The Cantigas of Pero Meogo Edited with Introduction and Commentary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Cantigas of Pero Meogo Edited with Introduction and Commentary Rip Cohen The John Hopkins University 2014 The Cantigas of Pero Meogo Cohen Table of Contents Preliminary Note ........................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 Synopses ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Text and Commentary ................................................................................................................ 16 1. O meu amig’, a que preito talhei.................................................................................. 17 2. Por mui fremosa, que sanhuda estou .......................................................................... 22 3. – Tal vai o meu amigo, con amor que lh’ eu dei ........................................................ 31 4. Ai cervas do monte, vin vos preguntar ....................................................................... 38 5. <Levou s’ aa alva>, levou s’ a velida ........................................................................... 41 6. Enas verdes ervas ........................................................................................................... 49 7. Preguntar vos quer’ eu, madre ..................................................................................... 55 8. Fostes, filha, eno bailar .................................................................................................. 59 9. – Digades, filha, mha filha velida ................................................................................ 66 Appendix 1: Serbian Material.................................................................................................... 71 Appendix 2: Origins and Development of the Cantiga d’amigo; Sequences ........................ 74 Figure 1: Distribution of the Image of the Stag at the Fountain .................................................. 78 Appendix 3: Words Not Found Elsewhere in the Genre ...................................................... 80 Manuscripts and Works Cited .................................................................................................. 81 Preliminary Note This new edition of the cantigas d’amigo of Pero Meogo presents for the first time a full philological commentary on these poems.1 The text and critical apparatus, as well as the metrical analysis and translation, have been revised somewhat since Cohen 2013c. In the text of Meogo (but not in the citation of other texts) instances of elision and aphaeresis are marked by an underline: fonte_u (= font’ u); sanhuda_estou (= sanhuda ’stou). All inter-verbal vocalic encounters not marked in this way are cases of hiatus. Angle brackets are used for additions and for refrains copied incompletely after the first strophe. In the analysis of verses with cola, the inner colon boundary is signaled by the sign |. 1 Cantares d’amigo is equally valid. On philological method, see Stegagno Picchio 1982. Texts (sometimes modified) and numbering of other cantigas d’amigo, as well as the poets’ names, are taken from Cohen 2003 (but Martin de Gĩizo [for Giinzo]). Punctuation has been altered and tils have been added where historical phonology predicts them and 13th century manuscripts of the lyric provide them. Given Mettmann’s odd numeration, references to CSM are to strophes, not verses. [This project was carried out under the aegis of The Johns Hopkins University with a research grant from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Thanks to Mariña Arbor Aldea, Rachele Fassanelli, Manuel Ferreiro, Yara Frateschi Vieira, Robert A. Kaster, Pär Larson, Harvey Sharrer, Djordjina Trubarac and Michael Weiss for corrections and comments.] 2 © 2014 Virtual Center for the Study of Galician-Portuguese Lyric The Cantigas of Pero Meogo Cohen Photographs of the manuscripts are furnished by Canettieri and Longo (with transcriptions and other materials) and by Lopes and Ferreira. Bibliography can be found at the BITAGAP site. Other electronic resources are mentioned in the commentary. The texts of Meogo begin in B on folio 252r (no. 1184) and end on folio 253v (no. 1192); in V they begin on folio 124r (no. 789) and continue to folio 125v (no. 797). They are preceded by the cantigas d’amigo of Juião Bolseiro and Martin Campina and followed by texts in the same genre by Martin de Caldas and Nuno Treez, appearing in a compilation of Galician jograres (Oliveira 1994: 199-205) whose internal structure remains unclear. These nine cantigas were published in the paleographic edition of the Vatican codex by Monaci (1875) and subsequently edited by Braga (1878), Bell (1922), Nunes (1926-1928), Machado and Machado (1949-1964), Mendez Ferrín (1966), Azevedo Filho (1974) and Cohen (2003, 2013). For information and bibliography on the manuscript tradition and previous editions, see Cohen 2003: 31-37. Almost nothing can be said about the life of Meogo (or Moogo). Recently Souto Cabo (2012: 280-281, 291) published a document from the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela dated 1260, where “Petrus Moogus, clericus de Sancto Simeone” is a witness along with, apparently, another poet-clericus, Sancho Sanchez. If, as seems likely, this is our poet, he was a priest in the parish of San Simón de Ons de Cacheira, near Compostela. But he would have been active well before 1260––perhaps by the 1230s, if Johan Soarez Coelho imitates him.2 In relation to these songs, a word on methods of interpretation is in order. Aiming to elucidate “the methodological assumptions that structure the discourse of philology,” Glenn Most (1994: 133) says that “at least three principles and two canons of evidence tend to guide interpretation.” The first and most important principle is: “Economy of consumption: of two interpretations, the one that makes thriftier use of the text at hand, subsuming more of it as argumentative evidence and wasting less of it as irrelevant or counterproductive, is preferable.” The second principle Most calls “Economy of expense: of two interpretations, the one that adds fewer ad hoc hypotheses to the necessary minimum is preferable.” And the third is labeled the “Economy of scope: of two interpretations, the one that can be applied to a wider range of texts or problems beyond the one in question without producing trivial results is preferable. A coherent interpretation of a text which results in that text’s becoming anomalous within its author’s oeuvre, or an author anomalous within his culture, is suspect.” The two canons of evidence are: “Parallelism: a hypothesis’ plausibility is thought to be strengthened by parallels and weakened by their lack;” and “Centripetality: The closer to the text the parallel or other supportive evidence is, the greater its explanatory power is thought to 2 See notes on fremosa and sanhuda at 2.1; on del rei at 3.2, 4; on velida at 4.3, 6; and at 5.2 lavar; 6.7 elos; 6.11 garcetas. Johan Soarez Coelho is documented from 1235 (Ron Fernández 2005: 154-158). 3 © 2014 Virtual Center for the Study of Galician-Portuguese Lyric The Cantigas of Pero Meogo Cohen be…” The ranking would be: a text by the same author in the same genre; by another author in the same genre; by the same author in another genre; by another author in another genre; and so forth. A parallel from another language, period or culture would carry less weight. And what Most says about Classical philology should hold for medieval Romance philology as well. The application of these principles and canons does not (Most concedes) guarantee the correctness of an interpretation, but one that ignores them is more likely to go astray. And this is what sometimes occurs in studies on Pero Meogo.3 With their focus on symbolism, they use select parts of the text, leaving the rest largely out of the discussion.4 Some readings supply numerous ad hoc suppositions for which there is no warrant in the text and they have little bearing on other cantigas d’amigo, since are no stags elsewhere in the genre and a fountain appears in only two other poems. Still, the motif of a girl who tells her mother, as an alibi for a tryst, that a stag stirred up the water is such an extreme rarity in European poetry and folklore (Meogo 9 is one of two examples) that philologists and anthropologists have naturally sought parallels in other languages, periods and cultures. Some of that work is unquestionably relevant to the interpretation of these texts and has been taken into account, but here the songs of Pero Meogo are handled as cantigas d’amigo. I summarize scholarly consensus on symbols, argue the case for ritual language (but not for any magical, religious, mythical, or cosmological meaning), and cite two extraordinary parallels from Serbian oral poetry (one, from a ballad, is the only other example of the motif mentioned above; the other, a ritual song, clarifies the language of the ballad and is a close match for Meogo 5; see Appendix 1). But with those exceptions, parallel passages are drawn almost entirely from the cantigas d’amigo and few are taken from outside Galician-Portuguese lyric. My aim here is to elucidate the poetics of these songs in the context of this genre. 3 The thorough review of bibliography on the poems of Pero Meogo (and on diverse interpretations of their symbolism) by Trubarac (2011: 30-167) has spared me