The miraculous in William of Tudela's Canso

After examining Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's Historia in terms of its portrayal of divine will expressed through the crusading army, a comparison should be made with the other sources.  I have claimed that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, as a Cistercian chronicler, displayed a particularly rigid mode of thought and expression regarding God's plan for the Albigensian crusade and that he employed narratives of supernatural miracles and ascribed divine intervention to support this framework.  It is worth asking, however, whether this was merely a common trope employed by other writers.  To answer that question, I will examine the role of miracles and other allusions to divine intervention in the Canso of William of Tudela and the Anonymous.

William of Tudela, in the 131 laisses (stanzas) which he contributed to the Canso, mentions miracles and divine intervention eight times, with five of these being expressly called "miracles".  William wrote in Occitan verse and so an exact comparison of terminology cannot be made to Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, who wrote in Latin prose.  To make as complete a comparison as possible, then, I have included all the references I can find from the Canso to anything called a "miracle" or any events described as being due to or affected by divine intervention. All of my quotations and references here will be to Janet Shirley's translation of the Canso, "The Song of the Cathar Wars".

William of Tudela was no skeptic on supernatural matters.  In his opening verses he describes himself as a geomancer and claims that his divinations predicted the future course of the crusade.  Despite his predilection for geomancy, William was an orthodox and pious Catholic cleric.  He was also not a member of the Languedoc society which found itself fighting the crusade.  William was from Navarre and from his writings it is clear that he was generally on the side of the crusaders.  Unlike Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, however, his religious viewpoint did not dominate his narrative.  While he might explain, as Peter did, that the victims of massacre and slaughter had brought this fate on themselves, he did not present any attendant miracles to show divine approval of that opinion.

THE FIRST MENTION

The commencement of the crusade and the siege and massacre of Beziers are discussed in the first 23 laisses written by William of Tudela.  In laisse 25 (p. 23), he is describing the siege of Carcassonne in that first crusading summer:

"Listen to the wonderful work of God!  The defenders had crossbowmen stationed high up on the towers, and when they shot at the host, not even half their quarrels reached it, but dropped down instead into the ditches.  And I have heard it said for certain and know it to be true that no ravens or vultures or carrion-eating birds flew above the host that whole summer.  Victuals were so plentiful, too, that bread was sold at thirty loaves for a penny."

It is unclear if William meant to say that the events in this paragraph were due to divine intervention, or whether he was merely commanding his audience's attention to several benefits which the crusaders enjoyed at that time.  It is not the first occasion on which William of Tudela enjoined the audience to listen, but it is the first in which he ascribes events to be the "wonderful work of God".  What he describes thereafter is, however, nothing miraculous.  Defending archers fired over a long distance and did not always make the required range.  Carrion birds did not follow an army.  Abundant provisions were acquired. 

This last feature of the siege of Carcassonne was also reported by Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay as one "which should not be passed over, and which must indeed be regarded as a great miracle".  Perhaps the two authors shared the same opinion as to the miraculous nature of the provisioning of the army, or perhaps they did not.  William of Tudela describes a number of fortuitous but not supernatural events under the broad and ambiguous heading of "the wonderful work of God".

 Whether or not William thought anything miraculous had occurred, he records Arnau Amalric, then head of the Cistercian Order and of the crusade, as preaching about miracles at this point.  In laisse 33 (p. 26), Carcassonne has just been taken by the crusaders and their leader addresses them:

"Heralds went to and fro among the troops shouting: 'Come to the pardon!  The abbot of Citeaux is going to address you.'  So then they all ran to him and gathered round.  The abbot climbed up onto a marble plinth.
'My lords,' he said, 'now you can see what miracles the king of heaven does for you, since nothing can stand against you.  In the name of God I forbid you to keep any of the town's wealth for yourselves, not so much as the value of a bit of charcoal, for if you did, we would instantly excommunicate and curse you.  We shall give it all to some powerful lord who with God's grace will hold and keep this country so that the wicked heretics can never retake it.'  All present agreed to the conclusion the abbot laid before them."

It is the first explicit reference to miracles in the Canso and it comes from the preaching of the Cistercian legate.  Like his fellow Cistercian Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, he invokes the theme of divine will consistently -- in every sentence if William of Tudela's account of his speech is indeed representative.  Perhaps this is only a summary of the actual speech Arnau Amalric delivered and he preached explicitly about miracles of the sort which occur in Peter's Historia.  Alternatively, he may only have described the two victories of the crusaders at that time as the working of divine will.  In his speech, as in William's account, there is nothing overtly supernatural which is used to demonstrate the action of divine intervention.

THE SECOND MENTION

In laisse 54 (p. 35), William recounts a raid by Pierre-Roger de Cabaret on the crusaders' siege engines just outside of Carcassonne.  Although initially successful, the raid was to be repulsed by William of Contres, a crusader knight charged with defending the city.

"Sir Peter Roger and his men did not flinch, they dismounted, smashed the mangonels in sight of all the bystanders, and used straw to set them alight.  The fire blazed up, and if there had been a breath of wind all the engines would have burned at once, but God did not want this."

The next laisse describers the sortie and subsequent melee in which the raiders were driven off.  Laisse 54 presents one of the few occasions on which God's opinion on the course of events is portrayed in the Canso.  God "did not want" the complete destruction of the siege engines.  William stops short of portraying God holding the winds still so that the engines would not be burned, but he is clear enough in describing their rescue as provident.

THE THIRD AND FOURTH MENTIONS

Only a few stanzas later, William of Tudela proceeds to describe the siege and fall of Termes in laisses 56-58 (pp. 36-37):

"No one ever saw so numerous a garrison as there was in that castle, men from Aragon, Catalonia and Roussillon.  Many were the armed encounters and shattered saddle-bows, many the knights and strong Brabanters killed, many the ensigns and fine banners forcibly borne off into the keep against the crusaders' will.  As for the mangonels and catapults, the defenders did not think them worth a button.  Meat they had in plenty, both fresh meat and salt pork, water and wine to drink and an abundance of bread.  If the Lord God had not dealt them a blow, as he did later when he sent them dysentery, they would never have been defeated.
My lords, will you hear how Termes was taken and how Christ Jesus there displayed his mighty power?
Nine months the army sat around that stronghold until its water supply dried up.  They had wine for another two or three months, but I do not think anyone can live without water.  Then, God and the faith help me, there was a heavy downpour of rain which caused a great flood, and this led to their defeat.  They put quantities of this rainwater into butts and barrels and used it to knead and cook with.  So violent a dysentery seized them that the sufferers could not tell where they were.  They all agreed to flee away rather than die like this, unconfessed. ...
When it was known throughout the land that Termes had fallen, all the strongest castles were abandoned, and Le Bezu was taken, without any need for sieges.  The men of these garrisons who left the castles never supposed that the crusaders would get that far.  God who is full of mercy worked a great miracle there, for he gave finer weather than anyone has known in summer.  I return to my subject, which I have left too long."

This is the closest William of Tudela ever comes to portraying divine intervention as Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does, yet he describes nothing supernatural.  He is clear that it is God in a display of "mighty power" who sends dysentery into Termes, yet he is also clear in tracing the origin of the outbreak to the rainwater collected in the "butts and barrels" of the defenders.  Thus, William describes only mundane events, although he finds them so fortuitous as to ascribe them to God.  Similarly, the fine winter weather of 1210/11 is a "great miracle" allowing the crusaders to push further than expected and capture undefended fortresses.

THE FIFTH MENTION

Pierre-Roger de Cabaret, the lord who mounted the raid on the siege engines outside of Carcassonne, described above, had captured a prominent crusading knight, Bouchard de Marly, and held him prisoner in Cabaret.  In the spring of 1211, crusading reinforcements arrived in Carcassonne in such numbers that Pierre-Roger rethought his position and decided to make peace with Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.  In the only part of the Canso in which William of Tudela describes human decision-making as miraculous, he writes in laisse 63 (pp. 39-40):

"Count Peter of Auxerre, Robert of Courtenay and the precentor of Paris, as the book says, brought a very strong force from the Paris region and entered Carcassonne.  Hear what a miracle Jesus did there, as the book tells you-
The men in Cabaret were very alarmed at the arrival of this contingent, and one morning very early Peter Roger, lord of Cabaret, went to see his prisoner Sir Bouchard in the room where he lay in irons.
'Bouchard,' he said, 'I know you have a noble heart, you are a true and valiant man and would never do anything that should not be done.  I don't know whether I shall meet with thanks and compassion if I set you free, but I am going to take the risk.'"

Pierre-Roger then released Bouchard, provided him with a bath and a haircut, new clothes and a horse, and gave himself and his castle into his former prisoner's custody.  Bouchard -- "never had he known such happiness since the day his mother gave him birth" -- rode to meet de Montfort in Carcassonne and explained the situation.  The leader of the crusade, happy to be reunited with Bouchard and to obtain Cabaret without a nearly impossible siege, accepted Pierre-Roger's nearly unconditional terms and treated him honourably.  William of Tudela continues in laisse 66 (pp. 40-41):

"That is how Cabaret was taken, and how our crusaders manned its castle.
See what a miracle it was, for if all the people ever born in the world surrounded that fortress, the defenders would think them worth less than a peeled apple, it is so strong.  But against the host of Christ no castle, no citadel can stand, however strong its battlements.  Only a fool opposes the crusaders, a fool who may rejoice at first but in the end must be defeated."

