NOTES
Six coblas unissonans of ten lines, with one tornada of six lines: a8 b8 b8 a8 c7’ d8 e8 d8 e8 c7’ (or, ais, aire, os, an). Frank 650:2. —The same scheme and rhymes are found in the tenso of Folquet de Marseille 155, 24 (ed. Stronski, XV), composed c. 1190.
Subject. This political sirventes (or Crusade Song) sheds an interesting light on the situation of the Crusaders following the conquest of Constantinople and the establishment of the Latin Empire in May 1204, and also provides a valuable eye-witness confirmation of the accounts of contemporary chroniclers. The poet expresses extreme displeasure with the turn of events subsequent to the election of Baldwin of Flanders as first Latin Emperor. In vigorous language he exhorts the latter in the first part of the poem to display greater liberality in distributing the expected rewards and greater energy in face of his external enemies. In the second part, he reminds him that the liberation of Jerusalem remains, even after the conquest of the Byzantine Empire, the primary purpose of the Crusade. At the same time he takes to task some of the leading personalities of the Emperor’s court, holding them responsible for the latter’s unsatisfactory conduct.
While Raimbaut’s portrait of Baldwin differs considerably from that of the chroniclers, his reproaches were not without foundation at the time the poem was written. Even discounting the exaggeration as characteristic of the genre, the poet’s animosity may be adequately explained by his deep disappointment over his patron’s failure to become Emperor, his resentment at Baldwin’s delay in honouring his promise to his unsuccessful rival regarding Salonika, his feeling that liberality was necessary to ensure the continued loyalty of the Crusaders and, perhaps most of all, his growing impatience at the failure to prosecute energetically the liberation of the Holy Land (cf. XXII, tornada 8). In all this it may be assumed that Raimbaut was reflecting the feelings of his protector.
Date. The poet’s failure to mention the name of the Emperor has given rise to controversy over his identity. Crescini, in the scholarly commentary accompanying his edition, identified him (on the basis of his emendation of l. 57) as Baldwin of Flanders, a leading figure of the Fourth Crusade, who was elected Emperor in May 1204 (cf. XIX, 59; Epic Letter II, 47). He accordingly considered the sirventes to have been composed in June or July of that year, during the Emperor’s first period of residence in the capital and prior to the departure of the Marquis of Montferrat for the kingdom of Salonika (which he took over at the beginning of September). Zenker on the other hand argued for Alexius IV, the young Greek Emperor whom the Crusaders had restored to his throne in Aug. 1203 (cf. Epic Letter I. 36–8, note); according to this view the poem was written shortly before the rupture between Alexius and the Crusaders in Nov. 1203. The arguments put forward by Lewent in support of Crescini’s views were however decisive for the identification with Baldwin, and the allusions to contemporary events in l. 42 and l. 46 also support this view. For the various arguments in this controversy, see: R. Zenker, Raimbaut von Vaqueiras und Kaiser Alexius IV von Konstantinopel (Philol. u. Volkskundl. Arbeiten Karl Vollmöller ... dargebeten, Erlangen, 1908, p. 187); Nochmals R. v. V. und der Kaiser von Konstantinopel (Archiv 125, 1910, p. 404); ZRP XXVII, 1903, p. 471; K. Lewent, Das altprovenz. Kreuzlied, Berlin, 1905, pp. 26–8, 114; R. de Vaq. und der Kaiser von Konstantinopel (Archiv 123, 1909, p. 319; 125, 1910, p. 410); O. Schultz-Gora, Literaturbl. 1902, c. 302; 1906, c. 287; A. Kolsen, Archiv 116, 1906, p. 455; A. Jeanroy, AdM 14, 1902, p. 132; 18, 1906, p. 83.
1. Conseil. The recurrence of this word in various forms in practically every line of the first two stanzas and the play on its different meanings reveal unmistakably a satirical intent. In l. 62 Raimbaut describes the poem itself as a “conseil”, and just as Bertran de Born modelled his own political “conseil” (ed. Stimming, 6) on the amorous “conseil” of Giraut de Borneil (ed. Kolsen. 57), so Raimbaut has adopted the metrical scheme and rhymes of the earlier amorous tenso of Folquet de Marseille (ed. Stronski, XV).
7–10. The negotiations begun immediately after Baldwin’s coronation regarding Boniface’s request for the kingdom of Salonika were proving difficult. The Emperor’s councillors, a powerful body which could not be ignored, were urging him to break his promise to Boniface, and this led to dangerous tension between the two principal figures of the Crusade. The settlement of the dispute in Boniface’s favour was apparently effected in precisely the way advocated by the poet. Cf. Villehardouin §§ 265, 267, 275–99, 306; Robert de Clari XCIX, CX.
