Estudi introductori - Einleitende Studie - Introductory study - Estudio introductorio - Introduction - Studio introduttivo - Estudi introductòri

Aston, S. C.. Peirol. Troubadour of Auvergne . Cambridge: University Press, 1953








I. The life of Peirol


According to the short Provençal vida, Peirol was born in the castle of the same name which lay in the territory of the counts of Auvergne close to Rochefort.(1) The name is a family one, derived no doubt from his birthplace,(2) and is not uncommon in the contemporary history of the region.(3) The date of Peirol’s birth is obviously conjectural but may be placed about the year 1160.(4) As uns paubres cavaliers he probably ranked with the numerous petty knights who held a castle or a town in fief, owing allegiance to a more powerful overlord. His resources being inadequate, like those of the majority of his class, he no doubt found it necessary to hire out his services and turned, not unnaturally, to his feudal superior, Dauphin of Auvergne.(5) To judge by the vida, he was successful in attracting the attention and favour of his lord, and was rewarded, according to the customs of the times, with the gift of horses, clothes and arms.

Among the noble patrons of the troubadours in the latter decades of the twelfth century, few stood higher in esteem than Dauphin of Auvergne (born c. 1150, ruled 1169-1234). His generosity was proverbial, so much so that his biographer records that per la larguesa soa perdet la meitat et plus de tot lo sieu comtat. His court was ever open to the troubadours and the biographies of Peirol, Peire de Maensac, Perdigon and Uc de St Circ testify to the ready welcome offered there. He himself entered the poetic lists in competition with contemporary troubadours, and there is sufficient evidence to show that, despite M. Jeanroy’s belief that his poetic activity dates from 1199 onwards,(6) he took an active part at least as early as 1190.(7)

Poetic convention decreed that Peirol should seek out a lady to be the recipient of his homage, and his choice lighted, according to the vida, on his protector’s sister, Sail-de-Claustra, wife of Beraud III of Mercoeur. The name and identity of this lady have given rise to some confusion. The name Sail-de-Claustra is almost certainly a sobriquet and is a compound name (=échappée du cloître) analogous to that of the troubadour Sail d’Escola.(8) It may be presumed that the lady had a Christian name, but whether that name was in fact Assalide, given to her by Baluze (9) and since commonly accepted, is to be doubted. Nostredamus,(10) who appears to be the point de départ, calls the lady Nassal de Claustre. Baluze followed Nostredamus and considered Nassal as a diminutive (N’Assal) deriving from Assalide, adding that he did not know the reason for the appellation of de Claustre. Diez,(11) following Baluze, notes: ‘Sail ist eine starke Contraction von Assalide. Was der Beiname Claustra bedeuten soll, ist dunkel; auch Baluze ... weiss ihn nicht zu deuten.’ Baluze’s assumption would be reasonable provided that the authenticity of the name Nassal de Claustre could be accepted; but since that name appears to rest on the dubious authority of Nostredamus, one is led to wonder whether the mental gymnastics which enabled Nostredamus to convert Peirol d’Auvergne into Peyre de Vernegue may not equally have been at work on the troubadour sobriquet Sail-de-Claustra, and hence to suspect that Baluze, and subsequently Diez, have been guilty of an argument post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 It is, perhaps, safer to accept the simple sobriquet than to follow Baluze, if only for the reason that the attribution of the name Assalide to the lady has led in its turn to further confusion on the question of lady’s identity. Attempts have been made to identify her with Azalaïs or Alazaïs d’Anduze sung by Pons de Capdoill, probably because of that lady’s connection with the house of Mercoeur, an identification disproved by C. Fabre in his study on Pons de Capdoill.(12) More persistent has been the identification of Sail-de-Claustra with the wife of Heraclius III of Polignac. Vaissete(13) states that Assalide (sic) married Heraclius in 1181; Maus(14) follows Vaissete, adding (presumably to conform with the biography of Peirol) that she married Beraud de Mercoeur en secondes noces after the death of Heraclius, c. 1201, a supposition disproved by the biographical note on Odilo de Mercoeur, Bishop of Puy, in Gallia Christiana,(15) where Odilo (... filius autem Beraldi domini de Mercorio ex filia Vuillelmi Comitis Arverniae...) figures as Bishop of Puy in 1198. There is no doubt that Heraclius did marry a daughter of Willlam VII of Auvergne; in two documents(16) his son Pons is styled nepos of Dauphin of Auvergne. Baluze was himself conscious of the conflict of evideince as is shown by his supposition that he viscountess of Polignac was a sister-in-law of Dauphin.

The question has been clarified by M. Marcellin Boudet who devoted a chapter(17) of his study on the house of Mercoeur to the resolution of the identity of the wife of Beraut de Mercoeur and that of the viscountess of Polignac. Sail-de-Claustra was the daughter of William VII of Auvergne and of Marqueza of Albon, his wife; she appears in history for the first time in 1163.(18) The viscountess of Polignac was her sister,(19) married to Heraclius III by 1181 certainly, since a document of 31 August of that year refers to William VII as the father-in-law of Heraclius; she was still alive in 1199, as is proved by the refrerence to her in the will of Dauphin’s wife.(20) She would appear to have borne the name Marqueza(21) after her mother, although Chabaneau, (22) following Vaissette but without giving further proof, adds that she was also called Belissende, a name which, it has been suggested, may perhaps be referred to in the opening line of a poem by Guillem de Saint Leidier (234.3):

Aissi cum es bella cil de cui chan.

The name Marqueza seems to have led to some confusion among the troubadours, who often considered it a title.(23) The relationship of Dauphin and the two ladies may be summarized as follows:

[arbre genealogic]

Boudet affirms that Sail-de-Claustra retired towards the end of her life to the court of Ventadour, dying in 1202 at Tulle, where, he says, her obituary was seen by Baluze. He appears, however, to have improved on Baluze.(24) Even if Sail-de-Claustra’s name was really Nassal de Claustre, there is no reason to assume that she is the same lady mentioned by Baluze, since there is no apparent connection between her family and the house of Ventadour; if, as is probable, the attribution to her of the name of Nassal de Claustre is erroneous,(25) the identification is obviously invalidated. Sail-de-Claustra may well have died in the early years of the thirteenth century; but there is no sure foundation for Boudet’s statement that she died in 1202.

