|
||||||||
| <up> | ||||||||
8. 1541 : Three manuscripts, codex Vindobonensis 2644, Arsenal 3632, and. Pierpont Morgan 218 contain the Trente Pseaulmes in a text version which is very close[70] to the first official edition of Roffet in 1541 (PA41). Lenselink suggests to date them a little bit prior in time, since some changes can be observed in these manuscripts in statu nascendi. Some observations - These manuscripts all have "Arguments" above the psalms, just like PA41. - The indication of the number of "versets par couplet" are present in ms. PM 218, but missing in Vind. 2644 and Ars. 3632. - No verse numbers are present. - Ms. Ars. 3632 is the only which also contains the dedicatory "Epistre au Roy."
Based on counting, weighing and comparing of the relatively few differences between these manuscripts, compared with eachother and with PA41, Lenselink suggests that we can place these manuscripts in a chronological order, which we copied above. Since the privilege of the official edition (PA41) is dated on 31 November 1541, we would expect him to have assigned dates to all three around the same period, but this is not the case. Only ms. PM 218 is dated very close to the end of 1541,[71] the dates of the two remaning manuscripts are advanced to the the first half of 1540 (or even 1539).[72] If we ponder the reasons he provides, they appear to be linked to the fact that both manusripts are closely connected to the story related in the Villemadon Letter, according to which Marot must have offered the Trente Pseaulmes to King Francis I in 1539 and a copy of it to the Emperor Charles V in january 1540. Ms. Ars. 3632 is often considered to be the text Marot offered to the king, Marot's dedication letter preceding the texts of the Psalm poems.[73] Comparison with Group I and PA41 shows that it belongs firmly to group II, since "� quelque petites exceptions pr�s le texte d'Arsenal 3632 est identique � celui de Roffet."[74] Since PA41 (Roffet) and PM218 are almost always together when Ars. 3632 is still following group I, this manuscript might be a little anterior to it. We would suggest a date like: Summer 1541.[75] Ms. Vind 2644 is often associated with the presentation of the Trente Pseaulmes to the Emperor Charles V in January 1540 as reported in the same Villemadon Letter. Comparing the manuscript with Ars. 3632, Lenselink signals five instances in which this text is still conform group I, while Ars 3632 is already in line with PA41.[76] This tiny little detail inspires him to assign anteriority to Vind 2644, but this sounds almost theoretical: So also Summer 1541 would be the only logical date based on text-internal criteria. In dating these manuscripts in the first half of 1540, with the possibility of going back even a further, Lenselink seemed to have antedated these two manuscripts as much as possible to concord with the then usual view that these manuscripts are the ones mentioned in the Villemadon Letter. Lenselink must have felt the burden of this tradition. His own findings are among the first to question the unquestionability of this idea.[77] Since this story is only found in the Villemadon Letter, in which it serves a propagandistic discours, nothing withholds us now to simply accept the dating which the text itself suggests: 1541, chronologically close to the publication of PA41, the text they closely mirror.[78]
INTERMEDIARY CONCLUSION
Our inventory thus far has more than ever revealed that 1541 was the crucial year for Marot's Psalm translations. He gathered the material, which he haa produced on different occasions and after a thorough revision, he sent it to Paris, to the King, accompanied with a long dedicatory letter. A copy goes to his privileged printer: Estienne Roffet. Knowing how dangerous the times are, esp. for things that touch translations into the vernacular of the Holy Scripture, Roffet waited with printing until he had procured a royal privilege and a nihil obstat from the Faculty of Theology. This privilege received (dated 31 November 1541), he will have started printing. In the meantime Marot did not keep the manuscript secret, but allowed people to copy it and perhaps made some minor improvements before he sent it to Roffet. Much is possible in this area. Perhaps Marot was in Paris and personally supervised the corrections. The publication of a previous version of the Trente Pseaulmes by Antoine des Gois in Antwerp, the same year (let's say first half 1541), is not incompatible with this procedure. Marot's psalms were already a collector's item and all kinds of amateurs tried to lay hand on copies (or copies of copies) of one or more of them. The publication in Antwerp, might well have been an incentive to Marot to revise them all and publish a better version, since � as we will show in the next chapter � some of the earlier versions hardly surpassed the status of a draft.
9. 1541 : Trente Pseaulmes de David, mis en françoys par Clement Marot, valet de chambre du Roy, �dition Roffet 1541/42, Paris.[79] PA41 The official privilege is dated on 31 November 1541. The numbering of the Psalms in this edition is conform the Hebrew Psalter, the Latin incipits follow the Vulgata.[80] A few observations, now followed by a comparison: - The Psalms are preceded by Arguments, which are almost identical to the ones in the related manuscripts (13) and sometims a little bit shorter than ms. 2336 o Arguments in ms. 2336 and group II, Absent in Group I - Every Argument concludes with a phrase like "Pseaulme propre pour...", which is occasionally incorporated in the Argument.[81] o Also present in ms. 2336 and PM218 (group II). Absent in Group I and Vind. 2644 and Ars. 3632. - The verset/couplet instruction is generally printed below the argument, but missing above Psalm 22[82] and absent after psalm 38. o in ms. 2336 all psalms carry this instruction o in ms. PM218 the instruction is the same, but phrased shorter. When it is absent in PA41 it is also absent in ms. PM218.[83] - The verses of the first 8 Psalm poems (except Psalm 3) are indicated in margine by means of roman numbers. Three times (Psalm 4, 5 and 8) the numbering is not consistent with the "verset"-indication above the Psalms.[84]
10a. 1542 La Manyere de faire prieres aux eglises Francoyses. tant devant la predication comme apres, ensemble pseaulmes & cantiques francoys q�on chante aus dictes eglises, � [Strasbourg, 1542].[85] ST42. This is a Book of Common Prayer in the French language. Although Calvin already had returned to Geneva by the time this publication was finished, he is supposed to have been the driving force behind it. The psalterpart builds on the Aulcuns Pseaulmes (ST39) and contains all thirty Psalms by Marot. Sometimes changes are present, which are unique to this edition.[86] Not all Psalms have melodies. The six non-Marot Psalms and the Canticles from ST39 are still there (creating a doublure for Psalm 113). New is the presence of three non-Marot Psalms, which also formed part of AN41: pss. 43, 120 and 142. The final stanzas of ps. 22 and 37 (originally not fit to be sung) are remade into the mould of the preceding stanzas.[87]
10b. 1542 La Forme des prieres et chantz ecclesiastiques, avec le maniere d�administrer les Sacremens, & consacrer le Mariage: selon la coustume de l�Eglise ancienne, ... (Gen�ve, Girard, 1542). GE42. This is � concerning the Psalms � almost a twin-edition of
15a: it shares a number of unique readings with it (often corrections of AN41),
but neverthless they are not entirely the same.[88]
A small list of errata can be found at the end of the hymnal part. The
most notable difference with ST42 though is the fact that an unmentioned
melodist[89]
provided all new Psalm poems with a distinct melody, in the meantime revising
the melodies from ST39. Five of six non-Marot Psalms from ST39 are present (the
exception being ps. 113, which is replaced by the Marot-version), as are the
Canticles from the same book. The non-singable final stanzas of ps. 22 and 37
are left untouched. The link between
these two editions probably is John Calvin, who had returned to Geneva in 1541.
He provided the Genevan edition with a preface, which was enlarged the next year
and reprinted in the successive Church editions of the hymnbook. 11. 1542 (Lyon). Dolet prints the Trente Pseaulmes of Marot twice, once copying AN41-bis and once incorporating them in a new edition of Les �uvres de Clement Marot.[90] In this last mentioned he still uses the edition of Des Gois, but corrects it according to his own ideas.[91] In the same year he published his own translation of the Paraphrasis Campensis and the French translation of the biblical Psalms by Oliv�tan, which he headed with his own translations of Bucer�s Arguments. In his 1543 edition of Marot's Oeuvres he omitted the Arguments.
