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

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is one of our main sources for the events of the Albigensian Crusade and is often relied on by historians without caveat.  I have previously explored what various historians have said about his reliability.  Here, I will put forward some of my own ideas on the subject.

Peter's text is often called the Historia Albigensis in Latin, or in English "The History of the Albigensian Crusade", as it is by the Siblys whose translation I am using here throughout.  (All references to Peter's text will be from their edition.)  Both titles suggest that Peter's interest in writing was "historical" in nature.  Peter, however, was solely interested in presenting the events of the Albigensian crusade as the coherent action of divine providence.  He was not merely recording the events of the crusade, and the difference goes further than mere bias or point of view.  The Historia Albigensis is not the story of heretics and crusaders engaged in a holy war.  It is the story of God and the Devil and their effects upon those heretics and crusaders.  Where actual events were inconvenient to the portrayal of God's plan, Peter would omit or change them and where fictitious events might support that portrayal, he would certainly include them.

AUTHORIAL INTENT

Only a few lines into the text, Peter makes his intentions quite clear when he writes: "My intention in this history, my sole purpose in writing it, is to ensure that the nations will be aware of God's marvellous works.  The approach I have taken in writing my history will make this clear ...."  A few lines later, though, Peter also makes a claim to accuracy: "... all I have written is true, and I have set nothing down that I did not either witness personally or learn from entirely authoritative and reliable persons."  This post will examine what occurred when these two intentions came into conflict.

The story Peter tells is one in which God figures as the primary character.  It is God himself whose agency is portrayed as foremost in the events retold.  This is the first challenge to establishing the actual historicity of what Peter relates.  Scholars of history no longer write in the same mode as Peter, but one cannot safely ignore Peter's pervasive theme without misinterpreting his writing.  Peter's story of God's (and Satan's) actions in the Languedoc cannot be translated into a secular history simply by the removal of these characters.

Peter was writing in Latin at a time when it was no longer a living language.  Latin was the language of the bible and those who were skilled in Latin, as Peter was, would recognize biblical Latin phrases with some facility.  The bible was, in fact, the main text from which they derived their Latinity. The inclusion of biblical Latin phrases in many (perhaps most) of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's sentences therefore provides a subtext which is difficult but important for us to read.  For example, when Peter writes, above, about making the nations aware of God's marvellous works, he is taking his phrasing directly from Psalm 145 (or 144 in the Vulgate): "They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power; to make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom."  The English translations shown here (the Siblys for Peter and the KJV for the psalm) differ but Peter's Latin and the Latin of the Vulgate do not.  When Peter expressed his intention to portray God's works with this phrase, he consciously invoked for his audience the psalm's theme of extolling the righteousness of God's acts, specifically by preserving the faithful and destroying the wicked.  The Siblys have provided frequent notes indicating biblical references, although I imagine that digital comparisons of Peter's text with the Vulgate might turn up still more.  As much as the explicit references to God and to Satan, Peter's biblical references constantly relate back to his purpose.

Satan appears in the first sentence of the text after the introduction: "In the province of Narbonne, where once the true faith had flourished, the enemy of the faith began to sow tares.  The people lost their senses and profaned the sacraments of Christ -- the very essence and wisdom of God; they deserted true religion and in their folly wandered at random in the pathless wastes of error, in the wilderness where there is no way."  (II, §5, p. 7) The sowing of tares in the first sentence is a reference to the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:25) and the wandering in the pathless wastes of error in the second sentence belongs to Psalm 107 (108 in Peter's Vulgate): "He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way".  Thus Satan, "the enemy of the faith", appears by allusion acting in the first sentence and God appears by subtext acting in the second.  An exegesis of the text in this kind of detail would be exhausting -- I use the above examples from the very beginning of Peter's story only to illustrate the effort he went to in the framing of his narrative as the action of divine providence.

This reframing of history into a story of God's judgement was not uncommon for clerical authors in this period, but in some cases the necessity to tell the tale in this way could override an author's faculties for critically evaluating matters of dubious credibility.  In the case of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, the disposition of his main character, God, is often illustrated by the numerous miracles which appear throughout his narrative.  This post will examine each of the miraculous events recounted by Peter and will speculate on the narrative uses for which these events were created or to which these events were put.

