![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2005, August 15, 2006, August 15, 2007, August 15, 2008, and August 15, 2009. |
![]() | On 13 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from The Song of Roland to Song of Roland. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I changed the order and format of this article to make it more similar to Beowulf, which I judged to be of similar interest and importance. Beowulf is currently at a B rating. I also looked at Nibelungenlied for ideas. Here are some things I think need attention, and I'll get to them at some point if no one else does:
Thanks! Portia1780 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in the Modern Culture section or whatever we could include the mention of both this poem and these events in Mike Carey and Peter Gross' "the Unwritten" #6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.222.166 ( talk) 02:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Marsilion and Marsile, though interchangable, should not be dually employed. Mention them both at the outset and then choose one for the rest.
Can someone fill in the reference, which I have lost, to the historical source which says, fairly soon after Roncevaux, that the names of the participants were on everyone's lips? Andrew Dalby 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put in some links here. The main reference seems to me to be to Sulayman al-Arabi, who is described in his own article as Wali of Barcelona, not Governor of Saragossa. If I am wrong in making this link, please unlink it! Andrew Dalby 12:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The french wikipedia says that there are 9 old manuscrits of the song among which one is Anglo-Norman. The others are all in old french. The english article beging by saying that it "is the oldest major work of French literature". Then it goes on talking only about the Anglo-Norman version. This seems a little bit like the English version of everything. Would it make sens to clarify that?
-- Martin.komunide.com 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone should mention that Roland in Stephen King's Dark Tower Series gets his name from The Song Of Roland. This is mentioned in the preface of one of the books in the series.
Must every topic be inundated with forgettable pop cultural bullshit? Ekwos ( talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe The Song of Roland influenced Browning who then influenced King. Whether Kings series is "forgettable pop culture bullshit" is up future wiki warriors, however, if it's mentioned here it should only be in the context of the enduring influence of the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.147.133 ( talk) 20:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Any truth to the notion that Warren Zevon's Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner was inspired by The Song of Roland? -- Davecampbell 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Although historically the book is almost totally inaccurate, something did occur there there with the Basques. What happened? Please reply to my talk page. Jim Bart 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems like vandalism to me:
"In one manuscript, a hideous monster named Blankenship wields stupidity like a dangerous weapon, killing Charles."
Perhaps someone doesn't like a fellow named Blankenship and slipped that in. Can someone who is an expert verify?
The ms. used to be dated to the late 11th C., very possibly before the First Crusade. What's the basis for the new date of ca1140-ca1170? I'm not dispiuting it, just wondering why the change. If the later date is accurate, the article should make some mention of the poem's function as Crusader propaganda. PhD June 22, 2007
why was the song important to roland
It's not a song that's important to roland... It's the title given to the work.
what I don't understand is...Roland distrusts Marsilion, but Ganelon, Naimon and most of the others are in favour of trusting him. Charlemagne agrees, but Roland recommends that Ganelon be the one to take the agreement to Marsilion. This angers Ganelon, and while in Zaragoza, he plots revenge., why should Ganelon be angry at Roland if he is to deliver a message that he himself is in favor of? If Ganelon agrees with Marsillion, even though ROland doesn't, why should Ganelon be angry to belay something that he is in favor of? Why should Ganelon be mad at Roland..at all..basically?
Why is this at "The Song of Roland" instead of just "Song of Roland"? Is there a good reason? Srnec ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Apart from Orlando furioso, I have met at least one living tradition directly or indirectly based on The Song of Roland, namely the Karlamagnusar kvæði from the Faroe Islands (of which Hammershaimb choose 297 stanzas divided into 5 "threads" in his main published collection of Faroese floklore Færøsk Antologi); although few Faroese of to-day would know all verses by heart, they still use at least part of the ballad "threads" in their traditional Faroese dance.
Incidently, I once saw a (Swedish) TV programme from Cape Verde, if my memory is correct, about a kind of traditional theatre performed every year, also based on the Song of Roland. The programme showed preparations, interviewed the amateur artists, et cetera; and it was very clear that this was an important and very old tradition on the island(s). I don't remember the details; and I'm not even completely sure that it was from Cape Verde.
