As Tourtoulon (II, pp. 68-69) and Jeanroy demonstrated, the sirventes was composed around the time of the 1242 southern uprising against French domination (for details of this see the general note to BdT 66.3 on Rialto). Three other pieces relating to this rebellion include those of Guilhem Montanhagol (BdT 225.3, 5-20 October 1242), Bernart de Rovenac (BdT 66.3, between July 1241 and spring 1243: see the notes to my edition on Rialto), and probably Peire del Vilar (BdT 365.1, 9 May-22 July 1242: see Linda Paterson, «Peire del Vilar, Sendatz vermelhs, endis e ros (BdT 365,1)», Lecturae tropatorum, 6, 2013, «www.lt.unina.it/Paterson-2013b.pdf». – Duran’s sirventes must have been composed after the defeat of the southerners at Taillebourg and Saintes on 20-22 July 1242. At this point Count Hugh of La Marche submitted to the King of France (referred to in 19-24), and Henry III of England, who had been hoping to profit from an alliance with them to regain lost territory in France (referred to in lines 6-8), withdrew and apparently took no further military action (see the general note to BdT 66.3 on Rialto). – All scholars have hitherto accepted that the two counts of stanza V are Raimon Berenguer V of Provence and Raimon VII Toulouse («Les deux comtes nommés au v. 26 sont évidemment – tout le monde est d’accord sur ce point – ceux de Toulouse et de Provence», Jeanroy, p. 320). These had long been in conflict over territories in Provence and the Venaissin. In 1239 Raimon VII, with the help of Barral of Baux, conquered the Venaissin and named Barral’s daughter Cecilia heiress to that county. During the period 1232 to 1243 Raimon made several attempts to carry out military operations from there and the lower Rhône valley, but with little success, Raimon Berenguer emerging as the eventual victor (see Florian Mazel, La Noblesse et l’Eglise en Provence, fin Xe-début XIVe siècle. L’exemple des familles d’Agoult-Simiane, de Baux et de Marseille, Paris 2002, pp. 407-410; Thierry Pécout, L’invention de la Provence: Raymond Bérenger V (1209-1237), Paris 2004, pp. 184-189). Jeanroy relates stanza V (IV in his edition) to events leading up to a truce signed by the counts at Beaucaire on 29 June 1243 (Claude Devic and Joseph Vaissete, Histoire générale du Languedoc, 15 voll., Toulouse 1872-1892 (= HGL), voll. VI, p. 759 and VIII, p. 1124; Recueil des actes des comtes de Provence appartenant à la maison de Barcelone (1196-1245). Alphonse II et Raimon Berenguer V, éd. Fernand Benoît, 2 voll., Monaco and Paris 1925, vol. II, pp. 446-447 no. 364). He recounts that in the spring of 1243 war between them, «à peine interrompue par les événements de l’année précédente, fut sur le point d’éclater de nouveau; elle ne fut conjurée que par des accords plusieurs fois renouvelés, dont on avait toutes les raisons du monde de suspecter la solidité». But, he asks, does v. 27 meant that «les comtes observeraient leur accord sérieusement», or that they «considéreraient un accord comme chose bonne et belle»? In the first case, he argues, the piece would fall after 29 June 1243, but in the second case, before it. He considers that in the first case there would have been an article or possessive adjective determining plait, and unhesitatingly places the piece in the winter of 1242-1243, «hypothèse plus vraisemblable à tous les égards, car la violence des sentiments du poète semble indiquer qu’il est sous le coup d’événements tout récents» (pp. 321 and 313). But he adduces no specific evidence of a prospective truce during the winter: his references to the HGL for «des accords plusieurs fois renouvelés» concern May-June 1243 and beyond. – References to conflict with Raimon Berenguer of Provence seem out of place in the context of southern resistance to the French. The troubadour bitterly excoriates the croi ric who have failed to defend the south against French domination and points out that the French are not unbeatable since the Turks have put up a better showing against them than they have. But how does the intermittent war between Toulouse and Provence fit into this? Is the troubadour just interested in war of any kind? This seems unsatisfactorily incoherent. Was stanza V added to an earlier version of the song – which could explain the divergent manuscript transmission – with a rather clumsy attempt at updating? This too seems unsatisfactory as the earlier stanzas would now be out of date. But in either case how could q’ar (or qar) non es qi·ls capdel (34) be explained – why should their conflict entail leadership by someone else? Jeanroy translates «car ils n’ont personne qui les dirige», but offers no comment. – These difficulties disappear if we reconsider the identity of the «two counts». The problem for modern readers is of course that we were not there at the time of performance, whereas the contemporary audience would have certainly known who was intended. One of Raimon VII’s original allies in the uprising against the French was Count Roger Trencavel of Foix, who was defeated and by October 5 1242 had concluded a peace treaty with Louis (HGL, VI, 747). During the previous month Raimon tried to negotiate peace with Louis but had been rebuffed; he in turn was forced to capitulate on October 20 (HGL, VI, 748-749). A dating of September 1242 is wholly compatible with stanza V: the two counts, Raimon of Toulouse and Roger Trencavel of Foix, are «playing at war» because they have no-one powerful, such as Henry of England or Jaume of Aragon, to lead them, but they would very much like to conclude a peace agreement. The Toulousain side is decidedly unenthusiastic about this, and the troubadour looks forward to the following spring of 1243 when proper war will break out again – a hope shortly to be extinguished in October 1242. This also fits very well with the reference to Olivier de Termes in the second tornada. Olivier had fought alongside the Count of Toulouse as long ago as 1227 and had helped the Count of Foix to provoke revolt in Languedoc in 1240. He was captured and made to swear an oath to serve the King faithfully against his enemies, and hand over his castle of Aguilar as a caution; but a year later he was following Amalric in his rebellion and was excommunicated by the archbishop of Narbonne. He and Amalric followed Raimon in capitulating at the Peace of Lorris in January 1243 (Jeanroy, p. 324; Elizabeth Hallam, Capetian France 987-1328, London and New York 1980, p. 213). – Barral of Baux (42) belonged to a family whose interests had long opposed those of the counts of Provence. He was allied by marriage to Raimon VII through the count’s niece Sibylla of Anduze, and had been seneschal of the Venaissin since 1236. Jeanroy states (p. 324) that he must have been at the heart of the rebellion, though he did not join in the fighting and emerged unscathed from the crisis. The troubadour’s admiration of him as a model of military conduct may well stem from his successes in the Venaissin.