but disagrees with the other Christians (notably Charles) as to the precise manner in which to oppose them (in re Marsile's offer). Shift 2. Roland refuses to sound the horn, permitting (even = causing) the loss of the rear guard, thus objectively harming the Chris- tian army and, by that same fact, Charles. Shift 3. Roland repents, sounds the horn, but in so doing is in disagreement with Oliver. Shift 4. Roland dies reconciled with God (and thus with Charles, who is hierarchically inferior) and his soul is taken up to Paradise. The shift (series of shifts) here is a merely temporary one, a lapsus, in the traditional view, in Roland, due to a fault later duly re- pented and expiated and forgiven. As one may note in the following discussions, such a temporary change would be exceptional (another reason why I still do not accept the said "traditional" view). It is Ganelon's shift that is the typical one. In fact, one could make a case for Charles's shifting as Roland hypothetically does, since the emperor accepts the pagan offer and thereby "allows" (accepts the conditions for) the tragedy to take place. Were one to accept this view, we would have a model in which neither of the major positive forces is stable: it would thus present a very labile world, in which only secondary actors, such as Turpin and possibly Oliver, remain steadfast. I must admit that this could be understood as an expression of the Christian paradox of the humble being the stronger, etc. All in all, however, things are clearer, more "monologistic," and thus closer to the late eleventh or early twelfth century mindset, if one were to see Ganelon as the outright traitor (- to → Hell; total exclusion from the society/ community), Roland as the outright hero (martyrdom - to → Paradise; total integration into the perfect community), with Charles as the human, falli- ble, figure, the actor who has changed "interiorly" at the end of the poem and who thus is the center of a Christian tragedy (penance [last line of the poem] - purgation/Purgatory [- to → Paradise]; progression towards the desired community):

But the Roland contains a second total (unidirectional) shift, a reversal of that of Ganelon, in which Bramimonde, having been qualified as /Saracen/ (s2) by virtue of being in that camp as Marsile's queen, by her destruction of the Saracen idols (laisse CLXXXVT. esp. vv. 2576-91), shifts, but being still in the Saracen city, she is more s1 (/not- Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 13 Christian/) than s2 (/not-Saracen/), this latter a position to which she will move when carried off to France by the Christians. She is there baptized into s1 (v. 3990), a dénouement anticipated (perhaps ≈ the antici- pation of Ganelon's treason) in v. 3674: "Co voelt li reis, par amur cunvertisset." The ideological significance of this conversion has been pointed out by Gerard J. Brault: "La scène du baptème met en relief le fait que la victoire de Charlemagne n'est pas seulement un succès mili- taire: elle marque aussi le triomphe de la foi."20 This is one more in- dicaticn that the Baligant episode, coming between the treason of Ganelon, the victory over Marsile and the capture of Bramimonde, and the actualization of this conversion—and whatever this episode's source/s, origin/s, date, manner of attachment to an *ur-Roland (and not merely to a legend of Roland)—makes exceedingly clear the transformation of a *Roland-without- Baligant, a poem presenting a political problem, revolving around a shift in Ganelon and being resolved by Ganelon's punishment, into a poem in which Christendom (Charles) defeats Saracendom (Baligant), this "victory of the faith" being underscored by a shift in Bramimonde.21 - o -

2. 2. Guillaume.22 In this chanson de geste, not schematized by Van Nuffel, we have a change of category along the sub-contrary axis in the actor Rainouart. He is presented as non-knight (laisse CLIX, vv. 26-48 sqq.); this characterization by itself alone would give us a situation of contradictories:

20"'Truvet li unt le nom de Juliane': sur le rôle de Bramimonde dans la Chanson de Roland," in thé Mélanges . . . Le Gentil (Paris: C.D.U. et S.E.D.E.S. réunis, 1973, pp. 134-49, here p. 145. For other penetra- ting studies on Bramimonde's conversion, see Hans E. Keller, "La Conver- sion de Bramimonde," in Olifant, 1(October, 1973)1, 3-22, and also in the Actes [du] VIe Congrès [sic] International (. . . 1973) [de la] Société Rencesvals (Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 1974), pp. 175-203, and Marianne Cramer Vos, "The Ascendancy of Bramimunde in the Chanson de Roland," in U[niversity of] S[outh] F[lorida] Language Quarterly, 13(Fall- Winter, 1974)1-2, 29-34. 21Underscored, and not caused, since the *Roland (Charles) vs. Ganelon poem/part of the Roland is the "cause" of the Charles vs. Bali- gant portion. 22Ed. Duncan McMillan; 2 volumes; Société des anciens textes français (Paris: Picard, 1949-50). 14 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975

but even in this case, there would be no change of category like that in the Roland (no tertium quid). In verse 2835, we learn that Rainouart is the son of Déramé, and thus is of non-Christian, yea even of Saracen origin. Yet he is also treated as a "non-member" of the society by Christians and responds opposition for opposition, killing many Christians (2703-, 2868-, 2902 [non- mortal], 2963-), while not quitting the Christian camp. Despite the ill treatment given him, he fights on the Christian side and wins the battle and the war for them. An oversight makes of him an enemy for a short but lethal time,23 until Guillaume and Guiborc bring him back to the Chris- tian city. During the battle earlier a pagan had asked incredulously whether, outlandish as he looks, he could possibly be baptized; he re- plied that he was indeed baptized (v. 3249). This is a false statement, as we learn from his soliloquy (at v. 3358; repeated by witnesses to Guillaume, vv. 3387-88, and from his statement to Guiborc (vv. 3487 seq.). But however false this declaration, it serves to indicate his commitment to the Christian cause. Rainouart is finally baptized, Guillaume serving as godfather (laisse CLXXVIII, especially w. 3487 sqq.). After his baptism, recounting how he came to be in Guillaume's kitchen, Rainouart ex- plains that he left home because he did not want to serve the Saracen god Tervagant: "Jo ne voleie faire pour lui tant ne quant" (v. 3514). To return to the general schema,24 we have Rainouart's "progression," as shown on the opposite page. From (1), position at birth, through disjunction to (2), refusal to serve Tervagant (no positive move toward Christianity [Christians]),

23Beginning in laisse CLXXI, especially manifested in laisses CLXXXIII (w. 3425-36) and CLXXXV (w. 3442-48); this opposition to the Christians is anticipated in laisse CXLV, w. 2873-78.

24In which "Christian" is a semantization of /loyalty to God/ and "Saracen" of /loyalty to Mohammed/.

Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 17 partial, surface distinction, on the same level as the one suggested earlier here ______epic ______vs. _____ romance ______/society vs. society/ /individual vs. society/

- o -

2. 3. Prise d'Orange.27 Van Nuffel discusses a group of poems together under the "enamoured Saracen princess" rubric:28 prise d'Orange, Siège de Barbastre, Guibért d'Andrenas, Prise de Cordres et de Sebille. He uses a truncated schema, "opposite" from the one he shows for Ganelon in the Roland (his p. 154, see above p. 8).

and speaks of her change in position (my terminology, not his). But we can better change this schema for the more general one we have used up until now, and see that /she/ moves just as Rainouart does

1. By birth. 2. Enamoured secretly of the hero (Christians [Christian hero]) or already converted in her heart (God [Christians ([Christian hero])]). 3. Active assistance to Christian/s. 4. Baptism or at least union with Christian hero, giving rise to a new Christian hero - o - 2. 4. 1. 1. In the cases discussed up to this point, the set of the two contraries could be /human/ Or /fighters/. The first would only be pertinent to define /epic vs. satire (?) (Renard . . .)/; the second perhaps

27Ed. Claude Régnier; BFR. B:5 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1967). 28For a general discussion of this theme, see Charles A. Knudson, "Le thème de la princesse sarrasine dans La Prise d'Orange." in RPh, 22 (1968-69), 449-62, and Philip Young, "The Mother of Us All: Pocahantas Re- considered," in Kenyon Review, 24(1962), 391-415, esp. 409-11. 18 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 for /epic vs. hagiography/. The only kind of overt reference to such a set is as in the Roland's "Deus! quel baron, s'eüst chrestïentét!" (v. 3164), which does only state a potential commonality, one not actualized because of a lack,

another indication of the monologism of the work. S1 only is recognized as good, desirable, and only s1 as full, complete.

