Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Version dionysienne de la Chanson de Roland."Forthcoming in the Mélanges Erhard Lommatzsch.Accepting that recent studies on the differences between the narration of the Roland tragedy and that of the battle between Charlemagne and Baligant point to a redactor who added to and changed the original poem, Keller examines the hitherto unasked question as to why this redactor inserted the Baligant episode.The first section of his article analyses the work of critics who stressed the Anglo elements in the Oxford manuscript.K. agrees with their conclusions that certain elements in the text and the language attest a reworking of the poem on Anglo-Angevin soil, but he asserts that this is only a superficial strata beneath which exists a significant reworking to which the Baligant episode belongs.Drawing initially on research done by Jules Horrent, K. states that the spirit, region and period which presented the Emperor of the West, the Champion of Christianity, under the traits of a king of France indicate that a French artist reworked this Baligant episode version in Capetian France during the first half of the twelfth century.His thesis is that this work owes a great deal to Abbot Suger of St. Denis and to the intellectual and spiritual climate surrounding the efforts of the Regent to restore French royalty to a position of power and to uphold the kingdom that the king's departure for the crusade had endangered.In support of this theory, K. next identifies some of the barons who played key rôles in the Baligant episode with historical personages who helped Suger successfully defend the power of the royalty.For example, two such figures are Geoffrey V, the Fair, and Thierry of Alsace, Count of Flanders, who appear in the Baligant episode as Gefreid d'Anjou and his brother Tierri, where they pick up Charlemagne after he has fainted.K. interprets this act as an allegorical allusion to the support these two barons offered the French kingdom.K.'s pairing of Charlemagne's barons with historical personages who helped maintain the kingdom in France is by no means exhaustive and he has no intention of interpreting the Chanson de Roland as a roman à clef.Yet he is confident that the parallels are too many and too close to be due to coincidence, and that further study will probably lead to more identifications.K. is mindful of J. Monfrin's warning that historical allusions are not necessarily contemporaneous with a literary composition, but may have preceded it.This warning, however, leads him to point out 64
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.539 | 0.404 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".