Dialogue form. Appel and Lavaud introduce dialogue in the first stanza, making a division at the end of the third line. It appears more reasonable, however, to assume, with both Suchier (Goett. gel. Anzeigen, 1883, 1343-4) and Cocito (Romania (Piccolo), p. 230, n. 1), that the whole of the first stanza forms one single speech on the part of the poet. If the stanza is in fact broken at this point it means that the practical advice and sceptical remarks, opposing, in the following stanzas, the patient, submissive attitude of the lover, are placed in the mouth of the poet instead of his interlocutor’s, as is normally the case.
Suchier (loc. cit.) and Cocito (loc. cit.) terminate the interlocutor’s reply at fas in l. 9 and reintroduce the poet with Ieu non re. We prefer, however, to attribute the whole of ll. 8 and 9 to the interlocutor, as the poet is unlikely, in view of the more encouraging tone of his remarks in the rest of the poem, to state that he places no value on what he does.
1-3. It is interesting to note that Raimbaut d’Orange also sings about an unknown subject in No. XXIV (R. d’Orange), which Pattison (p. 154) considers to be a parody of Guillaume de Poitier’s Farai un vers de dreyt nien (A. Jeanroy’s edition, No. IV). A similar example is found in G. de Born., 53, ll.43-4:
No sai de que m’ai fach chanso
Ni com, s’altre no m’o despo;
Pattison (loc. cit.) points out, however, that in No sai don chant and in the poem of Giraut de Bornelh the theme is only mentioned briefly, whereas in the case of the first two it runs through the whole poem.
1. no. C is slightly mutilated here: the initial n is missing.
4. mas. The first two letters are missing in C, again through mutilation.
5. C is the only MS in which passar appears before son. The word order offered by all the other MSS is therefore preferred. Passar means here ‘suffering’. Levy (S. W., VI, 120) demonstrates this meaning by quoting the following lines:
E qui sos joys secretz no sab tenir
E mals e bes passar ab gen cubrir,
No sec lo cor que far deu fis amans.
(Deux manuscrits provençaux du XIVe siècle (J. B. Noulet and C. Chabaneau, Montpellier and Paris, 1888, p. 18). He goes on to quote Chabaneau’s explanation of how the word acquired this interpretation: ‘Ce verbe ... est peut-être à distinguer, pour l’origine comme pour le sens, de passar = passer. Passar = souffrir se rattacherait à pati par le supin passum, comme ausar à audere par ausum, confessar à confiteri par confessum, etc.’
It is interesting to note the similarity between the second line of the passage quoted above and the version of Peire Rogier’s line in MRT, all of which have cubrir instead of sufrir.
6. no·s. This reading is offered by all the MSS except T, which is erroneous (nous). It is supported by the version of C (noys), which is probably based upon the alternative enclitic form (nois).
9. que ... ieu. C offers an acceptable but independent reading (quan ... qu’ieu ...). The version clearly favoured by both traditions (DIKMT) is therefore preferred. The omission of que in R may suggest the normally close link between this MS and C.
11. tot bel captenemen. Appel chooses the reading of DIK (tan gen contenemen). It seems reasonable, however, to adhere to that offered by all four MSS of the second group and which gives an equally acceptable meaning. For the use of bel captenemen and far captenemen see respectively G. de Born., 63, l. 6 and B. von Vent., 27, l. 2.
13. aisso. Appel again prefers the version of DIK (perso). There appears to be no reason, however, to depart from the reading of the MSS of the second group. The meaning is again equally satisfactory. Aisso refers to the noun clause dependent upon dic later in the line and thus corresponds to the same construction based upon so in l. 10. Cf. B. von Vent., 5, l. 32; 33, l. 5.
The slightly different reading of C (aissi) may well be the result of the influence of the same word at the beginning of the following line.
16. s’esdeve. As Appel indicates, one would expect the subjunctive mood here rather than the indicative. Schultz-Gora (Altprov. Elem., p. 132) states that certain impersonal constructions, such as par, par me, may be followed by either the indicative or the subjunctive but that those expressing necessity or suitability are always followed by the subjunctive.
17. dir ges. The order of words offered by DIK is preferred, as they are joined by M. R is independent (dire) and CT are therefore the only MSS to have ges dir.
