Analysis of manuscripts: C 367r (Vs caualiers del | temple fe est siruentes, Reg. Vs caualliers del temple), a1 516 (en ricatz honomel fraire del temple ). − Ca1 share a single archetype error (37). a1 has a number of minor scribal errors (11, 17, 27 [–1], 43 [–1]). It is facilior in 24, as a result of either intentional clarification or intelligent interpretation of an original misunderstood. Its readings are preferable in 3, possibly 24 (e·n), and arguably 11, 33 and 38. C contains errors in 33, 34, 35, 36 (?), with padding in 39. 7, 15, 35 and 44 appear to be indifferent variants. Its readings are preferable in 24 and 30. – Fabre bases his edition on C, normalising for inflexion, with arbitrary changes of graphy. Bertoni generally prefers a1 but often adopts C’s graphies as well as a number of its readings, also making some other minor changes of graphy. His variants contain a few errors (21, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44). Roques thinks Bertoni exaggerated the value of a1. De Bastard, who gives no variants, is more eclectic than Bertoni, his choices often arbitrary, sometimes for the sake of spelling alone. There are what must be typographical errors in 3 (c’avi for c’avia) and 5 (cor for car). I share Bertoni’s preference for a1 since its minor errors are simple to correct and it has more positively preferable readings. C is tidier but shows at least one sign of clear intervention (39), though a1 may also have intervened (24). Since De Bastard also expressed a preference for a1 it is surprising he was not more consistent in following it and elucidating its individual aspects, which I have tried to do.

Order and amount of material:

























As Bertoni argues, the stanza order in a1 gives better sense than in C, though still needs some correction: C’s stanza IV Doncs ben es fol must precede III, which alludes to someone who has sworn that no Christian believer will remain en est paes and who proposes to make a mosque out of the church of St Mary, and this must be Baibars, mentioned in C’s stanza IV – otherwise the subject becomes the kingdom of Syria. But a1’s is still not the original, he considers, since this stanza must be the third. It seems that further back in the song’s transmission, stanza III came adrift and ended up as a marginal addition which was then reinserted at slightly different points by sources of C and a1. This would be another trace of a common archetype, in addition to 37. – Jeanroy retains C’s stanza order but is obliged to gloss 25 in his translation: «Et ne croyez pas qu’il [le Turc] s’en tienne là», which is unsatisfactory.

Critical apparatus:

I.  1 e] dins C; asseza C    2 qua perpauc C    3 first o incompletely formed a1; q(ua)r nos met ios la crotz quauiam p. C    4 a] en C; daisselh C    5 que c. n. l. nons ual nyns g. C    6 contra sels turc a1; que dieus C    7 sembla(n)s segon C    8 qua C; lo a1.

II.  9 Al comensar C; conqueza C    10 dassur C    11 dieus C; e qual uia an preza (−1) C, a cal uian preza (−1) a1    12 caualier C    13 que C; dassur auia C, dasufauia or dasufania a1    15 a] na C    16 nes C.

III.  17 mon contenza a1    18 iezucrist C; los] lor C    19 quels C; qom a1    20 tartanz carminz (−1) a1    21 sai nos uenson C    22 qe] qui C    23 bafomet C    24 e·n] e C; lo melica de | ser C, la califa de fer a1, with no cross bar on the f of califa, though the letter otherwise has the form typical of f rather than s in this ms.

IV.  25 E nous pessetz C; sen C    26 quans C    27 que en] qen (1) a1    28 remanra C; est C    29 enans C; bafomairia C    30 el a1    31 e pus son filh C    32 nil play C.

V.  33 fa de perdon gra(n) C    34 contra lamans abar | les e f. C; after lombartz, als crossed out a1    35 mest nos en mostran C    36 quar nostras crotz uan per crotz de tornes C    37 romania Ca1   38 p(er) la guerra C    39 legatz C; nostres le | gatz don yeu uos dic per uer C    40 q(ue)ls C.

