THE HOSTAGE SON IN THE PRIMARY SOURCES
During the first season of the Albigensian Crusade, Count Raymond-Roger of Foix negotiated a peace treaty of some sort with Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade. At this point, the crusade had mostly targeted the lands of the young Viscount Trencavel and the peace treaty was reached just as the crusading forces turned on Preixan, part of the holdings of the Count of Foix. Raymond-Roger of Foix had not yet become a major military and political opponent of the crusade at this point and presumably wished to avoid becoming one. As a pledge, he gave his son to Simon de Montfort, to be held as a hostage.We are told of this event by both contemporary major sources, William of Tudela's Canso and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay's Historia Albigensis. William of Puylaurens' Chronicle, probably written a half-century later, makes no mention of it. The information provided in these two sources is scant, comprising one sentence each.
William of Tudela wrote in the Canso (Laisse 41, pp. 29-30):
He [Simon de Montfort] now reached a settlement with the count of Foix, who voluntarily gave him his youngest son as a hostage.Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay wrote in the Historia Albigensis (V, § 120, p.66):
Whilst the siege [of Preixan] was still going on the Count of Foix came to the Count and swore to stand by the orders of the Church in all things and gave his son to the Count as a hostage; in addition he handed over the castrum under siegeBoth chroniclers noted that the peace agreement fell through shortly afterwards, although neither commented further on the hostage or his fate. Modern historians, however, have expressed a clear knowledge of who this hostage was. This post attempts to trace the source of this knowledge and questions whether it is based on sound assumptions.
THE CURRENT CONSENSUS
First, the English translators of the two sources, above, provide their opinions.
Janet Shirley in The Song of the Cathar Wars, a translation of the Canso in her footnote (3) to the passage quoted above (p. 29):
Raymond Roger, count of Foix, died March 1223. His youngest son's name was Aimery.
W. A. Sibly and M. D. Sibly in The History of the Albigensian Crusade, a translation of the Historia Albigensis in their footnote (121) to the passage quoted above (p. 66):
This submission by Count Raymond-Roger of Foix is also reported in the Chanson, I, 41, p. 100, where it is specified that it was the Count's youngest son Aimeric who was given as a hostage.
Now both of these footnotes are interesting. Shirley does not provide her source for knowing that the "youngest son" mentioned by William of Tudela was "Aimery", although it is likely revealed by her previous sentence as we shall see later. Sibly & Sibly provide their source for knowing that the son was "Aimeric" although they claim this is mentioned in the Canso (or Chanson in French) although it is not -- neither contemporary author provided the son's name. William of Tudela, in the Canso, merely provides the helpful information that it is the Count of Foix's youngest son who was given as a hostage.
Many historians of the crusade do not discuss the hostageship of Raymond-Roger of Foix's son, probably because the lack of any knowledge of the resolution raises more questions than can be satisfactorily answered. One of the historians who does mention it, Mark Pegg in A Most Holy War (p. 98), has identified the same son as the translators did:
Raimon Roger de Foix -- stunned, staggered -- surrendered the castle, gave his son Aimericas as a hostage, and sued for peace.
A third historian and a third rendition of the hostage son's name, but we are left no wiser as to where the information came from. The identification of Aimery/Aimeric/Aimericas with the "youngest son" mentioned by William of Tudela would be a simple matter if we had a contemporary source listing the sons of the count of Foix, but to my knowledge, such a source does not exist. We must delve into the existing sources for clues.
THE SONS OF FOIX IN THE PRIMARY SOURCES
The children of the count of Foix are, of course, sometimes mentioned in the primary sources. Raymond-Roger of Foix was a formidable warrior who, again and again, led forces against the crusaders. None of the contemporary chroniclers could avoid mentioning him repeatedly and, as a famous opponent of the crusaders, he drew special criticism from Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay. It is as much a reflection of Raymond-Roger's prowess as author's fanaticism when Peter calls him the crusade's "most monstrous persecutor". Peter even spares no fewer than 13 sections of his text (§§ 197 - 209, pp. 103-7) as an aside on "the barbarity and malignity of the Count of Foix, although I could not possibly deal adequately with a hundredth part of it". The enormity of Raymond-Roger's evils would have formed a full text larger than Peter's entire account of the crusade, such was the impression this doughty warlord made upon the young monk.
