Patricia Harris Stablein The Structure of the Hero in the Chanson de : Heroic Being and Becoming Although structuralist critics usually treat the hero as only one element of epic structure, I propose to show that, in the Chanson de Roland at least, the complex form of the hero displays a structural identity with that of the entire epic.1 When the relationship of the components of the heroic unit changes, the structure of the whole epic changes.2 The title of this article then stresses the dynamic quality of the Roland system and does not imply any existentialist meanings. Instead, Being expresses a stable relationship among the facets of the heroic complex and underlines the high intensity of the forces which unite them in this unit; Becoming describes the resultant tendency of these same facets to reunite in a still denser heroic form after the destruction of the initial tripartite balance. The varying degrees of tension among these patterns of energy create the structural dynamic that generates the Roland.3 The pressure of these forces is evident in the changing relationships of the characters which compose the heroic complex.4 At the beginning of the Roland, no single character fulfills the heroic role, expressed as a cluster of interdependent functions seen in (1) a receptor, the passive who embodies the normative framework for the actions of (2) the absolute actor, Roland and (3) the primary mediating actor, , both active and passive in function.5 This stable configuration disappears at Rencesvals, where only two of the components are present, so that we see conflict then between Roland and Oliver just as we see conflict in the dreams of Charlemagne, isolated in the aftermath of Rencesvals (laisses CLXXXIV-CLXXXVI). The structural drama of the Roland coincides with that of the heroic complex, because both are governed by the destruction of this triad at Rencesvals and by the subsequent condensation of the heroic functions in Charlemagne. When reorganization of the heroic role is still incomplete and unstable at the end of the poem, this is a testimony to the strength and rightness of the original unit. Although the Roland begins with a declaration of Charlemagne's bellicose power (vv. 1-9), his control of the destructive forces of war is illusory

105 106 / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977 because the succeeding laisses (II-VII) introduce a new mode of warfare— treachery—which Marsile and decide upon to remedy their previous failures before the conventional campaigns of Charlemagne. The change is easy for the pagans to make because they tried deceit once before on the small scale of Basan and Basile. Laisse VIII, the presentation of the Christian status quo, thus becomes a crucial interface between the stable and the unstable.

Li empereres se fait e balz e liez: 96 Cordes ad orise e les murs peceiez, Od ses cadables les turs en abatied; Mult grant eschech en unt si chevaler D'or e d'argent e de guarnemenz chers. 100 En la citet nen ad remes paien Ne seit ocis u devient chrestien. Li empereres est en un grant verger, Ensembl'od lui Rollant e Oliver, Sansun li dux e Anseîs li fiers, 105 Gefried d'Anjou, le rei gunfanuner, E si i furent e Gerin e Gerers; La u cist furent, des altres i out bien: De dulce France i ad quinze milliers. Sur palies blancs siedent cil cevaler, 110 As tables juent pur els esbaneier E as eschecs li plus saive e li veill, E escremissent cil bacheler leger. Desuz un pin, delez un eglenter, Un faldestoed i unt, fait tut d'or mer: 115 La siet li reis ki dulce France tient. Blanche ad la barbe e tut flurit le chef, Gent ad le cors e le cuntenant fier: S'est kil demandet, ne 1'estoet enseigner. E li message descendirent a pied, 120 Sil saluerent par amur e par bien.6 During the seven years of war, the pagan strongholds have been penetrated and destroyed; the identity of the pagans has even been obliterated.7 The Christians, however, have maintained their collective identity and have emerged almost unscathed from the long conflict because their heroic unit has controlled the violence of war.8 In the orchard, destruction and suffering have little reality: they exist only as signs of victorious power (vv. 96-102). Li empereres (v. 96) is used here in the same way as Carles li reis in the first laisse: a reference to the heroic complex in terms of its highest ranking component in fuedal society, rather like a family mailbox with the father's Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 107 name on it. Laisses XIV, LIII, CLXIII, and CLXXII, for example, testify to the active leadership of the army by Roland and Oliver, while Charlemagne's later sense of reluctance in personal combat testifies to the previous functional restriction that required his abstention from battle. The triadic nature of the heroic complex remains veiled here because no insufficiency or imbalance yet emphasizes