18. s. qu’ieu. The fact that MT joins DIK here justifies the choice of their reading in preference to that offered by CR only (s. ieu).
jois. Appel and Lavaud choose dols, which is given only by C. However, MRT are generally close to C in the poem, and in view of the fact that they each join DIK here in offering jois it is this reading which is considered more reliable. It is also favoured by both Suchier (loc. cit.) and Chabaneau (RLR, XXV, 103). The independent version of C may perhaps be the result of an attempt by the intelligent scribe to make sense of a difficult line. (Cf. note to I, l. 47.) Suchier (loc. cit.) also observes that C often contains evidence of a revising hand.
The choice of jois, however, makes nonsense of the line as it stands in Appel and Lavaud, who attribute the whole of it to the interlocutor. The solution lies, as Suchier (loc. cit.) suggests, in breaking the line after hoc and regarding the words quar us grans jois m’en pren as an interpolation on the part of the poet. The interlocutor then continues in l. 19 with what he has begun to say in the first half of l. 18.
It is interesting to note the intransitive use of prendre whereby the subject is a noun of feeling with the person concerned in the dative. Cf. the French expression bien (mal) lui en prend. Other examples of this construction are found in G. de Montanhagol, III, l. 21; VII, l. 14 (see notes) and in S. W., VI, 514 (No. 19), where Levy gives prendre the meaning of ‘entstehen’, ‘ankommen’.
20. tost. All the MSS have tot, with the exception of R (obs). The word appears to make little sense in this context and we have therefore followed Appel in amending it to convey the meaning of ‘soon’ which is required here.
22. confort. As in l. 9, C offers quite an acceptable reading (conort) but its independence makes it less reliable than that given by the majority of the MSS. It is notable that, as in l. 9, R, which is normally closely related to C, has an entirely different reading (honor).
24. per Dieu. The reading favoured by both traditions (DIK and MT) is again preferred to the two similar readings of CR (e dieu-a dieu) which, though acceptable alternative exclamations, are clearly independent. For the use of all three expressions (per dieu, adieu, dieu) as exclamations see B. von Vent., p. 362 (glossary).
Both Levy (S. W., II, 188) and Chabaneau (RLR, XXV, 103) quote part of this stanza, and regard per dieu as being the equivalent of en perdon (‘in vain’). It is this meaning which is perhaps more suitable here than the exclamatory one favoured by Appel (p. 75) and Lavaud in their translation of this stanza.
Appel’s division of ll. 24-6 seems to us, on the other hand, to be more acceptable than that suggested by Chabaneau (loc. cit.):
Fols yest. — Per que? — Per Dieu trebalhas te.
— Ni per aquo ... — Fai doncx! mas per nien
T’en entremetz ...
26. tu que saps. We adopt the reading of DM, representatives of both traditions. Their order of words is clearly favoured by the diverse versions of all the other MSS, except C, which offers an independent order (que saps tu). The choice of tu, as opposed to the ni or e of IK and R, is at the same time justified by the support of CT.
lo. The reading offered by DIKM. Support for it is given by the independent readings of CT (loy-lor) in opposition to that of R (o).
29. tost. All the MSS have tot, with the exception of I (got). It has been amended to read tost for the same reasons as in l. 20.
venra. The reading offered by all the MSS except C, which has the independent veira.
32. vivras. The fact that DIK and M join forces and are obviously supported by T (vivra) justifies the choice of their reading in preference to the independent version of CR (vivas). The latter provides, however, an equally acceptable meaning, as both the future indicative and present subjunctive are used after tan com, tan quan (‘as long as’). Cf. S.W., VIII, 45; Prov. Chr., 7, l. 231; 46, l. 21; 24, l. 35.
It is possible that the reading of CR has been influenced by the present subjunctive ayas, dependent upon no cug ni cre in the previous line.
33. non. The reading of MR is preferred to that of DIK (nol), as it is clearly supported by C, which has a scribal error (nou), and by T (non o).
35. e ia saps tu. C is clearly independent in this line. The reading of R (e sapchas tu ...) is closely related to that of all the other MSS, which is therefore preferred.
36. no·m ditz. Cocito (op. cit., pp. 230-31, note 15) regards as preferable the reading of R (mos cors me ditz ...). He then goes on to translate l. 37 as follows: ‘You are certainly right to do it by the considerable good which may come to you from it.’ As an alternative he suggests an ironical meaning: ‘You are certainly right to do it in view of the considerable good which comes to you from her whom you love.’ We have retained, however, the reading of C and the other MSS, which Appel also prefers, particularly as it appears to lend an equally, if not more, ironical interpretation to l. 37: ‘My heart does not tell me to come to terms with another lady.’ — ‘You are certainly right (in not doing this) in view of the considerable good which comes to you from her whom you love.’ This interpretation is in fact well borne out by the dialogue which follows in the rest of the stanza.
