Oral-Traditional Style in the Chanson De Roland: 'Elaborate Style' and Mode of Composition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JEAN-PAUL CARTON Oral-Traditional Style in the Chanson de Roland: 'Elaborate Style' and Mode of Composition ROFESSOR JOSEPH J. DUGGAN's computer-aided investigation of P"formula" density in Old French epic poetry, the results of which were published in 1973 in his much debated book, The Song of Roland: Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft,1 was the first extensive quanti- tative application of the theory of oral composition developed by Milman Parry and Albert B. Lord2 to entire poems and is in many respects a major contribution to the field of ancient and medieval epic criticism. However, his conclusion that the Chanson de Roland, like the other chansons de geste he studied, is an orally composed poem3 has not, by any means, brought general consensus among Old French scholars. One of the main points of criticism justly raised against Duggan's study is that his criteria for distinguishing between oral style and written style are not based on extensive observation of "formulaic" density in authentically oral and written texts.4 To date, indeed, relatively little has been done concerning 'Joseph J. Duggan, The Song of Roland: Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft (Berkeley, Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1973). 2Milman Parry. "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making: I. Homer and Homeric Style." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41 (1930), pp. 73-147; Albert B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1960; reprint ed.. New York: Atheneum, 1974); idem, "Homer as Oral Poet." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 72 (1968), pp. 1-46. For accounts of the Parry-Lord theory, particularly with regard to quantita- tive analysis, see. for example. Duggan, pp. 16-18; John S. Miletich, "The Quest for the 'Formula': A Comparative Reappraisal," Modern Philology, 74 (November 1976), pp. 111-123. See also Edward R. Haymes, A Bibliography of Studies Relating to Parry's and Lord's Oral Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Printing Office, 1973) and review of the latter with additions by Samuel G. Armistead, MLN [Modern Language Notes], 90 (March 1975), pp. 296-299. John Miles Foley is now preparing for publication an updated bibliogra- phy on the oral theory. 3This, of course, does not include Buevon de Conmarchis, which is known to be a writ- ten composition and which Duggan classifies as a romance (see Duggan, p. 26). 3 4 Olifant / Vol 9, Nos. 1 & 2 / Fall & Winter 1981 the establishment of such criteria from the standpoint of "formula" analy- sis. Although oral-formulaic studies have greatly enhanced our under- standing of the art of poems such as the Roland, they appear to have failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the problem of their mode of composi- tion, and this essentially for two reasons: (1) they lack extensive statistical and descriptive data concerning oral material and deliberate imitations of oral texts to which the poems under investigation can be compared;5 (2) they have fallen short of applying a consistent method to various texts 4For a criticism of Duggan's criteria for the differentiation between oral and written styles in narrative poetry, see, for example, John S. Miletich, review of The Song of Roland: Formulaic Sty l e and Poetic Craft, by Joseph J. Duggan, Modern Philology, 73 (November 1975), pp. 180-181; idem, "The Quest." pp. 119-121, 122-123; idem, "Études formulaires et épopée européenne," in Charlemagne et l'épopée romane: Actes du VIIe Congrès Interna- tional de la Société Rencesvals, Liège, 28 août - 4 septembre 1976, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 225, Les Congrès et Colloques de l'Univer- sité de Liège, 76, 2 vols. (Paris: Société d'Édition "Les Belles Lettres," 1978), Vol. 2, pp. 428-429; idem. "Stilističke razlike između usmene i pisane književnosti: savremeni metodolo- ški pristupi" ["The Stylistic Differentiation of Oral and Written Literature: Current Method- ologies"], in Naučni sastanak slavista u V ukove dane: referati i saopštenja, Beograd - Priština - Tršic, 13-19. IX 1976. (Beograd: MSC. 1977). 6/2, pp. 121-122 (I acknowledge the assistance of John S. Miletich for the information in Serbo-Croatian}; Rudy S. Spraycar, "La Chanson de Roland: An Oral Poem?" Olifant, 4 (October 1976), pp. 63-74. For a criticism of Spraycar's study, see John S, Miletich's comments in "1976 Annual Meeting of the Société Rencesvals, American-Canadian Branch: Proceedings." Olifant, 4 (March 1977), p. 171; William Calin. "Littérature médiévale et hypothèse orale: une divergence de méthode et de philosophie." Olifant, 8 (Spring 1981), pp. 278-279. 