Text: Gaunt, Harvey and Paterson 2000 (XLIII). – Rialto 14.xii.2004.
Mss.: A (28v) Marcabruns, C (177r) Marcabru (C Reg. Marc e bru), D (208v) follows on without a break from BdT 293.20, I (117r) Marcabrus, K (103r) Marcabrus, R (5v) marc e bru, a1 (572) follows on without a break from BdT 293.20, d (303r) Marcabrus, z (2) follows on without a break from BdT 293.20.
Critical editions: Jean-Marie-Lucien Dejeanne, Poésies complètes du troubadour Marcabru, Toulouse 1909, p. 99; Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, Marcabru: A Critical Edition, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2000, p. 530.
Versification: a4 a4 b8 c4 c4 b8 (Frank 193:8). See also the discussion of BdT 293.20’s versification. Da1z treat BdT 293.20 and 293.43 as one poem, although the clearly erroneous copying of the name marcabrun at the beginning of line 1 in z indicates that at an earlier stage of transmission the rubric to the second poem became incorporated into the text when they were joined together; a1 has no stanza breaks and frequently omits line stops; D transmits the portion of the conjoined text corresponding to BdT 293.43 in four nine line stanzas. The rhyme at lines 28-29 is possibly imperfect. Dejeanne (p. 228) believed that BdT 293.43 must originally have had seven stanzas like BdT 293.20 and that the extra tercet in a1 (following line 24) must have formed the first half of the missing stanza, but we do not agree with this hypothesis since the extra tercet in a1 is more likely to be the result of remaniement: see the analysis of BdT 293.20’secondary version.
Notes: The transmission of BdT 293.43 seems to have posed scribes fewer problems than BdT 293.20. Da1z are again distinct from the other Ms. traditions not simply because of versification, but because of individual readings and errors. The division between AIK and CR is marked; in addition CR give the ‘b’ rhyme as -as throughout whereas in all the other Mss. it is -ans. Some CR readings are perfectly acceptable and only one can with certainty be regarded as a common error, but others are arguably facilior. A seems almost error free, offering arguably difficilior readings for each of these lines, which may suggest editing/ innovation on the part of the common source of CR, but it could also be the AIK tradition that has innnovated. There are some minor divergences between C and R on the one hand, and A/ IK on the other, but none of these disagreements is significant. A case can be made that CR offer a series of facilior readings, but the arguments in favour of this hypothesis are not conclusive. Since it is clearly desirable to use the same base Mss. for BdT 293.43 and 293.20, A is the obvious choice for base, though it is not ideal. For the text in a1, see BdT 293.20’s secondary version. – Stanza order:
There are no stanza divisions in a1, but the ordering of the lines follows that of the other Mss., although stanza V is missing and there are six additional lines of text, a tercet each after the equivalent of stanzas IV and VI. Dz divide the text into four nine line stanzas, but follow the same ordering of the text as the other Mss..