SENHER, QUAL PENRIAZ VOS

(366.30)

MW, II, 32; Kolsen, Trobadorgedichte, p. 50.

From the variants, it will be seen that E is very individualistic (cf. 4, 13, 20, 29, 32, 38, 44), and usually stands alone when variants occur. Oa1 appear to belong to the same family (cf. 3, 18, 29, 36, 37, 42) and GQ are apparently closely related to one another (cf. 27, 29, 30, 36, 42). The remaining MSS. are difficult to classify with precision. L inclines sometimes to GQ (10, 13, 29), sometimes to Oa1 (27, 36) and in l. 42 stands alone; T tends, on the whole, to follow GQ (27, 36, 42), but reveals individualist tendencies (2, 10, 46) in the less important variants.

As Kolsen points out, the analysis of the stanza construction given by Maus (563) is incorrect. The correct scheme is as follows: 7a 7b 7b 7a 5c 5c 5d’ 5e 5e 5d’, not, as Maus gives, 7a 7b 7b 7a 6c 5c 6d 6e 5e 6d. Maus appears to have followed the version of the poem given by Mahn (Werke, II, 32) which is based on E; from the variants, however, it will be seen that this MS. has several irregularities of metre. In Kolsen’s text there is a certain lack of symmetry about the scheme of versification. It will be seen that the rhymes a b d are the same throughout; c and e, which are the same in stanzas 1 and 2, change in each of the stanzas 3 and 4. One would normally expect, too, that the rhymes occurring in the tornada, would be the same as those of the last lines of the last verse; this is not the case in Kolsen’s version or in any of the MSS. From the first two verses, it would seem that the poem should be written in coblas doblas. Can it be assumed that two verses (say, X and Y) of the poem have been lost and that the order of verses should be: 1 2 X 4 3 Y tornadas. In such an event, the rhymes of stanza X would be the same as those of stanza 4, and the rhymes of stanza Y as those of stanza 3, while the rhymes of the tornadas would then be the same as those of the last three lines of the last verse.

Text: Kolsen(op. cit.).