9. lai ... joys. CR are the only MSS which have honor(s) and omit lai. The reading of all the others is preferred, as joy and pretz occupy the same position in the other stanzas. The reading of a1 probably indicates the influence which both traditions have had upon it. The scribe appears to have begun by following CR in the omission of lai, only to include the word later in the line on preferring joys to honors.
Joys and pretz both form the subject of the verb creys although it is singular. This usage is fairly frequent in Old Provençal and may perhaps be explained here by supposing that the two subjects come together to form one idea in the poet’s mind. Other instances of this usage are found later in l. 53; V, l. 7; VI, ll. 25-6; VIIIa, ll. 37-8.
10. que·l. The meaning demands the normal singular form of the article (·l) (cf. Altprov. Elem., p. 80), which is given by all the MSS except CD and R. The first two have the normal plural form (·ls) and the third is independent (sieu).
11. que ... sai. Appel follows CR for que and ABDIKN for far. It seems reasonable, however, to retain CR for the whole line, as they offer a perfectly acceptable reading. They are also the only MSS which have not avoided what was probably the intentional repetition of l. 8. Bartsch (Literaturblatt, IV, 66) draws attention to Appel’s apparent inconsistency here whereby he chooses CR in the first instance, only to depart from them later in the line for no obvious reason. In a1 the presence of both que and de at the beginning of the line is probably a further indication of the influence of both traditions on this manuscript.
13. s’ieu. The version of C is retained, as it is supported by DIKω and probably also by a1 (sui). Appel prefers the reading of ABNR (si).
16. car. C gives an acceptable reading (quan) but is supported only by a1. It is notable that R joins here all the other MSS, and it is their reading which is therefore preferred.
23-33. It seems reasonable to adopt the stanza order of ABDIKNa1, more natural than that of CR, in which the position of stanzas III and IV is reversed. The theme of secrecy and discretion in stanza III follows on logically from the poet’s humble and tactful attitude of stanza II. It persists into stanza IV, where the o in l. 34, to which Appel (p. 74) draws attention, refers to the poet’s secret love and its benefits, mentioned in stanza III.
25. gen f. C is the only MS with bel, being influenced probably by the bel which occurs later in the line. We have chosen the reading of DIKNa1 which appears to be supported by that of AB (en) and R (ben). R, in fact. contains gen in the second half of the line.
bels. C joins DIKNa1 for this part of the line, and it is their version which is again preferred. AB repeats en and R offers gen.
26. DIK have been followed throughout the line in view of the fact that they are joined in turn by ABNR and Ca1.
(i) Cum. The reading given by all the MSS except R, in which the word is lacking, and C which is independent (on).
(ii) qu’ilh. ABN offer que, being supported to some extent by R (qieu). The version of DIK is chosen, as it is supported by Ca1.
(iii) m’estey. DIK and ABN again join forces to oppose CRa1, which omit me.
The line is to be trauslated: ‘Whatever attitude she may take towards me’ (lit. ‘However she may be to me’).
28. cubertz e celatz. Appel prefers the word order of ABDIKN (celatz e cubertz). It seems reasonable, however, to adhere to that of CRa1, which is equally acceptable, cf. B. von Vent., 4, ll. 43-4.
Mas l’amor qu’es en me clauza,
No posc cobrir ni celar.
C is the only MS with celans, for which reason the version of all the others is chosen.
31. joy. The normal form of the accusative singular, offered by ABa1, is preferable here to the plural form (joys) given by CDIKN. It is the singular form of the word which appears in the corresponding place in the other stanzas.
It is interesting to note that earlier in the line C has a, as opposed to ai, contained by all the other MSS. This is perhaps an instance where the intelligent scribe of C, confronted with joys, could make sense of the line only by regarding joys as nominative singular and amending ai to a. (‘Because of her there are joy and worth.’) Cf. note to I, l. 47.
32. ni·s tanh. The different readings of DIK (nim) and N (ni) provide support for that of AB, which is therefore retained in preference to the independent version of Ca1 (nō). R omits ll. 31-3. (There is a misprint in Appel’s variants, which classify R firstly with C and secondly with CN.)
sapch’enoios. The reading of AB is adopted, the a of sapcha being elided for reasons of metre. Appel prefers the spelling enuios, although it is not given by any MS. The versions offered by the other MSS (sapcha ni vos, sapchel ni vos) may well, in fact, be based on a misreading of the form enuios. It is not at all clear, otherwise, to whom vos would refer. The only dialogue in which Peire is engaged in this poem is with his lady (ll. 50-60) and with himself.
