A Medieval Songbook: Trouvère MS C [24] 1783276525, 9781783276523, 9781800103764

Citation preview

STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE MUSIC 24

A Medieval Songbook

Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music ISSN 1479–9294 General Editors Tess Knighton Helen Deeming This series aims to provide a forum for the best scholarship in early music; deliberately broad in scope, it welcomes proposals on any aspect of music, musical life, and composers during the period up to 1600, and particularly encourages work that places music in an historical and social context. Both new research and major re-assessments of central topics are encouraged. Proposals or enquiries may be sent directly to the editor or the publisher at the addresses given below; all submissions will receive careful, informed consideration. Professor Tess Knighton, Departament d’Art i Musicologia, Edifici B Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres, Universitat Aurònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain Dr Helen Deeming, Department of Music, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX Boydell & Brewer, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF Previously published titles in the series are listed at the back of this volume.

A Medieval Songbook Trouvère MS C

Edited by Elizabeth Eva Leach, Joseph W. Mason and Matthew P. Thomson

THE BOYDELL PRESS

© Contributors 2022 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2022 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978-1-78327-652-3 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-80010-376-4 (ePDF) The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate Cover image: The pen-flourished initial marking MS C’s section of songs beginning with ‘L’ (f. 121r). Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, f. 160v. Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch. Reproduced with permission.

Contents List of Illustrations vii List of Music Examples ix List of Tables xi List of Contributors xiii Acknowledgements xv Abbreviations xvii Editorial Practices xix Introduction 1 Elizabeth Eva Leach, Joseph W. Mason, and Matthew P. Thomson 1 The Trouvère Manuscripts of the Burgerbibliothek Bern Florian Mittenhuber, translated by Henry Hope

13

2 The Lorraine Repertoire of C 20 Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre 3 Chansonnier C: Contents, Stemmatic Position, Particularities Paola Moreno

44

4 A Note on the Decoration of C and its Artistic Context Alison Stones

52

5 Author Ascriptions and Genre Labels in C 75 Luca Gatti 6 Common Exemplars of U and C 82 Robert Lug 7 Shared Small Sources for Two Early Fourteenth-Century Metz Chansonniers? 121 Elizabeth Eva Leach 8 The Legacy of Thibaut de Champagne in C 146 Daniel E. O’Sullivan 9 Strategies of Appropriation in Jacques de Cambrai’s Devotional Contrafacts 158 Christopher Callahan 10 Jeux-Partis and their Contrafacts in C 174 Joseph W. Mason 11 C and Polyphonic Motets: Exemplars, Adaptations, and Scribal Priorities Matthew P. Thomson

192

vi

contents

Appendix: List of Songs in C 211 Bibliography 229 Index of Sources 245 Index of Songs 247 General Index 251

Illustrations Chansonnier C: Contents, Stemmatic Position, Particularities, Paola Moreno 3.1 Schwan’s sIII family 46 3.2

Sources for copyists I, II, and III

51

A Note on the Decoration of C and its Artistic Context, Alison Stones 4.1 Large initials in C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389 (www.e-codices.ch), fols 1r, 24r, 37r, 49r, 64r, 76r, 83v, 90r, 110r, 121r, 143r, 157r, 167r, 179r, 194r, 209r, 218r, 229r, 245r; photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch.) 53 4.2

Loop with an ‘o’ motif in the chansonnier section of I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, fol. 145v, photo: Bodleian Library).

4.3

Lower loop containing a sexfoil flower in the Chauvency section of I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, fol. 114r, photo: Bodleian Library). 60

4.4

Pen-flourishing in Thomas de Cantimpré, De rerum natura (Paris, BnF, lat. 523A, fol. 98r, photo: BnF).

61

4.5

Flowers and ‘os’ in the pen-flourished loops of a Dominican Gradual (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435, fol. 22v; photo: BR).

62

4.6

Cinqfoils, sexfoils, and J borders in a Liber de legendis sanctorum (Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, site Stanislas, MS 188, fol. 1r; photo: Nancy, BM).

63

Sexfoil and cinqfoil flowers and fleurs-de-lis in the flourishing in Baudouin d’Avesnes’s Chroniques de Hainaut (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 98, fol. 77r; photo: author).

64

Sexfoils and fleur-de-lis in Baudouin d’Avesnes, Chroniques de Hainaut (General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, MS 339, fol. 197r: photo: Yale University).

65

4.9

Single pen-flourished initial in Charte de franchise d’Olley (Metz, Archives départmentales, H903–1-1294; photo: author).

65

4.10

Flower with elongated leaves with a fleur-de-lis in the Premonstratensian Missal of Toul (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127 fol. 188r; photo: Walters Art Museum).

67

Cinqfoil in the Missal of the Confraternity of Notre-Dame, Cambrai (Paris, BnF, lat. 17311, fol. i verso; photo: BnF).

68

4.7

4.8

4.11

59

viii

illustrations The Sacrifice of Isaac at the Te igitur, in the Missal of the Confraternity of Notre-Dame, Cambrai (Paris, BnF, lat. 17311, fols 173v–174r; photo: BnF).

69

4.13

Pen-flourishing in the Breviary of St-Arnoul de Metz (Metz, Bibliothèques-Médiathèques, MS 585, fol. 83r; photo: author).

70

4.14

Pen-flourishing in a book made for the Cistercian Abbey of Cambron (dioc. Cambrai) by Johannes Resbais (Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota, James Ford Bell Library, B1280fVi, vol. 4, fol. 10v; photo: Courtesy of the James Ford Bell Library, University of Minnesota).

71

4.12

4.15

Pen-flourishing in another book made for Cambron by Johannes Resbais (Collections of The Bakken Museum, Minneapolis, OCLC 746080341, shelf location OS 55.7, vol. 2, fol. 177r; photo: The Bakken Museum). 72

4.16

Pen-flourishing in Saint Augustine, De quaestionibus Veteris Testamenti made for Cambron by Johannes dictus Toussens (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS II 2297, fol. 73r; photo: BR).

73

Common Exemplars of U and C, Robert Lug 6.1 Relative dimensions and layout of U and C. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France.

83

6.2

Stemmata of trouvère manuscripts (derived from Schwan).

86

6.3

Schwan’s sIII with datings.

87

6.4

Parker’s (1978) revised version of Schwan’s filiation.

89

6.5

Inserted bifolio, U fols 92/93. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France.

94

6.6

U exemplars available to the C compiler, giving new CU ‘stemma’.

97

6.7

X/U fol. 91v. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France. 119

Jeux-Partis and their Contrafacts in C, Joseph W. Mason 10.1 Upper part of Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fol. 87v (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch). 180 10.2

RS 1448 and RS 1442a, Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fol. 201v (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch). 183

10.3

Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fols 210v–211r (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch). 190

The author and publisher are grateful to all the institutions and individuals listed for permission to reproduce the materials in which they hold copyright. Every effort has been made to trace the copyright holders; apologies are offered for any omission, and the publisher will be pleased to add any necessary acknowledgement in subsequent editions.

Music Examples Strategies of Appropriation in Jacques de Cambrai’s Devotional Contrafacts, Christopher Callahan 9.1a–c Musical parallels between Colart’s RS 1730 and Jacques’s RS 114 164 9.2

Melodic highlighting of the disparate prisons in RS 2075 and RS 1563

167

9.3

Melody over two instances of ‘Deus’ in RS 741 and RS 1856

168

9.4

Rhymes in Raoul de Soissons (RS 2107) and Jacques de Cambrai (RS 2091)

169

Jeux-Partis and their Contrafacts in C, Joseph W. Mason 10.1 Versions of line 7, RS 1666 and RS 2063

187

10.2

187

Versions of line 9, RS 1666 and RS 2063

C and Polyphonic Motets: Exemplars, Adaptations, and Scribal Priorities, Matthew P. Thomson 11.1 Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT, from W2 fols 216v–217r 196

Tables The Lorraine Repertoire of C, Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre 2.1 Lexical and structural similarities in Au dous tens d’esté (RS 445) and Bone Amour me fait chanter / En un (RS 812)

24

Alternation of songs by Garnier d’Arches and Gautier d’Espinal in C, fols 199v–201r

27

2.2

Common Exemplars of U and C, Robert Lug 6.1 The songs in C’s letter-section M (nos 313–39, fols 143r–155v)

84

6.2

‘Molt’ songs at the opening of U 92

6.3

Overall structure of U 93

6.4

The four mixed-language songs of ζ/C 100

6.5a

Song distribution of troubadours represented in both X/U and W/M 102

6.5b

Distribution of remaining Occitan songs between X/U and W/M 104

6.6

Songs by Rigaut de Berbezilh and Jaufre Rudel in X/U also copied in ζ/C 107

6.7

Versions of Rigaut de Berbezilh, PC 421.2 = RS 272 in X/U, ζ/C, and W/M 108

6.8

Versions of Rigaut de Berbezilh, PC 421.10 = RS 1952 in X/U, ζ/C, and W/M 112

6.9

Versions of Jaufre Rudel, PC 262.5 = RS 136 in X/U and ζ/C 115

6.10 Anonymous pastorela, PC 461.148 = RS 935 in X/U and ζ/C 115 6.11

Pastorela and its contrafacts

116

Shared Small Sources for Two Early Fourteenth-Century Metz Chansonniers? Elizabeth Eva Leach 7.1 Labels in the A letter-section of C and concordances with I 128 7.2

Jeux-partis of I showing concordances with C 136

7.3

Jeux-partis of the first seven letter-sections of C showing concordances with I 138

7.4

The sequential run of pastourelles present in C and I 143

7.5

The ballettes of I also copied in C 144

xii

tables

The Legacy of Thibaut de Champagne in C, Daniel E. O’Sullivan 8.1 Contents and ordering of I 148 8.2

Songs attributed to Thibaut in C 149

8.3

Songs by Thibaut not attributed to him in C 150

8.4

First songs in A letter-section

154

8.5

First songs in F letter-section

154

8.6

Rubrics accompanying songs attributed to Jacques de Cambrai

154

8.7

Jacques’s contrafacts

155

Strategies of Appropriation in Jacques de Cambrai’s Devotional Contrafacts, Christopher Callahan 9.1 Initial songs in each alphabet section in C 159 9.2

Textual parallels between Colart’s RS 1730 and Jacques’s RS 114

163

9.3

Textual echoes between Thibaut’s RS 2075 and Jacques’s RS 1563

166

9.4

Similar tropes, radical transformation between Thibaut’s RS 741 and Jacques’s RS 1856

168

9.5

Shared lexical items between Gace’s RS 1102 and Jacques’s RS 1178

171

9.6

Stanzaic transmission of RS 599

173

Jeux-Partis and their Contrafacts in C, Joseph W. Mason 10.1 Debate songs in C 176 10.2

Concordances of debate songs in C 179

10.3

Possible early jeux-partis in C 181

10.4

Jeux-partis in C and their (possible) contrafacts

10.5

Rhyme sounds for Rois de Navare in M and T 189

182

C and Polyphonic Motets: Exemplars, Adaptations, and Scribal Priorities, Matthew P. Thomson 11.1 Text and translation of the motetus of Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT, from W2 fols 216v–217r 197 11.2

The distribution of stanzas in manuscript versions of the song Chascuns qui de bien amer 201

11.3

The a- and b-rhymes of each stanza used for the song Chascuns qui de bien amer 201

Contributors Christopher Callahan is Professor of French, Illinois Wesleyan University Luca Gatti is Assegnista di ricerca, Sapienza Università di Roma Elizabeth Eva Leach is Professor of Music, University of Oxford Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre is Vacataire, Université de Paris Robert Lug is Dozent, Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst, Frankfurt am Main Joseph W. Mason is the Weston Junior Research Fellow in Music at New College, University of Oxford Florian Mittenhuber is Conservator of the Bongarsiana Collection, Burgerbibliothek Bern Paola Moreno is Professeur ordinaire de langue et littérature italiennes, Université de Liège Daniel E. O’Sullivan is Professor of French, University of Mississippi Alison Stones is Professor Emerita of History of Art and Architecture, University of Pittsburgh Matthew P. Thomson is Fitzjames Research Fellow in Music, Merton College, Oxford

Acknowledgements

H

enry Hope had the original idea for an interdisciplinary project on Cod. 389, organising, with the kind assistance of Christina Urchueguía, a conference on the chansonnier in late 2017. Florian Mittenhuber facilitated a visit to see Cod. 389 in the Burgerbibliothek during the conference, which greatly enriched our work on the chansonnier. We gratefully credit Henry with the idea of publishing a collection of essays on MS 389; it was he who commissioned essays from the contributors to this volume and began the process of reviewing essays. Henry also provided a translation from German for the first chapter of this book. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance and support of many colleagues who enabled this project to be brought to fruition. Caroline Palmer and Elizabeth McDonald at Boydell provided all manner of assistance during the preparation of this volume. The series editors, Tess Knighton and Helen Deeming, offered much advice and guidance throughout the editorial process. We also thank Catherine A. Bradley, whose comments were influential in shaping individual chapters and the volume as a whole. The following libraries graciously gave permission for images of manuscripts in their care to be included here: the Burgerbibliothek Bern, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Bodleian Library, the KBR in Brussels, the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University, the Département de la Moselle, the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, the Bibliothèques-Médiathèques de Metz, the James Ford Bell Library at the University of Minnesota, the Bakken Museum, Minneapolis, and the Bibliothèque municipale in Nancy. Finally, we thank the following bodies, whose financial assistance has supported the work for this volume: the Leverhulme Trust; the Irish Research Council; the Warden and Fellows of Merton College, Oxford; and the REF Strategic Support Fund (Humanities), University of Oxford.

Abbreviations Manuscript sigla Trouvère sources A B C F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Z a b c j Za

Arras, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 657 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389 London, British Library, MS Egerton 274 London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1681 Modena, Biblioteca Estense, R4,4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 5198 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 765 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 845 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 846 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 847 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1109 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1591 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12581 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12615 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 20050 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 24406 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 25566 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.f. 1050 Siena, Biblioteca comunale, MS H.X.36 Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1490 Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1522 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95.1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.f. 21677 Zagreb, Metropolitanska knjižnica, MR 92

xviii

abbreviations

Troubadour sources troubC troubD troubE troubG troubKp troubR troubX troubW troubα troubζ

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 856 Modena, Biblioteca Estense, R4,4 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1749 Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, R 71 superiore Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Thottske Samling Nr. 1087 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 22543 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 20050 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 857 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389

Motet sources Ba motetF LoB W2

Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit.115 Florence, Biblioteca-Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 29.1 London, British Library, MS Egerton 274 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Guelf. 1099 Helmst.

Other abbreviations BnF fol./fols l./ll. MS/S PC RS st. vdB

Bibliothèque nationale de France folio/s line/s manuscript/s Pillet/Carstens number Raynaud/Spanke number stanza van den Boogaard number

Editorial practices

T

rouvère songbooks are designated in bold type by their sigla as given in Raynaud/Spanke.1 Troubadour songbooks have sigla, in bold type, according to Pillet/Carstens and are preceded by the prefix ‘troub’, for example, troubD.2 Motet sources are represented by the sigla in Ludwig’s Repertorium and, where it is necessary to distinguish a motet source from a trouvère source, are preceded by the prefix ‘motet’, for example, motetF.3 A full list of sigla is provided in the list of abbreviations. Where a manuscript has both a trouvère and a troubadour siglum, only the trouvère siglum is used (with the exception of Chapter 6, where the Occitan content is discussed specifically). Trouvère songs are identified by an RS number according to Raynaud/Spanke; troubadour songs are similarly identified by a PC number according to Pillet/Carstens, and conducti by the identifier given in Anderson’s collected edition.4 Songs are referred to in italics with the spelling given in Raynaud/ Spanke. Quotations from manuscripts (including the incipit of a song in the orthography in which it appears in a specific chansonnier) are given in single quotation marks and Roman type. Where a song has two numbers in Raynaud/Spanke, only the corrected number is given. Where it is necessary to indicate the state of copying of a song’s music notation, ♪ designates that music notation has been entered, ≡ designates empty staves, and ⬜ designates space left in the manuscript for staves which were never entered. When lines of poetry are quoted within the text, a forward slash (/) is used to separate poetic lines.

1

Hans Spanke, G. Raynauds Bibliographie des alfranzösichen Liedes, Musicologica, 1 (Leiden, 1955). 2 Alfred Pillet and Henry Carstens, Bibliographie der Troubadours, Schriften der Königsburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft (special series), 3 (Halle, 1933). 3 Ludwig, Friedrich, Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, ed. Luther Dittmer, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Institute of Mediaeval Music), 7, 17, 26 (2 vols in 3, Brooklyn, NY, 1964–78). 4 Gordon A. Anderson (ed.), Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: Opera omnia, Institute of Mediaeval Music, Collected Works, 10 (10 vols, Henryville, PA, 1979–88).

Introduction Elizabeth Eva Leach, Joseph W. Mason, and Matthew P. Thomson

T

he present volume brings scholarly perspectives from a variety of disciplines to bear on a specific medieval object: a beautifully produced parchment manuscript, now in Bern, Switzerland, containing over 500 songs. The first stanza of each song is carefully copied beneath staves for their melodies, but the planned musical notation was never entered. Despite the intriguing poignancy of the empty staves for musicologists, their muteness has led to the relative neglect of Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389, known to scholars of trouvère song by Schwan’s siglum C.1 After all, what can a musicologist say about a song when only the text survives?2 The lack of notation is the first of several factors that has led to the relative scholarly neglect of C, including its provenance on the easternmost border of the Francophone region, its choice not to organise by author corpora, its comparatively high numbers of unica, and the absence of illuminations. C has thus been perceived as distant from a ‘central’ trouvère tradition embodied by the surviving authorially organised and richly illuminated manuscripts that hail largely from the Artois and Champagne; the supposedly problematic aspects of C have combined in various ways to cause C’s neglect not just in musicology, but also in other academic disciplines that study trouvère song. Although literary scholars have considered C more deeply than their musicological colleagues, they have typically done so in conjunction with the creation of editions of the texts of specific authors or edited collections of predominantly anonymous secondary genres, like the pastourelle.3 C’s eastern provenance has meant that the variants that it presents for those songs with concordances in other, more ‘central’ sources have been noted in the apparatus of critical editions, but largely relegated to a secondary status: indeed, some of the authorial songs in C have themselves been treated as of 1

Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886). Throughout the volume, trouvère manuscripts are indicated in bold by their Schwan siglum; sigla for troubadour manuscripts are marked with the pretext ‘troub’ (except in a section in Chapter 6, where the Occitan sigla are used to facilitate the discussion). 2 Actually quite a lot, since the melodies survive in other sources for songs that have concordances and one can also discuss attribution, textual variants, and other features. Even knowing that certain songs were planned for this volume can tell us about the persistence of repertoire over time, its geographical diffusion, and cultural value. 3 See, for example, the edition of Gautier d’Espinal’s works by Uno Lindelöf and Axel Wallensköld (eds), Les Chansons de Gautier d’Épinal (Helsinki, 1901) or the edition of pastourelles by Karl Bartsch (ed.), Romances et pastourelles françaises des XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Leipzig, 1870).

2

elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson

secondary authenticity within their respective author corpora.4 The high number of unica in C – over 20% of its contents – have all now been edited, but not yet thoroughly integrated into literary scholarship; that so many of C’s songs are not also found in other sources has reinforced the impression of C as a peripheral source.5 Similarly, in art-historical studies, the absence of the illuminations, which in other songbooks are used to demarcate author or genre sections, has led to a dearth of scholarly interest in C, despite the presence of significant visual decoration in the form of the pen-flourished puzzle letters that articulate the alphabetical organisation of the manuscript.6 This introduction presents the manuscript, first summarising its treatment in modern scholarship and then considering its implications for the relationship between eastern trouvère song and a ‘central’ tradition. These two approaches both assert C’s relevance and importance to musicology, literary studies, and, to a lesser extent, art history and the history of the book. This volume overall abstains from proposing any radical bouleversement of existing views on matters such as dating or provenance: authors vary slightly in their certainty that it was copied in Metz, but agree on Lorraine; they also have broader and narrower date ranges in the last quarter of the thirteenth century for its compilation. Nonetheless, both date and provenance accord here with what has been widely accepted since some of the earliest scholarship on C. The volume instead presents its combined scholarly perspectives as a way of arguing gently for the fuller integration of this source in histories of lyric, song, and bookmaking.

Modern scholarly access to C As Florian Mittenhuber, its present librarian, notes (Chapter 1), the manuscript came to the library in Bern as part of the bequest of the book collection that had once belonged to the French bibliophile Jacques Bongars (d. 1612), whose legatee married the daughter of the mayor of Bern. While at Bern, it was borrowed, in the late eighteenth century, by Jean-Baptiste de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, who had a copy made.7 It was through this copy, now in Paris, that much of the early engagement with C was mediated, including the linguistic study of Hans von SeydlitzKurzbach and the edition of the texts by Wilhelm Wackernagel and, later, by Julius 4 See, for example, Axel Wallensköld (ed.), Les Chansons de Thibaut de Champagne, roi de

Navarre (Paris, 1925).

5 See Richard Allen Schutz, ‘The unedited poems of codex 389 of the Municipal Library

of Berne, Switzerland’, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976); Nicolaas Unlandt, Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011). Literary studies has struggled to integrate anonymous songs and unica from C. 6 For a consideration of these pen-flourished initials, see Alison Stones’s contribution to the current volume (Chapter 4). 7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Moreau 1687–89. See Chapter 1 below and Schutz, ‘The unedited poems’, pp. 11–12.

introduction 3 Brakelmann.8 This ‘Mouchet’ copy (named after the bibliophile who bequeathed it to the Paris library) is a three-volume set, containing transcriptions from C and B in the first two volumes and, in the third volume, a table of the songs in C.9 Brakelmann supposed this table to be transcribed from the original manuscript, but later collation of Brakelmann and Wackernagel with the original manuscript by Gustav Gröber and Carl von Lebinski showed that the table in the third volume of Mouchet is based on the earlier volumes of the Mouchet copy itself, not on any now-lost table of contents from C.10 The Mouchet copy of C is reputed to be a ‘surprisingly faithful and exact transcription’ but makes some minor emendations, expands most abbreviations, introduces apostrophes and other marks of punctuation, regularises word division, and makes distinction between u/v and i/j, as well as rendering long s as round s.11 In addition, the Mouchet copy does not replicate the layout of the original: each song is written on a separate folio, starting on a recto. Richard Allen Schutz notes that only ‘the jeux-partis and a few lengthier songs reach the verso side’.12 Schutz does not say explicitly, but it seems likely that the Mouchet copy dispensed with the empty staves.13 And while literary scholars did not need a total lack of musical furniture to treat songs as mere texts for silent reading or spoken recitation, the removal of the only clear sign of performance from the copy of C that was generally used by nineteenth-century scholars might explain Schwan’s otherwise puzzling comment that ‘the absence of melodies tends to suggest that it was meant to be read rather than sung’.14 The first proper inventory to rely directly on the manuscript itself is the Intavulare volume of Paola Moreno.15 Her work there forms the basis of her chapter here, which revises some of the details of the various hands involved in C’s copying, especially in the copying of the labels that give genre titles and authorial names for some of the songs added by one or more later rubricators.16 Her count of the songs differs from that of Brakelmann (and those who follow him) because she twice separates out pairs of songs that are presented by C as if they were a single song, giving two 8 Schutz, ‘The unedited poems’, pp. 3–4. 9 See ibid., p. 11.

10 See Gustav Gröber and C. von Lebinski, ‘Collation der Berner Liederhs. 389’, Zeitschrift

für romanische Philologie, 3:1 (1879), pp. 39–60, at p.39.

11 See Schutz, ‘The unedited poems’, p. 12. 12 Ibid., p. 12.

13 Library closures at the time of writing meant that we were unable to consult the Mouchet

copy.

14 See Schutz, ‘The unedited poems’, p.8 referring to Schwan, Die altfranzösischen

Liederhandschriften, p. 262.

15 Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français:

3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999); available at . 16 The issue of the number of rubricators is discussed below in the Introduction but the main discussion is in Moreno’s chapter (Chapter 3). The generic term ‘rubricator’ is used, despite these labels being, in this case, not in red ink.

4

elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson

more songs overall than Brakelmann’s reckoning.17 As both approaches have arguable legitimacy, depending on whether the numbers are designed to represent a more abstract idea of individual songs in the overall song culture, or the specifics of the manuscript’s presentation of its own content, both are used in the present volume by different authors. We have provided in the Appendix a listing of all the incipits of the songs, replicating their orthography in C, and giving their Moreno and Brakelmann numbers, as well as their RS numbers.18 In the twenty-first century, but still before the manuscript became digitally accessible, Christopher Callahan began to pay it serious attention at the beginning of work that would lead eventually to his joint edition of the songs of Thibaut de Champagne.19 Callahan stressed that Thibaut’s opera dubia in modern editions had come overwhelmingly from two manuscripts – of which C was one – that ‘offer notably different readings of the trouvère-king from those offered by the majority of chansonniers’.20 By treating these readings seriously, Callahan argues not for a different view on the intractable problem of authenticity, but instead emphasises the need to bring manuscripts like C (and R in Thibaut’s case) out of tables of variants so as to give ‘a more complete picture of Thibaut’s corpus and allow us to

17 Moreno, “Intavulare”; Julius Brakelmann (ed.), ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift

Nro. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 41 (1867), pp. 339–76; 42 (1868), pp. 73–82, 241–392; 43 (1868), pp. 241–394. Both forms of reckoning can be argued as legitimate for different reasons. Brakelmann has nos 79 and 79a for Moreno’s 79 and 80, which she notes are the separate songs RS 426 and RS 648. A parallel case can be found in I, where two songs are copied as if a single song in several places, meaning that modern commentators have to find ways to refer to them separately, for example as no.1 and no.1a (Leach’s chapter below hypothesises how some of these conjoined songs in I might have come about from the small sources used in I’s copying.) The case with the other pair of songs copied as a single song in C is less like that in I, however, since three stanzas of Gautier, un jeu vous vueil partir (RS 1442a) are copied between stanzas 3 and 4 of the anonymous song Quant je voi mon cuer revenir (RS 1448). Again, Moreno counts these as separate numbers (nos 428 and 429), whereas in Brakelmann they are simply no. 427 (and Brakelmann’s decision is followed with regard to the same matryoshka mash-up of the same two songs in U by Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015–20), vol. 1, pp. 109–11 (as no. 41). Thus Brakelmann and those who follow him (such as Unlandt and, here, Lug) reckon as per the manuscript presentation, whereas Moreno counts using a more abstract idea of the individual identities of individual songs in the song culture more generally. 18 An RS number is that given to a song in Hans Spanke, G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes, Musicologica, 1 (Leiden, 1955). 19 Christopher Callahan, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and Disputed Attributions: The Case of MSS Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389 (C) and Paris, BnF fr. 1591 (R)’, Textual Cultures, 5:1 (2010), pp. 111–32; Christopher Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric at the Peripheries: The Lessons of MSS Paris, BnF fr. 20050 and Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 15–30; Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons: textes et mélodies, ed. and trans. with notes by Christopher Callahan, Marie-Geneviève Grossel, and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Champion Classiques, Série ‘Moyen Age’, Editions bilingues, 46 (Paris, 2018). 20 Callahan, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and Disputed Attributions’, p. 113.

introduction 5 bring its fluid contours to the forefront’.21 As with the difference between the song counts of Moreno and Brakelmann, the difference between the approaches to the authorial collections in Axel Wallensköld on one hand and the edition completed by Callahan, Marie-Geneviève Grossel, and Daniel E. O’Sullivan on the other, is a matter of whether the focus is on the abstract fact of songs as discrete authorial units in the domain of poeisis (production), or on songs as mobile objects of flexible cultural value and meaning in the domain of esthesis (as exemplified by manuscript collecting and copying).22 We are now luckier than earlier scholars in that a full physical description of C is readily available online, accompanying the digital images that were made in conjunction with the conference that produced the papers on which many of the chapters here are based.23 The sheer accessibility of the source today makes arguments for incorporating C more integrally into philological and musicological studies easy to make and easier to support.

Mapping the traditions of trouvère song The characteristics of C that have led to its relative scholarly neglect, as outlined above, are those which differentiate it from a perceived ‘central’ trouvère tradition embodied by manuscripts largely from the Artois and Champagne. Given C’s eastern provenance, these peculiarities raise important questions about the interaction between local and supra-local song cultures. The close examinations of C throughout this volume undermine simple models in which C sits as a peripheral outlier to a ‘central’ tradition, pointing instead to complex dynamics of manuscript transmission and cultural interaction. Two peculiarities of the manuscript point particularly clearly towards this more nuanced picture: the approach to the author figure and the lack of musical notation.

Locating the author figure The compilatory strategy of C has a notably different set of priorities from the author-centred manuscripts that make up what scholars have traditionally treated as the ‘central’ trouvère tradition, such as the KNPX group, which present the corpora of individual trouvères in descending order of social status, often beginning with Thibaut, king of Navarre. Instead, C organises its songs alphabetically, splitting them into twenty sections each dedicated to songs that begin with the same letter, a strategy that is shared among trouvère manuscripts only with the roughly contemporary Burgundian manuscript O.24 Within this organisational scheme, the 21 Ibid., p. 113. 22 Wallensköld (ed.), Les Chansons de Thibaut de Champagne; Thibaut de Champagne, Les

Chansons.

23 ‘e-codices – Virtual Manuscript Library of Switzerland’,

[accessed 18 December 2020].

24 For an outline of the arguments surrounding the provenance and dating of O, see p. 89, n.

22.

6

elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson

compilers afforded importance to religious songs, placing one at the beginning of every letter-section as well as at the end of eight sections (ABDILQRT). C’s strategy has been seen to relate to the ‘central’ tradition in different ways. For some, it is a later development of that tradition, moving away from author-based schemes and towards alternative strategies of organisation: the late thirteenth-century sources C and O are arranged alphabetically, and genre guides the ordering of the early fourteenth-century source I.25 The different approach to the author figure in these manuscripts is highlighted by the fact that none of them provided attributions for their songs in their first level of copying. I contains no paratextual attributions at all, O only has post-medieval authorial labels derived from other sources, while C’s attributions were entered in a separate stage after the main text of the songs had been copied (see below). All three of these manuscripts were produced in the eastern borderlands between France and the Holy Roman Empire, C and I probably in Metz and O in Burgundy. For Callahan, this provenance showed an easterly transfer of the ‘cutting edge of lyric compilation’ from the Arrageois scriptoria that had produced author-based manuscripts.26 For other scholars, the organisational strategies of C, O, and I highlight their cultural specificity and isolate them from the Artesian tradition: Robert Lug, for example, argues that the avoidance of authorial strategies of compilation results from the political difficulties of recording French song in lands controlled by the Empire. He links the later manuscripts C, O, and I with the Messine manuscript U, the earliest layer of which was copied in 1231 and contains few attributions.27 For the makers of U, C, and I in the Imperial city of Metz, he argues, the concretisation of social hierarchies required by an authorially organised songbook was impossible to carry out without causing offence.28 Lug has extended this argument to O, suggesting that it comes from the portion of Burgundy under Imperial control.29 25 Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’. I is dated after 1309 in Eglal Doss-Quinby, Samuel

26

27

28

29

N. Rosenberg, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), The Old French Ballette: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, Publications romanes et françaises, 239 (Geneva , 2006), pp. xlv–l and before 1316 in Alison Stones, ‘Le Contexte artistique du Tournoi de Chauvency’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 151–204, at p. 162. Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 16. Chansonnier A does not quite fit this geographical argument, since it was copied in Arras and is organised principally by genre, then secondarily by author. Conversely, some of the authorially organised manuscripts have secondary organisation by genre, such as M and T, which have a section of motets; others, like W, organise generically within author corpora. Robert Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser in Metz: Zur Herkunft der ältesten Sammlung von Trobador-Liedern (1231)’, in Angelica Rieger (ed.), Okzitanistik, Altokzitanistik und Provenzalistik: Geschichte und Auftrag einer europäischen Philologie (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 249–74. Robert Lug, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231–1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des Prés’, in Chazan and Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société, pp. 451–86, at p. 481. Robert Lug,   Semi-mensurale Informationen zur Liedrhythmik des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 2019), p. 206. O presents some problems for such an argument. Within each letter-section,

introduction 7 C’s relationship with the figure of the author and its implications for its connection with the ‘central’ tradition is further complicated by the 263 attributions found among the manuscript’s paratextual labels. Moreno, as noted above, here presents a revised view of the copying of these labels (Chapter 3). She argues that they were written by two different hands, which she designates Copyists IV and V, both of whom were different from the scribe who copied the main bulk of the song texts (Copyist I) and those who subsequently entered small numbers of song texts (Copyists II and III).30 Copyist IV, Moreno argues, was responsible for rubricating the corpus of songs attributed to Jacques de Cambrai and four other pieces, while Copyist V handled the rest of the manuscript. The attributions made by C’s labels have proved controversial, frequently conflicting with those in other manuscripts: Nicholas Unlandt, in expressing suspicion of the worth of C’s attributions, echoes a general and long-lived opinion.31 Contributions to the present volume, however, suggest that these paratextual labels provide vital information. Lug (Chapter 6) argues that the choices made in C’s attributions demonstrate that they were drawn from a list of authors kept separately from the song exemplars, a strategy that he argues was also followed in the production of U. Luca Gatti (Chapter 5) favours an approach that takes C’s labels seriously. As he shows, the attributions in C emphasise its eastern connections: of the fifty authors whose names only appear once in C, thirty-nine refer to songs only found in other eastern sources.32 However, it is difficult to dismiss C’s variant attributions as eastern anomalies made at a distance from the centre of the lyric tradition: Gatti supports Luca Barbieri, who suggests that the rubricator of C had access to an early source, also available to the compilers of S and U, which may have predated the attributions provided in manuscripts of the ‘central’ tradition.33 C’s approach to the author figure, then, highlights its complex relationship with the ‘central’ trouvère tradition. Its strategies of compilation and attribution have recognisable parallels with other eastern manuscripts that differentiate it from Artesian practices; at the same time, C may have drawn its attributions from an early source of ‘central’ traditions.

30

31 32 33

its songs are organised by the social prestige of their authors, with Thibaut’s songs often taking first place. If Imperial readers could be offended by the French social hierarchy of an authorially organised manuscript, it seems unlikely that they would be pacified by an alphabetically organised one which maintained that hierarchy, placing a richly illuminated version of Thibaut’s famous Ausi com l’unicorne sui (RS 2075) on its opening folio. These conclusions differ from those made in Moreno, “Intavulare”, pp. 25–6. There, Moreno argued that the Jacques de Cambrai songs were rubricated by Copyist I and that the rest of the rubrics were provided by Copyist III. Unlandt, Le Chansonnier français, p. xxxi. See p. 77. See p. 78. Luca Barbieri, ‘Deteriores non inanes: il canzoniere S della lirica in lingua d’oïl’, in Vicenç Beltrán and Juan Paredes (eds), Convivio: estudios sobre la poesía de cancionero, Monográfica, Biblioteca de humanidades, Teoría y crítica literarias, 16 (Granada, 2006), pp. 145–74, at p. 155, n. 22.

8

elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson

Imagining the lost notes The complex dynamics of cultural interaction that stand behind C are similarly emphasised by one of the manuscript’s most poignant features, its empty red staves, which immediately draw the eye of anyone turning its pages. C is not the only Messine manuscript of trouvère song to depart from the norm of fully notating the first stanza in square notation. The earliest layer of U, known as U1 and produced in Metz in 1231, notates the majority of its songs using diastematic Messine neumes. In the later two layers of the manuscript, U2 leaves no space for notation, while U3 leaves space for staves but does not draw them. In the later Messine manuscript I, there is no sign that musical notation was ever planned. Although the proposed reasons for C’s often-lamented notational lacuna have varied widely, they centre around two factors: the availability of exemplars and the desirability or possibility of copying from them. Madeleine Tyssens argues that, as the compilers of C clearly had access to exemplars for a wide range of texts, the lack of notation suggests that it was more difficult for them to access musical exemplars.34 In the light of arguments made in the current volume by Moreno, Lug, and Elizabeth Eva Leach, this exemplar-based argument seems unlikely to provide a satisfactory explanation. All three contributions demonstrate that a closely related set of exemplars were used to produce the three extant trouvère codices copied in Metz: U, C, and I. Lug argues that large sections of C were copied from exemplars that had also been used to produce U; given that the copies of these songs found in U are often fully notated by diastematic Messine neumes, it seems unlikely that the compilers of C had unduly limited access to notated exemplars. If, as now seems likely, C’s compilers had access to at least some of the musically notated exemplars used earlier by U, it seems that they either would not, or could not copy musical notation available to them. It has sometimes been argued that the choice not to include notation was part of a move away from the musicality of the songs contained in the manuscript. As noted above, Schwan’s comment that the codex was a document to be read was probably caused by the Mouchet copy he consulted, but it presages a view that eastern manuscripts, with their ‘empty staves and pages not ruled for music’, were ‘somewhat removed from the centres of lyric practice’.35 The idea that C formed part of an eastern retreat from the sounding reality of song, however, is undermined by the meticulous drawing of staves throughout C, which suggests that there was a relatively concrete plan for the addition of notation to this manuscript. In addition, the melodic identity of song seems to have been important to the compilers of C. In their respective contributions to this volume, O’Sullivan, Callahan, and Joseph W. Mason all demonstrate the central importance of contrafacture to the compilers of C, arguing that Messine audiences were expected to connect multiple songs that used the same melody and to use those connections to make hermeneutic readings. This importance of melodic identity is 34 Madeleine Tyssens, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français:

5. U (Paris, BNF fr. 20050), Documenta et instrumenta, 5 (Liège 2007), p. 7.

35 Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 25.

introduction 9 underlined by the prominence given to the devotional Marian songs of Jacques de Cambrai. These seven songs, discussed extensively by Callahan (Chapter 9), were placed at the opening of every letter-section in which they occurred.36 In six cases, the later rubricator (Moreno’s Copyist IV) specifically identified the secular model of these songs, underlining the importance of their sounding melody. It seems unlikely, therefore, that notation was omitted from C because the manuscript’s sphere of production was concentrated on the literary and not the musical identity of these songs. Notation provides an alternative explanation. The other manuscripts made in Metz, U and I, suggest that musical notation was not a simple issue for eastern scriptoria. Elsewhere, Lug has argued that the Messine neumes used in U responded to Metz’s political situation. For Lug, the square notation used in chansonniers from Artois and Champagne (both in the kingdom of France) represented a Capetian identity that was problematic within Metz’s Imperial context.37 The exemplars used by U, and therefore also by C, would have been notated using the Messine neumes that Lug argues expressed a more locally acceptable cultural identity. Later exemplars of songs from the west, however, would have arrived in square notation. A manuscript such as C would almost certainly not have been copied in two different notational systems, necessitating the translation of one set of exemplars. Lug has previously argued that this clash of notations explains the complete lack of planning for notation in I and, in his contribution to the current volume (Chapter 6), extends this argument to C.38 The situation is made more complex by the controversial notation found in another eastern chansonnier, the Burgundian trouvère manuscript O, which uses a broad spectrum of mensural notational behaviours in ways that range from clear representations of rhythmic modes to much less regular and more flexible rhythmic frameworks.39 O suggests that a wide range of notations were available in the east and raises the possibility that the compilers of C may have been planning to use a mensurally influenced notation.40 Ultimately, it is difficult to assign the lack of notation in C to any one cause, since there may have been a combination of problems, including prosaic factors such as financial trouble, which contributed to the failure to carry out the music-notational part of this manuscript’s project. The essays in this volume add to what is discernible, however, confirming that notation was concretely planned for this manuscript, that the sounding melodic reality of songs was important for the compilers, and that the exemplars available to them would have been notationally diverse. Importantly, these notational considerations demonstrate that C disturbs any simplistic delineation of separate traditions of trouvère song, as well as frustrating 36 Leach argues that Jacques may have been involved in the compilation of C, see p. 130. 37 Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 481

38 Ibid., pp. 481–2. 39 The literature on the notation of O is too extensive to reference here. For a thorough

historiography of the many debates surrounding it, see Robert Lug, Semi-mensurale Informationen, pp. 21–65. 40 For Lug, this supposition is supported by the one melody to be retrospectively added to U3, which is in what he calls a ‘semimensural’ notation. See p. 82 n. 2.

10 elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson any attempt to define a ‘central’ tradition. Coming from the perspective of a ‘mainstream’ constructed from authorially organised Artesian manuscripts, C’s approach to the author figure and its lack of notation seem idiosyncratic. These idiosyncrasies, however, do not allow this manuscript to be pigeonholed either as a peripheral and localised Messine product, produced within a closed eastern system, or as a late development of the Artesian tradition, carried out at geographical distance. Rather, this manuscript and the studies of it carried out in this volume force us to re-evaluate the geographical spread of the trouvère tradition and to begin to produce more complex models for the transmission of trouvère songs.

Seven of the essays in this volume were originally presented at ‘MS 389 and its Songs: An Interdisciplinary Workshop’, organised by Dr Henry Hope at the University of Bern in December 2017. The other four essays were commissioned shortly afterwards and offer perspectives on C from a range of angles and disciplines. Mittenhuber (Chapter 1) sets out the archival context for C, detailing the history of C up to its incorporation into the Burgerbibliothek in Bern, and the early attempts to catalogue and document the manuscript. Alongside a summary of the full catalogue entry for C that can be found at e-codices, Mittenhuber also introduces the other two trouvère manuscripts held by the Burgerbibliothek, B and c. Historical information about the local musical community to which C originally related is provided by Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre in her chapter on the trouvères local to Lorraine that are represented in C. As Lévêque-Fougre demonstrates, the Lorraine provenance for some trouvères can be established easily; for others, a Lorraine origin is more difficult to determine. Nevertheless, if we accept that poets such as Gautier d’Espinal and Garnier d’Arches hailed from Lorraine, Lévêque-Fougre argues, C appears to give prominence to these local poets and to celebrate a distinctive Lotharingian musical heritage. Lévêque-Fougre’s chapter interfaces with Luca Gatti’s contribution on the marginal labels in C (Chapter 5). Gatti, like Lévêque-Fougre, pays close attention to the attributions provided by the rubricators. As discussed above, although the rubricators were clearly wrong in some cases – most obviously where a trouvère names himself in a song but the rubricator attributes the song to another poet – there are cases in which the testimony of the C rubricators ought not to be dismissed out of hand, as previous scholars have tended to do. Gatti speculates, as both Leach and Lug do in their chapters, that the rubricators were working from some kind of index or list, and paying little attention to the content of the songs themselves. An art-historical perspective is supplied by Alison Stones (Chapter 4). Supplementing her extensive work on other trouvère sources elsewhere, Stones provides descriptions of the decorations in C and compares the chansonnier to manuscripts in which similar styles of decoration are found. Stones’s findings are crucial for confirming the Messine provenance of C and an approximate date for its decoration, some time in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. This is a more precise dating than can be provided on codicological, palaeographical, or linguistic grounds. Codicology is a key area of debate in this volume, with several scholars peering beneath the alphabetical organisation of the codex to learn about the exemplars from which it was copied. Moreno (Chapter 3) offers a description of the organisation of C, challenging the traditional view (from Schwan) that C and part of I were

introduction 11 copied from the same, single exemplar. Several sources must have been used in the copying of C, since scribes left folios blank, presumably while they waited for other exemplars to arrive; the inclusion of religious songs at the start (and in some cases, at the end) of letter-sections and the contrafacts of Jacques de Cambrai can also not be explained sufficiently by Schwan’s stemmatics. Moreno also, crucially, identifies five scribal hands, one more than she identified in her earlier work on C: the fifth scribal hand belonged to one of the codex’s rubricators, who worked at the very end of the copying process, or possibly some time after it was finished.41 Lug (Chapter 6) and Leach (Chapter 7) present an alternative view to Moreno, arguing that C was copied from small, single-sheet exemplars that were also used in the copying of U (Lug) and I (Leach). Both contributors examine the way that these two chansonniers, closely related to C, are organised: the unusual and inconsistent use of rubrics in C, the replication of the order of small series of songs from one manuscript to another, and even the inclusion, as Lug argues, of a bifolio as a single codicological unit are indications for a set of small exemplars that could be flexibly rearranged to suit the different organisational strategies of U, C, and I. Lug also believes that a set of exemplars for troubadour song were divided between the scriptoria that copied U (and C) and M. The final essays in this volume each offer an account of a different group of songs found in C. The songs of Thibaut de Champagne in C are discussed by O’Sullivan (Chapter 8), who notes that the compilers of C only included (with the exception of two jeux-partis) Thibaut’s love songs in the collection. Thibaut acts, therefore, as an authority on the composition of courtly love songs, a genre on which, O’Sullivan argues, other genres like the jeu-parti and devotional song are partly reliant. Despite Thibaut’s unpopularity in Metz and his subsequent neglect in the other Messine chansonniers, Thibaut has a prominent role in C if one looks beneath the manuscript surface. Callahan (Chapter 9) examines the devotional contrafacts by Jacques de Cambrai, which are often found at the start of letter-sections in C. Little is known of this trouvère, but he was clearly an important figure for the compilers of C, and his name features in most of the chapters of this volume. Jacques may have even composed his contrafacts especially for C, as Leach suggests in her chapter. Callahan invites us to join him in ‘a subtle exercise in intertextual listening’ (p. 160), charting the various ways in which Jacques adapts the formal and semantic properties of his models to craft new devotional lyrics. Mason’s chapter (Chapter 10) on the jeux-partis and other debate songs of C compares this corpus to the wider repertory of trouvère debate songs. The collection is unusual in its higher-than-average proportion of female interlocutors, the way that debate songs are described in marginal labels, the early date of composition for some of the songs (if the marginal labels are to be believed), and the high number 41 On linguistic grounds, von Seydlitz-Kurzbach states that the later marginal labels must

have been added ‘significantly later’ than the song texts in C, no earlier than the second half of the fourteenth century: Hans von Seydlitz-Kurzbach, Die Sprache der altfranzösischen Liederhandschrift Nr. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern (Halle, 1898), p. 86. More recently, some scholars replicate von Seydlitz-Kurzbach’s assertion without question; others are more circumspect about the date of the marginal labels.

12 elizabeth eva leach, joseph w. mason, and matthew p. thomson of jeux-partis in C that are contrafacts of other trouvère songs. Mason analyses one contrafact network in detail, a love song in C by Raoul de Soissons (RS 2063) whose melody was used by Thibaut de Champagne for a jeu-parti not copied in C (RS 1666). In the final essay, Matthew P. Thomson (Chapter 11) examines the sole example of a motet in C, though strictly speaking, the work in question is a song that has been derived from a motet voice. Thomson outlines the complicated compositional history of this song, which was first a motet, then enlarged (and stripped of its tenor) to become a multi-stanza grand chant, and later adapted again when it was copied into C. The version of the song in C is, according to Thomson, an example of two common interests of C’s scribes: debate poetry and the strategic use of contrafacture. Several common themes emerge from this final group of essays. All of the contributors explore the interesting, innovative, or unusual approaches taken by the composers and scribes of songs in C, especially in the reworking of earlier material, whether that be the transformation of a motet into a song, or a love song into another genre. The readings of songs found in C often differ from those found in other manuscripts, a factor that has contributed to the relative neglect of C in the secondary literature, and a general mistrust towards its accuracy and reliability as a witness. The contributors throughout the volume invite a more sympathetic approach to the contents of C, preferring to view C’s idiosyncracies as interesting phenomena in their own right, rather than as errors and corruptions to be dismissed out of hand. C continues to provoke disagreement, as can be seen in the different authors’ views of the genres that the compilers of C valued most highly. All agree that devotional songs, which open every letter-section, are privileged above the other genres; the relative worth of grands chants, jeux-partis, and pastourelles is less easy to determine. O’Sullivan argues for the primacy of grand chant, whereas Mason highlights the unusual prominence given to jeux-partis; Leach argues that there is no clear organisation according to genre within each letter-section of the codex. O’Sullivan and Mason both agree that Thibaut de Champagne would have been an important and recognisable poet-composer to Messine audiences; O’Sullivan believes that C valorises Thibaut, while Mason discerns a more cynical attitude towards this famous trouvère. Ultimately, there is still much to learn and discover about this fascinating and voluminous source of trouvère lyric.

Chapter 1

The Trouvère Manuscripts of the Burgerbibliothek Bern Florian Mittenhuber, translated by Henry Hope

T

he Burgerbibliothek in Bern is home to the internationally acclaimed book collection of the French scholar and diplomat Jacques Bongars (1554–1612).1 The collection, considered by Bongars’s contemporaries to be one of Europe’s most important private libraries, now forms the Bongarsiana department at the Burgerbibliothek. Bongars did not have any children and bequeathed the library to Jakob Graviseth (1598–1658), son of the Strasbourg banker and jeweller, Reinhard Graviseth (1560–1633). In 1624, Jakob Graviseth married Salome von Erlach (1604– 36), the daughter of the mayor (Schultheiss) of Bern. Graviseth’s books thus made their way to the city of Bern via Basel in 1632, where their acquisition doubled the holdings of the old Bernese library.2 The collection’s exceptional significance is apparent, first and foremost, in the age and quality of its manuscripts, which reflect the main areas of Bongars’s interests: Roman antiquity, history, and grammar. Many of the manuscripts from these subject areas date to the Carolingian period, and several number among the oldest and most important extant textual witnesses of a given work or author. Bongars also maintained a keen interest in the history of France and of the crusades, a passion that explains the large number of prominent manuscripts on this subject, both in Latin and in French.3 Of slightly lesser prominence is the group of manuscripts that contain French poetry and music, even though these, too, include some exceptional items, such as the famous fabliaux codex (Cod. 354) and the manuscript known as C (Cod. 389), which constitutes the focus of the present volume.4 Since e-codices, Switzerland’s online database of manuscripts, not only hosts a full set of digital images for C, but also proffers a detailed description of its codicological features and contents, the present contribution restricts its codicological 1

On Bongars and his book collection, see Burgerbibliothek Bern (ed.), Jacques Bongars: Humanist, Diplomat, Büchersammler, Passepartout, 6 (Bern, 2012), pp. 9–21. 2 On the historical background of this donation, see Claudia Engler, ‘Arte e marte: Franz Ludwig von Erlach und die Bongarsiana’, in André Holenstein (ed.), Im Auge des Hurrikans: Eidgenössische Machteliten und der Dreissigjährige Krieg, Berner Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 77:3 (Bern, 2015), pp. 34–50. 3 The French manuscripts constitute in general approximately 10–15% of the entire collection. 4 Images of Cod. 354 can be found at ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 354: Composite Manuscript: Dits et fabliaux, Sept sages de Rome, Perceval, French’ (2015) [accessed 7 August 2020].

14

florian mittenhuber, translated by henry hope

observations to the most essential information, and focuses, instead, on the manuscript’s later history of ownership and reception.5 The chapter’s second part introduces two further, less familiar fragments of trouvère manuscripts, which form part of the Bongarsiana collection and are likewise available on e-codices: B (Cod. 231) and c (Cod. A 95.1).6

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389: French chansonnier C The manuscript contains 520 trouvère songs, anonymous texts as well as those by several named authors; these span a range of genres (devotional songs, jeux-partis, pastourelles, and other songs) and include religious texts as well as numerous unica. Ordered alphabetically, the songs are furnished with empty music staves of five lines (occasionally four) above the first stanza of each text. Parchment; 249 leaves; 23 x 16 cm; France, c. 1290–1300. Modern foliation: 1–249; additional earlier foliation dating to the time of compilation, Roman numerals I– VIXX (in two consecutive series: fols 1–114 and 115–213) and I–XXXVI (fols 214–49). Gatherings generally quaternions; empty leaves between letter-sections B/C, C/D, E/F, G/H, H/I, I/K, O/P have been cut. Gatherings are numbered I–XXXII at the bottom of concluding verso-pages; the first half of each gathering is numbered with horizontal lines and/or lower-case letters (in red), placed in the bottom right-hand corner of recto-pages, some of which have been cut. Single-column layout, textblock 16 x 11.5 cm, twenty-eight lines (staves take up two text-lines each); ruled with a fine pen, pricking at the outer margins. Script: Gothic textualis (textualis formata), written by approximately five scribes: a) provided the majority of text; b) and c) made at least four additions (fols 62v–63r, 193r–v, 82v–83r), likely half a century after the completion of the manuscript corpus, and d) provided the black rubrics placed in the margins; e) possibly made the addition on fols 216v–217r.7 The rich decoration with red and blue flourished initials (fleuronée) of three different sizes, with filigree-work added in complementary colours to larger initials, is entirely typical of contemporary taste and follows a careful hierarchy: each letter-section begins with a large bichrome initial, and the facing folios feature parchment tabs as finding aids, though some of these are now lost. The initial at the beginning of each new song spans three text-lines and includes filigree-work in a complementary colour; initials for individual stanzas (after the first stanza) fit within a single line and have no pen flourishing. 5 Images of C may be found at ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek Cod. 389: Chansonnier français:

Trouvère C’ (2017) [accessed 7 August 2020]. 6 Images of B may be found at ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231: Fragment of a Chansonnier’ (2018) [accessed 7 August 2020]; images of c may be found at ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95.1: Fragment of a chansonnier: Trouvère c’ (2018) [accessed 7 August 2020]. 7 This scribal designation is similar to, but not identical with, that outlined by Paola Moreno in her contribution to the current volume (Chapter 3). See p. 49.



the trouvère manuscripts of the burgerbibliothek bern 15

The manuscript’s provenance is not entirely certain, as there are no marks of ownership; sadly, the few entries in later hands (fourteenth and fifteenth century) offer no indication of the original provenance. The linguistic idiom suggests Lorraine (Metz?) as a provenance. This observation can be supported by the attested ownership of Jacques Bongars, who – likely during his time as a diplomat in Strasbourg – acquired several manuscripts from the Messine region. Even though Bongars’s name is not found in the manuscript, the codex is mentioned in the handwritten catalogue by Samuel Hortin (1589–1652): the Clavis bibliothecae Bongarsianae MDCXXXIIII; Bern 1634. On p. 74, the catalogue contains the entry: [shelfmark] IX. 20. Chansons fort antiques avec lignes de Musique sans notes. 4°.8 When the Bongarsiana were merged with the collections of the former Bernese library sixty years later, Bern’s then head librarian (Oberbibliothekar), Marquard Wild (1661–1747), prepared another handwritten catalogue, the Catalogus Librorum Bibliothecae Civicae Bernensis MDCIIIC; Bern 1697. This two-volume catalogue is the first to mention the shelfmarks that remain in use today: 389. Chansons en vers françois du vieux style et lignes de musique sans notes. f[olio].9 A third handwritten catalogue was prepared by Samuel Engel (1702–84), Manuscripta A[nno] 1740. Bern 1740, which contains the entry: 389. Chansons fort antiques avec lignes de musique sans notes. Secul. 15° [!], m[embranaceus].10 Johann Rudolf Sinner (1730–87) was responsible for the first printed catalogue of the Bongarsiana, which was published two decades later, the Catalogus codicum mss. bibliothecae Bernensis (3 vols, Bern, 1760–72); its third volume (published in 1772) offers the first printed excerpts of C.11 Sinner had already studied the French manuscripts among the Bongarsiana in much detail at an earlier time and remained in close contact with French scholars.12 As attested by Jean-Baptiste de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye’s (1697–1781) autograph note, which is now affixed as a paste-down to the front cover of C, the manuscript had left the library on a lending agreement in 1769/1770: Ce manuscrit in 4° contenant un recueil des plus anciennes chansons françoises appartient à la Bibliothèque publique de Berne. Il m’a été confié pour un an, c’est à dire pour le rendre aux environs du mois de May 1770, et doit être renvoyé dans 8 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 4, p. 74 (IX. 20. Very old songs with musical staves

9

10 11 12

without notes. Quarto.). The catalogue was prepared between 1632 and 1634, after the collection had arrived in Bern; it contains the manuscripts and prints of the Bongarsiana only. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 5, fol. 49r (389. Songs in French verse of an old style and musical staves without notes. In folio). Sadly, almost all of the original bindings were replaced by light parchment bindings for aesthetic reasons in the course of this reorganisation. This decision is particularly vexing to modern scholars, since the previous binding of C possibly contained information about its provenance. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS h. h. III. 110, fol. 19v (389. Very old songs with musical staves without notes. 15th century [!], on parchment). The excerpts appear on pp. 365–75 of the catalogue. A selection of texts is printed in Jean Rodolphe Sinner, Extraits de quelques poësies du XII., XIII. et XIV. siècle (Lausanne, 1759).

16

florian mittenhuber, translated by henry hope ce terme à Monsieur Sinner de Balaigues, bibliothécaire, en retirant le recepissé que j’en ai donné, St Palaye.13

Sainte-Palaye commissioned a copy of the manuscript, and this copy later came into the holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (fonds Moreau 1687–8) with the library of Georges-Jean Mouchet (1737–1807). This first period of interest in C was the prelude to a more intensive engagement with the manuscript that reached a first highpoint in the nineteenth century and continues to the present day.

In addition to the famous and complete songbook that is C, the Burgerbibliothek in Bern houses two further trouvère manuscripts, both of which have survived in fragmentary form: B (Cod. 231) and c (Cod. A 95.1). The preparation of these fragments for their digital presentation on e-codices revealed some new insights which are offered in brief below.

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231: French chansonnier B This is a fragment of a French trouvère manuscript which, in all likelihood, once belonged to the same codex as the two gatherings of the membrum disiectum in L, fols 48–63.14 The fragment contains twenty chansons (including devotional songs, pastourelles, and crusade songs), among them fourteen songs by Thibaut de Champagne; all texts are attested by concordances, although some are ascribed to different authors elsewhere. Fourteen of the songs (nos 2–7, 9–11, 13–14, 16–17, 19) are furnished with square notation on red five-line staves. Parchment; eight leaves; 30 x 22 cm; France, late-thirteenth/early-fourteenth century. Modern foliation (nineteenth century): 1–8. Single gathering (quaternion); the bottom margin of fol. 8v has remains of a cut gathering number, Roman numeral II (?), as well as of a catchword.15 Single-column layout, text block c. 26 x 15 cm, forty-three to forty-seven lines (including the music staves, which span three text-lines each); ruling likely to be lead, almost invisible, pricking at the corners of the text block (very similar to L). Single text scribe, gothic textualis. Each new song opens with a red or blue initial that spans two to three text-lines, with simple filigree-work in a complementary colour; initials for individual stanzas are a single-line high, alternating between red and blue, without decoration. 13 ‘This manuscript in quarto, containing a collection of the oldest French songs, belongs

to the public library of Bern. It has been entrusted to me for a year, that is to say to give it back around the month of May 1770, and must be sent back at this date to M. Sinner de Balaigues, librarian, taking back the receipt I have given him, St Palaye’. 14 Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Français 765’ (2012) [accessed 13 August 2020]. On L, see Maria Carla Battelli, ‘Due canzonieri, un solo manoscritto? A proposito di Paris, BnF, fr. 765 (canzoniere L) e Bern, Burgerbibliothek 231 (canzoniere B)’, Critica del Testo, 7:3 (2004), pp. 981–1044. 15 It has been suggested that B constituted gathering 10 of the original manuscript; the content, however, would appear to fit more easily in the position of gathering 2 (the gathering numbers I and II in the Paris membrum disiectum are possibly more recent and would thus not contradict this possibility).



the trouvère manuscripts of the burgerbibliothek bern 17

B also lacks any marks of ownership that may offer clues to its provenance; linguistic traits tentatively suggest a northern French origin (as in L). In contrast to C, B and L include many marginal annotations; these are likely (in the case of B) or certainly (in the case of L) by Claude Fauchet (1530–1602).16 Claude Fauchet is a familiar figure to scholars of the Bongarsiana, since a number of the collection’s manuscripts on the history of France and of the crusades include his ex libris; these items came into the possession of Jacques Bongars either shortly before or shortly after Fauchet’s death.17 Although B does not contain an ex libris by Bongars and – like most fragments – is not listed in the catalogue by Samuel Hortin, it seems likely that it did come from this collection and made its way to Bern as part of Jakob Graviseth’s bequest in 1632. The fragment is not attested in Bern with certainty before the 1697 catalogue by Marquard Wild (fol. 48v), though it is listed under a different shelfmark here: 233. Liber gallicus musicus. f[olio].18 Half a century later, the catalogue of Samuel Engel (fol. 62r) lists the fragment under its current shelfmark: 231. Musica, Liber musicus, gallice. Secul. 15° [!], m[embranaceus].19 The printed catalogue by Johann Rudolf Sinner omits B, although the fragment is discussed in the Extraits published in Lausanne in 1759.20 The copy that was commissioned by SaintePalaye and came into the holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (fonds Moreau 1688, fols 271–90) with the library of Mouchet is also likely to have been made possible through contact with Sinner.

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95. 1: French chansonnier c and Jean Acart de Hesdin’s Prise amoureuse This is a fragment of an extensive manuscript that once offered a rich collection of poetry alongside trouvère repertory. In its extant form, the fragment contains eighteen jeux-partis (seventeen of which include Jehan Bretel as a combatant) as well as a section of Jean Acart de Hesdin’s Prise amoureuse; all but one of the chansons have concordances. All songs are transmitted without notation. Paper, 2°; 4 sheets; 27.5 x 20 cm; France, c. 1370–80. The dating is based on the watermark, identified here for the first time, which shows two tulip-shaped flowers arranged into a V-shape and enclosing a cross (Briquet, no. 6678: watermark attested in Paris 1371). Modern foliation (twentieth century): 1–4; original foliation in top margin, IIIIXX VII–IIIIXX IX (=87–89); CVI (=106). Four individual sheets, heavily damaged: two larger pieces torn away at the bottom margin; no gathering numbers (or catchwords). Two-column layout; text block, fols 1–3: 22–22.5 x 15 (7) 16 See Maria Carla Battelli, ‘Due canzonieri’, pp. 1012–20. 17 For Fauchet’s ex libris, see, for instance, Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 163 (William of

Tyre, Chroniques), Cod. 208 (Guilelmus Gemeticensis, Gesta Normannorum ducum), Cod. 309 (Historia sive gesta Andegavorum), Cod. 340 (Bernard le Trésorier, Chroniques). 18 (233. Book of French music. In folio.). Today’s Cod. 233, a ninth-century Physiologus, is listed as Cod. 231 in Wild’s catalogue (fol. 54r). On the catalogues by Wild and Engel, see above, nn. 9 and 10. 19 Music, book of music, French, fifteenth century [!], parchment. 20 See above, n. 12.

18

florian mittenhuber, translated by henry hope

cm; fol. 4: 21 x 13–13.5 (6) cm; 37–9 lines per side; dry-point ruling, no visible pricking. Script: gothic textualis; likely two scribes (scribe 1: fols 1–3 = formerly 87–9; scribe 2: fol. 4 = formerly 106). The songs (and text sections) open with red and blue initials that span two to three lines of text, with simple filigree-work in complementary colours; fol. 4 (= formerly 106) arranges its text by poetic line. The provenance of c needs to be deduced from contextual evidence, since it is not mentioned in the handwritten catalogues by Hortin 1634, Wild 1697, and Engel 1740, nor in Sinner’s printed catalogue 1760–72. The fragment belongs to a group of ten French fragments that, today, are kept together in a single archive box (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95). This group, in turn, forms part of a larger collection of approximately 150 fragments (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. AA 90, A 91–94, C–F 219); these were not grouped together until 1854, and were first discussed in the 1875 printed catalogue by Hermann Hagen.21 While B was already known in the eighteenth century – Sainte Palaye had its texts copied out alongside those of C – the fragmentary c was not discovered until the mid-nineteenth century.22 The study of its contents was similarly delayed: B and C were described in detail and edited in the 1860s, work that was not undertaken in the case of c until 1919.23 Important studies on B and C have continued to be published in recent years; c, in contrast, was not studied in any detail until it was prepared for digitisation with e-codices in 2018.24

This brief tour d’horizon demonstrates that many interesting and important finds can be made, even in the present day, if one is guided by questions of materiality and bibliographic history rather than by purely content-oriented and art-historical considerations. As ever more manuscripts and fragments become available in 21 Hermann Hagen, Catalogus Codicum Bernensium (Bern, 1875), pp. 144–5. The fragments

are first mentioned in a handwritten list prepared by the librarian Karl Ludwig von Steiger (1813–77); this list is attached as a Nachtrag zum Handschriften-Catalog von J. R. Sinner, Bern 1760–1772 […] vom 16. Wintermonat 1854 to the copy of Sinner’s catalogue (volume 3) that is available in the Bongarsiana collection. Manuscript c, however, is not included in this list. 22 See above, pp. 16 and 17. 23 On C, see Wilhelm Wackernagel, Altfranzösische Lieder und Leiche aus Handschriften zu Bern und Neuenburg: Mit grammatischen und litterarhistorischen Abhandlungen (Basel, 1846) and Julius Brakelmann (ed.), ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift Nro. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 41 (1867), pp. 339–76; 42 (1868), pp. 73–82, 241–392; 43 (1868), pp. 241–394. On B, see Alfred Rochat, ‘Die Liederhandschrift 231 der Berner Bibliothek’, Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Literatur, 10 (1869), pp. 73–113, at pp. 75–108. On c, see Giulio Bertoni, ‘Le Tenzoni del frammento francese di Berna A 95’, Archivum romanicum, 3 (1919), pp. 42–61. 24 On C, see Richard Allen Schutz, ‘The unedited poems of codex 389 of the Municipal Library of Berne, Switzerland’, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976); Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999); Nicolaas Unlandt,  Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011). On B, see Battelli, ‘Due canzonieri’.



the trouvère manuscripts of the burgerbibliothek bern 19

digital form and can thus be compared with each other irrespective of their diverse locations, a host of possibilities offer themselves to us that were not available to our predecessors. One needs to remember, however, that many earlier discoveries and notes were never published or made available digitally, which makes ‘on-location’ enquiry at sources’ various institutions – as well as examination of the originals in person – of vital ongoing importance.

Chapter 2

The Lorraine Repertoire of C Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre

M

anuscript C, along with chansonniers I and U, is one of the main sources of lyric works from Lorraine dating from the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries.1 Without C, many of the names of trouvères from Lorraine, along with certain songs, particularly the unica in this manuscript, would be completely unknown today. In many ways, C gives quite a faithful representation of the lyric production of Lorraine. Firstly, almost all of the names of the trouvères that are identified as being from Lorraine appear in this manuscript: the Duchesse de Lorraine, Aubertin des Arvols, Anchise de Moivrons, Jean le Taboureur de Metz, Gautier d’Espinal, Garnier d’Arches, and Simars de Boncourt. Only Jacques d’Epinal and the Comte de Bar are missing.2 Secondly, it contains most of the songs that have been attributed to the trouvères thus far identified as having come from this region, and thirdly, it reveals their favourite genres: grand chant and devotional songs. This chapter focuses exclusively on the songs in C that are attributed to trouvères identified as being from Lorraine, with questionable identifications and attributions being addressed as required. Details of these songs are presented in the appendix to this chapter. Studying the repertoire of the Lorraine trouvères through their works in C involves two major difficulties. The first is the identification of the trouvères’ names, which were added by a rubricator after the songs were copied.3 For the purposes of this chapter it is important to determine if the names refer to writers known for certain to be from 1

The Lorraine region of France is made up of four departments: Meuse, Meurthe-etMoselle, Moselle, and Vosges. I will use the toponym in this sense, according to the geographical indications given in Michel Parisse, Noblesse et chevalerie en Lorraine médiévale: les familles nobles du XIe au XIIIe siècle (Nancy, 1982), p. 14. 2 C does not contain the only song attributed to Lorraine trouvère Jacques d’Epinal (whose existence is still debated today), Au comencier de ma nouvele amour (RS 1960), although it is present in another Lorraine manuscript, U (fols 102v–103r). Manuscript M contains a historical song attributed to ‘li quens de Bar’, who has been identified with Thibaut II de Bar, Count of Bar from 1239 until his death in 1291. On the identification of this trouvère, see Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”: poétique et milieu sociolittéraire des trouvères lorrains du XIIIe au début du XIVe siècle’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols, Sorbonne, 2015), vol. 1, pp. 127–30. 3 Within the same family, many nobles had identical names, and titles alone can be opaque. According to Marie-Claire Gérard-Zai, Les Chansons courtoises de Chrétien de Troyes: édition critique avec introduction, notes et commentaire, Europäische Hochschulschriften, series 13, Französische Sprache und Literatur, 27 (Bern, 1974), p. 22, C’s rubrics must date from the second half of the fourteenth century, or even later; many scholars consider them to be unreliable. Since they were added quite early to the texts, other scholars consider



the lorraine repertory of c 21

Lorraine. The second difficulty concerns the accuracy of the authorial attributions, which is directly linked to these same rubrics. This chapter will thus aim to delimit the Lorraine repertoire in C in order to understand the place given to it in this manuscript. Specifically, I will show that the Lorraine origins of the manuscript privileged the Lorraine repertoire, an indication that people from the region were interested in their own heritage. From this perspective, I will simultaneously consider the geographic origins of the trouvères named by the rubricator of C and whether or not these names, which sometimes appear only in this manuscript, are legitimate, since the existence of these writers and the works attributed to them have often been called into question. This approach will allow identification of the Lorraine repertoire, ultimately demonstrating its variety, as well as understanding the role it plays in C. Scribes often manipulated lyrics – whether inadvertently, because they lacked knowledge, or because they had a literary conscience – often attributing or reattributing certain songs to different authors, depending on the manuscript. The specific status of Lorraine trouvères aggravates this tendency. These poets, who were writing in Imperial territory, were generally less well known, less prolific (in terms of the number of songs attributed to them today), and more spread out in comparison to their counterparts in Champagne or Arras. For these reasons scribes often preferred to attribute works to authors with more evocative names. One may of course recognise the authorship of a text because it is written ‘in the style of’ a certain author, but when some doubt exists as to authorship, certain poets have had a better chance of being accepted. For example, as discussed further below, modern scholars replace Anchise de Moivrons, an obscure poet from Lorraine who probably lived near Metz, with the famous author Colin Muset, even though not a single manuscript attributes the song Hideusement va li mons empirant (RS 340) to him (see appendix). There is also the case of Garnier d’Arches, whose poetic talent C seems to pay tribute to with the rubric ‘Guernier’ or ‘Gerniers d’Airches’ (see appendix), although modern scholars have preferred to identify him with Gautier de Dargies, a Picard poet who left behind a much larger body of lyrical work. While some Lorraine poets are well attested and duly credited with the authorship of their songs, the legitimacy of others is contested. Lorraine poets rarely named themselves in their poems and thus problematic attributions are common, often linked to the uncertain origins of some of these trouvères. Throughout the Lorraine corpus, varying degrees of legitimacy are given to these trouvères and their writings. Furthermore, scholars sometimes question the fact that they came from Lorraine or even existed at all.

Easily legitimated: Jean le Taboureur, Gautier d’Espinal, and Simars de Boncourt Only a few Lorraine trouvères have been able to gain legitimacy in the eyes of modern readers. Some are undoubtedly favoured by the manuscript tradition: the them to be legitimate, with the scribes relying on a source that indicated authorship. See Chapter 5 of the present volume.

22

mélanie lévêque-fougre

love song Chans ne chançons ne riens qui soit en vie (RS 1220) can be found in two Lorraine manuscripts (U, fols 126v–127r and C, fol. 40v) and the latter collection attributes the song to a certain ‘Jehans li Taboreires de Mès’. Since no other manuscript contests this attribution, there is no reason to reject it. In addition, the reference to the town of Metz here leaves no doubt as to the origin of this author, and the Lorraine provenance of C confirms this observation. ‘Jehans li Taboreires de Mès’ can almost certainly be identified as ‘Jennat li Taboureires’, who lived in Metz at the same time as Aubertin Arvols, another Lorraine trouvère (see below), in the same neighbourhood, Port-Sailly.4 Jehan’s full name indicates he was either a musician or a small merchant who made drums. Even though many merchants lived in PortSailly, the song this poet left behind suggests he was more of a musician. Other trouvères owe the legitimacy of their authorship to their ‘signature’: their self-naming within the text of their songs. Two of the Lorraine authors here name themselves in their writings: Gautier d’Espinal and Simars de Boncourt. This clue does not erase all ambiguity as to the attribution of these texts, however. If a simple ‘Gautier’ (RS 728, fols 232v–233r) or ‘Simonin’ (RS 812, fols 32r–v) within the song is not sufficient to identify its author, the rubrics confirm the full names, allowing identification of Gautier d’Espinal and Simars de Boncourt (see appendix). Nonetheless, Holger Petersen Dyggve considers that the name ‘Gautier’ mentioned in the envoi of Tout esforciés avrai chanté souvent (RS 728) refers not to the author but to the addressee of the song, Gautier de Prény.5 However, the two first lines of the envoi are syntactically independent: the poet first addresses his song to his addressee, then returns to his own lot in the last five lines of the poem: A Priney iras avant, Chancons, la droite voie. Gautier, cui desire tant Pris et honors et joie Desonors li va doublant Seulement: Car a moi s’outroie!

To Prény you will go Straight away, song. Gautier, who so desires Rewards and honours and joy, Only finds dishonour Pursuing him: So let her give herself to me!

(RS 728, ll. 45–51) I read the name Gautier as corresponding to the personal pronoun ‘moi’ in the last line, agreeing with Germana Schiassi that this is indeed the signature of the trouvère and that only the place name ‘Priney’ (line 45), placed at the beginning of the envoi, designates the Lord of Prény.6 Schiassi reads the verb ‘s’outroie’ as a 4 For the biography of Jean le Taboureur, see Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la

Lorraine”’, vol. 1, pp. 143–4.

5 Holger Petersen Dyggve, Onomastique des trouvères, Suomalainen tiedeakatemia,

Helsingfors: Toimituksia: Annales, series B, 30:1 (Helsinki, 1934), p. 109.

6 Germana Schiassi, ‘Edizione critica e commento delle liriche di Gautier d’Epinal /

Gautier d’Epinal: édition critique et commentaire’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Università di Bologna and Université de Paris IV, 2004), p. xxxii.



the lorraine repertory of c 23

subjunctive of exhortation and ‘car’ as an adverb that insists on the urgent nature of the injunction, in the sense of the modern French word ‘donc’.7 The last line may thus be translated into modern French as: ‘Qu’elle se donne donc à moi!’ and could not possibly refer to the Lord of Prény. It is unimaginable that this noble lord, probably the patron and friend of Gautier d’Espinal, could be desperately looking for rewards and honour yet receive only dishonour, and unlikely that Gautier would have been able to address such words to his noble recipient. The mention of the town Epinal in the rubric therefore indicates that this Gautier belonged without a doubt to the circle of Lorraine poets, and the quantity of his poetic output automatically gives Gautier d’Espinal a kind of legitimacy. 8 Simars de Boncourt’s case is more problematic, since there is a debate over his origins and he is not mentioned in any work of literary history. According to Arthur Dinaux, the commune of Boncourt where the trouvère Simars lived probably belonged to the old bailiwick of Lillers, in the present canton of Fauquembergues (Pas-de-Calais), near Fruges, in the district of Boulogne.9 For this identification, Dinaux relied on the work of Sinner, a Bernese librarian, who, in 1759, published excerpts of some poetry from the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries in which he revealed the name Simaïs de Boncourt, one of several trouvères from Flanders and the Cambrai area.10 It would be surprising for the only manuscript to contain this ‘artesian’ trouvère to be the Lorraine manuscript C, which leads me to prefer Michel Parisse’s hypothesis that this trouvère was instead from Lorraine, attached to the lordship of Boncourt in the Woëvre (Meuse).11 Two grands chants are attributed to ‘Simairs de Boncort’ in C: Au dous tens d’esté (RS 445, fol. 6r) and Bone amour me fait chanter / En un (RS 812, fols 32r–v); the rubricator’s attribution as well as lexical and structural similarities between the pieces lead me to believe they are by the same author.12 First, each poem opens with a reverdie. Simars constructs his openings with a binary movement inspired by the topos of springtime renewal, which brings up feelings of suffering for the trouvère (see Table 2.1). Along with this thematic parallel there is a similarity in rhyme selection. The first four rhymes echo the sweet sound of nature waking up, especially with the 7 Ibid., p. 12. 8 On the identification of Gautier d’Espinal see Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la

9 10 11 12

Lorraine”’, vol. 1, pp. 133–7. Sixteen songs are attributed to Gautier d’Espinal by the scribe who wrote the rubrics in C; see the appendix, below, which draws on arguments in ibid., vol. 1, pp. 52–61. Arthur Dinaux, Trouvères, jongleurs et ménestrels du nord de la France et du midi de la Belgique, vol. 3, Les Trouvères artésiens (Paris, 1837–63; repr. Genève, 1969), p. 439. Ibid., pp. 439–40. Parisse, Noblesse et chevalerie, pp. 149, 460. For the biography of Simars de Boncourt, see Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol.1, pp. 137–8. I use the name Simars, which appears in the rubric of C. In RS 812, however, the poet names himself as ‘Simonin’ (line 27), which also confirms the authenticity of this song. Michel Parisse, ‘La Noblesse lorraine et la littérature romanesque au XIIIe siècle’, Perspectives médiévales, 14 (1988), pp. 101–6, at p. 102 also uses the name Simonin because the identification he proposes for this trouvère relies on a charter in which this name appears.

lines 1–8 Bone amor me fait chanteir

In the sweet summertime

When I see

Flowers and woods

And fields become green again

Then I am very pensive,

Pensive to a fault,

For the one I desire so much.

lines 1–7 A dous tens d’esteit,

Ke je vois

Flors et boix

Et prés reverdir

Lors sui très pensis,

En error pensis,

Pour celi cai je tant désir.

lines 25–32 Consoille li,

On the contrary, I will serve

So well that it will be a sin

If I don’t get anything in return.

lines 19–23

Ains servirai

Tant ke péchiés serait,

Se je n’ai merci.

S’airme serait dampneie.

c’elle muert ensi,

[...]

Her soul will be damned.

If she dies in this way,

Give her this advice:

From the pain that I feel.

[...]

Until death

Keil poine ke j’en aie.

Without regret,

Then I am all enraptured by love

Above the hedges,

When I hear these birds sing

At a time that comes again

True love makes me sing

Jusc’a morir

Sens repentir,

Lors seux trestous d’amors enpris,

Par desor ces boscaiges,

Quant j’oï ces oxels chanteir

En .i. tens ke repairet,

RS 812

RS 445

Table 2.1: Lexical and structural similarities in Au dous tens d’esté (RS 445) and Bone Amour me fait chanter / En un (RS 812)



the lorraine repertory of c 25

vocalic sound ‘-ei’ of the first rhyme (in Lorraine, ‘-ei’ rhymes with ‘-er’). In contrast, the vocalic sound ‘-i-’ of the following three rhymes reflects the keen suffering of the poet. Even more striking is the repetition of the expression ‘belle et bone’ in the same position in both songs, where it begins the second stanza (in Bone amour me fait chanter, a variant of it, ‘Belle et blonde’, is repeated once again at the beginning of the third stanza). While these phrases are formulaic, their identical position in the songs is noteworthy. Finally, with the words ‘péchiés’ and ‘dampneie’, a religious vocabulary intrudes in these love poems, each playing a significant role in the last two lines. Very similar in meaning, these concluding lines seem to clarify one another: in God’s eyes, the lady would be making an unforgiveable mistake if she didn’t give to the poet the gift of her merci. In my opinion, these multiple parallels leave little doubt as to the shared authorship of these two pieces. In addition, since these two songs are unica, their attribution may be considered to be authentic.

Aubertin des Arvols, from Picardie or Lorraine? As is the case for Simars de Boncourt, no one disputes the attribution of two songs to Aubertin des Arvols (the unica RS 514 and RS 1119), but the origins of this poet are contested. Remembrance qui m’est ou cuer entree (RS 514, fols 216v–217r) and Fois, loiautés, solas et courtoisie (RS 1119, fols 82v–83r) are both unica in C, attributed to an author that the rubrics of the manuscript identify as ‘Aubertins des Arenos’ or ‘Arevos’ (fol. 82v), or ‘Aubertins de Arenas’ or ‘Arevas’ (fol. 216v).13 These variants led to various interpretations, and the name ‘Aubertin des Araines’ was eventually adopted.14 Since Airaines is a commune in the Somme, situated in the district of Amiens, Aubertin was considered to be a Picard. Some linguistic aspects of Aubertin’s Remembrance qui m’est ou cuer entree (RS 514) have been adduced in support of the poet’s origins in Picardy. But while RS 514 does contain Picard dialectical traits (the forms ‘mi’ in lines 3 and 17 for ‘me’/‘moi’, and ‘vos’ in line 38 for ‘vostre’), Lorraine traits also abound, although they might reflect where C was copied.15 Ultimately, because both Lorraine and Picard trouvères may have composed in a literary scripta common to both regions, it seems unwise to determine a poet’s origins based uniquely on a few dialectical variants. Alfred Jeanroy and Arthur Långfors agree that the linguistic forms that can be said to belong to the dialect of an author are essentially those that appear at the rhyme, since 13 ‘Aubertins des Arenos’ is the reading of Gaston Raynaud, Bibliographie des chansonniers

français des XIIIe et XIVe siècles (2 vols, Paris, 1894), vol. 1, p. 15, and Dyggve, Onomastique des trouvères, p. 41. Alfred Jeanroy and Arthur Långfors (eds), Chansons satiriques et bachiques du XIIIe siècle, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 23 (Paris, 1921), p. 89 read ‘Aubertins dez Arenos’. ‘Arevos’ is the reading of Jean Schneider in ‘Un Poète messin du XIIIe siècle: Aubertin des Arvols’, Nos Traditions: Cahiers de la Société du folklore et d’ethnographie de la Moselle (new series), 1:5 (1949), pp. 97–100, at p. 98. 14 See, for example, Hans Spanke, G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes, Musicologica, 1 (Leiden, 1955), pp. 21, 98, 168; and Jeanroy and Långfors, Chansons satiriques, p. 89. 15 Samuel N. Rosenberg, Hans Tischler, and Marie-Geneviève Grossel (eds), Chansons des trouvères: chanter m’estuet, Lettres gothiques (Paris, 1995), p. 1080.

