Walpole, Ronald N./ An Anonymous Old French Translation of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle:
A Critical Edition of the Text Contained in Bibliothèque Nationale MSS fr. 2137 and 17203
and Incorporated by Philippe Mouskés in His
Chronique rimée.
Edited by RONALD N. WALPOLE. Medieval Academy Books, No. 89 (1979).

 [[ Print Edition Page No. i ]] 
Mediaeval Academy Books
No. 89

An Anonymous Old French Translation
of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle

 [[ Print Edition Page No. ii ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. iii ]] 
An Anonymous
Old French Translation
of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle:

A Critical Edition of the Text Contained in
Bibliothèque Nationale MSS fr. 2137 and 17203 and
Incorporated by Philippe Mouskés in His Chronique rimée



Cambridge, Massachusetts                         1979

 [[ Print Edition Page No. iv ]] 

The publication of this book was made possible by grants of funds
to the Mediaeval Academy from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Copyright © 1979

By the Mediaeval Academy of America

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 78-70246

ISBN: 910956-68-5

Printed in the United States of America

 [[ Print Edition Page No. v ]] 

Semper eidem

 [[ Print Edition Page No. vi ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. vii ]] 


 [[ Print Edition Page No. viii ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. ix ]] 


The present work takes up a suggestion which I made in my edition of the Johannes translation of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle (University of California Press, 1976). This was to the effect that the whole jigsaw puzzle of the Turpin tradition could be put together only when each piece lay restored in as clear shape as possible before us. The Johannes translation was one piece; the present translation is another. It has hitherto been known as “Turpin II,” for no other reason than that Fredrik Wulff edited it long ago in sequel to another translation which he called “Turpin I” (Acta Universitatis Lundensis 16, 1880). Wulff published his “Turpin II’ from a manuscript which he thought unique. My researches have, however, turned up another, and my study of the text which both manuscripts represent has revealed their close relationship to the Chronique rimée of Philippe Mouskés. A critical edition therefore had to be made.

Wulff edited his “Turpin I” from a manuscript which he also thought unique. But there are really nine manuscripts extant in which this translation is preserved for us. Some of them show important textual variations. “Turpin I” therefore must likewise be re-edited and fitted as revealingly as possible into the Turpin picture. That will be tomorrow’s story, Deo volente.

For the present, there remains to me the pleasure of acknowledging with gratitude the generosity of the Mediaeval Academy of America which made possible the publication of this book, and of expressing my indebtedness to Dr. Ian Short of the University of London for reading the work in manuscript and giving me most helpful advice and criticism. I would express particularly my gratitude to Mr. Luke Wenger, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Mediaeval Academy, for his exquisite courtesy and unfailingly attentive expertise in seeing the book through all its stages of proofreading.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 1 ]] 



 [[ Print Edition Page No. 2 ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 3 ]] 

The Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle

The Pseudo-Turpin’s Historia Karoli Magni et Rotholandi1 is an almost completely fictitious account of Charlemagne’s purported wars against the Saracens in Spain. The author is unknown to us. He wrote in the mid-twelfth century, assumed the name and title of “Turpinus, archiepiscopus remensis,” and defined his Historia as an eyewitness’s account of the great deeds which he pretends Charlemagne accomplished in Spain. As the professed companion of Charlemagne in his Spanish expeditions and warrior among the renowned peers in the emperor’s army, the author no doubt assumed the name and rôle of the well-known and beloved Turpin of the Chanson de Roland:

Li quens Rollant veit l’arcevesque a tere,

. . .

Desur sun piz entre les dous furceles

Cruisiedes ad ses blanches mains les beles.

Forment le pleignet a la lei de sa terre:

“E! gentilz hom, chevalier de bon aire . . .

(ed. Whitehead, vv. 2245-52)

The name Turpin was moreover identified in clerical circles with the historical “Tilpinus,” “Tulpinus,” first monk and then treasurer of the abbey of Saint-Denis and later, ca. 751, promoted archbishop of Reims. The imposture was brazen in its audacity, clever and calculated. The pseudonym endowed the personality of the author with the respect in which the historical Turpin was held and with the heroic and endearing qualities of the Turpin of poetic fiction. In the Roman bourgeois, Furetière wrote: “Un beau titre est le vrai proscénète d’un livre.” So, one might add, is “un beau nom d’auteur.” Turpin’s Historia is really an artificial and ramshackle compilation of material. It was drawn in part from legendary sources, some of which survive, like the stories of Roland and of Agolant, variously and sometimes fragmentarily in the extant tradition of Old French epic poetry. It was drawn in part also from the imagination of its very inventive author - the great fiction, for example,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 4 ]] 
which makes Charlemagne undertake his long crusade in Spain at the behest and under the protection of St. James.

Of course we ask at once: why did he do this? In broad terms, we may answer, as the character of the Historia unfolds before us as we read, and as we see it in its mid-twelfth-century setting, that he did it to enhance the portrait of the king and emperor Charlemagne and to make him, at that moment in the continuous rivalry in thought and practice between regnum and sacerdotium, between Church and State, the leader of his people under God, endowed with heroic and saintly quality, the very perfection of kingship and imperial authority.2 This was no difficult task even for a conscientious historian. Einhard in the ninth century and reputable historians who came after him had passed on to posterity a not unfaithful image of Charlemagne who, in his concept of his imperial rôle and in his sustained effort to realize it in practice, had won not only the admiration of discerning minds but also the veneration of ordinary people through successive generations. By the middle of the twelfth century, on this firm basis of historical truth, had grown the legend of Charlemagne; in part, a natural growth in the popular mind which, under the narrow and uncertain rule of the early Capetians, had been taught by a lively poetic tradition to look back nostalgically to the reign of Charlemagne as to a heroic age and one of a strong and beneficial government; in part, a growth fostered by clerics concerned with the problem of crown and altar, with wise and authoritative government on which depended the public weal. The Pseudo-Turpin inherited this tradition, but, it would seem, he found its articulation lacking in command and power of persuasion. He took the traditional material but used it in propagandistic fashion to spread abroad and inculcate the great moral on which he felt the need to insist: the beneficence of kingly and imperial power, of all power and strength, when wielded under the law of God and in harmony with God’s ministry, the Church. His book, by explicit precept and by patterned example, dwells relentlessly on this lesson.

It was one which the age was most ready to heed. As the prologue to one of the old French translations reads, “. . . por ce sunt les bones vertuz el siegle defaillies et li cuer des seignorages affebloié que l’en n’ot mes . . . les estoires ou li bon fet sunt qui enseignent coment l’en se doit avoir en Dieu et contenir
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 5 ]] 
el siegle honoreement.” “Abeunt studia in mores.” And so in the Pseudo-Turpin’s chronicle, the old stories found a new life; they were transformed into a schoolbook of moralizing history, pseudo-history for us, but not for the nobles and ladies, the bacheliers and demoiselles, of the early thirteenth century who clearly loved it, for it was spread abroad and down the centuries in proliferating copies and in the vernacular translations which reached out to lay audiences, both high and low, gathered in the princely and baronial courts of Western Europe. Both high and low. Mouskés assures us of this, indirectly perhaps, but, I think, none the less surely. In vv. 11666 ff. of his Chronique rimée, he draws a portrait of Charlemagne, based on the one given by the Pseudo-Turpin, but much enlarged with a conglomeration of details, culled from his reading, from hearsay, and from his own imagination, haunting his mind as again and again he expressed his admiration for his great hero, Charlemagne. Most interesting for us here, as we try to imagine what sorts and conditions of men and women listened to the recital of his Chronique rimée and so, doubtless, at other times, to our French Turpin, is his expatiation on the kinds of people for whom Charlemagne felt affection and esteem:

                  et s’amoit clers,

Tous çaus k’il sot loiaus et fers,

. . .

Et chevaliers moult ounouroit,

Mescines, pucieles, et dames

Destornoit volentiers de blames;

Si amoit bourgeois et vilains,

Quant il les sot d’aucun bien plains . . .

So then, all people of goodwill, les gens de bonne volonté. We, who look back with more informed minds and greater critical facilities on the distortions of the historians and on the rhapsodies of the poets, see in the Pseudo-Turpin’s chronicle a work of ecclesiastical propaganda, over-emphasizing the saintliness of the national heroes, serving the interests of the pilgrimage to Compostela, preaching the crusade. But few contemporaries could be thus critical, and so the Turpin became the most popular history of Charlemagne throughout the Middle Ages.

The vernacular translations of the Turpin - in the thirteenth century there were at least eight of them in Old French and others were made into Provencal, Catalan, Galician, Welsh, and Old Norse - bear eloquent witness to this popularity. In this they have their first and most immediate interest, as
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 6 ]] 
separate pieces, with centers of interest, local patronage, origins and development all peculiarly their own. They are elements too in the whole Turpin tradition, Latin and vernacular, whether existing as separate entities or taken, sometimes with adaptations, into the general chronicles to form part of the history of France under Charlemagne. The first ones among them were made in the early years of the thirteenth century; some of them were copied again and again down to the end of the fifteenth century.

It was a newly awakened interest in prose as the vehicle of historiography which gave the impetus to the early translators. As a literary language, French had been used until then mainly in poetic form, as epic, romance and fable; prose was little used and remained relatively undeveloped. But at the turn of the twelfth century there came a demand, explicit in a number of writers and implicit in the patronage offered to prose writers by many high-placed and educated noblemen of the day, for the use of prose in the writing of history.3 Prose, it was said, is more truthful than poetry, the rhymed chronicles evidently seeming too close in form and style to the romances, and rhyme itself, so it was argued, necessitating a warping of expression. The early Turpin translations were made explicitly in response to this demand; they have therefore a particular interest as being amongst the first examples of French narrative prose. They are, of course, translations, and they show the translator at once laboring under the constraint of his Latin model and striving to find the free and apt expression of his native French. In certain general chronicles of France written at the time, the French and Norman chronicles of the Anonyme de Béthune for example, the history of earlier times is a translation of Latin chronicles written long before, but the modern part, dealing with contemporary history, is the writer’s own creation. The freedom from the ties imposed by the Latin original and the zestful interest in the live events which were being recounted give here a particular vivaciousness to the French style; it is as though the very language spoken by the participators in the events described were proving the natural medium for historical narrative.

Besides their literary interest, the translations have also a social importance for us. The patrons who sponsored them - for example, Yolande, countess of Saint-Pol in Artois, sister of Baldwin VIII of Flanders; Hugh, count of Saint-Pol, her husband and crusader in Palestine; the Norman, Warin
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 7 ]] 
fitz Gerold, administrator in John of England’s court, a crusader with Richard I in the Holy Land and pilgrim to Compostela; Renaud, count of Boulogne, a powerful feudatory who hovered in allegiance between the royal courts of France and England - turned to them not only as trusted narratives of Charlemagne and of his crusading wars, but also as the story of their own forbears, whose exploits they sought to emulate in the feudal and crusading life of their own day. They were sympathetic to the thoughts and ideals of conduct which permeated the epic poems and romances to which they listened in their hours of recreation. They found many of the same thoughts and ideals set forth less allusively in the plain prose tale told by the Pseudo-Turpin, where the heroes must have seemed more real and therefore closer to them. The Pseudo-Turpin, writing with a didactic purpose, chose his material and adapted his form with a view to winning the wide attention of his clerical readers and audiences. The translators pursued a similar end, and adjusted their versions of his work to meet the minds and tastes of their own prospective lay auditors. The Latin Turpin and, still more, the Old French translations bear indeed upon them the impress of the mediaeval mind, and from this point of view demand our sympathetic study.

Naturally enough, some of these translations were taken into the vernacular compilations of universal history as ready-made elements comprising part of Carolingian history. They form therefore a portion of the complex and still unravelled web of these general histories. To give one example, the Old French Johannes translation of the Turpin was adopted by one copyist of the Chronique de Baudouin d’Avesnes, although the Carolingian matter was differently treated by the author. The translation which engages our attention now was taken bodily, though a little brokenly, by Philippe Mouskés into that large compilation of legendary history, his Chronique rimée.4 We do not know whence he drew much of his material; some of it undoubtedly came from lost forms of epic poems of which the traditions are known to us only partially in late and altered forms. It is interesting therefore to have available one sure and complete source and in a form, faithfully represented by the concourse of our two manuscripts, so close to Mouskés’s own text as to afford a sure means of studying his method and, if the term is not too lofty to apply to Mouskés’s mundane gifts, his art.

Long ago, in 1880, Fredrik Wulff of the University of Lund published
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 8 ]] 
the text of our translation from Bibliothèque Nationale MS fr. 2137.5 He thought that this manuscript was the unique representative of the translation and published it with a few textual notes but with no other editorial contribution. His text has served us well, but it abounds in errors of transcription and leaves many difficulties unresolved. Its relationship to Mouskés went unnoticed. A searching study did not, indeed, belong to Wulff’s purpose of the moment. The discovery of another text, the one contained in Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 17203, gives us the means of improving on the copy in MS 2137. Our critical text will make a surer comparison with Mouskés possible. Mouskés probably worked at his Chronique rimée in the library of the counts of Hainaut in Mons.6 He must have had at his disposal there a treasury of epic poems and chronicles from which he borrowed at will, interweaving accounts from different sources and ordering the material to suit his own notion of the proper progress of his story. So it is with his Turpin material. It is taken up in his Chronique at v. 4726. It continues, with displacement of some episodes and many interpolations from other sources, down to v. 9813. But when he comes to Turpin’s description of Charlemagne’s death, he still has far more to tell us of the emperor; so he holds back the end of the Turpin for later use in vv. 11764-11911, and even then, with self-evident justification, displaces the last, adventitious, chapter in our text, Chapter LXIII, and puts it in the reign of Louis the Pious, vv. 12218 ff. The Pseudo-Turpin therefore appears in
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 9 ]] 
Mouskés as a “sartor resartus”; a thorough collation of our text with that of Mouskés would allow us to enter the latter’s workshop and watch the sewing and patching as it went on in that laborious and well-intentioned process of compiling a national history to satisfy the demand and suit the taste of cultured laymen of the day.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 10 ]] 

The Manuscripts of the Translation

1. P1. Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fr. 2137

P1 contains 198 parchment folios measuring 220 mm × 170 mm, foliated in a modern hand. There are three paper guard sheets at the beginning of the manuscript. The text is written in a strong and handsome Gothic book-hand. The script throughout is the same, and perfectly consistent. There are two columns to the page containing invariably 27 lines to a column. The hand and general execution of the manuscript seem thoroughly professional. The script is probably Parisian, a localization that is confirmed by the column of J’s attached as adornment to the larger initials and by the orthographic system of the scribe, which is almost pure Francien. The hand would seem to belong to the last part of the thirteenth century. The rounds of e and o overlie with those of preceding b, p, h, but the scribe shows hesitation with preceding u consonant. Final s is usually but not always written in the round form; the long letter is constant as initial and within the word. The shaft of t appears above the bar, u consonant when initial is frequently written v, and y with a short bar above it is often used for i: ymage, eglyses, yroient, etc. The declensional system is in complete disarray. We read close together: fu il aporté, il estoit tornez, fu il enseveli, and at XVII, 13 touz les Sarrazins qui furent trouvez furent ocis. Charles is the form of the complement in Puis manda Charles as it is again in Li chevaus Charles. Agoulant and Rollant are used constantly as the forms of the subject, and in the names of the heroes listed in Chapter XII the following forms occur as subject in sequence: Gaifiers, Geliers, Salemon, Estouz, Gondebuef le roy, Hoiaus, Ernaut. Again, as plural subject forms, we find (XIV, 14): ne tes peres, ne tes ayous, ne ti ancesseurs. On the third guard sheet at the beginning is written: “Volume de 198 feuillets. Le feuillet 142 est mutilé. Les feuillets 149, 150 sont blancs. 8 Décembre, 1897.” The manuscript is rather plain. There is no illumination, but the initials alternate in red and blue; the larger ones at the head of each item are more elaborately ornamented with interior and exterior filigree, and, as has been mentioned, with a column of J’s. But the style of ornamentation is restrained and simple throughout.

The manuscript is for the most part a collection of historical texts. Item 1, however, is the Roman des Sept Sages, fols. 1-46ro. It is followed on fols.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 11 ]] 
47ro-148vo by Villehardouin’s Conqueste de Constantinople. Then come the two blank folios, 149 and 150, after which there is a Description des Sainz Lieux, fols. 151-152vo,b. Here, at the bottom of col. b, comes the incipit to our Turpin: “Ci parole de saint Jaque coment il s’aparut a Charlemainne,” a dramatic but incomplete announcement of all that is to follow. After it, however, comes a first chapter serving as prologue presenting to us a list of contents of the Turpin which we are invited to savoir, oïr, et entendre et lire. The Turpin contains the matter proper to the Historia Karoli Magni and also the adventitious chapters printed by Mr. C. Meredith-Jones as supplements in his Appendices A, B and C. To these correspond our Chapters LXI, LXII, LXIII. At the bottom of col. a on fol. 186vo and the top of col. b, comes the explicit: “Ci faut / et fine l’estoire Charlemainne.” This is followed at once, without incipit, by the Anonyme de Béthune’s Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre, beginning “Nous trouvons es anciennes estoires . . .” and ending, incomplete, at the bottom of fol. 198vo.

In the bottom margin of fol. 189vo comes the signature: “Ce livre est a moi Jean Sala.” Jean Nicolas Sala and his better-known brother, Pierre, were poets active in Lyon during the reign of Louis XII and the early years of Francis I. They were both ardent bibliophiles. Attached to the royal court, they had the means and the opportunity of indulging in their literary pursuits. Jean owned, among other notable manuscripts, the Lyons redaction of the Chanson de Roland; Pierre treasured a manuscript, now Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 1638, of the Yvain of Chrétien de Troyes, of which he made his own verse redaction. The Sala manuscripts remained in the family throughout the sixteenth century. Later they were acquired by Mazarin, from whose library they passed to the Bibliothèque Nationale.7 The manuscript has a modern binding in brown calf, adorned with the lilies of France in gilt, and bears on the spine the title Roman des Sept Sages with the old shelf-mark, 7974.

2. P2. Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fr. 17203

P2, like P1, is a collection of historical texts. It contains 125 parchment folios measuring 300 mm × 200 mm. There are two paper guard sheets at the beginning and two at the end. The folios are numbered in a modern hand. At the end, a parchment folio numbered 126 is bound in upside down; on it are
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 12 ]] 
written the numbers “523, 6, 702,” the last two crossed out, and “St. Germain Lat. No. 1513.” On fol. 125vo, a hand, perhaps of the later fifteenth century, has written “.vii.xx.v. feuilles,” indicating a loss suffered since that time of twenty folios from the manuscript. The script, which is the same throughout the manuscript, is an exquisitely neat book-hand of, I would say, the third quarter of the thirteenth century. The manuscript is written in two columns containing 38 or 39 lines. The scribe, though writing a formal hand, adds a few ornamental touches. The slender shafts of long letters are often finished with fine hooks to the left. Final i, and the last stroke of h, n, and g are prolonged and curved below the line; the diacritic above i, which is used in all positions, is a long line sloping away to the right. Instead of using the diacritic, the scribe sometimes distinguishes i from preceding or following u, n, etc., by prolonging it below the line; so he writes as it pleases him, auínt or aujnt, ujnt or uínt. Usually initial u consonant is written v, but not always; in the interior u stands for the consonant or the vowel. The letter s is written mainly with the long form, but in final position the rounded s is sometimes used and is written large. The letter t shows no protrusion above the bar; the bar itself passes across the stem and makes the letter quite distinct from c. The tall stroke of d has the beginnings of the cursive form, curving from the left to come down and form part of the rounded body of the letter. The rounded form of r is used only after o. There is consistent blending of rounds between b, d, p, v and following e or o. In poour, the first o fuses with p, the second o with the first. The letter y is occasionally written for i: ymages, Lyons (The Spanish Léon), lyons “lion.” The ornamentation is in keeping with the script. The initials are small, alternating in red touched up with blue, and blue with red, bedecked a little with filigree and with long lines in the margin looped at the ends and tendrilled along the sides. At the head of each item, the initials are larger and adorned in similar but more florid style.

On fol. 1 begins a French translation of the first book of Jacques de Vitry’s Historia Orientalis. At the top of the folio is written in a fifteenth-century hand the title Histoire de la Terre sainte. The Histoire is interrupted on fol. 47vo by the loss of a number of folios, probably a whole gathering, which has also taken away the first part of the Turpin, which follows. The Turpin text begins on fol. 48 with the words quant uns rois; they correspond to our Chapter V, l. 6. Other leaves have been taken away from the Turpin. They lay between the present fols. 53 and 54, the gap in the text corresponding to de leur chevaus in our Chapter XXV, l. 20 down to the first two

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 12a ]] 
Figure 1 Bibliothèque Nationale MS fr. 2137, fol. 176 vo (P1)

Bibliothèque Nationale MS fr. 2137, fol. 176 vo (P1)

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 12b ]] 
Figure 2 Bibliothèque Nationale MS fr. 17203, fol. 48 vo (P2)

Bibliothèque Nationale MS fr. 17203, fol. 48 vo (P2)

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 13 ]] 

syllables of ataignoit in Chapter XXXIV, 1. 4. A rough calculation suggests that the loss corresponds to two folios of P2. The catalogue says categorically that the translation was made by Pierre: “traduite en français par Pierre.”8 There must be some confusion here, for though it was once thought that Pierre, that is to say, Pierre de Beauvais, was the author of the Johannes translation of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle, the attribution to him of our present translation is quite unwarranted.9 The Turpin ends on fol. 59vo, a, with the explicit: “Ci fine l’estoire de Carlemainne et de ses gens.” It is followed without announcement of any kind by the Anonyme de Béthune’s Chronique française des rois de France, which begins: “Si com nous trovons en escrit es anciens livres, Troies fu ancianement. . . .” It reaches down to the year 1204. Fol. 68 contains a column of notes on events which happened during the years 1244-1249, which establishes for us a terminus post quem for the date of the manuscript. Fols. 68vo-124 contain a text of the Anonyme de Béthune’s Histoire des ducs le Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre which begins “Par la devision que li ancien home firent del monde . . .” and which ends with events of the year 1220. Fols. 124 and 125 contain a text of the Ordre de chevalerie in prose. Item 4 has already supplied us with a terminus post quem for the manuscript, namely 1249. The script, the ornamentation and the language, which we shall study in a moment, allow us to date the manuscript in the third quarter of the thirteenth century and to localize it in Artois. In the seventeenth century, the manuscript was owned by the chancellor of France, Pierre Séguier. It remained in the possession of that family until 1731, when it was bequeathed by a descendant, Henri Charles du Cambout, duc de Coislin, to the Benedictines of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, whence it passed with the rest of their collection to the Bibliothèque Nationale.10 The Saint-Germain shelf-mark is, as we have seen, recorded on fol. 126. The book is now bound in light brown calf; on the spine is the title, evidently taken from the one written at the top of fol. 1: Histoire de la Terre Sainte.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 14 ]] 

The Language of the Turpin in MS P1

The linguistic forms in P1 are almost pure Francien. This accords with what we have seen of the general confection of the manuscript. There are, however, in the graphical system of the scribe a few dialectal features. They are so exceptional and represent such momentary derogations from the norm that they appear to be lapses on his part into the use of forms native to his speech but which he sought to avoid in the professional exercise of his expertise as copyist. Or should one rather see in these the influence of a model from which he managed for the most part to eradicate the dialectal features?

He tends to unvoice the voiced palatal fricatives, a well-known Picard trait. So he writes galices for chalices V, 12, LXII, 6; domache for domage VI, 49, VIII, 23; charchiees VI, 44 for chargiees (cf. VIII, 19, XXXI, 4, XLI, 7); and venchance for vanjance VI, 12. See too the note to VI, 64, concerning lecherie, which he wrote for legerie, as though the sound which he had in his mind as he copied the latter word was the palatal surd. In the early part of his Turpin he writes intervocalic d instead of z in Sarradins; cf. the note to V, 7. The d represents a popular pronunciation, widespread in the langue d’oc as well as in the langue d’oïl. He writes ou for the initial vowel in Tourpins, the form which he uses throughout except for one case of Torpins (XXVII, 1), in resouciter (XXXVIII, 6), resoucitera (XXXVIII, 17, var.), and in joustice (XLIII, 2). The fact that, in providing a “senefiance” for Tourpins, he gives turcoples (LXI, 16), suggests that we have in these spellings an example of the alternation in writing between ou and u, a feature of the Picard scripta (cf. Gossen, Grammaire, p. 85, §28b). The question remains as to the pronunciation of ou and u. It is difficult to accept Gossen’s conclusion that it was [ü]. We have, perhaps, a clue at XXXII, 3, where our scribe, copying leur vindrent sus soudainement, omitted sus - surely by haplology: [su] - [su]? He uses throughout dou for the Francien du < de + le: e.g. les genz dou païs (I, 5), the form prevalent over a wide region in the North, Northeast and East. It is the form we find used constantly in Mouskés, whose language is the rouchi of Hainaut. Our scribe has also two cases of the form le for the Francien fem. pron. la (IV, 6, VII, 11) and three Picard forms of the poss. pron. in la seue (XIII, 5) and la teue (XIV, 19). Once he writes -oiz for -ez as the ending of the 2nd pers. pl. of the future or conditional, a form which was
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 15 ]] 
common in the neighboring region of Champagne: avroiz LVIII, 11. There are sporadic examples of n’r showing no intercalated d - retenront VI, 27, tenroit XXV, 34 - and of -iaus from -ellus, -ellos: coutiaus XLIV, 5, biau LXI, 5 and 6, chastiaus LXIII, 9. The scribe writes aus (illos) once XVII, 3, but euls elsewhere, and shows one example of the 1st pers. pl. pres. subj. ending in -iens: soiens XIV, 35. At VIII, 19, chargiez is perhaps the Picard form corresponding to the Francien chargieez (see note).

Among other features which deserve mention, though they do not belong in the category of dialectal or popular influences, is the scribe’s consistent use of the ending -iere(s) instead of -ere(s) from -ātor. The form -iere is due to reduction in pronunciation of ie from ja in *-jator to e, resulting in a homonymity between -iere and -ere and so in a confusion of spelling which led to the substitution of -iere for -ere: enperiere XII, 30, XXX, 1; desfendieres XLIII, 5; relevieres XLIII, 7; etc. I have mentioned above the scribe’s neglect or incomprehension of what had been the nominal declension. Its almost total disintegration in his copy would corroborate our dating in the latter part of the thirteenth century. So too would his hesitation over the writing of s before an unvoiced consonant. He usually writes it, but there are signs that he did not pronounce it: meismes, ostees, coustume, fist, dist but occasionally the pret. dit XXIII, 40, 48, 57, with dist in 1. 43, and hante (hasta) XLIII, 2, blamer XVI, 5. He hesitates, too, about the writing of e before the tonic vowel. Along with fussent which is his usual form he writes feussent; evidently the e had been lost in pronunciation before tonic u. One further detail pointing to a date in the second half of the century is the form demande XV, 24, the 1st. pers. sing. pres. indic. with final analogical -e. It is a single occurrence; demant follows almost immediately in 1. 25 and at XIV, 31 we find comant, at LVIII, 10, conjur.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 16 ]] 

The Language of the Turpin in MS P2

The linguistic system which shows through the orthography and morphology of the scribe who copied the Turpin in MS P2 suggests that he was a Picard, a cultured man and a conscientious copyist. Though writing in the second half of the thirteenth century, he is scrupulously attentive to the declensional system, and while the Picard habits of his normal usage are imprinted, as we shall see, in many of the written forms which he uses, the absence from his text of so many well-known and ingrained features of the Picard dialect indicates that he was concerned to write more formally, that is, more in the Francien manner, than in the manner of his community. The Picard features of his text are as follows.

I. Orthography

The Vowels

Latin free tonic a is represented by ei: preis (pratum) with pré(s), teil used often and without exception, seil (sal), morteil, leis (the prep. from the noun latus), bleit (from Frk. *blad), neis (nasus), neis (navis) but always nés (natus), remeist (pret. 3 of remanoir); but pret. 6 is remesent. The feature occurs over a wide area to the north, but is characteristic of northeastern Picardy, the area in which Walloon and Picard meet and blend.

The ending *-jata in past participles and nouns which gives -iée in Francien is reduced to ie: apareillie etc., bracie “an arm’s length.”

Short Latin e in blocked position shows diphthongization, again a characteristic of the northeastern region of Picardy: before pre-consonantal r or s in sierf, pierdi, enviers, deviers, nierf, ynfier, souffiers, couviers, diestre, seniestre, (re)viesti, viesture, iestre, tieste, bieste, and before double l, s, or r in apiele, rapiela etc., biele(s), bielement, capiele, castiele, siele, aissiele, priés, apriés, confiés, fier (ferrum), tiere, entiera. Along with the p.p. couviers we find one case of couvers, showing perhaps the influence of the scribe’s model, but apart from that the ie is used consistently.

Open or close e followed by l or l’ and another consonant gives -iau, too widespread a feature to allow a close localization, yet so consistent here as to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 17 ]] 
indicate again a Picard scribe: castiaus, caviaus, biaus, capitiaus, vaissiaus, hiaumes, ciaus. In paraus (paricŭlŭs), ẹu has opened to au.

Where open e came in contact with u the result is iu: Diu (with Dieu, Deus), liues (*legua), triues (*treuwa), Mahius. Similarly rēgula has given riule.

Where close e was nasalized, the scribe uses the spelling, common in Picardy, ain-e: paindre, and the p.p. pains, paines, plain, plainne.

In the forms derived from vīlis and fīlius: viels, vielment, fiels and fielx (with fils) the l probably represents the vocalization to u and we have the Picard triphthong ieu often reduced to iu in contrast to the Francien forms which show the elimination of the l after close i. We find, too, poestius contrasting with the Francien poestis.

In orison, ancissor, occison, we have the usual Picard reduction of pretonic ei to i.

In the case of Latin short o, I note first that the scribe, consistently but for one exception, uses the Picard form bos corresponding to Francien bois. His forms from fŏcum and lŏcum are fu and liu, showing the reduction of ieu to iu. From abŏcŭlis we find the forms auuloient, auulis where the uu probably represents v from intervocalic b and u from o resulting from the rounding of the vowel under the influence of the bilabial velar fricative through which b passed to v.

Close o, free and tonic, is represented by o in words which ended in -ōrem, by ou in words which ended in -osum: segnor, peceor, mellors, etc.; joiouse, mervellouse, glorious, bonneurouse etc. There are a few exceptions (segneur, glorieus), but these are rare. Noteworthy is the spelling u in the p.p.: repus, repuse and in crupe (la crupe de son ceval). For the sound [u] the scribe uses ou in proumesis, couvers, souffiers, Agoulant, desous, amour, and in doune where the o had closed before the nasal. For the pronunciation of u see Gossen, Grammaire, p. 85.

From gloriam, victoriam the scribe’s forms are glorie, victore. But he always writes estoire.

From bonus his forms are without exception boin, boins, boinne.

He uses without exception too the Picard forms glise and vesques in which the e- has been lost by deglutination.

The Consonants

The scribe’s forms deriving from the Latin palatal plosives are typically Picard. Where Latin [k], initial of a word or syllable, was followed by e or i it
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 18 ]] 
is usually represented in our scribe’s system by c: cité, ciel, ciaus, çou, ocis, enrici. The same spelling is used to represent the development of [kj] within the word: embraça, (la) bracie (d’un home) “an arm’s length,” onces; and of [tj] supported by a consonant: maces (*mattea), tençon, bleça. That the c represents the dialectal pronunciation as an affricate () seems assured by a few alternative spellings in ch: chiaus, chou, rechoit, maches, noncha, blechoit and by the use of c to denote the result from [pj] in the interior of a word: sacent, saciés, reproces, aproça, haces, caça. From tertium and bracchium we have the Picard forms tierc, brac.

Initial Latin [k] before free a is represented mainly by c: cief, cemins, ceval, cevaliers, cevalerie, cevalçoient, ceoir (with caïr, caï and cf. queances below), peciés, bouce, brances, trencierent etc. Along with the spelling c we find ch in chevaliers, often written also as cevaliers, where we see rival domestic and Francien influences. The scribe also uses ch in chaïr. Apart from this, we also find the use of k or qu: Mikiels, kaï, feleneskement, quevilles, esquieles, riquece. At one point the scribe writes les keances et les mesqueances, proof that in these cases, and probably in those where the spelling was with c, the pronunciation was the Picard [k].

Before blocked a, the scribe almost invariably uses c: canter, cantera, caviaus, castiaus, capiele, casteé, caude, calor, car (carnem) etc. So too before o from au: cose, coisi. In caïr, caïrent, caï the retention of a ensured the retention of the velar plosive. Along with c we find a few cases of ch: chans (cantos), Charles (frequently along with much rarer Carles, Carlemaine), chalende; and we have k in kaisne (*cassanus).

The scribe’s spelling of herberghiés with gh shows the Picard pronunciation of the g as a plosive. He also writes herberga, where he may have thought that the h was not needed after g before the a, and langhe, from linguam; but, inconsistently, hebergiés.

From aqua, the form most used by the scribe is euwe, characteristic of the eastern part of the Picard territory. Along with euwe come auwe, eawe, iaue, eve and aigue, the gu in this last probably being simply a graphy for w (see Gossen, Grammaire, §43). From aequale his form is uweles.

Between the groups pr, tr, dr, vr, he intercalates e: esperit, perderoit, combatera, vainteroit, receveroit, recevera etc.

Latin populum is represented by pule.

Another feature characteristic of northeastern Picard is to be seen in the scribe’s retention in writing of final t in the endings -et, -it, -ut: laissiet, lasset,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 19 ]] 
nommet, alet, eslit, reciut (p.p.), seut, and, among nouns, peciet, bleit (Frk. *blad).

There is usually no intercalary consonant in the groups nr, lr: avenroit, venroient, devenrai, vinrent, volrent, but here there are a few exceptions: vindrent, avindrent, engendra, prendre.

The result from Latin l + yod is represented by ll: mellor, aparella, aparellié etc., pavellon, esmervella, esvella, travellié, soumellous, mervellouse. Far more rarely we find ill: oreilles, vermeille. Latin l + yod in final position is represented by -l in orgoel and voel (pres. indic. 1 of voloir). That the spelling denotes a non-palatal pronunciation seems confirmed by the scribe’s use of il in (je) paroil, pres. indic. of parler. This too is a distinctive Picard trait.

II. Morphology

The Verb

There are a few examples of -eu- in the strong perfects of the -ui class: seu, seuc, peuc, euc (all 1st pers. sing.) and seut. However, the forms in -o- are more frequent: pot, sot, ot, porent.

In the pret. of -ui verbs we also find the Picard forms reciut, reciurent, aperciut and giut.

The future and conditional forms showing svarabhaktic e inserted between the groups tr, dr, vr have been noted above under the heading Consonants: combatera, perderoit, recevera, averas, averoit (these last two forms along with aront, aroit, with which cf. saroie).

Examples occur of Picard forms showing the analogical -c ending (an extension from the type facio, -fach, fac), in the 1st pers. sing. of the pres. indic. and extended to the preterite: comanc, demanc (both occurring often), peuc, euc, seuc.

The use of the sigmatic forms in the preterite and imperf. subj. is one of our scribe’s consistent dialectal traits: fesis, desis, presis, proumesis, destruisis; presist, quesist, garnesist, desissent, fesissent. I note in contrast feisse and feissent.

In the pret., 3rd pers. pl., of the sigmatic verbs, we find the consistent use of fisent, prisent, disent, quisent, ocisent, remesent (remanoir).

In the pres. subj., the scribe uses the forms mecent (mettre) and oscent
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 20 ]] 
(oster) showing the analogical extension to these verbs of the ending -che, -ce, etymological in the Picard forms fache, senche etc.

The Article and the Pronoun-Adjectives

The forms of the def. article used by the scribe are Francien. He uses once the oblique le for la: le premiere eskiele. In combination with de, enclitic le results in dou, which is the form consistently used throughout. There is one case of le for la, the oblique fem. pron.

From ego, the scribe’s forms are, in tonic or atonic position, jou mainly and, more rarely, je. From me we have a single case of mi, l’ame de mi, followed at once by the good Francien, la moie ame.

Almost without exception, illos has resulted in aus, once written als. The exceptions are eus, written also elx. Cf. the demonstrative pron. chiaus, ciaus and the rare exceptions ceus, cels. From ecce-hoc the scribe’s invariable forms are chou, çou.

The possessive pronouns show Francien forms throughout. Exceptions are two cases of sen (sen baston, sen oncle), elsewhere son, and one of the weak form vo in the acc. sing.: a vo segnor.

It does look as if our scribe, in this aspect of his morphology, knew and used dialectal forms in his daily conversation, but studiedly avoided them as he wrote, with occasional lapses into his less formal usage.

We may describe him therefore as a Picard scribe, to whom the forms of speech used in the eastern part of the territory were native, a professional and trained scribe using language with care and who, while consciously avoiding many of the dialectal features which were habitual to him, allowed himself the use of others as proper to the common script in which, in some Picard atelier, he had been trained to write and practised his profession. It is interesting to note that the language of our scribe is very close to the language of the manuscript in which Mouskés’s Chronique rimée is preserved, Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 4963 (formerly 9634). It is quite probable that the translation of which P2 is a representative ws made in the same general region to which our scribe belonged and in which Mouskés lived and wrote, a center of interest of which the activity led to the dissemination of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle and to the compilation of local and national histories.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 21 ]] 

The Classification of the Turpin Texts in MSS P1, P2 and in the Chronique rimée

To begin our classification, let me give attention for a moment to the question of what type of Latin text, among so many manuscript groups which make up the Latin Turpin tradition, served as the original for our translation. It was most certainly a manuscript of the A group, one of the family of manuscripts listed by M. de Mandach on p. 367 of his La geste de Charlemagne11 and discussed by him on pp. 89 ff. According to Mandach’s very plausible argument, the surviving group of A texts, and some lost intermediaries which he stars and includes among them, had their origin at the abbey of Saint-Denis. The more distant source of our translation, the source from which the Saint-Denis manuscript was copied, is not known and remains the subject of controversy. The oldest Latin text of the Turpin which we know is the one which, in the middle of the twelfth century, formed Book IV in a compilation known as the Liber Sancti Jacobi treasured in the library of St. James at Compostela. The Liber was a heterogeneous miscellany, comprising five books, the first made up of texts of the services dedicated to Saint James, the second giving an account of his miracles, the third describing his translation from Jerusalem to Galicia, the fourth being the Turpin, and the fifth a guide for the pilgrims to St. James. We can see that a central theme is given to the Liber by the presence of Saint James, but the dissimilarity in tone and matter of the Turpin to the other books has provoked the question as to whether it was originally written as part of the Liber or whether it was composed independently and later taken into the Liber with adaptations made to fit in with the great Book of St. James. Critics remain divided in their opinion on this matter, but there is no decisive proof on either side. Hamel and Mandach have shown us that the Liber as we have it in the so-called Codex Calixtinus at Compostela shows clear signs of having been revised there at the hands of successive scribes, the Turpin along with the other books. The text of the Turpin in the Codex is the oldest one extant, but it has an early history during which it underwent a series of modifications. How far back does its history go? To the moment when, possibly, it was written to form part of the Liber Sancti Jacobi? or further back still to the moment when it was composed
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 22 ]] 
independently as a new Historia Karoli Magni? However that may be, scholars agree that it passed through successive stages of redaction before emerging in the final form it has acquired in the Codex, stages interesting in themselves as showing particular concerns on the part of the several redactors, important also as guides for the classification of the manuscripts comprising the large and complex tradition in which the Turpin proliferated during the Middle Ages. The manuscript groups stem from the Turpin text at different stages in its evolution; so it has become possible to discern a pattern in the Latin manuscript tradition and, for those particularly concerned with vernacular translations, to trace within this pattern, if not a single manuscript, at least the manuscript group from which a given translation was taken. In Mandach’s view, the A text of Saint-Denis was copied from the Turpin before it reached Compostela. Hamel’s opinion was that the A text springs from one of the early stages of redaction which the Turpin in the Liber underwent at Compostela. Our distant, primal, source remains hidden in the still obscure ur-history of the Turpin. We must therefore rest content to see our source in the clearer view of extant A texts offered by M. de Mandach.

They are characterized by two main peculiarities, namely, a shortened version of the debate between Roland and Fernagu on the tenets of Christian faith, Chapter XVII in Mr. Meredith-Jones’s edition (see especially pp. 154-160), and the omission of the Pseudo-Turpin’s portrait of Charlemagne, Chapter XX in the edition (see pp. 174-179). A little carelessness in the scriptorium at Saint-Denis led to the persistence in the Table of Contents of the mention of Charlemagne’s portrait, “De persona et fortitudine Karoli,” after the portrait itself had been eliminated from the text of the Turpin. Our two manuscripts have the shortened text of Chapter XVII, our Chapter XXIII, and Mouskés obviously worked from it. The debate in his Chronique rimée ends at vv. 6015-6017, which agree exactly with our Chapter XXIII, 57.12 P1 and P2 have no portrait of Charlemagne; it should have come between
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 23 ]] 
our Chapters XXIX and XXX. Neither does Mouskés have the portrait, though in different contexts he has other descriptions of Charlemagne’s physique and personality. I should add, too, that P1 has the mention of the portrait in the list of contents which makes up its prologue: “Queus estoit Charles et combien fort” (l. 9). It will be remembered that P2 has lost this prologue, carried away among the lost folios between the present fols. 47 and 48.13

Agreement in textual details corroborates the evidence of these broad concordances. M. de Mandach, in order further to establish and identify the A group of manuscripts, has presented a few examples from the proper names which uninformed scribes corrupted in their copies (La Geste, pp. 294 ff.). The forms which he quotes, distinct in the A manuscripts as compared with the forms in the other manuscript groups, B, C, D, are reproduced in P1, in P2 except where P2 lacks the relevant folios, and in Mouskés. I add a very clear example: the A manuscripts have Bellariga 96, ii for Berlanga 97, ii; P1, Chapter III, 5 and Mouskés, v. 11990, have Bellarige. At 114, ii (cf. 113, xxii), the Latin A texts omit Aethiopes, Sarannos, Pardos, Affricanos; so do P1 and P2, Chapter VII, 2, and Mouskés (vv. 4997-98). There are other omissions in the A text as compared with the B text, e.g., at 185, ii-xi, 191, ix-xvi, 197, viii-xvii; we find our translation here, too, in agreement with the A text. Our translator, therefore, quite certainly worked from a Latin manuscript of the A type. M. de Mandach has shown (op. cit., p. 97) how the A manuscripts, originating in Saint-Denis, proved to be the source manuscripts for the Turpin tradition which developed under the patronage of the great feudatories of northern and northeastern France, the region which was the home of Mouskés and, as we have seen, of the scribe of P2.

As representative of the Latin A group of manuscripts, Mr. Meredith-Jones printed on the even pages of his edition the text of Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 13774 to which he gives the sigil A6. He adds at the foot of the page variants from the text of Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 17656, his MS A1, and from Bibl. Nat. MS
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 24 ]] 
nouv. acq. lat. 369, his MS A10. Mr. Jones was not aware of the true place which these manuscripts occupy in the Latin textual tradition. In a memorable work published in 1937,14 H. M. Smyser brought a necessary correction to Meredith-Jones’s classification, and the more recent and complementary studies by Hamel and Mandach have enabled us to see more clearly how the A manuscripts are related to each other. A6 stands in the direct line between our translation and the original A text made in Saint-Denis. A10 stems from another and slightly differing copy of the Saint-Denis manuscript. A1 is a much rehandled text of a third copy; in Smyser’s terms it is an embellished copy of a plain, abridged version of the Turpin. Along with Meredith-Jones’s MS A6, Mandach lists in the same line of descent his MS A.01, Vatican MS Regina 88, which Meredith-Jones did not know. I have compared readings in the Regina manuscript with those of our translation and find that the former text cannot be considered as the model from which the latter was taken. Another manuscript should be included in Mandach’s A group. It is Arras, Bibl. Municipale MS 163 (formerly 184), which somehow has strayed into Mandach’s “Maître Jehans” category on his p. 389. It is, however, an A manuscript, beautifully written in a formal gothic hand and showing the characteristics which, as we have seen, identify the A group. The Arras manuscript lacks a number of folios between fol. 100 vo and fol. 101 and between fol. 105vo and fol. 106 but is complete where our important comparisons need to be made, and here it proves again not to be the original from which our translation was made. In place of this lost original we must perforce turn to the text of A6 as printed by Meredith-Jones. Where I need to make references to the Latin text, it will therefore be to the A6 text as given to us by Meredith-Jones on the left-hand pages of his edition.

The fact that the Old French translation of the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle which is represented by our manuscripts P1 and P2 was the source from which Philippe Mouskés drew his Turpin material was established in my earlier study, Philippe Mouskés and the “Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle” published in 1947.15 Much of what has been presented above to show the affinity of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 25 ]] 
P1, P2, and the Chronique rimée with the Latin A texts will have helped to confirm this conclusion. It may not be too tiresome to offer a further detail in corroboration. The passage in our Chapter L, ll. 18-23, is not in the Latin Turpin (cf. 218, xvi), but it occurs in both our manuscripts and the gist of it is also in Mouskés, vv. 9644-51.

My earlier study led to a further conclusion, namely, that Mouskés could not have used either of our two manuscripts. They were both, as we have seen, copied after 1243, the date at which the Chronique rimée ends, and shortly after which Mouskés probably died. Both manuscripts show lacunae where Mouskés is complete; an example will appear below, used in another context. It is certain, then, that Mouskés used an earlier manuscript from which P1 and P2 also derive.

But not directly; this is a further conclusion to which my earlier study led me and which is too important to dismiss here with a mere reference. The evidence lies in Chapter LVII, 3-4 of the text printed below. Here P1 and P2 omit a passage on necromancy which is present in the Latin (226, x-228, iii) and which appears also in Mouskés (vv. 9804 ff.). But at the point of omission our manuscripts show an interpolation; they add what is said there about fusique (LVII, 4), a detail which occurs in no Latin text so far as I know. Mouskés has this mention of fisique (v. 9785), which he develops on his own in an exposition which might have been written by an apothecary. The agreement between our manuscripts and Mouskés in the matter of fusique is yet another proof of their common origin, but the presence of the disquisition on necromancy in the Latin Turpin and in Mouskés and its absence in P1 and P2 show that our two manuscripts are at fault here. They must owe their error to an omission—probably deliberate, since the subject was such a touchy one—in an intermediary manuscript which served as their common source but of which Mouskés was independent. Another omission, common to P1 and P2, points to the same conclusion (see the note to Chapter XXV, 16). Further evidence for this particular relationship between P1 and P2 appears in a conspicuous error which they share in contrast with Mouskés, who has the correct reading. At 142, xvi, the Latin Turpin tells us that having defeated and killed Agolant, Charles and his army moved forward “usque ad pontem Argae, via iacobitana,” that is, from Pamplona to Puente la Reina. P1 and P2 show here (Chapter XIX, 1-2) a passage strangely confused (see the note to the text). P1: “et ala toute la voie a Saint Jaque jusques au perron d’Argue”; P2: “et ala
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 26 ]] 
toute la voie saint Jaqueme dusques au perron d’Arge.” Mouskés reads correctly:

Et puis s’en ala vers St. Jake

Od sa gent, trosques al pont d’Arge.

(vv. 5672-73)

Again, at Chapter XXIII, 29, P1 and P2 show an interpolation. It occurs at the moment when Fernagu, during a lull in his duel with Roland, seemingly with great naïveté, reveals to his enemy where the weak spot in his body lay. The Latin text clumsily tries to explain his revelation by saying that he spoke in Arabic, thinking, wrongly, that he would not therefore be understood. In P1 and P2 we find an adventitious but more satisfying explanation: “(Fernaguz) qui sommeilleus estoit et garde ne s’en donoit (li dist . . .).” Nothing like this is in the Latin (cf. 152, xiv-xvi) or in Mouskés (cf. vv. 5908-5914).

The errors common to P1, P2, and Mouskés in the forms of proper names suggest that these passed to all three texts through a faulty copy or series of copies of the original translation. We must then suppose one or more intermediaries between Mouskés on the one hand, and the immediate source of P1 and P2 on the other, and the original translation. We may, then, draw as follows the family tree of our three Turpin texts:

Figure 3 The Mouskés Turpin is nearer to the text of P2 than to that of P1

The Mouskés Turpin is nearer to the text of P2 than to that of P1. Examples of the closer relationship of P2 to Mouskés follow.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 27 ]] 
VII, 2 P1: Sarre
P2, Mouskés (v. 5000): Barre. The Latin form is Burrabellum, 114, iii.
VII, 4 P1: Amphimore (roi de Maiorc lacking)
P2: Anfimore roi de Maiorc
Mouskés (v. 5006): Anfimore, roi de Majore
VIII, 13-14 P1: et li manda . . . contre lui lacking
P2, Mouskés (vv. 5087-94): are both complete here
XVI, 8 P1: perdi tant
P2: p. tant de pule
Mouskés (v. 5589): Pierdi tel peule
XVI, 15 P1: .c. et .xxx. mile
P2: .c. et .xxxiv. mile
Mouskés (v. 5619): C et XXXIV miliers
XVII, 6 P1: le roy Costentin d’autre
P2, Mouskés (v. 5639): Coustentins li provos de Roume . . .
XLI, 10 P1: vostre seigneur
P2: vostre buisinier
Mouskés (v. 8321): vostre buissineour
XLIV, 5 P1: encisiez
P2, Mouskés (v. 8508): escorciés

This comparison will have suggested that P2, as far as it goes, offers a better text than P1. The collation of our two manuscripts confirms this. The scribe of P1 seems to have been rather ignorant and rather heedless. How could he write at I, 8 that Charlemagne was much feared for his bonté? There must have been an obscure word in his exemplar, but it was rather irresponsible of him to rest satisfied with bonté. Heedless too is his error Charles otroie for Charles ot joie at XIX, 1. When he makes a personal intervention he is quite fatuous, as at XXI, 4; and how unlettered he must have been to write at L, 34 that the palace was painted with scenes from old testaments and new! Or at LX, 15 to write that the walls of Jerusalem, not Jericho, fell down at the sound of the trumpets! And at XLIX, 3 to write that the Burgundians came from Roncevaus to Arles via Orleans! His text, though beautifully written, is often stupidly corrupt. So we must regret the more that P2 has been despoiled of so many folios.

Here then is our manuscript tradition. It will be interesting now to look up from our collation of texts and consider for a moment where to place our translation in the social environment of its day. Its day; probably not later than the first third of the thirteenth century. We have seen that our two manuscripts date from the second half of the century. Mouskés’s Chronique
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 28 ]] 
ends with events which happened in 1243; the manuscript of our Turpin translation which he used must therefore be dated certainly not later than 1240. Behind Mouskés’s model lies an intermediary already corrupted in transmission; we are justified in seeing an unknown but surely existing line of descent from the original text of the translation to Mouskés and to our surviving manuscripts, P1 and P2 (see the stemma on p. 26). So we move back from ca. 1240 towards the third decade of the century as the probable date of our translation.

Let us take another stance and look down the years from that moment of awakened interest and patronage which saw the initial promulgation of the Turpin in French prose. Our survey begins with the literary activity of Baudouin V, count of Hainaut from 1171, count of Flanders, too, after 1191, until his death in 1195, who showed a particular interest in the Historia Karoli Magni of Archbishop Turpin. Baudouin was an exceptionally well-educated nobleman, able to read both Latin and French. He cherished with predilection the memory of Charlemagne whom he claimed as his ancestor. But his learning had led him to distrust the stories of the emperor as he heard them in the songs of the jongleurs; he therefore sought out with much diligence a true history of Charlemagne and acquired for his library manuscripts of the reputedly veracious Historia Karoli Magni of Archbishop Turpin. They were copies of the A text, as we know now, the story of whose later dissemination has been told by M. de Mandach.

When he died, Baudouin bequeathed one of these Latin manuscripts to his sister, Yolande, the countess of Saint-Pol-en-Ternois, who, between 1195 and 1205, had one of her clerics, Nicolas de Senlis, translate it into French. Here is the first among the Old French translations of the Turpin; it was followed by a whole series of others: the translation made by one Johannes about 1205 and disseminated immediately by copies made for Count Renaud de Boulogne, for an Artesian gentleman, Michel de Harnes, and for the Norman Guillaume de Caieu; the Anglo-Norman translation made by William de Briane for Warin fitz Gerold shortly before 1218; an anonymous translation made probably in Artois about the same time; and our present version. These Old French renderings of the Turpin bear witness to the beginning and lively development of a literary and social trend: in general, a gentler culture spreading among laymen of gentle rank and, in particular, an interest in local and national history narrated in the prose which promised to guarantee its reliability. The reasons why the Turpin in French form proved so satisfying an answer to such a demand are not hard to find. The crusading sprit had
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 29 ]] 
been brought to a high pitch of fervor in the resolve to regain the lost Jerusalem. Robert de Clari, Villehardouin, and Henri de Valenciennes were giving eyewitness accounts of events beyond the sea, enthralling no less to those who avidly read or heard the news at home than to the participators themselves. To these active and involved people, the Turpin presented in Charlemagne the first and model crusader, saintly in character and foremost in prowess. They saw in him, moreover, not only a supreme exemplar of what they themselves wanted to be, but also, their ancestor. In the princely and baronial courts of northern and eastern France, the redaction of family genealogies was a prevalent fashion which throve with the development of historiography. The genealogists, writing under most interested sponsorship, sought above all to attach the great families of the region to the Carolingian dynasty. Baudouin V himself claimed descent from Charlemagne through Judith, wife of Count Baudouin Bras de Fer of Flanders. His daughter, Isabelle, in marrying Philip II of France, was said to have restored the continuity between Charlemagne and the royal house of France. Louis VIII boasted of his double descent from Charlemagne through Isabelle and through Adele de Champagne. It was to Louis’s great ancestor, Charlemagne, that Aegidius Parisiensis in his Karolinus, dedicated to the young prince in September, 1200, bade him look as to the example he should emulate when he came to the throne.16 Yolande de Hainaut claimed descent from Charlemagne through her ancestor Alexandre de Namur, and Renaud de Boulogne had a similar pretension as descendant of Ermengarde the sister of Charles de Lorraine. This ambition to prove themselves sons and daughters of the great emperor transcended feudal personalities and rivalries. After Canossa, France rose out of the shadow into which it had been cast by the access of the Ottonians to the imperial throne, and it was a proud sense of belonging to the Carolingian tradition which determined Philip Augustus’s policy of checkmating the ambitions of Otto IV and of restoring French hegemony in Europe. The Latin Turpin had been born in its own day when statesmen like Suger saw what France was, recalled what it had been under Charlemagne, and knew what under vital leadership it might become again. The Old French translations were caught in and fed the same current of opinion, broadened now, informing and tempering the minds of practical and influential lay men and women. The translations mark a moment in the political as well as the literary history of France, when the sense of pride and nationhood were guiding France
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 30 ]] 
under a strong king towards a national ideal and national enterprises. May we not, then, as we look from this viewpoint at our problems of date and social context, insert our present translation in time and place among those others as proceeding from the same impulse and reaching towards the same effect? All in all, I would conclude that, as we look up the years from the discernible dates within our manuscript tradition or down the years during which the fashion of translating the Turpin was in its heyday, the evidence suggests that we should date the making of our translation in the decade 1220-1230. The fact that it was made from a Latin A manuscript suggests further that it belongs to the region of Mons, the center of diffusion of the Latin A texts. The language of Mouskés’s Chronique rimée is the rouchi of Hainaut; that of our manuscript P2 is that of a region not far removed, probably the borderland between the counties of Hainaut, Flanders and Artois. It seems justified to think, then, that our translator was a Hainuyer and that his French Turpin had a local popularity of which the height is marked for us by Mouskés inclusion of it in his Chronique rimée, that plodding but sincere panegyric of Charlemagne and eulogy of the kings of France.

A comparison of our translation, in so far as we can discern it behind the extant textual tradition, with the Latin A manuscripts which we know, suggests that the translator rendered his Latin model faithfully and competently. He seems to have been in difficulty on one or two occasions; these are examined in the notes to Chapter VII, 12 and Chapter XXVII, 6. At LVIII, 26, where we read “amaladi li rois et fu morz” he seems quite unintentionally to have omitted an important passage in the Latin, 230, xvi-232, ii. It is evident, though a little surprising, that his glance fell from aegrotasse to erogasse a few lines below. At times he seems to have found problems in some of the Latin words. The Pseudo-Turpin tells us that, after the martyrdom of St. James, his asseclae (“followers”), 88, iii, bore his body to Galicia and there preached the Gospel. Our translator rendered asseclae by (les) genz dou païs, I, 5. He does not seem to know who the Pardi were (98, xii) and contents himself with the rendering: “la terre des Turs,” III, 22 (see the Index of Proper Names, s.v. Turs). Yet he often takes great care in his translation. Faced with the problem of rendering heros misericordiae, he wrote (LXI, 13): “ber et verais escuz de misericorde.” “The shield of compassion” is not quite felicitous, but ber does justice to heros, and the breaking of the Pseudo-Turpin’s strained metaphor into the composite phrase of the translation shows how conscientious our translator was in his labor. Again, at the beginning of his story, the Pseudo-Turpin tells us how the followers of the martyred Saint James evangelized Galicia, how Galicia relapsed into paganism until the coming of Charlemagne
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 31 ]] 
and how Charlemagne, weary after his long wars, made up his mind (proposuit) to rest for a while. At which point (88, xvii) the Pseudo-Turpin continues: “Statimque intuitus est in celo . . .,” where he saw the starry way pointing to Galicia - and his manifest destiny. Statimque! The connective adverb makes a most inept link with proposuit, a carelessness which our translator remedies with: “Une nuit se gisoit Charles en son lit et vit . . .” (I, 13). It is not surprising that he found the Pseudo-Turpin difficult to translate in places; on the whole, however, he does him better than justice and leaves the story more readable than it is in the Latin original.

We can see him at this work, criticizing his model, changing it where he thought fit. At 180, xxiii, the Pseudo-Turpin tells us explicitly that Ganelon and Turpin (here mentioned in the third person) were not in the rearguard but went with the main body of the French army over the Port de Cize. Yet at 182, xi-xii, after having described the defeat and annihilation of the rearguard, he adds that the only survivors were Roland, Bauduoin, Turpin, Thierry, and Ganelon. Our translator removes the confusion by omitting the mention of Ganelon and Turpin in the second passage (XXXII, 15).17 The
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 32 ]] 
Pseudo-Turpin, lucubrating in his scriptorium, intent on his propagandistic purpose and more theoretical than practical in his experience, often let his imagination express itself in an overwrought style, seeking in this way to make his story more impressive, perhaps more compelling. At 192, vi-ix, he describes how Roland, mortally wounded, blew his horn to rally to him the few survivors of the rearguard lurking in the forest for fear of the Saracens, in order, he writes, that “ad se venirent, suoque funeri adessent, spatamque suam et equum acciperent, et Sarracenos persequerentur.” The thought that these few men, defeated and leaderless, should, after seeing to the proper disposal of Roland’s body, and after taking his sword and horse into their protective keeping, set off in pursuit of the enemy is the extravagance of an uncontrolled imagination. Our translator omitted the phrase “et S. persequerentur” (XXXVII, 3). As we compare our Latin and French texts and find many similar omissions, we can see in all of them our more realistic translator addressing his more realistic audience in the instinctive knowledge that the laconic understatement of epic style was their proper medium of communication.

With similar understanding and taste he is at pains to eliminate the crude excesses of the Pseudo-Turpin’s rhetoric. So “trucidavit multos Sarracenos per medium” becomes “si en ocist moult de Turs,” “urbem magno triumpho intravit” becomes “Charles entra en la cité,” and “patet quia christiana lex omnibus ritibus et legibus totius mundi excellit” becomes “Bien nous montra Dieus en cele bataille laquele loy devoit estre tenue.” At one of the most poignant moments of his Historia, so much of which was borrowed and adapted from the epic tradition, the Pseudo-Turpin tells us how Roland, having slain Marsile and driven Baligant from the field, dismounts, wounded to the death, near the marble stone and unsheathes his sword over which he makes his distressful lament: “Habebat enim adhuc spatam suam secum, opere pulcherrimam, acumine incomparabilem, nimia claritate resplendentem nomine Duranda” (188, x-xii); and our translator: “Encore avoit il sa bone espee Durandal.” The Pseudo-Turpin’s style is one divorced from all living contact, out of touch too with the live poetic tradition. He should have minded St. Bernard’s admonition: “Experto crede: aliquid amplius invenies in silvis quam in libris.” Our translator, a different man writing for a different audience, eliminated from his work as much as he could of the Pseudo-Turpin’s cant.

Much of the Pseudo-Turpin’s inopportune display of erudition, too. This was a method of amplification which the Pseudo-Turpin had learned in
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 33 ]] 
school; no doubt it came familiarly and probably pleasingly to his clerical audience. But our translator judged it out of place in a chronicle addressed to lay people, cultured certainly, though not trained in the arts of grammar and rhetoric, and retaining unspoiled the sense which can distinguish between art and artifice. So, for example, he reduced the showy erudition displayed in the passages describing the seven arts, Chapters LI-LVII. Often he felt compelled to deflate his model’s windy verbosity: “Isti praefati sunt viri famosi, heroes bellatores, potentibus cosmi potentiores, fortioribus fortiores, Christi proceres, Christianam fidem in mundo propalantes” (126, iii-vi) - “Cist que nonmez vous ai sont noble combatant et furent apareillié a la volenté Nostre Seigneur et a sa loy essaucier” (XII, 27-28). At times he found it necessary to correct the opposite fault. At I, 10 he renders the cliché, meaningless in its context, “a mare usque ad mare,” by “des la mer de Brandiz jusques a la mer d’occidant.” At times he brings an airy moral down to earth. In Chapter XIV, where Charles is demonstrating to Agolant the advantages of the Christian faith, our translator brings home to his audience the assurance of afterlife in paradise for the Christian, in hell for the pagan, by adding the parentheses: “de ce ne doutons nous mie” (l. 28) and “ce savons nous bien” (l. 29), commonplace assertions of popular convictions. Witness too his use of direct speech, in contrast with the Latin, at XV, 24 and XXXIII, 12. The whole trend of the changes he made in his original was to make the narrative more lifelike, less abstract, more in keeping with the practical and familiar experiences in which men and women like himself had learned to know life, to distinguish values, and to judge character.

Perhaps to judge other matters too. In the story, told in Chapter VI, of the executor who made away with funds bequeathed to the poor by a testator, the Pseudo-Turpin gives the warning: “sed quia malis factis divini iudicis vindicta proxima esse solet” (106, viii ff.) and goes on to describe the awesome punishment which came at once upon the evil doer. But our translator changes the passage to read: “Mes la venchance de Dieu soloit estre plus hastive et plus aperte que ele n’est ore (ll. 12-13), permitting himself an anachronism and, surely not without humor, relegating to bygone times the immediate and visible vengeance wreaked by God upon sinners. His rendering is really a smiling aside to a very understanding audience.

More than the Pseudo-Turpin, our translator was alive to the poetic legend of Charlemagne. He knew intuitively that the audience he had in mind shared the warmth of his feeling, and that he and they were at one in recalling at the Pseudo-Turpin’s prompting, scenes, episodes, and characters made
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 34 ]] 
familiar to them in the recital of the ever popular epic poems. So he makes the pugnatores of 180, iv the arrieregarde of XXXI, 6. He presents Roland in formulaic fashion as le neveu Charle, Roland’s sword as Durandal (spata propria 150, v), Thierry as Roland’s squire, Pinabel as Genelon’s nephew who, like his uncle, suffered the ignominy of being dragged to death by horses; and he insists beyond the Latin (XLVII, 4) that Roland’s ivory horn was cracked: qui d’ivoire estoit et si estoit croissuz, and that Charlemagne drew, not his own sword, but Joieuse (XXV, 29; 166, xvii).

As we see the character of our translator thus reflected in his work, he rather endears himself to us: competent in his translation but not to the point of perfection, faithful but not servile to his model, transforming the Pseudo-Turpin’s pretentious style into one more realistic, more natural, evidently sharing with his auditors a love of his subject and of the traditions surrounding it. Thinking much as they thought, feeling much as they felt, writing much as they talked together, he becomes for us one of the voices of his time, telling his story to his contemporaries with conviction, engagingly and so enduringly.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 35 ]] 

Editorial Method

Since P1 is complete whereas P2 lacks many folios, P1 must perforce form the basis of our edition. I tamper with it as little as possible, provided it makes sense. But where it does not, I replace its reading with the reading in P2, keeping the Picard forms of P2 as they are in the manuscript. The rejected readings of P1 are listed underneath each page of text. The P2 variants are listed below these. Sometimes of course P1 and P2 are both corrupt; I then show in the notes by what process of comparison with Mouskés and with the Latin A text and by what exercise of divination on my own part I arrive at my proposed emendation. These emendations appear in the text printed in italics.

The proper names, above all the place-names, present a problem. They are already corrupt in the Latin A manuscripts, and have become more so in the process of transmission through translation to our surviving texts. In many cases there is no possibility of discerning the form given by the translator to a name. I leave them therefore as the scribe of P1 wrote them. The Index of Proper Names will help to identify them, and there is some advantage for future possible collation of our text with others in having the scribe’s forms unaltered before us.

A special problem is presented by the frequent lack of clear distinction between the scribe’s n and u. But the amiranz de Babyloine at XXI, 3 is indeed the amirauz de B. at XXX, 5 and Cesaranguste at XXV, 37 does seem to be an alternative spelling for the Cesairauguste of XXX, 4. The Ozius of LXII, 20 is clear. Our scribe was dealing with names which he could not recognize or which he did not know, and probably copying from a model in which the two letters were indistinct. The confusions represent the best he could do and I forbear to “correct” them.

There is as usual no systematic punctuation in the manuscript. The scribe used a dot to mark every kind of pause where we would distinguish them with a comma, semicolon, colon, or full stop. To mark a period he also uses, but very rarely (e.g. fol. 172b, 1. 13), the inverted semicolon above the line. There is no systematic use of capitals to mark the beginning of a sentence or as the initial of proper names. So editorial intervention has had to provide punctuation throughout. I print i consonant as j, u consonant as v; the scribe
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 36 ]] 
himself uses v for u consonant in initial position. I put a cedilla under c before a, o, u when the pronunciation was [ts] or [s]. The scribe uses a few abbreviations, but they offer little difficulty. He writes coment occasionally in full, and also cōme, come; but he uses the abbreviation ital9 far more frequently:ital9me, ital9verti, ital9manda, ital9ques etc. Along with these abbreviated forms he writes in full at times conme, conmandement, conment, conmencoit etc., so throughout I expand the abbreviation to con-. Quite exceptionally, however, he writes combatre, combatent, combatirent etc., almost always in full, so where he writes cōbatre, as at L, 17, I expand to combatre. Similarly I expand the rare cōme to comme. Compostele is usually so written, but we find Conpostele at III, 3, and the occasional abbreviation -. This I expand to Com-, in line with the scribe’s preferred spelling. The preposition pour is often abbreviated as p̄ so too as prefix p̄sivi. But it is as often written in full, pour, so my expansion follows the scribe’s example. The preposition par is sometimes written in full, sometimes in abbreviation as p. There is no danger of confusion between pour and par. The scribe writes moult a few times in full, so I expand mlt accordingly. He uses -x for -us sporadically, preferring to write -us; I expand the abbreviation wherever it occurs, and print Dieus, cieus, queus, biaus, etc. The name of the emperor appears as Charles, Charle, Charlemainne, and Charlon, but is often written in abbreviation as K. I expand to Charles or Charle according to the case, although the scribe sometimes uses Charles as the accusative. Roland’s name is often abbreviated to Roll., but here the full form is always written Rollant, and so this is the form I adopt to replace the abbreviation. The word saint is often abbreviated to s. The scribe uses saint as the subject form (“Ainsint aparut . . . l’apostre saint Jaque a Charlemainne”), so I expand s., whatever its case, to saint. The scribe sometimes writes numbers in words, sometimes in figures; since they are always perfectly clear, I leave them as he wrote them. I treat compound prepositions and adverbs the same way. The scribe writes pour ce que and pource que, par mi and parmi, par devant and pardevant etc.; I keep his forms throughout. Hence d’ore en avant, adroit lisant etc. His indifference, or ignorance, is such, however, that he writes, e.g., la prouchoit, sa seoit for l’aprouchoit, s’aseoit; these and similar dislocations I correct. The Notes and Glossary are rather full; they are designed to help the student as well as to interest specialists in points deserving attention. No attempt is made to note every occurrence of each word listed. The chapter divisions are the scribe’s own, but I have numbered them and also numbered the lines in each to facilitate references to the text.


 [1. ] References throughout this work will be by page and line to the edition of C. Meredith-Jones, Historia Karoli Magni et Rotholandi ou Chronique du Pseudo-Turpin.

 [2. ] Cf. the Historia, 126, vi-ix: “Ut enim Dominus noster Ihesus Christus una cum duodecim apostolis et discipulis suis acquisivit mundum, sic Karolus Gallorum et Romanorum imperator cum his pugnatoribus [in our translation: “avec ses .xii. pers,” XII, 31] Hispaniam adquisivit ad decus nominis Dei.”

 [3. ] See Brian Woledge and H. P. Clive, Répertoire des plus anciens textes en prose française depuis 842 jusqu’aux premières années du XIIIe siècle (Geneva, 1964), pp. 24 ff.

 [4. ] Ed. Frédéric-Auguste-Ferdinand-Thomas, Baron de Reiffenberg, Chronique rimée de Philippe Mouskés, 2 vols., Collection des chroniques belges inédites (Brussels, 1836-1838), Supplément (Brussels, 1845).

 [5. ] Fredrik Wulff, “La Chronique dite de Turpin, deux anciens textes français,” Acta Universitatis Lundensis. Lunds Universitets Års-Skrift 16 (1879-80) IV/I: “Le texte contenu dans le ms. B. N. no 1850 f. fr.” pp. i-vi, 1-42; II: “Texte contenu dans le ms. B. N. 2137 f. fr.,” pp. 43-76

 [6. ] He says he took his material from a book in the abbey of Saint-Denis:

Matere l’en a enseignie

Li livre ki des anchiiens

Tiesmoigne les maus et les biens

En l’abeïe Saint Denise

De France ou j’ai l’estore prise

Et del latin mise en roumans.

(vv. 6-11)

But that was the approved formula for poets and chroniclers alike desiring to claim authenticity for their works. As for his translating Latin chronicles into French verse, that is at least open to question. Towards the end of his work, perhaps looking back over the task he had done, and not now forward to the one he meant to accomplish, he tells us that he was writing “Selonc les estores rimés” (sic, v. 11974).

 [7. ] See L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1868-1881), 1:285.

 [8. ] Bibliothèque Nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits français, Sér. 3: Ancien St.-German Français, 2 (Paris, 1898).

 [9. ] For the evidence see my edition of the Johannes Turpin, pp. 89 ff.

 [10. ] Delisle, Cabinet des MSS, 2:46 and 78 ff.

 [11. ] André de Mandach, Naissance et développement de la chanson de geste en Europe, 1: La geste de Charlemagne et de Roland (Geneva and Paris, 1961).

 [12. ] The correspondence between our translation and the text of the Latin A manuscripts as we may see these in Meredith-Jones’s edition is not exact. The A text breaks off at 154, xvii, “Qualis pater, talis filius, talis spiritus sanctus,” which is represented in our translation by “Teus conme li Peres est, est li Filz et li Sainz Esperiz” (XXIII, 50). But our French text continues with a version similar to, though not identical with, the Latin of the B, C, and D texts as represented on the right-hand pages of Meredith-Jones’s edition. The translation omits the sentence: “In personis est proprietas, in essencia unitas et in magestate adoratur aequalitas” (155, xviii-xix). Perhaps, though it hardly seems likely, the translator found the sentence difficult, though it does but echo the creed of St. Athanasius: certainly, some, though not all, of the scribes copying the Old French translations found the sentence obscure and transmitted it corruptly. But then our translation continues with Roland’s effort to explain to Fernagu the concept of the triune God with the comparison of the trinity in unity offered by the sun, the wheel, the almond and, finally, Fernagu’s own self. There the discussion ends in P1, P2, and in Mouskés (157, vi; XXIII, 57; v. 6017).

 [13. ] This characteristic, inherited by our translation from the original Latin A manuscript in Saint-Denis, is one detail among others which M. de Mandach adduces to prove that the exemplar which the Saint-Denis scribe copied contained these elements and that the short A text results from their deliberate omission at Saint-Denis (La geste, p. 95).

 [14. ] The Pseudo-Turpin. Edited from Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin, MS. 17656 with an Annotated Synopsis, by H. M. Smyser, The Mediaeval Academy of America, Publication No. 30 (Cambridge, Mass., 1937).

 [15. ] University of California Publications in Modern Philology, Vol. 26 (1974), No. 4, pp. 331 ff.

 [16. ] See the recent edition of the Karolinus by M. L. Colker, “The ‘Karolinus’ of Egidius Parisiensis,” Traditio 29 (1973), 199-325.

 [17. ] The question as to whether or not the Pseudo-Turpin was nodding here remains controversial. See Romania 73 (1952), 244 ff. The matter turns on the sense of the word pugnatores at 182, xi. Does it mean, as M. Rychner thinks, and as does M. André Burger after him, “the barons” listed in Chapter XI (our Chapters XI and XII), or, as it had been thought until M. Rychner brought the question up, all the combatants, the peers and the twenty thousand men? The matter has not been thoroughly argued. In describing the muster of Charlemagne’s army, Chapter XI, the Pseudo-Turpin distinguishes the virorum (var. pugnatorum) maiorum, 122, i, the barons of our translation, XI, l. 1, from the thirty-four thousand virorum bellatorum, the gent combatant of our Chapter X, who made up the body of the army. At Roncevaux he tells us, 182, x, that besides the viginti milibus Christianorum of the rearguard, omnes pugnatores praeter . . ., “touz nos bons chevaliers,” XXXII, 14, were killed. It does seem, therefore, in spite of the Pseudo-Turpin’s use of pugnatorum maiorum in one context and the unqualified pugnatores in the other, that pugnatores here means the barons, and indeed of these the only survivors were Roland, Oliver, Baudouin, Thierry on the battlefield, and Ganelon and Turpin who had gone with Charlemagne over the pass to Val Carlos. But, however that may be, our mediaeval translators did not go to the trouble we have taken to decide. For most of them - for some of the Latin copyists too - the mention of Ganelon and Turpin in the second passage was unnecessary or at least unclear. The two names were left out by Nicolas of Senlis, by Johannes, and by the authors of the so-called Turpin I and of our present translation. The Burgundian translator included them, but William de Briane thought the matter over and found it necessary to explain: “. . . fors soulment Baudewyn le frere Rollant, e jo Turpin e Genyloun ke fumes ou Charles, e autres ke ço mucyrent par les bois e issy eschaperent” (ed. Short, ll. 1042-45). We must conclude, then, that our translator found the passage unsatisfactory and tried to give us a better one.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 37 ]] 


 [[ Print Edition Page No. 38 ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 39 ]] 

Ci parole de saint Jaque coment il s’aparut a Charlemainne.(152vo,b)


Ci poez savoir,(153ro,a) oïr et entendre et lire coment saint Jaque s’a/parut a Charle-
mainne. Coment li mur de Panpelune fondirent par euls meismes. Des nons
de toutes les citez d’Espaigne. De l’ymage Mahonmet. Des eglyses que Charle-
maine 4 fist. D’Agoulant conment il fu vaincuz. Conme il est grant pechié de
retenir le lés des morz. De la bataille Saint Fagon quant les lances florirent.
Quanz milliers de genz Charles ot en son ost. La destrincion de Charlemainne
et d’Agoulant. L’afere des povres. La bataille de Fourré. La mort d’Agoulant.
8 Des Crestiens coment il retornerent pour les morz rober. La bataille de Navre.
La bataille de Roncevaus. La batail/le de Rollant et des .xii. pers.(b) Queus estoit
Charles et combien fort. La mort Charle. Les miracles que Dieus fist pour
Rollant en la cité d’Ais. La mort l’arcevesque Tourpin et coment il fu trouvé.
12 De l’aumaçour de Cordres.

I [I]

Le glorieus apostre monseigneur saint Jaque, ausi conme li autre apostre
furent envoié par le monde pour preeschier la loi Jhesu Crist, s’en vint preeschier
en Espaigne. Mes en sa vie n’i pot mie granment monteplier. Il s’en retorna
4 ariere en la terre de Jherusalem, et la fu il ocis par le conmandement le roy
Herode d’une espee.(153vo,a) D’ilec fu il aporté des genz dou païs en Espaigne / en
Galice dont il estoit tornez et la fu il enseveli. Ilec preeschierent cil qui avec
lui vindrent, mes pou monteplierent jusques au tans Charlon. Cil Charles estoit
8 moult cremuz pour sa nomee en maintes terres et moult avoit terres conquises
en diverses parties: France, Engleterre, Alemaigne, Baiviere, Loheraine,
Bretaigne, Lombardie, Bergoigne et toutes les terres des la mer de Brandiz
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 40 ]] 
jusques a la mer d’occidant avoit a lui souzmises et ostees des mains aus
12 Sarrazins. Lors se pourpensa Charles qu’il se reposeroit et plus em batailles
fere ne se traveilleroit.(b) Une nuit se gisoit Charles en son lit et vit en avisi/on
.i. chemin d’estoiles qui conmençoit des la mer de Frise et venoit entre
France, Alemaigne et Lombardie et passoit entre France et Aquitainne, parmi
16 Gascoigne et Bascle et Navarre et aloit parmi Espaigne jusque en Galice ou le
cors monseigneur saint Jaque gisoit et n’estoit pas seus. Quant Charles par
pluseurs foiz ot veu ce chemin, si pensa en soi que ce senefioit. Aprés une
eure que il si durement y pensoit, si li aparut uns granz sires en vision. De
20 grant biauté estoit plus que l’en ne porroit deviser et dist: “Que fez tu, biaus
filz?” Charlemainne respondi: “Qui es tu?” “Sire,” dist il, “je sui l’apostre
Jaque, norriz de Jhesu / Crist,(154ro,a) filz Zebedee et frere Jehan l’evangeliste que
Dieus eslut a apostre sus la mer de Tabarie par sa grace pour sa loi preeschier
24 aus genz. Et si est mon cors en Espaigne, mes l’en ne set ou, et si est entre
Sarrazins; dont moult me merveil quant tu n’i vas qui tantes terres as conquises
et tantes citez et que Deus t’a eslit a estre le plus poissant des rois de terre.
Pour ce te mande Dieus que tu ma voie et ma terre ou je repose ostes des
28 mains as Sarrazins et que par ce aies tu la coronne des cieus aprés ta mort.
La voie et le chemin que tu as veu es cieus senefie que tu yras avec genz
d’autres contrees pour mon sepu/cre et ma chapelle et ma terre delivrer de
la gent mescreant.(b) Et aprés toi toutes les genz de l’une mer jusques a l’autre
32 iront em pelerinage pour querre pardon de leur pechiez et conteront les
loenges et les vertuz Dieu jusques a la fin dou siecle. Va la tantost conme tu
porras, car je te serai tout tans en aide, et pour guerredon de painne t’en
ferai je rendre a Dieu la gloire des cieus, et si sera tes nons en memoire jusques
36 a la fin dou monde.” Ainsint aparut trois foiz l’apostre saint Jaque a Charle-
mainne. Li rois, pour cest conmandement, asambla son ost et ala en Espaigne
sus la gent mescreant./(154vo,a)


La premiere cité que Charles asist ce fu Panpelune. La sist il .iii. mois
que onques ne la pot prendre, car bien estoit garnie de paiens et de forz
murs. Adont fist Charles priere a Dieu et si dist: “Sire Dieus, pour qui foi
4 avancier je sui venuz en ceste terre, otroiez moi a prendre ceste cité a l’enneur
de vostre non. Et tu, saint Jaque, s’il est voirs que tu m’apareuz, done la moi
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 41 ]] 
prendre si conme tu me prameis aide.” Tantost chairent li mur de Panpelune
par la priere de l’apostre par la volenté de Dieu. Li Sarrazin qui voudrent estre
8 baptisié furent em pes, et cil qui ne voudrent furent ocis. Par les noveles de
cestui fet,(b) s’enclinerent moult de Sar/razins a Charle la ou il aloit et li ren-
dirent partout treu. Moult se merveilloient li Sarrazins des Crestiens qu’il
veoient si biaus et si forz et si bien apareilliez et si les recevoient a biau sam-
blant 12 et getoient jus leur armes. Puis visita li rois Charles le cors saint Jaque,
et ala jusque au Perron, et ficha sa baniere en la mer, et rendi graces a Dieu
et a l’apostre, et dist que avant ne pooit il aler. Ceuls de la terre de Galice
qui par la predicacion saint Jaque devant ce avoient esté converti et l’avoient
16 lessié pour la poour des Sarrazins, fist li rois baptisier a l’arcevesque Tourpin,
qui devant n’estoient baptisié,(155ro,a) et ceuls qui ne se voudrent baptisier / fist
ocirre ou metre en chetivoisons. Puis ala li rois par la terre de l’une mer
jusque a l’autre.


Ci parole des citez que Charles conquist: Cisimus, Dume, Colimbre,
Luque, Aurenne, Ure, Jude, Mindoine, Vracarie qui mestre citez est de Nostre
Dame, Vinmare, Erinne, Conpostele qui adont iert petite, Ispale, Auscale,
4 Godelfaz, Talemanche, Uzede, Ulme, Cavalais, Jadrite, Maquede, Saint Jale,
Talevaire qui moult est bone, Altente, Bellarige, Osine, Seguntiene, Segoibe
qui granz est, Avile, Salemande, Sepulnege, Toulete, Glarame, Radaiot et
Turgel, Godiane, Emeride, Altacore, Palence, Luserne, Ventouse qu’en apele
8 Car/tons et si est en Val Vert, Gapte, Esturges, Oventin, Lyon, Karyon,
(b) Burs, Nadres, Carroges, Urence qu’en apele l’Estoile, Glatan, Mirade, Tudele,
Sarragonne qu’en apele Cesaranguste, Panpelune, Laione, Jace, Osche ou il
soloit avoir .lx. tours, Terrascone, Barbastre, Rosez, Urgel, Ulne, Geronde,
12 Latyone, Teride, Tourtouse, Algene, Adame, Yypalite, Ascalone, Hore,
Barbetoe .i. chastel bon, Aurele, Alagne, Borriane qui sont deus contrees,
Bede, Maience, Brutoise ou en fait le bon argent, Valence, Bechie, Sative,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 42 ]] 
Granande, Sebile, Cordes, Abule, Atentive, et la gist li glorieus confessor
16 saint / Torquis qui fu deciple saint Jaque,(155vo,a) et a sus lui .i. olivier croissant
qui florist et porte fruit meur chascun an le jour de sa feste en mai, et Bist
qui citez est bone et s’i a bons chevaliers qu’en apele Arabites, Hongrie ou il
a roy, Agaibe, Boaire qui citez est en Barbarie, Meloide, Eniche, Formentine,
20 Alcore, Aumarie, Gilbatare, Carthage, Seppe qui siet es destroiz d’Espaigne
la ou la mer est estroite, Gesir, Garuth. Toutes prist Charles les terres d’Espaigne,
la terre Alaudaluf, la terre de Portingal, la terre des Sarrazins, la terre des
Turs, la terre de Castele, la terre des Meurs, la terre de Navarre, la terre de
24 Biscarre, la terre de Bas/cle, la terre de Palalabre.(b) Toutes ces terres furent a la
volenté Charle, et toutes les citez en prist, les unes par bataille, les autres par
art et par engin, fors la cité de Luiserne en Val Vert qui bien estoit garnie; si
ne la pooit prendre jusque au derreain qu’il l’asist par .iiii. mois et fist priere
28 a Dieu et a saint Jaque pour li prendre et li mur chaïrent et fondirent et est
encore la cité deserte jusque a nostre tans. Et a dedenz une eve crevee qui
soloit norrir les poissons noirs. Autres rois de France devant cestui Charle
pristrent de ces terres une partie, et convertirent moult de la gent, mes a son
32 tans estoient reperié tuit a la loi des Sar/rasins quant li autre roi premerain
furent mort.(156ro,a) Cloevis qui fu premiers rois crestiens, Clotaires aprés, Dagouberz,
Pepins, Charles Martiaus, Charles li Chaus en conquirent partie et partie en
lessierent a conquerre, mes cil Charles a son tans les conquist toutes. Cestes
36 sont les citez que Charles maudist pour ce que a grant traveil les conquist:
Luiserne Ventouse, Caparre, Adame. Pour ce sont eles encore sans abiteeurs.


Toutes les ydoles que Charles trouva en Espaigne fist il destruire fors une
ymage qui siet en la terre Alaudaluf que l’en apeloit Salancadis. “Cadis”
estoit apelez
le leu ou ele estoit, et l’ymage / avoit a non “Salan.”(b) Et vaut au-
tant 4 “Salan” en caldieu conme “nostre Dieu,” et dient li Sarrazin que cele
ymage fist Mahomet en sa vie en son non et si seela dedenz et enclost par
nigromance une legion de deables qui en tel force le tenoient que nus ne li
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 43 ]] 
pooit mal fere. Et quant aucuns Crestiens l’aprouchoit si moroit, et se aucun
8 oisel s’aseoit sus, si moroit.


Sus le rivage de la mer avoit une pierre entailliee noblement d’uevre
sarrazine, estroite desus et par desouz large et quarree et si estoit merveilles
haute. Et la fu cele ymage mise et fu fete de fin loton en la samblance d’ome
4 et estoit desus ses piez.(156vo,a) Et / avoit torné vers midi son chief et tenoit en sa
main destre une grant clef. Li Sarrazin disoient que cele clef devoit cheoir
de sa main quant .i. roy de France y vendroit qui toute la terre conquerroit
et quant li Sarradin la verroient cheoir, si s’enfuiroient atout ce qu’il em
8 porroient porter. De l’or que li prince et li roi d’Espaigne donnerent a Charle
fist il fere le moustier Saint Jaque en trois anz qu’il y demora et si y mist
chanoines regulers qui tenoient la ruile saint Ysidoire qui fu evesque et
confessor. Et si y mist le roy Charlemainne aornemenz de pailes et de veste-
menz 12 et galices et saintuaires d’or et d’argent. De l’or et de l’argent qui li
estoit re/més quant reperiez en fu, si fist fere autres eglyses assez:(b) l’eglyse ma
dame Sainte Marie a Ais en Gascoigne, l’eglyse Saint Jaque a Toulouse, et cele
qui est en Gascoigne entre la cité qu’en apele Anxe et Saint Jehan seur Dur-
ance, 16 et l’eglyse Saint Jaque de Paris entre Sainne et Monmartre et si fist
pluseurs abaïes.


Quant Charles s’en fu reperié en France, li rois d’Aufrique que l’en
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 44 ]] 
apeloit Agoulant vint a grant ost en Espaigne et la reconquist et osta et ocist
les Crestiens que Charles y avoit lessiez. Quant Charles li rois le sot, si s’esmut
4 a granz olz pour aler en Espaigne, et ala avec lui Miles d’Angiers, dus et
mestre / de son ost.(157ro,a) Mes .i. grant miracle y avint que Dieus y moustra de ceuls
qui retienent les lés des morz. Quant li rois fu hebergiez atoute son ost a
Baione, une cité de Bascle, uns chevaliers que l’en apieloit Romanc si
8 amaladi moult. Pres fu de morir et fu confés et prist corpus domini et con-
manda a .i. sien cousin, qui gardé l’avoit, que il son cheval vendist et donast
as povres
ce qu’il en avroit. Quant mort fu le chevalier, cil vendi le cheval cent
sols, ne riens n’en departi aus povres, ainz les despendi a ce que mestiers li
12 fu. Mes la venchance de Dieu soloit estre plus hastive et plus aperte que ele
n’est ore. Oez qu’il en avint! Quant .xxx. jorz aprés sa mort furent / passé,(b)
cil qui morz estoit s’aparut une nuit a son cousin et li dist: “Pour ce que je
mis seur toi mes aumosnes a doner pour redempcion de mes pechiez et de
16 m’ame, saches que Nostre Sires m’a pardoné mes pechiez, et pource que tu
retenis mes aumosnes a tort, je ai esté .xxx. jourz es painnes d’enfer. Et saches
bien que tu enterras demain es painnes dont je sui issuz.” Quant li morz ot
ainsint dit, si s’en ala, et li vis s’esveilla et si ot grant poour. L’endemain20
raconta cil coment avenu li estoit, et ainsi conme il et li autre parloient de
ce, si furent oiz en l’air urlemenz sus celui ausi conme de lions et d’ours et de
leus / .(157vo,a) Einsint en mi l’ost fu cil raviz touz vis. Par .iiii. jorz fu quis de ceuls a
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 45 ]] 
pié et a cheval mes ne pot estre trouvé. Aprés ce .xii. jourz, si conme l’ost
24 passoit par la terre de Navarre, si trouverent le cors de celui tout debrisi
é seur une moult haute roche loing de la cité a .iiii. jornees, et la l’avoient
geté li deable mes l’ame avoient getee en enfer. Pour ce sachent bien cil qui
les lés des morz retenront qu’il sont dampné pardurablement. Aprés ce Charles
28 et Miles d’Angiers quisent od toutes les os Agoulant par Espangne et le trou-
verent en une terre que l’en apele Des Chans sus l’iaue de Seie en une pree en
.i. plain leu. La ot puis fete une egly/se de .ii. glorieus martirs,(b) saint Fagon
et saint Primitif, par le conmandement Charlon. Quant les unes olz furent
32 pres des autres, Agoulant manda bataille a Charle selonc son plesir, .xx.
contre .xx. ou .xl. contre .xl. ou cent contre cent ou deus cenz contre
deus cenz ou .i. seul contre .i. autre. Charles y envoia cent de ses chevaliers
contre cent des Agoulant, et se combatirent, mes li Sarrazin furent ocis.
36 Aprés en y envoia Agolant deus cenz contre deus cenz et refurent ocis li
païen. Puis y envoia Agoulant cent contre cent, et refurent li sien
ocis. Et puis y envoia il .v. mile contre .v. mile, si en fu une partie ocise
et l’autre s’en/foï.(158ro,a) Au tierz jour geta Agoulanz ses sorz et vit que Charles
40 perdroit hastivement et li manda pleniere bataille a l’andemain, et Charles li
otroia. Lors avint que li Crestien qui leur lances avoient apareilliees pour la
bataille, les enfichierent par nuit devant leur tentes es prés et es chans desus
l’iaue dont je dis ore qui Seie a non. L’andemain les trouverent toutes
44 charchiees de branches et d’escorces, et furent les lances a ceuls qui le jor
devoient recevoir martire en la bataille. Il s’en merveillierent moult durement

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 46 ]] 
et les trenchierent pres de terre, et les racines qui demorerent crurent puis,
(b) et encore y a il granz arbres et granz / bois de cele maniere d’arbres dont les
48 lances estoient, de fresne et d’autre bois. Grant fu le miracle et la joie et
le bien aus ames et aus cors le domache. Ce jour fu la bataille, si y ot morz
.xl. mile chevaliers. Li dus Miles d’Angiers, peres Rollant, reçut martire avec
ceuls qui leur lances florirent. Et li chevaus Charles fu desouz lui ocis, et
52 Charles fu a pié avec .ii. mile Crestiens a pié et trest l’espee que l’en apeloit
Joieuse, si en ocist moult de Turs. Quant ce vint au vespre, li Turc et li
Crestien s’en alerent a leur tentes. L’endemain vindrent au secours Charle
.iiii. marchis de Lombardie a .iiii. mile chevaliers.(158vo,a) Quant Agoulant vit / Fran-
çois56 retorner, si s’en ala a Lyon, et Charles si s’en revint en France avec
la gent que il ot. En ceste bataille si devez entendre le salut de ceuls qui pour
Dieu se combatent. Car ausi conme li chevalier Charle s’apareilloient d’armes
contre la bataille, ausi nous devons nous apareillier en bien et en vertuz et
60 oster les mauvés vices de nous qui devons fere la bataille contre le deable. Car
qui bone foi a contre mescreance, charité contre haine, largesce contre
avarice, humilité contre orgueil, chasteé contre luxure, oroisons contre temp-
tacions de deable, povreté pour Dieu contre riquece, perseverance contre
.egerie, silen/ce contre tençon, obedience contre mauvés corage,(b) sachiez que
cil avra sa lance vert et fueillie au jour dou juise. Ha! Dieus! Tant sera l’ame
dou venkeor bele, vert et florie qui loyalement avra estrivé en terre contre
ses mauvés vices. Car Deus dit: “Ja ne sera de moi coroné qui loialment ne
se combatra.”

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 47 ]] 


Puis avint que Agolant asambla gent sanz conte et sanz mesure, les Sar-
radins, les Meurs, les Moabites, les Perses, Terefin le roy d’Arrabe, Sarre le
roy d’Alixandre, Nivot roy de Bougie, Hospinel roy de Gaibe, Fatuel roy de
4 Barbarie, Elis roy de Marath, Amphimore, Lormon roy de Ynec, Cebreon
roy de Sebile / , l’aumaçour de Cordres et leur genz.(159ro,a) Donques vint Agoulant a
la cité de Gene et la prist. Puis manda Charle qu’il venist a lui a pou de
chevaliers et si li pramist or et argent et granz richesces .xxx. somiers s’il se
8 voloit souzmetre et obeïr. Pour ce le dist Agoulant qu’il le voloit connestre,
par coi il le peust ocirre em bataille. Mes Charles, qui s’en aperçut, a .ii. mile
chevaliers s’en ala prés de la cité et lessa sa gent reposte et vint a .xl. chevaliers
sanz plus jusques au mont qui prés estoit de la cité si que bien le pooit en
12 veoir, et lessa ceuls ilec et mua ses vestemenz, sans lance, et son escu mist
sus la croupe de son cheval come me/sagier a cel tans,(b) et entra en la cité
avec un seul chevalier. Cil de la cité issirent encontre et demanderent que il
queroient, et il respondirent: “Nous sommes li chevalier Charle qui nous
16 envoie a Agoulant.” Cil les menerent a Agoulant, et quant il furent devant li,
si li dirent: “Charles nos envoie a toi, et vient a toi si conme tu li mandes a
.xl. chevaliers et veult estre enclins a toi se tu li
veuls doner ce que tu li
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 48 ]] 
promeis. Et vien a lui parler atout .xl. des tiens em pes!” Lors s’arma Agoulant
20 et leur dist qu’il s’en alassent ariers a Charle et li deissent que il l’atendist.


Agoulant ne savoit pas que ce fust Charles qui a lui parloit.(159vo,a) Mes / Charles
le connut bien et esgarda de quel part la cité estoit plus feible, et vit les rois
et les amirauz qui la estoient, si s’en repera aus .xl. chevaliers qu’il avoit
4 lessiez, et s’en alerent jusques aus deus mile a l’embuschement. Agoulant sivi
le roy moult tost a .vii. mile Sarrazins a armes et avoit empensé qu’il l’ocir-
roit. Charles li rois, qui s’en apercut, s’en ala ariers en France et rasambla
grant ost et revint a Gene et si l’asist et y fu .vi. mois et au septiesme ot
8 apareilliez ses engins divers pour la vile prendre. Quant ce vit Agoulant,
(b) il et si roy et si aumaçour et si meilleur prince si s’en issi/rent de la vile par
les chambres privees et s’en foïrent par l’iaue de Gironde et passerent l’iaue
si eschaperent par nuit. Charles entra le jour apriés en la cité et fist ocirre .x.
12 mile Sarrazins qu’il y trova. Agoulant vint adont a Saintes qui lors estoit
aus Sarrazins et demora la. Charles le sivi et li manda qu’il li rendist la cité.
Mais il ne le valt rendre, ançois issi a bataille contre lui
par tel couvent que la
vile seroit celui qui vaincroit. Au vespre, quant li François gisoient en leur
16 tentes aus prez qui sont entre le chastel de Taleborc et la cité jouste l’iaue
de Caire et il ierent apareillié de la bataille qui devoit estre le landemain, il
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 49 ]] 
avoient fichiees leur lances devant leur / trez.(160ro,a) A l’ajorner les trouverent
d’escorce et de fueille chargiez cil qui le jour devoient recevoir martire pour
20 Dieu. Mult furent lié de cel miracle et trenchierent lor lances prés de terre
et si s’armerent et firent la premiere eschiele de la bataille. Moult firent grant
destruicion de Sarradins le jour, mes en la fin furent ocis et estoient quatre
mille. Li chevaus Charles fu ocis souz lui, et quant il fu a pié, si fist domache
24 a ses anemis durement, car ses genz li aidierent. Li Sarradin furent lassez et
ne porent soufrir l’estour, si se mirent en la cité.(b) Charles les / sivi et asist la
vile a la reonde fors par devers l’iaue. Cele nuit s’en foï li rois Agoulanz et
si Sarrazins par mi l’iaue, et Charles s’en aperçut, si les chaça et ocist le roy
28 de Gaibe et le roy de Bougie et autres Sarrazins jusques a quatre milliers.


Agoulant s’en rala et passa les porz de Sire et vint a Panpelune, et manda
Charle que il l’atendroit a bataille. Quant Charles oï ce, si s’en vint en France.
Par grant humilité manda ses genz et prés et loing, quanque il en pot avoir, et
4 que tuit li serf qui desouz mauvés usage et mauvés seignorage estoient et
rachatez de leur / chiés,(160vo,a) et toute leur ligniee, des lores en avant seroient franc
parmenablement pour aler en cel ost. Et commanda que tuit cil qui yroient
ne fussent desormés servant ne home a nelui ne sozmis. Touz les emprison-
nez8 delivra et les povres enrichi et les nuz revesti. Ceuls qui s’entrehaoient
acorda, les desheritez et les eschis rapela et mist en leur heritages. A touz
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 50 ]] 
ceuls qui pooient armes porter dona selon ce qu’il estoient. Et ceuls qui par
aucun forfet estoient esloignié de lui, il les atrest a s’amour et a son servise.
12 Amis, anemis, estranges, privez acompagna d’aler avec lui en cele voie. Je
Tourpin, / arcevesque de Rains,(b) par l’autorité Dieu les beneï et asou de leur


Lors ot asamblé Charles, le bon roy, au service de Dieu fere, de gent
combatant cent et quarante quatre mile, et entra en Espaigne contre Agou-
lant le roy qui toutes ses genz ot asamblees.


Or poez oïr les nons des barons qui avec Charle furent adont. Je, Tour-
pins, qui chascun jour par predicacion fesoie le pueple des Crestiens forz et
hardiz contre Sarrazins et de leur pechiez les asoloie, et ocis de mes mains
4 mainz Sarrazins et contai et mis en escrit pour savoir le nombre.(161ro,a) /


Rollant y fu, niés le roy Charle et mareschal de toute l’ost et si estoit
dus d’Angiers et de Blaive, filz Milon d’Angiers et de Bretaigne la seror le
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 51 ]] 
roy Charle; si y mena de sa propre gent quatre mile homes. .I. autre Rollant i
4 ot, mais or n’en dirai plus. Oliviers i fu, preus et fors et sages en bataille et
estoit dus, fils au conte Renier de Gennes et si mena .iiii. mile homes;
de Lengres, filz au conte Odon, a .iiii. mile; Arestans, rois de Bretaigne, a
.vii. mile. .I. autre roi avoit adont em Bretaigne, mes je n’en dirai plus. Ange-
liers,8 cil d’Aquitainne, y fu a quatre mile combatanz, a ars et a saestes armez
richement. Au tens cest Angelier estoit uns autres quens en Aquitainne en la
cité de Pigtavie, dont je ne dirai plus. Cil Angeliers estoit Gascons de lignage
/ et dus de la cité d’Aquitainne qui siet entre Limoges et Poitiers et Boourges.
(b)12 Et si la fist Cesar Agustes et nonma Aquitainne, et souzmist a lui Boourges
et Lymoges, Saintes, Poitiers, Engolesme et tout le païs, et tout est Aqui-
tainne. Cil Engeliers fu ocis en Roncevaus, et puis sa mort agasti et apetisa
tout le païs car tuit li preudome morurent avec lui. Gaifiers li rois de Bordiaus
16 y fu avec Charle a quatre mile, Geliers, Gerins, Salemon, Estouz ses compainz,
Baudoyn le frere Rollant, Gondebuef le roy de Frise: cist y furent a .vii.
mile homes; Hoiaus de Nantes a trois mile, Ernaut de Biaulande / a .ii. mile,(161vo,a)
Naimes, li dus de Bavieres, a .x. mile, Ogier, roy de Danemarche, a .x. mile,
20 et toutjours chantera l’en mes de lui et bien le doit en fere car merveilles y
fist; Lambert, prince de Boourges i fu a .ii. mile, Sanses li dus de Bergoigne
a .x. mile, Costentins, prevost de Rome, a .xx. mile, Rainnaus de l’Aube
Espine, Gautier de Termes, Guilliaume et Guarin, dus de Lorainne, a .iiii.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 52 ]] 
24mile homes, Begues et Auberi de Bergoigne, Bernarz de Nubles, Guimars,
Estormiz, Thierriz, Yvoire, Berengier, Haste, Guenes qui puis fist la traïson;
cist i furent a grant plenté de gent. Et de la propre terre Charle y furent .xl.
mile a che/val, et tant en i ot a pié que nus n’en sot le nombre.(b) Cist que28
nonmez vous ai sont noble combatant et furent apareillié a la volenté Nostre
Seigneur et a sa loy essaucier. Car autresi conme Jhesu Crist, Nostre Sires,
avec ses .xii. apostres, souzmist a lui le monde, autresi Charles, enperiere de
Rome et rois de France avec ses .xii. pers conquist Espaigne a l’enneur Dieu.


Adont, si conme je vous ai dit, asamblerent toutes les olz aus Landes de
Bordiaus et couvroient toute la terre en lonc et en lé .ii. jornees de .xiiii. luies
et le bruit de la noise estoit oïz de .xii. luies loing.(162ro,a) Er/naut de Biaulande4
passa premiers les porz et vint a Panpelune. Et puis passa Estouz atot son ost;
aprés, Arestanz li rois, et Angelier aprés avec leur genz, Gondebuef avec la
seue. Ogier passa aprés et Costentin avec leur gent. En la fin passa li honorez
rois Charles de France atouz ses olz, et covrirent la terre des l’iaue de Rune
8 jusque au mont qui loing est de la cité a .iiii. liues par devers la voie Saint
Jaque et mirent .viii. jourz a passer les porz. Puis si manda Charles a Agoulant
qui estoit en la cité de Panpelune, et l’avoit refete et garnie, qu’il li rendist
ou il issist a bataille contre lui.(b) Agoulant vit qu’il ne pot te/nir la cité12
contre Charle et vost mieulz venir a bataille contre lui que laidement
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 53 ]] 
morir en la vile, et demanda trives tant que sa gent fust de la cité issue et
apareillie de combatre. Et li manda qu’il parleroit a lui bouche a bouche se il
li plesoit; moult volentiers et trop le desirroit. Et Charles li dona trives ainsint
16 et dit qu’il i parleroit.


Quant li rois Charles ot einsint doné trives au roy Agoulant, il issi de la
cité avec toute sa gent apareillie, et lessa ses genz jouste la cité, et s’en vint
atout .xl. de ses plus hauz homes au paveillon le roy Charle qui estoit loing
4 de la cité une liue.(162vo,a) D’une part et / d’autre estoient les os en .i. plain liu mult
biel qui duroit de lonc et de large .vi. luies si conme la voie Saint Jaque va,
et le chemin les departoit. Agoulant fu en estant devant le roy Charle. Et puis
li dist Charles: “Tu es Agoulant qui ma terre m’as tolue felonnessement:
8 Espaigne, Gascoigne, que je avoie conquise a l’enneur de Dieu et a sa loi.
Quant en France m’en reperié, tu preis mes citez; mes chastiaus et ma terre et
ma gent as destruite, dont je me plain moult.” Quant Agoulant oï le roy
parler sarrazinois, moult s’en esmerveilla et ot grant joie. Et Charles l’avoit
12 apris a Tolete quant il y fu enfes avec le roy Galafre.(b) Lors respondi Agoulant /
a Charle: “Sire, je te pri que tu me dies pourcoi tu nos as tolue ceste terre
ou tu, ne tes peres, ne tes ayous ne ti ancesseurs n’orent onques riens.”
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 54 ]] 
“Pour ce,” dist Charles, “que Jhesu Crist, fesierres dou ciel et de la terre,
16 eslut nostre gent crestienne seur toute autre gent, et seur toutes choses vost
qu’il eussent seignorie, et ai de ta gent paienne convertie a nostre loi tant
conme je puis.” “Granz torz est,” dist Agoulant, “que nostre gent doive
estre souzmise a la teue quant la nostre loi vaut mieus que la teue. Nous avons
20 Mahomet qui fu mesagier Dieu, et le nous envoia, et nous fesons ses con-
mandemenz,(163ro,a) et avons autres dieus qui par / le conmandement de Mahomet
nous dient ce qui est a venir, et nous les honorons car nous vivons et regnons
par euls.” “Agoulant,” dit Charles, “en ce que tu dis foloies tu qui tiens les
24 conmandemenz Mahonmet et ces autres dieus, car nous ne tenons conmande-
ment que d’un seul Dieu et vous le tenez de mainz homes. Nous avons un seul
Dieu qui Peres est et Filz et Sainz Esperiz et tout est .i. seul Dieu et lui
aorons nous, et vous aorez le deable et ses ymages et creez ce que eles dient.
28 Nos ames, par nostre creance - de ce ne doutons nous mie - aprés ceste
mortel vie que nous ore avons, monteront em paradis,(b) et / les vostres - ce
savons nous bien - descendront en enfer. Par ce savons nous bien que nostre
loi vaut mieulz que la vostre. Et pour ce vous comant je que vous recevez
32 baptesme et vivez em pes, ou vous venez a nous combatre.” “Ne sera mie
ainsint,” dit Agoulant, “que nos baptisiez soions. Ainçois nous conbatrons
contre toi et contre ta gent par si que se plaisans a Dieu
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 55 ]] 
que la nostre, que nous soiens veincuz, et se la nostre est meldre a Dieu que
36 vos soiés vaincu, et pardurable reprouche en soit aus veincuz et loenge tout-
jourz aus veinqueeurs, et se je sui veincuz, je recevrai baptesme.” Ainsint fu
acordé d’ambedeus parz. Puis furent esleuz .xx. / Sarrasins contre .xx.(163vo,a) Crestiens
a combatre par tel couvenant, et tantost furent ocis li Sarrazin. Et puis .xl.
40 contre .xl. et furent ocis li Sarrazin. Et puis cent contre cent et furent ocis li
Sarrazin. Et puis cent contre cent autres et furent ocis li Crestien por ce
qu’il cremirent la bataille et s’en foïrent. Ce senefie que qui por la loi Dieu se
combat qu’il ne se doit douter ne esmaier ausi conme cil firent qui s’en
44 tornerent fuiant. Dont li apostres dist: “Cil ne sera pas coronnez qui loial-
ment ne se combatra.” Et puis furent envoiez .cc. contre .cc. et furent ocis li
Sarrazin. Puis mil contre mil et furent ocis li Sar/razin.(b) Lors donerent trives
d’une part et d’autre, et vint Agoulant parler au roi Charle et si aferma et dist
48 que mieulz valoit crestiene loi que cele aus païens et pramist que l’andemain
recevroit baptisement. Puis s’en ala Agoulant a sa gent et dist a ses rois qu’il
se feroit baptisier et leur dist qu’il se baptisasent. Li pluseurs l’otroierent et
pluseurs le refuserent.


L’endemain revint Agoulant a Charle pour soi fere baptisier endroit eure
de tierce, et trouva le roy Charle seant au mengier et vit moult de tables ça et
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 56 ]] 
la et de bachelers qui menjoient avec Charle, et vit esvesques et / arcevesques,(164ro,a)
4 prestres et clers et autres genz de religion, et vit dus et contes et barons. Si
demanda a Charle de chascune maniere de gent quele gent ce estoient. Li rois
Charles li respondi: “Ceuls que tu voiz vestuz d’une maniere de vestemenz
de brunetes a ces longues robes, ce sont arcevesques, esvesques et prestres
8 de nostre loi qui nous donent la beneiçon Dieu et nous asolent de nos pechiez.
Cil a ces blans dras et a ces noirs dras qui si sont haut tondu et coroné et ont
leur robes si mal fetes et encombrans, il sont moinne blanc et noir qui ne
cessent de prier Dieu pour nous et nuit / et jour;(b) et saches que de greigneur
12 religion sont li blanc que li noir. Ceuls que tu voiz la revestuz de diverses
robes bien fetes et devisees de cendal et de samit, il sont mi duc et mi conte
et mi prince et mi baron et mi chevalier.” Puis vit Agoulant .xii. povres qui
se seoient a terre sanz table et menjoient a pou de viande et de boivre. Agolant
16 li demanda qui cil estoient. Charles li respondi: “Cele gent la sont mesagier
Nostre Seigneur Jhesu Crist et sont chascun jour ceenz au mengier en remem-
brance de Dieu et de ses .xii. apostres.” Lors dist Agoulant:(164vo,a)Cil qui sont
environ toi et prés de toi sont / beneuré car il ont assez a boivre et a mengier
20 et bien sont honoré, mes cil que tu diz a moi qui sont mesagier Dieu et sien
lige, pourcoi sont il si povrement vestu et ledement et vilainement esloignié
de toi? Malement aime son seigneur qui son mesagier reçoit en tel maniere.
Ta loi que tu diz qui vaut mieulz que la nostre, ci nous moustres tu qu’ele
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 57 ]] 
24est fausse. Je m’estoie venuz fere baptisier, mes or te demande je congié,
si m’en irai ariere et si te demant bataille a demain.” Einsint s’en rala Agoulant.


Lors s’aperçut Charles que par les povres qui mauvaisement estoient vestu
et peu et vilainnement tretié, avoit Agoulant refusé baptes/me.(b) Et touz les
povres que il trouva puis en l’ost fist revestir soufisanment et bien les fist
4 pestre et abevrer pour Agoulant qui pour tele occasion lessa a prendre bap-
tesme. Or poez savoir conme cil font a blamer qui riche sont et amender le
pueent, quant il lessent les povres Dieu avoir soufrete de vesteure et de
soutenance ausi conme Charles avoit la fet. Et quant Charles par tele maniere
8 perdi tant, que sera donques au jour que chascuns trovera selon ce qu’il avra
fet et deservi quant Dieus dira: “Fuiez ensus de moi, li maleoit! Alez ou feu
pardurable! car je oi fain, si ne me peustes mie, et si oi soif, si ne m’abevrastes
/ mie,” et autres reprouches leur dira Dieus.(165ro,a) Esgarder devons que pou vaut foi12
ne loi qui en oeuvre ne le fet. De ce dit li apostres: “Ausint conme cors sanz
ame est chose perdue et morte, est oiseuse foi sanz oeuvre.” L’andemain
vindrent tuit cil de l’ost d’une part et d’autre toz armez pour combatre pour
le couvenant des .ii. lois, et avoit Charles en son ost .c. et .xxxiiii. mile homes,
16 et Agoulant cent mile. Li Crestien firent .iiii. eschieles et li Sarrazin .v.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 58 ]] 


La premiere eschiele des Sarrasins qui asamblerent fu veincue tantost,
et aprés celui, l’autre qui vint.(b) Et quant li Sarrazin / virent leur mescheance
si s’asamblerent tot entour le roy Agoulant si qu’il fu en mi aus. Et quant
4 nos Crestiens virent ce, si les aceindrent environ. De l’une part fu Ernaut de
Biaulande et son esfort, et li rois Arestanz avec le sien esfort fu d’autre part,
et d’autre part fu le roy Gondebuef, et le roy Costentin d’autre. Ogier le
Danois et le roy Charle chascuns avoit sa gent avec lui. Ernaut de Biaulande
8 se mist premiers entre euls et tant feri a destre et a senestre que parmi euls
ocist le roy Agoulant de s’espee et de sa propre main par l’aide de Dieu. Lors
con / mencierent Sarrasins a crier,(165vo,a) et li Crestien se ferirent entr’euls de toutes
parz et les ocirent c’onques n’en eschapa que le roy de Sebile et l’aumaçour
12 de Cordres. Cil s’en foïrent a pou de gent. Tant fu la foison dou sanc grant
que nos Crestiens estoient dedenz jusques aus chevilles, et touz les Sarrazins
qui furent trouvez furent ocis.


Bien nous moustra Dieus en cele bataille laquele loy devoit estre tenue.
Ha! Crestien! Conme bone loy avez se garder la savez! Veraiement le poez
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 59 ]] 
savoir qu’ele nous fera monter sus les anges et estre avec Jhesu Crist qui est
4 nostre sires et nous somes si home se nous avons / droite creance.(b)


Charles ot joie et rendi a Dieu graces de sa vitoire, et asambla sa gent, et ala
jusques au Pont d’Argue en la voie Saint Jacque, et la se heberja. Mes
aucuns des Crestiens par couvoitise se departirent de l’ost Charle cele nuit
4 et vindrent la ou la bataille avoit esté et se chargierent d’or et d’argent, puis
si voudrent revenir en l’ost. Mes l’aumaçour de Cordres qui de la bataille
estoit eschapé et estoit repost avec moult d’autre gent leur corurent sus et
les ocirent touz, et bien estoient mil. Ce done essample que, ausi conme cil
8 qui les anemis avoient veincuz qui par couvoitise retornerent / et furent ocis,(166ro,a)
ausint cil qui penitance pranent ne doivent en nule maniere retorner au
pechié dont il sont parti qu’il ne soient ocis dou deable nostre anemi qui
tousjours est repost. Ausint cil de religion qui le siecle ont lessié, se puis y
12 reperent, Dieu en perdent et mort d’enfer en ont.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 60 ]] 


L’autre jour aprés fu noncié a Charle que a Monjardin estoit venuz uns
princes de Navarre qui avoit non Fourré, et voloit combatre a lui quant il
iroit la. Charles y ala, et Forrez issi l’andemain contre lui a bataille, et Charles
4 fist sa priere a Dieu que il li demoustrast liquel devoient la recevoir mort et
mar/tire. L’andemain, quant tuit furent atorné por combatre,(b) si aparut une
croiz vermeille conme sanc sus la destre espaule de ceuls qui morir y devoient,
par desus les hauberz. Mes ceuls qui furent seigniez fist Charles demorer en
8 sa chapele qu’il ne fussent ocis en la bataille. Moult sont li jugement Dieu
tapi et couvert quant ne pueent estre descouvert ne ses voies conneues. Charles
se combati le jour a Fourré, et fu ocis Fourré avec trois mile de Sarrazins,
et li rois n’i perdi nus des siens. Mes quant il revint a sa chapele, si trouva
12 morz touz ceuls qu’il y avoit lessiez, et furent .c. et .l. Moult est la compaignie
Dieu glorieuse car, se cil ne mo/rurent em bataille,166vo,a) por ce ne perdirent il mie
que il ne fussent martir. Lors prist Charles Monjardin et toute la contree de


Puis nonça l’en a Charle que a Nadres estoit venuz uns jaianz. Fernaguz
ot a non, et fu dou lignage Goulias et estoit venuz des contrees de Sire. Si
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 61 ]] 
l’avoit li amiranz de Babyloine envoié avec .xx. mile Turs pour combatre a
4 Charle. Cil Fernaguz ne cremoit lance ne espee, ne dart ne coutel, ne quarrel
ne saeste, ne javelot ne autre arme, et si avoit la force de .xx. homes. Pour ce
si ala Charles contre lui a Nadres. Quant Fernaguz vit qu’il estoit venuz la
vile aseoir,(b) il issi de la vile et vint touz seus con/tre l’ost en une avangarde et
8 demanda bataille, chevalier contre .i. autre. Dont li envoia Charles Ogier le
Danois. Quant Fernagu le vit venir, si ala encontre lui. Quant il fu prés de
lui, si l’embraça tantost de son braz destre et tout armé l’enporta devant touz
ausi conme une brebiz. Fernagu avoit .xii. piez de lonc, et son visage avoit de
12 large la braciee a .i. home; son nés de plaine paume; ses braz, ses cuisses, de
.iiii. braciees.


Puis ala combatre a Fernagu Renaut de l’Aube Espine, et il l’emporta
souz s’essele et mist en sa prison. Et puis demanda Fernaguz bataille de lui
seul contre .ii. Dont y fu envoié / Costentin de Rome et Hoel de Nantes,(167ro,a) et
4 il les prist l’un a destre et l’autre a senestre et les emporta et mist em prison.
Puis en i ot jusque a .xx. envoiez, et il les prist et mist em prison deus et
deus. Quant ce vit Charles, si s’en merveilla moult et n’en y vost plus envoier.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 62 ]] 


Rollant requist le roy le don de combatre a lui tout seul, mes li rois qui
moult l’amoit ne l’en vost doner congié. Rollant l’em pria moult et l’en fist
tant prier que li rois l’en dona congié. Et quant il l’ot, si oi messe et puis
4 s’arma et ala combatre contre Fernagu le jaiant. Mes Fernaguz le prist en son
venir ausi conme les autres a une main et l’en me/na devant lui sus le col de
son cheval.(b) Et si conme il l’enportoit vers le chastel, Rollant, qui moult fu
forz, avec l’aide de Dieu le prist par le menton et le torna par force derriere
8 seur le cheval et chaïrent ambedui a terre. Lors se releverent ambedui et
monterent sus les chevaus. Rollant tint Durendal s’espee et cuida le jaiant
ocirre et feri son cheval et le coupa pardevant la sele a .i. coup. Quant
Fernaguz fu a terre, si menaça Rollant de s’espee, et Rollant lui de s’espee
12 qu’il tenoit et le feri sus l’espee et sus la main dont il la.tenoit. Petit le bleça,
mes nepourquant s’espee li chaï. Dont cuida Fernagu ferir Rollant dou
poing / clos si feri le cheval Rollant et l’ocist.(167vo,a) Puis furent ambedui a pié
et sans espees, et se combatirent des poinz et des pierres dont il avoit assez
16 ou champ jusques a none. Puis demanda Fernaguz trives a Rollant jusques
l’andemain, et deviserent qu’il vendroient combatre sanz lance et sanz espee
et sanz chevaus. Et quant il orent ce otroié, chascuns s’en ala la dont il estoit
venuz. L’andemain revint chascuns ou champ touz seus. Fernaguz y porta
20 s’espee, mes gaires ne li valut car Rollant aporta avec lui .i. baston de chesne
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 63 ]] 
noeilleus et retorz dont durement le feroit mes petit le bleçoit, et des pierres,
dont moult y a/voit, s’entregetoient.(b) Fernaguz le consentait pource que Rollant
mal ne li fesoit. Dont demanda Fernagu trives a Rollant de dormir, et il li dona.
24 Fernaguz comença a dormir, et Rollant qui forz et fiers et hardiz estoit, li aporta
une grant pierre desouz son chief pource qu’il dormist plus a aise. Nus hons a cel
tans n’osast trives enfraindre, et se il les enfrainsist, il fust ocis conme mur-
triers. Quant Fernaguz ot .i. pou dormi, si s’esveilla et vit Rollant seant [[27]]
28 encoste lui. Et Rollant li demanda coment il estoit si durs que espee ne baston
ne li pooit fere mal. Fernaguz qui someilleus estoit et garde ne s’en donoit,
li dist en / sarrazinois que il ne pooit estre navrez fors que parmi le nombril.(168ro,a)
Rollant l’entendi bien. Et Fernagu redemanda a Rollant conment il avoit a
32 non, et il li dist: “Je sui apelé Rollant.” “De quel lignage es tu,” dit il, “qui
si te combaz a moi?” “Je sui,” dist Rollant, “dou lignage de France nez.”
Fernaguz li demanda: “De quel maniere de loi sont François?” Rollant li
dist: “Nous somes, Dieu merci, bon Crestien et fesons les conmandemenz
36 Jhesu Crist, et pour sa loi essaucier et avancier fesons nostre pooir.” Quant
Fernaguz oï parler de Crist, si dist: “Qui est,” dit il, “cil Crist en qui tu
croiz?[[38]]” Rollant li / dist:(b) “C’est cil qui fu nez de la Vierge et soufri pour
nous mort en la croiz et portez fu ou sepulcre et descendi au tierz jor en
40 enfer et le brisa et en geta les siens amis hors.” “Nous creons,” dit Fernaguz,
“que li faisierres dou ciel et de la terre est uns Dieus et que nus ne l’engendra
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 64 ]] 
ne il n’engendra nelui. Si est uns Deus et n’est mie trebles.” “Tu diz voir,”
ce dist Rollant, “quant tu diz qu’il est .i. Dieus, mes quant tu diz qu’il n’est44 mie
trebles em personnes, la doutes tu. Se tu croiz ou Pere, dont croiz tu ou
Fil et ou Saint Esperit, car Dieus est Peres et Filz et Sainz Esperiz mananz
en trois personnes, et tout est .i. Dieu.” “Se tu diz,” dist Fernaguz,(168vo,a) “que / li
Peres est Dieus et li Filz, Dieus et li Sainz Esperiz, Deus, dont est il trois
48 Dieus et non mie .i. seul.” “N’est pas ainsint,” dit Rollant, “car cil Dieus
dont je parole n’est que uns Dieus et si est trebles, et les trois personnes
jumeles entr’elles. Teus conme li Peres est, est li Filz et li Sainz Esperiz.”
“Ne puis pas veoir,” dist Fernaguz, “coment trois choses soient une chose.”
52 “Je le te mousterrai,” dist Rollant, “par humainnes samblances. Esgarde que
ou soleil a chaleur et resplendeur et rougeur, et tout est .i. soleil. Et en la roe
de la charrete sont les raiz et les jantes et li moiel et li cercle et tout n’est que
une roe.(b) En l’amande et en la noiz a escorce et eschaille et noel et tout / est
56 noiz ou amande. En toi meismes sont les membres et l’ame et le cors et tout
est uns cors.” “Or alons combatre,” dit Fernagu, “par si que se ta loi est
meilleur que la moie que je soie veincuz, et se la nostre est meilleur que la
vostre, si soies tu vaincuz, et loenge soit donee au veinqueeur et honte per-
durable60 au veincu.” “Soit,” dist Rollant, “ainsi.” Lors se dreça Fernagu et
geta de s’espee .i. cop a Rollant, mes il le reçut sus son baston, et il li trencha.
Lors le prist Fernagu aus mains et le mist desouz lui a terre mult legierement.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 65 ]] 

Rollant vit que par nule maniere ne se pooit relever, si reclama et apela en
64 s’aide le filz / de la glorieuse pucele Vierge Sainte Marie et dist:(169ro,a) “Dieus! tu
sez et voiz que nule enneur terrienne ne vueil aquerre mes que ta loi essaucier.
Dieus! or essauce ton nom pour toi non mie pour moi.” Adont se releva
Rollant de desouz lui et par force torna Fernagu desous et trest s’espee et
68 li bouta legierement par mi le nombril. Et Fernaguz conmença a crier:
“Mahoumet! Mahomet! secor moi car je muir.” Quant Fernagu fu morz,
Rollant s’en repera tout sain et tout hetié, et les Sarrazins vindrent pour le
cors si l’enporterent en la cité.


Mes les Crestiens les sivirent de si prés qu’il entrerent conmunalment en
la cité avec euls.(b) Einsint fu / la cité prise et li prison delivré qu’il avoit
pris et menez en la vile.


Aprés .i. pou de tans si fu dit a Charle que Hebraïns li rois de Sebile et li
aumaçours de Cordres, qui de la bataille estoient eschapé de Panpelune avec
leur genz, estoient a Cordres et l’atendoient a bataille avec les genz de .vii.
4 citez qui leur estoient venus aidier: de Sebile, de Gar, de Setive, de Denie,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 66 ]] 
de Ubele, de Aubule, de Betie. Dont apareilla Charles son afere pour aler
droit a euls et tost y ala. Quant Charles vint prés de Cordres, cil issirent
hors a trois luies contre lui, et estoient .x. mile Sarrazins, et li Crestien
8 n’estoient que .vi. mile. Lors apareilla Charle / ses genz en trois eschieles.(169vo,a) La
premiere fu de ses meilleurs chevaliers; la seconde fu de sa gent a pié; la tierce
refu de gent a cheval. Ausi furent li Sarrazin. Quant les .ii. olz s’entreaprou-
chierent et lapremiere eschiele aproucha par le conmandement Charle vers
12 les Sarrazins, si vint une eschiele de Sarrazins encontre euls a pié, et avoit
chascuns barboere de deable cornue, et avoient tabours et timbres et fesoient
en leur venir merveilleuse noise. Quant les chevaus de nos Crestiens les virent
et oïrent, si furent moult espoanté et conmencierent a foïr si que l’en ne les
16 pooit en nule maniere retenir. Li Sarrazin en furent / moult lié.(b) Einsint vont
le petit pas jusque au mont a .ii. luies de Cordres. Ilec s’asamblerent li François
et firent chastel d’euls meesmes et les atendirent por combatre. Mes cil de
Cordres se trerent ensus, et li nostre furent el mont jusque au matin. Quant
20 Charles ot pris conseil, si conmanda que tuit couvrissent les testes de leur
chevaus et leur estoupassent les oreilles qu’il ne poïssent oïr leur tabours
ne veoir leur barboeres. Quant il orent ce fet, si alerent seurement contre leur
anemis. Dont se combatirent li nostre fierement jusque au midi et moult en
24 ocirent, mes non mie / touz. Et estoient li Sarrazin tuit asamblé,(170ro,a) et enmi euls
avoit .i. char et le treoient .viii. bues, et avoit sus .i. lonc fust et sus ce fust
une lance et une vermeille enseigne. Tele coustume avoient il pource que nus
ne s’en foïst de la bataille tant conme cil estendarz fust droiz. Le roi Charle
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 67 ]] 
28s’en aperçut, et par l’aide de Dieu se feri tout armé entr’euls, et ala ferant a
destre et a senestre jusques au char, et trest Joieuse, et coupa a .i. seul cop le
fust ou l’enseigne iert si que ele versa. Et tantost s’en foïrent ça et la li
Sarrazin et conmencierent a glatir et a uller. .viii. mile en y ot ocis. Ebrains li
32 rois de Sebile / y fu ocis,(b) mes li aumaçours de Cordres atout .ii. mile Sarrazins
se mist en la cité et l’andemain la rendi a Charle par si qu’il recevroit baptesme
et seroit au roi enclin et tenroit la terre de lui, et Charles l’otroia ainsint.
Quant ce fu fet, Charles departi les terres qu’il avoit conquises a cels qui la
36 voudrent demorer. Aus Bretons dona la terre de Bascle et de Navarre, aus
François dona la terre de Castele; cele de Nadres aus Grieus dona et Cesar-
anguste as Puillois, la terre d’Aragone aus Poitevins, la terre Alandalus decoste
la mer aus Alemanz, la terre de Portingal aus Danois et aus Flamens.(170vo,a) Et li
40 François ne voudrent demorer ne abi/ter en Galice pource que trop estoit
aspre et fort. Puis ne trouva Charles en cele terre qui contre lui osast reveler.


Dont y lessa li rois de ses granz genz et ala a monseigneur Saint Jaque et
edifia et honora les Crestiens qu’il y trouva et ceuls qui furent a la loi des
François reperiez, et fist ocirre les Sarrazins ou envoier en France en essil.
4 Puis establi Charles esvesques et arcevesques par la terre d’Espaigne. Lors
asambla Charles concille a Compostele et establi pour l’amour de saint Jaque
que tuit li arcevesque et li prelat, li roy, li duc,(b) li conte et li prestre qui
present estoient et cil qui estoient a venir fussent obeïssant a l’arce/vesque
8 Saint Jaque. A Aure ne vost il pas fere esvesque ne ne la tint pas pour cité,
ainz conmanda qu’ele fust souzmise a Compostele.


En cel concille je, Torpins, arcevesques de Rains, avec touz les arcevesques
et les evesques de la terre, par le conmandement Charle dediai l’eglyse Saint
Jaque. Li rois soumist a lui toute la terre d’Espaigne et de Galice et dona
en4 doaire, et conmanda que chascun seigneur d’ostel de toute Espaigne y donast
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 68 ]] 
chascun an .iiii. deniers de rente et par ce feussent quites de touz autres
services de roy.(171ro,a) Et conmanda Charles que de cel jour en avant fust l’eglyse
Saint Jaque apelee / siege d’apostre pour ce que li bons apostres sainz Jaques
8 y gist. Et dist Charles que la fussent tenu li concille de toute Espaigne des
evesques, et les verges et les dignetez des evesques et les coronnes des rois
fussent donees des mains a l’arcevesque Saint Jaque en l’enneur de lui. Et se foi
et creance defailloit ou apetisoit es autres citez, par le conseil l’esvesque
12 Saint Jaques fust reconciliee, et droiz estoit. Car ausi come par monseigneur
saint Jehan l’evangeliste, frere saint Jaque, vint foi et creance en la contree
d’oriant, en Ephese, et que pour ce est apelee siege d’apostre, ausi par mon-
seigneur saint / Jaque foi vint et creance en la contree d’ocidant et en Galice.
(b)16 Si en doit estre apelee sieges d’apostre par droit.


Ces .ii. citez, Ephese et Compostele, sont li dui siege que la fame Zebedee
requist nostre Seigneur quant ele dit si conme ele cuidoit qu’il regnast en terre
et dist: “Sire, conmande que mi dui filz soient li uns a destre et li autres a
4 senestre en ton regne.” Et si sont il, car Ephese siet a destre et Compostele a


Et trois sieges sont principaus seur touz les autres: Rome, Ephese et
Galice. Car ausi conme Dieus eslut trois apostres principaus seur les autres:
Pierre, Jaque et Jehan / a qui il descouvri ses secrez et sa revelacion,(171vo,a) ausi par
4 euls veult il que cil troi siege soient sus les autres. Et a droit sont cil principal;
car cil troi apostre, par la digneté d’euls, sont mis desus les autres, et li siege
ou il reposent sont mis devant. Par droit est Rome la premiere, car saint Pere
fu le premier et fu principaus des autres par sa predicacion, et il fist Rome de
8 son sanc et de sa sepouture estre beneuree. Aprés est Compostele, car mon-
seigneur saint Jaque entre les autres apostres, par digneté et par enneur, fu
[[10]]aprés saint Pere de greigneur non et tient es cieus seignorie de ce qu’il fu li
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 69 ]] 
premiers qui martire re/çut,(b) et fist Compostele beneureuse de sa predicacion
12 et de sa sepouture. La tierce si est Ephese, ou monseigneur saint Jehan
conmença premierement: In principio erat verbum, par devant touz les
esvesques que il meismes avoit mis par les citez qu’il apele “anges” en s’Apoca-
lipse, et honora ycele cité et de predicacion et d’eglyse, et ilec entra il en terre
16 pour sepulture. En toutes les regions, se lois et decrez ne pueent estre desclair-
iees ne seues, en ces trois citez doivent estre determinees par concile d’esves-
ques de la terre. Par tele maniere fu la terre de Galice ostee et delivree des
mains / aus Sarrazins.(172ro,a)


Puis que li granz Charles, emperieres de Ronme, rois de France, partout
douté et cremuz, ot conquise Espaigne a l’enneur Dieu et saint Jaque, il s’en
retorna avec son ost d’Espaigne et vint a Panpelune et si se heberja. En
4 celui tans estoient dui roy sarrasin frere en Cesairauguste, et la demoroient,
Marsilles et Baliganz. Li amirauz de Babiloinne les avoit envoiez de Perse, et il
se soumirent a Charle; mes il le servoient faintement.


Charles leur manda par le conte Guanelon que il receussent baptesme ou
il li rendissent treu.(b) Adont li envoierent il / .xx. chevaus chargiez d’or et
d’argent et des plus granz richeces d’Espaigne, et quatre cenz sonmiers aus
4 chevaliers de l’ost touz chargiez de vin, et mil Sarrazines moult beles pour
fere lor plesir. Et a Guanelon donerent il .xx. chevaus chargiez d’or et d’argent
pource qu’il leur livrast l’arieregarde a ocirre. Guanelon leur otroia et prist
l’avoir. Et quant il orent la couvenance de la traïson fete et pourparlee,
8 Guanes s’en repera en l’ost Charle et li presenta l’avoir que cil li enveoient, et
dist que Marsilles et Baliganz vendroient a lui en France et la se feroient
Crestien et toute la terre d’Espaigne tenroient de lui / d’ore en avant.(172vo,a) Aus
chevaliers de l’ost departi le vin tant seulement et aus autres menues genz
12 dona les fames. Pour ce y furent eles envoiees que, quant li Crestien seroient
yvre, qu’il geussent aus Sarrazines et par celui pechié leur lessast Dieus rece-
voir mort. Charles crut ce que Guennes li dist et s’atorna a passer les porz de
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 70 ]] 
Cire por revenir en France et en prist conseil a Ganelon. Puis conmanda li
16 rois a ses meilleurs barons a fere l’arieregarde, a Rollant son neveu qui quens
estoit dou Mans et sires de Blaives, et avec lui les plus hauz homes de l’ost; et
si ot .xx. mile Crestiens. Einsint fu fet conme li rois conmanda par le conseil
Guanelon. Ha! / Dieus! com felonesse traïson, et com male!(b) Et bien doit
20 estre comparee a la traïson Judas! Li rois Charle s’en ala devant et lessa
Rollant son neveu et sa gent en l’arieregarde. Mes pource que li Crestien
furent la nuit yvre dou fort vin, si prirent les Sarrazines et jurent avec eles et
aus Françoises dont assez y avoit et firent fornicacion, par coi Dieus souffri
24 qu’il receussent martir le jour. Que vous diroie plus?


Endementiers que Charles passoit les porz avec .xx. mile Crestiens et avec
Ganelon et Tourpin et ses barons, et que que Rollant et li .xii. per fesoient
l’arieregarde a .xx. mile homes,(173ro,a) Marsilles et Ba/liganz leur vindrent sus sou- [[3]]
dainement4 dainement a .xlii. mile Sarrazins, et issirent d’un bois au jour parant, et ainsint
estoient repost es montaignes et es valees par deus jourz, et tout par le conseil
Ganelon. Et firent .ii. batailles rengiees, l’une partie de .xx. mile Turs, l’autre
de .xxii. mile.
Cele qui fu de .xx. mile asambla premierement, et ne s’en
8 donerent garde li nostre jusques il les asaillirent par derriere et comencierent
a ferir. Li nostre retornerent seur euls et conmença la bataille des le matin
jusques au vespre, si que de touz les .xx. mile Sarrazins n’en eschapa pié.
Aprés les desconfiz asambla l’autre eschiele de Sarrazins et furent .xxii. mi/le.
(b) 12 Li nostre, qui devant ce furent lassé, ne porent l’estour souffrir ne endurer car
il estoient lassé et traveillié, et leur armes rompues, si les couvint morir en
deffendant. Einsint furent ocis touz nos bons chevaliers que onques n’en
eschapa que Rollant et Baudoyn son frere et Tierri, l’escuier Rollant. Baudoyn
16 et Tierri s’atapirent par le bois quant il furent de la bataille eschapé, et puis
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 71 ]] 
vindrent il ariere. Dont se trerent li Sarrazin ariere une grant liue. Ci endroit
doit en demander pourcoi Nostre Sires soufri ceuls morir em bataille qui
n’orent fet fornicacion: car il ne vost pas qu’il reperassent en leur païs que par
20 aventure plus pechas/sent et plus griefment et leur vost rendre loier de martire
pour leur deserte.(173vo,a) Ceuls qui fornicacion avoient fete soufri il a morir car il
vost qu’il purjassent par martire cel pechié. Cil qui furent yvre senefient les
prestres et les homes de religion qui combatent contre les vices a qui il ne
24 loist, ne ne doivent, estre yvre ne a fames abiter, et se il le font, sachent qu’il
seront destruit.


Quant la bataille fu fete et Rollant poursivi les Sarrazins qui estoient
auques loing de lui, il trouva .i. Sarrazin let et noir, et moult las estoit de la
bataille et s’aloit defuiant par le bois. Rollant le prist si le lia moult fort a .i.
4 ar/bre et le lessa.(b) Dont monta Rollant en .i. mont et esgarda les Sarrazins et
vit que moult en y avoit. Lors revint ariere a la voie de Roncevaus. Par la
aloient cil qui les porz voloient passer. Puis sona Rollant son cor, et par
l’oïe dou cor se rasamblerent a lui .c. Crestien qui s’estoient mucié par le bois.
8 Avec ceuls s’en vint Rollant ariere jusque a celui qu’il avoit a l’arbre lié. Il le
deslia et trest s’espee seur son chief et dist: “Se tu viens avec moi et me
moustres Marsille, je t’en lerai aler, et se tu ne le fez, je t’ocirrai.” Encore
ne connessoit pas Rollant Marsille. Li Sarrasins ala avec lui et li moustra
12 Marsille / entre les Sarrazins et li dist:(174ro,a) “Veez le la seur ce cheval rous a cel
escu reont.” Dont lessa Rollant le Sarrazin aler, et a tant de gent conme il
avoit se feri entre les Sarrazins, et en choisi .i. qui plus granz estoit que li
autre, et le feri si que a .i. seul cop ocist lui et le cheval, et l’espee coula
16 jusque en terre, et la moitié dou chevalier et dou cheval chaï a destre et
l’autre a senestre.


Quant li autre Sarrazin virent ce cop, si lessierent Marsille a pou des siens
et s’en foïrent. Dont vint Rollant si se feri entre les Sarrazins qui Marsille
avoient enclos,(b) et feroit a destre et a senestre et acraventoit / quanque il
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 72 ]] 
4ataignoit, et Marsille s’en cuida foir, mes Rolland l’ocist a .i. cop. La furent
ocis li cent compaignon, et Rollant meismes fu navrez de .iiii. lances, et de
haches, d’espees et de darz, et tant fu feruz de pierres et defroissiez de maces
que a painnes escapa il vis.


Quant Baliganz sot la mort de son frere, si s’en foï. Baudoyn, le frere
Rollant, et Tierri, son escuier, s’en aloient par le bois muçant ça et la, et
autres Crestiens; et li autre passoient les porz. Mes Charles, qui ja les avoit
4 passez, ne savoit pas que avenu estoit. Rollant, qui las estoit de la bataille qu’il
avoit fete, touz seus,(174vo,a) tristes et dolans por la mort de tant preudomes et affliz
et malmis des plaies dont il avoit moult, s’en vint au mieulz qu’il pot jusque
aus piez des porz de Cire touz seus, et descendi jouste une pierre de marbre
8 desouz .i. arbre en .i. pré moult plain d’erbe. Encore avoit il sa bone espee
Durandal. Il la trest et tint en sa main et l’esgarda; a granz pleurs et a criz dist
ainsint conme nous entendons par les paroles Tierri, son escuier, qui l’oï et le
tesmoigna. Et dist Rollant en sa plainte:

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 73 ]] 


Ha! bone espee tres bele! la riens que je plus amoie, en longor droituriere,
tres ferme de force, de poing et de heult d’yvoire blanche resplendissant, de
croiz d’or, et pardesus / avironee des hauz nons Nostre Seigneur,(b) trenchant et
4 ague sus toutes autres espees et riche de la vertu Nostre Seigneur! A qui avras
tu mestier d’ore en avant? Qui te tendra mes? Ja ne sera veincuz qui t’avra,
ne ne doit craindre son anemi, ne fantosme ne li puet mal fere, car tu es
aceinte de la divine aïde Dieu! Par toi est destruite la gent sarrazinne! Par toi
8 est essauciee la deité et la loi Dieu et la loi crestienne, et le glorieus non
Nostre Seigneur est par toi essauciez! Espee tres beneuree, a qui nule ne fu
onques pareille ne jamés ne sera, cil qui te fist ne fist onques la pareille! Qui
de toi fu na/vrez ne pot garir.(175ro,a) Se tu d’ore en avant viens en mains de mauvés
12 ne de couart ne de Sarrazins, certes, moult en serai dolenz.” Par iteus paroles
se plaignoit il por ce que s’espee ne venist en mains de Sarrazins. Et feri en la
pierre de marbre par trois foiz pource que brisier la voloit. Que vous diroie
je plus? En .ii. moitiez fendi la pierre que onques l’espee mal n’en ot.


Dont conmença Rollant a sonner son cor pource que aucuns Crestiens
qui fust ou bois repost venist a lui et fust a sa mort et preist s’espee et son
cheval.(b) Lors corna son cor par tel vertu que si grant alainne en / issi que le cor
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 74 ]] 
4 fendi par mi, et si dist en et cuide que les voinnes dou col Rollant li rompirent.
Cele voiz dou cor emporta li anges jusques aus oreilles Charlemainne qui ses
tentes avoit fichiees, il et son ost, en une valee qu’en apele la Val Charle; et y
avoit .viii. luies de la ou Rollant gisoit vers Gascoigne. Dont vost Charles
8 retorner pour secourre son neveu et ses genz. Mes Ganelon, qui bien savoit
s’aventure, li dist: “Sire! Ne retornez! car Rollant, vostre neveu, sielt bien
chascun jour buisiner pour pou d’achoison, et sachiez qu’il n’a ore mestier
de vostre aide, ainz chace a aucune beste par cel bois, et pour ce va il ore
12 cornant.” Ha! Deus! / tant sont mauvés et felon li conseil de Judas! Rollant,
(175vo,a) qui moult avoit grant soif, se coucha a terre, et Baudoin, son frere, y vint. Et
Rollant li fist signe qu’il avoit grant soif et qu’il li queist de l’iaue pour boivre.
Baudoin ala ça et la, mes il n’en pot point trover, ainz revint a lui. Et quant il
16 le vit pres de morir, si le beneÿ et ot poour que paiens ne venissent; si prist
l’espee Rollant et monta sus son cheval et ala aprés l’ost Charles. Quant
Baudoin s’en fu partiz, lors y vint Thierri, son escuier, qui li dist qu’il li
garnissist son cors de foi et de confession. Rollant avoit cel jor meismes au
20 matin, ainz qu’il entrast em batail/le,(b) reçut corpus domini aus prestres de
l’ost dont moult y avoit, et ce estoit la coustume que li esvesque et li prestre,
le jour qu’il se cremoient, les conmenioient. Rollant leva ses eulz haut et dist
tieus paroles si conme Tierri le tesmoigne que le vit et oï:

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 75 ]] 


“Sire Jhesu Crist! pere espiritable! pour qui foi et creance avancier j’ai
mon païs lessié et ving en ces diverses contrees et estranges pour essaucier
crestienté, meintes batailles ai soufertes et fetes contre ceste gent mescreant
4 par t’aide, et fain et soif enduré, et en ai soufert plus que je ne diroie. A toi,
Sire Dieus, en cest / point conmant je l’ame de moi.(176ro,a) Si veraiement conme tu
daignas nestre de la Vierge Marie pour passion sofrir, et morir et resouciter
pour touz homes, si voirement delivre la moie ame de la voie d’enfer et me
8 pardone, Sire, ce que je t’ai mesfet et reçoif m’ame et met em pardurable
repos. Tu ies cil qui nus cors ne perist, ainçois est mués en mieulz vaillanz.
Sire Dieus! qui desis: ‘Je ne vueil mie la mort dou pecheeur mes la vie,’ je
croi de cuer et rejehis de bouche que pour ce veuls tu trere l’ame de cest
12 cors que tu la faces vivre en meilleur vie. Cest sens, cest entendement, avra
ele en/core moult meilleur de ce que ele repose en cest cors.”(b) Puis prist la
pel d’entre ses deus mameles et la char d’endroit son cuer si conme Tierri le
disoit, puis dist criant et plorant: “Jhesu Crist, Filz Dieu et de la Vierge
16 Marie! de tout mon cuer rejehis et croi et sai que mes Rachetierres vis, et au
jour dou juise resouciterai de terre et en ceste char meismes verrai mon
Sauveeur.” Einsint dit par trois foiz. Puis mist sa main a ses eulz et dit: “Cist
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 76 ]] 
oeil le verront.” Aprés ouvri ses eulz et esgarda le ciel et seigna son cors et
20 ses membres et dist: “Toutes choses terriennes ne valent riens au regart des
esperitueus,(176vo,a) car je / voi ce que eulz ne pueent veoir ne bouche dire ne cuer
penser, c’est la joie des cieuls que Deus apareille a ceuls qui l’aiment.” Lors
estendi ses mains et dist ceste priere pour touz ceuls qui estoient mort avec lui
24 en la bataille:


“Sire Dieus! la vostre misericorde soit hui esmeue seur touz ceuls qui
martire ont receu avec moi en la bataille pour ta loi essaucier, quar il sont
mort pour l’amor de toi. Et tu vueilles eslaver les ordures de leur pechiez et ne
4 suefre que la mort d’enfer ait en euls part. Envoie tes anges seur euls qui les
ames enporteront et les ostent des painnes d’enfer et les metent en la grant
clarté de paradis / si qu’il puissent avec toi et avec tes sainz martirs regner
sanz fin,(b) qui vis et regnes Dieus Peres et Filz et Sainz Esperiz per omnia secula
8 seculorum. Amen.”


A ces paroles s’en issi l’ame dou cors le glorieus martir Rollant et fu
portee des anges en la celestiele compaignie ou ele sera parmenablement par
la merite de sa deserte et fu conjointe avec les sainz martirs.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 77 ]] 


Que vous diroie je plus? Endementiers que la beneuree arme de Rollant
s’en issoit dou cors, je, Tourpins, arcevesques de Rains, celebroie messe des
feus Dieu devant Monseigneur en la / Valee Charlon en la .xvi. kalande de
4 juing,(177ro,a) et fui raviz en esperit et chanz et sons moult douz en l’air et ne
savoie que ce estoit, et montoient aus cieuls. Aprés ce oï je granz ullemenz
d’ours et de lyons et de chiens et de pors et d’asnes, et glatissoient et deme-
noient grant noise, et estoient maligne esperit qui estoient chargiez de proie. Je
8 leur demandai que ce estoit qu’il portoient, et il respondirent: “Nos portons
le roi Marsille en enfer et toutes ses gens, et Michieus, li arcanges, avec ses
anges emporte l’ame de vostre buisinier et de ses compaignons em paradis.”
Quant / je oi la messe finee,(b) je ving a monseigneur le roy Charle et li dis:
12 “Sire, sachiez que saint Michiel emporte l’ame de vostre neveu Rollant em
paradis, et li deable emportent l’ame de Marsille et des siens en enfer, et li
nostres sont sauf, mes je ne sai de quel mort il sont mort.”


Endementieres que je parloie au roy sifetement, es vous Baudoin sus le
cheval Rollant, son frere, et aportoit son cor et s’espee moult dolanz. Et
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 78 ]] 
Thierri vint aprés et nous conta la bataille et toute l’aventure, et coment il
4 lessa Rollant gisant encoste le perron et si penoit a la mort. Lors conmença
li / pleurs et li criz par tote l’ost et retornerent tuit.(177vo,a) Premierement trovasmes
Rollant mort gisant envers, et tenoit ses mains croisiees seur son piz. Li rois
Charles se lessa cheoir seur le cors de si haut conme il estoit, a granz criz et
8 pleurs et soupirs, et conmença ses poinz a tordre et ses cheveus a tirer et sa
barbe a errachier et sa face a esgratiner a ses ongles et conmença a plorer et a
crier ensamble et dist:


“Ahi! biau niés Rollant! Destre braz de mon cors! Enneur de France!
Espee de joustice! Hante qui ne pot onques fraindre! Hauberc qui n’enpira
onques! Hiaume de salut!(b) Samblant de / bonté et de coustume a Judas le
4 Machabé, a Sanson de force, a Saül et a Jonatas samblanz en mort! Chevaliers
bien creanz, sages em bataille, forz seur les forz! Desfendierres de Crestiens!
Murs de clers! Baston d’orfelins! Escuz de vueves dames! Viande et refections
de povres et de riches, amours de chevaliers! Li sires d’armes! Relevierres et
8 essaucierres de Sainte Eglyse! Langue qui ne sot onques mentir! Droituriers
en jugement! Quens nobles seur François! Dus et mareschauz des olz qui
contre Sarrazins chevauchoient! Pourcoi t’amené je morir en estranges con-
trees? Pourcoi te voi je ci / mort? Pourcoi ne muir je avec toi?(178ro,a) Pourcoi m’as
12 tu lessié vain et tristre derriere toi? Ha! las! que ferai je? Tu vives avec les
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 79 ]] 
anges! Tu aies joie en la compaignie des martirs et de touz les sainz. Sanz fin plorerai
pour toi ausi conme David plora et dolosa pour la mort son filz
Absalon, et Saül et de Jonatas, ses bons amis. Tu t’en vas a Dieu et nous lesses
16 ou monde. La sale de paradis t’est apareilliee, et nous remanons en vie de
travail. Biau niés Rollant! tu ne nous as tenu compaignie que .xxxviii. anz!
Vierges et chastes ies montez es cieus! De ce dont li mondes pleure pour toi,
s’esjoïst la com/paignie des anges.”(b) Par itieus plains dolosa Charles Rollant
20 son neveu tant conme il vesqui puis. Tantost fist li rois tendre son tref la ou
Rollant gisoit, et li autre tendirent lor tentes ensement, cascuns leis sons ami.
Le cors Rollant fu tantost embaussumez de mierre, et d’aloés partout enoint, [[22]]
et fist en grant luminaire entour et son service hautement, mes ce fu a granz
24 pleurs et a granz criz. Et fist en grant feu toute nuit par le bois, et chascuns
quist son ami ou son parent, et firent fere leur service aus clers qui sivoient


L’andemain matin vindrent tuit armé ou champ ou la bataille avoit esté,
si troverent leur amis, les / uns morz, les autres devorez,(178vo,a) les autres qui vivoient
encore mes a mort estoient plaié. Olivier fu trouvé gisant mort a terre envers,
4 estendu en croiz, liez de quatre harz par mains et par piez a pieus en terre
fichiez, et fu encisiez de coutiaus des les ongles des mains jusque aus ongles
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 80 ]] 
des piez, et touz ses membres estoient defroissiez de maces et de bastons.
Dont leva grant pleur et grant cri que onques tel ne fu oï que chascuns fesoit
8 pour son ami. Touz les monz et toutes les valees estoient plainnes de pleurs et
de lermes et de criz et de doleur. Dont jura Charles qu’il ne fineroit tant qu’il
avroit ceuls atainz qui ce avoient fet et eschapez estoi/ent.(b) Tantost les sivi
avec sa chevalerie et lessa ceuls a pié pour garder les morz. Charles chevaucha,
12 et ses genz a cheval, et le soleil aresta ou ciel, et dist en que cil jourz fu
aloigniez l’espace de trois jourz. Et trouverent les Sarrazins jouste l’iaue
d’Ebre pres de Cesarraguste. Li un se reposoient, li autre menjoient. Li rois
et ses genz leur corurent sus et les ocirent touz; si en y ot .iiii. milliers. Puis
16 s’en revint li rois en Roncevaus et fist porter toz les morz et les navrez jusque
[[17]]la ou li cors Rollant gisoit. Guenes, qui fu a Marsille mesagiers, en ot grant
blasme par l’ost. Charles fist enquerre s’il estoit voirs qu’il les eust traïz,
et / fu seu et entendu qu’il les avoit venduz et traïz par Tierri, l’escuier,(179ro,a) qui
20 l’en apela de murtre, et il s’en deffendi par Pinabel, son neveu. Pinabel fu
vaincuz et fu lors traïnez. Quant la verité fu seue et esclairiee, li rois Charles
conmanda que l’en liast Guanelon le traiteur a .iiii. chevaus par les .iiii.
membres, et le traïnast en en .iiii. contrees tant conme piece en porroit durer.
24 Einsint morut Guanes de laide mort despite et vilaine.


Aprés ce, apareillierent les cors de lor amis pour emporter, li uns de
mierre, l’autre d’encens, li autres de basme, li autres de sel, li autre en getoient
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 81 ]] 
fors les boelles / et les saloient. Li uns les emportoient em bieres de fust,(b) li
4 autre les portoient seur leur chevaus et seur somiers, li autre seur leur espaules,
li autre entre leur mains, li autre les enfooient ilec en plorant, li autre em-
portoient leur amis en France et li autre jusque la ou il leur covenoit lessier
pour la pueur; dont les enfooient par voie ça et la ou il venoient.


En celui tans estoient deus cimetieres de haute digneté. Li uns estoit en
Aleschans a Arle et li autres a Bordiaus, que Nostre Sires beneï par les mains
de .vii. arcevesques. Li uns fu Maximiens, esvesque d’Es,(179vo,a) sainz Tro/phins
4 d’Arle, Paul de Nerbone, Saturnins de Tolose, Frontins de Pierregort, Martiaus
de Limoges, Eutropes de Saintes. Moult de morz furent enfoïz en ces .ii.
cimetieres, et cil autre qui furent mort devant Monjardin, en l’oratoire Charle.


Rollant fu aporté en une litiere sus deus mulez et fu richement atornez,
et vindrent jusque a Blaves. La fu Rollant honorablement enfoï en l’eglyse
Saint Romain qu’il avoit edifiee et si y avoit mis chanoines ruilez. Durendal
4 s’espee fu enfoïe a son chief, et a ses piez fu son cor mis qui d’ivoire estoit et
si estoit croissuz. Puis fu Rollant en haut levé pour sig/ne de sa proesce.(b) Et
puis fu le cor d’yvoire aporté a Bordiaus en l’eglyse Saint Severin. Beneuree
est l’eglyse Saint Romain de Blaives, et la cité meismes, qui tel oste ont
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 82 ]] 
8hebergié. A Belin le chastel fu Olivier enfoï, Gondebuef li rois de Frise, Ogier
de Danemarche qui rois estoit, Arestains, rois de Bretaigne, Garins, dus de
Loorainne et meint autre. Beneuré est le chastel de Belin et la mere eglyse qui
tant bons ostes ont hebergiez.


A Bordiaus, en l’eglise Saint Severin et ou cimetiere, est enfoïz Gaifier,
rois de Gascoigne, Angelier, dus d’Aquitaigne et Lambert, roy de Boourges,
Ge/liers et Gerins, Renaut de l’Aube Espine, Gautier de Termes, Guilliaume,
(180ro,a)4 Begues et avec euls .v. mile d’autres. Hoiaus, li quens, fu portez a Nantes sa
cité. Quant cist furent einsint enterré, li rois, pour salut et pour redempcion
de leur ames, dona .x. mile onces d’argent et autretant de besanz d’or aus
povres en la remembrance de Judas Machabieu. Et si dona la terre toute qui
8 siet a .vi. liues environ a l’eglyse Saint Romain de Blaives, et le chastel et ce
qui y apent, et la mer prochaine et ce qu’il y avoit, en franc aluef pour
l’amour de Rollant. Et conmanda aus chanoines que d’ore en avant ne feissent
ser/vice pour nul home fors tant seulement por l’arme de son neveu,(b) de ses
12 compaignons et de touz ceuls qui furent avec lui mort en Roncevaus, et
chascun an, le jour de leur passion, revestissent .xxx. povres pour euls, et si
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 83 ]] 
leur donassent a boivre et a mengier, et .xxx. messes chantassent et .xxx.
sautiers leussent et feissent plain service de morz en remembrance de ceuls
16 qui furent ocis en Roncevaus et es autres batailles d’Espaigne. Li chanoine qui
adont estoient, l’otroierent einsint, et jurerent a ainsint fere chascun an, et
l’eglyse le creanta pour ceuls qui revendroient au service de l’eglyse.(180vo,a) Et /
ainsint l’ont fet les uns aprés les autres.


Aprés ce, li rois Charles atoute s’ost se parti de Blaives et s’en ala parmi
Gascoingne et par Toulouse, et vindrent a Arle la cité. Et la trouverent il les
Bergoingnons qui d’euls estoient departi en Roncevaus, et par Morlens et par
4 Toulouse estoient venuz atouz leur morz et leur navrez qu’il portoient en
litiere sus les chars avec euls pour enfoïr en Aleschans. En cel cimetiere fu
enfoïz Estouz de Lengres et Salemons et Sanses, li dus de Bergoigne, Ernaut
de Biaulande, Auberi le Bergoignon, Guimarz, Estourmiz, Othes, Thierriz,
8 Yvoires, Bernarz de Nubles, Berengiers, Naimes / dus de Baviere et .x.(b) mile
d’autres. Costentins, li prevolz de Rome, en fu portez par mer a Rome enfoïr
avec ses Romains et avec ses Puillois. Pour les ames de ceuls dona Charles .ii.
mile mars d’argent et autant de besanz aus povres d’Arle et ailleurs.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 84 ]] 


Puis venismes a Vienne tuit ensamble, et ilec, pour les travaux et pour les
painnes que je avoie eues, remés je, arcevesques Tourpins, pour sejorner, car
moult estoie traveilliez en Espaigne. Li rois Charles, mes sires, qui moult
4 estoit afebloié pour les travaus qu’il avoit euz, s’en rala a Paris, et ses genz
avec lui.(181ro,a) Dont asambla il de ses esvesques et de ses barons et / par leur conseil
s’en ala a Saint Denis et rendi graces a Dieu et a saint Denis qui force et pooir
li avoit doné de souzmetre a soi la loi et la terre des Sarrazins. Dont dona a
8 Saint Denis toute France en alue ausi conme saint Pol et saint Climent li
aposteles li avoient einçois donee. Et conmanda que touz les rois de France et
les esvesques qui estoient venu et a venir, fussent obeïssant a Dieu et a saint
Denis, et que nus rois de France ne fust coronnez d’ore en avant sanz son
12 asentement, ne evesque ne fussent a Rome receu ne dampné. Aprés ce, quant
il ot moult doné, si conmanda li rois que chascuns qui tenoit meson en France
/ donast quatre deniers a l’edifiement de l’eglise.(b) Dont s’estut li rois
devant le cors saint Denis et pria pour touz ceuls qui ces .iiii. deniers donroient
16 d’ore en avant, et pour touz ceuls qui leur païs avoient lessié et avec lui s’en
estoient alé en Espaigne combatre aus Turs et avoient deservi par leur martire
la corone des cieus, et si dist: “Sire saint Denis, je vous conmant l’ame de
Rollant mon neveu et de touz ses compaignons. Vous qui estes en France
20 nostre avoez de la loi crestienne, soiés avoés de leur ames vers Dieu Nostre
Pere. Sire saint Denis, toute enneur terrienne vous ai rendue, et ore pren je
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 85 ]] 
congié a vous.”(181vo,a) Il se leva / et issi dou moustier lermoiant et touz li pueples
plorant qui le conveoient a Paris. La nuit aprés aparut saint Denis au roy en
24 avision et li dist: “J’ai prié pour trestouz ceuls qui donront quatre deniers a
m’eglyse chascun an, et pour Rollant ton neveu et pour touz ses conpaignons
requis pardon de touz leur pechiez a Nostre Seigneur, et il le m’a otroié dou [[26]]
tout.” L’endemain le raconta Charles devant les genz. Puis avint que qui
28 donnoit les .iiii. deniers de bon cuer et de bon gré, qu’il estoit apielés “frans
Saint Denise” pource qu’il estoit frans de touz autres services par le con-
mandement le roi Charle,(b) et par ce si furent touz apielé “François” et / la
terre “Franche,” qui devant estoit apelee “Gaule.” Puis s’en ala li rois a Ais
32 la Chapele et fist iluec faire les bains d’iaue chaude et bien atrempee. Et fist
fere l’eglyse Nostre Dame Sainte Marie a Ais, et l’aorna d’aornemenz d’or et
d’argent, et la fist peindre d’estoires anciennes et del nouvel testament et dou
Et son palés meismes fist peindre de toutes les batailles qu’il avoit fetes
36 en Espaigne et ailleurs et fist aprés peindre le pooir des .vii. arz tout.


Gramaire fu premiere fete qui est mestresse de toutes les .vii. arz et qui
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 86 ]] 
nous demoustre et enseigne coment en doit / escrire les figures et asambler.(182ro,a)
Par cest art sont li clerc adroit lisant et entendant es eglyses et ailleurs, et
4 par ce sevent il entendre ce qu’il lisent, car sanz gramaire aprendre ne puet
nus savoir clergie.


Aprés est musique qui les clers enseigne et aprent les divers chanz a
chanter. Et par tel art est le service Dieu moult embeliz. Et fu trouvee par
voiz d’anges; et par li esperons nous les nostres voiz estre comparees a celes
4 des anges qui devant Dieu chantent.


Dialetique est aprés qui les clers enseigne a desputer l’un a l’autre et
connoistre / le voir dou faus et le faus dou voir et le bien dou mal.(b)


Rectorique est aprés qui nous enseigne a droit parler et par beles paroles,
et rent lais et clers bien parlanz et belement et as haus et as bas.


Geometrie est aprés qui nous enseigne les mons et les valees a mesurer,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 87 ]] 
et les hauz et les bas, et toutes les amples terres. Et par la furent contees et
devisees premierement les luies d’un leu a autre.


Arimetique est aprésqui nous enseigne le pooir de conter. Qui bien
justement le set,(182vo,a) si doit savoir quantes pierres il a en une haute tour et quanz /
grains il a en .i. muy de blé.


Aristologie est aprés qui devise le pooir et le cours des estoiles et enseigne
les choses qui sont a venir. Et si enseigne les cheances et les mescheances des
rois et des autres genz. Et chascune de ces .vii. arz a une fille souz soi desqueles
4 fusique est une qui fet connestre les maus.


Aprés ce ne mie lonc tans, si fu conmise a moi la mort mon seigneur
Charle par verais signes; et oez conment! Je, Tourpins, arcevesque de Rains,
si conme je estoie a Vienne .i. jour dedenz l’eglyse devant l’autel, si fui
4 raviz ausi conme en esperit.(b) Je disoie mes prie/res a Dieu et estoie en cestui siaume
dou sautier qui conmence: “Deus in adiutorium.” Lors si oï com-
paignie de chevaliers passer devant moi et s’en aloient vers Loorainne. Quant
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 88 ]] 
il furent presque touz passez, si en y choisi .i. plus noir d’un Mor, et aloit
8 moult ensus des autres. Je li demandé: “Ou alez vous?” “Nous alons”, dist il,
“a Ais la Chapele a la mort Charle pour l’ame aporter en enfer se nous
poons.” Je dis a celui: “Je te conjur de par le non dou grant Dieu qui vit que
quant tu et ta compagnie avroiz fet, que vous revenez par moi.(183ro,a) Dont s’en [[11]]
12 alerent si tost que a painnes oi je finé le siau/me que je disoie quant il furent
revenu. Je dis a celui a qui je avoie parlé premierement: “Dites moi que vous
avez fet.” Cil respondi: “Neent; car Jaques li apostres le nous a tolu, car il
mist em balance tant de pierres d’eglise qu’il avoit fondees, et tant de bos et
16 tant d’aornemenz d’or et d’argent, que plus poise son bien que son mal, et
pour ce l’enporte saint Jaque et le nous a tolu.” Donques s’en alerent. Ainsint
soi je certainement la mort Charle a ce jour et que s’ame estoit portee es cieus
par l’aide saint Jaque. Car le jour meismes que je parti de lui a Vienne li avoie
20 je prié que, se il pooit estre,(b) qu’il y envoiast cer/tain message de l’eure et del
jor de sa mort s’il moroit ains de moi, et ausi m’avoit il requis que se jou
moroie ains de lui que jou li feisse a savoir. Par ce recorda mesire quand il
giut el lit de la mort de ce que je li avoie requis, et commanda .i. cavalier de
24 sa maisnie ançois qu’il morust que, tantost qu’il seroit ensevelis, le me venist
[[25]]dire. Qu’en diroie je plus? .xv. jors apriés sa mort seu je par cel mesage que
[[26]]des lors qu’il parti d’Espaigne amaladi li rois et fu morz ou jour et en l’eure
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 89 ]] 
que je oi veue l’avision de lui, si fu en la quinte kalande de fevrier, en l’an de
28 l’incarnacion Dieu le Pere .viii. c. et .xiiii. et fu enfoïz en l’eglyse ma dame
Sainte Marie la Reonde a Ais la Chapele qu’il avoit fondee et edifiee. Je,
Tourpins, oï deviser et soi les signes qui estoient avenuz devant et si furent


Le soleil et la lune par .vii. jourz furent continuelment nerci et mué. Ses
nons qui fu escriz et painz a or musique sus le chancel de l’eglyse par soi
meismes esfaça.(183vo,a) Li porches qui estoit entre la sale et la / chapele par ou en
4 aloit a l’eglyse chaï le jor de l’Acenssion devant sa mort. .I. pont de fust
qu’il avoit fet fere et haut et grant a Maience par .vii. anz s’en ala touz aval
l’iaue. Devant le roy meismes, si conme il s’en aloit d’un leu en autre, oscurci
et atenebri li jourz, et une flambe passa devant lui et vint vers destre et passa
8 a senestre. Li rois en ot tel poour qu’il chaï de son cheval d’une part et li
resnes qu’il tenoit kaï d’autre part. Si chevalier l’en releverent.
Et puis que
cil signe avindrent, ne vesqui il pas granment. Bien puet en savoir, et je bien
le sai, qu’il est en la ce/lestiele compaignie,(b) et par lui savons nos que grant
12 aumosne et haute et bele est de sainte eglyse fere edefier.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 90 ]] 


Bons est li biens que nous vous racontons .i. grant miracle que Dieus fist
por Rollant et pour sa priere a sa vie. Rollant, avec grant plenté de gent, avoit
asis Granopole et y fu a siege bien .vii. anz. .I. jour li vindrent nouveles que li
4 rois Charles, ses oncles, estoit asis de Sarrazins en une tour a Nourmaise en la
contree de trois rois, de Gandlois et de Sesnes et de Frisons et d’autres genz
assez. Charles, a cel tans que je di,(184ro,a) manda Rollant son neveu / qu’il le se-
coureust et delivrast. Rollant fu moult angoisseus de son oncle secourre et
8 moult dolenz estoit quant ainsint li couvenoit lessier le siege ou il avoit tant
sis et tant traveillié et pené, et volentier l’eust mise a la loi crestiene. Moult
doit estre bien partout loee la valeur de Rollant et bien doit on ouvrer
si conme il ouvra et la et ailleurs. Par trois jourz et par trois nuiz fu il la en
12 oroisons qu’il ne menja ne ne but se pou non, et apela Deu en s’aide et dist:
“Sire Dieus! qui en trois parz trenchas la Rouge Mer et conduisis parmi le
pueple Israël et tre/buchas le roy Pharaon en cele mer avec toute s’ost!(b) Sire
Dieus! qui les murs de Jericho feis cheoir par le son des buisines sanz ce que
16 nus les atouchast! Sire Deus pieus et verais! destrui les murs et abat de ceste
cité par ta poissance et destrui la gent paienne qui ne te croient, ou tu fez
qu’ele soit convertie a ta loi et sachent qu’il n’est dieu fors Toi!” Que diroie
je plus? Par la volenté Nostre Seigneur, avec la priere de Rollant, fondirent li
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 91 ]] 
20mur de Granopole et li paien furent pris et achetivé et mort, et li auquant
furent baptisié. Rollant avec sa gent ala au secours Charle et le delivra et osta
des mains aus Sarrazins.(184vo,a) /


Tourpins, li bons arcevesques, martir Nostre Seigneur, aprés la mort
Charle vesqui moult petit et demora a Vienne tant que par les doleurs et par
les painnes que il avoit eues en Espaigne si amaladi et morut moult belement
4 et fu enfoï d’autre part le Rosne devers France vers oriant en une eglyse. Ses
cors i fu trovez au tans ui, ensepeli en .i. moult biau sarqueu et moult riche, et
estoit vestuz de moult biaus aornemenz conme arcevesques. D’ilec fu il ostez
et aportez en une autre eglyse en la cité, et la est il encore et a la coronne des
8 cieus, ce savons nos bien car il l’aquist en terre et devons bien croire que cil
qui reçurent / martire en Espaigne et en Roncevaus sont coronné devant Dieu.
(b) Charles, Tourpins: pour ce s’il ne furent ocis en Espaigne ne sont il mie
mains parçonnier de la gloire Dieu, car li apostres dit que se il furent compaignon
12 en paines ausi sont il compaignon en desertes. Rollant: cist moz nous dit
autretant conme “rolles de science.” Oliviers senefie “ber et verais escuz de
misericorde,” car il fu sages et hardiz et frans et deboneres seur touz. Charles
senefie “lumiere de char,” car il fu seur touz rois posteïz et sires deseur touz
16 aprés Dieu tant conme il dura. Tourpins senefie ausi conme “turcoples”:
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 92 ]] 
sages et douz / et biaus, car ledes oevres haoit et vilainnes paroles durement,
(185ro,a) et moult amoit Dieu et cremoit. En la .xvi. kalende de juignet est leur anni-
versaire. Adont doit en fere plenier servise pour euls des mors, et non mie
20 tant seulement pour euls mes pour touz ceuls qui en Surie et en Grifonnie et
en Espaigne et ailleurs sont mort pour l’enneur Dieu avancier.