As for Raymond-Roger's children, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay makes regular mention of Roger-Bernard of Foix in the Historia Albigensis, always introducing him as the son of the count of Foix, and often adding that he was his father's equal in evil. In § 219, p. 113, Peter provides a memorable example, after recounting how Raymond-Roger of Foix, his son Roger-Bernard, and various knights slaughtered a contingent of crusaders in their lands:
It must also be recorded that whilst these executioners were engaged in the slaughter of the crusaders, one crusader who was a priest took refuge in a nearby church, intending, since he was dying for the Church, to meet his death in a church. However, that most evil betrayer Roger-Bernard, the son of the Count of Foix, whose depravity in no way fell short of his father's, followed the priest, insolently into the church, approached him and asked him what sort of man he was. He replied: 'I am a crusader and a priest.' Said the executioner: 'Prove to me that you are a priest.' The priest removed his cowl from his head (he was wearing his cloak) and showed him his clerical tonsure. His cruel attacker showed no respect for the holy place or the holy man; he raised the sharp lancet which he held and struck a fierce blow through the centre of the priest's tonsure, murdering the Church's minister in the church. Let us now return to where we left off.
Roger-Bernard was the son who succeeded his father as count of Foix in 1223 and may thus be safely assumed to be the eldest. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay makes no other mention of sons, except the unnamed son whom he mentions was given as a hostage. Peter is not the one who mentions this was a "youngest" son, but merely says that the count gave "his son" as hostage. If he were our only source, we would know of no sons other than Roger-Bernard.
William of Puylaurens, in his Chronicle, also regularly mentions count Raymond-Roger of Foix, his son and successor, Roger-Bernard, and his son and successor, Roger. However, he makes no mention of any other children. As mentioned previously, William of Puylaurens makes no mention of the hostageship.
The Canso, by contrast, is a richer source on the subject. William of Tudela, who begins the Canso, references the count of Foix repeatedly, as he is an important figure in that narrative, but always by title only (i.e. as "the count of Foix") and never by name. William, of course, is our source for the "youngest son" identification of the hostage. He also references "his son Roger Bernard" at one point in Laisse 102 (p.53) in a description of a battle in which Simon de Montfort defeated the count of Foix:
Eager to strike hard, his drawn sword in his hand, the count de Montfort spurred into battle along the trodden way, his men at full gallop behind him. All he could find he killed and took and slew. The wretched mercenaries and misbelievers were so terrified at the sight that they could do nothing to help themselves. Only the count of Foix fought back, and his shield was split and his sword notched from all the blows he had struck. His son Roger Bernard broke through the throng and so did the knight Sir Porada who wielded a heavy mace; and Sir Isarn of Puylaurens was in the thick of the fight. There they were, they and the other dispossessed knights, plucking the stork and dealing out mortal blows. If the others had done as much, the battle would not have been so quickly lost nor Foix and his men defeated; that is my own opinion.
Much as we might wish to know what "plucking the stork" was, it appears to be an Occitan idiom which did not survive to the modern day. Presumably, it was something valiant.
Also, in Laisse 125 (p. 62) William of Tudela reports that "the son of the count of Foix" led knights to hold Montauban. This son is not identified but assumed to also be Roger Bernard by the translator. The event is not recorded in other sources. Although the might of Raymond-Roger and Roger-Bernard seemed to impress William of Tudela, these are the only references to sons of Raymond-Roger of Foix in William of Tudela's part of the Canso. The only member of the house of Foix whom William identifies by name is Roger-Bernard. The Anonymous Continuator who provided the second part of the Canso, however, was much more familiar with the count of Foix and his children.
The Anonymous began his part of the Canso with the decisive battle of Muret at which King Pedro II of Aragon was defeated, along with the counts of Toulouse, Foix and Comminges, by the death-defying, all-or-nothing charge of Simon de Montfort and his knights. Shortly thereafter, the Canso tells how the counts of Toulouse fled into exile until the Fourth Lateran Council convened, at which count Raymond-Roger of Foix spoke eloquently and at length to defend his rights in the Languedoc, and was ultimately successful in having his surrendered castle restored. He then fades out of the story until the siege of Toulouse where he returns to provide support to his allies, the counts of Toulouse.