It is unclear, perhaps, exactly where the miracle actually occurred if William of Tudela means a supernatural divine intervention into the course of events.  Indeed, this passage seems to confirm that when William refers to a "miracle" he means only a fortuitous turn of events.  Unlike Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, he never records that God directly intervened to cause anyone to make a certain decision.  The "miracle" here is merely that the crusaders unexpectedly gained possession of a strong fortress. 

THE SIXTH MENTION

If there is a single passage which clearly illustrates the very different views of miracles between William of Tudela and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, it is in laisse 74 (p. 44).  Count Baldwin (brother of Count Raymond of Toulouse), the sometime patron of William of Tudela, is besieged inside Montferrand by Simon de Montfort and the crusaders:

"But brave Count Baldwin and his knights put up a stubborn defence.  They threw blazing fire onto the brushwood in the ditch and burned it up; but the attackers immediately flung in just as much more.  It was a great miracle almighty Jesus did for them in preventing their capture in this first attack."

Here, then, God intervenes against the crusaders.  The miracle protects their opponent and thwarts their efforts.  It is unlikely that William of Tudela meant to imply that God was not generally on the side of the crusade.  After all, Count Baldwin surrendered shortly thereafter and subsequently joined the crusade.  However, the idea that "almighty Jesus" might work a miracle for the opponents of Simon de Montfort could never occur in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's Historia.  In Peter's framework, miracles are the demonstration of divine will controlling the course of the war.  In this passage, William of Tudela shows his very different understanding of the term.  This "miracle" is just another unexpected mundane event -- fortuitous, in this case, for Count Baldwin and not for the crusade.

THE SEVENTH MENTION

In the summer of 1212, Moissac fell to a crusader siege.  William of Tudela uses the term "miracle" again to describe a seemingly mundane event in laisse 123 (pp. 61-62):

"At Moissac the catapults battered the walls all day long, breaking them down and opening breaches, so that it is not surprising the defenders took fright, for they could expect no help from anyone.  It was a full month since the count of Toulouse had gone to see Savari at Bordeaux and he never got a pennyworth of good out of doing so, except that he recovered his son and paid a large sum over to Savari.
I return to my subject and do not intend to leave it.  Let me tell you briefly of a miracle that Jesus the righteous did for the crusaders: a great section of the wall now fell into the moat and opened a way in.
No need to ask you if the citizens were terrified when they saw this, and the mercenaries too.  They tried to make an agreement with the count of Montfort, but he swore by all the saints of the Holy Land that he would not let one of them escape alive unless they handed over the mercenaries who had caused them so much trouble.  I don't know what more I could tell you if I talked all day, except that they loved their own selves better than wife or brother, cousin or kinsman."

Like the other "miracles" mentioned by William of Tudela, this one does not challenge the reader's credulity.  Before his brief digression about the count of Toulouse's whereabouts, William mentioned the catapults opening breaches in the walls.  After the digression, a section of those walls falls.  Like the other "miracles", this one is not supernatural; it is merely a sudden beneficial turn of events.

THE EIGHTH MENTION

The crusader William of Contres, who drove off the raid against the siege engines at Carcassonne described above, accomplished further exploits in 1212 which were mentioned by William of Tudela.  In laisse 121 (p. 61) he was the first of five knights mentioned who saved Simon de Montfort when his warhorse was killed and he was surrounded by enemies at the siege of Moissac.  In laisse 127 (p. 63) William of Contres leads a small force and routs a large company of mercenaries near Castelsarrasin, chasing them "all the way to Montauban, drowning many in the Tarn."  After this battle, two other similar ones are recounted in laisses 128-130 (p. 64) when William of Contres leads another attack against mercenaries.

"Not one pennyworth of plunder did Sir William let the robbers keep.  He and the resolute men he had brought here from Burgundy and France utterly defeated them all.

William of Contres, as I told you, defeated all the mercenaries, recovered their plunder and captured their horses and pack animals.  They ravaged the country around Castelsarrasin on another occasion, but I promise you they never got away with anything belonging to him, not so much as would cost two coins from Poitou; on the contrary, they were beaten and flung themselves into the Tarn.  Sir William's horse was struck by five or six darts, and Sir William fell to the ground in the sight of all his friends.  Valiant man that he was, he leaped to his feet, grasped his sword and shouted his warcry, 'St Denis!' the Paris cry.  My lord Moreau spurred his fine costly charger and all the others rode up to help him.  In the melee and confusion they were not sure they could save him or prevent his capture.  'God help us!' they shouted and 'St Denis!'  Then you would have seen many a squire of his company killed and his warden severely injured.  But Sir William mounted a spirited horse, charged the mercenaries and thrust them back, right into the waters of the Tarn; and then he began to laugh about his fall.

My lords, God did many great miracles for Sir William of Contres, a man who took so much trouble that everyone who saw him liked him at once.  Certainly no better man ever came here on crusade from Burgundy, nor ever will, unless a still richer and greater lord arrives."

It appears that William of Tudela did not intend to recount all of the "many great miracles" he refers to, although the victories he has just recounted and the close call from which William was rescued serve as examples.  It is typical of William of Tudela's use of of the term "miracle" that these are not supernatural in nature.  He does not need to explain what the other "miracles" were in order for us to understand that Sir William of Contres was repeatedly and fortuitously successful.

William of Tudela's part of the Canso ends abruptly at laisse 131 (p. 65), just as Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's much longer Historia did.  Neither author seems to have had the opportunity to bring their narrative to a close. 

While both authors held positions in the Catholic church and both sided with the crusaders, there are clear differences in their portrayals of the crusade.  For Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, his story was that of God acting through His crusading army to enforce His will.  For William of Tudela, it was a story of mundane events completely without supernatural intervention where a "miracle" was merely an unexpected benefit that could befall either the crusaders or their opponents.  It is through this contrast that we can see just how extreme Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's narrative framework was.

In the next post, we will examine the role of miracles and divine intervention in the Anonymous continuation of William of Tudela's Canso.

The divine plan in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Part 4

THE THIRTY FIRST MIRACLE

A great deal more of the Historia passes without miracles.  

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay includes a variety of correspondence between the legates, King Pedro II of Aragon, and Pope Innocent III.  As Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay describes it, King Pedro first asked the legates to restore the lands of the Counts of Toulouse and Foix, and of Gaston de Bearn, but was soundly rebuffed.  He then appealed directly to the Pope and misled the Supreme Pontiff into giving him letters to that effect and also into calling off recruitment for the crusade.  The legates, however, sending their own delegation to the Pope shortly afterwards, changed his mind causing him to revoke what he had sent to King Pedro and to rebuke him somewhat.

Events progress.  The French prince, Louis, is about to join the crusade against the Albigensians but is prevented by the Devil who embroils France in numerous other wars (especially the planned invasion of England, backed by Pope Innocent III).  Simon de Montfort has his son, Amaury, knighted.  Preaching of the Albigensian crusade all across France is suspended so that preaching for the Fifth Crusade (to the Holy Land) can take its place, although Peter's uncle Guy, now Bishop of Carcassonne, continues to preach it.  As a result, Count Simon finds himself virtually bereft of crusading troops.  Meanwhile, King Pedro of Aragon gathers his forces and joins the Count of Toulouse in a bid to push the remaining crusading army out of the region.  The conflict comes to a head at a fortress called Muret, not far from Toulouse, from which Simon de Montfort's forces have been raiding the Toulousain.

In the preceding 82 sections of the Historia, no miracles or divine interventions have been recorded.  In XIV, § 443, p. 201, Simon de Montfort sends for his son Amaury, now a knight in his own right, who is engaged in a far-off siege at Roquefort.  Count Simon will need his son's assistance, along with any other troops he can summon, at the upcoming battle of Muret.  Of course, it does not sit well with a warrior's reputation to raise a siege before achieving victory as we have seen before -- Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay has described Simon's own reluctance to do so and to defend his reputation when he did.  

"But the Lord Jesus, our ever-present helper in times of trouble, so ordained matters that the Count's son was able to obey his father's orders and yet avoid the shame of raising the siege, for on the very evening that the Count's letter arrived the enemy besieged in Roquefort asked for peace.  They were ready to hand over the castrum and their prisoners (almost sixty in number) on condition that they themselves should be allowed to leave unharmed.  Under the pressure of necessity, the terms were agreed to by Amaury, who left a few knights to garrison the place and hastened to join his father."

It is hardly a miracle on the scale of some which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay recounted, but, in truth, only one such miracle occurs in the entire text after the recounting of canine aversion to the Count of Toulouse.  This one might be seen as a convenient coincidence of timing, but even seeing God's hand in that is probably too much.  It appears from the text that negotiations had been underway before the arrival of the letter, hence Amaury knew that the defenders "were ready" to agree to terms which he had hitherto found unacceptable.  After receiving his father's letter, he was now "under the pressure of necessity" and concluded the negotiations for surrender on terms he would have preferred to avoid.  No divine intervention would be required in such a circumstance, except to show Amaury in a more positive light.  By the time Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay concluded his work, Amaury de Montfort was the leader of the crusade and Peter may have been anxious to show his previous mediocre record for siege warfare as the ordination of an approving God.