the division to the audience. As the structure of the poem unfolds to the audience, the true nature of the heroic form becomes apparent as the audience experiences the tearing tensions of destruction and then the gradual soothing of the resulting anguish as a new heroic order begins to coalesce. Forming a deep layer around Charlemagne, his older knights testify to the happiness of the past and his younger knights seem to guarantee the perpetuation of the present into the future with their youthful dynamism (vv. 104-112). Roland and Oliver are mentioned first in Charles's company, followed by the others in hierarchical order. As the epic develops, it becomes clear that Roland and Oliver were named first because they are the completing elements of the heroic force. There is a feeling of mutual possession as power flows inward from the knights to the emperor and vice versa.9 Charles is in the center, white-haired and beautiful (vv. 114-9), untouched by war, yet his description is contiguous with that of the threatening messengers (v. 120).10 Since this radial arrangement shows him to be the most protected, the most intimate point of the Christian identity, the emperor is also the most vulnerable, like the king in chess. His enveloping knights sit on white cloths, linked to their white-tressed leader in equal innocence of evil and the agony of war. This is a passive scene throughout, so the Charlemagne facet of the heroic complex dominates. He is the constant reference point of the laisse both as a person and as a part of the heroic complex. The repetitive structure of the laisse weaves him into war by repeating the formal elements of the fall of Cordova, briefly described in the opening verses. Where the audience is led through barriers to the wealth of the city (vv. 97-101) in these first lines, here the knights are the barriers and the emperor is the wealth to which the enemy penetrates. The taking of Cordova, however, was a typical Christian-pagan battle. In the repetition, the new form of warfare manifests itself in the messengers' false greeting to the vulnerable Charlemagne.11 The balance effected by the stable heroic complex is thus framed and invaded by war. 108 Olifant / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977

Critics traditionally question Charlemagne's anguished passivity before Roland's nomination to the doomed command of the rear guard.12 His passivity, however, can be explained by seeing it as part of the articulation of the heroic structure. Looking at the preceding choice of as Christian envoy, we see that Charlemagne can set up a situation (e.g. laisses XIII-XIX) but it is Roland who acts, who solves the dilemma by naming Ganelon to fulfill the debated mission. Charlemagne must eliminate those improper to the fated action and reiterate his initial command (laisses XXIII-XXVI). As a continuation of the unity of the Frankish society presented in laisse VIII, Charlemagne emphasizes the identification of the knights' will with his own (vv. 165-7, 244-5, 252-3, 274-6). Charles reinforces Roland's naming of Ganelon and all others support both (vv. 278-9). Ganelon introduces the only discord, an aspect further stressed by his position outside the alphabetic and first syllable agreement in the messenger series: Basan and Basile (v. 208), Clarifan and Clarien (v. 2670). Blancandrin's name also begins with the phoneme /b/ but he is not paired with another knight; he is the only speaking member of a varied group (laisse V), so he and Ganelon are both anomalous.13 But the anomaly of Ganelon is more accentuated because of the lack of any phonemic accord; he is the focus of the greatest social and moral discord. First syllable pairing is not uncommon in epics, but the relationship of these sequences in an individual epic may have a significance that is still unexplored. Roland's appointment to the rear guard is a mirror image of the pattern shown in the designation of Ganelon to a position of danger: an anti-heroic element places an heroic element in a dangerous situation after the judgmental facet of the hero has set up conditions which cannot be changed (vv. 740-2, 771-85). In the earlier case, Charles's vague questions elicited unsatisfactory answers, so he changed his query to obtain the necessary response (laisse XX). This initial vagueness provided the framework for a presentation of the relative functional values of the important members of Charlemagne's entourage. No such survey is necessary in the second naming procedure. High priest of the foreordained, Charlemagne confronts the inevitable choice immediately as the whole process is condensed into one laisse, LVIII. The emperor occupies an ambivalent position once the boundaries he set in the first naming ritual have been effaced in the second; Charles maintains his passive function since he does not act, but he shows his unhappiness at the