THE FIRST MIRACLE

The first appears in III, § 25, pp. 19-20 of the Historia, (that is, Part III, Section 25, found on pages 19 and 20 of the Siblys' edition) while our author is still recounting events before the crusade began:

"At this time a miracle occurred near Carcassonne, which I must not pass over.  Some heretics were harvesting their crops on the day of the nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June 1207] -- whom they said was not a prophet but a most evil man.  One of them looked at his hand and saw that the bundle of corn [i.e. "wheat"] he was holding was all bloody.  He thought he must have cut his hand, but then saw that his hand was in fact unhurt and called out to his companions, each of whom then examined the bundles they were holding and found that they were covered with blood -- but that their hands were unharmed.  Guy the venerable Abbot of les Vaux-de-Cernay, who was in the area at this time, himself saw the bloodied bundle of corn and told me the story."

The apparent quality of the source of this information is very good.  Our author has it from his uncle who was an eyewitness.  But what did our eyewitness actually see?  One bloodied bundle of corn is not itself unusual or worthy of observation.  Several bundles of corn are, especially if the blood did not come from any human or animal source, but it is interesting that Guy is only described as seeing one of them.  No source is given for the interesting points of the story -- that no one who was holding the bundles of corn were cut, and that they had been criticizing the saint on whose day they were harvesting.  The means by which these all-important details came to Peter must be left to speculation.

In his book "The War on Heresy", R. I. Moore discusses the appearance of medieval miracles and the reporting of them by monastic sources.  Memorably, he notes that "these things did not just happen.  People decided that they had happened.  This is the magic of small communities, later dismissed by the literate as superstition.  Through it distress is alleviated, quarrels resolved, norms of behaviour established and enforced."  The miracles described by Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay did not just happen.  In fact, many of them could certainly not have happened in the way described.   While blood appearing on bundles of corn seemed to Peter like a natural enough result of blasphemy, it is cannot be considered to be an historical event.  Either it was not miraculous and merely misinterpreted, or it was falsified.  As historians, we must understand events within the confines of secular reality and people's understanding of it.  We can posit that Peter believed a miracle to have occurred, but we cannot agree with him.  What we can see is that the belief that the miracle had occurred served Peter's narrative purpose.  In this case, we cannot know if heretics uttered blasphemy against St John the Baptist, and we have every reason to disbelieve that God showed a sign of his judgement upon them through the miraculous creation of blood upon the corn.  However, Peter's Historia here records that blasphemous heretics existed before the crusade and that God's judgement upon them had been clearly manifested.

THE SECOND MIRACLE

The next miracle which Peter reports occurs in III, § 54, pp. 29-30 and is perhaps one of the most famous miracles of the time, as it is alleged to have been worked by St Dominic, later founder of the Dominican order:

"At this time a miracle occurred which I think is worth recording at this point.  One day certain of our preachers, men of deep religious faith, were engaged in debate against the heretics.  One of our men, Dominic by name, a man of consummate piety, and a companion of the Bishop of Osma, put down in writing the authorities he had produced and handed the paper to a certain heretic so that they could discuss its contents.  That night when the heretics were gathered in a private house, sitting by the fire, the heretic to whom the man of God had given the paper produced it.  His companions suggested that he should throw it into the fire saying that if it burned it would prove that the faith of the heretics (he should have said 'faithlessness!') was true; if it remained untouched by the fire, they would admit that the faith preached by our men was true.  What more?  All agreed and the paper was thrown into the fire.  After staying in the middle of the fire for a little time it jumped out, totally untouched by the flames.  The watchers were astounded but one of them -- made of harder stuff than the rest -- said: 'Throw it in again so that we may make a more thorough test of the truth.'  It was thrown in again -- but again it jumped out, untouched by the fire.  Seeing this the hardened heretic, slow of heart to believe, said: 'Throw it in a third time, then we shall know the end of the matter beyond doubt.'  It was thrown in for the third time, but even then refused to burn, but jumped from the fire entire and unharmed.  Despite having witnessed these signs the heretics were still unwilling to be converted to the true faith but persisted in their obstinate belief and very strictly enjoined each other to make sure that the miracle should never come to the knowledge of our side through anyone reporting it.  However, a knight who was present and had some sympathy with our faith did not wish to hide what he had seen and told a great many people about it.  This happened at Montreal; I heard of it from that most pious man who passed the paper to the heretics."