THE THIRTY SECOND MIRACLE

Although no genuinely supernatural events follow in the Historia, a minor miracle is presented in XIV, § 454, p. 207.  Simon de Montfort and his forces were moving towards Muret, which was already besieged by the King of Aragon and Count of Toulouse.

"Thence they proceeded to a place between Auterive and Muret which was difficult to go through.  They expected the enemy to confront them here because the place was marshy and the road narrow and waterlogged.  There was a church nearby, and the Count, as was his custom, went into the church to pray.  It was raining heavily at the time, much to the distress of our troops, but as our Count, the knight of Jesus Christ, began to pray, the rain stopped and the clouds gave way to clear skies.  Boundless bounty of the Creator!  The Count rose from his prayers and our men passed through the difficult terrain without any impediment from the enemy."

In fact, the Creator could have withheld his bounty, since the enemy made no attempt to prevent Simon de Montfort's approach to Muret at any time and were, in fact, eventually found on the other side of the River Garonne, where they were engaged in peace negotiations with the bishops.  The fighting did not begin until the next day.

THE THIRTY THIRD MIRACLE

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's account had been entirely devoid of miracles for a long time prior to this minor show of divine favour  and, considering the scale of what was at stake at Muret, it is remarkable that the next divine intervention reported, the only other one related to the battle of Muret, was also trivial.  In XIV, § 463, p. 211, the battle of the following day had already begun and the King of Aragon killed in the initial clash of the front two lines of crusading troops with the front two lines of their enemies.  

The Battle of Muret by Francesco Allegrini

"Our Count now saw that his two leading lines had been submerged by the enemy, and had virtually disappeared from view; he therefore mounted an attack from the left against the enemy standing opposite him, drawn up for battle in countless numbers along a ditch which lay between them and him.  As he started his attack he could see no way of reaching the enemy, but then found an insignificant path in the ditch (provided, we believe, by Divine providence), which enabled him to cross and reach his adversaries, whose line he now penetrated most courageously, like the courageous knight of Christ he was."

Aside from that, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay shows God offering no further help to His army.  The attention shown to the battle of Muret is considerable and many details are provided, but divine intervention and clear signs of divine favour are absent.  The provision of the "insignificant path in the ditch" is a truly humble exception.

In XIV, § 464, p. 212, the citizens of Toulouse were "obstinate and blinded by the Lord's will" in refusing an offer to surrender.  They had not yet heard of King Pedro's demise, as Peter points out, and they were routed and slaughtered by the victorious crusaders.

THE THIRTY FOURTH MIRACLE

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay unequivocally saw the victory at Muret as part of the divine plan and due to God's will, but the miracles which festooned far less important conflicts earlier in his text are notable here only for their triviality.  Even without supernatural events, however, Peter describes the entire outcome of the battle as a miracle.  He concludes his account by having Simon de Montfort walk barefoot to the church in XIV, § 466, p. 213,

 "to render thanks to Almighty God for the victory He had granted, since he recognized this miracle had been wrought by God's grace and not the efforts of men.  His horse and armour he gave as alms for the poor."

Immediately after this, in XIV, § 467, p. 213, Peter continues by including the description of events written by his fellow Cistercians:

"So that the true nature of this marvellous battle and glorious victory may be more firmly fixed in the hearts of my readers, I think it will be well worth quoting a letter which the bishops and abbots present at the scene despatched to all believers in Christ."

He then reproduces a letter from Bishop Fulk of Toulouse and other bishops, which describes the battle of Muret all over again, exceeding Peter's detailed description both in length and in attribution of events to divine power.  Fulk and his colleagues begin with recounting how "the Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, did miraculously cast down the enemies of the Christian faith and grant to the Holy Church a glorious victory and a glorious triumph".  

In this account, when the armies meet, "the might of the Highest at once shattered His enemies through the hands of His servants, and brought them to nought in an instant.  They turned their backs in flight, and became as chaff before the wind, and the Angel of the Lord chased them".  When the crusaders attack in this version, "the followers of Christ were trusting in His help; despite their much smaller numbers they felt no fear of the host opposing them but attacked them valiantly, endued with power from on high".  In the same tone, they conclude their letter: "Let all Christendom give thanks to Christ for the victory of the Christians with sincere and heartfelt devotion; for He, through a few of the faithful has overcome an innumerable multitude of the faithless and granted His Holy Church a happy triumph over His enemies.  Honour and glory be His to all eternity, amen!"

It is not the case that this more forceful and expressive letter contains a perspective on events different from that of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay.  However, Peter lets his superiors in the Church, and in fact in his order, put the case more strongly so that the point "may be more firmly fixed".  In so doing, he provides a possible insight into the paucity of miracles which makes the second half of the Historia so different from the first.  

Miracles had been fairly common in the first three hundred or so sections.  After the twenty sixth miracle (XII, §§ 297-298, p. 146-147), which I noted previously, this changed.  The divine interventions recorded, even when described as "miracles" were no longer supernatural in nature and could easily be explained by ordinary means.  The miracles to follow will be of much the same nature.  The only exception, the thirtieth miracle noted previously, was looking backward and recounting a miracle in retrospect which had occurred much earlier.

The crucial difference after § 298 seems to be that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay himself joined the Crusade and became a witness to events at that time.  The previous miracles had all been passed on to him by his sources, usually senior Cistercians when they are named.  Peter himself did not claim to have witnessed anything beyond mundane explanation.    He did often attribute divine intervention to seemingly mundane events, but in comparison to the writings of his fellow Cistercians, he was moderate in that regard.  The extravagant miracles of the first half of the Historia (and the thirtieth miracle in the second half) can thus be seen as the accumulated stories of miraculous events which were given to Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay for inclusion in his writing.  It is all too easy to pass on an exaggerated or invented story to someone who wasn't there and doesn't know the principal characters involved.  It is much more difficult to do so to someone well acquainted with those involved, and nearly impossible to someone who was present.  

Modern published historians are self-driven authors, assisted by editors perhaps, but ultimately controlling their own processes of selection, inclusion and interpretation.  As a result, they may tend to attribute the same authorial characteristics to writers like Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, focusing too much on who he was ("youthful", "passionate", "an eyewitness") and too little on the figures around him.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay was not a highly-placed Cistercian.  In what little we know about him, he appears in the shadow of his uncle Guy, the Abbot of his monastery, to whom he was bound not only by familial respect, but by monastic vows of obedience.  He was further overshadowed by even larger and more important members of his order, such as Fulk and Arnau Amalric.  When men like these told him of a miracle, and perhaps suggested it for inclusion in his text, it was not for Peter to contradict them.  

In this light, it is interesting to note that almost all of the overt miracles Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay includes are prefaced by a small editorial comment of his, noting that the event "should not be passed over" or that it is an event he "must not pass over".  While such phrases indicating consideration about the inclusion of events occur elsewhere, the majority of them in the Historia preface miracles or divine interventions.  

THE THIRTY FIFTH MIRACLE

The year 1214 was a difficult one for Simon de Montfort and the crusaders, despite the victory at Muret.  Numerous castles continued to cast off the yoke of de Montfort's authority and join the growing rebellion against his rule.  Aragonese and Catalan forces from the west operated against him as far as Beziers and Narbonne in the east.  In so doing, they had the open assistance of Narbonne.
Count Simon rode against the men of Narbonne and was nearly killed by them as recounted in XVI, § 502, p. 226.  Although crusading forces began to arrive again, it is likely that they would have had a great deal of trouble reaching de Montfort and joining forces with him if not for the intervention of a new papal legate, Peter of Benevento, who reconciled the men of Narbonne to the Church.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, reported that the legate deceived the men of Narbonne in order to stall them and prevent them gaining any military advantage.  Unsurprisingly, Peter saw God working through the legate, in XVI, § 509, p. 230:

"The whole succession of events in that year is worth careful study -- indeed there is a strong element of the miraculous in the way matters turned out.  As recorded above, when the papal legate Master Peter of Benevento arrived in the Albigensian area, the men from Aragon and Catalonia had assembled at Narbonne to oppose Christianity and the Count of Montfort; for this reason the Count was positioned near Narbonne and unable to withdraw, since the enemy would immediately have set about ravaging the country round about.  Moreover, the men of Toulouse, Agen and Quercy were mounting frequent heavy attacks against him from more distant parts.  Whilst the athlete of Christ was in this difficult situation he was not without a helper in his hour of need; at one and the same time came a legate from the Curia and a whole host of crusaders from France!  How great is God's mercy!  As was widely realised, the legate would not have been so successful without the crusaders, and the crusaders would have achieved little without the legate; for, if the enemies of the faith had not been in fear of the crusaders they would not have obeyed the legate, and again if the legate had not come the crusaders (who subsequently came to face such large numbers of our enemies) could have made but little progress.  Thus, Divine intervention mercifully brought it about that whilst the legate, by pious deception, diverted the attention of the enemies of the faith assembled at Narbonne and held them in check, the Count and the crusaders arriving from France were able to cross to Quercy and the Agenais and attack their enemies -- Christ's enemies.  Such the pious deceit, the deceitful piety, of the legate!"

That Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay was obliged to depict the direct representative of the Pope as possessed of "deceitful piety" requires some additional explanation.  It would appear that Simon de Montfort's legitimacy at this time was quite unclear.  King Pedro II of Aragon had been a wholly loyal son of the Church and vassal of Pope Innocent III, who crowned him and accepted his oath of fealty in 1205.  Pedro was, furthermore, a champion of Christendom against her enemies in Spain, having played a key role in the legendary victory of Los Navas de Tolosa only 14 months before being killed at Muret.  Simon de Montfort was his vassal and had sworn loyalty to him before Pedro took Toulouse under his protection.  Had the battle of Muret turned out differently, de Montfort could easily have been seen as a villain bent on personal gain while Pedro maintained the sanctity of holy champion as well as suzerain acting in defense of his rights.  Even with Pedro's death and de Montfort's victory, however, many in the south may well have imagined that Count Simon had well exceeded his divine mandate and was now intent only on his own profit and aggrandizement.  When even the Holy See's representative stooped to trickery in order to support him, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay may well have felt the need to emphasize that this was a divine and not a mortal ploy.

THE THIRTY SIXTH MIRACLE

With his crusading forces once more assembled, Simon de Montfort went on his seasonal counter-attack, retaking fortresses which had previously turned against him.  Some, he found abandoned.  Others put up a vigorous defense.  Showing his desperation, all that Simon de Montfort took he now destroyed, pulling down walls and towers.  He no longer attempted to garrison and hold what he captured, knowing from experience that the small garrisons he could afford to leave behind would be overwhelmed and that local troops could not be trusted to maintain their loyalty to him.  

A sure signal of Simon's loss of prestige and reputation occurred when Simon de Montfort ordered Deodat III, lord of the castle of Severac, to turn the fortress over to him and the latter refused.  Deodat III felt secure in this decision, not just because of the defensibility of his castle but, as Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay admitted, because he knew "the Count would not be able to maintain a siege, bearing in mind that it was winter and that Severac was in a mountainous region exposed to the cold weather." (XIV, § 538, p. 240)  De Montfort was then nevertheless obliged to lay siege to the castle which he had hoped he could merely command as its rightful overlord.

Perhaps it was due to these signs of Count Simon losing his grip on the territory he claimed, that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay interpreted another trivial event as divine intervention in the siege of Severac in XIV, § 540, p. 240:

"Accordingly, when the Count with his army reached Severac he found the bourg unharmed and an ample number of houses suitable for lodging his troops.  After occupying these our men strengthened the siege.  This was indeed the doing of the Lord, a true support in times of trouble and a goodly helper in the hour of need."

They were "times of trouble" indeed and after expending some efforts, Simon de Montfort entered into negotiations with Deodat III, rather than taking the castle by force.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is anxious to portray the defenders as being out of supplies and in desperate need of terms, but the terms reached belie this portrayal.  Deodat III gave over the castle, but to a local southern noble, not to Count Simon, and in return demanded and received back all of his lands already conquered by the crusaders.  Simon de Montfort agreed and was even reduced to asking the lord of Severac not to take reprisals against those vassals who had surrendered to the crusaders previously. 

Later (Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does not say how much later), Deodat III received his castle back after acknowledging de Montfort's rights by paying homage.  All in all, resistance to the crusaders could not have turned out better for Deodat.  In retrospect, his decision not to burn down his own outlying bourg, was then a prudent decision in that he did not need to deny this advantage to the crusading army at a cost to his own property.  "The doing of the Lord" which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay adds to the story, above, benefited the defenders in the end more than the crusaders.

THE THIRTY SEVENTH MIRACLE

An attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of Simon de Montfort's claims to lordship in the region was made at Montpellier on January 8, 1215.  The Council of Montpellier was a gathering of archbishops, bishops, and abbots under the guidance of the papal legate, Master Peter.  The Pope himself had made clear that even his legate did not have authority to make a final decision on the matter of the rights to lordship over the whole territory, but these churchmen nonetheless put forth their opinion.

Such was the animosity of the residents ("evil and arrogant men" to Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay) to the Count of Montfort that they refused him entry to the town and he was reduced to waiting outside the walls "where the archbishops and bishops came to him whenever the need arose".

In XVI, § 545, p. 243, Master Peter of Benevento put the following question to the assembly:

"I ask and require you -- calling to witness Divine Judgment and reminding you of your duty of obedience to the Church -- to cast aside all prejudice, hatred or fear, and advise me faithfully and to the best of your ability on these questions.  To whom would it be best and most useful to grant and assign the city of Toulouse, for the honour of God and the Holy Church, for the sake of peace in these lands, and to help eliminate the filth of heresy?  The same, in regard to all the territories formerly held by the Count of Toulouse?  And the same in regard to the other territories which the army of the crusaders has occupied?"

This was a single question, covering all the mentioned territories, which of course left only one possible answer as all those territories had not been the sole domain of any one person before the crusade.  It was a cynical show of support from the mostly Cistercian attendees who had replaced the local archbishops and bishops over the preceding years.  In Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's writing, the event was divine confirmation of the success of the "athlete of Christ" in achieving all that he had set out to do in the name of God (XVI, § 546, p. 243):

"The archbishops and bishops deliberated long and conscientiously, each consulting the abbots in his diocese and the clergy in his entourage.  They then set down in writing the advice they considered to be right and just.  In the end they agreed on one choice and one recommendation -- that the Count of Montfort should be chosen as chief and sole ruler in the whole territory.  What a wondrous outcome!  When a bishop or an abbot has to be appointed, even a few electors can hardly agree on one candidate; here in selecting a ruler for such a large territory, the votes of so many important men were unanimously in favour of this great champion of Christ.  Without doubt this was the Lord's doing and it is marvellous in our eyes."

The marvellous agreement of the churchmen whose grip on their diocese was maintained by de Montfort's military strength that he should continue to do so was unsurprising.  The Siblys, in a footnote to their translation, suggest that "our author's views on the unanimity of the prelates' choice seem an example of his naivety rather than any cynicism".  To believe that the final version of the Historia reflects only the naivety of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, acting as sole author, however, is to ignore that he received his information (and thus probably his viewpoint) from his superiors who were at the Council.  He does not explicitly mention his uncle as one of the "twenty-eight bishops" in attendance, but since Guy des Vaux-de-Cernay was at this time Bishop of Carcassonne and since Carcassonne was the headquarters of the crusade, it is almost certain that he was there.  

It was an empty gesture, however, as Pope Innocent III had clearly reserved the final decision for himself.  Thus having reached a unanimous decision "of the legate as well as the prelates", they sent a delegate to Rome to advise the Pope of their suggestion.  Innocent, unmoved by the miraculous agreement reached in Montpellier replied, in February, that he was still going to make the decision himself at a later date.

THE THIRTY EIGHTH MIRACLE

While the Council was deliberating, "long and conscientiously", the legate sent for Count Simon to meet with him and the prelates.  The one time that Simon de Montfort dared to enter the city, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay recounts a divine intervention which was intended to reveal God's favour for His champion, but also reveals the amount of actual respect the Council and its eventual decision commanded among the local population (XVI, § 548, p. 244):

"A large group of the townsmen, inspired by their malignity, secretly armed themselves; some went into the church of the Blessed Mary, whilst others watched the gate by which the Count had entered and the road by which they expected him to return.  There they awaited his return, hoping to murder him.  The good Lord provided a different and far better outcome.  The Count became aware of what was going on; he left by a different route from the one he had used to go in, and escaped the ambush."

A few days later, the Council concluded its business and suggested the recently-escaped Count as sole ruler over a region in which he dared not walk the streets.  No reprisal against the citizens of Montpellier was even attempted.

Pope Innocent deliberated until April, by which time Prince Louis of France had signed himself with the cross and entered the Midi.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay in XVII, § 550, p. 247 recounts the anxiety this produced for the papal legate, who feared that the Prince "might use his authority to act against his, the legate's, advice and dispositions, by occupying or even destroying those cities and fortresses.  Thus it was being rumoured -- it seemed quite credibly -- that Louis' arrival and continued presence were not welcome to the legate."

In this situation, the Pope confirmed Simon de Montfort's lordship over the territories he claimed.  He was still reticent to do so, however, and only granted this lordship temporarily, until the Fourth Lateran Council convened that November to consider the matter more fully.  At that Council, the Pope gave final confirmation to Simon de Montfort over most of the "conquered" but still rebellious territories, although he set aside considerable territories in Provence for the Count of Toulouse's son, Raymond VII, whose right to inherit was also confirmed.