26

mélanie lévêque-fougre

these are the ones that are the least modifiable.16 RS 514 does indeed contain a variant that is characteristic of Lorraine and which appears at the rhyme: the masculine rhyme repeated in each couplet retains the diphthongisation of the tonic a (and e) of the infinitive for verbs of the first conjugation, which in Latin end in ‘-´ā re’, noting it as ‘-ei’ (for example ‘troveir’ line 9, ‘peseir’ line 12, and ‘sormonteir’ line 23). This diphthongisation is the most significant characteristic of Lorraine vocalism. Besides the linguistic argument, Samuel N. Rosenberg, Hans Tischler, and MarieGeneviève Grossel highlight the compositional similarities between Aubertin’s song (RS 514) and Adam de la Halle’s (RS 500), which they consider to be related by contrafacture.17 However, this argument does not take into account Aubertin’s other song, Fois, loiautés, solas et courtoisie (RS 1119), which has just as many similarities with a poem by Jean le Taboureur, a trouvère from Metz.18 According to Jean Schneider: ‘if we admit the vitality of Metz as a literary centre, we might look for this Aubertin among Taboureur’s contemporaries in Metz’.19 The fact that C is from Metz also encourages this idea. There is no question that Adam de la Halle inspired many contrafacta, but a link between Aubertin and a trouvère from Metz who only left us a single song is more unusual and all the more significant, strongly suggesting that Aubertin was probably Messine and not Picard. While the spellings, ‘Arenos’, ‘Arenas’, and, to a lesser extent, ‘Marenos’, suggest a Picard origin on account of their similarity with the name Airaines, the readings ‘Arevos’, ‘Arevas’, and ‘Marevos’ resonate instead with the ‘Arvols’ of Metz, a name given in the Middle Ages to the arcades (arci voluti) that border the Place de Vésigneul, currently Place Saint-Louis. Aubertin would in this interpretation have been the son of a patrician who belonged to a pairaige, originally an association of patricians united by shared bloodlines, but eventually five areas in Metz that were given the names of these families.20 The economic crisis in 1270 would have left such a family in a precarious situation which may explain the cynical tone of the pious and satirical song Fois, loiautés, solas et cortoisie (RS 1119).21 In my opinion, the fact that RS 514 and RS 1119 are only found in a manuscript from Metz, along with the linguistic and biographical arguments presented here, argue in favour of seeing this trouvère as one Aubertin des Arvols from Lorraine. Although some doubt inevitably remains, his works are thus included in the appendix as belonging to the Lorraine repertoire. 16 Jeanroy and Långfors, Chansons satiriques, p. iv. 17 Rosenberg et al., Chansons des trouvères, p. 1080.

18 Edward Järnström and Arthur Långfors (eds), Recueil de chansons pieuses du XIIIe siècle,

Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia, series B, 3:1 and 20:4 (2 vols, Helsinki, 1910– 1927), vol. 1, p. 95 sees this as only as a ‘simple coincidence’, but in my opinion it must be more than that. 19 Schneider, ‘Un Poète messin’, p. 98. 20 The five paraiges are Porte-Moselle, Outre-Seille, Port-Sailly, Saint-Martin, and Jurue; see Jean Schneider, La Ville de Metz aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Nancy, 1950), pp. 114–48; see also Schneider, ‘Un Poète messin’, p. 99. 21 On the economic and political context of Metz during this period and on the identification of Aubertin des Arvols, see Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol. 1, pp. 140–3.

the lorraine repertory of c 27



Garnier d’Arches: a questionable name The name of Garnier d’Arches has often been eclipsed by that of the famous Picard trouvère Gautier de Dargies. In C, five songs appear to be attributed to Garnier d’Arches, who would have been, in all likelihood, from the commune of Arches, which is situated in the Vosges (in the district and canton of Epinal).22 Dyggve argues convincingly that this trouvère had a friendship with his compatriot and contemporary Gautier d’Espinal, who may have received feudal protection from him, as well as with Colin Muset, a Champenois poet whom he most certainly protected.23 Several factors can explain the confusion between Gautier de Dargies and Garnier d’Arches that has persisted in scholarship, especially if one maintains, like Gédéon Huet, that ‘Dargies’ is a contraction of the very old ‘d’Argies’.24 To this one may add a confusion between the names Garnier and Gautier, which can be ascribed to the rubricator of C’s lack of care. Influenced by the repeated alternation between the names Garnier d’Arches and Gautier d’Espinal, the rubricator apparently substituted Garnier with Gautier in the rubrics of the songs Quant li dous estés decline (RS 1380) and Quant je voi l’erbe et la fueille (RS 1008). Table 2.2 gives the order of the songs in this part of the manuscript (fols 199v–201r). Despite this mistake, it seems that the intention of the rubricator, or that of his exemplar, was to make Garnier d’Arches the author of the love songs RS 1380 and RS 1008. No other manuscript contradicts the attribution of RS 1008 to Garnier, C being the only one to propose any attribution for this piece. Finally, song RS 1380 never appears in proximity to the poems attributed to Gautier de Dargies in C.25 Table 2.2: Alternation of songs by Garnier d’Arches and Gautier d’Espinal in C, fols 199v–201r Fol. in C

Marginal label

Incipit in C

RS

fol. 199v

Gatiers d’Airches

Quant li dous esteis decline

1380

fol. 200r

Gatiers d’Apinaus

Quant voi yver et froidure aparoir

1784

fol. 200v

Gatiers d’Airches

Quant je voi l’erbe et la fuelle

1008

fol. 201r

Gautiers d’Aipinaus

Quant je voi l’erbe menue

2067

22 For the biography of this trouvère, see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 131–3. 23 See Holger Petersen Dyggve, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique

française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: II, Gautier d’Epinal’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 36:1 (1935), pp. 19–29, at p. 28; Holger Petersen Dyggve, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: I, Colin Muset’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 36:1 (1935), pp. 1–19, at p. 15. 24 See Gédéon Huet (ed.), Chansons et descorts de Gautier de Dargies, Société des anciens textes français, 60 (Paris, 1912; repr. New York, 1968), pp. xxi–xxvii. Of the five Garnier songs in C, Raynaud, Bibliographie des chansonniers français, for example, only considers RS 1813 to be by Garnier d’Arches and attributes the other four to Gautier Dargies. 25 Zai, Les Chansons courtoises, p. 138.

28

mélanie lévêque-fougre

Confusion between Garnier d’Arches and Gautier de Dargies also influences the attribution of the song Piece a que je n’en amai (RS 58), which is conserved in two manuscripts: in C with the rubric ‘Guernier d’Airches’, and in U with no indication of the name of an author. Huet thought that this name designated, once again, Gautier de Dargies, rejecting the attribution in C with disputable reasoning.26 Arguing that Gautier de Dargies sometimes confuses ‘-ai’ and ‘-é’ rhymes, Huet failed to recognise that the first two couplets of RS 58 treat the two rhymes separately.27 In addition, he admits that the attributions in C ‘do not deserve the absolute disdain that philologists have sometimes shown towards them’.28 The attribution of RS 58 to Garnier d’Arches is thus completely possible, and no other manuscript has invalidated this claim. Thus far, analysis has shown that C is the only source to give authorial attributions for the songs RS 58 and RS 1008, naming Garnier d’Arches in both cases. While scholars frequently recall how unreliable the rubricator of this manuscript is, there seems no reason to question these two attributions here. In addition, as Dyggve stipulates, both the scribe and the rubricator must have known the author and his work, since both the manuscript and the poet were from Lorraine.29 This argument seems to increase the authority of C, allowing these two songs to be considered authentic. In contrast, the authority of the rubricator seems weak when considering Je chantasse volentiers liement / … Mais je (RS 700), attributed in C to ‘Vernier d’Airches’. This song is attributed to the Chastelain de Couci, a Picard trouvère, in two different manuscript families: M, T, and a, and K, X, and P. I have chosen therefore not to include this song in the Lorraine repertoire and have excluded it from the appendix. The two remaining songs, RS 1380 and RS 1813, whose provenance is uncertain, have been cautiously included in the Lorraine repertoire. Quant li dous estés decline (RS 1380) is attributed to Guiot de Dijon or Chrétien de Troyes in M and T respectively so that only one argument pleads for C’s ascribed authorship of Garnier d’Arches. In U, this song and RS 58, which we know to be by Garnier, are copied next to each other (fols 31r–v). Dyggve supposes that these two songs were transmitted together under the same rubric in C (‘Garnier d’Arches’) and in the common exemplar that served as a model for C and U.30 To this first observation one may add the fact that the rubric in T seems questionable. T’s rubric concerns three songs: RS 1664, RS 1380 (the one considered here), and RS 2020. The first of these may be securely attributed to Chrétien de Troyes, while the third definitely cannot be, making the attribution for the second

26 Huet, Chansons et descorts, pp. 44–6 27 Ibid., p. xiii. According to Langlois, only Maintes fois m’a on demandé (RS 419), which

is attributed to Gautier de Dargies, supports Huet’s argument: see Ernest Langlois, ‘Remarques sur les chansonniers français’, Romania, 45:179 (1919), pp. 321–50, at pp. 331–3. I remain unpersuaded by Huet’s argument. 28 Huet, Chansons et descorts, p. vii. 29 Holger Petersen Dyggve, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: XXIV, Garnier d’Arches et son destin ataire “le bon marquis”’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 46:3 (1945), pp. 123–53, at p. 125. 30 Ibid., p. 126.

the lorraine repertory of c 29



song also questionable.31 Given that the manuscripts M and T, which belong to the same family, are not in agreement about the authorship of RS 1380, Marie-Claire Zai does not exclude the possibility that C rather than T gives a correct attribution.32 On a final note, the attribution of RS 1380 to Guiot de Dijon in M can be contested on linguistic grounds: in her edition of the songs attributed to Guiot de Dijon, Elisabeth Nissen expresses surprise at the fact that ‘mi’ (line 24) is used for ‘moi’, rhyming with ‘failli’ (line 25), and that ‘vo’ is used for ‘vostre’ (lines 39 and 40), even though this last Picard form seems to be required by the verse’s metre.33 While these Picard traits do indeed seem out of place in the writings of a purportedly Burgundian poet, Zai explains this by supposing that the rubricator of M preferred the name Guiot de Dijon because he was an ‘author-star’, even though he probably did not write the song.34 The Lorraine poet, on the other hand, was probably at a disadvantage because he was not famous. In conclusion, if the attribution of RS 1380 to Garnier d’Arches remains uncertain, it seems nevertheless to be the most convincing of the three possibilities offered in the various manuscripts. The attribution of RS 1813 is also debatable. This time the name Garnier d’Arches (C) comes up against the name Thibaut de Blaison, who is the designated author of this song in M and T. In both of these manuscripts, the poem comes last in the group of poems attributed to Thibaut de Blaison, which could lead some to question the attribution on those grounds. Moreover, this song is absent from the Thibaut de Blaison section of M’s table of contents, which might confirm such doubts. Terence H. Newcombe admits that this song does not have the same characteristics as Thibaut de Blaison’s other songs, highlighting in particular the poet’s choice of a longer syllabic line (decasyllabic), an absence of derived and identical rhymes, and the number of stanzas (six), while noting the presence of several rhymes of ‘-i’, common in Thibaut de Blaison.35 Newcombe also concludes that ‘it is impossible to decide definitively who is the real author of [RS] 1813’.36 From this examination of the songs attributed to Garnier d’Arches in C, the songs RS 58 and RS 1008 may be considered authentic. While the origin of the songs RS 1380 and RS 1813 are uncertain, I believe they should be included in the Lorraine repertoire because they cannot be firmly excluded. Conversely, song RS 700 should be excluded from this repertoire because it appears to have been composed by the Chastelain de Couci.

31 The KNPX group attributes RS 2020 to the Trésorier de Lille; M attributes it to Guiot de

Dijon.

32 Zai, Les Chansons courtoises, p. 138. 33 Elisabeth Nissen (ed.), Les Chansons attribuées à Guiot de Dijon et Jocelin, Classiques

français du Moyen Age, 59 (Paris, 1928), pp. vii and 17–18.

34 Zai, Les Chansons courtoises, p. 138. 35 Terence H. Newcombe (ed.), Les Poésies de Thibaut de Blaison, Textes littéraires français,

253 (Geneva, 1978), pp. 27–8.

36 Ibid., p. 28. Newcombe edits RS 1813 in the section that contains ‘poems of uncertain

attribution’ (pp. 111–15).

30

mélanie lévêque-fougre

Which Duchesse de Lorraine? The difficulty that confronts the establishment of Garnier d’Arches’s reputation is nothing compared to how modern scholars have treated the Duchesse de Lorraine and, as will be seen in the next section, the poet Anchise de Moivrons, whose very existence is sometimes questioned. In the case of the Duchesse de Lorraine, the honorific clearly designates the region in question but does not specify which particular holder of this title it denotes. Prosper Tarbé was the first to identify this duchess as the daughter of Count Thibaut IV de Champagne, Marguerite de Champagne, engaged in 1249 and then married in 1255 to Ferri III, duke of Lorraine from 1251 to 1303 (or 1304). This is the identification preferred by most critics today.37 Two poems are attributed to the duchess in C, the funeral plaint Par maintes fois avrai esté requise (RS 1640) and the aubade Un petit devant le jour (RS 1995), but the very existence of this trouveresse is sometimes called into question. Alfred Jeanroy opines that it is ‘possible that a duchess of Lorraine may have composed songs, but it is unlikely that the ones only attributed to her in the Bern manuscript were written by her’.38 Guy Muraille goes further, arguing that the Duchesse de Lorraine is an invention of C: according to Muraille, RS 1640 ought to be attributed to an unknown poet and RS 1995 to the Chapelain de Laon.39 While the manuscript tradition does not contradict him, it does not confirm his theory either. The funeral plaint is transmitted by two manuscripts, U in which it is anonymous, and C, which attributes it to the Duchesse de Lorraine. Many more copies exist of the aubade, though attributions remain rare (see appendix): T names the Chapelain de Laon; again, only the rubricator of C designates the Duchesse de Lorraine. C’s attribution of two songs to this same Duchesse argues for her existence. Madeleine Tyssens also argues that the feminine voice that deplores the loss of someone dear to her in RS 1640 is a ‘veritable woman’s plaint’ and could indeed be the Duchesse de Lorraine, in as much as she asserts a certain notoriety in the first two lines: ‘Per maintes fois avrai estei requise / Ke ne chantai ensi com je soloie’ (‘Many times have I been asked / Why I do not sing as I used to’).40 RS 1995, in contrast, is narrated by a masculine voice, which, for Tyssens, undermines all identification with the Duchesse.41 However, if 37 Prosper Tarbé (ed.), Les Chansonniers de Champagne aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, Collection

des poètes champenois antérieures au XVIe siècle, 9 (Reims, 1850), p. 25. On the problematic identification of the Duchesse de Lorraine, see Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol. 1, pp. 121–6. 38 Alfred Jeanroy, Les Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen age: études de littérature française et comparée, suivies de textes inédits (Paris, 1889), p. 96, n. 1. 39 Guy Muraille, ‘Duchesse de Lorraine’ and ‘Chapelain de Laon’, in Georges Cardinal Grente, Geneviève Hasenohr, and Michael Zink (eds), Dictionnaire des lettres françaises, vol. 1, Le Moyen Age, rev. edn (Paris, 1992–), p. 393 and p. 250 respectively. 40 Madeleine Tyssens, ‘Voix de femmes dans la lyrique d’oïl’, in Femmes: mariages-lignages, XIIe‒XIVe siècles: mélanges offerts à G. Duby, Bibliothèque du Moyen Age, 1 (Brussels, 1992), pp. 373–88, at p. 380. 41 Ibid, p. 380. See also Wendy Pfeffer, ‘Complaints of women, complaints by women: can one tell them apart?’, in Barbara K. Altmann and Carleton W. Carroll (eds), The Court Reconvenes: Courtly Literature Across the Disciplines: Selected Papers from the Ninth



the lorraine repertory of c 31

trouvères can compose chansons de femme, it is equally possible for trouveresses to take on a masculine voice in their songs, especially considering that these women were already conforming to a ‘lyrical system dominated by the masculine’.42 The distinction between ‘textual femininity’ and ‘genetic femininity’, to use Bec’s vocabulary, might equally be used for poets who were women.43 From this perspective, the aubade inverts the agreed upon narrative reality of the poem: a trouveresse hides behind the masculine identity of the narrator. There is a genetic femininity in it, not a textual one, while in the funeral plaint the two categories are combined. I thus believe that these two songs can be securely attributed to the Duchesse de Lorraine.

Anchise de Moivrons: an enigmatic existence Anchise de Moivrons’s life, still shrouded in mystery today, has given rise to the most unlikely of conjectures. The question of his identity centres on the song Hideusement va li mons empirant (RS 340) in C, which has intrigued and divided scholars. Opinions and arguments about this song’s attribution differ, sometimes in favour of Colin Muset, who knew the Lorraine region as well as Champagne, and sometimes, more rarely, in favour of the figure Anchise de Moivrons. In C, the only explicit evidence of the identity of the author can be found in three lines written in the margins of the text: ‘ancuses | demon | veron’ (fol. 91v). There is no trace of any authorial self-naming within the text. However, there is nothing to contradict the attribution in C: RS 340 is anonymous in its two other sources, O and U, leading several historians to give credence to the song’s rubric in C. Jean Schneider and Parisse argue that the rubric ancuses demonveron refers to a man from Lorraine named d’Anchise de Moivrons, who came from the area of Metz.44 The satirical tone adopted in Hideusement va li mons empirant may thus come from the financial difficulties that the feudal families in the Metz region had during this time, when they were forced to divide their estates, becoming progressively more and more indebted.45 Despite this information in favour of attributing RS 340 to Anchise de Moivron, the rubric in C has often been discounted by scholars. Since the name did not mean anything to philologists, many saw it only as the fanciful imagination of the Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society, University of British Columbia 25–31 July 1998 (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 125–31, at pp. 127–8. The attribution of the aubade to the Duchesse de Lorraine is also supported in Eglal Doss-Quinby, Joan Tasker Grimbert, Wendy Pfeffer, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), Songs of the Women Trouvères (New Haven, 2001), pp. 155–61. 42 Pierre Bec, ‘“Trobairitz” et chansons de femme: contribution à la connaissance du lyrisme féminin au moyen âge’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 22:87 (July‒September 1979), pp. 235–62, at p. 236. 43 Ibid., pp. 235–6. 44 Schneider ‘Un Poète messin’, p. 98; Michel Parisse, ‘La Noblesse lorraine: XIe–XIIIe siècles’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 2 vols, University of Lille, 1976), vol. 2, p. 768. See also Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol. 1, pp. 144–7. 45 See Lévêque-Fougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol. 1, p. 146.

32

mélanie lévêque-fougre

rubricator.46 Instead, RS 340 has often been attributed to Colin Muset on account of an envoi found only in one copy of the song. The disagreement among scholars stems in part from the fact that the song never appears in its entirety in the three manuscripts that contain it, making analysis and interpretation difficult. The first stanza appears only in C, which has four stanzas but no envoi. The version in O is the only one that gives its melody, but offers only the second and fourth stanzas, followed, uniquely, by an envoi. U contains only the second stanza of the song. While the number of stanzas varies, neither their order nor their text itself changes from one manuscript to another, except for the envoi, copied only in O, the place names of which raise a number of questions: Droit a Choisuel vuil mon chemin tenir Et a Soilli par Clermont resorter, Si lor ferai de mon jöel present, Que trop m’est bel de lor amendement.

I want to go straight to Choiseul And then to Sailly, passing through Clefmont. I will give them the gift of my jewel, Because I am so happy with their generosity.

(RS 340, envoi) The toponyms ‘Choisuel’ (Choiseul), ‘Soilli’ (Sailly), and ‘Clermont’ (Clefmont), all three of which are in Champagne, correspond to places that Colin Muset frequented during his career. Colin Muset was thus, by Tarbé and others, nicknamed the Trouvère de Choiseul on account of the invocation of ‘Choiseul’ in two anonymous songs found together in O: Devers Chastelvilain (RS 123, unicum in O, fols 44v‒45r) and the song under discussion here, RS 340.47 Tarbé noticed that one of the manors in which the Trouvère de Choiseul had spent time, Vignory, had also been frequented by Colin Muset. Bédier thus identified the latter with the Trouvère de Choiseul in his edition of the songs of Colin Muset.48 In other words, the song under discussion here is at the end of a long circumstantial chain: Vignory only appears in the anonymous song Devers Chastelvilain, and in the song Trop volentiers chanteroie (RS 1693), the latter attributed to ‘Colins Muzes’ in C; the toponym Choiseul ties together the two anonymous songs Devers Chastelvilain and RS 340; Clefmont, by contrast, only appears in RS 340; finally, the toponym Sailly, mentioned in RS 340 and in Devers Chastelvilain, also appears in the song Quant voi le tens refroidier (RS 1298), a unicum in U (fols 136r–v). This long chain of connections between songs is, in my opinion, not enough to establish Colin Muset as the definite author of RS 340.

46 See Joseph Bédier (ed.), Les Chansons de Colin Muset, 2nd edn, Classiques français du

Moyen Age, 7 (Paris, 1938), p. xxxi; Raynaud, Bibliographie des chansonniers français, vol. 1, p. 16; and Dyggve, ‘Personnages historiques…I’, p. 8. 47 Tarbé (ed.), Les Chansonniers de Champagne, pp. xxvi–xxvii. See also Bédier (ed.), Les Chansons de Colin Muset, pp. xxix–xxxii; Dyggve, ‘Personnages historiques … I’, pp. 1–19; Jeanroy and Långfors, Chansons satiriques, pp. xiii–xiv. Pierre Aubry ‘Un Coin pittoresque de la vie artistique au XIIIe siècle’, La Revue musicale, 4 (1904), pp. 483–96, at pp. 487–8 rejects this identification. 48 Bédier, Les Chansons de Colin Muset, p. xxvii.



the lorraine repertory of c 33

The envoi certainly suggests that the author of this song was a professional minstrel, as does the fabricated ‘je’ of several other songs that Colin wrote. Instead of sending his song off on its own, the envoi of RS 340 tells us that the poet prefers to go from castle to castle in order to deliver it in person to his patrons. It is less likely that Anchise de Moivrons, whose family was well established near Metz, would have travelled so much in Champagne, although the little we know about this trouvère does not tell us much on this topic. Nevertheless, as Christopher Callahan and Rosenberg remind us, ‘these references are only in the envoi – and the envoi is transmitted only in one of the three sources for this composition, all of which are fragmentary’.49 It is thus not impossible that the envoi, which may have been written by Colin Muset (if this Champenois trouvère was indeed the Trouvère de Choiseul), was copied into O, as a scribal commentary on the song’s familiar story of a minstrel’s or a jongleur’s woes. However, taken together, the four stanzas of this song in C could also be read as a moralistic serventois, intended for a general audience, without any reference to a particular event, place, or person. Scholars have also debated whether the content and versification of RS 340 support an attribution to Colin Muset. For Bédier, its more obscure tone and rhymes shed doubt on its authenticity.50 Callahan and Rosenberg class RS 340 ‘among the compositions whose authorship is the most questionable’, noting that its versification ‘is neither unique nor characteristic of Colin’, and, like Bédier, recognise in it a new, and darker, type of song.51 Grossel also notes that RS 340 stands out from the rest of Colin Muset’s corpus, since it does not reflect Colin’s love of mixed metre and is the only one of his poems written in decasyllabic verse.52 According to Grossel, however, this singular choice reflects Colin’s refined poetic style. She sees in RS 340 a discrepancy between poetic form and content that is in keeping with his style, as is his taste for satire, his ambiguous relationship to women, and the theme of the moralising minstrel who insults avaricious lords while praising generous patrons; together these three traits make up the enigmatic ‘Je’ of the minstrel. While this argues for Colin as the author of this work, however, the argument about the singularity of the strophic schema described by Grossel is less convincing.53 The debate around the attribution of this text still reveals an essential question of interpretation because, retrospectively, the presence of the envoi shapes the meaning 49 Christopher Callahan and Samuel N. Rosenberg (eds), Les Chansons de Colin Muset:

textes et melodies, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 149 (Paris, 2005), p. 30.

50 Bédier, Les Chansons de Colin Muset, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv. 51 Callahan and Rosenberg (ed.), Les Chansons de Colin Muset, pp. 30–1.

52 On Colin Muset’s professional status and poetics, see Marie-Geneviève Grossel,

‘Trouvères de Champagne et de Lorraine au XIIIe siècle’, Annales de l’Est, Special Issue: Lorraine et Champagne, mille ans d’histoire (2009), pp. 123–37, at p. 126. On Colin Muset’s preference for heterometric verse and the relation between his songs and those of earlier trouvères, see Marie-Geneviève Grossel, Le Milieu littéraire en Champagne sous les Thibaudiens, Medievalia (2 vols, Orléans, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 488–97. 53 Grossel, ‘Trouvères de Champagne’, pp. 129–30 sees no reason to favour Colin Muset’s authorship of RS 340 over Anchise de Moivrons’s, evoking the influence Colin had on this poet from Metz.

34

mélanie lévêque-fougre

of the text in a different way. Are these the words of a professional minstrel (Colin Muset) who has been abandoned by his protectors, or are they the words of a bitter trouvère (Anchise de Moivrons), whose noble family is struggling under debt and divided inheritances, casting a dejected gaze on the world? Given that the evidence gathered so far for Colin Muset’s authorship is not altogether conclusive, and that a trouvère from Lorraine named Anchise de Moivrons may have existed, I have decided to include this text in the Lorraine repertoire of trouvère songs.

The place of the Lorraine poets in C C appears to honour the songs from Lorraine, paying due respects to the heritage of the region in which it was made. C promotes the poets of its own region, showing ‘local interest’ in some trouvères whose names do not appear anywhere else. This is the case for the large majority of clearly Lorraine-based trouvères whose works are in the manuscript: Anchise de Moivrons, Aubertin des Arvols, Jean le Taboureur de Metz, the Duchesse de Lorraine, Garnier d’Arches, and Simars de Boncourt are not mentioned anywhere else. While Gautier d’Espinal appears in other manuscripts, the scribes who copied C seem to favour him in particular, as a fellow Lorrain, since out of the twenty-three songs that are attributed to this trouvère in the songbooks, eighteen were transmitted in this manuscript (see appendix).54 However, the uncertainties tied to the manuscript tradition demand the utmost caution. Taken as a whole, the Lorraine corpus is heterogeneous, not only in the geographic localisation and the social status of its poets, but also in its generic variety, which is well represented by C and includes love songs, satire, funeral plaints, an aubade, and pious songs (see appendix). Further works by Lorraine trouvères can be found in two other songbooks from Lorraine: I contains all of the pastourelles and the jeux-partis in the corpus, as well as three of Gautier d’Espinal’s songs (RS 1059, RS 1082, RS 649, in the order they appear in the manuscript), while U together with C transmit all of the songs whose authors have been identified as Lorrain. The Lorraine origins of these manuscripts is not enough on its own to justify the provenance of these works, but this common place of copying contributes to the discernible, material unity of the Lorraine trouvères’ poetic production. C, U, and I form a linguistic unity that represents the core of a Lorraine identity. Out of forty-six works with identifiable Lorraine traits, thirty are transmitted exclusively by one or more of these three Lorraine manuscripts. Perhaps scribes from Lorraine refused to have this rich regional heritage taken away from them, guarding it jealously. Or perhaps about half of these works never travelled further than their native Lorraine, being diffused on a small scale, in only a few manuscripts. This second interpretation does not necessarily invalidate the first. At a time when our regional borders are being called into question, the notion of Lorraine’s identity and the recognition of its literary heritage should be considered to be more than a simple, anachronistic fantasy. 54 On the reliability of the Gautier d’Espinal attributions in this manuscript, see Schiassi,

‘Edizione critica’, p. vii.



the lorraine repertory of c 35

The organisation of the songs of these poets in C demonstrates a certain unity. The proximity of poets, in both chronological and, especially, geographical terms, seems to be reflected in the placement of certain songs. For example, the Duchesse de Lorraine (fol. 182r) is almost exactly next to Gautier d’Espinal (fols 183v and 184r) and Garnier d’Arches, (fol. 184v), from whom she is only separated by Jacques d’Amiens. The fact that two friends from the Vosges follow each other is surely not a coincidence: several folios later, two songs by Garnier (fols 199v and 200v) alternate with two pieces composed by Gautier (fols 200r and 201r). In the same way, Colin Muset, the most Lorraine-like of the poets from Champagne (fol. 247r), precedes the Duchesse de Lorraine (fol. 247v). Thus the common origins of the poets and their literary associations appear from time to time in the organisation of the manuscript. In sum, despite its generic heterogeneity and the diversity of its authors, the Lorraine corpus tends towards a certain kind of unity, perceivable through the manuscripts that transmit it, and in particular via the organisation of its works, especially those at the heart of C. C gives a relatively faithful representation of the repertoire of thirteenth-century songs from Lorraine in several ways. First, the works in C represent three of the four primary cultural hubs of Lorraine: the duchy of Lorraine (with the Duchesse de Lorraine), the Vosges region (with Gautier d’Espinal and Garnier d’Arches who apparently knew each other), and the city of Metz and its environs (with Anchise de Moivrons, Jean le Taboureur, and Aubertin des Arvols). Only the county of Bar is not represented, which suggests that it was more closely bound, both politically and culturally, to Champagne, despite belonging to the same dialect region as the duchy of Lorraine, the Vosges, and the city of Metz. Through these different literary centres, the Lorraine songs demarcate a literary space that is less unified than that of the north and Champagne, whose literary activities were concentrated around the city of Arras and the court of Thibaut de Navarre, respectively. This geographic disparity is coupled with a sociological heterogeneity that is also represented in C, reflecting the mixed milieus from which the Lorraine trouvères came. From the simple musician Jean le Taboureur to the famous Duchesse, from the petty nobles Anchise de Moivrons and Simars Boncourt to the knights Gautier d’Espinal and Garnier d’Arches, Lorraine poets come from almost every level of society. Ultimately, C reflects the great disparity that exists between the poetic works of these trouvères. Certain poets like Anchise de Moivrons and Jean le Taboureur have only left behind a single poem, or – for the Duchesse de Lorraine, Aubertin des Arvols, and Simars de Boncourt – two; others have left behind a more substantial body of work, such as Garnier d’Arches and especially Gautier d’Espinal. This manuscript also pays tribute to the varied work of these poets who gladly experimented with the traditional love song but also with satire, the funeral plaint, the dawn song, and the pious song. C therefore not only acts as a relatively faithful mirror of the Lorraine song repertoire, but also plays a special role in leading one to think that people from Lorraine were very sensitive to the richness of their literary heritage.

36

mélanie lévêque-fougre

Appendix: Table of Lorraine songs in manuscript C This table lists the Lorraine songs of manuscript C.55 ♪ denotes a song is copied with music notation. ≡ indicates that staves were copied but no notation was entered. ⬜ indicates that space was left for staves but that they were not ruled.

55 Note that the order of the stanzas is not always the same in the manuscripts. For a more

complete presentation of the songs in each of the manuscripts mentioned, see LévêqueFougre, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”’, vol. 2, Table of songs, pp. 653–91.

Fois, loiautés, solas et courtoisie

1119

Duchesse de Lorraine

Remembrance qui m’est ou cuer entree

514

Aubertin des Arvols

K, pp. 320–1 N, fols 153r–v P, fols 168r–169r T, fols 79v–80r U, fols 67v–68v a, fols 109r–v

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

H, fols 218r–v

C, fols 247v–248r

U, fols 97r–v

♪

≡

Un petit devant le jour

1995

Capelains de loon

le duchase de lourainne

le duchaise de lorainne

C, fols 182r–v

≡

Aubertins des Arenos (Arevos?)

C, fols 82v–83r

⬜

Par maintes fois avrai esté requise

Aubertins de Arenas (Arevas?)

ancuses demonveron

Attribution

C, fols 216v–217r

≡

O, fol. 44v

♪ U, fol. 160v

C, fols 91v–92r

Manuscript(s) ≡

1640

Hideusement va li mons empirant

340

Anchise de Moivrons

Incipit

RS

Trouvère

the lorraine repertory of c 37

Gautier d’Espinal

Gautiers despinay Gautiers despinau

T, fol. 46r U, fols 31v–32r C, fols 123v–124r M, fols 18v–19r T, fols 108r–v U, fols 59v–60r Z, fol. 34r C, fol. 158v U, fols 56r–v B, fols 6v–7r C, fol. 9r K, pp. 214–215 M, fols 178v–179r M index

♪ ♪ ≡ ≡ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ≡ ♪ ♪ ≡ ♪ ♪

Li miens chanters ne puet mais remanoir

1813

Aïmans fins et verais / Se li mons

M, fols 177r–v

≡

Quant li dous estés decline

1380

199

C, fols 199v–200r

≡

Quant je voi l’erbe et la fueille

Ne puet lassier fins cuers c’adès se plaigne

Crestiiens de Troies

C, fol. 200v–201r

≡

119

Guios de Digon

U, fols 31r–v

≡

Gaut’ despinais

Gathiers daipinas

Gatiers dapinaus

Mesire Tiebaus de Blason

Mesire Tiebaus de Blason

Gerniers d’Airches

Gatiers d’Airches

Gatiers d’Airches

Guernier d’Airches

C, fols 184v–185r

1008

Attribution

Manuscript(s)

Piece a que je n’en amai

58

Garnier d’Arches

Incipit

RS

Trouvère

38 mélanie lévêque-fougre

P, fols 119r–v R, fols 83r–84r S, fols 231r–v

♪ ♪ ♪

≡

Outrecuidiers et ma fole pensee

542

♪

≡

⬜

≡

Ja pour longue demoree

504

T, fol. 37r

♪

Gautiers despinau

M index O, fol. 92v

Gautiers despinau

Gautiers dai pinaus

Maistre symons dautie

Gathies daipinas

M, fol. 179v

C, fols 172v–173r

U, fol. 135r

C, fol. 100v

a, fol. 67v

U, fols 106r–v

C, fol. 29r

Bone amour qui m’agree

487

Gautier despinais

Gautier despinais

Méliacin, ll. 17993–18002 (st. 1 only)

X, lost copy

V, fol. 58r

≡

♪

U, fol. 133r

O, fols 8r–v

♪

⬜

N, fols 103r–v

♪

the lorraine repertory of c 39

Trouvère

Incipit

Comencement de douce saison bele

Par son dous comandement

Tout esforciés avrai chanté souvent

RS

590

649

728

L, fol. 63v M, fol. 178r

♪ ♪

O, fols 28v–29r P, fols 153r–154r U (1), fols 51r–v

♪ ♪ ♪

X, fols 68r–v C, fol. 183v

♪ ≡

M, fol. 179r M index

♪

O, fols 135v–136r

Gautiers despinau

C, fols 232v–233r

≡

♪

Gautiers despinau

U, fols 15v–16r Gatiers da pinaus

Gatiers dapinaus

Le chastelain de couci

Li Chastelains

Gautiers despinau

Li chastelain de couci

♪

I, fol. 156r

V, fols 74v–75r

♪

U (2), fol. 152v

N, fols 39v–40r

♪

M index

K, pp. 94–95

H, fol. 222v

Gatiers da pinaus

C, fols 38v–39r

♪

≡

Attribution

Manuscript(s)

40 mélanie lévêque-fougre

A droit se plaint et a droit se gamente

Amours et bone volentés

Se par force de merci

Desconfortés et de joie parti

749

954

1059

1073

U, fols 53v–54r C, fol. 18r U, fols 59r–v C, fols 221r–v

♪ ≡ ♪ ≡

P, fols 129r–v R, fols 115v–116v T, fol. 98r

♪ ≡ ♪ ♪ ♪

⬜

O, fol. 42v

♪

Gautiers despinau

Méliacin, ll. 8110–8118 (st. 1 only)

X, lost copy

V, fols 58v–59r

U, fols 129r–v

Gautier despinais

N, fols 103v–104r

Gautier despinais

Gautiers despinau

M index

Gautiers despinay

M, fol. 178v

♪

Gautier despinais

Gatiers daipinas

K, pp. 213–214

C, fols 53v–54r

U, fols 132r–v

O, fols 130r–v

Gatiers dapinaus

Gathiers daipinas

Gatiers daipinaus

♪

≡

⬜

♪

C, fols 13r–v

≡

I, fol. 145v

U, fols 14r–v

♪

the lorraine repertory of c 41

Trouvère

C, fols 186v–187r O, fols 100v–101r

≡ ♪

Puis qu’en moi a recouvré seignourie

Quant voi iver et froidure aparoir

Tout autresi com l’aïmans deçoit

1208

1784

1840

K, pp. 211–212 N, fols 102r–v O, fols 117v–118r P, fols 117v–118r U, fols 80v–81r

♪ ♪ ♪ ≡ ≡

N, fols 102v–103r O, fols 136r–v P, fols 118r–119r U, fols 14v–15v

♪ ≡ ♪ ♪

X, lost copy

Gautier despinais

K, pp. 212–213

♪

Gautier despinais

Gautier despinais

C, fols 231r–v

Gatiers dapinaus

Gaut’despinais

Gautier despinais

Gautier despinais

Gatiers dapinaus

son poitevin

Gatiers pinaus

≡

X, lost copy

C, fols 200r–v

≡

k, fol. 42v

U, fols 103r–v

I, fols 146r–v

Cheualier daipinas

≡

Attribution

C, fols 223r–v

Se j’ai lonc tens Amours servi

1082

Manuscript(s)

Incipit

RS

42 mélanie lévêque-fougre

Simairs de Boncort Simairs de Boncort

C, fol. 6r C, fols 32r–v

≡ ≡

Au dous tens d’esté

Bone Amour me fait chanter / En un

U, fols 126v–127r

812

Jehans li Taboreires de Mès

445

C, fol. 40v

≡

Chans ne chançons ne riens qui soit en vie

Simars de Boncourt

U, fols 54r–v

♪

Gautiers daipinaus

1220

C, fol. 201r

≡

Quant je voi l’erbe menue

2067

Gautiers dapinaus

Jean le Taboureur de Metz

C, fols 184r–v

≡

Partis de dolour

1971

the lorraine repertory of c 43

Chapter 3

Chansonnier C: Contents, Stemmatic Position, Particularities Paola Moreno

T

he feedback on one’s work can be both gratifying and mortifying at the same time. We derive from it both retrospective satisfaction from meticulous work and the regret of committed omissions, even errors, which become obvious when one has a fresh perspective on pages that one has rewritten and modified so many times that it has become impossible to control everything. I am therefore taking advantage of the opportunity offered to me to suggest a critical re-reading of my youthful work on C for the ‘Intavulare’ series, informed by more recent work, in particular that of Madeleine Tyssens on the closely related chansonnier, U.1 Nonetheless, with a few exceptions, many of the elements that I will mention in this paper reiterate my earlier description of the codex, which remains, in my opinion, mostly legitimate. The first special feature of chansonnier C is its complex and refined architecture. The succession of pieces in alphabetical order – a particularity that this manuscript shares only with chansonnier O in the French domain – is the most visible aspect of this architecture, the other salient aspect being the disposition of the religious pieces at the beginning and end of almost all the alphabetical sections.2 The combination of these two criteria for the assembly of the collection gives a rare value to this manuscript and leads to myriad questions on the process that led to the compilation of this vast ensemble of 520 pieces (four of which are duplicates), including a huge number of unica.3 The alphabetical collection testifies to such a perfect mastery of the corpus available to the copy shop that one wonders about the compilation 1

Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999). I would like to thank Madeleine Tyssens for being kind enough to share with me her latest research on chansonnier U in advance of the publication of the second volume of her edition: Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015 –2020). 2 I will refrain from commenting here on the question of musical notation, which is a third important particularity of this codex, not because this notation, while being part of the project of the assembler of the manuscript, was never carried out, but because my lack of competence in this field requires that I remain silent. For more information, see the discussion on notation in the Introduction to this volume. Likewise, I will not discuss the decoration of the volume, which is just as refined, but which requires the attention of specialists in the field (see Alison Stones’s chapter in this volume (Chapter 4)). 3 A song’s number in C is given in this chapter according to Moreno, “Intavulare”.

chansonnier c 45 method employed, the sources, and how the huge quantity of collected texts was subordinated to the ambition of thoroughness that presides over the whole work. Nonetheless, let us proceed in order and take a moment to consider the particular cases which permit a glimpse of the dynamic process of C’s construction, behind the fixed aspect of the compiled manuscript.4 It is important to note that the grouping of songs by alphabetical sections – from A to U/V – does not match the codicological volume units. The manuscript is composed of thirty-two quaternions, almost all regular (a folio has been cut from seven of them; in two cases the dismemberment of the codex led to a displacement of pages to quires XII and XXIII); on two occasions only does the end of the alphabetical section correspond with the end of a quaternion: at the junction between letter-sections O and P (fols 178–9) and letter-sections R and S (fols 217–8). I will provide below details of the distribution of hands which copied the manuscript but I already anticipate here that the codicological analysis, combined with the palaeographic analysis, leads one to think that the workshop did not adopt the system of simultaneous copying. Other articles in this volume make assumptions about the physical implementation of this copy. I will focus on the reconstitution of the stemmatic links between C and the corpus conserved in other chansonniers.5 In Schwan’s nomenclature (see Figure 3.1), C is pars of family sIII, to which manuscripts F, G, H, I, U, and Za also belong.6 All critics – most recently Madeleine Tyssens, who has very thoroughly studied U – agree that the 211 pieces that C shares with U represent a corpus drawn, in the case of both sources, from an antecedent that Schwan calls υ.7 Tyssens states that ‘it would be futile to attempt to demonstrate the kinship of U and C. Ever since Schwan’s study all editors have recognised it. Our critical apparatus reveals a multitude of common variants, conjunctive or not’.8 4 A detailed physical description of the manuscript can be found in Nicolaas Unlandt, Le

5

6 7 8

Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011), pp. x–xv, a volume dedicated to the anonymous pieces of C. Unlandt gives details of the content of each alphabetical section on pp. xix–xxxi. For a list of the pieces contained in the manuscript by order of appearance, by name of author, and by alphabetical order, see Moreno, “Intavulare”, pp. 45–137, Tables I–IV. On the physical implementation of C, see Chapters 6 and 7 of the current volume. While a complete collation of the texts one-by-one would be necessary for a fuller analysis, at the current stage of our studies, we should refer to Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886). To date, Schwan’s reconstitution of the families of French chansonniers has not been subject to any radical contention, except in the case of the discovery of manuscripts of which the German scholar was unaware, as is the case, for example, of chansonnier Za, see Lucilla Spetia, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 2. H (Modena, Biblioteca Estense); Za (Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Zagreb), Documenta et instrumenta, 2 (Liège, 1997). Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften. The sIII family is also discussed by Robert Lug, pp. 86–8. Ibid., p. 222. Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, p. xxx.

46

paola moreno

Figure 3.1: Schwan’s sIII family

The exploration of variant readings brought about by the publication of Tyssens’s edition of U reveals more complex links with manuscript I: Tyssens notes that, when C, U, and I share pieces not appearing in other manuscripts, ‘there are only individual variants particular to each of the three [manuscript] witnesses’; at least two of the three manuscripts always agree in their reading.9 But if the agreement of these three manuscripts against evidence from families sI and sII leaves no doubt, to the point of allowing Schwan to assume the existence of a sub-archetype ι1, a forebear of I1 and υ, the place of this sub-archetype remains uncertain. Some of the pieces present in U and I do not appear in C, while others, present in C and I, are not in U. Schwan therefore assumed that these manuscripts drew on two collections of songs, called ι2 and ι3. I drew part of its corpus (I2) from ι2, which was also the source for the songs in U that do not appear in C. Another part of I’s corpus (I3) came from ι3, along with the songs in C that do not appear in U. Schwan marks the hypothetical nature of this construction by drawing dotted lines from ι2 to I2 and from ι3 to I3. Tyssens, however,

9 Ibid., p. xxxii. This comment applies to the pieces contained in the first volume of

Tyssens’s edition, but I have had advance sight of her second volume, which leads to a similar conclusion.

chansonnier c 47 notes that some links seem to contradict Schwan’s genealogical classification.10 On some occasions, U and I offer a common reading against that found both in C and alii; on others, C and I agree against U and alii. ‘Most of the time, this concerns minor, dispersed details and the agreement between the two copies can be polygenetic’, but in some cases, very few to be honest, it may be that the common variants are grouped and ‘fairly significant so as not to point to chance encounters’.11 The existence of υ does not at all rule out some simultaneous recourse to other sources, as attested by the several blank pages left at the end of letter-sections for pieces that were to have been added to the original corpus, whose presence is indicated by the removal of several leaves. The leaf that should have followed the current leaf 36 is a particularly illuminating example: this page, most likely left blank, would have been found precisely between the section dedicated to the letter B (which ends on fol. 36v, half of which is empty) and the start of letter-section C, which begins on fol. 37r. The letter-section C does not begin with an independent codicological unit and there is no change in scribal hand, suggesting that the scribes finished copying the text in letter-section B, left an empty leaf to accommodate further songs from a different exemplar, and then started letter-section C in the same gathering. The removal of the leaf, which was internal to the gathering, therefore occurred once all the text in the gathering had been copied. Since all the other missing pages were found at the intersection of two alphabetical sections, we can conclude that the process was the same throughout: when all the available songs had been copied, and when the copyists realised that sometimes the spaces left for later insertions were excessive, they cut out the completely blank leaves. It seems that they proceeded by accumulation, trying to collect the largest number of pieces stemming from several models. The ambition of the compilers of C was not only to create a collection that would be well-ordered alphabetically, but also to frame each alphabetical section with religious compositions. There are forty-five in total. All sections begin with this type of poem: songs to the Virgin (always identified by the label ‘De Nostre Dame’), pious songs such as the piece that begins the chansonnier (which is labelled ‘De Deu’), and crusade songs or religious contrafacts on secular models. Letter-sections A, B, D, I, L, Q, R, and T also present pious songs at the end. Of these forty-five religious pieces present in C, fifteen are unica, while twenty-four appear only in C and V: the remaining six are common, in various combinations, to C, I, j, and H, which can be appointed to the same family, sIII. Chansonnier V, which belongs to the family sII, regroups the pieces it shares with C by genre.12 Of the thirty religious pieces conserved in V, only six are not shared with C. Of these, one is Provencal, while the other five are contained in the final section of V, which is independent from the rest of the volume. Except for the Provencal song, which can be set aside because of its linguistic heterogeneity, it is clear that the 10 Here, I report the conclusions that appear in Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol.

2.

11 Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 2. The variants occur in RS 782, RS 1574, and RS

1768, which are nos 209, 262, and 330 in Tyssens’s second volume.

12 Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 171.

48

paola moreno

copyists of C took from V (or rather from a model similar to V that Schwan calls Vg, since V comes after C) the twenty-four religious songs that they have in common.13 Attentive observation of the Bern manuscript, however, leads us to believe in the existence of further models than those of υ and Vg already adduced. Another of the particularities of manuscript C is that it conserves twelve important pieces attributed to Jacques de Cambrai, of which seven are unica and seven are religious contrafacts on secular models.14 The exceptional and heterogeneous nature of this corpus is highlighted by the care that is granted to it by one of the copyists of the manuscript – whom we can designate as Copyist I – who indicated in the label for each of these seven contrafacts, the attribution to the Cambrai poet and the model by which it was supposedly inspired. It seems, therefore, that the assemblers of C drew this corpus from an independent model, presumably a libellus in which the entire production of the trouvère was gathered. I here term this antecedent LJC. The mention of the alternation of several hands in the copying of the manuscript leads me to clarify further the terms of preparation of the Bern manuscript. With due caution, admitting my limited knowledge in palaeography, I originally detected at least four different scripta in the collection.15 Copyist I transcribed the majority of the collection’s pieces, including, I originally suggested (but see below), those attributed to Jacques de Cambrai and their labels and perhaps the attribution to ‘Maistre Renas’.16 A second scribe (Copyist II) copied Remembrance qui m’est ou cuer entree (RS 514; fols 216v–217r, no. 460), a piece with religious content that closes the R letter-section. And we can attribute the transcription of the religious song Fois, loiaultés, solas et courtoisie (RS 1119; fols 82v–83r, no. 185) to a third copyist (Copyist III). In connection with this piece, we can observe several anomalies. First, although the copyist reserved space for staves, since the text of the first stanza is plotted with the same spacing as that allocated to all the other pieces in the collection, this song is the only one in the manuscript that does not have any. Second, this song features at the top of the verso of fol. 82, which is preceded, at the bottom of fol. 82r, by the first seven lines of the same song, only legible today under UV light, as they have been scraped. Finally, there are significant graphical differences between the scraped verses and those on fol. 82v. Together, these anomalies suggest that Copyist I had begun to transcribe the song from a model, then stopped copying (for a reason unknown), leaving, as usual, space in order to insert other texts. At this point – probably after the musical staves had been entered throughout the rest of the manuscript – another scribe intervened, who filled in the pre-existing gap.

13 Ibid., p. 205. For further comments on Vg, see the chapter by Leach, p. 130 below. 14 See the further discussion of some of these works by Christopher Callahan in Chapter 9

below.

15 I remain unsure, for example, whether the labelling of the opening piece can be

attributed to the primary copyist, as Schwan supposes (see Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 174). 16 RS 886, fol. 179r, C no. 384.

chansonnier c 49 The same hand (Copyist III) intervened in a similar manner in connection with three songs: nos 143 and 144, at the end of letter-section D (fols 62v–63v), and no. 412 at the end of letter-section P (fols 193r–v).17 Now, it seems uncertain whether we can attribute to a single hand all the labels of the manuscript. While the same copyist wrote those related to the corpus of Jacques de Cambrai and four others, all other labels may belong to another hand, different again from the one who transcribed the main corpus of the manuscript.18 These rubricators were therefore the people who intervened last in the making of the manuscript. In summary, therefore, there are at least five different hands present in C: • • • • •

Copyist I transcribed the majority of the poems of the chansonnier; Copyist II entered no. 460; Copyist III entered nos 185, 143, 144, and 412; Copyist IV rubricated the Jacques de Cambrai corpus (and four other pieces); Copyist V rubricated the majority of poems of the chansonnier.19

Although it is difficult to know if Copyist II drew from a different source than those that we have already identified, it is evident, based on what is observable on fol. 82, that Copyist III drew from a different model, which cannot be traced back to υ, and which does not correspond either to Vg or LJC. But it is also clear that the five pieces transcribed collectively by Copyists II and III present similar salient features, implying that their model was unique; we will call this antecedent δ.20 There remains the final particularity of this chansonnier, which consists in the presence of several duplicate pieces. There are four of them, all attributable to 17 Respectively, Jehan Simon, li quieus s’aquita muelz (RS 1354, with names suppressed in

C’s incipit in favour of ‘Dites dame’, see n. 20 below), Douce dame, roïne de haut pris (RS 1601); and Puis que li maus c’amors mi font santir (RS 1457). 18 In Moreno, “Intavulare”, pp. 25–6, I supposed that the rubricator who traced the main part of the headings was the same person that transcribed the three songs in n. 17 (Copyist III). The four songs in addition to those of Jacques de Cambrai whose labels are by the person I am now calling Copyist IV are no. 384 (RS 886; fols 179r–v), no. 461 (RS 1863; fols 218r–v), no. 483 (RS 793; fol. 229r), and no. 515 (RS 1431; fols 245r–v). All four pieces have a religious subject and are found at the start of an alphabetical section. Three of them are anonymous while RS 886, which is a unicum, is attributed to Maistre Renas, whose name appears only in chansonnier C. The copyist who transcribed most of the attributive rubrics systematically wrote ‘Daime’ while the rubricator of these other four pieces always writes ‘Dame’. I warmly thank Maria Careri for sharing with me her valuable advice about the identification of different hands in the manuscript. 19 This scribal designation is similar to, but not identical with, that outlined by Florian Mittenhuber in his contribution to the current volume (Chapter 1). See p. 14. 20 All are also religious, except no. 143 (RS 1354), which is a jeu-parti. This may, however, be explicable, since it is attested in C in a very different form from that in other chansonniers. Instead of the two interlocutors Jehan Bretel and Jehan Simon, the protagonists are an unnamed ‘dame’ and a ‘dous sire’, the first being invoked by the phrase ‘Dites Dame’ in the first line (in place of ‘Jehan Simon’). The piece that immediately follows, also attributable to Copyist III, where the lady referred to is the Virgin, begins with ‘Douce Dame’. It is thus plausible that the copyist, misled by the words ‘Dites Dame’, thought that RS 1354 was also a religious piece.

50

paola moreno

Copyist I, and present in different alphabetical sections, one of which occurs only, albeit twice, in C.21 The collation of the double attestations of the three more widely attested pieces with other chansonniers containing them is a complex operation and here I shall only summarise the results from my more extensive 1999 analysis.22 For Souspris d’amour, fins cuers ne se puet taire (RS 189), signs of the presence of two different models can be found. This is not so for the other two cases, in which the variants internal to C and those which distinguish it from other chansonniers do not enable any decision about likely models to be made. I would like to conclude this description of the particularities of C by addressing the relationships that this manuscript maintains with its closest relative, manuscript U, recently studied and edited by Tyssens. Codex U is known for an unusual characteristic, the presence of twenty-nine Gallicised Occitan songs, collected in two different sections of the compilation: twenty-four of them are contained in the section Tyssens calls U1, the other five being copied in her section U3.23 Of these twenty-nine songs, four are also present in C, and all critics who have reviewed them agree in emphasising the relationship between the two manuscripts.24 No. 177 in Tyssens’s edition, one of the pieces of section U1, is L'autrier m'iere levaz (RS 935; no. 307), a song that U shares with C, and which is, according to Louis Gauchat, in reality, an Occitanised French song.25 As Tyssens recounts, Gauchat formulated the convincing hypothesis that in the model for U, this French pastourelle would have followed twenty-three Occitan pieces, leading the scribe of U inadvertently to give it its strange linguistic garb. Manuscript C presents this same pastourelle in the same linguistic garb, which means that U and C must have shared the same antecedent, or a copy of this antecedent; it is likely that this antecedent was υ, as otherwise it would be necessary to posit ‘an astonishing coincidence that would have brought to the tables of the copyists of U and the copyists of C the same models, both principal (υ) and secondary (Gallicised Occitan songs)’.26 This also means that C appears to have eliminated twenty-five Gallicised songs (twenty-two from U1, three (of the 21 The three more widely attested songs are Souspris d’amour, fins cuers ne se puet taire (RS

22 23 24

25

26

189; no. 264, fols 118r–v and no. 475, fols 224r–v), Quant li nouviaus tens d’esté (RS 454; no. 266, fol.119r and no. 418, fols 196r–v), and Mais n’os chanter de fueille ne de flours (RS 2034; no.339, fol. 155r and no. 351, fols 161v–162r). The song found only in C is La bone amour qui en joie me tient (RS 1248; no. 279, fols 124v–125r and, with incipit ‘Tres bone amor’, so in the T letter-section, no. 504, fols 239r–v). Moreno, “Intavulare”, pp. 29–32. Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, p. xxvii. RS 1405; no. 159, fol. 71r; RS 1945; no. 177, fols 79r–v; RS 1692; no. 284, fols 127r–128r; RS 1704; no. 285, fol. 128r. See Manfred Raupach and Margret Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik: Zur Überlieferung provenzalischer Lieder in französischen Handschriften, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 171 (Tübingen, 1979), pp. 110–11. See also Robert Lug’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 6). Louis Gauchat, ‘Les Poésies provençales conservées par des chansonniers français’, Romania, 22:87 (1893), pp. 364–404, at p. 380. See also Lug’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 6) and the discussion in Eliza Zingesser, Stolen Song: How the Troubadours Became French (Ithaca, NY, 2020), pp. 187–92. Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, pp. xxvii–xxviii.

chansonnier c 51 five) from U3), a subtraction that is tricky to explain, and which seems to go against the ambition of thoroughness otherwise manifested by the assemblers of C. It thus appears that the operation carried out in the assembly workshop of C supposes at least three different models (υ , Vg, LJC), with the model δ used by Copyist III having been added at a later time (see Figure 3.2). If we replace the static perspective provided by the result – the codex as it appears to us in a continuous reading, where we can appreciate the remarkable content as a medieval reader could have – with a dynamic one, focusing on the process which led to this result, we can reconstruct the steps of sophisticated formal research. The workshop in which the manuscript was made and assembled can definitely be qualified as expert. And while it is true that a vast majority of songs were already present in the model common to C and U, the adoption of alphabetical ordering must have required a perfect mastery of the corpus and a rigorous work organisation. Similarly, the desire to insert religious songs at the beginning – and often also the end – of alphabetical sections, required the consultation of other models (Vg and LJC), a precise selection, and thus a thorough knowledge of the pieces that they contained. This research most likely took place over an extended time, even beyond the operation of decorating initials and tracing staves. When Copyists II and III had other pious songs at hand, which they could use to fill in pages left blank for this purpose, they did not hesitate to expand the corpus and intervene directly. To the eyes of a philologist, it is this extremely complex and demanding working method that makes manuscript 389 of the Burgerbibliothek in Bern so valuable.

Figure 3.2: Sources for copyists I, II, and III

Chapter 4

A Note on the Decoration of C and its Artistic Context Alison Stones

T

he decoration of Messine chansonnier C is relatively modest when compared with the Arras trouvère books A and a, or the Chansonnier du roi, M (and the troubadour manuscripts in which author portraits are a significant part of the presentation of the songs).1 In contrast, C belongs to a category where decoration is limited to pen-flourished initials, this in further contrast to the earlier Messine chansonnier U, whose decoration is limited to red capitals without flourishing.2 In C the range of such initials is especially interesting, since they are arranged in alphabetical order from A to U, each letter beginning with a large capital, three staves and lines of text high, and continuing with small capitals, one stave and text line high, for the rest of each letter (see Figure 4.1). The purpose of this chapter is to confirm the provenance of manuscript C in Metz and establish its likely date, in so far as that can be achieved. (For a summary table of the closest related Messine manuscripts to C, see appendix 4.1.) The pen-flourished decoration in C has specific characteristics. Both large and small initials are accompanied by extensive flourishing extending into the margins. The small initials are in red or blue and flourished in the other colour, alternating. In addition to the usual ‘frog-spawn’ motifs placed alongside the left initial bar, the small initials also have rows of tiny circles (‘o’s) arranged vertically or horizontally, and the tall flourishes begin with J shapes in the opposite colour to the initials, often ending in narrow loops and tight curlicues at the top and in large loops at the bottom, generally containing a single ‘o’ motif. The infill inside the initials is generally based on spirals enclosing frogspawn, but there are also symmetrical clusters or heart-shaped motifs. Not every initial is identical, and one or another of these features may or may not be present. Overall, however, these initials are remarkably 1

The handiest reference tool for the digital facsimiles of the trouvère and troubadour manuscripts is Elizabeth Eva Leach’s blogpost ‘The Wonders of Gallica: Some Troubadour and Trouvère Sources’ (2012) [accessed 15 December 2020], with its link to the more complete manuscript list by Rob C. Wegman, ‘Troubadour/Trouvère Chansonniers' [accessed 17 December 2020]. For links between C and I see Leach’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 7). 2 For the comparative layout see Robert Lug’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 6), and for reproductions of U see Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Chansonnier français, dit de Saint-Germain-des-Prés’ (2013) [accessed 15 December 2020].

Figure 4.1: Large initials in C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389 (www.e-codices.ch), fols 1r, 24r, 37r, 49r, 64r, 76r, 83v, 90r, 110r, 121r, 143r, 157r, 167r, 179r, 194r, 209r, 218r, 229r, 245r; photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch).

Figure 4.1, continued

Figure 4.1, concluded

56

alison stones

consistent in design and execution, making it likely they are the work of a single flourisher who also executed the large initials. The large initials all have party-bars (often called puzzles), with a variety of curvilinear and rectilinear motifs in red and blue, divided by white lines left reserved, and flourishing in red with blue dots against blue flourished backgrounds – except for S, which has half blue-based and half red-based spirals inside the letter. Common motifs are zig-zags containing verticals in white, semi-circles broken by circular cutouts and white lines (B, C, D, F, H, K, L, M, U), triangles (A, F, K, N, P, S), step-motifs (A, E, G, I, N, Q), and rounded bun-shaped motifs (P, T). Some initials combine several of these. As to the infill, spirals in red enclosing frogspawn in blue is the commonest motif, arranged in vertical columns (F, I, K, L, P, R), or in a horizonal arrangement (S), or organised in triangular or heart-shaped patterns (B, C, D, E, G, H, N, O, T). Most striking are the spirals or circles in red enclosing motifs in blue: these motifs are cinqfoil or sexfoil flowers (A, D, E, M, O, Q, U), flower motifs made up of dots (A, D, M, O, Q, U), flower motifs in red against the blue background (A, M), or in blue against the red background (D). Of special interest are the fleur-de-lis motifs (A, D, U) and the one face (O). In general, pen-flourishing ranks relatively low in the hierarchy of medieval book-decoration, far behind full-page painting or smaller miniatures occupying half a page or part of a single text column, or historiated initials, or foliate or champie initials lacking figured decoration. Below all these comes pen-flourished decoration focused on initials, often with pen-flourished borders, but, as C attests, these can often be striking and accomplished in execution, contributing greatly to the aesthetic interest of the decorated page and to the manuscript as a whole.3 Pen-flourishing is a type of embellishment used for initial letters, which was current from the twelfth century to the end of the Middle Ages in Western Europe. Called ‘litterae parvae’ in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 6443, fol. 204v, they complement another type of initial present in that manuscript, called ‘litterae partitae’, referring to larger initials whose bars are done in two colours like a puzzle, as is the case in the large initials in C.4 Another Latin term for pen-flourished initials is ‘litterae florissae’.5 And notes in French for the decorator in 3 Here I draw upon my article on pen-flourishing, Alison Stones, ‘Pen-flourishing’, in

Frank Coulson and Robert Babcock (eds), The Oxford Companion to Latin Palaeography (Oxford, 2021), pp. 674–90, and on the secondary literature cited there; and Alison Stones, ‘Le Contexte artistique du Tournoi de Chauvency’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 151–204. 4 François Avril, ‘Un Ornemaniste parisien de la première moitié du XIVe siècle: Jacobus Mathey (Jacquet Maci ?)’, Bulletin Monumental, 129:4 (1971), pp. 249–64, at p. 257 and n. 4. 5 J. J. G. Alexander, The Decorated Letter (New York, 1978), p. 21. See also Denis Muzerelle, Vocabulaire codicologique: répertoire méthodique des termes français relatifs aux manuscrits, Rubricae, 1 (Paris, 1985), under ‘lettre’ with its various categories; and Patricia Danz Stirnemann, ‘Fils de la vierge, l’initiale à filigranes parisienne: 1140–1314’, Revue de l’art, 90:1 (1990), pp. 58–73.



the decoration of c and its artistic context 57

the devotional miscellany, Porto, Biblioteca Municipal, 619 (made for use in Verdun c. 1260–70) distinguish between ‘dor champie de color’ for the two-line gold initials on a pink and blue field, commonly referred to as champie initials, and ‘de penne’, a term that seems (somewhat inconsistently) to refer to the pen-flourished initials.6 The importance of this level of decoration has been slow to achieve general recognition, and, even in current scholarship, pen-flourished decoration is less frequently reproduced than illumination in colours and gold, whether figured or not. The Manuscrits datés series, so fundamental for dating and placing medieval handwriting, did not adopt a consistent stance regarding pen-flourishing, with the result that some volumes include pen-flourished initials while most do not.7 The websites Enluminures and Initiale, hosted by the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, have adopted a broader policy towards pen-flourished decoration and are now offering a wide selection alongside miniatures and painted initials.8 Examples of pen-flourishing can be found in manuscripts all over France in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and there is considerable variation in design and colour according to regional preferences. But few of the manuscripts relevant to C are available online, so precise comparisons are difficult to illustrate or even to evaluate. In general terms, the decoration of C fits patterns that developed in north-eastern France at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries. It was a period of exceptionally rich book production of all kinds – liturgical, literary, historical, medical – sponsored in the region of Metz primarily by the counts of Bar and their family and entourage, which encompassed eminent churchmen as well as notable members of the nobility. Among the most distinguished books from an artistic point of view are the set of liturgical books made between 1303 and 1306 for Renaud de Bar as canon of Verdun and bishop of Metz.9 These contain a good deal 6 These notes went unrecorded in the published catalogues, Aires Augusto Nascimento and

José Francisco Meirinhos (eds), Catálogo dos códices da Livraria de Mào do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra na Biblioteca Pública Municipal do Porto (Porto, 1997), pp. 350–3, Santa Cruz no. 87 (no. general 619); and I. V. Cepeda, Inventário dos códices iluminados até 1500, vol. 2, Distritos de Aveiro, Beja, Braga, Bragança, Coimbra, Evora, Leiria, Portalegre, Porto, Setúbal, Viana do Castelo e Viseu: apêndice distito de Lisboa, Bibliotecas (Lisbon, 2001), pp. 177–8, no. 327. I base my Verdun attribution on the presence in the litany of Saint Sanctinus and Saint Vitonius, patrons of Saint-Vannes de Verdun. See Alison Stones, ‘Les Prières de Gautier de Coinci, leur distribution et leur réception d’après la tradition manuscrite’, in Yasmina Foehr-Janssens and Olivier Collet (eds), Le Recueil au moyen âge: le moyen âge central, Texte, codex & contexte, 8 (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 237–68 at p. 244 and n. 24; Alison Stones, Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320, Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France (2 vols in 4, Turnhout, 2013–14), part II, vol. 1, Cat. no. IV-0. 7 Begun in 1959, fully listed on Comité internationale de paléographie latine, ‘Catalogue des manuscrits datés’ [accessed 15 December 2020]. 8 See Service du livre et de la lecture and Insitut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (eds), ‘Enluminures’ [accessed 15 December 2020] and IRHT/CNRS (ed.), ‘Initiale: Catalogue de manuscrits enluminés’ [accessed 15 December 2020]. 9 Kay Davenport, The Bar Books: Manuscripts Illuminated for Renaud de Bar, Bishop of Metz (1303–1316), Manuscripta illuminata, 2 (Turnhout, 2017).

58

alison stones

of pen-flourishing, but the motifs highlighted above in C do not figure there. More relevant is the voluminous miscellany that contains chansonnier I, one of the most interesting literary compendia made in the early years of the fourteenth century.10 In I, the major illumination is single-column or half-column miniatures or historiated initials, and pen-flourishing is secondary. There are none of the large flourished initials with party-bars and flower motifs like those in C. The pen-flourished initials of I are small, like the minor initials in C, and they are of two types: from the beginning to fol. 144av they are in gold (heavily rubbed to reveal the red bole underneath), with light blue flourishing: a clear indication of the expense of the book; from fol. 144br they are in red and blue, alternating, as in C – with the exception of fol. 187r where a gold initial with light blue flourishing makes a single reappearance. How similar are these pen-flourished initials to those in C? Overall, the lower loop flourishes in I are indistinct, but on occasion there is a loop with an ‘o’ motif, as on fol. 145v in the chansonnier section (fols 140r–249v): but this is a rarity in I, and even this one might just be the end of a longer flourish (see Figure 4.2). Or perhaps fol. 145v was a case where the flourisher of C, most likely an older craftsman by then, made a guest reappearance. And there is a single case of a lower loop containing a sexfoil flower, on fol. 114r in the Tournoi de Chauvency section (see Figure 4.3).11 Earlier Metz books, like Thomas de Cantimpré’s De rerum natura copied in 1276 (Paris, BnF, lat. 523A), show more of the motifs in C’s pen-flourishing.12 I notice particularly the use of a single detached ‘o’ in the lower loop of the pen-flourished borders (fols 4r, 4v, 6r, 17v, 33v, 34r, 39r, 41r, 48v, 49r, 50r, 51r, 55r, 61r, 62v, 69r, 70r, 78v, 81r–85r, 87r, 90r, 95v, 97r, 117v, 118v, 132v, 135v, 137v, 138v, 142r, 143v, 151v, 155r, and 168v–169r), or (less commonly), rows of ‘os’ (fols 33r, 39r, and 98r), or the ubiquitous J motif, often inverted (see Figure 4.4). Not every pen-flourished loop has an ‘o’, and the manuscript has been trimmed to the point that several lower borders have been cut off. But the link to C is, I think, telling, despite the absence of the flowers and fleur-de-lis motifs of C. In lat. 523A, the pen-flourished initials and borders take second place in favour of the tiny (half-column) miniatures and historiated initials that begin each textual component of the book. They are modest in relation to later Metz production, where miniatures and historiated initials are much larger, although pen-flourishing is still present. Broadly speaking, the illuminator of lat. 523A appears to have enjoyed a distinguished career, illuminating a huge range of liturgical, devotional, and secular works of all kinds, extending well into the 10 For the Tournoi de Chauvency component of I, see Chazan and Regalado (eds), Lettres,

musique et société; for the Chansonnier see Eglal Doss-Quinby, Samuel N. Rosenberg, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), The Old French Ballette: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, Publications romanes et françaises, 239 (Geneva, 2006); and for the Voeux du Paon see Domenic Leo, Images, Texts, and Marginalia in a ‘Vows of the Peacock’ Manuscript (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS G24): With a Complete Concordance and Catalogue of Peacock Manuscripts, Library of the Written Word, 28, Manuscript World, 5 (Leiden, 2013), MS P1, pp. 169–210, 259–63. 11 For more on I’s pen-flourishing see Leach’s chapter in this volume (Chapter 7), p. 122. 12 In black and white at Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Thomas Cantipratensis, De natura rerum’ (2013) [accessed 15 December 2020]; see also Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, part II, vol. 1, Cat. IV-3.

Figure 4.2: Loop with an ‘o’ motif in the chansonnier section of I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, fol. 145v). Photo: © Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, reproduced under Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Figure 4.3: Lower loop containing a sexfoil flower in the Chauvency section of I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, fol. 114r.) Photo: © Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, reproduced under Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC 4.0.



the decoration of c and its artistic context 61

Figure 4.4: Pen-flourishing in Thomas de Cantimpré, De rerum natura (Paris, BnF, lat. 523A, fol. 98r, photo: BnF).

fourteenth century, including I, the approximately dated component of which is the jeux-partis, c. 1309; the last dated work this illuminator did alone is the Pontifical of Strasbourg in Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1814, copied in 1311.13 This illuminator also collaborated closely in the Avicenna in Paris, BnF, lat. 6918.14 This manuscript was commissioned by Maître Thierry de Lincy from his nephew Jean, who began work on it in 1310 and finished (only) in 1316. Most of the manuscripts with pen-flourishing closest to that in C contain sparse dating evidence, though they offer other kinds of information. I propose to situate C later than lat. 523A, but squarely in the group centred upon the Dominican Gradual in Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435 (before 1298) and the Dominican Bible, Aschaffenburg, Hofbibliothek, 16 (of uncertain date).15 In both, the illumination includes depictions of Dominicans: a nun in Brussels 6435, and a friar in Aschaffenburg 16. Both have major illumination in the form of historiated initials so in both, the pen-flourishing takes second place, but is no less useful in establishing an approximate date. They show the cinqfoil and sexfoil flowers that are also found in C, and the rows of ‘os’ and single ‘os’ in the lower pen-flourished loops (Brussels, 6435, fol. 22v; see Figure 4.5). Three further manuscripts are closely related and also contain the particular details of pen-flourishing found in C. Cinqfoils and sexfoils, J borders (fol. 1r, Figure 4.6), and the step motif in the bar of the party-initial (fols 1, 2) can be found in a Liber de legendis sanctorum by Jacobus de Voragine in Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, 13 Andreas Fingernagel and Martin Roland, Mitteleuropäische Schulen, vol. 1, c. 1250–1350,

Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters. Reihe I, Die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunabeln der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 10 (Vienna, 1997), sub numero. 14 Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, Part II, vol. 1, Cat. IV-11. 15 Ibid., Part II, vol. 2, Table of Bibles.

62

alison stones

Figure 4.5: Flowers and ‘os’ in the pen-flourished loops of a Dominican Gradual (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435, fol. 22v; photo: BR).

site Stanislas, MS. 188, copied in January 1289 by Ernardus Clericus.16 The other two manuscripts are both copies of the Chroniques de Hainaut by Baudouin d’Avesnes: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 98 (with sexfoil and cinqfoil flowers and fleurs-delis in the flourishing on fol. 77r, see Figure 4.7), and New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, MS 339 (with sexfoils and fleur-de-lis on fol. 2r, see Figure 4.8).17 These two Baudouin d’Avesnes manuscripts both have more elaborate patterns in the bars of the initials, and the flowers in Beinecke Library 339 include cinqfoils with elongated leaves, a motif not found in C, suggesting they are probably later than C. 16 Not Curicuus as I said in Stones, ‘Le Contexte artistique’, p. 159, corrected in Stones,

Gothic Manuscripts, part I, vol. 1, p. 83.

17 It may be that Paris, BnF, n.a.f. 5218 fits here too: Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, part II, vol.

1, Cat. IV-8.

Figure 4.6: Cinqfoils, sexfoils, and J borders in a Liber de legendis sanctorum (Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, site Stanislas, MS 188, fol. 1r; photo: Nancy, BM).

64

alison stones

Figure 4.7: Sexfoil and cinqfoil flowers and fleurs-de-lis in the flourishing in Baudouin d’Avesnes’s Chroniques de Hainaut (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 98, fol. 77r; photo: author).

They are closer to the Charte de franchise d’Olley, granted in 1294 by Jean de Brié, abbot of Gorze and Robert de Bissen et de la Grange, whose one pen-flourished initial drawn in the ink of the text has an elaborate step motif with an additional line decoration in white in the bar of the initial, and other floral motifs not found in C (see Figure 4.9). Some of these additional motifs, notably the flower with elongated leaves, coupled with a fleur-de-lis, are also found in the Premonstratensian Missal of Toul (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127, fol. 188r), after 1298 (Figure 4.10).18

18 Lilian M. C. Randall, Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery (5

vols, Baltimore, 1989–97), vol. 1, pp. 145–9, n. 56.

Figure 4.8: Sexfoils and fleur-de-lis in Baudouin d’Avesnes, Chroniques de Hainaut (General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, MS 339, fol. 197r: photo: Yale University).

Figure 4.9: Single pen-flourished initial in Charte de franchise d’Olley (Metz, Archives départmentales, H903-1-1294; photo: author).

66

alison stones

Finally, the decoration of the Missal of the Confraternity of Notre Dame, Cambrai (Paris, BnF, lat. 17311, before 1297) emerges as a close parallel for the pen-flourishing in C.19 It is heavily notated, with square notation on a four-line staff ruled in red. The favourite motif it shares with C is the cinqfoil, employed in lat. 17311 as two superimposed flowers in spirals within initials of one staff and text line, or free-flowing in margins and intercolumnar spaces – and it is found on most pages (see, for example, fol. i verso in Figure 4.11). The lower loop with ‘o’ motif is also common here. There is now no Crucifixion or Christ in Majesty as would be expected in a missal, but the book has a single small miniature depicting the Sacrifice of Isaac (fol. 174r) at the Te igitur (Figure 4.12). The artist is recognisable in this miniature and in the foliate initials that mark the major feasts as the painter who participated as the second artist in I and London, British Library, MS Harley 4972, illustrating the Bestiaire d’amours of Richard de Fournival (copied by a scribe who names himself Breton), an Apocalypse, Prophécies de Sébille, and Torneiment Anticrist. He also worked as assistant to I’s major artist in the Avicenna in Paris, BnF, lat. 6918 (1310–6, as noted above). This painter also worked on his own in the Breviary of St-Arnoul de Metz, Metz, Bibliothèques-Médiathèques, MS 585, datable to the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century according to Victor Marie Leroquais (see Figure 4.13).20 So the pen-flourisher of C seems to have worked on other books with both major artists of I and its group, suggesting that this was an individual distinct from either of the two painters. The Cambrai connection is interesting in relation to the ascription of the authorship of several of the songs in C to one Jacques de Cambrai, a figure not otherwise attested.21 Distinguished pen-flourishing was a feature of book production in the region of Cambrai from at least the 1270s, as attested by the books made for the Cistercian Abbey of Cambron (dioc. Cambrai), some written by Johannes Resbais and undated (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, James Ford Bell Library, B1280fVi – see Figure 4.14 – and Minneapolis, The Bakken Museum, OCLC 746080341, shelf location OS 55.7 – see Figure 4.15), others by Johannes dictus Toussens, who wrote Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS II 2297 (containing St Augustine, De quaestionibus Veteris Testamenti) in 1277 (see Figure 4.16) and whose name is found in other books as well.22 The decoration of both books share motifs with C, notably cinqfoils and sexfoils, but both are considerably more elaborate, introducing many other motifs not found in C. This may mean they are later than C, or could be a question of context, or of production – monastic versus lay – or of geography, with Cambron/ 19 Victor Marie Leroquais, Les Sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques

publiques de France (4 vols, Paris, 1924), vol. 2, pp. 228–9, n. 403.

20 Victor Marie Leroquais, Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (5

vols, Paris, 1932–4), vol. 2, p. 252, n. 359. St Louis is not in the sanctoral, so a date before 1297 is more likely than the fourteenth century. There is no calendar. 21 Jacques de Cambrai is given considerable attention elsewhere in this volume; see the chapters by Luca Gatti, Christopher Callahan, and Daniel O’Sullivan below (Chapters 5, 8, and 9). 22 François Masai and Martin Wittek, Manuscrits datés conservés en Belgique (6 vols, Brussels, 1968–91), vol. 1, no. 18, pp. 23–4.

Figure 4.10: Flower with elongated leaves with a fleur-de-lis in the Premonstratensian Missal of Toul (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127 fol. 188r; photo: Walters Art Museum).

Figure 4.11: Cinqfoil in the Missal of the Confraternity of Notre-Dame, Cambrai (Paris, BnF, lat. 17311, fol. i verso; photo: BnF).



the decoration of c and its artistic context 69

Figure 4.12: The Sacrifice of Isaac at the Te igitur, in the Missal of the Confraternity of Notre-Dame, Cambrai (Paris, BnF, lat. 17311, fols 173v-174r; photo: BnF).

Cambrai centre(s) opting for greater artistic elaboration within the relatively narrow confines of the pen-flourishing, while C and its Metz makers and patrons opted for a simpler approach. The precise circumstances of the making of C still preserve many of their secrets, but C also shares numerous features with other distinguished books and contributes an important dimension to Messine book decoration in the last quarter of the thirteenth century.

Figure 4.13: Pen-flourishing in the Breviary of St-Arnoul de Metz (Metz, Bibliothèques-Médiathèques, MS 585, fol. 83r; photo: author).

Figure 4.14: Pen-flourishing in a book made for the Cistercian Abbey of Cambron (dioc. Cambrai) by Johannes Resbais (Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota, James Ford Bell Library, B1280fVi, vol. 4, fol. 10v; photo: Courtesy of the James Ford Bell Library, University of Minnesota).

Figure 4.15: Pen-flourishing in another book made for Cambron by Johannes Resbais (Collections of The Bakken Museum, Minneapolis, OCLC 746080341, shelf location OS 55.7, vol. 2, fol. 177r; photo: The Bakken Museum).

Figure 4.16: Pen-flourishing in Saint Augustine, De quaestionibus Veteris Testamenti made for Cambron by Johannes dictus Toussens (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS II 2297, fol. 73r; photo: BR).

74

alison stones

Appendix 4.1 Messine manuscripts whose decoration is closely related to that of C: Shelfmark

Date of decoration

Contents

Paris, BnF, lat. 523A

1276

Thomas Cantimpré, De rerum natura

Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, site Stanislas, MS 188

January 1289

Jacobus de Voragine, Liber de legendis sanctorum

Metz, Archives départementales, H903-1-1294

1294

Charte de franchise d’Olley

Paris, BnF, lat 17311

Before 1297

Missal of the Confraternity of Notre Dame, Cambrai

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 98

c. 1290–1300 ?

Baudouin d’Avesnes, Chroniques de Hainaut

Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435

before 1298

Dominican Gradual

Aschaffenburg, Hofbibliothek, 16

c. 1290–1300 ?

Dominican Bible

Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127

after 1298

Praemonstratensian Missal of Toul

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308

1309

Chansonnier I, jeux-partis

New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, MS 339

c. 1300–10 ?