fated Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 109 choice. He neither assents nor dissents, but only weeps. While distance from the emperor was a criterion of the first designation, the mirror image form of the second is fulfilled here since Roland is part of the emperor—as Ganelon himself stresses (laisse XLV). Naimes, underlining Charles's non-participation in the decision, expresses the imperative of Roland's designation to the emperor (LXII) and Charlemagne gives him the arc of duty. There are, then, two agents of decision present, Ganelon and Naimes, while Roland and the Franks are the receptors (LXIII-LXV). Charlemagne's ambivalence in this scene is worthy of special notice because some critics would deny its presence in the epic form (see note 11). Why Ganelon and why Roland are the only correct answers to these questions is too complicated to examine here:14 the significant point is that Charles asks the questions (vv. 740-2), has the prophetic dreams (LVI-LVII), and recognizes the fatal rightness of the choices (vv. 746-50). Although he is the passive member of the heroic complex, he is nonetheless an agent of form as his questions and rejections model these initial crises. After the ill-fated configuration has been realized, the passive aspect of the heroic complex recedes into the background while the rôles of the active Roland and the mediating Oliver become more clearly defined. The exposition of their relationship to each other, with their link to Charles ever present, is as structurally important as was the display of the emperor's function. With the appearance of the pagan hordes, the differing natures of Roland and Oliver come into conflict over whether to summon Charlemagne. Their tie to the emperor is affirmed, then, at the same time the vassals' own divergence is explored. Oliver's vision of the pagans recurs in five laisses (LXXIX-LXXXII, LXXXVI) interwoven with a triple repetition of his plea to Roland to blow the olifant (laisses LXXXIII-V). This vision (Oliver's) of the pagan menace and his wish to recall Charlemagne15 are opposed by Roland's vision of the bloody sword (laisses LXXXIII-V) and his longing for battle. Oliver sees the dimensions of the situation, large against small (e.g., vv. 1049-50) and the remedy (vv. 1059-61), but Roland sees the act of war (e.g., vv. 1053-8) and the glory. The two knights express the polarization of the heroic triad in Charlemagne's absence. Oliver demonstrates Charlemagne's passive wisdom 110 Olifant / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977 and judgmental function. Acting in opposition to the chevalric ideal, Oliver is not presented as behaving in accordance with the Golden Mean, a point on which other critics agree.16 When he announces the arrival of the pagan army to the assembled warriors (vv. 1037-48), he does not reveal his misgivings (v. 1036) except to Roland (LXXXIII-LXXXVII), because to do so publically would contradict the absolute ideal of French knighthood. The first horn debate shows that Oliver does not understand this absolute (laisses LXXXVII-VIII), but he does acquiesce to it (laisses XCI-XCII). Laisse XCII shows Oliver's divided nature clearly: the first five lines (vv. 1170-1174) are addressed only to Roland and underline wise Oliver's division from the active knighthood he must express to the French warriors in the next five lines (vv. 1175-79) as co-leader of the army. The soldiers' unquestioning acceptance of Roland's determination proves that he, not Oliver, expresses the cultural ideal in this situation (vv. 1047-8). Nevertheless, Oliver maintains his active-passive identity as he accompanies Roland into battle. Although one of the two extreme forms of behavior, passivity or activity, will often dominate according to the type of scene, the conjunction of the absolute with the non-absolute through the participation of Oliver in the heroic complex modulates the automatism of a binary expression of heroic function.17 Oliver's questions emphasize the ambiguity of the epic at this point since they present another behavioral dimension which is neither typically Christian nor typically Saracen. The increasingly reflective aspect of Roland after Oliver's death underlines this structural imperative: he seems increasingly to take over the functions of the Oliver segment, as the absolute warrior rôle becomes less functional with the approach of death.18 Roland's incarnation of the active absolute is stressed in the repeated evocation of deaths effected by his overwhelming prowess. The intensely formulaic structure of these type scenes of battle19 is a declaration of the stability of this function in the heroic complex. Roland performs model acts to be imitated by his men. Each fragmentation is another demonstration of the rightness of Christianity and of Roland's virtuous power, with Charlemagne as the immediate receptor of each deed.

