Book Reviews A. Richard Hartman and Dorothy L. Schrader May Plouzeau, ed. and commentary. Panse la Duchesse (Chanson de geste du XIIIe siècle). Senefiance 17 and 18. 2 vols. Aix-en- Provence: Publications du CUERMA, Université de Provence, 1986. 647 pp. Parise la Duchesse belongs to that group of later Old French epics that experienced a long drought of scholarly attention. Although the object of two editions in 1836 and 1860,1 no philological attention had been centered on this unique manuscript until over a century later;2 it was at this point that the late Gabriel Andrieu began to prepare an edition with accompanying translation and critical apparatus. Given the dialectal problems, peculiar to Parise, the poor condition of certain sections of the manuscript, the unique manuscript's lack of variants, and the absence of independent language studies, Andrieu's initial spadework represents a most demanding and crucial phase of the edition's preparation. His name deserves to figure perhaps more prominently than in a paragraph of the avant-propos. The above, however, is not meant to lessen the credit that should be given to the titular editor, May Plouzeau. The 647 pages 1 Guillaume François de Martonne, ed., Parise la Duchesse, Romans des Douze Pairs de France 4 (Paris: Techner, 1836); François Guessard and Lorédon Larchey, eds., Parise la Duchesse, Anciens Poëtes de la France 4 (Paris: Vieweg, 1860). 2 E. B. Ham published his reading of various sections of the poem which he treated with ammonium sulphydrate ("Readings from Parise la Duchesse," Modern Language Notes 59 [1944]: 490-3). Other research on the B. N. f. fr. 1374 codex was done by W.P. Gerritsen and Wolfgang van Emden. To our knowledge, the results of this study have never been published, other than the brief description contained in the introduction to Professor van Emden's edition of Girart de Vienne ([Paris: SATF, 1977] xlviii-1). 182 Olifant / Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4 / Fall & Winter 1988 of the edition's two volumes clearly reveal years of additional detailed and thorough personal research, supported by a network of professional contacts, together with the advantages offered by the computer in textual editing. The two volumes are printed directly from the word processor, allowing the reader to profit from much valuable information which would have surely been pruned away by cost-conscious publishers of more expensive typeset formats. Full advantage is taken of the possibilities offered by a computer- generated concordance: text, language studies, explanatory notes, footnotes, and indices are all linked by an extensive network of cross-references. The 3106-line poem is found in volume one; the notes to the text are conveniently located in volume two so as to permit concurrent reading with the poem. Plouzeau includes, as well as normal folio indications, marginal references to the 1860 Guessard and Larchey pagination. In the body of the text of Parise, we encountered the following divergences between our readings of the manuscript and those of the editor: line 95, P: anviron, MS.: a///ron (not enough minims for Plouzeau's reading); 117, P: Raimont, MS.: ra///õt (not enough minims); 265, P; di, MS.: li; 267, P: pré, MS,:prez; 438, P: sait, MS.: sai; 483, P: pansee, MS.: pansce; 566, P: chef, MS.: ches (tironian s); 601, P: nöer, MS.: noeer, 612, P: indicates initial, MS.: no initial; 799, P: pesez, MS.: pesaz; 986, P: donrai, MS.: dorai; 1031, P: et de, MS.: e de; 1124, P: si, MS.: li; 1125, P: non, MS.: noj; 1192, P: claimons, MS.: claimas; 1309, P: est, MS.: et; 1328, P: le, MS.: la; 1338, P: dedans, MS.: dedanz; 1611, P: Que, MS.: Q'; 1644, P: antant, MS.: antantz; 1740, P: veilarz, MS.: veillarz; 1756, P: Jusque, MS.: jusqz, and P: itel, MS.: icel; 2048, P; teste, MS.: taste;3 2131, P: mercrerez, MS.: mercrerei; 2165, P: sais, MS.: sai; 2315, P: trebucher, MS.: tresbucher (es above line); 2338, P: done, MS.: donei; 2431, P: faite, MS.: faites; 2881, P: charte, MS.: chartr, 2929, P: en mon Deu, MS.: E////o// deu (En non Deu— not enough minims for Plouzeau's reading); 2948, P: E mon Deu, MS.: E //o deu; 3028, P; les apellez, MS.: les a appelez. 