Baudouin d’Avesnes, Chroniques de Hainaut

Chapter 5

Author Ascriptions and Genre Labels in C Luca Gatti

M

anuscript C, a complex collection of texts drawn from diverse poetic traditions, is one of the richest trouvère chansonniers. While Christopher Callahan adduces the prevalence of ‘empty staves and pages not ruled for music’ to comment that ‘eastern scriptoria appear to have always been somewhat removed from the centres of lyric practice’, the textual relevance of C remains indisputable, as does that of its sIII family in general.1 In particular, C often transmits alternate versions of stanzas or whole texts.2 Such textual instability has been viewed as linked to the tendency in medieval literature for anonymity and different attitudes to concepts of intellectual property. As Olivia Holmes has noted: Customarily, it was the scribe (or the director of a scriptorium), and not the author, who was responsible for the production of a book, and scribes were not generally concerned with preserving the author’s precise words. Content, rather than authorship, appears to have been the most important factor in determining the choice and arrangement of vernacular texts, for attributions were frequently missing. The distinction between author and scribe was not always a clear one, in any case; the medieval writer felt that he or she could legitimately copy or imitate a first-person discourse, substituting his or her own ego for that of the source (what we would consider plagiarism today).3

Callahan, too, remarks on C’s ‘clear evolution away from the author-centred collections of mid-century’, referring specifically to ‘its principles of organisation’.4 Not many attributions are available in the sIII manuscripts in general and it seems that C 1

Christopher Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric at the Peripheries: The Lessons of MSS Paris, BnF fr. 20050 and Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 15–30, at p. 25. For a key to the sigla for the principal families of trouvère manuscript tradition see Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886); his stemma of the sIII family is given as Figure 3.1 in the present volume. On the stemmatic weight of the eastern tradition see Luca Barbieri (ed.), Le Liriche di Hugues de Berzé, Humanae litterae, 5 (Milan, 2001), p. 81; Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015–20). 2 See, for example, Lonc tens ai servi en balance (RS 207) in Barbieri, Le Liriche, pp. 197–212; and Or sui liés du dous termine (RS 1386) in Luciano Formisano, ‘Un Legs français de Jaufré Rudel’, Revue des langues romanes, 87:1 (1983), pp. 29–50. 3 Olivia Holmes, Assembling the Lyric Self: Authorship from Troubadour Song to Italian Poetry Book, Medieval cultures, 21 (Minneapolis, 2000), p. 6. 4 Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 16.

76

luca gatti

is, and was intended to be, an ‘authorless’ chansonnier, since no rubrics were originally provided. Instead, the songs are gathered alphabetically by incipit, perhaps in order to facilitate the research necessary for the assembly of the volume, for instance by enabling consultation of the texts in an incipitarium.5 The author ascriptions and genre labels visible in C today were provided by a later rubricator.6 This article will focus on their remarkable, albeit controversial, testimony.7

Author Ascriptions The rubricator of C suggests a total of 263 attributions.8 The most represented trouvère is Gace Brulé, to whom thirty-nine texts are assigned: this is not surprising, since more than 100 texts are attributed to him overall in trouvère chansonniers.9 Second most numerous, however, is the far less well attested figure of Gautier d’Espinal, a ‘local poet’ (Épinal, dép. Vosges, rég. Grand Est), seventeen of whose twenty-one securely attributed songs are given correct attributions here.10 In descending order, for example, we find Thibaut de Champagne (fourteen occurrences), Jacques de Cambrai (twelve occurrences), Blondel de Nesle (ten occurrences), and the Chastelain de Couci (eight occurrences).11 The names of fifty trouvères appear only once. With the exception of Gautier d’Espinal and Jacques de Cambrai, numerically 5 Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 259. See also Maria Luisa Meneghetti,

6 7

8

9

10

11

‘La Forma-canzoniere fra tradizione mediolatina e tradizioni volgari’, Critica del testo, 2:1 (1999), pp. 119–40, at p. 129; Vicenç Beltrán, ‘Los Cancioneros trovadorescos y la renovación cultural del siglo XIII’, in Anna Ferrari and Stefania Romualdi (eds), ‘Ab nou cor et ab nou talen’: nouvelles tendances de la recherche médiévale occitane: actes du Colloque AIEO (L’Aquila, 5–7 juillet 2001), Studi, testi e manuali (new series), 8, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours (new series), 5 (Modena, 2004), pp. 103–30, at p. 119. Or possibly two different rubricators: see Paula Moreno’s argument in Chapter 3 of the present volume. On the rubricator of C’s philological skills see Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999), p. 35, n. 99. See the index and description in Moreno, “Intavulare”; see also Paola Allegretti, review of ‘“Intavulare”: Tavole di canzonieri romanzi/Tables de chansonniers romans’, Vox Romanica, 60 (2001), pp. 269–72. Holger Petersen Dyggve (ed.), Gace Brulé: trouvère champenois: édition des chansons et étude historique, Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique à Helsingfors, 16 (Helsinki, 1951), p. 113; and Marie-Geneviève Grossel, ‘Note sur quelques fausses attributions à Gace Brulé du Chansonnier de Berne’, in Michel Zink, Danielle Bohler, Eric Hicks, and Manuela Python (eds), L’Hostellerie de pensée: études sur l’art littéraire au Moyen Age offertes à Daniel Poirion par ses anciens élèves, Cultures et civilisations médiévales, 12 (Paris, 1994), pp. 205–13. Se j’ai lonc tans amours servi (RS 1082) is attributed to Chevalier d’Espinal, but we may assume that the rubricator is referring to Gautier himself: see Uno Lindelöf and Axel Wallensköld (eds), Les Chansons de Gautier d’Épinal (Helsinki, 1901), pp. 3–4; see also Germana Schiassi, ‘Edizione critica e commento delle liriche di Gautier d’Epinal / Gautier d’Epinal: édition critique et commentaire’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Università di Bologna and Université de Paris IV, 2004). On Thibaut’s reception in C see Chapters 8 and 10; on Jacques de Cambrai see Chapter 9.



author ascriptions and genre labels in c 77

speaking the contents of C is not very far from that of the sII canon, especially that of the KNPX group, despite the undeniable differences in compilatio.12 A relatively large number of unique attributions (thirty-nine) is suggested for texts that C shares only with other sources in the υ tradition, confirming the eastern sources of C.13 Overall, C contains 112 isolated attributions, of which thirty-six are made for unica, making them unverifiable. Among them we find sixty-two attributions that conflict with attributions in other sources. Authorial attribution in the corpus of French and Occitan vernacular song is a complicated and stratified process, on account of the considerable amount of conflicting attributions in the repertoire overall.14 With regard to C specifically, Nicolaas Unlandt expresses a general opinion, when he reports that C’s attributions are not the most reliable; many are simply rejected, for example, in Robert White Linker’s bibliography.15 In contrast, Arthur Långfors writes that we should be suspicious of C’s testimony only when it is contradicted by other manuscripts.16 Except for some fortunate cases in which different families of manuscripts report the same attribution, especially for ‘famous’ trouvères, unanimity is found mostly among manuscripts belonging to a single family. As a result, in cases where all, or nearly all, the production of a given trouvère is taken from a single family of

12 See the description and bibliography in Alvaro Barbieri, ‘Anonimato nella letteratura

13

14

15

16

francese medievale’, in Alvaro Barbieri, Alessandra Favero, and Francesca Gambino (eds), L’Eclissi dell’artefice: sondaggi sull’anonimato nei canzonieri medievali romanza, Scrittura e scrittori, 17 (Alessandria, 2002), pp. 35–84, at pp. 58–68. On the contents and sources of C see Chapter 3 of the present volume. With regard to the tradition of υ, some French lyric fragments (which, inter alia, confirm the attribution of Dieus, j’ai chanté si volentiers (RS 1339) to Gautier de Navilly) have been recovered from the Archivio Storico Comunale in Bologna: see Francesco Bruno, ‘Frammenti lirici in lingua d’oïl recuperati presso l’Archivio Storico Comunale di Bologna’, Documenta, 2 (2019), pp. 37–56. On regional canon within trouvère chansonniers, see Dan Octavian Cepraga, ‘Tradizioni regionali e tassonomie editoriali nei canzonieri anticofrancesi’, Critica del testo, 7:1 (2004), pp. 391–424. See Carlo Pulsoni, Repertorio delle attribuzioni discordanti nella lirica trobadorica, Studi, testi e manuali (new series), 1, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours (new series), 1 (Modena, 2001) and Luca Gatti, Repertorio delle attribuzioni discordanti nella lirica trovierica, Studi e Ricerche, 79 (Rome, 2019). See Nicolaas Unlandt,  Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011), p. xxxi; Robert White Linker, A Bibliography of Old French Lyrics, Romance Monographs, 31 (Oxford, MS, 1979), p. 104 (‘Amauri de Craon’, ‘Ancuses de Monveron’), p. 132 (no. 57 ‘Duchesse de Lorraine’: ‘Probably error of C scribe’), p. 210 (‘Musealite’: ‘Non-existent’), p. 219 (‘Pierre de Gant’: ‘Error in Ms. C’), p. 250 (‘Tristan’ [sic!]). See also Gatti, Repertorio, pp. 87–92. On Amauri de Craon see Luca Gatti, ‘Per Fine Amours claimme en moi par hiretage (Linker 205,1)’, Cognitive Philology, 12 (2019) [accessed 8th June 2021]. Arthur Långfors, ‘Les Chansons attribuées aux Seigneurs de Craon’, Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique de Helsingfors, 6 (1917), pp. 41–87, at p. 44.

78

luca gatti

manuscripts, even a lack of conflicting attributions arguably does not remove all doubt.17 Therefore, we should evaluate every attribution in C considering the whole tradition: the degree of certainty – from unanimity in ‘famous’ texts to isolated attributions – is not uniform at all. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude any attribution a priori. For example, Luca Barbieri has recently shown that some attributions in C could be linked to a much older source, shared also by manuscripts S and U, from which perspective every single attribution could be meaningful. The attribution of Bien cuidai toute ma vie (RS 1232) to Gace Brulé, for example, is shared only by Jean Renart’s Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole, the early date of which tends to support Barbieri’s position.18 It is worth attempting to summarise some habits of C’s rubricator. When the rubricator finds a disagreement in attributions between sources in groups sI and sII, there is a tendency to suggest a new attribution, one peculiar to C.19 In cases in which sI and sII sources agree on a ‘major trouvère’ (for example, Thibaut de Champagne, Gace Brulé, the Chastelain de Couci, or Blondel de Nesle), C typically proposes either a different major trouvère or, more often, a ‘minor’ one.20 We may suppose that the rubricator even had, among others, sII and sI sources.21 For the latter, some attributions suggest that the rubricator was drawing on more of the exemplars of sI – including one produced from μ1.22 And it remains difficult to say whether the sources of authorial names were in the form of chansonniers, or lists, or both.23 The question of the sources of authorial names leads to a question about what impact, if any, orality had on the provision of authorial attributions. Mary O’Neill has commented that: Although it is possible that some of the repertoire may have been notated at an earlier date in rolls or in earlier collections that have not survived (and indeed the incomplete nature of the extant manuscript tradition would suggest this), it is likely that, for the earlier generations of trouvères at least, the principal process

17 Maria Sofia Lannutti (ed.), Guiot de Dijon: canzoni, La Tradizione musicale, studi e testi,

3 (Florence, 1999), p. xxv.

18 Luca Barbieri, ‘Deteriores non inanes: il canzoniere S della lirica in lingua d’oïl’, in

19

20 21 22 23

Vicenç Beltrán and Juan Paredes (eds), Convivio: estudios sobre la poesía de cancionero, Monográfica, Biblioteca de humanidades, Teoría y crítica literarias, 16 (Granada, 2006), pp. 145–74, at p. 155, n. 22. For example, Gatti, Repertorio, pp. 105–98, nos 17 (RS 389), 23 (RS 1995), 27–28 (RS 1876a, 1559), 32 (RS 1754), 36 (RS 1536), 41–2 (RS 1252, 998), 47 (RS 21), 52 (RS 1126), 60 (RS 14), 67 (RS 957), 74 (RS 738), and 76 (RS 421). Ibid., nos 20 (RS 620), 22 (RS 120), and 38 (RS 1867) (‘major trouvère’); 25–26 (RS 700, 985), 35 (RS 1579), 58 (RS 1148), and 69 (RS 2075) (‘minor trouvère’). See ibid., nos 87 (RS 221), and 89–91 (RS 787, 653, 550) (for C + sII vs. sI,); nos 3 (RS 1969), 5–6 (RS 1429, 661), 95–96 (RS 1125, 1574), and 103 (RS 1664) (for C + sI vs. sII). For example, ibid., nos 92–94 (RS 1297, 233, 590) (C + M); nos 104–5 (RS 736, 790a) (C + T). More problematic is ibid., no. 102 (RS 1575) (C + R). On the possibility of an author list, see discussion by Robert Lug in Chapter 6, p. 98.



author ascriptions and genre labels in c 79 of transmission was an oral one and therefore that the extant chansonniers are to some degree a product of a combination of oral and written transmission.24

Conversely, what applies to the text should not necessarily also apply to the paratext: while some scholars evaluate attributive rubrics in the same way as any other textual reading (for example, by giving more weight to a reading found in the majority of cases), I concur with those who consider that each rubric requires individual analysis.25 Autonominatio, in which songs name-check their own authors, potentially provides a useful litmus test for figuring out the behaviour of C’s rubricator.26 While the repertoire of sacred monophony and polyphony exhibits a reluctance to proclaim authorship, troubadour and trouvère songs, built much more centrally on a projection of an individual lyric self, often do. As Judith Peraino remarks, ‘in no other medieval musical repertory do we find the cultural necessity of attaching names to song’.27 Nonetheless, the rubricator seems to ignore author information found in the verbal texts of Herbert’s Chans d’oisiaus et feuille et flours (RS 2035, fol. 47r) and Loiaus amours et li tens qui repaire (RS 177, fol. 134r), in Andreus’s Partis d’amour et de mon chant (RS 310, fol. 190v), and in Jehan d’Auxerre’s Pour le tens qui verdoie (RS 1768, fol. 180r).28 Moreover, a song that signals its author internally as being Blondel de Nesle is attributed to Gace Brulé in C.29 It may be hypothesised, therefore, that C’s rubricator relied on written sources, maybe in the form of an index, for his authorial attribution, rather than taking it from a reading of the song’s text itself.30

Genre Labels In a discussion of genre labels, it is necessary to make a preliminary distinction between ‘genre labels’ per se and other ‘marginal labels’ in C. The latter may refer to thematic classifications, or may indicate, for example, a melodic source for the text 24 Mary J. O’Neill, Courtly Love Songs of Medieval France: Transmission and Style in the

Trouvère Repertoire (Oxford, 2006), p. 16.

25 See the bibliography in Gatti, Repertorio, p. 25. 26 On autonominatio see Madeleine Jeay, Poétique de la nomination dans la lyrique médiévale:

27 28 29

30

‘Mult volentiers me numerai’, Recherches littéraires médiévales, 18, Le lyrisme de la fin du Moyen Âge, 4 (Paris, 2015), pp. 29–94; see also Valeria Bertolucci Pizzorusso, ‘La Firma del poeta: un sondaggio sull’autonominatio nella lirica dei trovatori’, in Carmen Parrilla and Mercedes Pampín (eds), Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (A Coruña, 18 al 22 de septiembre de 2001), Biblioteca filológica, 13–15 (3 vols, A Coruña, 2005), vol. 1, pp. 83–97. Judith A. Peraino, Giving Voice to Love: Song and Self-Expression from the Troubadours to Guillaume de Machaut (Oxford, 2011), p. 18. On RS 1768, see Gatti, Repertorio, pp. 18–19. S’Amours veut que mes chans remaigne (RS 120, fol. 220r): see Gatti, Repertorio, p. 19. On Lonc tens ai esté (RS 433, fol. 136r), which has a declared Gace Brulé quotation in the tradition, see ibid., p. 22; Luciano Formisano (ed.), Gontier de Soignies: il canzoniere, Documenti di filologia, 23 (Milan, 1980), pp. xxxv–xxxvi. For further consideration of this suggestion, see Lug’s remarks in Chapter 6, pp. 97–8.

80

luca gatti

(as with contrafacture).31 A borderline case can be seen in the rubric ‘une dame’ given for La froidour ne la gelee (RS 517, fol. 136r), which might indicate either a genre or an attribution to a generic woman.32 The rubric ‘Retrus Aidefrois li Baistairs’, which marks En chambre a or se siet la bele Beatris (RS 1525, fol. 16v), is perplexing: ‘retrus’ can refer to retrouenge, but the text does not belong to that genre. (Linker proposes ‘romance’ instead.)33 In my count, which excludes RS 517 and RS 1525, C’s rubricator proposes forty genre labels. Organisation by genre in trouvère chansonniers is relatively uncommon.34 The canso or grand chant tops the medieval hierarchy of genre, and examples are copied widely throughout C. Unlike I, which explicitly calls its examples ‘grans chans’ – within which it includes devotional songs – in an internal table of contents and an initial rubric for the section containing them, C appears to consider specification of this genre in C redundant and never suggests it.35 Religious labels in C, which I therefore consider to be labelling thematic content rather than genre per se, refer to cansos (eighteen occurrences), within which we find, significantly, the crusade song Por lou pueple resconforteir (RS 886, fol. 179r). The most represented genre labels relate to jeu-parti and similar dialogic texts, and pastourelles (ten occurences each). Within such dialogic structures in medieval French more broadly, interlocutors usually call each other by name at the beginning of each stanza. The rubricator, therefore, can derive the attribution from the text itself, although a margin of ambiguity still remains if the interlocutors’ names are incomplete.36 Beside the dialogic genre label, one or both participants may be named in the rubric in addition, or the genre label can be entirely omitted when both interlocutors are named (as in the rubric ‘Robers de le Pi et Amaheus de Gan’ given for Mahieu de Gant, respondés (RS 946, f. 151r)). On occasion, C’s rubricator ignores author information coming from the text: Amis Bertrains, dites moi le meillour (RS 2000, fol. 2r), a jeu-parti between Guichart and Bertran, is simply assigned to Conon de Béthune; and Gautier, qui de France venés (RS 953, f. 87v), bears the rubric ‘C’est 31 See, for example, the rubric ‘Perrins d’Angicort et si fut corenaie et Arez’ given for J’ai un

32

33 34 35

36

joli souvenir (RS 1470, fol. 106v): on crowned songs, mainly peculiar – but not exclusive – to sII, see Maria Carla Battelli, ‘Le Chansons couronnées nell’antica lirica francese’, Critica del testo, 2:2 (1999), pp. 565–617. On the rubric of Tout ausi con li olifans (RS 272, fol. 238r), ‘Forkes de Mersaille sor [son] Poitevin’, see Francesco Carapezza, ‘Un’Ipotesi sul son poitevin’, Medioevo Romanzo, 36:2 (2012), pp. 390–405. See Luca Gatti, ‘Les Interférences attributives “du genre” dans la tradition des chansons lyriques à voix féminine en langue d’oïl’, in Marjolaine Raguin and Nadine Henrard (eds), Voix de femmes et croisades, motifs, représentations et enjeux (Paris, forthcoming). Linker, A Bibliography of Old French Lyrics, no. 15.9. See Maria Carla Battelli, ‘Le Antologie poetiche in antico-francese’, Critica del testo, 2:1 (1999), pp. 141–80, at pp. 158–65. See Paolo Canettieri, ‘Appunti per la classificazione dei generi trobadorici’, Cognitive Philology, 4 (2011), [accessed 8th June 2021]. The use of genre labels is also discussed by Elizabeth Eva Leach, p. 127. See Giuseppe Tavani, ‘Eterotopie et eteronomie nella lettura dei canzonieri galegoportoghesi’, Estudis Romànics, 22 (2000), pp. 139–53, at p. 141.



author ascriptions and genre labels in c 81

dou Conte de Bair et d’Otenin son ganre’, located in the top margin, that does not relate to the content of this ‘political song in dialogue form’.37 The other most represented genre is the pastourelle (ten occurrences). Here, the author’s name can come after the genre designation in the label, as with ‘Pastourelle Bastorneis’ for En mai au dous tans novel (RS 576, fol. 11v), or before it, as with ‘Thibaus de Nangis pastorelle’ for A dous tens Pascour (RS 2008, fol. 15v). Although the pastourelles in C often share a common source with those in I’s pastourelle subsection, a genre label is not always given, as, for example, in the cases of Entre Aras et Douai (RS 75, fol. 11r) and En un flori (RS 1043a, fol. 11v).

Rubrics in C constitute a remarkable – and still controversial – testimony. For author ascriptions and for genre labels we have seen how the rubricator of C could rely not only on known sources (for example, those within the families sI, sII, and sIII), but also on exclusive and far older ones. Since C’s rubricator seems to ignore author information coming from the texts themselves, it seems likely that they drew on sources written in the form of an index. Despite mixed sources and mixed results, the rubricator’s work contributed to making C an enduringly interesting trouvère songbook.

37 See Axel Wallensköld, ‘Dialogue politique en vers de la fin de l’année 1229’, in Mélanges de

linguistique et de littérature offerts à M. Alfred Jeanroy par ses élèves et amis (Paris, 1928), pp. 565–70, at p. 565.

Chapter 6

Common Exemplars of U and C Robert Lug

T

he close relationship between the Messine chansonniers Saint-Germain-desPrés (U) and Bern 389 (C) is already suggested by their layout. Both are written as a single column: U has twenty-six, C twenty-eight lines per page. Their text blocks differ in size by only one centimetre in height and two in width. Their physical appearance is thus quite similar, aside from C’s broader margins and richer decoration (see Figure 6.1).1 One can only speculate as to the kind of notation that was planned for C and the reason that no melodies were entered.2 As regards their content, C and U have 211 songs in common, which amounts to almost two thirds of the total repertoire of U and 40% of C.3 It would seem that the older chansonnier U was, in some way or other, used extensively by the compiler of C. In this contribution, I offer some insights into the way that U was used, and into the hidden world of exemplars.4 I wish to thank my dear friend and colleague Eric Fiedler (University of Frankfurt) for his

help with stylistic aspects of my text. C also provides more room for the melodies: the four-line staves of U occupy one text line, whereas the five-line staves of C occupy two text lines each, which had, since the copying of U, become the standard. 2 The presence of staves throughout seems to be an indication that the entry of melodies was not a vaguely planned future project, but one concretely envisaged. However, the different notations (Messine, square) in the exemplars and the challenge posed by semimensural innovations would have presented a difficult task for the music scribe of C: see Robert Lug, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231– 1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des Prés’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 451–86, at pp. 480–83. The scribe may have become exasperated with the task or ill, or the money to pay them had run out. It is remarkable, though, that not a single melody was added later. What kind of notation should we imagine for C, if the melodies had been entered? After the old part of U (1231), all preserved Messine chansonniers are completely silent when it comes to music notation, with the exception of one single melody in U’s younger part. This late entry (U no. 331, fol. 170v, RS 1768) shows a rather clumsy semi-mensural notation. If this suggests anything for C, it is that the planned notation for C might have been a skillful semi-mensural one similar to that of the Burgundian chansonnier O: for the notation of O, see Robert Lug, Semi-mensurale Informationen zur Liedrhythmik des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 2019). 3 Five of these appear twice in U, so that of its 334 songs, it shares 216 with C. 4 At the Bern workshop, I was pleased that Elizabeth Eva Leach not only shared my curiosity about this hidden world, but had already arrived at similar results for the putative exemplars of C and I. See Chapter 7 in this volume. 1



common examplars of u and c 83

U1 26 lines Text block 15 x 9.5 cm C 28 lines Text block 16 x 11.5 cm Figure 6.1: Relative dimensions and layout of U and C. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France

Letter-section M Songs found in U are often inserted singly or in small groups into the succession of songs in C; however, frequently they form larger clusters. For instance, of the twenty songs in letter-section A that are also found in U, twelve constitute a sequence (nos 29–41) in C, interrupted by one unicum only (no. 37).5 Letter-section Q shows a similar sequence: of its eighteen songs that it shares with U, fifteen are in a single unit as nos 418–33, with one unicum intervening (no. 425). The most astonishing cluster is found in letter-section M (see Table 6.1). Fourteen of these twenty-seven songs are transmitted by U, and immediately after the usual religious opening song, all of them form a sequence (nos 314–28), 5 Song numbers for C are given in this chapter according to Julius Brakelmann (ed.),

‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift Nro. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 41 (1867), pp. 339–76; 42 (1868), pp. 73–82, 241–392; 43 (1868), pp. 241–394; Nicolaas Unlandt, Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011).

Table 6.1: The songs in C’s letter-section M (nos 313–39, fols 143r–155v) C no. Incipit in C

RS

Attribution in C

U no.

Other mss. & attributions

313

Meire douce creature 2091 Jaikes de canbrai ou chant de lai glaiemeure

–

I, j, Valenciennes 183

314

Ma uolenteis me requiert et semont

1923 Messires gaisez brulei

37

–

315

Mainte fois mait lon demandeit

419

Messirez gatier de degier

119

MTaA Gautier de Dargies

316

Moult ai esteit lonc tens en esperance

226

Goudefrois de chastelon

5

–

317

Moult ai esteit longuement esbaihis

1536 Messirez Willamez de vies maxon

4

M Gace Brulé, KXP Chastelain de Couci, VOLI

318

Moult se feist boen tenir de chanteir

802

Blondels

178

–

319

Mar uit raixon ki couoite trop hault

397

Cherdons de croisillez

93, 319

MT Chardon de Croisilles, KNPX

320

Mercit clamans de mon fol erremant

671

li chastelain de Cousit

75

MTaAKXP Chastelain de Couci, VORF

321

Moult mest belle la douce comensence

209

li chastelain de cousi

1

MTaAKXP Chastelain de Couci, R Roi de Navarre, VOLF

322

Ma joie premerainme

142

guios de provins

22

–

323

Ma dame en cui deus 1567 Jehans li tenturier daurez – ait mis

–

324

Moult me meruoil de ma dame et de moy

1668 guios de provins

2

–

325

Moult chantaisse uolentiers liement

700

3

MTaAKXP Chastelain de Couci, HVO

326

Moult me prie souant

732

68

–

327

Mes cuers loiauls ne fine

1384

49

–

328

Moult aurai lonc tens 421 demoreit

109

MTaAR Vidame de Chartres, KNP Gontier de Soignies

Gerniers dairches

guios de provins

—(continued)

common examplars of u and c 85



Table 6.1—concluded C no. Incipit in C

RS

Attribution in C

U no.

Other mss. & attributions

329

Moult manue diver ke tant ait dureit

428

Colins musez

–

–

330

Maheus de gans respondeis

946

Robers de lepi[ere] et amaheus de gans

–

–

331

Ma chanson nest pais iolie

1171 Jaikemas de lavante li creirs

–

KX

332

Moins ai joie ke ie ne suel

998

Willame de corbie

–

KNPX Gace Brulé, T Vielart de Corbie, VL

333

Mais ne auris ne prins tens

288

pieres dangincort

–

–

334

Mes cuers me fait comencier

1269

–

MT Blondel, P Gace Brulé

335

Mains se fait damors plux fiers

759

–

KNP Richart de Fournival, OH, W2

336

Mescheans seux damors

1951

–

–

337

Ma uolenteis et bone 560 amor mensaigne

–

T Jehan d’Esquiri, KNP

338

Maix nos chanteir de fuelle ne de flors

2034

–

MT Thomas Erier

339

Mes sens solais sens deport

1933

–

–

with only one unicum intervening (no. 323).6 In this letter-section, the compiler has apparently formed two groups: songs contained in U, and songs from other sources, with a series of anonymous songs at the end. Remarkably, these fourteen songs of the first group represent all of U’s pieces beginning with ‘M’, with the exception of one political song, which, more than two generations later, may have seemed obsolete to the compiler of C and was intentionally omitted.7 If and to what extent the versions of songs common to U and C are related will be examined later, but the grouping of the ‘M’ songs suggests an initially cautious conclusion: for the compiler of C, the songs that we find transmitted by U seem to have had some authority and were used as basic stock for the new codex. Nonetheless, the placement of U’s songs in C appears to be random when compared with their placement in U. The run of songs in C begins with U’s no. 37, followed by nos 119, 5, 4, and so on; only two songs, nos 2 and 3, follow each other in both U and C. This suggests 6 U no. 75, fols 42r–v, the concordance to C no. 320, is omitted in Unlandt, Le Chansonnier

Français, pp. 233–4.

7 RS 646 (U no. 214, fols 111r–v).

86

robert lug

that for this work the compiler of C did not use the codex U, but rather its exemplars. We will continue the discussion of letter ‘M’ further below, but first it is worth examining what we think we know about the interdependence of chansonniers.

Stemmata Philologists often refer to the manuscript stemmata published by Eduard Schwan in 1886 (Figure 6.2).8 In sIII (Collection III) of his stemma, C and U are positioned, together with I2 and I3, at the very end of a long filiation.9 Their hypothetical antecedent is a lost item named υ. Schwan published his book on trouvère manuscripts nine years after the groundbreaking work on troubadour manuscripts by his teacher Gustav Gröber, employing the same Lachmannian method. Both scholars compare a multitude of single songs, establishing the relationships of the preserved versions in detail. These are pioneering observations that remain of great value. In contrast, Schwan’s stemmata

Figure 6.2: Stemmata of trouvère manuscripts (derived from Schwan)

8 In most cases, Schwan’s stemmata are reproduced as merely conventional references which do not influence the rest of the respective works. The stemmata for sI, sII and sIII are given

in Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886), pp. 72, 171, and 222 respectively. Figure 6.2 is a synopsis of Schwan’s stemmata in Theodore Karp, ‘The Trouvère MS Tradition’, in Albert Mell (ed.), Queens College, Department of Music, Twentyfifth Anniversary Festschrift (New York, 1964), pp. 25–52, at p. 34. His drawing has a critical intention, see below. See also Paola Moreno’s discussion of Schwan in Chapter 3. 9 The earlier stemmata by Brakelmann and Fath give more prominence to C and U. Julius Brakelmann, ‘Die dreiundzwanzig altfranzösischen Chansonniers in Bibliotheken Frankreichs, Englands, Italiens und der Schweiz’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 42 (1868), pp. 43–72; 43 (1868), pp. 185–93, at vol. 42, pp. 45–51 unites C, U, V, and I in his group I (without drawing); the stemma in Fritz Fath (ed.), Die Lieder des Castellans von Coucy, nach sämmtlichen Handschriften kritisch bearbeitet (Heidelberg, 1883), p. 24 is reproduced with the modern manuscript abbreviations in Karp, ‘The Trouvère MS Tradition’, p. 33.

common examplars of u and c 87



of manuscripts are necessarily much more generalised and should be regarded as attempts to give the reader a rough overview, including a hypothetical chronology.10 It is well known that the models of such stemmata had been developed for romances and epics, and without doubt they are very useful for these genres. For instance, if our topic were a romance preserved in three main versions, each of which was transmitted in multiple manuscripts, the correct stemma would look similar to Figure 6.2; each of the three main branches of the diagram would represent one version of the romance. This is not really an appropriate model for song manuscripts. Both Gröber and Schwan tried to minimise the differences between the transmission models for romances and for songs by assuming that the written tradition had begun with song leaflets (Liederblätter) produced by the authors themselves.11 These would have been copied fairly swiftly into small collections (Gelegenheitssammlungen). However, this means that already at this early stage, the situation for songs differs in essential ways from the situation for romances. That something must be wrong with Schwan’s stemma sIII becomes obvious when we consider the dating of the manuscripts, given in Figure 6.3 (although only a handful have as yet been dated more or less precisely). It is U in particular that causes problems. To maintain his stemma, Schwan was forced to date U very late, with the old part being written in the second half of the

Figure 6.3: Schwan’s sIII with datings 10 Gustav Gröber, ‘Die Liedersammlungen der Troubadours’, Romanische Studien, 2:9 (1877),

pp. 337–661 is much more cautious, drawing only partial relationships of individual songs.

11 Ibid., pp. 337–44 (esp. p. 342); Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, pp.

263–67 (esp. p. 265).

88

robert lug

thirteenth century and the younger parts in the early fourteenth.12 This contradicted general opinion at the time, in which U was regarded as the most ancient manuscript of all. Consequently, Schwan’s dating was rejected by all authorities, including Gaston Paris and even his own mentor Gustav Gröber.13 More fundamental was the criticism of other colleagues. Hans Spanke, also a former student of Gröber’s, denounced Schwan’s ‘all too mechanical application of the manuscripts’ stemma, sometimes quite useless for the oldest layer [of sources]’: in applying ‘an incorrect method’, Schwan had sometimes ‘failed’.14 Musicologists have never adopted these stemmata, feeling that the reality was much more granular. In 1956, Friedrich Gennrich, another former student of Gröber’s, took a stand against the Liederblätter-Theorie of his mentor and replaced it with the so-called Repertoire-Theorie. According to Gennrich, songs would originally have been disseminated orally and only later written down by collectors.15 From the 1960s on, this idea was elaborated by Hendrik van der Werf. Concerning stemmata, he wrote: In the nineteenth century and in the beginning of this [the twentieth] century, when most philologists still believed in the written transmission, several of them tried to determine the order in which the preserved trouvère chansonniers were compiled. Sometimes they came to quite different conclusions, but on one point they agreed: no preserved manuscript from the 13th or 14th centuries was a copy of any other preserved manuscript.16

This coincides with the earlier remark of Theodore Karp: Graphic representation of MS filiations has […] certain inherent weaknesses. For example, it is difficult to represent the filiation of MSS derived from a variety of sources. Consequently, since the turn of this [the twentieth] century, it has been the [philological] practice either to graph genealogies for individual chansons rather than for entire MSS or to rely on purely verbal descriptions of MS interrelationships.17 12 Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 175. 13 Gaston Paris, ‘De Nicolao Museto (gallice Colin Muset) francogallico carminum

14

15 16 17

scriptore, thesim Facultati litterarum parisiensi proponebat Joseph Bédier’, Romania, 22:86 (1893), pp. 285–96, at p. 288; Gustav Gröber, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (2 vols, Strasbourg, 1888–1902), vol. 2, part 1, p. 673. ‘eine allzu mechanische Anwendung des für die älteste Schicht manchmal ganz unbrauchbaren Handschriften-Stemmas’: Hans Spanke, review of ‘Jean Beck, Le Chansonnier Cangé (2 vols, Paris and Philadelphia, 1927)’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 52:1 (1929), pp. 165–83, at p. 172. ‘Freilich hat Schwans Untersuchung im Ganzen versagt. […] Zweitens schlug er die falsche Methode ein’ (ibid., p. 167, referring to manuscript O). See Friedrich Gennrich, ‘Die Repertoire-Theorie’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 66 (1956), pp. 81–108. Hendrik van der Werf, The Chansons of the Troubadours and Trouvères: A Study of the Melodies and their Relation to the Poems (Utrecht, 1972), p. 28. Karp, ‘The Trouvère MS Tradition’, p. 35. It should be noted that stemmata of individual songs can be faulty too, if they are based on the concept of a purely written tradition (see below, Figure 6.6).

common examplars of u and c 89



A graphic drawn by musicologist Ian Parker, declared to be a ‘revised version of Schwan’s filiation’, demonstrates how philological constructions have disappeared into the mist (Figure 6.4).18 After examining several cases of melodic variants, Parker comes to the ‘main conclusion […], that the existing anthologies derive ultimately from smaller copies, widely distributed in time and geographically’.19 Gröber had already made two important observations. Firstly, the source materials from which a chansonnier was made, not the codex itself, were sometimes used in the creation of a new codex, something which Gröber demonstrates in relation to the troubadour chansonniers troubC, troubR, and troubE.20 Secondly, text versions of single songs can be ‘eclectic’, that is collated from more than one source.21 Could these observations be relevant for the relation of U and C too? As already seen, the aleatory sequence of the U songs in C is an initial indication that C was copied from exemplars, not directly from U. If we slip into the role of the compiler of C, it becomes evident that it would have been far more practical to arrange small exemplars in alphabetical order than to copy songs in this manner from the codex itself.22

CENTRAL TRADITION I

M

Mt

T

Z

A

a

CENTRAL TRADITION II

CENTRAL TRADITION III

N

O

(L)

K P

U

?

X

(B)

Figure 6.4: Parker’s (1978) revised version of Schwan’s filiation 18 Ian Parker, ‘A propos de la tradition manuscrite des chansons de trouvères’, Revue de 19 20

21 22

Musicologie, 64:2 (1978), pp. 181–202, at p. 182. C, I, and other sources are missing, since Parker considers only manuscripts with notated music. Ibid., p. 194. The source material of troubC consisted of various smaller units; see Gröber, ‘Die Liedersammlungen der Troubadours’, p. 576. Matfre Ermengau of Béziers, the producer of troubC (pp. 574–75), ‘had the source material of [troubC] at his disposal’ (p. 645), which he also used for his Breviari d’amor (troubα, 577). TroubR was compiled from this material for troubC and additional sources (pp. 401, 576). The compiler of troubE partly used the material for troubC and troubR (p. 590). Such eclectic versions occur in troubC; see Gröber, ‘Die Liedersammlungen der Troubadours’, pp. 576, 656. As concerns the non-authorial organisation of the Messine chansonniers (including Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, 364, see Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 480), I repeat my hypothesis that it was probably caused by the political status of Metz as a city of the Empire (ibid., p. 481). For what other reason did the owners retain ‘secret’ authors’ lists (see ppp. 97–9)? This hypothesis could be either reinforced or relativised once the provenance of chansonnier O (like C, in alphabetical order) is determined more accurately. Alison Stones’s discovery of a sister manuscript, ‘The Illustrated Chrétien Manuscripts and

90

robert lug

However, such a scenario would imply that the exemplars of U had been preserved for sixty years or more. Is this likely? I will pursue this question now, step by step, with several concrete examples. For this process, it should be recalled that the possible relationships between versions of songs in both U and C fall under three categories. The common songs can be: i) identical in U and C (with only orthographical or other minor modifications); ii) copied into C from a source other than U; iii) collated in C from the version in U and from other sources.

Examples of all three categories are found in the following sections.

Song pairs Much has been speculated about Liederblätter made by collectors, since allegedly not a single one has survived.23 Close examination of the old part of U, however, reveals a structure that leads a great step further: it seems to have been copied from exemplars which generally contained two songs each. The collectors appear to have often paired songs together that shared certain similarities, such as the same author, the same genre, the same key words, related initial lines, and the like.24

their Artistic Context’, in Keith Busby et al. (eds), Les Manuscrits de Chrétien de Troyes: The Manuscripts of Chrétien de Troyes, Faux titre, 71–2 (2 vols, Amsterdam, 1993), vol. 1, pp. 227–322, at pp. 256–7 and 300–5) has dispelled any doubts about the Burgundian provenience of O, but leaves the question of which Burgundy: the French duchy (Dijon), or the Imperial county (Besançon, Dole)? Stones assumes Dijon, drafting a scenario (a noble wedding in 1307) which she herself considers to be ‘all speculative’ (p. 257). In fact, the notation style points rather to the 1280s or 1290s. Kathleen Ruffo, ‘The Illustration of Notated Compendia of Courtly Poetry in Late Thirteenth-Century Northern France’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2000), p. 63, believes she has found a trace of O in the Savoy family accounts: in her view, an entry for 1297 refers ‘to an unspecified music book made for Aymon, son of Count Amadeus IV [sic; actually, V] of Savoie’. However, a verification of the source (ibid., p. 63, n. 187) shows the wording ‘in duobus libris de [!] musica et de gramatica emptis pro Aymone filio domini comitis’. These books were thus manuals bought for Aymon, then five years old and destined for a clerical career. No mention is made of Burgundy. 23 At least not from before c. 1250. Martín de Riquer, Los Trovadores: historia literaria y textos, Ensayos planeta de lingüistica y crítica literaria, 34 (3 vols, Barcelona, 1975), vol. 1, p. 16, considers the Martin Codax leaflet (34 x 46 cm, 7 songs, c. 1300) as being such a Liederblatt; four other candidates are mentioned by D’Arco Silvio Avalle, I Manoscritti della letteratura in lingua d’oc, ed. Lino Leonardi (Turin, 1993), p. 62. John Haines, ‘Erasures in Thirteenth-Century Music’, in John Haines and Randall Rosenfeld (eds), Music and Medieval Manuscripts: Paleography and Performance: Essays Dedicated to Andrew Hughes (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 60–88, at p. 77 mentions the rotulus G (11.5 x 30 cm) in this regard. 24 I presume that the production of such leaflets was the domain of urban song enthusiasts. At least for the first half of the thirteenth century, when vernacular song culture was still almost exclusively oral, I cannot imagine minstrels writing songs on parchment.



common examplars of u and c 91

Whole sequences of such pairs can be found in the succession of songs in U.25 In this respect, U is not unique: similar conclusions have been drawn concerning Latin song manuscripts, such as the Codex Buranus and the two main Hildegard von Bingen sources. Their exemplars would seem to have consisted of song pairs too.26 U opens with a sequence of not only two, but five songs all beginning with the key word ‘Molt’ (see Table 6.2). Quite possibly the compiler created this block to announce proudly that in this chansonnier, the user will find many songs, probably more than in any song manuscript before. ‘Molt’ would seem to be a kind of motto. All five songs reappear in C’s letter-section M (compare above, Table 6.1).27 A comparison of the textual versions shows that in all five cases, C used the same exemplars as U. For instance, of the twelve preserved versions of no. 3 (RS 700), only those of C and U begin with ‘Molt chantasse’; all others have ‘Je’, ‘De’, or ‘Bien’ instead of ‘Molt’. In fourteen extant versions of no. 1 (RS 209), only C and U have the stanza sequence 1-2-3-5-4-6. Similar points can be made for the other three songs.28 None of these five songs shows any indication that the C version might have been collated from other sources. These five songs thus belong to category i, identical versions in C and U. It seems likely that for the more widely copied songs RS 209, RS 700, and RS 1536 (nos 1, 3, and 4 in U), the compiler of C also dispensed with other 25 Since the compiler of U used the same features while establishing the song concatenation,

it is quite difficult to distinguish the compiler’s activity from the state of the already paired exemplars. While the overall order pursuant to genres is evident (see Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 454–6), attention to other features does not stick out as clearly in the grouping of songs. However, the alternating occurrence of such similarities often sheds some light on the exemplars. For instance, alternating author sequences are found in U nos 1 and 3 (Chastelain de Couci), nos 7, 9, 11, and 13, and 30, 32, and 34 (Gace Brulé), nos 33 and 35 (Vidame de Chartres), nos 41 and 43 (Bestournés), nos 98 and 100 (Moniot d’Arras), nos 117 and 119 (Gautier de Dargies), and nos 136 and 138 (Guiot de Dijon). In these cases, the exemplar apparently contained two songs by different authors, which were copied in their original sequence. Thanks to such indications, the exemplar succession of the old part can be reconstructed with some certainty. See Robert Lug, ‘Der Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris, BnF fr. 20050): Melodien, Notation, Entstehung, politisches Umfeld’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 3 vols, Johann-WolfgangGoethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main), section D III 1 b–e. 26 Bernhard Bischoff, (ed.), Carmina Burana: Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Clm 4660 and Clm 4660a (Brooklyn NY, 1967), pp. 12, 13; Hildegard von Bingen, Lieder, ed. Pudentiana Barth, Immaculata Ritscher, and Joseph Schmidt-Görg (Salzburg, 1969), p. 320. 27 C no. 316 = U no. 5; C no. 317 = U no. 4; C no. 321 = U no. 1; C no. 324 = U no. 2; C no. 325 = U no. 3. 28 Nos 2 and 5 in U are preserved exclusively in C and U, with five stanzas each. For U’s no. 4 there are ten versions overall, of which only C, I, O, and U have all five stanzas, I and U with three envois, C and O without. Many textual particularities are shared by C, I, and U, some by C and U only (lines 6 and 35); for lines 30, 36, and 39 there are diverging indications in Hans Tischler (ed.), Trouvère Lyrics with Melodies: Complete Comparative Edition, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 107 (15 vols, Neuhausen, 1997), vol. 10, nos 880–5, and Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015–20), vol. 1, pp. 19–21.

92

robert lug Table 6.2: ‘Molt’ songs at the opening of U

U no.

Incipit in U

RS

1

Molt mest bele la douce comencence

209

2

Molt me mervoil de ma dame et de moi

1668

3

Molt chantesse volontiers liemant (Se ien trovasse)

700

4

Molt ai este longuement esbahiz

1536

5

Molt ai este lon tens en esperance

226

6

Encor ferai une chancon perdue

2071

7

Quant flors et glais et verdure sesloigne

1779

versions. If so, the authority of U would be broader, since even when confronted with multiple sources, the compiler of C regarded the version in U as the point of reference.29 For these five songs, C’s letter-section M allows reconstruction of the song pairing in the common exemplars. Nos 2 and 3 in U seem to have formed such a pair. Nos 4 and 5 were coupled too, but copied – either in U or C – in reversed order. No. 1 may either have had a ‘mate’ not beginning with ‘Molt’, or it stood alone in the exemplar. Let us turn our attention now to no. 178 in U (no. 318 in C), also beginning with ‘Molt’, transmitted only in C and U and attributed to ‘Blondels’ in C. Its position in U is extraordinary.

A surviving exemplar of U Table 6.3 shows the overall disposition of codex U.30 The old part (U1) consists of eleven gatherings and the appendix (U2) of two gatherings, all regular quaternions. In between, a double leaf was inserted, fols 92–93, shown in Figure 6.5. The first song on this double leaf is the one in question, Mout se fesist boin tenir de chanter (RS 802). A considerably later hand entered a second song (fols 92v–93r, U no. 179): J’ai fait main vers de chanson (RS 1857) by Gillebert de Berneville, who flourished after 1250.31 In both of these songs, the scribes left space for the melody, but neither staves nor notation were entered. Finally, a third scribe added on fol. 93v, without leaving space for the melody, three stanzas of RS 433, a song with contested authorship.32

29 This will be confirmed by observations on collated versions below, see pp. 107–14. 30 Adapted from Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 453. For the disposition of U1 in detail, see

ibid., p. 455.

31 Also preserved in I and the KNPX group. 32 U no. 180, attributed to Aubin de Sezane in K and X, Gontier de Soignies in N, Gace Brulé

in C, and anonymous in O, R, and U.

common examplars of u and c 93



Table 6.3: Overall structure of U Fols

Contents

Date

Scribe

1–3

Index

After 1258

4–91

Old part [U1]

177 songs (space for staves throughout, 114 with notated melody)

92–3

Inserted bifolio

3 songs (two with space for staves)

94–109

Appendix [U2]

30 songs (no space for music)

1232/33

2

110–60

New part I [U3]

94 songs (space for staves, no notation)

After 1258

3

161–2

Inserted bifolio [U3] 7 songs (one with space for staves)

163–9

New part II [U3]

16 songs (no space for music)

170–3

Late additions [U3]

7 songs (one with notated melody)

1231

1

3

The bifolio has the same ruling as the old part of U: twenty-six lines per page, a standard that was reduced in the younger part.33 The bifolio might therefore have been contemporary with the old part. Originally it contained only the ‘Blondels’ song (RS 802), with the rest empty. It gives us a good idea of what normal exemplars would have looked like. They provided enough room for two songs with their melodies, perhaps even for three (only if all were short); sometimes, no second song was entered, and occasionally the melodies were missing. In my opinion, this double leaf actually belonged to the original collection of exemplars for U, used for the copying of the old part of the songbook in 1231. Only the first song was entered on the bifolio, and, because the melody was missing, it was not copied into the codex, which was planned to contain melodies throughout.34 When the appendix (U2) was written one or two years later, at which time the owners had taken the codex and the exemplars with them when forced into exile from Metz, this exemplar again remained uncopied, but – as I imagine it – it was 33 On the bifolio, text is entered below the top line (as in U2 and U3). In U3, pages are filled

with only twenty-three or twenty-two lines.

34 The sixty-three missing melodies in U1 do not reflect a corresponding state of the

exemplars. Notation was the last stage in the copying of the codex, and the music scribe entered the melodies under heavy time pressure just before November 11, 1231: see Robert Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser in Metz: Zur Herkunft der ältesten Sammlung von Trobador-Liedern (1231)’, in Angelica Rieger (ed.), Okzitanistik, Altokzitanistik und Provenzalistik: Geschichte und Auftrag einer europäischen Philologie (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 249–74, at pp. 257–9. The last-minute engagement of a second music scribe resulted in only nine additional melodies. Immediately after, the Port-Sailly families were forced into exile; see Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 477.

93v

92r

92v

93r

Figure 6.5: Inserted bifolio, U, fols 92/93. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France



common examplars of u and c 95

used as an envelope for the two gatherings of the appendix.35 The darker colour and the traces of wear apparent on its exterior (fols 92r/93v) would seem to support this assumption. This double leaf was particularly suited as an envelope, not only because its first word is ‘Molt’, thus providing a link to the motto at the beginning of the old part, but also because it would originally have been oversized, with margins somewhat larger than those of U. When the Roman foliation was entered (not before 1258), it was cut in two, so that two single folios were generated.36 At this point, the bifolio would have lost its function as an envelope, and the two folios were then numbered consecutively (lxxxix–lxxxx).37 Having been wrapped around the appendix (and not stored with the other exemplars) for some time, the bifolio was then assimilated into the codex. For this reason, its margins would have been trimmed and it was necessary to cut the bifolio in two, because its inner margins were wider than those of the codex. The inner margins had to be reduced, otherwise the text block would have reached to the outer edge. After the bifolio was cut in two, the excess parchment of the inner margins was therefore folded over; these two folded portions, still visible, are both c. 0.5 cm wide. As a result of these operations, the position of the text block and Roman foliation matches the rest of the codex.38 If the inner margins of the bifolio were wider than those of the codex, the same would have applied for the outer 35 Thus, fol. 92 preceded fol. 94, and fol. 93 followed fol. 109 (modern foliation). 36 The cutting is indicated by Madeleine Tyssens, ‘Les Copistes du chansonnier français

U’, in Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Lyrique romane médiévale: la tradition des chansonniers: actes du Colloque de Liège 1989, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 258 (Geneva, 1991), pp. 379–97, at p. 385; Madeleine Tyssens, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 5. U (Paris, BNF fr. 20050), Documenta et instrumenta, 5 (Liège 2007), p. 21; Madeleine Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, p. xiii. However, Tyssens believes there were not one, but two bifolios and two cuts (see below). 37 This reordering led to some confusion. After the bifolio, one Roman numeral (lxxxxi) is missing and the appendix begins with lxxxxii (fol. 94v). For this reason, Gaston Raynaud (Bibliographie des chansonniers français des XIIIe et XIVe siècles (2 vols, Paris, 1894), vol. 1, p. 172) concluded that the folio in question had been lost. However, I believe that the number lxxxxi was erroneously omitted, as is shown by evidence of erasure: when the foliator became aware of their mistake, they erased the correct number, lxxxviii, on the last page of the old part (fol. 91v), replacing it with lxxxix, already used on fol. 92v. This unusual action on the part of the foliator (causing number lxxxviii to be missing) can only be explained by the foliator’s desire to clarify the sequence of the (still unbound) gatherings and indicate that the following insertion consisted of two, not of three folios. They probably intended to ‘correct’ the foliation of the bifolio accordingly, but this did not happen. The erasure (also mentioned by Tyssens, ‘Les Copistes’, p. 385) is not visible in the digitised version, but can be seen in the facsimile of Paul Meyer and Gaston Raynaud (eds), Le Chansonnier français de Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Bibl. nat. fr. 20050): reproduction phototypique avec transcription, Société des anciens textes français (Paris, 1892). 38 Tyssens, ‘Les Copistes’, p. 385 hypothesises that lxxxix–lxxxx did not constitute one bifolio; the two folds would rather have belonged to two folios now lost, one removed before, the other after the Roman foliation was entered. The scenario I describe here seems more plausible to me.

96

robert lug

margins. Thus, while the bifolio functioned as an envelope, it was at least 2 cm wider than the bifolios of the codex, and presumably somewhat more. Many of the original exemplars remained unused for the old part (U1), when it was finished in 1231.39 Thirty of them were soon copied into the appendix (U2).40 Others were copied one or two generations later, together with newly acquired exemplars, into the younger part (U3).41 Most of these exemplars, for all three parts of U, were recopied into C (see Figure 6.6). They seem to have been preserved by the Port-Sailly families, which leads to the conclusion that members of this family had either produced or acquired them.42 The three songs on the double leaf fols 92–93 were not used for copying C. The version of the ‘Blondels’ song (RS 802) in C is totally different from the version in U, with no sign of collation from other sources.43 The Gillebert song (RS 1857) is completely missing from C. The three stanzas that U preserves for the last song on

39 There are several possible reasons for some exemplars not being copied into U1. Some

transmitted genres not included in U1, such as political songs, or death laments (the lament on Richard Lionheart, no. 166, is an Occitan exception). Others might have arrived too late in the scriptorium, after the text scribe had finished his work. Some exemplars with love songs may have been put aside too, but these cannot be identified. 40 Songs with political content (and therefore omitted from U1) that can be dated before 1231 include RS 1314 (U no. 185, a crusade song by Conon de Béthune), RS 1891 (U no. 200, Richart Lionheart’s song from captivity), and RS 1640 (U no. 186), a woman’s lament on the death of her friend, attributed in C (fol. 182r) to the ‘duchaise de lorainne’ (Gertrude of Dagsburg, d. 1225). None of the songs in U2 is datable after 1231. Some of the songs composed a short time before 1231 might not have been widespread enough to arrive in time for the copying of U1, among them possibly RS 1035 (U no. 192, December 1230, see Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, p. xxii), RS 1960 (U no. 197), and RS 430 (U no. 195, both summer 1231). The exemplar of U no. 191 (RS 2017), a duplicate of U no. 6, seems to have been put aside, was not recognised as a duplicate by the scribe of U2, and was thus erroneously copied. During the exile, there was little chance for the Port-Sailly families to provide new exemplars. On the other hand, they had only the two gatherings of empty parchment at their disposal that were left over from U1 (see Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 477). For these reasons, I imagine that all thirty songs of U2 were copied from exemplars left over from the 1231 collection and that even so, some of those exemplars still remained uncopied. 41 For newly collected political songs, it may suffice to point to RS 1887 (U no. 226, crusade song, 1250), RS 1522 (U no. 275, captivity song by the count of Bar), or RS 267 (U no. 277, capture of Namur, 1258) which constitutes the terminus post quem of U3. On the other hand, given the short-lived topicality of political songs, the exemplars of RS 646 (U no. 214, events around Thouars, usually dated 1206–08) and RS 953 (U no. 290, French rebellion, end of 1229) ought perhaps to have been part of the original collection for U1. 42 For the one third of songs in U not recopied into C, it remains an open question if their exemplars were deliberately omitted by the C compiler, or if they were no longer available, possibly because they had been loaned to the copyists of U and afterwards returned to other owners. 43 In the version in C, RS 802 has six stanzas in coblas ternas. The version in U has five stanzas (two coblas doblas and a single one) in the sequence 1-2-6-3-4: see Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, pp. 391–2; Brakelmann, ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift’, vol. 43, pp. 249–50.



common examplars of u and c 97

Figure 6.6: U exemplars available to the C compiler, giving new CU ‘stemma’

the double leaf (RS 433) were not used for the seven stanzas of the C version.44 The first and third songs are thus examples for our category ii: they were copied into C from a source other than U. This double leaf, no longer among the exemplars, but integrated into the codex, therefore speaks ex negativo for our hypothesis: the exemplars of U, not the codex itself, were used for the compilation of C. Some further considerations may be added. Firstly, the ‘Blondels’ song should warn us not to equate CU-only pairs automatically with common exemplars. A common textual identity has to be verified in every CU-only case.45 Secondly, a problem is raised by the position of this song within the U cluster in C’s letter-section M (see above, Table 6.1). How can the placement of this song within a cluster of songs in C that appear to have been copied from U’s exemplars be explained, when this version was copied from a source other than U? Perhaps the ‘Blondels’ song was considered as a second ‘intervening’ piece within the U cluster (like RS 1567); yet the reason could equally be a separate authors’ list for U, which I explore further below. Another question emerges from RS 433, the late entry on the bifolio.46 The version in C, copied from a source other than U, is ascribed to Gace Brulé (‘messires gaises brulleis’). This doubtful attribution finds no justification in the C version, but 44 RS 433, preserved in C, U, and five other manuscripts (see n. 32 above), has seven stanzas

in C, whereas U contains only stanzas 1-2-5 in a textual form that differs completely from C: see Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, pp. 395–6; Brakelmann, ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift’, vol. 42, pp. 388–9. For the attribution to Gace Brulé, see below. 45 A great deal of this work, including ‘C, U, and other sources’, has already been undertaken by Brakelmann, ‘Die dreiundzwanzig altfranzösischen Chansonniers’. With some reservation, his results are reproduced by Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 181. 46 See above, nn. 32 and 44.

98

robert lug

the U version provides a clue: here, the third stanza begins with ‘Gaices dist chantant’, which someone could have mistaken as an indication of authorship. Yet only U has ‘Gaices’: all other manuscripts have ‘Gascot’, ‘Pascot’, or ‘Bascot’ at this point in the text, and the whole stanza is missing in C.47 The attribution in C thus seems to rely, in some way or other, on the U version. This brings up the plausible hypothesis of an authors’ list, kept separately by the owners of C and used somewhat later by the scribe who entered the attributions.48 Did such a list exist for U too, which was then employed as a basis for the list for C? This could also explain the attribution to Gace Brulé. In fact, working backwards from C, there are more indications that U, particularly in its early stages of copying, made use of such a list. C has preserved several authors’ names that are missing in all other trouvère manuscripts. These are not restricted to authors of only regional importance, such as Garnier d’Arches or the Duchesse de Lorraine. The early trouvère Guiot de Provins, who had travelled across Europe, visiting practically every important French- or Occitan-speaking court, was also forgotten by the time the other chansonniers were produced; his name is remembered only by C, and his songs are exclusively preserved in C and U.49 Thus, Guiot’s name in C seems to have been adopted from an early authors' list that accompanied U. For this reason, I believe that the production of song leaflets began in Metz and only a decade later in the north, otherwise songbooks like M and T, and those in the KNPX group, would surely have remembered Guiot too.50 It is known that attributions in C are sometimes wrong, though not to the extent often suspected.51 As already supposed by Gröber and von Lebinski, such errors might have arisen while the rubricator copied names from the authors’ list into the codex C, sometimes mistaking their assignment.52 If we consider that parts of the C list had already been copied from the U list, some more mistakes of this

47 See Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, p. 396. 48 Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 482. This hypothesis has already been proposed by 49

50 51

52

Gustav Gröber and C. von Lebinski, ‘Collation der Berner Liederhs. 389’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 3:1 (1879), pp. 39–60, at p. 41. See the eighty-six patrons named in his Bible Guiot, identified by Arthur Baudler, Guiot von Provins, seine Gönner, die ‘Suite de la Bible’ und seine lyrischen Dichtungen (Halle, 1902), pp. 12–49. Baudler’s localisations are mostly correct, while his identifications of persons often need revision. Many of these courts are situated in the east, including Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, and Flanders. Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 456–7. The absence of authors from Arras in U’s ProtoChansonnier is a further indication (ibid., n. 12). See the statistics given by Madeleine Tyssens, ‘La Dame et la Mort – la plainte funèbre de la Duchesse de Lorraine’, in Antoni Bartosz, Katarzyna Dybel, and Piotr Tylus (eds), Jeux de la variante dans l’art et la littérature du Moyen Age: mélanges offerts à Anna Drzewicka (Krakow, 1997), pp. 115–27, at pp. 115–16, on the basis of Moreno’s groundwork. See also Luca Gatti’s chapter in this volume (Chapter 5). Gröber and Lebinksi, ‘Collation der Berner Liederhs. 389’, p. 41.



common examplars of u and c 99

kind are likely. In general, they caused authors to be displaced by only one song, or at most two.53

Four songs in mixed language54 In this last section, we are dealing with a special repertoire, namely the four ‘Occitan’ songs in ζ/C (or, more precisely, songs in mixed language, sometimes called Franco-Occitan).55 All four songs are also preserved in X/U, which contains a total of twenty-nine such songs, of which twenty-four are in its old part (X/U1, from 1231) and five in the newer (X/U3, after 1258).56 Those that are found in ζ/C are represented in both parts of X/U (see Table 6.4). Close inspection of these four cases will determine if and how the versions in C were copied from exemplars for X/U. Prior to that, however, the origin of these exemplars themselves will be considered. The choice of only four songs for ζ/C appears like a far echo of the fashion for troubadour song which had swept over the eastern French-speaking regions two generations earlier. In the course of the Albigensian Crusade, but especially in the wake of Louis VIII’s campaign (1226) and the treaty of Meaux (1229), hundreds of refugees sought shelter in Metz and other cities of the Empire, where they could escape French jurisdiction.57 The songs they brought with them may originally have been sung in pure Occitan, but in the north it was usual to sing them in a mixed language. The Roman de la Violette and Guillaume de Dole even describe Northern 53 Hans Spanke, ‘Zur Geschichte des altfranzösischen Jeu-parti’, Zeitschrift für altfranzösische

54 55

56

57

Sprache und Literatur, 52:1 (1929), pp, 39–63, at p. 46 and n. 18, used this insight – uniquely, as far as I know – as an analytical method. He supposed that the rubric ‘andreus de paris’ for C no. 216 (RS 389) belonged to the preceding jeu-parti (RS 1187). Further applications of this method could produce further interesting results. From this point on, the following double sigla are used to designate the troubadour source, followed by the trouvère source in which it is found: ζ/C, X/U, and W/M. James H. Marshall, review of ‘Französierte Trobadorlyrik: Zur Überlieferung provenzalischer Lieder in französischen Handschriften. Suppl. 171 to ZRPh by Manfred Raupach, Margret Raupach’, Romance Philology, 36:1 (1982), pp. 83–93, at p. 84: ‘a “Mischsprache” which I propose for convenience to call Franco-Occitan (FO.)’. Billy and others prefer the unspecified term ‘langue mixte’: see, for example, Dominique Billy (ed.), Deux lais en langue mixte: le lai Markiol et le lai Nompar, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 264 (Tübingen, 1995). Similar to the Raupachs’ ‘französierte Trobadorlyrik’, Hendrik van der Werf, The Extant Troubadour Melodies: Transcriptions and Essays for Performers and Scholars (Rochester, NY, 1984), for example at p. 23, speaks of ‘“Frenchified” Occitan’. For the various terms, see also Manfred Raupach and Margret Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik: Zur Überlieferung provenzalischer Lieder in französischen Handschriften, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 171 (Tübingen, 1979), p. 6. X/U1, fols 81v–82v, nos 152–55 (gathering 10) and nos 158–77 (complete gathering 11), X/ U3, fols 148v–150v, nos 282–86; see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 75–7. For X/U1, see also Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser’, p. 271. See Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser’, pp. 265–8, and Dominique Billy and Robert Lug, ‘Un Témoin picard de la vogue du répertoire des troubadours dans la première moitié du XIIIe siècle: Par vous m’esjau, done del firmament (PC 461,192a = RS 675a)’, Romance Philology, 70:1 (2016), pp. 9–56, at p. 44.

100

robert lug Table 6.4: The four mixed-language songs of ζ/C

No. in X/U

Incipit in X/U [attribution]

159 (X/U1)

Ausiment con lolifant [Rigaut de Berbezilh]

177 (X/U1)

Lautrier miere levaz [anon. pastorela]

284 (X/U3)

Quant li rus de la fontainne [ Jaufre Rudel]

286 (X/U3)

Tuit demandent kest devengut damors [Rigaut de Berbezilh]

PC

RS

C no.

♪

421.2

272

500

♪

461.148

935

306

136

256

1952

491

⬜ 262.5

⬜ 421.10

amateurs singing troubadour songs this way.58 Further evidence for the oral reality of this hybrid idiom is supplied by the pastorela: L’autrier m’iere levaz (see below). No fewer than nineteen Northern sources, including the two major collections X/U and W/M, preserve Occitan songs in mixed language.59 Since these nineteen manuscripts ‘hardly offer indications for a common source’, we may conclude that this idiom was a kind of linguistic convention, used by many scribes, each with their own individual colouring.60 Presumably it was also used in daily life, for example, for business purposes; civil charters have not yet been examined in this linguistic light.61

a) The ‘exile collection’ Two of the four ‘Occitan’ songs common to X/U and ζ/C, both by Rigaut de Berbezilh, are also preserved in the Chansonnier du Roi (W/M). Considering connections between X/U and W/M, general opinion asserts that these two large Northern collections of troubadour song – twenty-nine songs in X/U, fifty-eight in W/M – ‘show no discernible systematic congruence’.62 Only eight songs are 58 See Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser’, pp. 267–8. 59 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 5–6. Apart from the later additions

in W/M, only one of the Northern sources (TroubKp) transmits the texts in pure Occitan. For the religious song preserved in the appendix to V (ibid., p. 47, no. 102) see Billy and Lug, ‘Un Témoin picard’, passim. 60 Citation from Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 87. 61 For the Franco-Occitan domain in the proper sense (the area from Bâgé southward, including Lyon and Vienne), such charters and other documents have been closely studied (see Brigitte Horiot, ‘Recherches sur la morphologie de l’ancien Francoprovençal’, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 36:141–2 (1972), 1–74). They demonstrate that in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the mixed idiom was the normal spoken and written language in these regions. By contrast, some philologists tend to regard the preserved song repertoire in mixed language discussed here as artificial creations of a literary scene; for a recent example, see Eliza Zingesser, Stolen Song: How the Troubadours Became French (Ithaca, NY, 2020). 62 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 88. For the complete list of W/M, see ibid., pp. 64–9. My tally of fifty-eight songs for W/M includes the two lais in mixed language, but excludes the ten later additions. Counting the six pieces on lost folios would give an original total of sixty-four. For the number of songs in X/U, see above, n. 56. In comparing both sources, Maria Carla Battelli, ‘La Ricezione della lirica provenzale nei codici M (B.N.f.fr. 844) e U (B.N.f.fr. 20050): alcune considerazioni’, in Gérard Gouiran (ed.), Contacts de langues, de civilisations et intertextualité (IIIème Congrès international de l’Association internationale d’études occitanes, Montpellier, 20–26 septembre 1990) (3 vols,



common examplars of u and c 101

preserved in both manuscripts, but their versions point to different sources (see below). However, Manfred and Margret Raupach make the important observation that X/U and W/M ‘seem to complement one another largely’.63 They illustrate this with perspicuous tables for the ten troubadours represented in both manuscripts, yet without deciding ‘if this distribution is fortuitous or […] the result of a conscious choice from common sources’.64 Their approach has not been pursued since. The picture becomes much clearer when we insert the number of stanzas and the presence of melodies into the Raupachs’ list (Table 6.5a) and consider the remaining pieces too (Table 6.5b).65 This leads to an unquestionable result. Originally, the bulk of the X/U1 and W/M repertoires must have formed one large collection from which the X/U compiler cherry-picked, while the rest somehow ended up in the North and finally in the W/M atelier. The ‘cherries’ were exemplars with melodies and generally more than two stanzas. Twelve of the W/M songs are lacking melodies, while the sole melody missing in X/U1 (PC 70.1) may simply have been overlooked by the less reliable second music scribe. That the presence of a melody had absolute priority for the X/U compiler is shown by PC 134.1 and PC 461.206 in Table 6.5b: despite their long texts (seven and six stanzas respectively) they appear to have been omitted from X/U because they lacked melodies. Thirty-six of the W/M songs have only one or two stanzas, whereas X/U1 contains merely three two-stanza songs (PC 167.15, 389.36, 421.3); all others consist of three or more stanzas. In contrast, four of the five songs assembled in X/U3 have only one or two stanzas. We may thus conclude that the exemplars of the X/U3 group did not belong to the original collection, but were later acquisitions of the Port-Sailly families.66 After the creation of X/U1 in 1231, Port-Sailly apparently kept no further exemplars of the original collection; all that were not used seem to have found their way to W/M. Montpellier, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 595–606 contributes many interesting aspects, though fundamentally relying on the idea of written transmission and traditional stemmata. (Critical voices are briefly mentioned ibid., p. 606, n. 21.) 63 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 101. 64 Ibid., p. 102. 65 Both the presence of melodies and the number of stanzas are indicated at ibid., pp. 65–9 and 75–7). In Table 6.5a, ‘♪’ designates the presence of music notation; ‘≡’ designates empty staves; ⬜ indicates that space was left in the manuscript for staves that were never entered; ‘*’ indicates that the first stanza is missing or displaced (appears later in this version of the song; for details, see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 65–9). Folios are designated ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, or ‘d’, where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are left and right columns respectively on the recto, and ‘c’ and ‘d’ are left and right columns respectively on the verso. The folios (190+) and (192+) are folios in W/M after fol. 190 and 192 that are now lost. The partimen PC 70.2 = 323.4 is listed under both authors. PC 461.197 is furnished in W/M (index and text) with the rubric ‘Li sons derves del home salvage’ (the crazy song of the wild man). 66 One might argue that this is confirmed by the textual forms with their markedly higher degree of Lorraine peculiarities: see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 77. However, these could be caused by the redaction of the X/U3 scribe; we do not know what the exemplars looked like and when they were written. In any case, the X/U3 scribe was also familiar with the mixed language.

Table 6.5a: Song distribution of troubadours represented in both X/U and W/M PC

Troubadour

16.5a

Albertet de Sestaro

notation / stanzas X/U1

W/M

X/U3

fol. X/U1 W/M

♪/1

204a

16.9

≡ / 1*

192a

16.14

♪/1

203a

♪/4

16.17a 70.1

Bernart de Ventadorn

≡/4

91r ♪/1

81r

202a

♪/2

190c

70.7

♪/6

190b

70.10 II

[lost]

(190+)

70.12

[lost]

(190+)

70.13

[lost]

(190+)

70.19

♪ / 3*

195a

70.2 = 323.4

♪/3

70.23

89r

70.24

♪/1

202c

70.29

[lost]

(192+)

70.31

♪/6

191a

70.33

[lost]

(192+)

70.41

♪/5 ♪/3

70.42 70.43

♪/2

70.45

♪/5

167.15

Gaucelm Faidit

188b

⬜/2

♪/2 ♪/5

167.22

88r 190d 85r

♪/3

87r

♪/4

90r

167.37

♪/3

84r ♪/1

202b

167.52

♪/3

86v

167.53

♪/3

86r

167.56

♪/5

89v

262.2 262.5

Jaufre Rudel

♪/4

♪/4

191d 200a

167.32 167.43

148v

191a

♪/2

167.30

X/U3

⬜/2

81v

189d 149v

—(continued)

common examplars of u and c 103



Table 6.5a—concluded PC

Troubadour

273.1

Jordan Bonel

♪ / 1*

323.4 = 70.2

Peire d’Alvernhe

♪/2

323.15 364.4

Peire Vidal

364.11

notation / stanzas

⬜/ 1*

fol. 201b 190c

♪/4

86r

♪/5

85v

♪/5

87v

364.39

♪/1

204c

364.40

≡ / 1*

197d

♪/2

197a

≡/1

197c

364.49 366.2

Peirol ♪/6

366.12 375.14

202d

♪/3

375.27 421.1

88v ♪/1

Pons de Capdoill

90v ♪/1

Rigaut de Berbezilh

421.2

♪/5

421.3

♪/2

149r

195c

♪/2

84r

195d

≡/2

85r

197b

421.5

≡ / 2*

194d

421.6

♪/5

189c

421.10

♪/1

⬜/4

200b

150r

X/U’s favourite author was Gaucelm Faidit.67 The compiler picked out seven of his pieces, more than for any other troubadour; only two short ones and a duplicate of lesser textual quality were left aside. By contrast, Folquet de Marselha, also still alive at the time of X/U1’s copying, was completely ignored. This troubadour, who had left secular life and, after becoming bishop of Toulouse in 1205, become a violent 67 For his revised dating (fl. 1199–1235), see Robert Lug, ‘Gaucelm Faidit et Maria de Ventadorn,

vivaient-ils encore en 1235?’, in Luc de Goustine (ed.), Gaucelm Faidit: amours, voyages et débats, Cahiers de Carrefour Ventadour (Moustier-Ventadour, 2011), pp. 71–131. It seems that after the death of all his patrons (1218–25), Gaucelm (‘faidit’ means heretic) took refuge himself in the francophone east. He mastered the French language, as is proven by his French song Quant vei reverdir les jardis (PC 167.50). In Al semblan del rei thyes (PC 167.4) he describes the harniscara scene that took place at Worms in 1235 with such exact details, that it is possible he had been an eye-witness: ibid., pp. 87–9. Significantly, this famous song (transmitted in seventeen later sources) is represented neither in X/U nor in W/M; it had not been composed by 1231. If Gaucelm were known in Metz as an acclaimed performer, this would explain his outstanding position in X/U and the compiler’s knowledge of his songs.

Table 6.5b: Distribution of remaining Occitan songs between X/U and W/M PC

Troubadour

notation / stanzas

46.2

Comtessa de Dia

♪/1

204b

124.5

Daude de Pradas

♪/2

196a

134.1

Elias Fonsalada

≡/7

198c

155.8

Folquet de Marselha

?/3

189b

X/U1

W/M

X/U3

fol. X/U1

W/M

♪ / 1*

200d

155.21

♪/4

188a

155.22

♪/3

188c

155.23

♪/4

188d

≡ / 1*

198a

♪/1

196c

♪/1

201c

♪/2

192b

♪/1

203d

♪/2

194c

155.10

194.7

Gui d’Ussel

194.8 223.1

Guilhem Magret

223.3 293.13

Marcabru

293.35 370.14

Perdigon

♪/3

89r

372.3

Pistoleta

♪/4

82r

389.36

Raimbaut d’Auren- ♪ / 2 ga

88v

404.11

Raimon Jordan

♪/6

194a

461.9

Anon.

♪/1

196b

♪/5

461.12

82v

461.13

♪/6

191b

461.17

≡ / 49 lines

199a

461.35a

⬜/1

149v

461.41

≡/1

461.100

≡/1

193c

198b

♪/2

199d

461.122

[Lai Nompar]

♪ / 163 lines

213b

461.124

[Lai Markiol]

♪ / 205 lines

212a

461.102

X/U3

—(continued)

common examplars of u and c 105



Table 6.5b—concluded PC

Troubadour

notation / stanzas

461.148

fol.

♪ / 60 lines

461.146 ♪/5

199b 91v

461.150

♪/1

203c

461.152

♪/1

201a

461.169a

–/4

189b

461.170c

[lost]

(192+)

461.197

♪/6

190a

461.206

≡/6

198c

persecutor of heretics during the Albigensian war, was obviously a taboo person for the X/U compiler. No such reasoning explains why Bernart de Ventadorn is so scarcely represented. Only three of his songs were chosen for X/U, while fourteen appear in W/M, among them several with melodies and many stanzas.68 The reasons for his relative omission from X/U are obscure.69 Some troubadours are represented either in X/U or in W/M (see Table 6.5b). Here again it is – with the exception of Folquet de Marselha – simply the presence of a melody and the number of stanzas that caused this distribution. The three exceptions that have a melody and six stanzas in W/M (PC 404.11, 461.13, and 461.197) may have had special reasons. In addition, X/U1 has limited space (mainly in gathering 11, plus four irregularly placed pieces in gathering 10): the two lais (lai Markiol, Gent me nais, PC 461.124, and lai Nompar, Finement, PC 461.122) were certainly omitted for that reason. Finally, and although no concrete indication points to it, one cannot discount the possibility that some pieces – in X/U as well as in W/M – were copied from exemplars not belonging to the common collection. Of the eight duplicates between X/U and W/M, five are contained in X/U1 and three in X/U3 (see Table 6.5a). All are independent of each other, stemming from

68 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 65–8 register all of Bernart’s W/M

pieces correctly, while in ibid., p. 101 three are missing. Two songs are contained in both sources: PC 70.1 has four stanzas in X/U1, but only one heterogeneous stanza in W/M. The good exemplar of the lark song in W/M (PC 70.43, two stanzas on fol. 190v, but presumably more on the following lost folio) had not been used for X/U1, because the melody had already been entered with a French contrafact (RS 1934, U, fol. 48v). It thus ended up in the W/M atelier, while the supplementary two-stanza version added in X/U3 was probably a later acquisition. 69 Low appreciation is an unlikely explanation, since the X/U compiler placed Bernart’s PC 70.1 at the very beginning of the Occitan section. It could be that most of the Bernart exemplars were absent from the collection at the time the X/U compiler made his choice, having been temporarily loaned elsewhere, or perhaps even hidden from the compiler’s access; these and many more reasons remain imaginable but unverifiable.

106

robert lug

heterogeneous sources.70 The former five were probably already duplicated in the common collection, and the compiler of X/U chose the better ones.71 Since X/U does not contain any author attributions, we can only guess if the compiler knew who – apart from Gaucelm Faidit – the authors of the chosen songs were. It is evident that the compiler of W/M, working more than twenty years later in a distant region, was no troubadour connoisseur, as is shown by the sparse attributions (only four troubadour names) and their unreliable placement.72 The combined evidence of X/U and W/M implies that at most only a small minority of the collection’s exemplars were provided with authors’ names. Another strong argument for a common collection is the dating of the songs: X/U1 was copied in 1231 and W/M does not contain any troubadour song composed after this date.73 It would seem that the compiler of W/M (after 1253) made no attempt to supplement this ‘heritage’ with younger songs. The collection was thus probably prompted by the huge wave of refugees who reached the eastern francophone regions in the late 1220s (see above), hence I suggest the term ‘exile collection’. The presence of a professional music scribe indicates its copying in a city, and the Lorraine traits point to the cultural centre of Metz.74 70 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 87–101, with detailed text

comparisons.

71 Only the two versions of PC 262.2 are formally equivalent (four stanzas with melody in

both manuscripts), but the X/U compiler had musical reasons for picking the exemplar used: the melody transmitted in W/M is defective (see van der Werf, Extant Troubadour Melodies, p. 217*). 72 Presumably the compiler (that is, the index writer) found these four names (plus Li sons derves…, see above, n. 65) on the exemplars and copied them with the respective song incipits into the index, enlarging them to small author groups which were then placed at the beginning of the troubadour section. While the first group (Folquet de Marselha, five songs) includes only one incorrect attribution (a song pair on the exemplar?), the subsequent groups are chaotic. Gaucelm Faidit (‘Joseaus Tardius’) is not the author of the two songs ascribed to him, and the four songs following the rubric ‘pieres vidaus’ are all by Bernart de Ventadorn. As for Bernart (sixteen pieces in total), only the first four songs following the rubric are by him, then – after five songs by other authors – another two songs, while the rest are randomly dispersed: see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 65–8. The chaotic order of Bernart’s songs points to a general practice on the part of W/M’s index writer: his technique of hiding songs whose authors are unknown to him. In the trouvère repertoire listed in the index too, the author groups (songs following the rubric) often begin with correctly attributed songs, then run silently into songs which are ‘anonymous’ to the compiler; the end of the intended group is never marked. (See Lug, Semi-mensurale Informationen, p. 72 n. 4; a similar case is trouvère manuscript H, whose make-believe rubric ‘Moniez d’Arras’ does not apply for all sixty-three songs, but only for the first and a few more dispersed ones.) As a result, all songs in W/M’s index appear to be properly distributed into author groups, without any anonymous songs. This technique of the index writer has often been misunderstood, even by those who added attributions to the songs in the main text, mistaking the index as a reliable series of author groups. Particularly in the Occitan section, the resulting chaos is hard to disentangle. 73 See Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 56, 75. This is also indicated (though not proven) by the absence of PC 167.4 (see above, n. 67). 74 Some Lorraine traits persisted when they were overlaid by Picard elements in W/M: Billy and Lug, ‘Un Témoin picard’, pp. 44–5.

common examplars of u and c 107



As to its genesis, the ‘exile collection’ raises many questions. Were all or most of the songs written down from sung versions, or should one imagine some pre-existing written exemplars too? Were they sung by amateurs and/or professionals? Were some of them ‘translated’ from sung versions in pure Occitan? Who organised the collection? Was it initiated in some connection with Port-Sailly’s X/U project, maybe by its compiler, or was it an independent undertaking? All we can be sure of is that the exemplars were written in mixed language. Apparently, the copyists of X/U and W/M had no problems with this; the confidence of their copying leaves little doubt that they were already familiar with this idiom in its respective regional colourings. Having ascertained the broader picture of the ‘exile collection’ in X/U and W/M let us return to the more solid ground of the four ζ/C songs and their relation to the versions in X/U. I will discuss the three songs by known authors first, then the anonymous pastorela.

b) Three collated versions The three attributable songs shared by X/U and ζ/C (see Table 6.6) were all famous ones, as is shown by their Occitan transmission in a multitude of manuscripts.75 The first of these songs, Rigaut de Berbezilh’s Ausiment com l’olifans (PC 421.2) is found in a wide range of Occitan manuscripts as well as in X/U1, ζ/C, and W/M.76 Table 6.7 presents the texts of the three trouvère manuscript versions.77 X/U1 preserves all five stanzas known from the Occitan tradition, omitting only the two tornadas. It seems to be a principle of Northern transmission to exclude tornadas Table 6.6: Songs by Rigaut de Berbezilh and Jaufre Rudel in X/U also copied in ζ/C PC

Incipit in X/U

Author

421.2

Ausiment con lolifant

Rigaut de Berbezilh X/U1; ζ/C; W/M plus 25 Occitan manuscripts

421.10

Tuit demandent kest devengut damors

Rigaut de Berbezilh X/U3; ζ/C; W/M plus 19 Occitan manuscripts

262.5

Quant li rus de la fontainne

Jaufre Rudel

Sources

X/U3; ζ/C plus 16 Occitan manuscripts

75 Source counting according to Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp.

38–40 and 28–9, secondary sources omitted.

76 The compiler of the ‘exile collection’ seems to have had a special interest in Rigaut de

Berbezilh, since he gathered six of his nine securely attributed songs, two of which were presumably present in duplicate (see Table 6.5a). Former controversy about Rigaut’s dating was settled when Saverio Guida published a document written in 1227 which supplements the established ones of c. 1200 and 1214: see Saverio Guida, ‘Problemi di datazione e di identificazione di trovatori’, in Giuseppe Tavani and Luciano Rossi (eds), Studi provenzali e francesi 86/87, Romanica vulgaria, Quaderni, 10/11 (L’Aquila, 1989), pp. 87–126, at pp. 89–90. 77 Transcription as in Alberto Varvaro (ed.), Rigaut de Berbezilh, Liriche, Biblioteca di filologia romanza, 4 (Bari, 1960), pp. 124–6; significant discrepancies are underlined. For the stanza sequence of all extant manuscripts, see ibid, p. 107 (tornadas counted as stanzas 6 and 7).