VI.  41 Senhors C; alexandria C    42 uos C; lombardia C    43 lai uos C; sobrar a1    44 uencut e re(n)dutz C.


Dating and historical circumstances:

The manuscript rubrics indicate that the troubadour was a Templar knight, named by a1 as ricatz honomel, with the honorific en. Since Bertoni’s 1910 edition (p. 270) it has been generally accepted that honomel should be corrected to Bonomel, which rules out his identification with Olivier le Templier (Manuel Milá y Fontanals, De los trovadores en España, Barcelona, 1861, p. 364) or Austorc d’Aorlhac (Fabre, pp. 71-76; see Bertoni, p. 701 and De Bastard, pp. 351-352), proposed before the discovery of a1. No-one appears to have discussed the form of ricatz, in which the a is written over another letter. A previous exemplar may have contained an abbreviation sign [ric(u)tz], which could be interpreted as either an a (so expanded by the scribe of a1) or as a syllable. – The troubadour composed this bitter sirventes in Palestine (21 and 28), after Caesaria and Arsuf fell to the Mameluk sultan Baibars in 1265 (9-10). As Runciman relates, at the beginning of that year Baibars had led a formidable army from Egypt to Syria, first intending to confront Mongol (Tartar) aggression in the north, then on hearing his troops there were in control, moving south to attack the Franks. The town of Caesaria was immediately captured, on 27 February, but the citadel held out for a week, surrendering on 5 March; the garrison was allowed to go free, though castle and town were razed to the ground. Baibars went on to destroy the town and citadel of Haifa and massacre any inhabitants who had not managed to flee, then attacked the great Templar castle at Athlit, burning the village outside the walls but failing to capture the castle. On 21 March he gave up and marched on the Hospitaller fortress of Arsuf which was garrisoned by 270 Hospitaller knights. Runciman reports that they fought with superb courage, but the lower town fell on 26 April, and three days later the commander of the citadel, who had lost a third of his knights, capitulated in return for a promise that the survivors should go free. «Baibars broke his word and took them all into captivity» (see Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 voll., Harmondsworth 1971, first published Cambridge 1951-1954, vol. III, p. 318). – The troubadour evokes the dreadful invincibility of the Turks (stanza III), who have relentlessly crushed not only Franks but also Tartars, Armenians and Persians. The Tartars had invaded Syria in 1260, occupying Damascus and other cities and massacring Moslems. They were sympathetic to Christians and had requested baptism, which was naturally warmly welcomed by Pope Alexander IV. But they were defeated at the battle of Ain Jalud by the then Sultan of Egypt, Qutuz, on 3 September of that year, who had their leader Kitbuqa decapitated. Runciman (p. 313) judges this to be one of the most decisive battles of history: «Ain Jalud made the Mameluk Sultanate of Egypt the chief power in the Near East for the next two centuries, till the rise of the Ottoman Empire. It completed the ruin of the native Christians of Asia». Qutuz returned to Egypt covered in glory, but was assassinated by the Mameluk Baibars who installed himself in Cairo as the new sultan on 20 October 1260 with the title El-Melik-ed-Daher (see Runciman, History, III, chapter III, «The Mongols in Syria», especially pp. 305-314; De Bartholomaeis, Poesie, II, p. 223, n. 20; De Bastard, pp. 334-340; below, note to 16). – The Armenians had supported the Tartars in their occupation of northern Syria, and Armenian contingents fought alongside the Tartars at the battle of Ain Jalud (Runciman, p. 312). In 1262 the Turks set siege to Antioch, but this was raised with Armenian assistance. Baibars was to punish this after the victory of Arsuf, capturing one of the Armenian king’s sons and killing another along with many of the people (De Bartholomaeis, Poesie, II, p. 223, n. 20). – Persia was part of the Mongol empire, governed by Hulagu, the third son of the Princess Sorghaqtani who was «a Kerait by birth and, like all her race, a devout Nestorian Christian». «The most powerful influence at his Court was that of his principal wife, Dokuz Khatun, […] a passionate Nestorian, who made no secret of her dislike of Islam and her eagerness to help Christians of every sect». It was Hulagu who led the Mongol army out for the conquest of north-west Syria in September 1259, with Kitbuga leading the van. Because of difficulties within his own dominions Hulagu was obliged to withdraw many of his troops from Syria as soon as Damascus was taken, with Kitbuqa left to govern the country (see Runciman, History, III, pp. 293, 299, 305, 310). So De Bartholomaeis (p. 223, n. 20) was no doubt right to suggest that there must have been Persians among the Tartar troops; but perhaps more to the point is that the troubadour sees Persians as integral to the Tartar presence in Syria, a presence hostile to Islam and in principle favourable at this time to Christians. – In stanza V the troubadour is referring polemically to the conflict