2. 4. 1. 2. In the Couronnement de Louis,29 discussed by Van Nuffel, as well as in Raoul de Cambrai, the s1 + s2 set is a sub-set, /Christians/, of the one we have been examining up to now (/Christians vs. Saracens/). This provides a means of classifying the French epics into two large classes, in the second of which the "epic of revolt" is itself a sub-set: just how the "epic of revolt" might be structurally defined is a question I cannot (in all senses of the word) take up here, but at least want to raise; likewise is raised the question of the place of Gormond et Isembart in this taxonomy:

- o -

2. 4. 2. Van Nuffel's scheme for the Couronnement:

29Ed. Ernest Langlois, Cfma, 22 (Paris, 1920, 2e éd., revue 1925; 3e éd. 1938. Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 19 I prefer a schema of more simply-contrary and -contradictory semes:

In this, Guillaume (1), begins in s2, as a (mere) baron (but primus there inter pares), having his own power, then (2), shifts to sl, due to Louis' quarrel with him, to a position, that is, of possible contradictory force operating as /S- vs. S+/; but (3), he in fact aids the cause of /royal power/ against diffused, feudal, power, and he does this to such a degree that (4), it is he who is the effective central force in the poem's society. By this series of shifts the opposition of contraries is destroyed and replaced by a hierarchical order such as we saw in the Roland in s1. As Van Nuffel notes, Guillaume's presence near the king (that is, his being in s2) or away from him (in s1) is the determinant as to which side, S1 or S2, wins. If one might state, following on the discussion of the set /s1 + s2 / in the Roland, that the main question at stake is how to serve one's lord (how to be [a] baron, even how "to baron"), one can even more readily accept that the main problem in the Couronnement is showing where proper authority lies:

Monologism excludes transfers along the axis of primary contraries: Roland, Charles, Guillaume, Déramé, Marsile . . . , none can change categories abruptly (convert); they can at most only disappear (die in function of contraries, this best represented as occurring in battle). Nor can King Louis change: he can at most be effaced, replaced by a "convert" from the contrary pole who has first followed the axis of sub- contraries ([semi-] neutrality). Properly, authority belongs to the one, not the many (the political problem in the Couronnement and brought out most clearly in Ganelon's trial in the Roland): barons should derive their authority only hierarchically, from the king, and thus not exercise feudal power as independent entities. This would presume, as the chanson de geste's "ideal/desired" situation, a schema in which only s1- and s2 (=S1 as their set) are semanticized (and not necessarily, even s2), with S2 (s2 and s1) as empty category. Should any actors fill it, they would be, ipso facto, rebels and to be brought back into submission (S1) or caused to disappear. Louis' weakness, clearly characterized in the poem, permits the semantization of S2, a part of which is, logically, Guillaume. The count 20 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 becomes the chief actor of the poem, since s1, /royal power/, tends to disappear, preventing Louis from functioning as actor. The "tension" of main opposition of the poem, as usual, is found along the axis of sub-contraries: /Guillaume/ s2 ↔ s1 /Guillaume/ in which the opposition is manifested in temporal disjunction (the two "Guillaumes" do not co-exist at any chronological point/s). As for Louis, he shifts also, but along the axis of contradictories : king ≈ /courage, power/s1 *s2 (/weakness, cravenness/)

s1 /lack of courage, of power/ ≈ non-king (?) with implications of an "essential" state in him of s2, /weakness/ and /cravenness/, but with no passage through s2 /*non-cravenness, *non-weakness/, and potentially/implicitly raising the question of his fitness to be/exist as king. Meanwhile, Guillaume functions with the qualities of a king, effectively replacing Louis in his functions as king. - o - 2. 4. 3. A closer look now at the three poems examined so far shows a further grouping (other than the one of /Christians vs. Saracens/~/Chris- 30 tians1 vs. Christians2/), one based on the chronology of the récit or, more exactly, of the story. In both the Roland and the Guillaume, domination of s1 over s2 (s1 >s2) occurs before the completion of the cycle of the shifting actor (sl/2 → s → s2/l), which is itself a move in the opposite "direction" from that of the dominance:

This set can now be made more specific, in the form Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 21

In the Couronnement, the progression is uninterruptedly straightforward ("cyclical") :