2.10

2.5

2.1

1.10

1.5

1.1

Tout ausi com liolifans car com chiet ne puet leuar. se li autre olor cridar. de lor uoix nel xourdent sus. et enuol songre kalus. ke mon mesfait est tant grief et pesans ke se la cor del pui et li bobans et li grans pris des loiaulz amandors non relieue iamais. non sera sus kil dignaissent por me clamair. merse lains. on ni gars ne raixons ne ualt riens. Et se per les fins amans. non pou mon ioi recobrars. atou tens le remanbrai. ke per moi non iert rians. plus en uiurai comme renclus soul. sens solais. ke tals iert mes talens. et ma uide iert tornairde a anfant. et iors miert duels. et plaixirs miert dolors. car en mon ceu aila nature aillors. quant plux le bat et tient uj. sens mercez et plux lengrez. et millor laisouant.

Et se per les fins amanz non poc mon ioi recobrar. a tot tens las lo chantar. ke de mei non ert ren plus. ainc uiurai come renclus. sous senz solaz car tals es mos talans. et ma uide miert enuis et alfans. et iois mert doux et plazers mert dolors. car eu non sui de la natore a lors. can plus lo bat et ten uil senz mercen. et mais engrasse et meillors en deuen.

ζ/C, fols 238r–v

Ausiment con lolifant car con chiet non pot leuar et li autre ob le cridar de lor vois lessordent sus. et eu uol siugre tal us. que mos mesfaiz est tant gries et pesanz. que se la cors del pui et li bobanz et li gais prez des leials amadors non releuent iamais non serai sus. qui dengnassent per mei clamar merces. la ou iuiars ni razon ni ualt ren.

X/U1, fols 84r–v

Et se per lou fins amans non pos de ioie coubrar. per toz iors mais lai mon chantar. ne de mei non er ren pluz. ainz viurai comme ranclus. sous sainz soulaz. car ma vide mes enuide et pesanz. ioi est mes doelz et plaisens ma dolors. dont sui ie mieuz de la manere al ors. car qui lou bat et ten vill sanz merces. al douz degraz. et meilleir en valgbes.

Avsement com lolifans. qui chat et non pot leuar. mes li altre od lor cridar. de lor veis lou leuen sus. et eu vol sigre itel vs. car mos mesfais mes tan grieus et pesans. que se la cors del pui et lou beubans. et lou dreis preis de leaus amadors. non me leuent iamaiz non serai sors. el deignaissen per me clamar mercez. la ou jogar ni raison non (qui) val ren.

W/M, fols 195d–196a

Table 6.7: Versions of Rigaut de Berbezilh, PC 421.2 = RS 272 in X/U, ζ/C, and W/M

4.10

4.5

4.1

3.10

3.5

3.1

A tot lo mont sui clamanz de mei et de sorparlar. seu poguie contre fenix dont il nest que uns. qui sart et puis resor sus. eu mardrie que trop sui malignanz. et mos fals diz mencongers et truianz. puis sorcirai alarmes et a plors. la ou bialtaz et iouanz et ualors. est que ni faut. qun petit de mercen. que ni sient aiosta tuit li ben.

Ben sai qamors es tan grans que ben mi pot perdonar. sainc failli per soubre amar. eu regnai com dedalus. que dis quil ere ihesus. et uol puiar el ciel oltrecudan. et deus bassa lorgoil et lo boban. mais mos orgoiz non es mais ab amors. per sa raison mi pot faire secors. que maint leu son ou raison veint mercen. et leu ou dreich ni raison (non ualt ren) non saben. Atout le mont seux clamans. de mei et de trop pairlair. maix se poene contrefair. fenix dont il nest ke uns. ki saut et ki resort sus. et maidre ke trop seux malignans et mes fauz. dis mensongiers et truans. pues sorciai. asospirs et aplors. lai ou baras et iuent et ualors. eque ni faut cun petit de mercez. ke ni sient asembleit tuit li bien.

Bien sai camors est tant grans. ke bien me puet perdonair. sens faillir per sobre amair. en ranmai. com dedalus ki dist kil iere ihesus. ki uolt uolair ou ciel. outre cuidant et deus baissait. lorguel et le bobant. maix mes orguels non est fors ke damors. per sa raixon me pou faire secors. ke maint leu sont ou raixon uient mercez. et lai oudrois ne raixon non sorben.

—(continued)

5.10

5.5

5.1

Ma chancon mes druguemanz. la ou eu non os annar. ni a droiz euz regardar tant sui forfaiz et encus. ne ia nus ne men escus. mais auinant qui sie en bel iouant. or tor a uos dolorous et plorant. si com li cers car qant a fait son cors. por uent morir au cri des chacadors. ausi tor eu a la vostre mercen. mais non uos ren se damors non saben.

X/U1, fols 84r–v

ζ/C, fols 238r–v

Table 6.7—concluded W/M, fols 195d–196a



common examplars of u and c 111

and stanzas mentioning real persons, possibly because these names meant nothing to the Northern public, or because they were often connected with political affiliations and even messages. In the fifth stanza of the X/U version, ‘mais auinant qui sie en bel iouant’ replaces the version of line 6 found in the Southern transmission, ‘Miels de Domna, don sui fogiz dos ans’, thus eliminating the lady’s name.78 ζ/C omits the whole stanza, prompting the question of whether the redactor of this version had access to a source preserving the original text.79 Comparing the X/U and ζ/C versions of stanzas 1–4 suggests that such a source was available. The first impression is that of a true copy (stanza 1), although the hypermetric first line (an extra syllable with ‘liolifans’) with the incipit ‘Tout ausi’ (for ‘Ausiment’) and the beginning of the last line perhaps contradict this.80 In stanza 2 however, the many discrepancies cannot be explained as attempts at amelioration; they must stem from different sources. To a lesser degree, such divergences occur in stanzas 3 and 4 too. ζ/C thus presents a collated version (my category iii, above) closely orientated to X/U. By contrast, the two-stanza version in W/M is independent of the versions in X/U and ζ/C. As for the melodies, those of X/U and W/M are structurally similar, but this applies also to the melody preserved in the Italian troubG.81 The second of the songs present in both X/U and ζ/C, Rigaut de Berbezilh’s, Tuit demandent k’est devengut d’amors (PC 421.10) is likewise widely transmitted.82 In the Occitan tradition, PC 421.10 has five stanzas and two tornadas, the latter addressed to a countess of Champagne and a person named Bel Paradis respectively.83 In X/ U3 and ζ/C, not only are these tornadas omitted, but also the fifth stanza, probably because here Rigaut addresses and praises his ‘domna’, a real person. For this song, too, the redactor of the ζ/C version had a second exemplar at his disposal. In his collated version, stanzas 1 and 2 remain close to X/U (see Table 6.8); 78 According to his vida, Rigaut’s lady, whom he praises with the senhal ‘Meillz-de-Domna’,

79

80

81 82 83

was the daughter of Jaufre Rudel [III] prince of Blaye (documented 1199–1252/54) and wife of Jaufre de Tonnay (documented 1204–19/20). See Guida, ‘Problemi di datazione’, pp. 97–100. I have concluded that this lady – her real name is not documented – was the sister of Jaufre Rudel the troubadour (see Robert Lug, ‘Jaufre Rudel rajeuni’, in Luc de Goustine (ed.), Jaufre Rudel: prince, amant et poète, Cahiers de Carrefour Ventadour (Moustier-Ventadour, 2012), pp. 57–79, at p. 67). The person responsible for collating this version of the song, and the other two songs discussed here, was probably not the scribe of ζ/C, but rather, in my opinion, a troubadour specialist. This may or may not have been the same person responsible for the overall compilation of ζ/C. Varvaro, Rigaut de Berbezilh, pp. 120–1 gives a short commentary. For a synopsis of the first stanza, see also Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 98. Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, pp. 358–60, gives the text from X/U, with the two others in the critical apparatus. See van der Werf, Extant Troubadour Melodies, pp. 334*–7*. For the stanza sequence of all extant manuscripts see Varvaro, Rigaut de Berbezilh, pp. 198–9. The countess is traditionally identified as Marie de Champagne (1145–98), grandmother of Thibaut IV. In accordance with the dates mentioned in n. 76, however, this person should be identified as Blanche de Navarre, countess since 1199 and regent for her son Thibaut IV during his minority, i.e. until 1222. Personal contacts between Rigaut and Thibaut are thus probable, although neither the vida nor any document confirms them. As a poet, Rigaut de Berbezilh was known for his nature comparisons (for example, to the elephant in PC 421.2), which is explicitly mentioned in his vida. Five of his nine ‘authentic’ songs begin with such comparisons, making it perhaps more than fortuitous that four songs of Thibaut’s have similar incipits.

Amors lou fait comme lou bou ostour. ki a son vol ne mot ne ne debat ains atant tant com lou getet de grat et muet et prant son ozial cant li sourt asi Amors agaitet et atant bone done plaisans de grant beltat. ou tout li bien del mont sont aiostait. ital la veult Amors ni fat derant.

2.1

2.5

1.5

Tuit demandent k’est devengut d’Amors et ai a tous en dira la vertait. tout atresi com li solos d’estait. ki per tot lust et gitet resplandour. (…) a soir san vat couchar tout asimant com fait Amours cant ait per tout sarchait non pot torbeir ki li sie a sou grait. torne sannat dont muet premera […]

1.1

X/U3, fols 150r–v

2.5

2.1

1.5

1.1

Amor lou fait comme le boen ostor. ki a son vol ne muet ne ne debait. ains atant tant c’on le giete de grait. et mot et prent son oxel quant li sor. ensi Amor agaite et atant. bone done plaixant de grant biaultait. ou tout li bien del mont sont aiostait. itaul la veult Amors ni fault de rant.

Tuit demandent k’est devengue Amor. et o a tous en dirai la vertait. tout autresi com li solais d’estait. ke per tous leus iete sa resplandor. a soir sen vait couchair. tout ausimant fait bone Amor. quant ait per tout sercait. et non trueve ke li sie a son grait. torne sen vait dont mot premieralmant.

ζ/C, fols 234r–v (attrib.: ‘Forkes de Mersaille sor Poitevin’)

1.5

1.1

Tuit demandent qu’est devengude Amors. mais oiant toz en dirai la vertaz. tout autresi com del soleill estaz. qui per mant leu iete sa resplendor. e al seir vait colcar tout ensament. sinc fai amor quan a per tot cercat. et quan non pot vengher a son agrap. torne sen lai donc ven premerament.

W/M, fol. 200b–c

Table 6.8: Versions of Rigaut de Berbezilh, PC 421.10 = RS 1952 in X/U, ζ/C, and W/M

E per akeil sofferra ma dolour. ………………………………………… car per soffrir sont maint tort amandait coir lai dire ou livre ke ne mant. car per soffrir vaint an lozangador. et per soffrir est grans orguels baissas. et per soffrir ait lan d’amor son grait. et soffrirs fait maint cuer ire et ioant.

3.1

3.5

4.5

Car pris et sans et proesse et valour et tut bon fait sont an li assanblait loal amour por fair sa volantait an li e de gent donoant per amour. tout atresi com falcons ki descent a son ozial cant la sobre est montas. descent de li per franc humilitait Amors an siaz ki aimment loalment.

4.1

4.5

4.1

3.5

3.1

Et por ikeu soufferrai ma dolor. ke per souffrir sont maint gent don donait. et per soffrir sont maint orguel baissait. et per souffrir voint on losaniadour. Ovides dist li libres ke nen ment. ke per souffrir ait lon d’amor son grait. et per soffrir sont maint tort amandait. et soffrirs fait maint irais iosant.

Quant pris et sens et prudence et valor. et tuit bien fait sont en li arestait. et bone amor por fair sa volentait. et li es de ient dosnoiant per almor. tout autresi com fascons ki dessent. a son oxel ken la sonbre est montait. dessenderie per franke humilitait. Amors en ceauls ki aimme loiaulment.

114

robert lug

remarkably, line 2.8 is foreign to the Occitan tradition and unique to X/U and ζ/C.84 ζ/C’s stanza 3 (stanza 4 in X/U) shows some traces of collation, while stanza 4 diverges considerably from X/U (where it is stanza 3).85 This is possibly the reason why the redactor of the ζ/C version changed the stanza sequence so as to place the less altered stanza before the other, true to his principle to treat X/U as the ‘authority’. The (false) attribution to Folquet de Marselha in ζ/C may also stem from this second exemplar. In Jaufre Rudel’s Quant li rus de la fontainne (PC 262.5), the Occitan tradition shows great variation with regard to the wording and sequence of the stanzas.86 The version in X/U consists of only stanzas 1–2, which ζ/C supplements with three further stanzas, obviously stemming from a second exemplar.87 Here again, the X/U version is considered as the basic text, despite the changes and additions (see Table 6.9).88 Given the labour that was invested in the meticulous collation of these three songs, one must conclude that they were viewed as being of some importance and not mere oddities. It is thus not clear to me why the number of songs in mixed language in ζ/C were limited to a total of four.

c) ‘Vostre gieus m’a garie’ As shown in Table 6.10, the version of L’autrier m’iere levaz (PC 461.148) in ζ/C has three tornadas (dealing with fictive, not real persons, see below) that are absent from X/U. Hence one might suppose that this case resembled that of Jaufre Rudel’s Quant li rus, that is, that some redactor of the ζ/C version took the tornadas from a second source. Yet as we will see later, the situation is completely different here. No Occitan manuscript preserves L’autrier m’iere levaz; X/U and ζ/C are the only witnesses. However, this pastorela must have been a major success, since no less than seven contrafacts are known, two in Old French, one in Latin and four in

84 Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 40, see note under asterisk [*]. 85

86

87

88

A synopsis of stanzas 1 and 2 is given ibid., 100–1. The transcription in Table 6.8 is as in Varvaro, Rigaut de Berbezilh, pp. 206–7. While the version in ζ/C matches the Occitan tradition, X/U organises its lines in the order 1-7-5-4-3-6-8 (Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 40, see note under asterisk [*]), and has many textual discrepancies. See Rupert T. Pickens (ed.), The Songs of Jaufre Rudel, Studies and texts (Pontificial Institute of Mediaeval Studies), 41 (Toronto, 1978), p. 88. In the Occitan tradition, Jaufre Rudel sends PC 262.5 to ‘N Ugo Bru’ (Hugues IX de Lusignan, count of La Marche 1199– 1219; see Lug, ‘Jaufre Rudel rajeuni’, p. 76). Since his praise of the addressee has a strong political intent, the song can be dated between 1214 and 1218. If one accepts my revised dating of Jaufre Rudel (fl. 1214–19/20), then it appears that all three songs discussed so far were rather new at the time of the ‘exile collection’. For a commented synopsis of stanzas 1–2, see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, pp. 91–2. For the integral ζ/C text see, amongst others, Pickens, The Songs of Jaufre Rudel, pp. 132–5, and Brakelmann, ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift’, vol. 42, pp. 357–8. X/U differs from the Occitan tradition in 2.4–7; ζ/C changes 2.4–5 (see Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 91). As for the other three stanzas of ζ/C, only stanza 3 is common to the Occitan tradition, while ‘11’ is preserved in one sole manuscript and ‘12’ in none (ibid., p. 29). Transcription as in Raupach and Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik, p. 91.

common examplars of u and c 115



Table 6.9: Versions of Jaufre Rudel, PC 262.5 = RS 136 in X/U and ζ/C

1.1

1.5

2.1

2.5

X/U3, fol. 149v

ζ/C, fol. 115r

Quant li rus de la fontainne resclarsist sicom fait sol. et peirt la flors aglantine. et rossignors chante el rols veul vol refraing. et a plaire sont dous chantair. et ai fine drois est ke li miens refraigne.

Kant li rus de la fontainne renclarsist si come solt. ke naist la flour aglentainne. et roisignor chante el ro. uoluei refraint et aplaigne. son douls chanteir et afine. drois est ke li miens refraigne.

Amors de terre lontainne. por vos toz li cors mi dol. et non po trobar mesine. ki non vee a son reclam et nonbra damor sodainne. el uergier o so gordainne o desirair de conpagne

Amors de terre lontainne. por uos tous li cors me dolt. et non peux troueir messine. son ne lait per uo confort. et retrait damor altaigne. en uergier ou sor gaudainne. tail desir ai de compaigne. Three further stanzas follow: ‘11’3-‘12’

Table 6.10: Anonymous pastorela, PC 461.148 = RS 935 in X/U and ζ/C Sources

Incipit

Stanzas

X/U1, fol. 91v

♪

Lautrier miere levaz

1-2-3-4-5

ζ/C, fols 138v–139r

≡

Lautrier miere levais

1-2-3-4-5 + three tornadas

Occitan (see Table 6.11).89 Most of these pieces differ as to the number of lines per stanza, but surviving melodies affirm that the French and Latin songs are real contrafacts; so one may suppose the same for the Occitan ones too.90 I second the opinion of Marshall that the pastorela was the original.91 Since the author of one of the contrafacts, Philip the Chancellor (bearer of this title from 89 See John Henry Marshall, ‘Pour l’étude des Contrafacta dans la poésie des Troubadours’,

Romania, 101:403 (1980), pp. 289–335, at pp. 304–9. In Table 6.11, the conductus Homo considera is referenced by its number in Gordon A. Anderson (ed.), Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: Opera omnia, vol. 6, 1-Part Conductus Transmitted in Fascicule X of the Florence Manuscript (Henryville, PA, 1981), pp. 80–2 (melody), p. 143 (sources). 90 All melodies and their lyrics are edited (in a rhythmically modal interpretation) in Tischler, Trouvère Lyrics with Melodies, vol. 1, no. 6 (Homo considera incomplete). For schemes of the stanzas, see Marshall, ‘Pour l’étude des Contrafacta’, pp. 306–8. In general, one should be cautious with suppositions concerning contrafacts where no melody is preserved. In this case however, the unusual, variable stanza structure leaves little doubt that the Occitan versions were real contrafacts too, since few melodies would be able to match the various repetition possibilities of the single parts. 91 Marshall, ‘Pour l’étude des Contrafacta’, pp. 308–9.

11 11

21

21 11

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

X K N P X motetF LoB + two other MSS with music and one text only three Occitan MSS two Occitan MSS ten Occitan MSS troubDb

De Yesse naistra

Je chant comme desvés

Homo considera

Lo segles m’es camjatz

Cor ai e volontatz

N’Ebles, pos endeptatz

Lo segle vei camjar

RS 7

RS 922

K56

PC 76.11

PC 159.1

PC 194.16 = 129.4

PC 335.35

21

24

13

♪ ≡

X/U ζ/C

L’autrier m’iere levaz

PC 461.148 = RS 935

Lines per stanza

Sources

Incipit

RS/PC/ Anderson

Table 6.11: Pastorela and its contrafacts

two coblas

exchange of coblas

devotional song

sirventes

conductus

misogynistic satire

devotional song

pastorela

Genre

Peire Cardenal

Gui and Eble d’Ussel

Anonymous Franciscan

Bertran d’Alamano

Philip the Chancellor

Jacques de Hesdin

Anon.

Anon.

Poet



common examplars of u and c 117

1217 to 1236), loved to imitate recent song successes, the pastorela may have been composed during the significant wave of Occitan refugees, that is, in the late 1220s. The revised dating of the Ussel brothers, to whom another contrafact is attributed, supports this estimate.92 Philologists agree that the pastorela’s language cannot be traced back to an Occitan original; it is ‘French with an overlay of Occitan effects’.93 The author is imagined to have been ‘a northern Frenchman […] with only a very superficial knowledge of Occitan’.94 Nevertheless, one could equally imagine an Occitan poet familiar with French who, stimulated by the fashion for ‘Frenchified’ troubadour songs, created this piece deliberately and masterfully in mixed language, piling up the -az rhymes (stanzas 1–3) as a seemingly Occitan trademark. The simple melody is very effective. Could it be that Gaucelm Faidit was the author of L’autrier m’iere levaz? Such a supposition is, at best, highly speculative.95 Whoever the poet-composer may have been, they were rewarded with a huge success. It is this success in particular, denoting wide oral dissemination, that dispels all doubt that the French-Occitan language mix was actually a sung idiom, not only a written one. Why did the Occitan chansonniers ignore this famous song? I believe there are two reasons: firstly, Occitan compilers were in general hesitant to include pastorelas, particularly when they were as sexually explicit as our piece is; secondly, there existed no Occitan original in this case; for the collectors, guardians of the troubadour heritage, it was no Occitan song and thus held no interest to them. The fame of this pastorela may still have lingered at the end of the century, when the compiler of ζ/C chose it as one of the four privileged ‘Occitan’ songs. But where did they get the three tornadas that X/U omits?

92 William D. Paden (ed.), The Medieval Pastourelle, Garland library of medieval literature,

series A, 34–5 (2 vols, New York, 1987), vol. 1, p. 58 and vol. 2, p. 545 dates the pastorela ‘c. 1190’, basing his supposition on the former estimation of Gui d’Ussel’s activity (‘fl. 1195–6’). More recent research has shown that Gui is still documented in 1235 and 1238 (see Saverio Guida and Gerardo Larghi, Dizionario Biografico dei Trovatori, Studi, testi e manuali, 18, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours, 13 (Modena, 2013), p. 223), his brother Eble in 1225 and 1233 (ibid., pp. 167–8), and his brother Elias still in 1255 (ibid., p. 173). It is true that Uc de Saint-Circ, author of the vidas and razos, reports that Gui had stopped his poetic activity on papal command (supposedly 1209, or in the 1210s). But given that Uc wrote this in the early 1220s, it is not impossible that Gui restarted afterwards. 93 Paden, The Medieval Pastourelle, vol. 2, p. 545. 94 Jeanroy, cited in Marshall, ‘Pour l’étude des Contrafacta’, pp. 304–5. 95 The following points may be purely accidental: 1) Gaucelm could compose French songs (see above, n. 67); 2) around 1230 he probably lived in the francophone east (see also n. 67 above); 3) during his Ventadorn years Gaucelm was a close friend of the four Ussel brothers, as evinced by the partimen between him and Elias d’Ussel (PC 167.13 = 136.2, dating from 1204); 4) he had a ‘rustic’ image; 5) Gaucelm was X/U’s favorite troubadour (seven songs, see above, Table 6.5a); since the compiler opened X/U’s Occitan gathering with one of Gaucelm’s songs (PC 167.37, fol. 84r), he may thus have wished to close it with another.

118

robert lug 5. [...] Ne fu pas trop estrie, ainz m’a dit cortesie: ‘Sire, g’iere marrie qant vos venistes ci. Or ai lo cuer joli; vostre geus m’a garie.

[...] She was not very hostile, Rather she gave me a compliment: ‘Sir, I was sad When you came here. Now my heart is glad; Your game has cured me.

T1. Perrins m’ait engingnie, car onkes en sa vie si bel ne me servi; por ceu ce lou defi d’un mes de coupperie!’

Perrin has deceived me, For never in his life Has he served me so well; Therefore I condemn him To a month of cuckoldry!’

T2. Et Perrins haut c’escrie, ‘Je t’ai trop bien servie! Tu lou m’ais mal meri— davant moi m’ais honi. Jamaix n’aurai amie!’

And Perrin cried aloud, ‘I’ve served you too well! You’ve paid me back badly – You’ve put me to shame before my eyes. I’ll never have a sweetheart!’

T3. ‘Tais, gairs, Deus te maldie! Se j’ai fait trop compaignie a cest chevelier si, de coi t’ai je honi? Il ne m’enporte mie!’

‘Quiet, boy, God curse you! If I’ve offered company To this knight, How have I shamed you? He’s not taking me away!’96

Close inspection shows that the X/U and ζ/C texts are practically identical in all five stanzas, except for some graphic variants; notably the -az rhymes were transformed into -ais forms.97 However, nothing points to a collation; there was certainly no other source involved. The paradox is resolved on inspection of the original page of X/U (fol. 91v, Figure 6.7). It is the last page of the old part (X/U1), in fact the last of the twenty ‘Occitan’ songs, that make up its (autonomous) final gathering. The pastorela was obviously meant to function as the grand finale. It seems that the scribe, when calculating the scarce remaining space, decided to omit the tornadas and to close with the fifth 96 Text and translation: Paden, The Medieval Pastourelle, vol. 1, pp. 62–3. 97 For the version of the text in X/U, see Tyssens, Le Chansonnier français U, vol. 1, pp.

385–8 (with ζ/C variants up to line 55); for the ζ/C text, Brakelmann, ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift’, vol. 43, pp. 241–2. In his note, Brakelmann indicates four minor discrepancies between the two manuscripts (2.6, 4.2–3, 5.3–4, 5.8).



common examplars of u and c 119

Figure 6.7: X/U, fol. 91v. Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France

stanza. In the middle of the page the scribe was more generous with the line spacing. Yet, while copying the last stanza, the scribe must have noticed that what had been the usual four lines per stanza here would not suffice. The script thus became narrower, and the very last line was placed below the regular text block, where it is visually prominent: ‘Vostre geus m’a garie’ (‘Your game has cured me’). I have argued elsewhere that X/U1 was conceived as a wedding present.98 This last line of X/U’s version of the song can thus be interpreted as a kind of end motto addressed to the couple Noise-Haussonville. If the tornadas had been added, the codex would not have had this conclusion, and thus, the scribe of X/U turned a necessity into a virtue. Two generations later, when the scribe of ζ/C copied from the same exemplar that had been used for X/U, the copying was independent both of wedding bells and of limited space; therefore the entire song was copied, including the tornadas. 98 Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser’, pp. 255–6 with n. 18 and 19. There are other hints which

would lead us too far here.

120

robert lug

I would like to finish with some questions. Firstly, why did the exemplars of U represent such an authority for the compiler of C? I think the compiler was aware that these leaflets reached back into the golden age of the troubadours and trouvères, which gave them great auctoritas, something like the aura of an ‘Urtext’. Secondly, should the long preservation of exemplars, here evident inside the walls of Metz and presumably inside the Port-Sailly circles, be imagined as a more general model for the written transmission of songs? And if so, were the oldest exemplars treated with the same ‘awe’ as in our case? Could these exemplars be loaned, or rented, or sold outside the family circles? There are as yet no answers to these questions, which remain tantalising and alluring ones for future scholarship.

Chapter 7

Shared Small Sources for Two Early Fourteenth-Century Metz Chansonniers? Elizabeth Eva Leach

A

mong the dozens of surviving manuscripts that collect the repertoires of thirteenth-century French song are three that can be associated with the city of Metz. Situated in a linguistic and political border zone, Metz was an important regional centre of medieval book production and had a flourishing cultural life.1 One of these three songbooks, U, represents the earliest large-scale collection of notated trouvère songs, as well as containing one of the few significant collections of notated troubadour songs. Unsurprisingly, this manuscript has already had considerable attention from literary scholars and musicologists.2 Although far from entirely neglected, somewhat less work has been lavished on the other two Messine sources that are addressed here, C, the Bern chansonnier, the focus of the present volume, and the trouvère chansonnier I, now bound as part of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308.3 For text scholars, this neglect may reflect the supposed 1

See the essays in Mireille Chazan and Gérard Nauroy (eds), Écrire l’histoire à Metz au Moyen Âge: actes du colloque organisé par l’Université Paul-Verlaine de Metz, 23–25 avril 2009, Recherches en littérature et spiritualité, 20 (Bern, 2011) and Mireille Chazan, ‘Littérature et histoire dans les bibliothèques des patriciens messins à la fin du Moyen Age’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 205–35. 2 See, for example, the discussion and bibliography in Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015–20); Christina Diane Linklater, ‘Popularity, Presentation, and the Chansonnier Saint-Germain-des-Pres’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2006); Christopher Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric at the Peripheries: The Lessons of MSS Paris, BnF fr. 20050 and Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 15–30; and Robert Lug, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231–1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de SaintGermain-des Prés’, in Chazan and Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société, pp. 451–86. 3 On C, see, however, Nicolaas Unlandt, Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011) and the description and bibliography in Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999); see also Chapter 3 above. On I, the most recent bibliography for the chansonnier section is contained in Eglal Doss-Quinby, ‘The Douce 308 Chansonnier within the Corpus of Trouvère Songbooks’, in Chazan and Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société, pp. 435–50. The current contents of the codex as a whole represent a fifteenth-century

122

elizabeth eva leach

geographical peripherality of these sources; for musicologists, it is probably because neither of these sources has musical notation: C planned for it but now displays empty staves, while I copied its songs verbally as prose, in a layout never designed to accommodate musical notation. Despite their differences, C and I were copied in the same city at roughly the same time (with C preceding I by a likely maximum of two decades), and together represent the ‘terminus ad quem of trouvère tradition and chansonnier compilation’.4 Paola Moreno adheres to Eduard Schwan’s nineteenth-century diagnosis of the date of the source, noting that C was copied ‘between the end of the thirteenth and start of the fourteenth centuries’.5 The collection in I contains a song which references a person by a title that means that the collection was copied after 1309, although probably not too long after that time.6 Now that both manuscripts exist in high-quality digital photographs available online, they can be compared visually side-by-side. To my eye, the shapes of the alternating red and blue capitals and the decoration of initial letters have some similarities, although they are not completely the same, making it possible that they emanated from the same milieu, even if not from the pen of the same individual.7 The two manuscripts contain roughly the same number of songs – just over 500 – each thus representing over 20% of the known trouvère song repertoire. Given that they share a not insignificant but nonetheless relatively small number of songs (fifty-seven, roughly 10% of each manuscript’s contents), in combination they represent a significant proportion of known medieval French monophonic songs. This chapter proposes that these two sources can contribute to understanding trouvère song beyond considering their quantitative/qualitative significance in terms of content. The relatively unusual – and different – organisational principles used in assembling these two sources, combined with their sharing of some materials, can be used to shed light on the generally opaque question of how large trouvère songbooks were assembled. The oral paper on which this chapter is based was initially developed independently of Robert Lug’s research on C and the other Messine source, U, presented here in Chapter 6; the similarity of our conclusions represents

4 5

6

7

binding regime and may not be the original plan for the volume; see Alison Stones, Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320, Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France (2 vols in 4, Turnhout, 2013–14), part I, vol. 1, p. 50 and Karlyn Griffith, ‘The Codicological Histories of Two Metz Compilations (MSS Douce 308 and Harley 4972) and the Implications of Owner Manipulations’, Pecia, 17 (2016), pp. 93–127. Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 25. Moreno, “Intavulare”, p.19 and Chapter 3 in this volume; see Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886), p. 174. Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 16 says only that it ‘dates from the end of the 13th century’. See the dating information in the introduction to Eglal Doss-Quinby, Samuel N. Rosenberg, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), The Old French Ballette: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, Publications romanes et françaises, 239 (Geneva, 2006), pp. liii–liv. See Chapter 4 above, p. 58. While it could perhaps be the same individual, it might also be someone trained in the same way or trying to make the book look like other books they had seen.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 123

the emergence of a consensus hypothesis on at least one way the sources that lie behind large medieval songbooks were preserved and assembled. In thinking about what kind of materials were assembled before such books were copied, how they were acquired, where from, and how they were used practically in the copying of the luxurious sources that survive today, all we have to go on is the comparative transmission patterns of the songs and the organisational principles that we can observe in the finished manuscripts. Traditionally, for example in the pioneering work of Schwan, published in 1886, these contents and their ordering have been understood by means of classical stemmatics, positing a whole series of now-missing archetypes from which extant manuscripts are descended.8 The evidence from C and I, like that considered for C and U by Lug in Chapter 6 above, suggests instead that a much more fluid situation may have pertained, with some large songbooks being assembled de novo from very small ephemeral materials, containing individually between one and three songs. As I explore below, these small sources – some of which were common to both C and I – can be individually organised by author, theme, or genre, and are thus capable of flexible group organisation as exemplar material by the compilers of a larger songbook, or, in this case, of two differently organised larger songbooks that likely originated in the same or similar copying environments. Among the ordering principles used for large trouvère songbooks, three predominate. Most common is organisation by author, usually with a hierarchy based on social status. Literary scholars have noted that the emphasis on authors differentiates lyric from narrative in this period; in musical terms, it differentiates song from motets.9 In a, A, and M, each author corpus was marked by an author portrait; in the closely related group of K, P, N, and X rubrics and ornamental initials serve the same function. These collections typically start with works by Thibaut de Champagne, king of Navarre, then Gace Brulé and the Chastelain de Couci.10 The two remaining organisational strategies are slightly less common but more relevant here, since they represent those of C and I respectively: alphabetically and by genre. Alphabetical organisation is by the initial letter of the song’s incipit and 8 See Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften. 9 See, for example, Sylvia Huot, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French

Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, NY, 1987), pp. 47–8 and Mark Everist, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry and Genre, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Music (Cambridge, 1994), p. 9. 10 Although a and M have slightly different authorial priorities; see Huot, Song to Book, pp. 46–80. Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, pp. 20–2 has argued that the relative lack of organisation in U crystallised into authorial organisation in the 1260s and 70s when the vast majority of manuscripts offer this similar order. Chronological reasons are also argued by Maria Carla Battelli, ‘Le Antologie poetiche in antico-francese’, Critica del testo, 2:1 (1999), pp. 141–80 (reported in Doss-Quinby et al., Old French Ballette, p. lix), who sees generic organisation as more common in the later songbooks. By contrast, Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 455–7, argues that U has generic ordering occluded by the fact that the number of genres at this time is smaller and the vaguer internal ordering within genres ‘uses the principle of concatenation’ (p. 456). See also Chapter 8, pp. 149– 50 below.

124

elizabeth eva leach

is not a thoroughgoing alphabetisation of the sort found in modern dictionaries, being only one letter deep; it also has to contend with the vagaries of scribal spelling in a period without a standardised orthography. This is affected by scribal norms affecting consonants (whether one spells ‘Quant’ or ‘Kant’) as well as for literate refraction of dialectal variation in vowel sounds (as in the difference between ‘Entre’ and ‘Antre’). Generic organisation has to contend with the fluid genre categories of medieval song, relating variously to formal, registral, and content-related features.11 These two less-frequent types of organisation might be thought surprising in the light of the strong presence of the author in medieval song, with generic and alphabetical approaches better fitting norms for narrative on one hand and motets on the other. In the absence of authorial marking, alphabetical order is one of two forms of compilatio used in the thirteenth century for motet books (earlier motet books tend to use liturgical ordering, as in parts of MotetF).12 While Mark Everist hypothesises that an alphabetically organised song collection like O is imitating contemporary motet books, it seems more likely that the organisation of song collections involved local political factors, as advanced by Lug for the three Metz sources.13 Lug maintains that the organisation by social status typical in French songbooks in France, and German songbooks in German-speaking lands, was impossible in an Imperial city like Metz, geographically liminal and replete with political divisions: after all, ‘What would neighbours, visitors and business partners say?’14 Generic or alphabetical organisation was thus used instead and author names omitted (while possibly being recorded or maintained by the workshop or owner in a separate list).15 I does not employ any paratextual means of specifying authors, although in the case of the jeux-partis and in occasional envois in the grands chants, authorial names can be inferred from names internal to the songs themselves. By contrast, C does show an interest in authors’ names, giving them in black ink labels in the margins for many of its songs (see Chapter 5 above). The shared differences between these two manuscripts and the other trouvère sources – but their differences from one another nonetheless – enable an analysis of their shared contents, ultimately allowing a partial glimpse of the sorts of sources with which the compilers of these manuscripts were working and how they had to make those sources work for two very differently organised acts of compilation.

11 Even some of the manuscripts ordered authorially show some use of generic organisation

within their author sections, for example in A, a, and M.

12 Ba is alphabetically organised by motetus incipit; W2 also has organisation in alphabetical

sequences.

13 See Everist, French Motets, p. 9. Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 480–1; see also

Chapter 6 above and Robert Lug, Semi-mensurale Informationen zur Liedrhythmik des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 2019), pp. 206–7. 14 Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, p. 481. 15 Ibid., p. 482. On the twin issues of generic organisation and lack of authorial names in I, see Doss-Quinby et al., Old French Ballette, pp. lvii–lx.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 125

The Organisation of C Overall, C is highly planned, being ordered alphabetically into twenty letter-sections. Each letter-section starts with a large ornamental letter, and each one except G starts on a recto. Thirteen sections have a parchment bookmark attached to the back of each preceding folio, to enable a reader to find the right alphabetical place.16 The compilers seem to have worked on a principle of accumulation, attempting to gather the largest number of texts possible; once they were done and the manuscript bound, excessive blank folios at the end of some letter-sections were removed, leaving stubs.17 Genre plays a subsidiary organisational role within each letter-section. Specifically Marian or other devotional songs come first in each letter-section. For some sections, the designation of this generic/content function takes the place of the authorial label used to introduce other songs in the source. For example, letter A starts with songs labelled ‘De Deus’ and then ‘De Nostre Dame’, and sections B, C, D, E, and F each start with a song ‘De nostre daime’ (letter C starts with two such songs). From section G – which as noted above represents a disruption in the compilatio in being the only letter-section not to start on a recto – the opening song is still Marian, but sections G, H, K, L, M, O, P, and R designate it with an authorial rubric and an explanation of the source of its melody rather than a genre label. With the exception of the opening song in letter-section P (which is ascribed to ‘Maistres Renas’) the author of these contrafacts is given as ‘Jaikes de Canbrai’. As a whole, the manuscript has forty-five devotional songs, of which fifteen are unique and twenty-four are shared only with the small independent manuscript that is now bound in at the end of V.18 Several sections also end with devotional songs (letters A, B, D, I, L, Q, R, and T), where they function to anticipate the devotional material that will articulate the next letter-section.19 Two claims that have been made about C’s organisation require some refinement. First, Christopher Callahan claims there is a second-level organisation by genre in each letter-section that extends beyond the Marian items.20 Second, Schwan, Moreno, and Callahan all note that organisation by author is not entirely 16 See Moreno, “Intavulare”, p. 19. 17 Ibid., pp. 22–3.

18 Lug, Semi-mensurale Informationen, p. 78 terms it V II; see also Moreno, “Intavulare”,

p. 27, n. 49 reporting Maria Carla Battelli, ‘La Tradizione manoscritta delle raccolte individuali nella lirica d’oïl’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, 1995), pp. 103–5. 19 Of these, the songs that end the letter-sections D (two songs) and R (one song) were, like the songs at the end of letter-sections F and P, added by later hands; see Chapter 3, p. 49 above. 20 One might compare the situation with O, which appears to have a second level of organisation within each letter-section akin to the authorial organisation more prevalent in songbooks, with the songs of high-status trouvères like Thibaut first, followed by other groups of authorially clustered songs, with ever diminishing status. However, scholars have differed on whether this is intentional or merely a result of ‘a process of compilation from manuscripts in which songs were arranged by author corpora’ (Huot, Song to Book,

126

elizabeth eva leach

avoided, because two or more pieces by the same composer occasionally occur in sequence. In my view, neither a wider idea of genre (beyond the Marian songs) nor that of authorship represent thoroughgoing and intentional aspects of compilatio.21 The first of these seems a mild overstatement: Callahan’s claim that ‘subsequent to the pious songs which begin each letter, one consistently finds debate songs, love songs, and pastourelles, in that order, which ignore the distinctions previously made between major and minor trouvères’ ignores the just as frequent position of pastourelles and love songs out of that order.22 Topping and tailing of letter-sections with Marian materials certainly occurs, but the groupings of debate songs, love songs, and pastourelles are not as defined as Callahan suggests. It is true that one or more jeux-partis directly follow the Marian openings in letter-sections A, B, and C, but in letter-section D, three love songs come before the first jeu-parti, Douce dame or soit sanz nul nomeir (RS 876), which is then followed by a Marian song and a debate song. Similarly, fairly free mixing of love songs in between these other genres, and the repetition of those other genres out of sequence across most letter-sections, makes any claims of fixed sequences of genres difficult to maintain. One might more accurately represent the situation as follows: pious songs invariably start and often also end letter-sections, after which the following copying of love songs freely mixes in occasional pastourelles, jeux-partis, and ballettes.23 The supposed runs of authors are similarly chimerical. Firstly, there are not that many instances of consecutive songs by the same author at all, and secondly, they seldom last for more than two songs, something that could easily result from the use of small materials that I here argue served as source materials for C, rather than being part of a compilatorial intention. Thirdly, the authorial attributions are often disputed and/or unique to C. For example, the three love songs that precede the first jeu-parti of the D letter-section – Douce dame gré et graces vos rent (RS 719), D’Amours me plaing, ne sai a cui (RS 2072b), and De bone amor vient science et bonté (RS 407) – appear to start with a pair of songs attributed to ‘Gaises Brulleis’ and ‘Messeriz Gaises’. But the second of these is attributed more reliably in M to Jehan de Nuevile; as with many other instances, authorial sequences that C’s rubrics suggest are undercut by more reliable attributions in other sources. For example, the two attributions to Gace in the A letter-section are unique to C. The majority of sources attribute A l’entrant d’esté que li tens s’agence (RS 620; no. 31 in C) to Blondel p. 47, n. 4); see also Thomas Brothers, Chromatic Beauty in the Late Medieval Chanson: An Interpretation of Manuscript Accidentals (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 49–50 21 See Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, p. 177; Moreno, “Intavulare”, p. 34; Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 24. For a contrasting view, see Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre’s discussion of clusters of Lorraine trouvères, p. 35. 22 Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 24. 23 Here I use ‘ballettes’ specifically because of concordances between C and items in the generically labelled ballette subsection of I (see below). Though the term itself only appears in I, I am content to apply it also to refrain forms that are precursors of the incoming ballade and virelai forms; see Christopher Page, ‘Tradition and Innovation in BN fr. 146: The Background to the Ballades’, in Margaret Bent and Andrew Wathey (eds), Fauvel Studies: Allegory, Chronicle, Music, and Image in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS français 146 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 353–94.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 127

de Nesle, although R gives it to Moniot and O, V, and U transmit it anonymously. Similarly, the next song A la douçour d’esté qui reverdoie (RS 1754; no. 32) is attributed to Blondel by K, N, and X, and to the Chastelain de Couci in M and T; it is anonymous in all other sources. In both cases, the sources geographically closest to C transmit these songs anonymously and only C attributes it to Gace. It is possible that these songs existed anonymously in Metz and the attribution to Gace is a guess by the scribe of C’s labels, or, if authors were identified by an authorial list held separately, the attribution could be one made in the exemplar that transmitted this pair of songs to C, or the list that accompanied it; as a further possibility, the list might equally have simply been misread by the scribe of the labels, whose eye skipped to the wrong composer name.24 Despite these reservations, I understand why other scholars have wanted to claim both authorial and generic organisation in C. While neither is used as a thoroughgoing way of establishing order, even at a secondary level, the manuscript shows a clear interest in both authorship and genre by means of the 299 marginal labels it provides. In most cases the label gives the name of an author, reliable or not (see Chapter 5 above). But in many cases it is – whether additionally or alternatively – a marker of genre. Of the fifty-one songs in the A letter-section, all but fourteen have some kind of label (see Table 7.1).25 Nine songs sport generic designations: three pastourelles, two jeux-partis, and one each of ‘de deus’, ‘jugemans d’amors’, ‘de nostre dame’, and ‘retrus’. Of these nine genre designations, four occur in addition to the name of an author.26 This pattern is fairly typical, as is the greater preponderance of unlabelled songs towards the end of the letter-section. It is possible that authorship and genre, and sometimes both together, were of interest to the scribes and/or perhaps also to the potential patron or users of the book, even if these features were not a direct influence on order beyond the very general wish to start (and preferably also end) each letter with a devotional song. More likely, however, is that such labels reflect what C’s compilers or slightly later users deemed important or useful about their songs: perhaps having both author and genre either marked on the exemplar or recorded in a separate list allowed exemplars to be used flexibly for copying into larger books that were organised by either method.27

24 Gustav Gröber’s suggestion of a separate list is supported by Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’,

p. 482 and see above Chapter 6, p. 98.

25 Jeux-partis will be given as JP with the numbering of the order in I; similarly for ballettes

(Bal and number), grands chants (GC and number), and pastourelles (P and number).

26 In addition, no. 12, the unique song Au dous tens d’esté (RS 445) has the label ‘Simairs

de Boncort i n’en i ot plus’, presumably indicating a song the scribe found surprisingly truncated or, more likely, whose exemplar was labelled – for information – in this way. 27 Lug (private communication) believes that had such labels been present on the exemplars, they would have been copied, as they clearly were in some cases in U. He thus suspects that they were not present on the exemplars for C, but recorded separately. I would add that while both genre and author might gain a label from a list, both might sometimes also be known or guessed from the songs themselves, depending on scribal competence.

Table 7.1: Labels in the A letter-section of C and concordances with I C no.

Author label

Other label

1

de Deu

2

de Nostre Dame

3

Cunes de Betunez

4

Cunes de Betunes

No. in I

Jeus p[ar]tis

JP27

5

Jeus partis

JP27a

6

Jugemans d’amors

JP28

7

Vatries de Dargier

8

Gios Dijon

9

Li rois de Navare

10 11

Jenas li Cherpantier d’Arez

12

Simairs de Boncort

13

Moinies d’Aurez

14

Colins Muzes

15

Mesires Uges de Bregi

16

Jaikes de Cambray

17

Mesirez Gaises

i n’en i ot plus

18 19

Gachiers d’Aipinas

20

Pieres de Gans

21 22 23

Ugues de Bregi

24

Mesires Philippes de Nantuel

25

P15

26

P16

27

Bastorneis

28

Baistornez

29

Gillebers de Berneville

30

Gatiers d’Aipinaus

31

Messires Gaisez

32

Messires Gaisez

Pastourelle

P18

GC12

—(continued)



shared sources for two chansonniers? 129 Table 7.1—concluded C no.

Author label

Other label

No. in I

33 34

Gaises Bruleis

35 36

Thiebaus de Nangis

37

pastorelle Paistorelle

38

Aidefrois li Baistairs

39

Li Chaistelain de Cousi

40

Gathiers d’Aipinas

41

Cresteien de Troies

42

Colairs li Boutillier

43

Mesires Baduins des Aistans

44

Moinies d’Aures

Retrus

45 46 47

Bal66 Gilles de Vies Maxon

48 49 50 51

GC3

An alphabetically organised source has a stable external organisational instrument (the alphabet), so assembling such a source requires only that the source material and/or the copying process be flexible enough to accommodate the correct distribution of materials. If copying from another large source organised, say, by author, the alphabetical codex could be assembled by going through the exemplar and copying each item into the correct letter-section directly. The cutting away of blank pages at the end of C’s letter-sections suggests this cumulative version was possible, but if the model were a large source, we would expect to see its ordering principle reflected more obviously within each letter-section. That is, we would expect to see something more like O, also organised alphabetically, which retains so many vestiges of authorial ordering and hierarchy within its letter-sections that it is likely that its scribe is making use of a more traditional authorially organised source. The lack of this kind of arrangement in C, together with its interest in Marian framing of each letter, suggests to me that its sources were not a single organised codex but a number of much smaller sources.28 Then the small clusters of two or three songs 28 French poetry in the later Middle Ages has a subgenre of devotional and Marian poetry

that lists things, for example, qualities of the Virgin, alphabetically – the abecedarius – so perhaps there is some association in this respect. See, for example, Laurent Brun, ‘Li

130

elizabeth eva leach

in a given genre or attributed to the same author (even if the attribution is wrong) might be caused by ephemeral small sources, probably single sheets, that were available to C’s compilers. I am not the first person to suggest that some smaller sources lie behind C’s contents, although these have focused on the sole aspect of C that is a clear organisational plan beyond the alphabetical: the devotional songs. The concordances and ordering of the set of devotional songs shared with the libellus appended to V point to a shared single-genre source between these two collections.29 And the sacred contrafacts by Jacques de Cambrai’s works has led to the assumption that a lost libellus of his work must be one of those sources.30 Despite this view being ‘generally accepted’, it is not necessary to posit an earlier written source for Jacques de Cambrai’s work if instead it is imagined that he was involved in the compilation of the manuscript.31 If the starting point for the assembly of C was the small booklet of devotional songs also used by V and if the compilation of the source involved Jacques de Cambrai, it could be that he wrote poems to supply the letter-sections not already covered by the source-base (the opening of letter-sections G, H, K, L, M, O, and R). Jacques’s songs are not only contrafacts, but contrafacts designed to be sung to tunes from songs found elsewhere in the manuscript, suggesting that he supplied his work when the gathering together of the available contents for this source was already complete. In my view, this hypothesis gains traction from the relatively short length of his songs (often with only two or three stanzas) and their uniqueness to this source (something that would be guaranteed if there were no previously existing exemplar).32 Beyond the Marian content, however, there is, as I have argued, very little evidence of sustained ordering based on any other parameter than alphabetical letter of the incipit. The fewer songs one has on a given physical source unit, the easier it is to arrange those physical source units into a copying order for a variety of organisational principles. I would argue that neither labelling of authors in general nor the labelling of genre (other than Marian or devotional songs) reflect C’s maker’s interest in those features (which are not used for the purposes of compilation here because it is an alphabetical

29

30

31

32

ABC plantefoile’ (2016) [accessed 26 August 2020]. The most famous example in English, Chaucer’s ABC, is a translation of a French model. This is suggested first in Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften, pp. 205–6 and confirmed in Moreno, “Intavulare”, p. 27. Callahan’s chapter here also supports this view (see Chapter 9, pp. 158, 160). See Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, p. 24. On these contrafacts, see Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion in Thirteenth-Century French Lyric (Toronto, 2005), pp. 74–92. This view is rejected by Callahan in Chapter 9, p. 165, n.17 on account of errors in the rubrics signalling the models for the contrafacts. However, as the rubrics were added later (see Chapter 3, p. 49 above), it is possible to dismiss this rejection on the grounds that information about the models may have been lost between compilation and the addition of rubrics. For an alternative interpretation of the short length of Jacques’s songs, see Chapter 9, pp. 160–1.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 131

collection) so much as the usefulness of having both those designations on the exemplars for individual songs in their owner’s collection. The paratextual labels in C may point to an owner who chose to assemble a large number of small sources to produce manuscripts in which authors and/or genres were used organisationally. Manuscript I is just such a source since it is ordered by genre, using a paratextual instrument in the form of a table of contents. Its decorative letters offer some evidence that it might even have made use, albeit slightly later, of the same or similarly trained artist as the person responsible for the pen-flourishing in C. While it might be that this places these two manuscripts in the production of the same atelier, a professional or dedicated atelier is not necessarily where either C or I originated; their shared use of small exemplars (as argued here) may point to them being productions of the households whose members collected the sets of song leaves that were used.33 I thus prefer the term ‘workshop’, while noting that the physical location of production may well have been in the domicile or built environs of the original commissioners of the manuscript. As evidence of a shared workshop for the production of C and I, it seems significant that four of the nine songs with genre labels in C’s A letter-section have concordances in I, which itself has nine concordances overall with C’s A letter-section (see Table 7.1 above). If, as I am envisaging it, there is a pile of materials in the workshop that can be ordered by genre, by letter, or by author (since two of those are labelled and letter is obvious), the presence of genre labels on exemplars might make it more likely for the compilers of I to select those exemplars for inclusion in a source to be organised by genre. And the five songs shared between C and I that lack genre labels in C have other kinds of attributes that might make genre visible even without a label: two are simply grands chants, the default genre, so do not require marking; two are pastourelles where the opening line can hardly signal anything else to anyone vaguely familiar with the genre (Antre Arais et Dowai and An .i. florit vergier jolit); and one is a ballette, where the presence of a repeating refrain may make its genre similarly obvious.34 In the final part of this chapter I examine the most potentially revealing concordances between C and I in an attempt to see if they offer any evidence for a set of shared materials and, if so, whether these materials might be imagined to be the smaller sources that I have posited here. First, however, I give a short account of the organisational structure in I.

The Organisation of I The lack of thorough-going generic organisation for C is thrown into sharp relief by comparison with the overt genre-organisation of I. This manuscript effects its genre organisation by means of an internal table of contents, which lists the songs in six 33 This is the opinion of Robert Lug for the several phases of copying of U, and it seems

likely that this could be true for C and I too. See Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’.

34 Both pastourelles also appear in a sequence of three songs (nos. 25, 26, 27) in C, all

shared with I in a sequence nearly as close (nos. 15, 16, 18) the last of which is marked ‘pastourelle’; I return to this point below.

132

elizabeth eva leach

sections labelled by genre.35 The table was drawn up before the source was copied, as evidence from erasures in the part of the table listing the jeux-partis attests, so it likely provided an organisational instrument in the process of compilation, ensuring that the right songs ended up in the right places. The list of jeux-partis on fol. 141r originally had three songs after JP21, but now has three lines of erased text.36 The order of copying for the table of contents seems to have been: incipit, guide letter, then rubricated number. The large letters that the guide letters portend were never entered. And the erasure was done before the red numbers were entered but after the guide letters. This means that the gap in the table of contents where the erasures are comes between numbers xxi and xxii, that is, between the first run of Roland de Reims poems (JP1–JP21) and the opening of the demandes d’amours, which are copied in two groups as if they are JP22 and JP23.37 The next significant articulation in the table of contents comes when the red numbers cease, which they do for the final five incipits. These have been entered in the list in what seems to be the same hand, presumably after the rubricated numbers were entered for the original run of incipits, and with guide letters for their (also missing) initial capitals. Thus the overall sequence here is: incipits and guide letters of the initial run of thirty-four songs; the erasure of three entries in original positions 22, 23, and 24; the rubrication of the remaining thirty-one entries; and finally the incipits and guide letters of the last five entries, of which the first three are the same three that were erased. The book contains a series of grands chants, estampies, jeux-partis, pastourelles, ballettes, sottes chansons, motets, and rondeaux; the first six of these genre subsections are detailed in the table of contents and each of those begins on a recto with some blank space at the end of the subsection so that new subsections start on new physical units.38 In some subsections, songs not listed in the table of contents have been added to the end of the subsection, showing some effort at working through accumulation, although within a short time frame; the last two subsections seem to have been added wholesale probably quite soon after the rest of the songs were copied.39 The motets start on a verso which contains the end of the last sotte chanson and the rondeaux follow the motets without a break.40 35 Nonetheless, the rubrics in the table refer to the listing of each genre section as an

‘abecelaire’, which ordinarily means ‘alphabetical list’, even though it is not alphabetical. This may refer to the instrumental use of the table of contents as a key to organisation (and thus analogically akin to an alphabetical list). 36 See Bodleian Library, ‘Bodleian Library MS. Douce 308 [fol. 141r]’ (2017) [accessed 26 August 2020]. 37 On the rationale for this erasure, see the summary of earlier views and a new proposal in Elizabeth Eva Leach, ‘Which Came First, the Demandes d’amours or the Jeu-Parti? Evidence from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308’, Music & Letters, 102 (2021), pp. 1–29, at p. 4. 38 See Griffith, ‘Codicological Histories’, pp. 110–15. 39 See Mary Atchison, The Chansonnier of Oxford Bodleian MS Douce 308: Essays and Complete Edition of Texts (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 80–8. 40 Scholars usually report the motets and rondeaux as a single mixed subsection, but this is not very accurate. There is just one motet in the rondeau subsection, but given that other



shared sources for two chansonniers? 133

At the opening of each of the originally planned genre subsections, except for the opening grand chant subsection, there is a miniature which depicts something about the song that follows.41 Songbooks ordered by author typically have an author portrait in this position, whereas the alphabetically organised source O opens with a depiction of the content of the first song (Ausi com l’unicorn).42 In I, the miniatures variously (and perhaps jointly in some cases) signal the genre or the content of the first song in the subsection. The ballettes, for example, generically show a man and woman dancing to music of pipe and tabor, while the jeux-partis illustrate the rich man and the worthy man who are the subject of the first dilemma offered in this section.43 Generic organisation has been associated by some with the urban collections of Artesian chansonniers where the two generic extremes of love songs and jeux-partis are often separated by pastourelles, motets, rondeaux, and virelais, as in A.44 Callahan notes this as a shift from aristocratic to bourgeois sensibilities in which scholastic interest in systematisation led to strict generic categories.45 While I agree that university-trained clerics as court administrators had a lot of influence in diffusing compilatio, I think an aristocratic to bourgeois trajectory is overly simplistic, especially in the case of Metz, whose aristocracy had both urban and rural dwellings; interplay between urban patricians and aristocrats was probably high, as in certain other centres, notably Arras.46 In I, the chansonnier section is bound in the same physical unit as a literary work that overtly celebrates noble bloodlines and pastimes, inferring that heraldry, minstrels, song, dance, tourneying, and feasting are all linked. Despite the flexibility of poetic form and genre (chansons avec des refrains can be found in the pastourelles and/or in the ballettes), the overt nature of generic

genre sections have motets in them too, this can be allowed without jeopardising the distinct nature of the two genres as presented in the final two sections of the chansonnier. 41 See Eglal Doss-Quinby, ‘The Visual Representation of Lyric Types in Trouvère Manuscript I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308)’, in Karen Louise Fresco and Wendy Pfeffer (eds.), ‘Chancon legiere a chanter’: Essays on Old French Literature in Honor of Samuel N. Rosenberg (Birmingham, AL, 2007), pp. 1–26. 42 See Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Chansonnier, dit Chansonnier Cangé [Folio 1r]’ (2012) [accessed 26 August 2020]. 43 For the ballettes, see Bodleian Library, ‘Bodleian Library MS. Douce 308 [fol. 210cr]’ (2017)

[accessed 26 August 2020]; for the jeux-partis, see Bodleian Library, ‘Bodleian Library MS. Douce 308 [fol. 178r]’ (2017) [accessed 26 August 2020]. 44 Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric’, pp. 22–3. 45 Ibid., p. 27. Lug, by contrast, links generic organisation to geography, arguing that it is a Messine feature visible even in U (which Callahan deems to be lacking organisational principles). See n. 15 above. 46 See Malcolm Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe 1270–1380 (Oxford, 2001); on the specific case of Arras, see Carol Symes, A Common Stage: Theater and Public Life in Medieval Arras, Conjunctions of Religion and Power in the Medieval Past (Ithaca, NY, 2007).

134

elizabeth eva leach

ordering is clear in I and seems to relate functionally to what might be needed in performance.47 While the table of contents might have been a useful compilational instrument, copying it neatly enough that it can remain in the finished volume shows that it was also designed to facilitate finding a specific genre, which must therefore map onto a specific social function (discursive, dialogic, apostrophising, or terpsichorean).

Concordances between C and I Focusing on the concordances between C and I allows a testing of the hypothesis advanced above: that they were copied from some of the same materials (collected together in the same household or workshop), and that those materials were very small sources, containing between one and three songs. Four of I’s eight genre sections (four of the first five sections in fact) have concordances with songs in C: thirty-four grands chants, nine jeux-partis, ten pastourelles, and four ballettes. These concordances are fairly widely distributed in C, appearing in all letter-sections except letters H, T, and U/V.48 Because of the nature of the organisation of the two codices, there is no prima facie reason that items next to each other in one source should appear next to each other in the other unless the source materials that lay behind them were already organised by genre and happened to be also organised by letter; the latter requires either the source to be very small or to be copied as a temporary medium between a larger source (organised some way other than alphabetically) and the alphabetical materials for C. Small linked clusters occur in only two places in each source: the first is a run of three jeux-partis which are adjacent in I and also in letter-section A of C; the second is a pair of pastourelles from letter-section E of C, which are also next to one another in I’s pastourelle subsection. The former case is not only a slightly clearer run but has aspects in its copying in I that are particularly suggestive about the source materials that might have been used. Other features of the jeux-partis shared between the sources suggest that these might very generally have been drawing on a considerable amount of shared materials, although this is less clear in the other genres. In what follows, I examine these short, shared runs of pieces and also make reference to the wider corpus of shared songs between these two sources.

The Jeu-Parti Subsection The jeux-partis of I are mainly late and unique examples by the otherwise unknown poet-composer Roland de Reims, followed by the earliest written collection of prose demandes d’amours, whose relationship with jeux-partis has been the sub-

47 See comments in Doss-Quinby, ‘Visual Representation of Lyric Types’, pp. 3–4. 48 A (9); B (3); C (4); D (8); E (1); F (2); G (2); I/J (2); K (1); L (2); M (2); N (1); O (1);

P (6); Q (2); R (1); S (3).



shared sources for two chansonniers? 135

ject of debate among literary scholars.49 In addition, there is a small collection of eight jeux-partis, numbers 24–31 in the table of contents, that are known from other sources, C chief among them. It seems these were designed originally to end the jeuparti collection, although adjustments made during the copying process means that they are actually followed by some Roland de Reims jeux-partis that had originally been intended to be part of the opening part of the genre subsection.50 While there are eight jeux-partis listed in the table of contents for this non-unique part of the subsection, there are in reality twelve jeux-partis copied. This is because four of the jeux-partis listed (JP27, JP28, JP30, and JP31) segue seamlessly into another song, without this being signalled in any of the usual ways: that is, the new jeu-parti does not even start a new line, let alone have a large initial capital or red roman numeral. These songs are not in the table of contents. Modern scholars give these ‘additional’ jeux-partis the number of the jeu-parti in the table of contents that they follow from and are copied as if seemingly part of, with a lower-case ‘a’ to signal that it is a different song: JP27a, JP28a, JP30a, and JP31a. The concordances for this part of the jeu-parti collection are summarised in Table 7.2. If only those listed in the table of contents are counted, all but one (JP30) are in both I and C. If the total of twelve that are actually copied is counted, all but three are in both sources. Of this total of nine jeux-partis that is shared by these two sources, five are known only from C and I (JP24, JP27, JP28, JP29, and JP31), two appear in one other source (JP25 in b, JP27a in O), and two are more widely copied (JP26, and JP31a). The concordances with C in the jeu-parti subsection are the most suggestive of the kinds of sources to which C and I might both have had access. Several aspects are particularly notable. First, the nine jeux-partis that I shares with C all occur in the first seven letter-sections of C, as shown in Table 7.3.51 All of these jeux-partis are labelled in some way, which might have made them easy for someone making the generically organised codex I to extract them from a pile of materials that had previously been alphabetically organised. Four have only the label ‘jeus partis’; one has this label and an author name; two are labelled ‘jugemans d’amors’; and the remaining two have only an author name. 49 On Roland, see Marc-René Jung, ‘Les Formes strophiques des jeux-partis autour de

Rolant (chansonnier d’Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 308)’, in E. Werner, R. Liver, Y. Stork, and M. Nicklaus (eds), Et multum et multa: Festchrift für Peter Wunderli zum 60. Geburtstag, Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 428 (Tübingen, 1998), pp. 387–98; on the demandes d’amours, see Ernest Hoepffner, ‘Frage- und Antwortspiele in der französischen Literatur des 14. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 33:6 (1909), pp. 695– 710; Margaret Felberg-Levitt (ed.), Les Demandes d’amour: édition critique, Inedita & rara, 10 (Montréal, 1995); and Leach, ‘Which Came First, the Demandes d’amours or the Jeu-Parti?’. 50 See Doss-Quinby, ‘Visual Representation of Lyric Types’, pp. 6–10; Atchison, The Chansonnier of Oxford Bodleian MS Douce 308, p. 102. Jung, ‘Les Formes strophiques’, p. 389 proposes a similar understanding of the ordering of the jeu-parti subsection. 51 No. 158 in C, Entre raison et jolive pensee (RS 543), unique in C, is similarly not a jeuparti proper, being a debate between two personifications, Reason and Merry Thought, narrated by a third person.

Incipit in I

Biaus thierit je vos voil prier

Garset par droit me respondeis

Biaus gillebert dites ci vous agree

Amins bertrans dite moi lou millor

Amins ki est li muez vaillans

Amors je vos requier et pri

Gautier jou tieng a grant folor

Bouchart je vos pairt damors .i. jeu

Baudoyn il sont dui amant

Biaus rois thiebaut sire consillies moi

Cardons de vous lou voil oir

Douce dame or soit an vos nomeir

I no.

JP24

JP25

JP26

JP27

JP27a

JP28

JP28a

JP29

JP29a

JP30

JP31

JP31a

Douce dame or soit en vos nomeir

Chardon de vos le veul oir

-

-

Bouchairt je vos pairt damors .i. jeu

-

Amors je vos requier et pri

Amis ki est li muelz vaillans

Amis bertrans dites moy le millor

Biaus Gillebers dites sil vos agree

Gaices par droit me respondeis

Biaul tierit je vos veul proier

Incipit in C

113

83

-

-

53

-

6

5

4

75

195

54

C no.

876

1437

1666

294

1949

1986a

1075

365

2000

491

948

1296

RS

MT incipit is ‘sans nul nomber’, so CI (and U) linked.

MT (Pierre de Beaumarchais); U (anon)

contrafact with RS 2063 and RS 321

MTKNX (Roi de Navarre); AaVO (anon)

-

-

MTa (Roi de Navarre); AO (anon)

-

shared error in incipit

second stanza only of otherwise unknown JP

unicum in I -

-

-

contrafact of well-known melody

O

contrafact with RS 488

MbKNPX (Duc de Brabant); U (anon) -

not made from a single shared source?

b (Count of Brittany)

-

-

Notes

-

Other sources

Table 7.2: Jeux-partis of I showing concordances with C



shared sources for two chansonniers? 137

Other items that might be considered jeux-partis in the first seven letter-sections and that are not present in I are arguably not jeux-partis proper. For example, despite its label ‘jue partis’ in C and its internal reference as ‘un ieu parti’, even Långfors does not include the anonymous Conseilliez moi, seignour (RS 2014), found in U and C (where it is no. 90), in his edition of jeux-partis, presumably because it is a single speaker asking himself a question without that question being a clear dilemma.52 The Thibaut jeu-parti, Dame, merci, une rien vous demant (RS 335), which is no. 115 in C, may have been less obvious as belonging to this genre, because it starts with ‘Dame’, like a love song and, unlike the jeu-parti that is shared with I and is found in the D letter-section of C, lacks a genre label.53 The more significant aspect for the argument here, however, is that the first three jeux-partis in C (songs numbers 4, 5, and 6 in C) appear in the same order in I (as JP27, JP27a, and JP28). It might seem possible that I, the later source, directly copied from C, extracting the songs from C’s order, perhaps aided by its helpful labels for the genre if these were already entered. Although their orthography is not identical, given the non-literal nature of medieval copying and the lack of a spelling standard, direct copying is not completely impossible, but it is more likely that these three songs appeared together in a source that was common to both larger manuscripts. There could, of course, have been three separate sources each with a single song, with the similarity of ordering either being entirely down to chance or stemming from the three single sheets still sitting in the same order in whatever container (pile, box, folder) they were kept in the workshop. Chance giving the same order for three separate sources, however, would be one in six; if two songs were in one source but presented discretely on, let’s say, different sides of a sheet without a clear order between those sides, this would still give only a one in four chance of replicating the order in two different copies; if two of the songs were in one source (in a clear sequential order) and one on another, this would reduce the chance of a replicated order to one in two. It seems therefore most likely that the three songs were contained in this sequential order on a single small source. 52 The first two stanzas of RS 2014 are quoted in Raimon Vidal’s narrative So fo e.l temps.

Raynaud lists it as an anonymous tenson. Given that the item immediately following this song in C is Chevauchai mon chief enclin (RS 1364), another piece which is similarly found in an Occitan source (troubC), it is possible that these two songs were copied together on a single exemplar used by C’s compilers. RS 2014 shares the feature of not being a straightforward two-person jeu-parti with the later ‘jue partis’ in C, no. 216, Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie (RS 1187), which is a debate between a knight and lady presented by a narrator. 53 See the discussion in Chapter 10, pp. 175–8 below. A similar argument may be made for Jehan Simon, li quieus s’aquita mieus (RS 1354), no. 143 in C (where its incipit is Dites, dame), although this is also a later addition at the end of the letter-section, so may have been on an exemplar loaned temporarily to the makers of the manuscript, rather than in a set of materials to which they originally had access. The first of C’s two Guillaume le Vinier jeux-partis has its first stanza copied among the collection of thirty demandes d’amours which form part of the jeu-parti subsection of I; the second jeu-parti is absent. This may indicate that these were not available to the compiler of I, or that they chose to exclude them for some reason. On the demandes d’amours of I, see Leach, ‘Which Came First, the Demandes d’amours or the Jeu-Parti?’.

folio

2r 2v 3r 24v 24v 34r 37v 50v 87r

C no.

4 5 6 53 54 75 83 113 195

JP27 JP27a JP28 JP29 JP24 JP26 JP31 JP31a JP25

I no.

Amis bertrans dites moy le millor Amis ki est li muelz vaillans Amors je vos requier et pri Bouchairt je vos pairt damors .i. jeu Biaul tierit je vos veul proier Biaus Gillebers dites sil vos agree Chardon de vos le veul oir Douce dame or soit en vos nomeir Gaices par droit me respondeis

incipit in C Jeus partis Cunes de betunes Jeus partis Jugemans damors Jeus partis Jugemans damors Li dus de braibant Jues partis Jeupartis Messires gaises bruleis

label in C 2000 365 1075 1949 1296 491 1437 876=878 948

RS

O♪ K ♪; N ♪; P ♪; X ♪; M ♪; C ≡; U; b T ♪; M ≡; U ≡; C ≡ b (‘Le Keu de Bretagne’)

Other sources

Table 7.3: Jeux-partis of the first seven letter-sections of C showing concordances with I



shared sources for two chansonniers? 139

The absence of Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (JP27a; RS 365) from the table of contents in I offers a clue as to what the source materials may have looked like, because the copyist of I clearly thought JP27a was part of JP27. Both Amis Bertrains, dites moi le meillour (JP27; RS 2000) and Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (RS 365) start with the same form of address, ‘Amis’. An assumption that it is part of the same piece would be possible only if the source lacked any indication of notation for Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (RS 365), since otherwise the presence of staves and a new melody would clearly indicate the start of a new piece.54 That both sources copy the same song, no. 6 in C and JP28 in I, immediately after Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (RS 365) might therefore imply not only that the shared source also had this song next, but that it was very clearly the start of a new song because its melody was given. (Although JP28 does not start ‘Amis’, the actual start word ‘Amors’ might otherwise be close enough not to stand out on a casual glance.) Initially, I envisaged something like a single sheet, with Amis Bertrains, dites moi le meillour (RS 2000) on one side, with its first stanza underlaid to a melody, followed by the text of Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (RS 365) without any melodic indication, and, on the other side, Amours, je vous requier et pri (RS 1075), beginning also with its first stanza, and probably having notation. This song might also have been followed by the stray stanza that occurs uniquely in I after this song but is also not in the table of contents, that is, JP28a, Gautier, je tieng a grant folour (RS 1986a). This is probably the second stanza for a song that otherwise has not survived, and it is thus easily imaginable that the stanza was scribbled in the space at the bottom of a page serving as an aide-memoire for a performer in an initial singing of this song, or perhaps as a prompt for further composition of the other stanzas by a singer who was taking the part of the respondent.55 That JP28a is present in I but not in C could be either because the stray stanza was copied into the exemplar after it was used for C but before it was used for I, or because C’s scribes recognised that it was not part of the preceding song and did not want to copy it, either because it was clearly incomplete or because it lacked musical notation and/or they did not know its tune.56 54 As Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant (RS 365) is a contrafact of a very well-known tune

associated with many other poems, not least Bernart de Ventadorn’s Can vei la lauzeta mover (PC 70.43), the copyist and/or user of the source might easily know that the text added underneath Amis Bertrains, dites moi le meillour (RS 2000) is one that is written to be sung to a well-known tune, without needing to notate that tune. For the list of other texts using this tune, see Hans Tischler (ed.), Trouvère Lyrics with Melodies: Complete Comparative Edition, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 107 (15 vols, Neuhausen, 1997), vol. 3, no. 203. 55 It, like the putative bas-de-page addition of RS 27a, might also be a contrafact, thus apt to be added to the base of a page which perhaps only had staves ruled at the very top. It shares a verse form with the Chastelain de Couci’s song Or cuidai vivre sans amour (RS 1965), and might conceivably be a contrafact of that melody. 56 It is immaterial as to whether this is because they did not know the melody and/or because they did not have access to the other stanzas. JP27 and JP27a together occupy seventy-seven lines in the two-column format of I; JP28 and JP28a occupy sixty-three, so if these pairs of jeux-partis were on single sides of a single leaf, there would have been space for all of JP28a if it were, when complete, about the same length as JP27. One other pair of songs in the non-unique jeux-partis of I suggests small source materials, too, again

140

elizabeth eva leach

Considering the complete set of jeux-partis shared between C and I, it seems possible that a pile of small ephemeral materials that had been used for the first seven letter-sections of C was still available to the scribes that assembled I, and that the compiler simply went through and extracted obvious jeux-partis from this pile. The labels for these pieces in C could indicate the labels which they carried in these smaller sources or in an organising list for these sources. Where they do not give a genre indication it would nonetheless be clear that they are jeux-partis from the nominal invocation of the named author in the opening stanza (proving a second speaker) or from the invocation of a repeating pair of names at the opening of alternating stanzas in the text. The lack of comparative copies for jeux-partis found only in C and I makes its hard to show that they are closer to each other than to another tradition for the texts. In Biau Tierit, je vous veul proier (RS 1296), for example, there is relatively little variation between the copies, except that C appends an envoi that I lacks. While this would not, I think, rule out a shared source in which either the envoi did not yet appear (being then added in C), or in which it did but was omitted for some reason by I’s scribe, the similarity of texts proves nothing necessarily in the other direction.57 A better argument can be made about the jeu-parti that precedes this one in C, Bouchart, je vous part d’amour (RS 1949), for which both sources have a shared hypermetric error in the opening line.58

because the two songs occur in a cluster in other chansonniers. Excluding the single unique stanza JP28a, the only two jeux-partis not found in C at all involve Thibaut de Champagne (JP29a and JP30). Both songs are copied adjacently not just in I but in four other sources. (JP30 also occurs in four further closely related sources, which are not relevant here.) In two of the four sources that have both songs, A and a – the two Arras sources – they are in the same order they are in I; in the other three sources, M, O, and T, they are the other way round and the second song has empty staves (the staves are empty for both songs in T). This suggests, at least in terms of the source materials that ended up in A, a, M, O, and T, an origin for the two songs in a single sheet, which lacked a clear indication of recto and verso, or a bifolio, which could be folded either way round. 57 Envois are often subject to variation between sources and I am personally unconvinced by the idea that they are always part of an authorial original, although that argument is one for a different paper. 58 See Arthur Långfors (ed.), Recueil général des jeux-partis français, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 1926), vol. 2, p. 189, n. 149, although other solutions than the one Långfors proposes are imaginable. This song is another to which I appends a song missing from the table of contents, JP29a, which is not copied in C. Either C’s copyist, seeing that it shifts the addressee from Bouchart to Baudoyn, recognised that this was a different song and chose not to copy JP29a, or it was copied into the shared exemplar after C had copied from it. This may indicate that the exemplars were folios collected by patrician family members, either loaned to the workshop that created the manuscript or made available ‘in house’ to scribes, notators, and rubricators – themselves in the household’s employ and/or hired for the purpose – who were tasked with assembling the large songbook. Alternatively, there could have been a specific decision not to copy jeux-partis by Thibaut in C (see Chapter 8 below). Or perhaps the scribes knew they had no melody available (there presumably not being one in the small exemplar, or it would have alerted the scribe of I to the fact of JP29a being a separate song). Other surviving sources have either empty staves in M, O, and T or one of two different melodies in A and



shared sources for two chansonniers? 141

It is noticeable and perhaps suggestive that three of the four jeux-partis that are absent from the table of contents in I (JP27a, JP29a, JP31a) are much more widely copied than the song that precedes them. In all three cases the jeu-parti that is listed in the table of contents preceding those unlisted ones is only in I and C, suggesting it is part of a repertory local to Metz. The copying of the second, more widely distributed song into I indicates, as I have argued, that the source carried it as a text-only, bas-de-page addition, the collector using up blank space in their copy as they came across a text for this song. As also argued above, the one unlisted jeu-parti that is not a widely copied one, JP28a, suggests (a slightly different kind of) ad hoc copying, transmitting as it does merely the second stanza of a jeu-parti not otherwise known. If wider copying reflects wider knowledge, perhaps there was no need to write the melody for those other three added jeux-partis, since it would either be well known (as with JP27a) or up to the performer (as, perhaps, with JP29a and JP31a).59 Some of the jeux-partis in I that were more widely copied are not shared with C – notably the two Thibaut ones, Bons rois Thibaut, sire, conseilliez moi (RS 1666 = JP30) and the one immediately preceding it, Baudouin, il sont dui amant (RS 294 = JP29a) – and these can tell us something about the materials for I but not about the materials shared with C. Among those that are in both Metz sources and are also copied elsewhere, Gace, par droit me respondés (RS 948) has a different incipit for a vital element, the name of the addressee, who is ‘Garset’ or ‘Garcet’ in I instead of ‘Gaices’ in C, the latter corresponding to the author given by C’s marginal label (‘Messires gaises bruleis’) and in the copy found in b (‘Gasse brulle’); this suggests that the copies in C and I are not made from a single shared source. By contrast, for Biau Gilebert, dites s’il vous agree (RS 491), small shared textual variants throughout the song, as well as their joint transmission of two envois that are both formatted for the cauda melody when most other sources transmit two envois formatted instead for another full stanza, frons and then cauda, together provide some evidence of a shared source. These large- and small-scale variants are often also shared with manuscript b, suggesting that this manuscript might, too, have used a related source. Långfors’s choice of b as his base text for this song implies that this putative shared exemplar for the texts of I, C, and b was a good one, close to the composer or performers of this jeu-parti.

The Pastourelle Subsection The ten pastourelles that C shares with I, like the jeux-partis, contain a single sequential run, this time of only two songs, which is shared in its sequential form by both manuscripts, although I will argue that we might also extend this group to a third song, positing a shared exemplar with a total of four songs on it, one of them not copied in C. With the pair of pastourelles it seems as though a similar argument would be possible as that made above for the jeux-partis: Entre Arras et Douai (RS

a, suggesting this song might not have had a readily available (or established) melody of its own. 59 JP31a (RS 876) is notated solely in T; three sources (C, U, and M) have blank staves.

142

elizabeth eva leach

75) and En un flori (RS 1043a) were copied in this order into these two manuscripts because they appeared on the same small exemplar that served as a model in both cases. One might consider, too, whether the single sheet or bifolio also had the next song in C on it too, En mai au dous tens novel (RS 576) by the apparently local composer Bestourné.60 This third song is also in I, where it follows the other two almost directly, with only the single unique work L’autre jour me chevauchoie (RS 1707) intervening. If we imagine that this work was perhaps on the back of the folio, we would be looking at a single sheet with four pastourelles on it, three of which could be copied into letter-section A (given the local spelling of these songs’ incipits as ‘Antre’ and ‘An’) and one of which would need to wait until letter-section L. Perhaps the scribe lost track of this song and forgot to copy it into C; or perhaps it was added to the source after C copied from it but both before I copied from it and also, unlike with the jeux-partis, in a way that made it clear it was a separate item, perhaps by having notation for the first stanza. One might comment on how lucky it is that three of the four pastourelles on my hypothetical sheet started with the same letter, but it might well be that the scribe of C used orthographical licence in this case. This can be seen if we compare the incipits of these three pastourelles in I to their listing in I’s table of contents.61 For P15, the incipit starts with E despite the table of contents having A; for P16 it is the other way round; only for P18 is A used in both table of contents and incipit (see Table 7.4). It is possible, though, that the source genuinely had three A-letter pieces, not least because ‘A’ better represents the Lotharingian vowel sound (‘E’ is more standard Francien) and I have already argued that at least one is by a local composer, but even if it had ‘Entre’ or ‘En’, it would have been possible to decide to copy them into the A letter-section.

Other Subsections The other sections of I offer no sequential runs of songs shared with C, but the four ballettes shared between the two songbooks nonetheless occur in alphabetical order in I, albeit each separated by at least one and usually far more songs that are not shared (Bal66, Bal72, Bal74, and Bal177); moreover, there is precisely one from each 60 Presumably a nickname or sobriquet, ‘Bestourné’ is ascribed five works, all of which

appear in C; all but one have concordances only with one of the other Metz sources. Only one, RS 1894, is more widely copied. 61 Whether or not the table of contents is prescriptive or descriptive (and I think it is clear it is the former at the outset), and regardless of whether the index was copied from the source or from the copy in I itself, at some point in the first three pastourelles that are shared between C and I the letter was changed by the scribe from ‘A’ to ‘E’ or vice versa (see Table 7.4). What this shows is that a scribe could read ‘A’ and write ‘E’ because they were thinking of the word phonically, not visually. But when the organisation of a codex is by letter, the exact choice of initial letter matters: C has songs starting ‘En’ and ‘Entre’ in the E letter-section, not in the A letter-section. But the scribe of I did not have to worry about this; these small spelling differences (including, for example P22, which is ‘Eier’ and therefore in the E section of C, but ‘Ier’ in I) are therefore not really indicative of links or lack of links between these sources.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 143 Table 7.4: The sequential run of pastourelles present in C and I I no.

C no. RS

Incipit in C

Incipit in I

Table of contents in I

P15

25

75

Antre arais et dowai

Entre arais et dewai

a ntre arrais et dewai de fors

P16

26

1043a An .i. florit vergier jolit.