Li niès Marsilie, il ad a num Aelroth; 1188 Tut premereins chevalchet devant 1'ost. De noz Franceis vait disant si mals moz: 1190 "Feluns Franceis, hoi justerez as noz. Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 111

Traït vos ad ki a guarder vos out. Fols est li reis ki vos laissat as porz. Enquoi perdrat France dulce sun los, Charles li magnes le destre braz del cors." 1195 Quant 1'ot Rolland, Deus! si grant doel en out! Sun cheval brochet, laiset curre a esforz, Vait le ferir li quens quanque il pout. L'escut li freint e 1'osberc li desclot, Trenchet le piz, si li briset les os, 1200 Tute 1'eschine li desevret del dos, Od sun espiet 1'anme li getet fors, Enpeint le ben, fait li brandir le cors, Pleine sa hanste del cheval 1'abat mort, En dous meitiez li ad briset le col. 1205 Ne leserat, ço dit, que n'i parolt: "Ultre, culvert! Carles n'est mie fol, Ne traïsun unkes amer ne volt. Il fist que proz qu'il nus laisad as porz. Oi n'en perdrat France dulce sun los. 1210 Ferez i, Francs, nostre est li premers colps! Nos avum dreit, mais cist glutun unt tort." AOI Aelroth's insult to Charlemagne's wisdom shows how well the pagans perceive the Christian structure: he stresses the intimate relationship between the passive and active facets of the heroic complex (vv. 1192-5). This insult to the emperor's performance of his judgmental function compels Roland's fulfillment of his active function, further underlining the inseparable nature of the heroic components. After his verbal act, Aelroth is a powerless target before the active heroic force. There is no mention of a weapon until the act is complete (v. 1202), only the action itself, ferir (v. 1198). From the verbal insult (vv. 1191-5), the audience's attention switches to the evocation of Roland's dynamic force (1196-8) and then to the disintegrating victim (1199-1205). The energy of the weapon stoke is emphasized rather than the weapon itself which appears as the proper instrument with which to handle the pagan soul (v. 1202). By the accumulation of Roland's actions (vv. 1197-1205), the audience is brought through the penetration and fragmentation of the pagan body, experiencing itself the active heroic function. Charles's judgmental function has been vindicated (vv. 1206-11) and Roland's active one demonstrated. The knight's final declaration emphasizes that the laisse VIII order still reigns (vv. 1207-12) while the focus has changed from Charlemagne to Roland, as it must since another aspect of the heroic complex dominates here. 112 Olifant / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977

In battle, Oliver and the rest of Roland's army replicate his acts primarily as a demonstration of this unchanged unity. The war scenes thus participate in the ritual quality of the preceding judgmental scenes: they are the semiotic realization of a given abstract order and not the record of random events. Although Oliver kills according to the paradigm established in the laisse analyzed above, he is not simply a pendant to the active hero. The special closeness of the two knights is emphasized as another index of the triadic nature of the heroic complex.20 Their integrated identity puts Turpin in an external position relative to the heroic complex, despite his evident importance as a Church official fighting in the struggle between two moral extremes and as the moderator of the conflict between Roland and Oliver in the first and second series of horn debates. The archbishop, speaking about the practical and religious aspects of the dilemma (vv. 1127-35, 1740-51), reinforces the active heroic function of Roland without denouncing the moderation that Oliver embodies. Turpin does not participate in the heroic complex but reacts to it. Turpin remains tangential to this unit since he interacts with only Roland and Oliver. The archbishop's mediation between God and the French (e.g., laisse CLXII) is more formal than actual because both Roland and Charlemagne have personal contact with the divine that the archbishop does not have. Roland composes the final scene at Rencesvals; Turpin is his puppet rather than an independent heroic element. The spectacle at Rencesvals, which Roland so carefully prepares for Charlemagne, emphasizes the emperor's position in the heroic complex as the receptor of the active persona's deeds, while it compels Charlemagne to take over the active function. Charles does not, however, perform the Roland function in the destruction of the Saracens before Saragossa; his invocation of God (laisse CLXXIX) and apparent position as spectator (laisses CLXXX- CLXXXI, where no combat performance is mentioned) show that he is continuing his pre-Rencesvals role. The restructuring of the heroic complex begins only after this section, so the functional relationships of the past are unchanged here. Once this past has been reaffirmed by the Christian vengeance which repeats the war model of laisse I (Christian power vs. pagan weakness), the changes that Rencesvals has nevertheless effected in the heroic complex can be acknowledged with a stronger suggestion of the beginning condensation of the triadic form in Charles alone.21 Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 113