between Guelfs and Ghibellines: the papacy supported by Charles of Anjou on the one hand, and the Hohenstaufen empire on the other. In particular he alludes to the faculty granted by Clement IV in May 1264 to his legate Simon of Brie, Cardinal of St Cecilia, to commute the crusading vows of all those in the kingdom of France and the other lands of his legation, on condition they instead participate in Charles of Anjou’s Sicilian campaign against Manfred. This authorisation was confirmed in a papal bull of March 1265 (Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades: the Papal-Angevin alliance and the crusades against Christian lay powers, 1254-1343, Oxford 1982, pp. 98-99 and n. 110; De Bartholomaeis, Poesie, II, p. 224, n. 33-40). The military orders had a particular reason to feel aggrieved. «The most dramatic controversy on the taxable status of the military Orders and the Cistercians occurred during the collection of the 1264 tenth for Charles of Anjou. […] Early in 1265 the Cardinal-bishop of Porto, the [Cistercian] Order’s protector, reminded Clement IV that it had always been exempted from the tenth, even that levied for Louis IX’s first crusade, “by the special grace of the Apostolic See”. On 15 March the Pope wrote to Simon of Brie granting the Cisrercians temporary exemption, until he could establish a definitive ruling on the matter. The same was to apply to the Templars and Hospitallers […]. On 30 March, however, Clement wrote to his legate telling him to ignore his previous letters if they should stand in the way of Charles of Anjou’s plans or “scandalize” the count. This confusion prevailed until November, when Clement adopted a solution which placed the burden of decision on the shoulders of Simon de Brie. All the Orders were to pay unless they could show him a papal privilege exempting them. But the judgement of the validity of these exemptions, which was the real point at issue, was left to Simon» (Housley, pp. 216-217. For further details of Simon de Brie’s rôle in these affairs see Housley, Index, and particularly pp. 18, 83, 98, 102, 192). – The piece dates from after Baibars’ capture of Arsuf on 29 April 1265 and before Louis IX’s second crusade of 1269-1270. As previous scholars have thought (Bertoni, p. 707; De Bartholomaeis, p. 222; De Bastard, p. 333), it is likely to have followed soon after the events to which it alludes, and to precede Charles of Anjou’s victory over Manfred at Benevento in February 1266. – It is tempting to speculate about the intended audience of this impassioned lament. Who are the «French lords» addressed in 41 by the Occitan troubadour? Where did he send his song? If he distances himself from the frances in 34, should it be assumed (as De Bastard, p. 373 thought) that this is also the case in 41? The mss. readings vary here in a way that cannot be conclusively interpreted. Both refer to Alexandria as having inflicted more damage on Christians than Lombardy has done. Lombardy stands for Italy and the supporters of Manfred. Alexandria in Egypt symbolises the land from which Baibars has come to launch his devastating attacks on the Christians, and is also close to Mansurah, the site of Louis IX’s disastrous defeat of 1250, when many French were taken prisoner and sold into slavery. The mss. transmit the same text except that a1 has nos in both lines 42 and 43, C vos. As De Bastard comments, both mss. can be interpreted logically, but he chooses to present a mixture of the two: C’s vos in 42 and a1’s nos in 43. This emphasizes a distinction between the French lords and the eastern Christians which, to be sure, is consistent with opposition to Charles of Anjou and the French in 34, but nevertheless has the disadvantage of producing a text not found in either ms. and supposing an error, albeit small, in both. C’s version (Senhors frances alexandria / uos a piegz fag que lombardia / que lai uos an turcx sobraz de poder / pres e uencut e re(n)dutz per auer) would appear to refer particularly to the disaster at Mansurah, since it focuses on what Alexandria has done to the French lords. The version of a1, given in the present edition, is more inclusive: a reminder of recent defeats, including the enslavement of those captured at Arsuf, but also embracing past memories of Louis IX’s first crusade. Given the paleographical proximity of uos and nos it is hard to be categorical. In either case, should we take it that his direct address to French lords is simply meant as a reproof? Mere «self-expression», howling in the wind, can surely be ruled out. It is likely to have been intended to serve the more urgent purpose of attempting to stir up support for the Holy Land in its desparate straits. Was the idea to send it to some French leaders other than Charles of Anjou who might influence Louis IX to launch another crusade? – It is tempting to wonder whether there is any direct relationship between this sirventes and that of Luquet Gatelus having the same versification. Could Luquet’s piece have reached Ricaut in the Holy Land from a Genoese trading ship, and prompted this bitter response, to be carried home to France?