I might get around to add a line about the Faroese tradition and the Karlamagnusar kvæði. Does anybody know anything about this Cape Verde(?) tradition? JoergenB ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The metre of the Chanson is in fact NOT pentameter. It is scanned by syllable and not by metrical foot. The most one can say of the metre is that it is decasyllabic, with a strong caesura usually after the fourth syllable, sometimes after the sixth, and with at least one stressed syllable in each of the four- and six-syllable hemistiches in addition to the stressed syllables that form the caesura and end the line. Due to the rythms of the old Norman French it admittedly often sounds like English pentameter, but it lacks the distinct metrical feet needed for a line to be considered either iambic or pentameter.
e.g. (with | representing the caesura)
Ço dist Rollant: | 'Cornerai l'olifant Si l'orrat Carles | ki est as porz passant...
The second line could possibly be read as pentameter, but to read the first line with iambic or even trochaic feet destroys the rythm of the original French. The only way to keep proper speech rythm is to scan the second hemistiche of the line as two anapaestic feet. (stress on final syllable of both "cornerai" and "olifant")
Perhaps I'm quibbling, but it really isn't iambic pentameter.
Seligster ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the sword Durendal not mentioned? Isn't the attempt to break Durendal by Roland and the subsequent ascension into heaven of Durendal an integer part of the tale? I also seem to remember that Roland used olifant to divert a deadly blow from a saracan after which the horn broke; didn't roland die of his own accord peacefully and at ease, instead of whilst blowing olifant as is here suggested?
In the plot section, many names are given multiple spellings. Zaragosa and Saragossa, Roncesvalles and Roncesvals... these should be spelled the same throughout the plot, but I'm not sure which spelling would be preferred (I would think the ones with wiki links, as they must be the modern spelling). 217.166.94.1 ( talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The page summary includes this statement "Christopher Howse showed in his book [1] that the manuscript from Oxford is a forgery and this work was made by a student in the nineteenth century." If true, this would undermine the dating of authorship and much of the article which is largely based on interpretation of this manuscript. Currently this claim is not contested and conflicts with statements before and after. Can someone knowledgeable please resolve this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookpadda ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it looked like a dubious source for such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookpadda ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many other papers about the nationalism of the XIX th century. Not only Roland song is a forgery but a lot of many other works (see russian Igor's army ballad etc). Read more to find what is true and what is false from modern doc thesis.
Christopher-Howse made a personal investigation during his trip to Roncesvalles and showed a lot of details about what is false and what is true in ancient ballads.
Readder (
talk)
11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to just flat out remove a section, but near as I can determine the everything in the controversy section is at best highly inaccurate. Having read Lord Albert Bates, the only issue he has with the chanson is whether it was actually orally performed, likewise the article cited above. This is certainly an ongoing debate in the field, with opinions now tending towards the view that it is at least a highly polished version of an oral performance. Having looked though the Jack Hitt and Christopher Howse books, I can find no claim of forgery. The only claims are that the battle of Roncevaux did not occur as portrayed by the chanson (size of armies, Gascons instead of Saracens attacking, etc.), but this has been known since long before the song existed, starting with the Vita Karoli Magni. The article isn't claiming that the story is history. I'm putting this hear to see if there's any rebuttal before I remove the section. Particularly if anyone can provide an actual citation (e.g. if in a book, an actual page) were a claim of forgery is advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.77.18 ( talk) 19:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jack Hitt wrote about The song of Roland and showed why this song is a forgery. The author of Song of Roland was identified as a nationalist student who claimed he found the manuscript. Jack Hitt made an interesting survey of the Song of Roland and included in 2-3 chapters of his book some details about the student involved in the forgery and his final conclusion about the forgery. You need some patience to read all pages of Jack Hitt book. There was a time (XIX th century) when nationalists made forgeries in different countries in Europe (Roland song, Igor song etc) Also Lord Albert Bates [5] wrote about the differences between an original ballad and a forgery. A true ballad is made by people and not by a single author ! In this case it is important to know all data about forgery.
