Text: Gaunt, Harvey and Paterson 2000 (XX). – Rialto 14.xii.2004.
Mss.: A (28v) Marcabruns, C (177v) Marcabru (C Reg. Marc e bru), D (208r) no heading but in the right margin beside the first line of the conjoined BdT 293.20 and BdT 293.43 is the number ‘ii’ indicating this is the second of three songs attributed to Ugo Catola (register also gives this as second of three songs attributed to Ugo Catola), I (117r) Marcabrus, K (103r) Marcabrus, R (8v) marc e bru, a1 (571) the conjoined BdT 293.20 and BdT 293.43 are headed «la tenzon de marcabrus e de segn’ nenrics», d (303r) Marcabrus, z (col. F) rubric missing due to damage.
Critical editions: Jean-Marie-Lucien Dejeanne, Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, Toulouse 1909; Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, Marcabru: A Critical Edition, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2000, p. 280.
Versification: a4 a4 b8 c4 c4 b8 (Frank 193:6), with ‘b’ constant in BdT 293.20 and BdT 293.43, though different in each. In stanza VI of BdT 293.20 the ‘a’ and ‘c’ rhymes are arguably identical; in stanza V of BdT 293.43 the ‘c’ rhyme is imperfect. This form is the so-called versus tripertitus caudatus: see BdT 293.16 . The origin of the Occitan versus tripertitus caudatus in a non-stanzaic form leads to confusion regarding the versification of some songs in some chansonniers: this is the case with BdT 293.20, 293.43 in Da1z, which treat the two poems as one. Dz set out BdT 293.43 as four nine-line stanzas, while a1 has no stanza breaks at all and frequently omits line stops, thereby giving unrhymed octosyllabic couplets. If the versions of the poems that are reflected in Da1z were ever performed to the same melody as the versions transmitted in the other Mss., it has to be assumed that the melody was based upon the structure of the tercet rather than that of the six-line stanza.
Notes: Base of the text: A. Dz and a1 require separate consideration from the other Mss. Dz treat BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as one poem, but divide BdT 293.43 into four nine line stanzas rather than six line stanzas, while the first two stanzas of 293.20 in z are transmitted in an incomplete form, presumably due to damage to the Ms.. The text of a1 is sufficiently different from that of the other Mss. to suggest that it derives from a remaniement (which we present as secondary version) and it deserves attention as such: there are deviations from all the other Mss.; there are no stanza divisions and BdT 293.20 and 293.43 are treated as one poem; the text is differently ordered; three stanzas of the conjoined BdT 293.20 and 293.43 found in all the other Mss. are missing; the language seems to have undergone a considerable degree of case breakdown; and there are tercets in a1 not found in any other Mss.. Neither D nor z is suitable as a base because they have too many errors without any compensating features. If all the other MSS (ACIKR) derive from an exemplar with a faulty first line, there would also seem to be at least two passages that caused all the transmitters difficultiesm given the variety of readings which may suggest not only that this exemplar contained errors, but also that it was in part illegible or at the very least difficult to read. However, the predictable division between AIK and CR is clearly discernible in the transmission of both BdT 293.20 and 293.43. CR have common errors not found in AIK, though they do not always agree. Some of C’s individual readings suggest that the scribe (or his source) was editing an unsatisfactory source, whereas shared facilior readings indicate that these are inherited from a common source; R has a number of individual errors. IK are rarely isolated against A and CR, but where they are this usually gives a minor error or divergent reading. Should BdT 293.20 and 293.43 be treated as one poem or two? The Ms. evidence is equivocal : if Da1z treat BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as one poem, none of these Mss. transmits a satisfactory version. AIK treat BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as two compositions rubricating two separate songs; CR treat BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as separate compositions and do not transmit them together. If it is clear that the two poems are closely related, the latter being an overt reply to the former and both in turn being related to BdT 293.16, the two poems clearly were detached in transmission both from BdT 293.16 and from each other and the fact that the constant ‘b’ rhyme is not the same in BdT 293.20 and 293.43 strongly suggests that they were conceived as separate compositions. Despite some doubt concerning A’s text, it is the best MS in the AIK group while C seems too prone to facilior readings to be considered as base. – Stanza order:
– D’s attribution to Ugo Catola is implausible: the conjoined BdT 293.20 and 293.43 is the second of three songs attributed to Ugo in this Ms., the first being BdT 293.6 and the third being BdT 451.2. However, it is striking, given the relationship between D and z, that z places BdT 293.20 and 293.43 with the Marcabru corpus: although the rubric in z is missing through damage, the placing of the text suggests that the attribution was in all likelihood to Marcabru. Only a1 suggests joint attribution. If the songs are understood as court entertainment, intended originally for an audience that knew both participants in the exchange and who would realise that the staged animosity between them was a joke rather than a representation of a real event (Frank Chambers, «D’aisso lau Dieu and Aldric del Vilar», Romance Philology 35, 1982, pp. 489-500 and Spaggiari, Il nome di Marcabru, Spoleto 1992, pp. 48-50), then to assume Marcabru scripted Audric’s part poses no problems. It is not, however, possible to tell whether Marcabru was indeed the only author of the two poems. The authorship of the two poems needs, however, to be considered alongside BdT 293.16, which according to our interpretation may represent Marcabru adopting Audric’s voice in order to mock him. – The connection between BdT 293.20, 293.43 and the vida in A, which says that Marcabru, a foundling, was raised by one Aldrics del Vilar and had at one time been called Pan-Perdut, has been widely noted by scholars. Aldrics del Vilar has not been identified, but as Spaggiari (Il nome, p. 48) notes, there are a number of references in charters and wills to individuals whose names ended in de Uilar in the 12th and 13th c. Apart from the connection with the vida, critics have discussed (and speculated on) the circumstances that might have led to the composition of the two poems. The most extensive analyses are by Chambers and Spaggiari, both of whom take seriously the animosity the two men appear to show each other: they read BdT 293.20 as an angry reply to BdT 293.16 which they take to be a direct attack on Audric, and understand BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as a representation of a real argument leading to Marcabru’s departure from Audric’s court.