12. 1543 Trente deux pseaulmes de David translatez & composes en rythme Francoiyse par Clement Marot, veuz & visitez oultre les precedentes editions par ledit Marot, & au tres gens scavans, avec argumens sur chascun Pseaulme. Plus vingt autres Pseaulmes nouvellement envoyez au Roy par ledit Marot, Avec privilege du Roy, Paris.[92] PA43. Contrary to the title,[93] this edition doesn�t contain 32 + 20 = 52 Psalm poems of Marot, but only an unchanged and uncorrected reprint of the first thirty Psalms Added is a volume with 20 newly translated Psalms, of which the last is the Canticle of Simeon (the "Nunc dimittis"). The royal privilege is dated on October 30, 1543. The fact that it was obtained should be considered as almost a miracle (i.e. personal support from the King must be conjectured: Avec privilege du Roy), because in the meantime the Trente Pseaulmes of Marot had appeared on the first official list of censured books 1542/1543.[94] The Latin incipit from the Vulgata and the Argument are present, but the metrical indications (verset/couplet) and the appropriation�tips ("Pseaulme propre pour....") are not present above the new Psalm poems.[95] According to Mayer this edition is the final version, since the last official edition, authorized by Marot. Since one of the 50 Psalms is the Canticle of Simeon the total amount of Psalm poems by Marot is confined to 49. To the already available 30 Psalm poems (pss. 1 � 15, 19, 22, 24, 32, 37, 38, 51, 103, 104, 113, 114, 115, 130, 137, 143) nineteen are added: pss. 18, 23, 25, 33, 36, 43, 45, 46, 50, 72, 79, 86, 91, 101, 107, 110, 118, 128, 138. Observations: - Considering the fact that Marot produced this new series, while living in Geneva, it is significant to note that in the second series Ps. 25, 36, 46, 91, 138 are present. Together with Psalm 113, already present in the Trente Pseaulmes, Marot now provides alternatives for all Psalm poems of ST39, which were not by his hand. - Marot did not continue one of his � presumed � series: The one remaning (after the Trente Pseaulmes) Penitential Psalm (102) is not present in the second series and the sequence of pss 1-15 got no continuation. - The suggestion that Marot choose his Psalms either because of a personal predilection, or on demand or to please someone else, is thus strengthened. -
This edition provides some addenda not mentioned in the title:
13a. June 1543 [La Forme des prieres et chantz ecclesiastiques... Gen�ve, Girard], in all likelihood containing the same 50 (49+1) Psalms as PA43 and probably some verse translations and prayers. Edition with melodies. GE43m. No extant copy of this edition is known, but the Acta from the Council of Geneva leave no doubt that this enlarged version of the Genevan Church Book (GE42) was printed probably in June 1543.[96] Around that period the council urged the cantor of the St. Pierre to �complete� the Psalter and provide the Psalms with a gracious �chant� (16 April) and raised his renumeration several times. The completion of the musical part of this Hymn Book seemed to have been a matter of principal concern and took place in consultation with Calvin.[97] The goal was attained in June, but not to the complete satisfaction of the Council. On 9 June 1543 we read in the Council's Register: Psalmes de David, lesqueulx sont imprim� avecque la game et les prieres de l�Eglises, mes pour ce qu�il fayct mention en icyeulx de la salutation angelique, resoluz que icelle soyt ost�e, et la rest est trouv� bon, et que il ne soyt fayct faulte de cella oster.[98]
Since no one really doubts that the term "Psalmes de David" refers to the Psalm poems of Marot we can safely assume that before 9 June 1543 a new edition of Marot's rhymed Psalter was presented to the Council, incorporated in a Book of Common Prayer, causing a clash between the editors and the Council, because of the presence therein of the Angel�s Salutation. A close reading of the arrest leads to the following observations and questions: - "sont imprim�": This suggests that the edition was printed already: but should it be understood as a fait accompli (a complete print run) or a proof presented to the Council to obtain its permission to print? - "imprim� avecque la game": It concerns an edition with text and melodies. - "et les prieres de l'Eglises": Just like GE42 it concerns a liturgical publication, a book of Common Prayer, containing Psalms to be sung, other Prayers and Ritual Forms. That is why we suggested a similar title for this edition. - The "salutation angelique" refers to Marot's metrical translation of the Ave Maria, which first appeared in print in 1533 (Instruction et Foy) and afterwards was incorporated in La Suite (section Oraisons) and Les Oeuvres de Clement Marot (1538), with light retouches. This text only covers the first part of the Ave Maria, i.e. the salutation and the benediction, but not the invocation of Mary ("ora pro nobis"). Dogmatically this prayer was acceptable to the "�vangeliques" , as can f.i. be deduced from its presence in the Instruction et Foy of 1533, but probably not to some of the more radical reformers or refugees, living in Geneva. John Calvin apparently did not belong to these radicals, since it is hardly imaginable that he was not aware of the presence of this prayer in �his� Church Book. Apart from its presence no intrinsic motivation for the suppression of the Salutation is given. Considering the fact that the Council in general was not interested in dogmatical issues as such, but only if they interfered with their authority or endangered public order, it seems likely that the Council protested against the presence of the Salutation in the official Church Book because it feared that it might cause upheaval. - The phrase " icelle soyt ost�e" (that it should be removed), refers to the Salutation alone and the final phrase of the arrest ("et que il ne soyt fayct faulte de cella oster") is a conditional permission to print, the condition being the removal of the Salutation, since the rest of the book is in order ("la rest est trouv� bon"). - The number of Psalms is not mentioned. The fact that the Salutation Ang�lique also formed part of the Cinquante Pseaulmes (s.n.s.l, 1543), which is printed the same year, but without music, suggests that the first edition might have had the same contents: 49 Psalms, the Canticle of Simeon, The decalogue, The Creed, the Lord�s Prayer and two prayers (before and after the meal). See see below: 18b, GE43. The Salutation angelique will have been suppressed in this edition. The conclusion appears to be legitimate that in Spring 1543 an enlarged reprint of the Genevan Church book was ordered by the Council of Geneva, of which the hymn section consisted entirely of Psalm poems of Marot, together with some other verse translations and Prayers also supplied by Marot. The melodies were either revised or supplied by Guillaume Franc. Permission to print was acquired from the Council, under the condition that the Salutation Ang�lique was removed from its contents. Though no copy is known today, no reason exists why this edition should not have been printed and probably very soon thereafter since the next day (10 June 1543) Calvin signed and dated his augmented preface.[99]
13b. 1543 Cinquante pseaumes en francois par Clement Marot. Item une Epistre par luy nagueres envoy�e aux Dames de France, s.n.s.l., 1543.[100] GE43. Typograhical research has identified the printing material used for this anonymous edition as being identical with material used in the same period by Jean Girard, thus locating this edition in Geneva in a period that Marot probably was still living there.[101] Though it remains an unofficial edition this factual information bestows it with credibility and authority. Defaux takes this edition as reference text for his modern critical edition in Cinquante pseaumes de David, Mayer refuses to accept it. The title of GE43 differs in from PA43 in that it simply announces 50Pss, but if one opens the booklet one discovers that also in GE43 the two collections 30Pss and 20pss are printed separately, with their own title pages, the Huitain au Roy placed in between, i.e. prefacing the 20pss. The verso of the title page is very instructive. With respect to the "trente premiers pseaumes" a revision is proclaimed: "reveuz et corrigez par l'autheur ceste presente annee." With regard to the text a more than superficial revision of the first 30 Psalms indeed has taken place. The twenty new Psalms are introduced with a huitain and the title is analogous to the title in the edition Roffet: "Vingt autres pseaumes par luy nouvellement traduitz et envoyes au roy". The text is almost identical with PA43, be it that Roffet's edition contains more errors, from transcription errors and misprints to two serious mistakes which affect content in Psalm 18.[102]. Incorporated in the Cinquante Pseaumes we find "le cantique de Simeon" as being the 50th Psalm, just like PA43 and after these 50 Psalms follow, as mentioned on the verso of the title page, but without any separate heading or introduction: "les Commandementz de Dieu / les Articles de la Foy / l'Oraison dominicale / la salutation Angelique / deux prieres, l'une avant, l'autre apres le repas." In this section the Decalogue is the novelty of GE43, compared with PA43.[103] Two other novelties are present:[104] - Announced on the titlepage is the skoop of GE43, the Epistre aux Dames de France, dated on "Le premier jour d'Aoust. 1543". This date is the terminus a quo of this edition - A huitain, with the title: Clem. Marot au Roy, which is dated "De Geneve, le quinziesme de Mars, 1543". In this quite frank poem Marot claims that he � although in Geneva � is still only doing his job: pleasing the king by obeying his command to continue the translation of the Psalms. The link with the Epistre that introduced the Trente Pseaulmes is not only apparent in the wording but even explicitly claimed in the opening lines:[105] Puis que voulez que je poursuyve, � Sire, / L'oeuvre Royal du Psaultier...
