1. rotgier. The reading of AE, favoured by Pattison, is preferred. Appel’s version (rogier) is not offered by any of the MSS but, together with that of U (rugier), clearly supports AE in opposition to DIK (rogiers).
3. aic. The version of AD, supported by IK (ai). CE are both mutilated here and, as Pattison (R. d’Orange, p. 90) observes, U (fi) cannot be trusted very much in view of the number of its independent readings and errors throughout the poem. Appel follows U but is obliged to amend its reading in order to give the normal form of the first person preterite (fis).
4. que·m. The reading of A (q’ie·m) chosen by Pattison would be quite acceptable but in view of its independence is rejected here in favour of that offered by DIKU. It is a pity that CE are mutilated, as they both identify themselves at times with the ADIK tradition (see ‘Classification’) and might therefore have provided useful guidance on the choice of reading. It is perhaps significant, however, that U, which also has at times firm links with this tradition, including an important one with A in l. 20 (see ‘Classification’), should support DIK here in opposition to A.
5. etz. We have adhered to the reading of A in view of the fact that it is joined by C in opposition to DIK ( nest) and U ( nes), E being again mutilated. Moreover throughout the rest of the poem Raimbaut addresses Peire by the polite second person plural and not by the singular, perhaps indicating his respect for the older and, at that time, more established poet. (See section on Peire’s life)
Appel’s version ( n’etz) is not given by any of the MSS but is obviously close to AC. It might well be based upon U, as es is an alternative form of etz ( cf. Anglade, p. 314; Roncaglia, p. 113). However, es is also an acceptable form of the second person singular ( cf. Anglade and Roncaglia, loc. cit.), and U could alternatively, therefore, be linked with DIK.
The absence of C from Appel’s variants would suggest that n’etz is offered by this MS, but it is quite clear that C joins A in this instance.
6. estat. A contains a scribal error (estar).
7. que. The reading of A (q’ieu), though again acceptable, is independent. The version favoured by both traditions is therefore preferred.
12. si’escutz. We have followed DEIK in eliding the a of sia for reasons of metre.
18. efa·n als. We have adhered to A, which is joined by DIK. The readings of CEUDc all differ from each other, while E (e fas nals) is at the same time fairly close to ADIK. Pattison’s objection (loc. cit.) to the reflexive form of far given by CEUDc and chosen by Appel is reasonable. It is more likely that fun would be made of the flattered than of the flatterer.
The reading adopted by Appel (e fai·s a. e. e.) is based on those of CEUDc but is not actually offered by any one of them.
19-21. dich, faich, etc. In l. 19 ADEIK give the singular (dich-dig) and CUDc the plural (digz, etc). In l. 20 faich is in the singular in AU and in the plural in CDEIKDc. In l. 21 U is the only MS with the singular fag and is joined by C for the singular dir-(lo)digz in opposition to the other MSS.
Appel adheres to the plural for all three lines. It seems reasonable, however, to remain with A for the three lines particularly in view of Pattison’s sound assumption (loc. cit.) that, considering the large number of singulars, the original probably had one set of contrasting words in the singular and the other in the plural. Confusion may thus have arisen from the influence of the one set upon the other.
20. es puois conogutz. The support of D justifies the retention of the reading of A. The versions of IKE (esi conogutz / conegutz) and U (est tost conoguz) are fairly close to it, while that of C, preferred by Appel, is more independent (es reconogutz).
It is also worth noting that puois is more appropriate from the point of view of meaning in that it corresponds with apres in the following line.
23. o drutz... Raimbaut probably interrupts his thought here. (See Pattison’s note on this line, op. cit., p. 90.) Alternatively, it is possible that a second clause was meant to be understood, as Lavaud in fact suggests in his translation of the line: ‘Quel je suis, ou si je suis “amant”.’ We prefer to regard cals son as an indirect question, whereas Pattison takes it to be a direct one.
28. mas. Appel (p. 79) considers that the word is probably used here with its causal meaning (cf. Pet. Dict., p. 231; S. W., v, 30-1). However, the meaning ‘but’, favoured by both Lavaud and Pattison in their translations, appears to us to be more appropriate.
5-24 pp.
29. rotgier. The reading of A is retained for the same reasons as in l. 1. In addition, D departs from IK to join C and U in support of AE.
30. qez eu. It appears reasonable to adhere to ADIK, which have the form qez before the following vowel. Appel selects the individual reading of E (que ieu). C and U offer further independent versions.
31. si viv de vens. Like Pattison, we have chosen the reading of ADIK favoured by Levy ( S. W., VIII, 621). Appel prefers that of C, supported by E ( s’iesc vivs (viv) d’avens) -translated by Pattison ( loc. cit.) as ‘if I live beyond Advent’- but in his later edition of Raimbaut d’Orange ( Raimbaut von Orange, p. 22) he follows ADIK, the version of which he modifies slightly by replacing si by se.
Lavaud also favours the reading of ADIK, but his interpretation of the line is perhaps doubtful: ‘Je m’émerveille de vivre de soupirs’: ( Troub. Cant., p. 73.) ( *) The similar interpretations of vens offered by Levy ( loc. cit.) and Pattison ( op. cit., p. 88, translation) (‘nothing’-‘thin air’) appear to be more appropriate here. The same use of the word is found in l. 24 of Peire Vidal’s Si·m laissava: Que·l segles non es mas vens (Avalle’s edition, XXXII); Raynouard in fact translates the line as ‘Le siècle n’est que vent.’ ( Lex. rom., V, 499.)
Pattison chooses to divide the line into two parts: Meravill me! Si viv de vens! (‘I am astounded. Indeed, I am living on thin air!’). However, it seems to make as good sense taken as a whole: ‘I am amazed if I live on thin air.’