As Baluze notes, the origin of the sobriquet Sail-de-Claustra is difficult to ascertain. Whether the lady’s family had intended her for a convent, whether she was shut up in a convent in 1163 during the dispute between the elder branch of the houses of Auvergne and the family of Mercoeur over the affairs of the chapter of Brioude,(26) whether it is derived from a place-name common in the region(27) or from a family possession, or whether it results from confusion with her cousin and contemporary Beatrice de Claustral, daughter of the Count of Forcalquier, is impossible to determine. Whatever the solution to the problem, it does not affect the question of the lady’s independent existence nor of her relationship with Peirol.

To judge by the vida, Peirol’s literary career falls into two distinct parts. The first covers the period he spent at Dauphin’s court, the second his life as a wandering poet after his banishment from Clermont. Allusions in his poems are few and difficult to verify; only two of his poems can be dated with any certainty and other details of his life are obscure. That he occupied a position of some importance in the literary life of the time may be assumed from the number of MSS. which contain his works and from the several references in the work of other troubadours, as well as from the somewhat complacent references to his reputation contained in his own poems; precise facts, however, are lacking. A reconstruction of his life must be largely based, like the vida, on suppositions derived from a consideration of his extant poems.

While it is impossible to fix with any degree of certainty the date at which Peirol’s literary activities began, Diez’s suggestion of 1180 is probably at least five years too early,(28) while Boudet’s hypothesis(29) of 1169 is altogether improbable. Having selected Sail-de-Claustra to be the recipient of his literary homage, Peirol proceeded to court her favour in the conventional manner. His early poems (I-IV) are in the usual vein. The lady is not apparently in any great hurry to accept him; the poet laments her coldness, expresses his devotion to her although she herself does not deign to return his affection, and endeavours to excite her compassion by a recital of the despair that threatens to overwhelm him.

The crusading tenso Quant amors trobet partit was probably written during this early period.(30) Like several other poets of the time, Peirol embraced enthusiastically the idea of a united action against the infidel and seems to have been equally dismayed by the shifts with which the Western monarchs sought to evade their obligations. To him, as to others, it appeared

. . . que·l socors vai trop tarzan,
et auria mestier gran
que·l marques valens e pros
n’agues mais de companhos. (XXXI)

 The marquis referred to was Conrad of Montferrat who continued to wage a desperate lone struggle against the might of Saladin.(31) The above lines find a parallel in the crusading poem of Bertran de Born written about the same time:

Ara sai eu de pretz, quals l’a plus gran
de totz aquels que·s leveron mati;
Messer Conratz l’a plus fi, ses enjan,
que·s defen lai a Sur d’en Saladi
     e de sa maisnada croia.
Socorra·l Deus! que·l socors vai tardan.
Sols aura·l pretz, que sols sofre l’afan.(32)

 The crusading poem of Peirol, probably his best-known work, takes the form of a tenso with Love, and was written during the preparations for the Third Crusade, probably in the year 1188; on 21 January of that year Philippe Auguste and Henry II of England took the Cross together, but in the following May war broke out between them, to which fact the poet apparently makes reference:

e que trameta breumen
entre·ls reys acordamen.

It was probably in the same year, too, that Bertran de Born composed his crusading poem since Conrad of Montferrat was then defending Tyre against the victorious Saladin, who had, on 4 July 1187, crushed Guy de Lusignan and subsequently captured Jerusalem.(33)

In Peirol’s tenso Love chides the poet for having deserted the service of his lady and for having ceased to sing. The poet replies that, in the past, love has ever been foremost in his thoughts; if it were not for Saladin and his host, he would willingly continue in the same pursuit. Now, however, in face of the pressing danger, he must put thoughts of love aside. Love then advances the obvious argument that, since the Western kings are divided among themselves and are in no hurry to take the field, whatever the poet may say or do, his efforts are likely to be of little avail in freeing the Holy Land from the Saracen. Peirol retorts that, even if the kings do not set forth, Dauphin at least will not be turned from his purpose either by Love or by the prospect of war at home. His concluding lines:

Amors, si li rey no·i van,
del Dalfi vos dic aitan;
ja per guerra ni per vos
no remanra, tant es pros

 appear to have been unduly optimistic, for Dauphin himself did not undertake the journey to the Holy Land. Whether Peirol himself set out is not known; while there is no apparent support for such a supposition, Diez(34) suggests that the poet may have been among the host of pilgrims who visited the Holy Sepulchre after the truce of 1192, by which the Christians were permitted to visit Jerusalem. But since his meagre resources would obviously have been insufficient for him to have taken an active part in the Third Crusade, it is more than likely that he allowed his conscience to be overborne by the arguments advanced by Love. That he visited the Holy Land at a subsequent date is proved by a later poem (XXXII), but his participation in the great effort of the Western powers must be regarded as extremely improbable.

According to the vida, Peirol’s early lyrics attracted the attention of Dauphin, who interceded with his sister on the poet’s behalf with such effect that the lady overcame her nonchalance and consented to accept Peirol as her lover. The poet did not attempt to conceal his pleasure at his good fortune (V). Yet his joy was not destined to be permanent. Whether or not Peirol’s affections transcended the normal relationships of lady and suitor cannot be determined. Certainly his love poems betray none of the physical desires which characterise the works of some of the troubadours, and the affair appears to have been nothing more than the usual platonic devotion conducted on strictly orthodox lines. Nevertheless, the vida relates that Dauphin, after showing great favour to the poet, entertained some suspicion of a more intimate feeling between the poet and Sail-de-Claustra, and, fearing lest the lady’s good name should be endangered, banished the poet from his court. In spite of the romantic nature of this version, it is more probable that the poet’s dismissal by Sail-de-Claustra was brought about either by indifference on the part of the lady or by some other event at court.

The date of Peirol’s fall from favour is again problematical. Diez,(35) apparently influenced by the vida, suggests that it was shortly after 1192 that the poet was banished from Clermont, but there is evidence to show that he remained there for some time after the unfortunate Crusade.(36) In the celebrated sirventes of the Monk of Montaudon (305.16) the following satire on Peirol occurs in verse 5:

El quartz Peirols us Alvergnatz
qu’a trent’ans us vestirs portatz,
et es plus secs de leign’ arden
e sos chantars es sordeiatz;
qu’anc pus si fon enbaguassatz
a Clarmon, no fetz chan valen.