8. ses conseil. We follow Crescini and Zenker in interpreting conseil as a noun and ses as the preposition rather than se·s.
13–14. Crescini emended the defective MS. reading to: “e s’en es tan q’el no·s n’irais ni·l comte del c.m.”, the “comte” being in his view the two leading Crusaders, Count Louis of Blois and Count Hugues de St. Pol. Schultz-Gora (Literaturbl. 1902, c. 303) has shown that this emendation is unacceptable. The precise expressions els dos (l. 16) and amdos (l. 19) must refer to two persons previously mentioned, and one would expect at least one proper noun in the text. In fact, the come of the MS. is obviously coine, i.e. Conon of Béthune, trouvère, diplomat and soldier, who played a leading part in the Crusade before and after the conquest of Constantinople, and who was one of the most important members of the Emperor’s court (cf. Villehardouin, passim); Raimbaut exchanged a partimen with him at this time (XXI). The Provençal form in the text corresponds to the O.F. Cuene(s) (ibid., l. 33, and cf. ZRP XXX, 590). Moreover, the expression “si tant es que” would require the Subjunctive. Schultz-Gora suggested senescal for sen estan, and this palaeographically plausible emendation furnishes the second personality required by the context. The seneschal Thierry of Loos, appointed to the office on the establishment of the new régime, is frequently mentioned by Villehardouin along with Conon, Milan of Brabant and the chronicler himself, i. e. precisely those leading members of the court who are also mentioned in our poem (both Louis of Blois and Hugues de St. Pal were incapacitated by illness at this time). Schultz-Gora restored the syllabic count in l. 13 by reading before senescal the word se·l, which provides an excellent sense and the omission of which can be explained by the similarity with the first syllable of the following noun. We follow Lewent and Zenker in accepting this emendation.
14. cosseil major. This is probably the small Privy Council, consisting of the Emperor’s officials and intimate friends, as distinct from the general council of the barons; cf. from a letter of Henry of Flanders (brother and successor of Baldwin):“ ... consilio cum consiliariis et baronibus inito .... et de comuni consilio nostro” (Tafel-Thomas, XIII, 40), and Robert de Clari, loc. cit. As Lord High Chamberlain, Conon would naturally belong to this body, along with the Seneschal, Villehardouin and Milon of Brabant (cf. ll. 61–3).
18. cosseillen. As the Subjunctive is required here, we emend with Crescini.
19. amdos. Crescini “corrects” to amdui.
20. forzi. This emendation is also adopted by Crescini (cf. l. 51: forz’).
21–2. These lines furnish additional evidence that the poem was written at the beginning of Baldwin’s reign. Similar evidence is afforded by ll. 24–5, by the poet’s exhortation to the Emperor to resist any inclination to a life of ease (ll. 31–2) and by the Future Tense seran in l. 38.
23. q’al. We adopt with Crescini the corrected form; Schultz-Gora preferred the original qel, and rendered: “und er sehe sich vor, dass er nicht zu dem herabsinke, was ihm schaden konnte.”
27. anta. The MS. ainta is either a scribal error (cf. MS. cairgat l. 33) or a misreading of an original amta (Schultz-Gora).
29. pert. For the meaning “abandon”, cf. Epic Letter III, 13.
30. venran. In his translation, Crescini assumed the subject of this verb to be cels q’ab lui estan of the previous line, but in the notes he suggested the alternative meaning “mal troverà chi si faccia di sua casa”, the subject being indefinite (cf. blasmaran in l. 57). Along with Zenker we prefer the latter interpretation as giving greater point to the poet’s warning. This warning links the “conseil” proper (stanzas 1–3), in which the Emperor is exhorted to display greater liberality, with the second part of the poem which demonstrates the necessity for energy and valour in the task of liberating Jerusalem: liberality alone will ensure the loyal service of his vassals in the accomplishment of this pressing task.
32. ni·s baign ni sojorn. There are frequent references in the chroniclers to the importance of the baths in the social life of Byzantium (cf. Villehardouin § 271; Robert de Clari LXXXI, XCVIII), and both Crescini and Zenker attribute to baign a literal meaning. But sojornar e se banhar is a conventional expression indicating a life of ease and pleasure, and this meaning is more appropriate in the context (cf. P. Vidal, ed. Anglade, XXIII, 69, XUII, 57, and also Mistral, Dict.: bagna “se délecter”).
em palais. Of the two celebrated palaces in Constantinople, the Blachernae and the Bucoleon, the Emperor chose the latter as his residence (cf. Villehardouin § 263; Epic LetterII 33, 57); but the expression has here a generic sense.