Textual notes:

2. Fabre Si qu’a per pauc, auci; Bertoni follows C.

3. Following C Fabre accepted crotz as the subject, printing Quar, nos met jos la Crotz qu’aviam p., and translating «Car, elle nous trahit la Croix que nous avions prise» (Jeanroy «comment nous a mis bas cette croix», Nelli «comme nous abaisse cette croix qu’avions prise»). Bertoni (followed by De Bastard, with misprint avi for avia) preferred a1’s reading, considering the troubadour more likely to be expressing a personal feeling, «poichè non dovevano mancare coloro che avevano [sc. perso?] fede nella guerra, pur dopo le sconfitte dell’ a. 1265». It also follows on logically from the previous line.

5. a1 gives a more personal response, in line with the opening line(s); C, followed by Fabre, generalises: Que crotz ni ley nous val nius g..

6. All scholars have accepted C’s contr’als fels Turcs. a1 seems to have understood the singular here («against that Turk»): compare lo in line 8, though the inflected ending of sels suggests that the plural was in the archetype. – De Bastard (p. 362) comments that although «treacherous» is an epithet often applied by 11th-13th-c. romance poets to Moslems, here it may be related to specific recent betrayals referred to in the following stanzas, and perhaps also to one considered by Baibars in the summer of 1260. Egyptian Saracens obtained permission to cross territory controlled by crusaders to march against the Mongols, and Baibars suggested taking advantage of the light defence of Acre to seize possession of it (see Runciman, pp. 311-312; Guida, p. 369, suggests that Ricaut may well have heard of this plot, being involved in events in Palestine at the time).

7. Bertoni prefers a1’s en so c’om on the grounds that segon com is facilior. De Bastard adopts Jeanroy’s preference for C on the rather vague grounds that Bertoni exaggerates the value of a1 and that some of C’s readings should be preserved.

8. Jeanroy «que Dieu les protège contre nous». It is uncertain whether Jeanroy is right to see this as a case of the modal auxiliary + infinitive adding «no specific nuances over and above what could have been expressed through a finite verb form» (Frede Jensen, Syntaxe de l’Occitan médiéval, Tübingen 1994, § 475), or whether the poet is attributing an active wish on God’s part, but either way God is seen as actively supporting the Moslems. The context suggests that vol adds emphasis.

9. For the line to scan, Caesaria must be trisyllabic. – It is tempting to translate Al primier saut (Jeanroy «pour commencer») in line with Linskill’s interpretation of BdT 392.10, 17, Sol que·l plagues emblar lo premier saut, «If only she consented to desist from the first attack» (Joseph Linskill, The Poems of the Troubadour Raimbaut de Vaqueiras, The Hague 1964, V, and see his note). However this sense does not appear possible in Al premier saut que venc en Ronsasvals, / dens la montanha dels Frances e dels fals, / a mort dels Frances mil e .v.c. vassals (Gérard Gouiran and Robert Lafont, Le Roland occitan: Roland à Saragosse; Ronsasvals, Paris 1991, Ronsasvals 437-439).