Leaving aside for a moment the unusual incombustibility and agility of Dominic's paper, the aspect of this story which greatly strains the credulity of the reader is that a group of determined heretics would anticipate the possibility that the fire might miraculously leave the paper unburnt and say that if they indeed saw such a miracle it would convert them.  More than that, they seem to have been unimpressed by the paper jumping out of the flames by itself, singling out only its capacity for burning as a new test despite it jumping out twice more.

When it comes to the transmission of this event, if it occurred, to the author, Peter again gives his sources.  As the other witnesses had unfortunately sworn themselves to secrecy, the story went from an anonymous knight witness to an unnamed "great many people" to Dominic himself and then to our author.  Somewhere along that tortuous path, natural events somehow gained a supernatural aspect and the actions and words of the "heretics" arranged themselves to perfectly demonstrate both the miracle and their own obstinacy in the face of proof.

The transmission of the story, and the changes to it, did not end with Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay in this case.  The story was repeated again a decade later by Dominic's biographer Jordan of Saxony  (also now a saint) in his Libellus.  Perhaps uncomfortable with the many steps the story took between its one unnamed eyewitness and the chronicler, Jordan made it a public spectacle where Dominic's writings jumped three times out of the fire but heretical documents were consumed.  It is this later version, relocated to nearby Fanjeaux, which is now entrenched in Catholic dogma.  The Catholic encyclopedia, for instance, confirms this as one of the official miracles of the saint:

"It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if this athlete of Christ, who had conquered himself before attempting the reformation of others, was more than once chosen to show forth the power of God. The failure of the fire at Fanjeaux to consume the dissertation he had employed against the heretics, and which was thrice thrown into the flames; the raising to life of Napoleone Orsini; the appearance of the annals in the refectory of Saint Sixtus in response to his prayers, are but a few of the supernatural happenings by which God was pleased to attest the eminent holiness of His servant. We are not surprised, therefore, that, after signing the Bull of canonization on 13 July, 1234, Gregory IX declared that he no more doubted the saintliness of Saint Dominic than he did that of Saint Peter and Saint Paul."

Although some Catholic sources (http://www.op-stjoseph.org/hist-dom1.html) now attempt to rectify the two different stories by suggesting that two very similar miracles occurred, at both Montreal and Fanjeaux, this is patently unconvincing.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay wrote several years after the time period of the debates when either of these events would have occurred.  He says that he was told his version of the story by Dominic himself and, from what we know of Peter's and Dominic's activities, this is entirely plausible.  If Dominic had indeed worked the miracle twice, the miracle at Montreal, occurring in private and only revealed through word of mouth, would have been much less impressive than that at Fanjeaux, occurring in public in front of Dominic himself as well as three judges and a crowd of onlookers.  It would make little sense for Dominic to tell Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay of only the weaker and less attested incident, and surely Peter would not have recorded only the miracle at Montreal if he had heard of the miracle at Fanjeaux.  We are left with the conclusion that either Peter was lying when he said he heard this from Dominic and uninformed as to the famous incident at Fanjeaux, or that Jordan of Saxony embellished the relatively unconvincing miracle at Montreal, turning it into the now better-known miracle at Fanjeaux.

THE THIRD MIRACLE

In IV, § 79, p. 45, after discussing Raymond of Toulouse's penance by the tomb of the martyred legate, Peter of Castelnau, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay introduces another miracle.  From the Church's perspective it was to be expected that the martyrdom of such a holy man as the legate would be attended by miracles.  Indeed, Pope Innocent III seems to have been at some pains to explain why none were reported immediately around the time of his murder, as I noted in the post discussing Innocent's letter calling for the crusade.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay here begins to fill this vacuum:

"I must also note that when the martyr's body, which was at first entombed in the monks' cloister at Saint-Gilles, was after a long period transferred to the church proper, it was found to be as whole and unimpaired as if it had been buried that very day.  A marvellous perfume arose from his body and clothing."

