Ganleon’s Embodiment of the Monstrous & Roland’s Transformation into an Other

The introduction to, “The Song of Roland,” stresses that the story takes place during a time period where notions associated with the construct of masculine strength or ‘virtue’ were elevated to such a degree that they cultivated a society of ‘war,’ engraining people’s actions, interactions, and ideology. This mode of thinking or way of being, I think, after reading the first section of this story, made the character’s acts even more severe, desperate, and held repercussions that pushed them towards embodying the ‘monstrous’ or the ‘other.’ Ultimately, characters such as Ganleon and Roland, live in a society or culture that seems to heighten their human capacity to hate or love, while transforming them into beings that become monstrous, or ‘other.’

From the very beginning the reader becomes suspicious of Ganelon, for little by little we discover the treacherous trap he builds for his fellow men, siding with Marsilion out of the anger and jealousy he feels towards Roland. On page sixty-four, verse twenty-five, Ganelon drops Charlemayn’s glove, and the men take it as an omen, symbolic, not as an ‘act that instills authority,’ but one that foreshadows an evil event or circumstance in the future. From this point on, Ganelon begins his transformation into the ‘monstrous,’ and this is reinforced by the way he advises Marsilion, and sets up the trap for the French’s downfall. To be considered ‘Monstrous,’ I think, not only involves appearing as an animal, shocking, hideous, or frightful, but having a ‘monstrous’ nature, that deviates from the established, accepted, and ‘natural’ order. Ganelon does this repeatedly when assuming the identity of a ‘valiant’ knight in the beginning, through his manipulation of Charlemayn, in the way he betrays Roland and his other fellow knights, and by his acts that continuously push the French into a trap and foretells their doom during the first section of the story. Ganelon never makes a ‘heroic deed,’ nor does he exhibit notions of ‘masculine virtue,’ and if we were to associate the ‘jealousy’ or hate he has towards Roland as stemming from his ‘monstrous nature,’ and heightened by the culture he lives in, he embodies the ‘monstrous,’ for it is his nature that quite literally transforms him into a monster. On page one-hundred-twenty-one he is disfigured and treated like an animal for his acts: ‘his beard is plucked from his face’; his body is beaten and one hears the ‘pounding’ and ‘thumps’; and ‘chain’ or collar is put around his neck as if he were an animal. Ganelon is also seen like a ‘bear in a cage.’ In Christianity, if we were to take the fight of David against the bear, as symbolizing the conflict of Christ and the Devil, Ganelon’s association with the bear reinforces his embodiment of the ‘devil,’ of evil and cruelty, notions we may associate with the ‘monstrous.’ Although Roland represents those forces that oppose Ganelon and all that he stands for, he surpasses ‘masculine virtue,’ nobility, and power, and moves into a realm where he embodies the ‘other,’ something that’s more than human and monstrous.

Roland is transformed into the ‘other’ by those notions associated with ‘masculine virtue,’ such as being noble, valiant, courageous, etc. On page seventy-nine he is equated with the ‘grey-hound,’ a dog, and becomes synonymous with not only fidelity and nobility, but watchfulness; he, like Christianity’s Good Shepherd, is the guardian of the flock, the French knights; this elevates him within his army, and I believe, pushes him towards encompassing the ‘other’ because he is different from those that surround him. Perhaps, an inherent quality within a character must be present, one that works towards alienating him or setting him apart from the majority, in order for him to exist not as a human, but as an ‘other?’ Roland’s character seems to illustrate this idea, and his acts on page one-hundred-twenty, reinforces this. Here, in verse 135, “Roland’s mouth with running blood is red…sounds his horn in anguish and distress,’ calling King Carlon. Roland is not only taking on the role of a protector, but is surpassing his human capacity. There’s an intensity so fierce in this passage, a strong tension between mortality and immortality, a state that suggests Roland could be something more than ‘human,’ for although he’s bleeding at the mouth, and has ‘burst asunder the temples in his head,’ he continues to sound his horn; his cry is the final act that reveals Ganleon’s monstrous nature, instills some hope in his men, and reinforces his ‘masculine virtue.’ In addition to this, once again, Roland is set apart from the majority, for he is elevated at a spiritual level, and this facilitates his transformation into the ‘other.’ Moreover, Roland becomes synonymous with God’s strength when associated with the ‘horn’: “The lord is my rock…my buckler, and the horn of my salvation” (Psalm 18:2). Also, the horn is associated with righteousness or strength that only God can grant: “There I will make the horn of David bud” (132:17). Simultaneously, Roland is God’s strength, and is also instilled with the strength of God, further elevating him on a spiritual plane, and transforming him into an ‘other.’

It will be interesting to see how elements within, “The Song of Roland,” push his human capacity, and facilitate his transformation into an ‘other.’ Although certain factors seem to point to his death, I predict his character will move away from his embodiment of the ‘other,’ into something more subliminal.