As is noted below (2. 5. 2., p. 25), this mode of classification does not add a further distinction to the taxonomy, but it does tend to confirm the one already established. - o - 2. 5. 1. Raoul de Cambrai.31 This representative of the "barons in revolt" group is more complex than any of the other three poems examined, and this along traditional lines of division. The whole poem is like the Couronnement in my tentative taxonomy, it presenting a /royal authority vs. feudal authority/ opposition. The first part is like the Roland and the Guillaume in that a secondary figure (neither Louis, s1, nor Raoul, s2) is the actor-"shifter"; this same part is, on the other hand, like the Couronnement, in that its cycle of shifts is completed before domination occurs. But Raoul is different in its second part from all of the above chansons de geste in its final direction of domination. The schema in its totality (three sets of axes), as used for the Couronnement, can be used only for Raoul I:

Bernier begins as a faithful follower of his immediate feudal lord. (1) Raoul's burning of Bernier's mother in her abbey (in s1-, the king's domin- ion) sets a potential opposition between himself and Bernier, but the latter neither moves to defend his mother nor "his" king. (2) As a result of

31Eds. P. Meyer & A. Longnon; SATF (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1882). 22 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 Raoul's slap, Bernier leaves him and his forces, but does not strike back in hostility. (3) Pushed beyond his limits of tolerance, Bernier finally strikes down Raoul, thereby effectuating (4), the domination of /royal authority/ over /feudal authority/. The second part (Raoul II) can be resumed in the opposition /betrayal of Raoul/ s1↔ s2 /loyalty to Raoul/ Bernier Gautier a simple opposition, there being no sub-contraries semanticized. Bernier’s humility brings about, for the first time in our poems, a neutralization: Bernier → reconciliation ← Gautier in a situation of /neither S1 nor S2/: the corollary set of /both s1 and s2/, as one can see in the taxonomy, is /loyalty to God/:/Christians/; indeed, reconciliation is a Christian value, in any of the forms: man with God, man with man (: Christian with Christian),32 and Bernier's attitude (and action) is, in the Christian ideologeme (along the Christian isotopy), a highly recommended and revered—probably even more so for its infrequent actualization—one. Yet things do not stay in this most desirable situation of reconciliation and lack of opposition. Such oppositions of clan as represented by Bernier and Gautier are, in the poem, irresolvable of themselves—that is, the opposants cannot neutralize their opposition—and God not breaking in (as he does in the Girart de Vienne to neutralize the opposition Roland- Olivier) to consecrate the "ideal" situation, the only effective way the opposition can be neutralized is by making this opposition a sub-set in a larger opposition. To expand on an example given by Van Nuffel (pp. 156- 57): A certain natural opposition, here of economic classes (+/rich vs. poor/-) or of degrees of power (+/exploiters vs. exploited/-) can be neutralized by unification under one term (as sub-set) opposed to another, different, one; the common term then dominates (neutralizes) the original, simply opposed, pair; the economic opposition can be replaced by a racial one: 33

32A check in any standard biblical (OT+NT) commentary will show this; I checked in the Vocabulaire de théologie biblique, pub. sous la dir. de Xavier Léon-Dufor et al.; Deuxième éd. (Paris: Cerf, 1970), art. "Réconciliation" by Léon Roy, in cols. 1075-78. 33It is the function of "ideology" (perjorative: my opponent's Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 23 Thus the surprising (different from that of the three other epics) and sudden ending of Raoul, wherein all the barons turn on Louis, who, by one more exercise of capricious royal authority, finds himself vituperated for having started the whole just-ended mess, by having made a wrong decision in the first place:

The valorization of the polarities, indicated by the direction of domination, is switched, in comparison with the Couronnement schema, to: -/royal power, authority/ s1 ↔ s2 /feudal power, authority/+ Raoul can be seen, then, to present a dialectic [s1 > s2] → [S1 < S2] the first pair having a set of sub-contraries (semanticized in Bernier), the second none, and thus absolute. This is, it seems clear, another way of seeing that Raoul, in con- trast to the other poems, presents us with a "decomposing universe."34

- o -

2. 5. 2. We can now re-specify the last sub-set in our taxonomy:

reasoning) or of "scientific analysis" (my own reasoning) to establish the oppositional hierarchy. Another way of appreciating "reality" will try to invert the "standard American" hierarchy given

34As demonstrated, using Bachelardian analysis, by William Calin, "Un univers en décomposition: Raoul de Cambrai," in Olifant, 1 (April 1974) 4, 3-9 and also in the Actes of the 6th Société Rencesvals tri- ennial meeting (see above, n. 20), pp. 427-37. 24 Olifant/Vol. 3. No. 1/October 1975

This raises the question of the pertinence of the rubric "epic of revolt" at this level of analysis.35 I delete it here; examination of Renaud de Montauban and other "revolt epics" will determine whether the rubric needs to be/can be put back.