Peter of Castelnau had been killed on January 14, 1208 and, while we do not know how much time passed during the "long period" before the transfer of his corpse, it was in its new resting place by the time of the Count of Toulouse's penance on June 18, 1209.  Forensic science puts the "whole and unimpaired" and marvellously scented condition of his body in the realm of the miraculous.

This time, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does not give any sources for confirmation of the miracle and indeed he only does so rarely for miraculous events from this point on.  The clergy at Saint-Gilles would have been involved in the transfer and it would doubtless have been in their best interests to promote any miracles of the martyr entombed in their church, where he remains to this day.  Peter of Castelnau was never canonized, but he is an official martyr of the church, who has an observed feast day within the Cistercian order on the anniversary of his death.  The purpose of the inclusion of this miracle story in the Historia Albigensis is likely to show God's confirmation of Peter of Castelnau's holiness, since he was a controversial figure in the Languedoc,  disliked for his high-handed excommunications of town consuls and suspensions and depositions of local bishops, run out of towns by their citizens, and well-known for fomenting open rebellion against Count Raymond of Toulouse. 

THE FOURTH MIRACLE

The event described in V, § 87, p. 49, more so than the previous three, could be explained by rational means without the need for a miracle.  The Siblys have labelled it as one of the described miracles and that is certainly a fair reading of the text.  Peter writes:

"One day a certain canon was leaving the great church of Beziers, after the celebration of Mass.  Hearing the noise of men working on the city's defenses he asked what it was.  Bystanders replied: 'The noise comes from men working on the ditches -- we are fortifying the city against the French who are coming here'; (this happened just when the arrival of the crusaders was imminent).  While this exchange was taking place, there appeared an old man of venerable years who said to them: 'You are defending the city against the crusaders, but who will be able to defend you from above?'  By this he meant that the Lord would be attacking them from Heaven.  Hearing this, they were extremely disturbed, but when they tried to attack the old man, he disappeared and was nowhere to be found."

Again, no source is attributed, although it could have been the canon, if indeed something like the event occurred.  Understood as a rhetorical question from an old man who then disappeared (perhaps around a corner) there is nothing miraculous about the story.  If the old man is understood, however, as a warning messenger from Heaven who vanished into thin air, then it is indeed a miracle.  Although it is always impossible to tell exactly which elements of a story are factual, which are embellished by witnesses or intermediate tale-tellers, and which invented by our author, it can be supposed that Peter did not invent this story completely and did, in fact, record it as it was told to him by someone else.  Otherwise he could have had the old man make the point of his remark more clearly, without Peter needing to explicate it for his audience.

This story appears in the Historia just after some examples of the sin and wickedness of the people of Beziers and just before the account of their slaughter.  Like Arnau Amalric and Caesarius of Heisterbach, when they told this story, Peter found it necessary to stress that the inhabitants of Beziers had been warned that they would be killed if they opposed the crusade, but that they ignored warnings and so earned their fate.

THE FIFTH MIRACLE

In V, § 97, pp. 53-54 another event with a plausible mundane explanation is presented, although in this case Peter is quite clear as to how it should be understood.  He is here describing the siege of Carcassonne:

"There was a particular feature of this siege which should not be passed over, and which must indeed be regarded as a great miracle.  It was said that the number of men in the army was as great as five hundred thousand.  However, our enemies had destroyed all the mills around the city, so that our men were unable to obtain bread except from a few of the neighbouring castra; and yet there was such an abundance of bread that it was still being sold for a very modest price.  For this reason the heretics said that the Abbot of Citeaux was a wizard and had brought in demons in the shape of men, because it seemed to them that our men were not eating."

William of Tudela also describes the plentiful provisioning of the crusading army at this stage and mentions that the supply of bread was so abundant that he notes the exceptional price to which Peter alludes -- thirty loaves for a penny.  William continues that the locals who were selling this bread to the crusaders recouped some of their losses by selling them salt as well.  William reports nothing miraculous in this.

