Bernart’s sirventes relates to the Occitan uprising of 1242: see Bosdorff, pp. 768-773 and Alfred Jeanroy, «Le soulèvement de 1242 dans la poésie des troubadours», Annales du Midi, 16, 1904, pp. 311-329, on pp. 326-327. As a result of defeat in the Albigensian crusade, Raimon VII of Toulouse had been forced to accept the humiliating Treaty of Paris of 1229, which stipulated that if he produced no male heir all his lands would revert to the king of France through the marriage of Louis IX’s brother Alphonse to Raimon’s only daughter Jeanne. For years the Count sought hesitantly and unsuccessfully to re-establish his position by asserting his claims on Provence, and in 1241 he concluded an agreement with the Count of Provence, Raimon Bérenger V, which saw him betrothed to Sanchia, the Count’s third daughter and the sister of the queens of France and England. Powicke observes that «The part played by James of Aragon at this time is very significant of the complicated tugs and strains to which a medieval king might be subjected», and explains why since 1234, despite his claims and titles in the south, «when war with King Louis of France on behalf of his rights and the rights of his vassals in Languedoc had been imminent, he had preferred a peaceful policy. He felt that a family compact between Raimon of Toulouse and Raimond-Berenger of Provence under his and papal auspices would be the best way to check French advance. If Raimon could have a son the treaty of Paris of 1229 would not operate. Hence it was arranged that Raimon’s marriage with Sanchia of Aragon, James’s aunt, should be annulled on grounds of consanguinity and papal approval be procured also for a new marriage with Sanchia of Provence. The former object was obtained, but Pope Gregory IX died before the second could be reached. Raimon was affianced by proxy at Aix on 11 August 1241, the pope died on 22 August, and during the vacancy in the papal chair Raimon-Berenger repudiated the contract» (Frederick M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 voll., Oxford 1947, vol. II, pp. 192-194). – The failure of James’s plans led Raimon to align himself with Henry III of England and Count Hugh of La Marche. Henry’s attempts to recover Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Poitou, and their satellites had been the central element of Henry’s foreign policy since their loss at the beginning of the thirteenth century (Simon Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 1216-1307, Cambridge 1988, p. 219). On 24 June 1241 Alphonse was knighted at Saumur, and at Poitiers in July he was invested with the county of Poitou. Hugh paid him homage with some reluctance, and then regretting it he «rallied the barons and castellans of Poitou at Parthenay and then, with them, entered into a sworn confederacy with the seneschal, cities, and barons of Gascony» (Powicke, pp. 188-189). Henry welcomed the opportunity this offered him and bound himself by oath to go to Gascony and demand his rights of the King of France, sailing there in May 1242, when he was the centre of a widespread alliance of southern princes pledged to support Henry in a war against Louis. After the battles of Taillebourg and Saintes (20-22 July) the Count of La Marche submitted humiliatingly to Louis, Henry withdrew, and «within a few weeks of his arrival, all hope of the restoration of Poitou to himself and his brother was destroyed, and he was thrown back on the southern allies whom Raimon of Toulouse had gathered together». He seems to have taken no further military action while bogged down in this incoherent alliance and having only limited ability to give unqualified support to Raimon: in the Bordeaux convention of 28 August Henry said that «if the Church of Rome attacked Raimon, and the king of France, at the mandate of the pope, moved against him and entered his land in person, he would not desist, at the prayers or admonitions of the Church of Rome, from helping him, unless compelled to do so by sentence of excommunication». Powicke comments that the French armies «soon relieved him of any sense of dilemma». Raimon capitulated on 20 October 1242, and in January 1243 accepted the peace of Lorris where he undertook to abide by the treaty of Paris of 1229, which put paid to further resistance to French influence in the Languedoc. «Henry complained bitterly of Raimon’s desertion, but could do nothing. In April he made another truce with Louis of France. In September he returned to England» (Powicke, pp. 191-195). – I agree with Bosdorff (pp. 768-772) that Bernart’s sirventes was composed in the aftermath of Alphonse’s knighting and establishment in his apanage of Poitou and Auvergne in July 1241, an event which aroused fury and hatred in the south. But his claim that it must predate Henry’s departure from England in May 1242 since Bernart is trying to incite him to set out and the fighting has not yet begun, is far from certain. It would make much more sense for Henry to be in France, since Bernart is hoping for Henry actually to listen to him, and sending a song over to England would not be a quick process. – Bosdorff assumes that fighting has not yet begun, which is why he places the song before Taillebourg. But Henry appears to have done no more fighting after Saintes, which means that vv. 9-16 could easily apply to any period from the defeat in July 1242 to his return to England in September 1243. Moreover it is unclear how far Raimon was actually engaged in any fighting after Saintes and before his capitulation at the approach of the King’s army in October 1242, so vv. 33-40 might apply to that period, with the troubadour spurring him on to greater action. However, another possibility is the spring of 1243. At Easter Henry III agreed a truce with Louis to last for more than five years. Raimon travelled to the Rhône region with the intention of taking up arms again against Raimon-Bérenger V, but was persuaded to sign a truce with him on 29 June in Beaucaire (Recueil des actes des comtes de Provence appartenant à la maison de Barcelone (1196-1245). Alphonse II et Raimon Berenguer V, ed. Fernand Benoît, 2 voll., Monaco and Paris 1925, vol. II, pp. 446-447 no. 364, a truce that was apparently prolonged at the request of the King of Aragon. This could readily explain the disgust expressed by the troubadour against the inaction of all three leaders, with the mention of Beaucaire in v. 35 having particular pungency. As Bosdorff notes, Beaucaire was one of the main towns of the county of Toulouse and was often referred to by the troubadours as standing for the whole region. The loss of this rich city at the treaty of Paris in 1229 was a painful sacrifice for Raimon VII. So the sirventes would not be an incitement to fight on the eve of Henry’s arrival to support the 1242 uprising; rather it would represent a hopeless, unrealistic last-ditch attempt to revive the Count of Toulouse’s claims. – Jeanroy’s article on the 1242 uprising was published before Bosdorff had time to take full account of it. His dating is similar to Bosdorff’s, in that he notes that on 30 May 1241 Raimon attempted to recover Beaucaire by drawing up an act with the archbishop of Arles by which the latter granted him Arles as a fief, even though it was the seat of a royal sénéchaussée, and he concludes that Raimon had specifically asked the troubadour to support his cause: the Count, he commented, «selon une pratique qui paraît avoir été fort usitée en ce temps, se faisait précisément conseiller par l’officieux troubadour les actes qu’il se préparait (ou qu’il était en train) d’accomplir». This is dubious, both for the reasons outlined above, and because there is no evidence that the troubadour could not have expressed independent views, or views of a wider public disgusted with the turn of events. – Bosdorff does not indicate who he thinks the king referred to in v. 37 is; Jeanroy (p. 327) declares that it can only be Jaume I. He argues that although an alliance between the Count of Toulouse and the King of Aragon did not actually happen (see also the notes to BdT 126.1 and BdT 365.1, my editions on Rialto), a rumour to this effect spread, and the Count of Toulouse may have contributed to the belief that it had. Montaignagol reports this rumour: Si.l reys Jacmes, cuy no mentim, / complis so qu’elh e nos plevim, / segon qu’auzim («Si le roi Jacques, à qui nous n’avons pas manqué de parole, avait exécuté ce qui, entre lui et nous, avait été convenu, selon ce que nous comprenons...»). However, it is much more likely that the reference in the present piece is to Henry III, who had bound himself by oath to go to Gascony in support of Raimon VII.