THE ELEVENTH MIRACLE
After the apparent divine nap ended, Peter saw God's hand as once again directing events, since His champion was once more militarily successful. Simon de Montfort subdued the entire Minervois, except for Minerve itself and Ventajou, Peter tell us. He then continues, in VII, § 144, p. 79:
"One day a miracle occurred near Cabaret, which I must not pass over. The crusaders from France uprooted the vineyards of Cabaret, on the Count's orders. One of our adversaries shot at one of our men with a cross-bow, and hit him in the chest, just where the sign of the cross was fixed. Everyone thought he must be dead, since he wore no armour; but he was found to be quite unhurt -- the bolt had failed even to penetrate his clothing, but had rebounded as if it had struck the hardest stone. Such is the wonderful power of God, his immense strength."This miracle story is doubtless familiar in form. In modern versions, it is a bullet not a bolt which is stopped and it is usually stopped by a pocket bible and not a sewn cloth cross. Nonetheless, it is an often-recounted miracle. David Emery lists several examples from the 17th century to the present at http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2007/08/15/bible-stops-bullet-saves-soldiers-life.htm. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay intended to demonstrate God's intervention on behalf of the crusaders. Since He could not "be seen more clearly to do great things" in the overall course of the campaign, this anecdote sufficed instead.
THE TWELFTH MIRACLE
Simon de Montfort then engages in some minor raids -- he rides up to the gates of the castle at Foix and then retreats again, destroying crops on his way, he besieges a minor castle near Montreal "to show his enemies that he was not afraid of them". In the summer of 1210, de Montfort was reinforced with additional troops and finally laid siege to Minerve itself. This was a tremendous undertaking as Minerve is protected by deep gorges on either side and accessible from only one direction, which is narrow and flanked by vertical cliffs. This was the first major siege conducted under Simon de Montfort's leadership and he set up a remarkably large siege engine on the other side of the ravine to the east. This petrary was important enough to have prompted the defenders of Minerve to sortie to attempt to destroy it and for Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay to have God intervene to protect it in VII, § 153, p. 83:
"Our men struggled for some time to bring about the capture of Minerve, until one Sunday night the defenders came out and went to the place where the petrary had been constructed. They filled baskets with oakum, dry wood, rubbish and fat and attached them with hooks to the back of the petrary. The baskets were set on fire and the flames soon rose high. It was summer and very warm, about the time of the feast of John the Baptist, as I mentioned previously. However, by God's will it happened that one of the men supplying the petrary retired just at that moment to satisfy a call of nature. He saw the fire and shouted; one of the enemy engaged in setting the fire threw a spear, and wounded him severely. The alarm was then raised in the camp and a crowd rushed to defend the petrary, so successfully and with such miraculous speed that it was out of action no longer than the time taken to fire two shots."
Although God plays a minimal role in events here, the inclusion of certain of the events attributed to divine intervention or miracles is telling. It was by divine will that the crusading siege engineer was inspired "just at that moment" to relieve himself. Even in such minor matters, Peter can see the divine plan in action. Although nudged by God to be the one to raise the alarm, this fellow is not protected by Him, as was the uprooter of grapevines at Cabaret. This one is badly wounded. The speed of the army in response is "miraculous" but it is responding within its own camp. In such small ways, Peter grants the offensive against Minerve divine support. As he writes, it was no mere mortal victory which followed. "Christ had captured the place."
The siege was brought to a close when the defenders ran out of provisions and negotiated a surrender. The negotiations between Simon de Montfort and William, lord of Minerve, were interrupted "suddenly and quite unexpectedly" by the arrival of Arnau Amalric and another legate, Master Thedisius. The abbot of Citeaux did not wish a simple discussion of terms; "he wanted the enemies of Christ to die but as a monk and priest, he did not dare condemn them to death. He therefore looked for some means of inducing either the Count or William ... to go back on the agreement they had made to submit to arbitration." His stratagem successful and the discussion of terms disrupted, William then offers an unconditional surrender. This, however, still does not seem sufficient to please the Count and the legates. In the end, over 140 civilian citizens of surrendered Minerve were burnt alive. To Peter's surprise, "a little later William renounced the allegiance he had sworn to God and the Count, abandoned them and allied himself with enemies of the faith." It seems William of Minerve was not as impressed as our Cistercian author by two more signs of God's approval of the crusade. Peter immediately recounts them.
THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH MIRACLES
In VII, § 158 and 159, pp. 85 and 86, Peter writes:
"I must not pass over two miracles which occurred at the siege of Minerve. When the army first arrived to start the siege, there was a spring nearby which produced only a little water; but when our men came, Divine compassion ensured that it flowed in such abundance that it provided enough for men and horses throughout the siege, which lasted for almost seven weeks. When the army left, the flow was reduced to a very small amount as before. Such are the mighty works of God, so large the Redeemer's bounty!
When the Count left Minerve, the footsoldiers set fire to all the huts which the crusaders had made out of branches and leaves. They were very dry, and caught fire at once, so that the whole valley was filled with flames as if a great city was burning. There was, however, one hut, made of leaves like the others, in which a priest had worshipped during the siege, shut in by the other huts. This was miraculously saved from the flames: indeed it showed not a trace of having been burnt. As I have heard from venerable churchmen who were there, when our men rushed to see the miracle, they found that the huts that had been consumed were separated from the hut which survived by only half a foot. Such is the immense power of the Lord!"
Now Minerve sits at the confluence of two rivers, Le Briant and La Cesse, the passage of which has carved the deep gorges which border the town.
 |
| http://modestine.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/cathar-country.html |
Simon de Montfort and his crusaders were also in Minerve in June, eight hundred and two years previously. While conditions may have changed somewhat in the interim, there is no reason to think that the water levels were constant then. Nonetheless, water was always expected to be somewhat accessible. The town in 1210 relied on water from either a well at the base of the town or from the river itself if it flowed above ground. The presence of fresh water sufficient for the army for seven weeks (June and July) was convenient but could not have been completely unexpected. De Montfort would have been a fool indeed to have camped his army for a prolonged siege without access to sufficient water unless a miracle occurred. Only in Peter's analysis would the army having sufficient access to water be proof that God favoured the besiegers.
The second miracle which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay reports in this section, that of the unburnt hut, is notable only in that there is once again an allusion to Peter's sources for the miracle -- the first in quite a long time. "Venerable churchmen who were there" told the story. We heard previously that both Arnau Amalric and Master Thedisius arrived at the surrender of Minerve, and § 155 notes that Peter's uncle Guy, the Abbot of Vaux-de-Cernay, had joined during the siege, but it does not seem that they were the sources for this miracle, as it seems likely that Peter would have cited them if they were. There is, in fact, a further distancing of these sources from the event itself as these "venerable churchmen" only reported the observations of "our men who rushed to see the miracle" and who measured the six inches separating the unburnt hut from the burnt ones. "Such is the immense power of the Lord!"
THE FIFTEENTH MIRACLE
Without a pause after these last two miracles at Minerve, Peter begins the narration of another miracle elsewhere, in VII, § 160, pp. 86-87:
"Here I will include an account of a miracle which occurred at Toulouse whilst the Count was besieging Minerve. There is in the city, near the palace of the Count of Toulouse, a church consecrated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose walls had recently been whitewashed. One day, towards evening, crosses began to appear in great numbers on the walls of the church on all sides, which were seen as silvery, brighter than the walls themselves. They were constantly in motion, appearing suddenly then quickly vanishing. Many people saw them but could not point them out to others; a cross that someone tried to point to would disappear before he could lift his finger. These crosses appeared as flashes of all sizes, large, middling and small. This sight lasted for almost fifteen days, each evening, until almost everyone in Toulouse had seen it. To encourage the reader to give credence to this account, he should know that Fulk Bishop of Toulouse and Raymond Bishop of Uzes, not to mention the Abbot of Citeaux, legate of the Apostolic See, and Master Thedisius, all of whom were in Toulouse at the time, saw the miracle and gave me a detailed account.