An un florit vergier jolit.

e n un florit vergier jolit lautre

1707

Lautre jour me chivachoie.

l autre jour me chivachoie sous

An mai a dous tens novel

a n mai au dous tens novel ke

P17 P18

27

576

An mai a douls tens. novel.

of the first four letters of the alphabet (see Table 7.5). Manuscript I’s large section of ballettes has very few concordances overall, and its mainly unique and local repertoire has been considered both valuable for the history of the fourteenth-century formes fixes and puzzling because of its use of the term ‘ballette’, which is not a genre marker used in the labels of C or indeed anywhere else. Three of the four are found only in these two sources, making it impossible to assess their readings against other sources.62 Bal66 alone is found in a third source, a, which unfortunately preserves only the first stanza.63 While variants in this single stanza are marginally more often shared between C and a than between C and I, the evidence is slight. For the grand chant section of I the opposite problem pertains in that there are not only many concordances between I and C, but the songs in this section of I have a high incidence of concordances overall, higher than any other genre section in the manuscript. The songs concordant between I and C that are most widely transmitted seem, on the basis of their number and order of stanzas, attributions, and textual details, not to have been copied from shared materials. Even among the five songs that appear only in the three Metz sources the variants sometimes align I more closely with U against C and sometimes C and U against I, but not I and C against U. The four shared Marian songs similarly tend to preclude directly shared exemplars between C and I, although the evidence is patchy; evidence from other Marian contents in C, however, has linked the source strongly to the model Marian booklet for the addition to V. Only the grands chants that appear uniquely in C and I share incipits, stanza order, and reading sufficiently to permit a hypothesis of shared materials, and none of the evidence is strong.64 62 In these cases, C is the preferred source of the modern editors, but the differences are

often just orthographical, scribal, or involve small and obvious errors in I. An exception to this is that C has an additional two stanzas for RS 766 compared to I. 63 There is a folio missing between those currently numbered 31 and 32, originally fol. xxviii. See Anna Ferrari, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 1. a (B. A. V., Reg. lat. 1490), b (B. A. V., Reg. lat. 1522), A (Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 657), Studi e Testi, 388 (Vatican City, 1998), p. 18. 64 The only exception to this rule is the copy of GC23 that appears first in the order of C. This is one of the four songs that C copies twice, all of which are probably from a different source for each copy (see Chapter 3, pp. 49–50). The second copy of GC23 in C as no. 475

144

elizabeth eva leach Table 7.5: The ballettes of I also copied in C

I no.

RS

Incipit (from C)

Location in C

Other sources

Notes

Bal66

1602

Amours a cui je me rant pris

20v (no. 46)

a ♪ (first stanza only)

Contrafact of RS1604a, unicum in j

Bal72

1165

Bone amor jolie

26r–v (no. 57)

Bal74

589

Chanteir mestuet por la plux belle

40r–v (no. 88)

C label: ‘Guios de Digon’

Bal177

766

Des puet ke je sou ameir

60v (no. 137)

C has additional stanzas

This patchiness in being able to show a more thoroughgoing set of links between materials shared between C and I is in itself an interesting negative result, since it suggests that the way in which materials were assembled for copying was complex and may have varied between the different genre sections of I.

Conclusions On the basis of the organisational structures and contents of the large trouvère songbooks, Eduard Schwan deployed classical stemmatics to posit clear families of manuscripts copied from no-longer-surviving master copies, large manuscript models for collections that could draw from them. Schwan’s work has had a lasting legacy and his family groupings have been used in recent scholarship.65 What I have suggested here, using some of the shared material between C and I, is that the archetypes were themselves composite collections of far smaller materials, perhaps physically stored together and perhaps navigated with the assistance of labels relating to author and genre. This suggestion independently echoes that made for C and U by Lug in Chapter 6 above. These small exemplary materials could be used in a loose physical assembly because they were in a flexibly orderable format (very small collections of one to three songs), and could be used to create books organised in a variety of ways with the addition of a para-textual instrument (like a table of contents) or an extra-textual one (like the alphabet). Codices organised using genre or the alphabet, whether without mention of authors or merely without using them organisationally, represent cases in which assembly from a range of available materials, rather than extraction from larger sources, can be safely assumed. Despite this, they may also point to practices that were in place earlier but are occluded by the seeming focus on authorial corpora is close in its readings to that in I; C identifies it as by Jaikes d’Amiens, a composer named only in this source. 65 See, for example, Lucilla Spetia, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 4. Z (Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H.X.36), Documenta et instrumenta, 4 (Liège, 2006); see also the comments below.



shared sources for two chansonniers? 145

found in other chansonniers. It may be that the earlier, author-organised codices relied on smaller manuscripts more than has previously been thought: on booklets or even loose-leaf collections with authors’ names on them. In her study of Z, for example, Lucilla Spetia concludes that the richness of the source material used is remarkable: while Schwan thought it derived solely from α2, Spetia can show that the scribes had access to τ or a related manuscript for the first two sections and something close to F for others; she calls for further study.66 Spetia considers the textual variants, but not the musical ones, and it would certainly be fruitful to do this in the case of Z where it is possible because the manuscript has musical notation. I think the most plausible scenario that I can now imagine for C is that its makers, too, had access to a whole host of materials which could be assembled for the purposes of copying into a large, organised book. These materials seem likely to have been small sources that had been collected by a patron (or their performers), gathered temporarily either by the makers for the period of copying or perhaps assembled ‘in house’ by the owner for a more permanent and impressive mass copying by relevant professionals already in the household’s employ or bought in for the purpose. These exemplars were small enough to serve flexibly for copying easily into a larger book, regardless of how that book was to be organised.67 If C and I were using the same materials, why might one manuscript plan to copy melodies and another not? What does that indicate about the provision of melodies in the source materials? It could be that different source materials were used for text and music and that C merely planned to source the music separately in a separate round of production. More likely, I think, is that I chose to omit the notation visible in the sources because the patron did not want or need it (or perhaps was unable to afford the work of a music scribe). This decision seems to have paid off in one sense, since at least I appears to be a finished product, whereas C is clearly unfinished even to this day, although it was clearly useful, beautiful, or valuable enough to have been worth preserving.

66 Ibid., p. 58. 67 Imagining informal but notated exemplars significantly pre-existing the dating of these

two song books, C and I, echoes Robert Lug’s evocation of a ‘proto-chansonnier’ for U, which he sees as being formed by a collection of song leaves gathered around 1215 in Metz; see Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 456–8.

Chapter 8

The Legacy of Thibaut de Champagne in C Daniel E. O’Sullivan

I

n the Old French deluxe chansonniers of the mid to late-thirteenth century, the organising principle was more often the author, and aristocratic poets like Thibaut de Champagne held pride of place. Collections like K and its related manuscripts open their compendious collections with a large section devoted to Thibaut’s work. In M, Thibaut was originally only given a small part to play according to the table of contents, but during the execution of the codex, an entire compendium of his songs was interpolated into it, thereby enhancing Thibaut’s presence considerably.1 The scope of songs is largely the same as in K and its analogues – N, V, and X – which leads many, including this author and his co-editors of Thibaut’s songs, to conclude that a more-or-less official libellus of Thibaut’s songs was in circulation shortly after his death in 1253.2 All these codices highlight Thibaut’s generic range by opening with a collection of diverse genres before clustering love songs and debate songs together among other more heterogeneous sequences. They play up not only the massive number of songs that Thibaut composed, but also the generic breadth and depth of his lyric production.3 As the thirteenth century began to wane, chansonnier compilers, or so the traditional view goes, began turning to other ways of organising their collections. For example, O, a Burgundian manuscript, is organised alphabetically by incipit, but the compiler continues to privilege aristocratic trouvères like Thibaut by putting his songs first in alphabetic groupings and endowing them with elaborate historiated initials. Moreover, the compiler of O manages to preserve some of the generic breadth of Thibaut’s work: among the sixteen songs in O, we find not only love songs, but a pastourelle, a jeu-parti, and the famous crusade song, Seignor, sachiés, qui or ne s’en ira (RS 6). Another manuscript – T – opens with a large section of

1

This section is referred to as Mt. See John Haines, ‘The Transformations of the Manuscript du Roi’, Musica Disciplina, 52 (2002), pp. 5–43, and ‘The Songbook for William of Villehardouin, Prince of the Morea (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844): A Crucial Case in the History of Vernacular Song Collections’, in Sharon E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia (Washington DC, 2013), pp. 57–109. 2 Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons: textes et mélodies, ed. and trans. with notes by Christopher Callahan, Marie-Geneviève Grossel, and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Champion Classiques, Série ‘Moyen Age’, Editions bilingues, 46 (Paris, 2018). 3 For further comment about Thibaut’s work in various manuscripts as well as his generic breadth see Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons, pp. 49–52.



the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 147

Thibaut’s songs before turning to a much more heterogeneous collection of works, mostly focused on the cultural milieu of late thirteenth-century Arras.4 This traditional chronological explanation of organisation by author giving way to ordering by genre or incipit is somewhat oversimplified. Eduard Schwan’s late nineteenth-century stemmata includes three families, and the third grouping gives the lie to this narrative of chansonnier evolution.5 The family is formed of three manuscripts produced around Metz – U, C, and I – and emphasises genre in its organisation. Robert Lug discerns a gradual transition from aristocratic love songs towards ‘chansonnettes’ and other genres in the earliest sections of U, which he dates to the early 1230s.6 In the fourteenth century, the compiler of I would use generic organisation in a much stricter sense by presenting large collections of songs ordered explicitly by genre (see Table 8.1).7 C represents something of a middle ground where songs are organised first alphabetically by incipit – much like O – and then by genre, where sections begin with religious songs. The manuscript’s construction remains in some ways elusive, but recent scholarship – including the contributions to the present volume – are shedding more and more light on the codex.8 If Thibaut de Champagne looms large in many large songbooks, his presence in these three Messine manuscripts is much more subdued, especially in U and I. In the latter, only three of his songs are included, and they are largely lost among the sea of songs that surround them.9 In the former, Thibaut is not included in the earliest part 4 See Daniel E. O’Sullivan, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and lyric auctoritas in MS Paris, BnF fr.

12516’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 31–49.

5 Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung

6

7 8

9

und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886). I employ Schwan’s grouping only insofar as it is possible to group manuscripts together according to content, dialect, and provenance. I concur with Elizabeth Eva Leach who suggests elsewhere in this volume (Chapter 7) that Schwan’s reconstructed and hypothetical stemma proves insufficient in representing the fluid compositional process in C and I. Schwan’s hypothetical positing of missing exemplars to explain a linear development of the tradition is no longer tenable as we know much more about how the compositional process was performed in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, I agree with Robert Lug in his contribution to this volume (Chapter 6) where he calls Schwan’s stemma a ‘rough overview’. Robert Lug, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231–1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des Prés’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 451–86. For a summary of the organisation and contents of I, see Leach’s contribution to this volume, pp. 131–4. Most important is perhaps Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999). These include RS 315 Je ne voi mais nului qui gieut ne chant (fols 154r–v); RS 407 De bone Amor vient science et bonté (fol. 154v); and RS 1666 Bon rois Thibaut, sire, consilliez moi (fols 192r–v). Elizabeth Eva Leach contends elsewhere in this volume (Chapter 7) that the last (RS 1666) was accidentally copied in I since its incipit does not appear in the index of the codex.

148

daniel e. o’sullivan Table 8.1: Contents and ordering of I

Genre label

Folios

Grands chants

144br–170v

Estampies

171r–177v

Jeux-partis

178r–195v

Pastourelles

196cr–209v

Balletes

210cr–237v

Sottes chansons contre amour

239br–243v

Motets/rondeaux

243v–250ar

at all. Perhaps his songs had yet to gain popular acclaim, though it looks like he might have been purposely snubbed for political reasons.10 Lug notes how Thibaut’s political and social ties – as well as those of his mother, Blanche de Navarre – to the Port-Sailly sector (‘paraige’) of Metz were strained, to put it mildly.11 Lug argues convincingly that the manuscript was produced within the Port-Sailly social milieu and so Thibaut may very well have been consciously excluded from the first parts of the manuscript, though in parts of the codex produced later, a few songs by Thibaut are included.12 The position of Thibaut in C is much more complicated but far more important than it would seem at first glance.13 Fourteen songs are attributed to Thibaut, though several attributions are false. Table 8.2 lists songs attributed to Thibaut according to 10 Dating individual songs by Thibaut is difficult. The jeux-partis offer some help when Thibaut

is addressed variably as a count or a king, thus songs in which he is called the latter may be safely dated after 1234. Some envois mention historically identifiable people, which means they were composed before that person died. For example, in the envoi of Nus hon ne puet ami reconforter (RS 884), Thibaut calls on Philippe de Nantueil to abandon the royal cause, which points to the political strife during the regency of Blanche de Castille (1226– 7). Finally, some songs refer to other historical events, such as the conflict between Pope Gregory IX and Emperor Frederick II, to which Thibaut refers in Au tans plain de felonie (RS 1152); this places the song’s composition between 1236 and 1239. 11 See Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 467–78. For more information about this cultural milieu, see also his ‘Katharer und Waldenser in Metz: Zur Herkunft der ältesten Sammlung von Trobador-Liedern (1231)’, in Angelica Rieger (ed.), Okzitanistik, Altokzitanistik und Provenzalistik: Geschichte und Auftrag einer europäischen Philologie (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 249–74. 12 These include RS 741 Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief tourment (fols 119v–121v); RS 407 De bone amor vient science et bonté (fols 122r–v); RS 360 Li rossignous chante tant (fols 159r–v); RS 324 Fueille ne flour ne vaut riens en chantant (fols 121r–v); RS 1479 Tout autresi con l’ente fait venir (fols 142v–143r); and RS 2075 Ausi com l’unicorne sui (fols 125v–126r). 13 Two other studies in the present volume, those by Christopher Callahan and Joseph W. Mason, use a similar approach to Thibaut in C: while traditionally scholars thought Thibaut to be of minor importance in the collection, upon closer inspection and further reflection, Thibaut’s influence is palpable. I say ‘influence’ because while trouvères of other locales and social milieux dominate the manuscript, Thibaut’s work is very much part of its substructure, as we shall see.

the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 149



Table 8.2: Songs attributed to Thibaut in C (Asterisks indicate that the attribution to Thibaut is doubtful.) RS no.

Incipit in C

Folio

Position in grouping

1268

Amors me fait comencier

5r

9th

308*

Belle et bone est celle por cui / Je chans

28r–v

10th

407

De bone amor vient science et bonteis

50r–v

4th

335

Dame, mercit, une riens vos demant

51v–52r

7th

324

Fuelle ne flour ne valt riens en chantant

77r–v

3rd

315

Ge ne voy maix nelui ke jut ne chant

85v–86r

6th

1127*

Onkes ne fut si dure departie

167r–v

2nd

1562*

Roze ne flor de lis

209v–210r

3rd

943

Rois Thiebaus, sire, en chantant respondeis 215v–216r

15th

1867*

Sans atente de gueridon

220r

5th

1126*

S’onkes nuls hom por dure departie

221v–222r

9th

711

Tant ai Amors servie longuemant

229r–230r

2nd

741

Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief torment

230v–231r

4th

525*

Tant ai amors serviee et honoree

242r–v

28th

the order in which they appear in the manuscript. To the left, the Raynaud/Spanke number is given and to the right of each song’s incipit, I note the folio and song’s position in the alphabetic grouping in which it appears. Songs of doubtful attribution to Thibaut are noted with an asterisk. Of the fourteen attributions to Thibaut in the manuscript, five may be justifiably rejected.14 The ratio of certain to doubtful attributions – 9:5 – makes C appear to preserve Thibaut’s work rather unreliably. Not only does the rubricator erroneously attribute five songs to Thibaut, but they also fail to attribute three songs to him. Two are attributed to someone else in the rubrics and one is left anonymous, as shown in Table 8.3. In comparing the two tables, it may be reasonably concluded that an attribution to Thibaut – or to Gace Brulé, another famous Champenois poet – means that the song is more likely to come towards the top of an alphabetic grouping.15 Attributing the famous unicorn song to Pierre de Gand lands it in only twentieth position. Lack 14 For details on which attributions we deem to be doubtful, see Thibaut de Champagne,

Les Chansons, pp. 25–52. See also Christopher Callahan, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and Disputed Attributions: The Case of MSS Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389 (C) and Paris, BnF fr. 1591 (R)’, Textual Cultures, 5:1 (2010), pp. 111–32. On the reliability of the rubricator in general, see Chapter 5 of this volume. 15 Thirty-nine songs are attributed to Gace Brulé in the manuscript, making him easily the most present poet in the collection. However, only twenty-two of the attributions to Gace are accepted by modern editors.

150

daniel e. o’sullivan Table 8.3: Songs by Thibaut not attributed to him in C

RS no. Incipit in C

Folio

Attribution

Position in grouping

2075

Ausi com l’unicorne suis

9r–v

Pierre de Gand

20th

1516

Dame, sis vostres fins amis

52r

Messires Gaisez Brulez

8th

2095

Ki bien ainme plux endure

118v

None

22nd

of attribution of Ki bien aimne plux endure puts it in twenty-second position. But this is only a probability, not a hard and fast rule, since the attribution to Thibaut of Tant ai amors servie et honoree only earns the song twenty-eighth position among the songs starting with the letter T. Moreover, Rois Thiebaus, sire, en chantant respondeis, attributed to Thibaut, begins by addressing his royal highness, but that is not enough to place it any higher than fifteenth among the incipits starting with R. Nevertheless, as a general rule, we see that six songs attributed to Thibaut figure among the first five of their groupings and another five rank between six and ten. Although authorship and social status may be less important in the construction of the Bern manuscript, there is still some lingering concern for those categories in the ordering of the songs within alphabetical groupings. The one inflexible rule in the organisation of C is its insistence on placing religious songs in the first slot of each of the twenty letter-sections. These are usually songs in praise of Mary, and the majority are anonymous, but seven of them are attributed to Jacques de Cambrai.16 Thibaut composed several religious songs, notably in praise of Mary, but none of them survives in this collection. It is not as though these songs were not well known. Du tres douç nom a la vierge Marie (RS 1181) survives in seven manuscripts.17 Mauvais arbres ne puet florir (RS 1410) survives in ten witnesses.18 It could be that in late thirteenth-century France, especially in the northern regions, so many religious songs were being composed in puys that compilers were spoiled for choice or they wished to highlight the more recent production of authors of northern France.19 After religious songs, jeux-partis and pastourelles often come in second position among C’s letter-sections. In the ‘A’ letter-section, after two songs to the Virgin Mary and Conon de Béthune’s crusade song, Ahi, Amours, con dure departie (RS 16 For extensive commentary on Jacques’s religious songs, see Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Marian

Devotion in Thirteenth-Century Lyric (Toronto, 2005), pp. 74–92. Elizabeth Eva Leach suggests Jacques may have been involved in the composition of C in Chapter 7 of this volume, which is a tantalising hypothesis. 17 See Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons, pp. 334–7 and 657–61. 18 See ibid., pp. 460–5 and 785–91. For deeper analysis of Thibaut’s religious songs, see O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, pp. 33–53. 19 See especially Gérard Gros, Le Poète, la vierge et le prince du Puy: étude sur les puys marials de la France du Nord du XIVe siècle à la Renaissance, Collection sapience (Paris, 1992) and Le Poème du Puy marial: étude sur le serventois et le chant royal du XIV siècle à la Renaissance (Paris, 1996). In each, he addresses possible thirteenth-century origins of the texts and co-fraternities that he studies.



the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 151

1125), which contains many religious references, we find two jeux-partis. In the ‘B’ group, an anonymous Marian song, Bon fait servir dame qui en gré prent (RS 716: a unicum in this manuscript) is followed immediately by a jeu-parti, Bouchart, je vous part d’amour (RS 1949). As was noted in regard to devotional songs, Thibaut composed many jeux-partis. In fact, after love songs, debate songs represent the second largest part of his surviving corpus, and Thibaut’s jeux-partis have been well preserved.20 Thibaut may have been, in fact, responsible for popularising the genre in northern France.21 He composed at least sixteen, if one counts debate poems with likely fictive adversaries.22 We find one such fictive debate in this collection: Dame, merci, une rien vous demant (RS 335).23 However, the only other jeu-parti that survives in C is RS 943, Rois Thiebaus, sire, en chantant respondeis, a jeu-parti initiated by Baudouin of whom we know nothing, although we can surmise the song was composed after 1234, since Thibaut is addressed as a king. Just as we asked above in regard to the omission of Thibaut’s devotional songs from the codex, we might wonder why more of Thibaut’s jeux-partis are absent in a collection that obviously prizes the genre? If the complier of C does not include any of Thibaut’s devotional or debate songs, then what is preserved of Thibaut’s work? The answer is simple: love songs. With the exception of the two jeux-partis, all songs attributed to Thibaut, even the songs falsely attributed to him, are love songs. The three songs attributed to others that we have determined were composed by Thibaut are also love songs. Thibaut’s role in C is, I would argue, to represent the glory days of trouvère song, real or imagined, when aristocratic trouvères composed and sang high-minded love songs to devastatingly beautiful yet aloof ladies. This may be why the other genres in which Thibaut composed – devotional songs and jeux-partis – were eschewed by the compiler. Often juxtaposed to Thibaut we find love songs attributed to other giants of the tradition: the Chastelain de Couci, Gilles de Vieux Maison, King Richard, Blondel de Nesle, and especially Gace Brulé. Together with these poets, Thibaut provides gravitas and authority, thereby boosting the profile of the poetic upstarts we find in their 20 For comments about Thibaut’s jeux-partis, see Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons, pp.

72–6. See also Mason’s contribution in this volume for further comments about Thibaut’s debate songs in C. 21 See Christopher Callahan, Daniel E. O’Sullivan, and Samuel N. Rosenberg, ‘Thibaut de Champagne (1201–1253)’, Routledge Medieval Encyclopedia Online, forthcoming. 22 Most of Thibaut’s debate partners were real people: Raoul de Soissons, for example, some of whose love songs survive in the Bern manuscript, and Philippe de Nanteuille-Hauduoin, who accompanied Thibaut on crusade. The realism of pitting historical characters against each other would continue to be the dominant mode of the genre as it flourished in the north. See Michèle Gally, Parler d’amour au puy d’Arras: lyrique en jeu, Medievalia, 46 (Orléans, 2004), pp. 41–5; Daniel E. O’Sullivan, ‘The Northern jeuparti’ in Jennifer Saltzstein (ed.), Musical Culture in the World of Adam de la Halle, Brill’s Companions to the Musical Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 3 (Leiden, 2019), pp. 153–88, at pp. 159–64. 23 In b, the rubric on fol. 159v reads ‘Le roi de navarre a la roine blanche’, which is doubtlessly false. In the Grandes Chroniques, Thibaut is suspected of loving Blanche de Castille, which is likely a rumour spread by political enemies.

152

daniel e. o’sullivan

company: Muse an Borse, Moinnies d’Aures, and others. As noted above, T opens with a large collection of Thibaut’s songs to provide lyric auctoritas for the remainder of the collection, especially for the final interpolated gathering of songs by Adam de la Halle.24 The strategy may be less obvious in the Bern manuscript, but it may still operate yet at a more local level. The choice from among Thibaut’s love songs for inclusion drives home the importance of Thibaut as authority. The first song by Thibaut preserved in the Bern manuscript is Amours me fait commencier, a song that is traditionally placed in first position in the manuscripts that are organised by author.25 The inclusion of the song in this opening grouping harkens back to that earlier manuscript tradition and uses it as another nod to past authority. ‘De bone amor vient science et bonteis’ – which is a variant on the more common incipit, ‘De bone amor vient seance et biautez’ – has concordances in seventeen manuscripts and has important thematic ties with Gace Brulé’s De bone amour et de loial amie / Me vient (RS 1102). The same goes for Thibaut’s Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief tourment, an incipit citing Gace’s words in another song: ‘Tuit mi desir et tuit mi fin talent’ (ll. 15–16 of RS 306, Quant fine Amour me prie que je chant), according to Marie-Geneviève Grossel.26 Finally, the Bern compiler includes Tant ai Amors servies longuement (RS 711), a song that, so to speak, topped the charts in the thirteenth century. It survived in at least seventeen manuscripts, two of which are now lost to us, and inspired another lyric, Tant ai Amors servie et honoree (RS 525), included here and attributed falsely to Thibaut. It also provided the melody for the religious contrafact Tant ai servi le monde longuement (RS 709a), which survives in one copy of Gautier de Coinci’s Miracles de Nostre Dame (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 3517, fol. 13r).27 Incorporation of the most famous love songs into C serves important heuristic aims beyond lending authority to the entire collection. While it is true that in earlier collections, love songs were prioritised over jeux-partis, and devotional songs were rarely given any separate status from secular love songs, both of these genres are built upon the chanson d’amour. As Michèle Gally has convincingly shown, the jeu-parti renders explicit an ideology that is implicit in the love song.28 The primarily non-aristocratic practitioners of the jeu-parti in northern France sought to ennoble themselves through this rhetorical exercise. In turn, the devotional song shares its forms 24 See O’Sullivan, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and lyric auctoritas’, pp. 44–8. 25 See also Christopher Callahan, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric at the Peripheries: The

Lessons of MSS Paris, BnF fr. 20050 and Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 15–30. 26 Marie-Geneviève Grossel, ‘Thibaut de Champagne et Gace Brulé: Variations sur un même idéal’, in Yvonne Bellenger and Danielle Quéruel (eds), Thibaut de Champagne: prince et poète au XIIIe siècle (Lyon, 1987), pp. 107–18, at pp. 109–10. 27 Dozens of manuscripts preserve the Miracles. As this song only survives in this one manuscript, philologists have doubted its attribution to Gautier. See Edward Järnström and Arthur Långfors (eds), Recueil de chansons pieuses du XIIIe siècle, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia, series B, 3:1 and 20:4 (2 vols, Helsinki, 1910–27), p. 88. 28 See Gally, Parler d’amour, esp. pp. 53–65. See also Joseph W. Mason, ‘Melodic Exchange and Musical Violence in the Thirteenth-Century Jeu-Parti’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018); O’Sullivan, ‘The Northern jeu-parti’, pp. 161–4.



the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 153

and much of its semantic content with the secular love song, although this does not justify Pierre Bec’s terming it a ‘registre parasite’, as I have argued elsewhere, since medieval poetics is founded on repetition and variation, and the devotional song should not be singled out for its full participation in medieval aesthetics.29 If the love song lies at the foundation of both the jeu-parti and the devotional song, in the Bern manuscript, devotional and debate songs literally rest on top of the love songs when the codex is open to the first folio of each alphabetical grouping. There is only one exception: letter-section G opens with Jacques de Cambrai’s Grant talen ai k’a chanteir me retraie (RS 114) on fol. 83v. In this letter-section, which is the only grouping to open on a verso and thus a codicological anomaly, the opening song rests physically on the material that precedes it in the book. Otherwise, each grouping opens on a recto side, which produces gatherings like those found in Tables 8.4 and 8.5. In the ‘A’ group, whether one opens to fol. 1r’s devotional songs or to fol. 2r’s jeux-partis, these folios rest on top of fols 3–5 containing love songs. Similarly, in the ‘F’ group, singing ‘Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent’ from fol. 76r means singing from a page resting upon another folio that preserves two love songs, including Thibaut’s Fueille ne flour ne vaut riens en chantant. In this manuscript, love songs literally and literarily undergird its devotional and debate songs. We may also gauge Thibaut’s presence and importance in C through a consideration of Thibaut’s music as it survives in the manuscript. Of course, the codex contains not a single note of music notation; however, music is still present, but through human memory in the transmission and performance of medieval songs. The seven devotional songs that come at the head of alphabetical groupings attributed to Jacques de Cambrai are preceded by rubrics – added after the pages were filled – that hint to the incipits of love songs whose melody was meant to accompany newer texts in C.30 Table 8.6 lists those rubrics. The only devotional song by Jacques with no indication of melodic model comes on fol. 209r, Retrowange novelle (RS 602), whose rubric simply indicates, ‘De Nostre Dame. Jaikes de Canbrai’.31 The models have been identified from the shortened 29 See O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, pp. 3–4; Pierre Bec, La Lyrique française au Moyen Age,

XIIe–XIIIe siècles: contribution à une typologie des genres poétiques médiévaux (2 vols, Paris, 1977–8), vol. 1, p. 149 30 Elizabeth Eva Leach notes in Chapter 7 that all of the models for Jacques’s devotional songs – with the notable exception of ‘Retrowenge novele’ – are found elsewhere in C. The added incipits may therefore be intratextual references as much as extratextual references. 31 Some believe Jacques’s song is a contrafact of an anonymous song, Quant voi la flor novele / Paroir (RS 599), which also provided the model for the Marian song, Quant voi la flor novele / Florir (RS 598). The music for the latter survives only in X (fol. 266r), whereas the music for the former survives in K (p. 308), N (fols 146v–147r), P (fols 160v–161r), and X (fols 195r–v). See Samuel N. Rosenberg, Margaret Switten, and Gérard Le Vot (eds), Songs of the Troubadours and Trouvères: An Anthology of Poems and Melodies, Garland reference library of the humanities, 1740 (New York, 1997), p. 356. Given the fact that Jacques’s song survives in no other source, its melodic accompaniment must remain speculative, and although some of the rhyme sounds differ from model to contrafacts, the complicated metric scheme shared by all three compositions makes the relationship plausible. See also discussion by Callahan (Chapter 9).

Table 8.4: First songs in A letter-section Fol.

Incipit in C

RS no.

Genre (attribution, if applicable)

1r

Aveugles muas et xours

2040

Devotional song

1r

A la meire Deu servir

1459

Devotional song

1v

Ay amors come dure departie

1125

Crusade song (anon here, but attributed to Conon de Bethune and the Chastelain de Couci elsewhere)

2r

Amis Bertrans

2000

Jeu-parti (Conon de Bethune)

2v

Amis ki est li muelz vaillans

365

Jeu-parti

3r

Amors je vos requier et pri

1075

Jugement d’Amour

3v

Ains maix ne fix chanson jor de ma vie

1223

Love song (Gautier de Dargies)

4r

A l’entree del doulz comencement

647

Love song (Guiot de Dijon)

5r

Amors me fait comencier

1268

Love song (Thibaut de Champagne)

Table 8.5: First songs in F letter-section Folio

Incipit in C

RS

Genre (attribution, if applicable)

76r

Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent

734

Devotional song

76r

Flour ki s’espant et fuelle ke verdoie

1766

Love song (anon here, but attributed to Oudard de Laceni elsewhere)

77r

Fuelle ne flour ne valt riens en chantant

324

Love song (Thibaut de Champagne)

Table 8.6: Rubrics accompanying songs attributed to Jacques de Cambrai Folio

Rubric

83v

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant Loaus amors et desiries de joie

90r

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant de l’unicorne

110r

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant Tu mi desir

121r

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant De bone amor et de loaul amie

143r

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant de Lai glaie meure

167r

Jaikes de Canbrai ou chant Loaus amans fins et vrais



the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 155 Table 8.7: Jacques’s contrafacts Incipit of Jacques’s song in C (RS no.)

Model song (RS no.)

Composer of model

Grant talent ai k’a chanteir me retraie (RS 114)

Loiaus amours et desiries de joie (RS 1730)

Colart le Boutellier

Haute dame, com rose et lis (RS 1563)

Ausi com l’unicorne sui (RS 2075)

Thibaut de Champagne

Kant je plus pens a comencier chanson (RS 1856)

Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief tourment (RS 741)

Thibaut de Champagne

Loeir m’estuet la roine Marie (RS 1178)

De bone Amor et de loial amie / Me vient (RS 1102)

Gace Brulé

Meire, douce creature (RS 2091)

Quant voi la glaie meüre (RS 2107)

Raoul de Soissons

O Dame, ke deu portais (RS 197a) Aïmans fins et verais (RS 199)

Gautier d’Espinal

titles listed here and by matching the metrical considerations of the songs upon which Jacques built his devotional contrafacts. It is upon the love songs of rather famous trouvères that Jacques builds his new songs. Thibaut is the only composer upon whom Jacques relies twice, which points to his importance here. Also notable is the fact that Haute dame and Quant je plus pens (spelled ‘Kant’ in C) come at the head of their respective letter-sections, which means that Thibaut does in fact come at the head of some groupings in C. Moreover, two other composers on this list have links to Thibaut: Gace, of course, was perhaps the close friend or at least a source of poetic inspiration for Thibaut; and Raoul de Soissons was Thibaut’s friend, crusading ally, and debate partner in Sire, loez moi a choisir (RS 1423a). Thibaut would seem to form the centre of an important social network that contrafacture weaves through Jacques’s new texts. It stretches over a century and links poets across socio-cultural boundaries. Jacques does not imitate the incipits of his models as many do when composing pious contrafacts. Often contrafactors will slightly vary and thus subvert the secular incipit in the devotional contrafact.32 That is not to say that he did not engage his models. He merely chose another plane of engagement: formal virtuosity. In Haute Dame, instead of Thibaut’s coblas doblas – that is, changing rhyme sounds after every two stanzas – Jacques matches Thibaut’s use of his device while incorporating coblas retrogradadas, where the rhyme scheme is inverted from stanza to stanza.33 Furthermore, in Quant je plus pens, which is modeled on Thibaut’s Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief tourment, Jacques goes further than Thibaut’s coblas doblas, employing the more difficult device of coblas unisonnans, where the rhyme sounds remain the 32 One of the clearest examples might be Gautier de Coinci’s imitation of Blondel de Nesle’s

love song, Amour dont sui espris / Me semont de chanter (RS 1545). Gautier’s song (RS 1546) begins ‘Amours dont sui espris / De chanter me semont’. 33 See also the discussion of this song by Callahan in his contribution to this volume (Chapter 9), pp. 164–7.

156

daniel e. o’sullivan

same throughout the song. This kind of formal duelling is significant: in order for Jacques to impress his audience with such prosodic feats, they must recall Thibaut’s original composition, which means Thibaut must be present at some level in the minds of the listener. Contrafacture and the memory cues it creates through performance augment Thibaut’s presence elsewhere in the Bern manuscript. On fol. 9r, in twentieth position among the songs beginning with A, the reader finds one of Thibaut’s most iconic love songs, Ausi com l’unicorne sui (RS 2075), the song that opens the ‘A’ section of O, where it is accompanied by the beautiful yet gruesome initial of the unicorn being slaughtered while resting his head on a young girl’s lap. The song’s text survives in fifteen manuscripts and its music survives in nine witnesses in which the melody is essentially concordant across all versions.34 The song is attributed to Thibaut explicitly in five sources plus the libellus dedicated to Thibaut’s songs known as Mt that was interpolated in M. The only competing attribution, leaving aside cases of lack of attribution, comes in our manuscript, and it is to Pierre de Gand, a minor trouvère of northern France in the late-thirteenth century to whom we have no songs of definite attribution.35 The unicorn song was so famous, it is difficult to believe many initiated listeners would have taken the attribution here very seriously. However, it is not the only appearance of the unicorn song. At the top of the ‘F’ grouping (fol. 76r), we find ‘Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent’ (RS 734), attributed to no one and preceded only by the rubric ‘De Nostre Dame’. This religious contrafact, called a ‘serventois’ in line two of the initial stanza, survives in only one other manuscript: V (fols 150v–151r). There it survives with its melody, which confirms it is a contrafact of Thibaut’s unicorn song. Appealing to the notion of living memory and the initiated reader, Thibaut’s presence in C is once again heightened without his name being mentioned: first, his famous unicorn song would have been recognised by cultured audiences and those of a deep acculturation into trouvère song would have recognised ‘Fins de cuer’ as a contrafact of that famous song, which puts Thibaut in first position of the ‘F’ grouping, even though none of his devotional songs sensu stricto survives in C. In conclusion, in the Messine sources, Thibaut de Champagne plays a smaller role than in the other deluxe chansonniers: he is absent from the oldest part of U, and his three songs in I are all but lost among the hundreds of songs preserved in that collection. Thibaut’s role in C looks diminished as well, but the situation is actually much more complex. He may not be given pride of place as in other manuscripts, but if we look just a little closer, we see his influence is clearly discernible: I would argue he undergirds much of the codex, forming part of the substructure upon which the codex is built. The many attributions to Thibaut, even the false ones, serve to remind the reader of his significance in the trouvère tradition. If the compiler chooses to 34 See Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons, pp. 466–9 and 792–7. 35 Robert White Linker believes the compiler meant Pierre de Craon rather than Pierre

de Gand, but does not explain his reasoning. There is only one song attributed to Pierre de Craon with any certainty: Fine Amour claime en moi par eritage (RS 26). See Robert White Linker, A Bibliography of Old French Lyrics, Romance Monographs, 31 (Oxford, MS, 1979), p. 219.



the legacy of thibaut de champagne in c 157

incorporate mostly his love songs, thereby de-emphasising the generic heterogeneity that earlier compilers pointed up, it behooves us to realise that these love songs inform much of the poetico-musical structure of devotional songs and jeux-partis, genres that the compiler does indeed wish to highlight. Through contrafacture, Thibaut’s musical legacy functions to keep him present in the minds of readers, even if the text is someone else’s. Jacques de Cambrai employs two of Thibaut’s melodies for his pious songs, which effectively puts Thibaut at the top of the codex’s ‘H’ and ‘K’ groupings. Moreover, if the melody of Thibaut’s unicorn song was indeed sung to ‘Fins de cuer’, he finds himself at the top of the ‘F’ grouping as well. In C, Thibaut’s importance may not be immediately discernible as in compilations like O, but it is clearly audible. The reader just has to listen a little harder.

Chapter 9

Strategies of Appropriation in Jacques de Cambrai’s Devotional Contrafacts Christopher Callahan

T

he late thirteenth-century Hennuyer trouvère Jacques de Cambrai (active c. 1260–90) occupies a place in C which mitigates the near-total obscurity surrounding his person.1 C is the only chansonnier that transmits his complete corpus which, though rather modest at twelve songs, is noteworthy for a number of reasons. His pieces embrace a variety of genres: love songs, devotional songs, and a single pastourelle; and his metrics and imagery show him to be a master of his craft. But it is his devotional writing in particular which has attracted the attention of scholars, as the pious register dominates his repertoire, with Marian songs comprising 58% of his output. Jacques’s predilection for Marian lyric found favour with the compilers of C, who placed his devotional songs first in every alphabetic section of the codex in which they appear. This privileged position afforded Jacques special treatment by the rubricator (see Table 9.1), who systematically marked the opening song(s) of each letter with an annotation confirming their pious theme: ‘de Nostre Dame’ (thirteen occurrences) or ‘de Deu’/‘de Nostre Signor’ (three occurrences).2 But Jacques’s Marian pieces are distinguished by an additional navigational tool: the identification of the secular sources of six of the seven of his pious contrafacts, all of which are recorded in C. No other poet featured in the codex is honoured in this way.3 It is therefore generally accepted that Jacques’s entries in C were copied from a now lost libellus

1

Jean-Claude Rivière (ed.), Les Poésies du trouvère Jacques de Cambrai, avec introduction, études thématiques, notices et glossaire, Textes littéraires français, 257 (Geneva, 1978). 2 The rubricator marked two songs under A, and one thereafter. Devotional songs can also be recorded elsewhere under each letter of the alphabet, but the compilers of C patently favoured the pious genre by granting it primacy of place with each new letter. Paola Moreno originally believed that the rubricator’s hand on twelve of the first-letter songs matches that of copyist I: see her “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999), p. 25, n. 40. Paleographically, this is plausible despite the unruled, and hence less carefully lettered marginal labels, whose pen nib is thicker and ink darker. The majority of marginal labels, however, are entered in a hand visibly less skilled and paleographically distinct from the text hand. In her contribution to this volume (Chapter 3), Moreno has revised her view about the copyists of the rubrics. See p. 49. 3 Moreno, “Intavulare”, p. 28, n. 62 identifies one other such song: Por le pueple reconforter (RS 886), fol. 179r, but the situation is not identical, because the song’s rubric, ‘Maistres Renas lai fist: de Nostre Signor’, identifies poet and genre but no secular model.

Incipit

Aveugles muas et xours

A la meire Deu servir

Boin fait servir dame ki en greit prant

Chanteir m’estuet de la sainte pucelle

Cuers ke son entendement

Douce dame de paradix

En plorent me covient chanteir

Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent

Grant talent ai k’ai chanteir me retraie

Haute dame com rose et lis

Jerusalem se plaint et li pais

Kant je plus pens a comencier chanson

Loeir m’estuet la roïne Marie

Meire douce creature

Nete gloriouse

O dame ke Deu portais

Por lou pueple resconforteir

Qant Deus ot formeit l’ome a sa sanblance

Retrowange novelle

Sainte s’entiere entension

Talens me rest pris de chanteir

Vivre tous tens et chascun jor morir

Fol.

1r

1r

24r

37r

37v

49r

64r

76r

83v

90r

96r

110r

121r

143r

157r

167r

179r

194r

209r

218r

229r

245r

1431

793

1863

602

249

886

197a

1020

2091

1178

1856

1576

1563

114

734

783

1580

670

610

716

1459

2040

RS

[anon.]

[anon.]

[anon.]

Jaikes de Canbrai

[anon.]

Maistres Renas

Jaikes de Canbrai

[anon.]

Jaikes de Canbrai

Jaikes de Canbrai

Jaikes de Canbrai

[Hue de Saint Quentin]

Jaikes de Canbrai

Jaikes de Canbrai

[anon.]

[anon.]

[Gilles de la Croix]

[anon.]

[anon.]

[anon.]

[anon.]

[anon.]

Author rubric / [editorial ascription]

de Nostre Dame

de Nostre Dame

de Nostre Dame

de Nostre Dame

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Signor

ou chant Loaus amans fins et vrais

de Nostre Daime

ou chant de lai glaie meure

ou chant De bone amor et de loaul aimie

ou chant Tu mi desir

de Nostre Signour

ou chant de l’unicorne

ou chant Loaus amors et desiriés de joie

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Daime

de Nostre Dame

de Nostre Dame

de Deu

Descriptive rubric

Table 9.1: Initial songs in each alphabet section in C

160

christopher callahan

of his songs.4 Jacques stands out, furthermore, for being one of the last trouvères to write devotional lyrics modelled on the courtly chanson. The beginnings of the shift to the devotional serventois, which marked the fourteenth-century evolution of Marian song, may already be visible in some of Jacques’s songs, but at the time C was assembled, he represented the courtly devotional tradition at its apex.5 Scholars of courtly lyric who have turned their attention to Marian song have come to see this genre as a subtle exercise in intertextual listening. Marian lyric at its inception was composed by courtly trouvères whose secular and devotional love songs are strikingly similar in theme and language. Indeed, the use of nearly identical terminology to articulate service to one’s lady and to Our Lady reminds us of the debt which fine amours owes to the pious register in the first place. Adding to this the fact that Marian lyric customarily borrows its metrical structure and melody from secular love song, and that multiple pious songs can draw from a single source, we may imagine that Marian lyric was particularly appreciated by courtly audiences for its subtle echoes.6 Its reception, which necessitated awareness of multiple textual references, was neither simple nor linear, but rather involved a circular network of associations, in much the same way that today, folk melodies which have been adopted for hymns can evoke in the mind of the informed listener/singer all of that melody’s textual associations.7 It will be my task here to explore Jacques de Cambrai’s strategies of adaptation in his Marian contrafacts, noting not only how he uses rhyme position and melodic contours (contingent on the accuracy of the rubrics identifying his courtly models and the assumption that there was only one possible melody for each of the cited models) to highlight keywords that signal the new purpose to which he bends the poetics and music of his sources, but establishing in the process a continuum of reworking along which he plays with audience expectations, with more or less subtle results. In examining Jacques’s songs, the first striking feature is their brevity. Only five compositions – two love songs, the pastourelle, and two Marian songs – contain the customary five stanzas.8 The others are comprised of only two or three stanzas, 4 Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung

und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886), pp. 206–7.

5 Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion in Thirteenth-Century Lyric (Toronto, 2005), pp.

90–2.

6 The medieval poetic treatises that discuss contrafacture (Razos de trobar, Leys d’amors,

Doctrina de compondre dictats) do not mention devotional lyric. It has, however, long been recognised by scholars that pious song borrowed from love song in precisely the structural ways that jeux-partis did; see Edward Järnström and Arthur Långfors (eds), Recueil de chansons pieuses du XIIIe siècle, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia, series B, 3:1 and 20:4 (2 vols, Helsinki, 1910–27). 7 Daniel E. O’Sullivan, ‘On connaît la chanson: la contrafacture des mélodies des trouvères dans le Ludus super Anticlaudianum d’Adam de la Bassée’, Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes, 26:2 (2013), pp. 109–27. 8 The love songs are Force d’Amour me destraint et justise (RS 1631, fol. 77v) and Or m’est bel du tens d’avri (RS 1031, fol. 169r); the pastourelle is Ier matinet delés un vert buisson (RS 1855, fol. 65r; here catalogued under the letter E as the opening word is spelled ‘Eier’, but



appropriation in jacques de cambrai’s devotional contrafacts 161

which means that most of his contrafacts are shorter than their models. Likewise, the envois that conclude three of his models have disappeared, although since devotional lyric lacks any need to anchor the song in time and space, the envoi is superfluous: no special performance by a designated messenger is necessary for the songs to reach their intended recipient. The question of length, however, is more troubling, particularly in the case of the two-stanza texts. Jacques’s courtly love songs are patently incomplete, and must have been so in the exemplar used by the scribes of C. This was sufficiently disconcerting to the copyist that they left an explanatory note at the end of stanza 2 of N’est pas courtois, ains est fols et estous (RS 2044, fol. 158r) that reads ‘Il n’i ot ke .ii. vers’. In the case of the three-stanza Marian songs, conversely, it is possible that their length is symbolic and hence chosen by design. Each concludes with a direct address: in two cases with a dramatic apostrophe ‘He!’ to Mary or to God which, although initiating a full stanza, functions very much as an envoi. In addition, every piece in Jacques’s corpus but one, Grant talent ai qu’a chanter me retraie (RS 114, fol. 83v), references both the Incarnation and the Passion as tropes that serve his didactic purposes.9 Both tropes occur in the two-stanza song O dame qui Deu portais (RS 197a, fol. 167r), suggesting the possibility that this song too was transmitted as Jacques intended. The lack of direct address to the divine, which would have occurred in stanza 3, makes this song rhetorically incomplete, inviting us to conclude that it, like the courtly songs Amours et jolietés (RS 933, fol. 7v) and N’est pas courtois, ains est fols et estous (RS 2044), was not transmitted intact, implying an exemplum that in all three cases was no more than a florilegium of truncated excerpts. Turning now to the process of contrafacture, it is noteworthy that Jacques is less concerned than are early pioneers of Marian song writing, such as Thibaut de Champagne and Gautier de Coinci, with delicately leading his audience to the pious register. His tone is urgent rather than playful and his language homiletic, leading Rivière to qualify his religious songs as ‘prières d’amour’.10 Jacques’s contrafacts in fact run the gamut (pun intended) of appropriational procedures, from simple adoption of his model’s metrical and rhyme schemes, to extensive translation of his source’s lexicon of love service into the divine realm.11 The song which best exemplifies the courtly strategies of early Marian lyric is Grant talent ai qu’a chanteir me retraie (RS 114), a reworking of Colart le Bouteiller’s Loiaus amours et desiriers de joie (RS 1730, fol. 126r).12 Colart’s melodic structure is the standard AAB, and the contrafact preserves his rhyme scheme, a′ba′bbc′c′b as well as his rhyme sounds of the first two stanzas, with the exception of lines 6 and 7 of each stanza, where ‘-aie’

9 10 11 12

the extra syllable makes the incipit hypermetric); and the Marian songs are Haute dame, com rose et lis (RS 1563, fol. 90r) and Mere, douce creature (RS 2091, fol. 143r). O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, pp. 75–6. Rivière, Les Poésies, p. 51. The systematically empty staves of C oblige us to qualify melodic borrowing as likely rather than certain in these instances. Jacques’s song is the only known contrafact of RS 1730. See Hans Tischler (ed.), Trouvère Lyrics with Melodies: Complete Comparative Edition, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 107 (15 vols, Neuhausen, 1997), vol. 11, no. 999.

162

christopher callahan

becomes ‘-ie’.13 Nonetheless, Jacques rewrites Colart’s coblas doblas as coblas unissonans, a technique employed in many of Jacques’s songs and which quite possibly reflects, by its relative technical difficulty, a form of poetic one-upmanship.14 Poetic similitude is thus visibly associated through multiple echoes, in the pious register, of its courtly model. The opening stanzas in both songs are very similar in language and sentiment (see Table 9.2). Indeed, the twist in Jacques’s contrafact only occurs in line 1.7, where we learn that the ‘signorie’ of the ‘franche riens’ to whom he sings is in fact Heaven. The shift in register is hinted at in the first two lines, where Jacques announces his desire to withdraw from singing, and thus declares it fitting that he sing to gladden hearts, but the effect of this oxymoron, which serves as a trope to the pious register, is nearly lost through the composer’s careful adherence to courtly language for another four lines. Even after the affections of the lyric ‘I’ have been relocated to paradise, the shift is subtle enough that the informed listener’s expectations remain half-located in Colart’s courtly world. The closeness of court and paradise is effectively reinforced by a collusion between text and melody, as in the final cadence, which in both songs vocalise ‘par-tir’ (see Example 9.1a). Musical phrases which underscore similarities elsewhere in the first stanza include line 3, which features a five-note descending phrase between the recitation tone d and the final G, which highlights the words ‘le gue-ri-don’ in Colart and ‘loi-aul a-mor’ in Jacques (see Example 9.1b). Jacques’s use of ‘loiaul amor’ in the second pes is a direct quotation of Colart’s opening words, and these first words of line 3 are sung to the same descending phrase as Colart’s incipit, which in its compass and subsequent movement clearly establishes the tonal space of the piece. Likewise, in line 6 (see Example 9.1c), a rising-falling phrase over ‘Et ma dame’ in Colart is matched in its message by Jacques’s ‘He! franche riens’, and at the end of the same verse, the words ‘sa menaie’ in Colart’s song and ‘signorie’ in Jacques’s are sung to a semi-melismatic rising and falling phrase, which concludes with an open internal cadence on a.15 The tone and purpose of Jacques’s song become clearer, and a little more strident, with stanza 2; see Table 9.2. In fact, Colart’s second stanza is omitted from Jacques’s Marian appropriation, and Jacques’s second stanza derives from Colart’s third stanza.16 Some lexical sharing can be observed by comparing Colart’s third stanza with Jacques’s second, though less and less as the themes diverge. In their first 13 What Jacques actually does is conflate the rhyme sounds of Colart’s two sets of coblas

doblas: ‘-ie’ is the a-rhyme of stanzas 3 and 4 in Loiauz amors. Thus, given Jacques’s coblas unissonans, it is only lexical echoes and not poetics that lead us to pair Colart’s fifth stanza with Jacques’s third. 14 O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, p. 78. 15 Colart’s expression servir en manaie softens manaie’s primary sense of ‘power’ or ‘protection’ by underscoring the courtly dimensions of willing submission and gentle service. The relationship is thus palpably more one between equals than with Jacques’s assertion of Mary’s signorie, fully imbued with the feudal world’s notions of authority and dominance. 16 Stanza order varies among manuscripts, with M’s stanza 4 serving as C’s stanza 3 and viceversa. It is quite possible that C’s ordering was also used in Jacques’s exemplar.

Table 9.2: Textual parallels between Colart’s RS 1730 and Jacques’s RS 114 Colart le Bouteillier (RS 1730); C, fols 126r–v 1.1

1.4

1.8

Jacques de Cambrai (RS 114); C, fol. 83v

Loiauls amors et desiriers de joie

Grant talent ai k’a chanteir me retraie;

Et volenteir ke j’ai des deservir

Si me covient per chanteir esjoïr.

Le gueridon c’amors done et otroie

Loiaul amor droiturïere et vraie

Ceaus ki de cuer ainment sens repentir Me fait ameir de cuer et obeïr

1.1

1.4

Tout ceu me fait chanteir et resjoïr

A la millor ke nuls hom puist veïr.

Et ma dame servir en sa menaie

He! franche riens, qui aveis signorie

Ne j’ai por bien ne por mal ke j’en aie

La sus el ciel, soiés de ma partie

N’en quier mon cuer osteir ne departir.

Quant en dous pairs me covenrait partir.

1.8

Douce dame, plainne de cortoisie

Dame poissans, ceu m’ocist et esmaie

2.1

En cui biaulteis ait pris herbegement

K’en pechiet maing, et si n’en puis issir,

Se fine amor ke tous les biens maistrie

Maix li grans biens de vos mes mals apaie;

Nos fait de moy et de mon cors present

Por ceu vos veul honoreir et servir

Por vos servir et ameir loialment

Il ne m’en puet se grans biens non venir;

Por Deu, Dame, ne m’aies en vitance

Car ki a vos ait s’amor otroieie

Ne preneis gairde a nostre grant vaillence

En dous leus puet demoneir bone vie

Pues ke je seux vostres tout ligement.

Si et en ciel pou après le morir.

2.8

Elais! je ser mon prou ou mon damaige

He! tresdouls cuers, se mercis me delaie,

3.1

Ne sai lou keil et s’ai grant desirier

Je ne saurai ou aleir ne foïr.

De tost savoir se n’ai nul aventaige

Et c’il vos plaist, douce dame, ke j’aie

Fors loiaulteis ke riens me puist aidier

La vostre amor, riens ne me puet nuisir.

Se proi por Deu bone amor et requier

Doneis la moi, s’il vos vient a plaixir

Ke la plux belle riens ki or soit neie

Ou atrement joie m’iert defaillie.

Faice savoir mon cuer et mon penseir

Dame, mercit a jointes mains vos prie

Car ma chanson ne li os envoier.

Por celi Deu ki de vos volt nasquir.

[…] 3.1

3.4

3.8

2.4

[…] 5.1

5.4

5.8

3.4

3.8

164

christopher callahan Example 9.1a: Shared text, final cadence Melody from M, fol. 128v, l. 1.8, syllables 8–10

& ‹

œ

œ

de RS 1730: (os teir ne) RS 114: (me co - ven) - rait

par par

-

-

œ

œ

tir. tir.

Example 9.1b: Highlighting stock courtly imagery Melody from M, fol. 128v, l. 1.3, syllables 1–4

& œ ‹

RS 1730: Le RS 114: Loi

œ

-

gue aul

-

œ

œ

ri a

-

œ

œ -

œ

don mor

Example 9.1c: Shared imagery Melody from M, fol. 128v, l. 1.6

& ‹

œ

RS 1730: Et RS 114: He!

œ

œ

ma da fran - che

œ œ œ œ me riens,

œ

œ

ser - vir en qui a - veis

œ

œ

œ œ

sa me - nai sig - no - ri

œ -

œ œ e e

lines, Jacques’s ‘Dame poissans’ is fittingly paired with Colart’s ‘Douce dame’, but his apostrophe steers the listener away from the stock phraseology of courtly lyric, which does not address the beloved in such terms. This rhetorical path is immediately confirmed by the complaint of the lyric ‘I’, who expresses dismay at his own sinfulness. The rhetoric of love service surfaces soon afterwards, but in different lines in each poem, thus preventing the melody from emphasising the shared trope; indeed, it is no longer shared, as Jacques’s declared purpose in serving his lady, as is revealed at the stanza’s end, is to gain Paradise. Jacques’s third stanza maintains a modicum of lexical echoes with Colart’s fifth, as Colart’s first four syllables – ‘Elais! je ser’ – become Jacques’s ‘He! tres douls cuers’, and Colart’s ‘Ne sai lou keil’ in line 2 becomes ‘Je ne saurai’ in Jacques’s poem. Jacques has left the secular realm at this point, and Colart’s indecisiveness, as he dare not send his song to his lady, is mirrored in Jacques’s song by a supplication to his Lady which leaves no doubt as to her spiritual identity. Turning to Jacques’s next song in the codex, which opens the letter H, we find Haute dame, com rose et lis (RS 1563, fol. 90r), a contrafact of Thibaut de Champagne’s celebrated Ausi com l’unicorne sui (RS 2075, fol. 9r), which the rubricator misattributes to ‘Pieres de Gans’, but which Scribe I (in Moreno’s analysis) correctly identifies



appropriation in jacques de cambrai’s devotional contrafacts 165

as ‘ou chant de l’unicorne’ (see Table 9.3).17 Haute dame matches Thibaut’s celebrated unicorn song stanza for stanza. Significantly, his other five-stanza religious song, Mere, douce creature (RS 2091, fol. 143r) is based on Raoul de Soissons’s Quant voi la glaie meüre (RS 2107, fol. 197v), misattributed in C to ‘Perrin d’Angicourt’. As Thibaut and Raoul were lyric debate partners as well as fellow crusaders, Jacques’s decision to match the stanza count of his models doubtless reflects his wish to pay an indirect homage to two great trouvères of the recent past.18 This seems even more certain because yet another of Jacques’s pious songs borrows from one of Thibaut’s: his third in the codex, Quant je plus pens a comencier chanson (RS 1856, fol. 110r), is a contrafact of Thibaut’s Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief torment (RS 741, fol. 230v; attributed to ‘Li rois de Navaire’). In fact, Jacques’s approach to Thibaut is different from his treatment of both Raoul and of Gace Brulé, whose models and Jacques’s contrafacts will be discussed below. We are thus able to establish a contrast between Jacques’s adaptation of Thibaut and that of Thibaut’s two confreres. In Haute dame, Jacques plays a more daring game of technical one-upmanship than in Grant talent ai by altering Thibaut’s coblas doblas into coblas retrogradadas, inverting in stanzas 2 and 4 the a/b and the c/d of the original, so that the source rhyme scheme abbaccbdd becomes baabddacc in the contrafact. Thibaut’s melody here is through-composed, thus providing less opportunity for text and melody to collude than when keywords can be illustrated by either iteration of the pes melody. This technical shift is corroborated by an almost complete lack of lexical mirroring. Instead, Jacques appears to distance himself from Thibaut’s text by transferring the latter’s allegorical references from the courtly to the scriptural realm. Stanzas 2 and 5 open with a shared epithet: Thibaut’s ‘Douce dame, quant je vos vi’ and ‘Douce dame, ne dout tant rien’ are echoed by Jacques’s ‘Dame, se tu portais la flor’ and ‘Dame, tu es Ave per san’, but his next verse completes the description of Mary as Theotokos, immediately dispelling any sense that his lady could resemble Thibaut’s.19 A similar echo connects the ‘prixon’/‘chairtre’, in which we visit Thibaut in stanzas 2 and 5, to the one which appears at the very end of Jacques’s song. Though the two occurrences of the word ‘prixon’ are illustrated by a similar melodic contour in stanza 3 (see Example 9.2), it is clear that Jacques’s is not the prison of love, into which Thibaut’s lady has led him, but the prison of eternal damnation, out of which Jacques’s Lady has guided humanity.20 Continuing this radical moralising of courtly themes in stanzas 3 and 4, Jacques transmutes Thibaut’s allegorical jailers, Biau Semblant, Biautez, and Dangier, into Hell’s newest inhabitants, the Albigensians, while the epic heroes Roland and Oliver 17 Though the rubricator for Jacques cites incipit and not poet, it is patent that the libellus,

especially if compiled under Jacques de Cambrai’s supervision, recognised Thibaut de Champagne as the author of ‘Le chant de l’unicorne’ while the rubricator-of-the-clumsyhand, responsible for most of the attributions, did not. 18 Or nearly so, since Raoul’s song contains six. 19 C is the only chansonnier among the fifteen transmitting this song in which lines in Thibaut’s song begin ‘Douce dame’ rather than simply ‘Dame’. 20 In line 5.9, the terms ‘chairtre’ and ‘prixon’ do not fall in the same position and thus do not share a melodic contour.

Table 9.3: Textual echoes between Thibaut’s RS 2075 and Jacques’s RS 1563 Thibaut de Champagne (RS 2075) 

Jacques de Cambrai (RS 1563)

Ausi com l’unicorne suis

Haute dame, com rose et lis

Ke s’esbahist en resgardant

Ont sormonteit toute color

Quant la pucelle vait mirant

Et ke li blans prent resplandor

Tant est [liee] de son anuit

Ou vermoil k’est en li espris,

Pasmee Chiet en son giron.

1.5

Tout ausi prist li sovrains rois

Lors l’ocift on en traïxon

Colour dedens le lis cortois

Et moi ont mort d’auteil semblant

En patience et per amor,

Amors et ma dame por voir.

Et soffri mort ou fust croixiet

Mon cuer ont, n’en puis poent avoir.

1.9

Por vancre le vilain pechiet.

Douce dame, quant je vos vi

Dame, se tu portais la flor

Et vos conu premierement

De ton peire ki est tes fils,

Li cuers m’alait si tressaillant

Il ne m’en doit pais estre pis

Can vos remeist quant je m’en mux, Lors fui meneis sens reanson

Quant tu ais sormonteit valor. 2.5

Cil ki tous biens ait enbraisciés

En la douce chairtre, en prixon

Vint en ton cors per amisités

Dont li pileir sont de talent

Por moi, s’en dois avoir merci

Et li ux sont de bial veoir Et li amaul de boen espoir.

Et conforteir, ceu est tes drois, 2.9

Por eil ne pendi Deus en croix.

[…]

[…]

Douce dame, ne dout tant rien

Dame, tu es Ave per san

Ke je ne faille a vos ameir

Et Eva fut nos anemis ;

Tant ai apris et endureit

Tu es porte de paradis

Ke je suis toz vostres par us

Et ces li boissons Moÿsen

Et se vos en pesoit or bien,

5.5

Jheremie en trais a tesmoing :

Ne m’en puis je partir por rien

Cinc mille ans et neuf cens de loing

Ke je n’aie le remenbreir

Davant vos et après Adam

Et que mes cuers ne soit adés

Dist ke aincor vanroit li hons

Dedans la chairtre et de vos pres.

5.9

Ki nos metroit hors de prixon.



appropriation in jacques de cambrai’s devotional contrafacts 167 Example 9.2: Melodic highlighting of the disparate prisons (melody from M, fol. 75v).

become David, who as ancestor of Christ is compared to the pelican, and Abraham, who holds in his bosom an entire Christianised bestiary comprised of the gentle phoenix and lamb, and the fierce lion. Jacques’s apparent delight in these intertextual broadsides at the century’s most prolific and recognizable trouvère can be insightfully understood as a reaction against Thibaut’s representation of himself as a unicorn.21 Thibaut’s well-known song secularised what was a conventional Christian allegory and we may consider Jacques’s borrowing of Thibaut’s metrics, melody, and stanza count, coupled with the systematic displacement of his lexicon, as a repudiation of this portrayal of the unicorn as courtly lover, and a return of the mythical beast to the sacred realm he had come to inhabit.22 Jacques’s next song in this grouping – Quant je plus pens a comencier chanson (RS 1856) – bears so little resemblance to Thibaut’s Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief torment (RS 741) that the reader can legitimately question the rubricator’s choice of secular model. Thibaut’s coblas doblas become coblas unissonans in the contrafact, a procedure already observed with Jacques, but he also alters Thibaut’s rhyme scheme to a certain extent: Thibaut’s ababbaa scheme becomes ababbcc, thereby introducing a new rhyme sound in the last two lines. On a textual level, both songs evoke in their opening lines the poet’s thoughts, which are directed toward his beloved (see Table 9.4). The contrast between the two is palpable from the outset, however. While for Thibaut de Champagne, thoughts of his lady are a source of great anxiety over the potential competition for her favours – after all, even God is suggested as a suitor – for Jacques de Cambrai, they are a source of peace and surety: anyone who loves ‘she in whom I have placed my heart’ is assured of mercy. Denial of mercy, expressed by Jacques in the conditional, thus as a possibility for some, carries the ultimate consequence: damnation. Shared vocabulary reflects a deliberate contrast in tone, and even the term ‘Deus’ (line 1.6 in both poems) serves entirely different purposes. Both occurrences are sung to the same pitch, but the placement later in the line in RS 1856 underscores the dramatic quality of Jacques’s expostulation (Example 9.3). 21 O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, pp. 83–6. 22 Florence McCulloch, Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries, Studies in the Romance

Languages and Literatures, 33 (Chapel Hill, 1962), pp. 179–83.

168

christopher callahan Table 9.4: Similar tropes, radical transformation between Thibaut’s RS 741 and Jacques’s RS 1856

Thibaut de Champagne (RS 741)

Jacques de Cambrai (RS 1856)

Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief torment

Kant je plus pens a comencier chanson

Vienent de lai ou sont tuit mi penseir

Et plus me plaist celle ou j’ai mon cuer mis,

Grant mervelle ai coment ke tout gent

K’ains de millor n’oï parleir nuls hom:

Ki ont veu son gent cors lonoreit

1.4

Ki s’onor ait en honor et en pris,

Sont si vers li de bone volenteit

Serait moneis el grant jor del juïs,

Nes Deus l’ainme, jel sai a essiant

Et qui ne l’ait, Deus ! si mar ains fut neis

Grant mervoille ai quant il s’en souffre tant.

1.7

Ke sens mercit serait mors et dampneis.

Example 9.3: Melody over two instances of ‘Deus’ (melody from M, fol. 66v) RS 741, l. 1.6

& œ ‹ Nes

œ

Deus

œ

l’ain - me,

œ

œ

œ

œ

jel

sai

a

es

œ -

si

œ œ œ -

ant

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ œ œ

qui

ne

l’ait,

Deus!

si

mar

ains

fut

neis

RS 1856, l. 1.6

& œ ‹ Et

œ

At this point, the two texts diverge sufficiently that in Jacques’s remaining two stanzas he ceases to mirror Thibaut’s language entirely. The transition to the divine realm and to the supplicative mode is achieved by direct address to both Mary and God, each in their respective strophes, and Jacques’s confidence in achieving paradise stands in stark contrast to Thibaut’s sorrow at having turned away from his lady. Few of Jacques’s other models are rewritten to quite this degree, and it is quite possible that lingering political fallout from Thibaut’s first marriage continued to tarnish his reputation in Lotharingia, thus inviting his verses to be singled out for a radical purification.23 Falling more within the norms are Raoul de Soissons’s Quant voi la glaie meüre (RS 2107), the model for Jacques’s Mere douce creature (RS 2091), and Gace Brulé’s 23 His union with Gertrude de Metz (1220) was fiercely opposed by the notables of that city,

as it subjected the duchy of Lorraine to the count of Champagne. Threats of reprisal by the Emperor Frederick II, whose chancellor was Conrad von Scharfenburg, bishop of Metz, obliged Thibaut and Gertrude to divorce two years later. See Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons: textes et mélodies, ed. and trans. with notes by Christopher Callahan, MarieGeneviève Grossel, and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Champion Classiques, Série ‘Moyen Age’, Editions bilingues, 46 (Paris, 2018), pp. 14–15.



appropriation in jacques de cambrai’s devotional contrafacts 169

De bone Amour et de loiaul amie (RS 1102, fol. 58r), the model for Jacques’s Loeir m’estuet la roïne Marie (RS 1178). Raoul’s poetics – five thirteen-line heptasyllabic stanzas (line 5 is tri-syllabic) with envoi, rhyme scheme a′ba′bbba′a′bba′bba′ – survives nearly intact. Jacques preserves Raoul’s rhyme scheme, but plays with his rhyme sounds, turning Raoul’s coblas doblas into something between coblas doblas and coblas singulars. He maintains the original a-rhyme in each pair of stanzas, while introducing a new b-rhyme in the second cobla of each set. With an incipit like Mere douce creature, RS 2091 is unmistakably in the pious register from the start, but extended sets of shared rhymes in ‘-ure’ and ‘-ee’, set to sumptuously melismatic phrases, feature a lexicon that can be at home in either register, allowing the hearer to comfortably inhabit both Raoul’s and Jacques’s worlds at once: 1.1 ‘meüre’/‘creature’, 1.3 ‘verdure’/‘nature’, 1.7 ‘mesure’/‘pasture’; 3.1 ‘tant amee’/‘la pree’, 3.3 ‘rienz nee’/‘(douce) rousee’, 4.1 ‘desirree’/‘honoree’, 4.11 ‘desesperee’/‘desiree’: see Example 9.4. 24 Similar treatment is accorded Gace, though the master’s technical wizardry, employing multiple stanza-linking devices, including coblas capcaudadas, capfinidas, retrogradadas, and retronchadas is not attempted by Jacques, who settles for coblas doblas with a single rhyme scheme, ababcccb.25 By reducing Gace’s six stanzas to Example 9.4: Rhymes in Raoul de Soissons and Jacques de Cambrai Melody from K, fol. 141v

& œ ‹ RS 2107: 1.1 Quant 1.3 Et RS 2091: 1.1 Mei 1.3 Et

& œ ‹ RS 2107: 3.1 E 3.3 Ou

œ

œ

œ œ

voi suer

la la

glai be

- re prendre

dou hu

œ

œ

œ œ

las! la

je tres vos puis

RS 2091: 3.1 Da - me, 3.3 C’on - ques

j’aim si

ou des

RS 2091: 1.7 Le 4.11 En

proi la

e joi

-

de e

me ver

-

ü du

-

re re

a na

-

tu tu

-

re re

œ

œ

-

tant ce

a rou

me se

-

e e

-

tes tre

la rienz

pre ne

-

e e

iest d’au

las! mort

œ œ

œ œ

l’ai dou

RS 2107: 1.7 He 4.11 De

-

œ œ bœ

œ œ bœ

œ

œ

-

cre ne

œ

œ

œ

e le

-

ce main

-

œ

& œ ‹

œ

œ

-

œ

-

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

tre es

-

me pe

-

su re

-

-

re e

sa de

pas si

-

-

-

tu re

-

-

re e

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

24 Part of the melody for RS 2091 is transmitted in j. It is very similar to the melody for RS

2107 in K; for consistency, the latter is used throughout this example.

25 Samuel N. Rosenberg, Samuel Danon, and Hendrik van der Werf (eds), The Lyrics

and Melodies of Gace Brulé, Garland library of medieval literature, series A, 39 (New

170

christopher callahan

three, Jacques additionally has less time to play with registral ambiguities than he did with Raoul de Soissons; indeed, he accomplishes his severance from the courtly world in three quick stages. Jacques’s incipit ‘Loeir m’estuet la roïne Marie’, while intending to evoke, with its borrowed melody, Gace’s classic De bone Amour et de loiaul amie, immediately takes the listener, in true Jacques de Cambrai fashion, into the sacred realm. Nonetheless, Jacques sets up certain lexical echoes in stanza 1: ‘remembrance’ (line 1.4) and ‘poussance’ (line 1.8) with Gace’s ‘remembrance’ (line 1.2) and ‘poissance’ (line 3.2): see Table 9.5. Though Gace’s memory of his ‘good and faithful beloved’ becomes for Jacques the Blessed Mother’s reminder to her Son to care for poor sinners, and Gace evokes the power of Love, which for Jacques belongs only to God, these juxtapositions allow the back-and-forth between courtly and pious discourse. In the second stanza, these echoes serve to distance the two registers. Jacques’s second stanza matches Gace’s third stanza for its rhyme sounds (a = ‘-ie’, b = ‘-ance’). Nonetheless, the rhyme words of lines 5–7 of each stanza shift Jacques’s song from the courtly to the pious register where, in Jacques’s Marian songs, much more than in Thibaut de Champagne’s, love’s ‘guerredon’, that is, salvation, is ensured. Stanza 3, finally, leaves the courtly world entirely. In this stanza, the new set of rhyme sounds does not appropriate any of Gace’s rhymes, thereby severing any connection with the source text. Rather, with the reference to the salvific gesture of Christ’s crucifixion and Jacques’s cry to Mother Mary as intercessor, Jacques’s teleology is complete, and he no longer need reference his courtly model. Finally, I will consider Jacques’s enigmatic Rotrowange novele (RS 602, fol. 209r), the generic classification and place of which among Jacques’s other devotional songs have been the subject of ongoing debate. Leaving aside the question of what defines a rotrouenge, and how or whether Jacques’s song meets those criteria, I will focus on the most intriguing issue, that of contrafacture. While Hans Spanke signalled this rotrouenge’s structural similarity with Quant voi la flor novele / Paroir (RS 599), he also argued that by using the term ‘novelle’, Jacques announced a new composition for which there was no model.26 Though the association is acknowledged as conjectural by scholars of Old French lyric, the rotrouenge has been regularly recorded and edited with the melody of RS 599, such that Jacques’s song is better known today than its putative source.27 If the rotrouenge is indeed a contrafact, we must begin by examining the cognate song. Though Jacques slightly alters the metrics of the possible model – from a′a′a′a′bcb to a′a′a′a′ba′b – the b-rhymes still fall on the short lines, and the extensive series of a-rhymes in ‘-elle’ is masterfully preserved. But the York, 1985), p. 331.

26 Hans Spanke,  G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes, Musicologica,

1 (Leiden, 1955), pp. 294–6. Spanke’s argument was accepted by Rivière, Les Poésies, p. 88 and repeated by O’Sullivan, Marian Devotion, p. 87. RS 599 is found in K, N, P, and X. 27 See, for example, Studio der Frühen Musik, Chansons der Trouvères, LP, Telefunken 6.41 928 AW, (1974); Samuel N. Rosenberg and Hans Tischler (eds), Chanter m’estuet: Songs of the Trouvères (Bloomington, 1981); and Samuel N. Rosenberg, Margaret Switten, and Gérard Le Vot (eds), Songs of the Troubadours and Trouvères: An Anthology of Poems and Melodies, Garland reference library of the humanities, 1740 (New York, 1997).

Table 9.5: Shared lexical items between Gace’s RS 1102 and Jacques’s RS 1178

1.1

1.4

1.8

Gace Brulé (RS 1102)

Jacques de Cambrai (RS 1178)

De bone amor et de loiaul amie

Loeir m’estuet la roïne Marie

Me vient sovent pitiés et remenbrence

En cui tant ait de bien et de vaillance,

Si ke jamaix a nul jour de ma vie

Ke nuit et jor por les pechëors prie

N’oblierai ces ieuls ne sa semblence

A son chier fil k’il ait en remenbrence

Por ceu s’amors ne s’en veult plux soffrir

De nos aidier et de nos warantir

K’elle de tous ne faice a son plaixir

Vers l’anemin ke tant devons cremir,

Et de toutes maix ne puet avenir

C’adés non veult engingnier et honir.

Ke de la moie aie bone esperance.

Ne plaice a Deu ke jai en ait poussance!

1.8

Coment porai avoir secors n’aïe

Dame, tous biens et toute courtoisie

2.1

Vers fine amor lai ou je n’ai poissance

Est dedans vos et maint a remenance,

C’ameir me fait ceu ke ne m’ainme mie

Nuls n’en diroit la centisme partie,

Dont jai n’aurai fors anuit et pesance

Mais, a mon greit, vos fait grant honorance

Ne ne li os mon coraige jehir

Quant Meire Deu vos appel, et plaixir

Celi cui jai ne vanrait a plaixir

Vos doit forment, car je ne puis veïr

Ke de teil mort seux jugiés a morir

C’on vos peüst si bel juël offrir;

Et se ne puis veoir ma delivrance.

Por ceu en fait moult souvent recordence.

2.8

He! Maire Deu, roïne coronee,

3.1

1.1

1.4

[…] 3.1

3.4

3.8

2.4

Por la pitiet k’eüs dou roi celestre Quant tu veïs sa chair en croix levee Entre les Juis ki sont de malvaix estre.

3.4

Belle dame, ke tant fais a proixier, Poie ton fil ke il me veille aidier A cest besoing, ke j’en ai grant mestier, Ou autrement mar me vi onkes naistre.

3.8

172

christopher callahan

lexical links to RS 599, which rely on two terms – ‘novelle’ in line 1.1 and ‘flor’ in line 3.3 – are tenuous at best. The word ‘flor’ assumes the role of a pious trope, integral to Marian lyric, while ‘novelle’ denotes for Jacques his rotrouenge rather than the spring blooms of RS 599. At the song’s opening, it is thus not clear that any tropes are being specifically reworked, and the spatial distance between ‘retrowange novelle’ (line 1.1) and ‘flor’ (line 3.3) in Jacques’s song makes efforts to view them as colluding in Jacques’s theological program seem contrived. The encomium praising Isaiah and Jesse that constitutes stanza 2, followed in stanza 3 by an expression of confidence in the salvific gesture of the cross, show Jacques to be constructing his own song with little regard for any other text. The text of RS 599 is classified as a pastourelle, but the song is itself clearly some kind of graft: the opening stanza, with its spring exordium and renewal of love with concomitant longing, is unmistakably a chanson, while the pastourelle register abruptly intrudes in stanza 2 with the song of the shepherdess – ‘Je sui sade et brunete / Et joenne pucelete’ – without prior mention of riding out or of being attracted there by the maid’s singing. The fusion of the originals must have occurred before the compilation of the KNPX group, yet traces of the song’s generic instability are still visible in its uneven transmission, an unusual situation for this family of codices. The full seven-stanza text appears only in N, while in X the song numbers six stanzas, with N’s stanza 7 as the sixth; K and P transmit only five stanzas (see Table 9.6). The narrative is thus incomplete in three of the four manuscripts which record it. If Jacques’s rotrouenge is a contrafact, then, of which text – the chanson or the pastourelle – is it a contrafact? To complicate matters, Spanke points to another Marian contrafact of RS 599, Quant voi la flor novele / Florir (RS 598; recorded only in X, fol. 266r), whose incipit is identical. RS 598 is clearly a contrafact of the grafted song RS 599, since the latter survives with notated melody in the manuscripts. RS 598 adopts RS 599’s a-rhymes in ‘-elle’, though it simplifies the rhyme scheme (as does RS 602) to a′a′a′a′ba′b. From a textual point of view, moreover, RS 598 fuses RS 599’s generic mix into one, thereby cleansing RS 599 of its ribaldry. The shepherdess’s self-description as ‘jeonne pucelete’ (RS 599, line 2.2) becomes a form of address to the holy maid and mother, ‘Pucele digne et pure’ in the contrafact (line 2.1). The former’s tingling breasts, which symbolise her puberty and budding sexuality (RS 599, line 2.5), are transmuted into the breasts that nursed our saviour (RS 598, line 1.5). The connection between the occurrences of ‘flor’ is much stronger here, with the ‘flor novele’ (RS 599, line 1.1) becoming the ‘Flor de misericorde’ (line 4.1) in RS 598. The epithet ‘Marie douce mere’ that opens stanza 4 of RS 598 can be interpreted as a rewriting of ‘Bele, tres douce ami’ (RS 599, line 1.6), words spoken by the pastourelle narrator to allay the fears of the girl he is about to rape.28 I therefore propose that if Rotrowange novele (RS 602) is a contrafact, it is a contrafact of RS 598 not RS 599. Jacques’s song and RS 598 share an identical rhyme scheme, and with the shift

28 Having achieved his purpose of purifying the pastourelle, the poet then allows himself

to indulge, in stanza 4, in annominatio: with a series of rhyme words ‘misericorde’ | ‘m’acorde’/‘corde’ | ‘descorde’ | ‘s’amorde’ | ‘descorder’ | ‘concorde’ | ‘recorder’; he delights in his rhetorical skills and reveals his clerical training.



appropriation in jacques de cambrai’s devotional contrafacts 173 Table 9.6: Stanzaic transmission of RS 599 K

1

2

3

4

5

N

1

2

3

4

5

P

1

2

3

4

5

X

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

to the pious register already made, Jacques had little to transform, but only needed to pursue his own established didactic purposes. Returning briefly to the rubrics in C, if RS 602 is a contrafact, it is perhaps not surprising, given the hybrid nature of RS 599 and the multiple layers of contrafacture involved, that no ascription was made by the rubricator. The rubricator is not entirely reliable, however, as the following examples from Jacques’s corpus illustrate.29 For one thing, the scribe misquotes the source of Jacques’s O dame ke Deu portais (RS 197a) as ‘Louaus amans fins et vrais’, Gautier d’Epinal’s Aïmans fins et verais.30 Also, the rubric accompanying Jacques’s pastourelle Ier matin delés un vert buisson (RS 1855, fol. 65r) cites as the source for this song ‘li chans Sire herelicanba’, an incipit as indecipherable as it is unknown.31 Thus, given the textual history of Jacques’s source material as hybrid chanson/pastourelle and as Marian contrafact thereof, it is no surprise that the rubricator declined to identify Jacques’s model. In conclusion, the manuscript tradition of Jacques de Cambrai’s songs points to his breadth as a poet and consumer of trouvère lyric, to his creative fervour as a trouvère of Mary, and to the impact his songs had on the community of poets in north-eastern France. The network of contrafacture is better understood as a result of his treatment in the Bern chansonnier, and our grasp of its intricacies promises to be greatly enriched by further study of this little-known trouvère.

29 For a discussion of the reliability of C’s rubricator, see Chapter 5. 30 This scribal ‘error’, plus Gautier’s incipit as it appears in C (f. 9r), ‘Ay! amans fins et vrais’,

recorded in all other chansonniers as Aẏmans fins et verrais, suggests that the scribes of C had access to exemplars not available to, or dismissed as defective by, central and northern scriptoria. 31 It is not found in any trouvère chansonnier and is thus not listed in Ulrich Mölk and Friedrich Wolfzettel, Répertoire métrique de la poésie lyrique française des origines à 1350 (Munich, 1972) or Robert White Linker, A Bibliography of Old French Lyrics, Romance Monographs, 31 (Oxford, MS, 1979).