Ci poez vous savoir et oïr coment il avint en Espaigne aprés la mort
Charle. Uns granz sires que l’en apeloit l’aumaçour de Cordres vint avant et
dit qu’il voloit avoir toute la terre que Charles avoit tolue aus Sarrazins.(b) Dont
4 asam/bla ses olz et ala toute la terre degastant par Espaigne ça et la et vint
jusques a monseigneur Saint Jacque et prist et roba quanque il trova en
l’eglyse, et livres et galices et dras de soie et toute rien, et firent el moustier
estables a leur chevaus et firent leur besoignes partout vilainement par coi
8 l’une partie de ceuls covint morir, car pardesouz leur sailloit le sanc et les
boelles par le conmandement saint Jacque et li autre avugloient. Qu’en diroie
je plus? Li aumaçours meismes fu entrepris d’autretel maladie et fu avuglez,
mes par le conseil d’un prestre de l’eglyse conmença a apeler l’aide Dieu et
12 dist: / Dieus des Crestiens! Deus Sainz Peres! Deus seur toutes choses!(185vo,a) se tu
me renz santé, je ne mesferé jamés riens encontre toi et renoierai Mahonmet
mon dieu, ne jamés ou mostier Saint Jaque rapine ne ferai. Ha! saint Jaque,
qui si granz sires ies! Se tu me renz santé, je te rendrai tout ce que je t’ai
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 93 ]] 
16robé, et mes genz ausi.” Aprés ce .xv. jourz fu touz gariz et rendi a double ce
qu’il i avoit pris, et aus eglyses et aus genz ausi. Et issirent de la cité, et dist li
amiranz que li Dieus aus Crestiens estoit seur touz les deus poissanz, et saint
Jaque estoit de haute merite.(b) Li aumaçours s’en ala en Espaigne gastant tant
20 qu’il vindrent a une vile qu’en apele Ozius ou il avoit une egli/se de saint
Romain qui moult estoit richement aornee de vessiaus d’or et d’argent et de
pailes. Li amirauz et ses genz roberent quanqu’il y troverent et tout gasterent.
Et quant hebergié se furent, uns dus de sa mesniee entra ou mostier Saint24
Romain et vit les coulombes de pierre riches qui soustenoient les maisieres et
qui avoient les chapitiaus dorez. Par couvoitise prist cil .i. coing de fer et le
feri entre les jointures. Et si conme il le feroit a force enz a .i. mail de fer
pour l’or avoir dou piler, par la volenté de Dieu et de saint Romain devint
28 pierre li chevaliers et est encore en semblance d’ome ilueques, et est encore
d’autel couleur / conme sa quote estoit au jour qu’il devint pierre,(186ro,a) et dient li
pelerin qui l’ont veue que ele est de male oudeur et si put. Quant li aumaçours
le vit, si dist: “Certes, moult fet a honorer et a douter le Dieu aus Crestiens et
32 li saint qui aprés leur mort se vengent si malement de leur anemis. Jaques
Sans Teste me toli avantier les eulz; Romains, cist autres, m’a fet une pierre
d’un de mes chevaliers. Mes Jaques est plus deboneres que cist Romainz, car
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 94 ]] 
Jacque me rendi santé et clarté, et cist Romains ne me veult rendre mon
36 home. Il n’i a plus, mes fuions nous en de ci.”(b) Lors / s’en parti li aumaçors et
toutes ses genz, ne onques puis en la contree saint Jaque ne retorna ne onques
puis nus Sarrazins ne li osa mal fere.


Si conme l’estoire le dit et aferme, Julius Cesar envoia Nubiliens, Escors,
Cornualois pour Espaigne conquerre pource qu’il ne li voloient rendre treu.
Et conmanda qu’il tuassent touz les homes et aus fames ne feissent nul mal.
4 Quant il furent venuz en Espaigne et il furent armé, si despecierent et ardirent
toutes leur nés a Baionne et essillierent la terre toute jusques a Cesaraguste.
Mes il ne porent aler avant car cil du pais s’asamblerent et les vainquirent et
les cha/cierent hors dou païs et assez en ocirent.(186vo,a) Cil qui s’en foïrent s’en8
alerent sus la mer entre Nasres et Panpelune et Baione en la terre de Biscaire
et d’Alerne. Et la firent moult forz chastiaus et ocirent les homes et prirent
lor fames dont il orent puis enfanz. Cil enfant aprés leur peres furent apelé
Navars et ce sont cil de Navarre, et dist autretant Navars conme “nons vrais
12 pource qu’il ne furent pas estret de droit lignage. Nadavre fu une citez qui fu
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 95 ]] 
en Aufrique et y preescha saint Mahius l’apostre. Et de cele cité Nadavre si
ont encor non cil de Navarre et avront toutjourz car cil qui les enchacierent
les nomerent einsint. Ci faut et fine l’estoire Charlemainne.



 I  (P2 lacking until V, 7)Rejected Readings from P1

 8  sa bonté

 9  Bahaigne, Loheraine

 10  terres jusques a la mer de B.

 12  aus François

 22  Zehedee

 17  n’lacking (see note)

 18  o. et metre

 1  Ch. ocist (the o is written at the end of a line, the -cist underneath at the end of the next line. The scribe corrected cist to quist, but he forgot to write in a c before the o and a nasal sign above the o.)

 3  iert perie

 8  est enulert (cf. l. 26)

 18  si a bons chevalier

 19  en lacking

 2  Salaneadis. Jadis estoit ainsint apelez le leu

 3  leu ou ou ele

 7  avoec çou que porter en p.Variants from P2

 10  qui devoient -vesques et confés

 12  et de calisces et de s. et d’or et d’a. qui li remeist quant

 12  g. d’or et d’a. et saintuaires qui li estoient remés. QuantRejected Readings from P1

 13  la glise de nostre dame

 14  S. J. a Toulete

 15  Ante

 16  a Paris -et si f. p. a. lacking

 1  (s’en lacking) fu

 2  apiele -et si le r.

 3  Quant li rois Ch.

 4  a aler

 5  demoustra

 6  qui les lais des m. r. -a B., une cité de Basque, od toute s’ost

 7  uns . . . Romanc lacking

 9  cousin que il . . . donast au povre qui gardé l’avoit ce qu’il en a.

 11  cent livres

 12  la v. (de lacking) Dieu -sielt estre -aperte assés

 13  ne soit -qu’en avint -j. furent p. apriés sa m.

 14  et se li

 15  por la r.

 17  ai jou esté

 19  rala -s’esv. s’ot

 19  (et li) morz (s’e.) is corrected by a different hand to vis

 20  cil lacking -et si com les gens parloient

 21  sus celui lacking

 22  r. de diables tous sains et tout vis -de ceuls lacking

 25  (a lacking) .iii.

 26  en avoient portee (en e. lacking) -tuit cil

 27  retiennent -parmenablement

 28  et la le

 28  quirent l’ost a Agoulant (par E. lacking)

 29  sor -praerie

 30  leu lacking

 32  a K. bataille -selonc son p. lacking -.xx. contre .xx. lacking

 35  et si se

 36  Puis i en. (Ag. lacking) -furent o. li Sarrasin

 37  renvoia A. mil contre mil et li sien furent o.

 38  .ii. mile contre .ii. mile et l’une partie des Sarrazins furent ocis et li autre s’en fuirent

 41  por combatre

 42  enf. la nuit -lor trés -desor

 43  je vos dis -qui lacking

 44  escorce -et ce f. -de cels -qui l’endemain

 45  s’esmervellierent

 46  et si les t. -qui remesent

 47  i a .ii. arbres -de cel bos dont

 48  furent -de f. et de sap et d’autres bos

 49  et si ot

 50  mile Crestiens

 52  s’espee en mi les Sarrasins que on

 53  des T. -au soir

 55  .iiii. lacking

 56  et K. repaira

 57  de cels le salu

 58  s’apareillarent

 59  en biens

 61  large

 63  contre (riquece, perseverance contre lacking) lecherie (see note)

 65  la lance

 66  vengeeur -contre lacking

 66  et verde -contre les visces

 2  Meurs, Lemoabite roy de Perse, Terefin (see note)

 1  les S., les Turs, les Moabite roi de Perse, Terefin (see note)

 2  Barre (le lacking)

 3  Auroc r. de Bogie

 4  Aelis r. de Marroch -A. roi de Maiorc -Merinon r. de Mec -Hebraïm roi d S.

 6  cité d’Agene -et si la -v. la a -de gent

 6  Charles

 7  soumiers cargiés

 8  a lui sousmetre -conn., qu’il

 10  s’en ala apriés de la c. a .ii. m. ch.

 11  prés est -l’en p. on

 12  ses v. Sa lance et

 13  sor

 15  Nous s. messagier K. -qu’il envoie a vo segnor. Cil

 16  devant A. -et quant il f. d. li lacking

 17  et li d. -nos a envoiés -mandas

 20  Charle et lor dist qu’il desissent qu’il

 1  parlast

 3  Lors s’en r.

 4  laissiet avoec les .ii. mile chevaliers qui estoient a l’e.

 5  (S. a lacking) armés

 6  (qui lacking) s’en a. -et si s’ -rala

 7  grans os -vint -a Agienes -mois. Au s. mois ot

 9  et il

 10  et s’en f. . . . Gironde lacking

 11  apriés lacking

 12  en vint (adont lacking) -qui dont

 13  et li . . . contre lui lacking

 15  fust celui

 16  es prés -entre la cité de -dejouste

 17  de Karc

 18  l’ajornee

 19  cargies d’escorces et de fuilles

 20  terre. Si

 22  ocis .iiii. mile chevaliers

 23  desous -pié, il fist

 24  de ses

 25  porent plus -et se -cité et K.

 27  K. les perciut

 28  S. bien deci a .iiii. mile

 2  l’at. la a -s’en rala -F. et manda ses g. par g. h. et priés

 3  et mande que tuit

 5  racatant -avec toute -lignie, trés dont en avant p. seroient franc en ceste ost

 7  d. home ne serjant ne sousmis a n. -Tous ceus qu’il sot en prison d.

 8  (et lacking) les nuz

 9  racorda -et les d. -et les essiliés -remist

 10  qui por

 11  lui, retraist a -(et a son s. lacking). Et anemis e. et p.

 12  ceste v. -[J] ou

 13  par l’a. Nostre Seignor et la nostre les -de tous lor

 1  ot K. li r. asamblé -(de lacking) Dieu

 2  et trente quatre milliers

 1  porrés -nons nomer -avoec lui alerent a.

 2  faisoie par p.

 3  les S. -de tous

 4  maint Sarrasin. Les contai

 1  [R] ollans -(et lacking) m. -toutes les os

 2  quens d’A. -et fils -(et lacking) de B. seror

 2  de B. quens et filz de la seror

 3  et mena

 3  .I. autre Rollant . . . .iiii. mile home (l. 5) lacking

 6  O., en ot -(a lacking) .vii.

 7  roi de B. avoit a. -mes or n’ -A., dus d’

 8  a ars . . . richement lacking

 10  or plus -Cis A. -estoit quens de grant 1.

 11  qui est

 13  et L. lacking

 14  Cis Eng.

 16  avec C. lacking -mile chevaliers

 16  Geliers, Vernis, S.

 17  (le lacking) frere -(le lacking) roy

 19  (li lacking) dus

 20  cantera on de -bien est drois car -(y lacking) fist

 21  i fu a .ii. mile lacking

 22  Tenant de l’A.

 22  d’Aubespin

 23  (de T. lacking) et Guil.

 24  homes lacking

 24  Guimars lacking

 25  et Y. -B. et Othes

 27  Cist i sunt que nommet vos avons li n. c. qui furent

 29  ess en terre -si com -Nostre Sire J. C.

 30  enperiere . . . France lacking

 1  es Landes

 2  de .xxiiii. liues

 3  (de lacking) .xii.

 5  puis, Ar. -atoute lor gent

 6  sa gent

 7  rois de F., K. -avoec toutes -corurent le camp -tres l’eve

 7  l’iaue de Gironde

 8  a trois 1.

 9  si lacking -au roi A.

 11  porroit la cité tenser contre

 12  que l’andemain

 13  ses gens fust -issue de la vile

 14  por c. -se li p.

 15  moult v. et trop le d. lacking

 16  paarroit a son plaisir

 2  l. sa gent

 3  a .xl. -des p. h. homes qu’il ot -le lacking -Ch., et estoit

 4  luie l’une p. et d’a. et estoit en deus plains leus mult biaus et duroit

 4  et d’une

 5  dure -et de lé

 6  Et K. li dist

 7  les tu -qui tiens ma terre feleneskement

 8  de lacking

 9  presis mes castiaus et destruisis mes cités et ma terre

 10  m’as -mult me p. -oi parler K.

 11  si s’en e. mult -et en ot

 12  y lacking

 13  que tu nous d. -(nos lacking) as

 14  aives

 16  nostre c. gent -toutes gens

 17  la s. -de lacking

 18  je peuc

 20  messages -et si faisons

 21  et a nos autres d.

 21  le commant -Mahon

 22  qu’il est a avenir

 23  Ch., ce que tu diz est folie, car tu qui tiens

 27  mais vos -les y.

 25  vains h.

 26  tout (est lacking)

 27  les deables

 28  nous pas

 30  Car nous savons

 30  monteront a ynfier -bien lacking -que la nostre

 32  baptestire -sera pas

 32  et venez

 34  se la lacking la vostre loi est plus

 34  plaisans lacking

 35  que la vostre (the scribe wrote nostre in l. 34 and changed it to vostre, but he forgot to change vostre in l. 35 to nostre) -et se . . . soiés v. lacking

 36  en lacking

 37  si (je lacking) rec. baptestire -fu ottroié

 38  .xx. Crestien c. .xx. S.

 39  Et puis . . . li S. (l. 41) lacking

 41  autres lacking

 42  et si s’en

 43  qu’ lacking -qui s’en fuirent et retornerent de la bataille

 44  Dont lacking -Cil lacking

 45  Et lacking -envoiez lacking

 46  Puis mil . . . li S. lacking

 47  et d’une

 48  la loi cr. -et dist que

 49  baptesme -rala -a als

 50  se baptiseroit -lor proia -Li lacking -P. li octroierent et p. li r.

 1  pour faire soi b.

 2  vit ça et la m. de t. et vit moult b. et princes qui

 3  avoec lui

 4  et priestres -autre gent -et si vit -et barons lacking

 5  gent qu’il vit -quels gens

 6  (li lacking) respondi -vois la

 7  cil sunt

 8  et nos d.

 9  ces noir d. et a ces blans d. -si lacking

 10  sunt noir moinne et blanc -qui ne . . . que li noir lacking

 12  Et cil -vestus

 13  et devisees lacking -de cendaus et de samis -et mi conte lacking

 14  (et lacking) mi p. -et mi baron lacking -(et lacking) mi ch. -Puis esgarda A. et vit

 15  se lacking -par terre -mangierent

 16  (li lacking) d. -Li rois K. li dist -gent que tu vois la

 18  A. a Charle

 20  et sien lige lacking

 21  vestu et si nu et l. et vielment sunt de toi.

 22  message

 23  qu’ele valt

 24  faire venus

 25  la bataille

 1  par lacking -malement -furent v.

 2  Et lacking

 4  cele o.

 5  poés vos s. -comment

 6  soufrance -de v. (et lacking)

 7  quant (Charles lacking) pierdi p. t. m.

 8  tant de pule -sera dont

 9  feu p. Quant

 10  repeustes pas -m’a. pas

 11  Dieus lacking -Esgardés de vos que

 12  ne la met

 13  morte, autresi fois sans oeuvre est chose morte et perdue

 14  par le c.

 15  avoit en l’ost K.

 15.  .c. et .xxx. mile

 1  assambla

 2  une autre (qui vint lacking) -(Et lacking) Quant

 2  mescreance

 3  (le lacking) roi

 4  les aclosent

 5  atout son -(et lacking) li rois -(avec . . . fu lacking) d’a. p., li rois Gondelbues d’a. p., Coustentins li provos de Roume d’a. p., Ogiers li D. d’a. p. et li rois Ch. d’a. p. et cascuns

 6  C. d’autre, li emperieres de Rome d’autre part. Ogiers (see note)

 8  tant ala ferant

 9  (le lacking) roi

 10  li S.

 12  la plentés grande del sanc

 13  estoient ens -et li S. que on trouva en la cité f. tout o.

 1  cele b. que la nostre lois doit miels estre tenue

 2  Crestien. Tant boinne foi vos avés -g. le volés. -Et v. poés

 3  vos fera -sor

 4  nostre ciés -si membre

 1  Ch. otroie

 1  et si rendi -sa lacking -et ala toute la voie Saint Jacqueme dusques au Perron d’arge et la

 2  et ala toute la voie a Saint Jaque jusques au Perron d’Argue, et la

 2  se h. il -Mais auquant

 3  se d. cele n. de l’ost Ch. et

 4  si se -arg. et volrent

 5  repairier a l’ost K.

 6  repost estoit -d’lacking -coru seure si les ocist

 7  bien lacking -Ci doune Deus ess.

 8  anemis lacking

 8  lor an. -quant par

 9  repairier au

 11  tout nous est (cf. XII, 20)

 11  Ausint . . . en ont lacking

 2  princes qui de N. avoit

 2  et avoit -a non -a K.

 3  ala. F. volt l’endemain issir contre

 4  liquel de sa gent

 5  furent aparellié

 6  conme sanc lacking -sor -y lacking

 7  par deseure -qui ensi f.

 8  qu’il . . . bataille lacking

 9  estre conneu ne

 10  avec .iiii. mile -de lacking

 11  i lacking -nul -quant il fu repairiés et il vint en sa capiele, si trova ciaus mors et furent

 13  s’il ne -en la b. -il pas

 2  et estoit dou

 4  ne dart . . . javelot lacking

 5  ne nule autre

 6  errant contre

 7  en une av. lacking

 8  .i. lacking

 9  contre -Et quant il vint priés, si l’emb. desous son

 10  voiant tous

 11  .xx. piez

 11  et ses v. estoit de la bracie d’un home

 12  plainne espane -et ses quisses

 1  d’Aub.

 2  desous -(Et lacking) Puis

 3  de R. lacking

 4  et les emp. lacking -sa prison

 5  prist .ii. et .ii. et mist

 6  s’en m. m. et lacking

 1  le don lacking -qui m. l’a. lacking

 2  pria tant et fist proier

 3  (Et quant . . . si lacking) Il oi

 4  le j. lacking

 5  et le leva devant -sor

 6  Ensi com

 7  torna d. sor le c. a force

 9  sor

 11  R. le feri de la soie qu’il t. sor l’e.

 13  et nonporquant -l’espee que il tint li

 14  R. en mi le front et

 20  et gaires -.i. lonc b.

 10  si feri -a .i. tout seul c.

 12  sor sa main (don il la t. lacking)

 15  dont assés avoit el c. et furent ensi dusqu’a

 16  dusques al demain

 17  combatre put after chevaus

 18  il l’orent o. -rala

 19  vint -tous seus el camp -i aporta

 20  et gaires -.i. lonc b.

 21  et r. lacking -(dont lacking) Durement l’en f. mais poi l’en b. -de p.

 22  dont m. y. a. lacking -mult s’ -R. lacking

 25  plus aise

 26  osa -ocis lacking

 27  R. seoir

 28  dejouste lui -Dont li d. R. -ne b. ne piere

 29  ne li faisoit

 30  fors parmi

 31  demanda

 33  si lacking -dist R. lacking

 34  de lois

 35  merci Dieu

 36  loi avancier et ess.

 37  dit il lacking

 38  V. Marie

 39  et fu posés -et au tierc jor d. -a infier

 40  (amis lacking) fors

 41  uns seus D.

 42  uns seus D. -et non pas t.

 43  ce lacking -uns seus Deus -n’est pas

 44  la cloces tu en la creance

 46  dist F. lacking

 47  sunt il

 48  uns seus D.

 49  uns seus D.

 50  sunt iuwels

 51  pas lacking

 52  te ferai veoir

 53  (Et lacking) En

 54  tout est une

 56  et amande

 57  nos alons

 58  mieldre de la nostre -mieldre de

 59  que tu soies -honte p. soit

 60  Ensi soit

 61  a R. .i. colp -il r. le colp -sor

 63  en nule -se lacking -si ap. et recl.

 64  Vierge Sainte lacking

 65  conquerre -mais ta

 66  or en ess. -et ne mie -se leva

 67   et par . . . desous lacking

 68  (Et lacking) F.

 69  car lacking

 71  cité avoec aus

 1  Ensi fu la cité prise que li C. -en la cité communalment

 2  Ensi furent li prison d.

 3  m. em prison

 1  de terme -(li lacking) rois

 2  de P. lacking

 3  et si -la gent

 4  de Granace

 5  Lors ap.

 6  et si i ala tost

 7  fors contre lui .iii. liues loing -et est. entor .x. m. et nostre C.

 8  La p. eskiele

 10 la tierce fu de gent autretele

 9  tierce fu

 10  cheval, et autresi fisent li S. -s’entrecontrerent

 11  la pr. par le c. Ch. aproça les S.

 12  cels a pié (see note)

 14  nos François

 16  lié, et les sivirent le p. p.

 17  a un mont -li Franc

 20  testes (Here, at the bottom of fol. 53vo,b, the text of P2 is interrupted by the loss of what, judging by a comparative word count with the text of P1, would be four folios. The text of the Turpin in P2 as it follows on the present fol. 54ro,a corresponds to our Chapter XXXIV, l. 4, the final syllable of ataig/noit.)

 37  Castele et de Nadres aus Grieus dona Cesaranguste, as Puillois la terre d’Aragone aus Poitevins la terre Alandalus decoste la mer, aus Alemanz la terre de Portingal, aus Danois et aus Flamens. Et (my commas correspond to the scribe’s dots)

 2  la lacking

 12  reconciliez

 10  erives s.

 15  (et lacking) honora

 15  Chypre (cf. XXXV, 7)

 3  sus lacking

 6  l’autre de .xxii. mile lacking

 23  qui abitent

 4  -noit. Here, on fol. 54ro,a, the text of P2 continues, from fol. 53vo,b -et lacking -R. l’atainst si l’o. Iluec f. mort

 7  eschapast il (vis lacking)

 1  de lacking

 2  m. par mi le bos

 3  alcun C.; et alcun p.

 4  pas lacking -av. li estoit

 5  tristes de la / mort, affliz

 5  tristes de la mort, affliz

 6  fu lacking

 7  au piez

 7  as piés (des porz lacking) -et d. de son ceval -lés une

 8  avoit (il lacking)

 9  et dist a g. p. et cris et souspirs si com

 1  La bone -en l’enneur de droiture

 2  et tres - resplendis

 3  et lacking -av. de si haus nons N. S. com sunt li plus grant

 4  sor -avironnee et rice -v. Dieu

 5  Ki t’avra mais? Ki t’avra? Ja ne s. v. qui t’avra

 9  boinne eurouse -n’en fut

 10  fist ne ançois, ne apriés ne forja o. -ta p.

 11  fu ferus ne n. -onques ne -main de coart ne de S. ne de m.

 12  j’en serai mult d.

 13  se p. Rollans et dolousoit -Ensi se plaignoit et feri

 15  que lacking -ot ne ne fu encrenee

 2  qui el bos fust repus -Durendal s’e.

 4  en fendi -R., et li neirf -li lacking

 3  resonna

 5  Carlon

 6  ficies avoec s’ost -Ch., .viii. l. avoit dusques la

 7  Ch. por son n. r. por lui aaidier. Mais

 9  l’av. -ne r. pas -car vostre niés R. -bien lacking

 9  set bien

 11  ançois -a lacking -ces bois -ore lacking

 10  a poi -et s. c’ore n’a il m.

 12  Deus lacking

 13  a t. sor l’erbe del pré -B. i vint ses f. -Et li quens R.

 15  la; rien pot -et revint -il revint et il le vit, si

 16  et prist

 17  sor

 18  y lacking -(li lacking) garnissist

 19  foi et de creance et de c. -le jor m. -au m. lacking

 20  en la b.

 21  et tele estoit

 22  acumenioient -en haut ses ielz

 1  j’ lacking

 4  et soufiers en ai plus -que ne saroie dire

 5  en cest p. put after moi -je lacking -Si v. que

 6  et passion

 7  tes h. -la passion d’ -et p. moi

 8  Sire lacking -et m’ame r. en ton paradis

 9  cil a cui

 9  ne prist -mués lacking

 10  voel pas -la vie lacking

 16  mes R. vint

 11  vielt (tu lacking) ceste ame

 13  et encore (moult lacking)

 14  d’entre . . . char lacking -le conta

 15  p. et c. -Sire J. -(de lacking) la V.

 16  que me racaterés vie

 17  resoucitera

 18  Ensi le dist -ses mains -et cist

 19  et ses m. lacking

 20  coses me sunt viels car

 21  voi par la volenté Dieu chou -ielx ne puet -ne b. dire lacking -cuers d’ome ne peut penser

 22  a apareillie

 23  avoec lui est. m.

 1  la v. m. Dieu -hui lacking

 3  ne s. mie

 4  ait sor aus -lor ames oscent d’enfer

 6  si lacking -les sains -r. en paradis sans

 7  Deus et P.

 1  s’ lacking -l’ame del glorieus

 2  emportee l’ame de tous les angeles en paradis la ou -por (la merite de lacking)

 3  sa destre

 3  sainz lacking

 1  Qu’en d. -boinneurouse

 2  des fils D.

 3  la sepme

 4  oï en l’air chans

 5  es c. -je lacking

 6  menoient

 7  Et ce estoient -malisme esperit -et si erent cargié

 8  (et il resp. lacking) Nous p., disent il

 8  Nos portons ces genz en enfer. Et

 10  emportent -v. b. em p. et de ses c.

 10  l’ame dou beneuré Rollant et de ses c. avec vostre seigneur em p.

 11  Charle lacking -et se li

 12  vostre n. lacking

 13  li vostre sont

 14  tuit sauf

 1  sifetement lacking -sor

 3  toute lacking

 4  si lacking -Lors c. li cris et la noise par

 5  et r. lués tout -Premiers

 7  (de si . . . estoit lacking) et a -et a grans plours

 8  et soupirs, et lacking -detordre

 9  et sa face . . . crier ensamble lacking

 2  qui onques ne pooit f.

 5  et sages -des C.

 9  souz F.

 7  de cevalerie

 8  onques ne sot

 10  amenaie en ces e. c.

 11  Par coi te voi (je lacking)

 12  tr. et vain -ferai je? Que devenrai je? Tu -od les

 13  les lacking

 13  sainz sanz fin. Je plorerai

 14  pour lacking -A. son fil

 17  c. fors .xxxviii.

 20  puis lacking -ou li cors R.

 21  gisoit, et chascuns plaint son ami. Le cors

 22  de R. -de mirre et partout enoins

 22  aloel

 23  entour et fist on son -a g. c. et a g. p.

 24  grans fus -t. la nuit -par tout le

 25  requist -ami et -lor services -aux c. qui s. l’ost lacking

 1  Al demain

 2  morz, les autres demis mors (les autres qui . . . plaié lacking)

 3  mors gisans enviers a tiere

 4  loiés par m. et par p. de .iiii. h.

 5  fu escorciés -de c. lacking -tres les o.

 6  estoient lacking

 7  Dont commença -que lacking -oï com

 8  toutes lacking -de l. et de p. (et de c. et de d. lacking)

 9  ne f. s’aroit

 10  et e. e. lacking

 12  s’aresta

 14  et li autre -Et li rois

 15  c. seure -.iiii. mil en i ot mors

 17  m. a M.

 18  en l’ost -enq. et savoir se voirs estoit qu’il -avoit traïs

 19  traïs et vendus. Thieris, li esc. Rollant, l’en a. ausi com de

 21  et traïnés lués

 22  le traiteur lacking

 24  despite lacking

 2  bausme et de seil

 3  et si -emp. sor lor cols em

 4  les emportoient sor cevals -et seur s. . . . leur mains lacking

 5  li auquant les enf. -ilec en lacking

 6  dusques en Fr. et cascuns en son pais, li autre les portoient tant qu’il les c. l. par poureture; lors si les enf. ça

 1  en haute -a Arle en Al.

 3  as .vii. vesques

 5  Mult grans parties de ces m. fu enfoï -.ii. lacking

 6  et cil . . . Charle lacking

 1  sor -couvers et at. et fu aportés dusques

 3  s’i avoit (mis lacking)

 6  d’yvoire lacking -Boinneeurouse

 10  Boinseurous -est Belin

 11  tant de

 1  G. li rois

 3  (et lacking) Guielins, R. -d’Aubespin -G. de T. lacking

 4  (sa cité lacking) et mult autre Breton

 4  la cité

 5  cil -redempcion de lacking

 7  Et li dona

 6  .xii. mile

 7  en la . . . J. M. lacking

 8  O. li Danois

 8  environ a .vi. l. de l’ -ch. et quanqu’il i

 9  et ce . . . aluef lacking

 9  A., li rois

 10  l’ame de

 11  tant s. lacking -(de lacking) son n., et por ses c., et por tous

 12  avoec lui f. m. -en la bataille a R.

 13  de la p. -pour lor ames

 14  a m. assés

 16  autres lacking

 17  i est. -et jurerent . . . an lacking

 18  venroient

 1  departi -et si -par G.

 3  par Orliens

 2  a Ais -(Et lacking) la -tr. il cels qui

 3  parti

 4  sor lor litieres

 5  sus les chars lacking

 5  enfoïr par les chans ceuls qui morz seroient

 6  E. de B., A. le B. lacking

 7  Est. lacking -Thierriz . . . Berengiers lacking

 8  N., li dus

 9  C. fu emportés a R. por enf. a Roume avec

 10  avec ses pluseurs barons.

 10  et avec ses P. lacking -Por lor ames dona -.xii. mile dragmes d’a.

 11  d’A. et a. lacking

 2  jou T., a. de Rains

 3  Charles lacking

 4  par les

 5  as. K. -esv. et de ses abeis et

 6  et rendi . . . saint D. lacking

 12  assens -deceu

 12  receu lacking

 13  il i ot -ki m. tenoit

 8  en franc alues -li ap. lacking

 14  donast cascun an .iiii. -au redefiement -rois K.

 10  qui erent et ki estoient a venir

 15  ces lacking

 17  deservi la c. des c. por lor m.

 18  si lacking

 20  soiés avec leur

 20  Dieu lacking

 21  je lacking

 22  se l. einsint dou m.

 23  plouroit -convoia arriere a

 24  vision -pour tous cels

 25  ton n. lacking -touz lacking

 26  touz lacking

 26  requis je (see note)

 27  K. oiant la gent

 28  de son gré

 29  que frans estoit

 28  apielés lacking

 29  (frans lacking) de touz -autres lacking

 30  le roi lacking -et por ce

 30  apielé lacking

 31  devant avoit a non Gale

 31  Ais a la Ch.

 32  fisent -tempree

 33  Sainte M. lacking -et si l’aorna d’or

 35  Et en son p. meismes qui prés estoit fist

 34  et de noviaus testamenz et de viez

 36  paindre des .vii. ars toute l’estoire

 1  fu p. painte -qui maistres est

 4  par li -aprendre lacking -puet on

 1  les clers lacking -et aprent lacking

 2  cele art -moult lacking

 4  d’angeles

 1  et a conn.

 2  des faus et les faus

 1  droit a parler

 2  rent l’aise aus clers b. p. et b. et haut et bas.

 2  clers et lais -(et lacking) as haus

 2  dem. et lacking

 1  les vals

 2  et les h. et les b. lacking -par li -furent trovees les l.

 1  Apriés est a. -Conter et qui -bien vistement

 2  bien haute

 1  Astrologie

 2  a avenir

 3  desous

 1  conneue a -mon s. lacking

 2  or oiés

 3  devant l’a. dedens l’e.

 4  ausi c. lacking -ceste s.

 5  qui c. lacking

 6  et si s’ -envers -Et quant

 8  il lacking

 7  priés tuit -s’en coisi -d’une meure d’Ethiope

 9  Karle porter a infer se nos poons l’ame de lui

 10  “Or te c. je” -de lacking -non dou lacking

 11  que tu repaires p. m. et li autre. Lors

 11  r. par ci par moi

 12  mult tost si que -la saume

 13  a qui . . . parlé p. lacking

 14  Il r. -J. sans tieste, cil de Galisse, le

 15  pierres contre nous des eglises -bos et (tant lacking)

 16  plus ont pesé si b. que si m.

 17  D. s’en a. lacking

 18  et lacking

 20  requis et proié -qu’il m’envoiast

 20  de l’eure . . . cel mesage (l. 25) lacking

 19  de s. J.

 25  que tres dont qu’il se p.

 25  car des

 26  si am.

 27  je vis -et si

 29  avoit faite et fondee. Jou

 28  inc. Nostre Seignor .viii. -eg. Nostre Dame a

 30  qui devant sa mort est. av.

 1  jors devant sa mort -furent continuelment verti et

 1  furent converti et mué

 2  qui lacking -sor

 3  esraça -Li porcet qui estoient

 4  en l’e.

 5  (et lacking) haut -s’en avala et ala aval

 6  il aloit et il ert en .i. autre pont, si obscurci

 7  deviers destre

 8  Et par la regne qu’il tenoit d’autre part le releverent si compaignon et si chevalier. Et puis

 8  jus de

 10  cist signe -pas longement

 12  et edifijer et avancier

 1  li biens lacking

 2  en sa

 3  Garanople -au siege -li rois lacking

 5  des trois -Wandlois -et des S. -gens moult.

 5  .iiii. rois et de

 6  cel jor (que je di lacking)

 7  rescourre

 8  qu’ensi

 9  sis et tant lacking -et volentier . . . crestiene lacking

 10  bien lacking -on oir comment

 10  K. et T. -en E. por ce ne sunt il pas mains

 11  fu Rollans

 13  menas et conduisis

 14  mer meisme -a toute

 16  Sire dous et p. -d. et abas les m. de

 15  qui le mur de Jherusalem feis

 17  et confont la gent -croit

 18  Qu’en

 20  li Sarrasin -et achetivé lacking

 21  furent lacking -ses gens -s’en ala -K. son oncle et l’osta

 2  les d. et les travals et les plaies qu’il

 3  en E. et aillors

 4  devers F. lacking

 5  au tans Eusepe le pape en
au tans Eusebele pape en -(moult lacking) riche

 7  encore. La c. des c. a il, ce

 8  et si le devons nos b. c., car cil

 11  furent c. en Espaigne en paines

 12  es painnes -es desiers -cist nons dist

 13  et viers et escus

 14  sages et f. et h.

 1  puis la

 15  sires desous Dieu

 16  il vesqui -turcoples et serjans Dieu

 17  dous et frans, car -laide oevre -et v. p. d. lacking

 18  la quinse -de julie

 19  et adont -pour euls lacking -de mors

 21  pour la loi Dieu

 4  ala gastant t. la t.

 6  et d. de s. lacking

 6  el moustier lacking

 7  lor besoingne

 8  d’aus -morir, si que pardesous -lor issoit

 12  dist, li Dieus

 12  Cr., Deus de saint Jaque, Deus de saint Piere -toute cose

 13  vers toi -et si r.

 15  santé a mes iels et a men ventre je

 16  ne mes -il rendi au d. quanqu’il avoit pris as eg. et en la vile et

 17  li aumaçors

 18  tous rois p.

 19  Li amiraus -(en lacking) Esp. -et tant

 20  en la vile -Ovis

 21  et moult

 22  y lacking -et tout g. lacking

 24  les mestres pilers qui

 24  rices et bieles

 25  (qui lacking) avoient -les lacking -dorés. Cil dus prist par c. .i. quing

 26  outre les j. -(Et lacking) Si -.i. martiel

 26  At the end of a line, after ens comes an e followed by the first minim of another letter, as though the scribe began to write enz a second time

 27  por l’avoir -la v. Dieu et s. R.

 28  en s. d’ome. . . encore lacking

 28  ome. Ilueques est

 29  autreteil c.

 30  qu’il est -li amiraus vit ce

 31  et a d. lacking -des C.

 32  si saint -si cruelment

 33  l’autrier -mes iels -si a fait

 34  cils R.

 35  clarté et s. -cist lacking

 36  mes lacking -li amiraus

 37  (ne lacking) r. -ne onques puis nus . . . mal fere lacking

 1  le lacking -envoia en son tans

 1  Nubilicus

 2  li lacking

 3  qu’on tuast -et espargnast on les f. Quant

 5  lor neis toutes -toute la terre

 4  par mer en -furent arrivé -si arsent et d.

 5  Baiole

 7  (les lacking) cacierent -fors -et en o. assés

 8  sor

 9  Et iluec f.

 10  les femes

 12  qui fu lacking

 13  Mahi

 13  et s’i p.

