114 F. B. Liiqiiiens, 



Charles, Ganelon responds no, for that force is only capable of 

 defeating the rearguard^ So that the end of the matter is like 

 the commencement — Marsila has no host wherewith he ma}- give 

 Charles battle. Here is another ' inconsistency,' typical of many. 

 What man in his senses — say the critics — would act as Ganelon 

 did at Marsila's covirt — first risking his life by delivering Charles' 

 imperious message, then abjectly playing the traitor. 2 The}- seem 

 not to realize that Ganelon was not in his senses, that he was 

 crazed by jealousy. They do not or will not understand the poet, 

 who shows clearly that Ganelon was a brave man, 3 and would 

 have been a good man,^ save for the one fatal flaw in his character 

 — jealousy. 5 Jealousy blinded him to honor. Thus blinded, he 

 easily argued himself into believing that vengeance inflicted upon 

 Roland did not constitute treachery to Charles. From beginning to 

 end he was faithful — he thought — to Charles "^ ; and not treacherous 

 even to Koland — for had he not warned the latter ? had he not form- 

 ally defied him in the presence of the whole court ? ^ In what, then, 

 is his character inconsistent ? Finally, here is an ' impossibilit}'.' It is 

 impossible, contends Tavernier, in his Zur Vorgeschichte des altfran- 

 zQsischen Rolandsliedes,^ that Blancandrin should have delayed in- 

 forming Marsila of the traitor's real intentions. Why impossible? 

 Several explanations offer themselves readily. For example, the wily 

 counsellor may have thought his despondent sovereign to be in 

 need of some violent excitant. But even granting that the poet 

 has here indulged in an ' impossibility,' shall we not excuse, nay, 

 commend him, in consideration of the artistic results he has thereby 

 attained ? His procedure is explicitly sanctioned by no less an 

 authority than Aristotle.^' Thus, in one way or another, critics of 

 O's unity may l^e answered. 



1 .563-59.5. 2 42.5-660. 



^ Ganelon's bravery is Avell set forth by Professor W. W. Comfort, 

 Publications of the Modern Language Association of America^ xxi, 336—345. 



* If the poet bad not considered Ganelon a good man — except for his 

 fatal jealousy — lie would not have written vv. 342-.365. 



' Graevell, Die Characteristik der Personen im Rolandslied (Heilbronn, 

 1880), p. 122, insists on the jealousy of Ganelon. It is the natural jeal- 

 ousy of a stepfather envious of bis stepson's greater fame : v. .308 is the 

 key to Ganelon's character. 

 . « 3760 and 3778. 



' 287 and 3775-3777. 



** Berlin, 1903. The contention cited is on p. 23. 



'•* Poetics, xxiv, paragraphs 8—10. 



