The Empress Wu

Chief Advisor and Co-Ruler

Empress Wu Zetian

In a previous posting I discussed the ascension of the Empress Wu to supreme power in China.1 Here I will examine part of the process by which she made herself the only woman to rule China not just in fact but in her own name.

Medieval Logistics:

An Overview

Italian Knight c. 1400 C.E.

Logistically Medieval armies of the 12th and 13th century tended to live off the land which made them veritable plagues of locusts to the locals who where unfortunate enough to be where the armies were. Crop surpluses were very low. Generally yields of crops were on the order of 1 to 3 to 1 to 6, in some cases it was a very bad 1 to 2. the above figures are the ratio of planted grain to yield. I.E. for every 1 grain planted you got 3 or more grains. This meant that a sizable portion of the harvest had to be saved as seed grain for the next planting. Of course the peasants also had taxes to pay and dues owing to their lords. Both of which were frequently quite substantial. This made living fairly precarious. Add an army marching through to the mix and life became vastly more difficult if not impossible. Peasants usually viewed armies as a curse and punishment from heaven, even if the army was their army. Areas through which armies went through were usually swiftly devastated. Added to this Peasants were frequently forcibly conscripted to provide labour services to armies, men forcibly billeted on them. Not surprisingly regions in which armies appeared were often depopulated as people fled, and often took decades to recover.

The Rise of the Empress Wu

Empress Wu Zetain
The history of China is fascinating one and full of strange and wonderful events. One of the strangest and most extraordinary is the story of the Empress Wu Zetian.

This story is not well known to the non-Chinese but it does have massive doses of sex and violence to say nothing of carpet chewing over the top plot and intrigue.

This story is about how not only did the Empress Wu Zetian became the de-facto ruler of China but decided to go for it all and make herself Emperor. To became the only women in Chinese history to make herself not just ruler of China but the official ruler of China.1

The Empress Wu Zetian or to give her name Wu Chao, had started out as a concubine in the harem of the second Tang Emperor and had gone on from that to make herself all powerful during the reign of the third Tang Emperor.

To give some background. In the late 6th century C.E., the Sui dynasty had reunified China after almost 400 years of division, civil war and chaos since the fall of the Han dynasty, (c. 220 C.E.)2

The second Sui Emperor, Yang Ti, had dissipated the good will created by his father Wen Ti with a series of brutal policies and wasteful extravagance.3 The result was widespread revolt. Eventually Yang Ti was overthrown by a coup and strangled.4

During this chaos Gaozu took the Chinese capital of Chang-an and established the Tang dynasty by proclaiming himself Emperor in 618 C.E. During all of this he was aided and apparently heavily prodded by his able and ruthless son Taizong. By 626 C.E. China was reunified.5

Taizong in a series of rather ruthless intrigues eliminated his two older brothers and then compelled his father Gaozu to abdicate in 626 C.E. Gaozu lived until 635 C.E. in retirement.

Taizong is considered to be one of the greatest if not the greatest of Chinese Emperors and his reign became a model for how a Chinese Emperor should rule.6


Emperor Taizong
However despite the glory of his reign it was marred by the continual violent intrigues within the court including the usual interminable struggle of the succession.

During all of this Wu Chao entered the Imperial court as a concubine.

Wu Chao was born in the year 625 C.E., and we have the usual stories that were popular among Chinese writers and historians concerning alleged portents that indicated that she would rule. It is rather annoying that historians who should know better take these rather amusing stories concocted after the fact with any sort of seriousness. They are simply not to be taken as anything other than post-hoc concoctions.7

One story has it that a Chinese “face” reader, after examining her face and the way she walked when he examined her at the age of c. 3 years concluded that if she was a girl she would become Emperor of China. Given Chinese and official Confucian attitudes towards women this story can be dismissed as a post-hoc fantasy.8

Other stories like the alleged fact that she liked to wear boy’s clothes as a child and like to explore and go about un-supervised unlike the typical lives of aristocratic girls of the time are more substantial than fantasies concerning alleged prognostications of her future power. This is so because such reports make sense given the very forceful and independent personality Wu Chao would show as Empress. So it would not be a surprise if she exhibited such characteristics as a child.9

Wu Chao’s family, the Wu, although of impeccable aristocratic background and supporters of the Tang dynasty was not a particularity important family and they were to be of little importance or use to Wu Chao in her rise to power. In fact unlike virtually every other Empress who rose to power in Chinese history it was not Wu Chao’s family that was responsible for her rise to power but Wu Chao who was responsible for her families rise to power.10

At the age of 13 in 638 C. E., Wu Chao was selected to be a concubine for the harem of Taizong. She was selected mainly because of her beauty.

We have little idea of what the next decade was like for Wu Chao. It appears that she stayed a minor concubine and further she had no children which severely limited any chance that she could rise in the palace hierarchy. Again several stories are told about Wu Zetain during this time period but they are not really all that plausible but they do give a good idea of what people thought were her chief character traits. Included in these stories is the following which the Empress Wu Zetian allegedly told in later life.