Readder ( talk) 09:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It is true, parts of The Song of Roland were performed by folk singers. But modern version of The Song is not a true ballad, it is a compilation made by a single author and this is why Jack Hitt showed The Song is not an authentic work. And Albert Bates claims true ballads have no single authors, they are modifiable and very fluid. The same compilation is visible in The Song of Igor army. A good student in history composed in the XIXth century a full story. Even The Legend of Joan d'Arc is a forgery. Nothing remained about Joan deeds in Chronicles. Modern legend says Joan captured Orleans. But Orleans was left by English army one week before. And so on... These are THE NECESSARY MITHS. Every people has its necessary miths... Readder ( talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The word 'forgery' is obviously being used incorrectly (to the point of abuse) in Readder's repeated adjustments to this entry. So is 'controversy'. What is being claimed to be a forgery exists in numerous independent medieval manuscripts that definitively existed before the 19th century. There is no controversy over this, though there is, as noted above, some disagreement (though hardly controversial) about the original performance medium for the Chanson. The repeated misspellings and misuse of words should clue people in to the fact that Readder is probably not correctly reading (readding?) Hitt's book, which, as a non-academic travel journal, is hardly a strong source for historical accuracy in paeleographical and codicological matters. Although I'm not up on the MSS currently housed in continental archives, the Bodleian's MS Digby 23 is, as mentioned above, clear evidence that the Chanson was not invented by a French student in the 19th century. See, for example ( http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=bodleian&manuscript=msdigby23b), or the massive amount of scholarly attention just this MS has received in analyses of the Chanson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.23 ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack Hitt is not the only critic of false ballads. Albert Bates wrote about true ballads and is very interesting how he demonstrated this aspect. Only learned people accept this controversy. Little by little the controversy is the most important aspect of the talks. Readder ( talk) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume you're actually talking about Albert Bates Lord--you've incorrectly given him nobility in some of your edits by making his surname his title. Other than that obvious error, I can't understand what you're trying to say. What 'talks'? What is 'this aspect'? Are you talking about oral-formulaic composition? This is certainly something that Lord discussed, but this is definitively _not_ the same as saying that the Chanson is a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.23 ( talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Little by little we arrive to understand some of Lord's theories. It is about the difference between an authentic ballad (sung by ordinary people) and a scientific ballad, created by a single learned person. As Jack Hitt wrote, a French student compiled some ancient true texts, created a modern ballad and declared that he "discovered" a full ancient ballad. This is the forgery: the declaration of student and then the final text of ballad wich is a cultivated ballad (through compilation) and not a popular national ballad (as in Lord's theory) Readder ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You have to read Jack Hitt's work. He analysed some significant details about this work and compared to Lord's theory.
Readder ( talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not up on the MSS currently housed in continental archives, the Bodleian's MS Digby 23, Please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dacodava. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) But modern version of The Song is not a true ballad, it is a compilation made by a single author and this is why Jack Hitt showed The Song is not an authentic work. And Albert Bates claims true ballads have no single authors, they are modifiable and very fluid. The same compilation is visible in The Song of Igor army. A good student in history composed in the XIXth century a full story. Even The Legend of Joan d'Arc is a forgery. Nothing remained about Joan deeds in Chronicles. Modern legend says Joan captured Orleans. But Orleans was left by English army one week before. And so on... These are THE NECESSARY MITHS. Every people has its necessary miths... Readder (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The word 'forgery' is obviously being used incorrectly (to the point of abuse) in Readder's repeated adjustments to this entry. So is 'controversy'. What is being claimed to be a forgery exists in numerous independent medieval manuscripts that definitively existed before the 19th century. There is no controversy over this, though there is, as noted above, some disagreement (though hardly controversial) about the original performance medium for the Chanson. The repeated misspellings and misuse of words should clue people in to the fact that Readder is probably not correctly reading (readding?) Hitt's book, which, as a non-academic travel journal, is hardly a strong source for historical accuracy in paeleographical and codicological matters.
There are some important writers and their critical opinions must be known:
1. Andrew Taylor [1]. At page 64 he wrote: "Given the pressing need of postrevolutionary France for a nationalist epic, had the Roland song not existed, it would have been necessary to invent it. And Roland song was, if not invented, at the very least constructed. By supplying it with an appropriate epic title, isolating it from its original codicological context, and providing a general history of ministrel performance in wich its pure origin could be located, the early editors presented 4,002 line poem as sung French epic. They fashioned the poem they desired".
