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?