The date of the huitain suggests that Marot finished the translation of the Vingt Pseaulmes before 15 March 1543. It can perhaps best be considered as a �tirage � part� of the text of the poetic part of GE43m, destined for exportation to France. The policy of publishing a second but anonymous edition can be observed on other occasions as well, the most close analogy being the edition of the double edition of the New Testament in French (Bible d'Oliv�tan, revised by John Calvin) in the same year by the same printer (1543, Girard). One edition mentions date, place of print and the printer ("Geneve, I. Girard, M.D. XLIII") and contains the phrase "reveu par M. Iehan Calvin" on the titlepage. The other suppresses the reference to Calvin and appears without mentioning place or printer. Both contain a poem by Marot.[106] The suggestion by A. Cartier that one should discern between literary editions and theological editions is adapted by Defaux in claiming that Girard printed editions for the internal market (Geneva), for which permission was necessary from the Town Council and editions, exclusively for export to France, which � a matter of simple prudency � did not contain the name of the printer or the place of print and for which he did not ask permission, or which were silently allowed.[107] In general this sounds plausible and helps us to understand the differences in content between GE43 and PA43. We can even finetune this theory by introducing the different functions of these editions, because as a matter of fact there are three editions:
Only in the second edition music notes were present, the first and the last being destined for reading, recitation and to be set to music or sung by whoever wanted to do such a thing. For this last target group it didn't matter if a Psalm poem had the form of a Cantique, in which not all stanza's were uniform. The fact that the Psalms in question (Ps. 22 and 37[108]) belonged to the first collection, reveals that Marot did not � originally � intend all his Psalm poems to be sung iso-strophical. If we take this into account the hypothesis of a multiple edition policy might be able to account for almost all differences in the three authorized editions of the same Psalms: - The presence of the Salutation Ang�lique in GE43 is accounted for, because GE43 was not meant for use in the Church. No caution necessary, the reservations of the Council overruled. - the Decalogue is present in GE43 and not in PA43. GE43 is the continuation of ST39, in which the Decalogue (in a non-Marot version) was already present. In GE43m (and thus GE43) all non-Marot poems are replaced. Why it is absent in PA43 is hard to say. Most probable: Roffet did not have a copy of it, when he printed his collection. -
The Nunc Dimittis is present in both, because it is an integral
part of the 20Pss. In both editions it is followed by the phrase:
"Fin des vingt Pseaumes derniers, traduitz par Clem. Marot: comprins le Cantique
de Simeon".[109] - The Epistre aux Dames is absent in PA43, because it postdates the shipment of the 20Pss (it is dated August 1543). It�s prominent presence in GE43 also testifies of Marot's orientation on Paris at that time. - Calvin's Preface is absent in both GE43 and PA43, because it only belongs to a Church book (GE43m). The same goes for the Liturgical Forms and the melodies. This outlook on the different editions also loosen up the question which of the 1543 editions is the final edition (discussion between Mayer (PA43) and Defaux (GE43). The linearity of the editions might be a scholarly construction, which does not correspond to reality. Psalms were circulating and even before they were officially printed, they were sung, f.i. in Strasbourg. "Text-families" originated which semi-independently propagated and adapted themselves, according to own criteria. When Marot published his revised version of the Trente Pseaulmes in 1541 (PA41) this did not immediately affect the churches, which kept singing the Psalm poems of Marot based on (and expanded with other Psalm poems from ) the unofficial edition by Des Gois (AN41 � Group I), probably because this edition was already circulating, belonged to the same familiy and had origins in their own evangelical milieu. This leads to the following characterisation of the successive official (PA41/43) or authoritive (GE43) publications:
(PA41) Marot officially published his Trente Pseaulmes in 1541, after having dispatched them with a preliminary epistle to the King. They are printed with royal privilege by Roffet in Paris. (PA43) Marot officially published his Vingt Pseaulmes, after having dispatched them from Geneva to the King, accompanied by a huitain. The Psalms are printed with royal privilege by Roffet in Paris, together with an unchanged reprint of the Trente Pseaulmes, three other verse translations and two prayers. Mayer honours this official publication by basing his critical edition on PA43. (GE43) Girard unofficially prints the texts of Marot's contribution to the Genevan hymnbook of 1543, in which in a previous edition the Trente Pseaulmes were incorporated in a version version of group I (GE42). They were revised by Marot before they were included in this hymnbook. This book was printed anonymously and contains the Psalms, four verse translations and two prayers. The huitain to the King precedes the Vingt Pseaumes and an epistle to the ladies in France was added. Defaux honours the trustworthyness of this pubication by basing his critical edition on it. This textversion became the standard for all later and posthumous edition.
Summary and chronology of Marot's Psalm project.
1. On an unknown date and at an unknown occasion Marot began to versify his first Psalm in French (with high probability: Psalm 6), the result of which he did share with his �evangelical friends�. This Psalm appears on plaquette in Lyon (s.l.n.d., Nourry). and in Paris in Le Miroir (2nd ed. Augereau 1533). Under the aegis of Marguerite this verse translation becomes a project, which is continued under the auspices of Renée in Ferrara. After his return from exile he works on the translation in silence, still sharing some results with the same circle. 2. These Psalms are spread in copies and copies of copies. Perhaps Jean Girard is the first to have printed a collection of them around 1538. 3. A collection of thirty Psalms is gathered based on different sources in ms. 2337. The most original text is present �sous rature�. Part of this collection appeared in print with music notes in 1539 (Strasbourg). 4. The Antwerp printer Antoine Des Gois prints a booklet with 45 Psalmtranslations, containing 30 of Marot, the second edition also containing the dedicatory epistle to King Francis. 5. The collector and editor(s) of Ms. 2336 worked with a slightly revised version of the Trente Pseaulmes, in which Arguments (summary of and info about the Psalm) and applications above the text were added. 6. Estienne Roffet prints the first official edition of Marot's thirty Psalmtranslations, end 1541, beginning 1542. The text is a thorough revision of the Antwerp edition along the lines of ms. 2336. Almost always the same (or very similar) Arguments and applications are present. 7. In 1542, based on the Antwerp edition of 1541, the Strasbourg Psalter is enlarged to a complete church book, containing, amongst others, Marot's 30 Psalmtranslations. A similar (but not identical) edition appears in print the same year in Geneva. In this edition the melodies from ST39 are revised and melodies are supplied for all new Marot-Psalms, probably composed by Guillaume Franc. 8. November/december 1542 Marot arrives in Geneva and commits himself to continue the metrical translation of biblical Psalms. 9. in March 1543 Marot dispatches twenty new Psalm poems (19 Psalms + Nunc dimittis) to the king accompanied by an epigramme. Roffet also receives a copy and tries once more to procure himself with a Royal Privilege and a nihil obstat. 10. June 1543: in Geneva Jean Girard prints a new Church book, with cinquante pseaumes and some canticles. It appears officially after the removal of the French translation of the first part of the Ave Maria. This edition was printed with music notes, but no copy is known. (GE43m) 11. In August 1543 Marot finishes his Epistre aux Dames de France and together with a A tirage � part of the cinquante pseaumes including the prayers (Decalog, Creed, Pater, Ave, Prayer before and after the meal). It is published anonymously, but printed by Girard in Geneva, who revised the 30 Psalms for this edition: GE43 12. Estienne Roffet (Paris) takes the opportunity to reprint the Trente Pseaulmes (unrevised) and enlarges this edition with the Vingt Pseaulmes, nouvellement envoy�es au Roy towards the of 1543 (privilege 30 November). He also adds the same prayers, with the exception of the Decalogue: PA43. 13. By the end of 1543 Marot has left Geneva.
[1] The history of the Marot's
Psalm poems has been studied instensily ever since O. Douen (building on
the pioneering work of F�lix Bovet, Histoire du psautier des Eglises
r�form�es, Paris 1872) published his monumental two volume study
about Clément Marot and the Huguenot Psalter: Clément Marot et le
Psautier huguenot. Etude historique, litt�raire, musicale et
bibliographique, I-II, Paris, 1878-1879. Next to the presentation of
lots of facts (many of them new), Douen�s work also contains many
conjectures, both regarding bibliography (chronology of the versions),
musicologiy (relation between the Psalmmelodies and popular tunes) and
thelogy (conflict Marot-Calvin) have long been falsified. These
deficiencies were already signalled early in the 20th
century, but this did not hinder that many simply continued on the road
paved by Douen and put forward all kinds of theories, based on a mixture
of facts, presumed facts and interpretations of (presumed) facts. A
complicating factor is that the poems at stake are verse translations of
a holy text, the biblical Psalms. This means that theologians,
liturgists, musicians and musicologists joined in the debates.
[2] Three critical editions of
Marot's Psalm poems appeared within 15 years: In chronological order: 1.
C.A. Mayer (ed.), Clément Marot, Oeuvres compl�tes, vol. VI,
Les Traductions, Geneva, 1980, p. 309-474. Mayer only acknowledges
the authority of the Paris editions by E. Roffet (PA41, PA43). A rich
critical apparatus provides different readings both from other editions
and from a plethora of manuscripts. 2. G. Defaux (ed.), Clément
Marot, Oeuvres Poétiques, vol. II (1992), p. 557-679. Defaux edited
Marot's works based on the Lyonnese edition of Marot's Oeuvres by
E. Dolet (Lyon, 1543), in which the Psalm poems were included. His notes
(p. 1201-1274) are a mixture of textual critique and comment. 3. G.
Defaux (ed.), Clément Marot, Cinquante pseaumes de
David, Paris, 1995. Defaux edits the 1543 anonymous edition, which
is attributed to Jean Girard, Geneva. In opposition to Mayer, he
considers this to be final and authorative edition. Defaux�s edition
consists of (roughly) 60 pages introduction, 20 pages annotated
bibliography, 120 pages edited text and 100 pages notes (once more a
mixture of textual critique and comment). A misleading aspect of this
edition is that everything suggests this as a faithful edition, but it
is a hybrid edition. Defaux felt impelled to improve the edition by
correcting inconsequences of the original edition. He �corrects� the
title above the 30Pss (making it similar to PA41/43, p. 101,
accounted for in the notes: p. 233-234) and adds a title above the
section with prayers (p. 207: L�Instruction et foy d�un chrestien,
not accounted for in the notes (p. 308). In both editions Defaux
principally excluded the manuscripts, because of uncertainty of
provenance and probably dependent on the printed editions (a statement
being postulated without substantiating). Since the editorial discussion
is inextricably bound up with the interpretation of Marot's psalm poems,
the objectivity of the introductions (and in the case of Defaux: also
the notes) sometimes has dropped down to a worrying level. The complex
background of their diff�rend will be dealt with at its proper
place.
[3] "Psalm translations" and "Psalm
paraphrases " both omit the poetic aspect of it and can be easily
misunderstood, because they both have scholarly connotations. "Verse
translations of Psalms" would be the most correct way to refer to it,
but long-winded.
