VIIIa. RAIMBAUT D’ORANGE’S REPLY PEIRE ROTGIER, A TRASSAILLIR (389, 34)

Classification. All the MSS have the same order of stanzas and contain the complete poem, with the exception of ADIK, in which l. 48 is lacking, and E, a large part of which is mutilated. The MSS may be divided into two broad groups: ADIK and CEU. The first is the more consistent, with all four MSS sharing readings in the following lines and opposed jointly or independently by at least two MSS of the second group: 9, 17, 18, 19, 21 (venoil), 30 (qez eu), 31, 35 (puois), 39 (servir), 44 (q’ieu), 47 (degra’m), 49 (del), 50 (sui bas), 51. On the other hand, all three MSS of the second group are allied in I (C mutilated), 14, 27 (car) (all with A) and 9. The opposition between the two traditions is confirmed by the omission of l. 48 in ADIK, mentioned above.

Within the first group DIK form their usual subdivision, cf. 1, 5, II (qem), 13, 20 (els), 27, 32 (es), with IK showing further links in 3 (ai), 12 (n¯-no¯), 14, 21 (ditz), 29, 32 (totz), 52 and particularly in 20, 23 (e-et), 39, 42, where they stand in opposition to the other MSS. AD, for their part, share readings in 3 (aic), 12 (no·m), 20 (puois conogutz), 21 (dich-dig), 23 (cals), 32 (tortz).

CEU form a more loose and intricate grouping. In his classification of the MSS Appel makes no specific reference to the relationship between C and E. Important links are seen, however, in 11, 13, 21 (digz), 31. E is also closely allied to U in 23 (cal) (with IK), 48 (dic). Special attention should perhaps be drawn to the relationship of U with each of the other two MSS of its group. Pattison regards it as vaguely related to CE. However, apart from being connected both with E and with CE as a whole (see above), it has particularly important links with C, mostly in opposition to the other MSS. Cf. 19, 21 (ven lo), 35 (plus), 39, 44 (qe), 49, 50. Appel points out the similarity between the reading of 22 in C and that of 43 in GU in Seign’en Raymbaut, per vezer, and considers that the scribe of C must have had the original of U before him. He adds that this would explain many of those instances where they differ both from each other and from the other MSS, that is, where the original of U has contained errors.

All three MSS individually associate themselves at times with the first group, E in particular showing fairly strong links with this tradition, in opposition to the other MSS, cf. 17, 19, 20, 25 (m’o), 32 as well as 18, 21 (venols), 30 (que) in which its independent readings are nearer to the first group than to the second. U is connected with MSS of the first group in 11, 47, standing quite close to all four in 40 (escaeguz). It stands with A in 20 (faich-fach) in opposition to the other MSS. C is allied with AD in 12 (no·m), 23 (quals) and again with A in 5 (etz), the latter two instances being in opposition to the others.

There is insufficient evidence available in the one stanza concerned for us to comment on the relationship of Dc with the other MSS.

  

Metrical scheme. Seven coblas unissonans of seven lines and a tornada of three lines, following the scheme of the last three lines of the stanzas:

a8 b8 b8 a8 c8 c8 d8

(Frank: 571: 11). The same scheme as that for Peire Rogier’s Seign’en Raymbaut, per vezer and five other poems. There are a further seven examples of this rhyme scheme with a different syllable arrangement.

  

Base and orthography. A.