NOTES
Four coblas unissonans of ten lines: a7 b6’ a7 b6’ a7 h6’ c4 c7 c4 c7 (ais, ia, e). Frank 274:1. —There is a striking similarity between the unusual metrical scheme of this poem and that of three later poems, namely the sirventes 437, 21 of Sordel (ed. De Lollis, III), the religious canso 282, 17 of Lanfranc Cigala (ed. Bettoni, Trov. d’It., p. 331) and the tenso 459, 1 of Vaquier (ed. Kolsen, Dichtungen. p. 222); this similarity can hardly be a coincidence (Frank has inadvertently registered the two short lines c of Sordel’s poem as having four syllables, instead of the three which they have in common with the two other poems mentioned).
Genre. This poem (inappropriately called a sirventes by some scholars) is an interesting example of the so-called comjat. In it the poet makes a violent and satirical attack on an unidentified lady of apparently easy virtue whom he has decided to leave. But in spite of the vigour and realism of the language. the poem must be classed with the courtly type of the genre, such as Folquet de Marseille 155, 21, ed. Stronski. XI, and Peire de Barjac 326, 1, ed. Bartsch, Chrest. Prov., 217, rather than with such parodies of the canso as Guillem de St. Leidier 234, 17, ed. Lewent, Stud. Med. IX, 140, or the jesting tenso of Peire Duran 339. 3, ed. Lewent, Neuphil. Mitteil. XXXIX, 243.
Date. We agree with Lewent (PMLA LIX, 614) that there are no grounds for disputing Raimbaut’s authorship, but although the style suggests that the poem belongs to an early period of his career, it is difficult to locate it within the body of his work. Lecoy (Note, p. 28) thinks that it may represent the culmination of the “renunciation” group V–VIII composed in Provence in 1195–6, but in fact it has little in common with this group. The poet here renounces his lady because of her improper conduct, and not (as in the “Provençal” group) because he is disillusioned with love and prefers the military life. Moreover, his reference to the lady’s vanished beauty contradicts the repeated compliments to the lady of these poems, while the insulting and rather coarse allusions of the second stanza contrast strangely with the courtly language of these same poems (in this respect, Lewent draws attention (loc. cit.) to the numerous examples of such deviations from the troubadour tradition noted by him in Stud. Med., IX, 122–32). Nor is it likely that the lady in question is the lady of Tortona, referred to in IV–VI, as Schultz-Gora (Briefe, p. 118) and others believed. On the other hand, the serious tone of the poem makes it difficult to accept Lecoy’s alternative suggestion that Raimbaut has here gratuitously and playfully indulged in antifeminist satire.
4, 6. The missing syllable of l. 4 in CE is supplied by ce of T; the emendation ten en a.v. adopted by Lewent seems unnecessary. Similarly, E supplies in l. 6 the conjunction e lacking in C, though Lewent again prefers to emend, reading senes for ses. In l. 4 Bergin mistranslates ni as “e non”.
8–9. While e’ for eu is admittedly exceptional, there is no reason to reject it (cf. Appel, Prov. Chr., XIII). Lewent, following C (with a slight emendation), reads ye·lh clamava mais que re fassa son be, rendering “I implored her above all to improve her conduct”; but this interpretation is open to serious objection on grounds of both syntax and meaning.
10. si·s plìu per me. Lewent rightly rejects the reading ses pleu of T, adopted by Bourland-Bergin, who render unsatisfactorily “without argument by me” (Bergin: “senza impegno”). In a long note on the phrase se pleure per, which occurs three times in Flamenca (ll. 104, 4048, 6340), he justifies the meaning “se fier, s’en rapporter à qn.” given by its editor P. Meyer but disputed by Levy SW VI, 387–8 (and ignored by Bourland-Bergin), and he adds a fourth example from Peirol (ed. Aston, XIX, 24). Raimbaut offers two further examples, and the meaning of the present one (which Levy finds obscure) is confirmed by III, 53: si per m’amor ve chevei (cf. our rendering of this line and the relevant note). Lewent, who does not cite this last example, renders here “if she wants to follow my advice”, but this seems rather weak.
