Text: Gaunt, Harvey and Paterson 2000 (XXXVII). – Rialto 14.xii.2004.
Mss.: A (33v-34r) Marcabruns, D (189v) no heading, a ‘v’ in the margin indicates this is the fifth piece in the Marcabruns section ( D reg. Marcabruns), I (120v-21r) Marcabrus, K (106v) Marcabrus, N (267r-v) no heading, a1 (308-9) Marcabrus.
Critcal editions: Jean-Marie-Lucien Dejeanne, Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, Toulouse 1909, p. 178; Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, Marcabru: A Critical Edition, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2000, p. 464.
Versification: a7' b7' b7' c7' a7' d7' (Frank 669:1). Ten coblas unissonans and one tornada of two lines. There is an imperfect, but probably admissible, rhyme in line 22.
Notes: Base of the text: D, a1. AIKNa1 share a defective common source. Here and elsewhere D is isolated but may preserve, or point to, the best readings; in some cases, D offers good readings where some or all of the other Mss are dubious. A has some individual errors and isolated readings, some of which are facilior and all of which are almost certainly innovations since in the three instances where A might seem to offer correct readings where the other Mss. are clearly at fault or problematic, these in all probability derive from a scribe «tidying up» a source he believed to be defective. There are no cases of common error opposing DIKNa1 to A. It's possible that the two traditions (AIKNa1-D) are not entirely separate (or that they go back to a common source at an early stage) as there is a degree of convergence between D and one or more of the other Mss. in both instances. IK have (predictably) a number of common errors and shared readings and each has a small number of individual errors. Na1seem to represent fairly faithful copies of a reasonable source. Each has isolated errors. Na1 seem to have more errors but fewer innovations than AIK and many of a1’s errors are easily correctible. D is not ideal as base: it has missing lines and one badly garbled couplet. It has a number of clear errors, though not all of these are isolated, many are minor copying errors, and most are easily correctible. Some of its numerous isolated readings may be dubious in the light of the combined testimony of the other Mss, but there are a sufficient number of instances where D offers the only correct reading for it to be given the benefit of the doubt for its isolated readings. We edit from D and supply missing material mainly from a1.
– Stanza order:
D’s stanza order offers a more logical progression between stanzas IV and V, between stanzas V and VI, between stanzas VI and VII (continuing the exposition of amors’ good qualities), between VII and VIII where the mention of follatura (line 42) leads on nicely to the attack on the fols (line 43) and between VIII and IX (since the attack on the fols is followed by the lament that preaching is of no use with a fool). With the AIKNa1 stanza order (adopted by Dejeanne), each stanza becomes a more independent unit of thought. – In all likelihood it is not possible to date this poem securely, but if our interpretation of line 57 in D is correct it is worth asking if the reference to an ‘Angevin whore’ in line 57 is to someone specific. Obviously she is impossible to identify on the basis of such a vague reference, but one possibility is Eleanor of Aquitaine in the period 1152-54, when she was Countess of Anjou, but not yet Queen of England. Marcabru may well criticise Eleanor elsewhere (see BdT 293.15). If this line does contain a reference to Eleanor, the dating of the poem it may suggest is not incompatible with what we know of Marcabru’s career, since there are good grounds to suppose he was still composing at the very end of the 1140s.