6. que·y renha: Jeanroy prints que renha.
8. D’un’amistat: Jeanroy’s text reads D’un amistat, which may be a misprint; we follow Stengel’s and Casella’s D’un’.
10. c’or: Casella takes joya to be the antecedent of c’.
14. e s’amors: Stimming prints es s’amors, following R.
18. joyos, jauzen: Jeanroy’s conjecture is jauzitz jauzen.
24. reüsos: Stimming prints reversos, following C, which we ascribe uniquely to C’s copyist.
25. que lay·s n’an: Stimming prints qu’ella m’an, following ABDIKN2RSg; Jeanroy emends to qu’ela·s n’an.
26. cor: Jeanroy prints vai, following CMEeg.
27. er que lai: Jeanroy emends to er qu’oimais.
28. s’amors no la·m fai remaner: CE’s s’ilha no·s vol aretener (aremaner E) has the appearance of a lectio facilior, and we follow Jeanroy in printing the better reading of ABDIKMN2RSgeg. a’s s’ab merce suggests a corruption of s’amors.
29ff. Stimming’s stanzas 5 and 6 are ABDIKMN2Sgeg’s stanzas A and B.
29. alegres: Jeanroy prints alegre·m, following DEIKN2RSga; our text agrees with Stimming.
31. en tant: Casella prints suy d’aitant.
33-35. CE’s reading mas pero per mon Bon Guiren . . . m’es ops aparcer mon voler, while a satisfactory reading, has the appearance of a lectio facilior, and goes against most of the manuscripts; hence we have followed Jeanroy.
33. Bon Guiren: Cravayat argues that the “Good Protector” is William VI Taillefer, Count of Angouleme; see Life of the Author. Casella prints bon guiren, following Monaci.
36–42. Cf. Cercamon 8, stanza 8.
38. Ja mais sia: Stimming prints sia jamais.
41. qui Jhesus: Stimming prints cui J.; our text agrees with Jeanroy’s spelling, but Jeanroy, as does Stimming, takes Jhesus to be the subject of essenha. The phrase tener escola means “to hold, conduct (a) school”; this makes it natural to take Jhesus as object of essenha. For tener escola taken as meaning “to follow a (certain) path or course of action,” from escola, “group, body of followers,” thus opening the possibility of Jhesus as subject of essenha, see Jeanroy in Romania, 41, 418, note 3. Jeanroy’s interpretation of our passage, relegated to a note, is speculative. |