Emperor Taizong had a horse with the name "Lion Stallion," and it was so large and strong that no one could get on its back. I was a lady in waiting attending Emperor Taizong, and I suggested to him, "I only need three things to subordinate it: an iron whip, an iron hammer, and a sharp dagger. I will whip it with the iron whip. If it does not submit, I will hammer its head with the iron hammer. If it still does not submit, I will cut its throat with the dagger." Emperor Taizong praised my bravery. Do you really believe that you are qualified to dirty my dagger.11

Apparently the Emperor Taizong was a little taken aback by Wu Chao’s rather formidable nature and did not advance her in the palace hierarchy.

In the year 649 C.E., the Emperor Taizong died to be succeeded by his son Emperor Gaozong; considered a weak and rather spineless figure, who reigned until 683 C.E.

Emperor Gaozong
Now at the time the custom of the court was that the concubines of the old Emperor upon the Emperor’s death, who had not had children, would retire to live in Buddhist Nunneries.

Thus it appears that at the age of 24 the Wu Chao would live the rest of her life as a Buddhist Nun. That did not happen for the following reasons.12

It appears that Wu Chao had made the acquaintance of Gaozong before Taizong’s death. The story was that Wu Chao seduced him before his father’s death. Since sleeping with the Emperor’s wives and concubines was considered treason and could even get a Emperor’s son killed or disinherited this idea is at least doubtful. Further it fits the rather dull stereotype of the sexually insatiable strong women who gets ahead using sex, that is a common cliché in Chinese historical writing.13

It does appear to be the case though that Wu Chao and Gaozong knew each other and that Gaozong had a certain fondness for her even before his father’s death.

According to the writers what happened was that Gaozong’s Empress named Wang and the Emperor’s favourite concubine Hsiao were engaged in a serious power struggle and the Empress, who was childless, endeavoured to bring Wu Chao back as a rival to keep Hsiao at bay in the interminable game of palace politics.

However what seems to have actually happened is that Wu Chao kept in touch with both Emperor Gaozong and Empress Wang in an effort to cut short her retirement. Wu Chao apparently promised undying gratitude and loyalty to the Empress Wang if she arranged for her to be brought back or at least did not oppose it.

During her exile Wu Chao composed the following poem addressed to Gaozong:

Watching red turn to green, my thoughts are tangled and scattered,
I am dishevelled and torn from my longing for you, my lord.
If you fail to believe that lately I have shed tears constantly,
Open my chest and look for the skirt of pomegranate-red.14

Whatever the actual details of the matter in the year 650 Emperor Gaozong visited the Convent Wu Chao was living at and brought her back to court as one of his concubines. An act which was considered incredibly scandalous, especially since sleeping with your father’s concubines was considered a form of incest.15

Now of course Chinese historians attribute boundless ambition to Wu Chao from the beginning. I rather suspect that what actually was going on was the simple desire of a young women to escape confinement and return to the excitement of court.

What happened next is probably what was decisive. Wu Chao found out that both the Empress Wang and Hsiao, Emperor Gaozong’s favourite concubine were very unpopular at court, further she found out that Gaozong needed help in actually running the Empire. Both those discoveries were decisive in the Empress Wu’s ascent to power.16

Gaozong has had, to put it mildly, an enormous amount of bad press for allegedly being a weakling, a sexual pervert, a stupid man and a complete tool in the hands of Wu Chao. There is room to question that verdict. It appears likely that he was actually fairly intelligent and further that he never became a complete tool in hands of Wu Chao. However it does appear that he was physically a very sickly man subject to blinding headaches and general serious physical weakness, and has he got older he got weaker. It also appears that unlike a lot of weak people he had enough sense to realize that he needed help. In other words Gaozong was simply not up to the demands of running the Empire. It appears that his wife Wang and his other concubines were of absolutely no help to him in terms of helping him rule. They seemed to be more interested in getting riches and favours for themselves and their families than helping him. Wu Chao almost from the moment she was released from confinement was involved in helping him administer and acting to as an advisor to him; that rather than her alleged submission to Gaozong’s supposed sexual perversions was the likely source of her rise to power. Also despite what the historians said later it should be considered at least plausible that Wu Chao, although ruthlessly ambitious genuinely loved her husband.

Wu Chao also shortly began to have children which made the position of the Empress Wang more precarious.

Within a few years Wu Chao began to intrigue against the Empress Wang and the concubine Hsiao. It was no contest. Not only were they both unpopular, they simply were not as bright or good at the game of court politics. Unlike Empress Wang and Hsiao, who dissipated it, Wu Chao used the favours and wealth she received to set up a network of spies in the palace along with a network of people who were loyal to her. The fact that, at least, face to face she exercised tact and modesty also helped. Further Wu Chao deliberately sought out and helped those that the Empress Wang and her family had offended. A high degree of ruthlessness also helped.

In one particularity grotesque incident after Wu Chao gave birth to a daughter. The Empress Wang visited the child. Shortly afterwards the child died. Wu Chao blamed the Empress. Some later Chinese Historians claimed that Wu Chao strangled the child in order to blame the Empress Wang for the death. Aside from indicating the degree of animosity against the Wu Chao by later historians the charge can be dismissed, given that it was a age of very high infant mortality. Although Wu Chao’s willingness to so accuse Empress Wang is a rather telling indication of ruthlessness.17

Wu Chao then introduced Gaozong to her sister, Ho-Lan further cementing her hold over him; given that Gaozong and Ho-Lan soon became lovers.