 It would appear that, at the time of the composition of the poem,(37) Peirol was still at Clermont, and, therefore, most probably at Dauphin’s court; enbaguassatz may possibly be a scurrilous reference to the poet’s recent dismissal by Sail-de-Claustra.

The tensos which Peirol exchanged with Dauphin (XXVIII and XXIX) have also a bearing on the date of his departure from Clermont. In Jeanroy’s view(38) these were written between 1200 and 1210. Stronski,(39) however, points out that Dauphin’s earliest surviving work does not date from 1199, but that, on the contrary, there is evidence to show that Dauphin was actively engaged in literary activities as early as 1190. It is not unreasonable to assume that, in a court so renowned for its literary sympathies as Clermont, Dauphin, the patron of so many troubadours, would have taken part in the literary activities of the court before 1200, by which date he would be in middle age. The two tensos do not prove that Peirol was still at Dauphin’s court after the turn of the century, and it scarcely seems possible to do more than suggest that they were composed in all probability during the last decade of the twelfth century.

Of the other tensos, that with Gaucelm Faidit (XXX) was probably composed between 1190 and 1194, since both poets were then connected with Dauphin’s court. The tenso with Bernart de Ventadour (XXXIII) offers a problem; it is unlikely that both Bernart and Peirol could have participated, and the attribution is almost certainly false in one case. If Peirol did take part, and not Bernart, the poem may well belong to the period following his dismissal.(40)

 The allusion to Peirol in the sirventes of Peire d’Alvernhe, which served as a model to the Monk:

El dotzes us clergatz Peirols
ab cara maigra secs musols,
e can vol chantar va tossent
c’aissi n’es esclaritz lo sols
c’a totz vos en penria dols,
tan fa lag son captenement . . . (41)

is a later interpolation;(42) the original poem was composed about 1173 and brought up to date some twenty years later to include four troubadours prominent at that time. The reference to Peirol as a priest has no more confirmation than the Monk’s no doubt slanderous statement that he wore the same clothes for thirty years. Isolated incidents or fleeting references were enough to provide the basis for the troubadours’ satires, and a simple allusion on the part of Peirol, a mere hint as to his intention of entering a monastery if, for instance, his love proved unlucky, or a similarity between his physical characteristics and the popular caricature of a priest would have been enough for the satirist.

There remain the poems themselves, in particular XXIV and XXV.(43) In XXV the poet has definitely departed from Auvergne; happy in his new love he confesses that he was never so gayset ans a e mais. This line would indicate that he had continued to hope for a return to Sail-de-Claustra’s favour for at least seven years. The preceding poem, which is closely linked with XXV and informs Dauphin that he will ‘know the truth of the matter’ (i.e. presumably of the poet’s decision to take a new mistress) may, from the reference to the crotz del ris be placed c. 1202-3. Thus the date of Peirol’s dismissal by Sail-de-Claustra may be placed c. 1194-5 and that of his final departure from Clermont c. 1202. These dates are not out of keeping with the references mentioned above.(44)

After a relatively brief period of favour, then, Peirol found himself dismissed by his lady. Apart from the version of the vida, no cause for his fall from grace is known, but it would appear from his poems that he suffered from the attacks of the lauzengiers, the conventional enemies of all troubadour lovers. In XI he appears to be perturbed by their activities and is at pains to delude them so that none may know his celat cossirier; already in VI he has avowed his loyalty to his lady cui que pes. Whether or not these traditional slanderers helped to cause his downfall can only be a matter of conjecture, but whatever the reason, Peirol was banished from the side of his lady who, to judge by the poems, now treated him coldly and paid no heed to his pleadings. To a troubadour, the loss of a patron was possibly of greater import and consequence than the loss of a mistress, since it was to the patron that the poet looked for the rewards and lavish gifts that made life so pleasant, and it is quite possible that Peirol’s long fidelity to Sail-de-Claustra after his dismissal and the heartfelt lamentations in the poems with which he endeavoured to soften her heart were due just as much to a desire to retain the favour of a munificent patron as to a longing for the lady’s love.

The poet continued, therefore, to address his poems to the lady and appears to have hoped for a recall to favour. That he continued to maintain contact with Dauphin is shown by the references in the tornadas of several of these poems, and he continued no doubt to fulfil his normal functions at the court during the period c. 1194-c. 1202. Four poems of the group (VIII-XXII) composed at this time are important in that they appear to shed some light on Peirol’s activities during these years.

The poet appears to have had some connection with the court of Vienne, with whose ruling house Dauphin’s family was closely connected. The second tornada of XIII:

En Vianes anera plus soven,
mas per midonz remain sai Alvergnatz,
prop del Dalfin, car sos afars mi platz

shows that Peirol visited that court and would willingly have done so more frequently. There are further references to Vienne in XX:

VI  D’amor mi plaing, mas de nostra marquesa:
     sui mont iratz car la·ns tol Vianes.
     Per lieis es jois mantengutz e proesa,
     qu’es la meiller dompna c’anc hom saubes,
45                  ni autra non cre qu’el mon sia
          que tant sapcha de cortesia:
     c’apenas pot sos pretz el mon caber
     qu’a totz jorns creis e no·l laissa cazer
VII     Lo vers es faitz qui l’aprendia.
50   En Peirols vol que sabutz sia
en Vianes, on pretz non pot cazer,
que·l marquesa l’i fai ben mantener.

This poem, because of the allusion to marquesa, demands special consieration.

Diez,(45) relying on ll. 41-2, and also no doubt on the poet’s later connection with Italy, is of the opinion that Peirol refers to the marriage about the year 1220 of Beatrice, daughter of William IV of Montferrat with Gui André, count of Vienne. Vossler,(46) however, points out that the poem as a whole must have been written by 1205, since it was imitated in that year by Peire Cardenal. It is, of course, possible that the verses in question were later interpolations, designed to give an old poem some topicality; the theme and sentiments of the first five stanzas are certainly similar to those found in Peirol’s poems of the period 1194-1202. There are, however, other objections. Peirol, in 1220, would have been about sixty years of age and presumably not greatly interested in the composition of love poetry: further, the activities of the poet in Italy were perhaps those of a joglar rather than of a court poet. Beatrice of Montferrat, although her position as the daughter of a marquis might have acquired for her the title of marqueza, was, by her marriage, a comtessa; nor is there any other evidence of a connection between this lady and the poet.

