Bertran Carbonel was from Marseille; his social status is unknown, though the mercantile character of his point of view suggest he was of bourgeois origin (see Saverio Guida and Gerardo Larghi, Dizionario biografico dei trovatori, Modena 2013, p. 115). Both Fabre and Contini date his poetic activity to 1240-1270, for different reasons (Césaire Fabre, «Planh de Bertran Carbonel de Marseille sur la mort de Pierre Cardinal (1270-1275)», Bulletin historique, scientifique, littéraire, artistique et agricole publié par la Société scientifique et agricole de la Haute-Loire, 4, 1914, pp. 89-121, p. 103; Contini, p. 24). They agree that the pus privatz Proensals to whom the sirventes is addressed is most probably Barral of Baux, the last viscount of Marseille; Contini added support to Fabre’s arguments by identifying Selon (53) as Seillons in the Var, for which Barral paid homage to Countess Beatrice of Provence in 1246 (pp. 19-22). If so Barral’s death in Italy in 1268 would mark a terminus ante quem for the sirventes. – The song’s virulent anticlericalism does not of itself point to a particular date, but some other details are suggestive: 1) the idea that the clergy have led the whole world into error (24) and wrongly excommunicate for venal reasons (28-29); 2) the remark that in contrast to the clergy St Peter did not hold capital in France (25-26); 3) the statement that there are kings at war and in conflict, and the poet wishes they and the pope as well would go on crusade this very year (36-38); 4) the comment about warriors «here» (40); and 5) the idea that the clergy may be a particular threat to the pus privatz Proensals addressed in the tornada (55-56). – 1) Fabre’s hypothesis (p. 105) that the sirventes was composed during the period leading up to Louis IX’s first crusade in 1248 corresponds well to most or all of these points, though his particular arguments are questionable. Frederick II was at war with the papacy, and Innocent IV had had to flee from Italy and had taken up residence in Lyon, where he summoned a council in the summer of 1245. On 17 July he excommunicated Frederick and formally deposed him as emperor, then caused the dispersal of the crusading effort by authorising the preaching of a crusade against Frederick in Germany and Italy (Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades. A Short History, New Haven and London, 1987, p. 158). For those of Ghibelline persuasion, the Pope had divided Christendom into two enemy camps. Innocent’s excommunication of Frederick in 1245, an event which sent shockwaves throughout Europe, lends topical force to the accusation that the clergy used excommunication unlawfully. – 2) Fabre (p. 105) saw 25-26 as referring to the Pope being in France where he was raising subsidies (captal), and hence practising usury, in support of his war against Frederick. Kolsen argued that the idea of St Peter not storing up money in France seemed odd (see the note to 25 below), and Lewent commented that this was no doubt because everyone knows and knew that the first pope never had any connection to France and could not have served as a model to dishonest priests. He explained the choice of en Fransa as a result of what he saw as Carbonel’s generally poor logic; in response Contini considered Lewent to have somewhat exagerated this, echoed Lewent in suggesting that the need for a rhyme may have played a part in the choice of Fransa, and added that there may be a vague allusion to the connivance of the ecclesiastics with the French civil authorities. All this rather underestimates the capitalist activities of Occitan towns such as Cahors and Gaillac which were financially important as the home of bankers and money-lenders. Trade in money was an international business: «Lenders, both lay and ecclesiastical, were numerous in twelfth-century Toulouse. The Church forbade usury but no-one took much notice at this time, and money-lending was a part of everyday life [...]. Men from Cahors were particularly successful at money-lending operations and competed with Italians at the fairs of Occitania and Champagne. The Manduel family from Marseilles [Carbonel’s home town] provides an example of medieval capitalists: they did not usually travel themselves, but handed over money or goods to voyagers ready to try their luck abroad. [...] Money-changers formed a powerful and probably rich corporation in Marseilles, where the Isla dels Cambis was the medieval equivalent of the modern Bourse and business quarter». Such bankers could supply funds for papal ventures: a rich merchant from Cahors, Raimon de Salvanhac, received all the booty from Lavaur in return for financing the Albigensian crusade (Linda Paterson, The World of the Troubadours, Cambridge 1993, pp. 48, 152, 156). The statement is elliptical, meaning «St Peter did not practise capitalism or usury as the present pope