1. Dous’amiga. The final a of dousa is superfluous as far as the metre is concerned and would not, therefore, be pronounced.
2.lais. A verb of sorrow like pesar requires the verb of the dependent clause, introduced by que, to be in the subjunctive mood. However, when quar replaces que, as in this instance, the indicative is employed (cf. Altprov. Elem., p. 133).
3. The MS contains the reading e redolmein et esmais. Chabaneau reads in error redolmen (RLR, XX, 139) which he alters later to redolmem (op. cit., XXV, 103). His version of the line (e ve dols m’en et esmais) is rejected both by Meyer (Romania, X (1881), 622), who regards it as being very forced, and by Appel (p. 79) on the grounds that the subject dols should not be allowed to separate ve from m’en. The version favoured by Lavaud (e ver dol mein et esmais -‘and indeed I bear sorrow and affliction’) seems to be too contrived (see Levy, S. W., II, 266: faire dol, menar dol (‘to bewail, grieve’)).
Appel ( loc. cit.) tentatively proposes two alternative readings of the line: (i) e be dol m’en us esmais, (ii) e redol m’en et esmais. It is the latter which we have chosen to include in brackets and which Stengel proposes in his diplomatic edition ( Die altprovenzalische Liedersammlung c der Laurenziana in Florenz, Leipzig, 1899, p. 72). Although this interpretation is somewhat arguable, it is perhaps the most plausible, differing only slightly from the actual reading of the MS. Appel ( loc. cit.) suggests that se redoler may be analogous to the Italian verb ridolersi (‘to complain, lament’) but we have been unable to find any other examples of the verb with the prefix re-. As for esmais, he quotes ( loc. cit.) another instance of the first person singular of esmaiar ending in s (Mahn, Gedichte, 5,331). However, the verb is normally employed transitively or reflexively, and its intransitive use, although it exists,( *) must be regarded as exceptional.
6. We support Appel’s view (loc. cit.) that Chabaneau’s amendment to departem is unnecessary, as the third person plural is quite acceptable: ‘They separate or one separates (our love).’
7. sabeos. In his diplomatic edition Peleaz reads the MS as sab cos (‘Il canzoniere provenzale c’ in Studi di filologia romanza, VII, 388). Appel (loc. cit.) also implies that a c may have been intended instead of an e. We have, however, made a careful comparison with the scribe’s cs and es elsewhere and confirm that the reading here is sab eos. In view of the doubt attached to the word we have enclosed it in brackets. Chabaneau’s explanation of the word, although by no means certain, would appear to be reasonable (op. cit., XX, 139; XXV, 103-4). He regards it as a contracted form of sabetz vos (>sabeus) and quotes a small number of other examples of such contractions in the poetry of the troubadours. He admits, however, that the process is more common in narrative works than in lyrical poetry and that he has not found a case which can be traced back as far as Peire Rogier’s period. The construction found in this poem therefore provides, in his view, a further reason for doubting Peire’s authorship. P. Meyer (Romania, loc. cit.) also finds it difficult to accept a contraction of this sort in the work of Peire Rogier and, for his part, favours sabetz without a pronoun.
The principal objection to the contraction is that the indicative sabetz vos would normally be unacceptable as an imperative form of saber. Suchier (Goett. gel. Anzeigen, 1883, 1344) suggests that, if sabeos is to be amended at all, it would be preferable to choose sapchas or sabes. As the subjunctive mood would be expected (Altprov. Elem., p. 132; Anglade, p. 345), Appel and Lavaud boldly amend sabeos to sabchas. Even if this version were to be adopted, however, the plural form sabchatz would perhaps be more appropriate in view of the use of the polite second person elsewhere in the poem.
8. q’anc. Cf. note to l. 1 for the elision of the e of qe.
9. The line as it stands is one syllable short. The inclusion of en satisfies the metre requirements as well as completing the meaning of the line: ‘And I do not dare to show it to you.’ All the previous editions include en. It is interesting to note the alternative solution to the metre problem which Stengel suggests in his diplomatic edition: e no[n] u[o]s aus f. s.
11. vau. The MS has the normal form of the first person singular, vai, which Chabaneau incorrectly reads as vac. We have followed Appel, Lavaud and Nelli-Lavaud in changing it to the usual form of the third person singular (cf. Altprov. Elem., p. 107) required by the meaning.