The resolution of the question of the date of composition depends, of course on the identification of marqueza, and in this connection is is necessary to consider another poem. In XIX the poet sings:

     Be·m cujava que no chantes oguan,
si tot m’es grieu, pel dan qu’ai pres, e·m peza
     que mandamen n’ai avut e coman
d’on tot mi plaz, de midons la marqueza. (ll. 1-4.)

From the content of the remainder of this poem it is obvious that the marqueza is not the object of the poet’s affections, but simply the person, perhaps the confidante, who orders him to sing despite his sorrow. For reasons already discussed elsewhere,(47) it is much more probable that the marqueza of XIX and XX was Marqueza, wife of Heraclius of Polignac. Peirol would obviously be well acquainted with this lady and her husband; indeed, the tornadas to XXI show that the poet had contacts with Heraclius. It is tempting to assume that the Bella-Guarda of XXI conceals the identity of Marqueza, and that the Tot-mi-plaz and Tot-mi-plai, in the one case a woman, in the other a man (and hence possibly, because of the similar senhal, husband and wife) are likewise Heraclius and his wife.

To sum up, therefore, it seems quite possible that during the period c. 1194-c.1202, while Peirol still hoped for a return to Sail-de-Claustra’s favour, he found a solace, and perhaps confidants, in Heraclius and his wife, a relationship cut short by the death of Heraclius,, which occurred by 1201.(48) Further, that during this period he visited the court of Vienne.

The later poems of this period reveal a growing irritation on the part of the poet and he becomes more and more incline to take himself elsewhere.(49) In XXII he has apparently left Auvergne but continues to think wistfully of his homeland; he is still ostensibly true to Sail-de-Claustra but warns her that time is short. In XXIII the break is complete and he has found a new mistress: XXIV and XXV recount the joy that is now his after so many years of suffering. He has finished with Auvergne and the court of Clermont.

According to the vida, Peirol’s fortunes took a turn for the worse and he found himself obliged to descend to the life of a wandering joglar. For the next eighteen years or so traces of the poet are but fleeting. No doubt he wandered from court to court, but, to judge by the extant poems, he composed little during this period. The coblas Peirol, pos vengutz es vas nos (XXVII) indicates that he visited the court of Blacatz, but the date is difficult to determine. Soltau,(50) relying on Diez, merely places it after 1192, but since Blacatz’s works were for the greater part composed between 1200 and 1236, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the poem dates from the early years of the thirteenth century. A reference to Blacatz is to be found in XXVI, which was apparently composed during a sea-voyage, possibly on the way to Provence, since the poet desires garbin e ponent to take him to the port a gran largura (= Marseilles?). Soltau(51) suggests that the poet was then probably on the way to the court of Blacatz.

It is interesting to speculate on the authenticity of MS. E which concludes the vida with the statement that the poet pres moiller a Montpellier a i definet. This MS. seems to be particularly rich in information concerning the poets of Auvergne, and it is possible that Peirol relinquished the life of a wandering joglar and settled down, for a time at any rate, to a domestic life. On the other hand, it is certain that he made a journey to the Holy Land before his death (XXXII), and it seems probable that he was in Italy in November 1220, since he claims in that poem: qu’ieu vi antan faire man sagraman l’emperador, a reference presumably to the Emperor Frederick II’s crusading vow.

The poet’s connection with Italy no doubt influenced Diez in his identification of the marqueza of XX with Beatrice of Montferrat. Apart from this dubious evidence, however, it does appear that the poet not only visited Italy but was well known there. Francesco da Barberino borrows from ‘Peirrol provincialis’ two lines (ll. 19-20 of X)(52) and also refers to ‘Em Perol provincialis’.(53) The following lines of a poem by Albert de Sestaro (16.8), too, are interesting:

Peirol, violaz e chantasz cointament
de ma canchon los motz e·l so leuger.

It would obviously be presumptuous to assume, as Restori apparently does,(54) that the joglar thus addressed is necessarily the same person as the poet, but it is at least not impossible: the poem, moreover, was written in Italy about 1220,(55) that is, about the time when Peirol, on his own testimony in XXXII, was in the country.

There remains but one final fact concerning the poet’s life that may be assumed with any degree of certainty. The poem XXXII reveals that the poet visited the Holy Land and the date of the visit can be deduced fairly accurately from references in the poem. Peirol may have been in the East at the time of the first battle of Damietta;(56) and since the poet states that he was visiting Jerusalem, this only could have been after the conclusion of the eight-year truce between El-Kamil and the Christians on 30 August 1221. It is possible, too, that Peirol was present at the final loss of Damietta on 7 September 1221 and that it was after this disaster that he visited the Holy Land before returning to his native country. The poem itself was composed during the return journey, and is in the nature of an appeal to the Emperor Frederick II, to whose apathy the poet, rather unjustly perhaps, ascribes the loss of Damietta. At his coronation by Pope Honorius III in November 1220, Frederick had solemnly taken the Cross, but delays and difficulties connected with the internal affairs of the Empire allied, perhaps, to personal disinclination were sufficient to postpone his departure. Peirol’s scorn at the indifference of the Western powers is forcibly expressed but he himself must have realised that the brave days of the early Crusades were no more and that the enthusiasm of earlier generations had now been tempered by more material considerations. How long the poet survived the journey to the Holy Land is unknown, but his death must have occurred shortly afterwards, either at Montpellier as MS. E states or elsewhere, since by this time he must have been approaching the seventieth year of his life and the arduous nature of the pilgrimage was probably not long in taking its toll. The Albigeois Crusade had finally destroyed the old order of society in southern France; the art of the troubadours, if not dead, was in the process of disintegration, and although Dauphin was to survive Peirol by another ten years, the old court of Clermont that the poet had known in the days of Sail-de-Claustra was no more. The crusading poem of 1221 is in the nature of a swan-song and is a fitting conclusion to the life of a poet who appears to have been genuinely affected by the waning of the crusading zeal that had swept through Europe in the twelfth century.


II The manuscripts 

Peirol’s poems are found in the following thirty-one MSS.:

A = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana 5232. Diplomatic edition Pakscher and De Lollis, Studj di filologia romanza, III, pp. 1 ff.

B = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 1592. Collation with A by Pakscher and De Lollis, loc. cit. supra, pp. 671 ff.

C = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 856.

D = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a, R, 4, 4, ff. 1-151.

Da = Ibid. ff. 153-211.

Dc = Ibid. ff. 243-60. Diplomatic edition Teulié and Rossi, AdM, XIII, pp. 60 ff., 199 ff., 371 ff., and XIV, pp. 197 ff., 523 ff.

E = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 1749.

F = Rome, Biblioteca Chigiana, L. IV. 106. Diplomatic edition Stengel, Die provenzalische Blumenlese der Chigiana (Marburg, 1878).

G =  Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, R 71. Diplomatic edition Bertoni, Il canzoniere provenzale della Biblioteca Ambrosiana R 71 (Dresden, 1912).

H = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana 3207. Diplomatic edition Gauchat and Kehrli, Studj di filologia romanza, V, pp. 341 ff.

I = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 854.

K = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 12473.

L = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana 3206. Diplomatic edition M. Pelaez, Studj Romanzi, XVI, pp. 5 ff.

M = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 12474.

N =  New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. 819 (formerly Cheltenham, Phillipps Library, 8335).

O = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana 3208. Diplomatic edition De Lollis, Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei. Anno CCLXXXIII, 1886.

P = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XLI, cod. 42. Diplomatic edition Stengel, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, XLIX, pp. 53 ff., 283 ff., and I, 241 ff.

Q = Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 2909. Diplomatic edition Bertoni, Il canzoniere provenzale della Riccardiana no. 2909 (Dresden, 1905).

R = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 22543.

S = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 269. Diplomatic edition Shepard, The Oxford Provençal Chansonnier (Princeton-Paris, 1927).

T = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 15211.

U = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XLI cod. 43. Diplomatic edition Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, XXXV, pp. 363 ff.

V = Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, app. cod. XI. Diplomatic edition Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, XXXVI, pp. 379 ff.

W =  Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 844.

X = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 20050.

a = Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 2814. Diplomatic edition Stengel, Revue des langues romanes, XLI, pp. 351 ff.; XLII, pp. 5 ff., 305 ff., 500 ff.; XLIII, pp. 196 ff.; XLIV, pp. 213 ff., 328 ff., 423 ff., 514 ff.; XLV, pp. 44 ff., 120 ff., 211 ff.

a1 = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Càmpori γ. N. 8. 4; 11, 12, 13. Diplomatic edition Bertoni, Il canzoniere provenzale di Bernart Amoros (Complemento Càmpori) (Friburg, 1911).

c = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XC inf. 26. Diplomatic edition Pelaez, Studj di filologia romanza, VII, pp. 244 ff.

d = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Appendix to D.

f = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, franç. 12472.

g = Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana 3205.


All the MSS. have been consulted. Diplomatic editions have been used where available, and the remaining MSS. have been photographed. The MS. references at the head of each text follow Pillet and Carstens,(57) with two exceptions. N, formerly in the library of the late Mr Fitzroy Fenwick at Cheltenham, is now in the Pierpont Morgan Library. References to this MS. given in this edition follow the new foliation,(58) the old reference being given in brackets. In the case of R, references denote the page and number of the poems as they now stand in the MS. since the loss of ff. 73-4.


The Music of the Poems

The music of fourteen poems (II–V, VIII–X, XII, XV, XVI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXXI of this edition) is preserved in G, that of four poems (I, XVIII, XX, XXIV) in R, and of one (XII) in X. A. Restori has published a monograph on Peirol’s music in Rivista musicale italiana III, pp. 407 ff. No attempt has been made in this edition to examine the music, but the relevant pages of the MSS. are reproduced in the Plates in the Appendix.


III. The order of the poems


Since the historical allusions in Peirol’s poetry are few, it is difficult to determine with any degree of exactitude the order of composition of his works. The most that can be done is to divide his poems into groups representing the different phases of his career.

(a) The suppliant. These poems (I–IV) reveal the usual troubled mental state of the troubadour lover. In I Peirol expresses his grief but avows his inability to break away from his peerless lady. She receives him kindly but without encouragement, and the poet reminds her that undue pride is harmful; he concludes with a protestation of his devotion, and confesses that he is minded to ask her openly for her favour. The opening stanza of II implies that Peirol was already a poet of some repute, but he has not yet been accepted as drutz. He will, however, continue to serve faithfully and, despite lack of encouragement, will not give up hope since it is better to serve his lady unavailingly than to be a king or emperor. He sent this poem specifically to the countess in Mercoeur. III expresses similar sentiments, but the poet takes heart from the fact that, if the lady does not give him positive encouragement, at least she does not repulse him. He laments that he is separated from his lady, she being presumably at Mercoeur and he at Clermont.

In IV the poet states that he is inspired to sing by his gracious lady. He is minded to speak often of her but is heedful of the demands of secrecy. Although separated from her, he cannot forget her; he still suffers torment but will await her pleasure.

(b) The drutz. There are two poems in this group (V and VI). In V all is now well. Love shows itself tractable after the poet’s previous sufferings; his lady has granted him her favour and he will be ever true to her. He is minded to noise his good fortune abroad but assures his lady that he knows how to be circumspect; never will he incur her anger. In VI the poet is still exalted by his love although grieved at his separation from his lady. Love brings both torment and pleasure and the poet believes that joy must always be alloyed with pain. He concludes with a further protestation of his devotion.