Shown sleeping in full armor (laisse CLXXXIII), Charles embodies his own protection; he is no longer protected. The recrystallization of the heroic unit does not, however, proceed smoothly. Surrounded by the beautiful night (laisse CLXXXIV) and encased in his splendid armor, Charles is tormented (vv. 2513-19). The pain and sorrow of war have penetrated the stable world he presided over in laisse VIII to reveal new things: Mult ad apris ki ben conuist ahan (v. 2524). The stress caused by this revelation surfaces in the instability that the dream sequences demonstrate (laisses CLXXXV-VI). Laisse CLXXXV is the most elaborate presentation of this instability that complicates the restructuring of the heroic functions.

Karles se dort cum hume traveillet. 2525 Seint Gabriel li ad Deus enveiet: Li angles est tute noit a sun chef. Par avisium li ad anunciet D'une bataille ki encuntre lui ert: 2530 Senefiance l'en demustrat mult gref. Carles guardat amunt envers le ciel, Veit les tuneires e les venz e les giels E les orez, les merveillus tempez, E fous e flambes i est apareillez: 2535 Isnelement sur tute sa gent chet. Ardent cez hanstes de fraisne e de pumer E cez escuz jesqu'as bucles d'or mier, Fruissent cez hanstes de cez trenchanz espiez, Cruissent osbercs e cez helmes d'acer; 2540 En grant dulor i veit ses chevalers. Urs e leuparz les voelent puis manger, Serpenz e guivres, dragun e averser; Grifuns i ad, plus de trente millers: N'en i ad cel a Franceis ne s'agiet. 2545 En Franceis crient: "Carlemagne, aidez!" Li reis en ad e dulur e pitet; Aler i volt, mais il ad desturber: Devers un gualt uns granz leons li vient, Mult par ert pesmes e orguillus e fiers, 2550 Sun cors meïsmes i asalt e requert E prenent sei a braz ambesdous por loiter; Mais ço ne set liquels abats ne quels chiet. Li emperere n'est mie esveillet. As in the past, Charlemagne has special contact with God and suffers passively at the beginning of the laisse. The emperor is in a suspended state during this repetition of his reactions in his pre-Rencesvals dreams about the pass of Sizes and the struggle at Aix (laisses LVI-LVII): he simply observes the spectacle as 114 Olifant / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977 the world is shaken by storming disorder. The fine weather of laisse VIII has disappeared. In a sudden reversal of direction, Charles changes from a passive spectator to a secondary victim as the forces of destruction and disorder strike at him through the annihilation of his army. His knights and their weapons, the active power that destroyed the pagans at Saragossa even without the twelve pers, are estranged from him, belonging now to the disordered world that Charles was watching. The Christian weapons are ironically fragile and vulnerable without an activating heroic force. If they could still perform at Saragossa, it is because that episode is so much a continuation of the past, a reverberation of Roland's force, expressed by his dying gaze directed at the enemy. Now the Rencesvals boucle is closed, as Julia Kristeva might say.22 These dream signs express the present crisis in the heroic figure: Charles is not yet ready to fulfill the Roland-Oliver functions. Only by fighting the savage lion, , can Charles free himself from what has become the bondage of the passive role. The beast, unmindful of the emperor's sacred character, does not hesitate to violate the latter's body (vv. 2544-52). Forced to fight, Charlemagne reacts but cannot yet incarnate an aggressive chevalric energy. His next dream (laisse CLXXXVI) foreshadows the -Thierry episode and shows Charles only as a spectator at the struggle. The emperor's fulfillment of the active heroic role thus remains inconclusive. Those functions which were united in the heroic complex at the start of the epic became disjointed and then moved into an unstable state through the violence at Rencesvals. Charles's dreams, however, show that these complementary modes of heroism are moving from fragmentation into