Chapter 10

Jeux-Partis and their Contrafacts in C Joseph W. Mason

I

n studies of the jeu-parti, a genre of vernacular sung debate composed and copied in northern and eastern France from the 1230s to the 1310s, scholars have tended to focus on the largest material collections of debate songs. These are the deluxe chansonniers whose provenance is assumed to be the Arras puy: chansonniers a (seventy-nine jeux-partis), A (thirty-two) and Z (twenty-four). The small selection of jeux-partis in chansonnier C has not been widely examined, in part because of the lack of musical notation in the source, which has deterred any serious musicological study. The jeux-partis in C have suffered, too, from scholarly neglect because of the source’s eastern provenance. Arthur Långfors, for example, groups jeux-partis from chansonniers C, I, O, and U together at the end of his landmark edition of jeu-parti texts, literally presenting jeux-partis from these eastern manuscripts as peripheral to his conception of the genre.1 In a passage that characterises the contents of I (and by extension, C) as late, over-ripe, epigonist, and parodic, Långfors effectively dismisses the jeux-partis of eastern chansonniers as objects unworthy of scholarly attention, a characterisation that has left its mark on scholarship today.2 While the jeux-partis of C have largely been ignored by twentieth-century scholars, the scribes and compilers of C considered jeux-partis to be of great importance to the songbook that they were making. At the start of each letter-section, scribes copied a devotional song, as Paola Moreno explains in her contribution to this volume (Chapter 3). The genre of the next song to be copied varies between letter-sections, but frequently it is a jeu-parti that is then copied. This suggests that scribes considered the genre of the jeu-parti to be of no less importance than grand chant or the pastourelle: C stands in contrast to other trouvère chansonniers organised by genre, such as a, A, Z, W, or I, in which grands chants are copied first and jeux-partis occupy the less-prestigious second or third place. The jeux-partis of C therefore offer a very different perspective on the role of the jeu-parti in thirteenth-century musical life. This chapter considers the jeux-partis of C in relation to the wider corpus of jeux-partis, and, through a close reading of one jeu-parti contrafact group, shows the extent to which C might have been embedded in networks of musical exchange.

1

Arthur Långfors (ed.), Recueil général des jeux-partis français, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 1926). 2 Ibid., vol. 1, p. lix.



jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 175

C and its relation to the jeu-parti repertory Table 10.1 lists the debate songs in C and gives their genre designation, interlocutors, and concordances.3 Most songs are jeux-partis, whose distinguishing feature is the presence of a dilemma question in the opening stanza. In the four songs classed as a tenson, an open-ended question is posed, and in three of these debates, the first speaker gives their answer to the question. This differs from the jeu-parti, in which the second speaker can choose which side of the dilemma to defend. In the fourth tenson Quant amours vit que je li aloignoie (RS 1684, in letter-section K in C), however, Thibaut explains that Love attacks him with a ‘tenson’, which constitutes the remainder of the song; in the first stanza, Love asks Thibaut why he has abandoned love, and does not give an answer to his own question. The generic differences between jeux-partis and tensons are not reflected in the labels that accompany debate songs in C.4 While genre does seem to have been important to the organisation of the codex, jeux-partis and tensons appear to have been considered generically the same, at least by the rubricator. Of the eighteen jeux-partis, seven have a label that identifies them as jeux-partis. Two songs, RS 1075 and RS 1296, have the label ‘jugemans d’amour’. While RS 1075 is a tenson between Gillebert and Love, RS 1296 is in the form of a classic jeu-parti, opening with a dilemma question that is not answered in the first stanza. Although no tenson is labelled as a jeu-parti, there is not enough evidence to suggest that the rubricator distinguished strongly between jeux-partis and tensons in the way in which they labelled songs; the term ‘jugemans d’amour’ seems to have been used interchangeably with ‘jeu-parti’ by the rubricator. Some songs are labelled with the name of one or both of the interlocutors.5 Where only one name is given, except for three cases, this corresponds to the first speaker in the debate.6 Only one song, RS 946, gives the names of both speakers: ‘Robers de le pi[ere] et a mahous de gans’. This range of annotations is unusual: K, P, N, X, and W attribute jeux-partis to one trouvère, R and b attribute jeux-partis to two trouvères, and A, a, Z, G, I, O, U, V, and Q do not give attributions for jeux-partis. Only M and T show the range of annotations that is also found in C. The rubricator of C appears to have taken an ad hoc approach to labelling songs. The collection of debate songs in C is notable for a number of reasons: the songs’ concordances, interlocutors, dates of composition, and the prevalence of contrafacture. The concordances of the jeux-partis in C serve to contextualise the kind of collection that C is. Table 10.2 lists principal sources of debate songs and gives 3 In table 10.1, I have used the pencil foliation for A. 4 Paratextual labels in C are written in black ink in the margin, next to the beginning of a

song. As Moreno points out in her contribution to this volume (Chapter 3), most of these may be written in a later hand than the scribe responsible for copying most of the text of the codex. 5 RS 335, RS 491, RS 943, RS 948, RS 949, RS 1072, RS 1293, RS 1520, RS 1966, and RS 2000 have a label that gives one name. 6 RS 943 and RS 948 give only the name of the second speaker in the debate; RS 2000 has a mistaken attribution to Conon de Béthune. See discussion in Långfors, Recueil, vol. 2, p. 198.

RS

2000

365

1075

1949

1296

491

1966

1437

876

335

1354

Folio(s)

2r–v

2v–3r

3r–v

24v

24v–25r

34r–v

35v–36r

37v–38r

50v–51r

51v–52r

62v–63r

Dites dame li keilz s’aquitait muelz

Dame mercit une riens vos demant

Douce dame or soit en vos nomeir

Chardon de vos le veul oir

Biaus Colins Muses, je me plaing d’une amor

Biaus Gillebers dites s’il vos agree

Biaul Tierit je vos veul proier

Bouchairt je vos pairt d’amors

Amors je vos requier et pri

Amis ki est li muelz vaillans

Amis Bertrans dites moy le millor

Incipit in C

Li rois thibaus de naivaire

tenson jeu-parti

Jue partis

jeu-parti

Jues partis

Jaikes d’amiens

tenson jeu-parti

Li dus de braibant

Jugemans d’amors

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

Jeus partis

Jugemans d’amors

tenson jeu-parti

Jeus partis

Jeus partis Cunes de betunes

Rubric

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

Genre

Table 10.1: Debate songs in C

Dame Sire

Thibaut de Champagne Dame

Pierre de Beaumarchais Dame

Cardon Jehan d’Archis

Jacque d’Amiens Colin Muset

Duc de Brabant Gillebert de Berneville

Raoul Thieri

Bouchart Jehan

Gillebers Amors

Amie Amis

Guichars Bertrans

Interlocutors

A ♪; a ♪; b; c

A ♪; K ♪; M ♪; O ♪; S; T ≡; V ♪; X ♪; a ♪; b

I; M ≡; T ♪; U ≡

I

UNICUM

K ♪; I; M ♪; N ♪; P ♪; U ⬜; X ♪; b

I

I

I

I; O ♪

I

Concordances

842

Thomes je vos veul demandeir

Gautier un jeu vos veul partir

242v

1442a

201v

Maheus de Gans respondeis

Sire Michies respondeis

946

151r–v

Kant Amors vit ke je li aloignoie

225v–226r 949

1684

113r–v

[Un j]eu vous pairt Andreus ne laissies mie

Sire Aimmeris prendeis un jeu partit

1187

97r–v

Gaices par droit me respondeis

218v–219r 1072

948

87r–v

Guillames li Vignieres amis

Rois Thiebaus sire en chantant respondeis

1520

84r–v

Freire ke fait muels a prixier

215v–216r 943

1293

79v–80r

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

tenson

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

jeu-parti

Thibaut de Champagne Baudoin

Bestorné Gautier

Robert de la Piere Mahieu de Gant

Thibaut Amors

Roi d’Aragon Andrieu

Gace Brulé Keu de Bretagne

Andrieu Contredit Guillaume le Vinier

Guillaume le Vinier Frere

Gerairs de valaisiene

Guillaume le Vinier Thomas

Gerart de Valenciennes Michel

Messires joffrois baireis Joffrois Baireis Aimeri

Li rois thiebaus de navaire

Robers de lepi et a mahous de gans

Jue partis

Messires gaises bruleis

Andreus li contredis jeu partis

Maistre willame li vinier

M ≡; R; T ♪

T♪

UNICUM

K ♪; M ♪; N ♪; O ♪; V ♪; X ♪

U

UNICUM

UNICUM

UNICUM

I; b

b

A ♪; I; M ♪; R; T ♪; a ♪; b

178

joseph w. mason

the number of concordances with C.7 Given the eastern provenance of C, it is not surprising that the codex shares the most debate songs with I, and contains all but one of the debates that are transmitted in U. Both U and I may have had exemplars in common with C, as Elizabeth Eva Leach and Robert Lug suggest in their contributions to this volume. The chansonniers with a relatively low number of debate songs, K, N, P, X, and O, have very few concordances with C; this is due to the presence of several jeux-partis by Thibaut de Champagne which are copied in K, N, X, and O but of which only two are copied into C.8 Manuscript R mostly contains jeux-partis that are unica, with the exception of six widely distributed jeux-partis, of which two are in C. Manuscripts M and T, both Arras sources, transmit more debate songs than K, N, P, X, and O and have a higher number of concordances with C. Perhaps most strikingly, the large collections of jeux-partis in the Arras sources A, Z, a, and b have a very low number of concordances with C. The debate songs in C are therefore representative of a song culture distinct from that of the Arras puy and its representative trouvères, such as Jehan Bretel, Lambert Ferri, Jehan de Grieviler, and Adam de la Halle. Thanks to its eastern provenance and the particular song community that it represents, C transmits jeux-partis whose interlocutors are relatively unfamiliar to modern scholars. Trouvères such as Bouchart, Tieri, Raoul, Bertrans, Joffrois Bareis, Cardon, or Guichart are likely to have been poet-singers well known to a Messine audience, but perhaps not further afield. The debate songs of C are unusual for the frequency with which women are found as interlocutors in the debate. Of the twenty-two debate songs listed in Table 10.1, four have female interlocutors. This is proportionally significant in comparison with the trio of Arras chansonniers A, a, and Z, among whose eighty-nine jeu-parti texts there are only two songs with female interlocutors. The significant proportion of jeux-partis in C with female interlocutors is exceeded only by I, in which at least six jeux-partis have female poets. Female participation in jeux-partis is perhaps, therefore, one of the specifics of Messine song culture. Notably, Thibaut de Champagne is largely absent from the jeux-partis of C, a possible symptom of its Messine context that is explored further below. There are thus clear ways in which the source’s provenance is reflected by its contents.9 The jeux-partis in C are also unusual for their dates of composition: C may contain jeux-partis that are the oldest in the repertory. For example, Gaces, par droit me respondé (RS 948), is attributed in C to Gace Brulé. Gace was born around 1160 and is mentioned in a document dated 1213; the date of his death is unknown.10 The attribution of the jeu-parti to Gace would argue for its composition before 1230, and 7 The numbers in Table 10.2 depend on precisely how debate is defined. Here, I exclude

both chansons in which there are two speakers, but no subject is debated, and instances in which there is some debate between the characters but the song is a pastourelle. 8 This group of jeux-partis by Thibaut is omitted from P, which is otherwise considered to be closely related to the group of sources K, N, and X. 9 This point is made extensively by Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre in her contribution to this volume (Chapter 2). 10 Theodore Karp, ‘Gace Brulé’, Oxford Music Online (2001) [accessed 4 April 2018].

jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 179



Table 10.2: Concordances of debate songs in C Concordances in C

MS

No. of debate songs

C

22

I

36

10

U

4

3

O

15

3

K

16

3

N

11

2

P

6

1

X

15

3

R

19

2

M

22

6

T

20

5

A

32

3

a

79

3

Z

24

0

b

66

5

likely earlier. If composed before 1213, the last record of any activity by Gace, this jeu-parti would be the earliest example of the genre that survives. Långfors cautions against the veracity of the attribution: the jeu-parti text only uses the word ‘Gaices’, not Brulé, and he is not addressed in the jeu-parti with the title ‘sire’.11 Given that Gace was a knight, the informality of this address is odd. There is also some confusion over the identity of Gace’s opponent in this jeu-parti. In b, the attribution for the song is to Gace Brulé and the ‘keu de bretaigne’, which Långfors assumes to refer to duke Geoffrey II of Brittany.12 In C, the second folio of the jeu-parti has the phrase ‘cest dou conte de bair’ written above the jeu-parti text (see Figure 10.1). If this annotation does refer to this song, the jeu-parti could be between ‘Gaices’ and the Count of Bar – perhaps Theobald II of Bar, who has an attributed song in M.13 This would 11 Långfors, Recueil, vol. 1, p. xv. 12 Ibid., vol. 1, p. xvi.

13 The role played by the Bar family in jeux-partis is discussed in Mélanie Lévêque-Fougre,

‘Les trouvères lorrains: acteurs d’une identité régionale au cœur de la Lotharingie’, Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Sherbrooke 5:1 (2012), n.p., [accessed 13 April 2017]. Spanke

180

joseph w. mason

Figure 10.1: Upper part of Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fol. 87v (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch)

move the date of composition somewhat later, since Theobald II was count of Bar between 1239 and 1291. Whatever the case with RS 948, a second early jeu-parti in C, Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie (RS 1187), is dated by Långfors to between 1204 and 1206.14 This dating is based on two allusions in the jeu-parti: first, the king of Aragon, one of the opponents, has just married; second, there is a reference to ‘two kings’, whom Långfors believes must be Philip II of France and John of England. 1204–6 is significantly earlier than the next datable jeux-partis, which are by Thibaut de Champagne, born in 1201. C’s attributions, added by a later hand after most of the codex had been copied, may not be factually accurate, although Luca Gatti (Chapter 5 in this volume) cautions against dismissing all attributions in the songbook. The arguments put forward by Långfors for the early dating of RS 948 and RS 1187 rely on circumstantial evidence that is sometimes contradictory, and which should therefore be treated with scepticism. But did the compilers of C believe these jeux-partis to be early examples of the genre? Overall, a significant proportion of the corpus of jeux-partis in C looks to have been composed before 1250 (see Table 10.3). Thibaut de Champagne died in 1253, which must be the terminus ante quem for his two jeux-partis. The presence of two jeux-partis (RS 876 and RS 1442a) in C that are also copied in the older section of U means that these songs, too, must have been composed by 1231.15 And C includes jeux-partis by Guillaume le Vinier, who died in 1245 and Andrieu Contredit, speculates that this rubric may be for the following song, Gautiers, qui de France venés (RS 953), but notes that the rubric does not seem to relate to the content of this song: Hans Spanke,  G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes, Musicologica, 1 (Leiden, 1955), p. 149. 14 Långfors, Recueil, vol. 1, p. xix. 15 For the date of copying of the different sections of U, see Robert Lug, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231–1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des Prés’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 451–86, at p. 452.

jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 181



Table 10.3: Possible early jeux-partis in C (in order of their appearance in the manuscript) RS

Incipit

Interlocutors

Date

876

Douce dame or soit en vos nomer

Pierre de Beaumarchais Dame

before 1231

335

Dame merci une rien vous demant

Thibaut de Champagne Dame

1234–53

1293

Frere, qui fait mieus a proisier

Guillaume le Vinier Frere

before 1245

1520

Guillame li Viniers, amis

Andrieu Contredit Guillaume le Vinier

before 1248

948

Gaces, par droit me respondé

Gace Brulé Keu de Bretagne (?)

before 1230?

1187

Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie

Roi d’Aragon Andrieu

1204–6?

1442a

Gautier, un jeu vous veuil partir

Bestorné Gautier

before 1231

943

Bon rois Thiebaut, en chantant respondé

Thibaut de Champagne Baudoin

1234–53

842

Thomas, je vous vueil demander

Guillaume le Vinier Thomas

before 1245

who died in 1248. The jeux-partis by these two trouvères, together with the jeux-partis found also in the earliest section of U, and the two possible very early jeux-partis RS 948 and RS 1187 give a distinctly early flavour to this collection. The reasons for such an emphasis on early songs is not clear, but it may be that the compilers of the songbook wanted to present a synoptic collection, one that told the pre-history of local, later Messine jeux-partis by placing them in the same collection as their older counterparts. A consequence of the inclusion of early jeux-partis in the songbook is the number that are contrafacts of other trouvère songs. As Hans Spanke noted, a high proportion of early jeux-partis are contrafacts.16 The absence of music notation in C means that contrafacts are difficult to ascertain with certainty, but a good case can be made for at least six of the jeux-partis (see Table 10.4). Three songs – Biau Gilebert, dites s’il vos agree (RS 491), Bon rois Thibaut, en chantant respondés (RS 943), and Amis, qui est li mieus valliant (RS 365) – are copied in other chansonniers with melodies that match the melodies of other songs: these are verifiable instances of contrafacture.17 Four further jeux-partis have other texts that share their versification and/or 16 Hans Spanke, ‘Zur Geschichte des altfranzösischen Jeu-parti’, Zeitschrift für altfranzösische

Sprache und Literatur, 52:1 (1929), 39–63, at pp. 41–4.

17 The RS number for Sener mil gracias ti rent is provided in David Murray, ‘The clerical

reception of Bernart de Ventadorn’s “Can vei la lauzeta mover” (PC 70, 34)’, Medium

182

joseph w. mason Table 10.4: Jeux-partis in C and their (possible) contrafacts

RS

Incipit

Contrafacts

365

Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant

Can vei la lauzeta (PC 4.3); Quiquis cordis (Anderson, K52); Plaine d’ire et de desconfort (RS 1934); Li cuers se vait de l’oi plaignant (RS 349); Sener mil gracias ti rent (RS 718a)

491

Biau Gilebert, dites s’il vous agree

Au comencier de l’amor qui m’agree (RS 488)

943

Bon rois Thiebaut, en chantant respondé

Merci clamant de mon fol errement (RS 671)

1187

Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie

Quant je plus sui en paor de ma vie (RS 1227); Cuens, je vous part un gieu par aatie (RS 1097); Gent de France, mult estes esbahie (RS 1147)

1293

Frere, qui fait mieus a proisier

A ce que je vuel comencier (RS 1272)

1296

Biaul Tierit je vos veul proier

De la glorieuse fenis (RS 1547) (possible)

1442a

Gautier, un jeu vous veuil partir

Quant je voi mon cuer revenir (RS 1448)

aspects of their incipits and so may also be musical contrafacts. Frere, qui fait mieus a proisier (RS 1293) and Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie (RS 1187) are close textual contrafacts of other songs that have an unusual versification structure, each with one or more shorter lines in the middle of each stanza. Table 10.4 shows that RS 1187 may be part of a relatively large contrafact network of at least three other songs whose shared melody can be verified.18 Two other jeux-partis in Table 10.4 – Gautier, un jeu vous vueil partir (RS 1442a) and Biau Tierit, je vos veul proier (RS 1296) – also share a poetic structure with their hypothetical contrafacts. Although the poetic structure of these jeux-partis is unremarkable, no other songs have the same poetic structure as these two contrafact pairs. What is more, both jeux-partis and their proposed contrafacts are in C. The case for RS 1442a being a contrafact is strengthened further by its presentation in C (see Figure 10.2). RS 1442a is copied out of alphabetical sequence in C because it does not appear to be the start of a song. Its textual contrafact, Quant je voi mon cuer revenir (RS1448), is found in alphabetical sequence with the first stanza copied underneath blank staves and then two subsequent stanzas in the text block. The first stanza of RS 1442a is presented as if it is the fourth stanza of RS 1448. The only other extant version of the two songs, in U, presents them in the same fashion. Eduard, Ævum, 85 (2016), pp. 259–77, at p. 259.

18 Meghan Quinlan points out that because RS 1187 is not transmitted with a melody and

does not have clear contextual links to the other songs in the network, it cannot be considered a musical contrafact of these other songs with certainty: Meghan Quinlan, ‘Contextualising the Contrafacta of Trouvère Song’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018), vol. 1, p. 100.

Figure 10.2: RS 1448 and RS 1442a (start of RS 1442a marked by an arrow), Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fol. 201v (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.ecodices.ch)

184

joseph w. mason

Schwan argued that this identical presentation of RS 1442a, intercalated within RS 1448, means that the source for these songs must also have been presented in this way.19 The source for both of these versions may have been a loose leaf, on which three stanzas of RS 1448 were copied; a trouvère wishing to make a contrafact of this song might then have written the text to RS 1442a beneath the stanzas of RS 1448. Alternatively, this hypothetical source could merely have been an economical way to present two songs by copying two texts underneath the melody that they shared. Whichever of the scenarios was the case here, it is likely that RS 1442a was created in a process of re-texting RS 1448. The intertextual network for the jeux-partis in C spreads further still. Not only can three jeux-partis be confirmed as contrafacts, but there are also four jeux-partis that are not copied in C but whose contrafacts are.20 Despite being characterised as a late and peripheral source by philologists such as Långfors, C is representative of a musical community that not only had a distinct local flavour, but that was also integrated into wider networks of song exchange and contrafacture across Frenchspeaking territories. By examining the contents of C in relation to other chansonniers, we can begin to piece together how the local and the ‘supra-local’ were in dialogue in Messine song culture. To a certain extent, the absence of music notation in C limits any firm conclusions: without a melodic concordance between a song in C and in other sources, it is difficult to ascertain whether singers or listeners from Metz would recognise that a song shared its melody with another. The following case study examines one contrafact network in detail and speculates on the extent to which C was embedded in wider intertextual networks in the trouvère repertory.

Case study: Rois de Navare et sire de Vertu (RS 2063) Rois de Navare et sire de Vertu (RS 2063), a chanson by Raoul de Soissons, is found on fol. 210v of C and shares its melody with two other songs: Bons rois Thibaut, sire, conseilliez moi (RS 1666), a jeu-parti between king Thibaut and an unnamed cleric, and Ma derreniere vuel fere en chantant (RS 321), a love song by Oede de la Couroierie. Neither RS 1666 nor RS 321 is copied in C. For RS 321 this is not surprising, since Oede’s songs are found only in chansonniers K, N, and P, suggesting only local transmission. It is striking, however, that RS 1666 is not found in C, despite its wide transmission in chansonniers M, T, K, N, X, O, V, a, A, and I. RS 1666 is one of several jeux-partis by Thibaut de Champagne that were copied together as a group across several sources; all but two of this group are absent from C. This does not necessarily indicate that RS 1666 was not known in Metz in the 1290s, a point that is strengthened by the fact that the jeu-parti is found in I, another late Messine songbook. As Daniel E. O’Sullivan argues in his contribu19 Eduard Schwan, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung

und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886), pp. 180–1.

20 These are Une chose, Baudouin, vous demant (RS 332), Phelipe, je vos demant / Dui amant

(RS 334), Cuens, je vous part un gieu par aatie (RS 1097), and Bons rois Thibaut, sire, conseilliez moi (RS 1666). Thibaut de Champagne is an opponent in all four of these jeux-partis.



jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 185

tion to this volume (Chapter 8), Thibaut’s presence could be felt in a songbook even where Thibaut’s name was not explicitly given. Here, I argue that an intertextual reading of this contrafact network shows a peculiarly Messine combination of valorisation and disdain for Thibaut de Champagne. The positing of any intertextual reading rests on the assumption that listeners or readers knew that a contrafact and its model were related. My discussion here draws on recent work on contrafacture by Meghan Quinlan, who notes that ‘the degree of resemblance and cultural continuity between [melodic contrafacts] [is] not always high enough to say that melodies would have been recognised by audiences’.21 As Quinlan demonstrates in her study, recognition of contrafacture depends not only on textual and/or melodic similarities between two songs, but also contextual knowledge on the part of the audience. Nevertheless, she argues that, in the right circumstances, ‘a melody could signal its author, and that a contrafact maker might knowingly deploy such associations’.22 This is likely to have been the case for Oede’s song (RS 321), for example. Raoul’s song (RS 2063) and Thibaut’s jeu-parti (RS 1666) were probably composed after Thibaut’s accession to the throne of Navarre in 1234 (before which Thibaut would have been addressed as ‘cuens’) and before his death in 1253. RS 321 likely dates to the 1270s or 1280s, when Oede de la Couroierie is known to have been an administrator in the Artois.23 Given that all of Oede’s songs are contrafacts, mostly based on songs by older trouvères, it is probable that RS 321 was created through a process of adding a new text to RS 2063.24 The first stanza of RS 321 uses rhyme sounds that are close to those of the first stanza of RS 2063, and similar phrases occur at the same point in each song, such as ‘Amours me fait’ (RS 2063, l. 10) and ‘Amours ont fet’ (RS 321, l. 10); this suggests that RS 2063 was the model for RS 321. Oede’s proclivity in making contrafacts may have been known to readers and listeners, who might therefore have recognised that RS 321 was a contrafact. While Oede’s song may have been instantly recognisable as a contrafact, the relationship between Thibaut’s jeu-parti (RS 1666) and Raoul’s love song (RS 2063) may not have been so audibly obvious. Contrafacture, as both O’Sullivan and Christopher Callahan argue in their contributions to this volume (Chapters 8 and 9), was a process employed extensively in the songs of C, suggesting that Messine readers and listeners may have been particularly attuned to moments of musico-textual citation, allusion, borrowing, and homage. But although RS 2063 and RS 1666 both open by addressing Thibaut, the songs lack the level of linguistic similarity that RS 2063 shares with RS 321. Furthermore, the differences between versions of the melody for RS 1666 and RS 2063 might have concealed the relation between the songs in oral performance too. 21 Meghan Quinlan, ‘Can melodies be signs? Contrafacture and representation in two

trouvère songs’, Early Music, 48:1 (2020), pp. 13–27, at p. 14.

22 Ibid., p. 20. 23 Johannes Spanke, ‘Die Gedichte Jehan’s de Renti und Oede’s de la Couroierie’, Zeitschrift

für französische Sprache und Literatur, 32:1 (1908), pp. 157–218, at pp. 163–5.

24 Two of Oede’s models are attributed to Gace Brulé and one to Blondel de Nesle, both of

whom were active before 1200.

186

joseph w. mason

The melodies for Raoul’s song (RS 2063) and Thibaut’s jeu-parti (RS 1666) that are transmitted in K, N, P, X, a, O, M, and T are closely related, and the differences between the melodies testify to a widespread and complex process of transmission.25 The most significant point of divergence between the songs is the melody at line 7. In RS 2063, line 7 begins on d, rises to g, and falls to c (see Example 10.1). The pitch g can be comfortably notated on a four-line stave using a C2 clef. In RS 1666, line 7 falls from aa to c and rises to e at the end of the line. The reason for this difference lies in the copying of the melody at different pitch levels. The version of RS 2063 in M and T is notated at a pitch level a fourth lower than RS 1666, as can most clearly be seen in line 9, which Example 10.2 shows.26 If line 7 of the melody were to be copied at the higher pitch level (a fourth higher), it would rise to cc, a pitch that can only be notated by using a C1 clef. (This is shown in Example 10.1 as a hypothetical melody.) For this reason, the melody of line 7 was altered in RS 1666 so that it stayed within more acceptable notational bounds. Changes to the melody, such as those found not only in line 7 but also in the first four lines of the melody, mean that Thibaut’s jeu-parti (RS 1666) may not have been immediately recognisable as a contrafact of Raoul’s love song (RS 2063) for listeners familiar with the latter song. The variation in the melodies goes beyond typical levels of mouvance (redistribution of syllables across the same pitch string or embellishments of the same melodic contour) and amounts to two substantially different versions of the melody, each copied widely. Melodic evidence, in short, does not prove that RS 1666 and RS 2063 would have been recognised as related by all listeners. Even though the melodic evidence is equivocal, I maintain that compelling intertextual readings would have been available to a listener or singer acquainted with both songs and their shared melody. Both Raoul’s love song and the jeu-parti open with an address that situates Thibaut as a magister amoris, an expert on love. As O’Sullivan argues in this volume, Thibaut appears to have acted as a kind of figurehead or resource for courtly love in C.27 Although Raoul’s love song is a typical lyric text, it opens as if it is a jeu-parti, and Raoul addresses Thibaut throughout the song. R. Howard Bloch views courtly chansons as implicitly dialogic, since poets situate themselves in relation to a hierarchical other, be it an exalted Lady or fellow male courtiers.28 There is a strong sense in RS 2063 that the song is a dialogue, of which we only hear Raoul’s part. In the first stanza, we learn that Thibaut has told Raoul about love’s great power. In the second stanza presented in C, Raoul asks Thibaut 25 The melodic transmission of this network is explored in greater detail in Joseph W.

Mason, ‘Melodic Exchange and Musical Violence in the Thirteenth-Century Jeu-Parti’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018), vol. 1, pp. 151–162. The melodies transmitted in A, V, and R for these songs are substantially different and therefore not discussed here. 26 In K, N, P, and X, the first four lines of RS 2063 are copied at the higher pitch level (the same that is used for the extant versions of RS 1666) but mistakenly a third lower, indicating an error produced by the misplacing of a clef. From line 5, the melody for RS 2063 in these sources is copied a fourth lower, at the lower pitch level. 27 See pp. 151–2. 28 R. Howard Bloch, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley, 1977), p. 176.



jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 187 Example 10.1: Versions of line 7, RS 1666 and RS 2063

Example 10.2: Versions of line 9, RS 1666 and RS 2063

to advise him; C’s choice to place this stanza second, rather than later (as in other sources), augments the sense that the song pays homage to Thibaut’s amatory expertise. In the jeu-parti, the cleric similarly asks Thibaut’s advice: do true lovers suffer such great distress, or do they talk about the pains of loving? The cleric wants to tell his Lady how he feels. Thibaut counsels him not to speak of his love, but to reveal his love to the Lady through hidden signs and concealed words. Unusually for a jeuparti, Thibaut yields to the cleric in stanza 6, advising the cleric (contrary to what he has just been arguing) to tell the Lady of his love. While both songs are generically distinct, they both also blur the boundaries of their respective genres. Raoul’s love song (RS 2063) implies a conversation with Thibaut, while Thibaut’s jeu-parti (RS 1666) is more advisory than scholastic. Both songs are concerned with the proper use of language in matters of the heart. Throughout RS 2063, Raoul dwells on his inability to speak to his Lady. In RS 1666, Thibaut and the cleric debate this matter, arguing in particular about the deceptive power of words. While the cleric wants to confess his love to his Lady, Thibaut advocates the use of concealed signs and hidden words, rather than a direct declaration of love. The cleric retorts that such an approach is deceptive. The deceptive power of signs and language is also thematised in the metaphor of the mirror, which is found in RS 2063 (and emulated in RS 321): in the envoi to the song – which is not copied in C, but which audiences may still have known – Raoul compares his situation to that of Narcissus. An allegory

188

joseph w. mason

used widely in medieval literature, the story of the mirror of Narcissus was sometimes considered didactic and sometimes duplicitous.29 In perhaps the most famous example, Narcissus, while gazing at his reflection, realises that the figure that he sees and desires is an image, a deception.30 The story of Narcissus was widely known in the thirteenth century: the protagonist of the Roman de la Rose, for example, knows the dangerous deception of mirrors when he comes across Narcissus’s pool.31 There are thus two possible ways to interpret the acts of contrafacture that would have been made audible in the melody shared by the songs. The melody of the jeuparti could be a reminder that Thibaut is an expert when it comes to matters of love. On the other hand, the jeu-parti could be a parody of Raoul’s love song, since Raoul respects Thibaut’s advice, while the cleric becomes so frustrated with Thibaut’s counsel that Thibaut must eventually yield to the cleric. Furthermore, in light of the jeu-parti’s debate about the deception of concealed words and hidden signs, Raoul’s presentation of himself as a narcissist takes on deeper significance. Raoul likens himself to Narcissus, perhaps to explain the lack of physical consummation of his desire. The jeu-parti depicts such a narcissistic attitude as deceptive. In criticising deception, the cleric chastises Thibaut for the precepts of love that he defends. This deception is enacted sonically: in hearing a contrafact, a song to the tune of another, the listener cannot quite trust what they hear. The melody of the jeu-parti carries what Quinlan terms a ‘virtual subtext’ of the concealed words and hidden signs of Raoul’s song thanks to the act of contrafacture, and with it, an implicit critique of Thibaut’s exalted status as poet-cum-lover.32 For a reader well-acquainted with Thibaut’s jeu-parti, Raoul’s love song, and the intertextual references between them, the presentation of Raoul’s song in C might have added to the sensory deception that this contrafact network could evoke. In C, the stanzas are presented in an order different to that found in other sources. Only M and T transmit all six stanzas and the envoi, but R and H both transmit fewer stanzas in their correct order. K, N, P, X, and V omit stanza 4, but transmit stanzas 1–3 and 5–6 in the correct order; the group N, P, and X also includes the envoi. By contrast, C follows stanza 1 with stanza 4, then stanza 2, then stanza 5. While it is not uncommon in trouvère songs for the order of stanzas to vary according to the source, there is reason to believe that the version in C is erroneous. The rhyme scheme of the song, as it appears in M and T (the only complete versions of the text), is that of coblas capcaudadas (see Table 10.5). The final rhyme sound of each stanza becomes the first 29 For an overview of discussions of mirrors in medieval literature, see Nancy M. Frelick,

‘Introduction’, in Nancy M. Frelick (ed.), The Mirror in Medieval and Early Modern Culture: Specular Reflections, Cursor mundi (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 1–30. Frelick points out that Alan of Lille gives an allegory of the three-fold mirror, comparing a truthful mirror to reason and two distorting mirrors to sensuality and carnality: ibid., p. 9. 30 The Narcissus myth in medieval French literature is discussed in Frederick Goldin, The Mirror of Narcissus in the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, 1967). 31 For the dreamer’s encounter with Narcissus’s fountain, see Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Daniel Poirion, Garnier Flammarion, 207 (Paris, 1974), ll. 1425–1614. 32 Quinlan, ‘Can melodies be signs?’, p. 23.

jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 189



Table 10.5: Rhyme sounds for Rois de Navarre in M and T Rhyme

Stanza 1

Stanza 2

Stanza 3

Stanza 4

Stanza 5

Stanza 6

envoi

a b c d

-u -ance -on -er

-er -ance -on -er

-er -ance -on -i

-i -ance -on -our

-our -ance -on -ié

-ié -ance -on -ir

-ance -on -us

rhyme sound of the next, while the middle two rhymes remain constant throughout the song. The final rhyme of the envoi is the same as the first rhyme of the whole song, a sonic mirroring that nods to the Narcissus metaphor that ends the song. In C’s version of the song, this intricate rhyme scheme is shattered by the presentation of the stanzas in the wrong order, which may have been due to a faulty exemplar. Raoul’s song is followed in C by a blank space, suggesting that the scribes realised that what they had copied was not correct, and left off copying, perhaps until they could obtain a correct exemplar (see Figure 10.3). This is the first instance in which a text scribe has left a blank space in the codex, other than at the end of a letter-section. This indicates that one more stanza was originally intended for the song, but that copying was halted. The fact that the scribe recognised this copying error implies that they might have known the order in which the stanzas of the song should be presented. For a reader who knew the song and its contrafacts, the visual confusion of this version of the song could have added to an appreciation of Raoul’s song as lyric deception. Not only can the listener not trust what they hear, but in this case they also cannot trust what they see. While I can only speculate on the reception of Raoul’s song in the milieu of C, I am inclined towards a reading of the network as a critique of Thibaut de Champagne. In the earlier part of the thirteenth century, Thibaut’s popularity in Lorraine was probably low. Robert Lug has suggested that Thibaut’s attempted acquisition of Metz and subsequent besieging of the city in 1222 made him an unpopular figure, while his rebellion, reconciliation and subsequent disobedience to the king of France in the late 1220s and 1230s made him toxic.33 Thibaut, argues Lug, was ‘taboo’, and his songs were therefore avoided by the first scribes of U; this may have cast a long shadow over Messine song culture and could explain the absence of many of his jeux-partis from C.34 Thibaut’s earlier unfavourable reputation could, I tentatively suggest, have inclined readers to interpret Raoul’s song and, by extension, Thibaut’s jeu-parti as songs that are critical of Thibaut’s status as a magister amoris. By the end of the thirteenth century, Thibaut was widely regarded (if we are to believe the witness of other 33 Lug, ‘Politique et littérature’, pp. 468, 474. On Thibaut’s dealings with the royal house

of France, see Jean Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, ed. Simon Lloyd, trans. Jean Birrell (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 12–19, 41–7. 34 Robert Lug, ‘Katharer und Waldenser in Metz: Zur Herkunft der ältesten Sammlung von Trobador-Liedern (1231)’, in Angelica Rieger (ed.), Okzitanistik, Altokzitanistik und Provenzalistik: Geschichte und Auftrag einer europäischen Philologie (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 249–74, at p. 255.

190

joseph w. mason

Figure 10.3: Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 389, fols 210v–211r (Photo: Codices Electronici AG, www.e-codices.ch)

chansonniers) as the courtly poet and lover par excellence. The transmission of traces of this contrafact network in C complicates our picture of Thibaut de Champagne and his reception.

Conclusions A comparison of the melodies and texts in this group of songs shows conclusively that these songs were related by processes of contrafacture. What is less clear is the extent to which these songs were known to be related. The melodic transmission of Raoul’s love song and its contrafacts, while complex, does not indicate that all three songs were known in Metz to be related. However, the poetic similarities between the songs invites intertextual readings such as those presented above. Thibaut’s jeu-parti is not copied in C, but was known in the Metz area, since it is found in I. Despite making an error in copying Raoul’s song, the scribes of C knew the song well enough to recognise their mistake. It seems possible, then, that the reader of C might have been able to connect this song to a wider intertextual network. In light of Thibaut’s reputation in Metz, a reader might be inclined to consider Thibaut as duplicitous as both the love song and the jeu-parti would suggest. Such intertextual interpretation is of course conjecture, but it does show the potential for interpretation that C offers. By placing Thibaut’s songs in pride of place, most trouvère chansonniers exalt Thibaut to a status without parallel. C does not conform to this, and may even present an image of Thibaut that is quite contrary to



jeux-partis and their contrafacts in c 191

other sources. In its unique and idiosyncratic selection of jeux-partis, C gives a picture of sung debate in France that is substantially different to other chansonniers. Such differences perhaps led Långfors to marginalise the jeux-partis of C; to the contrary, this special collection is one that scholars cannot afford to ignore.

Chapter 11

C and Polyphonic Motets: Exemplars, Adaptations, and Scribal Priorities Matthew P. Thomson

C

has long dwelt on the edge of scholarly, and especially musicological, consciousness. Despite concentrated work by Paola Moreno, Nicolaas Unlandt, and others, this manuscript has struggled to make much of an impact on the creation of a musicological picture of song in the thirteenth or early-fourteenth centuries.1 In seeking to fix this problem, the contributions to this volume return repeatedly to one of the most direct ways of getting to know a manuscript and integrating it into scholarly discourse, asking two essential questions: what kinds of material did the scribes and compilers of C have access to and what were their priorities in selecting, adapting, and copying songs?2 The choice in this chapter to examine the connection between C and motets may seem a strange one. C is not a manuscript well-known for its polyphonic connections; interactions with motets seem to have been a less central concern for the scribes and compilers of C than for those of other contemporary manuscripts of trouvère song. The importance of C’s song-motet interaction therefore resides chiefly in the valuable opportunity it presents to answer the two essential questions posed above; the actions of C’s scribes – selecting, adapting, and copying the motet-related material to which they had access – afford useful comparisons with other manuscripts and help to clarify the habits and priorities of those creating C. Before engaging with C’s specific interactions with motets, it is important to consider the ways in which other manuscripts of trouvère songs are connected with the polyphonic motet. On the most basic physical level, there are several manuscripts which contain both trouvère songs and motets. Among manuscripts that share C’s eastern provenance, I is key, but manuscripts with provenance in northern France

1

Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999); Nicolaas Unlandt,  Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011). 2 When referring to actions that cannot necessarily be attributed to a single identifiable scribe, the plural ‘scribes’ is used here in a generalising sense. The activity may have been carried out by a single person or by a group, but as this is difficult to determine, the plural form stands in here for whoever carried out the actions. The singular is only used when talking about an identifiable single scribe.

c and polyphonic motets 193



include M, T, and a.3 Manuscripts of motets and songs also share strategies of manuscript organisation: a number of motet manuscripts, including W2 and Ba, organise their motets alphabetically by initial letter. This organisational strategy is also found in a small number of manuscripts of trouvère song, including C and O.4 On more specifically musical levels of connection, Mark Everist and Gaël Saint-Cricq have extensively considered how motets use musico-textual forms more usually associated with songs, with Everist placing special focus on rondeau form and Saint-Cricq on pedes-cum-cauda (AAB) forms.5 Another more specific level of connection is found in a corpus of twenty-six networks of motets and songs in which the music and/or text of an entire voice part of a motet is also found as the first stanza of a monophonic song.6 These twenty-six cases provide demonstrable and easily retrievable cases of connection between song and motet and show a variety of practice. When composers used a pre-existing song as one of the voices of their new motet, they could play with norms of quotation, using the structure of the motet to bring out specific musical or textual aspects of their quoted material.7 When they extracted a motet voice and provided additional stan3 For details on the interaction between C and I, see Elizabeth Eva Leach’s contribution to

this volume (Chapter 7).

4 Mark Everist, Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and

Distribution, Outstanding Dissertations from British Universities (New York, 1989), pp. 201–2. It should be noted that motet manuscripts use a variety of organisational strategies, including those based on the liturgical calendar, genre, and the number of voices used. Alphabetical organisation cannot be said to be the ‘norm’ for these manuscripts. 5 Mark Everist, ‘The Polyphonic Rondeau c. 1300: Repertory and Context’, Early Music History, 15 (1996), pp. 59–96; Mark Everist, ‘“Souspirant en terre estrainge”: The Polyphonic Rondeau from Adam de la Halle to Guillaume de Machaut’, Early Music History, 26 (2007), pp. 1–42; Gaël Saint-Cricq, ‘A New Link between the Motet and Trouvère Chanson: the Pedes-cum-cauda Motet’, Early Music History, 32 (2013), pp. 179–223. 6 An initial corpus of fourteen networks was outlined in Friedrich Gennrich, ‘Trouvèrelieder und Motettenrepertoire’, Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, 9 (1926), pp. 8–39, 65–85. Three of these networks have no extant song version and can be discounted. For the addition of six networks to the remaining eleven, see Gaël Saint-Cricq, ‘Formes types dans le motet du XIIIe siècle: étude d’un processus répétitif’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols, University of Southampton, 2002), vol. 2, p. 143. For a further four, making a total of twenty-one, see Matthew P. Thomson, ‘Interaction between Polyphonic Motets and Monophonic Songs in the Thirteenth Century’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2016), pp. 345–56. Arguments for a higher figure of thirty-nine motet voices that share their music and/or text with a song stanza have recently been made in Gaël Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship in the Thirteenth Century: Robert de Reims vs “Robert de Rains”’, Early Music History, 38 (2019), pp. 141–213, at pp. 192–5. Of these I would add five to my previous total of twenty-one (Saint-Cricq’s numbers A1, A19, A22, A28, A30), leading to the total of twenty-six given here. Nineteen of Saint-Cricq’s longer list are already shared with mine, ten I exclude because of differences between our specific criteria for inclusion, four are excluded because I disagree with their inclusion, and one because I count two motets that used the same song as one network rather than as two separate motets. 7 See Matthew P. Thomson, ‘Monophonic Song in Motets: Performing Quoted Material and Performing Quotation’, in Ardis Butterfield, Henry Hope, and Pauline Souleau

194

matthew p. thomson

zas to turn it into a monophonic song, these stanzas were of widely varying types: some stanzas played with the musical and textual structures of the pre-existing motet voice, while others were less sophisticated, pragmatic literary productions.8 Several song manuscripts with eastern provenance are well represented within this motet-and-song corpus. The Messine manuscript I contains nine songs whose first stanza is found elsewhere as a motet voice and one motet whose motetus is found elsewhere as the first stanza of a song.9 U, which is also from Metz, has a more modest interaction with motets. It contains two songs whose complete first stanzas are found elsewhere as one voice in a polyphonic motet, and a further song which shares substantial material with a motet voice but does not replicate it completely.10 Against the background of these other manuscripts, C demonstrates interest in motets on a much smaller scale. It contains only one song that is found elsewhere as a motet voice: the song Chascuns qui de bien amer (RS 759), which is found in K, N, and P attributed to Richard de Fournival, and in H, O, and C without medieval attribution.11 The text and music of the first stanza of Chascuns qui de bien amer are also found as the motetus of the motet Chascun qui (526)/ ET FLOREBIT (M53) in W2 (fols 216v–217r).12 C presents the song version on fols 153r–154r, but uses an opening stanza that is different to all other versions of this song: ‘Mains se fait d’amors plux fiers’. C’s version of the song therefore has a complex relationship with the motet Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT. As the motet only shares text with the more normal first stanza, ‘Chascun qui de bien amer’, C shares no text with the motet. The lack of

8 9

10

11

12

(eds), Performing Medieval Text (Cambridge, 2017), pp. 136–51; Matthew P. Thomson, ‘Building a Motet around Quoted Material: Textual and Musical Structure in Motets Based on Monophonic Songs’, in Jared C. Hartt (ed.), A Critical Companion to Medieval Motets, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, 17 (Woodbridge, 2018), pp. 243–60. See Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’. For details of the networks of songs and motets present in I and other manuscripts mentioned, see Thomson, ‘Interaction’, pp. 345–61; Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’, pp. 192–5. The mensural notation of the Burgundian manuscript O has often been linked with motets. For a full description of the historiography of this notation, see Robert Lug,  Semimensurale Informationen zur Liedrhythmik des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 2019), pp. 21–70. See also Everist, Polyphonic Music, pp. 201–2; Thomson, ‘Interaction’, pp. 161–211. Chascuns qui de bien amer (RS 759) is found in K (pp. 224–6), N (fols 108v–109v), P (fols 64r–65r), H (fol. 229v), O (fols 31r–v), and C (fols 153r–154r). In O, it has no medieval attribution, but includes a later attribution to Richard. Motet voice parts will be followed by the numbers given to them in Friedrich Ludwig,  Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, ed. Luther Dittmer, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Institute of Mediaeval Music), 7, 17, 26 (2 vols in 3, Brooklyn, NY, 1964–78). The same music also exists with two different Latin contrafact texts: Homo mundi paleas (331)/ ET FLOREBIT (M53) is also found in W2 (fol. 191r), while Et florebit lilium/ [ET FLOREBIT] appears in Hu (fol. 107v), with no tenor notated. Both Latin texts seem likely to be contrafacts of the French text. See Gordon A. Anderson (ed.),  The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of the Notre Dame Manuscript Wolfenbüttel Helmstadt 1099 (1206), Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Institute of Mediaeval Music), 24 (Brooklyn, NY, 1968), pp. 370–4.



c and polyphonic motets 195

musical notation in C means that this manuscript also lacks any written trace of the melodic material that ties the motet and the song together. The complex relationship between the motet, the song, and the version of the song found in C provides ample opportunity to examine the priorities and habits that drove the actions of the scribes, poets, and musicians who carried out the transformations and adaptations of the musical and textual material found in this network of pieces. I will argue that the first item of this network to be produced was the motet Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT. The motetus of this motet was then extracted and had stanzas added to it to transform it into a monophonic song. The version found in C was then created by rewriting the first and (to a lesser extent) seventh stanzas of the song. Those carrying out each of these stages of transformation seem to have selected textual and/or musical aspects of the material they were adapting to use as a fixed point around which to create their new material; this could sometimes be an aspect of musico-textual structure that they could exploit, but it could also be a theme present in the semantic content of the text. The close examination of these transformations here, therefore, moves towards answering the two essential questions posed at the opening of this chapter, allowing a window onto the perceptions of scribes, poets, and musicians as to which structural and thematic aspects of material provided an opportunity for further development and adaptation, as well as onto the principles that guided them when making such adaptations. This chapter considers in turn the motet, its transformation into a monophonic song, and the song’s transformation into the version found in C. I conclude that the actions of those carrying out the revisions found in C reflect two larger priorities of the scribes of C that are noted throughout this volume: 1) an interest in debate song and its generic conventions and 2) the creative use of contrafacture in order to make the material available to the compilers of C more relevant to their own concerns.

Musico-Textual Expressions of Debate in Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT The motet Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT stages a debate, using its musical and poetic structure to set up an opposition between loving two different types of woman. The text (see Table 11.1) begins by saying that even those who are known for being great lovers are ignorant of the type of woman to whom they should address themselves (lines 1–4). Some think they should love a ‘dame’, a lady of high status, rather than a ‘pucele’, a girl of lower social class and younger age (lines 5–9). The speaker disagrees strongly (line 10), giving his preference for the girl (lines 11–14) before closing the text with a clear final judgement in favour of the girl (lines 15–16). There are three major structuring points within this debate: line 5 introduces the argument for the lady with ‘li uns dit’ (one person says), the couplet in lines 9–10 introduces the girl (line 9) and then signals the beginning of the speaker’s refutation of the argument for the lady with ‘mais’ (but) (line 10), and line 15 marks the beginning of the

196

matthew p. thomson

final decisive judgement that comprises the refrain vdB 948.13 Each of these turning points is emphasised in the musical and poetic structures of the motet, which can be seen in Example 11.1 and Table 11.1 respectively.14 Example 11.1: The music of Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT, from W2 fols 216v–217r œ

œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ J J æ

W2, fol. 216v Motetus

& ‹

1. Chas - cun qui

de bien

Tenor

j œ œ

& œ ‹ I ET

a - mer 2. Qui d’a

‰ œ œj œ ‰

W2, fol. 217r

œ œ œœœœœ œ œ & œ J æ ‹ 5. Li uns dit

T.

Mo.

œ

Mo.

œ œ J

25 fol. 217r

9. Que

T.

et

veut

& ‹

œœœ

pu - ce - le

j œ œ

œ

j œ œ

por

‰

œ

‰

je die

que non.

j œ

‰ œ

œ

le

jeu

a

‰

j œ œ

‰

& œ ‹

j œ œ

miens non.

œ œj

œ

œœœ œ

œ

œ

-

j œ œ

‰

‰

œ œj œ ‰ œ œj œ ‰ œ

‰

œ œ œ œ œ J

œœœ

‰

-

‰ œ

œ

j œ œ œ

pro - ve;

14. Que

que nus

i

ait

‰ œ

j œ œ

j œ

œ

j œ

le 16. Dont

j œ œ

‰

œ

35

droite a -

œ J

‰

ba - ron.

j œ œ

11. Chas - cuns a

œ J

‰

œ

‰

œ œ J

50 j œ œ œJ œ œJ œ œJ œ œJ bœ œ œ œ -

lo - er 8. Dame a

‰ œ

œ œ œ œ œ

bon, 13. Qu’a es

œ

‰

‰ œ

40

ve. 15. J’ai mis mon cuer en jeu - ne da - moi - se

T.

30

II

œ J

œ J

‰ œ œj œ

œ œ J

10. Mes

ju - ge

& œ ‹

œ

a - mer,

12. Si

Mo.

7. Qu’as - sez fet mieuz a

œ œ J

œ œ J

œ

j œ œ ‰

œ œ J

œ œ J

& œ ‹

œ

re - son,

‰ œ

œ œ J

T.

‰ œ j œ ‰ œ

20

œœœ æ

œ

& ‹

œ œj œ

d’a -mer 4. Ne ou

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J æ œ

œ œœœ œ œ ‰ J

pro - ver, 6. Et par

j & œ œ œ ‰ œ ‹ & ‹

j œ œ ‰

œ

plus a

3. Ne set ou

voir non.

FLOREBIT

15

Mo.

10 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ æœ œ ‰ œ J J J

œ œ œœœ ‰ æ

5

che - son.

‰

j œ

œ 45

œ œ œ œ J æ trou

-

j œ

‰ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œæ œ œ œ œœœ ‰ 55

ja

ne par - ti - rai

œ

j œ œ ‰

Ϫ

mon gre.

œ

‰

13 Refrains are referred to by their number (prefixed with vdB) in Nico van den Boogaard,

Rondeaux et refrains du XIIe siècle au début du XIVe, Bibliothèque française et romane, series D, Initiation, textes et documents (Paris, 1969). I am grateful to Joseph W. Mason for pointing out the important role played by the tags at the beginning of lines 5 and 10. 14 In Example 11.1, the seventh (D/c) found on perfection 44 represents the reading of W2, but it may be that the motetus’s d should come at the beginning of this perfection, forming an octave. In Table 11.1, the translation is adapted from Hendrik van der Werf,

c and polyphonic motets 197



Table 11.1: The text of the Motetus of Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT, from W2, fols 216v–217r

1

5

10

15

Text of Motetus from W2

Poetic Analysis

Chascun qui de bien amer

7a

Qui d’avoir non.

4b

Ne set ou plus a d’amer

7a

Ne ou meins non.

4b

Li uns dit et veut prouver,

7a

Et par reson,

4b

Qu’assez fet mieuz a loer

7a

Dame a baron.

4b

Que pucele por amer,

7a

Mes je di que non.

5b

Chascuns a droite acheson.

7b

Si juge le gieu a bon

7b

Qu’a esprouvé;

4c

Que que nus i ait trouvé.

7c

J’ai mis mon cuer en jeune demoiselle

10′D

Dont ja ne partirai mon gré.

8C

Not everyone who is known for being a great lover knows which is better or worse to love. One says, and even wants to prove by logic, that if you want to love, it is much better to praise a nobleman’s wife than a young girl. But I say no. Everyone who thinks I am right to defend this argument is correct, although he may see no reason in it. I have set my heart on a young lady, from whom I wish never to be parted.

The first two structuring points of the text (lines 5 and 9–10) are both emphasised by the a/b rhyming couplets of lines 1–8, which alternate lines of seven and four syllables. These couplets are musically arranged into two larger groups of four lines by their cadences: lines 4 and 8 both end on D/d (perfections 12 and 24), as shown by dashed boxes in Example 11.1, creating a bipartite opening group that is reminiscent of the pedes-cum-cauda structure found in many trouvère songs.15 Line 5 is therefore the beginning of a new four-line segment: the structural importance of this line emphasises its role as a semantic turning point in the text, at which the argument for the lady is introduced. The next turning point, which introduces the argument in favour of the girl, comes in lines 9–10. This semantic break is matched by a poetic The Chansons of the Troubadours and Trouvères: A Study of the Melodies and their Relation to the Poems (Utrecht, 1972), pp. 136–8. 15 This is not true pedes-cum-cauda form, as there is no melodic repetition. For detail on the use of pedes-cum-cauda form in motets, see Saint-Cricq, ‘A New Link’.

198

matthew p. thomson

one: the five-syllable line 10 makes it clear that this couplet does not follow the regular alternation of seven- and four-syllable lines that has existed up to this point and paves the way for the looser collection of four-, five-, and seven-syllable lines that describe the speaker’s argument in favour of the girl (lines 10–14). Lines 9–10 are also a new beginning musically: the new cursus of the ET FLOREBIT tenor begins on perfection 28, the exact mid-point of this couplet. The argument for the lady (lines 5–9) is set to music that emphasises the tonal focus on D signalled by the D/d cadences of lines 4 (perfection 12) and 8 (perfection 24). In lines 7–8, which discuss the lady specifically, this focus is emphasised by the motetus’s almost obsessive return to the pitch d. From lines 9–10, a different tonal focus emerges to accompany the argument in favour of the girl, with the ends of lines focusing on F/c (perfections 28, 35, and 41) and a/a (perfections 31 and 46). The third and final turning point in the text occurs at line 15, which marks the beginning of the refrain (vdB 948). This refrain (lines 15–16; perfections 46–56) acts as a summation and final judgement on the part of the speaker.16 The poetic otherness of vdB 948 is emphasised by its syllable counts (ten and eight respectively), which have not occurred in the rest of the text. Musically, this closing section brings together the previous two tonal emphases of the motet: line 15 finishes on F/F (perfection 52), recalling the earlier focus on F/c, while line 16 ends on D/a (perfection 56), evoking the prominence of D/d in the opening eight lines. It seems likely that this refrain pre-existed the motet and was quoted in it for two reasons. While the motetus sings the refrain, the tenor adapts its quotation of the ET FLOREBIT melisma: the tenor’s second cursus misses out one of the notes that it used in the first cursus, omitting the a that should have come between the two Gs found on perfections 48 and 49, as marked on Example 11.1 by an arrow. In addition, the refrain seems to create problems of notation not found in the rest of the motet. The notator of the French version of the motet in W2 seems to have struggled to make the rhythm of perfections 51–2 entirely clear, resulting in the placement of a tractulus before perfection 53 and thereby after the first word of a poetic line, marked in Example 11.1 by a box. The debate within the text of this motet, then, contains three turning points that are emphasised by the poetic and musical structure of the motet: the speaker outlines someone else’s argument for the lady, refutes it in favour of the girl, and then sums up his judgement with the vernacular authority of a quoted refrain.17

Creating the Song Chascuns qui de bien amer In the monophonic song Chascuns qui de bien amer, the one-sided debate found in the motet is extrapolated into a two-sided debate song; stanzas are organised 16 The refrain is also found in Badouin de Condé’s Prison d’Amours. See Auguste Scheler,

(ed.), Dits et contes de Baudouin de Condé et de son fils Jean de Condé (3 vols, Brussels, 1866–7), pp. 267–377. 17 On refrains acting as vernacular auctoritas, see Jennifer Saltzstein,  The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular in Medieval French Music and Poetry, Gallica, 30 (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 35–113.



c and polyphonic motets 199

into pairs that alternate between the two sides of the argument. The last stanza is set apart as a final judgement on the correct outcome of the debate, deciding in favour of the girl. This multi-stanza version of the debate was likely an adaptation of the motet. This motet-first chronology, which was suggested without evidence by Gordon A. Anderson, is supported by three main pieces of evidence.18 Firstly, the structure of the text is more likely to have been conceived in the context of a motet than for a song: sixteen lines would be unusually long for a song stanza but is relatively normal for motets.19 Secondly, the signs of quotation in the refrain are not found in the rest of the motet: had the whole song preceded the motet, it would be surprising that adaptations of the tenor were necessary only for the refrain. Thirdly, the tripartite tonal scheme of the motet has a coherence that is missing in the song. In both motet and song, the first eight lines establish d as a home pitch; in the motet, this opening tonal focus is brought back when the closing refrain unites the tonal foci of F and D. In a monophonic context, the refrain does not fulfil this function: the song’s refrain finishes on a, unsupported by the tenor’s D. The most likely explanation for this mismatch of tonal schemes seems to be that the motet was converted into the monophonic song, loosening its tonal coherence in the process. The opposite possibility, that a monophonic song with an unusually disparate tonal scheme was lent tonal coherence through the addition of a tenor, seems much less likely.20 The monophonic song therefore seems to have been created via a process of extrapolating a two-sided debate from the one-sided text of the motet, adding subsequent stanzas to the motet text. Saint-Cricq, using Gérard Genette’s concept of ‘transtextuality’, has argued that such an addition of stanzas is a type of ‘hypertextuality’ that Genette calls ‘continuation’: the ‘hypertext’ (the new stanzas) continues the ‘hypotext’ (the motet text) from the moment at which it stops.21 There are numerous possible ways of carrying out such a continuation. The approach chosen by any specific continuator will depend on how they perceive the text that they are continuing, and on which structural and thematic characteristics of the text they 18 Anderson, The Latin Compositions, p. 373. I previously took the view that the song version

of Chascuns qui de bien amer was chronologically prior to the motet Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT (see Thomson, ‘Interaction’, pp. 180–7). I revise this opinion in the light of further consideration of the structures of debate within the motet and song, along with full consideration of the version of the song in C, which was not available for consultation during my previous research. 19 For similar arguments in his consideration of the songs attributed to Robert de Reims and their related motets, see Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’, pp. 150–1. 20 Monophonic songs with such disparate tonal plans do exist. When songs use their tonal structure to express an argument, however, they often do so through more coherent structures. For an example of such musico-poetic connection, see Joseph W. Mason, ‘Structure and Process in the Old French jeu-parti’, Music Analysis, 38:1–2 (2019), pp. 47–79. 21 Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’, pp. 171–3; Gérard Genette,  Palimpsestes: la littérature au second degré, Points, 257 (Paris, 1992), pp. 33–40, 177–85. Saint-Cricq connects this with a number of ‘grafted’ repertoires in the thirteenth century, arguing that they were part of a blurring of the generic boundaries between song and motet in the later-thirteenth century.

200

matthew p. thomson

believe to hold the most potential for development. In some cases, such as the songs considered by Saint-Cricq, the writing of additional stanzas constitutes a mostly pragmatic attempt to ‘smooth the way’ of the music and text created for a motet into a manuscript collection of monophonic songs.22 In others, the approaches adopted by continuators can provide a rich picture not only of the compositional processes at work but also of the aspects of the original motet text that continuators considered to be most important or useful for their own purposes.23 The six extant manuscript presentations of Chascuns qui de bien amer (K, N, P, H, O, and C) seem to represent at least three different stages of continuing or adapting the motet. In each of these stages, continuators chose different aspects of the motet around which to build their subsequent stanzas. Table 11.2 shows the stanzas contained in each manuscript version of the song: the stanza most often placed first, ‘Chascuns qui’, is here labelled stanza 1, while C’s alternative first stanza, ‘Mains se fait’, is stanza 1a. The remaining six stanzas are designated stanzas 2–7.24 One of the three stages of continuation is that which resulted in C’s alternative first stanza and its eccentric choice of subsequent stanzas (1a, 4, 5, 6, 7); this stage will be discussed separately below. The other two stages resulted in the first three families of manuscript transmission shown in Table 11.2. Manuscripts K and P use stanzas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7; N and O additionally include stanza 5; H, meanwhile, uses all extant stanzas (except for 1a).25 The selection of stanzas found in K and P, which forms one stage of continuation, carefully curates the structural expression of debate already present in the motet. Each of stanzas 2, 3, 4, and 7 maintains lines 9–10 and 15 as turning points. The couplet in lines 9–10 is used to turn from a discussion of the girl to the lady or vice versa, while line 15 always acts as the beginning of a two-line summing-up of the stanza’s argument. In many cases, this final judgement adapts the refrain (vdB 948) found 22 Saint-Cricq, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’, p. 176. 23 In the case of a debate song like Chascuns qui de bien aimer, continuation resembles the

relationship between love questions (or demandes d’amour), which posed a question about love, and jeux-partis. Older views, such as Margaret Felberg-Levitt (ed.), Les Demandes d’amour: édition critique, Inedita & rara, 10 (Montréal, 1995), pp. 10–11 and Emma Cayley, Debate and Dialogue: Alain Chartier in his Cultural Context, Oxford Modern Languages and Literature Monographs (Oxford, 2006), pp. 33–8, suggested a generally applicable chronological relationship between the two genres, in which love questions were turned into jeux-partis through a process of continuation, adding stanzas which extrapolated the debate already inherent in the kernel of the love question. Elizabeth Eva Leach, ‘Which Came First, the Demandes d’amours or the Jeu-Parti? Evidence from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308’, Music & Letters, 102:1 (2021), pp. 1–29, argues that the reality was more complex: love questions and jeux-partis formed part of a wider culture of discussing questions about love and were probably transformed from one genre to another in both directions. This reflects the similar flexibility of chronological relationships between motets and songs proposed in Thomson, ‘Interaction’, pp. 7–160. 24 Appendix 11.1 includes a parallel edited text and translation of Stanza 1 and Stanza 1a, along with versions of Stanza 7 from K and C. 25 H’s version of stanza 4 is slightly different from that found in other manuscripts: the middle of the stanza remains the same, but H provides a variant beginning to the stanza and expresses the refrain differently at the end of the stanza.

c and polyphonic motets 201



Table 11.2: The distribution of stanzas in manuscript versions of the song Chascuns qui de bien amer MSS

stanza 1

KP

x

x

x

x

NO

x

x

x

x

x

H

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

C

stanza 1a stanza 2 stanza 3 stanza 4

x

stanza 5

stanza 6 stanza 7 x x

in the motet: the second line of the refrain is used in stanzas 2 and 4, while line 15 in stanza 2 is clearly derived from but not identical to the first line of the refrain. The interstanzaic rhyme pattern further embodies the debate. Stanzas 1–4 are organised into two pairs (1–2, 3–4), in which there is one stanza representing each point of view. As shown in Table 11.3, each of these pairs of stanzas shares an a-rhyme, while the final judgment stanza (7) emphasises its independence with its own a-rhyme. In terms of b-rhymes, stanzas 1–2 share the rhyme ‘-on’ and stanzas 4 and 7 share the rhyme ‘-ent’; stanza 3 is unique in having ‘-or’ as its b-rhyme. This alternative pairing of stanzas serves to emphasise the overall unity of the five stanzas present in K and P, linking the final judgement stanza to the main body of the song. Another strategy of continuation is practised in stanzas 5 and 6, which are found in different combinations in N and O, H, and C. Line 15 still acts as the beginning of a two-line summing-up that is an adaptation of vdB 948: in these two stanzas, this function is underlined by the recurrence of ‘por quoi’ (because of this) at the beginning of line 15 in both stanzas. However, these stanzas do not maintain lines 9–10 as a turning point, with stanza 5 switching from talking about girl to lady in line 5.7, and stanza 6 performing the opposite switch in line 6.11. The use of a-rhyme in stanzas 5 and 6 is similar to stanzas 1–4, as they are a pair that use the same a-rhyme. In this case, the choice of the ‘-on’ rhyme sound may have been an attempt to recall the use Table 11.3: The a- and b-rhymes of each stanza used for the song Chascuns qui de bien amer MSS

stanza 1

KP

a= -er b= -on

a= -er b= -on

a= -ier b= -or

a= -ier b= -ent

NO

a= -er b= -on

a= -er b= -on

a= -ier b= -or

a= -ier b= -ent

a= -on b= -ent

a= -ir b= -ent

H

a= -er b= -on

a= -er b= -on

a= -ier b= -or

a= -ier b= -ent

a= -on b= -ent

a= -om/ a= -ir on b= -ent b= -ent

a= -ier b= -ent

a= -on b= -ent

a= -om/ a= -ir on b= -ent b= -ent

C

stanza 1a

a= -ier b= -ent

stanza 2 stanza 3 stanza 4 stanza 5 stanza 6 stanza 7 a= -ir b= -ent

202

matthew p. thomson

of this sound as the b-rhyme in stanzas 1–2.26 The use of the b-rhyme in stanzas 5–6 is different, however, with both stanzas 5 and 6 sharing the ‘-ent’ rhyme with stanzas 4 and 7. These two varying continuations of the motet text seem to represent two separate stages of activity, probably by different people. Each of these continuators identified different aspects of the motet text around which to build their subsequent stanzas: the creator(s) of stanzas 2–4 and 7 chose to maintain the structural importance of lines 9–10, whereas the creator(s) of stanzas 5–6 showed a more extensive interest in emphasising the importance of line 15 and playing with the rhyme schemes created by the new stanzaic form.27 It is difficult to tell how the attribution to Richard de Fournival found in K, N, and P relates to these different stages. It may be that Richard wrote the motet, as suggested by Anderson.28 It may also be that he carried out one of the stages of continuing the motet text via the writing of extra stanzas. It seems unlikely, though, that he carried out both the stage of continuation that led to stanzas 2–4 and 7, and that which led to stanzas 5–6. Each of these continuations creates a debate song that is generically uncertain. Although Alfred Jeanroy and Yvan G. Lepage identify this song as a débat, it has a number of characteristics in common with the jeu-parti, a debate song between two distinct participants which tests their skill by debating a well-defined question with two possible outcomes, each alternately taking a stanza to express their viewpoint.29 Chascuns qui de bien amer uses much terminology that is common in jeux-partis. In the final judgement stanza (see Appendix 11.1), the first line refers to the two sides of the debate as ‘gieus’ or games. The version found in C goes further: instead of saying that he must ‘fenir le jugement’ (judge between) the two games as in other manuscripts, the speaking voice in C says he must ‘partir’ (divide) them. The use of the metaphor of division as judgement runs through the jeu-parti from its name downwards, as Joseph W. Mason has shown.30 As demonstrated above, the first stanza of Chascuns qui de bien amer introduces the two sides of the debate using markers common in the jeu-parti: ‘li uns dit’ (one person says) (line 5) and ‘mais’ (but) (line 26 This may suggest that stanzas 5–6 were originally designed to go as a pair immediately

after stanzas 1–2, without the intervening stanzas 3–4.

27 It is, of course, possible that one person carried out both stages of continuation, adopting

different priorities for each stage. As stanzas 2–4 and 7 consistently use lines 9–10 as a turning point and arrange their b-rhymes so that stanzas 1–4 and 7 form a coherent unit, it seems likely that they represent a separate stage of continuation from stanzas 5–6. 28 Anderson, The Latin Compositions, p. 373. This would mirror the situation suggested for Robert de Reims by Saint-Cricq (‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship’, pp. 168, 185), who argues Robert composed the music and texts of his motets, but did not write the stanzas that turned these motets into songs. 29 Alfred Jeanroy,  Les Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen age: études de littérature française et comparée, suivies de textes inédits (Paris, 1889), p. 472; Yvan G. Lepage (ed.), L’Œuvre lyrique de Richard de Fournival, Publications médiévales de l’Université d’Ottawa, 7 (Ottawa, 1981), p. 47. 30 Joseph W. Mason, ‘Melodic Exchange and Musical Violence in the Thirteenth-Century Jeu-Parti’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018), vol. 1, pp. 102–27.

c and polyphonic motets 203



10). However, this song does not follow many of the basic conventions of the jeuparti. In almost all jeux-partis, the speaking persona in the first stanza outlines the two options and then asks their opponent, whom they usually name, to pick a side.31 The opponent does so in the second stanza, and the debate proceeds from there. In the case of Chascun qui de bien amer, there are no named participants: the speaker seems almost to debate the question with himself in a kind of internal dialogue; this is unusual not only for jeux-partis, but also for débats, which often pit real or allegorical persons against each other. Furthermore, the speaker takes a position in the debate in the first stanza. As Mason shows in his contribution to this volume, only in songs that he identifies as tensons is a side usually chosen in the first stanza; in such songs, however, the question to be debated is usually open, whereas Chascuns qui de bien amer clearly posits a dilemma, i.e. with two possible answers to the question. Adding to this song’s generic uncertainties, the final stanza of Chascuns qui de bien amer makes a definitive judgement on the debate in a voice that is not clearly different from those found in the rest of the song. This contrasts sharply with the appeals to judgment often found in the envois of jeux-partis, which are rarely fulfilled within the space of the extant manuscript presentation.32 Chascuns qui de bien amer therefore mixes characteristics of numerous types of debate songs, affording it a confused generic identity. This confusion seems likely to have been caused by the process of continuing the debate from the text of the motet, since it necessitated a situation in which the speaker chose their favoured side of the debate in the first stanza without first calling on a named opponent to take a side. In extrapolating a debate song from a motet, then, numerous different continuators chose different structural and thematic aspects of the pre-existent motet text to pull out and emphasise in their subsequent stanzas, creating a text whose generic identity reflected its multiple composition histories. The choices made by continuators in selecting these aspects reveal not only the compositional processes of creating a new text based on an old one, but also how poets and/or scribes identified the important aspects of the material that was available to them and how they turned that analysis into the text that is now extant in the manuscript.

Chascuns qui de bien amer in C The version of Chascuns qui de bien amer found in C, which uses the alternative first stanza, beginning ‘Mains se fait d’amors plux fiers’, represents a different stage in this song’s transmission history, and throws light on the priorities involved in C’s adaptation of this song. C contains stanzas 1a, 4, 5, 6, and 7; the rhymes used for the alternative first stanza, 1a, match those used for stanza 4. This results in two pairs of stanzas that share an ‘a’ rhyme (1a and 4, 5 and 6) and then a final judgement stanza with its own rhyme. I will argue that this version resulted from the adaptation of an exemplar of this song by the scribes of C, an exemplar that certainly included stanzas 31 For further discussion of the typical characteristics of jeux-partis, see Mason’s contribution

to this volume, p. 175.

32 Chascuns qui de bien amer’s judgement also lasts an entire stanza, while the envois of jeux-

partis are usually shorter.

204

matthew p. thomson

4–7 and possibly stanza 1. In order to ensure that the stanzas proceeded in coblas doblas, the adaptor(s) of C’s version rewrote the first stanza, working either from a written model or from memory, to match the rhymes of the next stanza that they had: stanza 4. C’s new stanza formed a pair with stanza 4 not only in terms of poetic pattern, but also in terms of content. Like the first stanza in all other manuscripts, the alternative first stanza in C argues that it is better to love a girl than a lady, meaning that the debate in this manuscript takes the form of two pairs of stanzas that go back and forth between the two positions, followed by a judgement stanza. In shaping a first stanza to match the later stanzas found in the exemplar, the adaptor(s) did the reverse of the continuators of stanzas 2–7, who shaped their later stanzas to match the motet text. Within their reversed process of continuation, the adaptor(s) significantly changed the emphasis both of the first stanza and of the song in general, presenting a more even-handed debate than that found in other manuscripts, stressing that both sides had reason behind them, and that the final judgement was a matter of personal choice. This creative adaptation of materials seems to echo two interests of the scribes of C suggested elsewhere in this volume: an interest in debate songs and the structures of debate found therein, and the creative and tactical use of contrafacture to make songs relevant to their own interests.33 The version presented in C makes it most likely that the scribes were working with an incomplete exemplar, a situation which has already been tentatively suggested: Alfred Jeanroy argued that the scribes were working with an exemplar that contained stanza 1 and stanzas 4–7, but missed out stanzas 2–3.34 He suggested that the scribes then rewrote the first stanza to match the rhymes of stanza 4. In material terms, it would be easier to imagine an exemplar that contained only stanzas 4–7 than one which also included stanza 1: the first three stanzas could easily have been lost by the disappearance of the first folio of an exemplar, or by the top of a page being cut off. Whether the creators of stanza 1a were working from a written exemplar of stanza 1 or just from their memory of it, however, two aspects of their new stanza demonstrate that it was a conscious reworking of the first stanza as found in other manuscripts. First, the content and structure of stanza 1a in C is markedly similar to stanza 1 in other manuscripts. As can be seen by comparing stanzas 1 and 1a in Appendix 11.1, they express themselves in similar ways. They are both stanzas in favour of loving a girl, (or, in the case of 1a, a hundred girls) rather than a lady. They also structure that argument in the same way, using the turning points of lines 5 and 9–10 to place the same key phrases. Again, they both introduce the first side of the debate in line 5 with the phrase ‘li uns dit’, place their first mention of the girl in line 9, and begin the presentation of the other side of the debate in line 10 with the conjunction ‘mais’. Secondly, the refrain text used in lines 15–16 is the same in stanza 1 and 1a. The full refrain vdB 948 was not used in any other stanza of Chascuns qui de bien amer: although stanzas 2, 4, 5, and 6 use adapted versions of the refrain, none contains the full text found in stanza 1. When the evidence of the refrain is combined 33 On C’s interest in debate songs, see Chapter 10 (Mason). On the creative use of

contrafacts, see the discussion of religious songs in Chapter 3 (Moreno) and the discussions of contrafacture in Chapters 8–10 (O’Sullivan, Callahan, and Mason). 34 Jeanroy, Les Origines de la poésie lyrique, p. 473.



c and polyphonic motets 205

with the identical placement of ‘li uns dit’ and ‘mais’, it seems most likely that C’s stanza 1a was a self-conscious reshaping of stanza 1 as found in other manuscripts. The rewriting of stanza 1 to produce stanza 1a, however, was not the neutral act of poetic pragmatism imagined by Jeanroy. In changing the ‘Chascuns qui’ stanza, the scribes of C did away with this song’s most obvious link to its polyphonic predecessor. As notation was never copied into the manuscript, the scribes’ action means that C’s version of the song does not contain any written material that is shared with Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT. This lack of written material might not stop those who knew the song linking it with its motet concordance: the absence of material that links stanza 1a to its model does not mean that productive comparison between the two is impossible or impractical, but does mean that such comparison is only available to those who already knew the song. A comparison between stanza 1a and stanza 1 reveals significant differences of approach. The speaker in stanza 1a is noticeably more ready to see this debate in even-handed terms than his counterpart in stanza 1. The opening of stanza 1a stresses that love clouds reason and makes it difficult ‘to judge rightly’ (line 3), while the end of the stanza makes it clear that opting for one hundred girls over the lady is a personal choice and not one that can be generalised (lines 11–16). In stanza 1, conversely, the case is one that admits of proof (lines 5–6 and 12–13) and has a correct answer. Some of stanza 1a’s relativism is extrapolated backwards from stanzas later in the song. In line 11, stanza 1a has the formulation ‘chascuns en dist son talent’ (everyone gives his own opinion about it [love] according to his own perspective), recalling the first two lines of stanza 5, ‘chascuns dit d’amors son bon / et son talent’ (everyone gives his own opinions as to what is good and desirable about love).35 C’s more even-handed approach is not confined to stanza 1a: it presents a revised version of stanza 7 that reads as a more balanced judgement than is found in other manuscripts. In all manuscript versions of stanza 7, the designation of the two sides of the argument as ‘games’ (gieus) brings to mind the balanced set-up of the jeuparti, in which both participants are given equal chance to represent their case and for which judgement is not usually recorded within manuscript presentations; C takes this parallel even further, when the speaker of stanza 7 says that he must ‘divide’ (partir) the two games. Before proclaiming his judgement, the speaker in C goes on to speak of both sides of the argument more enthusiastically than the speakers of stanza 7 in other manuscripts, who are quite clear from the beginning of the stanza that they are going to give judgement in favour of the girl. When discussing the lady, the speaker in K says ‘bele dame a maintenir / plest voirement’ (it is truly pleasing to keep a lady) (K, lines 7.3–4). The option of wooing a lady is therefore not dismissed, but it is not one with which the speaker is willing to associate themselves. In C, however, the speaker says, ‘belle dame veul server / tout mon vivant’ (I want to serve a beautiful lady for my whole life) (C, lines 7.3–4). The speaker of C’s stanza 7 therefore gives the case for the lady a more comprehensive hearing before becoming increasingly convinced of the merits of the girl as he goes through the

35 For the full context of these translations, see Appendix 11.1.

206

matthew p. thomson

stanza, finally announcing that he will give judgement (line 7.14) and deciding in favour of the girl.36 The poetic construction of stanzas 1a and 7 in C suggests that the changes of thematic emphasis in these stanzas were the result of conscious revision, as neither stanza is a complete musico-poetic success. While stanza 1a makes semantic sense in the version found in C, it contains one line fewer than the versions of stanza 1 found in other manuscripts: it has no line 13. Its change of the number of girls from one to one hundred, meanwhile, finds no echo in any other stanza. In stanza 7, C’s version makes an attempt to replicate the syllable counts and rhyme scheme found in other manuscripts, but the overall poetic pattern of the stanza is scrambled to such extent that it would be difficult to fit to the melody. These revisions, therefore, do not seem likely to have been the poetic pragmatism imagined by Jeanroy, but rather an attempt to recast the song in a different thematic mould.

Conclusions It therefore seems that the scribes of C were working from an exemplar that contained stanzas 4–7 and possibly stanza 1. They then rewrote stanza 1, either from a written exemplar or from memory, in order to match the rhyme sounds of stanza 4. Their task was different from those involved in creating stanzas 2–7: instead of working forwards, creating a continuation to tack onto the end of a self-sufficient motet text, they had to work backwards, re-creating and reshaping the opening for an already existing song. Despite these differences, the approach taken by the scribes of C shared two important aspects with the actions of those who created stanzas 2–4 and those who created stanzas 5–6. These three transformations all exploit existing musico-poetic structure to express their own take on the semantic content. Furthermore, all seem consciously aware of the problematic relationship between the materials they are using and the generic norms of debate songs. As explored above, the motet Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT has three musico-poetic turning points: line 5, lines 9–10, and line 15. Each turning point prompted reactions from the continuators who created the stanzas 1a and 2–7, demonstrating the importance of musico-poetic structures when continuing or adapting pre-existing motets or songs: poets and scribes would often identify numerous points of structural importance and use them as fixed points around which to shape their new material. This, however, did not preclude the development of new structural expressions of semantic content, such as the play with interstanzaic rhyming patterns that represented the two sides of the debate across stanzas 2–7. The debate found in the text of Chascun qui/ ET FLOREBIT affected stanzas 2–7 and 1a thematically as well as structurally. The creator(s) of stanzas 2–7 took the one-sided debate found in the motet text and turned it into a kind of internal dialogue, with each side of the debate being presented alternately. In so doing, they created generic uncertainties. The speaker of their pre-existing first stanza outlined 36 The scribes of C went to some pains to include these changes, as they created poetic

difficulties from line 7.6 onwards, which changed the whole poetic pattern of the stanza. See Appendix 11.1.



c and polyphonic motets 207

a well-defined question with two possible answers, as in a jeu-parti, but also had the luxury of choosing the side he wanted to favour, a very unusual situation for jeux-partis. This luxury made it difficult to create a debate song in which the two sides of the debate could be distinguished and evaluated. The final judgement in favour of the girl was thereby effectively decided before the second stanza had even begun. For those creating stanza 1a, these basic issues could not be changed, as their stanza had to form a pair with stanza 4, which advocated for the lady. They could, however, go some distance towards equalising the two sides of the debate and revise the judgement stanza to make it more independent. As well as demonstrating the general priorities at play when changing songs into motets, the transformations that resulted in C’s version of this song reinforce two of the most prominent occupations of the compilers of C. First, these scribal actions indicate the importance afforded to debate songs within the manuscript: as Mason shows in his contribution to this volume, jeux-partis are often found immediately after the religious songs that open each letter-section. Scribes’ interest in the generic expectations of debate song and the multiplicity of debate structures found within them likely led them to include a revision of Chascuns qui de bien amer which transformed it into a more even-handed treatment. Secondly, the version of Chascun qui de bien amer in C embodies the preference of the compilers for creative and tactical uses of contrafacture in order to make songs apply to the local context of the manuscript. Daniel E. O’Sullivan and Christopher Callahan argue, in their contributions to this volume, that contrafacture was especially common in C, raising the possibility that its local audiences were particularly attuned to the intertextual potential of this process. As Moreno shows in her contribution, C lavished special attention on the songs of Jacques de Cambrai: seven of these eleven songs are marked by an annotation that names the song of which they are a contrafact. Mason, additionally, has argued that C’s choice to include Raoul de Soissons’s Rois de Navare et sire de Vertu (RS 2063) but not the contrafact jeu-parti based on it, Bons rois Thibaut, sire, conseilliez moi (RS 1666), projects a particularly Messine view of Thibaut of Navarre, which mixes ‘valorisation and disdain’.37 In adopting reshaped versions of stanzas 1 and 7 of Chascuns qui de bien amer, then, the scribes of C seem to have been engaging in typical behaviour, using contrafacture to promote the importance of debate songs and play with generic expectation.