33. a rescos. It seems quite reasonable to adhere to the reading of C supported by B. Appel chooses that offered by all the other MSS (en rescos). On investigation, however, it appears that the expression is much more commonly used with a than with en. Neither in his Petit Dictionnaire nor in his Supplement-Wörterbuch does Levy mention en rescos, whereas a rescos is attested in both these works as well as in a number of other places, e.g. B. von Vent., 28, l. 51; Folq. de Mars., VII, l. 49; XV, l. 18; Prov. Chr., 7, l. 10.
39. eis setz. Appel tentatively suggests that the words may be equivalent in meaning to the German ‘selbsechster’. This German usage consists of combining ‘selb’ with ordinal numbers to denote that a certain person is one of a certain number. ‘Selbsechster’ would thus be translated: ‘as the sixth’ or ‘as one of six’. Appel, at the same time, expresses reservations about this interpretation, as he admits that nowhere else has he found eis used as a substitute for the pronoun in such an expression. We prefer to regard eis simply as an adverb and to translate the expression: ‘even the sixth’. The adverbial use of eis is attested in S. W., I, 325 (No. 3), Pet. Dict., p. 135, and Lex. rom., III, 98.
Appel also sees difficulties in the word setz. He states that seizen is the usual form of the ordinal and finds it necessary to justify setz by referring to the forms derived from the Latin sextus in other Romance languages, e.g. Old French sist, Italian sesto and Vulgar Latin sistus. He makes no mention, however, of the accepted alternative Old Provençal version of the ordinal: sest (cf. Altprov. Elem., p. 74; Anglade, p. 238). As it is used adjectivally here, the word appears in the nominative form. The omission of the middle s follows the general rule whereby in cases where the three consonants scs and sts come together the first s is dropped. Cf. quisque + s > quecs, Christus > Critz, estis > etz. (See Altprov. Elem., p. 39.)
In the MSS the two words are joined together. Lavaud, in fact, prefers to regard them as one word with the normal meaning of ‘except’ and translates the line: ‘Nothing matters to me, except loving her henceforth’. He admits, however, that he has found no other example of eissetz used with que in this way. Levy (Pet. Dict., p. 136; S. W., II, 338) mentions only its use as a preposition, for which it may be followed by de.
Suchier (Goett. gel. Anzeigen, 1883, 1342) also offers an interesting, but somewhat doubtful, interpretation of eissetz in this instance. He states that issetz or eissetz is a rare Provençal word meaning ‘exclusively’, ‘exceptionally’, and derived from the Latin ablative exceptis, which in due course came to be used adverbially. He cites the modern version of the word, eicès, found in Mistral. We have found the word eicès in Mistral’s Lou Tresor doú Felibrige ou Dictionnaire Provençal-Français (ed. V. Tuby, Paris, 1932, p. 840) but only in a long list of alternative forms, all with the meaning of ‘except’, among which are eicèt, eiceptat, escetat as well as the original Latin exceptum. Reference is also made to the use of the word with que.
44. quant res non es. Lavaud translates this part of the line ‘Alors qu’il n’y a rien entre nous’. It seems appropriate, however, to give res the meaning of ‘truth’, ‘reality’, which is an interpretation of the word proposed, with some reservation, by Levy (S. W., VII, 224):
E si tot hom lo i fai parven
Per paor, aquo non es res,
Que, quan hom lo troba en deisses,
Ab gaug et ab alegrier gran
Rizon tug, quant el vai ploran.
Mahn Werke, I, 379 (R. de Vaqueiras)
46. fos. C is the only MS with suy. All the others have the imperfect subjunctive form of the verb, which one would normally expect in so far as the verb on which it depends (disses) is itself an imperfect subjunctive.
47. m’agr’amors. The reading of DIKNa1 and of AB, which include the superfluous final syllable of agra. The slightly different version of CR (magra mortz) is probably a result of the influence of mortz in the previous line.