Wu Chao then began a series of rather complicated intrigues aimed at replacing Empress Wang with herself as Empress. As part of the game of court politics Empress Wang’s mother was banned from court for allegedly practicing sorcery against Wu Chao. Many of Gaozong’s advisors were adamantly opposed to making Wu Chao Empress and opposed the move. Wu Chao was livid, for by this time she had taken to listening to the Emperor’s advisers advising the Emperor from behind a screen. Given that this was very unusual this indicates the role that Wu Chao had already taken as an advisor to the Emperor.

It took a while but gradually Wu Chao got rid of the advisers who opposed her elevation to becoming Empress, by championing a court faction that supported her as a way of getting rid of the old guard and coming to power.

Eventually Empress Wang and Hsiao were accused of plotting to poison the Emperor and disposed and replaced by Wu Chao in 655 C.E. Not long after they were killed by having their hands and feet cut off and being left to bleed to death. The new Empress Wu Zetian punished those who had opposed her elevation to power and rewarded her allies. Her son Li Hung was made crown prince replacing Li Chung the Empress Wang’s adopted son who was not long for this world.18

The Empress Wang took her fall and death rather stoically. The concubine Hsiao was a lot less resigned. Hsiao allegedly said:

‘Wu is a deceitful fox, who had sealed my fate,’ she said. ‘I pray that in all my future lives I will come back as a cat, and she is a mouse. Then in each life I will tear her throat out’19

The Empress Wu is said to have removed all the cats from the various Imperial palaces in response.

The next few years were an interminable wrangle of petty palace intrigues and vendettas as the Empress Wu Zetian consolidated her position with considerable bloodshed and ruthlessness, but on a more constructive note showed a extraordinary talent for selecting able men to help rule the empire. Among those eliminated were certain relatives of the Empress Wang who had blocked Wu Zetain’s ascent and who she considered threats to her position.

Two things marked the great turning point by which Wu Zetian became if the not the sole ruler of the Empire the main ruler with her husband Gaozong giving up most authority to her although he did not make her regent. In late 660 C.E. Gaozong got very seriously ill and the Empress Wu Zetian took over the day to day administration of the Empire. She very quickly proved to be remarkably able and had the stamina for the tedious time consuming work of day to day administration. Although the Emperor eventually recovered Wu Zetain remained active in the day to day administration of the empire from then on. It appears that from then on even when the Emperor was in good health most of the day to day administrative work remained in the hands of the Empress Wu Zetain.

A few years after this, in 663 C.E., a final attempt was made to dispose Wu Zetain. It appears that Wu Zetain had employed a certain Taoist priest who was alleged to have engaged in sorcery. Certain of the Emperor Gaozong’s advisors used this to get from him a degree ousting Wu Zetain as Empress. The fact that Wu Zetain had also been acting arrogantly had also enraged the Emperor. Unfortunately for the plotters the Empress had spies all over the palace who reported this too her. Wu Zetain rather than hide or beg went and confronted her husband Gaozong. The historians claim that Gaozong just gave in fearing her anger. Rather doubtful. It appears that Wu Zetain got rid of the Taoist priest and started acting more modestly and less arrogantly. No doubt she reminded her husband of her considerable political and administrative skills and her basic loyalty to him. The advisors and officials who advised Gaozong on this course of action were arrested and imprisoned. Wu Zetain was now securely position as if not ruler of China as at least co-ruler of China.20

The dynastic history records as follows concerning the aftermath of this final attempt to oust Wu Zetain:

From this event, whenever the Emperor attended to business, the Empress hung a curtain and listened from behind it. There was no matter of government, great or small, she did not hear. The whole sovereign power of the Empire passed into her hands. Life and death, reward or punishment were hers to decide. The Son of Heaven sat on the throne and folded his hands, that is all. In court and in the country, they were called the Two Sages.21

At another time I will look at the process by which Wu Zetain made herself official ruler of China.

Tang Dynasty China in 700 C.E.
1. Dawson, Raymond, Imperial China, Penguin Books, London, 1972, pp. 88-89, Benn, Charles, China’s Golden Age, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 4-5.

2. IBID, pp. 52-65.

3. IBID, Benn, p. 1, Wen Ti reigned 581-604 C.E. Yang Ti 604-618 C.E. Executions, the brutal building of the Grand canal and incredible extravagance in the midst of famine and natural disaster were the back ground to revolt along with disastrous invasions of Korea.

4. Dawson, p. 64.

5. Yes that is where the orange drink got its name.

6. See Dawson, pp. 69-81, Fitzgerald, C. P., Son of Heaven, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1933, for a biography of this extraordinary man. Benn gives an excellent overview of what life was like during the Tang dynasty.

7. Both Fitzgerald, C. P., The Empress Wu, Second Edition, Cresset Press, London, 1968, and Cawthorne, Nigel, Daughter of Heaven, One World Pub., Oxford, 2007, take these stories too seriously.