[4] Pierre Pidoux, Le Psautier
Huguenot, vol. I (les m�lodies), vol. II (documents et
bibliographie), Basel, 1962.
[5] Mayer, Bibliographie, n�
8. For this edition see Jean-françois Gilmont, William Kemp, �La plus
ancienne edtion d'un psaume traduit par Clément Marot�, in Jean-françois
Gilmont (ed.), Le livre �vang�lique en français avant Calvin: �tudes
originales, publications d'in�dits, catalogues d'�ditions anciennes,
Anderlecht, 2003, p. 100-104; fac-simile at p. 105-113. The comma behind
�sept Pseaulmes� (omitted by Defaux and Mayer) and the participle
singular �translate� make clear that is not suggested that Marot had
already translated all seven Penitential Psalms, but only that this
particular Psalm, translated by him, is the first of the seven
Penitential Psalms.
[6] The meaning of this reference
to the "Hebrew Truth" will be discussed later.
[7] This terminus a quo
(1528) differs from the one provided by Gilmont and Kemp themselves
(1529). This difference is caused by the fact that they presuppose a
link between the Argument above Marot's Psalm poem and the
Argument which appeared in print in Bucer's commentary of 1529 (Sacrorum
Psalmorum libri quinque, ad ebraicam veritatem genuina, see
bibliography). But the Argument on the Plaquette
("Lafflige de longue maladie (quant a la letre) prie icy ardamment pour
sa sante recouvrer, puis tout acoup sesjouyst de la garison, & de la
honte de ses ennemys") has its own distinctive elements and might well
be of Marot's own making. Hence we felt free to advance the terminus
a quo to 1528, the year of the typeface used for this publication,
was introduced by Nourry. The terminus ad quem is based on
comparison of the texts of the Plaquette and the edition of 1533.
See below, note NOTEREF _Ref174860031 \h 12.
[8] Date (1535) and place (Lyon) of
the acquistion are written verso on the last page. By analysing
relevant samples of the handwriting of the buyer (Fernand Colomb) G�rard
Morisse has conclusively established that the third numeral, which at
first sight seems to be a �2�, in fact is an elegant version of a �3�:
Hence not 1525 (as one can read sometimes in older literature),
but 1535. (G�rard Morisse, �Les psaumes de Marot chez les
Huguenots: le texte� in CC, p. 460-461). Since the Psalm poem on
the Plaquette contains a number of unique lessons (not present in the
1533 edition, nor in the later versions), priority of the Plaquette
to all known editions can safely be assumed.
[9] The Miroir was published
for the first time in 1531 by Simon Dubois (Miroir de l�ame
pecheresse) and reprinted several times in 1533 by Dubois and
Antoine Augereau, the last being the printer of the edition with Psalm
6.
[10] The full text citation of
biblical references is present in the editions of Simon du Bois and in
the first (anonymous) reprint by Augereau. The second and third Augereau
edition only give the reference, not the text.
[11] The anonimity of the
publication plays a crucial role in the debates. It is advanced by the
Faculty of Theology to account for their intention to censor this
publication (24 October 1533). See William Kemp, �Marguerite of Navarre,
Clément Marot, and the Augereau Editions of the Miroir�, Journal of
the Early Book Society for the study of Manuscripts and Printing History,
vol. 2, 1999, p. 126.
[12] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 240 In F. Higman, Piety and the People, once can find the
three successive Augureau editions: M.36-38). About the text of the
Psalm poem by Marot: Apart from the already mentioned difference in �la
Somme�, the orthography is completely modernised and v. 3-6 from the
first stanza of the Plaquette differ from the text in the
Miroir, which provides the reading retained in all subsequent
editions. Hence the terminus ad quem of 1533 for the
Plaquette. Defaux, Cinquante pseaumes, p. 250 (NB.
�doublable� must be �doubtable�, correct in Oeuvres II, p. 1226,
wrong in 50Ps). Mayer, Traductions, p. 334.
[13] The phrase "au plus pres de la
verite Ebraicque" (Plaquette) is shortened to "selon l'Hebrieu",
a change which in my opinion has no intrinsic value (contra Kemp: "The
change of the title, suppressing "v�rit�", might be a sign of prudence",
a.c., p. 121). The crucial word, the one that might have troubled
theologians, is not "v�rit�" but "Ebraicque" or "Hebrieu". The most
important revision of the text is the orthographic modernisation.
[14] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 241.
[15] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 74.
[16] For the full list of Girard's
printing activity: Pidoux, Le Psautier huguenot, Vol. II, p. 3.
He refers to Archives d'Etat de Geneve, Proc�s Criminels, 2e
S�rie, n� 450. The contested publication was Girards edition of
Epistre Famili�re de Marie d�Enneti�res, in which allegedly
allusions to the affair of the banished ministers and their substitutes
could be found. Curious is that the book in question was printed by
Girard. hiding behind the name of another printer and place: "Anvers,
chez Martin Lempereur" it said on the title page. Questioned about this,
Girard claimed that this was no cheat, but that he really had had the
intention to let it be printed in Antwerp, only the death of Martin
Lempereur had forced him to print it himself. Martin De Keyser had died
already in 1536, his widow had continued printing and gradually (around
1540?) left the business to Antoine Des Gois (the printer of AN41).
About their production: Nijhoff-Kronenberg, Nederlandsche
Bibliographie III, III p. 188-195. The fake edition is mentioned as
n� 2758. About the importance of Antwerp for francophone evangelical
printing see: A.G. Johnston & J.-Fr. Gilmont, 'Anvers,' in: Jean
françois Gilmont (ed), La R�forme et le livre, Paris, 1990, p.
196, 203 and F. Higman, Piety and the People, p. 20-21 and p.
158-159.
[17] Ever since Th�ophile Dufour
first signalled the existence of this edition (in a handwritten
postscriptum to his �notice bibliographique�, 1878) a lot of theories
(i.c. legends) has developed or were created around this ghost-edition.
One of the most interesting is a wild idea of Lenselink to simply
identify it with ST39. We'll discuss some elements of this proposal
later. He mentions this idea in a footnote in his dissertation (1960),
but does not refer to it anymore in his study of the Psalm manuscripts
and editions in 1966, probably aware of the highly speculative character
of it.
[18] This manuscript is described
and studied by S.J. Lenselink, who published a comparative edition of
the main contemporary manuscripts of Marot's first 30 Psalm poems:
Samuel J. Lenselink (�d), Les Psaumes de Clément Marot.
Edition critique du plus ancien texte... Assen, 1969. This book
figures in the catalogue of B�renreiter as volume III of Le Psautier
Huguenot. [An extensive and critical assessment can be found with M.
Albaric, �Le psautier de Clement Marot,� in Revue des sciences
philosophiques et th�ologiques, LIV (April 1970), p. 227-243. He
recommends this edition because of the edited texts, but criticizes the
lack of 1. clarity in the introduction, 2. strictness in the analysis
of the sources (Several scribes worked on ms. 2337 and ms. 2336, but
one does not get information what part of the text is by which hand), 3.
thoroughness in the comparison of the manuscripts, 4. accuracy and
completeness (f.i. Ps. VI-plaquette is omitted) in the critical
apparatus. On p. 240-241 Albaric draws up a list of faults, based on
"rapides sondages", which can be multiplied by soundings I undertook.
Also a sense of arbitrariness in the selection of the edited manuscripts
remains.] Ms. 2337 is described on p. 12-14..
[19] Lenselink, Psaumes, p.
12. The order in the manuscript. The sequences are easily discernible:
9, 10, 13, 15, 24, 38, 51, 104, 137 // 2, 3, 5, 6, 32, 103, 113, 114,
115, 130, 143 // 8, 19, 22, 37 // 11, 12, // 7, 1, 4.
[20] Substantial differences
affecting one or more verses are present in Ps. 8, 51, 114, 115 and 130.
[21] This is the conclusion of
Lenselink after a comparison of the available texts: "Le ms.fr. 2337
pr�sente sous les ratures le plus ancien �tat connu du texte de certains
psaumes." (Lenselink, Psaumes, p. 27, cf. p. 23). A manuscript,
not discussed by Lenselink, but present in the critical apparatus of
Mayer's edition, ms. B.N.fr. 20025, contains five Psalm poems (i.e. only
for these five Psalms Mayer provides the variant readings from this
manuscript), all present in the second sequence of ms. 2337: Ps. 2, 3,
114-115 (copied as one Psalm entitled Psalmus CXIII, In exitu Ysrael),
130. Noteworthy is that although the text sligthly differs from ms. 2337
(some different wording) the text sous rature of ms. 2337 is
present in this manuscript (this concerns Ps 114-115 and 130), which not
only corroborates the thesis of Lenselink that this might well be the
oldest text, but also makes ms. 20025 a very interesting text witness.
[22] This is exceptional, if
compared with the other manuscripts and even the first printed editions.
[23] The edition of Lenselink does
not show (or tell) whether an edition or a manuscript also discerns
stanzas. The two facsimiles (after p. 56) show psalm 8 with distinct
stanzas (a blank line between) and Ps. 37 with stanzas, distinguished by
the alternation of indents.
[24] Based on the rendering of ms.
2337 in Lenselinks edition. Since he did not indicate which "hand"
copied which Psalm, nothing more can be said about the differences in
orthography.
[25] Aulcuns pseaulmes &
cantiques mys en chant, Strasburg, 1539 (ed. facsimile with an
introduction by Jan R.Luth, Brasschaat, 2003). Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 82. Description of the contents, see Pidoux II, p. 3. We wille refer
to this edition as ST39.
[26] The exception is Psalm 115,
but see below.
[27] Pidoux II, p. 3 (there other
references).
[28] A typographical remark about
"ou CXIIII": The "C" in "ou CXIIII" is a "C-gothic" in stead of a Latin
numeral.
[29] Based on the survey of
Baddeley (Orthographe, p. 310), which we adjusted based on our
own sample survey. Her conclusion ("g final est supprim� dans le
mot un, les consonnes muettes internes l et c sont
tr�s souvent �limin�es et les y grecs sont peu nombreux...")
reflects the orthography of the first signature, but becomes an
overstatement if applied to the whole publication.
[30] There are more disturbing
orthographical oddities and inconsistencies which we can not treat here.
ST39 has to be characterised as a hybrid (mixt) typographical
production. Baddeley observed that ST39 contains strikingly few printing
mistakes being a French text printed by a German printinghouse.
Combining this with the observation that the layout of the titlepage is
unstrasburgian austere, she hazards the suggestion that the lost edition
of Girard might well have been the printed "Vorlage" used by the
Strasburgian printer (Baddeley, L�Orthographe, p. 312). In 1959
Lenselink had suggested that ST39 perhaps is the lost edition printed by
Girard, using Strasburgian material, a conjecture which he did not
repeat in his critical edition of Marot's psalms in 1969, but also did
not revoke in the 1983 reprint of his dissertation. S.J. Lenselink,
De Nederlandse psalmberijmingen van de Souterliedekens tot
Datheen, Assen, 1959, p.131-132 (footnote).
[31] CO 10/1,12. The "articles "
were discussed by the council on 16 January 1537. Cf. Cottret, Calvin,
p. 137-140 and Pidoux I, p. 1. The authorship of Calvin can be disputed,
since Guillaume Farel was the most prominent minister at the time,
Calvin having just arrived in Geneva (July 1536).
For more details see chapter on Marot and Calvin
[32] April 1538 Calvin was banished
from Geneva and after some erring was appointed a minister of the
recently constituted French-speaking Church of Strasbourg, mainly
consisting of Refugees. His first sermon he delivered on 8 September
1538. About the French speaking Church of Strasburg, see R. Weeda,
L'�glise des français de Strasbourg (1538-1563), rayonnement europ�en de
sa Liturgie et de ses Psautiers, Baden-Baden, 2004. On 09/11/1538
Zwick wrote to Bullinger about the French community of Strasburg: "...et
psalmos sua lingua canunt� (CO 10/2,288).
[33] With the publication of Bucers
Grund und Ursach and the German book of common prayer, Teutsch
Kirchenampt, in 1524 the Strasburgian hymnological tradition
started.
[34] CO 10/2,438. Douen translated
"miseramus" with "nous regrettons" (praesens of miserare, Douen
I, p. 301), making it very hard to understand the phrase. If translated
as we (and many others) did, the phrase gives a perfect sense
("miseramus" as a pqperf of mittere): �We had sent (the) Psalms,
in order that they would be sung with you (= Neuchatel), before they
would arrive you know where (=Geneva). We have decided to give (them) in
print shortly. Because the German melody (or: German way of singing) was
more pleasing (or: satisfactory), I was compelled to try what I was
worth in verse translation. So the Psalms 46 and 25 are my firstlings; I
have added others afterwards. The meaning of "magis arridebat" is a
crux interpretum. If translated as a comparative it implicitly
refers to an another way of singing Psalms not based on the "melodia
germanica". Very often "magis arridebat" is translated as a superlativus
(Because the "melodia germanica" was highly appreciated by Calvin, he
felt impelled (challenged) to try his poetical skills on the psalms). If
understood in this way, which is not evident, but probably acceptable,
the phrase about the "melodia germanica" contains no implicit judgment
about another way of singing. Whatever interpretation: the authorship of
� at least � two of the non-Marot Psalms is established: John Calvin
versified Ps. 25 and Ps. 46.
[35] Pierre Toussain to Calvin
(28/06/1539): "Mitte quaeso ad me psalmos gallicos." (CO 10/2,357).
Calvin to Farel (08/10/1539): "...Corderius rem mihi magnopere gratam
faciet, si Psalmos quos habet descriptos mihi curaverit. "(CO 10/2,400)
If one translates "descriptos" with "copied", Mathurin Cordier might
have been in possession of a manuscript with (Marot's) Psalm poems.
Calvin to Farel (Strasburg, 27/10/1539): "... Non potui ad Micha�lem
scribere. Velim tamen illi injungas, primo nuncio scribat de psalmis
quid actum sit. Mandaveram ut centum exemplaria Genavam mitterentur.
Nunc primum intellexi non fuisse id curatum. Certe nimis negligenter
tamdiu distulit mihi significare." (CO 10/2,426). This letter is also
the basis for the interpretation of "illuc quo intelligis" as referring
to Geneva in the letter of Calvin to Farel of 28/12/1538.
[36] After "Psalme premier" the
other Psalms are numbered with Roman numerals. For the defects in the
actual numbering, see above.
[37] This observation seems to
support the translation of �magis arridebat� as a comparative, Calvin
expressing his preference for the "melodia germanica" above the other
way of singing (i.e. on secular (French?) tunes).
[38] Pidoux, le Psautier
huguenot, Vol. I is completely dedicated to the melodies of the
Psalter. Jan Luth in the introduction to the fac-simile edition of ST39
gives a schematic overview with Zahn-numbers, if existing (p.11). The
two most important German cantores at Strasbourg were Matthias Greiter
and Wolfgang Dachstein. By the time Calvin started to compile his
hymnbook a complete German Psalter was available in Strasburg:
Psalter. Das seindt alle Psalmen Dauids, mit jren Melodeien,
sampt vil Sch�nen Christlichen liedern, vnnd Kyrchen�bungen (1538).
The statement that the non-Marot psalms completely fit into the mould of
existing melodies is only true for Psalm 36 and 113 (metrical but not
rhyming versification). The four other Psalm poems (25, 46, 91, 138)
differ both in number of lines per stanza and number of syllables per
line if compared with the Strasburgian Vorlage. The melodies thus
had to be adapted and not always only superficially (see Lenselink,
De Nederlandse Psalmberijmingen, p. 118-122 and Pidoux, �ber die
Herkunft der Melodien des Hugenotten-Psalters , p. 114). The tune of
the canticle of Simeon appears to be newly made. There is another
peculiarity, which is telling: None of the melodies used for the French
Psalms is borrowed from the corresponding German Psalm. This is strange,
because at least in one instance this might well have been possible. The
melody of the German Psalm 114 (Greiter) was known to the French
community (it is used for Psalm 138). Marot's verse translation of Psalm
114 uses almost the same metrical scheme (Lenselink is even convinced
that Marot used Greiter as mould (Lenselink, Psaumes, p. 30).
Nevertheless another melody is used, which had to be adapted seriously
to make it fit (Pollio�s Vater unser). Finally: The Decalog and
the Creed follow the melody of the German examples (Luther, Dies sind
die heilgen zehen gebott and an anonymous version of Ich glaub in
Gott). In these two occasions the reforming christians of Strasbourg
sang the same melody to the same words, be it in German, be it in
French. Lenselink, taking stock of the matter, feels compelled to
conclude, that Calvin must have poetised �his� Psalms with other
melodies in mind and only afterwards went for the �melodia germanica�
.(Lenselink, De Nederlandse Psalmberijmingen, p. 122).
[39] Only the �incipit� of Psalm 51
(four breves) links the tune to the suggested melodic Vorlage:
�Herr, gott ich traw allein uff dich�, Heinrich Vogtherr (Psalm 71),
Psalmen, Gebett und Kirchen�bung (1526 and later), fac-simile Pidoux
I, p. 237. See also: Chr. Meyer, Les m�lodies, n� 110, p. 187.
The melody of Marot's Psalm 114 is linked with �Vater unser wir bitten
dich� (Symphorian Pollio, ibid, fac-simile Pidoux I, p. 239). See
also Chr. Meyer, Les m�lodies, n� 85, p. 175. In this case the
first two musical lines are similar, but the number and the length of
the lines are different.
[40] Lenselink, Les Psaumes,
p. 24 has only found two (significant) different readings between ms.
2337 and Strasbourg 1539. One of these differences (3,4,7: �gueulles
ouvertes� i.s.o. �gueulles perverses�) makes the rhyme imperfect (ouvertes-renverses),
something Marot detests. In the sixteenth century one very easily took
the liberty to make changes in texts.
[41] The family tree will be
sketched after the inventory is complete. See note NOTEREF
_Ref174963920 \h 26 for a provisional
classification.
[42] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 93. We will refer to this edition as AN41.
[43] E. M. Braekman, "Le psautier
Alexandre, Anvers 1541", in Histoire, Humanisme et Hymnologie,
Paris, 1997. p. 309-318. Pierre Alexandre was born in Arras, entered a
Carmelite Convent, got a Th.D. at the Sorbonne in Paris (1534) and
became Court Preacher of Mary of Hungary (sister to Charles V, governess
of the Netherlands). Somewhere/sometime he had become evangelical,
because in 1544 he was wanted by the inquistion and he fled to
Strasburg. On 2 January 1545 he was condemned by default. For the rest
of his turbulent life and production see Braekman, a.c., p. 312-313) and
J.F. Gilmont, "Un pseudonyme de Pierre Alexandre: Simon Alexius", in
Bulletin de la Société Royale d'Histoire du Protestantisme Belge
(BSRHPB) V, 6 (1970,1), p. 179-188. About secret evangelical sympathies
of Mary of Hungary: B.J. Spruyt, " 'En bruit d'estre bonne luteriene':
Mary of Hungary (1505-58) and Religious Reform," in The English
Historical Review, vol. 109, n�. 431 (1994), p. 275-307.
[44] Lenselink, Les Psaumes,
p. 24 mentions 12 notable differences (N.B. only in the 13 Psalms which
ST39 and AN41 have in common). When weighed these differences reveal
only one thing: None of them touches meaning. This means that one can
not speak of a revision. This assessment has a certain importance, since
Douen (taking the phrase "recongnue et corrig�" on the title page
literal) launched the theory that Alexandre, in his evangelical
zeal, corrupted the original text (which was only printed in PA41), a
theory which has long survived its rebuttal. (the theory: Douen I, p.
315-333, the refutation by Becker, Clement Marots Psalmen�bersetzung,
1921, p. 8-9: "In Wirklichkeit liegen die Dinge sehr viel einfacher."
After which he expounds the theory of what we called Group I). Whether
Alexandre really played an active role in compiling this edition, or
only lent his name to deliver a �nihil obstat�, remains unknown.
Prudently he (or Des Gois) retracted his name from the extented edition
with the overtly �evangelical� sermon du bon pasteur, leaving the
'nihil obstat' to an unspecified number of unidentified theologians.
[45] This is also the case for the
entire version (four lines) of Ps. 51,4. The version which replaces the
text sous rature in ms. 2337 is always the same as (or very
similar to) AN41.
[46] See: Braekman, "Le Psautier,"
p. 317.
[47] Des Gois, being of French
origin, was interested in orthography. One of his first publications was
the Introduction des enfans (1540). Part of this book is the
orthographical treatise from 1533, the Briefve Doctrine, which
Des Gois explicitly attributed to Clément Marot. The typeface of the
Psalmes de David is relatively modern, with many orthographic
novelties, although the c�dille and the e-barr� are missing. The
presence of an "accent aigu" on the monosyllables (f.i. d�s, l�s, t�s)
and some other endings is remarkable, since this is a system stimulated
esp. by Jean Girard in Geneva. In Antwerp Steels also used it in
printing the French bible of Lef�vre in 1538 (Baddeley,
L'Orthographe, p. 312-314).
[48] For a complete list: Douen I,
p. 317, n. 2.
[49] Two of this fifteen non-Marot
Psalms (Ps. 115 by "Adel" and ps. 130 by "A") were published before in
Noelz Nouveaulx (1533) [Neufchatel, Pierre de Vingle]. The verses
which referred to Noel were suppressed.
[50] This is an important
assessment, since the idea that Marot's Psalm poems were sung on popular
tunes is widespread. It is indeed a fact that metrical Psalms and other
christian songs � in general � were sung on popular tunes, but it is
jumping to conclusions that this general habit automatically would imply
that Marot's Psalm poems also were sung on popular tunes. One will
certainly have tried to do it, but will have experienced serious
difficulties to find chansons, that match Marot's verse forms,
which differ considerably from the bulk of contemporary folk songs. See
below when ms. 2336 is discussed where some tune indications are present
and tested.
[51] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 94. A complete description with Defaux, Cinquante pseaumes, p.
216. If necessary we will refer to this edition as AN41-bis. Since this
edition was public, it is not surprsing that manuscripts contain copies
of it. Ms. Cod. Vind. 3525 f.i. contains poetry of Marguerite de Navarre
and seventeen Psalm poems by Marot. The text shows such a high degree of
conformity with AN41, that it might well have been copied from it.
(Lenselink, p. 21-22).
[52] Le Sermon tres utile et
salutaire du bon pasteur et du mauvais is explicitedly attributed to
Marot by Des Gois, but recent research falsified this attribution. In
ms. B.N.fr. 12795 the poem is explicitly attributed to Almanque
Papillon, a manuscript with otherwise correct attributions. See
also Defaux II, p. 830-830, and Mayer, "'Le sermon
du bon pasteur', un probl�me d'attribution," in BHR XXVII (1965),
p. 286-303. Both agree on not attributing this Sermon to Marot.
The Sermon also figures on the list of censured books, drawn up
by the Parisian Faculty of Theology in 1542-1543.
[53] Mayer, Bibliographie,
n� 112. The (probably only) extant copy of this edition is first
described by J. Pannier, 'Une premi�re �dition (?) des psaumes de Marot
imprim�e par Et. Dolet', in BSHPF 1929, p. 238-240. The copy is kept in
the Vatican Library. The two first pages are missing and the name of
Clément Marot is systematically crossed out. In most bibliographies the
fact that this concerns an edition almost identical to AN41-bis
(including the chaotic order, the numbering mistakes, the misprints and
the extras (!), is not mentioned, neither the exception: the addition of
two Psalm poems by Maurice Sc�ve (Ps. 26 and 83, both
Vulgata-numbering) at the end, also present in ms. 2336. Pannier
describes the publication based on a content description provided to him
by the librarian of the Vatican. The description is faulty and
incomplete, since only Psalm 26 of Sc�ve is mentioned. Claude Longeon,
who so to speak rediscovered this edition (from the Sc�ve perspective,
thus being able to advance the first publication of the two Psalm poems
from 1549 to 1542) mentions and edits the two Psalm poems present: Ps.
26 and 83 (C. Longeon, "Maurice Sc�ve, traducteur des Psaumes",
Etudes seizi�mistes offertes � Monsieur le Professeur V.-L. Saulnier....
Geneva, 1980, p. 193-204). He suggests that Sc�ve might have made
these Psalms even some years before, Dolet being his inspirator. See
also C. Longeon, Etienne Dolet, Pr�faces françaises, Geneva,
1979, p 106. Not only the numbering, but also the translation follows
the Vulgata.
[54] Description and analysis of
this important manuscript: H.P. Clive The Psalm poems in Biblioth�que
Nationale Manuscript Fr. 2336, in BHR XXVII (1965), p. 80-95
and Lenselink, Les Psaumes, p. 14-20. Lenselink mentions 189
modifications, compared with AN41, of which 103 can be found in the
subsequent edition of Roffet, PA41 (ibid. p. 18). The church
editions (ST42 and GE42) generally follow AN41 and don't adapt to the
official edition of Roffet (PA41), which might indicate the emergence of
a separate text tradition.
[55] The presence of these two
Psalms is used by Clive to establish the terminus a quo,
but assuming � in conformity with the then state of scholarship � that
the first edition of these Psalms took place in 1549 (Clive, The
Psalm poems,. p. 89, 92), he of course erroneously assigns it
to 1549.
[56] The text of the manuscript is
usually good and the corrections mainly affect the Psalms of Gringoire
(Clive,. a.c, p. 89). Since the corrections go beyond the last
published edition of Gringoire's Psalm poems, and Gringoire probably
died in 1539 (p. 92) this scribe must have acted on his own initiative
in "amending" texts. Together with the fact that some comments are
accompanied by terms like "revue" or "melius" makes it tempting to
suggest that it concerns an editor's copy (as Clive does, a.c., p.
93-94). Concerning the non-Marot Psalms in AN41 there is no change (AN41
= ms 2336). If the Marot Psalms differ, the revision, sometimes
comprising entire stanzas, often tends towards the first official
publication: PA41, but does not coincide with it. Access to (existence
of) an intermediary source must be assumed. The identity of the
compilers/copiists/redactors cannot be established. (Lenselink, p.
17-20, Clive, 89-93). The theory of Gastou� (Le Cantique populaire en
France, Lyon, 1924, p. 139), based on a note on the manuscript by a
librarian, that the manuscript was compiled by Pierre Gringoire
(Vaudemont), has become obsolete (Lenselink, p. 18-19, Clive, p. 89-90).
[57] A complete list with Clive, p.
83-84.
[58] Clive, a.c. p. 86. In
her article about Pierre Gringoire Cynthia J. Brown (�Les
Abus du monde de Pierre Gringoire� in CB', p. 35-58) does not
seem to know that the first folios are missing and keeps wondering about
the absence of these Psalms of Gringoire and Marot (p. 41, n. 1). She
also seems not to be aware of the correction in the dating of Sc�ve's
Psalms: not 1549, but 1542 (p. 40, n. 3).
[59] Observation by Cynthia J.
Brown. Although Gringoire's religious intentions were quite different
from Marot's, if not opposite to Marot's, he also got into trouble with
the Sorbonne. His Heures de nostre Dame with the penitential
Psalms were censored by the Faculty of Theology in 1525 but printed in
Lyon, with royal Privilege and considerable success (Brown, a.c.,
p. 39).
[60] Bucer's Psalmorum libri
quinque... (1529) which appeared pseudonymously was widespread and
for a long time not considered to be heretical.