(c) The discarded lover. In this group, two subgroups are to be discerned. In the first (VII–XVII) the general theme is sorrow, mingled with expressions of continued devotion and a hope that all will yet be well. In VII the poet laments that last year’s joy is no more; his lady has withdrawn her love, but he hopes for a return to favour. Even sorrow is pleasing to him when it comes to him from his lady. The poet confesses in VIII that he only sings this year to find solace. At least he is fortunate in that his grief is caused by a peerless lady, but she is greatly at fault. She now shows herself indifferent and mocks him. In his grief he is minded to go away but cannot do so. If he is brought low, the blame will be laid at his lady’s door. In IX he again sings on the same theme. Despite his lady’s indifference and the suffering she causes him his thoughts are still with her. To hear others speak of her is a comfort. X again bewails the torments of love. If his lady no longer desires him, no matter; he will continue to serve her secretly, despite her indifference. He protests that he is a true lover, but can find no comfort in the thought; yet he cannot tear himself away, and will therefore persist in his undertaking. The theme of XI is the machinations of the lauzengiers; he will still persist in his love, although angry with himself for not seeking out a kinder mistress. Love must reward its devotees, and pleasure will be the sweeter after pain. He concludes with a somewhat whimsical tornada to Dauphin. In XII the poet lays the blame upon his lady, but will take his revenge by continuing to serve her. He must not reproach his lady, nor can he depart from her. There is no more devoted lover than he; surely his lady will not suffer him to die? In XIII the poet laments that he was deceived by the gracious reception formerly accorded him. No faith must be placed in love, and there are no true lovers. He repeats that the lady is at fault, but it is he who reaps the punishment; yet he cannot blame his lady because her beauty takes away his anger. He will continue to serve her and rely on her mercy; were it not for her he would fain repair often to Vienne. In XIV Peirol tries to put on a cheerful face, but upbraids the lauzengiers who have caused his hurt. He beseeches his lady not to heed them. In XV the poet again sadly reviews the course of his unhappy love, but states his intention of continuing to serve his lady until grief slays him. He expresses the hope that the poem will at least recall him to his lady’s mind. The theme of XVI is despair, coupled with a prayer to the lady that she will alleviate his grief. XVII again reviews the past. The poet is again minded to forsake his lady but cannot do so. He reminds his lady that in love there is no profIt in delay.

The second subgroup (XVIII-XXII) reveals a growing irritation and the poet is increasingly minded to depart. In XVIII he reminds his friends who reproach him for not singing that they do not realise the hurt he has suffered. He reproaches the lady for her harsh treatment, although her excellence still prevents him from forsaking her. He concludes by reminding her that if she will only aid him, there will be no defect in his song. In XIX the sorrowing poet now sings only because he is commanded to do so by Marqueza. He outlines his sorry plight and appeals to his lady for mercy. He finds comfort in talking of his grief with a confidant (Heraclius de Polignac?); because he cannot go to see his lady he sends his poems to Marqueza. XX reveals increasing despair; the hope that has buoyed him up is fading, and he reproaches his lady for her deceit. If he were wise he would seek out another lady. The poet is grieved because Marqueza has gone to Vienne, where she upholds worth and excellence. In XXI, Peirol states that, since his business is that of writing songs, he must do his best; but if the song is a poor one the fault will be his lady’s. Although separated from her, he still grieves for her; he would be only acting sensibly if he departed from her, but he cannot do so. The tornadas are directed to Heraclius de Polignac (and his wife, Marqueza?). In XXII the poet is now far from his lady and thinks wistfully of his homeland. Death would be a relief to him. He cannot forsake her, but he reminds her that time is short, and he cannot wait much longer.

(d) The new love. XXIII indicates that the poet has finally broken with Sail-de-Claustra and has taken a new mistress who, although she may not be of such high worth, is yet more accommodating. Love has in the past caused him to aim too high, but he has realised his mistake. True love is to be found only when lovers are mutually responsive; henceforth he will remain true to his new love. The same theme of past suffering and present happiness is found in XXIV. His former mistress has no longer any power over him; he again finds pleasure in a reciprocated love. He concludes by telling Dauphin that he will know the truth of the whole matter. XXV is again a song in praise of his new-found happiness, the first he has known for seven years and more. He has now finally broken with Auvergne.

(e) The exile. This little group comprises poems written by Peirol during his wanderings (XXVI on the way to the court of Blacatz, XXVII at that court).

(f) Tensos (XXVIII-XXX). Composed while Peirol was still at Clermont.

(g) Crusading poems. Of these XXXI dates from 1189, XXXII from 1221.

The order of the poems in this edition, compared with the order found in the Bibliography of Pillet-Carstens, is summarised below:

This edition First line Pillet-Carstens
I Atressi co·l signes fai 366.2
II Ben dei chantar puois amors m’o enseigna 366.3
III Nuills hom no s’auci tan gen 366.22
IV Tot mon engeing e mon saber 366.33
V En joi que·m demora 366.15
VI Tug miei cossir son d’amor e de chan 366.34 and 32
VII Cora qu’amors vuelha 366.8
VIII D’un sonet vau pensan 366.15
IX D’eissa la razon qu’ieu suoill 366.11
X D’un bon vers vau pensan com lo fezes 366.13
XI Pos de mon joi vertadier 366.27
XII Del sieu tort farai esmenda 366.12
XIII Ab gran joi mou maintas vetz e comenssa 366.1
XIV Car m’era de Joi lunhatz 366.7
XV Mout m’entremis de chantar voluntiers 366.21
XVI Per dan que d’amor mi veigna 366.26
XVII Eu non lausarai ja mon chan 366.16
XVIII Mainta gens mi malrazona 366.19
XIX Be·m cujava que no chantes oguan 366.4
XX M’entencion ai tot’ en un vers mesa 366.10
XXI Pos entremes me suy de far chansos 366.27a
XXII Si be·m sui loing et entre gent estraigna 366.31
XXIII Camjat ai mon consirier 366.6
XXIV Coras que·m fezes doler 366.9
XXV La gran alegransa 366.18
XXVI Ren no val hom joves que no·s perjura 366.5
XXVII Peirol, pois vengutz es vas nos 366.25
XXVIII Dalfi, sabriatz me vos 366.10
XXIX Senher, qual penriaz vos 366.30
XXX Gaucelm, diguatz m’al vostre sen 366.17
XXXI Quant Amors trobet partit 366.29
XXXII Pus flum Jordan ai vist e·l monimen 366.28
XXXIII Peirol, com avetz tan estat 366.23 and 70.23
XXXIV Pomairols, dos baros sai 366.24


IV. Notes on the style of the poems(59)

One of the injustices engendered by literary criticism is that too often a poet’s reputation suffers by comparison with that of his more illustrious contemporaries. In poetry, as in many other spheres, it is perhaps better, from the point of view of fame, to be the foremost figure of a mediocre epoch than to be a lesser poet of a Golden Age. Peirol is overshadowed by the great figures of the classical period of Provençal literature with the result that he does not occupy a position befitting either the quality or the quantity of his work. That he enjoyed considerable popularity in his own time is evident from the great number of manuscripts which contain a comprehensive selection of his works, while the comparatively large amount of his music that has been preserved pays tribute to his skill and popularity as a composer of melodies.