8. See Cawthorne, pp. 18-19, Fitzgerald, 1968, repeats the story in his prologue.

9. IBID, pp. 16-18. See also Fitzgerald, 1968, pp. 1-15.

10. Both Cawthorne and Fitzgerald both make this quite clear. See also Dawson pp. 81-85.

11. Wikipedia, Wu Zetian Here. Quoting a Chinese Historian.

12. Cawthorne, pp. 66-71, Dawson, pp. 81-82.

13. IBID, pp. 44-61, 66-67, 70-73. See also Fitzgerald 1968.

14. Cawthrone p. 69.

15. IBID, 70-71, See also Fitzgerald, 1968.

16. IBID, p. 73. See also Dawson, pp. 81-83.

17. IBID, p. 74, Dawson, p. 82, Fitzgerald , 1968 is especially emphatic that it is unlikely that the Empress Wu murdered the child.

18. IBID, pp 76-78, 83-84, Dawson, pp. 81-83. See also Fitzgerald 1968.

19. IBID, p. 83. Quoting a Chinese Historian.

20. IBID, pp. 91-92, 94-95. See also Fitzgerald, 1968.

21. Cawthrone, p. 96. Quoting the Dynastic History. Part of quote also appears in Dawson, p. 82 and Fitzgerald, 1968.

Pierre Cloutier

Cathar Council of St. Felix-de-Caraman
(now called St. St.-Felix-Lauragais)
The St. Felix Document

View near St. Felix-Lauragais

This Cathar council is believed to have been held in the town of St.-Felix-de-Caraman now called St.-Felix-Lauragais in c.1167 C.E. In order to settle issues of regarding the proper sanctity of Cathar Hierarchy and to settle issues arising from possible boundary disputes between different Cathar communities. Our sole source for the details or even the fact of such a council is from Guillaume Besse, who in a book he published printed a document, in Latin, supposed to be a précis and summary of what happened and what was decided at said council.1 The authenticity of the document has been disputed ever since, especially since the alleged original that Besse allegedly copied has never been found since. The fact that Besse forged a number of documents in his book hasn’t helped.

View of St. Felix-Lauragais

Despite the problems with Besse has a source the consensus seems to be that the document is authentic although possibly Besse muddled it when copying from the original. It appears that this document is in fact fragments of three documents put together of several meeting of the Cathar hierarchy. The first being a report of the consolamentums performed by Nicetas. The second being part of a sermon by Nicetas and the third being an agreement concerning boundaries between different Cathar Churches in Southern France.2 In 1999 there was a conference in Nice which came down heavily on the side of the authenticity of the document and Council.3

View of the Castle of St. Felix Lauragais
The document goes has follows:

In the month of May in the year of the Lord's incarnation 1167:4 at that the Church of Toulouse brought papa Niquinta5 to the castle of and a great multitude of the men and women of the Church of Toulouse and of the other neighbouring Churches gathered there to receive the consolamentum6 which the lord papa7 Niquinta began to administer. Afterwards Robert of Spernone, Bishop of the Church of the French,8 came with his council; and also Mark of Lombardy came with his council; and Sicard Cellarier, Bishop of the Church of Albi, came with, his council, and Bernard the Catalan came with the council of the church of Carcassonne; and the council of the Church of Agen was also present. And since they were all gathered there in such numbers, the men of the Church of Toulouse wished to have a bishop, and chose Bernard Raymond; and likewise Bernard the Catalan and the Church of Carcassonne, being requested and required to do so by the Church of Toulouse, and on the advice and with the agreement and permission of the lord Sicard Cellarier, chose Gerald Mercier; and the men of Agen chose Raymond de Casals. After that Robert d' Espernone received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop by the lord papa Niquinta, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of the French; likewise Sicard Cellarier received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Albi. In the same way Mark received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Lombardy; likewise Bernard Raymond received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be bishop of the Church of Toulouse; and likewise Gerald Mercier received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Carcassonne; likewise Raymond de Casals received the consolamentum and was consecrated bishop, so that he might be Bishop of the Church of Agen.

After this papa Niquinta addressed the Church of Toulouse: “You have asked me to tell you whether the customs of the primitive Churches were burdensome or light, and so let me tell you that the seven Churches of Asia9 were separated from each other by boundaries, and as a result none of them did anything to the detriment of any of the others. And the Churches of Rome and Dragometia and Melenguia and Bulgaria and Dalmatia10 are separated by boundaries from each other and none of them does anything to the detriment of any of the others, and so they are at peace with each other. You should do the same”11

The charter or the official report of conciliation and demarcation follows.

The Church of Toulouse chooses Bernard Raimond, Guillaume Garsias, Ermengaud de Forest, Raimond de Baimiac, Guilabert de Bonvilar, Bernard Guilhem Contor, Bernard Guilhem Bonnerville and Bertrand d'Avignont, to define its territory. The Church of Carcassonne chooses Guiraud Mercier, Bernard Cathala, Gregoire, Pierre Caldermas, Raimond Pons, Bertrand de Mouly, Martin de la Salle et Raimond Guibert, as divisors of the church of Carcassonne. So being joined together in council and having deliberated, they said that Church of Toulouse and Church of Carcassonne would be divided up according to the [Catholic] bishoprics.

So that the bishopric of Toulouse and archbishopric of Narbonne are separated in two places, with the bishopric of Carcassonne at St. Pons were the mountain, comes between the castle of Cabaret and that of Hautpoul, to the boundary between the castles of Sissac and of Verdun, passes between Montreal and Fanjeaux the boundary between the other Bishoprics, similarly, at the boundary of Razes just as far as Lerida: that is the territory that is in the care and administration of the church of Toulouse.The church of Carcassonne as herein created has in its capacity and administration all the Bishopric of Carcassonne and Archbishopric of Narbonne and the remainder of the territories boundaries are right to the sea as far as Lerida. So That these churches are given boundaries as been said above, so that they will have peace and concord between them and none will do anything against the rights of the other.

Those listed here are witnesses and guarantors of this: Bernard Raimond, Guillaume Garcias, Ermengaud Forest, Raimond de Baimiac, Guilabert de Bonvilar, Bernard Guihem Contor, Bernard Guilhem Bonneville and Bertrand d'Avignont.

For the Church of Carcassonne: Guiraud Mercier, Bernard Cathala, Gregoire, Pierre Caldemas, Raimond Pons, Bertrand de Mouly, Martin de la Salle and Raimond Guibert.

All organized, accepted and said to Ermengaud de Forest to write and put into effect for the Church Toulouse similarly it is organized, accepted and said to Pierre Bernard to write and put into effect for the Church of Carcassonne and thus it was made and carried out.

Monseigneur Pierre Isarn made this copy of an old charter having the power to set boundaries of the various Churches that he wrote in a better hand the Monday the 14th of August in the year [1167?].

In the year 1232 of the incarnation of our lord. Pierre Poullain12 wrote all that is here accordingly as requested and ordered.13

A Medieval Building in St. Felix Lauragais

From what evidence we do have it appears that before the Council of St. Felix-de-Caraman the Cathars of southern France accepted a doctrine of mitigated dualism, in which evil existed since the fall of man into original sin and that sooner or later good would destroy evil. In this theology the material world was the creation of a lesser being, i.e., Satan, than God who would be eventually defeated. In effect Satan had created the material world, after his rebellion against God had failed, and also created Adam and Eve by imprisoning light in the matter he had created. Niquinta (Nicetas) seems to have brought over from Constantinople the more radical dualism of the church of Dragometia which postulated the existence for all time of two eternal principles, aspects, for clarity we can call them "Light" and "Dark" that are now unfortunately mixed up and that the goal of Light mixed up with matter a creation of the Dark was to free itself from matter so it could reunite with light completely and without contamination from Dark created matter. Eventually all Light would be free of matter and Dark completely separated from Light. Another matter seems to have been the validity of the consolamentum of various members of the Cathar hierarchy so that Niquinta (Nicetas) had to redo the ritual to make it valid again. Niquinta (Nicetas) had already visited Italy were he had redone various consolamentums and had introduced radical dualism.14 An Italian source written about 1200 C.E., says as follows:

In the early days, when the heresy of the Cathars began to increase in Lombardy, they first had a certain bishop named Mark, under whose rule all the Lombard, Tuscan and Trevisan [heretics] were governed. Mark was consecrated in the sect of Bulgaria. Then came to Lombardy from Constantinople a man called Papa Nicheta, who began to declaim against the Bulgarian consecration which Mark had received. This raised doubts in the minds of Bishop Mark and his followers; he gave up the Bulgarian consecration and accepted, at the hand of Nicheta himself, that of Drugunthia, and in this sect of Drugunthia he and all his associates remained for some time.15

Afterwards several of the Italian Cathar churches reverted to mitigated dualism although it appears that the Cathars of southern France remained radical dualists. The final issue seems to have been discord between the Cathar Churches in Southern France over jurisdiction and boundaries which Niquinta (Nicetas) helped to settle at this council.16

In the end the Cathars were crushed and only a scattering of documents like this one gives us much insight into their world.

View from St. Felix Lauragais

1. Besse, Guillaume, Histoire des ducs, marquis et comtes de Narbonne, Paris, 1660, pp, 483-486.

2. See Lambert, Malcolm, The Cathars, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., Oxford, 1998, pp. 45-59, & “The Cathar Council of S. Felix Reconsidered”, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, v. 48, 1978, pp. 23-53, Roquebert, Michel, Histoire des cathares, Perrin, Paris, 1999, pp. 56-64, Moore, R. I., The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 212-217, Barber, Malcolm, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 71-73.

3. see O’Shea, Stephen, The Perfect Heresy, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, p. 272.

4. The date has been disputed on the grounds that it’s in error and the Council took place in the 1170’s. See also Moore above.

5. Niquinta or Nicetas seems to have been head of the Dualist, Dragometia, Church in Constantinople.

6. The ceremony of laying on of hands that consecrated someone into the Cathar or Dualist hierarchy by a sort of pasting down of sanctity.

7. “Papa” in the eastern Greek Orthodox faith simply means “Priest”; it does not have in any sense here the connotation of “Pope”.

8. Virtually nothing is known of this Church although there was some inquisitorial action against it in the late 12th and early 13th century. It seems to never have acquired the prominence of the Cathar Church in the South of France. See Lambert, pp. 122-125.

9. A Reference to St. Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelations that talk about 7 Churches in Asia Minor.

10. The Churches mentioned here apparently are all Dualist. The Church of Rome may be some sort of miscopying of the name of an Italian Dualist Church. Bulgaria, Dalmatia and Melenguia are Dualist Churches who seemed to have practiced a mitigated Dualism. Dragometia apparently practiced a radical Dualism and was the Church Niquinta was representing. Mitigated Dualism argued that God created the world and the conflict between light and dark had only existed since the fall. Radical Dualism believed that two forces / principles had existed from the beginning and would exist for eternity.