Indeed, it is perhaps the strangest feature of this "great miracle" in the Historia that the only persons attributing anything supernatural to the bread surplus in the story itself are "the heretics".  Since Peter is obviously not indicating that Arnau Amalric was a wizard or that the crusaders were fasting demons, it is the disparity between the size of the army (a half-million men) and the sources of provisioning (a few local estates) to which he attributes the miracle.  It shows the contrast between Peter's story and William's that one sees divine intervention where the other sees prudent logistics.

THE SIXTH MIRACLE

The Siblys do not mark the divine intervention recorded in V, § 103, p. 56 as a miracle, but it does not appear that Peter wished it to be interpreted as a wild coincidence, but rather as a relevant instance of God revealing his intentions.  This concerns a drawing of the Sortes Sanctorum, a form of divination in which the diviner seeks answers in a randomly-selected passage of scripture.  The tradition of bibliomancy in Catholic mysticism dates back at least as far as Augustine of Hippo, whose divination effected his conversion to Christianity and was still in practice during the time period of the Albigensian crusade, since Francis of Assisi used it in 1208 and was convinced to give away all his possessions to take up a life of preaching.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay includes a use of the Sortes Sanctorum which confirmed the role of Simon de Montfort in the crusade:

"Here I must turn to an event, well worth recording, which occurred a little earlier in France in relation to the Count of Montfort.  One day the venerable abbot of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Guy (whom I have referred to earlier and who was doing everything in his power to advance the business of the faith in the struggle against heresy) came to the Count from the Duke of Burgundy with a letter from the Duke in which he begged Simon to take up arms with him in the army of Jesus Christ against the heretics and to become his ally.  His request was accompanied by substantial gifts and more were promised if Simon would agree.  It happened that when the Abbot came from the Duke he found the Count in the church of Rochefort, a castrum in his domains, engaged on certain business.  The Abbot called him aside to show him the Duke's letter; and as the Count was crossing the chancel, by some divine inspiration he picked up a psaltery which he found on a desk and opened it.  Placing his finger on the first line he said to the Abbot: 'Explain this text to me.'  The passage was: 'For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.  They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.'  Subsequent events demonstrated most clearly that this occurrence resulted from the intervention of Divine Providence."

The psalm which de Montfort supposedly found in the psaltery is Psalm 91, well known for the memorable phrase "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day" and indeed Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay will go on to recount many later situations in which de Montfort was nearly killed but remained, through divine providence, the "most invincible of men".  De Montfort's invincibility, in Peter's Historia, is a divine gift bestowed so that he can expedite "the business of the faith" in the Languedoc.  Simon de Montfort proved quite resistant to sword, spear, lance, bolt and arrow and, in fact, was only finally killed in battle by the rather overwhelming force of a large stone from a siege engine striking him in the head.  The Anonymous will record the trauma of such an injury in realistic terms as "shattering his eyes, brains, back teeth, forehead and jaw."  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay will record that after being struck, "twice beating his breast he commended his soul to God and the Blessed Virgin."  After confirming that Simon died as God's "most glorious martyr", Peter will draw his tale to a close only a few short laisses after his death.

THE SEVENTH MIRACLE

After singing the praises of Simon de Montfort and recounting his election at Carcassonne as leader of the crusade, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay now has his hero for the rest of his story.  What happened immediately after the election, however, appears rather as the bickering of warlords with bruised egos than the furtherance of a divine plan of action.  The Duke of Burgundy, de Montfort's erstwhile patron, had a falling out with the Count of Nevers.  As they were the two most important lords in the crusade at the time, and had each brought many men with him, this proved most unfortunate for the army.  Once the Duke of Burgundy's man was made leader of the whole force, the Count of Nevers had had enough and left the crusade, returning to France with "most of the crusaders".  Such a blow to the holy war, immediately after the "athlete of Christ" had assumed command by divine appointment endangers the coherence of Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's narrative about God's plan.  He explains, in V, §§ 108 and 109, pp. 59-60:

"After the election of the Count of Montfort by the process described above, the Abbot of Citeaux and the Count approached the Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Nevers, begging them to prolong their stay with the crusaders in the service of Jesus Christ. ... However, the Count of Nevers would not listen to any pleas and returned home forthwith.  In fact he and the Duke did not get on well together, but also that enemy of peace, the Devil, aroused such mutual hostility between them that every day there was concern that they might kill each other; and it was believed by our people that there was a lack of good will on the part of the Count of Nevers towards the Count of Montfort because the latter was on good terms with the Duke of Burgundy and had come with him from France.