The Fourth Lateran Council's decisions in Rome seem to have had more effect than the Council of Montpellier's decisions earlier in the year, but still did little to quell the growing rebellion against de Montfort's rule.  Raymond VII of Toulouse raised forces all across Provence and while Count Simon was enjoying victory celebrations in France, he besieged de Montfort's Seneschal and forces at Beaucaire.  Count Simon, his brother Guy, and his son Amaury rushed to Beaucaire to counter-attack and raise the siege, and our chronicler went there as well in the entourage of his uncle.  They were expected and their effort at "besieging the besiegers" was difficult and costly.  The crusaders could only obtain supplies from two towns in the whole region and these had to be escorted under heavy armed guard so as not to be ambushed in a territory which had become "a faithless and rebellious nation!"  Meanwhile, the Count of Toulouse raised forces through Catalonia and Aragon and moved to retake his capital, Toulouse.

After several failed attempts to drive the besiegers out from around Beaucaire, and now out of supplies, de Montfort (and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay) had to acknowledge that "he was unable to rescue the garrison" besieged inside Beaucaire.  He was forced into negotiations with Raymond VII and surrendered the castle of Beaucaire to him in return for the lives of his men.  In an attempt to preserve some illusion of success for his hero Count Simon, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay claims that the garrison were to "be allowed to leave with all their equipment".  As is the usual case when Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay reports on one of Simon de Montfort's defeats, he is contradicted by the other sources.  The Canso says, in Laisse 170 that "de Montfort did recover his men, but nothing else.  The count of Toulouse kept their horses, armour and equipment".  The difference, in contemporary terms, was not minor.  For a knight to give up his horse, armour and equipment was to surrender and admit defeat, just as it was for a commander to lift a siege and withdraw from battle without having achieved success.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's narrative of God's will enacted by His paladin, Count Simon, was not flexible enough to admit of this surrender.  Peter admits what he must, that the castle was surrendered and that Count Simon withdrew his forces, but there is no reason to believe his version of the terms.  In XVIII, § 584, p. 262, Peter demonstrates his usual rhetorical versatility in the face of adverse facts:

"Anyone who carefully considers the circumstances of this siege must agree that whilst the Count, having failed to take Beaucaire, could not claim a victory, nevertheless he did secure in full measure the honour merited by his noble and faithful conduct."

From there, Simon rushed to Toulouse where an advance force of his knights were captured and imprisoned in a house.  Count Simon retaliated by setting fire to the city which was nominally his.  This temporarily intimidated the citizens into surrender and de Montfort, correctly anticipating that he would later have to besiege "his" capital, began to pull down its walls.

THE THIRTY NINTH MIRACLE

The following months saw Simon de Montfort hurrying around his new domain and attempting, succesfully, to put down further rebellions against him.  With God revealing himself in the success of de Montfort's crusade for this one final time, it fell to the Devil, in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's framework, to bring about his downfall.  In XVIII, §599, p. 270:

"Then, when the Lord Jesus Christ was thus marvellously ensuring the success of His business in these parts, the Ancient Enemy, witnessing and envious of this progress, wished to hinder what he grieved to see succeed."

The setback to come was no peevish delay imposed by God to reserve glory to Himself.  What lay in de Montfort's future could only be the Devil's work.  Count Raymond returned to Toulouse, where the citizens welcomed him back and assisted him and his forces in quickly reclaiming the city and rebuilding its defenses.  There he was joined by his allies, including the Count of Foix.  

Count Simon hurried back to Toulouse immediately "hoping to take the city by force, but he was vigorously driven back by the citizens".  He then set about the nearly hopeless task of besieging the huge city.  He initially split his forces on opposite sides of the River Garonne, which flows through Toulouse, but a few days later changed his mind, realizing that, so divided, the forces were too small to survive a concerted attack from the defenders of the city.  While recrossing the river, the penultimate miracle of the Historia is presented in XVIII, § 604, pp. 271-272:

"A miracle which God worked whilst the Count was crossing back must be recorded, so that His name may be glorified for ever and in all things!  As the Count, fully armed and mounted on a heavily armoured horse, was trying to climb into a boat, he fell into the river at a point where it was clearly very deep.  For some time he did not surface, and our men were seized with terror and began to cry out in grief.  Rachel mourns her son!  Treacherously the Infernal One howls with joy, calling us 'orphans', although our father still lives.  But he who in answer to Elisha's prayers made the axe to swim on the water raised our leader from the depths after a long delay, his hands clasped together and raised to heaven in sincere devotion.  Joyfully our men in the boat lift him up and keep him safe for Holy Mother Church, for whom the Count had offered himself as a rampart.  Such the ineffable mercy of God the Saviour!"

To say that divine intervention was not required in order for Simon de Montfort to avoid drowning is not to take away from the impressive strength and athleticism he must have displayed in getting out of his armour underwater.  If God preserved His "athlete", however, it was only to prolong his suffering.

THE FORTIETH MIRACLE

Six long months passed during which the crusaders "expended enormous efforts and endured great hardships".  After this half-year, they had made no progress and were still fighting over the outer suburb or bourg of Saint-Cyprien.  The citizens of Toulouse had built some outer defenses to protect Saint-Cyprien and the besiegers were faced with yet another setback which was only alleviated by the final miracle of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's story, in XVIII, § 606B, pp. 273-274:

"The Count led them across the Garonne to ensure the investment of Toulouse on both sides, and they went to the suburb of Saint-Cyprien where they intended to pitch their camp.  However, the Toulousains came out in force to prevent our forces from entering the suburb.  Our men could not bring up their armoured horse because of the numerous ditches the Toulousains had dug, so despite the large size of our force we had to retire shamefacedly and pitch camp on the banks of the Garonne, some distance from Saint-Cyprien.  Our men are sad, the enemy rejoice; our men cry out in anguish, the enemy shout with joy; our men raise their standards, the enemy display not only their standards but the horns of their insolence as well.  Our men are in despair, realizing that they will not be able to enter the suburb -- and thus cut off access to the city by the two bridges -- without enormous effort and heavy loss of life.  This, our failure, was appointed by the All Highest, since He did not intend it to be said that men had accomplished what He wished to bring about by His own merciful grace and without the intervention of material things or human hands.  Suddenly a thick cloud appears, although the weather had been calm all day.  Heavy rain begins to fall.  The enemy is delighted, as they think that faced with such an accumulation of troubles we will flee from our tents.  Gradually the level of the Garonne rose and as night approached the right hand of the Lord did valiantly.  The unexpected force of the water broke both bridges in the middle; a large part of the suburb's fortifications were knocked down, the ditches and the enemy's equipment were miraculously destroyed.  Such the divine power of the Creator!  Our men enter the suburb without hindrance or fear, with the Lord preventing the Toulousains from coming out."

With this final show of divine help, the siege was brought up to the actual walls of Toulouse, where it continued to founder for another three months.  At that point, nine months into the endeavour, Count Simon de Montfort was killed as described previously. 

The death of Simon de Montfort, from the Canso

 Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay attributes nothing to God from this last miracle onwards.  He has Count Simon die slowly and deliberately, despite the obviously massive trauma of his wound, in order to show that he was martyred in imitation of Christ, "five times wounded by the enemy archers, like the Saviour for whom he now patiently accepted death, and by whose side he now lives in sublime peace, as we believe".  (XVIII, § 612, p. 277)  The siege of Toulouse is then abandoned "sadly and reluctantly".  Peter briefly notes defection of large parts of the territories back to their original owners upon the news of de Montfort's death.  His last two sections (XVIII, §§ 619-620, pp. 278-279) record the re-entry of Prince Louis into the fray and the efforts of Simon's son Amaury to recapture rebellious castra.  

There is no real conclusion to Peter's story.  It breaks off with the sentence "Proceeding further he severely harassed the enemy by destroying their castra and slaying unbelievers", and there it ends.  We do not know what became of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay after writing these words and, indeed, surviving manuscripts of the Historia contain different sections of text from § 602 onwards, with many scholars, including the Siblys, attributing passages to some other author.  Perhaps Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay was killed; perhaps he gave up his work after the death of his hero; perhaps he despaired of explaining why God seemed to have turned against His followers in the Midi so completely.

No one managed to comprehensively edit the Historia from the writings that Peter produced.  It begins with an address to a clearly living Pope Innocent III, who had been dead for two years by the time de Montfort died at the abrupt end of the assembled texts.  This suggests that what we have in the Historia is what Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay wrote at the time, without the benefit of reviewing or rewriting his work upon completion.  Many of his accounts benefit from hindsight, particularly when he attributes temporary setbacks to God's long-term plans, but the overall story does not seem to be written from the perspective of someone looking back from the year 1218, when it concludes.

This lack of editorial retrospect perhaps accounts for the disjointed way in which God's plan for His crusade is presented.  At various points along the way, particularly in the first half of the Historia, God intervenes to show his approval and support with explicit, and impossible, miracles.  After Peter joins the crusade, he continues the narrative of God's intervention to support the crusaders, but in a modified way.  He no longer relies on fabulous, second-hand miracles but continues to show God acting through mundane events.  When Count Simon falls in battle, it is one of the many instances when setbacks were so serious that Peter did not easily find a way to incorporate them into his framework of divine providence.  The text then ends in an unplanned manner and so no rhetorical gloss is provided to support the framework during or after this crucial event.