33. col. Crescini emended the MS. cor to cors, but Jeanroy (AdM 14, 133) suggested the more acceptable emendation col, remarking: “c’est sur le cou et non sur le corps que porte le poids d’un fardeau”, and we prefer this emendation along with Schultz-Gora and Zenker.
36–8. The poet’s presentiments, contrasting sharply with the confidence of the majority of the new masters of Byzantium, were fully justified in the event. Though at this time there was a period of tranquillity and security (cf. Villehardouin § 302), the formidable Johannitza, Tsar (1197–1207) of the neighbouring Wallacho-Bulgarian Empire, which had recently thrown off Greek domination, was soon to become the scourge of the Latin Empire, following the rejection of his overtures (a rejection deplored by Robert de Clari LXV). On April 14th 1205 he defeated the Emperor Baldwin at Adrianople and led him off to die in captivity. Two years later the Marquis of Montferrat was to meet his death at the hands of the same enemy.
36. The Wallachians (Blac), with whom were allied the Bulgars, were the Latin inhabitants of the Danube basin, to whom the Germanic barbarians had applied the term “Walahen”, later adopted by the Greeks and Latins also (cf. XXII, 57, and Crescini, op. cit., p. 893). Their auxiliaries the Cumans (Coman) were a primitive, warlike people of apparently Turkish stock who had settled in Moldavia and Macedonia (for an interesting account of their manners, cf. Robert de Clari, loc. cit.). As in our poem, the two peoples are frequently coupled by the chroniclers (cf. Villehardonin § 352; Robert de Clari CVI; Ostrogorsky, pp. 319–20, 358). The mention of the Ros (Russians) in this context, though historically unjustified, is a poetic amplification of the list of European enemies of the Latin Empire, suggested by the geographical proximity of the Russians to the Cumans (as well as by the needs of the rhyme); cf. Villehardouin § 226: “mer de Rossie”. A similar amplification occurs in the Epic LetterII, 49. —The fact that this line is a syllable short in the MS. has escaped attention. Of the six nouns of nationality in ll. 36–7, Blac and Coman alone have no article, and this may have been omitted by the scribe, who was probably embarrassed by these nouns (he at first wrote blancs). If the articles are restored, the adoption of the unabbreviated form before the first of these nouns will supply the missing syllable.
37. The inclusion of pagans among the Infidels of Asia illustrates the medieval prejudice which confused the religion of Islam with idolatry. The term “Persians” here denotes Mohammedans in general; as the acc. form Persans of the MS. violates the rhyme, we substitute the nom. form here and in the other nouns also.
38. Grîfos. This term (= Greeks) is used by Raimbaut both here and in the Epic Letter II, 31 in the rhyme position; for further examples cf. Villehardouin §§ 185, 224; Du Cange, s.v. Griffones; Schultz-Gora, Briefe, p. 88. — It was not until the rapacity of the new Latin masters became evident, during their occupation of the Greek provinces in the autumn of 1204, that (to quote Villehardouin § 303) “li Grieu les commencierent a haïr et a porter malvais cuer”. But already at the time Raimbaut was composing his sirventes the refugee Greek Emperors Alexius III and Alexius V his son-in-law were campaigning against the conquerors not far from the capital, while Theodore Lascaris, another son-in-law of Alexius III, had crossed the Bosphorus to organise a powerful resistance in Asia (cf. Epic Letter I, 29, 34, 36-8 and notes; Villehardouin §§ 266, 313).
41–2. This passage confirms the chroniclers’ accounts of the excesses which marked the capture and sack of Constantinople on April 12th 1204 and which outraged the Christian conscience of both West and East. The greed of the conquerors, dazzled by the great wealth of the city, the profanation of the churches and the destruction caused by the conflagration started by the victorious army brought down on the Crusaders the fulminations of Pope Innocent III and produced a universal feeling of guilt among the victors, who saw in the reverses of the following year an act of divine retribution. The most vivid description of these misdeeds is given in the Chronique d’Ernoul, p. 375: “Quant li François orent prise Costantinoble, it avoient rescu Dame Diu embracié devant aus, et tantos com it furent ens, it le jeterent jus et embraciérent l’escu al dyable”; cf. also Villehardouin §§ 128, 192, 247, 250–5; Robert de Clari LXXX-XCII, XCVIII, CXII; the Letters of Baldwin and Henry of Flanders to Pope Innocent III; Nicetas, pp. 757–86 (who claims that even the Saracens were more merciful). The violation of the churches is described by Guntherus Pairisiensis (Riant, Exuviae I, 105), the Canonici anonymi Lingonensis Hist. (ibid., 28) and Nicetas (loc. cit.). Crescini (op. cit., p. 899) believed the reference to the burning of the churches to be rhetorical exaggeration, since it is not confirmed by the French chroniclers. The palaces, with their fabulous treasure, were all taken over by the conquerors (cf. Villehardouin §§ 250–1).
