NOTES
Three coblas unissonans of eight lines: a b b a c’ d d c’ (aut, utz, ona, es), lines of ten syllables. Frank 624:22, 30, 32. The metrical scheme and the rhymes are the same as those of the canso V of Raimbaut de Vaqueiras, cf. Introduction, II.
1. Engles. For his identity, cf. loc. cit. Stronski (Folquet de Marseille, p. 34*) interprets the Razo statement “qe s’apelava [ab lui] Engles” to mean that the “senhal” was reciprocal, but this view is disputed by Kolsen and others (Archiv 145) pp. 274–5) and is not confirmed by the text.
2–6. This allusion to an unsuccessful journey is obscure in the text but is developed at length in the Razo.
7. Estela. The previous line shows that this locality was not in France. A commune of the arrond. of Valence (Drôme) is called Étoile, and the Razo in fact states that a certain Osteilla belonged to Adémar of Poitiers, Count of Valentinois and Diois, referred to in l. 17. Zingarelli (Engles, p. 115) believes however that we have here the Estela in the province of Navarre, an important town in medieval times, and that the king mentioned in ll. 8 and 21 is (contrary to the statement of the Razo) the king of Navarre (cf. Introduction, loc. cit.). This latter identification is more suitable in the context, since a Spanish town would indeed be more difficult to attack than one nearer home.
n’agraz. Boutière-Schutz: n’agra[n].
8. n’ochaizona. For the elided form of no, d. Levy SW V, 143; the sense requires a negative particle, as the copyists understood.
9. en Raimbaut. The honorific title has no significance for the purpose of identification, since Albert Malaspina in IV and Conon of Béthune in XXI address Raimbaut de Vaqueiras without the title, although he was a knight when these latter coblas were exchanged. On the other hand, the unidentified Raimbaut of the parlimens 388, 1–4 is also addressed with the title.
12.. Peirols qe hom ten per arnaut. The meaning of arnaut is established (cf. Bertoni, RLR LVI, 418; Mistral, s.v.; Du Conge, s.v. Arnaldus; Zingarelli (loc. cit.) mistakenly believed this word to be a proper noun here). The allusion to a certain Peirol is obscure, but Jeanroy (cf. note to l. 16) sees here a pun, pirol having the same sense as arnaut in Languedoc (cf. Mistral, s.v.) It is this line (in the version of D which we reject) which is the basis of the Vida statement regarding Raimbaut’s father: “avia nom Peirors (EIKN2) qu’era tengutz per mat” (the adj. mat incidentally confirms the meaning of arnaut).
13. rei de Barsalona. If this is Alfonso II, King of Aragon and Count of Barcelona and Provence (1152–96), the allusion would be consistent with the Raimbaut of the coblas being R. de Vaqueiras, who might have intended paying a visit to the court of Provence (similarly, l. 14 might refer to the latter’s visits to the court of Montferrat, among others). The hypothesis is tempting, since it would help to explain the ‘‘‘Spanish’’ stanza of the descort XVI, and the laudatory reference to the King of Aragon in XXVIII, 51–5 could then be considered evidence for the authenticity of this poem. But the successors of Alfonso II were also great patrons of the poets, and we could have here a reference to James the Conqueror, King of Aragon from 1213 to 1276.
16. en Conoguz. Unidentified, but a jongleur of the same name appears in a cobla of Uc de St. Circ (ed. Jeanroy, XXX), where he is described as having been soundly thrashed. The lady Falcona mentioned in this line is unknown. Possibly this obscure line contains a veiled threat against Raimbaut.
17. n’Aimars. This is perhaps Adémar II of Poitiers, Count of Valentinois and Diois from 1188 to 1230, who died c. 1250 (cf. II, 23), and in that case we may have here a link with the partimen IX which shows Raimbaut de Vaqueiras in poetic relations with him. But the Adémar of this line may also be his grandson Adémar III, who took over the government of the county in 1239 (cf. J. Chevalier. Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des comtés de Valentinois et de Diois, Paris, 1897, I, 213–4). The reference in this line to an attack made against him by Engles is obscure.
18. Nothing is known of the capture referred to here. According to the Razo, Guillaume des Baux was captured by the fishermen of Adémar as he was crossing the Rhône, but if Estela was in the territory of Adémar (as the Razo states) no such crossing would be necessary (and this is not the only inconsistency to be found in the commentary). It is true that Adémar II had extended his rule to the Vivarais, on the other side of the Rhône, by his marriage to the daughter of the lord of Fay (Hist. gén. Lang. VI, 711). —It is interesting that the Razo of H follows in this line the version of D rather than that of H.
20. We accept for this line the rendering of Raynouard V, 143.
21. no·n mier mal. We interpret this as referring to Adémar and as explaining l. 24.
22–3. The Razo has woven an interesting but obviously invented story around this obscure allusion in an attempt to explain it.
|