11. This part of the document to "The charter or the official report of conciliation and demarcation follows”, is from Hamilton, Janet & Hamilton, Bernard, Christian Dualist Heresies, in the Byzantine World, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998, pp. 251-252. Unfortunately it doesn't contain the last half of the document. A full translation of the whole text into English is in Peters, Edward, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, University of Pennsylvania Press, New York, 1980, pp. 121-123.

12. This gloss is from a later time, 1232 / 33, when apparently the document was recopied. Pierre Poullain was the Cathar Bishop of Carcassonne.

13. This part is a translation from the French by Pierre Cloutier. The French text translated is from Duvernoy, Jean, L'Histoire des Cathares, Privat, Toulouse, 1979, pp. 217-218. For the full text in English see Peters, above in Footnote 11.

14. Lambert, pp. 45-59, 158-170, Runciman, Steven, The Medieval Manichee, The Viking Press, New York, 1961, pp. 72-77, 122-127, O'Shea, pp. 17-31, Moore, pp. 197-240, Barber, pp. 81-104, Oldenbourg, Zoe, Massacre at Montsegur, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 32-44, Moore, R.I., The Birth of Popular Heresy, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1995, pp. 122-127, 132-154, Wakefield, Walter L., Evans, Austin P., Heresies of the Middle Ages, Columbia University Press, New York, 1969, Item 23, pp. 160-167.

15. Wakefield, pp. 160-161.

16. See Footnote 14.

Pierre Cloutier

Simon de Montfort
Some Thoughts

Between 1209 C.E., and 1229 C.E., the south of France was convulsed with the war known as the Albigensian Crusade. The Crusade was formally against the so called Cathar heretics of southern France1 but turned rapidly into a mass pillaging campaign in which northern French nobility sought to gain fortune and fame.

The main leader of the Crusaders during the first part of this Crusade was Simon de Montfort, (1160-1218 C.E.). Simon was born near Paris and was the inheritor of the Montfort estates near Paris upon his fathers death in 1181 C.E. Simon de Montfort went on the infamous 4th Crusade although he did not reap much benefit from his participation.2

Drawing of a Stained Glass Portrait of Simon de Montfort

Simon’s great claim to fame is his military leadership of the Crusade against the Cathar heretics in southern France, which turned into a campaign of conquest and looting of the southern French nobility.

Map of Southern France before the Crusade

Simon’s extraordinary military ability was in evidence through much of this time period along with his iron determination to succeed. His greatest victory was his incredible victory in the Battle of Muret in 1213, which he achieved over Pedro II of Aragon, (who was killed) and the southern nobility and city militia of Toulouse.3

To quote:

(466) After this – and the death of about twenty thousand of the enemies of the faith, some by drowning, some by the sword – our most Christian Count walked barefoot from the place where he had dismounted to the church, to render thanks to Almighty God for the victory He had been granted, since he recognized that this miracle had been wrought by God’s grace and not the efforts of men His horse and his armour he gave as alms for the poor.4

So speaks Peter about his near “perfect” Christian hero after the battle.

Unfortunately Simon’s great military ability was not matched by much ability in the realm of statecraft or administration and the organized looting, disinheriting and exploitation of the domains that Simon conquered soon earned Simon a great deal of hatred and the almost extraordinary brutality of the crusade did not help. For example:

(227) Soon Aimeric, the former lord of Montreal, of whom we spoke above, was led out of Laveur with up to eighty other Knights. The noble Count [Simon] proposed that they all should be hanged from fork-shaped gibbets. However, after Aimeric, who was taller than the others, had been hanged, the gibbets started to fall down, since through excessive haste they had not been properly fixed in the ground. The Count realized that to continue would cause a long delay and ordered the rest to be put to the sword. The crusaders fell to this task with great enthusiasm and quickly slew them on the spot. The Count had the Dame of Laveur, sister of Aimeric and a heretic of the worst sort, thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. Our Crusaders burnt innumerable heretics, with great rejoicing.

Another account of the same event.

(ch. 16) Having thus achieved the unconditional surrender of Laveur. Count Simon had the noble lord Aimeric hanged, together with a few knights; he put to the sword some other nobles and certain others who had mingled with them in the hope that knights would be spared, about eighty in all. He consigned about three hundred robed heretics to everlasting fire by having them consumed by the flames of the material world. He had Giraude the mistress of Laveur thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. The ordinary people were spared, on conditions.

A final account of the same events.

(s. 71) They had taken this place, [Laveur] as the book says. There they burned at least four hundred evil heretics, heaping them all onto one great funeral pyre. Sir Aimery was hanged, along with many other knights – four Score they hanged there like thieves on the gibbets, some here, some there. Lady Girauda was taken and she shrieked and screamed and shouted. They held her across a well and dropped her into it, I know this for certain, and threw stones on top of her. This caused great dismay. But the other noblewomen were all set free by a kind and courteous Frenchman.5

What makes those reports even more damning is that they are from sources that approved of that sort of horror, and thought of Simon has a great hero. Unfortunately this sort of atrocity was hardly unusual but very common indeed during the Crusade.6 Indeed Peter especially is notorious for excusing and exalting in the murderous, vile atrocities of the Crusaders but if the southerners respond in kind he is quite indignant and angry. A rather interesting example of hypocrisy, but one so blatant and barefaced that I doubt that Peter was even aware in any sense of it being hypocrisy. After all his attitude seems to have been its all right if my side does it but utterly evil and wrong if the other side does it. William of Puylaurens seems to have been if pro-crusader much less of an apologist for their crimes and aware that excesses didn’t help the crusader cause.