It cannot be denied that, on the whole, Peirol is conventional, nor that his work frequently reveals the same artificiality that characterises the poetry of the majority of his contemporaries. He suffers the despair and longing of every troubadour lover and lives ever hopeful that his lady may, in her great kindness, show him some slight favour that will alleviate his unhappy lot before love slays him. Peirol has no claim to originality either in the theme of his love poems or in his exposition of the doctrines of the amour courtois; the sentiments he expresses find their counterpart throughout Provençal literature. There is, however, a pleasing simplicity and grace in his style, and occasional passages of finer feeling are to be found that lift him above many of his contemporaries. He is not an exponent of the trobar clus and, though he lacks the elegance and feeling of Bernard de Ventadour and the vigour of Giraut de Bornelh, he is free from the forced conceits and obscure complexities that characterise so many poets of the period. Nor does he appear to be lacking in humour. There is almost a note of quiet irony in his tenso with Love and in one passage at least

Gran talan ai qu’un baisar
li pogues tolr’ o emblar;
e si pueys s’en iraissia
voluntiers lo li rendria     (XII)

he seems to be not unmindful of the humour of the situation. Thus, although the actual subject-matter of his lyrics finds an echo in every troubadour poet, there is an individual note of simplicity and sincerity to be observed in his poems that does much to dispel the atmosphere of artificiality and convention which inevitably surrounds any poetry that relies for its effect on elegance of form and adherence to rules rather than on genuine lyrical inspiration.

As a technician, Peirol reveals considerable skill, and displays a facile dexterity in the management of rhyme and stanza construction that counteracts, to a certain extent, the note of artificiality that besets poetry so synthetic and hedged with convention. Many of his stanza forms are unique and there are few signs of undue strain to be observed in the employment of rhyme. That he himself was not unaware of his reputation may be presumed from occasional passages in his poems, and he appears to have taken considerable pains to ensure that his songs should attain the standard demanded by his position (cf. XXI). It is interesting to note that in XX he differentiates between the vers and the chansoneta, a distinction that is not always clear in troubadour literature or in the Leys d’Amors, and he appears to have acquired a complete mastery over the intricate technicalities on which Provençal poetry was based.

Two further features of Peirol’s poetry may be noted, namely, his use of rhetorical questions and answers, for example,

Que farai doncs? sofrirai mi d’atendre ?
Non ieu!    (II)

 and his fondness for invoking proverbs to express his thoughts. The employment of prosaic proverbs is a dangerous practice in poetry but Peirol contrives to introduce them quite naturally, and there is no apparent straining after effect; on the contrary, they often supply the answer to an unspoken question or provide a consolation for the poet’s grief, and, used as they are with discretion, are not to be regarded as lowering the general level of his poetry.

The keynotes of Peirol’s poetry, then, are simplicity allied with elegance, and technical skill combined with facility of expression. He appears to belong to the school of Bernard de Ventadour and many parallel features of grammatical construction and vocabulary are frequently to be observed. He does not attain to the high standard of elegant beauty that characterises Bernard’s greatest poems but he does, at least, maintain a level that is consistently good, and his crusading poem Pus flum Jordan ai vist e·l monimen is worthy to rank among the best of the genre. As has been said, Peirol’s reputation suffers, unjustly perhaps, from the greatness of his contemporaries, but he is on the whole worthy of an honourable place among the poets of the Golden Age of Provençal literature.



1) Arrond. de Clermont-Ferrand.()

2) Possibly Pérol, comm. de Prondines, arrond. de Clermont.()

3) Cf. M. Boudet, Revue d’Auvergne, XXII, p. 255. A Pierre de Peirol was alive in 1183, and two other Peirols, Stephen and William, attached their seals to documents in 1196 and 1199. In the will of the wife of Peirol’s patron: Peyro servienti Dominae Comitissae et Dominae Vicecomitissae V. solidi. In a document dated 1199 (Baluze, Histoire généalogique de la maison d’Auvergne, II, p. 258) a ‘S. de Perol’ is mentioned as a guarantor of the good faith of Dauphin of Auvergne.

Nostredamus, in his Vies des plus célèbres et anciens poètes provençaux (ed. Chabaneau), calls the poet ‘Peyre (de Vernegue)’. The Christian name may arise from confusion with the surname Peirol. The name Hugh has also been suggested as the troubadour’s Christian name (see Boudet, loc. cit. nn. 3 and 4).()

4) The first poem of Peirol which can be dated with relative certainty is the crusading tenso (XXXI), written c. 1189. If the order of the poems as set out in the edition is accepted, it appears that the number of Peirol’s extant poems prior to his installation as drutz is comparatively small, the greater part of his love poetry being composed after his fall from favour; these latter poems appear, for reasons discussed later, to have been written in the last decade of the century. Although, in an early poem (II), Peirol claims that he is already conogutz per tanta bona gen, it seems reasonable to place the beginning of his poetic activity not earlier than 1185, and hence his birth at c. 1160.()

5) On the question of the name of Dauphin of Auvergne see the article by P.-F. Fournier, ‘Le nom du troubadour Dauphin d’Auvergne’, in Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, XCI, pp. 66-99, which examines the historical evidence and also considers previous articles by A. Thomas, S. Stronski, etc. M. Fournier establishes that Dauphin is not, at this date, a title, but a name.()

6) ‘La tenson provençale’, in AdM, II, p. 298.()

7) S. Stronski ‘Quelques protecteurs des troubadours’, in AdM, XVIII, pp. 474 ff.()

8) A. Thomas, ‘L’identité du troubadour Pons de Chapteuil’, in AdM, v, p. 375.()

9) Op. cit. I, p. 65.()

10) Les vies des plus célèbres et anciens poètes provençaux, ed. Chabaneau, p. 21.()

11) Leben und Werke der Troubadours, p. 250, n. 2.()

12) This work has not, been available for consultation. The reference is given in conformity with M. Fabre’s own note to his article ‘Guillem et Gauceran de Saint Didier’, AdM, XXIII, pp. 170 ff.()

13) Histoire générale de Languedoc, VI, p. 98.()

14) Peire Cardenals Strophenbau, p. 93.()

15) III, p. 915.()

16) Baluze, op. cit. II, p. 251.()

17) Revue d’Auvergne, XXII, pp. 250 ff.()

18) See note 26.()