[61] Clive speaks of "several other
Psalms" and "the plan was never carried out" (o.c., p. 93-94),
whilst Lenselink speaks of "... il a chaque fois m�nag� une place en vue
de cette adjonction ult�rieure.". He also mentions three occassions in
which the blank space is filled above non-Marot Psalms: Ps. 23, 25 and
43. (o.c., p. 20). Marot's version (with arguments) of these
three psalms appeared in his the Vingt Pseaulmes in 1543, Psalm
poems not included in this ms.
[62] The fact that the three
non-Marot Psalms, that received this upgrade, are exactly the three
Psalms which have a counterpart in Marot's Vingt Pseaulmes (and
no other Psalms receive this treatment) forbids to turn the
reasoning around and suggest that Marot borrowed the Arguments from the
manuscript, as is suggested by Mayer, Les Traductions, p. 28.
[63] In the first official edition
PA41 only nineteen out of thirty are preceded by this instruction:
1-15,19,24,37,38. In this series (1-38), Ps. 22 is the only exception
and after Ps. 38 the phrase doesn't recur at all. None of the Vingt
Pseaulmes has this indication. The phrase appears only in the
editions of Roffet and the closely related ms. Pierpont Morgan 218). Ms.
2336 is the only text version in which it is present above all 30
Psalms. The reason why PA41 omitted this indication above Psalm 22 and
entirely stopped after Psalm 38, will be discussed below, when PA41 is
dealt with.
[64] The librarian's note
accompanying ms. PM 218 may serve as an example of the common
interpretation: "The text is written in a beautiful, even bookhand. The
translation of the Psalms into French verse is annotated and has
directions for singing."
[65] Lenselink, Psaumes, p.
16. Lenselink mentions the number of ten in stead of eleven.
[66] Lenselink managed to decipher
a second line too: l'aultre jour m'y cheminoye / le loing d'une
riviere. (Lenselink, Psaumes, p. 16, 122). Only once AN41 has
more information on the tune. This concerns Ps. CXX. In ms. 2336 we read
"Adam", by Clive taken to be the name of the melody, but based on the
longer description in AN41 "Adam a regress" it is identified as the
pseudonym of a Genevan pastor: Jean Menard (Pidoux II, p. 7).
[67] Only with the help of Annie
Coeurdevey, responsible for the "base de chansons RICERCAR", who � after
in vain having tried all printed songs with similar incipits � finally
suggested a song from a Parisian manuscript (B.N.fr. 1597), "Chansonnier
des ducs de Lorraine", copied around 1500 as the only possible match she
was able to find: "L'autre jour my chevauchoye / Tout du long d'une
montaigne, / J'ay trouv� la belle au corps gent / Au plus pres d'une
fontaine." She comments: "Date tr�s ancienne, mais comme c'est un
r�pertoire bas� sur des monodies populaires, il n'est pas impossible que
la m�lodie d'un texte de nature aussi populaire se soit conserv�e assez
longtemps."
[68] We added between brackets an
alternative counting of metrical feet, in which we also included the
syllable of a feminine ending. For the hymns we consulted: J. van
Biezen & J.W. Schulte Nordholt, Hymnen, een bloemlezing met muziek
uit de vroeg-christelijke en middeleeuwse gezangen van de Latijnse en
Griekse Kerk, Doornik, 1967, there: p. 117, 125.
[69] Marot employs "rime enchain�e"
(AAAb/bbbC) with alternating masculine and femine rhyme, resulting in
"two stanzas with different metre".
[70] Lenselink, Les
Psaumes, p. 20-23 with examples. General conclusions on p. 23, 27.
Based on a survey of the critical apparatus of C.A. Mayer, two other
manuscripts, not discussed by Lenselink, can be added to this group: ms.
306 (Pembroke College Cambrigde) and ms. Harley 6915 (British Museum).
Only minor differences are signalled, often transcription errors (Mayer,
Les Traductions, p. 69).
[71] In PM 218 the text from Psalms
1-15 is riddled with writing errors, but from Psalm 19 onwards the text
is exactly the same as PA41, as if it is copied from the printed
edition. That's why Lenselinkg conludes "qu'il pr�c�de imm�diatement
cette �dition." (p. 23). As a matter of fact, based on this assessment
of the manuscript, nothing obliges us to make this manuscript pre-date
PA41: So let's say: winter 1541-1542.
[72] Lenselink is not completely
clear on this point. On p. 21 he suggests 1539 for ms. Ars. 2363 ("ou
peut-�tre m�me seulement au d�but de 1540"), on p. 22 he suggests to
date Ars. 2363 "du milieu de 1540". Since Lenselink believes ms. Vind
2644 to be anterior to Arsenal 3632, we will never pass mid 1540.
[73] A. Gastou�, Le cantique
populaire en France, Lyon, 1924, p. 137-139, 242.
[74] We checked this statement by
looking for links between Ars. 3632 and (one or more members of ) Group
I. These links could easily be found, but were always marginal: a
different wording, a change in word order, never a complete line; never
more than a few of these in an entire Psalm, and many psalms with no
difference at all. If one realizes the substantial differences in the
redaction of some psalms between group I and PA41, these differences
become irrelevant.
[75] A complicating aspect of this
manuscript is the presence on the first page of an undecipherable
signature and some other signs which have long been thought to be a
date: mc xxvij (1527). Since the date makes no sense,
Lenselink suggests to treat it as a lapsus and corrects it to
1537 (Lenselink, Les Psaumes, p. 10). A little later (p.
21) he rejects this date because still being far to early, based on
internal evidence: the redaction of the text itself. In his review of
Lenselink's edition Albaric suggests to read this number not as a date
but as a library reference number. "Apr�s avoir examin� sur pi�ce cette
inscription et pris un un avis autoris�, nous pouvons affirmer qu'il ne
s'agit pas d'une date, qui de reste ne corresponderait � rien, mais
d'une cote (IIIc xxvij)." Albaric, "Le psautier de Clément
Marot", p. 229. His argumentation seems conclusive.
[76] We found at least one more
(Ps. 3,1,11) and could not find any example of the opposite (Ars. 3632
still being linked with group I and Vind 2644 already begin in line with
PA41).
[77] The kernel of Douen's theory
was that there must have existed an original Parisian version,
authorized by Marot, which was corrupted afterwards by Alexandre.
This old original should at least antedate 1540 (when the emperor got
it), but usually the date was even further advanced (1538; Gastou�
1537)). It takes some time to cast off all remnants of a dominant idea.
One can trace this process in the successive interpretations in the
first half of the 20th century, with the studies of J.
Plattard and Ph. A. Becker as milestones. Textual analysis and
historical critical bibliography did the rest. It is telling that
Lenselink several times refers to the story of the offering of the
manuscript to the Emperor in 1540, while dealing with Ars 2363 and.
Vind. 2644. Lenselink, Psaumes, p. 21, 22 (dating the passage of
the emperor erroneously in May 1540).
[78] For a complete discussion see
Dick Wursten, �Did Clément Marot....� in Renaissance Studies 22/2 (april
2008), p. 240-250.
[79] Mayer, n� 101.
[80] Some minor errors can be
observed. A very intriguing minor slip, which appears in all known
editions is the incipit of Ps. X: "Domine ut quid
recessisti longe". The Vulgata provides the same words, but in a
different order: "Ut quid Domine recessisti longe". The inversion
of the word order might be influenced by the edition of the
Enchiridion Campensis, in which the abbreviated incipit is
written in margine and we find exactly the same inversion, of which I
have not found any other case. That this confusion appears at this
particular place has some logic. The incipit had to be fabricated
by the "H�braisant", since an official incipit did not exist: in
the Vulgata Ps. X is part of Ps. IX. (Ps X, 1 = Vulgata ps
IX, 22). Another peculiarity coincides with this observation: In the
Marot psalm editions the Vulgata shorttitles are very often
abbreviated in the same way as in the Enchiridion Campensis
(Lyon, Gryphius, 1532). Some very crude abbreviations appear, which
appear to have an typographic logic in the Enchiridion (matter of
space in margine), but of which the necessity is absent in the
editions of the Psalms of Marot. One example (from the 20Pss):
The incipit of Psalm 45: "eructavit cor meum verbum bo." (bo =
bonum). The last word ("bo." for "bonum") is shortened because of the
typographical alignment in margine in the Enchiridion.
PA43 and GE43 have plenty of space.
[81] Ps. 8 (Pseaulme que tout..
devrait scavoir..), 14 (Pseaulme contre), 24 (& est ledict Pseaulme
propre..) , 103 (Pseaulme qui enseigne..)
[82] Lenselink does not mention
this in his critical apparatus. (Lenselink, Les Psaumes, p. 131).
The absence of a phrase like this above Ps. 22 can be seen as an
indication of Marot not having intended this particular Psalm for
singing or of a sudden awareness that the phrase that is suggested is
not adequate, which indeed is the case. The indication in ms. 2336 ("un
verset pour couplet") suggests that all stanzas share the same metrical
form. This is not the case. First of all the stanzas of ps. 22 are
"different de chant" and last but not least the final stanza differs
completely. The fact that these indications stop in PA41 after ps. 38
and are completely absent in the Vingt Pseaulmes of 1543, seems
to indicate that Marot (or the editor) dropped the idea, perhaps after
twice being confronted with irregularity in the strophic form of the
final stanza (ps. 22, 37).
