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 theWhen 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.
Lord who had wrought great wonders through His people and brought about victory over His enemies".
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 |
"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."
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment