4 MSS: C (172v-173r) Marcabru (C. Reg.: also appears under Marcabru’s name in both indices; ‘Alegret’ added to the right of the first), M (141v-142r) Raimbaud dorewia (‘Marcabru’ added in the margin by Angelo Colocci (1474–1548); under ‘Malcabran’ in the index), R (29v) Alegret, a1 (363-364) Alegretz.

Attribution

(a) Manuscript evidence

Modem scholars have traditionally attributed the poem to Marcabru, seeing it as a reply to Alegret’s ‘Ara pareisson ITaubre sec’ (see below) and particularly Alegret’s praise of’lo seinhor de cui es occidentz’, or, it is thought, Alfonso VII of Castile, following Dejeanne, p. 223 (‘Alphonse VIII’ must be a misprint). Marcabru himself addressed two songs to Alfonso: XXII in 1137–38, where he optimistically sought Alfonso’s patronage and encouraged him to fight against the Almoravids, and XXIII some time afterwards, in which he ironically expressed his disillusionment with the emperor.

Raimbaut d’Aurenga can be safely ruled out as author. M began by placing this poem and the next one in the MS, ‘Dirai uos senes duptansa’, under the rubric of ‘Raimbaud dorenia’, but both poems are attributed to ‘Malcabran’ in the Index. ‘Marcabru’ was added in the margin next to the ‘Raimbaut dorenia’ rubric. As Asperti has demonstrated (‘Sul canzoniere provenzale M’, p. 141), the ‘Raimbaut dorenia’ attribution resulted from a mechanical error by the rabricator. The two poems follow the Raimbaut d’Aurenga section of M and immediately precede the Arnaut Daniel section. Just before the two poems a gap is left in the MS for an initial equal to four lines; this therefore indicates a new section. The lubricator simply made a mistake, the compiler having intended that the two poems should be assigned to a new troubadour, most probably Marcabru, in accordance with the index.

CM therefore both initially thought Marcabru was the author. C attributes the poem to Marcabru in both indices aed in the rubric above the text. The name Alegret is also written in the margin of the first index (see above), apparently as an alternative attribution rather than a definitive correction. This is one of about thirty such second attributions in C, and probably arose as a result of collation with a source common to CR, at a stage before the second table was completed (see Monfrin, ‘Notes’, pp. 292–95; Beggiato, ‘Belha m’es’ p. 85 and p. 108; Zufferey, Recherches, p. 135).