37 See p. 185.

208

matthew p. thomson

Appendix 11.1 A comparison of the texts of stanzas 1, 1a, and 7 in K and C Text of Stanza 1 from K

Text of Stanza 1a from C

Chascuns qui de bien amer

7a

Mains se fait d’amors plux fiers

7a

Cuide avoir non.

4b

Et baus s’en rent,

4b

Ne set ou melz a d’amer

7a

Ke n’en seit a droit jugier

7a

Ne ou melz non.

4b

Ne riens n’en sent:

4b

Li uns dit et veut prouver,

7a

Li uns veult dame essaier

7a

Et par reson,

4b

Per jugement,

4b

Qu’assez fet melz a loer

7a

Ke muels vat a escoentier

7a

Dame a baron.

4b

Ke ne font cent

4b

Que pucele pour amer,

7a

Pucelle por donoier;

7a

Mes je di que non.

5b

Mais je di k’il ment.

5b

Chascuns a droite acheson.

7b

Chascuns en dist son talent

7b

Si juge le gieu a bon

7b

Selonc ceu c’amors lor rent,

7b

Qu’a esprouvé;

4c

[MISSING]

Que que nus i ait trouvé.

7c

Maix ki ke muels ait enpei,

7c

J’ai mis mon cuer en bele demoiselle

10′D

J’ai mis mon cuer en belle damoiselle

10′D

Dont ja ne partirai mon gre.

8C

Dont jai ne pertirai mon greit.

8C

Not everyone who thinks he is a great lover knows which it is better or worse to love. One says, and even wants to prove by logic, that if you want to love, it is much better to praise a nobleman’s wife than a young girl. But I say no. Everyone who thinks I am right to defend this argument is correct, although he may see no reason in it. I have set my heart on a young lady, from whom I wish never to be parted.1

1

1.1

1.5

1.10

1.15

Many are made more foolhardy by love and make themselves fervent, so that they don’t know how to judge rightly nor how to feel anything about it. One [man] wants to try for a lady, because of their judgement that it is much better to court them than it is to woo one hundred young girls, but I say that they lie. Everyone gives his own opinion about it [love] according to his perspective, according to that which love provides for them. But whoever has better [enpei], I have set my heart on a young lady, from whom I never wish to be parted.2

Translation of the K version of stanzas 1 and 7 adapted from van der Werf, The Chansons of the Troubadours and Trouvères, pp. 136–8. 2 The translations of the C texts are my own, with thanks to Huw Grange for his advice. ‘Enpei’ in line 14 of stanza 1a appears to offer little sense and so has been left untranslated.

c and polyphonic motets 209

Text of Stanza 7 from K

Text of Stanza 7 from C

Des deus gieus m’estuet fenir

7a

Le jugement. Bele dame a maintenir

Des douls ielz m’estuet partir

7a

4b

Lou jugement.

4b

7a

Belle dame veul servir

7a

Plest voirement,

4b

Tout mon vivant,

4b

Mes ce qu’on n’i puet venir

7a

Maix il plaist a maintenir

7a

Sanz partement

4b

Ceu c’on n’i puet avenir.

7a

Me fet d’autre part tenir;

7a

Et sanz partement.

5b

Au finement

4b

Moi fait amors pairt tenir;

7a

Vueil a mon oés retenir

7a

Et finement

4b

Touse de jouvent;

5b

Veul a mon cors retenir

7a

Plus la voi plus l’entalent,

7b

Touse de jouvent ;

5b

Bien li ai mon mautalent

7b

Plux la voi plux m’atalente

7′b

Tout pardoné.

4c

Tout perdon[é].

4c

Tel jugement ai done

7c

Mon jugement:

4b

C’on doit touz jorz melz amer la pucele,

10′d

Adons doit l’on muelz ameir la pucelle,

10′d

Ne ja n’en partirai mon gre.

8C

Ne jai n’en pertirai mon gre.

8E

Now I have to judge between the two ‘games’. It is truly pleasing to keep a lady, but the fact that you cannot come to her without strife makes me choose the other side of the dispute. Finally, I want to have a young girl for myself. The more I see her, the more I love her: I have forgiven her all my unhappiness. Such is my judgement: one should always love better the young girl, from whom I wish never to be parted.

7.1

7.5

7.10

3

7.15

Now I have to divide the judgement of the two ‘games’. I want to serve a beautiful lady for my whole life. But it is pleasing to maintain that which cannot happen without strife. Love causes me to take one side, and finally I want to have the young girl for myself. The more I see her, the more she pleases me. I have forgiven everything. My judgement: now one must love her better, the young girl, from whom I wish never to be parted.

3 The letter in square brackets is suggested for sense. The translation follows this suggestion.

Appendix: List of Songs in C Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

1r

Aveugles muas et xours

1

1

2040

1r–1v

A la meire Deu servir

2

2

1459

1v–2r

Ay amors com dure departie

3

3

1125

2r–2v

Amis Bertrans dites moy le millor

4

4

2000

2v–3r

Amis ki est li muelz vaillans

5

5

365

3r–3v

Amors je vos requier et pri

6

6

1075

3v–4r

Ains maix ne fix chanson jor de ma vie

7

7

1223

4r–5r

A l’entree del doulz comencement

8

8

647

5r

Amors me fait comencier

9

9

1268

5r–5v

Amors ki fait de moy tout son comandement

10

10

327

5v–6r

Amors est une mervoille

11

11

566

6r

A dous tens d’esteit

12

12

445

6r–6v

Aincor ait si grant poissance

13

13

242

6v–7r

Ancontre le tens novel

14

14

582

7r–7v

Aincor ferai une chanson perdue

15

15

2071

7v

Amors et jolieteis

16

16

933

7v–8r

A renovel de la dousor d’esteit

17

17

437

8r–8v

A tens d’esteit ke rouzee s’espant

18

18

344

9r

Ay amans fins et vrais

19

19

199

9r–9v

Ausi com l’unicorne suis

20

20

2075

9v–10r

An mai la matinee

21

21

453

10r

Amors me font sovent chanteir

22

22

830

10r–10v

Ausi com cil ki cuevre sa pesance

23

23

238

10v–11r

An chantant m’estuet complaindre

24

24

126

11r

Antre Arais et Dowai

25

25

75

11v

An .i. florit vergier jolit

26

26

1043a

11v–12r

An mai a douls tens novel

27

27

576

12r–12v

An mon chant di ke je sui tous semblans

28

28

279

212

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

13r

Amors por ceu ke mes chans soit jolis

29

29

1560

13r–13v

A droit se plaint et a droit se gamente

30

30

749

13v–14r

An l’entrant d’esteit ke li tens s’agence

31

31

620

14r–14v

A la dousor d’esteit ke renverdoie

32

32

1754

14v–15r

Amors ki porat devenir

33

33

1402

15r

A grant tort me fait languir

34

34

1422

15r–15v

Amors et desirs me destraint

35

35

150

15v–16r

A douls tens pascor

36

36

2008

16r–16v

A un anjornant

37

37

308a

16v–17v

An chambre a or se siet la belle Beatris

38

38

1525

17v–18r

A vos amant plux c’a nulle autre gent

39

39

679

18r

Amors et bone volenteit

40

40

954

18r–18v

Amors tenson et bataille

41

41

121

18v–19r

Amors et bone esperance

42

42

220

19r–19v

Avris ne mais froidure ne lais tens

43

43

283

19v–20r

Amors n’est pais coi c’on die

44

44

1135

20r–20v

Aucune gent m’ont enquis

45

45

1528

20v

Amors a cui je me rant pris

46

46

1602

20v–21r

Amors m’ait si ensignie

47

47

1088

21r–21v

A novel tens ke li yvers se brixe

48

48

1619

21v–22r

Amors ont pris envers moi morteil guerre

49

49

904a

22r

A la dousor de la belle saixon

50

50

1893

22r–22v

Ay amans fins et vrais

51

51

198

24r–24v

Boin fait servir dame ki en greit prant

52

52

716

24v

Bouchairt je vos pairt d’amors

53

53

1949

24v–25r

Biaul Tierit je vos veul proier

54

54

1296

25r–26r

Bien m’est avis ke joie soit faillie

55

55

1151

26r

Bien cuidai toute ma vie

56

56

1232

26r–26v

Bone amor jolie

57

57

1165

26v–27r

Bien puet amors gueridoneir

58

58

863

27r–28r

Bien doit chanteir cui fine amor adresce

59

59

482



appendix 213 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

28r

Bone amor sens tricherie

60

60

1216

28r–28v

Belle et bone est celle por cui je chans

61

61

308

28v–29r

Bien est raixons ke je die

62

62

1130

29r

Bone amor ke m’agree

63

63

487

29r–29v

Boin jor ait heu celle a cui suis amis 64

64

1519

29v–30r

Bien doi chanteir quant fine amor m’ensaigne

65

65

561

30v

Bien c’est amors trichie

66

66

1163

30v–31r

Bien voi ke ne puis morir

67

67

1433

31r–31v

Bels m’est l’ans en may

68

68

1411

31v

Belle m’est la revenue

69

69

2072

31v–32r

Bien font amors lor talent

70

70

738

32r–32v

Bone amor me fait chanteir

71

71

812

32v–33r

Belle Aelis une jone pucelle

72

72

1508a

33r

Bien doit chanteir et joie avoir

73

73

1791

33r–33v

Belle Ysabiaus pucelle bien aprise

74

74

1616

34r–34v

Biaus Gillebers dites s’il vos agree

75

75

491

34v–35r

Biaus m’est prins tens a pertir de fevrier

76

76

1280

35r–35v

Bien voi c’amors me veul maix maistroier

77

77

1292

35v–36r

Biaus Colins Muses je me plaing d’une amor

78

78

1966

36r

Bien est raixons pues ke Deus m’ait doneit

79

79

426

36r–36v

Toute riens ot comancement

79a

80

648

37r–37v

Chanteir m’estuet de la sainte pucelle

80

81

610

37v

Cuers ke son entendement

81

82

670

37v–38r

Chardon de vos le veul oir

82

83

1437

38r–38v

Cil ki d’amors me consoille

83

84

565

38v–39r

Comancemens de douce saixon belle

84

85

590

39r–39v

Chanteir me fait comant ke me destrainge

85

86

117

39v–40r

Chanteir veul por fine amor

86

87

1957

40r–40v

Chanteir m’estuet por la plux belle

87

88

589

214

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

40v

Chans ne chansons ne riens ki soit en vie

88

89

1220

40v–41r

Consillies moi signor

89

90

2014

41r–41v

Chevachai mon chief enclin

90

91

1364

41v–42r

Ccant voi le douls tens comencier [sic]

91

92

1271

42r–42v

Chanteir me fait ceu dont je crien morir

92

93

1429

42v–43r

Cil ki aime de bone volenteit

93

94

479

43r–43v

Chanteirs ke me suelt agreeir

94

95

756

43v–44r

Cant voi la flour et l’erbe vert pailie

95

96

1189

44r

Coment c’aloignies soie

96

97

1763

44r–44v

Chanson veul faire de moi

97

98

1669

44v–45r

Cant voi l’aube dou jor venir

98

99

1481

45r–45v

Cant flours et glais et verdure s’esloignent

99

100

1779

45v

Contre le novel tens

100

101

287

45v–46r

Chans d’oixillons ne boscaiges foillis

101

102

1548

46r–46v

Cuers desirrous apaie

102

103

110

46v–47r

Chanteirs li plaist ki de joie est norris

103

104

1572

47r

Compaignon je sai teil chose

104

105

1939

47r–47v

Chans d’oxiauls et fuelle et flour

105

106

2035

47v–48r

Chanteir me fait amors et resjoir

106

107

1406

48r–48v

Chanteir m’estuet quant contesse m’en prie

107

108

1194

49r–49v

Douce dame de paradix

108

109

1580

49v

Douce dame greis et graices vos rent

109

110

719

49v–50r

D’amors me plaing ne sai a cui

110

111

2072b

50r–50v

De bone amor vient science et bonteis

111

112

407

50v–51r

Douce dame or soit en vos nomeir

112

113

876

51r–51v

De la meire Deu chanterai

113

114

67

51v–52r

Dame mercit une riens vos demant

114

115

335

52r

Dame sis vostres fins amis

115

116

1516

52r–52v

Des ore maix est raixons

116

117

1885



appendix 215 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

52v–53r

Deux gairt ma dame. Et doinst honor et joie

117

118

1735

53r–53v

De jolit cuer chanterai

118

119

66

53v

De Saint Quatin a Cambrai

119

120

61

53v–54r

Desconforteis et de joie pertis

120

121

1073

54r–54v

Dedens mon cuer m’est une amor saillie

121

122

1205

54v–55r

Desconforteis plains de dolor et d’ire

122

123

1498

55r–55v

Desconcillies plux ke nuls hom ki soit

123

124

1849

55v–56r

De bien ameir grant joie atent

124

125

643

56r

Dame por cui sospir et plour

125

126

2011

56r–56v

Deux j’ai chanteit si volentiers

126

127

1339

56v–57r

D’amors ke m’ait tolut et moy

127

128

1664

57r–57v

Dame j’atant en boen espoir

128

129

1797

57v–58r

D’amors dont seux espris

129

130

1545

58r

Douce dame cui j’ain en bone foi

130

131

1659

58r–59r

De bone amor et de loiaul amie

131

132

1102

59r

Desconforteis plains d’ire et de pesance

132

133

233

59v

Douce dame ne mi laissies morir

133

134

434

59v–60r

De jolit cuer enamoreit

134

135

430

60r–60v

Deux com avint ke j’osai comencier 135

136

1270

60v

Des pues ke je sou ameir

136

137

766

60v–61r

D’amors vient joie et honors ausiment

137

138

663

61r–61v

De chanteir me semont amors

138

139

2030

61v–62r

De la gloriouse fenix

139

140

1547

62r

Drois est ke la creature

140

141

2092

62v

De la meire Deu doit chanteir

141

142

804

62v–63r

Dites dame li keilz s’aquitait muelz

142

143

1354

63v

Douce dame roine de haut pris

143

144

1601

64r–64v

En plorent me covient chanteir

144

145

783

64v–65r

E coens d’Anjo on dist per felonnie

145

146

1154

65r–65v

Eier matinet deleis .i. vert boisson

146

147

1855

65v–66r

El mois d’avri ke l’on dist en pascour

147

148

2004

216

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

66r–66v

En aventure ai chanteit

148

149

408

66v–67r

Elais ke ne seit mon penseir

149

150

883

67r–67v

En mai per la matinee

150

151

530

67v–68r

El tens ke je voi remanoir

151

152

1989

68r–68v

Envie. orguels. malvesties. felonnie

152

153

1153

68v

Encor veul chanteir de moy

153

154

1667

68v–69r

En toute gent ne truis tant de savoir 154

155

1816

69r–69v

Enpris d’amors et de longue atendence

155

156

206

69v–70r

En novel tens pascour ke florist l’aube espine

156

157

1378

70r–71r

Entre raixon et jolive pensee

157

158

543

71r

En tous tens se doit fins cuers esjoir 158

159

1405

71r–71v

Elais je sui refuseis

159

160

939

71v–72r

El besoing voit on l’amin

160

161

1028

72r–72v

Encore m’estuece il chanteir

161

162

818

72v–73r

En aventure comens

162

163

634

73r–73v

E amerouse belle de biaul semblant 163

164

355

73v

Encor m’estuet chanteir en esperance

164

165

224

73v–74r

Eins ne vi grant herdement

165

166

685

74r–74v

En amors vient biens sens et cortoisie

166

167

1116

74v–75r

El tens k’esteit voi venir

167

168

1477

75r–75v

El dous tens ke voi venir

168

169

1490

76r

Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent

169

170

734

76r–77r

Flour ki s’espant et fuelle ke verdoie

170

171

1766

77r–77v

Fuelle ne flour ne valt riens en chantant

171

172

324

77v

Force d’amors me destraint et justice

172

173

1631

77v–78r

Fine amor m’aprent a chanteir

173

174

777

78r–78v

Fine amor claime en moi par eritaige

174

175

26

78v–79r

Flous ne verdure de prei

175

176

468

79r–79v

Ferus seux d’un dairt d’amors

176

177

1945

79v–80r

Freire ke fait muels a prixier

177

178

1293

80r–80v

Flours ne glais ne voix hautainne

178

179

131



appendix 217 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

80v

Fine amor en esperance

179

180

223

81r

Fine amor et bone esperence

180

181

221

81r–81v

Fois. et amors et loiaulteis

181

182

934

81v

Fols est ki a essiant

182

183

665

81v–82r

Fort chose est comant je puis chanteir

183

184

828

82v–83r

Fois loaulteis solais et cortoixie

184

185

1119

83v

Grant talent ai k’a chanteir me retraie

185

186

114

83v–84r

Grans folie est de penseir

186

187

881

84r–84v

Guillames li Vignieres amis

187

188

1520

84v–85r

Gautier je me plaing d’amors

188

189

2023

85r–85v

Ge chanterai moins renvoixiement

189

190

720

85v–86r

Ge ne voy maix nelui ke jut ne chant

190

191

315

86r

Grant pechiet fait ki de chanteir me prie

191

192

1199

86r–86v

Ge chant en aventure

192

193

2089

86v–87r

Ge chanterai par mon coraige

193

194

21

87r–87v

Gaices per droit me respondeis

194

195

948

87v–88r

Gautiers ki de France veneis

195

196

953

88r–88v

Grant piece ait ke ne chantai maix

196

197

194

88v

Ge chanterai ke m’amie ai perdue

197

198

2070

89r

Ge m’en aloie ier matin

198

199

1681

90r

Haute dame com rose et lis

199

200

1563

90r–90v

Humiliteis et franchixe

200

201

1626

90v–91r

Hareu d’amors plaindre en chantant

201

202

322

91r–91v

Haute chose ait en amor

202

203

1954

91v

Helais c’ai forfait a la gent

203

204

681

91v–92r

Hidousement vait li mons empirant

204

205

340

92r–92v

Haute chose ai dedens mon cuer emprise

205

206

1624

92v–93r

Haute amor ke m’esprant

206

207

673

93r–93v

Haute rente m’ait asise

207

208

751

93v

Hauls Deus tant sont maix de vilainne gent

208

209

684

93v–94r

Hareu ne fin de proier

209

210

1294

218

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

94r–94v

Hautemant d’amors se plaint

210

211

153

94v

Humles d’amors dolens et correcies 211

212

1345

94v–95r

Haut oi chanteir per mei lou gal

212

213

396

96r–96v

Jerusalem se plaint et li pais

213

214

1576

96v–97r

Joie d’amors dont mes cuers ait aisseis

214

215

914

97r–97v

[ J]ieu vos pairt Andreus ne laissies mie

215

216

1187

97v–98r

J’ai oblieit poene et travail

216

217

389

98r–98v

Il avint jai en cel autre paix

217

218

1574

98v–99r

Il feroit trop boen morir

218

219

1428

99r

J’ain la millor ke soit en vie

219

220

1219

99r–99v

Je ne suis pais ebahis

220

221

1538

99v–100r

Iries et destrois et pensis

221

222

1590

100r–100v

Ire d’amors ke en mon cuer repaire

222

223

171

100v

Jai por longue demoree

223

224

504

100v–101r

Je ne m’en puis si loing fuir

224

225

1414

101r–101v

Jone dame me prie de chanteir

225

226

790a

101v–102r

Je chans d’amors jolivement

226

227

689

102r–102v

Jai por ceu se d’ameir me duel

227

228

997

102v–103r

Il ne m’en chaut d’esteit ne de rouzee

228

229

552

103r–103v

Je n’os chanteir trop tairt ne trop sovent

229

230

733

103v

Jai por noif ne por geleie

230

231

521

103v–104r

Jai nuls hons pris ne dirait sa raixon 231

232

1891

104r–104v

Jusc’a si ai tous jors chantei

232

233

418

104v–105r

Jai por mal perliere gent

233

234

683

105r–105v

J’ai sovent d’amors chanteit

234

235

414

105v–106r

J’ain per costume et per uz

235

236

2124

106r–106v

Joious talens est de moy departis

236

237

1526

106v–107r

J’ai un jolit sovenir

237

238

1470

107r

Ire d’amors anuis et mescheance

238

239

230

107r–107v

Jai de chanteir en ma vie

239

240

1229

107v–108r

Je n’ou piece ait nul talent de chanteir

240

241

801

108r–108v

Jai ne vairai lou desir acomplir

241

242

1024a

108v–109r

J’ai tant d’amolirs apris et entendut

242

243

2053



appendix 219 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

110r

Kant je plus pens a comencier chanson

243

244

1856

110r–110v

Ki ke de chanteir recroie

244

245

1752

110v–111r

Ki d’amors ait remenbrence

245

246

244

111r

Ki bone amor puet recovreir

246

247

887

111r–111v

Kault foillissent li boscaige

247

248

14

111v–112r

Kant je voi honor faillie

248

249

1150

112r–112v

Kant li bosciage retentist

249

250

1649

112v–113r

Kant fine amor me prie ke je chant

250

251

306

113r

Ki bien veult amors descrivre

251

252

1655

113r–113v

Kant amors vit ke je li aloignoie

252

253

1684

113v–114r

Kant fuelle et flour vont palixant

253

254

347

114r–114v

Kant voi nee

254

255

534

114v–115r

Kant j’oi lou roisignor chanteir

255

256

829

115r

Kant li rus de la fontainne

256

257

136

115r–115v

Kant voi lou tens felon rasuaigier

257

258

1297

115v–116r

Kant je voi et fuelle et flor

258

259

1978

116r–116v

Kant li tens torne a verdure

259

260

2115

116v–117r

Kant voi paroir la fuelle en la ramee 260

261

550

117r–117v

Kant se resjoissent oixel

261

262

584

117v–118r

Kant voi le tens renoveleir

262

263

890

118r–118v

Ki bien aimme drois est ke l’uevre paire

263 (=473)

264 (=475)

189

118v

Ki bien aimme plux endure

264

265

2095

119r

Kant li tres douls tens d’esteit

265 (=417)

266 (=418)

454

119r–119v

Kant il ne peirt fuelle ne flor

266

267

2036

119v–120r

Kant vient ou mois de mai

267

268

90

121r

Loeir m’estuet la roine Marie

268

269

1178

121r–121v

Li pluxor ont d’amors chanteit

269

270

413

121v–122r

L’autrier defors Picarni

270

271

1050

122r

L’autrier a doulz mois de mai

271

272

89

122r–122v

L’autrier per une sentelle

272

273

617

122v–123r

Li amant ki vivent d’aige

273

274

1356

123r–123v

L’autrier un jor apres la saint Denise

274

275

1623

123v–124r

Li miens chanteirs ne puet maix remenoir

275

276

1813

220

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

124r–124v

Loiaul amor k’est dedens fin cuer mise

276

277

1635

124v

La bone amor a cui seux atendans

277

278

261

124v–125r

La bone amor ki en joie me tient

278 (=502)

279 (=504)

1248

125r–125v

Li plux se plaint d’amors maix je n’os dire

279

280

1495

125v–126r

Li tens d’esteit et mais et violete

280

281

985

126r–126v

Loiauls amors et desiriers de joie

281

282

1730

126v–127r

Loiauls desirs et pensee jolie

282

283

1172

127r–128r

Li jolis mais ne la flours ke blanchoie

283

284

1692

128r

L’autrier me chevalchoie

284

285

1704

128r–128v

L’autrier decoste Cambrai

285

286

62

128v–129r

L’autrier chevachai pensis

286

287

1586

129r–129v

L’autrier lou premier jor de mai

287

288

88

129v–130r

Lors quant l’aluelle

288

289

587

130r–130v

Lonc tens ai servi en bailence

289

290

207

130v–131r

L’an kant rose ne fuelle

290

291

1009

131r–131v

Li plux desconforteis del mont

291

292

1918

131v

Les oxeles de mon paix

292

293

1579

132r–132v

La bone amor ke en mon cuer repairet

293

294

170

132v–133r

La gent dient por coi je ne fais chans

294

295

264

133r–133v

L’autrier pastoure seoit

295

296

1848

133v–134r

L’autrier me chevalchoie

296

297

1699

134r–134v

Loiaulz amors et li tens ke repaire

297

298

177

134v–135r

L’autrier levai ains jors

298

299

1990

135r–135v

La douce voix dou roisignor salvaige

299

300

40

136r

Lonc tens ai esteit

300

301

433

136r–136v

La froidor ne la jalee

301

302

517

136v–137r

L’an kan fine fuelle et flor

302

303

1977

137r–137v

La douce pensee

303

304

539

137v–138r

Li xours comence xordement

304

305

723

138r–138v

L’amor ke m’ait del tout en sa baillie 305

306

1110

138v–139r

L’autrier m’iere levais

306

307

935

139r–139v

Lors quant voi venir

307

308

1489



appendix 221 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

139v–140r

L’autrier me chevalchoie

308

309

1702

140r–140v

L’autrier m’iere rendormis

309

310

1609

140v–141r

La volenteis dont mes cuers est ravis

310

311

1607

141r–141v

Loe tant ke loeir

311

312

869

141v

Longuement ai a folor

312

313

1986

143r

Meire douce creature

313

314

2091

143r–143v

Ma volenteis me requiert et semont 314

315

1923

143v–144r

Mainte fois m’ait l’on demandeit

315

316

419

144v

Moult ai esteit lonc tens en esperance

316

317

226

144v–145r

Moult ai esteit longuement esbaihis 317

318

1536

145r–145v

Moult se feist boen tenir de chanteir

318

319

802

146r

Mar vit raixon ki covoite trop hault

319

320

397

146r–147r

Mercit clamans de mon fol erremant

320

321

671

147r–147v

Moult m’est belle la douce comensence

321

322

209

147v–148r

Ma joie premerainme

322

323

142

148r

Ma dame en cui Deus ait mis

323

324

1567

148v–149r

Moult me mervoil de ma dame et de moy

324

325

1668

149r–149v

Moult chantaisse volentiers liement

325

326

700

149v–150r

Moult me prie sovant

326

327

732

150r–150v

Mes cuers loiauls ne fine

327

328

1384

150v

Moult avrai lonc tens demoreit

328

329

421

150v–151r

Moult m’anue d’iver ke tant ait dureit

329

330

428

151r–151v

Maheus de Gans respondeis

330

331

946

151v–152r

Ma chanson n’est pais jolie

331

332

1171

152r–152v

Moins ai joie ke je ne suel

332

333

998

152v–153r

Mais ne avris ne prins tens

333

334

288

153r

Mes cuers me fait comencier

334

335

1269

153r–154r

Mains se fait d’amors plux fiers

335

336

759

154r

Mescheans seux d’amors

336

337

1951

154r–154v

Ma volenteis et bone amor m’ensaigne

337

338

560

222

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

155r

Maix n’os chanteir de fuelle ne de flors

338 (=350)

339 (=351)

2034

155v

Mes sens solais sens deport

339

340

1933

157r–157v

Nete gloriouse

340

341

1020

157v–158r

Nuls hons ne doit les biens d’amors 341 sentir

342

1456

158r

N’est pais cortois ains est fols et estous

342

343

2044

158v

Ne puet laissier fins cuers c’aides ne plaigne

343

344

119

159r–159v

Nuls hons ne seit d’amin k’il puet valoir

344

345

1821

159v–160r

N’est pais a soi ki aimme coralment 345

346

653

160r–160v

Ne me sont pais okeson de chanteir 346

347

787

160v–161r

Novels voloirs me revient

347

348

1245

161r–161v

Ne tieng pais celui a saige

348

349

36

161v

Ne seivent ke je sent

349

350

722

161v–162r

Ne doi chanteir de fuelle ne de flours

350 (=338)

351 (=339)

2034

162r–162v

Novelle amor ke m’est el cuer entree

351

352

513

162v–163r

Ne me done pais talent

352

353

739

163r–163v

Nuls n’ait joie ne solais

353

354

382

163v–164r

Novelle amor dont grant poene m’est nee

354

355

531

164r–164v

Novelle amor ou j’ai mis ma pensee 355

356

882

164v–165r

Ne puis faillir a bone chanson faire

356

357

160

165r–165v

Novelle amor c’est dedens mon cuer mise

357

358

1636

167r

O dame ke Deu portais

358

359

197a

167r–167v

Onkes ne fut si dure departie

359

360

1127

167v–168r

Or voi je bien k’il n’est riens en cest mont

360

361

1917

168r–168v

Or seroit mercis en saixon

361

362

1894

168v–169r

En dist c’amors est douce chose

362

363

1937

169r

Or chanterai com hom desespereis

363

364

921

169r–169v

Or m’est bel dou tens d’avri

364

365

1031

169v–170r

Onkes jor de ma vie

365

366

1226

170r–170v

Oies por coi plaing et sospir

366

367

1465



appendix 223 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

170v–171r

Or voi lou douls tens repairier

367

368

1302

171r–171v

Or veul chanteir et soulaicier

368

369

1313

171v–172r

Or voi yver defenir

369

370

1394

172r–172v

Onkes maix nuls hons ne chantait

370

371

3

172v–173r

Outre cuidies en ma fole pensee

371

372

542

173r

On ne se doit desespereir

372

373

846

173v

Or ai amors servit tout mon vivant

373

374

372

173v–174r

Ou pertir de la froidure

374

375

2101

174r–174v

Ou douls tens et en bone houre

375

376

1011

174v–175r

Or seux lies del dous termine

376

377

1386

175r–175v

Or cuidai vivre sens amors

377

378

1965

175v–176r

Or vient esteis ke retentist la bruelle

378

379

1006

176r–176v

Or ai bien d’amors apersu

379

380

2052

176v–177r

Or veul chanson et faire et comencier

380

381

1267

177r–177v

Ou tens ke voi noix remise

381

382

1638

177v–178r

Ou tens ke voi flors venir

382

383

1480

179r–179v

Pour lou pueple resonforteir

383

384

886

179v–180r

Por moy renvoixier

384

385

597a

180r–180v

Por lou tens ki verdoie

385

386

1768

180v–181r

Pres seux d’amors maix lons seux de celi

386

387

1035

181r–181v

Pues ke je seux de l’amerouse loi

387

388

1661

181v–182r

Per keil forfait et per keil ochoison

388

389

1876a

182r–182v

Per maintes fois avrai estei requise

389

390

1640

182v–184r

Par maintes fois m’est venu en talent

390

391

737

184r–184v

Partis de dolor

391

392

1971

184v–185r

Piece sait ke je n’en amai

392

393

58

1

1

Fols 182–186 originally had the following order: 182, 184, 185, 183, 186. RS 737 (Brakelmann/ Unlandt no. 390, Moreno no. 391) begins on fol. 182v and continues on what was then the next folio, fol. 184r. RS 782 (Brakelmann/Unlandt no. 393, Moreno no. 394) begins on fol. 185r, continues on fol. 185v, and finishes on what was then the next folio, fol. 183r. RS 1975 (Brakelmann/Unlandt no. 396, Moreno no. 397) begins on fol. 183v and continues on what was then the next folio, fol. 186r. See discussion in Paola Moreno, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999), pp. 22–3.

224

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

185r–183r

Per grant franchise m’enfort de chanteir

393

394

782

183r

Por joie chant et por mercit

394

395

1063

183v

Per son dous comandement

395

396

649

183v–186r

Por ceu ke mes cuers souffre grant dolor

396

397

1975

186r–186v

Pensis loing de ceu ke je veul

397

398

1003

186v–187r

Pues k’en moi ait recovrei signorie

398

399

1208

187r–187v

Plux ain ke je ne souloie

399

400

1764

187v–188v

Per cortoisie depuel

400

401

995

188v–189r

Por la belle ke m’ait s’amor donee

401

402

508

189r

Pensis d’amors veul retraire

402

403

187

189r–190r

Por lou douls chant des oxels

403

404

480

190r–190v

Per une matineie en mai

404

405

95

190v–191r

Pertis d’amors et de mon chant

405

406

310

191r

Pensis d’amors et mas

406

407

377

191r–191v

Plainne d’ire et de desconfort

407

408

1934

191v–192r

Per trop celleir mon coraige

408

409

17

192r–192v

Pluxors fois ont blaimeis

409

410

405

192v–193r

Por demoreir en amors sens retraire

410

411

185

193r–193v

Puis que li maus c’amors mi font santir

411

412

1457

194r–194v

Quant Deus ot formeit l’ome a sa sanblance

412

413

249

194v–195r

Quant fuelle chiet et flor fault

413

414

392

195r–195v

Quant j’o chanteir l’aluete

414

415

968

195v–196r

Quant li roisignors c’escrie

415

416

1148

196r

Quant se vient en mai ke rose est panie

416

417

1156

196r–196v

Quant li novias tens d’estei

417 (=265)

418 (=266)

454

196v–197r

Quant voi venir lou doulz tens et la flor

418

419

1982

197r–197v

Quant la saixon dou tens se raseure

419

420

2086

197v–198r

Quant voi la glaie meure

420

421

2107

198r–199r

Quant je plux seux en paor de ma vie

421

422

1227

199r–199v

Quant je voi l’erbe repanre

422

423

633

199v–200r

Quant li dous esteis decline

423

424

1380



appendix 225 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

200r–200v

Quant voi yver et froidure aparoir

424

425

1784

200v–201r

Quant je voi l’erbe et la fuelle

425

426

1008

201r

Quant je voi l’erbe menue

426

427

2067

201r–201v

Quant je voi mon cuer revenir

427

428

1448

201v

Gautier un jeu vous veul partir

427[a]

429

1442a

201v–202r

Quant je plux voi felon rire

428

430

1503

202r–202v

Quant li tens pert sa chalor

429

431

1969

202v–203r

Quant li roisignors jolis

430

432

1559

203r–203v

Quant je voi le dous tens venir

431

433

1484

203v–204r

Quant nois et giaus et froidure

432

434

2099

204r–204v

Quant l’erbe muert voi la fuelle cheoir

433

435

1795

204v

Quant naist flor blanche et vermoille

434

436

568

204v–205r

Quant la froidor rencomence

435

437

626

205r–205v

Quant voi esteit et lou tens revenir

436

438

1450

205v–206r

Quant li esteis et la douce saixon

437

439

1913

206r–206v

Quant la froidors c’est demise

438

440

1621

206v–207r

Quant voi la flor bouteneir

439

441

772

207r–207v

Quant froidure trait a fin

440

442

1366

207v–208r

Quant nois et glaisse et froidure s’aloigne

441

443

1778

209r

Retrowange novelle

442

444

602

209r–209v

Rose ne lis ne me done talent

443

445

736

209v–210r

Roze ne flor de lis

444

446

1562

210r–210v

Remenbrence d’amors me fait chanteir

445

447

814

210v–211r

Rois de Navaire et sires de vertu

446

448

2063

211r–211v

Rose ne flors chans d’oxels ne verdure

447

449

2122

211v–212r

Renvoixies seux quant voi verdir les chans

448

450

265

212r–212v

Rose ne lis ne doulz mais

449

451

96

212v–213r

Raige d’amors malz talens et meschies

450

452

1349

213r–213v

Renbadir et moneir joie

451

453

1739

213v–214r

Rire veul et esjoir

452

454

1407

214r–214v

Renovellemens d’esteit

453

455

440

226

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

214v–215r

Roisignor cui j’o chanteir

454

456

824

215r–215v

Renoveleir veul la belle en chantant 455

457

319

215v–216r

Rois Thiebaus sire en chantant respondeis

456

458

943

216r–216v

Rose cui nois ne jailee

457

459

519

216v–217r

Remambrance que m’est ou cuer entreie

458

460

514

218r

Sainte s’entiere entension

459

461

1863

218r–218v

Si seux dou tout a bone amor

460

462

1956

218v–219r

Sire Aimmeris prendeis un jeu partit

461

463

1072

219r–219v

Se j’ai chanteit sens gueridon avoir

462

464

1789

220r

Sans atente de gueridon

463

465

1867

220r–220v

S’amors veult ke mes chans remaigne

464

466

120

220v–221r

Se per mon chant me deusse aligier

465

467

1252

221r–221v

Se per force de mercit

466

468

1059

221v–222r

S’onkes nuls hom por dure departie 467

469

1126

222r–222v

S’onkes nulz hons se clamait

468

470

4

222v–223r

Sospris d’amors et plains d’ire

469

471

1501

223r–223v

Se j’ai lonc tens amors servi

470

472

1082

223v–224r

Se j’ai esteit lonc tens hors del paix

471

473

1575

224r

Se j’ai chanteit se poise moi

472

474

1670

224r–224v

Sospris d’amors fins cuers ne se puet taire

473 (=263)

475 (=264)

189

224v–225r

Si voirement com celle dont je chant

474

476

303

225r–225v

Sou c’om aprant en enfance

475

477

219

225v–226r

Sire Michies respondeis

476

478

949

226r–226v

Se de chanteir me peusse escondire 477

479

1496

226v–227r

Sospris seux d’une amorete

478

480

972

227r–227v

Sens esperance et sens confort ke j’aie

479

481

109

227v–228r

Sertes ne chant mie por l’esteit

480

482

455

229r

Talens me rest pris de chanteir

481

483

793

229r–230r

Tant ai amors servie longuemant

482

484

711

230r–230v

Tant ai d’amors k’en chantant m’estuet plaindre

483

485

130



appendix 227 Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

230v–231r

Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief torment

484

486

741

231r–231v

Tout autresi com l’aiemans desoit

485

487

1840

231v–232r

Tant ai d’amors apris et entandu

486

488

2054

232r–232v

Tant de solais com jeu ai por chanteir

487

489

826

232v–233r

Tous enforcies avrai chanteit sovent

488

490

728

233r–233v

Tant ai en chantant proie

489

491

1095

233v–234r

Trop me plaist a estre amis

490

492

1515

234r–234v

Tuit demandent k’est devengue amor

491

493

1952

234v–235r

Teils dist d’amors ke n’en seit pais demie

492

494

15

235r–235v

Tant ai mon chant entrelaissiet

493

495

1089

235v–236r

Trop volentiers chanteroie

494

496

1693

236r–236v

Tant sai d’amors con cil ki plux l’emprent

495

497

661

236v–237r

Teil fois chante jugleires

496

498

903

237r–237v

Teils s’entremet de gairdeir

497

499

858

237v

Tant ain et veul et desir

498

500

1399

237v–238r

Tant ai ameit c’or me covient hair

499

501

1420

238r–238v

Tout ausi com li olifans

500

502

272

238v–239r

Talens m’est pris ke je chainge mon coraige

501

503

18

239r–239v

Tres bone amor ki en joie me tient

502 (=278)

504 (=279)

1248

239v–240r

Tous iries m’estuet chanteir

503

505

807

240r–240v

Tres grans amors me travaille et confont

504

506

1915

240v–241r

Trop m’est sovant fine amor anemie 505

507

1106

241r–241v

Tant m’ait moneit force de signoraige

506

508

42

241v–242r

Tant ne me sai dementeir ne complaindre

507

509

127

242r–242v

Tant ai amors serviee et honoree

508

510

525

242v

Thomes je vos veul demandeir

509

511

842

242v–243r

Trois choses sont une flor

510

512

1985

243r–243v

Tout ausiment com retraient a l’aire 511

513

156

228

appendix

Fols

Incipit in C

No. in BrakelNo. in Moreno mann/Unlandt

RS no.

243v–244r

Trismontainne ke tout ais sormonteit

512

514

473

245r–245v

Vivre tous tens et chascun jor morir 513

515

1431

245v–246r

Vos ki ameis de vraie amor

514

516

1967

246r–246v

Un chant d’amors volentiers comansaixe

515

517

382a

246v–247r

Voloirs de faire chanson

516

518

1859

247r–247v

Une novelle amorete ke j’ai

517

519

48

247v–248r

Un petit davant lou jor

518

520

1995

248r–248v

Vers lou douls tens d’esteit

519

521

447

248v–249r

Vers lou novel de la flor

520

522

1981

249r–249v

Vers lou partir dou tens felon

521

523

1866

249v

Uns hons ki ait en soi sen et raixon

522

524

1886

Bibliography Primary sources List of manuscripts with sigla A Arras, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 657 B Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231 C Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389 [troubζ] F London, British Library, MS Egerton 274 [LoB] G London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1681 [formerly known as misc. rolls 1435] H Modena, Biblioteca Estense, R4,4 [troubD] I Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308 K Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 5198 L Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 765 M Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844 [troubW] N Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 845 O Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 846 P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 847 Q Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1109 R Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1591 S Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12581 T Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12615 U Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 20050 [troubX] V Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 24406 W Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 25566 X Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.f. 1050 Z Siena, Biblioteca comunale, MS H.X.36 a Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1490 b Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1522 c Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95.1 j Paris, Bibliothèque national de France, n.a.f. 21677 Za Zagreb, Metropolitanska knjižnica, MR 92 troubC Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 856 troubE Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1749 troubG Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, R 71 superiore troubKp Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Thottske Samling Nr. 1087 troubR Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 22543 troubα Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 857 Ba Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit.115. motetF Florence, Biblioteca-Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 29.1 W2 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Guelf. 1099 Helmst.

230

bibliography

Other manuscripts Aschaffenburg, Hofbibliothek, 16 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 98 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 163 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 208 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 233 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 309 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 340 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 354 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 4 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 5 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. h. h. III. 110 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS II 2297 Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, 364 London, British Library, MS Harley 4972 Metz, Archives départementales, H903-1-1294 Metz, Bibliothèques-Médiathèques, MS 585 Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, James Ford Bell Library, B1280fVi Minneapolis, Bakken Museum, OCLC 746080341, shelf location OS 55.7, vol. 2 Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, site Stanislas, MS 188 New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, MS 339 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 3517 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Moreau 1687–9 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 523A Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 6918 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 17311 Paris, Bibliothèque national de France, n.a.f. 5218 Porto, Biblioteca Municipal, 619 Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 183 Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Vat. lat. 6443 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1814

Printed sources Anderson, Gordon A. (ed.), The Latin Compositions in Fascicules VII and VIII of the Notre Dame Manuscript Wolfenbüttel Helmstadt 1099 (1206), Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Institute of Mediaeval Music), 24 (Brooklyn, NY, 1968). —— (ed.), Notre-Dame and Related Conductus: Opera omnia, Institute of Mediaeval Music, Collected Works, 10 (10 vols, Henryville, PA, 1979–1988). Barbieri, Luca (ed.), Le Liriche di Hugues de Berzé, Humanae litterae, 5 (Milan, 2001). Bartsch, Karl (ed.), Romances et pastourelles françaises des XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Leipzig, 1870).



bibliography 231

Billy, Dominique (ed.), Deux lais en langue mixte: le lai Markiol et le lai Nompar, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 264 (Tübingen, 1995). Bischoff, Bernhard (ed.), Carmina Burana: Facsimile Reproduction of the Manuscript Clm 4660 and Clm 4660a (Brooklyn, NY, 1967). Brakelmann, Julius (ed.), ‘Die altfranzösische Liederhandschrift Nro. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 41 (1867), pp. 339–76; 42 (1868), pp. 73–82, 241–392; 43 (1868), pp. 241–394. Callahan, Christopher and Samuel N. Rosenberg (eds), Les Chansons de Colin Muset: textes et melodies, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 149 (Paris, 2005). Doss-Quinby, Eglal, Joan Tasker Grimbert, Wendy Pfeffer, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), Songs of the Women Trouvères (New Haven, 2001). Fath, Fritz (ed.), Die Lieder des Castellans von Coucy, nach sämmtlichen Handschriften kritisch bearbeitet (Heidelberg, 1883). Felberg-Levitt, Margaret (ed.), Les Demandes d’amour: édition critique, Inedita & rara, 10 (Montréal, 1995). Formisano, Luciano (ed.), Gontier de Soignies: il canzoniere, Documenti di filologia, 23 (Milan, 1980). Gérard-Zai, Marie-Claire (ed.), Les Chansons courtoises de Chrétien de Troyes: édition critique avec introduction, notes et commentaire, Europäische Hochschulschriften, series 13, Französische Sprache und Literatur, 27 (Bern, 1974). Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Daniel Poirion, Garnier Flammarion, 207 (Paris, 1974). Hagen, Hermann, Catalogus Codicum Bernensium (Bern, 1875). Hildegard von Bingen, Lieder, ed. Pudentiana Barth, Immaculata Ritscher, and Joseph Schmidt-Görg (Salzburg, 1969). Huet, Gédéon (ed.), Chansons et descorts de Gautier de Dargies, Société des anciens textes français, 60 (Paris, 1912; repr. New York, 1968). Järnström, Edward and Arthur Långfors (eds), Recueil de chansons pieuses du XIIIe siècle, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia, series B, 3:1 and 20:4 (2 vols, Helsinki, 1910–27). Jeanroy, Alfred and Arthur Långfors (eds), Chansons satiriques et bachiques du XIIIe siècle, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 23 (Paris, 1921). Långfors, Arthur (ed.), Recueil général des jeux-partis français, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 1926). Lannutti, Maria Sofia (ed.), Guiot de Dijon: canzoni, La Tradizione musicale, studi e testi, 3 (Florence, 1999). Lepage, Yvan G. (ed.), L’Œuvre lyrique de Richard de Fournival, Publications médiévales de l’Université d’Ottawa, 7 (Ottawa, 1981). Lindelöf, Uno and Axel Wallensköld (eds), Les Chansons de Gautier d’Épinal (Helsinki, 1901). Meyer, Paul and Gaston Raynaud (eds), Le Chansonnier français de Saint-Germaindes-Prés (Bibl. nat. fr. 20050): reproduction phototypique avec transcription, Société des anciens textes français (Paris, 1892). Newcombe, Terence H. (ed.), Les Poésies de Thibaut de Blaison, Textes littéraires français, 253 (Geneva, 1978).

232

bibliography

Nissen, Elisabeth (ed.), Les Chansons attribuées à Guiot de Dijon et Jocelin, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 59 (Paris, 1928). Paden, William D. (ed.), The Medieval Pastourelle, Garland library of medieval literature, series A, 34–5 (2 vols, New York, 1987). Pickens, Rupert T. (ed.), The Songs of Jaufre Rudel, Studies and texts (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies), 41 (Toronto, 1978). Rivière, Jean-Claude (ed.), Les Poésies du trouvère Jacques de Cambrai, avec introduction, études thématiques, notices et glossaire, Textes littéraires français, 257 (Geneva, 1978). Rosenberg, Samuel N. and Hans Tischler (eds), Chanter m’estuet: Songs of the Trouvères (Bloomington, 1981). Rosenberg, Samuel N., Samuel Danon, and Hendrik van der Werf (eds), The Lyrics and Melodies of Gace Brulé, Garland library of medieval literature, series A, 39 (New York, 1985). ——, Margaret Switten, and Gérard Le Vot (eds), Songs of the Troubadours and Trouvères: An Anthology of Poems and Melodies, Garland reference library of the humanities, 1740 (New York, 1997). ——, Hans Tischler, and Marie-Geneviève Grossel (eds), Chansons des trouvères: chanter m’estuet, Lettres gothiques (Paris, 1995). Scheler, Auguste (ed.), Dits et contes de Baudouin de Condé et de son fils Jean de Condé (3 vols, Brussels, 1866–7). Sinner, Jean Rodolphe, Extraits de quelques poësies du XII., XIII. et XIV. siècle (Lausanne, 1759). ——, Catalogus codicum mss. Bibliothecae Bernensis, annotationibus criticis illustratus (Bern, 1760–72) Tarbé, Prosper (ed.), Les Chansonniers de Champagne aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, Collection des poètes champenois antérieures au XVIe siècle, 9 (Reims, 1850). Thibaut de Champagne, Les Chansons: textes et mélodies, ed. and trans. with notes by Christopher Callahan, Marie-Geneviève Grossel, and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, Champion Classiques, Série ‘Moyen Age’, Editions bilingues, 46 (Paris, 2018). Tischler, Hans (ed.), Trouvère Lyrics with Melodies: Complete Comparative Edition, Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae, 107 (15 vols, Neuhausen, 1997). Tyssens, Madeleine (ed.), Le Chansonnier français U: publié d’après le manuscrit Paris, BNF, fr. 20050, Société des anciens textes français (2 vols, Paris, 2015–20). Varvaro, Alberto (ed.), Rigaut de Berbezilh, Liriche, Biblioteca di filologia romanza, 4 (Bari, 1960). Wallensköld, Axel (ed.), Les Chansons de Thibaut de Champagne, roi de Navarre (Paris, 1925).

Secondary literature Avalle, D’Arco Silvio, I Manoscritti della letteratura in lingua d’oc, ed. Lino Leonardi (Turin, 1993). Alexander, J. J. G., The Decorated Letter (New York, 1978). Allegretti, Paola, review of ‘“Intavulare”: Tavole di canzonieri romanzi/Tables de chansonniers romans’, Vox Romanica, 60 (2001), pp. 269–72.



bibliography 233

Atchison, Mary, The Chansonnier of Oxford Bodleian MS Douce 308: Essays and Complete Edition of Texts (Aldershot, 2005). Aubry, Pierre, ‘Un Coin pittoresque de la vie artistique au XIIIe siècle’, La Revue musicale, 4 (1904), pp. 483–96. Avril, François, ‘Un Ornemaniste parisien de la première moitié du XIVe siècle: Jacobus Mathey (Jacquet Maci ?)’, Bulletin Monumental, 129:4 (1971), pp. 249–64. Barbieri, Alvaro, ‘Anonimato nella letteratura francese medievale’, in Alvaro Barbieri, Alessandra Favero, and Francesca Gambino (eds), L’Eclissi dell’artefice: sondaggi sull’anonimato nei canzonieri medievali romanza, Scrittura e scrittori, 17 (Alessandria, 2002), pp. 35–84. Barbieri, Luca, ‘Deteriores non inanes: il canzoniere S della lirica in lingua d’oïl’, in Vicenç Beltrán and Juan Paredes (eds), Convivio: estudios sobre la poesía de cancionero, Monográfica, Biblioteca de humanidades, Teoría y crítica literarias, 16 (Granada, 2006), pp. 145–74. Battelli, Maria Carla, ‘La Ricezione della lirica provenzale nei codici M (B.N.f.fr. 844) e U (B.N.f.fr. 20050): alcune considerazioni’, in Gérard Gouiran (ed.), Contacts de langues, de civilisations et intertextualité (IIIème Congrès international de l’Association internationale d’études occitanes, Montpellier, 20–26 septembre 1990) (3 vols, Montpellier, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 595–606. ——, ‘Le Antologie poetiche in antico-francese’, Critica del testo, 2:1 (1999), pp. 141–80. ——, ‘Le Chansons couronnées nell’antica lirica francese’, Critica del testo, 2:2 (1999), pp. 565–617. ——, ‘Due canzonieri, un solo manoscritto? A proposito di Paris, BnF, fr. 765 (canzoniere L) e Bern, Burgerbibliothek 231 (canzoniere B)’, Critica del Testo, 7:3 (2004), pp. 981–1044. Baudler, Arthur, Guiot von Provins, seine Gönner, die ‘Suite de la Bible’ und seine lyrischen Dichtungen (Halle, 1902). Bec, Pierre, ‘“Trobairitz” et chansons de femme: contribution à la connaissance du lyrisme féminin au moyen âge’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 22:87 (1979), pp. 235–62. ——, La Lyrique française au Moyen Age, XIIe–XIIIe siècles: contribution à une typologie des genres poétiques médiévaux (2 vols, Paris, 1977–8). Bédier, Joseph (ed.), Les Chansons de Colin Muset, 2nd edn, Classiques français du Moyen Age, 7 (Paris, 1938). Beltrán, Vicenç, ‘Los Cancioneros trovadorescos y la renovación cultural del siglo XIII’, in Anna Ferrari and Stefania Romualdi (eds), ‘Ab nou cor et ab nou talen’: nouvelles tendances de la recherche médiévale occitane: actes du Colloque AIEO (L’Aquila, 5–7 juillet 2001), Studi, testi e manuali (new series), 8, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours (new series), 5 (Modena, 2004), pp. 103–30. Bertoni, Giulio, ‘Le Tenzoni del frammento francese di Berna A 95’, Archivum romanicum, 3 (1919), pp. 42–61. Billy, Dominique and Robert Lug, ‘Un Témoin picard de la vogue du répertoire des troubadours dans la première moitié du XIIIe siècle: Par vous m’esjau, done del firmament (PC 461,192a = RS 675a)’, Romance Philology, 70:1 (2016), pp. 9–56. Bloch, R. Howard, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley, 1977).

234

bibliography

Boogaard, Nico van den, Rondeaux et refrains du XIIe siècle au début du XIVe, Bibliothèque française et romane, series D, Initiation, textes et documents (Paris, 1969). Brakelmann, Julius, ‘Die dreiundzwanzig altfranzösischen Chansonniers in Bibliotheken Frankreichs, Englands, Italiens und der Schweiz’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 42 (1868), pp. 43–72; 43 (1868), pp. 185–93. Brothers, Thomas, Chromatic Beauty in the Late Medieval Chanson: An Interpretation of Manuscript Accidentals (Cambridge, 1997). Bruno, Francesco, ‘Frammenti lirici in lingua d’oïl recuperati presso l’Archivio Storico Comunale di Bologna’, Documenta, 2 (2019), pp. 37–56. Burgerbibliothek Bern (ed.), Jacques Bongars: Humanist, Diplomat, Büchersammler, Passepartout, 6 (Bern, 2012). Callahan, Christopher, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and Disputed Attributions: The Case of MSS Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389 (C) and Paris, BnF fr. 1591 (R)’, Textual Cultures, 5:1 (2010), pp. 111–32. ——, ‘Collecting Trouvère Lyric at the Peripheries: The Lessons of MSS Paris, BnF fr. 20050 and Bern, Burgerbibliothek 389’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 15–30. ——, Daniel E. O’Sullivan, and Samuel N. Rosenberg, ‘Thibaut de Champagne (1201–1253)’, Routledge Medieval Encyclopedia Online, forthcoming. Canettieri, Paolo, ‘Appunti per la classificazione dei generi trobadorici’, Cognitive Philology, 4 (2011), [accessed 8th June 2021]. Carapezza, Francesco, ‘Un’Ipotesi sul son poitevin’, Medioevo Romanzo, 36:2 (2012), pp. 390–405. Cayley, Emma, Debate and Dialogue: Alain Chartier in his Cultural Context, Oxford Modern Languages and Literature Monographs (Oxford, 2006). Cepeda, I. V, Inventário dos códices iluminados até 1500, vol. 2, Distritos de Aveiro, Beja, Braga, Bragança, Coimbra, Evora, Leiria, Portalegre, Porto, Setúbal, Viana do Castelo e Viseu: apêndice distito de Lisboa, Bibliotecas (Lisbon, 2001). Cepraga, Dan Octavian, ‘Tradizioni regionali e tassonomie editoriali nei canzonieri anticofrancesi’, Critica del testo, 7:1 (2004), pp. 391–424. Chazan, Mireille, ‘Littérature et histoire dans les bibliothèques des patriciens messins à la fin du Moyen Age’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 205–35. —— and Gérard Nauroy (eds), Écrire l’histoire à Metz au Moyen Âge: actes du colloque organisé par l’Université Paul-Verlaine de Metz, 23–25 avril 2009, Recherches en littérature et spiritualité, 20 (Bern, 2011). —— and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012). Davenport, Kay, The Bar Books: Manuscripts Illuminated for Renaud de Bar, Bishop of Metz (1303–1316), Manuscripta illuminata, 2 (Turnhout, 2017).



bibliography 235

Dinaux, Arthur, Trouvères, jongleurs et ménestrels du nord de la France et du midi de la Belgique, vol. 3, Les Trouvères artésiens (Paris, 1837–63; repr. Genève, 1969). Doss-Quinby, Eglal, ‘The Visual Representation of Lyric Types in Trouvère Manuscript I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308)’, in Karen Louise Fresco and Wendy Pfeffer (eds.), ‘Chancon legiere a chanter’: Essays on Old French Literature in Honor of Samuel N. Rosenberg (Birmingham, AL, 2007), pp. 1–26. ——, ‘The Douce 308 Chansonnier within the Corpus of Trouvère Songbooks’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 435–50. ——, Samuel N. Rosenberg, and Elizabeth Aubrey (eds), The Old French Ballette: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308, Publications romanes et françaises, 239 (Geneva, 2006). Dyggve, Holger Petersen, Onomastique des trouvères, Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, Helsingfors: Toimituksia: Annales, series B, 30:1 (Helsinki, 1934). ——, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: I, Colin Muset’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 36:1 (1935), pp. 1–19. ——, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: II, Gautier d’Epinal’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 36:1 (1935), pp. 19–29. ——, ‘Personnages historiques figurant dans la poésie lyrique française des XIIe et XIIIe siècles: XXIV, Garnier d’Arches et son destin ataire “le bon marquis”’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 46:3 (1945), pp. 123–53. —— (ed.), Gace Brulé: trouvère champenois: édition des chansons et étude historique, Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique à Helsingfors, 16 (Helsinki, 1951). Engler, Claudia, ‘Arte e marte: Franz Ludwig von Erlach und die Bongarsiana’, in André Holenstein (ed.), Im Auge des Hurrikans: Eidgenössische Machteliten und der Dreissigjährige Krieg, Berner Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 77:3 (Bern, 2015), pp. 34–50. Everist, Mark, Polyphonic Music in Thirteenth-Century France: Aspects of Sources and Distribution, Outstanding Dissertations from British Universities (New York, 1989). ——, French Motets in the Thirteenth Century: Music, Poetry and Genre, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Music (Cambridge, 1994). ——, ‘The Polyphonic Rondeau c. 1300: Repertory and Context’, Early Music History, 15 (1996), pp. 59–96. ——, ‘“Souspirant en terre estrainge”: The Polyphonic Rondeau from Adam de la Halle to Guillaume de Machaut’, Early Music History, 26 (2007), pp. 1–42. Ferrari, Anna, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 1. a (B. A. V., Reg. lat. 1490), b (B. A. V., Reg. lat. 1522), A (Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 657), Studi e Testi, 388 (Vatican City, 1998). Fingernagel, Andreas and Martin Roland, Mitteleuropäische Schulen, vol. 1, Ca. 1250–1350, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters. Reihe I, Die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunabeln der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, 10 (Vienna, 1997).

236

bibliography

Formisano, Luciano, ‘Un Legs français de Jaufré Rudel’, Revue des langues romanes, 87:1 (1983), pp. 29–50. Frelick, Nancy M., ‘Introduction’, in Nancy M. Frelick (ed.), The Mirror in Medieval and Early Modern Culture: Specular Reflections, Cursor mundi (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 1–30. Gally, Michèle, Parler d’amour au puy d’Arras: lyrique en jeu, Medievalia, 46 (Orléans, 2004). Gatti, Luca, ‘Per Fine Amours claimme en moi par hiretage (Linker 205,1)’, Cognitive Philology, 12 (2019), [accessed 8th June 2021]. ——, Repertorio delle attribuzioni discordanti nella lirica trovierica, Studi e Ricerche, 79 (Rome, 2019). ——, ‘Les Interférences attributives “du genre” dans la tradition des chansons lyriques à voix féminine en langue d’oïl’, in Marjolaine Raguin and Nadine Henrard (eds), Voix de femmes et croisades, motifs, représentations et enjeux (Paris, forthcoming). Gauchat, Louis, ‘Les Poésies provençales conservées par des chansonniers français’, Romania, 22:87 (1893), pp. 364–404. Genette, Gérard, Palimpsestes: la littérature au second degré, Points, 257 (Paris, 1992). Gennrich, Friedrich, ‘Trouvèrelieder und Motettenrepertoire’, Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, 9 (1926), pp. 8–39, 65–85. ——, ‘Die Repertoire-Theorie’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 66 (1956), pp. 81–108. Goldin, Frederick, The Mirror of Narcissus in the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, 1967). Grente, Georges Cardinal, Geneviève Hasenohr, and Michael Zink (eds), Dictionnaire des lettres françaises, vol. 1, Le Moyen Age, rev. edn (Paris, 1992–). Griffith, Karlyn, ‘The Codicological Histories of Two Metz Compilations (MSS Douce 308 and Harley 4972) and the Implications of Owner Manipulations’, Pecia, 17 (2016), pp. 93–127. Gröber, Gustav, ‘Die Liedersammlungen der Troubadours’, Romanische Studien, 2:9 (1877), pp. 337–661. ——, Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (2 vols, Strasbourg, 1888–1902). —— and C. von Lebinski, ‘Collation der Berner Liederhs. 389’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 3:1 (1879), pp. 39–60. Gros, Gérard, Le Poète, la vierge et le prince du Puy: étude sur les puys marials de la France du Nord du XIVe siècle à la Renaissance, Collection sapience (Paris, 1992). ——, Le Poème du Puy marial: étude sur le serventois et le chant royal du XIV siècle à la Renaissance (Paris, 1996). Grossel, Marie-Geneviève, ‘Thibaut de Champagne et Gace Brulé: Variations sur un même idéal’, in Yvonne Bellenger and Danielle Quéruel (eds), Thibaut de Champagne: prince et poète au XIIIe siècle (Lyon, 1987), pp. 107–18. ——, Le Milieu littéraire en Champagne sous les Thibaudiens, Medievalia (2 vols, Orléans, 1994). ——, ‘Note sur quelques fausses attributions à Gace Brulé du Chansonnier de Berne’, in Michel Zink, Danielle Bohler, Eric Hicks, and Manuela Python (eds), L’Hostellerie de pensée: études sur l’art littéraire au Moyen Age offertes à Daniel



bibliography 237

Poirion par ses anciens élèves, Cultures et civilisations médiévales, 12 (Paris, 1994), pp. 205–13. ——, ‘Trouvères de Champagne et de Lorraine au XIIIe siècle’, Annales de l’Est, Special Issue: Lorraine et Champagne, mille ans d’histoire (2009), pp. 123–37. Guida, Saverio, ‘Problemi di datazione e di identificazione di trovatori’, in Giuseppe Tavani and Luciano Rossi (eds), Studi provenzali e francesi 86/87, Romanica vulgaria, Quaderni, 10/11 (L’Aquila, 1989), pp. 87–126. —— and Gerardo Larghi, Dizionario Biografico dei Trovatori, Studi, testi e manuali, 18, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours, 13 (Modena, 2013). Haines, John, ‘The Transformations of the Manuscript du Roi’, Musica Disciplina, 52 (2002), pp. 5–43. ——, ‘Erasures in Thirteenth-Century Music’, in John Haines and Randall Rosenfeld (eds), Music and Medieval Manuscripts: Paleography and Performance: Essays Dedicated to Andrew Hughes (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 60–88. ——, ‘The Songbook for William of Villehardouin, Prince of the Morea (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844): A Crucial Case in the History of Vernacular Song Collections’, in Sharon E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia (Washington DC, 2013), pp. 57–109. Hoepffner, Ernest, ‘Frage- und Antwortspiele in der französischen Literatur des 14. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 33:6 (1909), pp. 695–710. Holmes, Olivia, Assembling the Lyric Self: Authorship from Troubadour Song to Italian Poetry Book, Medieval cultures, 21 (Minneapolis, 2000). Horiot, Brigitte, ‘Recherches sur la morphologie de l’ancien Francoprovençal’, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 36:141–2 (1972), pp. 1–74. Huot, Sylvia, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, NY, 1987). Jeanroy, Alfred, Les Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen age: études de littérature française et comparée, suivies de textes inédits (Paris, 1889). Jeay, Madeleine, Poétique de la nomination dans la lyrique médiévale: ‘Mult volentiers me numerai’, Recherches littéraires médiévales, 18, Le lyrisme de la fin du Moyen Âge, 4 (Paris, 2015). Jung, Marc-René, ‘Les Formes strophiques des jeux-partis autour de Rolant (chansonnier d’Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 308)’, in E. Werner, R. Liver, Y. Stork, and M. Nicklaus (eds), Et multum et multa: Festchrift für Peter Wunderli zum 60. Geburtstag, Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 428 (Tübingen, 1998), pp. 387–98. Karp, Theodore, ‘The Trouvère MS Tradition’, in Albert Mell (ed.), Queens College, Department of Music, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Festschrift (New York, 1964), pp. 25–52. ——, ‘Gace Brulé’, Oxford Music Online (2001) [accessed 4 April 2018]. Långfors, Arthur, ‘Les Chansons attribuées aux Seigneurs de Craon’, Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique de Helsingfors, 6 (1917), pp. 41–87. Langlois, Ernest, ‘Remarques sur les chansonniers français’, Romania, 45:179 (1919), 321–50.

238

bibliography

Leach, Elizabeth Eva, ‘Which Came First, the Demandes d'amours or the Jeu-Parti? Evidence from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308’, Music & Letters, 102:1 (2021), pp. 1–29. Leo, Dominic, Images, Texts, and Marginalia in a ‘Vows of the Peacock’ Manuscript (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS G24): With a Complete Concordance and Catalogue of Peacock Manuscripts, Library of the Written Word, 28, Manuscript World, 5 (Leiden, 2013). Leroquais, Victor Marie, Les Sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (4 vols, Paris, 1924). ——, Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France (5 vols, Paris, 1932–34). Lévêque-Fougre, Mélanie, ‘Les Trouvères lorrains: acteurs d’une identité régionale au cœur de la Lotharingie’, Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Sherbrooke 5:1 (2012), [accessed 13 April 2017]. Linker, Robert White, A Bibliography of Old French Lyrics, Romance Monographs, 31 (Oxford, MS, 1979). Ludwig, Friedrich, Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili, ed. Luther Dittmer, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Institute of Mediaeval Music), 7, 17, 26 (2 vols in 3, Brooklyn, NY, 1964–78). Lug, Robert, ‘Katharer und Waldenser in Metz: Zur Herkunft der ältesten Sammlung von Trobador-Liedern (1231)’, in Angelica Rieger (ed.), Okzitanistik, Altokzitanistik und Provenzalistik: Geschichte und Auftrag einer europäischen Philologie (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 249–74. ——, ‘Gaucelm Faidit et Maria de Ventadorn, vivaient-ils encore en 1235?’, in Luc de Goustine (ed.), Gaucelm Faidit: amours, voyages et débats, Cahiers de Carrefour Ventadour (Moustier-Ventadour, 2011), pp. 71–131. ——, ‘Jaufre Rudel rajeuni’, in Luc de Goustine (ed.), Jaufre Rudel: prince, amant et poète, Cahiers de Carrefour Ventadour (Moustier-Ventadour, 2012), pp. 57–79. ——, ‘Politique et littérature à Metz autour de la Guerre des Amis (1231–1234): le témoinage du Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des Prés’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 451–86. ——, Semi-mensurale Informationen zur Liedrhythmik des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 2019). Marshall, John Henry, ‘Pour l’étude des Contrafacta dans la poésie des Troubadours’, Romania, 101:403 (1980), pp. 289–335. ——, review of ‘Französierte Trobadorlyrik: Zur Überlieferung provenzalischer Lieder in französischen Handschriften. Suppl. 171 to ZRPh by Manfred Raupach, Margret Raupach’, Romance Philology, 36:1 (1982), pp. 83–93. Masai, François and Martin Wittek, Manuscrits datés conservés en Belgique (6 vols, Brussels, 1968–91). Mason, Joseph W., ‘Structure and Process in the Old French jeu-parti’, Music Analysis, 38:1–2 (2019), pp. 47–79.



bibliography 239

McCulloch, Florence, Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries, Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 33 (Chapel Hill, 1962). Meneghetti, Maria Luisa, ‘La Forma-canzoniere fra tradizione mediolatina e tradizioni volgari’, Critica del testo, 2:1 (1999), pp. 119–40. Mölk, Ulrich and Friedrich Wolfzettel, Répertoire métrique de la poésie lyrique française des origines à 1350 (Munich, 1972). Moreno, Paola, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II, Chansonniers français: 3. C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 389), Documenta et instrumenta, 3 (Liège, 1999). Murray, David, ‘The clerical reception of Bernart de Ventadorn’s “Can vei la lauzeta mover” (PC 70, 34)’, Medium Ævum, 85 (2016), pp. 259–77. Muzerelle, Denis, Vocabulaire codicologique: répertoire méthodique des termes français relatifs aux manuscrits, Rubricae, 1 (Paris, 1985). Nascimento, Aires Augusto and José Francisco Meirinhos (eds), Catálogo dos códices da Livraria de Mào do Mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra na Biblioteca Pública Municipal do Porto (Porto, 1997). O’Neill, Mary J., Courtly Love Songs of Medieval France: Transmission and Style in the Trouvère Repertoire (Oxford, 2006). O’Sullivan, Daniel E., Marian Devotion in Thirteenth-Century Lyric (Toronto, 2005). ——, ‘On connaît la chanson: la contrafacture des mélodies des trouvères dans le Ludus super Anticlaudianum d’Adam de la Bassée’, Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes, 26:2 (2013), pp. 109–27. ——, ‘Thibaut de Champagne and lyric auctoritas in MS Paris, BnF fr. 12516’, Textual Cultures, 8:2 (2013), pp. 31–49. ——, ‘The Northern jeu-parti’ in Jennifer Saltzstein (ed.), Musical Culture in the World of Adam de la Halle, Brill’s Companions to the Musical Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 3 (Leiden, 2019), pp. 153–88. Page, Christopher, ‘Tradition and Innovation in BN fr. 146: The Background to the Ballades’, in Margaret Bent and Andrew Wathey (eds), Fauvel Studies: Allegory, Chronicle, Music, and Image in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS français 146 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 353–94. Paris, Gaston, ‘De Nicolao Museto (gallice Colin Muset) francogallico carminum scriptore, thesim Facultati litterarum parisiensi proponebat Joseph Bédier’, Romania, 22:86 (1893), pp. 285–96. Parisse, Michel, Noblesse et chevalerie en Lorraine médiévale: les familles nobles du XIe au XIIIe siècle (Nancy, 1982). ——, ‘La Noblesse lorraine et la littérature romanesque au XIIIe siècle’, Perspectives médiévales, 14 (1988), pp. 101–6. Parker, Ian, ‘A propos de la tradition manuscrite des chansons de trouvères’, Revue de Musicologie, 64:2 (1978), pp. 181–202. Peraino, Judith A., Giving Voice to Love: Song and Self-Expression from the Troubadours to Guillaume de Machaut (Oxford, 2011). Pfeffer, Wendy, ‘Complaints of women, complaints by women: can one tell them apart?’, in Barbara K. Altmann and Carleton W. Carroll (eds), The Court Reconvenes: Courtly Literature Across the Disciplines: Selected Papers from the Ninth Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society, University of British Columbia 25–31 July 1998 (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 125–31.

240

bibliography

Pillet, Alfred and Henry Carstens, Bibliographie der Troubadours, Schriften der Königsburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft (special series), 3 (Halle, 1933). Pizzorusso, Valeria Bertolucci, ‘La Firma del poeta: un sondaggio sull’autonominatio nella lirica dei trovatori’, in Carmen Parrilla and Mercedes Pampín (eds), Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Hispánica de Literatura Medieval (A Coruña, 18 al 22 de septiembre de 2001), Biblioteca filológica, 13–15 (3 vols, A Coruña, 2005), vol. 1, pp. 83–97. Pulsoni, Carlo, Repertorio delle attribuzioni discordanti nella lirica trobadorica, Studi, testi e manuali (new series), 1, Subsidia al corpus des troubadours (new series), 1 (Modena, 2001). Quinlan, Meghan, ‘Can melodies be signs? Contrafacture and representation in two trouvère songs’, Early Music, 48:1 (2020), pp. 13–27. Randall, Lilian M. C., Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery (5 vols, Baltimore, 1989–97). Raupach, Manfred and Margret Raupach, Französierte Trobadorlyrik: Zur Überlieferung provenzalischer Lieder in französischen Handschriften, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 171 (Tübingen, 1979). Raynaud, Gaston, Bibliographie des chansonniers français des XIIIe et XIVe siècles (2 vols, Paris, 1894). Richard, Jean, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, ed. Simon Lloyd, trans. Jean Birrell (Cambridge, 1992). de Riquer, Martín, Los Trovadores: historia literaria y textos, Ensayos planeta de lingüistica y crítica literaria, 34 (3 vols, Barcelona, 1975). Rochat, Alfred, ‘Die Liederhandschrift 231 der Berner Bibliothek’, Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Literatur, 10 (1869), pp. 73–113. Saint-Cricq, Gaël, ‘A New Link between the Motet and Trouvère Chanson: the Pedes-cum-cauda Motet’, Early Music History, 32 (2013), pp. 179–223. ——, ‘Genre, Attribution and Authorship in the Thirteenth Century: Robert de Reims vs “Robert de Rains”’, Early Music History, 38 (2019), pp. 141–213. Saltzstein, Jennifer, The Refrain and the Rise of the Vernacular in Medieval French Music and Poetry, Gallica, 30 (Cambridge, 2013). Schneider, Jean, ‘Un Poète messin du XIIIe siècle: Aubertin des Arvols’, Nos Traditions: Cahiers de la Société du folklore et d’ethnographie de la Moselle (new series), 1:5 (1949), pp. 97–100. ——, La Ville de Metz aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Nancy, 1950). Schwan, Eduard, Die altfranzösischen Liederhandschriften: Ihr Verhältniss, ihre Entstehung und ihre Bestimmung: Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1886). Seydlitz-Kurzbach, Hans von, Die Sprache der altfranzösischen Liederhandschrift Nr. 389 der Stadtbibliothek zu Bern (Halle, 1898). Spanke, Johannes, ‘Die Gedichte Jehan’s de Renti und Oede’s de la Couroierie’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 32:1 (1908), pp. 157–218. ——, review of ‘Jean Beck, Le Chansonnier Cangé (2 vols, Paris and Philadelphia, 1927)’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 52:1 (1929), pp. 165–83. ——, ‘Zur Geschichte des altfranzösischen Jeu-parti’, Zeitschrift für altfranzösische Sprache und Literatur, 52:1 (1929), pp. 39–63.



bibliography 241

——, G. Raynauds Bibliographie des altfranzösischen Liedes, Musicologica, 1 (Leiden, 1955). Spetia, Lucilla, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 2. H (Modena, Biblioteca Estense); Za (Bibliothèque Métropolitaine de Zagreb), Documenta et instrumenta, 2 (Liège, 1997). ——,“Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 4. Z (Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H.X.36), Documenta et instrumenta, 4 (Liège, 2006). Stirnemann, Patricia Danz, ‘Fils de la vierge, l’initiale à filigranes parisienne: 1140– 1314’, Revue de l’art, 90:1 (1990), pp. 58–73. Stones, Alison, ‘The Illustrated Chrétien Manuscripts and their Artistic Context’, in Keith Busby et al. (eds), Les Manuscrits de Chrétien de Troyes: The Manuscripts of Chrétien de Troyes, Faux titre, 71–2 (2 vols, Amsterdam, 1993), vol. 1, pp. 227–322. ——, ‘Les Prières de Gautier de Coinci, leur distribution et leur réception d’après la tradition manuscrite’, in Yasmina Foehr-Janssens and Olivier Collet (eds), Le Recueil au moyen âge: le moyen âge central, Texte, codex & contexte, 8 (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 237–68. ——, ‘Le Contexte artistique du Tournoi de Chauvency’, in Mireille Chazan and Nancy Freeman Regalado (eds), Lettres, musique et société en Lorraine médiévale: autour du Tournoi de Chauvency (Ms. Oxford Bodleian Douce 308), Publications romanes et françaises, 255 (Geneva, 2012), pp. 151–204. ——, Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320, Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France (2 vols in 4, Turnhout, 2013–4). ——, ‘Pen-flourishing’, in Frank Coulson and Robert Babcock (eds), The Oxford Companion to Latin Palaeography (Oxford, 2021), pp. 674–90. Symes, Carol, A Common Stage: Theater and Public Life in Medieval Arras, Conjunctions of Religion and Power in the Medieval Past (Ithaca, NY, 2007). Tavani, Giuseppe, ‘Eterotopie et eteronomie nella lettura dei canzonieri galego-portoghesi’, Estudis Romànics, 22 (2000), pp. 139–53. Thomson, Matthew P., ‘Monophonic Song in Motets: Performing Quoted Material and Performing Quotation’, in Ardis Butterfield, Henry Hope, and Pauline Souleau (eds), Performing Medieval Text (Cambridge, 2017), pp. 136–51. ——, ‘Building a Motet around Quoted Material: Textual and Musical Structure in Motets Based on Monophonic Songs’, in Jared C. Hartt (ed.), A Critical Companion to Medieval Motets, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, 17 (Woodbridge, 2018), pp. 243–60. Tyssens, Madeleine, ‘Les Copistes du chansonnier français U’, in Madeleine Tyssens (ed.), Lyrique romane médiévale: la tradition des chansonniers: actes du Colloque de Liège 1989, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 258 (Geneva, 1991), pp. 379–97. ——, ‘Voix de femmes dans la lyrique d’oïl’, in Femmes: mariages‒lignages, XIIe‒ XIVe siècles: mélanges offerts à G. Duby, Bibliothèque du Moyen Age, 1 (Brussels, 1992), pp. 373–88. ——, ‘La Dame et la Mort – la plainte funèbre de la Duchesse de Lorraine’, in Antoni Bartosz, Katarzyna Dybel, and Piotr Tylus (eds), Jeux de la variante dans l’art et la littérature du Moyen Age: mélanges offerts à Anna Drzewicka (Krakow, 1997), pp. 115–27.

242

bibliography

——, “Intavulare”: tables de chansonniers romans: II. Chansonniers français: 5. U (Paris, BNF fr. 20050), Documenta et instrumenta, 5 (Liège 2007). Unlandt, Nicolaas, Le Chansonnier français de la Burgerbibliothek de Berne: analyse et description du manuscrit et édition de 53 unica anonymes, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 368 (Berlin, 2011). Vale, Malcolm, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe 1270–1380 (Oxford, 2001). van der Werf, Hendrik, The Chansons of the Troubadours and Trouvères: A Study of the Melodies and their Relation to the Poems (Utrecht, 1972). ——, The Extant Troubadour Melodies: Transcriptions and Essays for Performers and Scholars (Rochester, NY, 1984). Wackernagel, Wilhelm, Altfranzösische Lieder und Leiche aus Handschriften zu Bern und Neuenburg: Mit grammatischen und litterarhistorischen Abhandlungen (Basel, 1846). Wallensköld, Axel, ‘Dialogue politique en vers de la fin de l’année 1229’, in Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature offerts à M. Alfred Jeanroy par ses élèves et amis (Paris, 1928), pp. 565–70. Zingesser, Eliza, Stolen Song: How the Troubadours Became French (Ithaca, NY, 2020).

Unpublished theses Battelli, Maria Carla, ‘La Tradizione manoscritta delle raccolte individuali nella lirica d’oïl’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, 1995). Lévêque-Fougre, Mélanie, ‘“En passant par la Lorraine”: poétique et milieu socio-littéraire des trouvères lorrains du XIIIe au début du XIVe siècle’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols, Sorbonne, 2015). Linklater, Christina Diane, ‘Popularity, Presentation and the Chansonnier SaintGermain-des-Pres’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2006). Lug, Robert, ‘Der Chansonnier de Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris, BnF fr. 20050): Melodien, Notation, Entstehung, politisches Umfeld’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 3 vols, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main). Mason, Joseph W., ‘Melodic Exchange and Musical Violence in the ThirteenthCentury Jeu-Parti’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018). Parisse, Michel, ‘La Noblesse lorraine: XIe–XIIIe siècles’ (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 2 vols, University of Lille, 1976). Quinlan, Meghan, ‘Contextualising the Contrafacta of Trouvère Song’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols, University of Oxford, 2018). Ruffo, Kathleen, ‘The Illustration of Notated Compendia of Courtly Poetry in Late Thirteenth-Century Northern France’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2000). Saint-Cricq, Gaël, ‘Formes types dans le motet du XIIIe siècle: étude d’un processus répétitif’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols, University of Southampton, 2002).



bibliography 243

Schiassi, Germana, ‘Edizione critica e commento delle liriche di Gautier d’Epinal / Gautier d’Epinal: édition critique et commentaire’ (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Università di Bologna and Université de Paris IV, 2004). Schutz, Richard Allen, ‘The unedited poems of codex 389 of the Municipal Library of Berne, Switzerland’, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976). Thomson, Matthew P., ‘Interaction between Polyphonic Motets and Monophonic Songs in the Thirteenth Century’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2016).

Web-based sources ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231: Fragment of a Chansonnier’ (2018) [accessed 7 August 2020]. [Digital facsimile of B.] ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 354: Composite Manuscript: Dits et fabliaux, Sept sages de Rome, Perceval, French’ (2015) [accessed 7 August 2020]. ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389: Chansonnier français: Trouvère C’ (2017) , [accessed 7 August 2020]. [Digital facsimile of C.] ‘Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95.1: Fragment of a chansonnier: Trouvère c’ (2018) [accessed 7 August 2020]. [Digital facsimile of c.] Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Chansonnier français, dit de Saint-Germaindes-Prés’ (2013) [accessed 15 December 2020]. [Digital facsimile of U.] Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Chansonnier, dit Chansonnier Cangé [Folio 1r]’ (2012) [accessed 15 December 2020]. [Digital facsimile of O.] Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Français 765’ (2012) [accessed 13 August 2020]. [Digital facsimile of L.] Bibliothèque nationale de France, ‘Thomas Cantipratensis, De natura rerum’ (2013) [accessed 15 December 2020]. [Digital facsimile of Paris, BnF, lat. 523A.] Brun, Laurent ‘Li ABC plantefoile’ (2016) [accessed 26 August 2020]. Bodleian Library, ‘Bodleian Library MS. Douce 308’ (2017) [accessed 26 August 2020]. Comité internationale de paléographie latine, ‘Catalogue des manuscrits datés’ [accessed 15 December 2020]. ‘e-codices – Virtual Manuscript Library of Switzerland’, [accessed 18 December 2020].