49. Appel has followed AB for the first half of the line and CR for the second half (qu’anc a nulh drut maior non fey). It seems preferable, however, to employ the version of AB for the whole line, particularly as they are joined in turn by CR and DIKNa1. Support for nulh drut is provided by CR in opposition to DIKNa1 and for quanc and tal by Na1 and DIK (tant) in opposition to CR.
Mais is used here to reinforce anc non (‘never’). Cf II, l. 13.
50. dompn’. It is necessary, for reasons of metre, to follow BDIKNR in the elision of the superfluous a, cf. note to II, 1. 7.
51. CR appear to have a corrupt reading (quieu sen lesmay). a1 perhaps reveals a slight link with them by its initial qe but remains with all the others for the rest of the line.
53. See note to l. 9.
54. bes. CR offer variations on bon (bo-bos). The reading of all the other MSS is preferable in view of the fact that only nouns are employed in this and the following line.
55. The position of e before dregz in C makes little sense. All the other MSS have the correct order of words, although e appears twice in I.
57. ilia. The reading of ADIK is chosen here. Those of BCN (mas) and a1 (mor) make no sense.
60. Que is to be understood at the beginning of the line. Lines 59-60 may thus be translated ‘And I prefer to die immediately than that anyone other than you know it’. See note to I, l. 39.
64. n’Aimeric lo tos. This is probably a reference to Aimeric de Lara, the son of Ermessinde, Ermengarda’s sister, and of Manriquez de Lara, Count of Molina (cf.note, VIII, l. 36). As Ermengarda herself had no heirs, she called Aimeric to Narbonne in 1168 in order to prepare him to be her successor (Hist. gen. Lang., VI, p. 70). He appears to share in the government of Narbonne from that time until his death in 1177 (ibid.). Evidence available in a legal document of 1176 (ibid.) suggests that at that time he was administering the estates of Narbonne as its legitimate ruler, having relinquished the name of Lara for that of Narbonne.
Aimeric’s death led Count Raimon V of Toulouse to take steps to assure himself of Narbonne and to prevent Ermengarda from giving it to another of her nephews without his consent. As a result the Viscounts of Nîmes and Carcassonne, the lords of Montpellier and Alfonso II of Aragon pledged support for Ermengarda and swore not to allow the Count of Toulouse or his sons to acquire the town of Narbonne and Ermengarda’s domains. It appears that by the end of 1177 Raimon was in control of Narbonne and that between 1177 and 1179 Ermengarda called upon her other nephew, Pierre de Lara ( ibid.). It is highly probable that Pierre, who took over Narbonne from Ermengarda near the end of 1192 ( ibid., VI, p. 151; p. 17), was yonnger than his brother Aimeric. ( *) This is one of the few poems of Peire Rogier’s for which it is possible to suggest a period of composition. Even then, the most precise conclusion we can reach is that it was written some time between Aimeric’s arrival at Narbonne (1168) and his death (1177) (cf. Diez, Leben und Werke, pp. 80-1). Appel (p. 12), on the other hand, is only prepared to fix the later date of 1177, stating that it is not known whether Aimeric was ever at Narbonne before he was called there by Ermengarda. From the contents of the tornada, however, in which Peire reminds him of the duties attached to his position and of the family to which he belongs, it is reasonable to assume that the poem was written during the period when Aimeric was sharing the responsibilities of the government of Narbonne.
tos. The respective readings of C (ros) and D (cos) are probably the result of scribal errors. All the other MSS have tos, except a1, which has an independent line.
65. sia. AB have sera and not the subjunctive sia, which, like membre·lh, is required here after the imperative di·m. Sia is given by DIKNa1 as well as bye, which presents, at the same time, an independent and slightly corrupt version of the line. The que which should introduce the two subjunctives must be understood here.
Note:
*) Ibid., VII, p. 17. Appel (p. 12, note 1) also supports the view of Vaissete, as opposed to that of Salazar, who considers Pierre to be the elder of the two (Historia genealogica de la casa de Lara, I, 1694, p. 132). No information is available on the year of Aimeric’s birth. According to the Hist. gen. Lang. (III, p. 691) his parents were married about 1152 and his father died in 1164 (VII, p. 14). Appel considers that since their short marriage produced a large number of children Aimeric’s birth, as that of the eldest, should be fixed in the early part of the 1150s. |
