Text: Gaunt, Harvey and Paterson 2000 (XXX). – Rialto 14.xii.2004.
Mss.: A (33r) marcabruns, C (176v) Marchabru (C Reg. marc e bru), I (120v) Marcabrus, K (106r) Marchabrus, N (266v) no heading, R (5r) marc e bru, T (205v) marca brus, a1(310) Marchabrus, d (307v) Marcabruns.
Critical editions: Carl Appel, Provenzalische Chrestomathie mit Abriss der Formenlehre und Glossar, Leipzig 1895, p. 101; Jean-Marie-Lucien Dejeanne, Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, Toulouse 1909, p. 137; Jean Audiau, La pastourelle dans la poésie occitane du moyen âge, Paris 1923, p. 3; William D. Paden Jr., The medieval pastourelle, New York 1987, p. 36; Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, Marcabru: A Critical Edition, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2000, p. 375.
Versification: a7’ a7’ a7’ b7’ a7’ a7’ b7’ (Frank 51:5). Twelve coblas doblas and two three-line tornadas, with the ‘b’ rhyme remaining constant and a refrain word (vilaina/ vilana) as the first ‘b’ rhyme. There is some hesitation over the quality of the ‘b’ rhyme (-ana/ -aina): AIKT are consistent with -ana and CR with -aina, while Na1 use both. We have not attempted to regularise the graphies at the ‘b’ rhyme.
Melody: For an edition of the melody see S. Rosenberg et al., Songs of the Troubadours and Trouvères: an Anthology of Poems and Melodies, New York–London 1998, p. 49. Pollina (Vincent Pollina, «Les mélodies du troubadour Marcabru: questions de style et de genre», in Atti del Secondo Congresso Internazionale della “Association Internationale d’Etudes Occitanes”, ed. G. Gasca Queirazza, 2 vols., Turin 1993, I, pp. 289-306, on pp. 295-96) comments that this poem has the strictest pattern of musical repetition of Marcabru’s surviving melodies, though the musical and rhyme schemes are independent of each other. He suggests the melody is reminiscent of that of a traditional dance, and notes its great structural clarity, even a certain conservative rigidity. Switten (in Rosenberg et al., Songs, p. 43) discusses the difficulty of determining the rhythmic character of the melody since R gives an ambiguous and probably hesitant ‘semi-mensural’ notation. She also argues that the combination of words and music serve to stress the defining refrain-word vilaina.
Notes: Base of the text: a1. All Mss. transmit the same number of stanzas in the same order (though T has an extra tornada). The dialogue form and logic of the exchange no doubt guaranteed stability in transmission, but the poem’s fame and wide dissemination may also have contributed to this. If T, which needs separate consideration, is set aside, CR oppose AIKNa1 throughout. Facilior (or simply wrong) passages in CR suggest CR’s version is the later of the two main redactions. T’s text is strewn with errors and individual readings: it seems to be a reworking of the AIKNa1 text that has been collated with, or contaminated orally by a CR-like version in some sections. The poem seems then to have been subject to only one major revision, that of CR’s source, whose aim seems to have been to produce syntactic and lexical limpidity and not to rewrite in any thorough-going manner: previous editions rely heavily on the CR version, which Roncaglia considers a ‘vulgate’ (Aurelio Roncaglia, «La critique textuelle et les troubadours (quelques considérations)», Cultura neolatina 38, 1978, pp. 207-214, p. 212). C and R each has isolated errors and individual readings. Within the AIKNa1 family IK share common errors or readings, while A, N and a1 has isolated errors and readings. Na1 are clearly related as are AIK. The patterns of missing lines in AIKNa1, taken together with other factors, suggest that Na1 derive from the same source at an early stage in the poem’s transmission. Within the AIKNa1 family, IK’s errors make either Ms. an unsuitable base, N has a fair number of errors and A individual errors and isolated readings that are probably scribal innovations. a1’s text was extensively reviewed by the corrector and remaining errors are minor copying mistakes. If there are no cases of a1 offering a reading that is clearly superior to that of other Mss., it seems to offer a sharper text than A. – L’autrer jost’una sebissa is widely referred to by scholars working on the origin of the pastorela and on the OF corpus of pastourelles: see in particular Faral (Edmond Faral, «La pastourelle», Romania 49, 1923, pp. 204-259, to pp. 240-41) and Zink (Michel Zink, La Pastourelle: Poésie et folklore au moyen âge, Paris 1972). Apart from the question of origins, scholars have remarked upon the elements of satire and parody in the poem, on intertextual relations with poems by Guilhem IX, and on the class dynamics implicit in the relation between the protagonists. Recent work by Meneghetti ( Maria Luisa Meneghetti, «Una serrana per Marcabru?», in O cantar dos trobadores, Santiago de Compostela 1993, pp. 197-98) suggests the poem may be set in the Iberian peninsular.