A 178v (Peirols . et Amors), C100v (Peyrols), D 147r (Peirols), G 48v (staves above stanza I completed with musical notation), I 158r (Peirols . et amors), K 144r (Peirols), L 30r (Peirols), M 183r (Peirol daluergna), N 282v, O 34, R 76v (tenso), S 83 (Peirol), T 159v (Peirols), a 180 (en peirols).

Critical editions: Vincenzo Crescini, «Di una tenzone imaginaria», in Bausteine zur Romanische Philologie, Festgabe für Adolf Mussafia, Halle 1905, pp. 461-472, reprinted in Id., Románica fragmenta, Turin 1932, pp. 494-506 (without N or S, Italian translation); Stanley C. Aston, Peirol, Troubadour of Auvergne, Cambridge 1953, p. 184 (text Crescini, English translation).

Other editions: Henri Pascal de Rochegude, Parnasse occitan, Paris 1819, p. 90 (using CIMR only; 6 stanzas, including ‘y’, tornada VI only); François Juste Marie Raynouard, Choix des poésies originales des troubadours, 6 voll., Paris 1816-1821, vol. III, p. 279 (A-type text, but with both tornadas, in reverse order); Carl August Friedrich Mahn, Die Werke der Troubadours, in provenzalischer Sprache, 4 voll., Berlin 1846-1886, vol. II, p. 6 (text Raynouard); Vincenzo Crescini, Manualetto provenzale per uso degli alunni delle Facoltà di lettere. Introduzione grammaticale, crestomazia, glossario, Verona and Padua, 1892, p. 57 (AC only); Vincenzo Crescini, Manuale per l’avviamento agli studi provenzali, 3rd ed., Milan 1926 (reprinted with ‘Postfazione’ by Alberto Vàrvaro, Rome 1988), p. 221 (text Crescini 1905); Provenzalisches Liederbuch. Lieder der Troubadours, hg. Erhard Lommatzsch, Berlin 1917, p. 135 (text Crescini); Leben und Lieder der provenzalischen Trobadors. I: Minnelieder; II: Lieder verschiedener Gattung, hg. Erhard. Lommatzsch, 2 voll., Berlin 1957-1959, vol. II, p. 30 (text Crescini); Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis, Poesie provenzali storiche relative all’Italia, 2 voll., Rome 1931, vol. I, p. 27 (text Crescini, Italian translation); Anthology of the Provençal Troubadours, ed. Raymond T. Hill and Thomas G. Bergin, New Haven 1941, p. 155 (text Crescini); second edition, 2 voll., New Haven and London 1973, vol. I, p. 168 (text Aston); Alfredo Cavaliere, Cento liriche provenzali, Bologna 1938, p. 191 (text Crescini, Italian translation); Jean-Lucien Gandois and Paul Porteau, Peirol, troubadour d’Auvergne, Clermont 1955 (special issue of Revue d’Auvergne, 69, nos. 3-4), p. 84 (text Aston, French translation); Martin de Riquer Los trovadores: historia literaria y textos, 3 voll., Barcelona 1975, vol. II, p. 1120 (text Aston, Spanish translation); Frede Jensen, Troubadour lyrics. A bilingual anthology, New York 1998, p. 368 (based on A, English translation).

A 178v (Peirols . et Amors), C100v (Peyrols), D 147r (Peirols), G 48v (staves above stanza I completed with musical notation), I 158r (Peirols . et amors), K 144r (Peirols), L 30r (Peirols), M 183r (Peirol daluergna), N 282v, O 34, R 76v (tenso), S 83 (Peirol), T 159v (Peirols), a 180 (en peirols). − Several factors point to CMOTa’s arrangement of material being the original authorial arrangement (see ‘Order and amount of material’ below). Within this group, O shows intervention to supply consistent ‘b’ rhymes in -i and it also has many other isolated readings and individual errors (see 9, 12, 19 (+1), 25, 28 (+1), 29 (+1), 30, 45 and so on). T and a similarly have many isolated readings and individual errors (see respectively 3, 9, 11, 16, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 38 and so on, and 3, 12, 16, 30, 33, 39, 53). In 31 Ta share a reading (·m), in 38 Ra are joined in error, and in 35 Oa share an indifferent alternative reading with the ADGS group; it preserves no superior readings which would recommend its adoption as base. C and M require the fewest number of interventions: C has minor errors in 41, 49 and 52 and isolated readings in 11, 12, 30 (facilior patching following eyeskip?), 46 and 53. M on the other hand has only minor slips in 27, 30, 33 and 44, although on two further occasions (32 and 45) its individual readings are probably the product of later, non-authorial reworking which replaces historically specific ‘kings’ with a blander ricx (32) and a criticism (45) with a courtly platitude. Because of the slightly smaller number of errors, I have based the text on M and corrected its innovative individual readings in 32 and 45 from the majority readings common to all MS groups. The result does not differ very greatly from a text based on C.