Appel (p. 76) also concludes that l. 37 is intended ironically. He offers a helpful explanation of the presence of the causal quar at the beginning of l. 37 in suggesting that it is preceded in the poet’s mind by an unexpressed clause such as ‘I agree with you’.
38. el’o. We have adopted the reading of IK. That of CM (el so) gives the more usual form of the masculine pronoun and not the feminine one which the sense of the line demands. The version of T (el sofra) appears to be based on it while DC is slightly more independent (no fara). The whole line is independent in R and lacking in D. It is likely that the scribes of C and M originally overlooked the possibility of an elision and read the version of the IK tradition as el o, not el’o. It is worth noting, however, that the scribes of IK generally pay careful attention to the demands of the metre and often make any necessary elisions.
er dese. The reading of M is adopted. Appel (loc. cit.) considers that the original MS had erasse, which is not actually given by any of the existing MSS but which is fairly close to the reading of IK (arase) and that of C (er iasse). Appel presumably regards the word as an alternative form of eras, aras but admits that he has been unable to find an example of it elsewhere.
The choice of the reading of M seems justified in that it gives quite an acceptable meaning (‘It will be at once’) and is supported by R, although this MS is independent for the rest of the line. Lavaud (Troub. Cant., p. 69) and Suchier (op. cit., 1344) also prefer this reading. Lavaud does not mention, however, the support of R but erroneously ascribes to it, as well as to DT, the reading erasse. In fact T offers eras be, while the line as a whole is missing in D.
41. autra vertat. Autra has here a genitive meaning: ‘The truth of (i.e. from) another’. Cf. VI, l. 28. It should be noted, however, that the normal genitive form of the word is autrui (Altprov. Elem., p. 127), the use of which before both masculine and feminine nouns is well attested: cf. Prov. Chr., 81, l. 7; B. von Vent., I, l. 28; 7, l. 29; 23, l. 8; G. de Born. (glossary); G. de Montanhagol, III, l. 50; XIV, l. 28.
The use of autre, autra with a genitive meaning does not appear to be very common: no reference is made in S. W., Pet. Dict., Lex. rom., or in any of the grammars listed in the bibliography. Examples may be found, however, in B. von Vent. (see 31, l. 30; 33, l. 10; (17, l. 57?)). Attention should also be drawn to Appel’s note in B. von Vent. to l. 32 of No. 42 (car anc me pres d’autrui amor enveya). He interprets autrui amor, the reading of one of the MS groups, as meaning ‘love for some other’, without specification of sex. However, as it is clearly a question of ‘love for another lady’ he considers the alternative reading, autr’amor, to be the more natural. One can thus conclude that he regards autra as the straightforward feminine alternative to the invariable form autrui.
sabes. The reading of KMDc is preferred to the independent version of R (saubist) chosen by Appel. They offer one of the forms of the second person present indicative (cf. Anglade, p. 345; Prov. Chr., p. xxxiv), which appears to be just as suitable here as the preterite and is supported by the alternative form given by C (saps doncx). Moreover, in view of the normally very close relationship between I and K, it may be assumed that further support for the reading of KMDc is provided by the similar version of DIT (saubes). The latter would itself, however, be unacceptable here either as a first or a third person imperfect subjunctive or as an alternative form of the second person plural preterite (saubetz) , since the dialogue in this poem is conducted entirely in the second person singular.
43. p. s’amor. We adopt the reading of all the MSS except C (s’amors), the scribe of which may have been influenced by the nominative form of amor later in the line.
44. s’amors. CMRT have s’amor. The normal form of the nominative singular, employed in the second half of the previous line, is, however, again required here (cf. note to I, l. 22). It is in fact offered by IK as well as by Dω, which in the previous line gave s’amor.
47. e·m part d’enueg. C is the only MS not to offer this reading. Its independent version (em platz dompneys) may possibly be owing to the fact that the scribe’s eye was distracted by em platz appearing later in the line.