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does not appear to have invented any impossible miracles himself, as he usually attributes those he describes to other sources.  That should not be taken to mean, however, that he approached his material with absolute integrity.   Those other sources were frequently men of far greater standing in the Church than Peter, and it is hard to imagine that he had ultimate control over the story he told.  Even from what we can see of Peter himself through his writings, he set out to ensure that "the Lord's mighty acts should be made known amongst the nations" (I, § 2, p. 5) and he stuck to that goal tenaciously, displaying flexible rhetoric to fit the crusade's disasters into his theme where he could, and concealing or changing the circumstances of those disasters where he could not.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay differs from other sources most when events, such as Simon de Montfort's defeats, challenged his narrative of divine action.  Where Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is our only source, therefore, we must be hesitant to take his word on any set of events which might undermine his overriding imperative to present the crusade as the success of God's will, acting through His paladin, the "athlete of Christ".

 

The divine plan in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Part 3

THE TWENTY FIRST MIRACLE

The acts of cruelty of the victorious crusaders at Lavaur were notable enough to have been recorded in all three of our major sources.  Aimeric of Montreal, who had defended against the army of God, along with 80 of his knights were hung.  Death by hanging was not a typical method of execution at this time, usually reserved for particularly ignoble criminals.  A 13th century hanging did not involve the modern long drop by which the neck might be broken -- it was a long, choking, struggling death.  William of Tudela expressed how unusual the execution seemed: "Never so far as I know has so great a lord been hanged in all Christendom, nor with so many knights hanged at his side".  At any rate, the hastily erected gibbets collapsed during the executions and Simon de Montfort ordered the remaining knights put to the sword.  "The crusaders fell to this task with great enthusiasm and quickly slew them on the spot", reported Peter.  For them, a merciful death came about only by accident.

Girauda, lady of Lavaur, Aimeric's sister, was thrown into a pit and killed by having stones heaped upon her.  A mass burning followed.  All of the sources mention it; none mention any opportunity given to recant, as was mentioned at Minerve.  Peter said in VII, § 227, p. 117, that "our crusaders burnt innumerable heretics with great rejoicing".  William of Tudela put the number at "as many as four hundred".  William of Puylaurens put it at "about three hundred".  In one of his most memorable passages, William of Tudela wrote that "there was so great a killing that I believe it will be talked of till the end of the world". 

Perhaps fearing that the eternal reputation of the atrocity at Lavaur might not be entirely favourable to the crusade, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay follows his account of the fall of Lavaur with another miracle account in IX, § 229, pp. 117-118:

"I must not pass over a miracle at Lavaur which I heard about from a reliable source.  By some mischance the cloak of a crusader knight caught fire; by God's miraculous judgment it came about that it was all burnt except the part where the cross was stitched on, which survived without being touched by the flames."

The incident is closely reminiscent of the soldier at Cabaret whose stitched cross protected him from a crossbow bolt.  In this case, perhaps ironically after the fate of the immolated civilians of Lavaur, God is shown preserving the sign of the cross from destruction by fire.  The inclusion of this incident, again seems to be used to demonstrate God's approval of the crusaders' actions, even after unspeakable atrocity.  If the numbers provided by our sources are to be believed, or even if they are exaggerated in comparable degree to other numbers, this was the largest mass burning in all of the Albigensian crusade and its aftermath.  God's will in consigning so many to the flames could be demonstrated in His selective sparing only of His crusading symbol.

THE TWENTY SECOND MIRACLE

With Raymond of Toulouse now firmly excommunicated by the legates, and the peace negotiations with him and the Count of Foix broken down, Simon de Montfort felt free to bring his crusaders against them.  Some crusaders had already trespassed into their territory earlier near Montgey, and had been successfully ambushed by Count Raymond-Roger of Foix, who had killed and mutilated a great many of them.  Raymond-Roger certainly felt well within his rights to do so.  In the Anonymous' description of the Fourth Lateran Council (laisse 145), Bishop Fulk of Toulouse accuses Raymond-Roger of the murder of the crusaders at Montgey and the eloquent Count of Foix defended this action to the Pope himself:

"And I swear to you by the Lord who was stretched out on the cross that no good pilgrim or traveller to distant Rome making the good journeys ordained by God has been attacked, robbed or killed by me, nor his path invaded by any troops of mine.  But those robbers, those traitors and oath-breakers adorned with the cross who have destroyed me, neither I nor mine have laid hold on one of them who has not lost his eyes, his feet, his fingers and his hands!  And I rejoice to think of those I have killed and regret the escape of those who got away."

The Anonymous was certainly partial to the Count of Foix and could not be suspected of unfairly tarnishing his reputation.  If Raymond-Roger boasted to the Pope about his victory over the crusaders at Montgey, it was because he certainly felt justified in calling them "robbers", "traitors", and "oath-breakers".  In the end, the Pope ordered the Count of Foix's castle returned to him, so the judgement of the Holy See cannot have been completely against Raymond-Roger in this matter.

To Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, however, the crusaders slain at Montgey were martyred saints.  When first mentioning their deaths in IX, § 218, p. 113, he exclaimed "How blessed the ranks of the slain, how precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints!".  Later, in X, § 232, p. 119, a miracle duly confirmed this evaluation:

"It happened, however, that whilst the army was still some distance from Montgey, a column of fire was seen by our men at the place where the crusaders had been killed, shining and descending down towards the bodies of the slain.  When our men reached the place they saw all the bodies lying face upwards, with arms extended to form the cross.  What a miracle!  I was told of it by Fulk the venerable Bishop of Toulouse, who was present."

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay gives his source again for this miracle, not just "a reliable source" or "venerable churchmen" this time, but specifically Bishop Fulk.  Fulk was also one of the sources for the dancing crosses at Toulouse and the Count of Foix's accuser at the Fourth Lateran Council, so it is quite credible that he may have told the story to our unskeptical chronicler.

THE TWENTY THIRD MIRACLE

After destroying Montgey, Simon de Montfort seized a number of other castra and was joined by Baldwin, Count Raymond of Toulouse's French half-brother, who defected from Raymond's side.  ("One of these brothers He left mired in the filth of unbelief; the other He rescued marvellously and mercifully, following His secret plan, known only to Himself" in X, § 236, p. 122).  At this point, the Count of Bar arrived with more crusading troops and joined Simon de Montfort.  Together, they began an ill-advised and expensive siege of Toulouse itself, which eventually had to be abandoned.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, in X, § 238, pp. 122-123, begins to explain why God prevented their success.  The description follows immediately upon the Count of Bar's arrival, before even describing the move towards Toulouse: 

"Our Count was elated at the news, since the Count of Bar enjoyed a high reputation and our people expected great results from his coming.  His conduct turned out to be much different from what we had hoped, since the Lord, to give glory to His name, wished to show that our trust should be placed in Himself and not in man."

Peter then recounts, in brief, the fruitless and very costly siege.  He continues in X, § 242, pp. 124-125:

"The shortage of supplies pushed up the cost of provisions in the army.  Moreover, no good was spoken about the Count of Bar, since everyone in the army held a poor opinion of him.  What a just judgment of God!  It had been hoped that he would do great things; men had expected more than was reasonable from another mortal, but the Lord, who said through the mouth of his prophet: 'My glory will I not give to another', knew that if our side achieved great success in the siege it would be attributed entirely to man and not to God, and for this reason did not wish great things to be done there."

This explanation recalls Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's earlier account of the siege of Termes.  In this case as well, our chronicler will only accept a crusading success if it is due to God's intervention, and attributes the same attitude to God.  Had Peter followed his logic through, it would be apparent that God would predictably deny victory to the crusaders when they were accompanied by great nobles, who would therefore always be a hindrance to the army.  Logical coherence, however, was not his goal so much as narrative consistency.  In each case, whatever the events and their contributing factors, God must be shown to be in control and on the side of the crusade.

THE TWENTY FOURTH MIRACLE

After Peter recounted God's decision to deny the crusaders victory, he does not mention any further divine interventions for some time.  This is because he has nothing positive to report.  Southerners who had been obliged by circumstance to swear loyalty to de Montfort turned against him.  Towns and castra revolted.  Attempts by Count Simon to muster local troops at Narbonne failed.  Some of Simon's knights were captured and held hostage until they were exchanged for southern prisoners.  It does not appear that Peter saw God's hand at work in any of these actions.  Divine intervention, and an associated miracle, next occur to confirm the victory of the crusaders at Saint-Martin-la-Lande near Castelnaudary.

The leader of the crusade was, at this point, doing so badly that he found himself besieged within Castelnaudary by Count Raymond of Toulouse.  The siege was not a strong one and could not prevent Simon and his forces coming and going from Castelnaudary, although their presence certainly threatened that they would take Castelnaudary if Simon left.  Knowing Simon de Montfort's prowess in battle, the southerners built strong defenses around their camp to prevent a sortie from overwhelming them.