Well sometimes in human affairs the wicked are punished, Despite Papal approval of the dispossession of Count Raymond of Toulouse, Raymond VI and his son, who became Raymond VII, continued to fight back. Toulouse, despite capitulating, to Simon was restive under his rule. Previously to quell the inhabitants of Toulouse Simon had sacked the city and razed its walls to the ground.

On the 13th of September 1217 C.E., Count Raymond VI with a tiny group of supporters entered Toulouse after a long ride from the border of Aragon. Toulouse rose in rebellion in support of the Count. To quote a contemporary account:

(s. 182) When the count [Raymond VI] entered through the arched gateway all the people flocked to him. Great and small, lords and ladies, wives and husbands, they knelt before him and kissed his clothing, his feet and legs, his arms and fingers. With tears of delight and joy they welcomed him, for joy regained bears both flower and fruit.

...

“Now we have Jesus Christ!” They said to each other, “now we have the morning star risen and shining upon us! This is our lord who was lost! Through him worth and paratge are freed from their graves, are healed and restored, and our whole kinship regains power for ever!”7

Page from a Manuscript of The Song of the Cathar Wars

Thus speaks an unabashed supporter of the southerners. Peter has a different view of the matter.

(s. 600) For at this time the citizens of Toulouse – perhaps we should say “the deceivers” - were inspired by the Devil to secede from god and the Church and revolt against the Count de Montfort. They welcomed into their city Raymond, their erstwhile Count and lord, who had been deservedly deprived of his possessions and exiled on the authority of the Pope and the Second Lateran Council.8

In October of 1217 C.E., Simon appeared in front of Toulouse and he besieged the city for eight months. The siege was fought with great determination on both sides. The Toulousians amazingly where able to rebuild their walls to a defensible state in the short time before Simon arrived.9

Despite repeated attempts Simon fails to take Toulouse and in the meantime his grip on his possessions throughout the south is slipping. On June 25 1218 C.E., while fighting a sortie from Toulouse Simon is killed. To quote The Song of the Cathar Wars:

(s. 205) As Sir Guy [Simon’s brother] was speaking and beginning to shout and yell, there was in the town a mangonel built by a carpenter and dragged with its platform from St. Sernin. This was worked by noblewomen, by little girls and men’s wives, and now a stone arrived just where it was needed and struck Count Simon on his steel helmet, shattering his eyes, brains, back teeth, forehead and jaw. Bleeding and black, the count dropped dead on the ground.

...

But a messenger brought the news [Count Simon’s death] into Toulouse and such was the joy that all over the town they ran to the churches and lit candles in all the candlesticks and cried out, “Rejoice! God is merciful and paratge shines forth, victorious forever! The cruel and murderous count is dead, dead unshriven because he was a man of blood!” Trumpets, horns and universal joy, chimes and peals and clamouring bells in belfries, drums, tabors and slender clarons rang through the town tell every paving-stone re-echoed.10

An allegoric painting of the Lamb of the Languedoc killing the Lion of de Montfort

A popular ballad was composed at this time by the southerners and it goes as follows:

Montfort
Es mort
Es mort
Es mort!
Viva Tolosa
Ciotat gloriosa
et poderosa!
Tornan lo paratge et l'onor!
Montfort
Es mort!
Es mort!
Es mort!

A translation into English is:

Montfort
Is dead
Is dead
Is dead!
Hooray for Toulouse
Glorious city
and powerful!
Honour and paratge return!
Montfort
Is dead!
Is dead!
Is dead!11

Peter, not surprisingly, has a different response to Simon’s death and composed the following epitaph.

(612) Suddenly a stone from an enemy mangonel struck Christ’s knight on the head. The blow was lethal. Twice beating his breast he commended his soul to God and the Blessed Virgin. Like St. Stephen – and stoned to death in that Saint’s city – he went to rest in the lords keeping. Before he received the fatal wound the Lords brave knight – say rather, if we are not mistaken, his most glorious martyr – was five times wounded by the enemy archers, like the Saviour for whom he now patiently accepted death, and by whose side he now lives in sublime peace, as we believe.12

William of Puylaurens says the following:

(ch. 28) So, the man who inspired terror from the Mediterranean to the British sea fell by a blow from a single stone; at his fall those who had previously stood firm fell down. In him, who was a good man, the insolence of his subordinates was thrown down. I affirm that later I heard the Count of Toulouse (the last of his line) generously praise him – even though he was the enemy – for his fidelity, his foresight, his energy and all the qualities which befit a leader.

God then gave a signal that those who arrogantly sought to govern unwilling subjects and gave no thought to purging the land of heresy (for which the whole enterprise had been started), had departed from his way.13

That is the semi-positive verdict of William of Puylaurens who is also, we must not forget, a whole hearted supporter of the inquisition and hater of heretics / heresy.

