3. d’obra. This construction, partitive de after negative verbs, is very rare in Provençal. Cf., however, Bernart de Ventadorn (ed. C. Appel), 31, 45: non ai de sen per un efan.
6. The subject of pesseg (3 sg. pres. subj. of the verb pesejar, “break, crush, tear,” here used figuratively, “dissect, analyze”), is the relative que understood. For similar paratactic constructions in Provençal see Publ. Mod. Lang. Assn, XXI (1906), 566 ff.
9. Here the rime arrangement forbids the adoption of the reading fezes amors percebre of the MSS ADIKQ, which is otherwise preferable to the reading adopted in the text. I interpret fetz as a shortened by-form of the imperfect subjunctive, equivalent to the later fes, found in Amanieu de Sescas, Guiraut Riquier and other late troubadours.
21-22. Appel (in E. Levy, Provenzal. Supplement-Wörterbuch, VIII, 426) doubts the existence of a verb tremar in Old Provençal. He was apparently unacquainted with this passage, which confirms Jeanroy’s interpretation of William of Poitou, 10, 15. The existence of tremar (which I would explain as a contamination-form from tremer + tremblar) must now be recognized.
31-32. The most difficult passage in this song. The reading de lonhor lonher seems assured by the agreement of all the MSS except MR. I interpret len, 32, as adverbial lene and believe that Aimeric has coined the verb lonher (ordinarily lonhar) for the rime’s sake. The expression lonher de lonhor “go far from farther,” I take as a conceit for “come nearer,” quite in keeping with the affected taste of the whole piece.
33. Here the sense demands the reading poiriatz rather than podiatz of ADIK.
42. N’Emilla is evidently the lady of like name praised by Aimeric in two other songs, 10, 3, and 10, 53. She was the wife of Count Pietro Traversara, and flourished ca. 1220. See Bergert, op. cit., pp. 76, 77, and Modern Philology, XXIII (1925), 23. |