32. es. Pattison retains the independent reading of A (er). C and U also have independent readings. The version of DIK is preferred in view of the fact that it is supported by E, which often associates itself with this group in opposition to the other MSS (see ‘Classification’). The meaning is as acceptable as that of A.
Appel also follows DIKE for this line but does not include the version of A in the variants.
34. A omits que after cre and provides the correct number of syllables in the line only by not eliding the e of the earlier que. We prefer the reading of all the other MSS except C, which offers an independent version of the line.
35. We retain the version of ADIK for this line and follow Pattison’s interpretation (loc. cit.): ‘It would be right for me then to harm myself [i.e. to kill myself]’: The verb nozer is thus preferred to enojar, favoured by Appel, who reads the line as dreitz fora que plus m’enoges and translates: ‘so würde also meine Dame eigentlich ganz recht daran tun, mich noch mehr als bisher zu quälen’ (Raïmbaut von Orange, p. 22, note 1). The reading plus is given by CU only, which, as we note in ‘Classification’, are quite often independent in this poem. C is, in fact, independent for the rest of the line.
See Pattison’s discussion (pp. 90-1) on Appel’s interpretation of ll. 33-5, including the latter’s suggestion that the lines may have a humorous basis (loc. cit.).
37-8. Although the verb era is in the singular, it has as subjects the two nouns, sens and entendemens. Cf. note to III, l. 9.
41. Like Pattison we have retained the reading of A, which, except for the position mais, is supported by that of DIK. C and U are again more independent, and E is mutilated, although what remains seems to indicate a further independent version linked with U. Pattison (op. cit., p. 91) states that Appel follows the majority of the MSS. However, the latter’s version is not precisely offered by any one of them and appears to be a combination of DIK and U (jamais no·m n’avengues salutz).
The line has a concessive meaning, confirmed by the presence of the initial ia. Cf. Altprov. Elem., p. 136.
44. q’ieu. There seems to be no strong reason to depart from A, supported again by DIK, in favour of CU (que) employed by Appel. (E is again mutilated.) The two versions make equal sense.
46. ses. Of the MSS ADIKU, K is the only one which appears to offer the correct version, the meaning of which (‘without’) is given by the independent reading of C (senes). E is again mutilated. In ADIU (sos) the e may have been mistaken for an o in copying or may have resulted from confusion between the possessive forms ses and sos. Anglade (p. 100) refers to sos as a possible rare alternative form for ses, although he admits to not having found an example.
47. degra·m. It seems reasonable to adhere, as Pattison does, to the version of A, joined by DK and perhaps by I (degrā). Appel prefers the reading of U (degra·n), which is supported by that of C (devria·n) and which offers an equally acceptable meaning.
The scribes of C and U presumably treat degra-devria as the first person (‘I should certainly be believed in this matter (lit. ‘concerning this’)’), while the reading of ADK consists of an impersonal construction: (lit.) ‘It should certainly be believed to me...’
48. Pattison (loc. cit.) suggests that this line, which is missing in ADIK, may be corrupt. E is fragmentary, but sufficient evidence remains (nō dic) for us to link it with U. It is the latter’s version which is preferred to that of C (qu’ieu non quier tan ian fos crezutz), which Pattison (op. cit., p. 89, variants) inadvertently states is missing.
49. del. The reading of A, joined by DIK, is here retained in preference to that of CU (dun-dum). The subsequent appearance in U of bel instead of bon may well in fact have resulted from the influence of the earlier del in ADIK. Appel, however, follows C for this line.
The words bon respieich form the senhal of Raimbaut’s lady. They are obviously meant to be an allusion to her, as Pattison makes clear by his use of capital letters (cf. note to l. 50).
50. Bon Respieich. For discussion on this senhal see R. d’Orange, pp. 37 ff and 59.
Appel (p. 79) considers that Raimbaut’s use of the third person in the tornada would suggest that the senhal is not intended in this line to denote the troubadour’s lady. In his later edition of the poem (Raïmbaut von Orange, p. 44) he places a question mark after the words and suggests that they do not form an address but are perhaps merely an interrogative repetition of the words in the previous line. Lavaud, on the other hand, considers that Raimbaut is in fact addressing his lady, but only as a witness of his suffering at the hands of another (op. cit., II, p. 477, note 2). It seems fairly clear, however, in view of the reference to the senhal in the previous line, that Bon Respieich, addressed in the second person, and the lady spoken of in the third person are one and the same, and that both refer to Raimbaut’s lady.
Raimbaut mentions, at the beginning of the poem, the promise he has made to his lady to refrain from singing. Pattison indicates other poems which contain a reference to such a restriction imposed upon the troubadour by his lady and places them in approximately the same period (op. cit., p. 40 and p. 90, note 1). One may assume that, having broken his pledge, Raimbaut employs the third person in the tornada in a token attempt to conceal the fact that it is his lady to whom he is referring. The reference in l. 49 is, however, intended to remove any doubt about the matter.
It is interesting to note that E gives lonc r..., suggesting one of the four variants of the senhal employed by Raimbaut (see R. d’Orange, p. 39).
sui bas. Appel follows the order of words given by CU. Again, there seems to be no strong reason to depart from the equally acceptable order of ADIK.
Note:
* For partial justification of the translation of vens by ‘soupirs’ Lavaud refers to Prov., Chr.: 100, l. 40, but in fact Appel tentatively translates vens in the passage concerned by ‘trieb’ (‘instinct’, ‘impulse’). Levy (S. W., VIII, 620) cites the passage and reports Appel’s suggested translation. |