The heir of Raymond-Roger, the future count Roger-Bernard of Foix, was the Anonymous' patron, "who gave me gold and glory", and he reappears in the story only shortly before his father, holding a castle against the crusaders and later giving sound advice to the counts of Toulouse. The count Raymond-Roger himself had recovered his castle from the Pope on condition of not making war on the crusaders and seems to have obeyed until 1219, although the promise seems not to have extended to his son or sons. Perhaps the patronage of Roger-Bernard influenced the Anonymous' perspective, but Roger-Bernard appears in the Canso to have played a major role in the long defense of Toulouse from the siege laid by Simon de Montfort from the fall of 1217 to the winter of 1218.
By the time the siege of Toulouse began, Roger-Bernard seems to have been leading the men of Foix himself. The Anonymous describes the events of the first bloody conflict of the siege in Laisse 188, p. 133, immediately following Simon de Montfort's brother Guy being brought down by a crossbow bolt:
'Toulouse!', they shouted, as they saw pride take a fall, 'Comminges!' for the count, 'Foix!' for Sir Roger Bernard, 'La Barta!' for Sir Esparch and 'St Béat!' for Sir Odo. 'Montégut!' they cried, 'La Isla! Montaut! Montpezat!'
Now with these warcries, every man is engaged. Sharp fly the javelins, the lances and feathered quarrels between the opposing sides, fast the inlaid spears, the rocks, shafts, arrows, squared staves, spear-hafts and sling-stones, dense as fine rain, darkening the clear skies. How many armed knights you'd have seen there, how many good shields cleft, what ribs laid bare, heads cut in two, what blood spilled, what severed fists, how many men fighting and others struggling to carry away one they'd seen fall! Such wounds, such injuries they suffered, that they strewed the battlefield with red and white.
While his father is shown as providing counsel as well as moral and military support before withdrawing to his home in Foix, Roger Bernard is depicted in the thick of battle during Simon de Montfort's repeated assaults on the city.
In Laisse 195, pp. 148-150, the Anonymous recounts a sortie by the forces of Toulouse into the crusaders' camp. Roger Bernard of Foix does not seem to have been involved in this attack, since the Anonymous seemed happy to elaborate on his other acts of heroism, but he was not named here. Simon de Montfort led a counter-charge against the Toulousain forces which, in turn, was driven back by further reinforcements from the town. The Anonymous recounted the aftermath:
When the fighting was done, many were sorrowful. The defenders lost, wounded, William Peter of Maurens, the Wolf of Foix and many other men in that dangerous garden on the field of Montoulieu where red and white bloom fresh every day, where blood, brains, flesh and hacked off limbs are the flowers, the leaf and the dolorous fruit for whose sake so many fair eyes are full of tears.
In a footnote (2) to the mention of "the Wolf of Foix" in this section, the translator Janet Shirley elaborates: "Son of Raymond Roger, count of Foix, not named in his will, probably illegitimate". The source of her information, again, is not referenced, but another son of the count of Foix has been discovered. He apparently recovered from his wounds because he reappears with his brother and father after the siege of Toulouse when the count of Foix campaigns against the scattering crusaders in 1219, in the wake of the death of Simon de Montfort. (Laisse 210, pp. 181):
Now let us leave this savage and deadly siege and speak of the good count who is lord of Sabartès [i.e. Raymond-Roger of Foix] , of Roger Bernard and the Wolf of Foix, these three. With them were Bernard Amiel lord of Pailhès, William Bernard of Arnave and Sir Isarn Jordan, Sir Robert of Tinhes with men from the Carcassès, Raymond Arnold of Le Pech, and Sir Aimery too, as well as Sir William of Niort and Jordan of Cabaret. All these rode with the count of Foix into the Lauragais, where they seized cows and oxen, villeins and peasants. Then they reached Baziège and quartered themselves there.
