Trobar

 

Relationship 84382

Relationship, Symmetrical

 

RoleObjectTypeNotes
SubjectBaussan {PC (45)} PersonAlso known asGr 45; 10/9/97 PC p41 this name is replaced in some mss by "Dalfi d'Auvergne" {PC 119}, in a tenso with "N'Ugo/Uc", {PC 448,1}={PC 119,1"}. For PC, Baussan is Dalfi d'Alvergne {PC 119}. Chambers 1971:66 "Bauzan", one of the partners in a poetic exchange, or perhaps a mutual senhal for both, is replaced in other mss by "Dalfi" and "N'Ugo". The poems in question seem to be two sirventes rather than a tenso. The name Bauzan is apparently used for both poets -- perhaps through an error of the copyist; BEdT {448,001 = 119,001}; Bausan (=045) è variante di alcuni mss. per "Dalfin" dei rimanenti; Ruth Harvey, TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION AND COURTLY COMMUNITIES: THE CASE OF BAUSSAN, Tenso 17/1 (2002 ):32-55: "For Kolsen, the interlocutors are Baussan, Dalfi and Baussan respectively. Pillet-Carstens (following and modifying Bartsch's Grundriss) gives the main reference, under Uc 448.1, as "Tenzone (Partimen) mit dem Dalfi d'Alvergne (= Baussan)"; under Dalfi 119.1, it refers the reader to 448.1; and under 45.1--which is in brackets--it gives the note "Baussan oder Bauzan wird der Dalfi d'Alvergne nach einigen Hss. angeredet in der Tenzone mit Uc." Frank describes it as an exchange of sirventes between Dalfi d'Alvernhe and Uc. Aston (148) lists the exchange under Dalfin d'Alvernhe as "Tenso with Uc (Baussan)." The GRLMA enters these pieces under Uc, where it notes "(N'Ugo dans le ms a1); confusion avec le surnom de Dauphin d'Auvergne?"13 and reproduces Knobloch's suggestion (9), already cited in Kolsen (71), that Baussan is Uc de Baux (which would give Bauçan as an adjective). So was Baussan another name for Uc, or for Dalfi? Or was Baussan a reciprocal senhal (as suggested in Chambers' puzzled entry), and thus both Uc and Dalfi at once? . . . If Baussan is a woman, her masculine senhal ('piebald') has effectively concealed her gender. She seems to have had dealings with Dalfi before the occasion of this piece, for both speakers imply that Baussan had been his teacher, and Dalfi the student, now in a position to reprove his tutor. . . .It is far better to edit, translate and print the second redaction separately, for if these numerous differences cannot all be explained by scribal error or intervention, it is likely that they are the result of reworking by another or other performer(s), for a different occasion, and are thus traces of the performance history of the pieces . . .It is likely, then, that the second version was reworked and performed by Uc and Baussan (as R has it), with the latter taking on this occasion the opposite role to the one she played in the first version. . . .To resume: the seven manuscripts preserve two distinct redactions of the exchange of sirventes; Baussan participated in both but it is unclear whether this masculine senhal conceals an otherwise unknown trobairitz or a mature man. . . .It would appear that an existing lyric exchange, on the perennial question of the suitability of lovers of different ages, was reworked by Baussan and Uc for a different occasion and potentially therefore for an audience other than Dalfi's court circle. This raises the question: who may Uc have been? The identification by Knobloch with Uc des Baux (d.1240) was based on one possible etymology for Baussan (though we have seen that there is another) and especially on the mistaken supposition that the forms of address Uc and Baussan were interchangeable in these pieces. As the tables show, however, this is superficially the case for the forms of address in Sirventes II only, and, in fact, Knobloch was using only the texts of M and N, printed in Mahn's Gedichte. . . .Further work on the tensos edition and research on the manuscripts in train in Italy may turn up more material pointing to the identity of Uc. In the meantime, however, I would argue that Baussan should be fully reinstated in Pillet-Carstens, and the name added to the list of those frequenting Dalfi's court, though whether this person should be accounted a trobairitz is rather less clear-cut.";BEdT 1999/07/27 Bausan (=045) è variante di alcuni mss. (°R^a, rubr. °D) per "Dalfin" dei rimanenti; cfr. 449,001; BEdT 2.0 2007-04-23 A Bausan (=045) sono da prob. da ricondurre due testi classificati da BdT sotto 448 Uc, 448,001 e 448,001a; cfr. Harvey 2002, sopr. p.34-5 per il quadro delle rubriche e delle forme di indirizzo. profilo: Personaggio non sicuramente identificato (cfr. Harvey 2002 per le varie ipotesi possibili), ma certamente legato a Dalfin d'Alvergne. Harvey 2002 avanza anche l'ipotesi che possa trattarsi di una donna. Knobloch 1886, p.9, ripreso da Kolsen 1925, p.71 pensa a Uc de Baux ("Baussan" come derivato dal nome della casata; cfr. presenza del nome Uc nella rielaborazione dei mss. °D°M°R^a2);
SubjectUc {PC 448} PersonAlso known asDOM Supl1..1207..;same GRLMA II.1.7: 483 Knobloch [Streitgedichte 1886] propose de l'identifier avec Uc de Bautz (adj. Bauçan) qui est nommé juge dans la tenso entre Aimeric et Peire del Poi; Jeanroy 34:432 sirventes-tenso avec Bausan dans MS a, mais les autres MSS l'attribuent à Uc le Dauphin; BEdT 1999 autori diversi; 2015-03 DBT 510: (Harvey MR 36 [2012]:172-191) {PC 448,1} sirventes Baussan ~ Dalfi d'Alvernhe (reply) or Uc ~ Baussan (reply), or possibly another "Uc" (Uc de Pena /Reliability/30); Harvey "Baussan" Tenso 17 [2002]: 32-55; also unclear the "Ugo" who created partimen with Chardo {PC 448,2}; origine incerta; DBT 510 at least two different poets; "Uc" {448,1} possibly Uc de la Bacalaria, Uc de Bautz, or Uc de St-Circ [these are the top 3 candidates]; or another "Uc", perhaps Uc de Pena; yet another "Uc" {448,2} identification unclear, shows traces of "venature linguistiche italiane"; {448,1} either Baussan~Dalfin d'Alvernhe; or Uc~Baussan; still not known who was: il rielaboratore-propositore del dibattito; BEdT 2.5 Uc definitely linked to Dalfi d'Alvernhe; Uc two poems {448,1} and {448,1a} should probably be reassigned to Bausan; Bausan may have been a woman (Harvey 2002 in Tenso);