It happened that the chaplain of the church could not see the crosses, so one day he went into the church and gave himself over to prayer, asking the Lord to deign to show him what almost everyone else could see. Suddenly he saw innumerable crosses -- not on the walls, but in the air about him, one of them larger and more prominent than the rest. Soon the large cross moved out of the church; the others followed and began to move straight towards the city gate. The priest, utterly dumbfounded, followed the crosses, and as they were moving out of the city, there appeared to him, coming towards the city, someone of awe-inspiring and noble aspect, holding an unsheathed sword. Helped by the crosses and just at the entrance to the gates, this figure then slew a huge man who was emerging from the city. The priest, almost fainting with astonishment, ran to the Bishop of Uzes, threw himself at his feet and told him the whole story."
The credibility of this miracle story is something which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay addresses repeatedly in the text "to encourage the reader to give credence to this account". The dancing, flashing crosses were elusive. Some people saw them; other people didn't when they were pointed out. They occurred in "great numbers" but when someone tried to point to one, it could no longer be seen. It was such a generally agreed upon phenomenon (albeit impossible as described) that either two bishops and two legates claimed to see what wasn't there, or Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay claimed they gave him "a detailed account" of their observations when they didn't.
There were certainly those who didn't see what those magnates are claimed to have seen. The chaplain of the church, who was one of those who could not, obviously felt some pressure to concur with the rising consensus that the phenomenon was actually occurring (not constantly, but "every evening"). Not being able to see the crosses even after "almost fifteen days" must have been difficult for the chaplain of a church where a miracle was occurring that was seen by "almost everyone in Toulouse". This chaplain, after his fortnight of unsuccessful effort, turned to prayer as a last resort to join the community of those who now claimed to have seen the crosses which he had not. It is interesting that a divine intervention was needed for him to see the phenomenon, even in Peter's account, and it begs the question of how much devotion and how much desire to see the crosses was necessary for others to witness the miracle.
Now when the chaplain's prayers were answered, he saw a very great deal. So much, in fact, that even Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay may not intend to say that what the chaplain saw was real. There is one indication in the text which suggests that Peter may intend this to be read as a divinely inspired vision, rather than a divinely created event. Peter writes that the "awe-inspiring and noble" figure "appeared to him". He does not just write that the chaplain saw the figure. He also does not mention any other witnesses, although the event occurred "just at the entrance to the gates" of Tououse -- a place sure to have other people present. Certainly if anyone else saw the combat between the noble figure, assisted by the dancing crosses, or the "huge man" emerging from the city, they did not mention it in other sources or merit inclusion in this one.
After either receiving this illusory vision (or witnessing this dramatic event) the priest "ran to the bishop of Uzes" and "threw himself at his feet". Perhaps this indicates a desire to be forgiven for having doubted, as such a position of supplication was not usual for a chaplain to a bishop of another diocese.
Perhaps because of the wholly unbelievable nature of this story, Peter is careful to supply his sources and they are of the highest quality. Four notable figures (the legates and the bishops) personally witnessed the miracle of the flashing crosses. One of these received the information about the slain giant at the gates directly from the eyewitness and passed it directly to our chronicler (I assume, since Raymond Bishop of Uzes personally told Peter about the former part). If the proximity of notable direct sources to an author is an indication of the reliability of information, then this incident is perhaps the best attested event of the Albigensian crusade. If we believed in the possibility of flashing crosses flying along streets and of giants, we would have no reason to doubt.
As usual when such stories appear, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay includes miracles without context, while the other sources supply context without miracles. Neither William of Tudela, nor William of Puylaurens (who was close to Bishop Fulk) noted this miracle. Both of them, however, described the turmoil occurring in Toulouse at this time. Mark Pegg, in "A Most Holy War" (pp. 100-103) captures the situation in its context.