244

bibliography

IRHT/CNRS (ed.), ‘Initiale: Catalogue de manuscrits enluminés’ [accessed 15 December 2020]. Leach, Elizabeth Eva, ‘The Wonders of Gallica: Some Troubadour and Trouvère Sources’ (2012) [accessed 15 December 2020]. Service du livre et de la lecture and Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (eds), ‘Enluminures’ [accessed 15 December 2020]. Wegman, Rob C., ‘Troubadour/Trouvère Chansonniers’ < https://eeleach.files. wordpress.com/2012/01/chansonniers.pdf > [accessed 17 December 2020].

Recordings Studio der Frühen Musik, Chansons der Trouvères, LP, Telefunken 6.41 928 AW (1974).

Index of Sources Note: page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and their captions

Trouvère sources A (Arras, Bibliothèque municipal, MS 657)  6n26, 52, 123, 124n11, 133, 140n56, 140n58, 174–9, 184, 186n25 B (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 231)  3, 10, 14, 16–17, 38 C (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389)  1–13, 14n5, 15–18, 20–3, 25–52, 53, 56–8, 61–4, 66, 69, 74–83, 83, 84–6, 89–92, 96–100, 107–8, 110–12, 114–61, 163, 173–6, 178–82, 184–95, 199n18, 200–8, 211–28 F (London, British Library, MS Egerton 274)  45, 145 G (London, Lambeth Palace, MS 1681)  45, 90n23, 175 H (Modena, Biblioteca Estense, R4,4)  45, 47, 166n72, 188, 194, 200–1 I (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 308)  4n7, 6, 8–11, 20, 34, 45–7, 52n1, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 74, 80, 82n4, 84, 86n9, 89n18, 91n28, 92n31, 121–4, 126n23, 127n25, 128–9, 131, 133–45, 147–8, 156, 174–9, 184, 190, 192, 193n3, 194 K (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 5198)  28, 37–8, 40–2, 92n32, 116, 123, 127, 138, 146, 153n31, 169n24, 170n26, 172–3, 175–9, 184, 186, 188, 194, 200–2, 208–9 L (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 765)  16–17, 40 M (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844)  6n26, 11, 20n2, 28–9, 38–41, 52, 78n22, 84, 98, 99n54, 100–2, 103n67, 104–8, 111–12, 123, 124n11, 126–7, 138, 140n56, 140n58, 141n59, 146, 156, 164, 167–8, 175–9, 184, 186, 188–9, 193 N (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 845)  37, 39–42, 92n32, 116, 123, 127, 138, 146, 153n31, 170n26, 172–3, 175–9, 184, 186, 188, 194, 200–1 O (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 846)  5–6, 9, 31–3, 37, 39–2, 44, 82n2, 88n14, 89n22, 90, 91n28, 92n32, 124–5, 127, 129, 133, 135–6, 138, 140n56, 140n58, 146–7, 156–7, 174–9, 184, 186, 193–4, 200–1

P (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 847)  28, 37, 39–42, 85, 116, 123, 138, 153n31, 170n26, 172–3, 175–6, 178–9, 184, 186, 188, 194, 200–2 Q (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1109)  175 R (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1591)  4, 39, 41, 78n22, 84, 92n32, 127, 175, 177–9, 186n25, 188 S (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12581)  7, 39, 78, 176 T (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 12615)  6n26, 28–30, 37–9, 41, 78n22, 85, 98, 127, 138, 140n56, 140n58, 141n59, 146, 152, 175–9, 184, 186, 188–9, 193 U (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 20050)  4n17, 6–9, 11, 20, 22, 28, 30–2, 34, 37–47, 50–2, 78, 82–3, 83, 96–102, 103n67, 104–8, 111–12, 114–21, 123, 127, 131n33, 133n45, 136–8, 141n59, 143–4, 145n67, 147, 156, 174–82, 189, 194 V (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 24406)  39–41, 47–8, 86n9, 100n59, 125, 127, 130, 143, 146, 156, 175–7, 184, 186n25, 188 W (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 25566)  6n26, 99n54, 100–2, 103n67, 104–8, 110–12, 174–5 X (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.f. 1050)  28, 39–42, 92n32, 99–108, 110–12, 114–19, 119, 123, 127, 138, 146, 153n31, 179n26, 172–3, 175–9, 184, 186, 188 Z (Siena, Biblioteca comunale, MS H.X.36  38, 145, 174–5, 178–9 a (Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1490)  28, 37, 39, 52, 123, 124n11, 140n56, 141n58, 143, 174–9, 184, 186, 193 b (Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Reg. lat. 1522)  135–6, 138, 141, 151n23, 175–9, 189 c (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 95.1)  10, 14, 16–19, 176

246

index of sources

j (Paris, Bibliothèque national de France, n.a.f. 21677)  47, 84, 144, 169n24

Za (Zagreb, Metropolitanska knjižnica, MR 92) 45

Troubadour sources troubC (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 856)  89, 137n52 troubD (Modena, Biblioteca Estense, R4,4) 116 troubE (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1749)  89 troubG (Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, R 71 superiore) 111 troubKp (Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Thottske Samling Nr. 1087)  100n59 troubR (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de

France, fr. 22543)  89 troubW (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 20050)  99n54, 100, 107, 110–12 troubX (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 844)  99–100, 107–8, 110–19 troubα (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 857)  89n20 troubζ (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 389)  99–100, 107–8, 110–19

Motet sources Ba (Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Lit.115)  124n12, 193 motetF (Florence, Biblioteca-Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 29.1)  116, 124 LoB (London, British Library, MS Egerton

274) 116 W2 (Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Guelf. 1099 Helmst.)  85, 124n12, 193–4, 196n14, 197–8

Aschaffenburg, Hofbibliothek, 16  61, 74 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS W 127 66, 67, 74 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 98 62, 64 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 163 17n17 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 208 17n17 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 233 17n18 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 309 17n17 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 340 17n17 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 354 13 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 4 15n8 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 5 15n9 Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. h. h. III. 110 15n10 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 6435 61, 62, 74 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS II 2297 66, 73 Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, 364 89n32 London, British Library, MS Harley 4972 66, 122n3 Metz, Archives départementales, H903-11294  65, 74 Metz, Bibliothèques-Médiathèques, MS 585 66, 70 Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, James Ford Bell Library, B1280fVi 66, 71

Minneapolis, Bakken Museum, OCLC 746080341, shelf location OS 55.7, vol. 2 66, 72 Nancy, Bibliothèque municipale, site Stanislas, MS 188 62, 63, 74 New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, MS 339 64, 65, 74 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 3517 152 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Moreau 1687–9  2n7, 16 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 523A 58, 61, 74 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 6918  61, 66 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 17311 66, 68, 69, 74 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.f. 5218 64n17 Porto, Biblioteca Municipal, 619 56 Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 183 84 Vatican City, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Vat. lat. 6443 56 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1814 61

Index of Songs Note: page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and their captions

Trouvère songs RS 6 (Seignor, sachiés, qui or ne s’en ira) 146 RS 7 (De Yesse naistra) 116 RS 26 (Fine Amour claime en moi par eritage)  156n35, 216 RS 58 (Piece a que je n’en amai)  28–9, 38, 223 RS 75 (Entre Arras et Douai)  81, 141–3, 211 RS 114 (Grant talen ai k’a chanteir me retraie)  153, 155, 159, 161, 163, 217 RS 119 (Ne puet lassier fins cuers c’ades se plaigne)  38, 222 RS 120 (S’Amours veut que mes chans remaigne)  78n20, 79n29, 226 RS 123 (Devers Chastelvilain) 32 RS 142 (Ma joie premerainme)  84, 221 RS 177 (Loiaus amours et li tens qui repaire)  79, 220 RS 189 (Souspris d’amour, fins cuers ne se puet taire)  50, 219 RS 197a (O Dame qui Deu portais)  155, 159, 161, 173, 222 RS 199 (Aïmans fins et verais)  38, 155, 211 RS 209 (Moult mest belle la douce comensence)  84, 91–2, 221 RS 226 (Moult ai esteit lonc tens en esperance)  84, 92, 221 RS 249 (Qant Deus ot formeit l’ome a sa sanblance)  159, 224 RS 272 (Tout ausi con li olifans)  80n31, 100, 108, 227 RS 288 (Mais ne auris ne prins tens)  85, 221 RS 294 (Baudouin, il sont dui amant) 136, 141 RS 308 (Belle et bone est celle por cui / Je chans)  149, 212–13 RS 310 (Partis d’amour et de mon chant) 79, 224 RS 315 (Je ne voi mais nului qui gieut ne chant)  147n9, 149, 217 RS 321 (Ma derreniere vuel fere en chantant)  136, 184–5, 187 RS 324 (Fueille ne flour ne vaut riens en chantant)  84, 148–9, 154, 216

RS 332 (Une chose, Baudouin, vous demant) 184n20 RS 334 (Phelipe, je vos demant / Dui amant) 184n20 RS 335 (Dame, merci, une rien vous demant)  137, 149, 151, 175n5, 176, 181, 214 RS 340 (Hideusement va li mons empirant)  21, 31–3, 37, 217 RS 360 (Li rossignous chante tant) 148n12 RS 365 (Amis, qui est li mieus vaillant) 136, 138–9, 154, 176, 181–2, 211 RS 397 (Mar vit raixon ki covoite trop hault)  84, 221 RS 407 (De bone amor vient science et bonté)  126, 147n9, 148n12, 149, 152, 214 RS 419 (Maintes fois m’a on demandé)  28n27, 84, 221 RS 421 (Moult aurai lonc tens demoreit)  78n19, 84, 221 RS 428 (Moult manue diver ke tant ait dureit)  85, 221 RS 430 (De jolit cuer enamoreit)  96n40, 215 RS 433 (Lonc tens ai esté)  79n29, 92, 97, 220 RS 445 (Au dous tens d’esté)  23–4, 43, 127n26, 211 RS 454 (Quant li nouviaus tens d’esté) 50n31, 219 RS 487 (Bone amour qui m’agree)  39, 213 RS 491 (Biau Gilebert, dites s’il vous agree) 136, 138, 141, 175n5, 176, 181–2, 213 RS 504 (Ja pour longue demoree)  39, 218 RS 514 (Remembrance qui m’est ou cuer entree)  25–6, 37, 48, 225 RS 517 (La froidour ne la gelee)  80, 220 RS 525 (Tant ai Amors servie et honoree)  149, 152, 227 RS 542 (Outrecuidiers et ma fole pensee)  39, 223 RS 543 (Entre raison et jolive pensee) 135n51, 216 RS 560 (Ma volenteis et bone amor mensaigne)  85, 221

248

index of songs

RS 576 (En mai au dous tens novel) 81, 142–3, 159, 211 RS 589 (Chanteir mestuet por la plux belle)  144, 213 RS 590 (Comencement de douce saison bele)  40, 78n22, 213 RS 598 (Quant voi la flor novele / Florir)  153n31, 172 RS 599 (Quant voi la flor novele / Paroir)  153n31, 170, 172–3 RS 602 (Retrowange novelle)  153, 159, 170, 172–3, 225 RS 610 (Chanteir m’estuet de la sainte pucelle)  159, 213 RS 620 (A l’entrant d’esté que li tens s’agence)  78n20, 126 RS 647 (A l’entree del doulz commencement)  154, 211 RS 649 (Par son dous comandement) 34, 40, 223 RS 670 (Cuers ke son entendement0 159, 213 RS 671 (Merci clamant de mon fol errement)  84, 182, 221 RS 700 (Je chantasse volentiers liement / … Mais je)  28–9, 78n20, 84, 91–2, 221 RS 711 (Tant ai Amors servies longuement)  149, 152, 226 RS 716 (Bon fait servir dame qui en gré prent)  151, 159, 212 RS 719 (Douce dame gré et graces vos rent)  126, 214 RS 728 (Tout esforciés avrai chanté souvent)  22, 40, 226 RS 732 (Moult me prie sovant)  84, 221 RS 734 (Fins de cuer et d’aigre talent) 153–4, 156, 159, 216 RS 741 (Tuit mi desir et tuit mi grief tourment)  148n12, 149, 155, 165, 167–8, 226 RS 749 (A droit se plaint et a droit se gamente)  41, 212 RS 759 (Chascuns qui de bien amer)  85, 194, 221 RS 766 (Des puet ke je sou ameir)  143–4, 215 RS 783 (En plorent me covient chanteir) 159, 215 RS 793 (Talens me rest pris de chanteir) 49, 159, 226 RS 802 (Moult se feist boen tenir de chanter)  84, 92–3, 96, 221 RS 812 (Bone amour me fait chanter / En un)  22–4, 43, 213 RS 842 (Thomas, je vous vueil demander)  177, 181, 227

RS 876 (Douce dame or soit sanz nul nomeir)  126, 136, 138, 141n59, 176, 180–1, 214 RS 884 (Nus hon ne puet ami reconforter) 148n10 RS 886 (Por le pueple reconforter) 48n16, 49n18, 80, 158n3, 159, 223 RS 922 (Je chant comme desvés) 116 RS 935 (L’autrier m’iere levés)  50, 100, 115–16, 220 RS 943 (Bons rois Thibaut, en chantant respondés)  149, 151, 175n5, 175n6, 177, 181–2, 225 RS 946 (Mahieu de Gant, respondés)  80, 85, 175, 177, 221 RS 948 (Gace, par droit me respondés) 136, 138, 141, 175n5, 175n6, 177–8, 180–1, 217 RS 949 (Sire Michies respondeis)  175n5, 177, 226 RS 953 (Gautier, qui de France venés) 80, 96n41, 180n13, 217 RS 954 (Amours et bone volentés)  41, 212 RS 998 (Moins ai joie ke ie ne suel) 78n19, 85, 221 RS 1008 (Quant je voi l’erbe et la fueille)  27–9, 38, 224 RS 1020 (Nete gloriouse)  159, 222 RS 1035 (Pres seux d’amors maix lons seux de celis)  96n40, 223 RS 1043a (En un flori)  81, 142, 143, 211 RS 1059 (Se par force de merci)  34, 41, 226 RS 1072 (Sire Aimmeris prendeis un jeu partit)  175n5, 177, 226 RS 1073 (Desconfortés et de joie parti)  41, 215 RS 1075 (Amours, je vos requier et pri) 136, 138–9, 154, 175–6, 211 RS 1082 (Se j’ai lonc tens Amours servi) 34, 42, 76n10, 226 RS 1097 (Cuens, je vous part un gieu par aatie)  182, 184n20 RS 1102 (De bone Amor et de loial amie / me vient)  152, 155, 169, 171, 215 RS 1119 (Fois, loiautés, solas et courtoisie)  25–6, 37, 48, 217 RS 1125 (Ahi, Amours, con dure departie)  78n21, 150–1, 154, 211 RS 1126 (S’onkes nuls hom por dure departee)  78n19, 149, 226 RS 1127 (Onkes ne fut si dure departee) 149, 222 RS 1152 (Au tans plain de felonie) 148n10 RS 1165 (Bone amor jolie)  144, 212 RS 1171 (Ma chanson n’est pais iolie)  85, 221 RS 1181 (Du tres douç nom a la vierge Marie) 150



index of songs 249

RS 1187 (Un jeu vous part, Andreu, ne laissiés mie)  99n53, 137n52, 177, 180–2, 218 RS 1208 (Puis qu’en moi a recouvré seignourie)  42, 223 RS 1220 (Chans ne chançons ne riens qui soit en vie)  22, 43, 214 RS 1223 (Ains maix ne fix chanson jor de ma vie)  154, 211 RS 1232 (Bien cuidai toute ma vie)  78, 212 RS 1248 (La bone amour qui en joie me tient)  50n21, 220, 227 RS 1268 (Amors me fait comencier) 149, 154, 211 RS 1269 (Mes cuers me fait comencier)  85, 221 RS 1293 (Frere, qui fait mieus a proisier)  175n5, 177, 181–2, 216 RS 1296 (Biau Tierit, je vous veul proier) 136, 138, 140, 175–6, 182, 212 RS 1298 (Quant voi le tens refroidier) 32 RS 1339 (Dieus, j’ai chanté si volentiers)  77n13, 215 RS 1354 (Jehan Simon, li quieus s’aquita muelz)  49n17, 49n20, 137n53, 176, 215 RS 1364 (Chevauchai mon chief enclin)  137n52, 214 RS 1380 (Quant li dous estés decline) 27–9, 38, 224 RS 1384 (Mers cuers loiauls ne fine)  84, 221 RS 1405 (En tous tens se doit fins cuers esjoir)  50n24, 216 RS 1410 (Mauvais arbres ne puet florir) 150 RS 1423a (Sire, loez moi a choisir) 155 RS 1431 (Vivre tous tens et chascun jor morir)  49n18, 159, 227 RS 1437 (Chardon de vos le veul oir)  136, 138, 176, 213 RS 1442a (Gautier, un jeu vous vueil partir)  4n17, 177, 180–2, 183, 184, 224 RS 1448 (Quant je voi mon cuer revenir)  4n17, 182, 183, 184, 224 RS 1459 (A la meire Deu servir)  154, 159, 211 RS 1470 (J’ai un joli souvenir)  80n31, 218 RS 1479 (Tout autresi con l’ente fait venir) 148n12 RS 1516 (Dame, sis vostres fins amis)  150, 214 RS 1520 (Guillaume li Vinier, amis) 175n5, 177, 181, 217 RS 1525 (En chambre a or se siet la bele Beatris)  80, 212 RS 1536 (Moult ai esteit longuement esbaihis)  78n19, 84, 91–2, 221 RS 1545 (Amour dont sui espris / Me semont de chanter)  155n32, 215 RS 1546 (Amours dont sui espris / De chanter me semont) 155n32

RS 1562 (Roze ne flor de lis)  149, 225 RS 1563 (Haute dame, com rose et lis) 155, 159, 161n8, 164, 166, 217 RS 1567 (Ma dame en cui deus ait mis) 84, 97, 221 RS 1576 (Jerusalem se plaint et li pais) 159, 218 RS 1580 (Douce dame de paradix)  159, 214 RS 1601 (Douce dame, roïne de haut pris)  49n17, 215 RS 1602 (Amours a cui je me rant pris) 144, 212 RS 1631 (Force d’Amour me destraint et justise)  160n8, 216 RS 1640 (Par maintes fois avrai esté requise)  30, 37, 96n40, 223 RS 1666 (Bons rois Thibaut, sire, conseilliez moi)  12, 136, 141, 147n9, 184–7, 207 RS 1668 (Moult me mervoil de ma dame et de moy)  84, 92, 221 RS 1684 (Quant amours vit que je li aloignoie)  175, 177, 219 RS 1692 (Li jolis mais ne la flours ke blanchoie)  50n24, 220 RS 1693 (Trop volentiers chanteroie)  32, 227 RS 1704 (L’autrier me chevalchoie) 50n24, 220 RS 1707 (L’autre jour me chevauchoie) 142–3 RS 1730 (Loiaus amours et desiries de joie)  155, 161–3, 220 RS 1754 (A la douçour d’esté qui reverdoie)  78n19, 127, 212 RS 1766 (Flour ki s’espant et fuelle ke verdoie)  154, 216 RS 1768 (Pour le tens qui verdoie)  47n11, 79, 82n2, 223 RS 1779 (Quant flors et glais et verdure sesloigne)  RS 1784 (Quant voi iver et froidure aparoir)  27, 42, 224 RS 1813 (Li miens chanters ne puet mais remanoir)  27n24, 28–9, 38 RS 1840 (Tout autresi com l’aïmans deçoit)  42, 226 RS 1855 (Ier matinet delés un vert buisson)  160n8, 173, 215 RS 1856 (Quant je plus pens a comencier chanson)  155, 159, 165, 167–8, 219 RS 1857 (J’ai fait main vers de chanson)  92, 96 RS 1863 (Sainte s’entiere entension) 49n18, 159, 225 RS 1867 (Sans atente de gueridon) 78n20, 149, 226 RS 1891 (Jai nuls hons pris ne dirait sa raixon)  96n40, 218

250

index of songs

RS 1923 (Ma volenteis me requiert et semont)  84, 221 RS 1933 (Mes sens solais sens deport)  85, 222 RS 1945 (Ferus seux d’un dairt d’amors)  50n24, 216 RS 1949 (Bouchart, je vous part d’amour)  136, 138, 140, 151, 176, 212 RS 1951 (Mescheans seux damors)  85, 221 RS 1952 (Tuit demandent k’est devengue amor)  100, 112, 227 RS 1960 (Au comencier de ma nouvele amour)  20n2, 96n40 RS 1965 (Or cuidai vivre sans amour) 139n55, 223 RS 1966 (Biaus Colins Muses je me plaing d’une amour)  175n5, 176, 213 RS 1971 (Partis de dolour)  43, 223 RS 1986a (Gautier, je tieng a grant folour)  136, 139 RS 1995 (Un petit devant le jour)  30, 37, 78n19, 227 RS 2000 (Amis Bertrans, dites moi le meillour)  80, 136, 138–9, 154, 175n5, 175n6, 194, 211

RS 2008 (A dous tens Pascour)  81, 212 RS 2014 (Conseilliez moi, seignour)  137, 214 RS 2034 (Mais n’os chanter de fueille ne de flours)  50n21, 85, 222 RS 2040 (Aveugles muas et xours)  154, 159, 211 RS 2035 (Chans d’oisiaus et feuille et flours)  79, 214 RS 2063 (Rois de Navare et sire de Vertu)  136, 184–7, 207, 225 RS 2067 (Quant je voi l’erbe menue)  27, 43, 224 RS 2071 (Aincor ferai une chanson perdue)  92, 211 RS 2072b (D’Amours me plaing, ne sai a cui)  126, 214 RS 2075 (Ausi com l’unicorne sui) 7n29, 78n20, 148n12, 150, 155–6, 164, 166, 211 RS 2091 (Mere, douce creature)  84, 155, 159, 161n8, 165, 168–9, 221 RS 2095 (Ki bien ainme plux endure) 150, 219 RS 2107 (Quant voi la glaie meüre)  155, 165, 168, 169n24, 224

Troubadour songs PC 70.43 (Can vei la lauzeta mover (‘lark song’))  102, 105n68, 139n54 PC 76.11 (Lo segles m’es camjatz) 116 PC 159.1 (Cor ai e volontatz) 116 PC 167.4 (Al semblan del rei thyes) 103n67, 106n73 PC 167.50 (Quant vei reverdir les jardis) 103n67 PC 194.16 = 129.4 (N’Ebles, pos endeptatz) 116

PC 262.5 (Quant li rus de la fontainne) 100, 103, 107, 114–15 PC 335.35 (Lo segle vei camjar) 116 PC 421.10 (Tuit demandent k’est devengut d’amors)  100, 112, 227 PC 421.2 (Ausiment con l’olifans) 80n31, 100, 108, 227 PC 461.122 (Finement (‘lai Markiol’))  104–5 PC 461.124 (Gent me nais (‘lai Nompar’)) 104–5

Motets Chascun qui (526)/ ET FLOREBIT (M53)  194–8, 199n18, 205–6

Homo mundi paleas (331)/ ET FLOREBIT (M53) 194n12 Et florebit lilium/ [ET FLOREBIT] 194n12

Conductus Homo considera)  115n89, 115n90, 116

General Index Note: page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and their captions abbreviation 3 acquisition  13, 15, 96, 101, 105n68, 123 exemplar  96, 101, 105n68, 123 source  13, 15 Adam de la Halle  26, 152, 178 adaptation  11–12, 160, 165–73, 192, 195, 198–204, 206 aesthetics  15n9, 56, 153 medieval 153 Alan of Lille  188n29 Albertet de Sestaro  102 Albigensian Crusade  105 Alfonso II, king of Aragon  177, 180–1 allegory  165, 187–8, 203 courtly 165 sacred  165, 167 allusion  180, 185 amateur  100, 107 Anchise de Moivrons  20–1, 30–5, 37 biography  21, 31 Anderson, Gordon A.  182, 199, 202 Andreus 79 Andreus de Paris  99n53 Andrieu Contredit d’Arras  177, 180–1 antiquity 13 Apocalypse 66 apostrophe  3, 161, 164 appreciation  125n69, 160, 189 appropriation 158–73 Arches 27 Arras  6, 21, 35, 52, 98n50, 133, 140n56, 147, 174, 178 chansonniers  6, 52, 140n56, 178 cultural milieu of  35, 147 poets of  21, 35, 98n50 Puy d’  174, 178 scriptoria 6 Artois  1, 5, 9, 185 atelier See workshop. attribution  1n2, 3, 6–7, 10, 20–3, 25, 27–34, 37–43, 48–50, 75–80, 84–5, 92, 96n40, 97–8, 100, 106–7, 112, 114, 117, 126–7, 130–1, 143, 148–54, 149, 179 disputed  7, 25, 28, 31–3, 126, 156, 180 incorrect  98, 106n72, 114, 148–9, 151–2, 156, 164–5, 175n6

and orality  78–9 questionable  10, 20–1, 25, 28–31, 49, 77–80, 97, 149, 179 unique  77–8, 126 aubade See song. Aubertin des Arvols  20, 22, 25–6, 34–5, 37 Audefroi le Bastart  80, 129 audience  8, 12, 33, 156, 160–1, 178, 185, 187, 207 and contrafacture  185 courtly 160 expectation 160 Messine  8, 12, 178 Augustine, Saint  66, 73 De quaestionibus Veteris Testamenti 66, 73 authenticity  2, 4, 23n12, 25, 28–9, 33, 111n83 author  1–3, 5–7, 10, 13–14, 20–3, 25, 27–35, 37–43, 45n4, 48–50, 52, 66, 75–81, 84–5, 87, 90, 91n25, 92, 96n40, 97–100, 103, 106–7, 112, 114–15, 117, 123–31, 133, 140–1, 143–54, 159, 165n17, 179, 185 attribution  1n2, 3, 6–7, 10, 20–3, 25, 27–34, 37–43, 48–50, 75–80, 84–5, 92, 96n40, 97–8, 100, 106–7, 112, 114, 117, 125–7, 130–1, 143, 148–54, 149, 179 corpora  2, 5, 6n26, 123, 125n20 list of  7, 78, 97–8, 127 organisation according to  1–2, 5–7, 10, 45n4, 75, 89n22, 90, 91n25, 106n72, 123–7, 129, 131, 133, 145–7, 152 self-naming  22, 31, 79, 124, 140 status  5–6, 21, 33n52, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 188–90 authority  11, 28, 85, 92, 114, 120, 151–2, 162n15, 198 authorship  21–2, 25, 28–9, 33–4, 66, 75, 79, 92, 98, 126–7, 150 contested  33–4, 92 legitimacy of  21–2 Autonominatio 79 Aymon, son of Count Amadeus V  90n22 Badouin de Condé 198n16 Prison d’Amours 198n16 Bâgé 100n61 ballade 126n23

252

general index

ballette  126, 127n25, 131–4, 142–4 Bar 35 Bar, counts of  57–8, 179–80 entourage 57 sponsorship 57 Bar, Renaud de, canon of Verdun and bishop of Metz  58 Barbieri, Luca  7, 78 Basel 13 Baudler, Arthur  98n39 Baudouin 151 Baudouin d’Avesnes  62, 64, 64, 65, 74 Chroniques de Hainaut 62, 64, 65, 74 Bec, Pierre  153 Bédier, Joseph  32–3 Bern  1–2, 13, 15–17, 82n4 Burgerbibliothek  2, 10, 13, 16 mayor of  2, 13 University of  10 Bernart de Ventadorn  102, 105, 106n72, 139 Bertrans  80, 176, 178 Bertran d’Alamano  116 Bestournés  81, 91n25, 128, 142, 177, 181 binding See source. Blanche de Castille  148n10, 151n23 regency of  148n10 Blanche de Navarre  111n83, 148 Bloch, R. Howard  186 Blondel de Nesle  76, 78–9, 127, 151, 155n32, 185n24 Boncourt, lordship of  23 Bongars, Jacques  2, 13–15, 17 book  2, 6, 13, 16, 34, 52, 57–8, 61–2, 66–70, 74–5, 81, 90n22, 93, 98, 121, 125n20, 127, 132–3, 140n58, 143–5, 147, 153, 174, 180–1 devotional 61 historical 57 literary 57 liturgical  57, 61 medical 57 secular 61 service 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74 Breviary 66, 70 Gradual 61, 62, 74 Missal 66, 67, 68, 69, 74 Pontifical 61 bookmaking  2, 57, 66, 69, 75, 98, 121, 131, 145 monastic  66, 69 lay 69 bookmark 125 borrowing  2, 160, 161n11, 165, 167, 170, 185 intertextual  160, 161n11, 165, 167, 170, 185 source 2. See also contrafacture. Boulogne 23

Brakelmann, Julius  3–5, 86n9 Brussels 61 Burgundy  5–6, 29, 82n2, 90, 98n49, 146, 194n10 chansonniers  5, 9, 90, 146, 194n10 poets 29 politics 6 cadence  162, 164, 197–8 Callahan, Christopher  6, 8–9, 11, 33, 75, 125–6, 130n31, 133, 148n13, 185, 207 Cambrai  23, 66, 69, 71, 74, book production  66 Confraternity of Notre-Dame  66 Missal of  66, 68, 69 Cambron, Abbey of  66, 69, 71–3 canso (‘grand chant’)  12, 20, 80, 132–3, 143, 174 Cantimpré, Thomas de See Thomas de Cantimpré Capetian dynasty  9 identity 9 Cardon  196, 198 cataloguing  10, 15, 17–18 catchword 16–17 cauda 141 Champagne  1, 5, 9, 21, 31–3, 35, 98n49 chansonniers  1, 5, 9 poets of  21, 33, 35, 149 Chancellor, Philip the See Philip the Chancellor chanson  4, 15–17, 88, 132–3, 148, 152, 160, 172, 178n7, 184, 186 d’amour 152 avec des refrains 133 courtly  160, 186 de femme 31 sotte  132, 148 Chapelain de Laon  30 Chardon de Croisilles  84 Charte de franchise d’Olley 64, 65, 74 Chastelain de Couci  28–9, 40, 76, 78, 91n25, 123, 127, 139n55, 151 Chrétien de Troyes  28 Christ in Majesty  66 chronology  35, 86, 123n10, 147, 199, 200n23 Cistercian Order  86, 91 classification  47, 79, 170, 172 generic  170, 172 thematic 79 Clericus, Ernardus  62 clergy  58, 61, 103, 133, 168n23, 172n28, 184, 187–8 bishop  58, 103, 168n23 friar 61 nun 61



general index 253

codicology  10–11, 13, 45, 47, 153 Coinci, Gautier de See Gautier de Coinci Colart le Boutillier  129, 155, 161–4 Colin Muset, (‘Trouvère de Choiseul’)  21, 27, 31–5, 176 poetic style  33 collation  3, 50, 89–91, 96, 107, 111, 114, 118 collection  5, 11, 13, 16n13, 18, 22, 24, 45–8, 50, 75, 78, 87, 90, 100–1, 105–7, 114n86, 121–4, 130–5, 137n53, 140, 144–7, 149n15, 150–2, 156, 174–5, 178, 181, 191, 200 authorial  5, 75, 78 Bongarsiana  2, 13–15, 17, 18n21 book  2, 13 ‘exile’  100–7, 114n86 of manuscripts  5, 13, 18, 93, 105–6, 133–4, 140, 144–6, 200 poetry  17, 45, 75 of songs  11, 16n13, 22, 24, 46–8, 50, 75, 78, 87, 90, 100–1, 106, 121–4, 130–1, 134–5, 137n53, 146–7, 149n15, 150–2, 156, 174–5, 178, 181, 191 synoptic 181 commentary 33 commission  16–17, 61, 131 community  10, 173, 178, 184 local 10 musical  10, 184 of poets  173 song 178 compilation  2, 5–6, 14, 44–5, 50, 77, 88–9, 97, 122, 124–7, 130–4, 165n17, 172 compiler  6–9, 12, 47, 82–3, 85, 89, 91–2, 96n42, 101, 103, 105–7, 117, 120, 123–5, 127, 130–1, 137, 140, 146–7, 150–2, 156–7, 174, 180–1, 192, 195, 207 priorities  8–9, 12, 47, 192 selection of material  83, 85, 96n42, 101, 103, 105–6, 107n76, 117, 140, 146, 151–2, 156–8, 174, 192, 207 composition  11, 26, 139, 147n5, 148, 150n16, 175, 178, 180, 200, 203 dates of  11, 175, 178, 180 history  11, 203 process of  147n5, 200, 203 Comtessa de Dia  104 concordance  1, 16–17, 13n6, 126n23, 128, 130–1, 134–6, 138, 142n60, 143, 152, 156, 175–6, 178–9, 184, 205 conductus  115n89, 116 Conon de Béthune  80, 96n40, 128, 138, 150, 175n6, 176 contrafact  11–12, 26, 47–8, 105n68, 114–17, 125, 130, 136, 139n54, 139n55, 144, 152,

153n31, 155–91, 207 French  105n68, 114–15, 194n12 jeu-parti  12, 174–5, 181–8, 207 Latin  114–15, 194n12 Marian  160, 172–3 Occitan 115 pious/devotional  11, 155, 158 sacred/religious  47–8, 130, 152, 156 contrafacture  8, 12, 26, 80, 155–91, 195, 204, 207 and allusion  185 and borrowing  160, 161n11, 165, 167, 170, 185 and citation  185 and homage  165, 185, 187 and memory  156 networks of  12, 160, 173–4, 182, 184–5, 188–90 recognition 184–6 strategic use of  12 copying  1–3, 4n17, 5–12, 18, 20, 25, 28, 32–4, 36, 45, 47–8, 50, 58, 61–2, 66, 80, 82n1, 87, 89–93, 96–9, 103, 105–7, 119, 122–3, 126–7, 129–30, 131n33, 132, 134–5, 137, 139, 140n58, 141–4, 147n9, 158, 174, 175n4, 178, 180–4, 186–7, 189–90, 192, 205 date  58, 61–2, 66, 180 order of  130, 131n33, 132 countess of Champagne, (Marie de Champagne) 111 couplet  26, 28, 195, 197–8, 200 courtly love  11, 161, 167, 186 Crucifixion  66, 170 crusades  13, 16–17, 47, 96n40, 96n41, 99, 146, 150, 151n22, 154, 165 Albigensian 99 songs  16, 47 96n40, 96n41, 146, 150, 154 culture  1n2, 4–6, 8–9, 35, 79, 90, 106, 121, 147, 156, 178, 184–5, 189, 200n23 centre 106 identity 9 interaction 8 local  5, 9 meaning 5 song  4–5, 90n24, 178, 184, 189 value  1n2, 5 dating  2, 11, 6n25, 7, 10, 13, 20n3, 61, 66, 74, 78, 87, 93, 96n40, 96n41, 106, 114n86, 117n92, 122, 147, 148n10, 175, 178, 180–1, 185 song  11, 61, 78, 96n40, 96n41, 106, 114n86, 117n92, 148n10, 175, 178, 180–1, 185 source  2, 6n25, 7, 10, 13, 20n3, 52, 61, 66, 74, 87, 93, 122, 147

254

general index

Daude de Pradas 104 débat See song; debate. See also jeu-parti. decoration  1–2, 7n29, 10, 14, 16, 18, 44n2, 51–74, 53, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 82, 122–3, 131–3, 135 border  56, 58, 62, 63 capitals  52, 122, 132, 135 face 56 filigree  14, 16, 18 flourishing  2, 14, 52, 56–8, 61, 61, 62, 62, 64, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 131 illumination  1, 2, 7n29, 57–8, 61 initial  2, 14, 16, 18, 51–2, 53, 56–8, 61, 62, 61–2, 64, 64, 65, 66, 122–3 marginal  52, 66 miniature  56–8, 66, 133 regional preferences  57 demande d’amour  132, 134, 137n53, 200n23 dialect  15, 25, 35, 100, 107, 124, 147n5. See also linguistics; regional traits. dialogue  80–1, 134, 184, 186, 203, 206 digitisation  4–5, 13, 16, 18–19, 52n1, 95n37, 122 Dijon 90n22 dilemma question  175 Dinaux, Arthur  23 diphthongisation 26 dissemination See transmission. Doctrina de compondre dictats See Jofre de Foixà Dominican Order  61, 62, 74 Bible  61, 74 Gradual 61, 62, 74 Duchesse de Lorraine See Marguerite de Champagne Dyggve, Holger Petersen  22, 27–8 Eble d’Ussel  116–17 e-codices  10, 13–14, 16, 18 edition (modern)  1–2, 4–5, 29, 32, 46, 50, 137, 174 Elias d’Ussel  117n92, 117n95 Elias Fonsalada  104 emendation 3 Engel, Samuel  15, 17–18 envoi See stanza. epigonism 174 Epinal  23, 27, 76 erasure See source. estampie  132, 148 esthesis 5 Everist, Mark  124, 193 exchange (musical)  174, 184 exemplar  7–11, 27–8, 47, 78, 82, 85, 89–93, 95–7, 99, 101, 105–7, 111, 114, 119–20,

123, 127, 129–31, 137n52, 137n53, 139, 140n58, 141–3, 145, 147n5, 161, 162n16, 173n30, 178, 189, 192, 203–4, 206 access to  7–9, 47, 96n42, 97, 111, 130, 135, 137n53, 140, 145, 173n30, 192, 203 common  8–9, 28, 91–2, 97, 140n58, 141–3, 178 loan of  96n42, 105n69, 120, 137n53, 140n58 small  11, 89–90, 131, 140n58, 142, 145 ex libris 17 Fauchet, Claude  17 Fauquembergues 23 Ferri III, duke of Lorraine  30 feudal system  27, 31, 162n15 filigree See decoration. finding aid  14 Flanders  23, 98n49 flourishing  2, 14, 52, 56–8, 61, 61, 62, 62, 64, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 131 motif  52, 56, 58, 59, 62, 62, 64, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 56, 58 foliation See source. Folquet de Marseille, bishop of Toulouse  103–5, 106n72, 114 as a persecutor of heretics  105 form  33, 97n44, 101n66, 133, 126n23, 193, 197n15, 202 pedes-cum-cauda  193, 197n15 poetic  33, 133 refrain 126n23 textual  97n44, 101n66, formes fixes  126n23, 143, 193 ballade 126n23 rondeau 193 virelai 126n23 fragment  14, 16–18, 33, 77n13 France  6, 9, 13–14, 16–17, 20n1, 57, 124, 150–2, 156, 173–4, 191–2 Bibliothèque nationale de  16–17 history of  13, 17 northern  57, 150–2, 156, 173–4, 192 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor  148n10 conflict with Pope Gregory IX  148n10, 168n23 frons 141 Fruges 23 function  118, 123, 125, 134, 161, 199, 201 codicological 123 generic 125 musical  118, 161, 199 organisational 134 social 134 apostrophising 134



general index 255 dialogic 134 discursive 134 terpsichorean 134 textual 201

Gace Brulé 76, 78–9, 84–5, 91n25, 92n32, 97–8, 123, 129, 138, 141, 149–52, 155, 165, 168, 171, 177–9, 181, 185n24 Gally, Michèle  152 gathering  14, 16, 47, 92, 95, 96n40, 105, 117n95, 118, 130 Gatti, Luca  7, 10, 180 Gaucelm Faidit  102–3, 106, 117 Gauchat, Louis  50 Gautier d’Arches  10, 20–1, 27–30, 34–5, 38, 98 Gautier de Coinci  152, 155n32, 161 Miracles de Nostre Dame 152 Gautier de Dargies  21, 27–8, 84, 91n25, 154 Gautier de Navilly  77n13 Gautier de Prény  22 Gautier d’Espinal  10, 20–3, 27, 34–5, 38–9, 41–2, 76, 128–9, 155, 173 Gelegenheitssammlungen 87 Genette, Gérard  199 Gennrich, Friedrich  88 Repertoire-Theorie 88 genre  1–3, 6, 11–12, 14, 20, 47, 76, 79–81, 86, 90, 91n25, 96n39, 116, 123–7, 129n28, 130–5, 137, 140, 143–4, 146–8, 151–2, 154, 157–8, 160, 174–6, 179–80, 187, 193n4, 200n23 boundaries  137, 187 classification 124 fluidity 124 heterogeneity  35, 48, 146–7, 157 hierarchy  12, 80 hybrid 173 labels  3, 76, 79–81, 125, 127, 130–2, 137, 140, 143–4, 148, 175 variety of  14, 146, 158 Geoffrey II, duke of Brittany  179 geography  1n2, 6n26, 10, 20n1, 21, 34–5, 69, 89, 122, 124, 127, 133n45 Gertrude of Dagsburg 96n40 Gillebert de Berneville  92, 128, 176 Gilles de Vieux Maison  151 Gilles le Vinier  137n53, 177, 180–1 Gontier de Soignies  84, 92n32 Goudefrois de Chastelon  84 grammar (Roman)  13 grand chant  12, 20, 80, 132–3, 143, 174 Graviseth, Jakob  13, 17 Graviseth, Reinhard  13 gravitas 151

Gregory IX, Pope  148n10 conflict with Emperor Frederick  148n10 Gröber, Gustav  3, 86–8, 98, 127n24 Liederblätter-Theorie 87–9 Grossel, Marie-Geneviève  5, 26, 33, 152 guide letter  132 Guichart  80, 178 Guida, Saverio  107n76 Gui d’Ussel  104, 116–17 Guilhem Magret  104 Guilhem Molinier; Leys d’amors 160n6 Guillaume de Ferrières, Vidame de Chartres  84, 91n25 Guiot de Dijon  28–9, 91n25, 128, 154 Guiot de Provins  84, 98 Hagen, Hermann  18 hand See scribe. Henri III, duke of Brabant  136, 176 Herbert 79 heretic  103n67, 105 heritage  10, 21, 34–5, 106, 117 literary 34–5 local 34 musical  10, 34, 106 troubadour 117 hermeneutics 8 heterogeneity  34–5, 47–8, 105n68, 106, 146–7, 157 linguistic 47 generic  34–5, 48, 146–7, 157 sociological 35 source 106 heuristics 152 Hildegard von Bingen  91 historiography  9n39, 194n10 Holy Roman Empire  6 Hope, Henry  10 Hortin, Samuel  15, 17–18 Huet, Gédéon  27–8 Hugues de Berzé 128 Huon de Méry; Torneiment Anticrist 66 hypertextuality 66 identity  4n17, 8–9, 31, 34, 97, 203 Capetian 9 cultural 9 generic 203 literary 9 Lorrainian 34 masculine 31 musical  4n17, 8–9 textual 97

256

general index

ideology 152 idiom See dialect. illumination See decoration. imagery  158, 164 courtly 164 incipitarium 76 index  10, 38–41, 79, 81, 93, 101n65, 106n72, 142n61, 143, 147n9 initials  2, 14, 16, 18, 51–2, 53, 56–8, 61, 62, 61–2, 64, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 122–3 bichrome 14 champie 56–7 filigree  14, 16, 18 flourished  2, 14, 52, 56–8, 61, 61, 62, 62, 64, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 131 foliate  56, 66 gold-leafed 57–8 hierarchy of  14, 56 historiated  56, 58, 61, 146 infilled 52 motifs  52, 56, 58, 59, 62, 62, 64, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 56, 58 pen-flourished 52 puzzle  2, 56, 58, 62 ink  3n16, 65, 124, 158n2, 175n5 Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 57 intellectual property  75 concept of  75 interaction  5, 8, 192–4 cultural  5, 8 song-motet 192–4 interlocutor  11, 49n20, 80, 175–6, 178, 181 female  11, 178 interpretation  25–6, 32–4, 115n90, 119, 172, 188–90 and attribution  33–4 intertextual 190 rhythmic 115n90 song  32, 188–90 textual  119, 172 intertextuality  160, 167, 184–6, 188, 190, 207 networks of  184–5, 190 inventory 3, Isaac, Sacrifice of  66, 69 Jacobus de Voragine  62, 74 Liber de legendis sanctorum 62, 63, 74 Jacques d’Amiens  35, 144n64, 176 Jacques de Cambrai  7, 9, 11, 48–9, 66, 76, 130, 150, 153–4, 157–74, 207 adaptation strategies  160–74 contrafacts  11, 48, 130, 157–74, 207 corpus 158 devotional songs  9, 11, 158, 160, 170

imagery 158 love songs  158, 160–1 Marian songs  9, 130, 150, 160 metrics  158, 161, 170 pastourelle  158, 160 pious songs  130, 150, 157, 165 Jacques de Hesdin  116 Jacques d’ Epinal  20 Jaufre Rudel  100, 103, 107, 111n78m 114–15 Jaufre de Tonnay 111n78 Jean de Lincy  61 Jean le Taboureur de Metz  20–1, 26, 34–5, 43 Jean Renart  78 Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole 78 Jeanroy, Alfred  25, 30, 202, 204–6 Jehan I, dit le Roux, Comte de Bretagne  136, 177, 179, 181 Jehan Acart de Hesdin  17 Prise amoureuse 17 Jehan Bretel  17, 49n20, 178 Jehan d‘Auxerre  79 Jehan de Grieviler  178 Jehan de Nuevile  126 Jenas li Cherpentier d’Arez  128 Jehan li Tenturier d’Aurez  84 jeu-parti  3, 11–12, 14, 17, 34, 49n20, 61, 74, 80, 124, 126–8, 132–8, 139n56, 140–2, 146, 148, 150–4, 157, 160n6, 61, 174–91, 200n23, 202–3, 205, 207 contrafacts  12, 174–5, 181–8, 207 dating of  61, 178–81 and female interlocutors  178 intertextual networks of  184–8 placement of  12, 126, 133–8, 150–3, 174, 207 status  152, 174 structure  157, 160n6, 175, 203, 205 and tensons  175–7, 203 Joffrois Baireis  177–8 Jofre de Foixà; Doctrina de compondre dictats 160 Johannes dictus Toussens  66, 93 John, king of England  180 jongleur 33 Jordan Bonel  103 jugemans d’amors  127–8, 135, 154, 176 Karp, Theodore  88 knight  35, 137n52, 179 Laceni, Oudard de  154 Lachmannian method  86 La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Jean-Baptiste de  2, 15



general index 257

lai  100n62, 104–5 Lambert Ferri  178 Långfors, Arthur  25, 77, 137, 141, 174, 179–80, 184, 191 language  99–118, 160–2, 168, 187 mixed 99–118 use of  187 Lausanne 17 layout  3, 8, 14, 16–17, 36, 47–8, 52n2, 56, 58, 66, 82, 83, 92–3, 95, 101n65, 105, 112, 118–19, 139, 141, 182 margins  82, 95, 139 single-column  14, 16, 58, 82 spacing  8, 36, 47–8, 58, 82, 83, 92–3, 95, 101n65, 105, 118–9 textual  47–8, 112, 141 two-column  17, 101n65, 139n56 written block  14, 16–17, 82, 95, 119, 182 Leach, Elizabeth Eva  8, 9n36, 10–12, 147n5, 147n9, 150n16, 153n30, 178 Lebinski, Carl von  3, 98 Lepage, Yvan G.  202 Leroquais, Victor Marie  66 Lévêque-Fougre, Mélanie  10 lexicon  23–4, 161–2, 164–5, 169–72 lexical connections  162, 172 lexical echoes  162n13, 164–5, 170–1 lexical similarities  23–4 Leys d’amors See Guilhem Molinier. libellus  48, 130, 146, 156, 158, 165n17 Liederblätter see song; leaflet. Lillers 23 linguistics  2, 10, 11n41, 15, 17, 24–31, 34, 47, 50, 100, 117, 121 conventions 100 and provenance  15, 17, 25, 34 and regional traits  15, 17, 24–6, 28–31, 34, 100n61, 101n66, 117, 121. See also dialect. similarities of  25–6, 185 listening  11, 156–7, 160, 162, 164, 170, 184–6, 188–9 intertextual  11, 160 literary studies  2 Lorraine  2, 10, 15, 20–43, 101n66, 106, 189 heritage 34 identity 34 linguistics  15, 24–6, 34–6, 101n66, 106 poets of  10, 20–3, 25–31, 34–5, 37–43, 189 repertoire 20–43 Lotharingia  10, 142, 168 Louis VIII, king of France  99 campaign 99 Louis, Saint  66n20 Lug, Robert  4n17, 6–11, 122–4, 127n27,

131n33, 133n35, 144, 145n67, 147–8, 178, 189 Lusignan, Hugues IX de, count of La Marche 114n86 Lyon 100n61 lyric See poetry. Maistre Renas  48, 49n18, 125, 158n3, 159 manuscript See source. Manuscrits datés series  57 Marcabru 104 margin  10–11, 14, 16–17, 27, 52, 66, 79, 81–2, 95, 124, 127, 139n55, 141, 158n2, 175n4 bas-de-page  139n55, 141 decoration  52, 66 marginal annotation  14, 17, 31, 81 marginal label  10–11, 27, 79, 124, 127, 141, 158n2, 175n4 trimmed  16–17, 95 size  82, 95 Marguerite de Champagne (‘Le Duchesse de Lorraine’)  20, 30–1, 34–5, 37, 96n40, 98 Marshall, John Henry  115 Mason, Joseph W.  8, 11–12, 148n13, 202–3, 207 materiality 18 Matfre Ermengau of Béziers  89n20 Breviari d’amor 89n20 meaning  5, 25, 33 Meaux, treaty of  99 melisma  162, 169, 198 melody  1, 3, 8–9, 12, 32, 79, 82, 89, 92–3, 101, 105, 106n71, 111, 115, 117, 125, 136, 139, 140n58, 141, 145, 152–3, 156–7, 160–2, 164–5, 167–8, 169n24, 170, 172, 181–2, 184–6, 188, 190, 195, 206 absent  3, 82, 101, 115n90, 182n18 borrowing  160, 161n11, 167, 170, 185 contour  160, 165, 167, 186 identity 8 model 153 provision  1, 82n1, 92–3, 145 shared See contrafact. structure  111, 161 through-composed 165 variant  89, 185–6 memory  153, 156, 204, 206 merchant 22 metaphor  187, 189, 202 metre  29, 33, 111, 140, 153n31, 155, 158, 160–1, 167, 170 hypermeter  111, 140, 161n8 mixed (heterometer)  33 scheme  153n31, 161 structure 160

258

general index

Metz  2, 6, 8–9, 11, 15, 21–2, 25–6, 31, 33–5, 52, 57–8, 61, 66, 69–70, 74, 82n2, 89n22, 93, 99, 103n67, 106, 120–1, 124, 127, 133, 141, 145n67, 147–8, 178, 184–5, 187, 189–90, 207 audience  8, 12, 178, 184–5, 187, 190, 207 book production  2, 6, 8, 10–11, 52, 57–9, 60, 61, 62–6, 69, 70, 74, 98, 121, 124, 145n67, 147 culture  9, 26, 35, 106, 120–1, 178, 184, 189 economic crisis  26n21 neumes  8–9, 82n2 paraige  26n20, 148 Place de Vésigneul  26 Place Saint-Louis  26 poets  25–6, 31, 33–5 politics of  9, 26n21, 35, 89n22, 99, 121, 124, 148, 189 refugees 99 St-Arnoul de  66 Breviary of  66 Meurthe-et-Moselle 20n1 Meuse  20n1, 23 minstrel  33–4, 90n24, 133 miscellany  56, 58 misogyny 116 Mittenhuber, Florian  2, 10 mode 9 rhythmic 9 Moinnies d’Aures  128–9, 152. See also Moniot d’Arras. Moniot d’Arras  91n25, 127. See also Moinnies d’Aures. monophony  79, 122, 193–5, 198–200 Montreuil, Gerbert de: Roman de la Violette 99 Moreno, Paola  3–5, 7–11, 122, 125, 158n2, 164, 174, 175n4, 192, 207 Moselle 20n1 motet  6n26, 12, 116, 123–4, 132–3, 148, 192–207 adaptation  12, 192, 195–6, 198–201, 203–4, 206 contrafacts  194n12, 195, 204, 207 exemplar  203–4, 206 forms 193 polyphonic 192 quotation of  193, 198–9 structure  193–204, 206–7 motto  91, 95, 119 mouvance 186 Muraille, Guy  30 Muse an Borse  152 musicality 8 musicology  1–2, 5, 88–9, 121–2, 174, 192

narrative  21, 123–4, 127n52, 147 narrator  31, 137n52, 172 neume 8–9 diastematic 8 Messine  8–9, 82n2 nobility  20n3, 23, 34–5, 57, 90n22, 133 notation  1, 5, 8–10, 16–17, 36, 44n32, 66, 78, 82, 90n22, 92–3, 102–5, 121–2, 139, 142, 145, 153, 172, 174, 181, 184, 186, 194n10, 195, 198, 205 mensural  9, 194n10 Metz  9, 82n2 neumatic 8–9 semi-mensural  9n40, 82n2 square  9, 16, 66, 82n2 Occitanie  50, 77, 96n39, 98–100, 104, 105n69, 106n72, 107, 111, 114–18, 137 dialect 117 Franco-Occitan  50, 77, 99n55, 100, 117 poets 117 refugees 117 repertory  50, 77, 96n39, 99–100, 104, 106n72, 107, 114–18, 137 Oede de la Couroierie  184–5 O’Neill, Mary  78 organisation  1–2, 5–6, 10–12, 14, 35, 44–5, 47, 49n18, 50–2, 75–6, 80, 122–7, 129–35, 140, 144–7, 150, 152, 174–5, 193 alphabetical  1, 5–6, 10, 14, 44–5, 47, 49n18, 50–2, 76, 89, 123–5, 129–30, 132n35, 133–5, 142–4, 146–7, 149, 153, 158–9, 182, 193 authorial  1–2, 5–7, 10, 45n4, 75, 89n22, 90, 91n25, 106n72, 123–7, 129, 131, 133, 145–7, 152 chronological  35, 123n10, 147 and composer status  5–6, 123–4, 125n20, 146, 150 by genre  2, 6, 12, 47, 90, 91n25, 123–6, 131–5, 143–4, 147, 175, 193n4 geographical  6n26, 35 hierarchical  80, 123–4, 146, 174–5 liturgical  124, 193n4 second-level 125–6 orthography  4, 90, 124, 137, 142, 143n62 O’Sullivan, Daniel E.  5, 8, 11–12, 184–6, 207 ownership  14–15, 17 pairaige 26 palaeography  3, 7, 10–11, 14–15, 18, 45, 47–9, 57, 92, 119, 125n19, 132, 158n2, 175n4, 180 parchment  1, 14, 15n9, 16, 17n19, 90n24, 95, 96n40, 125 tabs  14, 125



general index 259

Paris  2–3, 17 Paris, Gaston  88 Parisse, Michel  23, 31 Parker, Ian  89 parody  174, 188 Pas-de-Calais 23 paste-down 15 pastorela  100, 107, 114–18 pastourelle  1, 12, 14, 16, 34, 50, 80–1, 126–8, 131–4, 141–3, 146, 148, 150, 158, 160, 172–4, 178 patron  23, 33, 69, 98n49, 103n67, 127, 145 Peire Cardenal  116 Peire d’Alvernhe  103 Peire Vidal  103 Peirol 103 Peraino, Judith  79 Perdigon 104 performance  3, 103n67, 134, 139, 141, 145, 153, 156, 161, 185 personification 135n51 pes  162, 165 Philip II, king of France  180 Philippe de Nanteuil 128 Philip the Chancellor  115–16 philology  5, 28, 31, 51, 76n7, 86, 88–9, 100n61, 117, 152n27, 184 phrasing  25, 162, 164, 169, 185 formulaic 25 Picardy  21, 25–9, 98n49, 106n74 dialect  21, 25, 29, 106n74 poets 25–9 Pierre de Beaumarchais  136, 176, 181 Pierre de Craon  156n35 Pierre de Gand  128, 149–50, 156, 164 Pistoleta 104 poeisis 5 poet  10, 12, 20–3, 25–31, 33–35, 37–43, 48, 76, 98n50, 111n83, 116–17, 123–4, 125n20, 134, 149, 158, 165n17, 172n28, 173, 178, 188–90 aristocratic  146, 151 female 178 status of  21, 33n52, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 188–90 poetry  1–3, 6–8, 11–14, 16–18, 20–3, 30–4, 45, 47–8, 64, 75–82, 89, 91, 98, 100n59, 101, 103, 106n72, 107, 111, 114, 116, 118, 123, 125, 129n28, 132–42, 145–6, 150n19, 152–3, 155–8, 160–8, 170, 172–4, 178–9, 181–2, 184–6, 188–90, 193–206, 208–9 anonymous  1, 2n5, 4n17, 14, 30–2, 45n4, 49n18, 85, 92n32, 100, 104, 106n72, 115–16, 127, 136–7, 149–51, 153n31, 154

comparison  91, 111, 142, 162, 190, 204–5, 208 couplet  26, 28, 195, 197–8 courtly  11, 160–2, 164–5, 167, 170, 186 debate  3, 11–12, 14, 17, 34, 49n20, 61, 74, 80, 124, 126–8, 132–8, 139n56, 140–2, 146, 148, 150–4, 155, 157, 160n6, 61, 174–91, 200n23, 202–3, 205, 207 devotional  9, 11–12, 14, 16, 20, 61, 80, 116, 125, 127, 129n28, 130, 151–86 dialogic  80, 134, 186 epic 86 feminine 30 form  33, 133, 193, 202, 204 identity 97 Marian  9, 125–6, 129–30, 143, 151, 153n31, 158, 160–2, 170, 172–3 metre  29, 33, 111, 140, 153n31, 155, 158, 160–1, 167, 170 moralising  33, 165 phraseology 164 practice  8, 75 production  5, 20, 34, 146, 194, 205 references  33, 122, 137, 151, 153, 160–1, 165, 170, 180, 188 religious  6, 11, 14, 25, 44, 47–8, 49n18, 49n20, 51, 80, 83, 100n59, 147, 150–2, 156, 161, 165, 204n33, 207 rhyme  23, 25–6, 28–9, 33, 117–18, 153n31, 155, 160–1, 162n13, 165, 167, 169–70, 172, 185, 188–9, 201–4, 206 romance  80, 86–7 satirical  26, 31, 33–5, 116 semantics  11, 153, 195, 197, 206 senhal 111n78 structure  80, 115, 157, 160, 182, 194–6, 198–9, 204, 206–7 style  21, 33 terminology  160, 202 theme  33, 123, 158, 160, 162, 195 transtextuality 199 variant  1n2, 25–6, 118n98, 141, 143, 145, 152, 200n25 vernacular  75, 77, 90n24, 174, 198 politics  6, 9, 26n21, 35, 81, 85, 89n22, 96n39, 96n40, 96n41, 111, 114n86, 121, 124, 148, 151n23, 168 polyphony  79, 192, 194, 205 Pons de Capdoill  103 Port-Sailly  22, 26n20, 93n34, 96, 101, 107, 120, 148 exile 93n34 families  93n34, 96, 101 social milieu  148 Premonstratensian Order  66–7

260

general index

Prény, Lord of  22–3 pricking  14, 16, 18 production  5, 7, 9–10, 75, 90n24, 98, 121, 131, 145–6, 150, 194 book  5, 7, 9–10, 57–8, 66, 69, 75, 90n24, 98, 121, 131, 145 lyric  20, 34, 146, 150, 194 Prophécies de Sébille 66 prose  122, 134 protagonist  49n20, 188 provenance  1–2, 5–6, 10, 15, 17–18, 21–2, 28, 34, 52, 89n22, 147n5, 174, 178, 192, 194 Provencal 47 punctuation 3 Quinlan, Meghan  182n18, 185, 188 quotation  79n29, 137n52, 162, 173, 193, 198–9 Raimbaut d’Aurenga  104 Raimon Jordan  104 Raimon Vidal de Bezaudun  137n52 Razos de trobar 160n6 So fo e.l temps 137n52 Raoul de Soissons  12, 151n22, 155, 165, 168–70, 184, 207 Raupach, Manfred  101 Raupach, Margret  101 Raynaud, Gaston  95n37, 137n52, 149 reception,14, 96n11, 160, 189–90 recitation 3 tone 162 refrain  126n23, 131, 133, 196, 198–201, 204 refugees  99, 106, 117 repertoire  1n2, 11, 17, 20–36, 77–9, 82, 99, 100n61, 101, 106n72, 121–2, 141, 143, 175–184, 199n21 of C  1n2, 20–36, 77–9, 82, 175–184 of I 143 of Jacques de Cambrai  158 Lorraine 20–36 Metz 141 of U 82 of W/M 101 trouvere  11, 17, 106n72, 121–2 of X/U  1, 101 of ζ/C  99, 100n61 repetition  25–6, 115n90, 126, 131, 140, 153, 197n15 Resbais, Johannes  66, 71, 72 reverdie 23 reworking  12, 160–1, 172, 204 rhetoric  152, 161, 164, 172n28 rhyme  23, 25–6, 28–9, 33, 96n43, 117–18, 153n31, 155, 160–2, 165, 167, 169–70, 172, 185, 188–9, 197, 201–4, 206

coblas capcaudadas  169, 188 coblas capfinidas 169 coblas doblas  96n43, 155, 162, 165, 167, 169, 204 coblas retrogradadas  155, 165, 169 coblas retronchadas 169 coblas singulars 169 coblas ternas 96n43 coblas unisonnans 162n13 couplet  26, 28, 197 scheme  155, 161, 165, 167, 169, 172, 188–9, 202, 206 sounds  25–6, 28–9, 117–18, 153n31, 155, 161, 162n13, 167, 169–70, 185, 188–9, 201–3, 206 Richard I (‘Lionheart’), king of England  96n39, 96n40 captivity 96n40 Richard de Fournival  66, 85, 194, 202 Bestiaire d’amours 66 Rigaut de Berbezilh  100, 103, 107–8, 111–12 nature comparisons  111n83 vida 111n83 Robert de Bissen et de la Grange  64 Robert de la Piere 177 Robert de Reins La Chievre  132, 134–5, 199n19, 202n28 rondeau  132–3, 148, 193 Rosenberg, Samuel N.  26, 33 rotrouenge See song. rubric  7n30, 11, 14, 20n3, 21–3, 25, 27–8, 31, 49n18, 76, 79–81, 101n65, 106n72, 123, 125–6, 130n31, 132, 149, 151n23, 153–4, 156, 158n2, 159–60, 173, 176, 180n13 rubricator  3, 7, 9–11, 20–1, 23, 27–30, 32, 49, 76, 78–81, 98, 99n53, 140n58, 149, 158, 164, 165n17, 167, 173, 175 Rudel, Jaufre III, prince of Blaye  111n78 ruling  8, 14, 16, 18, 36, 66, 75, 93, 139n55, 158n2 Saint-Cricq, Gaël  193, 199–200, 202n28 Sanctinus, Saint  57n6 sanctoral 66n20 Schiassi, Germana  22 Schneider, Jean  26, 31 Schutz, Richard Allen  3 Schwan, Eduard  1, 3, 8, 10–11, 45–8, 66, 86–9, 122–3, 125, 144–5, 147, 184 stemmatics  11, 45–8, 66, 86–8, 123, 144, 147 scribe  7, 11–12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23n8, 28, 34, 44, 47–50, 66, 75, 82n2, 92–3, 95n37, 96n39, 96n40, 96n42, 98, 100–1, 106, 111m79, 118–19, 124, 127, 129, 130n31,



general index 261

131–2, 139–42, 143n62, 145, 152, 161, 164m 173–4, 175n4, 186n26, 189–90, 192, 195, 202n27, 203–7 competence 127n27 error  12, 44, 95n37, 98, 127, 130n31, 132, 142, 143n62, 173n30, 186n26, 189–90 manipulation of lyrics  21 notational  82n2, 93n34, 101, 106, 145 omission  85, 95n37, 96n40, 96n42, 101, 118–19, 124, 140 perceptions of  195 priorities  101, 152, 192, 195, 202n27 professional  106, 131, 145 scribal hands  7, 11, 47–50, 92–3 textual  7, 14, 16, 96n39, 175n4 script  14, 16, 18, 25, 48, 119 Gothica textualis  14, 16, 18 scriptorium  6, 9, 31, 75, 96n39, 173n30 senhal See poetry. semantics  11, 153, 195, 197, 206 serventois (sirvente) See song. Seydlitz-Kurzbach, Hans von  2, 11n41 sigla  1n1, 75n1, 99n54 Simars de Boncourt  20–3, 25, 34–5, 43, 159 singer  84, 86, 100, 107, 139, 153, 160, 162, 178, 184, 186 amateur  100, 107 professional 107 Sinner, Johann Rudolf  15–18, 23 sirvente (serventois) See song. Spanke, Hans  4n18, 88, 149, 170, 179n13, 181 society  5–6, 35, 123–4, 148, 150, 155, 195 status  5–6, 123–4, 150, 155 sociology 55 Somme, the  45 song: address  22–3, 111, 114n86, 119, 139, 140n58, 141, 148n10, 150–1, 161, 164, 168, 172, 179, 185–6 anonymous  1, 2n5, 4n17, 14, 30–2, 45n4, 49n18, 85, 92n32, 100, 104, 106n72, 115–16, 127, 136–7, 149–51, 153n31, 154 aubade  30–1, 34 captivity  96n40, 96n41 collection  11, 16n13, 22, 24, 46–8, 50, 75, 78, 87, 90, 100–1, 106, 121–4, 130–1, 134–5, 137n53, 146–7, 149n15, 150–2, 156, 174–5, 178, 181, 191 contrafact  8, 11–12, 26, 47–8, 105n68, 114–17, 125, 130, 136, 139n54, 139n55, 144, 152, 153n31, 155–91, 174, 184, 195, 204, 207 courtly love  11, 161, 167, 186 crowned 80n31 crusade  16, 47, 96n40, 96n41, 146, 150, 154

culture  4–5, 90n24, 178, 184, 189 dating  11, 61, 78, 96n40, 96n41, 106, 114n86, 117n92, 148n10, 175, 178, 180–1, 185 dawn 35 death lament  96n39 debate  11–12, 126, 135n51, 137n52, 146, 151, 153, 155. See also jeu-parti. ‘de deus’  125, 127 devotional  9, 11–12, 14, 16, 20, 61, 80, 116, 125, 127, 129n28, 130, 151–86 dialect  15, 17, 24–6, 28–31, 34–5, 100, 101n66, 107, 117, 121, 124, 147n5 dissemination  5, 10, 17, 28, 30, 33–5, 75, 79, 83, 85, 87–8, 92, 96n39, 100n59, 101n62, 103n67, 107, 111, 120, 123, 127, 141, 143, 153, 158, 161, 165n19, 169n24, 172–3, 178, 182n18, 184, 186, 188, 190, 200, 203 duplicates  44, 49, 96n40, 103, 105–6, 107n76 exchange  174, 184 Franco-Occitan  50, 77, 99–118 funeral plaint  30–1, 34–5 keyword  90–1, 160, 165 labelling  7n30, 10–11, 14, 20n3, 21–3, 25, 27–8, 31, 49n18, 76, 79–81, 101n65, 106n72, 123–7, 130n31, 132, 141, 149, 151n23, 153–4, 156, 158n2, 159–60, 173, 175n4, 176, 180n13 Latin  91, 114–15, 194n12 leaflets  11, 87–90, 98, 120, 131, 140n58, 142, 145 production of  90n24, 98 love  11–12, 22, 25, 27, 34–5, 96n39, 126, 133, 137, 146–7, 151–8, 160–1, 184–8, 190 Marian  9, 125–6, 129–30, 143, 151, 153n31, 158, 160–2, 170, 172–3 model  9, 11, 47–51, 130n28, 130n31, 142, 153, 155, 158n3, 160–2, 165, 167–70, 173, 185, 204–5 moralistic 33 and motet adaptation  12, 192–3, 195–6, 198–201, 203–4, 206 network of  12, 155, 160, 173–4, 182, 184–5, 186n25, 188–90, 193, 194n9, 195 ‘de nostre dame’  47, 125, 127–8, 153, 156, 158–9 notated  8–9, 66, 93, 121, 141n59 organisation  1–2, 5–6, 10–12, 14, 35, 44–5, 47, 49n18, 50–2, 75–6, 80, 122–7, 129–35, 140, 144–7, 150, 152, 174–5, 193 partimen  101n65, 117n95 pious  26, 34–5, 47, 51, 126, 155, 157–8, 160–2, 165, 169–70, 172–3

262

general index

song (cont’d) political 96n39 polyphonic  79, 192, 194, 205 with references to real people  111, 114, 151n22 refrain  126n23, 131, 133, 196, 198–201, 204 religious  6, 11, 14, 25, 44, 47–8, 49n18, 49n20, 51, 80, 83, 100n59, 147, 150–2, 156, 161, 165, 204n33, 207 ‘retrus’  80, 127, 129 rotrouenge  80, 170–2 satirical  26, 31, 33–5, 116 secular  9, 47–8, 61, 152–3, 155, 158, 160, 167 sexually explicit  117 serventois (sirvente)  33, 116, 156, 160 stanzas  1, 4n17, 8, 12, 14, 16, 25, 29, 32–3, 36n55, 48, 75, 90–2, 96–8, 101–7, 111, 114–19, 130, 136, 137n52, 137n53, 139–44, 155–6, 160–2, 164–70, 172–3, 175, 182, 184–9, 193–209 topicality 96n41 source: antecedent  45, 48–50, 86 appendix  92–3, 95–6, 100n59 archetype  46, 123, 144 binding  15n9, 95n37, 121, 122n3, 125, 133 booklet  130, 143, 145 central  1–2, 5–8, 10 collation  3, 50, 89–91, 96, 107, 111, 114, 118 compilation  2, 5–9, 12, 14, 44–5, 47, 50, 77, 82–3, 85, 88–9, 91–2, 96n42, 97, 101, 103, 105–7, 117, 120, 122–7, 130–4, 137, 140, 146–7, 150–2, 156–7, 165n17, 172, 174, 180–1, 192, 195, 207 concordances  1, 16–17, 13n6, 126n23, 128, 130–1, 134–6, 138, 142n60, 143, 152, 156, 175–6, 178–9, 184, 205 damage 17 dating  2, 6n25, 7, 10, 13, 20n3, 52, 61, 66, 74, 87, 93, 122, 147 decoration See decoration. See also flourishing. dismemberment 45 erasure  95n37, 132 exemplar See exemplar. expense 58 families  28–9, 45–7, 57, 75, 77, 81, 144, 147, 172, 200 foliation  14, 16–17, 95 fragmentary  14, 16–18, 33, 77n13 German 124 interdependence of  85 later addition to  3, 9n40, 11n41, 14, 20, 47, 51, 82n2, 93, 100n59, 105n68, 114, 119, 125n19, 130n31, 132, 137n53, 139n55,

141–3, 153, 180 layout  3, 8, 14, 16–17, 36, 47–8, 52n2, 56, 58, 66, 82, 83, 92–3, 95, 101n65, 105, 112, 118–19, 139, 141, 182 loose-leaf 145 miscellaneous  56, 58 motet  116, 124, 132–3, 148, 192–4, 198 organisation  1–2, 5–6, 10–12, 14, 35, 44–5, 47, 49n18, 50–2, 75–6, 80, 122–7, 129–35, 140, 144–7, 150, 152, 174–5, 193 peripheral  2, 5, 10, 122, 174, 184 production  5, 7, 9–10, 57–8, 66, 69, 75, 90n24, 98, 121, 131, 145 with ruled staves  1, 3, 8, 14, 15n8, 15n9, 15n10, 16, 36, 48, 75, 82n1, 82n2, 101n65, 122, 140, 141n59, 161n11, 182, 186 with space for but not ruled staves  36, 48, 92–3, 101n65 subsections  81, 126n23, 132–5, 137, 141–3, 200n23 tradition  2, 5–7, 9–10, 21, 30, 34, 75n1, 77–8, 129 unfinished  145, 161 value 44 spelling  26, 137, 142, 155, 160n8 Spetia, Lucilla  145 stanza  1, 4n17, 8, 12, 14, 16, 25, 29, 32–3, 36n55, 48, 75, 90–2, 96–8, 101–7, 111, 114–19, 130, 136, 137n52, 137n53, 139–44, 155–6, 160–2, 164–70, 172–3, 175, 182, 184–9, 193–209 envoi  22, 32–3, 91n28, 124, 140–1, 148n10, 161, 169, 187–9, 203 heterogeneous 105n68 missing  98, 101n65 order of  36n55, 91, 96n43, 107n77, 11n82, 114, 143, 162n16, 188–9 syllables  29, 33, 111, 161n8, 164, 169, 186, 197–8, 206 decasyllabic  29, 33 heptasyllabic 169 tri-syllabic 169 tornada  107, 111, 114–15, 117–19 variation  25, 114, 115n90, 118, 140–1, 143, 162n16, 200n25 status  1, 5, 33n52, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 150, 152, 188–90, 195 social  5, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 150, 195 song  1, 152 trouvères  21, 33n52, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 188–90 staves  1, 3, 8, 14, 15n8, 15n9, 15n10, 16, 36, 48, 51–2, 75, 82n1, 82n2, 92–3, 101n65, 122,



general index 263

139–40, 141n59, 161n11, 182, 186 empty  1, 3, 8, 14, 15n8, 15n9, 15n10, 16, 36, 48, 75, 82n1, 82n2, 101n65, 122, 140, 141n59, 161n11, 182, 186 missing (space reserved for)  36, 48, 92–3, 101n65 stemmatics  11, 45–51, 86–8, 97, 101n62, 123, 144, 147 Stones, Alison  10, 90n24 Strasbourg  13, 15, 61 strophic schema  33, 80 heterostrophic 80 structure  23–4, 26, 80, 90, 93, 131, 144, 148n13, 156–7, 160–1, 182, 193–9, 202–4, 206–7 dialogic 80 melodic 161 metrical 160 motet 193 musical, musico-poetic  157, 194–9, 206–7 poetic  26, 182, 197, 202–4 strophic 115n90 source  90, 93, 131, 144, 148n13, 156–7 tonal 199n20 verse 182 style  10, 33, 90n22 decorational 10 notational 90n22 poetic 33 Switzerland  1, 13 table of contents  3, 29, 80, 131–2, 134–5, 139, 140n58, 141–2, 144 Tarbé, Prosper  30, 32 Te igitur  66, 69 tenor  12, 94n12, 198–9 tenson  137n52, 175–7, 203 text See poetry. theme  12, 33, 123, 158, 160, 162, 165, 195 courtly 165 moralising 165 of the moralising minstrel  33 pious 158 Thibaus de Nangis  81, 129 Thibaut IV, king of Navarre, count of Champagne  4–5, 7n4, 11–12, 16, 30, 35, 76, 78, 111n83, 123, 125n25, 137, 140n56, 140n58, 141, 146–57, 161, 164–8, 170, 175–6, 178, 180–1, 184–90, 207 attributions to  148–50, 152, 156 contrafacts of  152, 155, 164–8, 185–90, 207 dating  148n10, 180, 185 death  146, 180 generic range  146

influence of  148n13, 156 marriage 168 musical legacy  148–57 popularity of  11–12, 148, 185, 189–90, 207 rebellion against the king of France  189 siege of Metz  148, 189 status of  5, 7n29, 78, 123, 125n25, 146, 150, 188–90 Thibaut II, count of Bar (‘Comte de Bar’)  20, 96n41 Thierry de Lincy, Maître 61 Thomas de Cantimpré 58, 61, 74 De rerum natura 58, 61, 74 Thomas Herier  85 Thomson, Matthew P.  12 Tieri 178 Tischler, Hans  26 tonal scheme  199 toponym  20n1, 32 topos 23 tornada See stanza. Torneiment Anticrist See Huon de Méry. Toul, Missal of  66, 67, 74 Toulouse, bishop of  103 Tournoi de Chauvency 58 Toussens, Johannes dictus See Johannes dictus Toussens. transcription  3, 48–9 translation  9, 23, 107, 130n28, 161 transmission  5, 10, 17, 28, 30, 33–5, 75, 79, 83, 85, 87–8, 92, 96n39, 100n59, 101n62, 103n67, 107, 111, 120, 123, 127, 141, 143, 153, 158, 161, 165n19, 169n24, 172–3, 178, 182n18, 184, 186, 188, 190, 200, 203 local 184 melody  182, 186, 190 model 87 oral 79 patterns  123, 186, 190 stanzaic  141, 172–3, 188 Trésorier de Lille 29n31 troubadour  1n1, 11, 52, 79, 86, 89, 99–106, 111n78, 111n79, 117, 120–1 sources  11, 52, 86, 89, 99–106, 117, 121 trouvère  1–2, 4–23, 25–35, 37–43, 48, 52, 75–81, 86, 88, 98, 99n54, 106n72, 107, 120–6, 130, 144, 146, 148n13, 151, 155–6, 158, 160, 165, 167, 173–5, 178, 181, 184–5, 188, 190, 192–3 central sources  1–2, 5–8, 10 Champenois  21, 33, 35 female  20, 30–1, 34–5, 37, 96n40, 98, 104, 111 KNPX group  5, 29n31, 77, 84–5, 92n31, 98, 136, 172

264

general index

trouvère (cont’d) Lorrainian  10, 20–3, 25–31, 34–5, 37–43, 189 major  78, 126 Messine  25–6, 31, 33–5 minor  78, 126 Occitan 117 Picard 25–9 status  21, 33n52, 34, 123–4, 125n20, 188–90 tradition  1–2, 5–7, 9–10, 75, 122, 151, 156 Trouvère de Choiseul See Colin Muset. Tyssens, Madeline  8, 30, 44–6, 50, 95n38 Uc de Saint-Circ  117n92 razos 117n92 vidas 117n92 unica  1–2, 4, 14, 20, 25, 32, 44, 47–8, 49n18, 77, 83, 136, 144, 151, 176–8 Unlandt, Nicholas  4n17, 7, 45n4, 77, 192 value  1n2, 5, 12, 44 contemporary 12 cultural  1n2, 5 of manuscripts  44 variant  1, 7, 25–6, 45–7, 50, 89, 118, 124, 141, 143, 145, 152, 186, 200 attribution 7 common  45, 47 dialectical  25, 124 graphic 118 melodic  89, 186 textual  1n2, 141, 145, 152, 200

variation 153 Verdun 56–8 Abbey of Saint-Vannes  57n6 verse  29, 33, 48, 139n55, 162, 165, 168 decasyllabic 33 metre  29, 33 heterometric 33n52 versification  33, 181–2 Vielart de Corbie  85 Vienne 100n61 Vignory manor  32 virelai  126n23, 133 virtuosity 155 Vitonius, Saint  57n6 voice (poetic)  30, 202–3 feminine 30 masculine 30–1 Vosges  20n1, 27, 35, 76 Wackernagel, Wilhelm  2–3 Wallensköld, Axel  5 watermark 17 Werf, Hendrik van der  88 White Linker, Robert  77, 156n35 Wild, Marquard  15–17 Woëvre (Meuse)  23 word division  3 workshop  45, 51, 101, 105n68, 124, 131, 134, 137, 140n58 Worms 103n67 written block  14, 16–17, 82, 95, 119, 182 spacing  48, 95, 119

Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music Volumes already published Machaut’s Music: New Interpretations edited by Elizabeth Eva Leach The Church Music of Fifteenth-Century Spain Kenneth Kreitner The Royal Chapel in the time of the Habsburgs: Music and Court Ceremony in Early Modern Europe edited by Juan José Carreras and Bernardo García García Citation and Authority in Medieval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned. Essays in Honour of Margaret Bent edited by Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth Eva Leach European Music, 1520–1640 edited by James Haar Cristóbal de Morales: Sources, Influences, Reception edited by Owen Rees and Bernadette Nelson Young Choristers, 650–1700 edited by Susan Boynton and Eric Rice Hermann Pötzlinger’s Music Book: The St Emmeram Codex and its Contexts Ian Rumbold with Peter Wright Medieval Liturgical Chant and Patristic Exegesis: Words and Music in the Second-Mode Tracts Emma Hornby Juan Esquivel: A Master of Sacred Music during the Spanish Golden Age Clive Walkley Essays on Renaissance Music in Honour of David Fallows: Bon jour, bon mois et bonne estrenne edited by Fabrice Fitch and Jacobijn Kiel

Music and Ceremony at the Court of Charles V: The Capilla Flamenca and the Art of Political Promotion Mary Tiffany Ferer Music and Meaning in Old Hispanic Lenten Chants: Psalmi, Threni and the Easter Vigil Canticles Emma Hornby and Rebecca Maloy Music in Elizabethan Court Politics Katherine Butler Verse and Voice in Byrd’s Song Collections of 1588 and 1589 Jeremy L. Smith The Montpellier Codex: The Final Fascicle. Contents, Contexts, Chronologies edited by Catherine A. Bradley and Karen Desmond A Critical Companion to Medieval Motets edited by Jared C. Hartt Piety and Polyphony in Sixteenth-Century Holland: The Choirbooks of St Peter’s Church, Leiden Eric Jas Music, Myth and Story in Medieval and Early Modern Culture edited by Katherine Butler and Samantha Bassler The Segovia Manuscript: A European Musical Repertory in Spain, c.1500 edited by Wolfgang Fuhrmann and Cristina Urchueguía Revisiting the Codex Buranus: Contents, Contexts, Composition edited by Tristan E. Franklinos and Henry Hope Music and Instruments of the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Christopher Page edited by Tess Knighton and David Skinner The Dorset Rotulus: Contextualizing and Reconstructing the Early English Motet Margaret Bent, Jared C. Hartt and Peter M. Lefferts