"Was there ever such a song of 4,002 lines that was recited or sung by a ministrel ?
A large number of Old French scholars have pronounced on the status of the manuscript without ever examining it closely".
2. Jack Hitt also has critical opinion in his book [2].
3. Albert Bates Lord has a lot of critical opinions on nationalist literature [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.190.72 ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
All critical opinions must be known. Hiding them is a wrong attitude. CONFUCIUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.95.67.249 ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on some tenacious re-adding of this material, I've tidied it up so there's no confusion. It seemed like the person adding 'critical opinions' had a completely wrong-headed understanding o0f oral transmission versus manuscript culture, and wanted to argue for some 19th century forgery of some sort. I sincerely hope the adjustments I made will be taken as a reconciliation of this person's argument and a proper explication of the real academic concepts at play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.6.69 ( talk) 15:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
References
I notice the article refers to Roland as French. However, was he not German? I mean, he has a German name, is from a German tribe, and spoke a German dialect, right? HeinrichMueller ( talk) 02:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really, no. DEAF gives one, ARLIMA gives nine and three fragments, but of 6 different poems on the same subject, not the same poem. Certainly, and undisputedly, there aren't 9 different manuscripts of the same poem. Renard Migrant ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is confusing...
Imerologul Valah ( talk) 00:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Song of Roland 122.3.205.151 ( talk) 09:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Song of Roland → Song of Roland – In conventional titles (which this one is) the definite article is not usually treated as a part of the title. Per WP:THE, if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia article name with an article. Srnec ( talk) 02:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to the fable of the history of Islam, the Saracens were not Bedouins/Arabs, but pagan Europeans. As the song itself indicates, they were pagans. Not Muslims or Arabs.
This is the 21st century. Everything is verifiable. Political interpretations of history must stop.
Our ancestors the Saracens of the Alps Adbouz ( talk) 09:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2005, August 15, 2006, August 15, 2007, August 15, 2008, and August 15, 2009. |
![]() | On 13 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from The Song of Roland to Song of Roland. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I changed the order and format of this article to make it more similar to Beowulf, which I judged to be of similar interest and importance. Beowulf is currently at a B rating. I also looked at Nibelungenlied for ideas. Here are some things I think need attention, and I'll get to them at some point if no one else does:
Thanks! Portia1780 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in the Modern Culture section or whatever we could include the mention of both this poem and these events in Mike Carey and Peter Gross' "the Unwritten" #6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.222.166 ( talk) 02:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Marsilion and Marsile, though interchangable, should not be dually employed. Mention them both at the outset and then choose one for the rest.
Can someone fill in the reference, which I have lost, to the historical source which says, fairly soon after Roncevaux, that the names of the participants were on everyone's lips? Andrew Dalby 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put in some links here. The main reference seems to me to be to Sulayman al-Arabi, who is described in his own article as Wali of Barcelona, not Governor of Saragossa. If I am wrong in making this link, please unlink it! Andrew Dalby 12:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The french wikipedia says that there are 9 old manuscrits of the song among which one is Anglo-Norman. The others are all in old french. The english article beging by saying that it "is the oldest major work of French literature". Then it goes on talking only about the Anglo-Norman version. This seems a little bit like the English version of everything. Would it make sens to clarify that?
-- Martin.komunide.com 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone should mention that Roland in Stephen King's Dark Tower Series gets his name from The Song Of Roland. This is mentioned in the preface of one of the books in the series.
Must every topic be inundated with forgettable pop cultural bullshit? Ekwos ( talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe The Song of Roland influenced Browning who then influenced King. Whether Kings series is "forgettable pop culture bullshit" is up future wiki warriors, however, if it's mentioned here it should only be in the context of the enduring influence of the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.147.133 ( talk) 20:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Any truth to the notion that Warren Zevon's Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner was inspired by The Song of Roland? -- Davecampbell 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Although historically the book is almost totally inaccurate, something did occur there there with the Basques. What happened? Please reply to my talk page. Jim Bart 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems like vandalism to me:
"In one manuscript, a hideous monster named Blankenship wields stupidity like a dangerous weapon, killing Charles."