Arnau Amalric and Master Thedisius had been engaged in unpleasant negotiations with the consuls who ruled Toulouse and were obliged to seek absolution from Thedisius by papal edict. Fulk, arbitrating in a rather partisan manner between the two sides, extorted the staggering sum of 1,000 pounds from the consuls, although only half managed to be collected. Meanwhile, Fulk had organized a vigilante organization of "crusaders" within Toulouse itself who engaged in riots and other violence, expelling people accused of heresy and seizing their property, and especially targeting moneylenders. So unpopular was this "fraternity" that other citizens of Toulouse formed a rival armed group to oppose them and vicious fighting raged throughout the city. Ten prominent citizens were packed off to Pamiers as hostages to ensure the payment of the outstanding money promised to the Church.
In the midst of this bedlam, Count Raymond of Toulouse returned from Rome after a fairly successful meeting with Pope Innocent III, who instructed the legates to absolve him of the crimes for which he had been censured so that his conditional excommunication could be lifted. Unwilling to do so, the legates were at this time engaged in all manner of efforts to implement his excommunication despite his strenuous efforts to make good with the Church. Peter describes a "secret meeting" between Arnau Amalric and Master Thedisius in which they discuss how to avoid granting purification to the Count, despite the Pope's instructions. "As he pondered anxiously over these problems," Peter writes in VII, § 163, p. 88, "the Lord opened up the way for him and suggested a means of denying purification to the Count". It is interesting to note that Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay gives credit for Arnau Amalric's subversion of the Pope's instructions to God Himself. With divine prompting, Arnau Amalric then recalled a remark in one of the Pope's letters which he could interpret (with a bit of a stretch) to mean that he could withhold absolution until Count Raymond had fulfilled all instructions previously given to him. Of course, demands and negotiations over minor matters had been ongoing for several years and "a great many instructions had been given to the Count" by the Pope and various representatives during that time. A sham council was therefore set up which excommunicated both Raymond and "all his supporters and helpers" despite his recent reconciliation at Rome. "However, it was necessary to avoid giving the impression that he wished to be unfair to the Count or do him any wrong," notes Peter.
It was at around this time that the miracle of the crosses is said to have occurred, and Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay explains the situation of the Count's return and the Pope's instructions immediately after the miracle. The symbolism of the combat to which the chaplain bore witness must be understood, then, in view of this conflict. An angelic outsider slaying the giant who came from within Toulouse with the assistance of the sign of the cross could easily be seen as the victory of the Church and her crusaders over the intransigent consuls and traitorous Count who represented the city. Such a reading of the text, and it is not the only possible reading, might have been more apparent to a contemporary audience than it is to us. At any rate, the miracle story is so odd and otherwise difficult to interpret that other events in Toulouse at that time must be considered in its explanation.
THE SIXTEENTH MIRACLE
The siege of Termes began in August of 1210 and ended that November. Even considering that it was a lengthy and important siege, the amount of text which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay devotes to it is surprising. The sieges of Beziers, Carcassonne and Minerve each occupied 3 or 4 sections of the Historia, but the siege of Termes fills 21 -- VII, §§ 171-191, pp. 91-100. Although ultimately successful, Simon de Montfort experienced several setbacks, inducing another round of rhetorical flexibility from our Cistercian author, not seen since the last time things went badly wrong in the crusading army after Carcassonne.