It is tempting to identify the "Sir Aimery" mentioned in the list of companions with the Aimery the historians have posited as the hostage son of the count of Foix, but it seems unlikely given that Raymond Roger, Roger Bernard, and Wolf are presented first as a family unit, "these three" and Sir Aimery appears almost as an afterthought among a list of lesser companions. The translator, Janet Shirley, tentatively identifies this Aimery in footnote (1) as "Aimery, probably from Clermont-sur-Lauquet (Aude), dispossessed; excommunicated 1242 for helping Trencavel". Her reasoning is not provided. The name was not an uncommon one -- the Canso mentions at various times seven men by that name, hailing from different places. The Anonymous presumably expected his local audience to know to whom he referred.
Shortly after the count of Foix rode out on this campaign, he was joined by the younger Raymond of Toulouse and they fought the crusaders, under Foucaud of Berzy, in battle at Baziège. The Wolf of Foix is mentioned again, urging the young Raymond of Toulouse to ride out immediately to meet the enemy. He does, and a fierce battle ensues. The French stand firm but take heavy losses until a momentary regrouping is called for. The Anonymous describes in Laisse 211, p. 186:
Now the count of Foix shouted: 'Rein in! Rein in!' and Sir Foucaud of Berzy: 'Free knights, stand firm!' Sir Evrard, Sir Amaury and Sir Theobald rode together, Sir John of Bouillon and Sir James knee to knee. With the viscount of Lautrec who had entered the melee and the French, these took their stand on the field.
Chatbert, Sir Aimery and good Roger Bernard, the Wolf of Foix and Sir William of Niort (now wounded), Bernard Amiel, young William Bernard, and Sir Amalvis with famous Sir Hugh of La Mota and the men of Toulouse, fired by their anger -- all these and the count's own men united to make a single charge and with sharp steel they cut deep into the French array. They rode around and outflanked them, they struck and wounded them on chests and sides and down they flung the Frenchmen and unhorsed them two at a time.
Now all together sergeants entered the battle to kill the fallen. Steel flashed on steel, on overthrown and beaten men; knights and sergeants struggled, and they slashed, slew and finished them. Eyes, brain-matter, hands, arms, scalps and jaw-bones, bits of limbs, livers and guts sliced up and tossed about, blood, flesh and carrion lay everywhere. Red was the battlefield and red the riverbank, heaped with dead Frenchmen. The viscount of Lautrec, however, escaped with his life. Sir Foucaud, Sir John and Sir Theobald surrendered and were kept, but the rest lay slaughtered on the battlefield.
It is tempting again to identify the Sir Aimery of the second paragraph with the youngest son of the count of Foix, especially as he is mentioned this time along with Roger Bernard and the Wolf. However, Chatbert (identified by the translator as Chatbert of Barbaira, a dispossessed knight) is mentioned first, making it unlikely that this list is provided in order of importance or in family groupings. We must remember that the Anonymous was writing in verse and had considerations of meter and rhyme when ordering his lists of names.
The rejoicing of the count of Foix and his sons at this victory was to be short-lived because soon afterwards Prince Louis led a formidable French army into the Languedoc, massacred the people of Marmande and marched on Toulouse. It is in preparation for this new siege of Toulouse that the Canso ends and makes its final mention of any of the sons of the count of Foix. In Laisse 214, p. 192, the Anonymous lists various lords and knights who take positions within the city and gives the position of Roger Bernard of Foix:
Good Sir Roger Bernard, a man of sense, valour and knowledge, who brings comfort to those who suffer loss, he with Sir Bernard Amiel, always in the lead, Jordan of Cabaret and Sir Chatbert, strong in defence, and Sir Aimery of Roca Negada, is the noble keeper of the Crosses barbican.
Now all of the companions listed with Roger Bernard in this section, the last mention of any of the household of Foix in the Canso, had appeared with him earlier in the season in the two passages quoted above. It is strange, therefore, that the translator, Janet Shirley, does not identify the Sir Aimery in those two passages with the Sir Aimery of Roca Negada in this one. Nonetheless, whether one assumes that it was Sir Aimery of Roca Negada, here, or Sir Aimery of Clermont-sur-Lauquet, as Shirley speculates, it seems clear that it was not the Aimery of Foix whom Shirley states was the "youngest son" given as a hostage.