19) On the question of the separate identity of Sail-de-Claustra and the wife of Heraclius of Polignac, the biographer of Guillem de Saint Leidier is explicit: ‘ ... et entendet se en la marqueza de Polonhac, qu’era sor del Dalfin d’Alverne e de Na Sail de Claustra.’()

20) Baluze, op. cit. II, p. 256.()

21) Restori (Rmi, III, p. 426) suggests that she was the Marcheza de l’Esclacha mentioned in the will of Dauphin’s wife, basing his suppositions on MS. E (Auzit avetz d’en Guillen de San Leidier com amet la comtessa de Polognac, lacals avia nom Marqueza) and on the fact that there was only one viscounty, that of Polignac, in Auvergne.()

22) Les biographies des troubadours en langue provençale, p. 59.()

23) Cf. Guillen de Saint Leidier, tornada to 234.4: A la marqueza vei son pretz montar Cui ieu sui hom e serai o jase. Confusion between title and name is also found in Latin texts of the period.()

24) Op. cit. I, p. 65. Baluze is merely seeking to explain the name Nassal de Claustre. ‘… Je ne sçay pas pourquoy cette Princesse est appellée Nassal de Claustre, comme si c’estoit le nom de sa maison. C’est peutestre... par la mesme raison que je trouve dans l’ancien Obituaire de l’Eglise de Tulle une Nassal de Claustre de Ventadour enterrée à Tulle dans la chapelle du Chapitre, où estoit la sepulture ordinaire de la maison de Ventadour.’()

25) See above.()

26) Cf. the first condition on which Pope Alexander III released the count of Auvergne from the sentence of excommunication passed on him, viz. that he should free within fifteen days uxorem filii B. de Mercorio. See Boudet, op. cit. pp. 251-4, and footnotes to these pages. Sail-de-Claustra must have been very young at this date; assuming that she had attained the canonical age of twelve years before her marriage, her birth may be placed c. 1150. If, as is quite possible, she had been interned in a convent, this incident may afford a plausible reason for her sobriquet.()

27) Boudet, op. cit. p. 248 n. 1.()

28) See note 4.()

29) Op. cit. pp. 258 ff. M. Boudet’s chronology of Peirol’s life appears erroneous. For example, he assumes that the poem Pos flum Jordan ai vist e·l monimen dates from c. 1190: the allusion to Damietta in the last stanza of the poem, however, would seem to point to a date c. 1221.()

30) Or about the time of Peirol’s acceptance by the lady. See note to l. 20 of XXXI.()

31) See note to l. 35 of XXXI.()

32) 80.4 stanza 1. Printed in C. Appel, Die Lieder Bertrans von Born, p. 76.()

33) Selbach (Das Streitgedicht, p. 39) places the date of Bertran’s poem between 1189 and 1192, which seems to be a little late.()

34)Op. cit. p. 257.()

35) Op. cit. p. 257.()

36) See notes to XXIV and XXV. The tornada of XXIV, written probably after 1202, shows that Peirol was still in contact with Dauphin. Stanza 6 of XXV, however, reveals that he has left Auvergne.()

37) From references to Folquet de Marseille and to Arnaut de Mareuil, Philippson (Der Mönch von Montaudon, p. 72) deduces that the poem was written about 1199. Stronski (Le troubadour Folquet de Marseille, p. 47) puts the terminus a quo of the poem in 1190-1, while Suchier (Jahrbuch, XIV, p. 122) places the terminus ad quem in 1194. Zingarelli (La personalità storica di Folchetto di Marsiglia, p. 53) considers the date of the work to be c. 1194.()

38) ‘La tenson provençale’, AdM, II, p. 298.()

39) ‘Quelques protecteurs des troubadours’, AdM, XVIII, p. 474.()

40) See notes to XXXIII.()

41) Appel, Provenzalische Chrestomathie, p. 119, MS. variants.()

42) Stronski, Le troubadour Folquet de Marseille, p. 47*.()

43) For an analysis of the themes of poems written after his dismissal, see section III.d "The new love".()

44) See also the references in several tornadas.()

45) Op. cit. p. 258.()

46) Peire Cardenal, ein Satiriker aus dem Zeitalter der Albigenserkriege, pp. 173-9.()

47) See S. C. Aston, ‘On the attribution of the poem Be·m cujava que no chantes oguan and the identity of Marqueza’, MLR, XLVIII, pp. 151-8, a reply to the claim of M. István Frank (Pons de la Guardia, troubadour catalan du XIIe siècle) that this poem should be attributed to Pons, and that marqueza is Marqueza d’Urgel, sung by Pons.

The identity of the marqueza of XX is also discussed by M. Boudet (Revue d’Auvergne, XXII, pp. 256-7). Presumably influenced by Diez’s identification, M. Boudet apparently thought it necessary to find another Beatrice to fit the allusion. Since there is no reference to a Beatrice, apart from Diez, M. Boudet’s suggestion of Beatrice of Forcalquier (married, incidentally, to the count of Vienne in 1202) appears to lack substantiation. Morevoer, this latter Beatrice, like her namesake, was a comtessa, not a marqueza.()

48) Cf. a transaction of Heraclius’ son, Pons IV, dated July 1201 (Baluze, op. cit. II, chap. 1).()

49) See notes on section III, "The order of the poems".()

50) ZRP, XXIII, p. 218.()

51) Blacatz, ein Dichter und Dichterfreund der Provence, p. 40.()

52) A. Thomas ‘Francesco da Barberino et la littérature provençale en Italie au moyen âge’, Bibliothèque des Écoles d’Athènes et de Rome, XXXV, p. 115: ‘Et dicit Perroil provincialis Qua sol lesgard pot hom ben per usage les pensemenz conoisser tal veces.’()

53) Ibid. p. 181.()

54) Rmi, III, pp. 426 ff.()

55) O. Schultz, ZRP, VII, pp. 215 ff.()

56) C. Lewent, ‘Das altprovenzalische Kreuzlied’, RF, XXI, p. 419.()

57) Bibliographie der Troubadours.()

58) For the new foliation of Morgan 819, and a complete index to the troubadours whose work is found in the MS., see article by Curt F. Bühler in Speculum, XXII (Jan. 1947), pp. 69 ff.()

59) See also Stronski, Folquet de Marseille, pp. 127 ff.()








Institut d'Estudis Catalans. Carrer del Carme 47. 08001 Barcelona.
Telèfon +34 932 701 620. Fax +34 932 701 180. - Informació legal