What inveterate hatred of the Inveterate Enemy, who saw with invidious eyes the success of the business of Jesus Christ and made it his purpose to impede what he grieved to see succeed!  The army of crusaders present at the siege of Carcassonne was so large and strong that had they wished to go further and work together to attack the enemies of the true faith, they would have met with no resistance and could quickly have taken possession of the whole territory; but (so far as human reasoning can understand matters) Heavenly Providence decreed otherwise, and, looking to the salvation of the human race, wished the conquest of the territory to be reserved for sinners.  The Lord in His compassion did not wish this most holy war to be ended quickly, but rather to afford the opportunity for sinners to win pardon and for the righteous to attain a higher state of grace; I affirm that He wished His enemies to be subdued gradually and progressively, so that as sinners gradually and progressively took up arms to avenge the wrong done to Jesus Christ, the prolongation of the war would prolong the opportunity for them to gain pardon."

Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay overcomes the challenge which actual events presented to his narrative only by the most overworked rhetoric, involving the Devil appearing to drive the action of major nobles, and modifying his view of God's plan for the crusade, so that it had always been intended to be a difficult affair.  Peter would only go on to record the first nine years out of twenty years of near-constant warfare over the Languedoc, but even the sections he did recall were full of reverses of fortune for his hero and, thus, the action of Providence needed to be described in complex terms.  This first major impediment to the crusading effort, which could in no way be attributed to the heretics, is therefore the first which causes Peter to doubt the theme of his narrative.  For the first time, he acknowledges that he can only describe Providence "so far as human reasoning can understand matters".

THE EIGHTH MIRACLE

The events of V, § 113, pp. 62-63 are a return from incidents of divine intervention in human decision-making to actual supernatural events, and Peter once again introduces them explicitly as a "miracle".  After the successful sieges of Beziers and Carcassonne, Count Simon has just accepted the submission of Castres and taken possession of it:

"A miracle occurred at this place in the Count's presence which I do not wish to pass over.  Two heretics were brought before the Count, one a 'perfected' heretic and the other a sort of 'novice' and a disciple of the first one.  After taking counsel the Count decided that they should be burnt.  The second heretic -- the disciple -- was seized with heartfelt grief; he began to show contrition and promised that he would freely forswear heresy and obey the Holy Roman Church in all things.  A heated discussion arose amongst our people when they heard this; some said that now that he was prepared to do what we had told him to do, he ought not to be condemned to die; others maintained that on the contrary he deserved death, arguing that it was plain that he had been a heretic and that the promises he was now making owed more to his fear of impending death than to his desire to follow the Christian religion.  What more?  The Count agreed that he should be burnt, taking the view that if his contrition was genuine, the fire would serve to expiate his sins; if he was lying, he would receive a just reward for his perfidy.  Both heretics were then tied with strong chains round their legs, middle and neck, and their hands were fastened behind them.  The man who appeared to be repenting was then asked in what faith he wished to meet his death.  He said: 'I forswear the evil of heresy.  I wish to die in the faith of the Holy Roman Church, and I pray that this fire will serve for me instead of purgatory.'  A fire was lit around the stake, and burned vigorously.  The 'perfected' heretic was consumed by the flames instantly; but the other quickly broke the strong chains that bound him and escaped from the fire so unharmed that he showed no sign of injury from the flames except that the tips of his fingers were slightly scorched."