The castle at Termes, "was marvellously, indeed unbelievably, strong and in human estimation appeared to be quite impregnable". The ruins which stand there today atop their mountain only hint at the formidable fortress which stood at the beginning of the 13th century. This was to be one of the most impressive sieges of the Albigensian crusade.
 |
| http://www.aude.fr/site/5/290-les-sites-poles-du-pays-cathare.htm |
The castle at Termes was so well positioned and provisioned and the initial army besieging it so small that the forces of Raymond, the lord of Termes, had little reason to fear Simon de Montfort and "they were able to come and go freely to obtain water and whatever else they needed whilst our men watched, too weak to oppose them." This situation was only changed by the arrival of large number of reinforcements from France, led by Bishop Renaud of Chartres, Bishop Philip of Beauvais, Count Robert of Dreux and Count William of Ponthieu. Although now of sufficient strength to prevent the defenders from going about their business outside the castle, this large army still accomplished little. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, in VII, § 174, p. 93, is at pains to explain this apparent obstacle to God's plan:
"They were accompanied by a substantial force of crusaders whose arrival greatly cheered the Count of Montfort and the whole army. It was hoped that strong action would result from the arrival of these powerful men, and that they would grind down the enemies of the Christian faith with a strong hand and a stretched out arm. But He who puts down the mighty and gives grace to the humble, through some secret design known only to Himself, wished nothing great or glorious to be achieved by their hand. As far as human reasoning can determine, the Just Judge so acted either because they were not worthy to be the instrument for the great and worshipful God to do great and wonderful things; or because if great men were to perform any great deed it would be ascribed entirely to human power, and not Divine. So, the Heavenly Disposer thought it better to keep that victory for the humble, so that by winning through them a glorious triumph He might give glory to His own great name."
Not since the bickering of the Duke of Burgundy and Count of Nevers at Carcassonne had Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay doubted his ability to interpret the divine plan, but here again the phrase "as far as human reasoning can determine" occurs where Peter defends the coherence of a narrative of divine favour which was clearly challenged by events. It is interesting that Peter notes the possibility that a "great deed" could be ascribed either to human power or to God. God, in his view, is anxious to make himself known to those who might misinterpret the course of the crusade as due, in some way, to human decisions and actions. Through the story, as told by His monastic follower, God reserves all glory for Himself, even if that means preventing the success of His holy army.
The crusade was assisted also, in this siege, by the unparalleled siege engineer William, the Archdeacon of Paris. "Suffice it to say," Peter wrote, "that to him more than anyone, save God alone, must be ascribed the unceasing and dedicated enthusiasm brought to the siege and the victorious outcome." It is surprising that such enthusiasm is a trait Peter saw as prominent in God's character during this siege, in light of the events to follow. In the meantime, "whilst the siege was in progress God granted him [William] such grace that he was found to be expert in all things needed for its success; he taught the smiths, he instructed the carpenters, he excelled every craftsman in showing what had to be done to further the siege." Despite God's enthusiasm (and William's) the siege dragged on for months. Small advances were made, but the defenders "who were admittedly courageous and astute" wrote Peter, in a rare concession, checked and countered every advance.
In VII, § 179, p. 95, up to 80 defenders sortied to destroy a mangonel (a siege engine), causing the besiegers by it to flee. What follows is most notable for not being cited as miraculous by Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay:
"When the enemy drew near all the knights fled save one, William of Ecureuil. This knight, seeing the enemy approaching, began with great difficulty to climb over the crag to meet them; they made a concerted rush against him, and he defended himself vigorously. They saw that they could not capture him, and instead thrust him with their spears onto the mangonel, and threw dry wood and fire after him. This courageous man at once rose up and dispersed the fire, so that the mangonel was unharmed. Once again he started to climb up to face the enemy; once again they thrust him back and threw fire on him. Again he rose up and went for the enemy; four times in all they hurled him onto the mangonel. Finally our men realised that since no one from our side could reach our knight to help him, he would be unable to escape; they therefore went to another part of the wall and made as if to mount an attack, whereupon the enemy soldiers harassing William retired into the castrum. William, albeit exhausted, escaped alive. His incomparable courage had ensured the the mangonel was unharmed."Considering God's intervention in a crusader's bowel movements at Minerve to save a siege engine, it is striking that credit for this truly heroic one-man stand is given only to William of Ecureuil. Even in the siege of Termes, our author will go on to attribute far less impressive events to miraculous intervention. He does so, however, only in retrospect at the end of his account of the siege.