 15  faut et lacking -de C. et de ses gens.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 96 ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 97 ]] 

Notes to the Text

 [[Prologue].] The table of contents which follows the incipit in the form of a prologue is not in conformity at all points with the text. “La bataille de Fourre” should come after “La mort Agoulant.” “La bataille de Navre,” Nadres in the text, refers to Chapters XXI-XXIV which describe the encounter between the French and the Saracen champion, Fernagu, before that city. The table makes no reference to the battle which follows against Hebrains, king of Seville, and the aumaçor de Cordres, and does not mention the settlement which Charlemagne made of his Spanish conquests, matters which form the subject of Chapters XXV-XXIX. “La bataille de Roncesvaus” and “La bataille de Rollant et des .xii. pers” is the scribe’s confused reference to the series of events which constitute the whole episode of Roncevaux from Ganelon’s embassy to Saragossa to the burial of the fallen French in the cemeteries of Blaye, Belin, Bordeaux and Arles. “Queus estoit Charles et combien fort” has nothing corresponding in the text, but is certainly a reference to the Pseudo-Turpin’s chapter De persona et fortitudine Karoli (ed. Meredith-Jones, Chapter XX) which usually is placed in the Turpin tradition just before the Roncevaux episode but which, in some texts, Latin and French, was removed to the end of the Chronicle as to a more appropriate context. The mention of this portrait in the Prologue and its absence in the text reproduce an anomaly which characterizes certain of the Latin manuscripts of the Turpin from one of which, no doubt therefore, our translation was made (see p. 22 above). the table makes no reference to the contents of Chapters L-LVII, which tell how Charlemagne left the ailing Turpin in Vienne, how a vision of St. Denis appeared to him and led to his conferring exceptional favors upon the abbey of Saint-Denis; how he built the chapel of St. Mary in Aix-la-Chapelle and adorned it with representations of the battles fought in Spain and of the seven liberal arts. “La mort Charle” corresponds to Chapter LVIII with its dramatic description of Turpin’s vision and the emperor’s rescue from hell by the timely intervention of St. James, and also to Chapter LIX which tells of the marvelous events which presaged Charlemagne’s approaching death. “Les miracles que Dieus fist pour Rollant en la cité d’Ais” refers to Chapter LX, that anachronistic adjunct to the Turpin which forms Chapter XXXIII of Mr. Meredith-Jones’s edition and recounts how the city of Gratianopolis, “Granopole,” fell like Jericho in answer to Roland’s prayer and thus freed him to go to Charlemagne’s help against the Saxons. The story is quite out of place, since the purported events which it recounts belong to a period before Charlemagne or Roland had undertaken any of their expeditions to Spain. What is particularly interesting here is the reference in the Prologue to the scene of the miracle as being en la cité d’Ais. The text of Chapter LX reads Granopole and so the Prologue brings
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 98 ]] 
one more detail to add to the discussion of the problem as to the identification of Gratianopolis-Granopole: is it Noples? and is Noples Ais-en-Gascogne, the modern Dax? See further the note to Chapter LX below. “La mort l’arcevesque Tourpin et comment il fu trouvé” tells us circumstantially of Archbishop Turpin’s death, of his burial outside the city of Vienne and of his later reburial within it as recounted in our Chapter LXI; but the announcement contains no reference to what follows in the text of the Chronicle: the symbolical interpretations of the names Rollant, Oliviers, Charles, Tourpins, further examples of what G. G. Coulton once referred to as the excruciating etymologizing practiced in the Middle Ages; no reference either to the mention of the anniversary of these heroes which was to be observed, for them and also for all those who had suffered death in war against the infidels in Spain, on June 16th, .XVI. Kalendas Iulii. The last item in the Prologue, “De l’aumaçour de Cordres,” corresponds to our Chapter LXII which is a translation of Appendix B in Meredith-Jones, De altumaiore Cordubae; but this item is followed in the text by another, of which the list in the Prologue makes no mention, concerning the origin and naming of the Navarrese, a rendering of Appendix C in Meredith-Jones, De hoc quod Navarri non de vera prosapia sunt geniti. It is with this adventitious fable, or rather fables, for there are two, the second one blandly contradicting the first, that the Turpin ends in our manuscript. There follows the explicit: Ci faut et fine l’estoire Charlemainne.

 [Prologue, 6] destrincion. No diacritic marks the i in the manuscript. The scribe does not always make a clear distinction between his n and his u, but he does so here: the n following the i and the final n are made alike.
The word destruicion (from destruere) occurs at VIII, 22, but it is written quite distinctly: the i has a diacritic and the u is perfectly distinguishable from the final n. The meaning destrincion “conflict” is needed here and, at VIII, 22, destruicion “destruction,” “slaughter.”

 [I, 3, 7] monteplier. The form is usually explained as due to progressive nasalization, the o being influenced by the initial m. But it may have been due to a simple confusion in spelling. The o in montem having closed to [u] before the nasal consonant and the nasal consonant then having been absorbed in the nasal vowel, the pronunciation of mont from montem fell in with that of mout from multum. From the identity of pronunciation could arise the confusion in spelling. Cf. the frequent occurrence in Old French texts of mont along with mout from multum.

 [I, 8] mout cremuz pour sa bonté is what our scribe wrote quite clearly in his beautiful script, but some process of corruption must lie behind his silly phrase. Probably he alone is responsible for thoughtlessly reading as bonté, force or nomee (“renown”) in his original. I print nomee as the preferable of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 99 ]] 
my two conjectures as to the translator’s word. The sentence Cil Charles . . . maintes terres is not in the Latin passage (cf. 88, vii-xv), which the translator has clearly tried to simplify. Strangely, his interpolation coincides with the Johannes translation: En cest grant pooir que Charles ert si cremuz et si renomez par les batailles . . . (ed. Walpole, II, 1-2). I do not think we need conclude from this that our translator borrowed his statement from Johannes; it arises quite naturally from the Latin, 88, xiv-xv: invincibili brachio potentiae suae adquisivit. . . . But cf. note to XXIII, 64.

 [I, 10] jusques a la mer de Brandiz. The jusques a seems to be the scribe’s error induced by jusques a la mer d’o. which follows. For so many mediaeval people, sailors, merchants, crusaders, the sea at Brindisi was indeed the sea opening on the east.

 [I, 10, 15] Lombardie. “Italy.” Cf. Mouskés, v. 126: Or est ytale Lombardie and v. 599: En Ytale, qu’est Lombardie.

 [I, 23] Tabarie. Cf. the Latin, 90, x: mare Galileae, and the fourth gospel, John VI, 1: mare Galileae quod est Tiberiadis.

 [I, 25] moult me merveil quant tu n’i vas . . . et que. The temporal meaning of quant has passed to that of a causal subordinating conjunction. The que repeats the quant, a rather uncommon construction at this relatively early date, but conveys also the oppositional sense “even though.”

 [I, 26] rois de terre. The phrase renders regnum terrenorum; de terre is the equivalent of terriens and means “terrestrial,” “earthly.”

 [I, 27-28] que tu . . . ostes . . . et que par ce aies tu. . . . The coordination of the two subordinate clauses seems awkward to us, the first being final and the second consecutive. The translator evidently felt no impropriety, taking mande with the meaning “bids” (you set free) as principal of the final clause and with the meaning “tells” (you that in so doing) as principal of the consecutive clause. The inversion aies tu follows normally on the adverbial phrase par ce.

 [I, 29] La voie et le chemin que tu as veu . . . senefie. We have in voie and chemin an example of synonymic repetition, a device frequently used in the old language, both poetry and, later, prose, for enhancing the style. Our scribe uses it constantly: ceciderunt, chairent et fondirent (III, 28); sigillavit, si seela dedenz et enclost (IV, 5); gentes innumeras, gent sanz conte et sanz mesure (VII, 1); reges, les rois et les amiraus (VIII, 2); desiderabat enim, moult volentiers et trop le desirroit (XIII, 15); affirmans, si aferma et dist (XIV, 47); tondu et coroné (XV, 9); timpana, tabours et timbres (XXV, 13); fides, foi et
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 100 ]] 
creance (XXVII, 11, 13, 15); defecerint, defailloit ou apetisoit (XXVII, 11); secreta, ses secrez et sa revelacion (XXIX, 3); terminari, desclairiees ne seues (XXIX, 16); expedita, ostee et delivree (XXIX, 18); with which cf. soufrir ne endurer (XXXII, 12); chanz et sons (XLI, 4); plora et dolosa (XLIII, 14); force et pooir (L, 6); demoustre et enseigne (LI, 2); destrui et abat (LX, 16); prist et roba (LXII, 5); dit et aferme (LXIII, 1). See Lommatzsch, “Zur Einführung,” in vol. 1 of T.-L., Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch, pp. xiii ff.
The singular form of the p. p. veu (cf. the agreement of the p. p. in l’ame avoient getee, VI, 26) and of senefie is in accord with the singular sense conveyed by the two subject nouns.

 [II, 3] pour qui foi avancier. Here qui is a graphy for cui. Cf. XXXVIII, 9.

 [II, 8] furent em pes “were left in peace.” The translation is surprising. The Latin reads (92, xviii): ad vitam (Karolus) reservavit. Mouskés follows our French text: Caus . . . Fist Karlemaine en pais laisier (v. 4825). We might compare the expression as used here with its use at VII, 19: vien a lui parler . . . em pes, where it translates the Latin adv. pacifice (114, xxvi), and understand it as having the sense of the biblical “peace”: “tranquillity,” “amity.”

 [II, 15] et l’avoient lessié. The le (l’) offers an example of the neuter object pronoun used in reference to an idea implicit but unspecified in the preceding sentence. Cf. similar occurrences to which L. Foulet refers us in his Glossaire to Bédier’s edition of the Chanson de Roland, p. 412, s. v. le.

 [II, 17] qui devant n’estoient baptisié. The text in our manuscript is certainly corrupt here, but it is not easy to discern what the translator wrote and what was the process of corruption. The Pseudo-Turpin’s thought is unclear and his style clumsy. His Latin reads (94, v ff.): Galetianos vero, qui post beati Iacobi praedicationem discipulorumque eius ad perfidam gentem paganorum conversi erant, baptismatis gratia per manus Turpini archiepiscopi regeneravit, illos scilicet qui ad fidem converti voluerunt, qui nondum baptizati erant. In the first part of this sentence, he tells us that Archbishop Turpin baptized those Galicians who had relapsed into heresy after the death of St. James. He must mean the descendants of those first apostates wishing, at the time of Charlemagne’s conquest, to be converted. He adds as an afterthought, with the self-justifying scilicet, illos . . . c. voluerunt and, after that, the needlessly explicative qui nondum baptizati erant. This is, by the way, a good example of the Pseudo-Turpin’s makeshift style.
Our main problem is, why did our scribe write the affirmative qui devant estoient baptisié? Is his transcription faithful here, and did our translator omit illos scilicet . . . c. voluerunt as superfluous, reject the qui nondum . . . erant as even more unnecessary, and express rather a thought in line with the first part of the Pseudo-Turpin’s sentence: qui devant estoient baptisié
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 101 ]] 
“(Galicians) who had been baptized long ago”? This is possible, but, I think, most improbable. It is more likely that he felt quite uncritical of the passage with which he was dealing here. He probably wrote: . . . fist li rois baptisier a l’arcevesque Tourpin, ceuls qui se voudrent convertir et qui devant n’estoient baptisié. What exactly happened to his text in transmission we cannot know. Mouskés is no help:

Caus de la tiere et del païs

Que St. Jakes ot conviertis

A son vivant, et laisciet l’orent

Pour Sarrasins, quant mious ne porent,

Caus fist li rois rebatisier

Turpin l’arcevesque, et laisier

En pais . . .

(vv. 4862-68)

It is certain that Mouskés was using our translation here; cf. his et laisciet l’orent (v. 4864) and our text: et l’avoient lessié (l. 15), but he has nothing corresponding to our qui devant n’estoient baptisié, which may have come to him in the form shown by P1 and which may, therefore, have puzzled him as it puzzles us. Possibly the repetition of qui (ceuls qui . . . et qui) led in our text to the loss of the clause ceuls qui . . . convertir, and our own unthinking scribe was perfectly capable of losing the negative n. As he wrote, the sounds in his mind were [de-ringbelowvān n], the final t having fallen in the course of the thirteenth century, and then, by haplology, he lost the negative adverb in the sequence -n n’.

 [III, 3] iert petite. The scribe wrote perie which may be an error either of transcription or of understanding. The Latin has parva (94, xvii) and Mouskés has moult petite (v. 11984) and there is no difficulty in the form or meaning of the text. Did the scribe of P1 deliberately change petite to perie? As the p. p. of perir, perie is usually taken to mean “fallen into decay,” whereas Compostela is described here by the Pseudo-Turpin as not having as yet begun to grow. However, we have the use of peri in Marie de France’s Guigemar (v. 67) where the callow protagonist is described as peri and where the meaning seems to me to be “of no consequence,” “underdeveloped.” Perhaps we should reconsider the glosses given of the word by editors of Guigemar and the compilers of Old French dictionaries.

 [III, 14] Maience. The Latin text reads here (96, xiv-xv): Malaguae, Hora Burrianae, Hora Quotantae, urbes Ubeda, Baetia, Petroissa in qua fit argentum optimum, Valentia, Denia, Sativa. We can see the correspondences Malaguae (Alagne), Burrianae (Borriane), Ubeda (Bede), Petroissa (Brutoise), Valentia (Valence). In the translation, Baetia seems to be displaced to the next line (so too in Mouskés, v. 12018), and rendered Bechie; Denia seems to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 102 ]] 
be omitted. In l. 12, Hore translates Hora (Barbagalli) as the name of a town, but in l. 13, Hora (Burrianae), Hora (Quotantae), the two Hora seem to be fairly rendered by qui sont deus contrees, but Quotantae is lost, and the two “regions” (classical Latin ora) are indicated as Alagne and Borriane. Whence then comes Maience? From Quotantae? Anything seems possible in the confusion and corruption of this list, but I do not have any convincing answer to the question.

 [III, 18] et s’i a bons chevaliers. The scribe wrote: et si a bons chevalier, with chevalier in abbreviation as chr. He evidently did not pronounce, and forgot to write, the final s of the acc. pl. I correct his error. But we have a more ticklish problem in how to read si a. It may be si a in which a would be a personal verb having as subject qui, sc. Bist, and si, the adverb from Latin sic, would add to et an amplifying sense: “and, what is more, has. . . .” But the Latin text is: Urbs Bisertum, in qua milites fortissimi . . . habentur (99, iv), where habentur is used impersonally: “there are,” a syntactical form which our translator in all probability kept. So it may be better to read si a but understand a as the impersonal verb used without a subject as was quite common in old French (cf. 1. 16 above): “and what is more, there are. . . .” Or again we may read et s’i a, taking the verb as the present tense form of i avoir and s’ as the elided form of se, itself the weak form of si reduced in meaning to a mere connective particle tautological with et. Or yet again, reading s’i a we may see a as impersonal, s’ as se and the i as the locative adverb retaining its full force: “and there are there exceptionally stalwart fighters. . . .” I print s’i a and understand it in this last sense.

 [III, 27] jusque au derreain qu’il l’assist par .iiii. mois. Here derreain is a noun meaning “the last time” and que a relative adverb meaning “when.” The par, like the Latin per from which it derives, has the temporal sense “through,” “during,” “for.” Cf. I, 17.

 [III, 28] pour li prendre. Old French used the strong form of the personal pronoun as complement before an infinitive. Cf. XV, 1: pour soi fere baptisier.

 [III, 28-29] et est encore la cité deserte. The inversion of subject and verb here after et (cf. Lerch, 3, §424) is determined by the obviously felt need to have the sentence stress fall on the noun subject as contrasted with the subject of chaïrent and fondirent and on the circumstantial complement to the verb, encore.

 [III, 29] Et a dedenz une eve crevee. The scribe wrote crevee quite clearly. Perhaps it is the translator’s word, expressing the meaning “burst through,” and by extension “surged up”; if so, this meaning should be added to those
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 103 ]] 
recorded for crever in the dictionaries. In the Latin text the verb is surrexit (100, i), so it may be that the translator wrote creue from croistre. Cf. Mouskés: En milieu croist .i. lais (“pool”) dormans (v. 12092). A scribe copying creue in the later thirteenth century could easily read creue as crevé, and taking it as a fem. p. p. in which the final fem. e had been lost after the accented e, as it frequently was both in pronunciation and in writing at that time, “corrected” it to crevee. I think it more likely that the translator wrote creue than crevee, but do not think that I should change what the scribe wrote here with evidently clear understanding.
We still have to ask how we are to understand a . . . crevee. It is a perfect but, as often in French prose of the time, it has the meaning of a preterite. The p. p. conjugated with avoir here agrees with the subject. For further examples, see T.-L. 1:768, ll. 5 ff. Old French did, however, distinguish the compound from the simple tenses according to their verbal aspect, describing an action as in process or as complete. Looking at the verbs chaïrent and fondirent marking actions instantaneously accomplished in the past, and soloit, the durative imperfect, we can see that the a . . . crevee is distinct as presenting a past action with effects lasting down to the present of our translator.

 [IV, 2] Salancadis. Cadis estoit a. le leu. The rejected reading seems to show a process of corruption. First, Cadis (estoit) was probably lost by haplology; then -cadis was wrongly copied -eadis; finally a scribe made what sense he could of the passage by “amending” it to read as in our manuscript. Mouskés is in no difficulty here:

L’uevre ot a non Salancadis

Et Cadis ot a non li lius

(vv. 6459-60)

 [IV, 4] en caldieu, “in Chaldee.” Chaldaea was identified in the Middle Ages with Babylonia. The words translate in lingua arabica (100, xvii) as to which one might be interested in Roger Bacon’s opinion that Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldee were as one language. Cf. Lucas of Tuy, Chronicon Mundi, ed. Andreas Schottus, Hispaniae Illustratae Auctores, 4 (1608), p. 77: Civitates desertas, ex quibus Adefonsus maior Chaldaeos eiecerat, iste (sc. Ordonius) populavit.

 [IV, 6] le tenoient. The form of the fem. pron. le, representing cele ymage, is Picard. See too the le at VII, 11.

 [V, 6.] After de sa main, the text of P2 begins (fol. 48ro,a): quant uns rois. . . . The variants of P2 from here on are printed in their own series below the series of readings rejected from P1.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 104 ]] 

 [V, 7] Sarradin. The scribe writes Sarrazin(s) for the first nine occurrences of the word. Here, and at VII, 1, VIII, 24, for intervocalic -z- he writes -d- but later keeps to the spelling with z. The pronunciation of intervocalic d as [z] is well known as a feature both of the langue d’oïl and of the langue d’oc; cf. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 7 (1964), 343.

 [V, 10] ruile. The i is marked with a diacritic. The interversion of i and u is of not infrequent occurrence. So we meet with riule and ruile, lui and liu (lŏcum), tiule and tuile (tĕgula), siu and sui (*sequo). Cf. luies XIII, 2.

 [V, 12] galices. The word is a borrowing from Latin calĭcem, for which the Old French forms appear as calice, chalice, galice. The written form with initial g for ch or c leaves us with the problem of what sound is represented by the g: [g], [] or [ž]. Probably the last; see note to VI, 63-64.

 [V, 12-13] galices . . . reperiez en fu. The passage in both P1 and P2 is corrupt. It must have been so in Mouskés’s model too, for he shortened it. His text gives us no help:

Et s’i mist li rois en apriés

Et kalises et vestemens

Et tous autres aornemens.

Quant li bons rois parti de la . . .

(vv. 6521-24)

The Latin reads: eamque tintinnabulis palleisque, libris ceterisque ornamentis decenter ornavit. De residuo vero auro et argento inmenso quod de Hispania attulit, regressus ab ea, multas ecclesias fecit (102, xix-104, iii). Our translator seems to have rendered the passage freely, omitting the bells and the books but adding what was perhaps more popularly striking, the costly chalices and reliquaries. These he seems to have made d’or et d’argent, a formulaic description. His next sentence, in keeping with the Latin, probably began: De l’or et de l’argent qui li estoit remés (or qui li remest), with the verb in the singular agreeing with the collective antecedent to qui, l’or et l’argent. A scribe copying this probably skipped from the first argent to the second, leaving the text: d’or et d’argent qui li estoit remés (li remest). A later scribe emended the singular verb to the plural in order to make agreement with the plural antecedents of qui, galices et saintuaires. The qui li remeist of P2 (I recall that in P2 ei is for e Latin tonic free a; see Introduction, p. 16 above) may well reproduce the translator’s own word, but it is not possible to decide surely between its preterite and the pluperfect of P1. I keep the pluperfect, make what is, I think, the necessary change to the singular number and restore the lost De l’or et de l’argent.

 [VI, 4] a granz olz “with a great army.” The word oz, ost is often used in the plural with this meaning, to denote the whole army made up of its complement
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 105 ]] 
of feudal and national contingents. The form olz is a spelling for oz and is frequently used by our scribe. The o, < ŏ in hostis, had closed by the time he was writing and various spellings were used to represent the closed sound: ost, the most common form, with oost, oust and, since l had vocalized to [u] before a consonant, olz.

 [VI, 11] var. cent livres. The Turpin tradition in general has cent sous (solidos 106, vii). Our scribe is making the story taller: a livre was worth 20 sous. I think we must reduce his story to size.

 [VI, 28.] The reading in P1 makes sense but, apart from the fact that P2 is much more in conformity with the Latin (and with Mouskés), the pronoun le (trouverent) in P1 strongly suggests that its text here is corrupt. The noun ost in P1 is feminine; cf. les unes olz in l. 31 below, so that le (trouverent) in all probability reflects an original in which the pronoun represented Agoulant (but cf. notes to IV, 6 and VII, 11). This is the case in the Latin texts and in that of P2 and Mouskés. The Latin reads: Postea vero coeperunt quaerere Aigolandum per Hispaniam Karolus et Milo cum suis exercitibus (108, vii-viii), and Mouskés agrees with the Latin and P2:

Dont quist Karles et sa compagne

Agoulant, par trestoute Espagne

(vv. 4892-93)

So the text of P1 here must be relegated to the variants.

 [VI, 35] des Agoulant = “de ceux d’A.” The article in des has kept its full demonstrative force. Cf. le jor VI, 44; VIII, 22; XX, 10; XXXI, 24; and la nuit XXXI, 22.

 [VI, 43] l’iaue dont je dis ore qui Seie a non. P2 reads here dont je vos dis ore, Seie a non, the scribe simply omitting the conjunction que before the subordinate noun clause, as was commonly done in Old French. But usage varied: the scribe of P1 uses a relative clause, qui Seie a non, instead of a completive introduced by que. This too was a quite common construction in Old French. Cf. below XV, 20, 23 and Le chevalier de la Charrette (ed. Roques) vv. 4186-87 (Queen Guenevere reproaches herself for her conduct):

vers celui don ele savoit

qui suens avoit esté toz dis . . .

See too the discussion of the syntax in Lerch, 1:222-226.

 [VI, 63-64.] The reading in P1: povreté pour Dieu contre lecherie is certainly corrupt. The scribe seems to have jumped from contre (richesse) to contre (legerie). So he lost richesse, perseverance contre. But why did he
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 106 ]] 
write lecherie? He had already written chasteé contre luxure so that, neither in the list of virtues contrasted with vices, nor as a contrast to poverté, does lecherie fit the context. The Latin text is: paupertatem contra felicitatem vel perseverantiam contra instabilitatem (112, x-xi). His lecherie is obviously a corruption of legerie. Cf. the note above to V, 12, where he wrote galisces for chalices. He must have had legerie in his original but, as he read the word, the sound in his mind was rather a [č] than a [ž], and so he wrote ch. He confused the voiced and unvoiced fricatives elsewhere too: venchance for vengeance (VI, 12), domache for domage (VI, 49). The unvoicing of [ž] to [č] has been noted as a dialectal feature of eastern Normandy, western and southern Picardy, Beauvaisis, and parts of Champagne and Lorraine. Cf. Fouché, Phonétique historique du français, 3:938, and Gossen, Grammaire de l’ancien picard, §45. In Picardy today the pronunciation of sauvage and orge is sauvache and orche (N. Dupire, Mélanges de linguistique romane offerts a M. Jean Haust . . . [Liège, 1939], p. 138).

 [VII, 2] les Moabites, les Perses. The texts of both P1 and P2 are corrupt here, a corruption which seems due to the intrusion, at some earlier stage in the transmission, of roy de (Perse) from the line below: (Terefin le) roy d’ (Arrabe) into the line above. My emended text simply follows the Latin (114, ii): Mauros, Moabites, Persas, Teremphinum regem Arabum. Mouskés too had a corrupt text of the tradition before him, but used it more sensibly:

Les Sarrasins, les Turs, les Mors,

Les Arrabiteus preus et fors,

Le roi de Perse a la grant barbe

Et Théréfin, le roi d’Arrabe

(vv. 4996-99)

 [VII, 6] I emend Charles to Charle here, because the scribe’s form leads at first to misunderstanding of the passage. Negligence as to declensional forms is apparent in our scribe’s text; where the meaning is not obscured, I leave his forms as he wrote them. Cf. Li chevaus Charles at VIII, 23.

 [VII, 11] le pooit en veoir. The le represents la cité; it is the Picard form of the fem. pron. Cf. IV, 6.

 [VII, 12] sa lance et son escu mist sus la croupe de son cheval come mesagier a cel tens. Readers will wonder at this spectacle of Charlemagne disguised as an envoy with lance and shield set somehow, as token of his peaceful mission, on the crupper of his horse. Both translator and a later copyist seem to be involved in the corruption of the Latin text here, which reads (114, xvii-xviii): mutatis vestibus suis optimis, sine lancea, retro dorsum clipeo transverso, ut mos nunciorum tempore belli est. . . . The phrase retro dorsum clipeo transverso seems to have been quite unimaginatively misunderstood by the translator. Retro here is a preposition, as often in late Latin, governing
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 107 ]] 
dorsum in the accusative; the phrase means quite simply “with his shield slung behind his back,” and so it was understood by all the other translators and scribes of the Turpin whom I know. Our present translator interpreted retro dorsum as meaning more broadly “behind him” and so put the shield in the only possible place: sus la croupe de son cheval. He was unthinking too as he rendered the phrase tempore belli with a cel tens, just forgetting that the customs of war are not necessarily those of peace.
But I do not think that we should hold him responsible for putting Charlemagne’s lance with the shield on the horse’s rump. It is more probable that he rendered this plain phrase with sanz or sans lance and that by haplography sans lance was reduced by a scribe to sa lance. So, at the hands of nonchalant copyists, this strange reading passed on to our two manuscripts. It must also have been in the model used by Mouskés. Mouskés was a gentleman who must have borne arms occasionally in war, in the lists, or in pageantry. In dealing with this passage he omits all details of Charlemagne’s disguise except the change of clothes (v. 5041). He must have rejected as too ludicrous the description of Charlemagne setting out for Agen with lance and shield somehow perched on his horse’s back behind him.

 [VIII, 19] chargiez. This is the Picard form of the p. p. fem. pl.; it agrees with les = leur lances. The form in íe-ringbelow for e-ringbelow is found beyond Picardy in a widespread region to the north and east. Cf. apareillie XIII, 14, XIV, 2, and reconciliez XXVII, 12 var.

 [IX, 3] Par grant humilité. This phrase represents the Latin cum summa cura (120, iv). It is a satisfactory translation, though less felicitous than the one found by the Catalan translator: ab gran deligència (ed. Riquer, XI, 5). Our translator’s own phrase is perhaps retained by Mouskés: a grant deliberation (v. 5126).
The Old French translations, other than our present one, seem to have had difficulty with the phrase, hardly, one would presume, because it presents any linguistic problem, but rather because the translators found its literal and plain sense unacceptable. The phrase means “with utmost care,” “taking the greatest care (to recruit every available man),” a meaning borne out by all that follows in the chapter. The manuscripts of the Johannes translation show de toute sa cure (Walpole’s ed., XXII, 4 and note), de tote sa terre, de tout son pooir, de sa seignorie, turning the character of the Pseudo-Turpin’s modal phrase from abstract to concrete. This is also the rendering in William de Briane: (de loung et de lee) de sa terre (ed. Short, l. 370); in Nicolas de Senlis: de partot lai ou il les aveit en sa seignorie (ed. Mandach, XI, 4-5); in the Burgundian translation: per tote sa terre (ed. Walpole, Romance Philology 2 [1948-49], XI, 4) and in the Turpin I (ed. Wulff, Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 16 [1879-1880], p. 9, l. 31) where (manda toz ses contes et ses dux et les haus barons) de sa terre seems to reflect the same understanding.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 108 ]] 

 [IX, 5] rachetez de leur chiés “redeemed in their persons,” that is, “the price of their freedom (from serfdom) having been paid.” The Latin reads (120, vi-ix): omnes servi . . . religati solita servitute proprii capitis, et venditione deposita . . . liberi permanerent. The word chiés “heads” by metonymy is used in this legal phrase to mean the whole person. The variant in P2, racatant, is a gerund. The gerund was indifferent as to voice and is here used absolutely: “being redeemed.”

 [IX, 6] pour aler “by reason of their going,” “in return for their going.” Cf. the Latin prep. pro e.g. pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari (Caesar, B. G. VI, 16). The use of pour here is causal; cf. XVI, 4, L, 1 and see T.-L. 7:1449, 2. The phrase has nothing corresponding to it in the Latin. The translator, quite understandably, felt that the Latin passage did not make explicit the reason why Charlemagne accomplished this act of liberation. Cf. the next sentence: . . . que tuit cil qui yroient.

 [XI, 3] ocis. The Latin phrase (122, v) is: Sarracenos propriis armis saepe expugnabam, but our translator makes no bones about telling us what the warrior-archbishop did; like the other peers, he slew the enemy where he could. More than that, he adds to the Latin et contai . . . le nombre adding further relish to the Pseudo-Turpin’s statement: “I slew them, counted those I killed and wrote the number down to make it known.”

 [XII, 2] Bretaigne. This is a metathesized form, frequently used, of Bertain, nom. Berte, confused by our scribe with the name Bretaigne “Brittany.” It is noteworthy that there is nothing in the Latin MS A6 corresponding to the passage filz Milon . . . le roy Charle. I think that A6 lost these details because of homoioteleuton: nepos Karoli . . . sorore Karoli (122, vii); cf. A1 variant: nepos Karoli, filius ducis Milonis de Angulariis, natus ex Berta sorore Karoli.

 [XII, 4.] The loss in P1 of ll. 3-5 is visibly due to homoioteleuton: the repetition in ll. 3 and 5 of quatre mile homes.

 [XII, 4] en. The pronominal adverb is here used with reference to a person, as was often the case in Old French. So again in l. 7.

 [XII, 8] saestes, from sagitta “arrow.” The s before the t is intrusive. Preconsonantal s had fallen before both voiced and unvoiced consonants by the mid-thirteenth century; it is just an abusive spelling here.

 [XII, 20] et toutjours chantera l’en mes de lui. The adv. mes, here determining the sense of toutjours “ever more,” usually followed immediately the adv. which it modified, eventually joining with it to form an adverbial compound
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 109 ]] 
jamais, huimais, desormais (cf. evermore). But not always. T.-L. gives a number of examples where, as in the present case, tozjorz or tuzdis precedes the verb and mais, mes, follows it. See 5:857, 44-45; 858, 5-9.

 [XIII, 14] apareillie. For the form of the p. p. fem. see note to VIII, 19, and cf. apareillie, XIV, 2.

 [XIII, 16] il i parleroit. It is tempting to prefer the reading in P2. There is nothing in the Latin or in Mouskés corresponding to this passage in our translation. P2 has perhaps the lectio difficilior, but the reading in P1 makes perfect sense. The use of i referring to a person is quite common in Old French, but it is surprising to read i parleroit along with li dona in the same sentence.

 [XIV, 8] que j’avoie conquise a l’enneur de Dieu et a sa loi “which I had won to God’s honor and to His law.” The preposition a in both cases has consecutive force.

 [XIV, 11] Et Charles “Charles, for his part.” For this use of et before a proper noun, subject of the sentence, see Rychner, L’articulation des phrases narratives, p. 21.

 [XIV, 20] et le nous envoia “inasmuch as He sent him to us.” The et here is a conjunctive particle of coordination with causal meaning. It is the equivalent of car and serves as a substitute for the relative pron. introducing a dependent clause.

 [XIV, 43.] The conjunction que in l. 43 is a tautological repetition of the que in l. 42, a repetition common in Old French when a clause was inserted between the conjunction and the completive. The variants show that P2 does not have the second que. Cf. below, XXXI, 12-13; L, 27-28; LVIII, 10-11, 20 and 21-22.

 [XIV, 44.] See II Timothy II, 5.

 [XV, 6 ff.] vestuz d’une maniere de vestemenz de brunetes a ces longues robes. . . . The phrase, rendering the Latin: birris unius coloris indutos (136, viii) means “wearing cloaks of a single color and long frocks.” In the Latin dictionaries, birris is glossed as “a cloak with a hood.” The word is akin to the Greek πυρρόs meaning “yellow,” “fiery red,” and in Latin had come to mean a garment of dark cloth, more particularly, a hooded cloak of this material. The extension of the meaning to creatures and materials and so to garments of the material represented is normal. The plural brunetes used by our translator shows that he understood birris as meaning “clothes made of (fine) dark woolen cloth.” Cf. Le Roman de la Rose (ed. Lecoy, vv. 4303-04):

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 110 ]] 

car ausint bien sunt amoretes

souz bureaus conme souz brunetes . . .

“in homespun clothes or fine.” Mouskés uses the singular, meaning the material, “burnet”:

A ces dras de noire brunette

(v. 5493)

No doubt, the sense of unius coloris was conveyed by the idea of uniform color contained in brunetes. The distinctiveness of clothes of uniform color and style is emphasized by Wace in his Brut describing the appearance of the knights and ladies at King Arthur’s court (ed. Arnold, vv. 10503 ff.):

Ja ne veïssies chevalier

Ki de rien feïst a preisier

Ki armes e dras e atur

Nen eüst tut d’une culur.

. . .

Si rerent les dames preisiees

D’une culur apareillees.

Here and in what follows the Pseudo-Turpin shows the laymen of military rank (our translation lacks mention of these in l. 3; there is an omission in MS A6 due to homoioteleuton, the repetition of indutos; cf. the B text), the secular clergy, the regular clergy habitu atro, that is the Benedictines, and then the canons regular habitu candido, the Premonstratensians. The regular clergy he describes as saintlier than the seculars, the canons as the best of them all. Our translator quite visibly was not faithful to his model. The secular clergy are there with dress and function duly noted (ll. 6-8). Then come the regular clergy haut tondu et coroné, that is “tonsured,” but divided into the Black Monks and White Monks of which the latter, the Cistercians, are de greigneur religion than the former (ll. 9-12). There is no mention of the canons regular in our translation. Then follows the translator’s own colorful addition of the dukes, counts, princes, barons and knights in their silks and satins.
I may add here one further detail of interest. Mouskés, with a zest born undoubtedly of his own participation in many a ceremonial feast, develops this scene into a full review of all the ranks and orders that ever gathered in Charlemagne’s banqueting hall, or rather in that of the noble counts of Hainaut (vv. 5412-5543).

 [XV, 14] .xii. povres. The Latin reads tredecim (136, xvi). The Pseudo-Turpin presented them as the representatives of Christ and the twelve Apostles, but among the Latin and the vernacular texts, though the number thirteen predominates, some scribes wrote duodecim or xii, no doubt with the twelve Apostles uppermost in their minds. Pius Fischer has a different, but, I
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 111 ]] 
think, less acceptable explanation to account for the number thirteen (Codex Gallicus 52, München, p. 81). The Pseudo-Turpin, he writes, here likened Charlemagne to Gregory the Great, who, his Vita tells us, also brought daily to his table twelve poor people. Among these there appeared on one occasion an angel. It is he too who was represented among the humble guests in the royal tent before Pamplona.

 [XV, 20] cil que tu diz a moi qui sont . . . mesagier Dieu. Cf. the note to VI, 43 above and to XV, 23 below. Here again our scribe uses a relative clause, qui . . . instead of the conjunction que and a dependent noun clause. The que here corresponds to the dont in VI, 43. It is, as que often was, and is still, especially in popular French, a relative adverb and as such an indeclinable particle marking a relationship to the antecedent without expressing in its form its specific function according to number, gender, and case. Cf. au jour que below, XVI, 8.

 [XV, 23] Ta loi que tu diz vaut mieulz. . . . See the note to XV, 20; and note the variant in P2 to l. 23: qu’ele valt.

 [XVI, 2] Et touz les povres. Here et is a conjunctive particle conveying the sense of consequence: “Wherefore. . . .”

 [XVI, 4] pour Agoulant “because of.” Cf. note to IX, 6.

 [XVI, 5] font a blamer. The construction of faire with a followed by an infinitive with passive meaning, is very common in Old French. The sense is consecutive: “act in such a way as to be blamed,” “deserve reproof.” Cf. La Chanson de Roland, v. 1174: Cil ki la sunt ne funt mie a blasmer.

 [XVI, 6.] The temporal sense of quant is weakened here and has become purely causal: “now when,” “now that,” “since.” Cf. le Jeu d’Adam, ed. Studer, vv. 181-182:

Molt te porras tenir por chier,

Quant Deus t’a fet sun jardenier.

 [XVI, 12.] The qui is the equivalent of si l’on, a very common use in Old French. See Lerch, 2:324 ff. The relative pronoun is used here absolutely, without antecedent expressed or implied, an anacoluthon which far from leaving the sentence obscure gives it rather a pithy concision. We may fill out the broken sequence with: “. . . faith and law are little worth when there is someone who does not fulfill them in deed.”
For this passage cf. James II, 17; the whole moral is an echo of chapter two of the Epistle.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 112 ]] 

 [XVI, 15.] The figure .c. et .xxx. mile in P1 is surely an error; the Latin texts, P2 and Mouskés agree in the number, “one hundred and thirty-four thousand.” Probably the .iiii. after .xxx. was lost in P1 by haplology with the first four minims of mile.

 [XVII, 2] celui is for celi, with which in our scribe’s pronunciation it was homonymous. Cf. the note to XXVII, 3.

 [XVII, 6] et le roy Costentin d’autre, li emperieres de Rome d’autre part, Ogier le Danois et le roy Charles chascuns avoit sa gent avec lui. This is the reading in P1, with the scribe’s own punctuation. At XII, 22, both P1 and P2 have C., prevost de Rome, and in this they faithfully render the Latin: Constantinus, praefectus romanus (124, xiv). But in our present passage the Latin reads: Constantinus rex (140, xiii). This explains and must justify the li roy C. in P1. The variant in P2 is: C. li provos de Roume, which is also the reading in Mouskés (v. 5639; so too v. 5216); it seems to reproduce an adaptation made earlier in the transmission of our translation to bring the epithet here into conformity with the one used at XII, 22. Where did the reading in P1: li emperieres de Rome come from? Li rois Costentin could not of course be identified with li provos Costentin. It seems as if the scribe of a copy of our translation from which P1 derives identified li rois C. with the emperor, Constantine the Great, and wrote li rois C., emperieres de Rome. This, at the hands of the scribe of P1, or of some intermediary scribe, was punctuated and changed to mean two individuals: le roy C. d’autre, li emperieres de Rome d’autre part. I think we must keep le roy C. d’autre of P1, reject li emperieres de Rome d’autre part as a corruption and reject also li provos de Roume of P2 as being an interpolation due to an earlier scribe in the branch of the tradition now represented by P2 and Mouskés.

 [XIX, 1-2] et ala toute la voie a (a lacking P2) Saint Jaque jusques au Perron d’Argue. . . . The reading is identical in P1 and P2, but it is certainly corrupt. The Latin tradition (142, xviii) has ad pontem Argae; Mouskés has trosqes al pont d’Arge (v. 5673). The other translations of the Turpin are not in difficulty here, though some read porz for pont. The tradition in general has it, then, that Charles, after his victory at Pamplona moved forward to Pont d’Arge which lay on the road to St. James’s. Pont d’Arge is the modern Puente-la-Reina, a short distance from Pamplona to the southwest. Some scribe, whose copy of our Turpin translation passed on to P1 and P2, must have been confronted with an obscurity in his model at au pont d’arge. He would have remembered the passage which he had copied earlier, our Chapter II, 12: Puis visita li rois Charles le cors saint Jacque et ala jusque au Perron and used it here as the solution to his difficulty. Once he had written au Perron d’Argue an adaptation of the context had to follow; so: Charles ala toute la voie a Saint Jacque. We must correct the texts of P1 and P2. The correction
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 113 ]] 
proceeds naturally from the Latin and from Mouskés, though the exact wording is a little arbitrarily my own.

 [XIX, 6-7] corurent . . . ocirent. The scribe of P1, taking l’aumaçour and moult d’autre gent, linked with avec, as the subject, put the two verbs in the plural, an agreement according to the sense as was common in Old French. But usage varied, as we see in the P2 variants, coru and ocist.

 [XX, 8-9.] So St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, XI, 33.

 [XX, 10] trois mile de Sarrazins. The scribe of P1 here uses mile as a noun; the scribe of P2 (see var.) uses it more normally as an adjective. Cf. .xx. mile Turs, XXI, 3.

 [XX, 11] nus is plural; P2 preferred the more usual singular.

 [XXI, 7] en une avangarde. The phrase has nothing corresponding to it in the Latin, which reads simply: F., egressus ab urbe (148, i). Mouskés has En l’angarde s’en est venus (v. 5765).

 [XXI, 11] .xii. piez. Cf. the Latin cubitorum duodecim (148, viii). The number .xx. in P1 is probably an error due to the scribe. P2 reads, with the Latin, .xii., so that piez is indeed used as the equivalent of cubitorum. Below, in giving the proportions of Fernagu’s face, arms, and legs, cubitum is rendered by braciee. It is noteworthy that the translator did not use the word coute, which is derived from cubitus and which is the word used in the other Old French translations.

 [XXII, 1] de l’Aube Espine. The Latin manuscripts A6 and A10, and also Arras MS 163, here (148, xi) show de Bella Spina, though at 124, xv and 214, vii, they all have the usual de Alba Spina. Our translation shows in all cases de l’Aube Espine.

 [XXIII, 2 and 3] ne l’en vost doner congié . . . l’en dona congié. The elision of li, the unaccented dative form, before en is usual in Old French, but it is very unusual to find it elided before other words. In l. 2, the elided form in l’em pria . . . l’en fist tant prier is the unaccented accusative le.

 [XXIII, 50] jumeles. The reading jumeles in P1 gives a satisfactory sense, “alike, identical,” but the iuwels of P2 more probably represents the translator’s word as he rendered the Latin coaequales (154, xvi); iuwels is one of the many Old French forms derived from aequalis. Mouskés omits the phrase; cf. vv. 5974 ff.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 114 ]] 

 [XXIII, 61] il le reçut . . . et il li trencha. The second il, representing Fernagu, was probably accented as the text was read aloud and thus contrasted with the first il which represents Roland. It will be remembered that il served as both the tonic and the atonic form of the nominative.
As usual in Old French, the direct object is omitted before the indirect in il (le) li trencha. Cf. below, 1. 67: et (la) li bouta; XXXI, 6: Guanelon (le) leur otroia; XLV, 6: ou il (les) leur covenoit lessier.