10. For the attestation elsewhere of the forms Alsuf, Arsur and Assur, see De Bastard, p. 363.

11-13. Previous editors follow C here, taking the nouns in 12 as nominative (Fabre «quel chemin ont donc pris / Tant de chevaliers», Bertoni «e quale strada hanno presa tanti cavalieri», Jeanroy «quel chemin ont-ils pris», Helen J. Nicholson, loosely, «and what was their end» ( I have found only one analogous example of prendre la via, with a metaphorical sense: quar non an preza la via, / la quals mestiers y fazia, in Peter T. Ricketts, Le «Breviari d’amor» de Matfre Ermengaud, IV, Turnhout 2004, 17629-17630. a1 understood differently, with the Turks as the subject and the knights etc. having less agency. – tan…com (12-13): literally «as many…as». – The sirven here refer to all non-knightly brethren of the Order of the Hospitallers: a broad category including domestic servants and artisans as well as military sergeants. Describing their Templar equivalents, Malcolm Barber (The New Knighthood. A History of the Order of the Temple, Cambridge 1994, pp. 190-191) relates that in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries «the Templar knights hardened almost into a caste», and that by the 1260s «the community in which St Bernard had claimed that there was no distinction of persons had made lying about one’s social position in secular life at the time of entry an offence punishable by expulsion» (p. 191). Unlike the knights, who wore white mantles, the sergeants «wore a black tunic with a red cross on the front and back and a black or brown mantle. Their armour was less elaborate, consisting of an iron cap, a sleeveless coat of mail and hose without feet, reflecting their actual military function which rarely involved the cavalry actions of the knights.» In the East there were five sergeants who held positions of authority and were entitled to two horses and a squire, while ordinary sergeants had one horse each. He suggests (p. 192) that there may have been a further gradation among sergeants: «The Rule shows that they were intended to form an integral part of the Templar fighting force, but this did not necessarily apply to all of them. The trial depositions demonstrate that, in the west, there was an extensive class of artisan Templars, identified by the trial notaries as serviens or serving brothers, often of an age and physical condition which would have precluded serious military activity. The term serviens is not used in the Rule, but references to the “craftsmen brothers of the stables” and “mason brothers”, as well as to blacksmiths and cooks, underline the obvious fact that such functions were equally necessary in the east as well». He mentions that in the Hospital the designations sergens and serviens were used to indicate two separate groups within the sergeant class, a distinction apparently not made by the Templars. –The borzes must designate all those living in Arsuf who did not belong to the Order. – Bertoni, p. 705, concludes from the present text, presumably 41, that some of the captives were sold into slavery.

15. Roques (also Jeanroy, De Bastard) prefers C, n’a tant. Fabre «a subi tant de pertes».

18. Fabre’s translation «puisque rien ne leur rend Jésus-Christ contraire» has been rightly rejected. Bertoni observes that contrastar can take either accusative or dative; compare SW, I, 350; as Fabre (also De Bastard) he chose to print C’s lor. De Bastard emends to Ihesus Christs, unnecessarily.

19. C quels (Fabre Qu’els, «Ils ont vaincu») is an obl. pl. form, inappropriate here.

20. As De Bastard rightly observes (pp. 364-65), the troubadour distinguishes between francs, «Franks» (Latins who had settled in the Orient), and the segnor frances (41), Frenchmen who have abandoned «pilgrimage» to the Holy Land. – Neither tartres nor tartanz is found on COM. Antoni M. Alcover and Francesc de B. Moll, Diccionari Català-Valencià-Balear, 2nd ed., 10 voll., Palma de Mallorca 1980 = DCVB), X, p. 166 gives the Catalan forms tartre, tartra or tartar, tartara. As De Bastard observes (p. 365), the word Tartari is attested twice in the troubadours: BdT 335.53, 28, Peire Cardenal, Poésies complètes du troubadour Peire Cardenal (1180-1278), éd. René Lavaud, Toulouse 1957, XXII, ardimen de Tartari, possibly in 1233 before the great Mongolian invasions of Europe in 1240; and BdT 225.12, 6-7, Guilhem Montanhagol, Les Poésies de Guilhem de Montanhagol, troubadour provençal du XIIIe siècle, éd. Peter T. Ricketts, Toronto 1964, XIV, mas ar venon sai deves Orien / li Tartari, si Dieus non o defen, which Ricketts (p. 136) dates to 1257. However, it is hard to see how this trisyllabic word could have been part of the line in Ricaut’s piece. Perhaps a source of a1 had tartarz. The Règle du Temple (éd. Henri de Curzon, Paris 1886, § 576, p. 299, cited by De Bastard, p. 366) refers to them as tartars (Car il avint que tartars furent en cest païs).Bertoni, who prints Armenis, plausibly suggests that carminz of a1 may have been miscopied from e arminiz: compare DCVB, I, 871, armeni; Lessico Etimologico Italiano, ed. Max Pfister, voll. 1-, Wiesbaden 1984-, III.1, 1303 armeno, armena. As De Bastard, I prefer to follow C’s ermenis since this is securely attested in Occitan. Compare Le roman de Flamenca: nouvelle occitane du XIIIe siècle, éd. Ulrich Gschwind, 2 voll, Bern 1976, 4169-4171, Be·m fora melz esclava fos / ab Erminis o ab Grifos, / en Corsega o en Sardeina.

23-24. Guida suggests that Bafometz is a sarcastic distortion of the name of Mahomet, based on the onomatopoeic root baf, expressing the puffing sound made by the lips. De Bastard (p. 367) cites other examples of troubadour use of the form Bafomet, and mentions as a curiosity that one of the spurious accusations made against the Templars in 1305 was that they worshipped an idol named Bafomet. – Jeanroy «agit à sa guise ou fait agir pour lui…». – Fabre and Bertoni identified C’s lo melica de|ser as Baibars, who was known as El-Melik-ed-Daher (see historical note above). De Bartholomaeis (p. 223) disagreed, considering the reference to be to his predecessor El Malec el-Muzzafer Seid ed-Din Kutuz who came to the throne 11 or 12 November 1259 and was assassinated by Baibars on 22 October 1260; he suggested that the troubadour was recalling a dead man in order to say that he is «l’ombra di lui quella che opera per conto di Maometto», though he did not explain why he considered the other identification wrong. (He attributed this to Joseph François Michaud, Storia delle Crociate, Italian translation, p. 440, though the Milan edition of 1878 I have seen does not have such a page.) De Bastard (pp. 367-368) sees De Bartholomaies’s explanation as unacceptable in the historical context (and indeed the interpretation seems odd). He apparently deduces that De Bartholomaeis rejected Michaud’s identification because of the presence of an «h» in Daher which is not reproduced in the Occitan, and comments that the problem of the change of h to f (or s) is unresolved. «Nous ne chercherons à l’éclaircir, tout en maintenant l’identification de Melicadefer (Califa de Fer) avec Baibars.» Given that forms of medieval names are notoriously unstable this does not appear to be a barrier to Michaud’s identification, and in any case ed-Daher is closer to the Occitan than el-Muzzafer. a1’s facilior reading gives «the iron caliph», making perfectly good sense, and may represent an explanatory intervention. Although califa is otherwise unattested in the dictionaries and COM, compare DCVB, II, 857, califa. As De Bastard (p. 367) remarks, the feminine article is in line with troubadour examples of la papa (regarded as a solecism by the Leys d’Amors: see Joseph Anglade, Las flors del gay saber, Barcelona, 1926, 3356, 4440). – Fabre relates that Baibars’s successes earned him the soubriquets «Father of victories» (Aboul Foutouh) and his piety «the support of religion» (Rokn-ed-Din), observing that the troubadour, in saying that Mahomet «makes him work», is alluding to this well-known religious fervour.

25. The mss. show indifferent variants here; Bertoni sees pros and cons for each, adopting a1’s on the grounds that it has some indubitably better readings (34 for example). Fabre «Et ne croyez pas que par tant de maux».

