Textual Transmission and Courtly Communities: The Case of Baussan

TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION AND COURTLY COMMUNITIES: THE CASE OF BAUSSAN Advances in editorial methodology overthe past century and in particular recent research into the manuscripts themselves mean that a new edition, currently in progress,1 ofthe corpus ofOccitan tensosand partimenscanhopeto illuminateanumberofrather shadybut important corners ofOccitan poetry. It canmake accessible manytextswhich have remained tucked awayamongthe short entries ofPillet-Carstens, in print onlyindiplomatic editions ofmanuscriptsorinnineteenth- andearlytwentieth -century collections of'ProvenzalischeInédita and the like. By including discussions ofcourtly and more mundane dailymatters, such an editionmay reveal more about thevernacularusage and poetic practices ofthe timethan do the polished cansos ofjustly famoustroubadours. It can alsocontributetothetaskofunravellingthehistoryofthetransmission ofthe tensos,1 which in many respects isvery different from that ofthe cansosandsirventes.* Togetherwith areexamination ofattributions,4all thesefactorshavethepotentialtoilluminatethenetwork ofcontactswhich constitutedtheOccitan lyric community. Ifthe modern view oftensos andpartimens is broadly one of songs in which speakers alternatewithevery stanza, medieval usage was much more fluid.5 Forthe compilers ofmanymedieval anthologies, dialogue -pieces—whichincluded exchanges ofcoblasandsirventes—merited separate sectionsin the manuscripts.6 It is on one such dialogue, an exchange ofthreesirventes first identified as suchby Frank (I xxvi para 40) and classified by him as 448.1a; 119.1 and 448.1, that I wish to concentratehere. Published onlyinKolsen's unsatisfactory edition,7the exchangeraisesanumberofinterestingquestionsconcerningtextualtransmission and the courtly audience, not the least ofwhich isthe identity of theinterlocutorsthemselves. Beforeconsideringthisinmoredetail, itwould be convenient first to summarise the content oftheir discussion. The problem posed in the first piece is to decide which offour amorous pairings {amistaz), producedby differences ofage and rank, is 32 THE CASE OF BAUSSAN ofhighest worth (valmais 7): alady and a knight; a knight and alass; a lady and a lad; a lass and a lad.8 In the second piece, the respondent rejectsallbuttheyoungest combinationoflassand lad onthegroundsthat seduction ofa toseta by a mature drufs flattery is probably not to the liking ofthegirlherself;therelationshipbetweendomnaand tosetisbased on desire andthe disparity ofagemeans that their love is not lasting; the relationship between a domna and a drut, while suitable, is ultimately flawed because in this love affair each ofthem acts out ofconcern for his or herown reputation. In thethirdpiece, thefirst speakerthentakes issue with that choice, asserting that thebest loveis secured by La bona domna e.l druz cortes; Caqui non fai res a doptar Camors es c'om non deu celar, Don iraz estotz Io paes (1 1-14)9 The virtuous ladyand the courtly lover, forherethere is absolutely no doubt that it isa love which no one ought to hide—that iswhythe whole land isin aturmoil. The pairing ofdrut and lass is condemned because he is not concerned with her reputation and, once he has won her, will readilyabandon her; that ofthedomnaandthe lad isuneven becauseit is drivenbyconcernfor his reputationwhich he neverwould have acquired otherwise; thatofthe lass and the lad is bedevilled by their inexperience andthe likelihood of theirmutualinfidelity. It is this arrangement of"statement ofalternatives," "response" and"rebuttal" which makesthe exchangeanalogousin structureto atypical sbi-slaraapartimen, withSirventesIcorrespondingtoatypical opening stanza 1, the second to the stanzas contributed bythe other participant, and the third to thecounter-arguments adduced bythe first speaker.10AIl the seven mss. preserve the exchange among the tensos. Who are the participants? 33 RUTH HARVEY The codices are unrevealing onthis point. Only two ofthe seven give rubrics, and neither is helpful. The rubrics in a1 ("Latenzo qe mou nugo an bauzan" and "Latensón qe responbauzan anugo") supply no information beyond what ispresent inthetexts themselves." D's attribution ofboth Sirventes I and II to Gaucelm Faidit is the result ofa mechanical error. The last seven pieces inD's tenso sectionwere mistakenbythe scribe fora single series, individuallynumbered i-vii; all are attributed to Gaucelm Faidit (merely "Ganselm" foriii and iv), though this is correct only for the first piece—apartimen with Uc de la Bacalaria.12 Nor is modern scholarshipanymore illuminating. ForKolsen, the interlocutors are Baussan, Dalfi and Baussan respectively. Pillet-Carstens (following and modifying Bartsch's Grundriss) givesthemain reference, under Uc 448. 1, as "Tenzone (Partimen) mit demDalfi d'Alvergne (= Baussan)"; under Dalfi 1 19. 1, it refers the readerto 448. 1 ; and under 45. 1—which is in brackets—it gives the note "Baussan oder Bauzan wird der Dalfi d'Alvergne nach einigenHss. angeredet in derTenzone mit Uc." Frank describes it as an exchange oísirventesbetween...