is doing in France». This is evidently relevant to the situation of Innocent’s move to Lyon. – 3) The reference to the warring kings (36) is less conclusive, but not incompatible with this period. Fabre (p. 105) identifies these kings as Frederick II and his ally and father-in-law Henry III of England, and those on the Church’s side, Louis IX of France and James I of Aragon. But as far as armed combat goes this is simply wrong: Frederick was not fighting Louis, who strove to remain neutral and act as intermediary between pope and emperor (David Abulafia, Frederick II. A medieval emperor, London 1988, pp. 394-395), and neither was Henry III (for his relations with Innocent IV and Frederick see Maurice Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 voll., Oxford 1947, reprinted as 1 vol. in 1966, pp. 357-359). James I of Aragon was largely occupied with matters in Spain at this time, though he did visit Aix-en-Provence between August and November 1245 hoping to secure marriage with Beatrice of Provence, «but he had brought with him few, if any, troops, and, on the advance of the French, he was obliged to return to Montpellier»; Beatrice was wedded to Charles of Anjou on 31 Jan. 1246 (Francis Darwin Swift, James the First of Aragon, Oxford 1894, pp. 83-86). James cannot be regarded as at war with the papal side, though he could be seen as in desacordansa with the French. The armed conflict was between Frederick and Innocent. Carbonel might perhaps be thinking of William of Holland, elected German anti-king in 1247 after Innocent had deposed Frederick as King of the Germans, or he might be conflating the ideas of the war between Frederick and Innocent and the many as yet unarmed conflicts between other European kings. – Contini argued that 36-37 could refer to any war led by the king of France or the kings of Spain, and that as the idea of crusading was permanent at this time, the passage is of little use in dating the song (p. 142, n. 36 ff.; also Routledge, n. 40). He suggests that the song may date from much later, around 1265, since a letter from Pope Clement IV in June 1265 refers to Barral having promised to go on crusade when he paid homage to the count of Toulouse and Poitiers. However, Carbonel’s text refers only to the idea that the kings and the pope should make the passage to the Holy Land: there is no suggestion in the tornada that the dedicatee has crusading in his sights, so there is no reason to tie the song to this later date. In any case, Contini does concede the possibility proposed by Fabre that the allusion is to St Louis’ crusade for which he embarked in August in 1248. – The situation in Europe after Frederick’s excommunication would make good sense of the troubadour’s impatience for the Pope to go on crusade – an implausible idea in itself – along with the disputatious kings: the Pope is just as responsible as they for the world being turned upside-down at the expense of Christendom. – 4) Contini, Routledge and Kolsen all emend que car (40) to qu’encar. While such a scribal slip is readily envisaged, the manuscript reading makes good sense as it stands, suggesting that people are paying a high price (in both money and devastation) for the wars at home: a situation again particularly appropriate to the papal-imperial war. – 5) While Fabre does not exactly say so (he refers more generally to Carbonel having lived in the midst of the most important events in the history of Marseille in 1245-1270, p. 103), the song’s anticlericalism would seem particularly apposite during Barral’s opposition to Charles of Anjou and the power of the Church, and his assumption of leadership of the revolt by the great Provençal communes of Arles, Avignon and Marseilles against them in 1247. This would not apply once this came to an end in March 1250, when Barral changed sides to become a constant ally of the Count of Provence (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. 411-414). Barral had been excommunicated more than once: in 1240 by Zoen Tencarari, vicar of the legate for Provence Jacques Pecoraria, and again by Zoen, who had become bishop of Avignon, in 1246-1247 (Mazel, La Noblesse, pp. 409 and 413). Barral would have had a personal reason to appreciate Carbonel’s condemnation of clerical abuse of the power of interdict. – This period saw another troubadour song, by Bertran d’Alamanon (BdT 76.9), referring to similar events, though composed from a different point of view, before Charles of Anjou sailed for the Holy Land with his brother Louis IX on 25 August 1248, and after April 1247 when the Provençal cities formed their alliance under Barral (see my edition on Rialto). – The sirventes cannot therefore be dated with certainty, but it seems plausible to place it between Frederick’s excommunication in 1245 and before Barral’s withdrawal from opposition to Charles of Anjou in March 1250.