29-30. The reference is to the basilica of the Annunication in Nazareth, one of the oldest and most precious Christian temples. De Bastard notes that in 1187 Saladin reconquered Nazareth without destroying the holy places; Frederick II restored it [the church?] in 1229, and in 1254 St Louis went there to celebrate the Annunciation, a month before returning to France, without having been able to visit Jerusalem or Bethlehem. However Baibars sacked Nazareth and destroyed the church in 1263 (see Runciman, History, p. 317), so a1’s el mostier, «in the church» (Bertoni «farà professione maomettana nella Chiesa di S. M.») is not historically possible; as previous scholars I adopt C’s del. – The Mameluks, and Baibars in particular, used the appropriation of Frankish building materials to convey a triumphalist message, as a visual counterpart to textual propaganda: «Like the transfer of ownership of important fortresses and the substitution of the call to prayer for the church bell, building materials were redefined in their secondary contexts, symbolizing the acquisition of the enemy’s strength. The removal of these materials left a scar of absence on the conquered city and, in essence, disgraced the defeated culture» (Karen R. Mathews, «Mamluks and Crusaders: Architectural Appropriation and Cultural Encounter in Mamluk Monuments», in Languages of Love and Hate. Conflict, Communication, and Identity in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Sarah Lambert and Helen Nicholson, Turnhout 2012, pp. 177-200, especially pp. 181-183. This is certainly evident in Ricaut’s lament; compare also Calega Panzan (BdT 107.1, 60-62) in 1267-1268, e podon be «Bafumet!» aut cridar; / q’ar jes de Dieu ni de Sancta Maria / no·i a mostier (my Rialto edition).

33. Previous scholars follow C’s fa de perdon, «the pope is very generous with indulgences». The sense of a1 is different, more specific and to my mind preferable: the pope is offering a particularly generous indulgence.

34. Bertoni adopts a1’s contrals lombartz and maintains that the troubadours referred to Italy solely as «Lombardy». Fabre and Jeanroy follow C, Contr’Alamans, «qui vont combattre les Allemands», rejected by De Bastard («La colère», p. 370), who claims that Frederick was more Italian than German and that his son Manfred was totally Italian. «La version de a est la seule conforme aux faits historiques. La mention du mot Alamans ou Lamans dans C peut s’expliquer à la rigueur par la présence de contingents de mercenaires dans l’armée de Manfred» (see Peire de Castelnou, BdT 336.1, 32-36, car pot saber chascus, segon q’eu cre, / consi n’es pres de lai, al rei Poile, / c’ab Alamanz, a lei de mercadiers, / intret el camp, per qe lui e·ls destriers / an retengut li nostre ses faillenza, in Antoine De Bastard, «La bataille de Bénévent (1266) et la mort de Manfred», Revue des langues romanes, 80, 1972, text on p. 246, comments on p. 236 and p. 240, note 21). Even if his interpretation of Peire de Castelnou’s sirventes is correct, this does not mean that Alamans is historically impossible in the present context. Frederick was perceived as Emperor of Germany by Tomier and Palaizi: BdT 442.1, 33-36 (éd. Istvan Frank, «Tomier e Palaizi, troubadours tarasconais (1199-1226)», Romania, 78, 1957, pp. 46-85, p. 75), E se Frederics, / q’es reis d’Alamaigna, / soffre que Loics / son emperi fraigna; compare Aimeric de Peguilhan (William P. Shepard and Frank M. Chambers, The poems of Aimeric de Peguilhan, Evanston, Illinois 1950), BdT 10.15, 41-44, Chanssos, vai t’en de ma part e d’Amor / Al bon, al bel, al valen, al prezan / A cui servon Latin et Alaman / E·l sopleion cum bon emperador. Raimon de Tors de Marseilla, in a sirventes in praise of Manfred (BdT 410.2, 42, ed. Amos Parducci, Studj Romanzi, 7, 1911, pp. 5-59, II), names his supporters as Lombards and Germans: Lonbar neis e Alaman, / en cui si pleu e si plec, / faran colps pesans e fers / ab lui de fustz e de fers. – As Bertoni observes, Carle (a1) is clearly preferable to Arles (C; Fabre «les Arlésiens»). It is well known how much Clement IV helped Charles of Anjou financially: see the general note, above.

