Analysis of manuscripts: AIK are the only manuscripts to transmit all 52 lines: F contains v. 1 and stanza IV only; a1 lacks the tornada, while D lacks v. 46 and T v. 47 and seven syllables in vv. 37-38. Apart from vv. 7 and 27 in the twin mss. IK there are few common errors to aid in ms. classification. However, in addition to the missing elements it is clear that DTa1 are unsuitable as base, D containing various individual errors (6?, 11, 15, 16, 19), T even more (3, 4, 12, 13 (+1), 16, 17, 25 (+1), 26 (-1), 27 (+1) and so on), while a1 contains some individual errors in 8, 15, 24, 30 (-1) and numerous idiosyncratic readings (6, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 40 and so on). A requires the least intervention; I have preserved the hiatus in 13, which may have been in the common source and given rise to intervention in the other manuscripts, and have not resorted to IK in 49, where A shows signs of ‘improvement’, since the meaning is little affected, but have done so in 24 both for los, which is clearly erroneous, and ros for the reasons given in the note.
I. 3 totç sos comandamentç Ta1 4 a superfluous titulus above ‘qem’ T; sas T 5 que tal IK; si f. T; sis fal, the ‘l’ of ‘fal’ corrected from ‘i’ a1 6 dom D; laie g. D, qen g. T, len dei g. a1 7 pel] dun DT, del a1; bel omitted IK; seblant T 8 cen Ta1; fei cella T; son IK; enoios a1.
II. 10 lesper DT 11 lei DIK; q’am] can D; delcor T 12 sint grauiar T, sen greua a1; mos T, ma a1 13 tan qen leich [leit a1] DIKa1, tant qenlanuoc T; redormir D, ren dormir Ta1 (‘ren’ in T unclear) 14 mauenc T; mainz DT 15 cant D; sa D, las with the ‘l’ written over an erased ‘z’ a1 16 no T; de montar p. D; uogll T.
III. 17 se v.] louir T 18 vezon] uei T; cor D 19 tant] can D; e lai gardon t. d. a1 20 nol IKT 21 elamors D; nois D, non a1; me a1 22 non written above expunctuated ‘ven’ a1 23 canc] qe a1 24 fon] fet with ‘o’ written above expunctuated ‘et’ a1; nandrieu T; los A; ros ATa1.
IV. 25 The large initial ‘e’ has not been written, but a small ‘e’ for reference is visible F; emdegraben f. T 26 ma dompna] la bella a1; superfluous titulus above ‘mn’ of ‘domna’ T; son omitted T 27 quel IK; saup K; qeu a1; no l’aten] no i | la ten K, nonai talen T 28 percel T; siria a1 29 fasia i I; enardir] donors T 30 que IK; fin omitted a1; qe mon corage lauses dir F; the line written interlinearly a1 31 oblido D.
V. 33 anc ongle fer T; Tors] tons D 34 non] na D 36 antiocia T; als] al T 37-38 donfeis mainta gient epaubreçir (seven syllables missing; the scribe has written this as one line and left a blank space between ‘enpaubrezir’ and v. 39) T 39 dompna] don T 40 cames i. D; qan dissest qieu estes i. with the ‘st’ of ‘dissest’ a correction over ‘t’ (Bertoni) a1.
VI. 41 p. qui D; entres D, entrals T 42 aistat T 43 abcran (? the ‘a’ unclear) gaug sestotç turmen T 44 caisin T, si me a1; ricor T; c. te ric ricors D 45 cors] cor DI 46 giouen T; missing D 47 missing T 48 dos] dous or ‘dons’ a1; cungioi medeges uenir deuos T.