a new condensation: the heroic role is Becoming, moving from a state of chaos to crystallization in a new state of Being. In his dreams, as in actuality, Charlemagne is now positioned between two extremes, one active and one passive, both incomplete modes of being in themselves alone. When the emperor fights Baligant, it first appears as though the restructuring is complete, but the temporary nature of his performance is clear in the Pinabel-Thierry episode, where he is once again judgmental and passive. The poem closes with the relationship of the functions that comprised the heroic complex still in flux23 although the final verses suggest that the emperor will ultimately incarnate all of them: Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 115

Seint Gabriel de part Deu li vint dire: 3993 "Carles, sumun les oz de tun emperie! Par force iras en la tere de Bire, 3995 Reis Vivien si succuras en Imphe, A la citet que paien unt asise: Li chrestien te recleiment e crient." Li emperere n'i volsist aler mie: "Deus," dist li reis, "si penuse est ma vie!" 4000 Pluret des oilz, sa barbe blanche tiret. Ultimately the functional disjunction caused by Rencesvals can be resolved only by means of a Deus ex machina imposition of the active rôle on Charles. Within the poem, his identification with passivity is too strong for this to be entirely resolved. The pain and sorrow accompanying this heroic becoming shows the echoing force of the relationships in the original state of being. Charlemagne's nature must be violated and transformed if he is to fulfill the heroic functions alone. While another possible interpretation is that he grieves because a new set of active elements must die for him in an eternal ronde as a new war looms,24 this theory contradicts the poem's emphasis on the unique quality of the Rencesvals situation: the extraordinary nature of the event is the source of the epic grandeur and the drama of the poem. Charlemagne weeps in the final verses because he knows the past cannot be replicated: he must function in a new way, alone. Structural change in the heroic complex coincides with structural change in the poem: this is the unifying force in the Chanson de Roland. Each main section of the poem, Rencesvals, Baligant, and Pinabel-Thierry, shows a different relationship of the opposing forces as well as a different orientation in the heroic functions. The paradigm of Christian-Saracen conflict established at the beginning of the poem is destroyed at Rencesvals at the same time that the unity of the heroic complex is destroyed. If Rencesvals is the battle of the vassals, the Baligant episode is the confrontation of the lords, and so Charlemagne is the actor there and not the receptor of Rencesvals. The Pinabel-Thierry section places the Saracen-Christian conflict in the background to that within French society. In keeping with the reduction in scale of the opponents, the orientation of heroic functions changes once again, and Charlemagne is the receptor of Thierry's actions. In the final verses the Christian-Saracen opposition again comes to the fore, so another reorganiza- 116 Olifant / Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977 tion occurs, one which continues the process of condensing the disjointed functions of the heroic triad into the Charlemagne persona. This marks a return to the original conditions of opposition and seems to signal a new stability. At all the crucial points mentioned, instability or stability in the poem's structure coincides with instability or stability in the heroic complex.25 Patricia Harris Stablein Fredericksburg, Virginia

1For example, see Paul Zumthor, Essai de poétique médiévale (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1972), esp. pp. 322-8 where the hero is defined as a function but not as the agent of structure. Also see Larry S. Crist, "Deep Structures in the Chansons de Geste: Hypothesis for a taxonomy", Olifant, 3 (Oct. 1975) 1, 3-35. Claude Chabrol, ed. Sémiotique Narrative et Textuelle (Paris: Larousse, 1973), distinguishes between surface and deep structural functions, corresponding to A. J. Greimas's actantial and thematic strictures (pp. 172-86, Sémantique structural, Paris: Larousse, 1966). Vladimir Propp would support such a distinction, but he nevertheless arrives at a characteristic form for the folktale by stressing structural patterns and the cohesiveness shown by groups of functions. In practice, his functions are continuous with form. See the French translation of Propp's work, based on the revised second Russian edition (1969), Morphologie du Conte (Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 1970), p. 29, and pp. 79-81, 96-144. 