and simple, and do not be vexed at my opinion.

(3) Guiraut, I do not like my songs to be so confused, that the base and
good, the small and great be appraised alike; my poetry will never be
praised by fools, for they have no understanding nor care for what is
more precious and valuable.

(4) Linhaure, if I work late and turn my rest into weariness for that
reason (to make my songs simple), does it seem that I am afraid of work?
Why compose if you do not want all to understand? Song brings no other
advantage.

(5) Guiraut, provided that I produce what is best at all times, I care
not if it be not so widespread; commonplaces are no good for the
appreciative--that is why gold is more valued than salt, and with song [39]
it is even the same.

It is obvious that the disputants are at cross purposes; the object of
writing poetry, according to the one, is to please a small circle of
highly trained admirers by the display of technical skill. Guiraut de
Bornelh, on the other hand, believes that the poet should have a message
for the people, and that even the fools should be able to understand its
purport. He adds the further statement that composition in the easy
style demands no less skill and power than is required for the
production of obscurity. This latter is a point upon which he repeatedly
insists: "The troubadour who makes his meaning clear is just as clever
as he who cunningly conjoins words." "My opinion is that it is not in
obscure but in clear composition that toil is involved." Later
troubadours of renown supported his arguments; Raimon de Miraval
(1168-1180) declares: "Never should obscure poetry be praised, for it is