NOTES
Four coblas unissonans of eight lines, and one of five lines: a b a b c’ c’ d d (ors, ai, atge, ir), lines of ten syllables. Frank 382:27. Of the 111 other examples of this metrical scheme, none offers the same rhymes.
Date. The rubrics of DIK confirm that the Raimbaut of this partimen is our troubadour, and De Bartholomaeis has demonstrated (loc. cit.) that the lord Coine who is Raimbaut’s partner is almost certainly the illustrious trouvère, diplomat and Crusader, Conon of Béthune († 1219; for an outline of his career cf. Wallensköld, Les Chansons de Conon de Béthune, CFMA, IV–VII). De Bartholomaeis suggests that Conon may have passed through Montferrat on his way to embark at Venice for the Crusade in the autumn of 1202, and have exchanged the partimen with Raimbaut at this moment; but as such a visit is hypothetical, he concludes that the poem was composed in the East between 1202 and 1207. Raimbaut, however, did not embark for the East until the spring of 1203 (cf. Epic Letter II, 30, note), and it is most probable therefore that the exchange took place in Constantinople after the establishment of the Latin Empire in May 1204, when the return to peaceful conditions encouraged the revival of poetic activity on amorous themes in the courts of the Western noblemen (ibid., III, 103. note; De Bartholomaeis points out that a number of ladies accompanied the Crusaders to the East). Conon was at this time a Privy Councillor of the first Latin Emperor (cf. XX, 14, note), and Boniface of Montferrat for his part remained in the capital until his departure for the kingdom of Salonika in September of the same year (cf. Epic Letter I,4, note). As there is no record of Conon having visited Salonika, the partimen was probably composed in Constantinople in the summer of 1204.
Language. Both poets composed their coblas in their native language. Evidence for the original French of Conon’s coblas is furnished in the first place by a number of Gallicisms which the Italian copyists of DGIKQT have preserved (in contrast to CE, copied in the Languedoc area), and which have survived the process of “Provençalisation”: dame 11, 32, merci 12, 13, proier 15, dei 31 (DIK), ausa 15 (DGIKQT), ge 10 (DIKQT), ne 10 (DIK); but above all by the French rhyme-words malage 29, ensoage 30 (cf. the notes). Due to the uniformising tendency of the copyists, some Gallicisms have found their way into Raimbaut’s coblas: une 3 (D), die 20 (DIK), dame 36 (DIK); but the rhyme-word eschai 4 (= O.F. eschiet) proves that these were composed in Provençal.
Besides representing the last extant poetic effort of Conon, our partimen, which is concerned with a problem of amorous casuistry, is an earlier example of bilingual exchanges between French and Provençal poets than the well-known tenso between Gaucelm and the Count of Brittany (ed. Suchier, Denkmaeler, pp. 326, 556). It is also evidence of the new literary influences resulting from the contact between poets of the langue d’oïl and the langue d’oc during the Fourth Crusade.
1. Coine. The Provençal equivalent of O.F. Cuene (cf. Coene 33, and XX, 14, note).
7. We supply from IK the pronoun lo lacking in D.
13. poing d’oltrage. We accept Schultz-Gora’s interpretation of this unusual phrase; some of the copyists, wrongly interpreting ges poing d. as a double negative (cf. also Bergin), either omitted ges (QT) or substituted an individual version (CE).
15. ausa. This is a Gallicism; De Bartholomaeis points out that the sequence of tenses requires a Past Historic, which CE in fact provide in auzet.
18. pois li estrai. Bergin’s rendering “prima di riceverlo” is incomprehensible.
19. sobre. We here follow CEGT. De Bartholomaeis accepts sobra of DIK, but this results in a double verb, and Schultz-Gora reads sobra tot amador li p. (li from E, amador from QT).
22. After this line all the MSS. except C offer e tramet li fin amor per message, but the adoption of this line would result in the stanza having nine lines. Q has omitted l. 21, but (as De Bartholomaeis points out) if this line is omitted from the text and l. 22 bis substituted, the required antithesis between the consequences of the two different approaches to the lady is destroyed and the last part of the stanza becomes incomprehensible. On the other hand, the suppression of l. 22 bis does not affect the sense of the passage.
23. enqerren. We emend thus e qerren of DIK, accepted by De Bartholomaeis (cf. the other variants).
24. q’en qer. De Bartholomaeis misreads q’enquer. The alternative version of CEGQT (lo ben qu’ieu fatz ma dona·m deu merir) is equally satisfying, and is perhaps supported by el ben que·il fai of l. 36. Both versions contrast a reward willingly given with a favour taken by force (pois li estrai 18).
29. Cf. Cnyrim, Sprichwörter, no. 886. —The rhyme-word malage, which is not found in Provençal, recurs in Conon de Béthune, IV, 22.
30. qe·l. The sense forbids us to read q’el, but Schultz-Gora’s emendation qu’en is unnecessary.
ensoage. This rhyme-word is again found only in French (cf. Godefroy, III, 241. and assouagier I. 451); in Provençal the word is suaujar, asuaujar. De Bartholomaeis and Bergin read en so age, but at this time age was still dissyllabic (cf. Conon de Béthune. IV. 25: eaige). — Schultz-Gora refers to other examples of the reflexive use of the verb found here.
31. lo. DGIK offer la; Schultz-Gora thinks that the copyists had malautia in mind.
32. puosc’ ades garir. We adopt Schultz-Gora’s suggested reading of the MS. puosca desgarir, since desgarir does not exist. De Bartholomaeis, who follows the MS., also reads lo before puosc’, with IK, but this would give one syllable too many to the line, and is absent in D. —For the omission of the conjunction que in a consecutive clause, cf. Schultz-Gora, Allprov. Elementarbuch, § 191.
33–7. The rhyme-scheme of this incomplete stanza is not that of a tornada.
33. austors. In DIK, astors, aistors is probably an Italianism (“astori”).
34. d’amor eu me sai. For the expression saber d’amor, cf. Folquet de Marseille, ed. Stronski, XV, 1. De Bartholomaeis misreads sai as fai.
35. fid’. Schultz-Gora considers this to a Subjunctive, and cites fis of Q in support; but in this MS. the spelling t recurs elsewhere with the value of tz or z (dit 6, quet 36).
36. que·il. The metre requires us to interpret il as an enclitic form (cf. queill of E); De Bartholomaeis reads que el (IKQ).
37. Bergin ignores the antithesis between privat and salvage and so misinterprets the line.
|