The defenders eventually ran out of water, which prompted Raymond of Termes to parley with Simon de Montfort. The conditions they arranged were such as to demonstrate that the crusaders had all but failed: Raymond would keep all his possessions and hand over Termes to Simon, but only temporarily. Simon would be obliged to give the castle back after a few months, at Easter. During these negotiations, the bulk of the much-needed reinforcements left the crusader camp, despite the pleas of Simon and his wife.
Now "left virtually alone", Simon de Montfort was in a hurry "to consent to the terms for an agreement offered by our adversaries". Seeing the weakening of de Montfort's position, however, Raymond refused to abandon the castle that day and put matters off till the next day. Peter writes that he "gave a firm undertaking" to hand the castle over anyway. In VII, § 182, p. 96, he continues:
"That Divine justice willed and foresaw this delay is most clearly demonstrated by subsequent events; for God, the most just Judge, did not wish that the man who had so grossly wronged His Holy Church (and was ready to do still worse, if he could) should escape immune and unpunished after a life so dedicated to cruelty, since -- to say nothing of his other crimes -- thirty years and more had now passed (as I have heard from trustworthy witnesses) during which the Holy sacraments were never celebrated in the church at Termes.
The following night, there was a sudden intense rainstorm, as if the sky had broken apart and the floodgates of heaven had opened. So great was the downpour that our enemies, who had long suffered from an extreme shortage of water, and had for this reason proposed to surrender to us, now found themselves with an abundant supply. Our harp is turned to mourning, the grief of our enemies is changed to joy! They at once became arrogant and recovered their courage and the will to resist. Their cruelty, their eagerness to oppose us, increased, the more so because they dared to think the storm was a sign that some Divine aid had come to them in their hour of need. What a vain and unjust presumption, to boast of help from Him whose worship they despised, whose faith they had rejected! They said indeed that God did not wish them to surrender; all this, they asserted, had been done for their benefit -- but in truth Divine justice had arranged it for their downfall."Here, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay reveals the difficulty of maintaining control over a narrative of divine intervention. When his side finds advantage, it is God's direct action. When his side faces a setback, it is God's more complicated indirect action, which he must labour to explain. Yet, for all that Peter protests, his opponents were also Christians who could interpret the hand of God as guiding events just as well as he. Despite his overworked rhetoric, Peter must have recognized that those who gained a sudden advantage could claim that God favoured their side more easily and more accessibly than those who claimed that God favoured them but aided their enemies for abstruse reasons.
When negotiations continued the following day, Raymond of Termes "wormed his way out of his undertaking", suggesting perhaps that the previous day's agreement was not quite as firm as Peter had reported. The Bishop of Chartres, the only one of the lords who had brought reinforcements who still remained, was intending to depart the next day and prevailed upon Simon de Montfort to offer a truce on any terms which included the handing over of the castrum, even temporarily. Raymond of Termes, "who also saw that almost the whole strength of the army was leaving", was now completely unwilling to hand over his fortress to the small force remaining. VII, § 185, pp. 97-98 describes the failed attempts, by the Bishops of Chartres and Carcassonne, at working out a truce in any way favourable to the crusaders:
"With nothing achieved, the two returned to the Count. And yet, our people did not clearly see (as I have already said) Divine goodness had ordained matters in this way, the better to forward the interests of His Church."It is hardly surprising that both the crusaders and the defenders failed to see Divine goodness on the side of the crusade at this point. Indeed, Peter was able to organize his rhetorical approach in hindsight, after Simon de Montfort took Termes. From that comfortable vantage point, it was all too easy to claim to share divine knowledge of what was to come.
The Bishop of Chartres took his troops and left at dawn the following day, prompting an immediate sortie by the defenders, who attempted again to destroy the mangonel. Simon de Montfort, who had accompanied the Bishop a little way down the road, raced back to the camp and throwing himself into combat, drove the enemy soldiers back into their castle. It was an act of bravery and prowess which was typical of de Montfort, but was sufficient only to restore a hopeless status quo.