In the end despite the subsequent recovery by the southerners of virtually everything from the Crusaders and the abandonment of the whole enterprise by Simon de Montfort’s son it was all for naught. The intervention of the King the France beginning in 1226 finally broke southern resistance and in 1229 C.E., forced the Count of Toulouse, Raymond VII son of Count Raymond VI, (who had died in 1222 C.E.,) to sign a humiliating peace, (Peace of Paris 1229 C.E.,). Subsequently the Inquisition was introduced into the south and Catharism brutally suppressed. In the end the lands of the Count of Toulouse were incorporated into the royal domain of the French king.14

So in the end all did not turn out well but an alternative epitaph exists for Simon de Montfort and it is entirely appropriate unlike the epitaphs of William of Puylaurens or Peter. Both of whom, especially Peter, are far too enamored of the brave fighter against heresy. It is from the Anonymous contributor to The Song of the Cathar Wars, that we get the words that damn Simon de Montfort for all time, and they go as follows:

(s. 208) Straightway they bore him to burial in Carcassonne, and celebrated the funeral service at the monastery of Saint-Nazaire. And those who can read may learn from his epitaph that he is a saint and a martyr; that he is bound to rise again to share the heritage, to flourish in that state of unparalleled felicity, to wear a crown and have his place in the Kingdom. But for my part I have heard tell that the matter must stand thus: if one may seek Christ Jesus in this world by killing men and shedding blood by the destruction of human souls; by compounding murder and hearkening to perverse counsel; by setting the torch to great fires; by destroying the Barons and dishonouring Parage; by winning lands through violence, and working for the triumph of vain pride; by fostering evil and snuffing out good; by slaughtering women and slitting children’s throats – why, then he must needs wear a crown, and shine resplendent in Heaven.15

Tombstone of Simon de Montfort at Carcassonne16

1. For accounts of the Cathar “heresy” see The Perfect Heresy, Stephen O’Shea, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, pp. 17-31, Massacre at Montsegur, Zoe Oldenbourg, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 28-81, The Cathars, Malcolm Lambert, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., London, 1998, pp. 131-170, The Cathars, Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 6-33, 71-126, The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 197-240, The Medieval Manichee, Steven Runciman, The Viking Press, New York, 1947, pp. 116-170. See also The Birth of Popular Heresy, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, pp. 9-26, 113-154. for an interesting collection of essays about aspects of "Heresy" and "Crusading" see Crusaders and Heretics, 12th - 14th Centuries, Malcolm Barber, Variorum, Aldershot, Britain, 1995.

2. See Wikipedia article Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester at Here.

3. For contemporary accounts of the battle see The History of the Albigensian Crusade, Peter de Les Vaux-de-Cernay, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 1998, pp. 206-219, (s. 453-486). (Peter accompanied Simon on the Crusade has a chronicler). A copy in Latin can be found Here. The Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela & Anonymous, Scolar Press, Aldershot England, 1996, pp. 67-71, (s. 133-141). (This is from the part written by Anonymous who is very anti-Crusader and almost certainly attached to the court of the Counts of Toulouse) A copy can be found in French Here. The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, William of Puylaurens, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 2003, pp. 43-49, (ch. 20-21) (William of Puylaurens was an aide to Bishop Fulk of Toulouse and then to Fulk's successor in the period 1225-1260.) A copy can be found in Latin Here. Modern accounts are O’Shea, pp. 132-149, Oldenbourg, pp. 165-170.

4. Peter, p. 213.

5. The Three quotes in order are from, Peter, p. 117, Williams of Puylaurens, p. 40, Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela section, p. 42. Laveur fell in 1211 C.E.

6. See O’Shea and Oldenbourg for more of the disgusting details.

7. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous section, p. 122-123.

8. Peter, p. 270.

9. The best account of this siege is in Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 122-176, (s.182-207).

10. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, p. 172.

11. Oldenbourg, p. 201. Translation by Pierre Cloutier.

12. Peter, p. 277.

13. William of Puylaurens, pp. 61-62.

14. For the unpleasant story see William of Puylaurens, pp. 64-125, (ch. 30-50), For the Treaty of Paris, 1229, a copy can be found in Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, pp. 138-144, For more discussion of these events see Oldenbourg, pp. 207-309, O’Shea, pp. 179-238.

15. I use the translation of this passage from Oldenbourg, pp. 199-200, which I like the best. The passage can also be found in Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, pp. 176. The passage can be found on the website Languedoc at Here. Positive accounts of Simon de Montfort are few and far between An example of this is Simon de Montfort (1165-1218), His Life and Work: A Critical Study and Evaluation based on the Sources, Robert John Kovarik, Phd, St Louis University, 1963, a copy can be found Here. Aside from excusing, rationlizing Simon's behavior and attitudes. (The old saw about the "times" etc., ignoring the tolerance of the South for example). The author quite selectively uses data. For example he quotes (p. 348), the first part of Anonymous' epitath but excludes all of the stuff from "But for my part..." The author also manages to elide all the stuff indicating the great hatred with which Southerners regarded Simon de Montfort.

16. The body of Simon de Montfort is no longer there. Simon's son removed it in 1224 C.E., to prevent it from being violated by the resurgent southerners. See Oldenbourg, p. 207.

Pierre Cloutier