- o -

3. Van Nuffel concludes with a more abstract schema for the totality of his texts (p. 161):

At this point the abstracting has gone too far, since this is the deep structure for the actors of probably any (medieval French [only?]) narrative. It certainly does not distinguish /epic vs. romance/. I choose, more or less at random, another kind of text, and one well known: the Vie de saint Alexis,36 which can be schematized as shown on page 26. Alexis is a God-given gift to his parents, who raise him well; he is obedient to them, and marries the spouse they choose for him (s1).

35It does not in the least imply the total non-pertinence of the rubric: William Calin's The Old French Epic of Revolt (Genève: Droz; Paris: Minard, 1962) would stand as an "eppur se muove" against any such totalitarian attitude. Analysis of deep structures can only serve to strengthen valid (sed hic lacet lepus) analyses of surface/superficial ones. I need not point out that the terms "surface" or "superficial" apply to the levels of structure and have no necessary connection with the quality of the analyses in question.

36Ed. Christopher Storey [ms de Hildesheim (L)] ; TLF, 148 (Genève: Droz; Paris: Minard, 1968).

26 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/Ootober 1975

/non-positive attitude in s2 s1/non-positive attitude in regard to next world/ regard to this world/

1. But then he brusquely rejects the carrying out/consummation of the marriage, and leaves home; a case of clean disjunction along contraries, from s1→s2 (≈ s1 < s2). This is a change taking place in the récit; but the discours, presenting a life of a saint, proposes him as, in a sense, already in s2 (as in L's prologue). 2. His wife does not follow him into exile, but neither does she remarry. 3. Her deploration at his death is much less violent than that of his parents, and she decides to remain a widow and to serve God alone (vv. 493-95). 4. There is no statement (semantization) of change in the parents' "attitude," but it is stated that they—and Alexis's spouse—rejoin God, their souls saved thanks to the saint (vv. 603-05). 5. It is explicitly stated that his spouse rejoins Alexis with God in the company of angels (vv. 606-10). This schema resembles the one in Roland II and in Guillaume, the "conversion" (to Christianity/God) form; taking this point of view we might propose that the wife is the "central" figure. At least, we have the following types of "conversions" in the poem, listed here by order in the récit (which may very well reflect an ideological hierarchization, from most [top] to least [bottom] desirable/meritorious): 1. Alexis s1 < s2 sudden : "metanoia" 2. spouse s1 →s (s2 → s1 ) → s2 gradual (process) : "penance" 3. parents s1 < s2 neutral (non-specified): "merits"/ intervention of the saint (communio sanctorum) *4. (empty) s1/ (stasis) no conversion/refusal of conversion This "organisation" supports what K. Uitti says about the importance of community in the poem.37 It also helps point out that the poem places its

37See above, n. 11 (p. 6 ), notably his pp. 25-26. Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 27 audience in the third category, as expressed in the first strophes; with the "message": even though not radically converted nor even much engaged in penance, we can hope in the community of saints: which is why this poem has been telling us about one of them. Thus Van Nuffel's final schema, although quite helpful for seeing certain narrative structures, cannot be used for determining whether a work is epic or not. Genre specification, it would seem clear, must be made at a more semanticized level, at a less abstract one. -o-

4. Analysis of an elementary structure in four chansons de geste has served some purpose, in showing in part how they work (in part) and how they may be connected the one to the other—a medieval philosopher would say, essentialiter—by a similar deep structure. It also has allowed the establishment of an elementary taxonomy. The declarations made herein as well as the methodology adapted and used, may very likely raise more questions than the number of answers tentatively proposed. That is as it should be. As for a conclusion, my maître, Alfred Foulet (who cannot be blamed for anything in this piece) insisted that "la conclusion doit élargir": I plan (1) to analyse more chansons de geste, and (2) to analyse the four here as well as the others more thoroughly. For starters along line (1), I append some remarks on four later and much less-known chansons de geste. -o-