William, the Archdeacon of Paris, remained with de Montfort however, and soon they were joined by an unexpected group of crusaders from Lorraine. Although Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay does not estimate their number, it was sufficient for de Montfort to "strengthen the siege" and to lift the spirits of the Count and his men, who began to work more energetically on reducing the defenses of Termes with their siege engines. Peter describes the final appearance of the long-needed miracle which changed the course of the siege in VII, § 188, p. 99:
"At once the siege-engines, which had previously had little success, were brought nearer the walls. In some strange way, by the incomprehensible dispensation of God, a marvellous thing happened; the engines, which had achieved little or nothing whilst the nobles and bishops were with the army, began -- now that they had gone -- to fire with an accuracy that suggested the Lord himself was aiming each stone. In truth, this was the Lord's doing and was marvellous in our eyes."In this very passage, Peter gives alternate explanations for the success -- the number of fresh reinforcements allowed the siege to be strengthened and the accuracy of the siege engines was increased as they were able to move them nearer to the walls. However, the possible confusion as to God's intentions which had arisen over the preceding months made it necessary for the final victory to be attributed only to God. Otherwise, as Peter had noted, there was some risk of the course of the campaign being attributed "entirely to human power". With the siege engines now wreaking considerable damage on the fortifications and de Montfort's sappers undermining the walls, the defenders fled the castle. Raymond de Termes was captured and died in the dungeons of Carcassonne three years later.
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH MIRACLES
Now wrapping up his lengthy discussion of the action at Termes, Peter includes the account of two similar events, both attributed to miracles in VII, §§ 190-191, pp. 99-100:
"There was one event at the siege of Termes which I must not pass over. One day the Count arranged for a small siege-engine, commonly known as a 'cat', to be brought up to help in undermining the wall. The Count was standing near the engine and speaking with a knight. As a gesture of familiarity he placed his arm on the knight's shoulder, when a huge stone, thrown down from the enemy's mangonel and falling form a height with great force, struck the knight on the head. Through God's wonderful power the Count, though he had been embracing the knight, escaped unharmed. The knight received a mortal blow and died.
Another time, on a Sunday, the Count was in his tent celebrating Mass. An incident occurred which demonstrated God's provident mercy. The Count was standing to hear the Mass, and by Divine intervention a sergeant was standing right behind him. Suddenly a bolt from the enemy ballista struck the sergeant and killed him. No one should doubt that this was the result of Divine goodness; clearly in arranging that the sergeant should stand behind the Count and take the force of the missile, God's intention was to preserve the vigorous athlete of His Holy Church."With the many difficulties of the siege of Termes now in the past, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is again free to show God's hand in affairs without need for complicated sophistry and "the incomprehensible dispensation of God". It is perhaps interesting to note that in each of these two miracles, God arranged the death of one of His sworn followers, but the fact that Simon de Montfort was in close proximity to them and that they died instead of him was more than sufficient for Peter, who could once more see the divine intention behind these deaths "clearly".
THE NINETEENTH MIRACLE
The Historia now moves on to discuss negotiations held at Narbonne between Count Simon de Montfort, Count Raymond of Toulouse and the King of Aragon. The churchmen (the legates Arnau Amalric and Master Thedisius, and Raymond Bishop of Uzes), who had treated Raymond so badly in Toulouse previously, were also present and instrumental in the course of negotiations. The terms which Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay claims were offered to Count Raymond appeared generous, but many historians doubt that Peter's account of them is accurate. In further negotiations a few weeks later, the Siblys point out, Raymond was offered terms far worse. It has further been suggested that Arnau Amalric did not offer Raymond any acceptable terms, seeking only to show that no agreement was possible. Similar negotiations at the same conference failed to achieve peace with Count Raymond's ally, the Count of Foix. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, of course, refuses to acknowledge any human decision-making on the parts of the Counts of Foix and Toulouse. Their decisions were made for them by God's intervention, for reasons Peter is once again, in VIII, §§ 195-196, pp. 102-103, at some pains to explain easily. He recounts that the supposedly generous terms were presented to Raymond:
"But God was concerned for the future of His Church; the Count rejected this most generous offer and so made himself unworthy of any favour or kindness.The last sentence is one worth rereading to explicate Peter's meaning. Although it was God directly who "hardened the hart of the Count of Foix so that he rejected the proposals", it was "by his own actions" that he rejected them. As there was no peace treaty reached, this was meant to allow the Count of Foix to cause further mischief so that he could later be punished for it.