2See Jonathan Culler, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975), pp. 13-14. Culler disputes the structuralist insistence on this kind of cohesion, but I think it is characteristic of anesthetic forms. For example, see Suzanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form: a Theory of Art (New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1953), e.g., p. 280. 3A major problem in structuralist analysis is that each critic can impose a different binary system on a work and claim that the real deep structure is finally shown. See E. M. Mélétinski, in the article following the Propp study noted above, "L'Étude structurale et typologique du conte," p. 208. Instead, the essential polyvalence of structures, deep, middle, and surface should be stressed. Physicists have discovered an apparently endless series of fundamental particles in their quest for a simple model of atomic structure. I think the same reality must be faced by structuralists critics. For further thought on the subject, see Allen Dundes's introduction to V. Propp, Morphology of the Folktale (Austin: U. of Texas Press, 1968), pp. xi-xiii. 4When I refer to an heroic complex, I mean a group of characters with more than just complementary functions. The characters which form such a complex have a much more intimate relationship, since they are actually incomplete if one or another is missing from the structure. They are, then, in the truest sense, units of energy, extrusions of the abstract tensions that compose the structure of a literary work and not simply surface of these tensions. Signe and signifié (Culler, pp. 16-20) are composed here into a more intense totality, Being. Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 117

5While I agree that function is a fundamental and constant element (Propp, 29-34), I also think that function can be character specific in a literary work and thus important in establishing the uniqueness of such a work. Propp comes close to this himself in his discussion of the crucial complex of functions saying that the folktale hero embodies (Propp, pp. 47-80). On p. 98, Propp makes a remark that pertains to the situation in the Roland: un seul personnage occupe plusieurs sphères d'action. Even more appropriately, on page 185 he says: "Nous voyons donc que les manières de réaliser les fonctions influent les unes sur les autres, ques les mêmes formes s'appliquent à des fonctions différentes. Une forme peut se déplacer en prenant une signification nouvelle, ou en gardant en même temps sa signification ancienne. Tous ces phénomènes rendent 1'analyse difficile." Using Greimas's version of Propp, one character can thus be destinateur, destinataire, adjuvant, and opposant. The heroic rô1e in the Roland unites these different functions but articulates their differences in its triadic form, with the mediating member alternately adjuvant and opposant. Julia Kristeva, in Le Texte du Roman (Le Hague: Mouton, 1970) states that symbolic function is Restriction (p. 27). Since the heroic complex in the Roland is characterized by restrictions on who fulfills what function, her remarks pertain to my argument, but these are restrictions of nature, not only custom: when they are removed, there is a real manque and no easy expansion into the previously restricted area. 6References to the Roland are from the Bédier edition (Paris: Edition d'Art H. Piazza, 1966). 7See Crist, p. 13 8For example, take laisse I as a model of the past. Also see my "War and the Missing Hero," Diss. Northwestern University 1974, chap. 3. 9The laisse begins with a reference to Charlemagne, then mentions the knights (vv. 99-100), then refocuses on Charlemagne (v. 103), then on the knights closest to Charlemagne passing on to those who are distant and nameless (vv. 106-113), again switching in to focus on the central Charlemagne (vv. 114-9) whom the messengers approach as the laisse ends. 10The radiating structure described above shows this. Charlemagne's embodiment of Christianity is also stressed in the magnetic pull he exerts on the opposing pagan messengers (vv. 119-20). 11I think this shift in the mode of warfare brings a high degree of ambiguity into the structure of the epic. Consequently, I disagree with Kristeva's banishment of ambiguity from epic form (p. 96), an attitude shared by Crist (p. 8). However, Professor Crist has later commented informally that he sees real ambivalence in the problem posed by the parallel of Ganelon's isotopy and that of the poem (cf. Crist, p. 10). 12Cf. Zumthor, pp. 336-7. For example, see Erich Auerbach, Mimesis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), pp. 96-142. 13I am unaware of any major study of the structure of alliterative naming and its relationship to function in the Roland and in epic generally. See Paul Aebischer's argument for the late interpolation of the Blancandrin material, Préhistoire et Protohistoire du Roland d'Oxford (Bern: Éditions Francke, 1972), pp. 269-76. See also Joseph Duggan, : Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), pp. 63-104, and Duggan's article, "The 118 Olifant /Vol. 5. No. 2 / December 1977