43. The poet’s testimony regarding the greed of clerics and laymen alike during the pillaging which followed the capture of the city is confirmed by Villehardouin § 247, Guntherus Pairisiensis (loc. cit.), Nicetas, p. 775. Robert de Clari XCVIII relates how the clerics successfully claimed the same rights as the knights to a share of the booty.
vei. The use of the Present Tense shows that in the poet’s eyes the victors were still in a state of sin, which only the reconquest of the Holy Sepulchre could wash away.
clercs. The MS. spelling clers is a scribal error; cf. Turcs 37, 52, larcs 48.
44–7. In l. 44 the MS. reading rescos violates the rhyme-scheme and makes the whole line suspect. Crescini (followed by Schultz-Gora and Jeanroy) preserves the MS. reading, but while suggesting a gratuitous emendation of sepulchres to sepulchr’ er, he emends the perfectly satisfactory l. 47 to s’el conqis no estai enan, which he renders: “se desso (il sepolcro) non è prima conquistato.” Tobler (cf. Lewent, Das Altprov. Kreuzlied, p. 114) suggested for l. 44 the emendation e se·l sepulchre non secor, and this offers both an acceptable sense and a suitable rhyme-word, while at the same time leaving l. 47 intact (the corruption might have come about as follows: e se·l sepulchre non secor > es el s.n.s. > e·l sepulchres non es rescos). As no improvement suggests itself, we adopt this emendation along with Lewent and Zenker (cf. Aimeric de Peguilhan, ed. Shepard-Chambers, 11, 44: per secorre·l sant sepulcr’ e son fieu). Tobler’s further emendation of serem in l. 45 to sera·n is however unnecessary, nor does Schultz-Gora’s interpretation of this line as a question commend itself.
46. perdos. The passage shows that the pardon here referred to is the general pardon granted by the Pope in return for a year’s service with the Crusade.
48. The idea that liberality and valour are alike indispensable to the success of the Crusade recurs like a leit-motiv throughout the poem; cf. ll. 6–7, 28–30, 64–6.
50. Babylonia and Cairo were synonymous terms in the West at this time. For the decision to attack Egypt cf. XIX, 65–6. That the idea of attacking the Saracen Empire was not abandoned is shown not only by this passage and by a similar reference in a later poem of Raimbaut (XXII, 85–8), but also by the Letter of Baldwin to the Pope mentioned above. Attacks on Egypt did in fact take place in 1219 and 1250.
52. part Roais. This is the Arab term for the Mesopotamian city of Edessa, but the phrase is loosely used by Raimbaut and other poets to indicate distant Saracen lands (cf. Raimbaut d’Orange, ed. Pattison, XV, 41; Appel, Prov. Ined., 117, 176).
53–4. Cf. P. Cardenal, ed. Lavaud, XXIX, 49–50: Ja non aion paor Alcais ni Almansor.
55. lansar e traire. The MS. lansa retraire is meaningless, and Crescini accordingly gave to retraire the unusual sense of “vibrar nuovamente”. But the difficulty is eliminated by adopting the re-division of the words proposed by Tobler (cf. Lewent, loc. cit.), and the same expression recurs in XVIII, 30.
56–7. The MS. readings are unsatisfactory. and the emendations proposed by Crescini (op. cit., pp. 878–81) and Zenker (Raimbaut von Vaqueiras, pp. 194–7) bear closely on the question of the identity of the Emperor. In l. 57 Crescini proposed for dozelet cors the simple but brilliant emendation doz’ electors, these being the twelve representatives of the Crusaders and the Venetians chosen to elect the first Latin Emperor (cf. Villehardouin §§ 234, 256–60). The electors might well seem to the poet to bear responsibility for the Emperor’s delay in prosecuting the Crusade. Moreover, the learned form electors could be justified by the exceptional method adopted to appoint the Emperor, namely, that of election (although eslection is found in Villehardouin §§ 256, 259, and also in Robert de Clari XCV, alongside esliseeur). Zenker, emending dozelet to donzelet, sees in this term a derogatory allusion to the youth of Alexius IV. and in donzelet cors an expression similar to le cors Rollant, etc.; he does not however explain why donzelet should be used here for the first time.