 [XXIII, 64] et dist: “Dieus . . . non mie pour moi.” The passage is not represented in the Latin; but the interpolation corresponds closely to the one which we find at the same place in the Johannes translation, XLI, 1-3: “Deus, ce voiz tu que por nul oneur terrien ne me combat se por ta foi non. Sire, esclaire ton non por toi non por ton serf.” The identity of sense and the closeness of the wording suggest very strongly that the interpolation in our present text was borrowed from Johannes. Cf. the note to I, 8. Mouskés, vv. 6026 ff., gives a more martial than clerkly account of the fight, and allows Roland to overcome Fernagu without any invocation to the Virgin Mary and without her intervention, so that, lacking unanimity in the extant tradition of our translation, we are left in doubt as to whether the interpolation is to be ascribed to the translator or to a later scribe whose copy passed on to our manuscripts, P1 and P2.

 [XXIII, 67.] The loss of the sentence in P1 is no doubt due to the repetition of dessouz.
The s’espee is ambiguous. We have to remember that Fernagu had broken the pact of the day before and had brought his sword for the renewal of the combat (XXIII, 17, 19), while Roland had been faithful to the agreement and come without one. The poss. pron. eius of the Latin (162, iv) makes it clear that Roland drew Fernagu’s sword.

 [XXV, 4] de Sebile, de Gar. . . . The scribe of P1 wrote the de with a capital d before each name of a city except in the case of de Ubele; in some cases it looks as if he wrote the de as part of the name.

 [XXV, 9-10] The reading in P1, la tierce fu de gent autretele leaves the meaning ambiguous. The reading in P2 is better, but not satisfactory. It suggests however what the corruption was which the scribe of P1 rather weakly tried to emend. The translator probably wrote: la tierce refu de gent a cheval; the prefix re was later lost, probably by a haplography in which the -rce of tierce was confused with the prefic in refu.

 [XXV, 12] euls. The variant cels in P2 is interesting, and may well represent the correct reading. It renders the Latin ex nostris (164, ix) (cf. the B text, 165, x: illorum) with the demonstrative pronoun meaning “the former” and referring to the first French squadron which was of cavalry, against which
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 115 ]] 
the Saracens came man to man on foot. The personal pronoun euls in P1 is clear enough but less explicit.

 [XXV, 16] . . . retenir. After this sentence there is an omission in our two manuscripts. The Latin reads: Cumque illae turmae nostrorum exercituum primam turmam fugere viderent, in fugam omnes conversae sunt (164, xv-xvii). Mouskés is translating very freely here, but he has the detail:

Si faisoient, par tel contraire,

Tous les nostres arriere traire

(vv. 6106-07).

The omission in P1 and P2 seems then to have been inherited from their common intermediary. It was probably due to a repetition at the head of the lost sentence of the Quant les (autres eschieles?) which began the preceding one: Quant les (chevaus).

 [XXV, 25-26] et avoit sus . . . vermeille enseigne. With this detailed description our translator rendered the Latin: (plaustrum) super quod vexillum rubeum erat elevatum. Evidently, he had read what was to come in ll. 29-30. The other Old French translations are more simply literal, but the Catalan version, like our present one, elaborates on the sense of elevatum: . . . sobre lo cal carro estave una senyera vermella d’aquells, llevade en alt en una perxa (ed. Riquer, XVIII, 51-52).

 [XXV, 37-39.] As Theseus said of Quince as Quince finished reading the wondrous Prologue to the Interlude in Midsummer Night’s Dream, “This fellow doth not stand upon points”! The scribe of P1, quite subservient to his model and quite uncaring as he left his Danes and Flemings unprovided with lands, gives us a corrupt text which it is not easy to restore. It might be best simply to emend our text by making it conform to the Latin which reads (168, vii ff.): . . . terram Castellanorum Francis, et Nagerae et Caesaraugustae Graecis et Apulis qui in nostro exercitu erant, et terram Aragonis Pictavis, et terram Alandaluf iuxta maritimam Theutonicis, et terram Portugallorum Dacis et Flandris dedit. So we would emend P1 to read: aus François dona la terre de Castele, la terre de Nadres et de Cesarauguste dona aus Grieus et as Puillois, and then put the commas after Poitevins and Alemanz and thus allot Portugal to the Danes and Flemings. But it is difficult to see how, if this was our translator’s text, it could lead to such confusion as we see in P1 at l. 37. I think it probable that the translator understood the Latin to mean that Charlemagne gave the territory of Nadres to the Greeks and the territory of Cesarauguste to the Apulians. By restoring the text to give this sense, I leave it nearer to the corrupt wording in P1 and more understandable as a source of the corruption. Perhaps Castele, cele de led by haplography to the loss of cele and so began the misallocation of lands which gave Nadres to the French, Cesarauguste to the Greeks and forced the scribe to attach the Puillois to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 116 ]] 
Aragon, to give Andalu to the Poitevins, Portigal to the Alemanz, and to leave the Danes and Flemings syntactically and practically up in the air.

 [XXV, 39] Et li François. Et here is fully charged with meaning, which we might render: “As to all of which I must add that. . . .” Cf. again Rychner, op cit. p. 21 ff.

 [XXVII, 3] a lui - that is, “to the Church of Saint James.” The lui, confused in pronunciation with li, the tonic fem. pronoun, was often substituted for it in writing.

 [XXVII, 6] services de roy. The reading might seem to present no difficulty. It would mean, if correct, “obligations to the king.” However, only P1 has the words de roy, in our present tradition. P2 lacks the folio, Mouskés reads quite simply: Et pour itant tous frans seroit (v. 6363) and all the other translations which I know reproduce the sense as given in Mouskés, e.g. Johannes: frans de toz autres servises. The Latin passage is as follows: Et subiugavit rex eidem ecclesiae totam terram . . . deditque ei in dote, praecipiens ut unusquisque possessor uniuscuiusque domus . . . quatuor nummos annuatim ex debito daret, et ab omni servitute, rege praecipiente, liberi essent (170, vi-xi). Why then the limiting phrase (services) de roy in P1? Did our translator misunderstand the phrase rege praecipiente, which repeats with insistence here the praecipiens ut of l. viii: “and should be, by the king’s decree, absolved from all other obligations” and take it as the equivalent of a relative clause qualifying servitute: “(obligations) as ordained by the king”? I can see no reason why a scribe should have added de roi if the words were not in the original translation. I conclude therefore that the translator misconstrued rege praecipiente, that he wrote services de roy which P2 faithfully reproduces, and that Mouskés in his usual free manner omitted the words de roy in his rhymed adaptation of the Turpin.
The other translators did not render rege praecipiente (the Turpin I edited by Wulff, op cit. p. 23, ll. 6 ff., shows confusion here, and so do other manuscripts of this translation, but Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS fr. 17177 reads with the other translations: . . . commanda que chascune maison donnast . . . et fussent franc de touz autres services, fol. 269ro,b). It seems to have been the repetition of praecipiens (rex) ut (l. viii) by the parenthetical rege praecipiente (l. x) which led our translator to attach the participial clause as a qualifier to servitute. Below, where there is no repetition, he was in no difficulty L, 29; 220, i).

 [XXVII, 9] les verges et les dignetez. The phrase et les d. has nothing corresponding to it in the Latin (170, xiv). It looks like another example of synonymic repetition, so favored in our translator’s style, in which case dignetez, which usually bears the abstract meaning “high responsibilities,” might here come close in sense to verge, the pastoral staff, sign of the bishop’s
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 117 ]] 
office, and have the concrete connotation “the insignia” (of the bishop’s high responsibilities, such as the ring, which is the seal of faith). It would thus fit both in its meaning and in its plural form more aptly into the pattern of pastoral staffs and royal crowns. Such an extension of the normally abstract sense of dignetez is rare. Cf. FEW, s.v. dignus and L. Foulet’s note on deintet in his Glossaire to Bédier’s ed. of the Chanson de Roland.

 [XXVII, 10] a l’arcevesque “of the archbishop.” As complement of definition to mains, the preposition a is used before the indeterminate noun arcevesque, the archbishop, whoever he might be at the time.

 [XXVII, 11] se foi et creance defailloit. When there were two or more subjects, the verb in Old French usually agreed in number with the last one. Here we have a case of synonymic repetition and so in logic a single subject calling therefore for a verb in the singular. So fust 1. 12 and vint ll. 13 and 15.

 [XXVIII, 1] la fame Zebedee. Our translation gives the version of this story which is told in Matthew XX, 20-21. The Latin chronicle (170, xxvii ff.) followed by some, though, as we see, not by all, of the vernacular translations, told it according to the version in Mark X, 35 ff.

 [XXVIII, 2] quant ele dit, si conme ele cuidoit, qu’il regnast en terre. The translator has changed both the biblical and the Latin texts here; his purpose will become clear as we compare his version with the account given in Matthew X, 20-21: Tunc accessit ad eum mater filiorum Zebedaei cum filiis suis, adorans et petens aliquid ab eo. Qui dixit ei: “Quid vis?” Ait illi: “Dic ut sedeant hi duo filii mei, unus ad dexteram, et unus ad sinistram, in regno tuo. The version in Mark X, 37 reads: . . . in gloria tua. There can be no doubt that in regno tuo, like in gloria tua, means “in your heavenly kingdom.” But our translator had his attention fixed on the right hand and on the left hand of this earthly kingdom, that is, on Ephesus and on Compostela. So he insists that Salome had in mind Christ’s kingdom here on earth and made his sense and hers explicit in the sentence which he added as an explanatory development to his Latin model: quant ele dit . . . regnast en terre “when she said, as she thought, that he would reign on earth (and asked that . . .)”

 [XXIX, 3] ses secrez et sa revelacion. Here we have another case of synonymic repetition. The Latin has simply sua secreta (172, vi). The accepted synonymity here helps us to see the translator’s understanding of secreta; these were the divine mysteries.

 [XXIX, 10] et tient es cieus seignorie. P1 writes quite clearly and apparently nonchalantly, tient erives, which is meaningless. The Latin gives us the clue to what lies behind the corruption: et in celis primatum tenet (172, xvii) “and holds preeminence in heaven”; erives would seem to represent the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 118 ]] 
scribe’s vain effort to read an obscured en ciel or es cieus. Mouskés gives us no help here; cf. vv. 6422-24.

 [XXIX, 12 ff.] La tierce. . . . What our scribe writes about Ephese is almost unintelligible until one compares it with the Latin. The Latin itself is diffuse and allusive and the difficulty is increased by our scribe’s lack of punctuation. Under examination, however, the passage seems to reproduce more or less faithfully a translation which kept literally to the Latin text such as we know it. Here is the Latin text, which has the support of most of the manuscripts examined by Mr. Meredith-Jones (172, xxi-174, i): Tercia sedes rite Ephesus dicitur, quia beatus Iohannes evangelista in ea evangelium suum, scilicet: In principio erat verbum, eructavit, coadunato consilio episcoporum quos ipse per urbes disposuerat, quos etiam in apocalipsi sua angelos vocat, eamque doctrina sua et miraculis et basilica, quam in ea aedificavit, immo propria sepultura consecravit.
Our translation faithfully renders the Latin coadunato consilio episcoporum quos ipse per urbes disposuerat, the pardevant . . . being quite justified by the ablative absolute construction. The conmença in our text translates eructavit; the French word must have been used in mindfulness of the fact that St. John’s gospel begins with In principio. Mouskés, like ourselves, found conmença strange, for he adapts his model to it.

La tierce aprés si est Epheze

U mesire St. Jehans dist

In principio, et puis fist

Le mot apriés erat verbum.

(vv. 6425-28)

Quite possibly the translator’s word was nonça, but I would not presume so to emend our text. The anges are the angels of the seven churches represented by the seven stars in Apocalypse I, 20. By the time our scribe had reached this point he had lost the thread of the discourse and after Apocalipse continues, without punctuation and with no capital, honora ycele cité. I supply the conjunction et.

 [XXIX, 15] et d’eglyse. Mouskés uses the same form of the instrumental phrase:

Ounoura il ceste cité

Et de glise et de dignité.

(vv. 6434-35)

The Latin reads: et basilica, quam in ea (sc. tercia sedes Ephesus) aedificavit, but our translator has left eglyse quite indeterminate.

 [XXXI, 8] cil. The force of the demonstrative pronoun makes it clear that it represents the remote Marsille and Baligant.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 119 ]] 

 [XXXI, 12-13.] For the repetition of the conj. que see above, n. to XIV, 43.

 [XXXI, 19-20] The outburst here belongs to the translator, not to the Pseudo-Turpin himself. AT XXXVII, 12, we find the almost identical objurgation, this time in conformity with the Latin. The contexts at XXXI, 19 and XXXVII, 12 are similar enough in their import to explain the interpolation at this stage in Ganelon’s pursuit of his treacherous purpose. The translator, we may be sure, knew his Latin text from beginning to end before he began his work of translation, and such a reaction to Ganelon’s treachery, no matter what its occasion, had already become a stereotype both of emotion and expression.

 [XXXII, 3.] For the omission of sus in P1, see Introduction, p. 14.

 [XXXIII, 1] et Rollant. The et here links the main clause closely - that is, in this case, both in a temporal and in a causal sense - with the subordinate clause. It is a correlative of quant: “when . . . then.” More than that, we must not miss what must have been its affective impact on those listening to the story: “When . . ., that was the moment when R. went after the Saracens now away in the distance.”

 [XXXVI, 3] des hauz nons Nostre Seigneur. The high names are the Alpha and Omega of Apocalypse I, 8, made quite explicit in the Latin text and also in most of the vernacular translations.

 [XXXVII, 22] le jour qu’il se cremoient. The sense is: “. . . on the morning (l. 19) of the day when they were fearful that their hour had come.” The sentence is far from being a literal translation of the Latin (194, xiv ff.): Erat enim mos ut omnes Christi pugnatores Eucaristia et confessione per manus episcoporum et sacerdotum qui ibi aderant animas suas munirent antequam ad bellum (var. pugnam) irent. The fear is not the fear of death, but of the Lord; cf. Proverbs I, 26-27 and 33.

conmenioient. The i of the stem is marked by a diacritic. Cf. juise in which the scribe distinguishes the i from the i = j by a diacritic. The form here then is sure; it is the imperf. indic. of conmeniier. Cf. the comment by Lecoy in Romania 91 (1970), 137.

 [XXXVIII, 1] Jhesu Crist! pere. It was quite common in the Middle Ages not to distinguish between God and Christ. So, in l. 5: Sire Dieus and at LVIII, 28: l’incarnacion Dieu le Pere.

 [XXXVIII, 2] diverses contrees et estranges. The adjectives, used to translate barbaris horis (194, xx) constitute a synonymic pair, “far off,” “foreign.”

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 120 ]] 

 [XXXVIII, 5-7] Si veraiement . . . si voirement. The adverbial phrases, the first demonstrative, the second relative, are in correlation, making a comparison of equality: “As, verily, Thou didst deign . . . so, verily, deliver me. . . .”

 [XXXVIII, 9] cil qui nus cors ne perist. The qui is a spelling for cui; the two words were confused in pronunciation and so often in writing. It is here used as a dative of the agent without a preposition; cf. the reading in P2: a cui. The construction is identical with the Latin which it translates: Tu es enim cui non pereunt corpora nostra (196, vi-vii) “through whom, because of whom.”

 [XXXVIII, 12 ff.] Cest sens, cest entendement avra ele (l’ame, l. 11) encore moult meilleur de ce que ele repose en cest cors. The comparison is stated in the Latin as follows (198, i-ii): Sensum et intellectum quem nunc habet tanto meliorem habebit, quantum differt umbra a corpore “as the shadow differs from the substance” (cf. I Corinthians XIII, 12). Our translator turns the passage differently: “It (the soul) will have perception and understanding far better than what it commits to the repository of this body.” He uses reposer (from pausare “poser”) transitively, “to depose,” “put,” “consign.”

 [XXXVIII, 16] que mes R. vis. Cf. the Latin (198, vi): quod redemptor meus vivis.

 [XXXIX, 3] Et tu. . . . The et here is adversative. Cf. the Latin: sed tu . . ., and below LXII, 35.

 [XLI, 10] There can be no doubt that P2 has the right reading; cf. the Latin (202, xv): tubicinem vestrum (vestrum is Hamel’s correction for the virum printed by Meredith-Jones). The word buisinier (from buccinator) caused trouble for many copyists of old French Turpin texts, so that one may feel sure that here as elsewhere, a scribe is smoothing out as well as he could a passage blurred in his model. The phrase in P1, avec vostre seigneur, suggests that the corruption which confronted him was beau seigneur for buisineor.

 [XLIII, 12-13] Tu vives . . . Tu aies. . . . This is the subjunctive of the 2nd pers. used in Old French to express an attenuated imperative or, as here, a wish; made stronger by the use with it of the subject pronoun.

 [XLIII, 13] The Latin reads Sine fine michi lugendum est (204, xviii). The scribe of P1 punctuated very clearly: “sanz fin. Je. . . . ” However his use of the atonic Je at the head of a sentence is quite out of accord with practice at this date, and, although sanz fin very suitably modifies Tu aies joie, its absence from the next sentence leaves plorerai a very weak expression of the thought. The scribe of P2 punctuates equally clearly: . . . sains. Sans fin
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 121 ]] 
ploerrai. There can be no hesitation in relegating the P1 reading to the variants.

 [XLIII, 15] et de Jonatas. The syntax here is inconsistent. The defining genitive is expressed without a preposition in the case of son filz Absalon and in the case of Saul, but de is used with Jonatas. The scribe varies elsewhere in his usage: la mort d’Agoulant (Prol. 7), la mort Charle (Prol., 10; LVIII, 1, 9, 18), la mort l’arcevesque Tourpin (Prol. 11), la mort de son frere (XXXV, 1), and so we may accept this as the explanation of the different constructions in our present passage. Perhaps wrongly, one has a sense of awkwardness in the juxtaposition of the contrasting expressions. For the allusion, see II Sam. I, 19-27. This example of unbreakable friendship was a commonplace in the mediaeval schools.

 [XLIII, 18] The Latin phrase here, borrowed, like much of the whole passage, by the Pseudo-Turpin from Fortunatus’s epitaph for Calacterius, bishop of Chartres, is “Ereptus terrae iustus ad astra redis” (206, iv). For iustus our translator has the synonymic phrase vierges et chastes, a purposed infidelity perpetrated, so far as I know, by our translator alone among all those who rendered the Latin Turpin into French. He is here, undoubtedly, furthering on his own the Pseudo-Turpin’s intent to portray Roland as a saint. Cf. the comment on Chapter XLVII, 5 and on Chapter LX, p. 125 below.

 [XLIII, 21] The reading in P1 is suspect both because the coordinated clauses are poorly related and because the tense of plaint is out of keeping with the past tense of the accompanying verbs. Neither the text of P1 here, nor that of P2 has anything corresponding to it in the Latin (206, ix).
The word leis is a form of lez (lātus) “beside,” “near to.” I bring it into the text with the passage from P2, in which manuscript ei represents Latin free tonic a (see Introduction, p. 16).

 [XLIII, 22] aloés. P1 shows aloél quite clearly, but the final l seems to be an error, perhaps induced by the preceding one or a mistake for a long s in the scribe’s model.

 [XLIII, 23] fist en; en is the weak form of the pronoun on. So too in l. 24.

 [XLIV, 2] les autres devorez. The reading in P1 presents us with a problem. First, I must quote the Latin (206, xv-xvii): et singuli amicos suos quosdam penitus exanimatos, quosdam adhuc vivos sed letaliter vulneratos, invenerunt. We see that there is nothing in the Latin corresponding to les autres devorez. Apart from this phrase, and unlike P2, P1 offers us a quite literal rendering of the Latin; this must be ascribed to the translator. The phrase in P2, les autres demis mors, in its sentient brevity, is perhaps due to the scribe’s stylistic intervention. Could the devorez of our phrase be a corruption
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 122 ]] 
of demis mors? I do not think so; first, because such a misreading is not likely; second, because the phrase was most probably not in the model which the scribe of P1 was using for, after les autres demis mors, the sentence les autres qui vivoient encore mes a mort estoient plaié would be patently tautological. So les autres devorez seems to be an addition made by the scribe of P1, another example among many of his proclivity for heightening the style of his original with melodramatic touches of his own.
The form demis mors in P2 shows that in Old French, an adjective used as an adverb modifying an adjective did not become indeclinable. Cf. XLVII, 6 var. boinneeurouse and 10 boinseurous. At LXIII, 11 we see the extension of agreement from the adjective to the adverb non.

 [XLIV, 20] Pinabel is described as Charles’s nephew in the later tradition of the Chanson de Roland, e.g. in the Châteauroux manuscript, where Guenes, knowing he may not return from his perilous mission to Saragossa, asks his men, if he should perish, to salute for him Pinabel, mon neveu (ed. Mortier, Les textes de la Chanson de Roland, IV, v. 527).

 [XLIV, 21] et fu lors traïnez. This detail is not in the Latin. According to MS V4 of the Chanson de Roland, Pinabel, slain in his duel with Charlemagne’s champion, Thierry, was at once tied to the tail of a gray horse and dragged to the gallows on a hill nearby. See Queirazza, La Chanson de Roland nel testo assonanzato franco-italiano (Torino, 1954), p. 306, laisse CCCCXIV.

 [XLV, 2] l’autre. We have to ask whether this is a nom. sing. or a nom. pl.; the elision of li strongly suggests the former, in which case we should take li uns (de mierre), li autres (de basme), li autres (de sel) all as nom. sing. too. But li uns is clearly nom. pl. in l. 3; yet li autre is as clearly the nom. pl. form in ll. 2, 3-4, 4, 5, 6. The Latin (210, ii ff.): alii . . . alii . . . alii, and P2 quite consistently: li un . . . li autre, show the plural forms throughout the passage. It was a rule in Old French not to elide the nom. pl. masc. of the def. article, li. But there were exceptions: Et se aucuns est drois magnanimes, je di qu’il ne quidera ja que l’onor ke l’en li fait soient trop grant (Brunetto Latini, Li Tresors, ed. Carmody, 2, XXIII, 15-17). So I think it best to understand l’autre (d’encens) as another such case, and to take the whole series of li uns . . . l’autre . . . li autres . . . li autre as examples of the nom. pl. in the wayward usage of our scribe.

 [XLVII, 5.] Puis fu Rollant en haut levé. . . . The sentence has no counterpart in the Latin, but P2 agrees here completely with P1 and so we must ascribe it as an interpolation to the translator. The phrase en haut levé, cf. elevatio corporis, used of Roland already in the tomb, is the formula used of saints whose remains were lifted up from the tomb and laid in a shrine for the veneration of posterity. The legend of “Saint Roland” was widespread in the later Middle Ages. In some illuminated manuscripts he is shown wearing a
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 123 ]] 
halo, and the statue of a military saint in the south door of Chartres cathedral, dated early thirteenth century, has been securely identified with Roland (see Lejeune-Stiennon, La légende de Roland, 1:203, 2:pl. 154 A). As in the case of Charlemagne, the canonization of Roland in the popular mind was the natural outcome of his characterization in the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle where, with insistence, he is described as Rotolandus Christi martir (194, xviii; cf. 202, vii). So too Turpin: Turpinus - Christi martir (240, i).

 [XLVIII, 4-5] sa cité. Cf. the Latin (214, ix): Nantas, urbem suam and Mouskés: Droit a Nantes en sa cité (v. 9063).

 [XLVIII, 9] et ce qu’il y avoit “and all that therein was” - from the fish to the flotsam and jetsam. The clause is not in the Latin text.

 [XLVIII, 10] l’amour de Rollant. The reading in P1 makes good sense, but it is not the sense of the Pseudo-Turpin. Charlemagne here is moved by his love for Roland, as the Latin tradition (amore 214, xvii) and the reading in P2 make clear. Mouskés too has l’arme (v. 9083): pour l’arme Rollant son neveu. There is a deterioration in the shift from amour to âme, a drift to the lectio facilior.

 [XLIX, 5] par les chans . . . morz seroient. The reading in P1 is visibly corrupt. The clause ceuls qui m. s. would seem to be an interpolation which grew out of the mistaken reading par les chans.

 [XLIX, 7] Thierriz. The last we heard of Thierri was his victory over Pinabel in the trial by combat which decided Ganelon’s guilt (XLIV, 19 ff.). He came into the present context from the Latin Turpin (216, xi); neither the Pseudo-Turpin nor our translator seems to have been aware of the question which his presence among those buried in the Alyscamps would awaken in our minds. Johannes saw the difficulty and did not include his name here (ed. Walpole, LXVIII, 10). Perhaps I should list this Thierri separately with a query as to his identity.

 [XLIX, 10] et avec ses Puillois. The phrase offered by P1 is unacceptable. P2 has nothing corresponding to it. Mouskés reads:

Avoec lui maint autre preudome

Roumain et puillois

(vv. 9157-58)

which represents the Latin cum aliis multis Romanis et Apulis (216, xiv). The source manuscript of P1 and P2 evidently handed down a corrupt or illegible text. I print an attempted restoration.

 [L, 1.] See note on pour, IX, 6.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 124 ]] 

 [L, 26] requis. The scribe of P1 took requis, far separated from (j’ai) prié (l. 24), as a preterite, and added the subject pron. je. The j’ai prié is used unmistakably as a perfect, and there is little likelihood that the translator would have changed the tense to the preterite in the coordinated verb.

 [L, 27-28.] For the repetition of the conj. que see XIV, 43.

 [L, 34] del nouvel testament. . . . The descriptive genetive phrases are in apposition with the adjective anciennes: “ancient stories, stories from the old and new testaments.”

 [LI, 3] cest. The noun art was masc. or fem. in Old French. The masc. form of the demonstr. adj. is used in P1 and P2 though toutes in l. 1 treats arz as fem. Cf. the tonic fem. li in l. 4 var. and LII, 3.

 [LII, 2-3] Et par tel art . . . Et fu trouvee . . . et par li. The sense of et in all these cases is “and, what is more,” or “and, moreover.” It is used to introduce clauses expressing ideas complementary to what precedes.

 [LII, 3] par li esperons nous. . . . The infinitive clause, akin to the “accusative and infinitive” construction in Latin was more frequent in Old and Middle French than in the modern language. It is used after declarative and affective verbs: esperer here falls into both those categories.

 [LIV, 2] et rent lais. . . . The passage is quite independent of the Latin (224, iii ff.). The reading in P1 makes sense, but very dubious sense.

 [LVIII, 4] cestui siaume. The word is feminine in P2: ceste saume. Cf. below, l. 12.

 [LVIII, 7] plus noir d’un Mor. The reading in P2 is captivating. In P1, the sense is plain: “blacker than a Moor,” a colorful translation of Ethiopi consimilem (228, x). I am not sure what the scribe of P2 meant when he wrote: plus noir d’une meure d’Ethiope. Surely not “blacker than an Ethiopian blackberry,” and probably not “. . . than a Moorish woman from Ethiopia.” In his mind, more “Moor,” a derivative like mor “Moor” from Latin Maurus, was probably identified, as in the folk etymology of the time, with more, or its alternative form, meure (modern French mûre) from mōra, the plural of mōrum “blackberry,” so that for him meure meant both “Moor” and “blackberry.” T.-L. (6:263) quotes Brunetto Latini: Ethiope, ou sont les gens noirs comme meure, et por ce sont il apelé mores.

 [LVIII, 10-11 and 20.] Again we meet with the tautological repetition of que; see above, n. to XIV, 43.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 125 ]] 

 [LVIII, 26.] Between the words (amaladi li) rois and et (fu mors), the translator seems to have accidentally omitted a passage in the Latin. See Introduction, p. 30).

 [LIX, 1] furent continuelment nerci et mué. The text in P1: furent converti et mué, corresponds to the Latin: (solem et lunam) atro colore contigit inmutari (236, viii-x). It makes sense but seems to translate only inmutari, omitting atro colore. In P2 we read: furent continuelment verti et mué. Behind verti I think we may see nerci (“darkened”); v for n and t for c would be very understandable scribal errors, and verti made one of a pretty syntactic pair with mué. From a common source P1 and P2 seem to have inherited verti et mué; the converti of P1 is but the scribe’s substitution of the compound verb for the simple one, involving no change of meaning: “transformed.” He probably omitted continuelment as ill-suited to the verbal, rather than the adjectival, function of the two past participles. I relegate the readings in both our manuscripts therefore to the variants and print my suggested emendation. Mouskés reads simply:

Li solaus et la clere lune.

. . .

Furent oscurci durement.

(vv. 11720 ff.)

 [LIX, 5] s’en ala touz aval l’iaue. Neither P1 nor P2 tells us that the bridge burned down (incendio funditus per semetipsum consumptus fuit 232, xvi). But Mouskés does: S’en vint argant par la riviere (v. 11740) (argant is a form of the pres. part. of ardoir “to burn”). Perhaps the pret. of ardoir, arst, was lost earlier in the manuscript tradition by haplography with anz or ans. But the matter should not be labored; other translations omit the detail too.

 [LX.] This chapter, which is Chapter XXXIII in Mr. Meredith-Jones’s edition of the Latin Turpin, reveals itself as a late addition to the Chronicle. It is introduced in grossly makeshift fashion as something which happened before Roland went to war in Spain, not proper to the Chronicle therefore but visibly added further to enhance the saintliness of Roland: sed valde dignum est ut inter cetera ad Domini nostri Ihesu Christi decus revocetur ad memoriam miraculum quod pro beato Rotholando dum adhuc viveret, antequam ingrederetur Hispaniam, ut fertur, Dominus ostendit. “Ut fertur!” - but we still do not know where the story was first told or to which city it was originally attached. Readers interested in the problem will find a recent exposition of its elements in M. André de Mandach’s Chronique dite Saintongeaise, pp. 127 ff. His own conclusion is that the city is the Nobles of early French epic legend and that Nobles is Aix-en-Gascogne, the modern Dax. In the list of contents which forms our Prologue, Chapter LX is thus described: Les miracles que Dieus fist pour Rollant en la cité d’Ais. En la cité d’Ais; that
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 126 ]] 
is, precisely, Dax in Gascony. But here in the text itself we read that the city was Granopole, a faithful rendering of the name in the Latin original, Granopolim (234, xv). I have pointed out in my note to the Prologue discrepancies between the list of contents as set forth in the Prologue and the contents themselves as they appear in our translation, but I do not think that this lack of conformity need infirm the significance of the fact that the Ais of the Prologue is the Granopole of Chapter LX. Our scribe of the late thirteenth century seems to have taken it for granted that the story which his Chapter LX tells about Granopole was the story well-known in epic legend of what happened to Roland at Aix-en-Gascogne.
Mouskés sensibly transfers this chapter to the period of Charlemagne’s wars against the Saxons and their momentary interruption by the campaign against Eaumont and Agolant in Aspremont. But his linking of these episodes is clumsily and obscurely done. See vv. 4548 ff.

 [LX, 4] Sarrazins. There is no mention of Sarracenos in the Latin text (234, xviii); later, the Pseudo-Turpin refers to the enemy as gens pagana (236, xvii), paganis (238, iv). The use of the name in our translation to refer to the Saxons besieging Charlemagne in Worms is in conformity with usage in the French epics and chronicles of the time. Jean Bodel, in his Chanson des Saisnes, calls the Saxon foe la sarrasine gent and when Sibille becomes a Christian in order to marry Baudouin, she disavows her Moslem faith and gods. In his Rou, Wace calls the Normans la gent sarrasine and so does Benoît in his Chronique des ducs de Normandie. The Normans who invade Brittany in Aiquin are the Sarrasin; in fact, the Saracen has become a literary type, the unbeliever or the treacherous foe of the French in general.

 [LX, 13] en trois parz. The Latin says more simply: divisisti mare Rubrum in divisiones (236, x-xi). Perhaps our translator had in mind the wall of water to the right, the wall of water to the left (Exodus XIV, 32) and the dry pathway in between. But still the expression remains unsatisfactory. Could it be that our translator had before him a Latin text in which, by dittography, in divisiones had been written in in divisiones, and read the second in as .iii.?

 [LX, 17] la gent paienne qui ne te croient. The plural verb shows agreement ad sensum with the collective gent. Cf. Rutebeuf (ed. Faral-Bastin, 2:183, vv. 115-116):

N’i a nule gent amiable

Ainçois sont mal, qu’il sont deable.

ou tu fez. This is the imperative of fere (faire), with s(z) analogical to the 2nd pers. sing. of the indicative which had become a common form by the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 127 ]] 
mid-thirteenth century. Occurring along with destrui, abat, the form with tu adds urgency to the plea: “do thou bring about its conversion.”

 [LXI.] The description of Archbishop Turpin’s death is of course extraneous to his chronicle. It is, however, appended to the chronicle in all the Latin manuscripts where it occurs and is there attributed to Calixtus II who, before his elevation to the papacy, was archbishop of Vienne. Mr. Meredith-Jones has printed the chapter as Appendix A in his edition of the Turpin, pp. 240 ff.

 [LXI, 4] d’autre part le Rosne devers France vers oriant. The Latin reads: iuxta urbem ultra Rodanum, scilicet versus Orientem, in quadem ecclesia olim sepultus extitit (240, iv-vi). The statement “across the Rhône on the east side” has puzzled and still puzzles commentators. The Rhône flows down the westward side of old Vienne; versus Orientem seems to have been written by someone who did not know the topography of that famous city. But why did the author of the chapter add the detail if he did not trust his knowledge? Mr. Smyser would adopt Gaston Paris’s suggestion and punctuate: iuxta urbem, ultra Rodanum scilicet, versus orientem in quadam ecclesia . . ., understanding the passage to mean “near the city, that is on the far side of the Rhône, at the east end of a church . . .” (The Pseudo-Turpin, p. 49, n. 4). Others have thought that this interpretation of the passage calls for a more subtle understanding than could normally be expected of a mediaeval audience. The reading scilicit versus Orientem is general in the Latin tradition; apparently all the scribes accepted it. Did they find no difficulty there? Did they not pay attention to what they were copying? Some of those who translated the Turpin evidently thought about it; they omitted the phrase, no doubt thinking it erroneous. The reading in our MS P1 suggests that our scribe too, no lively intellect as we have had many an occasion to see, thought about it. He could hardly have added devers France to vers oriant in the conviction that France lay across the Rhône eastwards in Burgundy. So what can the passage have meant for him if not “across the Rhône on the French side at the east end of a church . . .”?

 [LXI, 5] au tans ui, ensepeli. The reading of both our manuscripts, au tans Eusepe le (Eusebele) pape, is visibly corrupt here. Mouskés has the same strange text, vv. 11842-44. The Latin reads as follows: Cuius sanctissimum corpus nostris temporibus quidam ex nostris clericis in quodam sarcophago optimo . . . integrum invenerunt (240, vi-ix). There is no Pope Eusebius in the Latin, and there simply was no Pope Eusebius in whose day Archbishop Turpin’s body could have been discovered. The spelling in the P2 variant gives us the clue to the trouble. Eusebele is a corruption of ensebeli. Once ensebeli had been copied as Eusebele, pape was added to “identify” the Eusebe, and ui (nostris temporibus) was lost because it clashed with the dating afforded by au tans Eusebe le pape.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 128 ]] 

 [LXI, 11] The reading in P1: furent compaignon en Espaigne en paines makes good sense, but it cannot be what the Apostle said. For what he did say, see II Cor. I, 7.

 [LXI, 12, 13, 14] . . . Rollant . . . Oliviers . . . Charles . . . . These interpretive etymologizings are an example of a rhetorical device taught in the mediaeval schools with more stylistic purpose than linguistic understanding. The symbolical interpretation of proper names was a normal method of developing - and lengthening - a sermon. Cf. Lecoy de la Marche, La chaire française, p. 297. Behind the interpretation of Oliver lies, of course, the association with the olive tree, thought of here, it would seem, not so much as a symbol of peace and amity, but rather of the priestly, perhaps saintly, virtues. One may recall the description of the legendary Numa in Vergil:

Quis procul ille autem ramis insignis olivae

Sacra ferens?

(Aeneid VI, vv. 808-809)

 [LXI, 16] turcoples. The word is used to translate the Latin pulcerrimus: Turpinus interpretatur pulcerrimus, sive non turpis (242, vii) and so, by hook and by crook, the Pseudo-Turpin and our translator establish the etymologicosemantic connexion. Godefroy (8:106; cf. T.-L., 10:727 and also Littré, s.v.) lists a number of examples from Old French epics, romances, and chronicles of the crusades, quoting in one of them Guillaume de Tyr: turcoples - ce sont sergent a cheval, legierement armés. The mediaeval Latin word was turcŏpŏlus, derived from Τουρχόπουλοs. It was annotated by Gaston Paris in his edition of Estoire de la guerre sainte as follows: On appelait ainsi originairement le fils d’un père turc et d’une mère chrétienne . . . ces métis formaient déjà une classe particulière de la population de Syrie au moment de la première croisade. Plus tard ils paraissent avoir spécialement fourni des troupes de cavalerie légère combattant à la manière des Turcs (Table des noms propres, s.v.). Among the Knights of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, the Turcoplier was a commander of the light cavalry, one of a class of the Knights described as fratres servientes armigeri - a description which reveals point in the variant reading of P2: (turcoples) et serjans Dieu. Mouskés does not borrow the word turcoples from his source, but his text helps us to see the simple meaning which the translator meant to convey with his ingenious etymological invention:

Cis nons Turpin dist ausiment

Comme tres fors outreement

(vv. 11880-881)

Perhaps we may, then, add to the definition of turcoples given in the Old French dictionaries, its use as an adjective meaning “superlativement fort.”

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 129 ]] 

 [LXII.] This chapter is another supplement to the Turpin proper. It is printed by Mr. Meredith-Jones as Appendix B, pp. 244 ff. The author evidently thought that it would interest his readers to know what happened in Galicia after the death of Charlemagne. His story, no doubt retold from hearsay along the pilgrim roads to St. James of Compostela, has as historical background the incursion into Galicia of Al Mansour of Córdova in the year 997.

 [LXII, 24] maisieres. The word usually means “walls.” Here, however, it translates the Latin tecta (246, xvi). The plural suggests the meaning “roof, with its substructure of beams and vaulting.”

 [LXII, 35] et cist Romains. The et is adversative here. Cf. the same use at XXXIX, 3 above.

 [LXIII.] This is the third supplementary chapter to the Turpin and as such is printed by Mr. Meredith-Jones as Appendix C. It seems even more irrelevant to the Turpin than Chapters LXI and LXII. It was drawn from the Guide du Pèlerin, a guide book for pilgrims to the shrine of St. James of Compostela which formed Book V of the Liber Sancti Jacobi in which the Turpin was once incorporated as Book IV. In the Guide, this unkind disquisition on the Navarrese occurs as a short passage in the lengthy Chapter VII (ed. Jeanne Vielliard, p. 28, ll. 11 ff.): De nominibus terrarum et qualitatibus gencium que in ytinere Sancti Jacobi habentur, where these mountain people are denounced as something less than human: Hec est gens barbara, omnibus gentibus dissimilis ritibus et essentia, omni malicia plena, colore atra, visu iniqua, prava, perversa, perfida, fide vacua et corrupta, libidinosa, ebriosa, omni violentia docta, ferox et silvestris, improba et reproba, impia et austera, dira et contentiosa, ullis bonis inculta, cunctis viciis et iniquitatibus edocta, Getis et Sarracenis consimilis malicia, nostre genti gallice in omnibus inimica.

 [LXIII, 2] il ne . . . voloient. The translation is loose, and the sense of il (“the people in Spain”) has to be drawn from the context. Cf. the Latin 248, xv ff.): Iulius Caesar . . . tres gentes . . . ad expugnandum Hispanorum populos eo quod tributum ei reddere nolebant, ad Hispaniam misit.

 [LXIII, 8] sus la mer. The sense is, “over towards the sea.” The Latin, apart from irrelevant variants, reads 250, iv-vii): venerunt ad montes Narvos qui sunt inter Nageram et Pampiloniam et Baionam, scilicet versus maritimam in terra Biscasgiae et Alavae. The word maritimam is a feminine singular from the classical neuter plural maritima -orum: “regions by the sea,” “coastal areas.”

 [LXIII, 11] nons vrais. The nons shows the extension to an adverb of the inflection proper to the adjective which it modifies. Cf. the note to XLIV, 2.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 130 ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 131 ]] 


The list is not exhaustive, though, as a help to students, it is fuller than the needs of specialists would require. Verbs are listed under the infinitive; when the infinitive does not occur in the text, it is given in the Francien form and placed in square brackets. Verbal forms which may not be easily recognized are listed separately. References to T.-L. are to Tobler-Lommatzsch, Altfranzosisches Wörterbuch; references to F.E.W. are to the Franzosisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch of W. von Wartburg.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 143 ]] 

Index of Proper Names

For many of the place names, corrupted in transmission (cf. Introduction, p. 35), I give in brackets the form of the name as it appears in Mr. C. Meredith-Jones’s edition of the Latin “A” texts. I abbreviate Charlemainne to Ch., and occasionally refer to my edition of the “Johannes” Turpin (Univ. of California Press, 1976) as Johannes.

Absalon. Absalom, David’s son, XLIII, 15.

Abule (Abula). Abla, III, 15.

Acenssion, le jour de l’. Ascension Day, LIX, 4.

Adame (Adania). III, 12, 37.
Not surely identified; see Johannes, s.v. Adanie.