A large and much-needed crusader supply convoy from Carcassonne, escorted by some of Simon's forces and the Bishop of Cahors, approached and was attacked by southern forces, led by the Count of Foix.  What happened next is unclear, and we should be wary of trusting the version of events given by pro-crusade churchmen like Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay and William of Tudela.  It does seem certain that the initial attack on the supply convoy was successful.  Martin Algai, defending the convoy, fled with his men, according to both sources.  Peter has the Bishop of Cahors finding Martin, rebuking him, and compelling him to rejoin the fight later.  William has the Bishop of Cahors fleeing as well.  At this point, it appears that the southern forces began looting the supply convoy, possibly leaving themselves open to a counter-attack.  Simon de Montfort sortied from Castelnaudary to rescue the supply convoy and both Peter and William suggest that this turned the tide of battle.  In XI, § 273, p. 137, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay states that the crusaders on the battlefield "saw from afar our Count leaving Castelnaudary and hurrying to their aid".  He has them then redoubling their efforts and winning the battle "in an instant".  He continues:

"We must recognise the operation of Divine intervention; our Count could not become involved in the battle, despite the great haste with which he arrived on the scene, since Christ the Vicar had already awarded the victory to His knights."

Once again, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay has God preventing the victory of a great man, so as to reserve all glory for Himself.  William of Tudela tells a different story.  He reports the sortie by Simon de Montfort as the beginning of thick fighting which went on for a long time, leaving many dead on both sides.  He then reports this part of the battle as being a victory for the crusaders.

Both of our sources then recount a failed attempt by the crusaders to raise the siege of Castelnaudary by attacking the Count of Toulouse's siege camp.  They found that the ditches and barriers were were well-enough constructed that they could only be attacked on foot.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay writes in XI, § 275, pp. 138-139:

 "Our Count was for doing this at once, but some of his colleagues advised him to wait till the next day, since the enemy were fresh whereas our men were weary from the battle. The Count agreed and returned to the castrum; he always took advice and was willing to go along with the views of his companions in such matters.  This noble man knew that it was God's valour, God's victory; so he dismounted at the very gates of Castelnaudary, and went straight to the church with feet unshod to give thanks to the Almighty for the favours he had received.  In the church our soldiers sang 'Te Deum laudamus' with great devotion and joy.  In hymns and prayers they blessed the
Lord who had wrought great wonders through His people and brought about victory over His enemies".  

When the following day came, however, the assault on the siege camp didn't occur.  In XI, § 279, p. 139, "the day after our glorious victory the Count's knights advised him to leave Castelnaudary" and, again yielding to their advice, he withdrew from the castle and went to try to raise more troops elsewhere.  The Count of Toulouse then raised the siege and withdrew as well.

William of Tudela recounts a different story again.  His account agrees with Peter's that the siege camp's ditches prevented a mounted assault, but he describes a failed attempt to attack anyway, followed by a retreat:  "The crusaders' horsemen could not get through, they felt they were as good as dead, and told each other it would be madness not to withdraw..."  William's account then agrees with Peter's that de Monfort left Castelnaudary first and that the Count of Toulouse then broke camp and withdrew also. 

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay seems unwilling to show his hero, the "athlete of Christ", retreating from a failed attack.  The introduction of the "colleagues" and "knights" on whose advice Simon is suddenly reliant, shifts the emphasis.  Instead of retreating, he only postpones the attack until the next day, when he receives new advice.  He then goes off in search of fresh troops, his postponed assault on the siege camp seemingly forgotten.

 In such circumstances, it could well be understood that both sides would claim a victory.  The supply convoy had been successfully attacked and looted, but the attackers had been badly routed afterwards.  Simon de Montfort had been the first to withdraw from the standoff at the siege of Castelnaudary but Count Raymond of Toulouse had not taken the castle and had withdrawn, himself, afterwards.  Both William of Tudela and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay report the overall outcome as a victory for the crusaders, but they were both churchmen who strongly favoured the crusade.  They both also report that the southerners widely claimed that they had won a victory which had caused Simon de Montfort to flee by night.

It is not unusual in war for both sides to claim victory after a closely-contested battle without a clear outcome.  We should be careful before agreeing with our two sources that it was a decisive victory for Simon de Montfort.  Both Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay and William of Tudela admit that after this pivotal battle, Simon de Montfort went back to Narbonne seeking reinforcements while news spread throughout the area that he had been defeated.  Both agree that many fortresses then went over to the southern side.  Both the Count of Toulouse and the Count of Foix maintained their armies and continued to take territories previously held by de Montfort and attack his supply convoys, winning further victories while he was in Narbonne rebuilding his own forces, and continuing to take castles such as Montegut from him even after he returned to the area and tried to stop them.  The scale of  de Montfort's losses at this time suggest more than the result of a false rumour.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay lists twelve major castra and "more than fifty" minor ones.  William of Tudela agrees, saying that Count Raymond "had regained it all".

THE TWENTY FIFTH MIRACLE

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay concludes his somewhat doubtful account of the religious victory celebrations at Castelnaudary with the story of a miracle.  At XI, § 277, p. 139, it is wedged between the account of de Montfort cancelling the attack on the enemy siege camp and the southerners' claims of victory.

"I must now include an account of a miracle that occurred at this time at the Cistercian monastery of Grandselve in the territory of Toulouse.  The monks of this monastery were in great distress, since if the Count of Montfort were to be captured in Castelanaudary or to fall in battle, they would be threatened with death by the sword.  The Count of Toulouse and his accomplices hated the monks of this order above all others, and especially this monastery, because the Abbot of Citeaux, the papal legate, on whom chiefly they blamed the loss of their territories, had once been its Abbot.  One day one of the monks, a pious and holy man, was celebrating divine service.  At the moment of consecrating the host he offered prayers with sincere devotion for the Count of Montfort who was at the time besieged in Castelnaudary.  A voice from heaven called to him: 'Why do you pray for him?  There are so many praying for him that there is no need of your prayers.'"

This miracle is remarkable for the doubt it reflects in the minds of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay and his fellow Cistercians.  This is not one of the strong miracles which usually attend victories -- divine interventions in which crusaders are saved from certain death, holy symbols and houses are saved from the fire, or defenders are stricken into stupor by the fear of God.  This is a miracle which occurs at a moment when the success of the crusade is in doubt and God only speaks to confirm that many are indeed praying for Simon de Montfort.

In describing the battle and aftermath of Saint-Martin-la-Lande, all historians whom I have read have followed William of Tudela and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay in viewing the event as an unequivocal victory for the crusaders followed by the unusual success of rumours to the contrary at confusing general public opinion.  I would argue that this view does not match the details of the two accounts as well as it might.  A superior possibility is that it was a closely-contested battle which resulted in the successful portrayal by the southerners of the outcome as their victory, since Simon de Montfort failed in his counter-attack and then withdrew first.

THE TWENTY SIXTH MIRACLE

Another fairly long stretch of the Historia passes without a miracle, as Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does not show God's hand in "His business which at that time had reached a low ebb".  (XII, § 286, p. 143).  Simon de Montfort's situation was improved by the vigorous preaching of the crusade in 1211, which resulted in many new crusaders arriving to reinforce him in 1212.  He was able to win some minor victories, but they were costly and time-consuming.  He then laid siege to Saint-Marcel, which was held by Giraud de Pepieux.  Soon, both Count Raymond of Toulouse and Count Raymond-Roger of Foix arrived to join the defense.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay recounts that their forces were too numerous to fit inside the castle and so most of them encamped outside, opposite de Montfort's forces.  From there, they were able both to launch forays against the besiegers and to disrupt their supplies "and after the army had had no bread for several days", de Montfort retreated from Saint-Marcel and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay retreated into rhetoric and miracle in XII, §§ 297-298, p. 146-147:

"If one considers the matter carefully, it is clear that our Count won greater honour and glory in that siege than ever previously in the capture of any fortress, however strong, and from that time on his qualities shone ever brighter, his constancy blazed ever stronger.  I must also mention that when our Count left Saint-Marcel the enemy, despite their enormous strength, did not dare mount even the slightest attack on our men as they retired.

I must not pass over a miracle that occurred at that time.  One Sunday an Abbot of the Cistercian order from Bonneval was preaching in a certain castrum.  The church was of moderate size and could not hold all the people attending, so they had all gone outside and were listening to the preacher at the entrance to the church.  At the end of his sermon the venerable Abbot was exhorting his audience to take the cross against the Albigensian heretics when suddenly for all to see a cross appeared in the air, seeming to be turned towards Toulouse.  I heard about this miracle from the Abbot himself -- a devoted man of great authority."

With a clear defeat turned into a moral victory and Simon de Montfort once again in retreat, "our Count felt that his enemies might perhaps boast that they had beaten our men" -- a reasonable feeling.  A miracle was indeed needed to confirm that God was still directing the crusade.  This one continues the tradition, last seen in Toulouse, of Cistercian abbots seeing aerial crosses with suggestive implications of attacks on that city.  In this case, at a distance of almost 200 km, the cross "seeming to be turned towards Toulouse" was indeed a feat of interpretation, which ignored Rodez, Albi, Gaillac, and Lavaur, which lay closer in the same direction.

THE TWENTY SEVENTH MIRACLE

XII, § 300, p. 148 is the point in the Historia in which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay himself joins the crusading army and notes that he is a personal eyewitness to the events he describes.  He is present for the successful siege of Hautpoul, but records no miracles there.  A southern knight is wounded in the leg after being responsible for a leg wound to a crusader "by God's just judgment" but there is no divine intervention mentioned.  Simon de Montfort captures many other castles without attendant miracles.  Saint-Antonin is taken after heavy bombardment and its lord captured, but nothing supernatural is recorded.  The remarkable siege of Penne d'Agenais, one of the great sieges of the Albigensian crusade, is described in detail.  Forays and sorties occur without mention of God.  Crusaders abandon the army after completing their service without the reminder that God reserved glory for Himself.  As at Termes, Archdeacon William of Paris redoubles his efforts after the departure of the bulk of the army and is able to inflict substantial damage, turning the tide of the siege, but God does not appear this time to assist in aiming the stones.  The divine absence continues as Penne d'Agenais parleys and surrenders.  Marmande and Biron are taken in the same secular manner.  Once, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay mentions that "Divine clemency intervened" so that some unnamed castra were abandoned before crusading forces reached them, but this isolated reference to divine power is hardly the sort of direct intervention which had been described so often earlier.

Moissac was the next major target of the crusade, another fortress made very secure by its high position and formidable stone defenses. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chateau-moissac.jpg

At the siege of Moissac, our chronicler had a close call when a crossbow bolt aimed for him stuck in his saddle.  In typical fashion, Peter attributes this to God in XII, § 347, p. 163:

"Through God's grace neither I nor my horse was harmed; this I do not attribute to my own merit -- rather it seems that Divine clemency ensured that the enemies of religion would not be able to rejoice in striking a monk ...."

It should be noted how much weaker Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's language is here than when describing the close calls of Simon de Montfort earlier, which were fully elaborated miracles.  Perhaps it was Peter's modesty alone which prevented him from calling attention to his own narrow escape as a divine miracle, but another explanation presents itself.  The 48 sections between the miracle of the floating cross at Bonneval and this are the longest section of the Historia to pass without miracles and divine interventions.  Many events occurred during this time which were similar to those ascribed to divine intervention or attended by miracles previously.  However, now that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is himself witness to events and not merely repeating second-hand information, he observes nothing supernatural.  This may well speak to his integrity as a direct observer but lack of desire to doubt what he was told by others, especially his superiors in the Cistercian order.

THE TWENTY EIGHTH MIRACLE

Shortly after the "Divine clemency" above, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay reports another indirect action of God at the siege of Moissac in XII, § 350-351, p. 164:

"Next day our crusaders put on their armour and mounted an attack from all sides; with great daring they went into the first ditch, and with great effort and numerous acts of courage broke down the wooden barriers.  Our adversaries, who were stationed behind the barriers and in the barbicans, defended the barbicans to the best of their ability.

While this battle was going on, the Bishop of Carcassonne and I were passing amongst the army encouraging our men to fight.  The Archbishop of Reims, the Bishops of Toul and Albi, William the Archdeacon of Paris, also the Abbot of Moissac with some monks and the other clergy attached to the army stood on the slopes of the hill overlooking Moissac, clad in white robes, unshod, holding before them the cross and relics of the saints.  Loudly and devoutly they sang the Veni Creator Spiritus, imploring the Lord to help.  The Comforter was not deaf to their prayers, but when they came to the verse 'Drive forth our enemy', which they repeated three times, the enemy were filled with divinely inspired fear and driven back; they quitted the barbicans, fled to the castrum and shut themselves up inside the walls."

Although Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay clearly understood God's hand in the timing of the withdrawal, he has nothing to report here which strains the credulity of the reader.  This event occurred during a general assault on the outer barbicans "from all sides" and after the protective barriers were broken down.  The Veni Creator Spiritus was the most common rallying song of the crusade and the singing of it in this instance was clearly at a time when the monks were "encouraging our men to fight".  Seeing that another forward surge of the crusading army would overwhelm their positions, the defenders withdrew to the inner defenses.  The fear which filled the defenders could be understood as "divinely inspired" or imminently practical, depending on point of view.  In withdrawing to the walls from the barbicans, the defenders were not giving up much.  In XII, § 353, p. 165 their position is summed up as "Moissac was strongly defended and could not be taken by force without the loss of many of our men".  Rather, this was the tactical withdrawal from outlying defenses which normally occurred during the early stages of a siege at the point when those defenses were liable to be overcome.

THE TWENTY NINTH MIRACLE

Despite their strong position, the defenders of Moissac heard that most of the surrounding castra were going over to Simon de Montfort and, since "they themselves would not be able to hold out", they eventually negotiated a surrender.  Count Simon accepted "on condition that they hand over to him the mercenaries and the soldiers who had come from Toulouse to join in the defence of the place, and that they themselves swear on the Holy Gospels not to fight Christians in the future". 


Latin lacks indefinite articles in its grammar and it is likely that "the mercenaries and the soldiers" as rendered by the Siblys was meant to describe only one group, which should have been rendered "mercenaries and soldiers".  Certainly, William of Tudela in recounting the same events only records the handing over of mercenaries from Toulouse.  These prisoners were killed and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay saw in events the intercession, if not of God, then at least of heavenly forces in XII, § 353, p. 165:

"Our crusaders took charge of the mercenaries and killed them with great enthusiasm.  I feel it should be pointed out that Moissac, which was first laid under siege on the eve of the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was captured on the day of her birth.  Thus, one can recognise the intercession of the Blessed Virgin."

 It is possible that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay has stretched his dates a little to fit this event between the above Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15) and Mary's birthday (September 8), since William of Tudela reports in Laisse 119 that the siege began "at the beginning of September, when August was over". 

Remarkably, William of Tudela attributes a miracle to the fall of Moissac which is absent from Peter's eyewitness account.  In Laisse 123, William records: "Let me tell you briefly of a miracle that Jesus the righteous did for the crusaders: a great section of the wall now fell into the moat and opened a way in".  William places this miracle immediately before the surrender of Moissac.  By contrast, in Peter's account, Moissac is still relatively impregnable when the surrender negotiations occur.  The immediate proximity of our chronicler to the events of which he wrote appears to have changed his story from one in which incredible miracles occur with regularity to one in which events occur for mundane reasons, even for circumstances where other, more distant authors report miracles.

THE THIRTIETH MIRACLE

When a clear supernatural miracle does again appear in the Historia, it is not one which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay claims to have witnessed, nor does it belong to the time period during which he accompanied the crusading army.  In XII, § 360, pp. 168-169, Peter has been describing the crusaders working on the defenses of Muret and certainly our author had in mind the upcoming decisive battle of Muret.  At the end of the preceding section he has just recorded that Count Raymond of Toulouse has gone to Pedro II, the King of Aragon, for assistance.  XIII, §§367 - 421, pp. 172-193 will  report the many diplomatic exchanges, with letters reproduced in full, between the King of Aragon, the legates, and the Pope concerning the fate of the Count of Toulouse, with the legatine side invoking the murder of Peter of Castelnau to condemn Count Raymond.  Before this section begins, therefore, in the above-noted bridging section, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay includes a miracle relating to that very subject:

"O just judgment of God, most just of judges!  What a true prophecy of that most holy man, Peter of Castelnau!  This blessed man said -- as I have heard from those who themselves heard it often from his lips: 'There will never be a prosperous outcome for Christ's business in the South until one of us, the preachers in defense of the faith, shall meet his death.  May I be the first to suffer the sword of the persecutor!'  See how this wretch, the Count of Toulouse, brought about the death of this holy man because he had shown him guilty of his crimes, publicly and to his face; and thought by this means to escape and recover his domains.  But the Lord brought retribution and avenged the blood of his martyr -- from which the Count had hoped to achieve gain, but instead won only the heaviest of penalties and irreparable loss.  Let it be noted that this wretch, the Count of Toulouse, received the murderer of the man of God with love and friendship; he led him through cities and towns, as if exhibiting him, and declared to everyone: 'This man alone loves me, he alone truly obeys my wishes, he has saved me from my enemies, he has avenged me against my foes, he has won victory for me, he has restored my lands to me.'  Although the Count thus lauded this most cruel murderer, even dumb animals shunned him; many canons of the church at Toulouse -- worthy men whose account can be trusted -- told me that from the day the assassin slew the man of God never did a dog deign to take food from his hands, thus to show contempt for the foul deed.  What a marvel unheard of through the ages!  I have included this digression to show how deservedly the Count of Toulouse was deprived of his inheritance."

http://www.forrester-roberts.co.uk/cathar_eclipse_3.html

Now, as mentioned in my previous post, no relation between the Count of Toulouse and the killer of Peter of Castelnau was ever legitimately shown, and the killer was certainly not paraded through the streets, since his identity was never discovered.  The assassination of Peter of Castelnau and Count Raymond's complicity in it were focal points of the preaching of the Albigensian crusade, however, which was largely carried out by Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's order, the Cistercians.  It is not at all surprising, therefore, to see the story in these exaggerated terms repeated in Cistercian propaganda such as the Historia.  In all of the voluminous corresondence which Peter includes in the next sections, only the Cistercian side ever mentions the murder of their member, Peter of Castelnau, or of Count Raymond's alleged ties to the murderer.  It seems to have been a uniquely Cistercian concern by this point.

In my next post, after another very long absence from the story, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay has God's miraculous interventions reappear at the crucial battle of Muret.