Scan barcode
A review by racheladventure
The Song of Roland by Unknown
3.0
After finishing The Song of Rolland, I am struck with how many arguments it raises for war and the justifications it seems to give for it. While there is much to point out from the text, I think the clearest examples of this process is found in the Christian symbols, defending the Franks position as “right,” and in dehumanizing the enemy.
It is difficult to leave Sunday school in our 21st century LDS paradigm and reasonably see how Rolland could be portrayed as a Christ figure. For me, the major problem I had with that image initially was that he seems to have so much pride that he is blinded from reason and cannot even stoop to ask for help when his life, and also the lives of the ones he loves, are in jeopardy. Even Charlemagne admits that Rolland’s great pride is a “wonder that God has stood it for so long” (1774). Yet, the important thing to realize here is that if we were to be living during the time when this text was written we would have very different ideas of what an ideal Christ should be. I could not help but notice the many similarities found in Beowulf. Because of the prevalence of war, portraying Christ as a warrior type figure was seen as the ideal to society. Beowulf frustrated me a great deal because of his pride issues from my perspective, yet he was revered for it. It is texts like these that allow us to see what society was like back then and what their values were. I think here with Rolland it is the same case. Pride is not what we would think of it in our paradigm today.
More Christian symbols that seem to justify the war against Spain are all over this text. We have the swords, which resemble the cross, the Bishop’s weapon, and also the pretense itself. The whole reason why Charlemagne is in the right to go an invade countries like Spain is that he is bringing about Christianity and a higher law to the “pagans.” Constantly the text defends this position by showing God’s favoritism on the Frank side. We see places where God’s will is done, or when angels come and give aid, but then we see nothing but frustration on the pagan side. In addition, we see multiple exclamations of the whole “I am right and you are wrong” argument. This, I believe, is necessary to ensure us that the Franks are justified in their war. Sure Rolland is killed, and they pray in order to properly revenge him (which does not seem to coincide with the Sermon on the Mount), but there were sons and brothers and other loved ones lost on the Spanish side that we are not to give notice to (3109). In order to keep us doubtless on the good side, we are given messages like “you well know that I am in the right against the pagans” (3412) and “we are right, but these wretches are wrong” (1211).
And last, in order to properly defend the Franks as in the right, it is necessary to dehumanize the enemy. The description of their homeland is a place “where the sun does not shine…rain does not fall,” the land is black, and it is a place where “some say that the devil lives,” presenting a dark image of what we are to believe is innately bad (980-983). The people are constantly referred to as “pagans,” yet anyone with any basic background knowledge of world religions knows that “Muhammad” and “Apollo” are never going to be found in the same sentence coming from a Muslim (2580-2590). Yet, the text throws all of these other religions into that “other” category, assuming that they are blatantly wrong, and that there is no need to separate them out. Ironically, I could not help but see that when Charlemagne says, “you can avenge yourself of this criminal race,” it sounds an awful lot like the jihad most people understand from Islam that defends violent behavior if it is at a great moral cause. Granted I am not an expert in Islam and I think our general notion of what the jihad means in our society could use some clarification, but in this case I think we are shown a striking similarity between the good and the bad sides of this story.
Of course, all of these justifications come to nothing when at the end of the story Charlemagne is called to battle against some other pagans, though having “no wish to go” (3999-4002). Yet he will ride off again in defense of yet another war, and the cycle will start all over again. This exposes the fallacy in Ganelon’s argument to King Marsile, that if you engage in this war “you will have no more war as long as you live” (595). Based on this text, I am left to believe that war is not a means to bring about peace.
It is difficult to leave Sunday school in our 21st century LDS paradigm and reasonably see how Rolland could be portrayed as a Christ figure. For me, the major problem I had with that image initially was that he seems to have so much pride that he is blinded from reason and cannot even stoop to ask for help when his life, and also the lives of the ones he loves, are in jeopardy. Even Charlemagne admits that Rolland’s great pride is a “wonder that God has stood it for so long” (1774). Yet, the important thing to realize here is that if we were to be living during the time when this text was written we would have very different ideas of what an ideal Christ should be. I could not help but notice the many similarities found in Beowulf. Because of the prevalence of war, portraying Christ as a warrior type figure was seen as the ideal to society. Beowulf frustrated me a great deal because of his pride issues from my perspective, yet he was revered for it. It is texts like these that allow us to see what society was like back then and what their values were. I think here with Rolland it is the same case. Pride is not what we would think of it in our paradigm today.
More Christian symbols that seem to justify the war against Spain are all over this text. We have the swords, which resemble the cross, the Bishop’s weapon, and also the pretense itself. The whole reason why Charlemagne is in the right to go an invade countries like Spain is that he is bringing about Christianity and a higher law to the “pagans.” Constantly the text defends this position by showing God’s favoritism on the Frank side. We see places where God’s will is done, or when angels come and give aid, but then we see nothing but frustration on the pagan side. In addition, we see multiple exclamations of the whole “I am right and you are wrong” argument. This, I believe, is necessary to ensure us that the Franks are justified in their war. Sure Rolland is killed, and they pray in order to properly revenge him (which does not seem to coincide with the Sermon on the Mount), but there were sons and brothers and other loved ones lost on the Spanish side that we are not to give notice to (3109). In order to keep us doubtless on the good side, we are given messages like “you well know that I am in the right against the pagans” (3412) and “we are right, but these wretches are wrong” (1211).
And last, in order to properly defend the Franks as in the right, it is necessary to dehumanize the enemy. The description of their homeland is a place “where the sun does not shine…rain does not fall,” the land is black, and it is a place where “some say that the devil lives,” presenting a dark image of what we are to believe is innately bad (980-983). The people are constantly referred to as “pagans,” yet anyone with any basic background knowledge of world religions knows that “Muhammad” and “Apollo” are never going to be found in the same sentence coming from a Muslim (2580-2590). Yet, the text throws all of these other religions into that “other” category, assuming that they are blatantly wrong, and that there is no need to separate them out. Ironically, I could not help but see that when Charlemagne says, “you can avenge yourself of this criminal race,” it sounds an awful lot like the jihad most people understand from Islam that defends violent behavior if it is at a great moral cause. Granted I am not an expert in Islam and I think our general notion of what the jihad means in our society could use some clarification, but in this case I think we are shown a striking similarity between the good and the bad sides of this story.
Of course, all of these justifications come to nothing when at the end of the story Charlemagne is called to battle against some other pagans, though having “no wish to go” (3999-4002). Yet he will ride off again in defense of yet another war, and the cycle will start all over again. This exposes the fallacy in Ganelon’s argument to King Marsile, that if you engage in this war “you will have no more war as long as you live” (595). Based on this text, I am left to believe that war is not a means to bring about peace.