Chanson dc Roland. 133 



1)6 reduced to lowest terms as follows : Never alter the Oxford 

 manuscript to accord with the other redactions except for an imper- 

 ative reason. This formula is an obviously correct deduction from 

 the Oxford stemma. The unsatisfactoriness of Miiller's edition is 

 partly due to incorrect application of it. He did not invariably 

 practise as he preached — sometimes he did alter O to accord with 

 the other redactions without an imperative reason. ' In at least 

 two instances this infidelity to principle had serious consequences. 

 The first instance is his arrangement of the strophes which contain 

 the quarrel of Roland and Ganelon.'-^ In O these strophes possess 

 perfect emphasis— in Miiller's text they do not. In O Ganelon breaks 

 into a wild rage immediately upon hearing Roland's proposal; this 

 rage becomes a paroxysm when Roland laughs at him ; a few mo- 

 ments later, however, when he has regained his senses, his wrath 

 is more calm, but more terrible — he formally defies Roland, Oliver, 

 and the Twelve Peers ; he publicly dooms them to death. In Miiller's 

 text, on the contrary, his calm and serious anger comes first, his 

 sudden rage — to speak paradoxically — comes slozvly upon him. 

 jNIiiller has two arguments for thus departing from O.^ The first 

 is that all the other redactions present his order. This is not in 

 itself cogent, for the unanimity of the other redactions may be due 

 to a mistake in x".'* His stronger argument — in his opinion — is as 

 follows : in strophes xxi and xxii of O, Ganelon speaks of Charles' 

 command that he go to Saragossa ; therefore strophe xxiv, which 

 contains this command, should stand before xxi ; and this change 

 entails the others which are made. But may we not think that 

 when the Franks, in strophe xx, cry out with one accord their 

 approval of Roland's proposal, the King looks assent. Evidently 

 every one in the council took it for granted that Charles would 

 follow the advice of his Franks ; therefore Ganelon's remarks do 

 not presuppose an actual command. I contend, then, that Miiller 

 did not have an imperative reason for changing O's arrangement 

 of these strophes. But if the matter be still doubtful, may we not 

 lay our thesis in one scale, and settle it ? Is not the perfect emphasis 



' Practically all these mistakes were in regard to problems into which 

 linguistic considerations do not enter. He erred not as a grammarian, 

 but as a logician. 



2 274-3.86. 



» Cf. his edition (1878), p. 21. 



* It is my opinion that the scribe of x'' changed the order of his or- 

 iginal for the very same reason which led Miiller to change_that of O. 



