Text: Gaunt, Harvey and Paterson 2000 (XXIV). – Rialto 14.xii.2004.
Mss.: A (27v) marcabruns, C (345v) helyas font salada (C Reg.: helias fonsalada with Marc e bru written alongside), E (153) Marcabru, I (117r), K (102v) Marcabruns, N (270v), R (8v) marc e bru, d (302r) Marcabrus, z (col. A) Marcabruns.
Critical editions: Jean-Marie-Lucien Dejeanne, Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, Toulouse 1909, p. 115; Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, Marcabru: A Critical Edition, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2000, p. 324.
Versification: a11 a11 a14 (Frank 196:2) with two internal rhymes in all lines. There is no consistent pattern to the internal rhymes (see Ulrich Mölk, «Troubadour Versification as Literary Craftsmanship», L'Esprit Créateur 19, 1979, pp. 3-16, on p. 9; Frank M. Chambers, An Introduction to Old Provençal Versification, Philadelphia 1985, pp. 39-40), but in all but two lines (5 and 11) there is a caesura after the seventh syllable, while internal rhymes occur predominantly after three or four syllables, except in the second hemistich of the last line of each stanza which always has seven syllables.
Notes: Base of the text: A. The manuscripts can be divided into three groups on the basis of the amount of material transmitted, textual details and stanza order: AIKNRz, C and E. CE offer different stanza orders that also differ from that of A(I)KNRz and each contains material not found in the other Mss. C and E diverge from AIKNR on numerous points of textual detail and in some cases such divergences are also isolated errors. E has a fair number of isolated errors, has an unsatisfactory stanza order, and transmits the end of its version of the poem as if each line were a separate stanza. C has more isolated readings than E and misattributes the poem. Although the AIKNRz group is relatively homogeneous divergences are determined by three factors. First, AIK form a sub-group. Secondly, NR have a number of independent errors, though with z often following N. Finally, A has a number of isolated readings which in almost all cases are superior; although it is possible that some of these result from the scribe’s attempt to ‘tidy’ his exemplar. Either A or K would make a suitable base Ms. of the AIKNRz version. Given its superior readings, A seems a preferable base. However, the AIKNRz version is not unproblematic and it is possible that E offers better readings in some lines. The state of E’s text, however makes it an unsuitable base for a critical edition. It's possible that E derives from an earlier version of the poem than AIK, and its text has become corrupt in transmission. We offer two editions, a main edition based on A, and a secondary edition based on E. – Stanza order. Stanzas in CE not found in other Mss are designated by x and y; the three lines that make up stanza III in AKNRz (not in CI) come at the end of the poem in E and are copied as if each line were a separate stanza.
– C’s attribution to Elias Fonsalada is scarcely credible in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the other Mss. and the marginal attribution to Marcabru in C Reg.