4. 1. In Mainet,38 we have a bipartite system, the second part being not

38The "story" of Mainet was reconstructed by G. Paris in his edition of the Old French fragments in Romania 4(1874-75). 304-37. He based his outline on several versions, principally: the first book of Girard d'Amiens" Charlemagne (never published); the Franco-Italian Karleto, later published by J. Reinhold in ZRP, 37(1917), text on pp. 27-56, 145- 76, 287-312, discussion and appurtenances on pp. 641-77; Andrea da Barber- ino's I Reali di Francia, later edited by Guiseppe Vandelli and Gio- vanni Gambarin (Scrittori d'Italia, Vol. CXCIII [Bari: Guis. Laterza & Figli, 1947]); Karl Meinet, Hrsg. Adalbert Keller, Bibliothek des Lit- terarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 45 (Stuttgart, 1858) and other brief mentions in the Primera Cronica General and the Gran Conquista de Ultra- mar. I choose to analyze it here, since the epic structure (postulating epic structure as that which I have isolated above, and not meaning that such is the only epic-defining structure in the poems examined) is clear (of the Couronnement type). 28 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 simply "parallel" to the first, but "fitted into" it.

Pepin's bastards eliminate him and his queen by poison and put the legit- imate heir in prison (shades of Ganelon [toward the end of his story] and of Rainouart [toward the beginning of his story]). The beginning situation is thus s1 < s2. Mainet escapes to the court of the Saracen Galafre, thus introducing potentially the hierarchically higher contraries /Chris- tians vs. Saracens/. Galafre's daughter Galienne falls in love with Mainet and helps him at court: this is part of the "enamoured Saracen princess" syndrome and has thus the implication: Galienne s2 → s1, which likewise s2 → s1 Mainet's Saracen (Syrian) troups do in fact convert (full series s2→s→ s1). With their help Mainet defeats those Saracens who are besieging Rome, thereby resolving the contrariety chronologically second in the récit (but higher in the hierarchy); he then returns home, defeats the bastards and thereby resolves the first contrariety. The two pairs of contraries operating in the poem can be subsumed under a single opposition, as shown (however inadequately) in the top line. - o -

4. 2. Anseïs de Cartage.39 The hero, crowned king of Spain and of Carthage by Charlemagne, sends his counselor, Ysoré, to ask for the hand of the beautiful Gaudisse, daughter of the Saracen king Marsile. During Ysoré's absence, his daughter Letise, enamoured of Anseïs, sneaks into his bed and procèdes to factum before the

39Hrsg. J. Alton; Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stutt- gart, 194 (Tübingen, 1892). Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 29

king recognizes her. Meanwhile, (1), Gaudisse is more than ready to accept Anseïs's offer, and promptly renounces her gods. Ysoré returns with the good news, but, on learning that the king has "dishonored" his daughter, (2), he returns to the Saracens—ostensibly to fetch Gaudisse— (3), renounces his faith, and stirs up Marsile to war against Ysoré. Gaudisse goes along with the Saracen army, but manages to transmit messages to Anseïs. (4) The king snatches her out of the Saracen camp; (5); she is baptized and marries him. But things go bad for Anseïs, who must call on Charles; (6) Once arrived, the emperor defeats the Saracens, has Ysoré hanged and, when Marsile refuses conversion, has him beheaded. Ysore's categorical shift brings about a beginning of domination s1 < s2, but this is countered by Gaudisse's shift. Such a double ("two-actor reversal") shift is like that of the Roland; it differs, of course, in that the s1 → s2 shift is completed, and also in that domination follows the completion of the conversion shift. Ysore's shift is only bipartite, with no s2 ↔ s1 differentiation. Interesting in this Roland structural connection is the fact that the poem is set as a continuation of the Roland story.40 This renders quite clear the equation:

But Anseïs cannot vanquish the Saracens; this is accomplished by Charle- magne in function of what might appear to be—if we consider the poem (its surface) by itself alone—imperator ex machina. But the formula shows that in the poem's total system/structure Charles is an integral part and his (sudden) appearance is fully "justified." - o -