Order and amount of material:

* Supernumerary stanza y, composed of 5 lines not found elsewhere (x1-x5) + lines 50-53 (that is, the second tornada, stanza VII).

** In L stanza ‘y’ is added in the margin and its intended position as 4th stanza is indicated by a little ‘d’ written beside its first line, the letters ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ appearing next to stanzas I, II and III respectively. A small ‘f’ and ‘e’ have been added beside stanzas IV and V respectively, reversing their order. The table above reflects the order in which the scribe of L first transcribed the song. − The scribe of R has left enough space for the two tornadas to be added.

As Crescini observed, the mss. transmit essentially two versions of the song, one with stanza ‘y’ (ADGS + IKN + L), the other without (CMOTa + R). The mss. which have stanza ‘y’ all lack VII, the second tornada; RIK additionally lack the first tornada VI. While it is not impossible that a dialogue, however fictive it may be, should conclude with only one surviving tornada (compare L’s version), it is much more common for an exchange with any surviving tornadas to have one for each of the participants (as is the case here for CMOTa): see Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, The Troubadour Tensos and Partimens: A Critical Edition, 3 voll., Cambridge 2010. In the ADGNS and revised L arrangements, only Peirol is accorded a tornada which follows directly on from his last complete stanza. Not only does this give him an unbalanced lion’s share of lines in the dialogue but, as Crescini observed (p. 499), this sequence destroys the close link between lines 42 and 46, where Peirol’s tornada echoes closely and forms a reply to the words of Love in the second part of stanza V. (In addition to the notion of the kings going in 42 and 46, the idea of war in 43 is picked up in 48, and that of Dalfi’s departure in 47 and 49 is used to counter Love’s cynicism about the barons in 44-45.) − L’s relationship to the two main groups suggests that its first source was a C-type version, but that was then collated with an A-type version from which L derived not only stanza ‘y’ but also a different stanza order which reestablished a regular alternation of speakers, this revised order being indicated in L by the added letters. It is possible that the addition of stanza ‘y’ also explains the omission of VII from L (see Crescini, p. 498). Such scribal changes in stanza order in dialogue pieces which have lost stanzas or have otherwise become damaged are not uncommon: see for example BdT 194.2; 201.5; 350.1; 344.3a; 366.30. Moreover, the role of collation of sources by the scribes of L to supply missing material is clearly demonstrated by the case of BdT 238.2 (see the notes to these pieces in Harvey and Paterson, Troubadour tensos and partimens). − Crescini (p. 497) argued that the version with the tornadas was the original text on the grounds that, firstly, the tornada is necessary but stanza ‘y’ is not; and secondly that, were stanza ‘y’ authentic, it would mean that both interlocutors were advancing the same argument - which I understand to be that the demands of love are superior to those of the crusade [since lovers are lamenting their separation from their ladies because of Saladin]. This is Love’s position in III and V; it amounts to the opposite of Peirol’s. If stanza ‘y’ had belonged to Peirol (which is what its opening address to Amors indicates), he would have been noting that emotion made lovers repent for having taken the cross and would thus substantially be agreeing with Love’s view. As Crescini suggested (p. 499), pero (stanza ‘y’ line 6) is readily understandable as a mistake for Peirol (compare A’s reading in stanza I) and this may have been at the root of the reworked stanza ‘y’. − The different factors point to CMOTa’s arrangement of material being the original authorial arrangement.

The poem was composed following the fall of Jerusalem in October 1187 (see lines 37-39) to the forces of Saladin (see line 52) and while conflict (30-32) and fighting (43) between the kings (32) of England and France (who had taken the cross in the period late September 1187 to January 1188) were delaying their departure for the Holy Land.