[83] According to the
Lenselink edition this indication is also absent in ms. PM218 above
Psalm 2, 3, 4, 6.
[84] Nor Lenselink (who reproduces
the numbering of all manuscripts and editions), nor Mayer, nor Defaux
mention the numbering in PA41 and ergo non of them mentions this
strange phenomenon, which can only be explained by an attempt of Marot
or Roffet to create a numerical concordance of Marot's versification
with another versification. Since versification was practised, but not
yet standardised, it might be noteworthy that the deviant numbering
almost completely parallels the verse-numbering of Lefevre's Psalm
editions. Numbers were present in ms. 2337 and AN41, but always
concording with the instructions in the heading.
[85] The edition itself is also
known as the Pseudoromana, because of the �joke� of the
publisher, who put on the title page: �Imprim� a Rome par le
commandement du Pape, par Theodore Br�ss, Allemant, son imprimeur
ordinaire.� Mayer, Bibliographie, n� 103.
[86] Sometimes appearing to be
quite careless concerning the poetic aspects, f.i. in Ps. 37,3,3 "vraye
et seure" is changed in "vraye et bonne", thus eliminating the rhyme.
[87] Ps. 22: original scheme of the
final stanza: "10 10 10 10 � abab; other stanzas: 10 10 10 4 � aaab. Ps.
37: the original final stanza (7 lines) is stretched to 9 lines, to
create a final stanza of three lines the preceding stanzas being 6
lines. Compare footnote NOTEREF _Ref169021531 \h 128
for another solution of the same problem in GE43.
[88] One example of a unique
reading for GE42: Ps. 7,1,2 "sauve asseurance" is replaced by "ferme
asseurance".
[89] With high probability this
must have been Guillaume Franc, since he is officially charged to do the
same for the 1543 edition. See infra.
[90] Mayer, n� 112 (this has the
same content as AN41-bis, but two new Psalm poems (by Maurice Sc�ve) are
added) and n� 118.
[91].Defaux praises Dolet as an
skilful editor. One can read time and again phrases like: "Mais il la
corrige tr�s intelligemment chaque fois que le besoin s'en fait sentir."
(50Ps, p. 218). Since he clearly did not have access to original
manuscripts in the case of the Psalm poems, his editions are not
relevant for the establishment of the original texts of the Psalms. The
1543 reprint of Les Oeuvres de Clement Marot contains all fifty
Psalms, this time according to GE43 (Mayer, n� 118). The Vingt
Pseaumes appear in the appendix. The arguments are left out. His
successor (Guillaume Roville) reproduces this version in his edition
�Constantin� (Mayer, n� 128). This is the "master" of all sixteenth
century editions, but ever since the discovery of the Cinquante
Pseaulmes it became a secondhand version.
[92] Mayer, n� 119; Defaux, Siglum
J.
[93] Defaux suggests that the
mentioning of 32 Psalms is not a fraud nor a mistake but is meant to
differentiate this edition from the former in order to attain a new
printing privilege, the privilege of the first edition being almost
expired. (Defaux, 50ps, p. 219). Another suggestion is that
Roffet wanted to deceive the censors, since the Trente Pseaulmes
were on the list of condemned books, which was being drawn up by the
Faculty of Theology in 1542. The text of the granted privilege though
mentions openly the preceding edition as identical. So the supplier of
the royal privilege was not deceived, nor was he impressed by the list
of the Faculty.
[94] Mayer, La r�ligion, p.
45. Pidoux II, p. 13-14. (both references to Du Plessis d'Argentr�).
J.K. Farge refers to this �Index� as a list of books censured in the
period between 23 April 1542 � 2 March 1543, correcting the view of
D�Argentr�, who maintained that the period started in December 1542.
(James. K. Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France.
The faculty of theology of Paris, 1500-1543, Leiden, 1985, p. 216.
[95] One very conspicuous error
(not mentioned in loco by Defaux or Mayer: Ps 43). The Vulgata
incipit (XLII) is "Iudica me Deus". Marot writes: "Deus, Deus meus, ad
te". We find it in alle editions: PA43, GE43 Dolet43/44. This is the
incipit of ps 63 (Vulgate LXII). Notice the dyslectic potential of the
Roman Numbers.
[96] The
relevant entries from the Registers from the Council are gathered
together by Pierre Pidoux, Le Psautier Huguenot, vol. II,
p. 19-20.
[97] "Ordonn� pour aultant que l�on
paracheve les psalmes de David it qu'il est fort n�cessaire de composer
ung champ gracieulx sur iceulx, que maystre Guillaum, le chantre, est
bien propres pour record� les enfans le jour qu�il sera ordonn� ou une
heure le jour et que de son gage que l�on an parle az Monsieur
Calvin...� (Pidoux II, p. 19). Franc�s renumeration
is raised to 50 fl. on 16 April, 80 fl. on 24
April, and even up to 100 fl. on 7 May 1543. The last rise of salary is
even juratory sworn by the members of the City Council, betraying a
sense of urgency. Guillaume Franc was
"chantre" (cantor) of the Eglise St. Pierre. On 17 June 1541 he
had obtained permission to open a music school: "donn� licence de tenyr
eschole de musique" (Pidoux II, p. 5). On 6 June 1542 he is referred to
as the person who instructs the children �� chanter les psaulmes de
David aul temple" (p. 11). Similar reference on 7.May 1543: �...pour
apprendre la note et � chant� les enfans qu�il doybve chant� les psalmes
de David � l�eglise..� ( Pidoux II, p. 19).
[98] Pidoux II, p. 23.
[99] Pidoux describes this edition
as containing the Salutation (Pidoux II, p. 24), thus suggesting
that it was printed before the Council gave its permission (and then
destroyed?). More likely seems to be that the Council censored a printed
proof and that a censored version (without the Salutation) was
printed.
[100] Mayer, n� 116.
[101] Olivier Labarthe, "Jean
G�rard, l�imprimeur des Cinquante pseaumes de Marot" in BHR
XXXV (1973), p. 547-561, based on an analysis of the typeset and a
comparison between this edition of the Cinquante Pseaumes and
some authenticated publications of Girard dating from the same period.
[102] Ps. 18,43-44: inversion;
18,106 insertion of "non" before "faincte", inverting the meaning and
introducing an endecasyllable. C.A. Mayer often replaces a deficient
reading of PA43 with that of GE43, because he classifies them as
"fautes" (f.i. three times in Ps. 36). The repeated suggestion of Defaux
(p. 303-305) that Mayer thus implicitly recognises the authority of GE43
is only partly correct, since a pirate edition remains a pirate edition
even if the orthography is perfect. Most of the time Mayer mentions the
differences between PA43 and GE434 in his critical apparatus (exception:
Ps. 25).
[103] These prayers are partly new
and partly revisions of earlier versions. They have links both with the
section "Oraisons" in Marot's Oeuvres and with the section
Cantiques in ST39. "Les Commandements de Dieu" (first publication)
is a pendant of a non-Marot version of ST39, "Les Articles de la
Foy" (Instruction 1533), "L"Oraison de nostre Seigneur Jesus
Christ" (Instruction 1533), "La Salutation Ang�lique" (Instruction
1533), "Pri�re devant le repas" (first publication), and "Apres le
Repas" (first publication). The last two have precursors in two similar
prayers in Instruction 1533. As signalled in note NOTEREF
_Ref196791501 \h 2 (see above) the title
L�Instruction et foy d�un chrestien, present above this section
in the critical edition of GE43 by Defaux is fabricated by him.
[104] Since Mayer also doubts the
authenticity of these addenda, since he doubts the origin of this
edition.
[105] Defaux II, p. 630. The
prefatory Epistle to the first 30 Psalms: ibid. p. 557-561. Both
designate the translation as a "Oeuvre Royal", in which the word "Roy"
may refer to three kings: françois I-er, David, God. This triple
reference is explained and exploited in the first poem. The final lines
of the first poem ("Te suppliant les recevoir pour gaige / Du residu,
qui j� t'est consacr�, / Si les veoir touts il te venoit � gr�.") can be
seamlessly linked with the opening of the dedicatory huitain
introducing the Vingt Pseaulmes: "Puis que voulez que je
poursuyve, � Sire, / L'oeuvre Royal du Psaultier commenc�."
[106] Defaux discusses this policy
in his edition of the 50PS, p. 35-36. �All changes reflect a
caution suggesting that this issue, dissociated from Geneva, was
intended for circulation in France.� See: Bettye Thomas Chambers,
Bibliography of French Bibles, n� 105,106, p. 134.
[107] If no permission was
necessary for export-printing why did Marot then had to ask permission
to for the publicaton of L'Enfer (1543), which probably also was
destined for the French market ? See Pidoux II, p. 21.
[108] Ps. 22 : 10101010 � AbAb
(PA41/43) is brought into line with the other stanzas: 1010104 � AAAb
(GE43). Ps. 37: The stanza is shortened with one line in GE43 (from 7
to 6) to be made conform the other stanzas.
[109] Defaux, 50Pss, p. 206. PA43
on fol. 35r� ((information supplied by Geoffroy Grassin, librarian of
the library of Troyes, where the only surviving copy of PA43 is kept).
|
|
|||||||