Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:51:50.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VI.—Why Did Ganelon Hate Roland?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Extract

In the words of Dante, “Carlo Magno perdè la santa gesta”; he lost it thru the base treachery of his brother-in-law, Ganelon. Ganelon became a traitor, we have been told, first, because of bribes, and, second, because of his hatred of Roland. As Gaston Paris formulated it, “In the beginning, Ganelon was a traitor only because he was bought by the gold of the pagans; later on, they rendered the situation more interesting and at the same time increased the importance of Roland by adding the motive of the hatred of Ganelon against Roland.” Thus far, nearly all have been agreed; but when we go a step further and ask, What was the cause of this hatred, the answers vary: simply because the two men were step-father and step-son, says one; because Roland nominated Ganelon to a fearfully dangerous mission, says another. The second of these two reasons has the support of Ganelon's own statement at his trial, at least of his second statement, for he makes two, as will be recalled. His first statement, being a riddle, has been generally left out of consideration: it is the purpose of this paper to advance the idea, based upon a new reading of line 3758, that the step-father motive, and the dangerous mission motive, were both secondary in the poet's mind, not primary; that for the poet the primary motive, the real spring of the action, was that Ganelon, being a covetous man and envious of Roland's greater wealth, had hated him on that account before ever Charles had reached the seventh year of the Spanish war.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Extraits, n. 17.

2 Here I must needs follow the keen analysis of Bédier, who has placed us all in his debt by showing beyond doubt or cavil that there is order and good psychology in these scenes, once thought to be inconsistent, and once cited as evidence of the fusion of two redactions of different date. See Les Légendes épiques, iii, pp. 410–27.

3 Romania, xi, 497; cf. ii, 110.

4 For the discussion up to 1905, see Brückner's Das Verhältnis des frz. Rolandsliedes zur Turpinsclien Chronik u. zum Carmen de Prodicione Guenonis, pp. 94–102.

5 Cf. Trevisa: “But he … overdede in godringe of money.” Eng. ‘overdo,‘ in this sense, may reproduce the French sorfaire.

6 See Mitchell's Critical Handbook of the New Testament (1896), p. 119.

7 Thus Bédier (iii, 413) well says: “une haine obscure, ancienne, dont lui-même ne sait pas encore toute l'intensité, l'anime contre son fillâtre.”

8 This was also the interpretation of Gaston Paris (Romania ii, 109).

9 Les Légendes épiques, iii, 469.

10 Op. cit., iii, p. 462 ff.