40Charles has conquered all of Spain (vv. 55-56); Roland and Olivier are in the past (= dead), serve as yardsticks of valor (vv. 7550-54). (The name "Rolans," v. 7554, is lacking in the index nominum). 30 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975 4. 3. Aye d'Avignon, which I have called elsewhere a chanson d'aventures (chanson dé geste vs. chanson d'aventures vs. roman d'aventures),41 presents a much more complex system of relations, of oppositions and of co- operations between actors (disjunctions and conjunctions). I will not take the place here to do more than to represent very sketchily the multi- ple peripiteia: 1. /possession of Aye/ s1 ↔ s2 /lack, desire of Aye/ Ganor (+ Aye) Béranger and his crew

2. (correlates with 1.) /legitimacy, loyalty/ s1 ↔ s2 /disloyalty/ Charlemagne Béranger 3. physical disjunction /Christian (land)/ /Saracen (land)/ ___ Béranger + Aye (unwilling) to → Ganor 4. physical disjunction (2 x) a. Ganor ---sends →: Béranger (& al.) -- to →Marsilion b. but keeps Aye (← from--- Béranger) 5. semantization of linkage with other poems [Ganelon] , [Marsile] ↓ parentage ↓ Béranger , Marsilion 6. "moral" disjunction /has Aye/ s1 ↔ s2 /wants Aye/ Béranger -- causes → : Ganor Marsilion (thus 6. ≈ 1. [ in its form, not in its semantization](in which case,=)]) 7. physical a. disjunction

41Review of S. J. Borg's edition of the poem; TLF, 134 (Genéve: Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 31 Charles → (away from ------Garnier

b. conjunction ------to → Ganor (6. s1)

8. ( 7) Garnier s1 > s2 Béranger (killed) most of his crew (captured) —So far, we have had domination (sa > sy [here, a = 1, y = 2]), but no change in category. 9. "moral" conjunction ______Garnier + Aye ← to ---- Sanson, Amaugin (feigned moral conjunction, Sanson and Amaugin having been characterized as of Ganelon's brood, and thus traitors "by nature" [cf. Zumthor's schema]). 10. physical conjunction (equilibrates disjunction in 3. [Aye] and in 7.b. [Garnier]) ______Charles ← to ----Garnier + Aye (+ Sanson, Amaugin) 11. physical disjunction (not, moral [= conversion])

12. a. double (reciprocal) moral disjunction ( - from →) Charles s1 ↔ s2 Garnier Sanson, Amaugin -- cause→: ______Sanson, Amaugin (← from - ). b. (which is a reversion to 1. [reversal of false 9.], but with changed polarities) Sanson, Amaugin s1 ↔ s2 Garnier 13. bipartite opposition in two movements

Droz, 1967), in MA, 75(1969), 575. 32 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975

Aubein (killed) Sanson (captured)

b. Charles s1 (→) ← s2 Garnier (seeks reconciliation)

14. reversal of fortune Milon s1 > s2 Garnier (killed)

15. disjunction, conjunction Charles ← to --- Aye:← sends --- Garnier (just before dying) conj. disj. 16. repeat of opposition in 1. /refuses marriage/ s1 ↔ s2 /demands marriage/ Aye Milon 17. threat of renewal of 12.a. /continued refusal ≈ s1 ← Aye → s2 /obedience to Charles ≈ disobedience to Charles/ acceptance of marriage/ 18. physical conjunction (reversal of 11.) /Christian land/ s1 s2 /Saracen land/ Ganor Aye to ------+ Gui 19. moral conjunction, domination (Aye) s1 s2 Milon Ganor > (Ganelon's relatives) with Gui

20. final conjunction (physical and moral), completed categorical shift Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 33

Ganor's baptism: this lexy/lexia42 is, in fact, Aye's prerequisite for allowing the s1 + s2 "moral conjunction" schematized in lexy 19; while, on Ganor's part, the marriage (20) is a prerequisite (as promise) for the establishment of said conjunction (19). These two lexies are, in a sense, parallel, but marriage is the logical terminus, conjunction with a specific member coning after conjunction with the particular set. One may recall that a marriage is the terminal function in V. Propp's analysis.43 But the poem is, finally, open-ended, since the last laisse announces /legitimacy of position, loyalty/ s1 s2 /usurpation of position, disloyalty/