11–14. We accept Bergin’s punctuation of this passage against Lewent, who considers ll. 12–13 to be simultaneously the object of Ges non pres of l. 11 and the subject of non fai of l. 14; this latter interpretation seems both laboured and unnecessary.
16. s’i. Bergin: si.
20. e d’autres moltz. Bergin and Lewent emend moltz of CE to molt, but for parallel examples of tant, quant used adjectivally with de, cf. Bertoni, Trov. d’Italia, p.497.
per ma fe. Lewent rejects this phrase on the ground that it has appeared earlier (l. 7), and reads (e dels autres molt) per me, an emended form of the faulty version of T. But there are in the text other examples of repetition in the rhyme: ten . ... via (4, 36), lais (1, 13), (bola) cais (11, 23), and such repetitions reveal the immature style of the poem.
21. avais. The exact meaning of this word is not known, and we adopt the generally-accepted suggestion of Levy, Pet. Dict. (cf. Raynouard V, 471: “avaisse, sorte d’arbuste sauvage”, and also Levy SW VIII, 563, s.V. vaisa).
22–7. The interpretation and punctuation of this passage present difficulties, due partly to the missing l. 28. We follow essentially Lewent’s misinterpretation, which gives a better sense and syntactical arrangement than that of Bergin, who places a semicolon at the end of l. 22 and l. 25 and considers l. 24 to be parenthetical.
23. fai ni col ni cais. Levy SW I, 277 suggested the meaning “embrasser” for this phrase of which only two examples were known to him, but Jeanroy, who lists seven (Rom, XLII 79) has established the basic meaning “minauder, en jouant du cou et du visage”, and the secondary meaning “faire d’engageantes minauderies”. Lewent adds two further examples and renders the present one “try all her wiles”.
26 s’alre far en podia. Bourland-Bergin (and Bergin) misread sal re in T as sol re, which they adopt and render (erroneously) “But one thing she (or I) could make of it”. With Lewent, we render s’ “even if”, as some such meaning is necessary to the sense.
28. Lewent plausibly suggests that in this missing line the poet probably mentioned the lady’s treachery as the reason for his disgust; in the following lines he hopes she will be duly punished.
31. debais. For this reading of ET, C offers the interesting variant deguays, which Lewent considers a hapax and accepts into his text, with the meaning “decay”, “ruin” (thus following Raynouard III, 439, s.v. gast: “déchet, ruine, dégât”); he suggests it be a contamination of (de)gast from degastar and debais from debaissar.
33. borrais. Rather than “borax” (Bergin, Lewent) or “oil sediment” (Philippson, Mönch von Montandon, p. 51), this (as Levy SW I, 157 suggests) is probably the borago officinalis, a Mediterranean plant, one variety of which produces a reddish-blue substance formerly used in medicine and still used in toilet preparations.
34. tefinhos. See the discussion of this word in Levy SW VIII, 98. .
35–6. Lewen’t interprets similarly; for the alternative rendering of Bergin (and Bourland-Bergin), “youth holds its course”, see note to ll. 38–9.
37. Bergin places a full stop at the end of this line which he links with the proceding one), rendering “and it seems well to him”. Lewent however rightly sees in ll. 37–8 a construction of parer with the person in whom something is visible, similar to that of Bernard de Ventadour 70, 31, ed. Appel,. p: 186, II. 41–2: Cant eu la vei, be m’es parven Als olhs, al vis, a la color; color; Car aissi tremble de paor Com fa la folha contra·l ven.
38–9. Bergin’s rendering “whoso comes to her reef, steers badly” rests upon a confusion of escueill “conduct”, “manner” with its homonym (Fr. “écueil”).
39–40. We are unable to see here the relationship between the lady’s conduct and her age which Lewent claims to see, and which he explains by reference to Bertran de Born, ed. Stimming, 40, st. 2 and 3: Et es vielha quan chevalier non a ... Et es joves domna quan be·s chapdel.
40. fara peitz. Lewent: f. o. p. (CT).
|