5A comparative formulary analysis of two entire poems, a twentieth-century oral poem from the Milman Parry Collection and a nineteenth-century poem written by Petar II Petro- vić Njegoš was completed by Edward R. Haymes, who concluded that his results do not allow us to distinguish clearly between "oral" and "written" material on the basis of "formula" den- sity. Haymes found that the oral text contained 34.8 percent "formula" and the written text as much as 29.6 percent: Edward R. Haymes, "Formulaic Density and Bishop Njegoš," Com- parative Literature, 32 (Fall 1980), pp. 390-401. Duggan himself recognizes that we know very little about the formulaic density of the Yugoslav poems, when he attempts to minimize the importance of Haymes's conclusion by saying that more analyses would be necessary in order for those results to acquire some significance with regard to a generalizing statement on for- mulaic content and mode of composition: Joseph J. Duggan, "Le Mode de composition des chansons de geste: Analyse statistique, jugement esthétique, modèles de transmission." Oli- fant, 8 (Spring 1981), pp. 289-290, n. 1. Other as yet unpublished formulary analyses of entire oral songs include Kenneth Goldman's doctoral dissertation (Albert B. Lord, "Perspectives on Recent Work on Oral Literature," Forum for Modern Language Studies, 10 [July 1974], p. 189) and David E. Bynum's recent work (in a paper delivered at the MLA session entitled "Yugoslav Oral Literature: Style, Structure, and Aesthetics" [San Francisco, 29 December 1979], Bynum announced that he had undertaken an extensive analysis of authentically oral material). Carton / Oral-Traditional Style in the Roland 5 belonging to different literary and linguistic traditions, thus making it dif- ficult to compare accurately the results which may be obtained for works such as the Yugoslav oral songs on one hand and the chansons de geste on the other.6 The validity of the criticism directed against Duggan's conclu- sion on the orality of the Chanson de Roland is further corroborated by my own application to the Old French text of another comparative and quan- titative method of stylistic analysis, which is based on the observation of significant differences in narrative mode between oral-traditional and written poetry. This method was developed by Professor John S. Miletich and does not deal with the "formula" but with the study of "elaborate style," i.e., a delay in the flow of the narrative line through the use of cer- tain kinds of repetitions.7 The results I have obtained show that the narra- 6On differences in "formula" analyses, see Miletich, "The Quest." pp. 114-120; Margaret Chaplin. "Oral-Formulaic Style in the Epic a progress report." in Medieval Hispanic Studies Presented to Rita Hamilton, ed. A. D. Deyermond (London: Tamesis. 1976), pp. 13-14; John Steven Geary, Formulaic Diction in the "Poema de Fernán González" and the "Mocedades de Rodrigo": A Computer-Aided Analysis, Studia Humanitatis (Potomac, Maryland: Porrúa, 1980). pp. 6-11. As suggested by John Miles Foley, it may be necessary to consider the defini- tion of the "formula" in view of the tradition in which it is used (John Miles Foley, "Beowulf and Traditional Narrative Song: The Potential and Limits of Comparison," in Old English Literature in Context: Ten Essays, ed. John D. Niles [Cambridge, England and Totowa, New Jersey: Boydell & Brewer, Rowman & Littlefield, 1980], pp. 117-122, 173-176), but, in doing so, one must be aware of the significance that a given modification may have w i t h regard to eventual comparisons with material in other languages and traditions (Miletich, "The Quest," p. 116). 7John S. Miletich. "Repetitive Sequences and their Effect on Narrative Style in Spanish and South Slavic Traditional Narrative Poetry" (also appearing in bibliographies as "The Romancero and the South Slavic Bugarštica: A Study of Repetitive Sequences and their Effect on Narrative Style"). (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1973); idem. "Narrative Style in Spanish and Slavic Traditional Narrative Poetry: Implications for the Study of the Romance Epic," Olifant, 2 (December 1974), pp. 109-128; idem, "The South Slavic Bugarštica and the Spanish Romance: A New Approach to Typology," International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 21 (1975), pp. 31-69; idem, "Medieval Spanish Epic and European Narrative Traditions." La Corónica, 6 (Spring 1978), pp. 90-96; idem, "Oral-Traditional Style and Learned Literature: A New Perspective," PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 3 (April 1978), pp. 345-356; idem, "Elaborate Style in South Slavic Oral Narrative and in Kačić Miošić's Razgovor," in American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, Zagreb and Ljubljana, September 3-9, 1978, ed. Henrik Birnbaum 2 vols. (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1978), Vol. 1, pp. 522-531; idem, "Shamanistic Features in Oral-Traditional Narrative," Language and Style, 11 (Fall 1978), pp. 223-225; idem. "South Slavic and Hispanic Versified Narrative: A Progress Report on One Approach," in The Hispanic Ballad Today: History, Comparativism, Critical Bibliography, eds. Samuel G. Armistead, Antonio Sánchez Romeralo, Diego Catalán, Romancero y poesía oral, no. 4 (Madrid: Cátedra Seminario Menéndez Pidal, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1979), 6 Olifant / Vol 9, Nos.