35. Fabre wrongly emends to mostram, «et ici, entre nous, nous montrons une grande convoitise».

36. C’s van per causes difficulty to those following this ms. Fabre prints 36-39 as Quar, nostras crotz van, per crotz de tornes, / A qui vol camjar Romania / Per la guerra de Lombardia / Nostres legatz, translating loosely «Car nos croix se transforment en croix de livres tournois, / Et vont vers ceux qui veulent sacrifier la Terre-Sainte / Pour la guerre de Lombardie, / (Vers) nos légats». Jeanroy translates 35-36 even more loosely and unconvincingly as «ici, ils étalent leur cupidité, ceux qui, pour des croix de tournois, suppriment nos croix». While PD’s anar per = «passer pour, être censé» (s.v. anar) might suggest some kind of sense «for our crosses [the crosses sewn onto our garments] pass for [are equivalent to] tournoi crosses», there appears to be no support for this in LR, SW or COM (va per, van per). C’s version was rejected by Bertoni and De Bastard in favour of a1’s. The troubadour is punning on crotz, the crusaders’ crosses sewn on to their garments, and tornes, a coin with a cross on it. De Bastard translates «Car il accorde des indulgences et donne nos croix pour des sous tournois», bringing out the double sense of perdonar as «to grant» and «to pardon, grant dispensation for» (compare perdon in 40, «indulgence»).

37-40. Another element confusing Fabre (and surprisingly, De Bartholomaeis) was the error romania (37), which Roques emended to romavia pilgrimage to the Holy Land (compare LR, V, 108), and by De Bastard and Guida to romaria. I have preferred romavia as paleographically closer to the Mss.; both are attested on COM. De Bastard (p. 371) notes that the spelling confusion of romania and romaria is also found in Gaucelm Faidit, BdT 167.9, (Jean Mouzat, Les poèmes de Gaucelm Faidit, Paris 1965, p. 55), 27 (romania ACEa). – Jeanroy’s 1927 translation of Raynouard’s text of 39-40 based on C (e | qui uol camiar romania . p(er) la | guerra de lombardia . nostres le|gatz don yeu uos dic per uer . q(ue)ls | uendon dieu el perdon p(er) auer .) reads «car quiconque le veut remplace son pélerinage par une expédition an Lombardie. Nos légats, je vous le dis en vérité vendent Dieu», taking C’s nostres legatz as a nom. pl. form. All other scholars reject C’s don yeu uos dic per uer, which disrupts the syntax and is clearly facilior, but choose C’s legatz and take it as nom. sg. The reference is certainly to a single particular legate, Simon de Brie (see the general note), whom Charles of Anjou managed to have elected pope in 1281 under the name of Martin V (1281-1284). (It is unclear why De Bastard (p. 224) refers to him as an «homme lige» of the Angevin). – De Bartholomaeis suggests that the poet refers to him as «our legate» because of his French provenance, but this seems unlikely given that the troubadour distances himself from the Frances (34 and possibly 41). De Bastard proposes, more convincingly, to explain it as appropriate for a legate whose task concerns all those qui votum crucis emiserunt in Terrae Sanctae succursum. He underscrores the bitter irony for the troubadour and his eastern companions that Simon de Brie was the person responsible for the arrival of reinforcements to the Holy Land, whereas the papal bull of 5 March 1265 was diverting the crusaders to Sicily. – As De Bastard, I retain a1’s nostre; neither is it necessary to reject its legat (see Ruth Harvey and Linda Paterson, The Troubadour Tensos and Partimens: A Critical Edition, 3 vols, Cambridge 2010, pp. xxii-xxvi), the singular here being clear from the verb. – The Jeanroy-Boelcke translation «Notre légat leur donne [for “donnera”?] le pouvoir de vendre Dieu et les indulgences contre l’argent comptant» presupposes that en in 39 anticipates what follows in 40, but fails to make sense, since those wishing to serve in Lombardy rather than the Holy Land would be receiving the indulgence, not the power to grant it to others.

40. The subject of the plural vendon (38) must be the pope and the legate together, as De Bastard (p. 373) suggests. – As Bertoni observes, perdon (40) can also be the 3 p. pl. indic. pres. of perdre («Vendono dio e lo perdono per danaro»): yet another example of wordplay in this stanza.

41-43. See the general note, above.

44. De Bastard notes that the echo from 40 of aver at the rhyme creates a sarcastic parallel between the pope and his legate who sell God and indulgences, and the Turks who sold their prisoners from Arsuf into slavery.

[LP, lb]

BdT    Ricaut Bonomel

Songs referring to the crusades