51. denh. The reading of IKR, supported by that of D (dreig), is chosen. The tornadas are lacking in MT, and C is independent (vuelh). Normally where MT stand alone CR join DIK (see ‘Classification’). It is therefore significant that here R should separate from C in order to ally itself with DIK.
As the subjunctive form is required, it is likely that the version vuelh in C was intended to be read as vuelh’, the final a being elided before the following vowel.
52. li deuri’obezir. Obezir is given by DR and was clearly intended in IK (bezir). This reading is therefore preferred to the independent one of C (servir) on the same grounds as indicated in l. 51.
The verb may be used either transitively or intransitively. Levy (S. W., V, 443) quotes examples of both cases. It is, however. the dative li, given by DIK, which is adopted and not the accusative la of CR. One may in fact discount the presence of la in C, as the accusative is in any case required for the transitive verb servir.
53. mai que tot. The reading of C (mai d’autra), though perfectly acceptable from the point of view of meaning, is independent. The version offered by all the other MSS is therefore chosen.
54. dons Sanz. The reading of D supported by that of IK, in which the two ss have merged into one (donsanz). C probably has a scribal error (dous sautz).
Lavaud (Troub. Cant., II, p. 441, notes) suggests that the person concerned is one of the Castilians who would have probably accompanied Aimeric, Ermengarda’s nephew, to Narbonne (see III, l. 64, note). Lavaud’s view lacks supporting evidence but would seem to be based on the quite reasonable assumption that dons Sanz was at the time in the same place as Tort-n’avetz, to whom the troubadour requests, only three lines earlier, that the poem be sent. If Lavaud’s theory were correct the poem would probably belong to the same period of composition as III (cf. loc. cit. above).
Anglade (‘Les troubadours à Narbonne’ in Mélanges Chabaneau, p. 740, note 1) considers that it might be a question of Sancho III of Castille, son of Alfonso VII, born in 1130, who reigned 1157-58. Bergert (Damen, p. 8, note 2), however, appears to be justified in rejecting this view. He points out that one would expect the king’s title to be employed. Besides, more significant is the fact that the contents of the tornada do not match at all the usually generous descriptions of Sancho’s character. (Cf. Zenker, Peire von Auvergne, p. 26, and Milà, De los trovadores, p. 81.) It would also suppose that Peire had paid two visits to Castille, the one before 1158 and the other, which is the only one reported in the Vida, fairly near the end of his life.
Perhaps a more acceptable theory, particularly in view of the dates involved, is that the Sancho to whom Peire alludes here is the brother of Alfonso II of Aragon on behalf of whom he ruled Provence from 1181 to 1185. No clue is given as to the nature of the wrong which Peire has suffered. However, the tone of the tornada would certainly be in keeping with what is known of Sancho, who, during the short period in which the government of Provence was entrusted to him, exploited the country to his own advantage and to the detriment of Alfonso (cf. Hoepffner, Le Troubadour Peire Vidal, p. 39). In a tornada addressed to Alfonso Peire Vidal refers to Sancho’s misgovernment in the following way:
Francs reis, Proensa·us apella
Qu’En Sancho la·us desclavella
E gasta·us la cer’e·l mel
E sai tramet vos lo fel.
[Avalle, Peire Vidal, II, pp. 315-16 (No. XXXVI)] ( *)
If the person to whom Peire Rogier alludes is Sancho it would be reasonable to assume that the poem was written at some stage during his reign. In that case Peire’s career would have extended a little beyond the approximate limit (1180) which is generally attached to it. (See Introduction, note 1.)
It is possible that the author of the Vida identified dons Sanz with Sancho and used this reference as the sole basis for his statement about Peire’s visit to the court of Aragon. The reference is, however, too brief and too vague for such a suggestion to be regarded as anything more than conjecture.
55. mieus. See note to I, l. 9.
56. et el no·s poc. The reading of DIK is chosen, as the reflexive use of envilanir is better suited to the sense of l. 57 than the independent, but in itself acceptable, reading of C (et ylh no·m poc): ‘And he could not degrade himself more, and one must certainly consider him to be base.’
Note:
*) Avalle (loc. cit.) observes that in her article ‘Pour la chronologie de quelques chansons de Peire Vidal’ (Annales du Midi, LV, 513-14) Rita Lejeune regards these lines as a reference to the alliance which Sancho made in 1184 with the republic of Genoa against his brother, Alfonso, and which decided the latter to deprive him of the government of Provence in the following year.
|