This is the first burning which is recounted by Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay and the miracle described is perhaps the least telling part of the narrative.  The debate "amongst our people" is interesting as it shows that there was still no means available to determine the guilt of an individual accused of heresy.  Mere promises of orthodoxy and obedience were not sufficient for many and, indeed, not for Simon de Montfort.  The idea which Peter attributes to the crusader that the burning alive of a genuinely contrite prisoner "would serve to expiate" his supposed former sins is a peculiarly brutal one, and when God intervenes in the story, it is to release the prisoner with only the most minor of injuries.  He was, after all, not innocent but only repentant.  It is difficult to determine whether Peter meant for his audience to form an opinion on Simon de Montfort's form of justice based on this story.  Certainly, Count Simon's decision to execute the prisoner seems to have been overturned by God's miracle which allowed him to escape the flames.  Peter does not recount anyone's reaction to the miracle, nor the fate of the prisoner after his reprieve from his ordeal.

R. I. Moore, in the "The War on Heresy" notes examples from the 12th century in which ordeal by water was used to judge heresy.  The accused would be bound in chains and submerged in a body of water.  In the cases Moore cites, ones who floated were "rejected by the water" and thus convicted of heresy.  Moore points out that whether the accused floated or sank could be more subjective than sources were prone to describe and that the ordeal may thus have been a format in which a community could determine guilt or innocence based on how they chose to interpret the outcome. 

Several years after the burnings at Castres, Pope Innocent III would move away from ordeals by fire and water at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.  Although he did not forbid the ordeals, he forbade priests to be involved in them, as the Church moved towards better controlled means of determining guilt and innocence.  At the time of this miracle, however, such ordeals had not been legislated against and there was no obstacle to Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay seeing God's judgement rendered in whether an accused person was injured or not by fire.  Perhaps this is an explanation of his inclusion of this miracle.  Although he does not explicitly frame the incident as an ordeal by fire, perhaps Peter wished to tell it in such a way that Simon's decision to burn the prisoner appeared only as condemning him to an ordeal and that the fire did indeed "expiate his sins" with God determining that the extent of injury needed was only minor.

THE NINTH MIRACLE

The southern knight, Giraud de Pepieux, who had initially gone over to the crusaders' side and had developed good relations with Simon de Montfort broke with him, sometime around the end of 1209.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay states that Giraud "became a despicable traitor and a cruel enemy of the faith.  Denying God, forswearing his given word and unmindful of the favours he had received and the affection shown to him, he rejected the Count's friendship and the promises of fealty he had given.  Even if he no longer had God and His faith in mind, he should surely have been turned from such cruelty by the kindness the Count had shown him."

As is often the case, Peter attributes human action to divine principles here, where other sources include better explanations.   Where Peter has Giraud turning against Simon for no other reason than his decision to deny God, William of Tudela recounts a different reason for Giraud's decision.  A crusading Frenchman had killed Giraud's uncle -- a rash act which must have made Giraud's fury predictable, since Simon de Montfort had the offender buried alive in an unsuccessful attempt to appease him. 

Giraud captured the castle of Puisserguier which Simon's forces had held.  Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay claims that Giraud promised the captured knights and sergeants of Puisserguier that he would not harm them and would take them to Narbonne.  Count Simon, hearing of the defection of Giraud and the loss of the castle, mustered troops from Narbonne, who marched with him but then refused to besiege Puisserguier and went home again, leaving Simon to deal with Giraud "almost alone" according to Peter.  Count Simon then retreated for the day to a nearby fortification with the intention of returning at dawn.  VI, § 126, p. 70 continues:

"There occurred, however, a miracle at Puisserguier which I must not omit from my narrative.  After Giraud had come to the place and captured it, he made little of his promise to conduct his prisoners unharmed to Narbonne but imprisoned the Count's sergeants he had captured -- up to fifty in number -- in the keep.  However, on the night the Count left the castrum Giraud became afraid that the Count would return next morning to besiege it and fled in the middle of the night.  Since he was in too great a hurry to take with him the men he had imprisoned, he put them into the ditch surrounding the keep and had straw, fire, stones and anything else that came to hand thrown on top of them, until he believed they must be dead.  Then he left taking with him the Count's two knights whom he had captured, and went to Minerve.  What appalling treason!  At daybreak the Count returned to the place, found it empty, and destroyed it.  The men imprisoned in the ditch by Giraud, who had starved for three days, were found to be unhurt and unaffected by the fire, and the Count had them pulled out.  What a great miracle, what an unprecedented event."