Perhaps someone doesn't like a fellow named Blankenship and slipped that in. Can someone who is an expert verify?
The ms. used to be dated to the late 11th C., very possibly before the First Crusade. What's the basis for the new date of ca1140-ca1170? I'm not dispiuting it, just wondering why the change. If the later date is accurate, the article should make some mention of the poem's function as Crusader propaganda. PhD June 22, 2007
why was the song important to roland
It's not a song that's important to roland... It's the title given to the work.
what I don't understand is...Roland distrusts Marsilion, but Ganelon, Naimon and most of the others are in favour of trusting him. Charlemagne agrees, but Roland recommends that Ganelon be the one to take the agreement to Marsilion. This angers Ganelon, and while in Zaragoza, he plots revenge., why should Ganelon be angry at Roland if he is to deliver a message that he himself is in favor of? If Ganelon agrees with Marsillion, even though ROland doesn't, why should Ganelon be angry to belay something that he is in favor of? Why should Ganelon be mad at Roland..at all..basically?
Why is this at "The Song of Roland" instead of just "Song of Roland"? Is there a good reason? Srnec ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Apart from Orlando furioso, I have met at least one living tradition directly or indirectly based on The Song of Roland, namely the Karlamagnusar kvæði from the Faroe Islands (of which Hammershaimb choose 297 stanzas divided into 5 "threads" in his main published collection of Faroese floklore Færøsk Antologi); although few Faroese of to-day would know all verses by heart, they still use at least part of the ballad "threads" in their traditional Faroese dance.
Incidently, I once saw a (Swedish) TV programme from Cape Verde, if my memory is correct, about a kind of traditional theatre performed every year, also based on the Song of Roland. The programme showed preparations, interviewed the amateur artists, et cetera; and it was very clear that this was an important and very old tradition on the island(s). I don't remember the details; and I'm not even completely sure that it was from Cape Verde.
I might get around to add a line about the Faroese tradition and the Karlamagnusar kvæði. Does anybody know anything about this Cape Verde(?) tradition? JoergenB ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The metre of the Chanson is in fact NOT pentameter. It is scanned by syllable and not by metrical foot. The most one can say of the metre is that it is decasyllabic, with a strong caesura usually after the fourth syllable, sometimes after the sixth, and with at least one stressed syllable in each of the four- and six-syllable hemistiches in addition to the stressed syllables that form the caesura and end the line. Due to the rythms of the old Norman French it admittedly often sounds like English pentameter, but it lacks the distinct metrical feet needed for a line to be considered either iambic or pentameter.
e.g. (with | representing the caesura)
Ço dist Rollant: | 'Cornerai l'olifant Si l'orrat Carles | ki est as porz passant...
The second line could possibly be read as pentameter, but to read the first line with iambic or even trochaic feet destroys the rythm of the original French. The only way to keep proper speech rythm is to scan the second hemistiche of the line as two anapaestic feet. (stress on final syllable of both "cornerai" and "olifant")
Perhaps I'm quibbling, but it really isn't iambic pentameter.
Seligster ( talk) 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the sword Durendal not mentioned? Isn't the attempt to break Durendal by Roland and the subsequent ascension into heaven of Durendal an integer part of the tale? I also seem to remember that Roland used olifant to divert a deadly blow from a saracan after which the horn broke; didn't roland die of his own accord peacefully and at ease, instead of whilst blowing olifant as is here suggested?
In the plot section, many names are given multiple spellings. Zaragosa and Saragossa, Roncesvalles and Roncesvals... these should be spelled the same throughout the plot, but I'm not sure which spelling would be preferred (I would think the ones with wiki links, as they must be the modern spelling). 217.166.94.1 ( talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The page summary includes this statement "Christopher Howse showed in his book [1] that the manuscript from Oxford is a forgery and this work was made by a student in the nineteenth century." If true, this would undermine the dating of authorship and much of the article which is largely based on interpretation of this manuscript. Currently this claim is not contested and conflicts with statements before and after. Can someone knowledgeable please resolve this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookpadda ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it looked like a dubious source for such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookpadda ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many other papers about the nationalism of the XIX th century. Not only Roland song is a forgery but a lot of many other works (see russian Igor's army ballad etc). Read more to find what is true and what is false from modern doc thesis.
Christopher-Howse made a personal investigation during his trip to Roncesvalles and showed a lot of details about what is false and what is true in ancient ballads.
Readder (
talk)
11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to just flat out remove a section, but near as I can determine the everything in the controversy section is at best highly inaccurate. Having read Lord Albert Bates, the only issue he has with the chanson is whether it was actually orally performed, likewise the article cited above. This is certainly an ongoing debate in the field, with opinions now tending towards the view that it is at least a highly polished version of an oral performance. Having looked though the Jack Hitt and Christopher Howse books, I can find no claim of forgery. The only claims are that the battle of Roncevaux did not occur as portrayed by the chanson (size of armies, Gascons instead of Saracens attacking, etc.), but this has been known since long before the song existed, starting with the Vita Karoli Magni. The article isn't claiming that the story is history. I'm putting this hear to see if there's any rebuttal before I remove the section. Particularly if anyone can provide an actual citation (e.g. if in a book, an actual page) were a claim of forgery is advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.77.18 ( talk) 19:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jack Hitt wrote about The song of Roland and showed why this song is a forgery. The author of Song of Roland was identified as a nationalist student who claimed he found the manuscript. Jack Hitt made an interesting survey of the Song of Roland and included in 2-3 chapters of his book some details about the student involved in the forgery and his final conclusion about the forgery. You need some patience to read all pages of Jack Hitt book. There was a time (XIX th century) when nationalists made forgeries in different countries in Europe (Roland song, Igor song etc) Also Lord Albert Bates [5] wrote about the differences between an original ballad and a forgery. A true ballad is made by people and not by a single author ! In this case it is important to know all data about forgery.
Readder ( talk) 09:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It is true, parts of The Song of Roland were performed by folk singers. But modern version of The Song is not a true ballad, it is a compilation made by a single author and this is why Jack Hitt showed The Song is not an authentic work. And Albert Bates claims true ballads have no single authors, they are modifiable and very fluid. The same compilation is visible in The Song of Igor army. A good student in history composed in the XIXth century a full story. Even The Legend of Joan d'Arc is a forgery. Nothing remained about Joan deeds in Chronicles. Modern legend says Joan captured Orleans. But Orleans was left by English army one week before. And so on... These are THE NECESSARY MITHS. Every people has its necessary miths... Readder ( talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The word 'forgery' is obviously being used incorrectly (to the point of abuse) in Readder's repeated adjustments to this entry. So is 'controversy'. What is being claimed to be a forgery exists in numerous independent medieval manuscripts that definitively existed before the 19th century. There is no controversy over this, though there is, as noted above, some disagreement (though hardly controversial) about the original performance medium for the Chanson. The repeated misspellings and misuse of words should clue people in to the fact that Readder is probably not correctly reading (readding?) Hitt's book, which, as a non-academic travel journal, is hardly a strong source for historical accuracy in paeleographical and codicological matters. Although I'm not up on the MSS currently housed in continental archives, the Bodleian's MS Digby 23 is, as mentioned above, clear evidence that the Chanson was not invented by a French student in the 19th century. See, for example ( http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=bodleian&manuscript=msdigby23b), or the massive amount of scholarly attention just this MS has received in analyses of the Chanson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.23 ( talk) 19:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jack Hitt is not the only critic of false ballads. Albert Bates wrote about true ballads and is very interesting how he demonstrated this aspect. Only learned people accept this controversy. Little by little the controversy is the most important aspect of the talks. Readder ( talk) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume you're actually talking about Albert Bates Lord--you've incorrectly given him nobility in some of your edits by making his surname his title. Other than that obvious error, I can't understand what you're trying to say. What 'talks'? What is 'this aspect'? Are you talking about oral-formulaic composition? This is certainly something that Lord discussed, but this is definitively _not_ the same as saying that the Chanson is a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.32.23 ( talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Little by little we arrive to understand some of Lord's theories. It is about the difference between an authentic ballad (sung by ordinary people) and a scientific ballad, created by a single learned person. As Jack Hitt wrote, a French student compiled some ancient true texts, created a modern ballad and declared that he "discovered" a full ancient ballad. This is the forgery: the declaration of student and then the final text of ballad wich is a cultivated ballad (through compilation) and not a popular national ballad (as in Lord's theory) Readder ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You have to read Jack Hitt's work. He analysed some significant details about this work and compared to Lord's theory.