The whole poem may be seen as being generated out of the structures of the Roland. Its structure is, once more, double, here a "Ganelon" /intra-Christian/ opposition being joined to a "Bramimonde" /Christians vs. Saracens/ one, but this time not included (boxed) within it, as in the Roland, since the "Bramimonde" opposition is not semanticized on the axis of contraries; in Aye, Christians do not war against Saracens in function of /Society1 vs. Society2/. (See diagram at top of following page.) At this point I cannot say whether this type of structure can serve in defining the chanson d'aventures (posing such a thing as at

42Discrete unit of the text, "le meilleur espace possible où l'on puisse observer les sens," according to Roland Barthes, in S/Z (Paris: Seuil, 1970), p. 20; Barthes's "lexie" is translated as "lexia" in the Englishment by Richard Miller (London: Cape, 1975); used by Jean Calloud, L'Analyse structurale du récit (Lyon: Profac [Faculté de Théologie], 1973), see p. 13. 43Morphology of the Folktale; second ed. (Austin & London: University of Texas Press, 1968), pp. 63-65. 34 Olifant/Vol. 3, No. 1/October 1975

least a hypothesis). It may well turn out that such a (genre? sub-genre? genera mixta?) will be best defined by the long series of shifts as con- trasted to the simple shifts we find in the four major poems examined. - o - 4. 4. The trivialization of the categorical shifts, from essential to the epic structure (constitutive of it) to mere motif, can be seen in the Bâtard de Bouillon,44 a very late (mid-fourteenth century) chanson de geste. In the third and last part, the only section where the Bâtard is actor, he takes for his wife the Saracen Ludie: takes in the most literal sense, by force; conversion is explicitly denied: Dont le fist baptisier [agent: the Bâtard; patient: Ludie] [en iawe consacrée, Mais moult envis s'i est la roÿne [= Ludie] acordee: Bien dist qu'encor ara par li la chiere iree Li Bastars de Buillon, qui l'a despuchelee (vv. 5441-44). But Ludie gets back together with her former (never-rejected) fiancé, Corsabrin, who succeeds in capturing the Bâtard and then sets about to hang him. But even though the cultural code will allow the depiction of a sort of Christian "anti-hero," yet it cannot let him die ignominiously at the hands of his wife and her Saracen lover. The Bâtard, therefore, says a long prayer, which permits the arrival on the scene of his colleague Hugues ex silva et in extremis. A false/non-conversion of a "(non-)enamoured Saracen princess" almost brings about the downfall of a Christian non-hero (not-very-Christian hero), which would, in the schémas shown above, have brought about /Christians/ < /Saracens/. - o - 5. A final remark, to open even more the discussion: Pierre Gallais, in a recent article, "L'Hexagone logique et le roman médi-

44Ed. Robert Francis Cook; TLF, 187 (Genève: Droz; Paris: Minard, 1972). I follow the editor's division of the text: p. xix. Larry S. Crist/Deep Structures 35

éval",45 uses, as the title states, a hexagonal model to examine the structure of the roman d'aventures, specifically Chrétien de Troyes's Erec et Enide. The major difference between models is that the hexagon has two intermediary, neutral positions. To use an example he gives: (Disjunction)

(Conjunction) It will certainly be interesting and doubtless necessary to redo the work presented here, using the hexagonal model. But it is fascinating to note that Gallais sees the romance hero (specifically Erec) as progressing from position to position around the hexagon, and even through several cycles, in spiral fashion (so that the point of departure to which one finally returns is the same but changed; that is, one's relation to it has changed). This is clearly akin to the pattern of shifts in category/ position we have set forth here, but sufficiently different to serve, perhaps, in defining /epic vs. romance/. All this quod erat demonstrandum is now, I (modestly) hope, a bit more demonstratum. Larry S. Crist Vanderbilt University

45In CCM, 18(janvier-mars, 1975)1, 1-14; the article is to be continued, but as I complete this piece I have not received the following issue. This first part can be found Englished in YFS, No. 51 (1974), 115- 32, as "Hexagonal and Spiral Structure in Medieval Narrative," in a slightly different form.