Peter fails to explain why the fifty men did not leave the ditch themselves overnight before being "pulled out" by the Count's men.  Perhaps the description or translation of "imprisoned in the ditch" leaves something to be desired which would help to explain this, so I won't speculate on it further here.

William of Tudela notes only that Giraud "went and burned down a rich castle [Puisserguier] belonging to him [Count Simon].  If he had been found there, I think he would have paid for it dearly."  William does not mention the miraculous survival of the garrison, but agrees with Peter that Giraud started a fire.  In William's version, Giraud destroys a castle which he takes from de Montfort but knows he cannot keep.  In Peter's version, Giraud leaves the castle empty and de Montfort destroys it, despite having wanted to keep and garrison it before.  This makes little sense, especially if the garrison had turned out to be unharmed.  William's story, then, seems the more credible of the two, while Peter's avoids describing Simon de Montfort making a mistake (by withdrawing for the night) which cost him a valuable castle.

THE TENTH MIRACLE

After the loss of Puisserguier, the next several laisses describe a series of setbacks for the crusade.  Giraud mutilates the two knights he has taken prisoner and sends them back to Carcassonne.  "This", writes Peter, "was the beginning of sorrows".  The troops in Carcassonne "were at that time in a state of great depression" and "had almost abandoned hope and could think only of flight".  A Cistercian abbot and two monks are murdered.  (The murderer, Peter notes, was killed much later at the siege of Toulouse, thereby receiving divine retribution.  "A just judgment indeed!")

Serious military setbacks follow.  Castres revolts and imprisons the crusader garrison.  Lombers does the same immediately after.  The fierce Count of Foix breaks with de Montfort and attacks Preixan.  In VI, § 135, p. 73-74, as another setback occurs, both the Devil and God reappear to take control of events.  The French clerk left to hold Montreal, "corrupted by the Devil's influence and worse than any infidel" hands the castrum back to its lord, Aimeric.

"However, the Divine judgment of God, the righteous Judge, intervened, and shortly afterwards our Count took a castrum near Montreal called Bram and there captured the clerk together with other adversaries of the faith.  The Count then arranged for him to be degraded by the Bishop of Carcassonne, and had him dragged by a horse through the city of Carcassonne and hanged -- a fitting penalty for his crime."

God's intervention allowed de Montfort only to inflict this horrific punishment and a further, much more famous and more horrible, act of terror.  At the leader of the crusade's orders, his men "put out the eyes of the defenders, over a hundred in number and cut off their noses.  One man was spared one eye so that, as a demonstration of our contempt for our enemies, he could lead the others to Cabaret.  The Count had this punishment carried out not because such mutilation gave him any pleasure but because his opponents had been the first to indulge in atrocities and, cruel executioners that they were, were given to butchering any of our men they might capture by dismembering them.  It was right that they should fall into the pit they had dug themselves and drink from time to time of the cup they so often administered to others.  The Count never took delight in cruelty or in the torture of his enemies."

De Montfort's infamous cruelty at Bram could better be explained as an act of desperation by a leader whose own troops were demoralized and who found himself surrounded by enemies who were rapidly losing their fear of him.  It has also been seen as an act of retaliation for the two knights mutilated by Giraud de Pepieux.  Peter seems about to give an explanation for the atrocity, but then retreats to pointing out that the southerners had been "the first to indulge in atrocities".  His protests that de Montfort experienced no sadistic delight in having this act carried out, perhaps speaks to a more common contemporary perception of the "athlete of Christ".

Despite the opportunity to torture and hang a clerk and mutilate a hundred defenders, Bram had no natural defenses and little military value.  Since things started to go wrong after Puisserguier, Peter has attributed divine intervention only to the fates of two individuals, one of whom received his just deserts years after the events being narrated at this point.  Simon's military fortunes were about to change, however, and so Peter has God reappear:

"Then the Lord, who seemed perhaps to have been asleep, rose up to help His servants and could now be seen more clearly to do great things for us.  In a short space of time we gained the whole region of Minerve save Minerve itself and a castrum known as Ventajou."

 In order to demonstrate this new activity on the part of God, Peter immediately introduces another miracle....