The conference also discussed the restoration of peace between the Church and its most monstrous persecutor, the Count of Foix. ... But the eternal God, from whom nothing is hidden and who knows all that the future holds, did not wish the many exceedingly barbarous actions of this, His most monstrous enemy, to go unavenged; knowing what future ills would come from the proposed agreement, in His great and unsearchable judgement, He hardened the heart of the Count of Foix so that he rejected the proposals for peace. Assuredly God was exercising His deep concern for His Church, for in rejecting the treaty Her enemy was, by his own actions, providing justification in advance for the punishment he was to suffer for the mischief he later caused."
THE TWENTIETH MIRACLE
After many sections devoted to the blasphemous atrocities of the Count of Foix and a few relating the further failed peace negotiations at Montpellier, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay recounts the siege of Lavaur. Bishop Fulk of Toulouse joined Simon de Montfort's army there, having been exiled from Toulouse, probably due to his raising of turbulent vigilante forces or according to Peter "for his Catholic faith". In VII, § 223, p. 115, Peter introduces the miracle to come:
"One day our men had built a wooden fortification near the walls of the castrum, and on top of it Christ's knights had placed the sign of the Cross. Our opponents concentrated fire from their engines on the Cross and broke one of the arms, whereupon the shameless dogs started howling and cheering as if breaking the cross was a famous victory. But He who sanctified the cross avenged this wrong miraculously and for all to see: soon afterwards (most marvellous to relate) it came about that the enemies of the cross, who had rejoiced in destroying the Cross, were captured on the day of the feast of the Cross. So the Cross avenged the injuries it had suffered -- as will be shown later in my narrative."True to his word, in VII, § 226, p. 116, Peter delivers the promised miracle:
"Whilst our men were thus devoting their every effort to the siege, the bishops present and the venerable Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of La Cour-Dieu, who were with the army and had been instructed by the papal legates to act in their stead, gathered together with all the other clergy and with the utmost fervour began to sing the Veni Creator Spiritus. When they saw and heard this, our enemies -- so God disposed -- became stupefied and almost lost their powers of resistance; to the extent that -- as they later admitted -- they feared those who sang more than those who fought, those who recited the psalms more than those who attacked them, those who prayed more than those who sought to wound. So the wall was penetrated, our men entered Lavaur and our adversaries, no longer able to resist, gave themselves up. Through the will of God, who came in His mercy to our aid, Lavaur was taken on the feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross."In § 223, Peter introduces that the miracle will occur and in § 226 he describes it, attributing the victory to God's vengeance with the clergy acting as His instruments. The two sections in between, §§ 224-225 recount the actual way in which Lavaur was taken -- the initial undermining of the walls by sappers, the action of two German counts who repelled a sortie, the blocking of a sortie tunnel with smoke and fire, the filling of the ditch, and the final completion of the work of the sappers. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay is anxious, however, not to allow these human actions to gain credit for the taking of Lavaur. That is why he couched them in between the introduction of God's motive for vengeance and the explanation of the timing by which God's plan reached fruition.
What followed at Lavaur was another of the famous acts of cruelty of the crusaders, which must have garnered criticism at the time. As in his previous descriptions of Beziers, of Bram, and of Minerve, the sites of previous crusader atrocities, Peter describes the massacre and then immediately after supplied a miracle to show that God was, indeed, looking down approvingly ...
(to be continued in my next post)