Agaibe (Agabiba Insula). Zerbi, an island off Tunis, III, 19.

Agoulant. A Saracen king from Africa, Prol., 4, 7.
Invades Spain, VI, 2, 28.
His war against Ch., his ultimate defeat and death, VI, 32-XVII.

Ais la Chapelle. Aachen. Ch. goes there from Paris, builds there the hot baths and raises and adorns the church of Sainte-Marie, L, 31 ff.
His soul endangered there, LVIII, 9.
Ch. buried there in the church of Sainte-Marie-la-Ronde, LVIII, 29.

Ais, la cité d’. Aix-en-Gascogne, the modern Dax, Prol., 11.
Ais en Gascoigne; the church of Sainte-Marie founded there by Ch., V, 14 (here the Latin has Aquisgranum, 104, iv; Mouskés agrees with P1, P2: v. 6525).

Alagne (Malaguae). Málaga, III, 13.

Alaudaluf (Alandaluf). Andalucía, III, 22, IV, 2.
Alandalus, XXV, 38,
given after the conquest of Spain to the Germans in Ch.’s army.

Alcore (Alcoror). Alcoraz, III, 20.

Alemaigne. Germany, I, 9, 15.

Alemanz (Theutonicis). The Germans in Ch.’s army. Given Andalucía after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 39.

Alerne, la terre d’ (terra Alavae). Álava, LXIII, 9.

Aleschans a Arle. The Alyscamps at Arles, XLVI, 2.
The Burgundians carry their dead to be buried in the A., XLIX, 5.

Algene (oppidum forissimum Alegen). Alegón, III, 12.

Alixandre (Alexandriae). Alexandria, VII, 3. See also Sarre.

Altacore (Alcancora). Zamora, III, 7.

Altente. III, 5.
The name is probably a corruption of Alte Cité. The Latin reads (96, i-ii): Medinacelim, id est urbs excalsa. The last two words must have given our translator Alte Cité. Later, a copyist could easily have read cité as nte. Mouskés too was in trouble here: Altetite, v. 11988; his error too seems to be a corruption out of Alte Cité.

Amphimore (Anphinorgium). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 4.
The Latin calls him regem Maioricae, king of Majorca.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 144 ]] 

Angeliers. Duke of Aquitania, XII, 7, 9, XIII, 5.
By descent, a Gascon, XII, 10.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 2.
Engeliers, XII, 14.

Angiers. See Miles d’A.

Anxe, la cité qu’en apele (Axa). Dax, V, 15.

Apocalipse. The Apocalypse, XXIX, 14.

Aquitainne1. Aquitania, I, 15, XII, 8, 9, 13.

Aquitaine2, la cité de (urbis Aquitaniae). An unknown city, but carefully situated by the Pseudo-Turpin, XII, 11 ff.

Arabites. The name given to the elite Saracen troops of Bizerta, III, 18.

Aragone. Aragón, given after the conquest of Spain to the Poitevins in Ch.’s army, XXV, 38.

Arestans. King of Brittany, XII, 6, XIII, 5, XVII, 5.
Arestains, buried in Belin, XLVII, 9.

Argue (Arga). The river Arga. See Pont and Rune.

Arle. Arles, site of the cemetery of the Alyscamps, XLVI, 2.
Charles reaches there on his return from Spain, XLIX, 2.
Its poor endowed by Ch., XLIX, 11.

Arrabe (Arabum). The translator (P1, P2, Mouskés, v. 4999, agree here) has taken Arabum (probably the gen. plur. of Arabs, possibly the accus. sing. of the adj. Arabus) as the name of a place, VII, 2. See too Terefin.

Ascalone (Escalona). Escalona, III, 12.

Atentive (Accintina). Gaudix el Viejo, III, 15.

Auberi de Bergoigne. XII, 24.
A. le Bergoignon, buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 7.

Aufrique. Africa, VI, 1, LXIII, 13.

Aumarie (Almaria). Almería, III, 20.

Aure (Iriam). See Ure.

Aurele (Aureliae). Aurelia? or Oreja? III, 13.

Aurenne (Aurenias). Orense, III, 2.

Auscale (Auschala). Alcalá de Henares, III, 3.

Avile (Avilla). Avila, III, 6.

Babyloine, li amiranz de (Babilonis Admirandus). The Emir of Babylon (Old Cairo, capital of the Fatimite empire), XXI, 3.
Li amirauz de B., XXX, 5.

Baione (Baionam). Bayonne, VI, 7.
Cf. Laione. Invading peoples sent by Caesar burn their boats on landing there, LXIII, 5, 8.

Baiviere. Bavaria, I, 9. See also Naimes.

Baliganz. King, sent from Persia to Saragossa by the emir of Babylon, XXX, 5.
With Marsiles suborns Ganelon, XXXI, 2 ff.
They attack the French rearguard, XXXII, 3.
At the death of Marsile, B. flees, XXXV, 1
and is heard of no more.

Barbarie (Barbaria). Barbary, III, 19, VII, 4 (cf. Fatuel).

Barbastre (Barbastra). Barbastro, III, 11.

Barbetoe (Hora Barbagalli). Berbegal, III, 13. See also Hore.

Bascle (Basclam). The land of the Basques, I, 16. III, 24
la terre de Bascle
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 145 ]] 
(tellus Basclorum). Baione, une cité de B.,
VI, 7.

Given to the Bretons after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 36.

Baudoyn. Roland’s brother, XII, 17.
Escapes the defeat at Roncevaux alive, XXXII, 15.
Hides in the forest with Thierris, XXXV, 1.
Finds Roland, and seeks water for him, XXXVII, 13 ff.
Leaves Roland, taking with him R.’s horse and sword, XXXVII, 16 ff., XLII, 1.

Bechie (Baetia). Baeza, III, 14. Cf. Betie.

Bede (Ubeda). Ubeda, III, 14. See also Ubele.

Begues. XII, 24.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 4.

Belin, le chastel. Belin, where Oliver and other heroes were buried, XLVII, 8, 10.

Bellarige (Bellariga). Berlanga, III, 5.

Berengier. XII, 25.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 8.

Bergoignons. The Burgundians; Ch. meets with them in Arles on their homeward journey, XLIX, 3.

Bergoine. Burgundy, I, 10. See also Sanses, Auberi.

Bernarz de Nubles (Bernardus de Nublis). XII, 24.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 8.

Betie (Baetia). Baeza, XXV, 5. Cf. Bechie.

Biaulande. See Ernaut.

Biscarre (Tellus Biscaiorum). Vizcaya, III, 24, LXIII, 8 (terra Biscasgiae).

Bist (Bisertum). Bizerta, III, 17.

Blaive (Blavii). Blaye, XII, 2. See also Rollant.
Blaves, Roland borne there for burial, XLVIII, 2;
Blaives, XLVII, 7, XLIX, 1.

Blaves. See Blaive.

Boaire qui citez est [en] Barbarie (Boaram quae est urbs in Barbaria). Oran, III, 19.

Boourges. Bourges, XII, 11, 12. See also Lambert.

Bordiaus. See Gaifiers; les Landes de Bordiaus, XIII, 1.
The cemetery there, XLVI, 2. See also Severin.

Borriane ([Hora] Burrianae). Burriana, III, 13. See Hore.

Bougie (Bugiae). Bougie, VII, 3, VIII, 28. See also Nivot and Hongrie.

Brandiz. Brindisi, I, 10.

Bretaigne (MS A1: Berta; mention of B. is lacking in A6, A10, Arras MS 163). Berte, Bertain. Roland’s mother, Ch.’s sister, XII, 2.

Bretaigne. Brittany, I, 10, XII, 6, 7.

Bretons (Britannis). Bretons. Given the land of the Navarrese and Basques after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 36.

Brutoise (Petroissa). El Pedroso, III, 14.

Burs (Burgas). Burgos, III, 9.

Caire, l’iaue de (Charanta). The Charente, VIII, 17.

Caparre (Caparra). III, 37. See Gapte.

Carroges (Kalagurria). Calahorra, III, 9.

Carthage (Kirago). Carteya, III, 20.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 146 ]] 

Cartons (Karcesa), III, 8. See Ventouse.

Castele (tellus Castellianorum). Castile, III, 23.

Cavalais (Canalias). Canales, III, 4.

Cebreon roy de Sebile (Ebraum regem Cibiliae). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 4.
Escapes alive from the battle of Pamplona, XVII, 11.
Hebraïns li rois de Sebile, yields Cordres to Ch. and becomes a Christian, XXV, 1.
Slain, XXV, 31.

Cesar Agustes. Augustus, XII, 12.

Cesaranguste (Caesaraugustae). Saragossa. Given to the Apulians in Ch.’s army after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 37.
Cesairauguste, Marsile and Baligant reside there, XXX, 4.
Cesarraguste, scene of Ch.’s avenging defeat of the Saracens, XLIV, 14.
Invading peoples sent by Caesar advance towards it but are driven back, LXIII, 5. See also Sarragonne.

Charlemainne (Charles, Charle). Incipit et passim. Conquered all Spain, III, 30 ff.
Emperor of Rome, XXX, 1.
Returns to war against Agolant, VI-XIX,
against Fourré, XX,
against Fernagu, XXI-XXIV,
against Hebraïns, XXV.
Organizes Spain and Compostela after his conquest, XXVI-XXIX.
His betrayal and vengeance at Roncevaux, XXX, 3-XLIV.
Endowments on behalf of the souls of the dead, XLV-L, 31.
His benefactions at Aix, L, 31-LVII.
His death, LVIII.
Seeks help from Roland when besieging Worms, LX, 6.
In heaven, LXI, 10.
The meaning of his name, LXI, 14.
What happened in Spain after his death, LXII, 2 ff.

Charles li Chaus. Charles le Chauve, III, 34.

Charles Martiaus. Charles Martel, III, 34.

Cire. See Sire.

Cisimus (Visunilia). Viseu, III, 1.

Climent, saint C. li aposteles (Clemens papa). Pope Clement I; gave all France in freehold to the Abbey of Saint-Denis, L, 8.

Cloevis. Clovis, III, 3.

Clotaires. Clotaire I, III, 33.

Colimbre (Colimbria). Coïmbra, III, 1.

Conpostele (Compostella). Santiago de Compostela, III, 3.
Ch. calls a council there and makes it a metropolitan see, XXVI, 5.
Its place of honor in Christendom, XXVIII, 1 ff.
It is second only to Rome, XXIX. 8.

Cordes (Corduba). Córdoba, III, 15, XXV, 3, 4, 6, 17, 19. See too Cordres.

Cordres, l’aumaçour de (Altumaior Cordubae). The aumaçour of Córdoba; for aumaçour see the Glossary. Prol., 12, VII, 5.
Escapes alive from the battle of Pamplona, XVII, 11.
Annihilates Christian despoilers after the battle, XIX, 5.
Awaits Ch. at Cordres, XXV, 1.
Escapes after the battle there and surrenders the city to Ch., XXV, 32.
He - or another? - leads a devastating raid as far as Compostela, LXII.
St. James smites him with blindness, LXII, 10.
Amiranz, LXII, 18. See too Cordes.

Cornualois (Cornubilandos). Cornishmen, LXIII, 2.

Costentins, prevost de Rome. XII, 22, XIII, 6,
le roy C., XVII, 6.
C. de Rome,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 147 ]] 
fights Fernagu and is taken prisoner,
XXII, 3.

C. li prevolz de Rome, carried to Rome by sea for burial, XLIX, 9.

Crestiens. The Christian forces under Ch., II, 10
et passim. Christians in general, passim.

Dagouberz. Dagobert I, III, 33.

Danemarche. See Ogier.

Danois. The Danes in Ch.’s army; given Portugal after the conquest, XXV, 39.

David. David, King of Israel, XLIII, 14.

Denie (Denia). Denia, XXV, 4.

Denis, saint. St. Denis. Ch. offers thanks to him in his abbey for his help, L, 6.
Prays before his shrine, L, 15.
Calls him the advocate for France in the Faith, and prays that he will be advocate for the slain heroes before God, L, 18.
Appears to Ch. in a vision, L, 23.

Denis, Saint. The Abbey of Saint-Denis. Ch. goes there to offer thanks for his victory, L, 6.
Ch. gives all France in freehold to the Abbey, L, 8.
Places it in authority in France over kings and bishops, L, 9,
and over the pope’s jurisdiction, L, 12.
Those who pay a yearly donation are to be called “frans Saint-Denise,” L, 28.

Des Chans (De Campis). Tierra de Campos, on the Cea, scene of the first battle against Agolant and of the first miracle of the lances, VI, 29.

Dume (Dumia). Dumia, III, 1.

Durance (Sordrae). Durance, V, 15.
But the name is a corruption; no doubt, of de Sorge or de Sorges (Sorde, in the Basses Pyrénées), probably caused in the first place by the agglutination of the first syllable of Sorges with de, giving desor and an unrecognizable proper name, resolved, not unnaturally, as that of a river.. Mouskés has the same erroneous reading, v. 6532.

Durendal. Roland’s sword, XXIII, 9.
Roland addresses it, XXXV, 9 ff.
The sword buried at his head, XLVII, 3.

Ebre, l’iaue de. The Ebro, XLIV, 14.

Elis roy de Marath (Ailis, regem Marrohc). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 4.

Emeride (Emerita). Mérida, III, 7.

Engeliers. See Angeliers.

Engleterre. England, conquered by Ch., I, 9.

Engolesme. Angoulême, XII, 13.

Eniche (Evicia). Iviza, one of the Balearic islands, III, 19.

Ephese. Ephesus. Converted by St. John, XXVII, 14.
Its place of honor in Christendom, XXVIII, 1 ff.
One of the three greatest sees in Christendom, XXIX, 1.
Third among these, XXIX, 12 ff.

Erinne (Ervina). La Corun̄a, III, 3.

Ernaut de Biaulande. XII, 18, XIII, 3, XVII, 4.
Slays Agolant, XVII, 7.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 6.

Es. See Maximiens.

Escors (Scotos). Scots, LXIII, 1.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 148 ]] 

Espaigne. Spain. Prol. 3 et passim. Made subject to the metropolitan see of Compostela, XXVII, 3.
Conquered by Ch. a l’enneur Dieu et saint Jaque, XXX, 2.

Estoile (Stella). Estella, III, 9.

Estormiz. XII, 25.
Estourmiz, buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 7.

Estouz de Lengres, filz au conte Odon. Count of Langres, XII, 5.
The companion of Salemon, XII, 16, XIII, 4.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 6.

Esturges (Austurga). Astorga, III, 8.

Eutropes de Saintes. St. Eutropius of Saintes, XLVI, 5.

Fagon, saint. St. Facundus, Prol., 5.
An abbey founded in his name, VI, 30.

Fatuel, roi de Barbarie (Fatunum regem Barbariae). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 3.

Fernaguz (Ferracutus). A giant from Syria, descended from Goliath, XXI, 1.
His challenge and the ensuing combats, XXI, 4 ff.
Against Roland, XXIII, 1 ff.
His death, XXIII, 66.

Flamens. The Flemings in Ch.’s army; given Portugal after the conquest, XXV, 39.

Formentine (Formenceria). Formentera, one of the Balearic islands, III, 19.

Fourré. A Saracen prince of Navarre, Prol., 7, XX, 2 ff.
Slain in battle, XX, 10.

France. France, conquered by Ch., I, 9, 15 et passim.
Why its name was changed from Gaule, L, 27 ff., LXI, 4.

François. The French in Ch.’s army. Given Castile after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 36.
Unwilling to settle in Galicia, XXV, 39, XLIII, 9.
Why so named, L, 27 ff.

Françoises. French women in the French army at Pamplona, XXXI, 23.

Frise. Frisia, I, 14. See also Gondebuef.

Frisons. Frisians, LX, 5.

Frontins de Pierregort. St. Frontinus of Périgueux, XLVI, 4.

Gaibe (Agaiae). VII, 3 (Agabiae), VIII, 28. See Hospinel and Agaibe.

Gaifiers, li rois de Bordiaus. XII, 15.
G. rois de Gascoigne (Gaiferus rex burdegalensis), buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 1.

Galafre. King of Toledo, whom Ch. served as a youth while in exile, XIV, 12.

Galice. Galicia in Spain, I, 6.
Too rude a country for the French to settle in, XXV, 39.
Made subject to the metropolitan see of Compostela, XXVII, 3.
Its church one of the three greatest sees in Christendom, XXIX, 2.

Gandlois. Vandals, LX, 5.

Ganelon. See Guenes.

Gapte (Caparra). Ventas de Caparra, III, 8. See too Caparre.

Garin. See Guarin.

Garuth (Tharuph). Tarifa, III, 21.

Gascoigne. Gascony, I, 16, XIV, 8, XLIX, 2.

Gaule. Why the name was changed to France, L, 29 ff.

Gautier de Termes. XII, 23.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 3. See also Termes.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 149 ]] 

Geliers. XII, 16.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 3.

Gene, la cité de (civitatem Gasconiam Agenni). Agen. Captured by Agolant, VII, 6.
Ch. visits him there in disguise, VII, 9 ff.
Recaptured by Ch., VIII, 7 ff.

Gennes. XII, 5.
Geneva, Genoa . . .? It is not sure what place the poets, and those who borrowed from them, meant by Gennes. See Renier, and also Johannes, note to XXIII, 7.

Gerins. XII, 16.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 3.

Geronde (Gerunda). Gerona, III, 11.

Gesir (Gesir). Algeciras, III, 21.

Gilbatare (Gilbaltaria). Gibraltar, III, 20.

Gironde (Garonnam). The Gironde, the lower Garonne, VIII, 10.

Glarame (Klarrava). Calatrava, III, 6.

Glatan (Klatathus). Calatayud, III, 9.

Godelfaz (Godelfacar). Guadalajara, III, 4.

Godiane (Godiana). Guadiana (the river, its name mistaken for that of a town), III, 7.

Gondebuef, le roy de Frise. XII, 17, XIII, 5, XVII, 6.
Buried in Belin, XLVII, 8.

Goulias. Goliath, ancestor of Fernagu, XXI, 2.

Granande (Grananda). Granada, III, 15.
Gar (Granda), XXV, 4 (cf. P2: Granace).

Granopole (Granopolim). LX, 3 ff.
Grenoble? Nobles? See note to Chapter LX.

Grieus (Graecis). The Greeks in Ch.’s army; receive the territory of Nadres after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 37.

Grifonnie. Particularly, the land of the Byzantine Greeks; more generally, that of the Eastern peoples against whom the crusades were directed, LXI, 20.

Guarin, dus de Lorainne. XII, 23.
Garins, buried in Belin, XLVII, 9.

Guenes qui puis fist la traïson. Ganelon, XII, 25.
Sent as ambassador to Saragossa, his treachery and punishment, XXXI, 1-XLIV, 24.

Guilliaume (Guillelmus). XII, 23.
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 3.

Guimars. XII, 24.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 7.

Haste (Hato). XII, 25.
Othes (so too Mouskés, v. 9144), buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 9.

Hebraïns li rois de Sebile (Ebraum, rex Sibiliae). See Cebreon.

Herode. King Herod the Great, I, 5.

Hoel de Nantes. See Hoiaus de Nantes.

Hoiaus de Nantes. XII, 18.
Hoel de N. Fights Fernagu and is taken prisoner, XXII, 3.
Hoiaus li quens, taken to Nantes for burial, XLVIII, 4.

Hongrie (Bugia). Bougie, III, 18.

Hore. III, 12. See note.

Hospinel roy de Gaibe (Hospinum, regem Agaiae). A leader in Agolant’s
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 150 ]] 
VII, 3.
Agaiae is the A text reading for Agabibae. Cf. Agaibe (Agabiba Insula).

Ispale. III, 3.
A corruption of In Hispania (94, xvii), by which the Pseudo-Turpin meant: “after the list of towns taken in Galicia, here is the list of those captured in Spain”; Mouskés is in similar error: Yspale, v. 11985.

Israël, le pueple. Led through the Red Sea, LX, 14.

Jace (Iacka). Jaca, III, 10.

Jadrite (Madrita). Madrid, III, 4.

Jaque, saint. St. James the Greater, Incipit, Prol., 1.
Preached the gospel in Spain, martyred by Herod in Jerusalem, borne back to Galicia and buried there, I, 21 ff.
Brings about the miraculous fall of Pamplona to Ch., II, 5 ff.
Ch. visits his shrine, II, 12.
His miraculous aid brings about the fall of Luiserne, III, 26 ff.
For love of St. J. Ch. favors the church in Compostela, XXVI, 5.
The evangelist in Spain and Galicia, XXVII, 14.
One of the three principal apostles, XXIX, 3;
second among these, XXIX, 8.
Rescues Ch.’s soul from evil spirits, LVIII, 14 ff.
Causes disease to fall on the Saracen raiders in Compostela, LXII, 9.
Jacques Sans Teste, more merciful than San Ramón, LXII, 32 ff.

Jaque, Saint. Le moustier S. J., founded by Ch., V, 9.
St. J.’s in Toulouse also, V, 14;
in Paris, V, 16.
Monseigneur Saint J., the church of St. J. in Compostela, honored and enriched by Ch., XXVI, 1.
Its archbishop made metropolitan in Spain, XXVI, 4 ff.
Named an apostolic see, XXVII, 6.
Plundered by the aumaçor de Cordres, LXII, 5 ff.

Jaque, saint. La voie Saint Jaque, the way of St. James, I, 14, XIII, 8, XIV, 5, XIX, 2.

Jehan. St. John, brother of St. James, I, 22.
His church seur Durance, q.v., that is, de Sorde, founded by Ch., V, 15.
Evangelized the East, XXVII, 13.
One of the three principal apostles, XXIX, 3.

Jericho. LX, 15.

Joieuse (Gaudiosam). Ch.’s sword, VI, 53, XXV, 29.

Jonatas. Jonathon, Saul’s son, XLIII, 4, 15.

Judas. Judas, with whose betrayal of Christ is compared Ganelon’s betrayal of Ch., XXXI, 21, XXXVII, 12.

Judas le Machabé. Judas Maccabeus, XLIII, 3.
Judas Machabieu, in his memory Ch. endows the poor of Bordeaux, XLVIII, 7.

Jude (Tuda). Tuy, III, 2.

Julius Cesar. LXIII, 1.

Karyon (Kirrionem). Carrion de los Condes, III, 8.

Laione (Baiona). Bayonne, III, 10.
Cf. Baione.

Lambert, prince de Boourges (Lambertus princeps bituricensis A1). XII, 21. L.
roy de B. (L. rex bituricensis), buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux, XLVIII, 2.

Landes de Bordiaus. The Landes of Gascony, XIII, 2.

Latyone (Barcinona). Barcelona, III, 12.
Mouskés: Baltione, v. 12009.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 151 ]] 

Lengres. See Estouz.

Limoges. XII, 11.
Lymoges, XII, 13.

Loheraine. Lorraine, I, 9.
Lorainne, XII, 23; see Guarin.

Lombardie. Italy, I, 10, 15 (see note), VI, 55.

Lormon roy de Ynec (Maimonem regem Mequae). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 4. See too Ynec.

Luque (Lucum). Lugo, III, 2.

Luserne (Lucerna). The name occurs three times in our Chapter III;
here they are, with the scribe’s own punctuation: Luserne, Ventouse qu’en apele Cartons et si est en Val Vert, III, 7;
la cité de Luiserne en Val Vert, III, 26;
Luiserne Ventouse, III, 37.
The problem of the identity of Luserne, Ventose, Cartons (Karcesa) is discussed in Johannes, note to Chapter X, 12.

Lymoges. XII, 13.

Lyon (Legio). León, capital of the province of León, III, 8.
Agolant withdraws there after his first defeat, VI, 56.

Mahius, saint. Saint Matthew, the apostle, who evangelized Nadavre, q.v., LXIII, 13.

Mahonmet. Mohammed. An idol in his likeness, Prol., 3. Mahomet, IV, 5;
qui fu mesagier Dieu, XIV, 20.
Commands lesser gods, XIV, 21, 24.
Fernagu calls on him (Mahoumet, Mahomet) for help, XXIII, 69.
The aumaçor de Cordres driven to deny him, LXII, 13.

Maience1 (?). III, 14.
The name is corrupt; see note.

Maience2 (Magontiam). Mayence. The bridge built by Ch. there over the Rhine collapses as a portent of his death, LIX, 5.

Maquede (Maqueta). Maqueda, III, 4.

Marath (Marroch). Morocco, VII, 4. See too Elis.

Marie. The Virgin Mary. Her church at Aix-en-Gascoigne founded by Ch., V. 13 (see Ais, la cité d’);
la Vierge, XXIII, 38;
la glorieuse pucele Vierge Marie, XXIII, 64.
Christ’s mother, XXXVIII, 15.

Marie, Sainte. The church of Sainte-Marie in Aix-la-Chapelle built by Ch., L, 33.
Sainte-Marie la Reonde, Ch. buried there, LVIII, 28.

Marsilles. King Marsile, sent from Persia to Saragossa by the emir of Babylon, XXX, 5.
With Baliganz, suborns Ganelon, XXXI, 5.
They attack the French rearguard, XXXII, 3.
Slain by Roland, XXXIII, 9 ff.
In a vision, Turpin sees him carried off to hell, XLI, 8 ff.

Martiaus de Limoges. St. Martial of Limoges, XLVI, 4. See also Lymoges.

Maximiens, esvesques d’Es (Maximini Aquensis). Maximin, bishop of Aix-en-Provence, XLVI, 3 (see Johannes, note to Chapter LXVI

Meloide (Melodia). Melita, on the island of Zerbi, III, 19.

Meurs (tellus Maurorum). Moors, III, 23, VII, 2.

Michieus. The archangel Michael, XLI, 9, 12.

Miles d’Angiers (Milo de Angleris). The dus et mestre of Ch.’s army as it goes to meet Agolant, VI, 4, 28.
His death, VI, 50.
Roland’s father, XII, 2.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 152 ]] 

Mindoine (Mindonia). Mondoñedo, III, 2.

Mirade (Miracula). Milagro, III, 9.

Moabites (Moabitas). The Almoravids, a contingent in Agolant’s army, VII, 2.

Monjardin (Montem Garzini, MS A10). Monjardin. Site of the battle against Fourré, between Estella and Logroño, XX, 1.
Taken by Ch., XX, 14.
Those who died in the oratory there, buried in France, XLVI, 6.

Monmartre. Monmartre, in Paris, V, 16.

Morlens (Morlanum). Morlaas (Basses Pyrénées). The Burgundians pass through M. on their way from Roncevaux to Arles, XLIX, 3.

Nadavre, une cité qui fu en Aufrique (no appositional phrase in the Latin). A city from which the Navarrese took their name, LXIII, 12, 13.

Nadres. See Navre.

Naimes, li dus de Bavieres. XII, 19.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 8.

Nantes. See Hoiaus.

Nasres. See Navre.

Navarre. I, 16, III, 23, VI, 24.
Ch. takes the whole province, XX, 15.
Given to the Bretons after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 36.

Navars (Navarri). The Navarrese; how they got their name, LXIII, 11, 13.

Navre (Nageram). Nájera, Prol., 8.
Nadres (Lageras), III, 9.
Fernagu awaits Ch. there, XXI, 1, 6.
The territory of Nazres given to the Greeks in Ch.’s army after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 37.
Nasres, LXIII, 8.

Nivot, roy de Bougie (Nuitum regem Bugiae). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 3.

Nourmaise (Warmatiae). Worms, LX, 4.

Nubiliens (Nubilianos). Nubians, LXIII, 1.

Nubles. See Bernarz.

Odon (Eudonis). Eude, father of Estouz, q.v., XII, 6.

Ogier, roy de Danemarche. XII, 19:
toutjours chantera l’en mes de lui; XIII, 6.
O. le Danois, XVII, 6.
Fights Fernagu and is made prisoner, XXI, 8.
Buried in Belin, XLVII, 8.

Oliviers, fils au conte Renier de Gennes (Oliverius . . . comes gebennensis, filius Raineri comitis). Oliver, XII, 4.
His body found, XLIV, 3.
Buried in Belin, XLVII, 8.
The meaning of his name, LXI, 13.

Osche (Osca). Huesca, III, 10.

Osine (Osma). Osma, III, 5.

Othes. See Haste.

Oventin (Ovetum). Oviedo, III, 8.

Ozius (Orniz). La Hornija, in the province of Valladolid, LXII, 20.

Palalabre (tellus Palargarum). Apparently the settlement of a Moslem community in northern Spain, III, 24.

Palence (Palentia). Palencia, III, 7.

Panpelune. Pamplona, Prol., 2.
Besieged by Ch., II, 1.
Captured through miraculous intervention of St. James, II, 6 ff., III, 10.
Agolant withdraws thither from Saintes, IX, 1.
The main French army approaches, XIII, 4.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 153 ]] 
The events culminating in Agolant’s defeat and death there, XIII, 9-XIX, 1.
Ch. halts there on his way back to France, XXX, 3. LXIII, 8.

Paris. Ch. founds there the church of St. James, V, 16.
Returns there from Spain, L, 4.
The people convey him there from Saint-Denis, L, 23.

Paul de Nerbone. St. Paul of Narbonne, XLVI, 4.

Pepins. Pépin II, d’Héristal, III, 34.

Perron, Le (Petronum). El Padrón, the place to which St. James’s body was miraculously borne from Jerusalem. Charles goes there and marks it as the limit of his conquest, II, 13. Cf. Ure.

Perse. Persia, XXX, 5.

Perses (Persas). Persians, a contingent in Agolant’s army, VII, 2.

Pharaon. Pharoah, overwhelmed in the Red Sea, LX, 14.

Pierre. St. Peter. One of the three principal apostles, XXIX, 3.
He is first among these, XXIX, 6.

Pigtavie (in urbe Pictavorum). Poitiers, XII, 10. See also Poitiers.

Pinabel. Ganelon’s nephew, takes his part in trial by combat, is defeated and dragged to his death by horses, XLIV, 20. See note.

Poitevins. The Poitevins in Ch.’s army who were given Aragón after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 38.

Poitiers. XII, 11, 13. See also Pigtavie.

Pol, saint. St. Paul, who, long before Ch., gave all France in freehold to the Abbey of Saint-Denis, L, 8.

Pont d’Argue (pontem Argae). Puente-la-Reina, XIX, 2.

Portingal (tellus Portugallorum). Portugal, III, 22.
Given to the Danes and Flemings after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 39.

Primitif, saint (Primitivus). Saint Primitivus, in whose name an abbey was founded, VI, 31.

Puillois (Apulis). The Apulians in Ch.’s army. They are given Saragossa after the conquest of Spain, XXV, 38.
Buried with Constantine in Rome, XLIX, 10.

Radaiot (Badaiot). Badajoz, III, 6.

Rainnaus de l’Aube Espine. XII, 22.
Renaut de l’A., fights Fernagu and is made prisoner, XXII, 1 (see note).
Buried in Saint-Seurin de Bordeaux. XLVIII, 3.

Renier. Renier de Gennes. Oliver’s father, XII, 5.

Rollant1. Roland, Prol., 9, 11.
Ch.’s nephew, marshal of the French army, duke of Angiers and of Blaye, XII, 1.
Fights Fernagu, XXIII, 1 ff.
Quens du Mans et sires de Blaives, put in command of the French rearguard at Roncevaux, XXXI, 16.
Escapes the defeat alive, XXXII, 15.
Goes in pursuit of the enemy, XXXIII, 1 ff.
Sounds his horn to rally the remnants of the rearguard, XXXIII, 6.
A captured Saracen points out Marsile to him; he slays Marsile, XXXIII, 8 ff.
Addresses Durendal, XXXVI, 1 ff.
Sounds his horn again to rally survivors, XXXVII, 1.
His last prayers, and death, XXXVII, 22 ff.
His body found, XLII, 5.
Ch.’s lament over him,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 154 ]] 
XLIII, 1 ff.

Borne to Blaye for burial, XLVII, 1 ff.
His body exposed for veneration, XLVII, 5.
Ch. commends R.’s soul to St. Denis, L, 18.
The miracle wrought for him at Granopole, LX.
The meaning of his name, LXI, 12.

Rollant2, .i. autre. XII, 3. See note in Johannes, XXIII, 4.

Romain1, Saint-Romain in Blaye. Roland buried there, XLVII, 3, 7.
Endowed by Ch. for love of Roland, XLVIII, 7.

Romain2, saint. San Román, in whose church at “Ozius,” q.v., a plundering Saracen was turned to stone, LXII, 20.

Romain, le mostier saint. The church of San Román in “Ozius,” q.v.

Romains. The Romans under Constantine, Provost of Rome, a contingent in Ch.’s army, all taken by sea to Rome for burial, XLIX, 10.

Romanc (Romaricus). A French knight whose bequest to the poor was appropriated by a false executor, VI, 7.

Rome. Its church one of the three greatest sees of Christendom, XXIX, 1.
It is first among these, XXIX, 6.
Costentins and his Romans are taken there for burial, XLIX, 9.
Saint-Denis will accept neither its confirmation nor rejection of bishops elected by the abbey, L, 12. See also Costentins.

Roncevaus. Roncesvaux, Prol., 9, XII, 14, XXXIII, 5, XLIV, 16, XLVIII, 12, 16, XLIX, 3, LXI, 13.

Rosez (Rosas). Rosas, III, 9.

Rosne. The Rhône. Turpin buried on its far side “devers France vers oriant,” LXI, 4; see note.

Rouge Mer, la. The Red Sea, LX, 13.

Rune, l’iaue de. The river Rune, another name for the Arga (see Argue) at Pamplona (cf. Bédier, Légendes épiques, 3:293), XIII, 7.

Sainne. The river Seine, V, 16.

Saint Fagon. Sahagún, Prol., 5.

Saint Jale (Sancta Eulalia). Santa Olalla, III, 4.

Saintes. VIII, 12,
qui lors estoit aus Sarrazins. XII, 13.

Salancadis. The name by which the statue of Mohammed in Cádiz was known, IV, 2.

Salemande (Salamanga). Salamanca, III, 6.

Salemon. XII, 16.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 6.

Sanses li dus de Bergoigne. XII, 21.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 6.

Sanson. The biblical Samson, XLIII, 4.

Sarragonne qu’en apele Cesaranguste (Saraguicia quae dicitur Caesar Augusta). Saragossa, III, 10.

Sarrazines. The Saracen women sent by Marsile and Baligant to the French army in Pamplona, XXXI, 4, 13, 22.

Sarrazins. Saracens, I, 12, 25, 28, II, 7 ff., 16;
la terre des S., III, 22;
la loi des S., III, 32; IV, 4, V, 5.
Sarradin, V, 7, VII, 1, VIII, 22, 24. LX, 4
the pagan Saxons; see note.

Sarre, le roy d’Alixandre (Burrabellum regem Alexandriae). A leader in Agolant’s army, VII, 2.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 155 ]] 

Sative (Stativa). Játiva, III, 14.
Setive (Desentina), XXV, 4.

Saturnins de Tolose. St. Saturninus of Toulouse, XLVI, 4.

Saül. Saul, King of Israel, XLIII, 4, 15.

Sebile (Sibilia). Seville, III, 14, VII, 5, XXV, 4. See also Cebreon.

Segoibe (Secobia). Segovia, III, 5.

Seguntiene (Seguntia). Siguenza, III, 5.

Seie (Ceia). The river Cea, VI, 29, 43.

Seppe (Septa). Ceuta, III, 20.

Sepulnege (Sepunulega). Sepúlveda, III, 6.

Sesnes. Saxons, LX, 5.

Setive. See Sative.

Severin. Saint-Seurin in Bordeaux. Roland’s ivory horn deposited there, XLVII, 6.
Burial-place of many French heroes, XLVIII, 1.

Sire1, les porz de (portus Cireseos). Le port de Cize, IX, 1.
Cire, XXXI, 15.
Scene of Roland’s last moments: aus piés des porz de Cire, XXXV, 7.

Sire2 (Siriae). Syria, XXI, 2.
Surie (Ierosolimis horis), LXI, 20.

Surie. See Sire.

Tabarie, la mer de. The Sea of Tiberias, I, 23; see note.

Taleborc (Calaburgus). Taillebourg, scene of the second miracle of the lances, VIII, 16.

Talemanche (Thalamanca). Talamanca, III, 4.

Talevaire (Talaveria). Talavera de la Reina, III, 5.

Terefin (Teremphinum). “Le roy d’Arrabe,” a leader of Agolant’s forces, VII, 2.

Teride (Terrida). Lérida, III, 12.

Termes, Termes-en-Termenés. See Bédier, Légendes épiques, 1:390-391. See also Gautier.

Terrascone (Terracona). Tarragona, III, 11.

Thierriz. XII, 25.
Roland’s squire, escapes alive with him at Roncevaux, XXXII, 15.
Hides in the forest with Baudoyn, XXXII, 16.
Witnesses Roland’s farewell to Durendal, XXXV, 10.
Finds Roland and is present at his death, XXXVII, 18 ff.
Brings the news to the French camp, XLII, 3.
Declares Ganelon’s guilt and proves it in combat with Pinabel, XLIV, 19 ff.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 7 (see note).

Tierri. See Thierriz.

Tolete. See Toulete.

Torquis (Torquatus). St. Torquatus, a disciple of St. James; the miracle occurring on his feast day, III, 16.

Toulete (Toletum). Toledo, III, 6.
Tolete, where Ch. learnt Arabic in his youth, XIV, 12.

Toulouse. Ch. and, separately, the Burgundians pass through Toulouse on their way from Roncevaux to Arles, XLIX, 2, 4.

Tourpin. Turpin, archbishop of Reims, supposed author of the Chronicle. Quite inconsistently he refers to himself sometimes in the first, sometimes in the third, person. In the first person: Blesses the French army
 [[ Print Edition Page No. 156 ]] 
and absolves the men of their sins,
IX, 12.
Leader as priest and warrior, XI, 1 ff.
Dedicates the church at Compostela, XXVII, 1 (Torpins).
Informed of Roland’s death in a vision, XLI, 2 ff.
Present as Baudoin and Thierry bring in the news, XLII, 1 ff.
Remains, weakened by his wounds, in Vienne, L, 2.
Informed of Ch.’s death in a vision, LVIII.
Referred to in the 3rd pers.: Prol., 11.
Baptizes the defeated Saracens in Galicia, II, 16.
Leaves the rearguard and moves back over the pass with Ch. and Ganelon, XXXII, 2.
The account of his death, LXI.
In heaven, LXI, 7 ff.
The meaning of his name, LXI, 16.

Tourtouse (Tortosa). Tortosa, III, 12.

Trophins, sainz. St. Trophimus of Arles, XLVI, 3.

Tudele (Tutella). Tudela, III, 9.

Turgel (Turgel). Trujillo, III, 7.

Turs, la terre des (Pardorum). Turks, III, 23.
Turs seems to be our translator’s substitution for Pardorum, a people not surely identified; see the Latin text 98, xii and the note to 99, x. Cf. too David, Etudes, 3:32. Our translator uses Turs elsewhere as a synonym for Sarrazins, VI, 53 (cf. 35), XXXII, 6, L, 17.
When he made his translation, the objective of the crusade was the defeat of the Seldjuk Turks; his use of Turs would then indicate his sense of continuity between Ch.’s crusade in Spain and the contemporary crusades in the East. Pope Urban II had stressed the fact that in his conception the crusades in Spain and the crusades in the East were spiritually one.

Ubele (Ubeda). XXV, 5. See too Bede.

Ulme (Ulmas). Olmos? Olmedo? III, 4.

Ulne (Elna). Elne, III, 11.

Ure (Yria). Iria Flavia, the modern El Padrón, III, 2.
Aure, XXVI, 8;
made subject to the metropolitan see of Compostela.

Urence qu’en apele l’Estoile (Urantia quae dicitur Arthus, Stella). Los Arcos, III, 9. See also Estoile. Mouskés also has this reading, entailing the loss of Arthus, vv. 12,000-12,001.

Urgel (Urgellum). Urgel, III, 11.

Uzede (Uzeda). Uceda, III, 4.

Val Charle, le (in valle quae Karoli dicitur). The Val Carlos which goes down from Roncevaux to St.-Jean-Pied-de-Port, XXXVII, 6;
la Valee Charlon, XLI, 3.

Valence (Valentia). Valencia, III, 14.

Val Vert. III, 8, 26. See under Luserne.

Ventouse qu’en apele Cartons et si est en Val Vert (Ventosa quae dicitur Karcesa, quae est in Valle Viridi). III, 7,
Castro de la Ventosa. . . . See under Luserne.

Vienne. Vienne (Isére). Turpin stays there and bids farewell to Ch., L, 1.
Scene of the vision which appeared to Turpin of Ch.’s death, LVIII, 3.
Ch. and Turpin exchange promises there each to be informed of the other’s death, LVIII, 19.
Turpin dies and is buried there, LXI, 2 ff.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 157 ]] 

Vinmare (Wimarana). Guimaräes, III, 3.

Vracarie qui mestre citez est de Nostre Dame (Brachara metropolis, civitas Sanctae Mariae). Braga, the metropolitan see of Galicia, III, 3.

Ynec (Mequae). Mecca, VII, 4. See also Lormon.

Ypalite (Yspalida). Hispalis? (the old name of Seville), III, 12.

Ysidoire. St. Isidor; canons regular of his rule established by Ch. at St. James’s of Compostela, V, 10.

Yvoire. XII, 25.
Buried in the Alyscamps, XLIX, 8.

Zebedee. Father of St. James, I, 22.
His wife, and her request of Jesus, XXVIII, 1.

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 158 ]] 

 [[ Print Edition Page No. 159 ]] 

List of Works Referred to in the Notes