In l. 56 one expects a proper noun, and Crescini sees in e levos a progressive corruption of Nevelos, i.e. Bishop Névelon of Soissons, one of the foremost ecclesiastics of the Fourth Crusade. As one of the twelve electors, he publicly announced the election of Baldwin as Emperor (d. Villehardouin §§ 44, 105, 260; Robert de Clari I, LXXIII, XCV). The logical error committed in speaking of “Nevelon and the twelve electors” finds numerous parallels in medieval texts (cf. Tobler, Verm. Beitr., III, 72–3); but Névelon’s important role in the Emperor’s coronation would in any case justify his special mention. Zenker on the other hand interprets levos (= leos) as an allusion to Baldwin, the lion being the heraldic emblem of the house of Flanders (he cites as confirmation XIX, 58, q.v.). But representation of a man by his emblem is highly unusual; moreover, the v of the rare form levos may reasonably be considered to point to an original Nevelos. —Raimbaut’s noteworthy silence in regard to the role of Boniface may be explained as an attempt to throw the entire responsibility for the delay in liberating Jerusalem on the shoulders of his patron’s successful rival (Lewent), or as diplomatic discretion during the period of delicate negotiations between the two men regarding the kingdom of Salonika (Crescini).
58. A whole month had passed since Baldwin’s coronation without any sign of preparation for an attack on the Holy Land. For the poet’s faith in the fulfilment of the Crusade, cf. XXII, 85, note.
en preizos. Crescini draws attention to the personal nature of the image; for a similar use of the plural, cf. Pons de Capduoill, ed. Napolski, V, 32; Monk of Montaudon, ed. Klein, II, 43.
59–60. The Emperor was under the influence of the aged but shrewd Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo (1192–1205), to whom he largely owed his election (cf. Nicetas, p. 789; Faral, Revue hist. 177, pp. 556–7, 581). Raimbaut here echoes a suspicion, widely entertained among the impatient ranks of the Crusaders, that the Venetians were more concerned with preserving their substantial commercial gains than with continuing the Crusade. It was rumoured that the Doge had made a secret pact with the Sultan whereby the arms intended for an attack on Egypt would be diverted against Constantinople (cf. Chronique d’Ernoui, pp. 345–6; Robert de Clari XVII; Runciman, pp. 113 ff.); and from the outset the Doge had insisted on the diversion against the Dalmatian city of Zara for political reasons (for the policy of the Doge and his role in the diversion against Constantinople, cf. Ostrogorsky, p. 367).
60. socors. Here and elsewhere this term signifies the liberation of the Holy Land.
61. marescal. Geoffrey of Villehardouin, the eminent Marshal of Champagne and Romania, and an outstanding diplomatic and military figure of the Fourth Crusade, as well as its distinguished historian. He proved a successful mediator between Baldwin and Boniface, and the latter rewarded his friendly intervention by giving him one of the cities of his kingdom (Messinople); cf. Villehardouin §§ 278, 283–7, 296–7, 299, 496; Faral, loc. cit., pp. 570–81. In documents of the period he is often referred to, as here, by his title alone.
63. Miles de Burban. Referred to by the chroniclers as “Miles li Braibans” or “de Braibant” (and once in Villehardouin § 211 as “Miles li Braibans de Provins”), Milan was “buticularius Romaniae” (cf. Du Cange, s.v. butta), and an influential official of Baldwin’s court. Like the Marshal, he played a leading part in the events of the Crusade as diplomat and soldier, and is constantly coupled with him (and frequently also with Canon of Béthune) in the chroniclers (cf. Villehardouin, passim; Henri de Valenciennes §§ 533, 540). —The correction of mi les to mi lis in the MS. may be ignored, Miles being the correct nominative form, which we retain even though grammatically “incorrect” here (cf. amdos 19). Crescini adopted the analogical acc. form Mile; he also rejected the unconfirmed but interesting form Burban in favour of the more usual Breban.
65. The metrical scheme shows that a line with a rhyme-word in -an appeared here in the original text.
64–6. For a similar enumeration of the knightly qualities required in the good Crusader, cf. the Crusade Song of Aimeric de Peguilhan, ed. Shepard-Chambers, 11, 33–7: Qu’elh no somo mas los valens e·ls pros Car silh seran totz temps franchamen sieu Qui seran lai ferm bon combatedor . .. E franc e larc e cortes e leyal. |