We now have exhausted the three major primary sources for the Albigensian crusade in our examination of the sons of the count of Foix. We have found another son of Raymond-Roger, the engagingly named "the Wolf" ("le Loup" in French and "el Lobs" in Occitan), but no references to any other sons. The lack of answers in the sources leaves us with unanswered questions about the statements from modern historians. Why does Janet Shirley state that the Wolf was "probably illegitimate"? Where, then, does Aimery, Aimeri, or Aimericas of Foix, referenced by modern historians, come from? What else do modern historians know about the family tree of Foix, and from where did they draw their information?
FAMILY TREES IN THE MODERN HISTORIANS
 |
| from Elaine Graham-Leigh, The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade, p. xx |
 |
| from Mark Pegg, A Most Holy War, p. xxv |
AN INFLUENTIAL EDITION
From where have these three historians drawn their information? This appears to be revealed by the Siblys' misattribution of the information to William of Tudela's Canso, which they erroneously claim identifies Aimery as the hostage. The version of the Canso which the Siblys cite is the French La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, edited and translated by Eugène Martin-Chabot, who provides the definitive modern rendering of the Occitan text alongside his French translation and copious notes. This is the edition used by most scholars. I quote the Shirley edition in this blog because it has the benefit of being in English. In their introductions, both the Siblys (translators of the Historia Albigensis) and Shirley (translator of the Canso) acknowledge their debts to Martin-Chabot, both for his edition of the Occitan and for his insightful interpretations.
Looking at William of Tudela's passage describing the hostage on p. 101 of Martin-Chabot's definitive French edition, we see the following footnote (3):
Raimond-Roger, qui vécut jusqu'au mois de mars 1223; les conditions de cette paix sont résumeés dans Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay (chap. xxv, § 120), qui n'as pas spécifié lequel de ses fils le comte remit en otage; d'après Guillaume de Tudèle, ce fut le cadet, nommé Aimeri (cf. Histoire de Languedoc, t. VII, p. 68)
My rough translation of this footnote into English is:
Raymond-Roger, who lived until the month of March 1223; the conditions of this peace were summed up in Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay (chap. xxv, § 120), who did not specify which of his sons the count gave as a hostage; following William of Tudela, this was the youngest, named Aimeri (cf. Histoire de Languedoc, t. VII, p. 68)
Of course, with a fourth historian we have found a fourth version of the young man's name. We may also note that the format of this footnote -- reporting that Raymond-Roger died in March 1223 and then adding that his youngest son's name was Aimeri -- is duplicated in shorter form by Janet Shirley in her footnote to the same passage, so presumably she is also following Martin-Chabot in this identification. Fortunately, Martin-Chabot provided a source for his conclusion that the son was named Aimeri.
DOM VAISETTE'S 18th CENTURY COLLECTION
The Histoire de Languedoc (or L'Histoire générale de Languedoc) is an 18th century compendium of documents by the Benedictine monk Dom Joseph Vaisette. Its third volume, which includes those documents most relevant to the Albigensian crusade, was published in 1736. The series was re-edited in the 19th century and expanded to include additional sources. It is not copyrighted and can be found on Google Books and other places online. For volume VII, see: https://archive.org/details/histoiregnra07viccuoft. The page cited by Martin-Chabot contains a discussion of the sons of the count of Foix, in which we find:
My rough translation into English:
Raymond-Roger did not make mention in his testament of the month of May 1222 but of two of his sons and of one daughter, to wit: of Roger-Bernard II, his oldest son, whom he made his heir, and who had, by then, been married for a long time to Ermessinde, heiress of Castelbon; of Aimeri, his second son, and of Cecile who married Bernard VI,
This presents a serious problem. If the Histoire de Languedoc is our authority for the family of Raymond-Roger of Foix, which it appears to be, then Aimery was the second of the count's sons and not the youngest. Raymond-Roger's testament mentions only his two eldest sons and one daughter, but we know of others and, if the Histoire is correct, they were younger than Aimery.