Readder ( talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not up on the MSS currently housed in continental archives, the Bodleian's MS Digby 23, Please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dacodava. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) But modern version of The Song is not a true ballad, it is a compilation made by a single author and this is why Jack Hitt showed The Song is not an authentic work. And Albert Bates claims true ballads have no single authors, they are modifiable and very fluid. The same compilation is visible in The Song of Igor army. A good student in history composed in the XIXth century a full story. Even The Legend of Joan d'Arc is a forgery. Nothing remained about Joan deeds in Chronicles. Modern legend says Joan captured Orleans. But Orleans was left by English army one week before. And so on... These are THE NECESSARY MITHS. Every people has its necessary miths... Readder (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The word 'forgery' is obviously being used incorrectly (to the point of abuse) in Readder's repeated adjustments to this entry. So is 'controversy'. What is being claimed to be a forgery exists in numerous independent medieval manuscripts that definitively existed before the 19th century. There is no controversy over this, though there is, as noted above, some disagreement (though hardly controversial) about the original performance medium for the Chanson. The repeated misspellings and misuse of words should clue people in to the fact that Readder is probably not correctly reading (readding?) Hitt's book, which, as a non-academic travel journal, is hardly a strong source for historical accuracy in paeleographical and codicological matters.
There are some important writers and their critical opinions must be known:
1. Andrew Taylor [1]. At page 64 he wrote: "Given the pressing need of postrevolutionary France for a nationalist epic, had the Roland song not existed, it would have been necessary to invent it. And Roland song was, if not invented, at the very least constructed. By supplying it with an appropriate epic title, isolating it from its original codicological context, and providing a general history of ministrel performance in wich its pure origin could be located, the early editors presented 4,002 line poem as sung French epic. They fashioned the poem they desired".
"Was there ever such a song of 4,002 lines that was recited or sung by a ministrel ?
A large number of Old French scholars have pronounced on the status of the manuscript without ever examining it closely".
2. Jack Hitt also has critical opinion in his book [2].
3. Albert Bates Lord has a lot of critical opinions on nationalist literature [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.190.72 ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
All critical opinions must be known. Hiding them is a wrong attitude. CONFUCIUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.95.67.249 ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on some tenacious re-adding of this material, I've tidied it up so there's no confusion. It seemed like the person adding 'critical opinions' had a completely wrong-headed understanding o0f oral transmission versus manuscript culture, and wanted to argue for some 19th century forgery of some sort. I sincerely hope the adjustments I made will be taken as a reconciliation of this person's argument and a proper explication of the real academic concepts at play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.6.69 ( talk) 15:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
References
I notice the article refers to Roland as French. However, was he not German? I mean, he has a German name, is from a German tribe, and spoke a German dialect, right? HeinrichMueller ( talk) 02:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really, no. DEAF gives one, ARLIMA gives nine and three fragments, but of 6 different poems on the same subject, not the same poem. Certainly, and undisputedly, there aren't 9 different manuscripts of the same poem. Renard Migrant ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is confusing...
Imerologul Valah ( talk) 00:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Song of Roland 122.3.205.151 ( talk) 09:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Song of Roland → Song of Roland – In conventional titles (which this one is) the definite article is not usually treated as a part of the title. Per WP:THE, if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia article name with an article. Srnec ( talk) 02:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to the fable of the history of Islam, the Saracens were not Bedouins/Arabs, but pagan Europeans. As the song itself indicates, they were pagans. Not Muslims or Arabs.
This is the 21st century. Everything is verifiable. Political interpretations of history must stop.
Our ancestors the Saracens of the Alps Adbouz ( talk) 09:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)