In the Song of Roland, the author's portrayal of heroism is shown through the actions of Roland. Roland is a valiant warrior who stays behind with eleven of his other peers and twenty thousand franks to protect eh hold that the Franks have on Spain. Along with his fellow counts, he protects their share of Spain from the pagans. His heroic character is derived from the virtues of integrity, loyalty, and courage. The loyalty to his king shown in Roland's character can also be seen when Beowulf taithfully returns to his homeland to pay respect to his king after killing Grendel. Beowulf's courage that he had for the daunting talk of slaying Grendel can be compared to the predicament faced by the twelve counts left behind when they are heavily outnumbered by the pagan armies that attack the Franks.

Heroism is very similar in Beowulf and Song of Roland. In both instances, death in battle is glamorous. Both Roland and Beowulf took on challenges in which the odds were against them. And despite dying, the two are highly revered for their bravery. Roland was stupid for not calling for support. However, because he died in battle his fame grew. The one difference between the two portrayals of heroism seems to be the reward. In Song of Roland, there is an emphasis on religion. It’s the Christians versus the Muslims. Fittingly, Roland is granted eternal salvation. Meanwhile, Beowulf was granted fame.

The Song of Roland: What Makes a Hero

In The Song of Roland Heroism is largely similar to that of Beowulf. In Beowulf the lead character was famed for having the strongest grip and uses it in battle. Similarly. delivering devastating blows are often revered by soldiers and lead knights in The Song of Roland: "The Archbishop says: 'That was a strike worthy of a knight!'" (41). Ferocity in battle is clearly glorified as well as bravery in battle as we discussed in class. However, in The Song of Roland I see more of an emphasis on a knight also being cunning and wise. It isnt't enough for the knight to be bold in battle he must be brave as well. I would agree with the idea put forth in class that Oliver, combined with Roland would be te perfect knight. Also, there is another emphasis on wisdom and character when we look at Charles the Great. Marsiliun questions Ganelon about Charles repeatedly to which he continually responds that his lord is braver than any man, and more virtuos, and holds his men in such great esteem that he needs not fear anyone (180. Also, later in the story, I;m not sure where, Charles is described as wise enough to see through Ganelon's plan for ROland and curses him for it. So in this tale, differing form Beowuf, the hero is of strong stature and mind. He is reasonable and furious. One question I have that may help discussion is that while we see a downfall of a hero in both stories, what values are present in the time of the 11th century that make Roland's downfall in battle more tragic, and how did they differ from a world where almost everyone percieved Beowulf as having a glorious downfall.

ya i need help also
like i found the title page which is combined with the five books of the Histories by rodulfus Glaber
but i cant actually find the Life of St. William/deeds i guess
i found the pope urban speeches tho

help with William

Hey,
sorry for the extra post but I am having a lot of trouble finding the William of Poitiers readings. Could someone who knows where in the reader they are please give me what readings they're between or something? I've looked through the thing 2 or 3 times now. Thanks!
Julia

Song of Roland posts

I've also chosen to respond to both posts this week.

1) Song of Roland and Heroism-
As we discussed in class, there are as many possible answers to the question "Who's the hero" as there are characters in the text. Is it Roland, whom the text is named for and who occupies so much of the talking and thinking time of the other characters present? Is it Charlemagne (who the text was originally named for) and in whose name this great battle is fought? He is presented as the essence of the ideal ruler. Is it Oliver, whose consistent balance of wisdom and battle valor (sometimes tragically) offsets Roland's single-mindedness? All of these are possible, and I believe all of them are correct. To me, the hero in Roland is a set of ideas and values. It is an abstract rather than an individual, something readers or listeners could strive towards. But comparing that conclusion with Beowulf, we come up with the important distinction of complexity. Beowulf, though just as gory and fun, was a simpler story. Beowulf was the hero. He always made the right decision, always won the battle, always got the treasure. Roland presents a much more complicated, dramatic picture and allows us to question much more deeply the nature of medieval heroism.

2) Ganelon's Trial and Medieval Justice-
Although I would like to agree with Harris' insightful post about the growing complexity of the legal system (noticing a trend here?), I disagree that the medieval French way of dealing with the law as presented by Ganelon's trial more closely resembles modern justice systems. Charlemagne's system seems to be more heavily based on practicality and logic than on high minded conceptions of right and wrong. We as a 21st century class agree that what Ganelon did (betrayal, treachery, murder etc) was wrong. But when he is brought to trial, there is a large contingent of Roland and Oliver's home population that thinks he should just be let go. After all, they argue, Roland is dead, the damage is done and no amount of punishment is going to reverse that. It isn't logical to deprive the king of a wise advisor just because he settled an internal feud with Roland. The idea that there is such a thing as private murder is also something foreign to our system of justice. But in this world, it was a personal disagreement, personally settled and doesn't concern the larger population.

Office Hours

I will be having office hours after section on Friday should anyone want to discuss their papers.

Although Ganelon was eventually hanged, he was neither found guilty by the “court” nor was he really on trial for leading Roland to his death. In fact he freely admits to plotting against Roland; however, he does attempt to claim innocence by declaring he did not betray the king and, by extension, the kingdom. This shows that feuds or killing others for revenge is not a crime and only family members are expected to take action, which embodies the concept of taking the law into your own hands. Moreover, the king makes it clear he wants Ganelon to be hanged, but, because he was found innocent by vote, this incident shows that king or rulers have limited power in the justice system. While the king’s wish fails to persuade the majority, Thierry chooses to take the king’s side and votes for Ganelon’s haning. More importantly, Thierry’s dissension seems to be enough to do so, which is demonstrated by Pinabel challenging Thierry to combat to prove Ganelon’s innocence. This turn of events shows that, while crimes are judged by a council, the verdict can always be contested and force, not reason, can be used. Because force is the deciding factor, medieval justice is shown to focus around strength of arms, and not reason. Lastly, Ganelon's trial as a whole shows that medieval justice is less about laws and justice and more about practicality, because the stronger person, the survivor, will be more useful in battle than the weaker person who was defeated. This claim is further strengthened by the council declaring Ganelon innocent due to their belief no one would be willing to fight Pinnabel to prove Ganelon guilty, which shows they did not wish to waste time with a pointless verdict.