Talk:Song of Roland

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Poetry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

1. Plot summary needs to be tightened/shortened
2. Character descriptions can be improved; characters can be added
3. Themes/allusions should be added
4. References from popular culture should be added in the appropriate section
5. AOI controversy/scholarship should be added to manuscript section
6. Other???

Thanks! Portia1780 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Marsilion and Marsile, though interchangable, should not be dually employed. Mention them both at the outset and then choose one for the rest.

Done. Portia1780 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've found it now (thanks to Lewis Thorpe's notes to his Penguin translation of Einhard) and inserted the reference. Andrew Dalby 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it isn't "the English version of everything", because, believe it or not, the French Wikipedia is also talking entirely about the "Anglo-Norman text" (the Oxford manuscript) throughout (except for that early sentence about the nine manuscripts). It is practically the only version that anyone reads. But thanks to Joseph Duggan's multi-version edition it is now easy to read them all. If anyone has access to Duggan's edition and would like to set out a few differences between the versions, wouldn't that be nice ... Hard work though.

Also, it's slightly misleading to say that "the others are all in Old French", first because Anglo-Norman is Old French in a sense, second because some of the others are in Franco-Italian, which varies just as much from a putative Old French "standard" as Anglo-Norman does. Andrew Dalby 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Norman is a variant of Norman French, which is itself a variant of the Armorican language Gallo, with Norse words added. 114.76.8.62 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Zoetropo (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganelon's treachery resembles that of Arvandus who, in his second term as Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, around the period 468 x 471 persuaded Euric, king of the Visigoths, to ambush Riothamus, King of the Bretons, while the latter was en route to join forces with Count Paul, a military representative of the Roman Emperor Anthemius. The ambush occurred in central Gaul, at Déols near Bourges; it's said that Riothamus's forces fought long against impossible odds before the survivors broke through the enemy lines and escaped eastwards to Avallon in Burgundy. In 472, Arvandus was brought to trial for treason, but he had a happier end than Ganelon because Sidonius Apollinaris, who was one of the leading jurors of the day and Arvandus's friend, persuaded the court to commute his death sentence to permanent exile. Riothamus's defeat contributed to the fall of the Western Roman empire, and left a power vacuum in Gaul which the Franks soon filled. 114.76.8.62 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Zoetropo (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallo's a romance language spoken in the Brittany area. You're thinking of Breton, which is also called Armorican (but it's a very rare name for it). On the main point, yes, Anglo-Norman is (in simple terms) just one of the many variations of Old French. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Are you sure it's not from Robert Browning? "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came"

Its from both.

I don't think that should be in this article but should go ahead and be in an article about Stephen King's and his books.

It is "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" by Robert Browning. If you compare the text you will see that they are reasonably different. The reason that the Dark Tower Series seems so similar to the Song of Roland are first of all the main protagonists have the same name which is a weak link. The second is slightly stronger, the use of the horn/olifant horn as a symbol of both valor and hope applies to both of them, but then the Dark Tower Series has many over arching themes such as the Arthur legend. ~~MaryBethDarcy~~

Must every topic be inundated with forgettable pop cultural bullshit?Ekwos (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Although historically the book is almost totally inaccurate, something did occur there there with the Basques. What happened? Please reply to my talk page.

See paragraph 2 of the article, and follow the link to battle of Roncevaux Pass. Hope that helps. Andrew Dalby 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Quite right. Thanks. I've removed it. Andrew Dalby 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Anglo-Norman version of the "Song of Roland" bears specific influences from William the Conqueror's (c.1028-1087) campaign (1066-1070) to conquer England. When enumerating Charlemagne's troops, the poem names "Eudon" as the Lord of the Bretons who sent 30000 knights, "Geoffrey of Anjou" as Charlemagne's standard bearer. In 1066, William's Breton ally was Count Eudon (aka Eudes/Eozen/Eon/Odo, Count of Penthievre) (999-1079), who indeed sent many knights reputedly led by his sons Count Brian (c.1037-c.1085) and Count Alan Rufus (c.1038-1093), who played major roles in the subsequent Conquest of England and in the events that followed. Geoffrey III Count of Anjou (1040–1096) also sent troops who served on the western wing at Hastings with the Bretons, men of Maine and Poitevins (whose leader Aimery IV Viscount of Thouars is named as "Haimo" by William of Poitiers). Shortly before the English campaign, William was engaged in a campaign in Brittany (the Breton-Norman War of 1064-1065) in response to a call from Riwallon (Roland) of Dol (1015-1065). Zoetropo (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I've heard that the anger between Ganelon and Roland may refer to some tradition that hasn't survived. I think he's also mad because the Saracens killed the last messengers sent by the Franks, and he worries this will happen to him.--Cuchullain 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's in favor of it, doesn't mean that he's willing to risk his life over it. When I read the text, I got the impression that Roland was clearly offering up his uncle to the wolves, so to speak. Near the end at the trial, you also see that Ganelon offers up a defense of vengeance because Roland "hated him" and "decreed death and suffering" for him (in the form of the mission - strophe 273).Portia1780 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apart from Orlando furioso, I have met at least one living tradition directly or indirectly based on The Song of Roland, namely the

