XL - Pos mos coratges esclarzis

Summary

6 MSS; A (30^r) Marcabruns, C (58^v-59^r) Bemat de uentedora (C Reg. Bernat de uentadorn), E (106) bernart deuentadorn, I (118^r) Marcabrus, K (104^r) Marcabrus, d (304^v) Marcabrus

Attribution

CE attribute this poem to Bemart de “Ventadorn, though it would be stylistically aberrant, to say the least, in his corpus. No modern commentator has taken this attribution seriously and it is noteworthy that in both C and E XL appears at the end of the Bernart de Ventadorn section along with other poems whose attribution is doubtful, for example in both MSS PC 70.11, 70.24, and in E alone PC 392.27, 62.1, 65.1, 65.2. However, it is also noteworthy that there is evidence of faulty transmission in both MS families, that the two MSS that attribute the poem to Bernart have more material than the other MSS, and that some of the poem’s apparent irregularities may suggest a pièce that is composite, either by design or accident (see ‘Analysis’ and ‘Versification’). Although there are no firm grounds for rejecting stanza VII and the tornada as apocryphal, it is therefore at least possible that their authenticity is questionable. The AIK version of the poem, however, can hardly be viewed as authoritative and although we accept the attribution of this poem to Marcabru, we do not think it is possible to determine what its original form and length may have been.

Analysis of the manuscripts

The manuscripts divide into two clear families (CE-AIK): CE attribute the poem to Bernart de Ventadorn and have an extra stanza (followed by a tornada in E); AIK have common errors in lines 8, 14 (where there is also diffraction in these MSS), 15, 17 and 40; CE have a common error in, line 9; and lines 19–21 are transposed with lines 26–28 in AIK (though this is not necessarily an error). There may be further common errors in CE in the apparent infractions of the case system, particularly in the nom. pi. forms in lines 22–23, 26 and 29–30, though see also the treatment of amor in lines 3, 8, 36. However, the agreement of CE in some of these cases is striking since Zufferey suggests that whereas C manifests considerable irregularity in the case system, particularly in the nom.