Dieu. The MS offers the nominative form of the word (dieus) which Chabaneau adopts. It is, however, the objective form which is clearly required here after per, and which is also adopted in the three other editions.
15. terr’estragna. Cf. note to l. 1.
16. freidur’e. Cf. note to l. 1.
17. no fas figa. The MS has nos fas figu. Nos does not make sense, and we have been unable to find an example of figu elsewhere. All four editions, together with Raynouard (Lex. rom., III, 322), amend the reading of the line in the same way.
Que is to be understood at the beginning of the line: ‘ Than I do fig and chestnut.’ For the omission of que see note to I, l. 39.
The poem is thought to have been composed at a time when Peire was leaving the Auvergne. Lines 16-18 are seen as expressing the poet’s preference for the cold mountains and treeless plateaux of the Haute Auvergne to the valleys or plains of the warm and fertile lowlands. ( Cf. Lavaud, Troub. Cant., pp. 74-5; Nelli-Lavaud, Les Troubadours, p. 86, note;]. Ajalbert, ‘Les Troubadours d’Auvergne’, Mercure de France, CXXXVII (Jan., 1920), 73-4.) See also Peire Rogier's lady.
20. l’esperiz. The MS has a scribal error (les esperiz), probably the result of confusion over es at the beginning of the word.
21. uls. Lavaud amends the MS reading to cils, as it is the word which is normally employed with fronçir in such cases. It is possible, of course, that cils was originally intended but was changed to uls through a copying error on the part of the scribe. Support for this suggestion may perhaps be seen in the existence of the entirely different form of the word (oils) later in the poem (l.. 29). (Cf. Lavaud, op. cit., p. 75.)
We prefer, however, to retain the version uls, on the assumption that the poet is using the word here in a loose sense to denote the eyebrows as well as the eyes themselves. It is interesting to note that Levy gives the word cil the meaning of ‘eyebrow’, ‘eyelid’ and ‘eye’ (Pet. Dict., p. 77).
22. raïtz. We accept the meaning of the word given by Lavaud (loc. cit.) (‘nerves’), which is an extension of the normal meaning, ‘roots’.
23. qi·ns. It is necessary to amend the reading of the MS (qi·us), which is probably a scribal error, in order to make sense of the line: ‘He who has parted us (not you)…’. qi·us also produces one syllable too many in the line. All four editions make this amendment. It should be noted, however, that Appel does not include the version of the MS in his variants and that Stengel, in his diplomatic edition, incorrectly reads the MS as qins.
25. for’eu. Cf. note to l. 1.
28. perniz. The MS has perviz, which is probably the result of an error in copying. This reading is confirmed by Pelaez, Stengel and Chabaneau in their respective editions. Appel, however, mistakenly omits a reference to it in his variants. Perniz, which both Chabaneau (op. cit., XX, 140) and Appel (p. 80) compare to the Italian pernice, is one of four recognised forms of the same word listed by Levy (S. W., VI, 234). Its appearance in this poem is, in fact, the only example of the form quoted by Levy. The other three forms are perdritz, perditz, perlitz, the last of which is also attested by Chabaneau (ibid.; op. cit., IX, 358 (second article on P. Meyer’s edition of La Chanson de la Croisade contre les Albigeois, reference to l. 4026)).
34. The e found in the MS version between clars and noitz is omitted, as it renders the line meaningless: es is understood between dias clars and noitz oscura, as in the case of the opposites in the previous two lines. The insertion of e would also give the line one syllable too many.
All these nouns should be in the nominative case, and the noit of the MS has therefore been amended accordingly. (For the formation of the nominative form noitz see Altprov. Elem., pp. 68-9.)
Both these amendments are made in all the editions of the poem apart from Chabaneau’s, in which the reading noit is retained.
There remains one further line of six syllables only which probably begins a seventh stanza: Parlan vauc fasc forsatz. Having regard to the space which the scribe normally leaves blank between each of the poems, an examination of the arrangement of the stanzas in the MS would seem to indicate that there is space available for an eighth and ninth stanza and possibly for a short tornada of two or three lines.
(*) Levy (S. W., III, 235) cites an intransitive meaning of esmaiar (‘timore deficere, desperare’) found in E. Stengel’s Die beiden ältesten provenzalischen Grammatiken, p. 30 and p. 172.
|