3 This follows the scribal tendency: tonic a + s = a, eschas 966, eschax 1199, pesaz 799, anfas 1379; see §22, §27. Hartman and Schrader / Plouzeau's Parise la Duchesse 183 In volume one, the text is preceded by a long and excellent language study which certainly more than makes up for a century's silence. While reading the literary study that follows, however, one is quickly left with the impression that philology is Plouzeau's strong suit, as she rarely abandons the traditional condescending attitude towards the later epic, while unearthing, nevertheless, some engrossing factual details, especially concerning the cult of Saint Antoine. The language study reveals only occasional weaknesses, such as a tendency to utilize examples which prove to be scribal abbreviations that have been resolved by the editor, using a system that appears somewhat rigid and mechanical. In §16, which treats o becoming e, the examples queronez (1094, 3067) and querone (3093) are in reality qrone(z) in the MS.; one of the examples, queronez (3067) even occurs in the same line with the spelled-out form quorone (also spelled out at line 3064). Predome (553) and prevoire (2835,2882) are also cited as examples, but in the MS. are found as pdome and pvoire, abbreviations which could be resolved as their classic forms prodom(e) and provoire (forms which also appear in the MS.). In §78, which treats final t, sont (1587) is cited, again relying on the editor's resolution of an abbreviation. In §87, vou is not at 958; in §78, quando has no reflex at 731; in §40, Ferté is Fierté in the text; in §68, Girat is not at 600 but 660 (this same error also occurs in the table of proper names—see Buevon): also in §68, the misreading of the MS.'s chartr (2881) as charte is cited in a discussion of non-implosive R. In the versification study (2.1.2. Laisses in -é) 15 laisses are mentioned, but only 14 are listed, laisse XI being missing. The decision to establish a difference between laisses assonating in -é and -ié represents a break with the practice of earlier editions, which saw Bartsch's Law as being inoperative in this late text, causing the two endings to be intimately mixed. This editorial step is to be welcomed in the sense that it posits a less narrative form for the poem than was formerly thought and substitutes a more lyric 4 structure which shows greater respect for the contours of the laisse. 4 William W. Kibler, "La 'Chanson d'aventures,'" in Essor et fortune de la chanson de geste dans l'Europe et l'orient latin: Actes du IXe Congrès International de la Société Rencesvals, 2 vols. (Modena: Mucci, 1984) 2: 512. 184 Olifant / Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4 / Fall & Winter 1988 The editor bases her decision on the fact that most corrections from scribal endings which do not assonate to supposedly authorial endings that do assonate are easy and natural (90); however those endings which "résistent toutefois à l'amendement" remain disconcertingly numerous. Each of these words at the assonance is either already in its classic (authorial?) form which does not assonate, or if corrected to that form, would not assonate. The issue is further complicated by a fact not mentioned by Plouzeau: at least 35 words at the assonance whose endings are subject to a -é/-ié variation are the result of an editorial resolution of a scribal abbreviation.5 The impact of these two factors can be best appreciated by looking within the confines of one of Plouzeau's typically short -ié laisses, such as number XXIV. Of the total of 33 lines, 11 endings, or one third, do not assonate or are questionable Five endings are "classic" (retornez, parler, assez, forsenez, tornez), there are "non classic" forms (encombrer, volanter, enpirez) and three are abbreviations resolved by the editor (chevalier—twice; Berangier). This high frequency of -é endings effectively prevents this laisse from being differentiated from surrounding laisses in -é. Another aspect of the poem's versification that does not appear to preoccupy the poet is the constant necessity to maintain alexandrines at all costs. In the Old French epic, as in Homer, the efficiency of formulaic composition takes priority over metrical considerations;6 thus, when a grouping of correct formulas still produces one of several types of traditional scansions, the author cannot be expected to be concerned that the result is not an alexandrine. As a result, the text is peppered with 20 decasyllables, 18 of which the editor admits are "irréprochables" (87); the remaining two also appear acceptable. All 20 decasyllabic (4/6) lines are nevertheless increased to 6/6 by emendations, which in the case of a unique manuscript must be highly conjectural. To cite but one example of the procrustean nature of some of these 5 The abbreviation chr (chevalier/chevaler), for example, appears a total of 19 times at the assonance. 6 D. Gary Miller, Improvisation, Typology, Culture, and "The New Orthodoxy": How "Oral" is Homer? (Washington, DC: UP of America, 1982) 33. Hartman and Schrader / Plouzeau's Parise la Duchesse 185 emendations, the manuscript's 4/6 line 1043: "Ou, se ce non, bien le puez comparer" is expanded to "Ou, se ce non, mout chier bien le puez comparer." Plouzeau's emended line correctly retains a comma after the first four syllables, as this is where the original, natural cæsura in the 4/6 line occurs; but the resulting change only serves to create a hypermetric second hemistich.