Generation of the Episode of Baligant," Romance Philology 30 (August 1976) 1, pp. 59-82. 14Studies in the structure of myth are more likely to shed light on this problem than historical research or logical analysis. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, "La Structure des mythes", Anthropologie Structural (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1958), pp. 233-4. 15Besides the active importance of the army Charles has with him, his presence is necessary as the completing element of the heroic figure which could restore stability to the situation. Roland and Oliver tend to polarize without Charlemagne, a natural consequence if the hero works as I say it does in the Roland. 16Larry S. Crist, "À propos de la Démesure dans la Chanson de Roland: quelques propos (démesurés?)," Olifant, 1 (April, 1974) 4, 10-20; Gerald J. Brault, "Quelques Nouvelles Tendances de la critique et de 1'interprétation des chansons de geste," Actes du VIe Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals (Aix-en-Provence: U. de Provence, 1974), pp. 13-26. 17Propp notes the tendency of elements to occur in triplets (pp. 90-91). I extend this structural patterning to functions. 18This is evident on Roland's part in laisse CXL, and it intensifies after laisse CL, Oliver's death scene. The increasingly non-active vocabulary acknowledges the French passage into a new world where a more passive aspect of the hero is dominant. These are not the words of repentance for a specific fault (cf. Wolfgang van Emden, "E cil de France le cleiment a guarant: Roland, Vivien et le thème du guarant," Olifant, 1 (April 1974) 4, 21-47. Roland's insistence on blowing the horn is an acknowledgement that the border between life and death has been passed in laisse CXXXII. He summons the judgmental portion of the heroic figure, Charlemagne, to judge the moral value of the French deaths and arranges an elaborate testimonial spectacle for him (laisses CLXI-CLXXVI). 19See Duggan, Roland, pp. 136-49. See also Zumthor, p. 324, Jean Rychner, La : Essai sur l'art épique des jongleurs (Genève: Droz, 1955), pp. 139-41, E. A. Heinemann, "La place de 1'élément brandir la lance dans la structure du motif de 1'attaque à la lance," Romania, 95 (1974) 337, pp. 105-113, and Stablein, chap. 3. I have not found Rychner's elements very helpful in the analysis of these scenes. I think making lists of such things is dealing with a deep structual problem in terms of the surface structure alone. In my thesis I tried to demonstrate that there is a characteristic energy structure for these scenes which varies according to the structure of each epic and hero. If there is such a thing as a generic paradigm (and I think there is), it exists through the particular deviations that distinguish one work from another. The identification of these deviant patterns is as important a problem for structuralists as the revelation of the general paradigm. For further comments, see C. Lévi-Strauss, "Postface aux chapitres III et IV," chap. V of op. cit., p. 98. See also Joseph Courtès, Lévi-Strauss et les contraintes de la pensée mythique: Une lecture sémiotique des "Mythologiques" (Paris: Maison Mame, 1973), pp. 9-35. 20For example, the linking of their names (laisses XLI, CX, CXV), the emphasis on their friendship (laisses LXXXVII, CLI), their companionage guerrier (laisses CVI-CVII, CXLVIII, CL), and Roland's engagement to (laisse CXXX). 21Such a condensation may have already occurred in Roland as he becomes increasingly judgmental, going past the Oliver mean to gain the Charlemagne type of divine contact in the final laisses of the Rencesvals section. Stablein / The Structure of the Hero 119

22Kristeva, p. 134. 23Ibid., 63-4, 113. 24Cf. Aebischer's theorizing about the truncated ending of the Oxford Roland, pp. 203-234. 25I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Patricia S.-H. Lee for her many illuminating comments on this study. She is, of course, in no way responsible for its faults.