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)[reply]

You may be interested in the following obituary of Roland Oliver from the Royal African Society: http://www.royalafricansociety.org/countries/cape-verde and http://www.royalafricansociety.org/analysis/obituary-roland-oliver. Also see Roland Oliver. Zoetropo (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing this to attention: it's much appreciated. As for the book--the various reviews in the British press, including this one and this one, make it abundantly clear that this is a travel book with personal observations, not a rigorously peer-reviewed academic source. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, if anyone feels inclined to improve the article (which desperately needs it), this article is a really good read and has lots of reliable information. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See below. Misunderstanding of what 'forgery' is. 'Not historically accurate' does not mean 'forgery'. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for replying, and thank you for pointing to the Jack Hitt book. I've actually read the whole thing now, and it was interesting. However, I repeat my original claim: nowhere in that book does he claim that the manuscript itself in a forgery. If you disagree with me, please provide a quote/direct reference to a passage talking about fakes/forgeries/hoaxes etc. What Jack Hitt does talk about is that fact that the story of the Song of Roland is a lie, something I said above was already documented before the Song was ever written. There is no doubt that it is French propaganda, but it is 12th century French propaganda, not 19th. In fact the Oxford manuscript (Digby 23) cannot be a forgery by Francisque Michel (the 19th century student) because he never claimed to have discovered the manuscript, he only realized that it was in fact a unified work. The actual manuscript had been indexed for at least 50 years before Michel every mentioned it. It was referred to in 1778 by Thomas Tyrwhitt, identified as being about the battle of Roncesvalles in 1817 by John Conybeare, and actually had some lines from the poem published by Gervais de la Rue before Michel ever wrote about it. (All this is described in this article.) There is a huge difference between claiming that the Song of Roland was not ever performed by jongleurs and claiming that it was a forgery. I think there is an interesting section here to be written about questions of whether the arguments of whether Song was ever actually performed as a song, or was the work of a single author (and this is the reason Jack Hitt mentions Albert Bates Lord), and I would like to help write it, but this needs to be sorted out first. I am very familiar with the work for Albert Bates Lord, and nowhere does he discuss forgery, only the differences between oral and written literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.77.18 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are you talking about? No one has ever made any of the claims you're repeating here. There was no compilation in the original publication, since it was based on a single, verifiably 12th century, manuscript (Digby 23). The Chanson in Digby 23 ends with "Turoldus wrote this." Read the first paragraph of the entry. It describes the Chanson as a heroic poem and the oldest work of French literature. No one has ever claimed that what is written in any of the manuscripts is some sort of direct transcription of something someone was singing. --108.231.77.18 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have read the book, and he never claims the work is a forgery. You've been asked several times to provide a direct citation/quote, either from Jack Hitt or elsewhere, and have failed to do so. I can only conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting your sources. --108.231.77.18 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.107.74 (talk) [reply]

Hitt is not the first who claimed The Song is a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.168.22 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Obvious nonsense. I've read the passage of Hitt's book, and he's merely talking about the story of Roland, not the manuscript itself. The fact that the Song of Roland is not historically accurate isn't in dispute anyway. He did not claim it is a forgery, he claimed the story is not true. If you don't know what a forgery is then well, that's your problem right there. If you read the manuscript it's clearly not a forgery. Even for someone as clever as

Francisque Michel. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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 ?

Three come to mind immediately: the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Quran. Zoetropo (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ducs de Normandie is a 44,544 line poem from slightly later! Not necessarily meant to be recited all in a single sitting. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note, the unsigned passage above has been posted three times, and I've replied to it once above. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roland is a French name, and Roland was itself French and spoke French, as for Germans they didn't exist until the Prussians. --86.220.139.64 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was Frankish (cf. Roland) and didn't speak French, as the French language didn't exist yet. Earliest record of French is 842, 64 years after Roland died. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• The second paragraph of the article says that the poem is written in Latin.

• In the section "Manuscripts and dating" the first paragraph says that the Bodleian Library at Oxford has a manuscript in Old French.

• The very next sentence says that the manuscript is actually in Anglo-Norman.

This is confusing...

Imerologul Valah (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and a quick look at the text shows it is very obviously so much closer to French than it is to Latin. Not to mention that the Wikipedia article for Latin states the end of Vulgar Latin as the 7th century, i.e. centuries before the composition of the poem. 2001:861:3185:DF70:1D56:62D8:5D1:736C (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Roland 122.3.205.151 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]