VII. 49 seigner DIKT; dieu T 51 sai] ai m. liplus T 52 sabetz] sabç (?) T.
Dating and historical circumstances:
It has been suggested that En Gui (v. 49) is to be identified with Count Gui V of Forez who took part in the 1248 crusade of Louis IX (Cura Curà, p. 10, referring to Oscar Schultz-Gora, «Die Lebensverhältnisse der italienischen Trobadors», Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 7, 1883, pp. 177-235 on pp. 178-179; Kurt Lewent, «Das altprovenzalische Kreuzlied», Romanische Forschungen, 21, 1905, pp. 321-448, on p. 419; Kolsen, Trobadorgedichte, p. 71 and Alfred Jeanroy, La Poésie lyrique des troubadours, 2 voll., Toulouse and Paris 1934, vol. I, p. 434). The troubadour sends another song, Si anc me fes Amors que·m desplagues (BdT 456.2), which echoes the first line of the present piece, to a lord Isnart (v. 51; Cura Curà, p. 28), who has been identified with the nobleman and troubadour Isnart Entrevenas, eldest son of Raimon II d’Agoult and Isoarda de Dia. Isnart’s dates are given as 1191 – c. 1239/40 by Florian Mazel (La Noblesse et l’Eglise en Provence, fin Xe-début XIVe siècle. L’exemple des familles d’Agoult-Simiane, de Baux et de Marseille, Paris 2002, p. 619) and by Martin Aurell as 1197-1244 (La Vielle et l’épée. Troubadours et politique en Provence au XIIIe siècle, Paris 1989, p. 85). If it is assumed that Uc’s two songs date from approximately the same period, it seems more likely, as Saverio Guida and Gerardo Larghi suggest (Dizionario Biografico dei Trovatori, Modena 2013, pp. 516-517 and pp. 303-304), that seign’en Gui is to be identified as Gui IV of Forez, who took part alongside Frederick II Hohenstaufen in the crusade of 1228. In this case the tornada would date from after Frederick sailed from Brindisi to Cyprus on 28 June 1228 and before he arrived back in Brindisi on 10 June 1229 (Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 voll., Harmondsworth 1971, first published Cambridge 1951-1954, vol. III, pp. 179-192), and the rest of the song from the same time or earlier.
24. The mss. divide between ros and tos for the descriptor of Andrieu de Franssa; both Kolsen and Cura Curà, who accept ros, give D as the only ms. with tos, though it is also in IK. For this romance character see W. Hugh Field, «Le roman d’Andrieu de Fransa: état présent d’un problème avec une hypothèse basée sur un fragment dans le Chansonnier N», Revue des langues romanes, 82, 1976, pp. 3-26; Martín de Riquer, Guillem de Berguedà, 2 voll., Abadía de Poblet 1971, vol. I, pp. 174-176 (who suggests that tos may be the correct reading); François Pirot, Recherches sur les connaissances littéraires des troubadours occitans et catalans des XIIe et XIIIe siècles, Barcelona 1972, pp. 537 and 613; Frank M. Chambers, Proper Names in the Lyrics of the Troubadours, Chapel Hill 1971, pp. 45-46. Since two troubadour allusions to this hero, who died for love without declaring it to the object of his desire, refer to him with the diminutive Andrivet (BdT 249.2, 27: see Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, The Troubadour Tensos and Partimens: A Critical Edition, 3 voll., Cambridge 2010, vol. II, pp. 822 and 826) or Andrevet (BdT 85.1, 24: see Frank M. Chambers, «The ensenhamen-sirventes of Bertran de Paris», Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes à la mémoire d’István Frank, Sarrebrücken 1957, pp. 129-140, on pp. 131 and 135), a reference to his young age is highly plausible, and none of the other references to the fictional Andrieu de Franssa (or de Paris) contains such an epithet. In addition, despite the existence of a troubadour named Guiraudo lo ros, red hair commonly has negative connotations, so might not be an obvious feature to choose for a hero: see for example Marssilis lo ros in the Canso d’Antioca (The ‘Canso d’Antioca’: an Epic Chronicle of the First Crusade, ed. Carol Sweetenham and Linda Paterson, Aldershot 2003, v. 584 and the note on p. 292), and see Paul Meyer, «Fragment d’une chanson d’Antioche en provençal», Archives de l’Orient latin, 2, 1884, pp. 467-509, on p. 506, n. 25: «Roux est toujours une épithète défavorable au moyen-âge; c’est la qualification habituelle de Renard»); also Peire Vidal, BdT 364.21, 41-44, Que·l cor ai tan fello / Vas liei qu’anc mala fos; / Quar per un comte ros / M’a gitat a bando (Peire Vidal, Poesie, ed. d’Arco Silvio Avalle, 2 voll., Milan and Naples 1960, vol. I, pp. 95-96).
33-34. The verb pres is impersonal: see SW, VI, 514, 22 ‘subjektlos “ergehen, bekommen”’. Kolsen (p. 71) and Cura Curà (p. 24) identified Golfier de las Tors with the overlord of Bertran de Born and brother of Agnes, wife of Bertran’s brother Constantin, but as Gouiran notes in his edition of BdT 80.37 (L’Amour et la guerre: l’œuvre de Bertran de Born, ed. Gérard Gouiran, 2 voll., Aix-en-Provence 1985, vol. I, p. 33), there is no shortage of men named Golfier de las Tors in the twelfth century. In fact Uc de Pena’s Golfier is almost certainly the man of that name whose heroic exploits during the First Crusade are celebrated in the Canso d’Antioca (see the Sweetenham-Paterson edition, pp. 10-11 and 343). La Gran Conquista de Ultramar (ed. Louis Cooper, 4 voll., Bogotà 1979, vol. II, 5-10) recounts how he was sent as a messenger to summon Godfrey of Bouillon at the battle of Doryleaum, a crucial factor in the success of the battle because the contingents had been split.
[LP, lb]
