Analysis of manuscripts: The MSS probably descend from a defective common source: see the notes to 18 and 41 and compare 8, 15 and 28. Despite the near-absence of common errors to assist in the classification of the MSS, numerous, if largely indifferent, variants strongly suggest the main division AGIK - CDMRTa1 (see for example 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 26, 28), with sub-groups indicated by common errors in 22 CR li rey and 32 uensa and possibly 38 Ta1 autre. GIKR are unsuitable as base as they offer incomplete versions of the text. Of the CDMRTa1 group C is the best representative, there being numerous errors in D (12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 38, 42, 43), T (2, 3, 4, 10, 14, 16, 23, 27, 28, 33, 37, 41, 43), a1 (13 [with I]), 14, 23, 24, 25, 30, 33, 35 with the manuscript being difficult to read at several points (14, 20, 24, 28, 35, 41, 42), and M (with isolated errors in 3, 7, 25, 27, 31, 36 and numerous individual readings (notably 1, 6, 12, 20, 22, 25, 32, 38, 39, 41 and 42), whereas C has relatively few errors (4, 12, 35, as well as joint CR errors in 22 and 32) and relatively few individual readings (5, 10, 18, 19, 32, 39 and 41). Of the AGIK group A is the only plausible base. It has only one error (3), with some individual variants, some indifferent (23, 25, 33), some interventions for clarity or tidiness (18, 34, 39) or to patch a defect in the source (41); 38 may have been an oversight. A has been chosen as base: not only is it almost free of errors, its plural verb is preferable to the singular of CDMRTa1 version in 35, given the pl. diran in 37, as is its more personal version of 26-27. In general, this version differs from Napolski’s in a few minor instances however lines 18-21 represent a key difference in understanding between his earlier edition and this version (see note to these lines). Base: A.
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | ||
| ACDMTa1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| G | 1 | 2 | 4 | - | - | - | |
| IK | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | - | - | |
| R | 1* | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | - |
* Empty staves above stanza 1 in R.
Deviations from base. 3 deuria 38 perdonaire.
I. 1 So] O G, S(?) T; com] acom T; plus] mais R; e don CDMTa1, e de R; es] plus M, ques R; plus cochos CDRTa1, es cochos M 2 c’om] que R; mais R, om. T; ni] e CMRT; e s. c. a dezirat ni t. c. a1 3 deuria A, deuen I; chascun IKM; relinquire C, relencir T; elairar G, ebaissar M 4 quar b. sabem (ben om. T) CDMTa1, e pas | sar mar R 5 quel ric s. C, Qel rics seingner (seinhor T) DMTa1, per seruir selh R; lial CG 6 rey CGTa1, ples R; merces CDTa1; dreit***s D, dreiturier C, drechurer G; nostre lials s. M; between e and sauaire, something obscured, perhaps damage to MS R 7 Anem or Anen GK, annen M; servir] fuir G, iay tug R; qe T; fetz] fos K; de nien (nient T) CDMRTa1 8 E] en CR, Eu (or En I) IK; sufri CDMRTa1.
II. 9 Nos p. ben s. CDMTa1; qi**l with two letters apparently erased C, qe D; Saber devem qel receup mort per nos R 10 quan se C, es ue R, cil se T; despina T; last word of line illegible a1 11 ferir] sufrir a1; edel fel Da1 12 enos uezem C, Enos resmet D, En retemet G, Ens retzemit I, e nos rezem M, e nos resems T, et nous resems a1; per seu D, de son R; preios T 13 arlas D; chaitius G, catius T; quan CG, qe D, ca Ia1, ta K, con (com T) M 14 cel DIKT, cels G; qen no G, que non (no R) IKR, qi noi M, cenoi T, qen noi a1; uan G; sa] za G; sotzraire I, sotz traire K, estraire T; e sai cuian s. R 15 alurs u. (uesens D) DIKM, ab anuezis T; las] lur (lor DT) CDGTa1, lurs M, la R; terra GRT 16 daurian T; al j.] alenuianmen T.
III. om. GIK 17 remara DT; es] er CMRa1 18 que ar nos pot lun C, Qar nos pot lus (lun T) DT, qar no si pot luns M, qeras nos pot lus R, qe sai nos pot luns a1 19 no (ne M, non RTa1) pot plus CDMRTa1; onrar C; line followed by a blotch and insertion mark with 20-21 written at the bottom of the page R 20 segle C, losegle T; e doncs M, per qe R, adunc T; rema | ran D 21 baros a1; segle DT, segl* a1; pus bes non d. g. R 22 qen ganat es M, b. es t. T, b. es torbaz a1; li rey CR, lorei T; B. seran **** reis elemperaire D 23 seremyaron T; guerreyan CDM, guerreiatz R, gereant T, guerrsian a1 24 terras MR; sitot om. a1; breumen after what looks like breumen crossed out a1.
IV. 25 Qui] que CDGIKRTa1, qis M; ieu] en D; uoluntiers a1 26 quhom no pot ges (poges D) CDMTa1, car non podez with titulus above e R; lo ben CDMa1, los G, los b. I, los bos K, los bes om. T; granezdonar D 27 Qi DT; d. nos fai (fa M) CDM, d. m. faich G, d. nia (?) f. I, nos ha f. R, d. nonfai T, d. no fag a1; ni los *** I, dieus nuls tortz R, nilotortç T; emendir M 28 li] lo CDMRT; car el] si cum CM, aisi com DGIKa1, com T; es om. T; the o of piatos unclear A, pitos IK, pietados T 29 missing IK; el CMRT; merces T; ai** D 30 Euaillan** D, e pregue lon R; meire a1 31 san GMRT; ioan D, iohan GM, ioanz IKa1, ioans R; gioan T; ualiha nos M, lon pregue R 32 cum si C, Consi D, cosi MTa1, qel nos R; uensa C, uecham G, uencam IK, uencan M, uenca R.
V. 33 om. G; Selhs CK, Ceill D, Sel IMT, Silh Ra1; qi DM; las leis] letras IK, laleis T; e] es a1; la leixo T 34 els mals els (el T) bes (ben a1) CDGMRTa1, e. b. el m. IK; non IK; amar IK 35 qeun C, qieu ne sai .i. cama mais deseretar with mais expunctuated R; sai] fai a1; tal un (un unclear D, talus T) quama CDMT, tal un qautrein a1 36 creastans I, sos uezif M 37 Esill D, Esen IK, e fil M, e sin R, e si a1; q’etz] es CDRa1, qes M, qetz om. T 38 Esel DIK; qeus D; fai I; autre Ta1; predicaire CDIKRTa1; e qis uol far d.a. p. R, e prezica qom si gar | de mal faire M 39 deuon CDa1, Deuria IK, deu si R, deun T; si] en si (e si a1) CTa1, si mezeis D; bonamen C; ezel non ha en lui retenemen M 40 mas] qar M; li tol | l lauistælsen M; tol al quoziar gen T.
VI. ACDMTa1 only. 41 rey CTa1; darago CT, daragos M; franc DMa1; humils] reys e C, e D, pros e M, rei T, rei e a1 42 eserues D, sirues a M, uos serues T, e ser nos a1; humilment T 43 qel si ab M, esiab a1; t. a digam D, tuic* a1, t. digigam T.
Dating and historical circumstances:
Napolski (1879, p. 21) asserts that this work was composed at some point between 1170 and 1180 and that the king of Aragon in the sixth stanza is Alfonso II. However, this dating has been largely discredited by later scholars. Lewent dates the lyric to 1213 and believes that the king and the emperor referred to in line 22 represent Otto IV and Frederick II respectively (Kurt Lewent, «Das altprovenzalische Kreuzlied», Romanische Forschungen, 21, 1905, pp. 321-448, on pp. 351-352). Lewent rejects Pons’s dating of the lyric to the time of the Third Crusade, arguing that at this time the emperor was not at war with any king. The later dating is also supported by De Bartholomaeis (Vincenzo De Bartholomaeis, «Osservazioni sulle poesie provenzali relative a Federico II», Memorie della R. Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, classe di scienze morali, sezione Storica-Filosofica, 6, 1911-1912, pp. 97-124, on pp. 99-100) and Riquer (1975, p. 1267). If Lewent’s suggestion is correct, the king of Aragon must then refer to Peter II who would die at the battle of Muret in early September that same year.
5. For the meaning of leials compare Leslie Topsfield, «Malvestatz versus Proeza and Leautatz in Troubadour Poetry and the Lancelot of Chrétien de Troyes», L’Esprit Créateur, 19, 1979, pp. 37-53, on pp. 46-47: «It is the man who is pros within himself, and whose conduct is leals who combats all that is malvatz. It is true that leautatz and leaus may frequently be translated as “loyalty” and “loyal” in the present-day sense, but a consideration of the use of these terms by the troubadours […] indicates the probable existence of richer and deeper overtones of meaning». Topsfield goes on to suggest that the concept of leis can refer to the ‘law’ of a vocation or profession. In the poem Farai un vers pos mi sonelh (V) by Guilhem IX the lines: Domna fai gran pechat mortal / Qe no ama cavalier leal. (V, 7-8) may refer not merely to a loyal knight, but to a knight who is true not only to his lady but to his profession of knighthood (p. 47). Leials may therefore apply not only to loyalty to other people but also to a «code of behaviour» (p. 49). I have taken leials in this instance to relate to the law, hence the translation ‘legitimate.’ Riquer translates ‘leal’.
6. All previous editions haven taken dreituriers as a noun, however it may also be an adjective.
7. veramen may be a facilior reading inherited from the AGIK source.
8. The error en / eu in CIKR may have been in the common source and corrected by the other MSS.
9. For the neuter que without antecedent serving as a predicate (= so que), compare Frede Jensen, Syntaxe de l’ancien occitan, Tübingen 1994, § 312, who gives the following example: Alixandres fon niens / Contra qu’ieu seria (Peire Vidal: Poesie, ed. D’Arco Silvio Avalle, 2 voll., Milan 1960, vol. II, XXXII, 14-15).
15. The common source may have contained the erroneous las terra.
18. This line was doubtless hypometric in the common source, as preserved in DT, the other MSS variously patching; typically, A has sought to avoid all possible ambiguity.
18-21. Napolski interprets these lines differently and sees per qe as anticipating what follows rather than explaining what precedes: Car nois pot l’us ben en l’autre fiar; / Per qe ditz hom qe plus non pot durar / Segles, adoncs romanran vergoignos / Li ric baron, sil segles dura gaire.
22. For the use of torbat to mean ‘confused’ compare BdT 389.10a, tenso between Linhaure (Raimbaut d’Aurenga) and Giraut de Borneil (Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, The Troubadour Tensos and Partimens: a critical edition, 3 voll., Woodbridge, 2010, vol. III, p. 1066), 43-48: Guiraut, per sel ni per soleill / ni per la clardat que resplan, / no sai de que·ns anem parlan, / ni don fui natz— / si soi torbatz, / tan pres d’un fin joi natural! (‘Giraut, by sky and sun and light that shines, I have no idea what we have been talking about, nor from what parents I was born. I am so confused, so much am I captivated by a pure and natural joy!’); Peire Cardenal BdT 335.55 (Poésies complètes du troubadour Peire Cardenal 1180-1178, ed. René Lavaud, Toulouse 1957, LXXIV), 13-16: C’ab mentir et ab barat / An si tot lo mon torbat / Que no-i a religïo / Que no’n sapcha sa leisso ‘car avec le mensonge et la tromperie ils ont tellement troublé le monde entier qu’il n’y a point de ordre religieux qui ne sache d’eux sa leçon’.
33. leissos can have a religious, liturgical meaning. One definition given in PSW (IV, 360) is ‘Lektion (der Liturgie).’ Riquer in his edition glosses ‘las lecciones o lecturas litúrgicas.’ Compare however Jan F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus, Leiden 1976, p. 591, lectio, 2 ‘interpretation’, which makes better sense here.
33-34. For cui as a graphical variant of qui see Jensen 1994, § 350: «L’accusatif désignant des personnes est qui ou cui».
38. se faire is defined in PSW (III, 386) as ‘sich ausgeben für, sich hinstellen als, sich stellen’ (to pretend to be, to pose as).
38-39. Napolski has a singular subject and verb at this point, as found in MSS IK.
40. The examples in PSW (I, 263): ‘Gelehrsamkeit, Wissen’ and LR (II, 413) show that clercia can mean either ‘learning, knowledge’ or ‘clergy’. However, the criticism directed towards these ‘experts’ is not that they lack sense, but rather that all their learning is pointless if their greed leads them to unjust actions against fellow Christians when they ought to be on crusade. Napolski’s edition does not make it clear how he understood this criticism and Riquer and De Bartholomaeis follow Raynouard’s interpretation ‘clergy’.
41. Of the six MSS preserving this line, D’s hypometric reading may be that of the common source, the other MSS having variously supplied the missing syllable: CTa1 reys/rei seems feebly redundant, M’s pros an indifferent filler. A’s humil is idiosyncratic but stylistically intelligent.
[LM, lb]