The Histoire de Languedoc does not mention the hostageship of the son of the count of Foix and therefore makes no inferences as to the identity of the hostage. The document does, however, present its own reference for Raymond-Roger's last will and testament in footnote (4) of the above. It is Pierre de Marca's Histoire de Béarn, 1. 3, c. 20, n. 7.
PIERRE DE MARCA'S 17th CENTURY COLLECTION
Pierre de Marca was a French bishop and historian who, in 1640, published his Histoire de Béarn, the earliest modern collection of historical documents relating to the area. Unlike the meticulous work of Dom Joseph Vaisette, a hundred years later, Pierre de Marca's work was rather sloppy. He frequently gave his own rough translations or summaries of documents he had found, rather than including the original texts, and his inferences were often incorrect. Dom Vaisette was frequently at pains to point out errors made by his 17th century counterpart.
The Histoire de Béarn is also free of copyright and freely available online. I found it at: books.google.co.uk/books?id=U6yAfsieJe8C.
In Chapter XX, Section VII of the Histoire de Béarn, Pierre de Marca paraphrases the last will and testament of Raymond-Roger of Foix, written in 1222. As Dom Vaisette had noted, he mentions two sons and a daughter. No other children are mentioned in this document, although the document is not reproduced in the text, but merely described.
My rough English translation:
Raymond Roger made his testament, the day before the Ides of May of this year 1222. He established as heir to all the county of Foix and its appurtenances, his son Roger Bernard. Left to his son Aimeri, by means of this establishment, all his property in the dioceses of Narbonne, and of Carcassonne.
It appears to be on the basis of this testament, written 13 years after the hostage transaction of 1209, that Pierre de Marca concluded that the hostage must have been Aimeri. Pierre de Marca presented this conclusion earlier, in Chapter XV, Section V:
My rough English translation:
This son whom the count Raymond-Roger gave as a hostage, was the youngest of his children, according to the Chronicle manuscript of count Raymond: this son was named Amauri, in the testament of his father.
This shows two things. First, that Pierre de Marca based his conclusion on the testament previously mentioned, and second that he did not devote any considerable rigor to this identification, incorrectly recalling the son's name as "Amauri" rather than as "Aimeri". These two were not different spellings of the same name, but rather different names altogether, although their similarity explains Pierre de Marca's error.
Interestingly, Pierre de Marca's book also includes another document, this one dating from 1229, when Roger-Bernard, now having succeeded his father as count of Foix, made his submission to the French crown and the Church. In Chapter XXI, Section X, Pierre de Marca translates Roger-Bernard's document, in which he mentions his brothers "Aimeri, & Loup, & Athon Arnaud":
If nothing else, this highlights how little we know of count Raymond-Roger's sons. Those who did not inherit significantly from him were scarcely mentioned in the texts. Roger-Bernard is well-attested, Loup's battlefield prowess earned him mention by the Anonymous Continuator, and Aimery's inheritance got him included by Pierre de Marca in his summary of the count's last will and testament. But another son, Athon Arnaud, is found here only by chance.
It seems reasonable to conclude, as Dom Vaisette did in his Histoire de Languedoc that Aimery was a second son. Although not the heir to the county of Foix, as a second son he still merited substantial inheritance. Certainly there is nothing to indicate that Aimery was a "youngest son" who inherited despite the claims of older brothers.
If Aimery of Foix was his father's second son and not the youngest, however, he could not be the hostage referred to by William of Tudela. Pierre de Marca, in 1640, based on a careless reading of the documents he had gathered, recalled a younger son being mentioned in a testament. The second son "Aimeri" of the testament became in his mind the youngest son "Amauri" and filled the role of the hostage mentioned in the Canso.
Many of Pierre de Marca's errors were corrected a century later by Dom Vaisette in his Histoire de Languedoc but he did not share Pierre de Marca's goal of telling the story of the Albigensian crusade and as a result made no comment about the hostage son of the count of Foix. It was therefore Pierre de Marca's assumption that this was Aimery that passed down to later historians, starting with Eugène Martin-Chabot in his La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise and continuing to the present day. Dom Vaisette stated in a different context that Aimery was likely the second son of Raymond-Roger of Foix, but as that passage related to a different topic, it may have been missed. And so, over the course of three hundred and fifty years, careless assumption became historical fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment