From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy During the Albigensian Crusade 2503567819, 9782503567815

Citation preview

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne

Outremer Studies in the Crusades and the Latin East

Volume 5

General Editor Dr Alan V. Murray (University of Leeds) Editorial Board Prof. Alfred Andrea (University of Vermont) Prof. Simon Barton (University of Central Florida) Prof. Jochen Burgtorf (California State University, Fullerton) Prof. John France (Swansea University) Prof. Nikolas Jaspert (University of Heidelberg) Prof. Kurt Villads Jensen (Stockholm University) Prof. Peter Lock (York St John University) Prof. Graham Loud (University of Leeds) Dr Christoph Maier (University of Zürich) Prof. Helen Nicholson (Cardiff University)

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade * * *

De Carrickfergus à Carcassonne La geste épique d’Hugues de Lacy au temps de la croisade des Albigeois

Edited by Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard

H

F

Cover illustration: The count de Montfort assaults Toulouse, from the Chanson de la croisade albigeoise (Bibl. Nat., MS 25425, f. 80, RC-A-4815). © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/214 ISBN 978-2-503-56781-5 e-ISBN 978-2-503-56782-2 DOI 10.1484/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.110161 Printed on acid-free paper.

Contents

Contentsv Acknowledgementsvii Contributorsix List of illustrations xiii Mapsxvii Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard Chapter 1. The Cathar Heresy and Anglo-Norman Ireland

1

Section I. Expulsion Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown Chapter 2. From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

9

Tadhg O’Keeffe Chapter 3. Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

31

Ruairí Ó Baoill Chapter 4. The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

57

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler Chapter 5. Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 120077 Anne Brenon Chapter 6. The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd): A Unique Window into Dissident Religiosity 

107

Jean-Michel Picard Chapter 7. Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland: The Other Simon de Montfort 129 Section II. Exile Pilar Jiménez Sanchez Chapter 8. Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

153

Daniel J. F. Brown Chapter 9. Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

167

Jean-Louis Gasc Chapter 10. Simon de Montfort – un croisé dans l’âme?

189

Contents Jean-François Vassal Chapter 11. Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois, d’un seigneur du Nord

211

Jean Catalo Chapter 12. The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

229

Section III. Restitiution Lucien Aries Chapter 13. Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

247

Philip Macdonald Chapter 14. Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

263

David McIlreavy Chapter 15. Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill Campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

277

Paul Duffy Chapter 16. From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus: The Legacy of de Lacy’s Crusade experience in Britain and Ireland

295

Index of Names and Places

329

Colour Plates

343

vi

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the individual contributors, both those who participated in the Carrickfergus to Carcassonne joint-conferences in Carrickfergus and Laurac, and those who have prepared essays for inclusion in the volume independent of the conferences. The inclusion of color plates in this publication has been kindly sponsored by the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Irish Archaeological Consultancy (IAC Ltd.) and the editors would like to express sincere gratitude for this support. Thanks and gratitude are also due to the staff of the Carrickfergus Museum and the Association de Sports et Loisirs de Laurac, in particular Shirin Murphy and François Steenkeste respectively, without whose energetic and unfailing support the Carrickfergus to Carcassonne conferences and subsequent exhibitions would not have been possible. The editors would also like to express gratitude to the Irish Research Council (through its New Foundations Grant Scheme 2015) and the conseil départmental d’Aude, both of which made the initial Carrickfergus to Carcassonne project a reality. For their helpful comments on drafts of the text and provision of photographs, thanks are due to Rachel Swallow and Jim Duffy. Finally, a word of thanks to Conor McDermott and the School of Archaeology at University College Dublin for invaluable guidance in all things grant related.

vii

Contributors

Lucien Aries is Professor Emeritus of materials engineering and archeometallurgy at Toulouse University III – Paul Sabatier. He is also president of the historical and environmental research group – A.R.B.R.E. based in Baziège and has authored several books on the Lauragais region. Anne Brenon is an Honorary Curator of Heritage (Archives de France). She dedicated her thesis at the Ecole des Chartes and her diploma of Hautes Études en Sciences religieuses to the study of the manuscripts of the Waldensians before founding the journal Heresis and focusing her work on the Cathar dissidence. She has authored many publications on Catharism and is recognised as one of the leading scholars active in the field. Anne is an active member of the CIRCAED research group. Daniel Brown was awarded his PhD by Queen’s University Belfast, and completed his research on Hugh de Lacy as a postdoctoral fellow at Trinity College Dublin. He has taught medieval History at QUB and TCD, and lives and works in Belfast. Jean Catalo is an archeologist and ceramics specialist at the National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (Inrap) in the MidiPyrénées and researcher at CNRS-UMR Laboratory 5608 TRACES Jean Jaurès University of Toulouse. As a specialist in medieval urban archeology, he co-edited, along with Quitterie Cazes Toulouse au Moyen Âge, 1000 ans d’histoire urbaine, published in 2010 by Nouvelles éditions Loubatières. Paul Duffy is a licensed archaeologist with Irish Archaeological Consultancy and director of the not-for-profit initiative Grassroots Archaeology, and is also a Member of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland. Paul has directed many medieval and prehistoric excavations and large scale archaeological surveys in Ireland, the UK, France and Australia. He has published in numerous volumes and has lectured widely on his research. His interests include community archaeology, medieval settlement, and defensive architecture. Author of several books and articles devoted to Catharism, Jean-Louis Gasc is a guide-lecturer in charge of cultural action with the Centre des Monuments Nationaux in the UNESCO listed city of Carcassonne. He ix

Contributors

is the founder of the association Compagnons de Paratge and is an active member of CIRCAED, an international research group on Catharism and religious dissidences. Pilar Jiminez Sanchez is a lecturer and associate researcher at CNRSUMR Laboratory 5136 FRAMESPA (Southern France and Spain), Jean Jaurès University of Toulouse. She is president of the International Collective of Research on Catharism and Dissidence (CIRCAED) and author of Les Catharismes. Modèles dissidents du christianisme médiéval (XIIe-XIIIe s.), éd. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, 2008. Dr Philip Macdonald is an archaeological consultant based in Northern Ireland. His research interests include medieval settlement in Ulster and the early history of Belfast. He has recently directed excavations jointly with Liam McQuillan at Dundrum Castle (Co. Down). A licensed archaeologist with Irish Archaeological Consultancy, David McIlreavy has Masters Degrees in Modern History and Archaeology from Queens University Belfast and is a full Member of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland. His research interests include the development of the medieval settlement of Ulster under John de Courcy and Hugh II de Lacy. He is the founder and lead researcher of The Medieval Bray Project, a community research partnership exploring the development of the settlement of Bray, Co. Wicklow, throughout the medieval period. Ruairí Ó Baoill works in the Centre for Archaeological Fieldwork, School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast. He is President of the Ulster Archaeological Society (UAS) and an expert on the archaeology of Carrickfergus (https://qub.academia.edu/RuairíÓBaoill ). Professor Tadhg O’Keeffe studied in University College Dublin and the universities of Durham, London and Poitiers. He now teaches in UCD School of Archaeology. He is a specialist in medieval architecture, Irish and European, and has written a number of books and many articles on ecclesiastical, military, secular buildings. Jean-Michel Picard studied at the University of Provence in Aix-enProvence, at the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, and at the National University of Ireland, Dublin (UCD). As a specialist in medieval languages, literature and history, he has published several books and numerous articles on Irish hagiographical literature, on Hiberno-Latin language, and on the history of contacts between Ireland and the continent during the middle ages. He is professor emeritus in the UCD School of Languages, Cultures & Linguistics, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy. x

Contributors

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler has a doctorate in geology from the University of Wales and a Masters in Archaeology from the National University of Ireland, Galway. He works on commission as an archaeological illustrator specialising in reconstruction drawing, while at the same time pursuing and publishing on his research interests in medieval history and archaeology, with particular emphasis on castle studies. Jean-François Vassal was born in Carcassonne in 1973. He holds Masters degrees in French as a Second Langage, French Litterature, and Medieval History. A Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Carcassonne, he is the manager of ILC (Carcassonne Linguistique Institute) which also provides interactive demonstrations on the medieval history of the thirteenth century.

xi

List of Illustrations Map 1: Sites mentioned in the text: Europe and the Holy Land.

xvii

Map 2:

Sites mentioned in the text: Ireland.

xviii

Map 3:

Sites mentioned in the text: Great Britain

xix

Map 4:

Sites mentioned in the text: France

xx

Maps 5, 6: Sites mentioned in the text: regions of Northern France and Southern France

xxi

Fig. 2.1: Count Raymond VII before the pope at the Lateran Council, Rome.

11

Fig. 2.2: Hugh II de Lacy’s grant of Renneville to the order of St John of Jerusalem.

27

Fig. 2.3: The ‘south donjon and logis’ at Carcassonne. 

28

Fig. 3.1: Trim, Co. Meath.

33

Fig. 3.2: The original market (?) on High Street, Trim.

39

Fig. 3.3: Market Street, Trim, with the bell-tower of the Augustinian abbey (the ‘Yellow Steeple’) in the background.

40

Fig. 3.4: The plan of Trim Castle. 

41

Fig. 3.5: Trim Castle donjon.

42

Fig. 3.6: The Dublin Gate, Trim Castle; the gatetower, Le Coudray-Salbart; the Black Gate of Newcastle.

45

Fig. 3.7: The Dublin Gate, Trim Castle.

46

Fig. 3.8: Sections of the ‘ringwork’ fosse, Trim Castle.

51

Fig. 4.1: Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim.

59

Fig. 4.2: Location of excavations undertaken in Carrickfergus by Tom Delaney and Lesley Simpson, 1972–79.

62

Fig. 4.3: Features from the 1970s excavations at Joymount, Carrickfergus.

63

Fig. 4.4: A thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman grave-slab, Carrickfergus.

65

Fig. 4.5: The medieval town ditch, Carrickfergus.

67

Fig. 4.6: The thirteenth-century pottery kiln at Irish Quarter, Carrickfergus.

69

Fig. 4.7: Reconstructed thirteenth-century pottery vessels.

70

xiii

List of Illustrations

Fig. 4.8: Location of excavations undertaken by Ruairí Ó Baoill, 1991–95.

71

Fig. 4.9: Base and body fragments from an Irish-made pot, Carrickfergus.

72

Fig. 5.1: Carrickfergus Castle.

79

Fig. 5.2: Comparative plans of selected castles, c. 1200 and early thirteenth-century. 

85

Fig. 5.3: Comparative plans of selected twin-towered castle gatehouses, c. 1200 and early thirteenth-century.

87

Fig. 5.4: Gatehouses at Falaise, the Louvre, Chepstow, and Limerick. 

88

Fig. 5.5: Carrickfergus Castle gatehouse. 

97

Fig. 5.6: Comparative plans of the twin-towered gatehouses at Carrickfergus, Chepstow and Limerick.

101

Fig. 6.1: The first page of the ‘Dublin Occitan Ritual’.

113

Fig. 7.1: Map showing Ireland, Britain and the Continent, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica.136 Fig. 7.2: Henry II, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica.141 Fig. 8.1: Roquefort dans le pays cathare occitan.

160

Fig. 8.2: Évêchés cathares et zones de predication aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles.

161

Fig. 9.1: The town of Laurac.

181

Fig. 9.2: The Porte de Saliège, Laurac.

187

Fig. 10.1: La mort de Simon de Montfort.

207

Fig. 11.1: Voussoir avec la crête de Voisin, du château d’Arques.

228

Fig. 12.1: Archaeological work at the courthouse, Toulouse, and its vicinity.

232

Fig. 12.2: Reconstructed cross-sections of the outer defences of the Château Narbonnais.

235

Fig. 12.3: General view, Cité judiciaire, Toulouse.

243

Fig. 12.4: Suggested reconstruction of the defence system of the royal palace.

244

Fig. 12.5: Crenellations of the thirteenth-century rampart.

246

Fig. 13.1: Carte du champ de bataille de Baziège.

262

xiv

List of Illustrations

Fig. 14.1: Plan of Dundrum Castle.

266

Fig. 14.2: Dundrum Castle plans, c. 1800 and 1883.

268

Fig. 15.1: The area of Twescard.

281

Fig. 15.2: Areas granted to the de Galloways. 

283

Fig. 15.3: Map of the de Lacy’s attach on northern Ulster.

290

Fig. 15.4: The motte at Drummard.

291

Fig. 16.1: Plan of Carcassonne c. 1250. 

307

Fig. 16.2: The early thirteenth-century gate of Carcassonne.

308

Fig. 16.3: Beaucaire and Carrickfergus castles.

309

Fig. 16.4: Beeston, Bolingbroke, Chartley and Montlhéry castles.

312

Fig. 16.5: The main gate of Beeston Castle.

313

Fig. 16.6: Twin-towered gateways at Carcassonne, Beeston and Criccieth.

314

Fig. 16.7: The gatehouse at Carrickfergus Castle. 

317

Fig. 16.8: Plan of Greencastle.

322

xv

Map 3

Navas de Tolosa

Map 2

Map 4

Zadar

Rome

Concorezzo

Zürich

5 6 7

1 2 3 4

Istanbul [Constantinople]

1 Saône 2 Krak des Chevaliers 3 Acre 4 Hattin 5 Jaffa 6 Beit Nuba 7 Jerusalem

Maps

Map 1: Sites mentioned in the text: Europe and the Holy Land.

xvii

Maps

Rathlin Coleraine Coleraine Court MacMartin Mount Sandel Drumard Doonbought Cross Connor Carrickfergus Toome Toome White Abbey Belfast

Tullahogue

Nendrum

Ballyhalbert Grey Abbey

Armagh Armagh Downpatrick Dundrum Clones Clones Port PortIsland Island Clough Oughter

Ballymascanlon Dundalk Castleroche Nobber

Greencastle Carlingford Drogheda

Mellifont

Fore Fore

Roscommon Tuam Tuam

Duleek Colp Ballymagarvey Multyfarnham Bective Skreen Skreen Trim Trim Trevet Ballybin Ballybin Ratoath Clonard Dunshaughlin Clonard Athlone Athlone Rathbeggan Rathbeggan Howth Durrow Durrow

Maynooth Dublin Maynooth

Glendalough Dunamase Dunamase Nenagh Nenagh

Glenmalure

Carlow Carlow

Limerick Limerick

Kilkenny Kilkenny

Ferns

Cashel Cashel New NewRoss Ross Dunbrody Dunbrody Waterford Dungarvan Dungarvan

Hook

Inchiquin

80 km / 50 m

Map 2: Sites mentioned in the text: Ireland.

xviii

Maps

StStAndrews Andrews

Dryburgh Dryburgh Bamburgh

80 km / 50 m

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Carlisle Holm Cultram Holm Cultram St Bees Kendal

Scarborough Scarborough

Man

Pontefract Conisburgh Beaumaris Beaumaris Dolbadarn Dolbadarn Criccieth Criccieth Harlech

Bolingbroke

Chester Beeston Beeston Whittington Kinnerley Kinnerley

Newark Alton Chartley Buckenham

Montgomery Kenilworth Ludlow Framlingham CambridgeCambridge Orford Weobley Evesham Longtown Llanthony Llanthony Prima Prima Linton Grosmont Grosmont Llanthony Secunda White Castle White CastleSkenfrith Pembroke Chepstow Chepstow Windsor Windsor London London Rochester Bristol Donnington Rochester Dover Saltwood Rye Pevensey Portchester Sherborne Portchester Carisbrooke Corfe

Map 3: Sites mentioned in the text: Great Britain

xix

Maps

England Belgium Germany Luxembourg

Map 5

Corbail

Le Mans Saint-Julien Dijon Chinon Mehun-sur-Yèvre

Cîteaux

Switzerland

Angles-sur-l’Anglin Le Coudray-Salbart

Razès

Grenoble

Italy

Carpentras Avignon

Map 6 Spain

Map 4: Sites mentioned in the text: France

xx

80 km / 50 m

Maps

Map 5

Campeaux

Laon Compiègne

Rouen

Soissons Tracy

Saint-Philibert-sur-Risle

Gisors Senlis

Caen

Château Gaillard Ferté-Milon Évreux

Epinay

Villepinte

Lassy

Paris

Damville

Falaise

Vitry

Melun

Breteuil-sur-Iton

Le Pin-au-Haras

Vaudry

Sées Saint-James-de-Beuvron Dourdan

Yèvre-le-Châtel Châteaudun

80 km / 50 m Orléans

Marmande Cassenneuil Agen Verfeuil Roquefort

Moissac Albi Beaucaire

Lavaur

Toulouse Puylaurens Baziège Saint-Félix de Caraman Muret Hautpoul Saissac Renneville Cabaret Mas-Saintes-Puelles Castelnaudary Agassens Prouille Laurac Carcassonne Fanjeaux Montréal Saint-Gaudéric Pieusse Corbières Limoux Foix Arques

Béziers

Map 6

Maps 5, 6: Sites mentioned in the text: regions of Northern France and Southern France

xxi

Chapter 1 The Cathar Heresy and Anglo-Norman Ireland Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard

In twelfth- and thirteenth-century Western Europe, the Cathars (from the Greek katharoi, meaning ‘pure ones’) were adherents to a Christian dualist doctrine that was condemned by popes and Church councils as heretical. Christian culture regarded as heretics those who, rather than accept the Church’s official or orthodox view on matters of belief, made their own choices – the term heretic comes from the Greek noun hairesis, ‘a choice’ – and in doing so were regarded as lacking humility in the face of Christ’s own teaching. Medieval dualist heretics were, put simply, those who believed in two supreme powers or gods, one good, one evil, set in opposition to each other; contemporary monotheistic orthodox Christians, by contrast, held that there was one God, the creator of everything. Heretical beliefs are almost as old as Christianity itself. Constantine’s drive to unify liturgical practices on a firm doctrinal platform in the fourth century, effected through councils of the Church, created the context in which orthodoxy and dissidence would thereafter be defined. Other than Arianism, to which a number of Germanic populations had converted even before the fall of Rome, heresies were a minor concern for orthodox (or Catholic) Christianity for most of the first millennium ad. Paganism, which survived quite late in Scandinavia, and Islam, with its foothold in Iberia, were more pressing issues. After l’an mil, ad 1000, however, that changed. Rodolfus Glaber, in his famous description of a world newly clothed in a ‘white mantle of churches’ at the start of the eleventh century, attested to a vigorous intensification of Christian devotion which many scholars attribute to a millennial zeitgeist. In that context, new heretical impulses from the east – specifically the Bogomil heresy that originated in tenth-century Bulgaria – began to register in the consciousness of western Christendom. In 1022 Robert II of France, remembered in history by the sobriquet ‘the Pious’, ordered the execution of thirteen canons of Orléans Cathedral, which was the first-ever act of its type against alleged heretics in the western Church. There was a brief lull in (recorded) heretical activity in the mid-eleventh century, associated perhaps with the Gregorian Reform and its effectiveness in drawing From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 1–6

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114235

Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard

the Christian community together, but popular heresies re-emerged with renewed vigour in the twelfth century. Among these was the so-called Cathar heresy. First in evidence in the Rhineland in the 1140s, the Cathar movement spread rapidly across western continental Europe within three decades. The Cathars’ particular dualist doctrine held that the bad god, the God of the Old Testament, had created the physical universe, and that material things and their enjoyment, including the body and its pleasures, had no place in the good God’s roadmap to salvation. These ideas were disseminated by Cathars through an ecclesiastical structure that mirrored that of the Orthodox Church in being hierarchical in structure, with bishops at its head, but differed otherwise. The bishops administered the rite of the consolamentum or consolament by which recipients committed themselves to a life of extreme self-denial, and from which position they in turn, as Perfecti, preached to credentes or auditors, believers or listeners. It was a Church without priests. The movement’s innate asceticism and spirituality, though regarded by the papacy as heretical, and its strong moral code allied to personal modesty and sacrifice, made it attractive to peasants who were anxious to find salvation but who were, perhaps, disconnected from an increasingly wealthy Catholic Church. Its attractiveness was not confined to rural illiterati. On the contrary, its extraordinary success, which required extraordinary papal efforts to reverse, owed much to the fact that nobles, merchants, artisans and others were also drawn to it. Occitania became the heartland of the Cathar movement once persecution became a serious issue for northern European Cathars in the later twelfth century. The geographical concentration of Cathars in Languedoc gave the papacy, increasingly threatened by the movement’s popularity, a focus for counter-action. The third Lateran Council in 1179 had prioritised the rooting-out of heresies, even by physical force, but no inroads were made into the Cathar lands. In 1204 Innocent III enjoined Philip II (Augustus) of France to take action against the heretics, but he was too preoccupied with his on-going fight with King John of England. The murder of a papal legate in Languedoc in 1208 brought matters to a head, and a series of military campaigns, known as the Albigensian Crusade (after Albi, a centre of Catharism), was launched. Languedoc became a theatre of war. Into that theatre stepped one Hugh de Lacy. Hugh was an exile from Ireland. He was the son of Hugh I de Lacy, the most powerful lord in the English (Anglo-Norman) conquest and colonisation of eastern Ireland that began in 1169. Just as his father’s career had been shaped by his relationship with Henry II, the trajectory 2

The Cathar Heresy and Anglo-Norman Ireland

of his own career – his acquisition of the earldom of Ulster in 1205 and his escape to France via Scotland in 1210 – was determined largely by the machinations in the political arena of Anglo-Norman Ireland of King John. The anti-Cathar crusade had barely begun when Hugh appeared in southern France. He quickly sided with the crusaders, and, becoming a trusted ally of Simon de Montfort, established himself as one of the dramatis personae in the war. It took twenty years, from 1209 to 1229, and thousands of lives, for the Albigensian Crusade to bring most of Cathar Languedoc back into the orthodox fold. By that stage, Hugh was back home in Ireland, fully immersed in another yet theatre of war. Historians of medieval Ireland have long been familiar with the career in Ireland of Hugh II de Lacy. He, his father, and his brother Walter, are key figures in the political history of the island from 1171 when Hugh I landed in Ireland as part of Henry II’s entourage, to 1241–42 when, in consecutive years, Walter and Hugh II respectively died. But those same historians have, until very recently, shown little interest in Hugh  II’s years in exile. It would not be unreasonable to argue that events in southern France and Hugh’s role in them are of little direct relevance to understanding the early history of the Anglo-Norman colony in Ireland. However, the very fact that the one-time earl of Ulster was able to move to southern France, ingratiate himself as an Angevin into the company of the anti-Cathar party of Capetians, and then end up with two Languedocian lordships, Castelnaudary and Laurac, tells us much about his character. It also speaks volumes about the interconnectedness of people and places across significant geographical distances in the central middle ages. This collection of fifteen essays by scholars from Ireland and France originated in the quest of one of its editors, Paul Duffy, to map Hugh’s movement through the Cathar territories and to establish his role in the crusade that defeated Catharism – it survived only in remote places before petering out in the fourteenth century – and helped to absorb Languedoc, the Midi, and Provence into Capetian France. A series of papers published by Duffy in Irish and French periodicals since 2013 has, on the one hand, intruded Hugh’s remarkable exploits in Occitania into the narrative of medieval Irish history, and, on the other, illuminated for French medieval historians the role in the Albigensian Crusade of a regional political dispute in a distant province in Ireland. These and other issues are explored in these new essays, ten of which are based in papers given at conferences in Belfast, on 26 September 2015 or in Carcassonne, on 3 October 2015. The collection makes no claim to be comprehensive. Each paper was delivered to one or other conference as a stand-alone contribution to some aspect of scholarship on eastern Ireland and southern France in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. But each was conceived, 3

Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard

however, with some ambition to inform wider conversations on Ireland and France, separately and together, in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, and to inform specifically conversations on the Cathar heresy, the papacy’s response to it, and the people – one prominent Irish magnate among them – involved in its bloody denouement. The three themes within which the essays are ordered in this volume relate obviously to the three sequential phases of Hugh’s story as a magnate. They are also offered as templates for further research into the Carrickfergus– Carcassonne axis. The essays themselves move back and forward between Ireland and France. A  brief precis here will convey no more than an impression of what they contain. Duffy, with Daniel Brown, sets the scene in Chapter 2 with a broad review of de Lacy’s early career in Ireland, an explanation of the background to his exile, and a reflection on his subsequent adventures in southern France. Brown’s own essay, Chapter 9, reveals how, as earl of Ulster and as a crusader lord in Languedoc, de Lacy’s strategy for exercising lordship involved some accommodation and assimilation of existing institutions and people respectively. The theme of strategy features again in Chapter 15, David McIlreavy’s essay, which focuses on de Lacy after his period of exile had passed and he had returned to Ulster. Having mapped de Lacy’s aggressive march across Ulster, he explores de Lacy’s strategic thinking in capturing land in northern Ulster. Trim, Carrickfergus and Dundrum, three places associated with de Lacy power in late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Ireland, are discussed in Chapters 3, 4 and 14 by Tadhg O’Keeffe, Ruairí Ó Baoill and Philip Macdonald respectively. Fresh analyses of well-known castles feature prominently in the first and third of these: Trim Castle was Hugh’s ancestral home in Ireland, and no place anywhere is more associated with the family name than it, while Dundrum was originally a castle of his great rival, John de Courcy. As these essays show, Hugh’s return to Ireland impacted on both places in different ways. Carrickfergus played a bigger role than Trim in Hugh’s adult life in Ireland, and Ó Baoill’s essay conveys a sense of what the town was like, based on archaeological enquiries. Its castle dominates the essays by Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler (Chapter 5) and Paul Duffy (Chapter 16). Recent re-dating of the outer gatehouse of Chepstow Castle in south Wales has led to reappraisals of the chronology of the Carrickfergus gatehouse, the central theme of Tietzsch-Tyler’s essay, and to fresh debate on the dynamics of castle-development in Ireland. Readers will spot some differences of opinion between the writers of these papers on castles; no attempt was made to achieve a consensus. Our knowledge of the de Lacy family’s exploits in Ireland and in France comes from many sources. Jean-Michel Picard, in Chapter 7, considers 4

The Cathar Heresy and Anglo-Norman Ireland

the evidence of contemporary poems, and in that context discusses the circulation of French texts in medieval Ireland. He focuses in particular on a poem, preserved in a manuscript in Dublin, which laments the death of Simon de Montfort, son of the crusader of the same name. Another manuscript preserved in Dublin (MS 269 TCD), but of very different content, features in Chapter 6, Anne Brenon’s essay. Cathar rituals remain somewhat shrouded in mystery, but a manuscript rediscovered as recently as 1960 contains a text, generally known as the ‘Dublin Occitan ritual’, that is of Cathar origin and is of immense value in understanding the dissidents’ belief-system and its practices. Five chapters bring us back to France and to the turmoil of the crusades. Pilar Jiménez Sanchez, in Chapter 8, reveals that the term Cathar was but one of many by which the dissidents subjected to the papal crusade were known. Their description in Languedoc as ‘good men’ and ‘good women’ reflects how they were perceived contemporaneously by the people of that region, and helps explain how traces of Catharism survived after the victorious crusaders had packed away their weapons. The crusade was about half-way through its course when Simon de Montfort, one of its leading lights, lost his life in the siege of Toulouse in late June 1218. Hugh de Lacy was present when it happened. De Montfort’s remarkable career, which brought him from the Île-de-France, where he was a relatively minor baron, to the very epicentre of the crusade, is analysed by Jean-Louis Gasc in Chapter 10. Jean-François Vassal analyses in Chapter 11 the career of another one-time minor lord, Pierre de Voisins, who served as Simon de Montfort’s lieutenant and was also in Toulouse when Simon died. The great fortress of the counts of Toulouse, the Château Narbonnais, located on the south side of the town’s defences, was in crusader hands and was the base from which the siege of the town was prosecuted. Its destruction in the late sixteenth century has deprived us of an important item of Cathar and crusader heritage. In Chapter 12 Jean Catalo draws together the available evidence pertaining to its location and physical form. Another key confrontation of the later 1210s, the battle of Baziège, is considered in Chapter 13 by Lucien Aries, who shows how a reconstruction of its landscape setting helps us comprehend how the crusaders (with de Lacy in their company) were routed. In Languedoc in the 1210s and early 1220s Hugh II de Lacy was one among many key figures. He was an Angevin abroad, and his sympathies were with the Capetians. In Ulster, from 1205 to 1210, he had been the key figure, fighting the native Irish as an Angevin earl, but also fighting his fellow Angevins. Back in Ulster from 1223 to his death in 1242, he resumed what had been his normal service, and his adventure with the Capetian crusaders was in his past. Paul Duffy’s closing essay, Chapter 16, 5

Paul Duffy, Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard

which considers inter alia some French comparanda for Irish castles of the second quarter of the thirteenth century, raises the possibility that de Lacy brought back more than merely memories. Duffy’s paper closes one circle of research on de Lacy as a magnate who enjoyed power in two very different realms. For archaeologists, but also surely for historians, it opens a whole new line of enquiry.

6

Section I

Expulsion

Chapter 2 From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown Abstract Following his expulsion from Ireland by King John in 1210, Hugh  II de Lacy spent thirteen years in exile before returning to invade parts of Meath and his former earldom of Ulster. During his absence he is known to have been in France. Examining Hugh’s career in the years prior to his exile from Ireland, this paper focuses on his conflict with John de Courcy and King John in Ulster. De Lacy’s pivotal role in the Albigensian Crusade and his subsequent appointment by Simon de Montfort as the lord of Castelnaudary and Laurac in the south of France are also explored. Drawing on works of contemporary chroniclers and other documentary sources, this paper reconstructs de Lacy’s movements in Languedoc, and a potential line of cause and effect from expulsion to crusade is explored.

Résumé Après son expulsion de l’Irlande par le roi Jean en 1210, Hugues de Lacy II passa treize ans en exil avant de revenir pour envahir des parties du Comté de Meath et de son ancien Comté d’Ulster. Pendant son absence, on sait qu’il était en France. En examinant la carrière d’Hugues de Lacy dans les années précédant son exil d’Irlande, cet article met l’accent sur les conflits de de Lacy avec John de Courcy et le roi Jean dans la province d’Ulster. Le rôle central joué par de Lacy dans la croisade Albigeoise et sa nomination ultérieure par Simon de Montfort comme seigneur de Castelnaudary et de Laurac dans le département d’Aude sont également étudiés. Se basant sur les œuvres de chroniqueurs contemporains et d’autres sources documentaires, cet article reconstruit les mouvements d’Hugues de Lacy en Languedoc. Ce faisant, une ligne potentielle de causes et d’effets allant de l’expulsion à la croisade est explorée.

The Fourth Lateran Council 1215 On 11 November 1215 the archbishops of Armagh, Tuam, Cashel and Dublin would have struggled to ascend a broad flight of steps in the capital of Christendom as, in the limpid, early winter air, the tumult of hundreds of voices rose up over the great press of bodies climbing towards From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 9–29

F H G

DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114236

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

the fabulously ornate western façade of the Lateran Basilica, Rome. At the mercy of the crowd, the four most senior prelates of the Irish Church are likely to have battled to stay close to the fourteen bishops and two bishops-elect who completed the Irish delegation to the greatest ecclesiastical council of the age. Engineered by Innocent III, one of the most progressive and charismatic popes of the middle ages, the fourth Lateran Council attracted masses of the great and the powerful from across Christendom. Seventy-one patriarchs (including those of Constantinople and Jerusalem), primates, and archbishops answered the call of the pontiff, sent out two years earlier to maximise the number of respondents. So too did 417 bishops and about 800 priests, abbots and representatives of various European princes, and counted among them was Dominic de Guzmán, the future St Dominic.1 King John, fresh from the lifting of the papal interdict, sent a combined delegation from England and Scotland. From the Baltic, a land undergoing forcible conversion under the Livonian Crusade, came fledgling Estonian bishops. Other bishops from across the fragmenting Holy Roman Empire attended, as did representatives from all of the major French cities. From the powerful kingdom of Hungary, soon to be brutalised by the Mongol invasion, a strong delegation was sent. Representatives from the Iberian Peninsula, the conflict zone between the Moorish kings and the royals of Aragon, attended. So too did bishops from the precarious Crusader states perched on the edge of the Holy Land and representatives of the Hohenstaufens in Sicily. Germanic, Romance, Gaelic, Greek and Slavic vowels would have contributed to the clamour of languages echoing from the sumptuous carvings of the basilica gable, while around the piazza the panoply of differing interpretations of religious garb, from the sumptuous purple of the archbishop to the bleached white of the Cistercian, must have produced a rich and varied palette of colour. The multitudes assembled within the high vaulted space of the basilica would have generated an overpowering noise and heat: the records tell us that at least one bishop was overcome by the weight of the human crush and expired on the flags of the floor (Fig. 2.1).2 A company of representatives from Ireland had navigated the Irish Sea, travelled through Dover, crossed the English Channel, and journeyed along the old pilgrimage routes through France and Lombardy in the footsteps of generations of Irish pilgrims before them. Lorcán Ó Tuathail, the first and last Gaelic-Irish bishop of Dublin (canonised in 1225 by 1

2

10

Achille Luchaire, ‘Un document retrouvé’, Journal des Savants 3 (1905), 557–68, at pp. 557–62. Luchaire, ‘Un document retrouvé’, p. 562.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

Fig. 2.1: Count Raymond VII before the pope at the Lateran Council, Rome, from the illustrated manuscript of the Canso (Bibl. Nat., MS 25425, fol. 41, RCA-44045); see colour plate 1.

11

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

Honorius III), had made the same journey in 1179 to attend the third Lateran Council where he was appointed as the papal legate to Ireland. The 1215 delegation was made up of thirteen Gaelic-Irish and seven Anglo-Norman representatives, led by Henry of London, archbishop of Dublin.3 Although these prelates had travelled to Rome in order to participate in a great ecumenical council, they also had their own agendas to pursue. The bishops sought to represent the interests of their sees at home, and hoped to press the pope for favour in the election of their candidates to ecclesiastical offices, or for favourable outcomes in jurisdictional disputes. For a full generation up to 1215, the Gaelic-Irish aristocracy had experienced the vigorous incursions of Anglo-Norman knights into their territories. The treaties agreed by the king of England and the native kings of Ireland in the 1170s had been disregarded almost as soon as they had been witnessed. The Gaelic-Irish population had come to understand that the land captured and occupied by the aggressors in the late twelfth century was lost, and that the political makeup of the country was undergoing fundamental and, for all they knew, irreversible change. Peace between the two ethnically-divided groups of clerics that made up the Irish party in Rome in 1215 was fragile, as witness the fact that, en route to the Lateran Council, Donnchad Ua Lonngargáin, the Gaelic-Irish archbishop of Cashel, met with King John at Dover to dispute the seizure of parts of his lands by the justiciar.4 From 1218, Donnchad would become Henry of London’s chief opponent in that bishop’s attempts to introduce an Anglo-Norman hierarchy into the Irish Church, and he travelled to Rome on several occasions to secure the support of the pope.5 Still, in 1215 the Irish delegation at the Lateran presented a united front, and they worked together to achieve the unification of the sees of Glendalough and Dublin in order to streamline ecclesiastical administration in the eastern part of Ireland. Innocent III must have known that by calling such a multiplicity of churchmen to Rome he would be subjected to countless such representations and petitions, and would witness many open squabbles. This was 3

4

5

12

Patrick  J. Dunning, ‘Irish Representatives and Ecclesiastical Affairs at the Fourth Lateran Council’, in Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ed. J.  A. Watt, J.  B. Morrall and F.  X. Martin (Dublin, 1961), pp.  91–113, at pp. 91–92. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Asservati 1201–1216, ed. Thomas  D. Hardy (London, 1835), p.  154; Dunning, ‘Irish Representatives’, p. 97. Aubrey Gwynn, ‘Henry of London, Archbishop of Dublin’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 38, (1949), 389–402.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

a small price to pay given the purpose of the council. A total of eighty ecumenical canons were introduced during the council, representing the single largest reform of doctrine in the history of the Roman Church. High on the pope’s agenda was the enacting of canons to combat the several heresies threatening the supremacy of the faith across large parts of Europe. Through the third canon, Innocent proclaimed: We excommunicate and anathematise every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic faith… We condemn all heretics, whatever names they go under: they have different faces indeed but tails tied one to another, for they have vanity in common.6

This declaration was an after-the-fact furtherance of the war which Innocent III had been waging on the Cathar heresy since the beginning of his pontificate. The dualist faith of Bogomilism which originated in the Balkans in the mid-ninth century, itself derived from earlier Manichaeism,7 is believed to be the origin of the Cathar faith. Catharism ran contrary in many respects to the Catholic doctrine of the Roman Church, regarding the Earth and all things therein as intrinsically evil. The Cathar faith and in particular the Perfecti – members of an ascetic, initiated elite – engaged the common people through the eschewal of riches, extravagance and earthly pleasure. Dualist heresy had percolated across southern Europe over the previous two-and-a-half centuries. Dissemination followed trade routes through Dalmatia and northern Italy, reaching Toulouse (dép. Haute-Garonne) around the year 1000. In the later twelfth century, Catharism, of Rhenish origin but now concentrated in southern France, was showing signs of advanced organisation with Cathar bishops recorded at Albi (dép. Tarn), Carcassonne (dép. Aude) and Toulouse, and possibly also Agen (dép. Nouvelle-Aquitaine). The Cathars of Languedoc were labelled Albigensians by the French to the north, who identified them with the town of Albi where the heresy was reported to be very strong. A perceptive politician, the pope was not in favour of strident action against Catharism. Instead, he sanctioned many preaching missions to places where Catharism was strong, and he exhorted the nobility of southern France to bring the spreading problem of Catharism under control. He had been pushed into preaching this crusade when his legate and friend, Pierre de Castelnau, was assassinated by a member of the court of the Count of Toulouse in 1208. 6

7

Readings in Medieval History, I: The Early Middle Ages, ed. and trans. Patrick J. Geary (Toronto, 2010), p. 430. Dimitri Obolensky, The Bogomils: A  Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge, 1948), p. 9.

13

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

As early as 1213 it was apparent to the pope that the barons who had been mandated to purge Languedoc of heresy had in fact taken the calling of the crusade as a pontifical consent to annexe the lands of lords who were either deemed to be harbourers of heretics or indeed heretics themselves, or who had simply refused to persecute suspected heretics from within their own tenantry. The crusading barons were largely unchallenged on the ground in their judgements of local lords and, from an early stage, had taken to acting on their own, often self-serving, impulses. This problem was the basis of the major secular issue which was brought before the gathered clergymen at the Lateran Council. A consortium of interconnected southern, or meridional, feudal lords had journeyed to Rome to dispute the seizure of lands by forces under Simon IV de Montfort, the titular earl of Leicester and the leader of the anti-Cathar crusaders. When the Count of Foix (dép. Ariège) took the stage before the massed assembly, his impassioned reports of errant, adventuring knights carving out territories in Languedoc cannot have failed to strike chords with the Gaelic-Irish and Anglo-Norman bishops in quite different ways. As it unfolded, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars exhibited some parallels with the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland of a generation earlier. First, just as Henry II had declined to lead a royal army to Ireland, so too did the king of France, Philip Augustus, defer official leadership of the crusade, allowing willing vassals to take the cross on his behalf. The free reign afforded to knights such as Richard de Clare (Strongbow), Hugh de Lacy and John de Courcy in the early stages of the conquest of Ireland by Henry  II was equally afforded by Philip Augustus of France to Simon de Montfort and others. The result in both instances was the same. The Anglo-Norman invasion, like the later Albigensian Crusade, attracted adventuring, enterprising men who then lost no time in seizing large estates for themselves. Furthermore, just as a lack of co-ordinated resistance facilitated the Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland, the response to the crusade launched by the meridional lords was fragmented. Second, the subsequent consolidating campaigns of Henry  II in Ireland and Louis VIII in Languedoc both crystallised the annexation of previously independent and culturally distinct territories to the Angevin and Capetian crowns respectively. To take the comparison further, Strongbow, Hugh I de Lacy, John de Courcy, and other knights involved in the invasion of Ireland in 1169 and the early 1170s belonged to a culture comparable to that of the northern crusaders: both groups 14

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

shared a common language, employed similar tactics in warfare, and organised themselves in the same hierarchical structure.8 There may be a third parallel. Just as the Abligensian Crusade was occasioned by papal edict, the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland may have had the approval of Adrian IV. Laudibiliter, a bull attributed to the only Englishman ever to hold the pontificate, outlined the merits and justifications, on religious grounds, of an Anglo-Norman annexation of Ireland: it is laudable, it stated, to ‘…enlarge the boundaries of the church, to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people, and to root out the growths of vice from the field of the Lord’. Whatever the authenticity of Laudibiliter, and that is a matter much disputed,9 the results of the invasion of Ireland found favour with Adrian’s successor, Alexander III. In a résumé of the invasion that they addressed collectively to the new pope, Henry II, the papal legate in Ireland, and the bishops of Ireland, described the conquest of Ireland as a means to ‘extirpate the filth of [native Irish] abomination’.10 Unorthodoxy is clearly implied here as a justification of the conquest. These two, possibly three, parallels between the Albigensian Crusade and the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland are all the more resonant considering that, at the very time that the Count of Foix was delivering his skilled oratorical address in Rome, Hugh II de Lacy, son of arguably the most successful of the first generation Anglo-Norman magnates in Ireland, was acting as a captain of the crusade and ruling over the disputed lordship of Castelnaudary and Laurac (both dép. Aude) in the county of Toulouse.

Hugh II de Lacy’s Early Career and the Acquisition of Ulster The English dimension of the de Lacys, deriving their name from Lassy (dép. Calvados), was added by the brothers, Ilbert (†1093) and Walter (†1085), whose participation in the Norman Conquest of England saw

8

9

10

Daniel Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge, 2004), p. 178. For discussion of Laudibiliter’s authenticity see J.  A. Watt, The Church and the Two Nations in Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 36–40; Brenda Bolton and A. J. Duggan (eds), Adrian IV, the English Pope, 1154–1159: Studies and Texts (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 149–50. Watt, Church and Two Nations, p. 40.

15

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

them established with the respective honours of Pontefract (Yorkshire) and Weobley (Herefordshire). It was Walter’s descendants who showed the greatest appetite for further conquest, extending their control in the Welsh march from their base at Ewyas (Lacy) and seeking additional rewards across the Irish Sea.11 Head of the Herefordshire branch by 1166, Hugh  I de Lacy joined the retinue of Henry  II crossing to Ireland in 1171, where in the next year he was granted the Irish kingdom of Mide (anglicised Meath). The success of Hugh’s conquest in eastern Ireland and his pre-eminent position among the first colonists is reflected in the description of him in 1184 by a native commentator as tigearna Gall Eireann, ‘lord of the Foreigners of Ireland’.12 Hugh’s supremacy was ­fleeting, however. In 1186, as he inspected the building of one of his castles (Durrow, Co. Offaly), his head was cut off by an axe-wielding Irishman at the instigation of a disgruntled local king, ‘and he fell, both head and body, into the ditch of the castle’.13 As the son of a major player on the twelfth-century stage, the early career of Hugh II de Lacy was partly conditioned by the burden of lineage. ‘When a man claimed noble lineage’, David Crouch has noted, ‘he had to demonstrate the qualities which he claimed ran in his blood’.14 Among the merits of the elder Hugh, estimated by Giraldus Cambrensis, were his steadfast and temperate character, his careful handling of private and public affairs, and his familiarity with militaribus negociis, the ‘business of war’.15 The chief currency of nobility was land, however, and the greatest challenge for Hugh II was to emulate his father’s success as a transnational magnate. This was a problem made all the more difficult to overcome given Hugh’s status as a younger son. For three years after his death in 1186, Hugh I de Lacy’s vast estates in Normandy, England, Wales and Ireland were held in wardship by the

11

12

13

14

15

16

W.  E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066–1194 (Oxford, 1966). Miscellaneous Irish Annals, ad 1114–1437, ed. Séamus Ó hInnse (Dublin, 1947), s.a. 1184. The Annals of Loch Cé. A Chronicle of Irish Affairs from ad 1014 to ad 1590, ed. W. M. Hennessy, 2 vols (London, 1871), 1: s.a. 1186. For the careers of Hugh I and his son, Walter (d. 1241), see Colin Veach, Lordship in Four Realms: The Lacy Family, 1166–1241 (Manchester, 2014). David Crouch, The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France, 900–1300 (Harlow, 2005), p. 128. Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica: The Conquest of Ireland, ed. A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin (Dublin, 1978), pp. 192–93.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

crown, before descending c. 1189 to his eldest surviving son, Walter.16 In the subsequent distribution of the de Lacy territories Walter did not fail to provide for his other siblings, but he did not give them any kind of significant territorial base that could rival his own. Rather, he reserved for himself the most lucrative and prestigious familial estates in England and Wales.17 One brother, Gilbert, held the family’s ancestral estates in Normandy, at Lassy and Campeaux, until the duchy’s loss to Capetian France in 1204.18 Until the 1230s, the only certain share of the de Lacy inheritance held by William Gorm, son of Hugh I by his unlicensed marriage to a daughter of the king of Connacht, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, c. 1180, was a manor at Ballymagarvey, near Duleek (Co. Meath).19 The largest share of the de Lacy possessions was reserved by Walter for his nearest sibling, Hugh II, who was given a sizeable subenfeoffment in Meath centred on the baronies (cantreds) of Ratoath (with the grange of Trevet, in the barony of Skreen) and Morgallion, before 1191.20 In Normandy, Hugh may also have held the honor of Le Pin, bought by his father from Count Robert of Meulan for £200 (Angevin) before 1175, and comprised of a core of estates in the region of Le Pin-au-Haras (dép. Orne), north of Sées, as well as outlying fees in the Cotentin peninsula.21 This territorial ambit becomes less impressive on closer inspection. Hugh’s Norman tenure endured only until February 1203, when the honor of Le Pin was transferred to William de Braose, Walter de Lacy’s

16

17

18

19

20

21

Colin Veach, ‘A Question of Timing: Walter de Lacy’s Seisin of Meath, 1189– 94’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 109C (2009), 165–94. The English honor included components in Shropshire, Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. In the Cartae Baronum survey of 1166 Hugh I de Lacy returned 57¾ fees (52¼ old feoffment, 5½ new feoffment) for all his English lands: Veach, Lordship, Appendix 2, Table 1. Cartulaire Normand de Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint-Louis et Philippele-Hardi, ed. Léopold Delisle (Paris, 1882), no. 72. For a recent study of William’s career, see Colin Veach and Freya Verstraten Veach, ‘William Gorm de Lacy, “Chiefest Champion in these Parts of Europe”’, in Princes, Prelates and Poets in Medieval Ireland: Essays in Honour of Katharine Simms, ed. Seán Duffy (Dublin, 2013), pp. 63–84. Calendar of the Gormanston Register: From the Original in the Possession of the Right Honourable the Viscount of Gormanston, ed. James Mills and M.  J. McEnery (Dublin, 1916), pp. 142, 190. For Ratoath and Morgallion see Paul MacCotter, Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions (Dublin, 2008), pp. 196–97, 203–6. Veach, Lordship, pp. 37–38.

17

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

father-in-law and lord of Limerick.22 In Meath, moreover, Hugh’s ability to exercise lordship was constrained by the existing tenurial framework and, to a lesser degree, by competition with Angevin royal agents. The baronies of Ratoath and Morgallion, with their important seigneurial capita (at Ratoath and Nobber respectively), should have been large enough for Hugh to classify as one of Meath’s most prominent tenants. In reality, his freedom to exercise seigneurial power in these baronies may have been limited given that in the previous two decades they had been settled, and various projects of patronage begun. Retained as demesne, Ratoath had been used by Hugh I de Lacy to cultivate links with his preferred religious houses, whose holdings in the barony were extensive.23 The greater scope for sponsorship may have been in Morgallion, from which the original de Lacy feoffee, Gilbert de Angulo, may have been expelled by Walter de Lacy for mercenary activity in Connacht as early as 1189.24 It speaks to the limitations on Hugh II’s early position, however, that the only novel gift he is known to have made in Meath before 1205 was the grange and land beside Dunshaughlin (barony of Ratoath), to the royal abbey of St Thomas the Martyr in Dublin.25 After 1172 Hugh  I de Lacy’s aptitude for conquest had earned him the suspicion of the crown, and his unlicensed marriage c. 1180 to the daughter of Ua Conchobair, king of Connacht and high-king of Ireland, did little to dispel the rumours circulating in England to the effect that de Lacy was carving out his own ‘kingdom’ across the Irish Sea.26 During his first expedition to Ireland in 1185, the Lord John is reported to have blamed de Lacy for his failure to procure hostages or tribute from the Irish kings.27 Hugh’s assassination the following year allowed John to exploit the minority of Walter de Lacy (1186–9) to assert his personal control over Meath. Part of John’s strategy involved hijacking the de Lacy affiliation with the priories of Llanthony Prima (Gwent) and Secunda (Gloucester), 22

23

24 25

26 27

18

Rotuli Normanniae in Turri Londinensi Asservati: Johanne et Henrico Quinto, Angliæ Regibus, ed. T. D. Hardy (London, 1835), p. 74. Margaret Murphy and Michael Potterton (eds), The Dublin Region in the Middle Ages: Settlement, Land-Use, and Economy (Dublin, 2010), pp. 81–82. Veach, ‘A Question of Timing’, pp. 176–77. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, Dublin, ed. J. T. Gilbert (London, 1889), pp. 7–8. Veach, Lordship, Ch. 2. Annals of Loch Cé, s.a. 1185 (‘The son of the king of the Saxons went across afterwards to complain of Hugo de Laci to his father; for it was Hugo de Laci that was king of Erinn when the son of the king of the Saxons came’). John had been designated Lord of Ireland by Henry II at the Council of Oxford in 1177.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

represented in Meath by the cells of Colpe and Duleek.28 As part of this programme, John made a novel endowment to Llanthony of Ballybin, in Ratoath, and also installed his associate, Robert Poer, in the same barony, thereby undercutting Hugh de Lacy’s authority.29 It was only in December 1198, moreover, that Hugh received confirmation for his sub-tenancies in Meath from the Lord John.30 One way for younger sons to break the shackles of inheritance and emerge from the shadows of elder siblings was by securing a good marriage. Just such a match was achieved by Hugh II de Lacy in 1194× 99, by his marriage to Lescelina, daughter of Bertram III de Verdun (†1192), lord of Alton, in Staffordshire, and a curialis of the Lord John, by whom Bertram had been granted a substantial stake centered at Dundalk in Airgialla (anglicised Uriel, and now Co. Louth).31 Through the marriage agreement, Hugh received half of the settled de Verdun lordship in Uriel, with the exception of Dundalk and its hinterland.32 The real value for Hugh lay in the further clause prescribing that whatever he or Thomas would afterwards conquer in the ‘land of war’ (terra guerre) was to be equally apportioned between them as they had divided the ‘land of peace’ (terra pacis). Hugh’s acquisitions in the de Verdun lordship were hugely significant, augmenting his seigneurial income with new rents and revenues and allowing him to recruit his own personal following from among the de Verdun affinity.33 Meanwhile, Hugh’s brother-in-law, Thomas de Verdun, gained an adjunct in conquest and helped to secure the most important components of his frontier lordship. Another example of this kind of expansionist strategy, taking advantage of youth as the ‘spearhead

28

29

30 31

32 33

Arlene Hogan, The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda in Ireland, 1172– 1541: Lands, Patronage and Politics (Dublin, 2008). For Hugh’s early position in Meath, see Daniel  J.  F. Brown, Hugh de Lacy, First Earl of Ulster: Rising and Falling in Angevin Ireland (Woodbridge, 2016), Ch. 1. Hugh’s grant of rights in Ratoath and Dunshaughlin (1192× 1205) to St Thomas’s Abbey, Dublin, was a response to competing grants made by Robert Poer: Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 7–8, 224, 254, 270, 273. Veach, Lordship, pp. 83–86. Brendan Smith, Colonisation and Conquest in Medieval Ireland: The English in Louth, 1170–1330 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 31–32; Mark Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales, 1066–1316 (Dublin 2001), pp. 48–49. Gormanston Register, pp. 144, 192–93. Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 2.

19

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

of feudal aggression’,34 is the grant by William de Burgh to Hugh of ten cantreds west of the Shannon, in Connacht (1189× 99).35 It was Hugh’s maturity as a man ‘with little to lose and much to gain’36 which brought him to the attention of the English crown. Instances of royally sponsored factionalism are present from the very nascence of the Irish lordship, but it was under King John (1199–1216) that inter-baronial conflict was especially cultivated as a controlling mechanism.37 In dealing with wayward or recalcitrant subjects, John’s modus operandi was to set them up against men of ‘secondary importance’.38 When, therefore, the king found it necessary to rein in the lord of Ulster, John de Courcy, Hugh  II de Lacy fitted the brief superbly.39 The private feud between the two colonists had ignited in 1201, when de Lacy had temporarily imprisoned de Courcy in one of his castles following a disastrous joint campaign in Connacht. Royal connivance in de Courcy’s incarceration is far from certain, but de Courcy himself did little to improve his standing with the crown in the next two years by refusing to contribute to the defence of Normandy, and by opposing the king’s preferred candidate for the vacant see of Armagh. De Courcy still had powerful friends, including his father-in-law, the king of Man, whose service to the Angevin war effort precluded any direct attempt on King John’s part to undermine the lord of Ulster’s position. Privately, however, it seems likely that the king approved of, if not actively instigated, Hugh II de Lacy’s subsequent assault on Anglo-Norman Ulster. In 1204, the Irish annals record a battle between John de Courcy and Hugh  II de Lacy at Downpatrick (Co.  Down), Ulster’s ecclesiastical capital, ‘in which John was captured and his people slaughtered, so that he had to surrender his lordship and his castles to Hugh’.40 Further detail on the conflict is provided by de Courcy himself, whose complaint to the papal curia was recounted in a letter of Innocent III issued in July 1205

34

35

36

37 38 39

40

20

Georges Duby, The Chivalrous Society, trans. Cynthia Postan (London, 1977), pp. 113–22, at p. 115. Gormanston Register, pp. 143–44. This amplified an earlier grant of six cantreds made to de Lacy by the Lord John: see Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 2. Peter Crooks, ‘Divide and Rule: Factionalism as Royal Policy in the Lordship of Ireland, 1171–1265’, Peritia 19 (2005), 263–307, at p. 281. Crooks, ‘Divide and Rule’, pp. 263–85. Sidney Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, MD, 1949), p. 24. For the following events, leading to Hugh de Lacy’s installation in Ulster, see Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 2. Miscellaneous Irish Annals, s.a. 1203 [recte 1204].

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

ordering an investigation into the legality of de Lacy’s actions.41 According to the ex parte statement, de Lacy had, in league with some of de Courcy’s own men, unexpectedly invaded Ulster with a large army. After his defeat and capture at the hands of the interlopers, de Courcy agreed to hand over his castles and rights to Hugh, and to depart Ireland for the Holy Land. For his part, de Lacy promised to release certain of the captive’s nepotes, and to allow de Courcy his arms and chattels, the contravention of which conditions had prompted de Courcy to renounce his crusading vow and to seek refuge with his Irish allies west of the River Bann, in the kingdom of Tír Eógain.42 Recognising his usurper as a deus ex machina contrived by the Angevin court, de Courcy lobbied for the support of the apostolic see but wasted no ink or vellum in appealing to his secular overlord, King John.

Earl of Ulster On 29 May Hugh II de Lacy was belted as earl of Ulster by King John, the first such title to be attached to an Irish lordship.43 In struggling to unravel the ‘complete mystery’44 of de Lacy’s unexpected promotion, historians have interpreted the comital title as a reward for having removed the troublingly autonomous figure of John de Courcy.45 Such a reading fails to take into account the fact that de Lacy’s independence matched that of his precursor, being granted Ulster by the king ‘as well, freely, quietly and fully as John de Courcy held and possessed it’.46 Rather, it was a particular set of political circumstances which saw de Lacy granted the additional honour of a comital title, over-and-beyond the lordship of Ulster. As plans for a continental expedition crumbled in spring 1205, the king was dealt the additional blow of betrayal by one of his closest supporters, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke and lord of Leinster, whose subsequent disgrace

41

42

43

44 45 46

Pontificia Hibernica: Medieval Papal Chancery Documents Concerning Ireland, ad 640–1261, ed. M. P. Sheehy, 2 vols (Dublin, 1962–5), 1: no. 64. See Brown, ‘Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy’ (this volume). Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati 1199–1216, ed. T.D.  Hardy (London, 1837), p. 151a. Painter, King John, p. 47. Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 2. Rotuli Chartarum, p. 151a.

21

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

coincided precisely with Hugh’s elevation.47 It is in the Marshal’s duplicity, and in an ill-fated royal scheme to alter the balance of baronial power in Ireland by setting up the earldom of Ulster against the Marshal’s lordship of Leinster, that we find the most convincing context for de Lacy’s sudden ascent on fortune’s wheel. Similarly, Marshal’s recovery in royal favour from late 1205 resulted in de Lacy’s consignment to the political periphery, setting the earl on the road to rebellion and exile.48

1210 and Exile In the summer of 1210, five short years after conferring the title of earl upon de Lacy, King John arrived in Ireland at the head of an army of unprecedented size.49 It has been estimated that the king had raised an army of eight hundred knights for the crossing to Ireland, supported during the campaign by a fleet of seven hundred ships.50 Amongst other aims, John’s campaign intended to bring the increasingly troublesome de Lacy brothers to heel. Ostensibly, the cause of the king’s grievance was that the de Lacys were harbouring the wife and son of John’s enemy, William de Braose.51 At the approach of the royal army, Walter de Lacy sent submissions to the king at Dublin, suing for peace and renouncing his brother Hugh. John was unmoved and Walter was dispossessed of his lordship. John proceeded 47

48

49

50

51

22

During a diplomatic mission to Capetian France, Marshal performed ‘liege homage’ to Philip Augustus for his estates on the French side of the sea, thereby dividing his loyalty between the kings of England and France: The History of William Marshal, ed. A. J. Holden, Stewart Gregory and David Crouch, 3 vols (London, 2002–6), 3: 148. From late 1205, de Lacy’s comital title disappears from the royal records, not to return until his restoration to the earldom of Ulster, in 1227: see Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 3. Stephen D. Church, ‘The 1210 Campaign in Ireland: Evidence for a Military Revolution?’ Anglo-Norman Studies, 20 (1998), 45–57, p. 51. Stephen D. Church, The Household Knights of King John (Cambridge, 1999), p. 41. The refusal of William de Braose to hand over hostages to the king and the subsequent public criticism by William’s wife of John for the murder of Arthur of Brittany are cited by Roger of Wendover as reasons for John’s relentless pursuit of the family: Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. H. G. Hewlett, 3 vols (London, 1886– 89), 2: 48–49. For discussion, see Brock Holden, ‘King John, the Braoses and the Celtic Fringe 1207–1216’ in Albion, 23 (2001), 1–23, at p. 6; Seán Duffy, ‘King John’s Expedition to Ireland 1210: the Evidence Reconsidered’ in Irish Historical Studies, 30 (1996), 1–24, at p. 17.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

through Meath, seizing castles and eliciting support. Walter himself in a show of contrition joined the army as it progressed north. On 8 July, John was at Dundalk where Hugh’s brother-in-law, Nicholas de Verdun, submitted, and four hundred men previously loyal to de Lacy joined the royal army as it marched on Ulster.52 Faced with John’s vastly superior force and the systematic capitulation of his allies, Hugh refused to surrender, withdrawing instead into Ulster and burning his castles around Dundalk as he went.53 John advanced along the coastal approach to Carrickfergus and by constructing a temporary bridge of boats and pontoons, he seems to have outflanked Dundrum Castle, forcing a quick capitulation.54 By the time John reached de Lacy’s stronghold at Carrickfergus on 19 July, the royal army would have been greatly increased by vassals in Ireland flocking to the king’s standard; in addition to close to 1000 knights, it is thought that 6000 to 7000 common soldiers would have been present in the king’s retinue.55 De Lacy was unable to resist such an overwhelming force and, following a brief siege, Carrickfergus Castle was also captured. On the eve of the castle’s fall, de Lacy escaped to Scotland, evaded his enemies and proceeded to France with the aid of the bishop of St Andrew’s. He would not return to Ireland until late 1223. Underpinning these events is a document surviving among the acts of Philip Augustus that sheds further light on John’s motives for the campaign. It is a copy of a letter written sometime between 29 March 1209 and 17 April 1210 addressed to a J. de Lacy from Philip Augustus. The full text is as follows: Philip, king of the Franks by the grace of God, to his beloved J. de Latiaco, greetings and affection. We are writing to you that if you have fulfilled the agreements with us (which our beloved and faithful Roger de Essartis said to us on your authority), namely regarding the war to be declared in England with John, the English king, through the friends and followers whom the same says that you have, and in Ireland likewise through friends and the defence of castles, we might know this for certain and so that it be better known, we will have an intention regarding the land of such a kind as your predecessors had in England since we will not be able to be contradicted regarding the matter.56 52

53 54 55

56

Rotuli de Liberate et Misis et Praestitis, Regnante Johanne ed. T.  D. Hardy (London, 1844), p. 184; Henry Goddard Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, 4 vols (London 1911–20), 2: 251. The Annals of Inisfallen, ed. and trans. Seán Mac Airt (Dublin, 1944), s.a. 1211. Annals of Inisfallen, s.a. 1209; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, 2: 252. H.  C. Lawlor, ‘The Vassals of the Earl of Ulster [Pt 1]’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 3rd ser., 3 (1940), 16–26, at p. 22. Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, ed. M. J. Monicat and M. J. Boussard, 3 vols (Paris, 1966), 3: 161–62.

23

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

Examination of the letter’s content, dealing as it does with plans for rebellion in Ireland and England, has led to suggestions in recent years that this document may have been addressed to one of the de Lacy brothers in Ireland, and relates to a clandestine agreement between the French king and the de Lacys and their allies.57 More recent work on the subject has proposed ‘J. de Latiaco’ as John de Lacy, son of Roger, constable of Chester as the recipient of the letter. This interpretation seems the more plausible given the numerous disputes between John de Lacy and the king around this time, coupled with the fact that Hugh had no lands in England to be restored (as referenced in the letter).58 Hugh’s involvement in this plot seems to be borne out by his actions in 1210. It was precisely by ‘friends and defence of castles’ in Ireland that he attempted to combat the royal army by refusing to submit to the king and withdrawing towards Ulster, garrisoning his stone castles of Dundrum and Carrickfergus with men loyal to the de Lacys from Meath and Ulster. When the aggressive acts of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth of Gwynedd in Wales that summer59 are considered in the context of de Lacy belligerence, the tactic of war through ‘friends and followers’ in England is given credence. The Barnwell annalist states that in 1210 many of the Welsh allied themselves with ‘de Braose and Hugh de Lacy earl of Ulster and launched attacks into England’.60 The Welsh prince’s complicity seems certain considering that Llywelyn agreed a treaty of alliance with Philip Augustus in 1212.61 Furthermore, Hugh de Lacy’s tenacity in the face of John’s vastly superior force may betray a hope that Capetian aid of some description was to be forthcoming. Brock Holden, recognising the international dimension of this conflict, has written that ‘the threat of some combination of William de Braose, the Lacys and some of the Welsh princes, perhaps supported by the French, was very real in 1210’.62 Further, Colin 57

58

59

60

61 62

24

For the original discussion, see Archibald Duncan, ‘King John of England and the King of Scots’, in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Stephen Church (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 247–71, at pp. 258–59. See also Holden, ‘King John’, p. 18; Power, Norman Frontier, p. 178; Painter, King John, p. 253; Veach, Lordship, p. 139. For a full discussion see Daniel J. F. Brown ‘Power and Patronage across the North Channel: Hugh de Lacy, St Andrews and the Anglo-Scottish Crisis of 1209’, Scottish Historical Review, 94 (2015), 1–23. Seán Duffy, ‘John in Ireland: the Origins of England’s Irish Problem’ in King John: New Interpretations, pp. 221–45, at p. 243; Holden, ‘King John’, p. 18. Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria: the Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols (London, 1872–3), 2: 202, s.a. 1210. Holden, ‘King John’, p. 18. Holden, ‘King John’, p. 18.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

Veach has highlighted an entry in the Annals of Dunstable of 1210 which records a rumour of a plot to depose John with the intention of setting up Simon IV de Montfort in place of the Angevin king.63 At this time, de Montfort was gaining huge renown as the newly elected leader of the Albigensian Crusade that was being waged in Occitania.64 The de Lacy connection with the de Montfort family was an intricate and longstanding one.65 Following his comprehensive exile from the Angevin world, succinctly reported in the Annales Cambriae as ‘Anglia, Wallia Hibernia expuilt’,66 de Lacy, as will be shown, was to spend a decade in de Montfort’s coterie on crusade in the Midi. Hugh is first mentioned in Occitania at Carcassonne in the contemporary epic historical versepoem, written in Provençal during the years of the crusade, known as the Canso de la Crusada. Begun by William of Tudela, a Navarrese poet, and continued by an anonymous successor (who was most probably a layman of Toulouse),67 it enumerates the knights who elected to stay with de Montfort following the initial phase of the crusade at the end of the campaigning season. The poet explains that very few of de Montfort’s allies consented to stay with him, returning instead to the north. However, some nine or ten of the greatest lords did stay.68 The name ‘Ugues de Lasis’ comes last in a list of fourteen knights. His name is directly preceded by that of Roger d’Essarts. This Roger is the same ‘faithful and beloved’ de Essartis, liegeman of Philip Augustus, named in the letter cited above. He was lord of the parish of the same name in the canton of Damville (dép. Eure) and a liegeman of Simon de Montfort.69 63 64

65

66 67

68 69

Veach, Lordship, p. 139. This term refers to the region comprising approximately the southern 45% of modern France (as well as small areas of Catalonia and Piemonte) where the Occitan language was historically the principal language spoken. Occitania has existed as a linguistic and cultural territory since the Middle Ages, but has never formed a legal nor a political entity. Throughout this volume the term Occitania is interchangeable with the terms Midi and Languedoc. Veach, Lordship, Ch. 1 and p.  139; Paul Duffy, ‘From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus: the Legacy of de Lacy’s Crusade Experience in Britain and Ireland’ (this volume). Annales Cambriae, ed. John Williams ab Ithel (London, 1860), s.a. 1210. William of Tudela, Anonymous, The Song of the Cathar Wars: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. and trans. Janet Shirley (Farnham, 1996). Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 28. M. Charpillon, Dictionnaire historique de toutes les communes du département de l’Eure: histoire, géographie, statistique, 2 vols (Les Andelys, 1868–79), 2: 526; Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet et al. 24 vols (Paris, 1916–79) 23: p. 714; Veach, Lordship, p. 150 n.

25

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

Crusader or Opportunist? Given what is known of Hugh de Lacy’s personality, there was surely an opportunistic element to his participation in the Albigensian Crusade, but that does not necessarily negate a spiritual aspect to the endeavour. Religious fervour in the years immediately preceding the calling of the Albigensian Crusade was widespread across Europe. The great Fourth Crusade to the Holy Land had embarked in 1202, led by Baldwin of Flanders, and the glorious victory of Christian forces against the Muhammadans at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa was feted throughout Christendom. The tragic Children’s Crusade and the documented swelling of the ranks of de Montfort’s army by leaderless, weapon-less peasants70 reflects to what extent preachers were implanting the ideal of crusade in the hearts and minds of their congregations. Crusading was not unknown at this time in Ireland and Bertram de Verdun, father of de Lacy’s first wife, had participated in the Third Crusade to the Holy Land, dying at Jaffa in 1192.71 In a spiritual sense the Albigensian venture offered the same reward as any other crusade preached by Rome. A plenary indulgence was offered to those willing to take the cross and to combat the heresy in Languedoc.72 Indeed the crusade against the Cathars may have been considered as a soft option towards redemption, demanding neither the hardship nor the expense of travel to the Holy Land whilst offering the same spiritual largesse. Hugh  I de Lacy had patronised the Cistercians of the abbeys of Mellifont (Co. Louth) and Bective (Co. Meath), a patronage that the younger Hugh maintained. Some time prior to his appointment as earl of Ulster in 1205, he granted certain lands, obtained by him through his marriage to Lescelina de Verdun, to the Cistercians at Mellifont.73 Bernard of Clairvaux, beloved of the Cistercian order, biographer and personal friend of St Malachy of Armagh, the founding father of Mellifont, had attempted to preach against the Cathar heresy in 1145 at Verfeuil (dép. Gard), near Toulouse. This endeavour ended in failure and insult to Bernard, soon to be sainted, and his subsequent bitter malediction upon 70 71

72

73

26

Jonathan Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade (London, 1978), p. 145. Con Costello, ‘Ireland and the Crusades’, The Irish Sword 9 (1969–70), 263–77, at p. 266. Christophe T. Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), p. 2. A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The Partition of the de Verdon Lands in Ireland in 1332’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 66C (1967–8), 401–55, at p. 405.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

Fig. 2.2: Hugh II de Lacy’s grant of the town and appurtenances of Renneville to the order of St John of Jerusalem, Toulouse (Conseil général de la ­Haute-Garonne, Archives départementales, H Malte Renneville, no. 1); see colour plate 2.

the town – ‘Verfeuil, may God desiccate you’74 – would have ensured a particular disdain for the heresy throughout the order’s houses. Given the de Lacy connection with the Cistercians at Mellifont and its daughter house at Bective, it can be assumed that Hugh would have been aware of this most heinous of heresies as reported by the Cistercians of Meath. It is possible that Innocent III’s call to crusade would have been relayed by the Cistercians and others to communities in Ireland in 1208 and into 1209. Hugh’s connection with the culture of crusading Christianity is attested to in a submission – undated – that he made to the Grand Priory of St John of Jerusalem in Toulouse in which he requested that he be allowed receive the habit of the order.75 And, in the same context, he also granted to the town of Renneville (dép. Haute-Garonne), over which he was given authority after its confiscation by the crusaders, jurisdiction and protection (Fig. 2.2).76 The suggestion of a spiritual motivation for de Lacy’s 74

75

76

William of Puylaurens, Chronica magistri Guillelmi de Podio Laurentii, ed. and trans. Jean Duvernoy (Toulouse, 1996), pp. 208–9. Paul Duffy, ‘Un sage et valent home: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade’ Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquities of Ireland, 141 (2010), 132– 56, at p. 78. See Brown, ‘Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy’ (this volume).

27

Paul Duffy with Daniel J. F. Brown

Fig. 2.3: The ‘south donjon and logis’ at Carcassonne where the council of 1211 probably took place; see colour plate 3.

taking of the cross is undermined, perhaps, by his actions in 1223–24 that saw him openly risk excommunication, in the pursuit of temporal gain by invading his former earldom of Ulster. A driven, resourceful man, de Lacy would have immediately recognised the opportunity for land, power and wealth that the invasion of Languedoc presented. Evidence from the Canso may suggest that, initially at least, de Lacy felt himself to be pursued quarry, chased to the edge of the Angevin/ Capetian world. A glimpse into this mindset can be gained from William of Tudela’s account of the emergency council held by de Montfort in 1211 at Carcassonne in the face of an advancing meridional army (Fig. 2.3). For the second time in twelve months de Lacy found himself holed up in a fortress in the company of about 500 allies while a vast army numbering in excess of 5000 enemies advanced. According to the Canso: Sir Hugh de Lacy stood up. ‘My lord’, he said, ‘since you ask counsel, let all who wish speak freely. Trust me, there is only one thing to do. If you shut yourself up in Carcassonne and they go after you, they will lay siege and keep you there trapped. Go to Fanjeaux and it will be just the same. Wherever you go, they will track you down, and you will be defeated and disgraced till the end of the world. Believe me, you should go to the weakest castle you possess, wait for them to come up and then, once you have reinforcements, attack, and I am certain you will defeat them’. ‘Excellent!’, said the count. ‘This is good advice. Whatever happens you shall not be the

28

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade

worse for it, for I can see you have advised me well’. None of those present disagreed; on the contrary, there was a unanimous shout, ‘My lord, he gives good counsel, we ask you to accept it’.77

Given that William of Tudela was almost certainly present at the council in the company of his lord Baldwin of Toulouse, this audacious plan can only be considered a response to de Lacy’s own military failure against King John in 1210. It is easy to imagine regret and self-reproach plaguing a man of de Lacy’s temperament and to envisage him ruminating in his exile on the flawed strategies he had employed the previous year. The course of action upon which he urged de Montfort was quite probably one that he felt would have succeeded against John in Ulster. The words put in de Lacy’s mouth by the poet ring very true in this respect. Castelnaudary was chosen as the ‘weakest castle’ on the fringe of Crusader controlled territory and the crusaders rode out to set de Lacy’s trap. The crusaders defended Castelnaudary successfully before breaking the meridional army with a focused sortie. De Montfort is reported to have led fifty to sixty knights out of the town against a contingent of the attackers.78 This charge ended in a rout of the meridionals and it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that Hugh de Lacy participated. He was to be rewarded for his service by Simon de Montfort who conferred him with the titles lord of Castelnaudary and Laurac. In addition to these honours, Hugh de Lacy would surely have taken some satisfaction in the knowledge that, through victory at Castelnaudary, he also struck a minor blow against his enemy, King John. Savary de Mauléon, John’s liegeman and seneschal of Poitou, joined Raymond VI’s army and led a contingent against Castelnaudary.79 The Histoire des ducs de Normandie states that the Angevin king sent de Mauléon to the aid of his brother in-law Raymond VI.80 John’s interest in Languedoc stemmed from the fact that it bordered the Angevin lands in Gascony. The prospect of the house of Capet extending its control over Languedoc was a very unwelcome one to the king of England and one that de Lacy’s plan had done much to advance.

77 78

79

80

Shirley, Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 50, stanza 91. Peter des Vaux de Cernay, Petrus Sarnensis, Histoire de l’hérésie des Albigeois et de la sainte guerre entreprise contre eux (de l’an 1203 à l’an 1218) (Paris, 1824), p. 161. Song of the Cathar Wars, p.  51, stanza 93; Peter des Vaux de Cernay, Petrus Sarnensis, p. 161. Francisque Michel (ed.), Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre (Paris, 1840), pp. 121–22.

29

The battle of Castelnaudary represents a major event in the Albigensian Crusade, second in importance only to the battle of Muret (dép. HauteGaronne). Defeat of de Montfort at this early stage would surely have resulted in a collapse of the crusade and the battle of Muret, which saw the crusading army defeat the combined forces of Raymond  VI and Peter II of Aragon, would not have been possible. It is a testament to Hugh de Lacy’s adaptability, competence and quality that less than one year after his expulsion from Ireland, he had secured land and a title in the Lauragais. In doing so, de Lacy had significantly contributed to the success of the Albigensian Crusade and had played an instrumental part in the reconfiguration of the Angevin/Capetian/Aragonese dynamic within the Midi of France.

Chapter 3 Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland Tadhg O’Keeffe Abstract Hugh I de Lacy selected Trim (Co. Meath), as the caput of the vast lordship granted to him by Henry II in 1172. He built a castle, founded (or possibly refounded) an Augustinian abbey, and promoted the development of a town. Despite this impressive head-start, Trim soon declined as a place of importance in the political geography of Angevin Ireland. That decline was in large part a consequence of the fate of the de Lacy dynasty itself. This paper offers fresh readings of topographical and structural evidence from the town to gloss its documented history as a place of geo-political promise in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, and to illuminate the early indicators that its promise was destined to remain unfulfilled. It is suggested here that in the first decade of the thirteenth century Walter de Lacy, Hugh II’s older brother, had an ambitious plan for the town and its environs, but that Hugh’s return from exile and the subsequent conflict ensured that they never came to fruition.

Résumé Trim, Co. Meath, fut choisi par Hugh I de Lacy comme chef-lieu de la vaste seigneurie qui lui fut accordée par Henri II Plantagenêt en 1172. Il y construisit une forteresse, il y fonda (ou peut-être refonda) une abbaye augustinienne, et il y favorisa le développement d’une ville. Malgré ce début impressionnant, Trim diminua rapidement en importance dans la géographie politique de l’Irlande angevine. Cette déchéance est en grande partie due au sort de la dynastie de de Lacy lui-même. Ce chapitre propose une analyse novatrice des données topographiques et structurelles de la ville afin de commenter la représentation de la ville dans l’histoire documentaire comme un lieu prometteur au niveau géopolitique à la fin du XIIe et début du XIIIe siècle, et pour dévoiler les premiers indicateurs que cette promesse ne serait jamais réalisée. On suggère ici que, dans la première décennie du XIIIe siècle, Walter de Lacy, le frère aîné de Hugh II, avait conçu un plan ambitieux pour la ville et ses environs, mais que le retour d’exil de son frère et le conflit qui en résulta ont fait que ce plan ne serait jamais achevé.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 31–56

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114237

Tadhg O’Keeffe

Thinking Counterfactually about Trim Historians rarely divert from hard evidence to engage with counterfactual histories.1 It is difficult enough making sense of what did happen without devoting time to speculation on what would have happened had the trajectory of history not turned in a certain direction at an apparently critical moment. But counterfactualism is not entirely alien to the process of historical thinking: an awareness of what might have happened always informs the historian’s judgement. The question ‘what if ?’ is one step beyond this, but it is a useful question to ask explicitly at key junctures in the historical narrative because it prompts us to reflect on that very concept of a trajectory, and on the assumption – philosophically unsound though it is – that some events are more important than others in the passage of historical time. What if John had worked with, not against, native and baronial interests in Ireland in 1185, had subsequently assumed the kingship of Ireland as his father had originally planned for him in 1177, and had not needed to make a return visit to Ireland as its overlord in 1210? In the alternative universes created by such speculations, the younger Hugh de Lacy would probably not have become, in turn, the earl of Ulster and an exile in Languedoc. And the histories and archaeologies of various towns and castles would probably be very different indeed. In the Irish context, Trim (Co. Meath) is not merely a case in point. It is, arguably, the case in point. To make sense of the plan (Fig. 3.1) and physical landscape of the town of Trim, the capital of the vast Irish lordship of the de Lacys in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, one has to think somewhat counterfactually. Notwithstanding its years as home to Geoffrey de Geneville (c. 1226–1314) and Roger Mortimer (c. 1287–1330),2 the settlement’s bright future was arguably behind it from 1224, a date explained below. Although it remained a central place within Meath, Trim saw out the middle ages as a relatively minor place in the political geography of eastern Ireland,3 a view supported somewhat circumstantially by the fact that its great castle 1

2

3

32

Niall Ferguson (ed.), Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (London, 1997). For a different perspective on the value of counterfactualism see Aviezer Tucker, Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (Cambridge, 2004). Seán Duffy, ‘The “Key of the Pale”: a History of Trim Castle’, in Alan  R. Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath: Excavations 1995–8 (Dublin2011), 6–28. My thanks to Caren Mulcahy (UCD School of History) for clarification of this point in advance of completion of her PhD thesis on the lordship.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Fig. 3.1: Trim, Co. Meath

33

Tadhg O’Keeffe

had no very substantial alterations made to its fabric in the fourteenth century or later. Twists and turns in the exercise of royal over-lordship in Ireland on the one hand, and the circumstances particular to the de Lacy family itself on the other, had conspired to derail a project of settlement and architecture that had been of considerable ambition originally. Hugh I de Lacy’s death by decapitation in 1186, leaving a family of minors behind him, was an early brake on the development of Trim. Walter de Lacy’s recovery of his father’s lands after 1189 (almost certainly in 1194), and his occupation of Trim from 1201 to 1207, provided a fresh opportunity for growth in the settlement, but his subsequent conflict with King John (which kept him out of Ireland much of the time between 1207 and 1220)4 was yet another brake on development. The interpretation offered by Paul Duffy and Daniel Brown5 of Hugh II’s acquisition of Ulster in summer 1205 suggests that the process of the derailment of the physical development of the caput began, ironically, at the moment that de Lacy power in Ireland expanded. After an exile that had lasted almost fourteen years, Hugh returned to Ireland in late 1223 with the intention of regaining his former lands through rebellion. A period of conflict ensued, during which Trim Castle itself was occupied by the rebels and besieged (successfully) for seven weeks by Walter himself in 1224.6 Rather than mark its deliverance with an upgrading, the castle was apparently left untouched for the remainder of Walter’s life there. That year – 1224 – has an additional significance in the history of ­settlement in Trim and its vicinity. Founded in 1202 with Walter’s blessing, construction of a large cathedral outside the town had continued during the period when he was an absentee lord in conflict with the crown and his brother was in exile in France. But its bishop – appointed with de Lacy support – died in 1224, and with the de Lacy siblings engaged in a war, the building project came to an end.7 To my mind, the abandonment of the new cathedral in 1224 marks the symbolic point at which the s­ ettlement at Trim began its decline. 4 5

6 7

34

Duffy, ‘The “Key of the Pale”’. Duffy with Brown, ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne: Hugh de Lacy and the Albigensian Crusade’ (this volume). Duffy, ‘The “Key of the Pale”’. Rhiannon Carey Bates and Tadhg O’Keeffe, ‘Colonial Monasticism, the Politics of Patronage, and the Beginnings of Gothic in Ireland: the Victorine Cathedral Priory of Newtown Trim, Co. Meath’, Journal of Medieval Monastic Studies 6 (2017, forthcoming).

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

This paper presents an overview of the history to 1224 of the town and its buildings, complementing older studies8 but adding new observations. Students of the Albigensian Crusade and of Hugh II de Lacy’s involvement in it will probably find nothing in Trim’s story to change their understanding of the events in southern France, but they might regard as intrinsically interesting an illumination of the place where Hugh was reared and spent a significant part of his life before 1205. And although it decreases in importance at the end of – and, to a degree, because of the end of – the Carrickfergus-Carcassonne axis of intrigue, Trim is far from irrelevant to one of the key issues explored in several papers in this volume: the movement of architectural-stylistic ideas within the Angevin world, and between it and the Capetian world. The authority bestowed on Hugh I de Lacy when Henry II granted him the lordship of Meath, originally the ancient kingdom of Mide, in 1172, elevated Trim and its castle above all other settlements and fortifications of the new Angevin lordship of Ireland, including, with the exception of Dublin, those of the crown itself. If any place, then, gives us an insight into late twelfthand early thirteenth-century thinking in Ireland on the formal character and aesthetic of the colonial town and its associated castle, it is Trim. It is a benchmark against which we can adjudicate on conservatism and innovation in other built environments in Angevin Ireland, including Carrickfergus.

Trim before 1172 Trim’s development as a significant medieval settlement began in 1172 with the grant to Hugh I de Lacy. The extent of settlement at Trim before that date is unknown. There had been a monastery in the early middle ages – there are records of abbots, as well as of bishops9 – and its church was almost certainly on the site now occupied by St Patrick’s Church, a late medieval and post-medieval building which is still in use (now as a cathedral of the Church of Ireland). The line of an original circular or near-circular monastic enclosure may be preserved in the curvature of streets around the church, and burials of (apparently) non-ecclesiastics 8

9

Mark Hennessy, Trim, Irish Historic Towns Atlas 14 (Dublin, 2004); Michael Potterton, Medieval Trim. History and Archaeology (Dublin, 2005). A. Gwynn and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (London, 1970), p. 97.

35

Tadhg O’Keeffe

of early medieval date found nearby would support the view that the church was a focus of settlement.10 However, nothing is known of the chronology and scale of any such settlement. That may be, in itself, a sign that the place was rather insignificant by the time of the Anglo-Norman invasion. Indeed, when church reformers were constructing a new territorial diocesan system in Ireland early in the twelfth century,11 Trim was overlooked as the diocesan centre for Mide in favour of Clonard, located fifteen miles to the south-west. Reconstructing Trim’s topography on the eve of the Anglo-Norman invasion is complicated by uncertainty surrounding the date of foundation of St Mary’s Abbey, a house of Augustinian canons regular of the Arroasian observance, located on the bank of the river opposite the castle. The original documentation, like most of the actual structure, is long destroyed, so we are at the mercy of the paraphrasing of a medieval record by Sir James Ware in the seventeenth century. He wrote that it was either ‘repaired’ or ‘new built’ by Hugh de Lacy in the 1180s.12 Aubrey Gwynn believed it to have been founded c. 1140 as an Arroasian monastery under native patronage, and he attributed to Hugh de Lacy its ‘restoration’ at some date between 1183 and 1186.13 If the abbey was there before the invasion, we can postulate that it was an important factor in Hugh’s attraction to Trim as a place for settlement. However, given the evidence that suggests that the monastery at St Patrick’s had declined considerably by the time of the Anglo-Norman arrival, it is entirely conceivable that Hugh’s ‘restoration’ – that might not even be the correct term in this context – was of monastic observance in general at Trim, and that he ‘restored’ it by founding a new monastic house (which he dedicated to St Mary). After all, it is barely conceivable that, had it been founded less than fifty years earlier, St Patrick’s would have needed physical ‘repair’ or ‘restoration’ so soon. Moreover, as we know from the pattern of adoption of the Rule of St Augustine in Ireland,14 had the Arroasian observance

10

11

12 13

14

36

Hennessy, Trim, p.  1; E.  Kieran, ‘Burials at St Patrick’s Cathedral: New Evidence from the Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Site at Trim’, in Uncovering Medieval Trim, ed. by M. Potterton and M. Seaver (Dublin, 2009), pp. 72–81. Marie Therese Flanagan, The Transformation of the Irish Church in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2010). Sir James Ware, Antiquities and History of Ireland (Dublin, 1705), p. 86. Gwynn, ‘A Breviary from St Mary’s Abbey, Trim’, Ríocht na Midhe 3/4 (1966), 290–98; Hogan, The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda, p. 316. Tadhg O’Keeffe, An Anglo-Norman Monastery. Bridgetown Priory and the Architecture of the Augustinian Canons Regular in Medieval Ireland (Kinsale 1998).

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

been introduced to Trim c. 1140, it would surely have been to St Patrick’s, an old monastic foundation, rather than to a new site, as Gwynn implied.

The Town Commentators on Trim’s topographical history have struggled to identify with absolute conviction the layout and extent of the original AngloNorman settlement. The town has, in essence, three large spatial units enclosed within the continuous but irregular line of its former town wall, and their chronological relationship to each other is far from clear. One unit is south of the river and on the west side of the castle, and it may have been the unit of most compact occupation in the middle ages. At its core is the market square (Market Street). The second is north of the river and extends to the area around St Patrick’s Church, and here the street pattern is more complex but the occupation appears to have been much less dense in the middle ages. There is no obvious evidence of formal planning here. The third spatial unit is both north and south of the river and is defined on its west side by the curving road around both the castle and the site of St Mary’s Abbey. It contains tracts of unoccupied or undeveloped ground, and the surviving portion of town wall that marks its eastern side runs across empty countryside. The town wall’s entire outline suggests that it was a multi-phase construction resulting from many murage grants, the earliest known of which dates from the end of the thirteenth century. Avril Thomas, who documented those grants, speculated that the area of the town on the north side of the river may have been walled first, and that the south side of the town, west of the castle, might not have been walled until the fourteenth century.15 She may be correct, at least in principle if not also in chronology. The line of the enclosing wall in the latter part of the town suggests that it was built at a time when no further expansion was envisaged; it certainly left little space for expansion. That would not be inconsistent with a fourteenth-century date, but it might be earlier. The chronology of enclosure need not relate in any way, of course, to the chronology of the actual laying-out of the settlement. And there is no reason why it should: Trim was almost a century old when the first known murage grant was made. Still, the first phase of Anglo-Norman urban settlement at Trim may indeed have been north of the river. That phase can be assigned to the patronage of Hugh I de Lacy: the earliest 15

Avril Thomas, The Walled Towns of Ireland, 2 vols (Dublin 1992), 2: 196.

37

Tadhg O’Keeffe

charter of which we have details is that granted by Walter around 1194, but it cannot have been the first because it granted to burgesses retention of the liberties that they already enjoyed (presumably from Walter’s father).16 A parish church was needed in that early settlement, and St Patrick’s Church, north of the river, clearly served that function; there was never a parish church south of the river. High Street, the curving street which separated the precinct of St Mary’s Abbey from the area around St Patrick’s, widens at one point, as if to accommodate a market function, and I would suggest tentatively that this is the original market space (Figs 3.1, 3.2), later replaced by a new market space west of the castle. I further suggest that High Street was the original main street of the town, with burgage plots running from both sides of it at right-angles, and with small lanes leading in opposite directions to the parish church and Augustinian abbey. In this interpretation, the castle stood alone on the opposite side of the river until a new planned unit, with a new market space (Market Street today), was laid out. The date of that new market with its surrounding streets is not known, but it certainly post-dates 1186, the year of Hugh I’s death. It may have been laid out by Walter de Lacy in 1204 when he was licenced to hold an annual eight-day fair at Trim.17 However, as I will suggest tentatively below, in the early thirteenth century Walter may have intended developing the space east of the castle, not west of it, as the urban focus of Trim. More concrete as evidence of chronology is the fact that the southern stretch of the wall (south of Market Street) is aligned on the exact midpoint between two of the towers on the ‘curving’ curtain wall of the castle, attributed below to 1220–24. This suggests that the area of the new market cannot be earlier than c. 1220. It might have been laid out in the short interval between 1220 and Hugh II’s return from exile in late 1223, but is more likely to have been laid out in the 1230s when that crisis precipitated by Hugh’s return was over and Walter was back resident in 16

17

38

Chartae, Privilegia et Immunitates, Being Transcripts of Charters and Privileges to Cities, Towns, Abbeys and Other Bodies Corporate. 18 Henry II. to 18 Richard., 1171 to 1395 (Dublin, 1889), p. 10. The liberties were granted secundum legem Bristoll. The original charter no longer survives, nor does the seventeenthcentury copy on which this late nineteenth-century transcription is based. It has been suggested that Bristol is a misrendering of Britoll, signifying the Norman town of Breteuil-sur-Iton (dép.  Eure), the laws of which were commonly granted to towns in Anglo-Norman Ireland (see Joe Hillaby, ‘Colonisation, crisis-management and debt: Walter de Lacy and the lordship of Meath, 1189–1241’, Ríocht na Midhe 8 (1992–3), 1–48. Duffy, ‘The “Key of the Pale”’, p. 11.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Fig. 3.2: View to the south-west along High Street showing the widening of the street on the left (south) side before (on a line marked by the gable-end of a modern house) it returns to its original width.

Trim. It is interesting to note that this new market space was aligned on the Augustinian abbey, not on any part of the castle. The chronological significance of this is uncertain. If it does indeed date from the second quarter of the thirteenth century, its alignment may have determined the actual spot in the abbey chosen in the early fourteenth century for the great bell-tower, the so-called ‘Yellow Steeple’, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was laid out after that tower had been built (Fig. 3.3).

‘What if ?’ at Trim Castle Future archaeological excavations may answer questions about the chronology of the town. Until then, the only structure that may preserve some readable DNA from the town’s growth-phases is the castle. One of the most-studied medieval buildings in Ireland,18 this has the look of a place buffeted during construction by unexpected turns of event of some magnitude, and knowledge of the history of the de Lacys allows one identify those events. What one sees now is a curious mish-mash of parts. Each 18

See Hayden, Trim Castle, Co.  Meath, for the bibliography to 2011; see also T.  O’Keeffe. ‘Angevin Lordship and Colonial Romanesque in Ireland’, in People and Places: Essays in Honour of Michael Aston. Ed. M. Costen (Oxford, 2007), pp. 117–29; Tadhg O’Keeffe, ‘Trim Castle Uncovered: Some Thoughts’, Ríocht na Midhe, 24 (2013), 160–68.

39

Tadhg O’Keeffe

Fig. 3.3: View north-eastwards along Market Street, the main market space of the medieval town. The ruined bell-tower of the Augustinian abbey (the ‘Yellow Steeple’) overlooks the market from the opposite side of the river. The gabled building on the left-hand side of it is Talbot’s Castle, which incorporates the late medieval (and earlier?) south range of the abbey.

can be understood as a knowing contribution to the eventual completion of a project that was interrupted several times, but none brings – or, rather, brought – the whole castle to a satisfactory conclusion. This is apparent in the castle’s plan, of which four parts or plan-elements can be identified (Fig. 3.4). The castle’s façade (a) is a screen-wall facing the town, at the symmetrical centre of which is a rectangular gatebuilding. The core of the rectangular tower at the north end is late twelfth-century in date, and it seems reasonable to suppose that a second tower of comparable plan was built, or at least intended, at the opposite end of the wall where there is now an open-backed circular tower. I have argued elsewhere that this wall must be identified as a mid-to-later 1170s work of Hugh I de Lacy.19 It was an imposing architectural composition, more carefully designed than comparable twelth-century walls with central gates at Ludlow (Shropshire), Newark (Nottingham) and Sherborne (Dorset). It was intended to be seen and to impress.20 Surprisingly, its orientation is different from that of the great 19 20

40

O’Keeffe, ‘Trim Castle Uncovered’. Was there a plan – subsequently abandoned – to run another straight wall at a right-angle from the south-western corner of the screen wall? I pointed out (‘Trim Castle Uncovered’, p. 167) evidence that there was such a plan, and

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Fig. 3.4: The plan of Trim Castle.

tower or donjon (b) behind it. The former’s orientation presumably reflects how the castle was to be approached in the 1170s, before the topography of the town changed, but the donjon is oriented on the cardinal points. When the construction of the screen wall was finished, the donjon was a low-elevation building, barely visible (if at all) from outside the castle. The donjon (Fig. 3.5) is noted for its unusual plan: a central square block from which four mid-wall towers projected.21 Its general chronology has been established, thanks in part to the discovery of original timbers from

21

the suggested redating of the ‘ringwork’ (see below) does not undermine that hypothesis. Roger Stalley, ‘The Anglo-Norman keep at Trim: its Architectural Implications’, Archaeology Ireland 6 (1992), 16–19.

41

Tadhg O’Keeffe

Fig. 3.5: Trim donjon from the north-north-west, showing the visible scars from the now-lost projecting tower on the tower’s north side; see colour plate 4.

which tree-ring dates could be obtained. It is apparent that the lower part was laid out around 1174 and built in the few years that followed, and it is asserted that the rest of the superstructure, which follows the same plan, was raised in two phases, one in the 1190s and the other c. 1200.22 The exact structural and dendrochronological evidence supporting this general sequence has yet to be published. Its unavailability is a pity: the current narrative on the tower’s development between its foundation in 22

42

Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath, pp. 105–13.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

1174 or 1175, after Hugh returned from service on the Continent, and its completion only a quarter of a century later, seems to imply that each phase of construction was to be an end in itself,23 and that has implications for how we understand the context(s) of donjon’s architecture. Hugh I de Lacy oversaw the building of the two lowest floor levels of the main block. The lower level, or basement, was an uninhabitable space, meaning that effectively Hugh built a single-storey structure. He was also responsible for the lower three storeys of the projecting towers. The basements of three of these – the tower containing the entrance was the exception – were accessible from the floor above, but there was no access between them and the basement of the main block. The main block’s principal floor level – the building’s first floor then and now – was partitioned; the original partition, replaced in stone at an early date, was presumably an arcuated wall, possibly even of timber. Each of the two spaces created by it had a pitched roof, invisible from the outside in the manner of roofs in many Norman and Angevin great towers. The concealment of the roofs behind the walls meant that the main block would have appeared three-storeyed from outside. Following a template dating back to the second half of the eleventh century, the first-floor space nearest the point of entry was the hall, and the slightly narrower space beyond it was a chamber. If the former had a hearth – it possibly did not – it would have been in the middle of the floor. The chamber, by contrast, had an original side-wall fireplace from which rose a typically twelfth-century cylindrical flue. The whole structure is old-fashioned for its date. It, like its close relative at Maynooth (Co. Kildare), also started in the mid-1170s, looks back stylistically to Norman and Angevin great towers of the previous century in England.24 The idea of placing the castle’s hall and principal chamber side-by-side at the same floor level within a single large tower, which is the scheme that one finds at both Trim and Maynooth, had largely gone out of fashion in Angevin culture by the last quarter of the twelfth century. It is reasonable to think that the slightly anachronistic character of the donjons of Trim and Maynooth (and, indeed, of Carrickfergus too, although it did not contain a hall), effected at a time when new architectural forms 23

24

Uto Hogerzeil’s scaled models of the castle, on display in the donjon and published in Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath, pp. 107, 109, 111, give each phase a battlemented parapet. If each phase was simply a staging post in the process of raising the donjon to the height it eventually achieved, no battlements would have been built under the very end of the process. Tadhg O’Keeffe, ‘Trim’s First Cousin: the Twelfth-Century Donjon of Maynooth Castle’, Archaeology Ireland 27 (2013), 26–31.

43

Tadhg O’Keeffe

were appearing in castle architecture, was deliberately intended to convey an impression of ‘old money’, and to communicate the rootedness of the owners of these castles in the continuity of the architectural tradition of Norman and Angevin England.25 The curtain wall that defines the south-west side of the castle (c) has outwardly-round and open-backed interval towers which contrast markedly with the towers on the wall facing the town. Moreover, this stretch of curtain wall is curving rather than straight, and its line runs past, and then away from, the donjon towards the river, where it stops abruptly. It is an aesthetically pleasing architectural composition in its own right, but it was not integrated with the primary curtain, the castle’s façade (a). The river-side of the castle, finally, was never walled (d); one cannot be sure that was always the intention, even if a moat did provide considerable protection here. The chronology of this curtain wall is uncertain, but there are structural and historical hints about its date. The barbicaned Dublin Gate (Figs 3.6a) pre-dates the rest of its fabric. It is a larger and more complicated structure than the round-fronted gatetower at Dunamase (Co. Laois), considered a work of William Marshall of c. 1211–12.26 There is a valid conceptual similarity between its passage-perforated round tower and the early thirteenth-century round gatetower of Le Coudray-Salbart (Dép. DeuxSèvres), even though the latter did not have an outer bridge (Fig. 3.6b).27 John Goodall has suggested that its source may be English rather than French, specifically Dover (Kent), and has assigned it a tentative date in the 1240s.28 The Black Gate of Newcastle in northern England, built 1247–50, has a similar design (Fig. 3.6c).29 However, a date in the 1240s for the gatetower would push the date of the curtain wall even later, and that would be very difficult to explain in accordance with the history of the 25 26

27

28 29

44

O’Keeffe, ‘Angevin Lordship and Colonial Romanesque’. For Dunamase see Knight, ‘The Road to Harlech’, p. 84, and T.E. McNeill, ‘The Outer Gate House at Dunamase Castle, Co. Laois’, Medieval Archaeology 37 (1993), 236–39. Jeremy K. Knight, ‘The Road to Harlech: Aspects of Some Early ThirteenthCentury Welsh Castles’, in Castles in Wales and the Marches. Essays in Honour of D.J. Cathcart King, ed. John R. Kenyon and Richard Avent (Cardiff, 1987), 75–88, at p.  79; Tom McNeill, Castles in Ireland. Feudal Power in a Gaelic World (London, 1987), pp. 24, 28; Paul Duffy, ‘The Architecture of Defiance’, Archaeology Ireland 29 (2015), 20–23. John Goodall, The English Castle, 1066–1650 (New Haven, 2011), p. 172. John Goodall, ‘The English Gatehouse’, Architectural History 55 (2012), 1–23, at p. 11.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland a

b

c

Fig. 3.6: Trim Castle’s Dublin Gate (a); the gatetower of Le Coudray-Salbart (b); the Black Gate of Newcastle (c); see colour plate 5.

castle. One doubts if the castle could have withstood the siege of 1224 for any length of time without a complete circuit of curtain walling. I suggest, then, that the Dublin Gate, the earliest part of the curtain, was built under Walter de Lacy between 1201 and 1207, when he was resident in Trim. There must surely have been an intention to develop the space inside it, if only to add to the drama of entering the castle through it, rather than have it open into empty courtyard (Fig. 3.7). Was a hall intended in that space? There must surely also have been a plan to develop formally the area outside it; as it is now, it is approached across a field. The gatetower’s unusual orientation relative to the (later) curtain wall on either side of it suggests that it alone survives from what must have been yet another abandoned plan for the castle. The remainder of the curtain wall is most likely to have been built after Walter returned to Trim in 1220 and completed by the siege of 1224. How do we explain its odd route? Walter’s financial capacity to complete the castle as he planned between 1201 and 1207 must have been much reduced by the fact that he had been away for so long. The line of his new curtain wall, built to give the fortress as full 45

Tadhg O’Keeffe

Fig. 3.7: The Dublin Gate viewed from the top of the donjon; see colour plate 6.

as circuit as possible, was dictated by the fact that the barbicaned Dublin Gate was already standing and needed to be incorporated in a circuit. It is conceivable that the towers on the curtain wall are open-backed not just because it was fashionable.30 Walter may have lacked the resources to close them off at the rear anyway. A date of 1201–7 for the Dublin Gate potentially brings the Poitevin parallel, Le Coudray-Salbart, back into play. No single French monument stands out as a specific exemplar for the Trim gatetower, even Le Coudray-Salbart itself, but that does not rule out the possibility that a mason familiar with contemporary French architecture was involved in planning the Dublin Gate. Some (western) French Romanesque influence on native architectural culture in Ireland is apparent before the invasion of 1169,31 which is evidence of how architectural ideas could travel between places without the aid of direct political connections. French ideas in the field of late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century castle architecture are discussed elsewhere in this volume,32 to which discussion I would reiterate my suggestion that the designs of the royal castles at Dublin (Co. Dublin)

30

31

32

46

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design, c.1200 (this volume). Tadhg O’Keeffe, Romanesque Ireland: Architecture and Ideology in the Twelfth Century (Dublin, 2003), passim. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design’; Duffy, ‘From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus’.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

and Limerick (Co. Limerick) reflect French influence, as does the design of William Marshall’s four-towered donjon at Carlow (Co. Carlow).33 The experience of visiting Trim Castle confirms the sense of a castle with a stop-start history. Entering the enclosure through the main (town) gate one is struck by its emptiness, the huge donjon notwithstanding. That emptiness is almost certainly not the outcome of destruction: many years of archaeological work at Trim, culminating in extensive excavation in the 1990s, would indicate that there are no missing buildings in the courtyard. The great hall to the left (the northern corner) as one enters the courtyard was built by Geoffrey de Geneville,34 and the courtyard would seem even emptier but for it.

The First Castle at Trim Almost immediately after he was granted Mide, and accompanied by a force of troops that the king had originally stationed in Dublin, Hugh I de Lacy set about traversing the territory, raiding and destroying native settlements along the way.35 He probably first encountered Trim on the first leg of his journey, the end-destination of which was Fore (Co. Westmeath), which was another old ecclesiastical site and which he selected for the foundation of a Benedictine priory. A undated but probably late twelfthcentury chanson de geste, The deeds of the Normans in Ireland (La geste des Engleis en Yrlande), records that he fortified a house at Trim (a Trym ferma une meisun), put a fosse (ditch or rampart) around it, and enclosed it with a hireson (stockade or palisade). The phraseology here allows us speculate that Hugh adapted through the use of fortifying features an exisiting meisun, not that he built an entire habitable structure afresh. The distinction is important: if the site of the first castle was determined by the presence of a habitable structure capable of being fortified, and if the stone donjon was built on the same site (as is believed to be the case), we have an explanation for why the core of the stone castle is overlooked by slightly higher ground to the west. The chanson then tells us that Hugh entrusted this castle to Hugh Tyrel when he left Ireland for England. We know that he was in England by Christmas 1172, which indicates that he had identified Trim as a place needing fortification, and perhaps even as a place that would be a good 33

34 35

Tadhg O’Keeffe, Medieval Irish Buildings, 1100–1600 (Dublin, 2015), pp. 232, 242–44. O’Keeffe, Medieval Irish Buildings, pp. 221–22. Duffy, ‘The “Key of the Pale”’, pp. 7–8.

47

Tadhg O’Keeffe

caput, while he and his troops in the process of exploring his new lordship. The chanson further tells us that Ruaidrí Ua Conchobhair, the Connachtbased high king, took advantage of de Lacy’s absence and headed to Trim with an army in order to throw down the dongun (donjon), the chastel (castle) and the hiresum (stockade or palisade). Tyrel fled, and Ua Conchobhair burned down the meysun (house) and levelled le mot (motte). Tyrel returned and refortified ‘his’ forcelette (fortress) before de Lacy himself returned less than two years later. Construction of the stone castle began when he returned.36 Compiled within living memory of the events, the chanson’s account must be taken as accurate, but a literal reading of the description of the castle might not be wise. Although original versions of some terms used by castellologists – donjon, motte – can be identifed in words in the chason, one cannot be sure that such words had very specific and circumscribed meanings when selected for use in the late twelfth century. Still, mot certainly signified an earthwork.37 The consensus is that the great tower or donjon that one sees at Trim today, built by de Lacy on his return, stands on the site of that original earthwork. More than a century ago Goddard Orpen speculated that there was a mound under the donjon at Trim.38 Harold Leask repeated the speculation, adding that the donjon probably encased part of the mound.39 Part of the castle was excavated in the early 1970s by David Sweetman, and he found an arc of a ditch outside the donjon, the curvature of which suggested that it was part of a penannular enclosure around that tower.40 Excavations by Alan Hayden twenty years later confirmed its line.41 Sweetman had interpreted the ditch as the enclosing element of a motteand-bailey, and Terry Barry subsequently suggested that Sweetman had

36

37

38

39

40

41

48

La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande / The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland. La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, ed. Evelyn Mullaly (Dublin, 2002), lines 3220–39. ‘Les fortifications de terre en Europe occidentale du Xe au XIIe siècles’ (Colloque de Caen, 2–5 Octobre 1980), Archéologie Médiévale 12 (1981), 6–123, at pp. 18–19. Goddard H. Orpen, ‘Motes and Norman castles in Ireland’, English Historical Review 22 (1907), 228–54, at p. 233. Harold G. Leask, ‘Irish Castles: 1180 to 1310’, Archaeological Journal 93 (1937), 143–98, at p. 150. P.D. Sweetman, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Trim Castle, Co. Meath, 1971– 74’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 78C (1978), 127–98. Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

actually found part of a ringwork castle.42 That interpretation is now widely accepted. Tom McNeill disagreed several years later, suggesting that the ditch excavated by Sweetman post-dated the donjon.43 However, in his report on his excavations at the castle in the early 1990s, Alan Hayden rejected McNeill’s interpretation and reiterated Barry’s ringwork interpretation, and cited Carlow, Dunamase (Co. Laois), Ferns (Co. Wexford), Kilkenny (Co. Kilkenny), and Maynooth, as other examples of castles with pre-masonry phases of Anglo-Norman date, although he remarked that ‘the early Norman earth and timber defensive structures that have been uncovered by recent excavations [at these sites] do not fit readily into the classic categories of ringwork or motte’.44 Limerick can now be added to the lists at which pre-masonry castle-phases have been identified.45 Hayden articulated here the (anecdotally) consensus view that at least some major Anglo-Norman stone castles in Ireland were preceded by earlier castles of earth and timber. One must ask, though, whether each example of pre-masonry occupation should indeed be identified as the remains of an actual castle, independent of the stone castle that followed. The sites on which stone castles were built would probably have been occupied before actual construction began, if only by those involved in preparing the ground for construction, so one needs to be mindful of the distinction between a pre-masonry castle, with its own identity, and pre-masonry occupation. At several of the sites listed by Hayden, the published evidence for a pre-masonry castle is not fully convincing. In the case of Carlow, for example, the excavator suggested that a ditch and palisade discovered underneath (and on a different orientation from) William Marshal’s early thirteenth-century donjon ‘should be classified as a partial ringwork’, and he suggested that it is part of the castle built by Hugh I de Lacy for John de Clahull in 1181. However, the identification of the pre-masonry phase as that of an independent castle was asserted rather than argued or demonstrated.46 At Ferns, there is simply no evidence at all of a ­pre-masonry 42

43

44 45

46

T.B. Barry, ‘Anglo-Norman Ringwork Castles: Some Evidence’, in Landscape Archaeology in Ireland, ed. T. Reeves-Smyth and F. Hamond (Oxford, 1983), 295–314, at pp. 307–9. T.E.  McNeill, ‘Trim Castle, Co.  Meath: the First Three Generations’, Archaeological Journal 47 (1990), 308–36. Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath, p. 99. Ken Wiggins, A Place of Great Consequence: Archaeological Excavations at King John’s Castle, Limerick, 1990–8 (Dublin, 2016). K.D. O’Conor, ‘The Origins of Carlow Castle’, Archaeology Ireland 11 (1997), 13–16; italics in original.

49

Tadhg O’Keeffe

castle, and its inclusion in Hayden’s list defies logic. Its excavator, David Sweetman, suggested originally that a ‘small fosse’ discovered in a small trench a short distance from the donjon ‘might… be earlier than the main one [associated with the donjon] and belong to an earlier [pre-AngloNorman] occupation of the site’.47 By 1999, persuaded by Terry Barry’s evidence-impoverished suggestion that Ferns had a pre-masonry ringwork, he changed his interpretation of the site: he asserted that evidence in favour of such an interpretation at the one corner of the donjon was ‘clear’, and he also suggested that the ‘small fosse’ might be part of the same monument.48 Despite this self-evidently groundless speculation, Ferns is now cited as a certain example of pre-masonry castle. It is obvious that greater care is needed in the interpretation of these monuments. Turning now to Trim, arguably the paradigmatic site of the pre-masonry castle in Ireland, the stratigraphical evidence that is shown in the published excavation cross-sections does not support a pre-donjon date for the ditch that Barry, Sweetman and Hayden regard as the enclosing element of a pre-masonry ringwork castle. Rather, it supports McNeill’s theory. Let us assume, as we must, that the layers labelled ‘early Norman deposits predating the keep’, ‘upcast from keep foundations’, and ‘late thirteenth- to early fourteenth-century deposits’, are correctly identified. In all but one of the published sections, the cut of the ditch is through the upcast, with no evidence to suggest that it is a re-cut of an earlier ditch (Fig. 3:8a). Work on the donjon began in the mid-1170s, which gives us a terminus post quem for the cut of the ditch as recorded in those sections. The earliest fill in the sections, other than basal silt, is assigned a late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century date, which gives a terminus ante quem for the cut. The only section in the report that suggests a different chronology is Ditch Section 1 (Fig. 3.8b). Here, some upcast is shown descending into the ditch, but the cut is through ‘early Norman deposits pre-dating the keep’. David Sweetman’s published section from the same part of the site shows the material that Hayden identified as ‘early Norman’ and ‘prekeep’ also descending into the ditch. Hayden queried the accuracy of the Sweetman section, a point to which I will return below. This stratigraphy in Ditch Section 1 is at odds with what is seen in the other sections published in Hayden’s report. It would suggest that the ditch was cut between the initial phase of Anglo-Norman settlement and the erection of the donjon. This would be consistent with the testimony of the late twelfth-century La geste des Engleis en Yrlande. This chanson 47

48

50

P.D.  Sweetman, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Ferns Castle, Co.  Wexford; Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 79C (1979), 217–45, at p. 224. David Sweetman, The Medieval Castles of Ireland (Cork, 1999), pp. 4–5.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Fig. 3.8: Sections of the ‘ringwork’ fosse: Ditch Section 10 (a; after Hayden, Trim Castle, Fig. 8.3); Ditch Section 1 (after Hayden, Trim Castle, Fig. 5.3).

tells us that there were two phases of construction at Trim before Hugh de Lacy returned in 1174. Hayden identified two phases of pre-donjon Anglo-Norman activity, the principal evidence being two palisades, one cut into the other, to the north-west of the donjon. He suggested, very reasonably, that these equate with the record of the chanson. However, he describes each phase as a ringwork phase: he discussed them in terms of ‘the first Anglo-Norman ringwork’ and ‘the rebuilding of the ringwork’ respectively. The only evidence presented in the excavation report for a ditch associated with the pre-masonry fortification at Trim is in Ditch Section 1. Hayden’s section would suggest that the ditch was cut after the initial fortification was destroyed by Ruaidrí Ua Conchobhair; this interpretation is entirely dependent on the correct identification as ‘early Norman’ and ‘pre-keep’ of a thin layer of soil on the south side of the section. By contrast, Sweetman’s published section puts the ditch at the start of the site’s history, before Ua Conchobhair’s attack. As the risk of sounding Jesuitical, neither section allows one to speak of two successive ringwork castles. One might argue that the evidence for a pre-donjon ditch in Ditch Section 1 is sufficient to postulate a penannular enclosure at pre-1174 Trim, and that the evidence is missing from other published sections because the ditch was recut in the thirteenth century. However, the ditch is actually very shallow. It is no more than 3 m deep from the top of its cut to undisturbed soil or, as in Ditch Section 1, bedrock. It is also quite narrow. If it is assumed that it was recut, the original ‘ringwork’ ditch can only have been about 5 m wide at the top. This would not have been a substantial monument. If we accept that there was a penannular enclosure 51

Tadhg O’Keeffe

at Trim before 1174, we must then imagine Hugh de Lacy, returning with the intention of developing a caput for his vast lordship, deciding that the low, shallow-ditched, ring from 1172 or 1173 merited transformation into the core of a great castle. That is reasonable, but we must also imagine that the builders of the donjon, starting in the mid-1170s and continuing to its completion a couple of decades later, were instructed by Hugh I and Walter to ignore the inconvenience of the old ditch, to carry all of the masonry and building equipment through the gap on its south-west side, and to set up their scaffolding and pulleys and so on within the restricted area that was left. This makes little sense. An alternative interpretation is suggested by the evidence of the donjon’s plinth. This is not an original feature of the building but was added at an unknown date, certainly in the thirteenth century and no later. Sweetman suggested that soil was banked up against it after it was built, and he recorded this in section. Hayden relabelled as ‘upcast from keep foundations’ the soil in question, and he showed in his own new section and in photographs that there was a gully outside the vertical part of the plinth. He noted that Sweetman missed this feature or, as he asserted rather less charitably, that ‘its existence was noted during the excavation but was ignored in the published report’.49 He identified this as a foundation trench for the plinth’s construction. However, some of that ‘upcast’ abuts the plinth in the published section (Fig. 3.8b). The feature shown in Ditch Section 1 is not, then, a foundation trench. In any case, it is surely too shallow. So, is it possible that Sweetman was correct? Did the material identified as ‘upcast’ originate in the ditch rather than in the space occupied by the donjon, and was the ditch cut at the same time as the plinth was added? The ‘foundation trench’ identified by Hayden is possibly a drainage gully, cut into the soil banked up against the part of the plinth that was never intended to be seen. To conclude, there is no strong evidence that a penannular enclosure preceded the building of the donjon. The excavations of the early 1990s yielded probable evidence of the original pre-masonry castle, but its character, including its earthwork component, remains uncertain. The ditch around the donjon was added after the donjon was built. Might it have been added to the castle in advance of the siege of 1224?

49

52

Hayden, Trim Castle, Co. Meath, p. 66.

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Newtown Trim: Walter de Lacy’s Planned New caput? The difficulty of making sense of Trim’s medieval town plan is perhaps an indication in itself that the settlement did not have a ‘big bang’ birth in which its planners systematically organised space according to a grand scheme. But it is reasonable to think that a formally planned settlement was envisaged for Trim in the late twelfth century when Hugh I de Lacy gave its tenants burgess status and began work on its castle. It is also reasonable to wonder whether – here I return the reader to the concept of counterfactual history – such a project was derailed by the circumstances of the de Lacy family. As has been shown above, there is evidence that at least one major component of the caput of de Lacy lordship – the castle – did not develop as originally intended. Trim’s physical and spatial infancy was complicated by the decision between 1200 and 1202 to relocate the diocesan centre for Meath to a new site, Nova Midia (New Meath), now known as Newtown Trim, about one mile to its east. The relocation was necessitated by the burning of Clonard in 1200.50 We know nothing of the process by which the decision to relocate was made; we know only that the bishop at the time was Simon de Rochfort, the first Anglo-Norman to hold the see, and that the transfer was permitted by the papal legate in 1202.51 The transfer would have had the approval of Walter de Lacy, as the Church had no authority to force the alienation of land for its own use. There is circumstantial evidence that the relocation had active de Lacy support. Hugh I had been the patron in 1183 of an Augustinian priory in Clonard, the convent of which, settled from the royal priory (later abbey) of St Thomas the Martyr in Dublin, had assumed a capitular role within the diocese prior to 1202.52 Hugh had a close relationship himself with the Dublin priory, having witnessed its mid-1170s foundation charter, and his (partial) remains were later buried alongside those of his first wife, Rose of Monmouth, in its church.53 Bishop de Rochfort can probably be identified with the Simon who was prior of St Thomas the Martyr in the

50

51

52

53

Annala Rioghachta Eireann: Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. John O’Donovan, 7 vols (Dublin, 1851), 3: s.a. 1200. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, ed. H. S. Sweetman, 5 vols (London, 1875–86) 1: p. 114. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 241–42; Hogan, The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda, p. 253. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 419–20.

53

Tadhg O’Keeffe

1180s.54 St Thomas the Martyr in Dublin had been Victorine from at least 1192, and probably from its foundation in the mid-1170s,55 and it provided Newtown Trim with its canons. The architecture of the new cathedral priory was very sumptuous by Irish standards. It had an unaisled cathedral church, intended to be ribvaulted for its full length. The elevation of the choir was fairly conventional: one tall lancet in every vault bay. The elevation of the nave was very odd, however. The wall was divided into three registers, such as one finds in aisled churches, but the lower register was a blank wall (apart from the two doors that would have opened into the nave from the cloister), and the middle (triforium) and upper (clerestorey) levels had windows of equal size arranged one above the other in each vault bay, and with mural passages passing through each register. No other Irish Gothic church has a scheme like this, and there is no obvious parallel outside Ireland that one might suggest as a source. The likelihood is that the design was based on an innovative scheme used when the former Romanesque priory church of St Thomas the Martyr in Dublin was rebuilt as a Gothic church after its elevation to the status of an abbey in 1192.56 Unfortunately, the Dublin house no longer survives and we have no record of its appearance. Work on the cathedral had advanced sufficiently by 1216 for de Rochfort to convene a synod at the site.57 He was buried in its church when he died in 1224. However, the church is not recorded as a cathedral thereafter, and no canons appear in the records pertaining to episcopal appointments elsewhere in Ireland. The ruined state of the cathedral today is probably because it was left unfinished in 1224.58 If Simon de Rochfort’s death marks the end to the project to build a cathedral at Newtown Trim, it could not have been, in itself, the reason for the project’s abandonment. Later evidence, beyond the scope of this paper, suggests that the move from Clonard to Newtown Trim might not have enjoyed the full support of Meath’s clergy, and that the matter of episcopal election was a contentious one within the diocese.59 Momentum lost at 54 55

56 57

58 59

54

Pontificia Hibernica, 1: 55. Virginia Davis, ‘Relations between the Abbey of St Thomas the Martyr and the Municipality of Dublin c. 1176–1527’, Dublin Historical Record, 40/2 (1987), 57–65, at p. 57. Carey Bates and O’Keeffe, ‘Colonial Monasticism’. David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britannia et Hiberniae a Synodo Verolamiensi ad 446 ad Londinensem ad 1717, 4 vols (London, 1737), p. 547. Carey Bates and O’Keeffe, ‘Colonial Monasticism’. Pontifica Hibernica, 2: 228; Augustus Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historiam Illustrantia, quae ex Vaticani, Neapolis ac Florentiae

Trim before 1224: New Thoughts on the caput of de Lacy Lordship in Ireland

Simon’s death might have had no ecclesiastical champion to pick it up again. Moreover, Victorines – intellectual, contemplative, and silent – were particularly ill-suited to running a cathedral, and that may have become very apparent at an early date. Finally, and perhaps decisively, Newtown Trim’s life started in Walter de Lacy’s presence, but ended months after his brother’s return from exile locked the siblings into a war. They were too preoccupied with that crisis to oversee the post-Simon phase of the site’s development. None of the later lords of Trim relaunched the project. The decision – presumably Walter’s – to locate the new cathedral at a distance outside the town of Trim remains puzzling. The Victorines and their bishop presumably wanted a new site, but there were plenty of options closer to the town. It is tempting to speculate that Walter’s plan in the first decade of the thirteenth century was to establish a new town in the flat area – the so-called ‘porchfield’60 – located between the cathedral, Nova Midia, and the castle, thus moving the centre of gravity of the caput eastwards from the area between St Patrick’s Church and St Mary’s Abbey. Hugh II, while in exile, must have wondered how building work at the new cathedral was progressing. His return from exile helped ensure that building work did not progress after 1224.

Chronology: Trim, 1172–1224 It is possible to suggest a new chronology of the development of the landscape and buildings of Trim in the period before 1224, and I will present it here as a simple narrative, with fact and speculation mixed together. Hugh de Lacy’s original earth-and-timber castle of 1172 was destroyed by the Irish almost as soon as it was built. Some refortification of the site took place almost immediately. When he returned to Ireland having served on overseas capaigns in 1173–74, he refortified the site more effectively, this time erecting a long castle-wall with a central gatetower and, behind it, a low donjon of traditional plan. He facilitated by charter the development of a borough-settlement on the opposite side of the river, possibly around the time (between 1183 and 1186) that he founded St Mary’s Abbey for Augustinian canons regular of the Arroasian observance. He was killed in 1186. Walter came of age several years later and recovered Trim from royal possession. Between 1201 and 1207 he effected some changes to the place.

60

Tabulariis Deprompsit et Ordine Chronologico Diposuit (Rome, 1864), p. 65. D. Kelly, ‘The Porchfield of Trim – a medieval “open-field”’, Irish Geography, 38, 1 (2005), 23–43.

55

Tadhg O’Keeffe

He gave land east of the settlement to Bishop Simon de Rochfort and a community of Victorine canons, and work began on a new cathedral. His plan may have been to develop a new urban caput in the space between between it and the castle. At the castle itself, he heightened Hugh’s donjon but abandoned whatever plan his father had for the enclosure around it. Instead, he built a new barbicaned gatetower – the so-called Dublin Gate – as the first act of a substantial redesign of the castle. Work was abandoned for a number of years afterwards, however, as he entered into conflict with the king and saw the castle taken into royal hands again. The castle was restored to Walter in 1215 but he only returned to Trim for permanent residence in 1220. He completed his work at the castle, but not as he had originally planned it. He built a long curtain wall joining the one end of his father’s screen-wall to his own Dublin Gate, at that stage a free-standing structure that preserved in its orientation the memory of his original plan, and then he joined that gate to the river-bank. Thus, Trim Castle had, at last, a fully enclosed court, albeit one of odd shape defined by walls of different character. In his absence between 1210 and 1215, work on Simon’s new cathedral had progressed sufficiently well for it to accommodate a synod in 1216. In 1223 Hugh II de Lacy returned from exile, and the lordship of Meath and the earldom of Ulster were thrown into disarray. Walter’s castle was held by the rebels and they surrounded its donjon with a ditch for additional protection. The castle was able to withstand a seven-week siege in 1224, thanks in no small measure to the newly-built curving curtain wall. In the circumstances of the time, work on the cathedral must have stopped. Bishop Simon’s death that same year ensured that it did not restart. The Nova Midia project came to an end. Later in the thirteenth century, with both Walter and his heir dead, Trim passed to Geoffrey de Geneville. He made one significant change to the castle – he added a great hall – and founded a new Dominican house on the north side of the town. His patronage kept Trim buoyant as a market centre. The town was walled late in the thirteenth century, and in the fourteenth century there were some small alterations made to the castle and, in the shape of the great bell-tower, the Augustinian abbey. But Trim never regained the status that it had enjoyed, albeit in fits and starts, under the de Lacys.

56

Chapter 4 The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey Ruairí Ó Baoill Abstract Carrickfergus sits on the southern coast of Co. Antrim, looking out on Belfast Lough, and is overlooked by the southern limit of the Antrim Plateau. A number of major historic monuments survive in the town, including the medieval castle, St Nicholas’s church (of medieval and later date), and the seventeenth-century stone town walls. The castle and town guarded the coastal plain leading to the Glens of Antrim north of the town as well as the shipping entering Belfast Lough. Carrickfergus has been a town for more than 800 years and, as such, is perhaps the most historic town in Ulster, and its iconic medieval castle is one of the province’s most visited monuments. This ensemble of monuments represents important stages in the history and development of the town. It is not intended here to give a detailed history of Carrickfergus as this has been produced elsewhere and there have been many excavations carried out in the town in the past 65 years. Rather, this short paper focuses on some of the rich detail of past lives that archaeological excavation has revealed within the medieval town.

Résumé Carrickfergus se trouve sur la côte sud du comté d’Antrim, donnant sur Belfast Lough et est dominé par la limite sud du plateau d’Antrim. Un certain nombre de grands monuments historiques survivent dans la ville, y compris le château médiéval, l’église Saint-Nicolas et les remparts de la ville, en pierre médiévale et reconstruits plus tard au XVIIe siècle. Le château et la ville contrôlaient la plaine côtière menant aux Glens d’Antrim au nord de la ville aussi bien que l’entrée maritime de Belfast Lough. Carrickfergus est une ville depuis plus de 800 ans et, comme telle, est peut-être la ville la plus historique d’Ulster et son emblématique château médiéval est l’un des monuments les plus visités de la province. Cet ensemble de monuments représente d’importants moments de l’histoire et du développement de la ville. Il ne s’agit pas ici de donner une histoire détaillée de Carrickfergus car cela a déjà été fait ailleurs. La ville a fait l’objet de nombreuses fouilles archéologiques au cours des 65 dernières années et ce court article attire plutôt l’attention sur les riches détails des vies passées, révélés par ces fouilles.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 57–76

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114238

Ruairí Ó Baoill

Introduction Carrickfergus, an important military outpost and an ecclesiastical centre in the middle ages, is a much-studied medieval town (Fig. 4.1).1 Two monuments survive today from its Anglo-Norman past. The more complete of the two is the castle, while only parts of the parish church dedicated to St Nicholas survive from the time of its foundation by John de Courcy soon after his arrival in Ulster in 1177.2 Now vanished is the Premonstratensian abbey which he also founded and which was colonised by canons from Dryburgh Abbey in Berwickshire (Scotland).3 Other now-lost ecclesiastical monuments in the environs of the town include St Bride’s [Bridget’s] Hospital, of uncertain date,4 and a Franciscan friary.5 Other ecclesiastical sites in the vicinity of the town are at Carnrawsy, Friar’s Glen/Tobergal, and Killyann.6 And, complimenting the presence of 1

2

3

4 5

6

58

Philip  S. Robinson, Carrickfergus. Irish Historic Towns Atlas 3 (Dublin, 1986); all historical references pertaining to the town are listed therein, and readers are referred to it for those historical notices which are not footnoted in this essay. For the castle, see T.E.  McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle (Belfast, 1981); Colm Donnelly, John Ó Néill, T.E.  McNeill and Paul McCooey, ‘De Courcy’s Castle: New Insights into the First Phase of Anglo-Norman Building Activity at Carrickfergus Castle, County Antrim’, Medieval Archaeology 49 (2005), 311–17. Ruairí Ó Baoill, Carrickfergus. The Story of the Castle and Walled Town (Belfast, 2008); D. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Earls, Gunners and Tourists: The Past and Future of Carrickfergus Castle’, Castles Studies Group Journal 26 (2012–13), 151–68; Sarah Gormley and T. E. McNeill, ‘Recent Research on Carrickfergus Castle, Co.  Antrim’, Castle Studies Group Journal 30 (2016, forthcoming); Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design’; Duffy, ‘From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus’. For the church, see Thomas Drew, The Ancient Church of St Nicholas, Carrickfergus, Diocese of Connor: A Report to the Right Rev. Robert Knox, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor and Dromore (Belfast and Dublin, 1872); Ruairí Ó Baoill, St Nicholas’ Church, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Archaeology Ireland Heritage Guide 43 (Bray 2009). The site of the abbey has been located at Woodburn but structural evidence of the actual church itself has been found (Northern Ireland Sites and Monuments Register [SMR], Antrim 052: 031). Northern Ireland SMR, Antrim 052:058. Francis Joseph Bigger, ‘The Franciscan Friary at Carrig-Fergus’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 15 (1909), 49–60; Ó Baoill, Carrickfergus. Northern Ireland SMR, Antrim 052:19, Antrim 052:42, Antrim 052:16, respectively.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.1: Map of Carrickfergus walled town.

the stone castle in the town, there is, outside the town, a motte with two baileys known as Duncrue Fort, while there is a (fortified?) rectangular enclosure of uncertain date at Dunrock.7 Because so few medieval buildings have survived, the early history of Carrickfergus is unclear. We are reliant on documents, cartographic evidence, and the discoveries from archaeological excavations to help fill in blanks. Unfortunately, the earliest map of Carrickfergus (which is also the earliest map of any town in Ulster) dates to c. 1560, almost 400 years 7

Northern Ireland SMR, Antrim 052:14, Antrim 052:15, respectively.

59

Ruairí Ó Baoill

after the castle and town were established. The layout of the historic core of the town has not changed radically since the town was walled in the early seventeenth century. However, the major change that visitors will experience is that the castle and town, inextricably linked for most of the 800 years and more that the two have existed, are now divided by a four-lane road (the Causeway Coastal Route-originally called the Marine Highway) which was constructed in the 1960s.

The Founding of Anglo-Norman Carrickfergus There is growing archaeological evidence from excavations in both the town and the castle to suggest sustained prehistoric activity at this point of the Antrim Coast, and there are a number of prehistoric sites in the environs of the modern town.8 Although there is evidence of continued dispersed settlement in the area around the modern town, currently there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that there was any earlier significant settlement at the actual location prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Normans. The castle at Carrickfergus was built just eight years after the AngloNorman invasion of Ireland. In 1177 John de Courcy led an AngloNorman army of 22 armoured knights and 300 foot soldiers from Dublin into Ulster in what was essentially a land-grabbing exercise from the Irish. He made his primary base at Carrickfergus and started construction of the first phase of the castle. The town grew up in the shadow of its formidable defences. De Courcy found at Carrickfergus a location that was well suited to his purposes. The promontory on the northern shore of Belfast Lough where the castle was constructed was a good defensible position with its own source of fresh water, and that meant it could withstand lengthy sieges if called upon. The adjacent natural harbour and coastal location of the castle and the urban settlement which he promoted adjacent to it allowed de Courcy keep in touch by sea if needed with Dublin, the centre of Anglo-Norman power in Ireland, as well as with other new Anglo-Norman settlements along the east coast. It was also convenient for communications with his English lands in Cumbria and the Isle of Man; his wife, Affreca, was born on Man.9

8

9

60

Ruairí Ó Baoill, Investigations at Carrickfergus Castle, Co. Antrim, CAF Data Structure Report 105, Unpublished (2014). Seán Duffy, ‘The First Ulster Plantation: John de Courcy and the Men of Cumbria’, in Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

In 1185 King Henry II made John de Courcy justiciar (chief governor) of Ireland. Because the area he conquered was the most northerly of those controlled by the Anglo-Normans on the island, he was able to act in a semi- independent manner. He minted his own coins at both Carrickfergus and Downpatrick, normally a royal prerogative, and is described in contemporary documents as Princeps Ulidiae, Prince of Ulster. This unofficial title may have been one that he styled himself.10 As noted already,11 King John, fearing that de Courcy was creating an entirely independent kingdom in Ulster, encouraged Hugh II de Lacy to attempt to take control of the area from him. De Lacy decisively defeated de Courcy at Downpatrick in 1203, forcing him into exile for a short while. After his final defeat, de Courcy again went into exile and died in obscurity in 1219, having never regained his Ulster lands. It is clear that by that time a settlement had grown up around the castle, for in 1221 there is a reference to ‘the burgesses of Carrickfergus’ and in 1226 to Carrickfergus itself as a ‘vill’. On Hugh II de Lacy’s expulsion from Ulster, the castle was transferred into the custody of the crown. Hugh’s attempt to recapture it failed, and it remained a royal property until 1227 when Henry III regranted him the earldom and lands of Ulster, including the castle. During this period of his lordship Hugh was the patron, c. 1232, of a Franciscan friary, located where the present Town Hall and Library stand (Figs 4.2; 4.3). The site is just outside the eastern limits of the town, as marked by the line of modern Antrim Street.12 It seems to have had a mill within its complex; this is described in the written sources and is portrayed on the 1560 map of Carrickfergus (which features the only visual representation we possess of the friary). When he died in 1242, Hugh II de Lacy was buried at the friary, as were, later, members of the Clandeboye O’Neill dynasty who came to control the area around Carrickfergus during the fourteenth century. In the late medieval period the O’Neills were the main patrons of the church. The friary was finally suppressed in the mid-sixteenth century and converted into a fortified storehouse known as the ‘palace’. On one of the archaeological excavations carried out by Tom Delaney and Lesley Simpson between 1972 and 1979 (Fig.  4.3), masonry remains of the friary walls were recovered, and the skeletons of 68 men, women and children from the medieval cemetery associated with

10 11 12

Lydon, ed. T.  B. Barry, Robin Frame and Katharine Simms (London, 1995), pp. 1–27. Duffy, ‘The First Ulster Plantation’. Duffy with Brown, ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’. Bigger, ‘The Franciscan Friary at Carrig-Fergus’; Ó Baoill, Carrickfergus.

61

Ruairí Ó Baoill

Fig. 4.2: Map showing the location of excavations undertaken by Tom Delaney and Lesley Simpson between 1972–79 (after Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, Fig. 2).

62

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.3: Plan of the excavated features from the 1970s excavations at Joymount, showing the original line of the medieval town defensive ditch and part of the site of the Franciscan friary with its adjacent cemetery (after Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, Fig. 3).

it were uncovered. Among the many artefacts retrieved from the site were fragments of painted window glass and decorated medieval floor tiles.13

Carrickfergus after Hugh II de Lacy After Hugh’s death in 1242, the earldom reverted to the crown. There are references to a mint being established in 1252, a privilege that shows the important status of the town, and there is another reference to burgesses in 1260. In 1265 the earldom passed to Walter de Burgh and the town seems to have prospered, and there are references in 1273 to ‘the Mayor and Commonality of Carrickfergus’. However, there are no references to the properties or houses of ordinary townspeople before the sixteenth century. The location of Carrickfergus, surrounded by hostile Irish and, in the late medieval period, Scots-Gaelic territories on all sides meant that the new settlement was, from its earliest days, in constant threat of attack. The town was burnt in 1274, but the castle was not damaged. The town recovered and was again described in 1285 as a ‘vill’.

13

Lesley Simpson and A. Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, 1972–1979’, Medieval Archaeology 25 (1981), 78–89, at pp. 82–84.

63

Ruairí Ó Baoill

The Layout of the Medieval Town From the map and archaeological evidence, it is appears that the medieval town of Carrickfergus had developed quickly back in the late twelfth and rearly thirteenth centuries. The principal early streets were Cheston Street and Castle Street, and these would have originated in a settlement beside the outworks close to the castle entrance. The thoroughfare that we now know as High Street probably only evolved when the Franciscan friary was built at the other end of the historic town core in the 1230s. Visitors entered the town by crossing the town defences through the gate that would later be known as the West (or Irish) Gate, located at the western end of modern West Street. This gate was a gap in the fortifications that surrounded the town in the medieval period. Once through this gate, the most substantial building within the medieval town, now located between the modern Lancasterian Street and Market Place, was the church of St Nicholas, sitting within a precinct, which meant that although it was within the town defences it was set apart from the town itself. Although the modern graveyard attached to the church is quite small, the discovery of skeletons (of townspeople) beyond its limits during excavations in the town in 1972 and 2010–11 suggest that the precinct originally covered a much larger area and may have extended both southwards into Market Place and eastwards to what is now modern North Street.14 Within the precinct was a medieval cross, and two high-status Anglo-Norman grave-slabs of probable thirteenth-century date, currently on display in the chancel of the modern church (Fig. 4.4), presumably also came from the medieval graveyard. The poorer folk, possibly Irish who had been allowed into the town from the surrounding areas and would have done the most menial work, lived in structures that we might describe as ‘beehive’ houses. These were flimsy, oval-shaped buildings, constructed of wattle and turf, and were easily and quickly constructed. These structures are illustrated on all of the three sixteenth-century maps of Carrickfergus (compiled in c. 1560, 1567, and c. 1596).15 Despite the excellent preservation of organic material in the strata of Carrickfergus, these enigmatic structures have yet to be uncovered in an excavation within the town. The houses of the richer folk, the prominent citizens, merchants and officers of the town garrison, would 14

15

64

Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, p. 80; Ruairí Ó Baoill and Emily Murray, Excavations in 2010–2011 at Market Place, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Adjacent to St Nicholas’ Church. CAF Data Structure Report 84, Unpublished (2011). Ó Baoill, Carrickfergus.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.4: One of the two thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman grave-slabs on display in the parish church of St Nicholas (© Historic Environment Division, DfC).

65

Ruairí Ó Baoill

have been a combination of stone and wood. None of these buildings have been uncovered to date on excavations either. The inhabitants of Carrickfergus, in constant fear of attack from the Gaelic-Irish of south Antrim and north Down (the O’Neills) and also, slightly later, from the Gaelic-Scots of the Glens and the Route (the McDonnells), had two lines of defence: the town ditch and bank with its palisade fence, and the castle itself. In the later medieval period the richer residents built towerhouses along either side of High Street (if not also Essex Street, Cheston Street, and Castle Street), which added to the defensive capability of the settlement. A Market Cross (named on the 1567 map as ‘Great Patrick’) was located at the junction of Castle Street and High Street, where the market and other outdoor public meetings were held within the town.

The Medieval Town Defences Archaeological excavations carried out within the town have uncovered evidence of the defences that surrounded Carrickfergus during the medieval period. The line of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century town defences has been tracked running from the direction of the Castle, parallel to the western side of modern Essex Street, and it constituted the western limit of the medieval town. During excavations carried out by the author at the site in 1991–92, a 16 m stretch of the medieval town ditch was uncovered (Fig. 4.5).16 The ditch was roughly 5 m wide and 2 m deep and was cut into the underlying keuper marl subsoil clay. A possible drawbridge pit cut into the medieval ditch, close to the corner of Essex Street and West Street (the later position of a Tudor stone gate into the town), was probably how people crossed the defences to get into medieval Carrickfergus at this side of the town. In 2009 an excavation by the author at the corner of West Street and Albert Road uncovered further evidence of the medieval ditch, though in a heavily truncated state.17 It would appear the town ditch that demarcates the western limit of the medieval town turned eastwards along modern Lancasterian Street (the northern limit of the medieval town). In fact, it is very probable that the line of Lancasterian Street – a street not illustrated on maps 16

17

66

Ruairí Ó Baoill, ‘Recent Excavations in Medieval Carrickfergus’, Carrickfergus and District Historical Society Journal 7 (1993), 54–63. Ruairí Ó Baoill, Archaeological Excavations at Carrickfergus Methodist Church, West Street, Carrickfergus, Co.  Antrim. CAF Data Structure Report No.  70, Unpublished (2011).

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.5: The medieval town ditch, located below a seventeenth-century stone building, during excavation at Essex Street (© Historic Environment Division, DfC); see colour plate 7.

67

Ruairí Ó Baoill

until the late-sixteenth century – represents the filled-in line of the medieval defences at this point of the town. Excavations at the eastern end of Lancasterian Street carried out in 1993 by the author uncovered property boundaries and ditches running at right angles to the modern road appeared to confirm this idea.18 Where the original town ditch went from the eastern end of Lancasterian Street is still to be determined. In 1974 Tom Delaney uncovered a 60 m-long stretch of a substantial ditch running cross the CF III site at Joymount that would appear to line up with the eastern end of Lancasterian Street (Fig. 4.2).19 The fortifications consisted of an earthen bank supported by a wooden palisade, inside a ditch c. 4 m wide and 1.5 m deep. Delaney interpreted this as the thirteenth-century town defences. The ditch ran underneath the walls of the Franciscan friary, constructed in the 1230s. Thus, it would appear that the ditch at Joymount was the earliest defensive feature erected to protect the new settlement of Carrickfergus in this part of the town. Given that Franciscan friaries traditionally lay outside the precinct of towns and that the line of modern Antrim Street runs in front of where the friary would have stood, the possibility has to be raised that the defensive line of the new settlement at Carrickfergus was altered when the friary was constructed and that the line of Antrim Street reflects a realignment of the town defences in the later thirteenth century. Only further archaeological investigations will clarify this important question. The area enclosed by the thirteenth-century defences has been estimated at c. 6–7 hectares.20 We do not have any records of the population of the town but it was probably in the low hundreds.

Industry Despite the constant threat of attack from the Irish and Scots during the medieval period, finds from archaeological excavations have revealed that Carrickfergus was prosperous for much of the time. Fortuitously for the settlement, there were good sources of clay close to the town and these were being exploited from an early stage to produce pottery vessels. Excavations in 1979 uncovered one of the pottery kilns just beyond the seventeenthcentury Irish Gate, roughly 50 m west of the medieval town ditch at Essex 18

19 20

68

Ruairí Ó Baoill, ‘Further Excavations in Medieval Carrickfergus’, Carrickfergus and District Historical Society Journal 9 (1998), 25–32. Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, pp. 82–84. Thomas, Walled Towns of Ireland, 2: 40.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.6: The thirteenth-century pottery kiln at Irish Quarter with pots still in situ, during excavation (© Historic Environment Division, DfC); see colour plate 8.

Street (Fig. 4.6).21 The kiln had been abandoned after a misfiring with the broken pots still in situ and archaeologists have been able to restore some of these (Fig. 4.7). Examples are currently on display in the museum in Carrickfergus. The kiln was dated to pre-1250 on numismatic evidence recovered from strata that had accumulated above it after it has been abandoned. There may have been several other kilns in the area, which it was not possible to excavate due to time constraints on the excavation.22 Because of the risk of fire to the wooden buildings of the town, most industrial activities would have been carried on outside the town boundaries and it seems that ceramic production was being carried out in this part of the town. The pottery recovered from the excavations that the author carried out in the town between 1991–95 (Fig. 4.8) revealed that nearly 80% of the ceramic assemblage was of local manufacture, 15% were imports from England (mostly from the Ham Green and Redcliffe potteries in the Bristol region) and 6% from potteries in northern France, Saintonge, Rouen (dép. Haute-Normandie) and Orléans (dép. Centre-Val de Loire). 21

22

Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, pp.  85–86; Lesley Simpson, P. S. Bryan, Tom Delaney and A. Dickson, ‘An Early 13th Century Double-Flued Pottery Kiln at Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim: An Interim Report’, Medieval Ceramics 3 (1979), 41–51. Tom Condit, personal communication.

69

Ruairí Ó Baoill

Fig. 4.7: Some of the reconstructed thirteenth-century pottery vessels found at Irish Quarter (© Historic Environment Division, DfC); see colour plate 9.

The excavations carried out by Delaney and Simpson also revealed that there was medieval pottery being imported into the town from potteries in south-western Scotland. Interestingly, sherds of medieval Ulster coarse pottery – the unglazed ceramic used by the Irish in the areas outside Carrickfergus – have also been found in many excavations in the town (Fig. 4.9). This suggests that despite episodes of war between them, there was also plenty of interaction and trade between the Anglo-Normans of Carrickfergus and the native Irish living nearby during this period. During the medieval period, the hinterland outside the town was used to provide the town with grain and other produce. Closer to the centre of town significant evidence of medieval industrial activity was found in 1972 during excavations at Market Place.23 The excavations recovered large quantities of iron slag and furnace bottoms showing that smelting was taking place. Many iron knives, some with maker’s marks stamped on the blades, have been found on excavations across the town.

23

70

Simpson and Dickson, ‘Excavations in Carrickfergus’, pp. 80–81.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Fig. 4.8: Map showing the location of excavations undertaken by the author between 1991–95 (© Historic Environment Division, DfC).

71

Ruairí Ó Baoill

Fig. 4.9: Base and body fragments from an Irish-made pot of Medieval Ulster Coarseware type (© Historic Environment Division, DfC).

Life within the Medieval Town Excavations carried out from 1991–95 have also revealed aspects of the darker side of life in a frontier town in medieval Ireland like Carrickfergus. One fifth of all dog bones recovered from these excavations displayed clear evidence of cut or chop marks, with some post-medieval animals also displaying the marks.24 Their presence on animal bone shows that the carcasses were being processed for food or as materials for human use. This processing involved four principal activities: skinning, dismemberment, meat removal and tool manufacture. The marks made during each of these procedures are distinct, and it is possible to reconstruct the activities that were responsible for the creation of most of them. Analysis by Dr Eileen Murphy indicated that the majority of the cut marks present on the Carrickfergus dog bones were related to the dismemberment and butchering of the carcasses. Some, however, were clearly the result of skinning. The butchers were not selective about which animals fell under the blade, with the young and the old, and the large and the small all suffering the same fate. Indeed, one pit contained the butchered remains of a group of puppies of less than five months old. The breakage patterns of the bones (for marrow extraction), the evidence of burning (indicative of cooking) and the location and presence 24

72

Eileen Murphy and Ruairí Ó Baoill, ‘It’s a Dog’s Life: Butchered Medieval Dogs from Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim’, Archaeology Ireland 14 (2000), 24–25.

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

of cut marks, all indicate that the dogs were exploited both for their flesh and for their skins. Carrickfergus experienced siege and attack throughout the medieval period, and it is possible that the high concentration of butchered dog bones relate to one or more episodes of warfare, where the population was reduced to eating animals in the town in order to survive. Alternatively, dogs may have been economically exploited for their meat and skins. After fish, hides are considered to have formed the main staple export from Ireland during the late medieval period. While there are no specific references to the export of dog skins from Carrickfergus, the documentary sources suggest that there was a considerable demand for hides for export. It is feasible that dog skins were also being traded from this Irish port during the medieval period. On a lighter note, a number of Jew’s harps and roughly carved slate gaming pieces recovered from excavations within the town give us a glimpse of the types of entertainment in which people would have partaken.

Trade During the medieval period, despite being in the heart of Gaelic Ulster, Carrickfergus continued to trade and was intermittently prosperous. This is reflected in some of the artefacts discovered on excavations within the town such as an early thirteenth-century gilded brooch, a pottery trumpet from southern France, a ceramic insect (cicada), and most exotically of all, the skeleton of a Barbary ape that would have had to have been imported from Gibraltar or North Africa.25 The role of Carrickfergus as an important port as well as a garrison, religious and administrative centre in the medieval period is sometimes overlooked because of how the town has developed in recent centuries. It is the finds from archaeological excavations that help us remember. Agricultural products along with hides, wool and sheepskins were the major items that generated income for the earl and the earldom as exports. In 1340 a Robert de Wryngton and two companions were described as having bought and customed 610 hides at Galway, Carrickfergus and Waterford. In 1375 the mayor of Carrickfergus was licensed to import eight weys of wheat and John Wyk, a merchant of the town, malt and oats. In 1376 James Boys got a two-year licence to bring sixty weys of wheat, oats and other corn from Dublin to Drogheda (Co. Louth), the usual source 25

Nick Brannon, ‘Carrickfergus’, in Pieces of the Past: Archaeological excavations by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland 1970–1986, ed. Ann Hamlin and Chris Lynn (Belfast, 1988), pp. 64–65.

73

Ruairí Ó Baoill

for the town, emphasising the coastal role in the security of the AngloNorman controlled areas of Ireland. Corn supplies for Carrickfergus and the other major ports and castles at Carlingford (Co. Louth) and Greencastle (Co. Down), generally came from the Drogheda area, and the merchants could make significant profits by selling at inflated prices to the beleaguered inhabitants of places like Carrickfergus. It is clear that from time to time the English government needed to intervene to ensure that supplies reached Carrickfergus. The townspeople sought tax relief in the aftermaths of attacks by the Irish and Scots, and the Crown normally granted these. In 1403–4, a Carrickfergus merchant was granted licences to export corn, floor, salt-meat and beer to the Scots. Although for much of the period Scotland was regarded as ‘the enemy’, there are references to illicit trade going on with the Scots, including in wine that had been imported for use by the castle garrison. Presumably this was carried on with the local Irish as well, illustrating the isolated position of Carrickfergus throughout the medieval period and the desperate methods that were needed to generate money for the earldom and the merchants of the town. It is possible that the commodities being produced in the iron and pottery industries of Carrickfergus, evidence of which has been uncovered on excavations within the town, were also being traded and exported during this period.

Later Medieval Carrickfergus and the Decline of the Anglo-Norman Earldom of Ulster Throughout the later medieval period, Carrickfergus Castle remained the one stronghold in Ulster held by the English, albeit one which was attacked by the Irish and Scots on a regular basis. Much of the information on these episodes survives in the State Papers and takes the form of requests from the town for money to rebuild and also for more troops to help defend the outpost. Why the town was not surrounded with a stone defensive wall, as many other Irish towns had been during the medieval period, is unclear. Perhaps the precarious nature of the settlement made the Crown unwilling to undertake such a considerable investment. The uncertain relations with the nearby kingdom of Scotland during this period may have put off an investment in substantial town defences which could have been put to use by an invading army, and the invasion of Edward Bruce in the years 1315–18 would only have strengthened this view. The Anglo-Norman earldom of Ulster went into decline with the murder of William de Burgh, earl of Ulster, at Belfast in 1333. Henceforth, agents for the sovereign governed the area, and there was never again a resident earl to make or direct policy for the earldom. Despite this, in 1334 74

The Medieval Archaeology of Carrickfergus Town (Co. Antrim): A Brief Survey

Carrickfergus was referred to as a ‘borough town’. But with the murder of the earl and the rise to prominence of a branch of the Tyrone O’Neills, who came to control much of southern Antrim and northern Down (known as Upper and Lower Clandeboye), the situation of Carrickfergus became more precarious. The fact that Gaelic territory had encroached on the original area of the earldom, meant that Carrickfergus was dependent for survival on supplies – both of men and provisions such as corn, wheat, oats and coal – arriving by sea from other Anglo-Norman controlled areas along the eastern coast of Ireland, such as Drogheda. For many of the succeeding centuries it was the only major port in Ulster held for the Crown. In 1384 Carrickfergus town was burnt by Niall O’Neill, a sign of the declining power of the Anglo-Norman earldom and the emerging power of the Gaelic lords in the surrounding areas. Two years later, in 1386, the town was burnt by the Highland Scots of the Glens of Antrim, and a request to ‘build and repair it’ in the following year may refer to either or both attacks. In 1402 the Scots again attacked the town, and it was reported that Carrickfergus had been ‘totally burnt by our enemies’. The colony was reported as only surviving by paying ‘black rent’ to the Clandeboye O’Neills in 1460, and the townsfolk had probably worked out a modus vivendi with the local Irish and Scots. Commodities such as wine and cloth that were being imported into the town would have been desired by the Irish and Scots, who could then acquire them through trade with the merchants of the town. Consequently, it did not suit the Irish or the Scots to completely destroy Carrickfergus, even if they had been able.

Discussion Carrickfergus was the most important coastal town and port in Ulster and, at any given time in the medieval period, there were groups of foreign sailors there on business. Because it was also, for long periods in the middle ages, the only town held for the Crown in a part of Ireland that was predominantly Gaelic, it was often reliant on supply by sea. The harbour, in the shadow of the castle, would have been filled with boats of all sizes and would have been a hive of activity. Amongst the languages that a visitor would have heard in medieval Carrickfergus was Irish (and possibly Scots-Gaelic), English (and possibly Lowlands Scots), Latin and possibly also French and Spanish. It was a vibrant and cosmopolitan town, port, administrative and ecclesiastical centre, and garrison that thrived because of its sensible coastal location and the protection afforded it by its impressive stone castle. This combination of factors meant that, unlike many other settlements in the Anglo-Norman 75

Ruairí Ó Baoill

earldom, Carrickfergus survived the subsequent decline of the earldom, the Gaelic revival of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Ireland and even underwent a second renaissance in the seventeenth century. The archaeological excavations which have been carried out in Carrickfergus over the last 65 years have uncovered much vital information that throws light on the early development of the settlement. This information has helped clarify the layout of the medieval town, the location and nature of its defensive ditches, the location and layout of the religious houses and their associated cemeteries, and the sorts of smallscale industrial and manufacturing activities that were taking place in the town. From the finds of everyday objects that townspeople owned, both those items acquired locally and those imported, we have a good idea of the lifestyle of the inhabitants. Many of these finds are on display in the Museum in Carrickfergus town centre. Although we still do not know everything about the medieval town, such as, for example, the nature of the houses where people lived or the exact location of the ‘lost’ Premonstratensian abbey, a lot has been revealed. It is also clear that unless significant new documentary and cartographic sources relating to the town are uncovered, all new information about the medieval development of Carrickfergus will come from future archaeological discoveries in the town and the full publication of excavations that have already taken place there.

76

Chapter 5 Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200 Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler Abstract The rapid evolution of Anglo-Norman castles in Ireland between 1170 and 1220 is discussed in the context of the introduction of new ideas across the Angevin empire. Of particular interest is the re-introduction after many centuries of the round tower and its pairing on either side of castle gates. An early class of T-shaped gatehouse is identified and its possible implications for the construction history of four notable early Irish twintowered gatehouses are discussed. From this, a revised date for the great outer gatehouse at Carrickfergus is suggested.

Résumé L’évolution rapide des châteaux anglo-normands en Irlande entre 1170 et 1220 est discutée dans le cadre de l’introduction de nouvelles idées à travers l’empire angevin. D’un intérêt particulier est la réintroduction après plusieurs siècles de la tour ronde et son emploi dans les portes flanquées de deux tours. Une classe précoce de châtelet en forme de T est identifiée et ses conséquences possibles pour l’histoire de la construction en Irlande de quatre portes fortifiées flanquées de deux tours. De là, une nouvelle date est suggérée pour la grande porte extérieure à deux tours de Carrickfergus.

Introduction The transition from the twelfth to the thirteenth century in western Europe saw rapid and innovative changes in medieval castle-design over a period of just two or three decades. These changes are particularly evident across the Angevin empire of King Henry II and his sons Richard and John, and in the neighbouring territories of their rival Capetian kings of France, Louis VII and his son Philip Augustus. These two dynasties were in almost constant conflict from 1152 when Henry, by then Count of Anjou

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 77–106

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114239

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

and Duke of Normandy, added yet another duchy to his territory by ­marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine, herself only just divorced from Louis VII. This made Henry ruler of half of France, though at least nominally as the French king’s vassal, and from that time Louis and then Philip Augustus put much effort into bringing the Angevin territories in France under the direct control of the French crown. When Henry was crowned king of England in 1154 he brought together what is often referred to as the Angevin empire.1 This empire was more a commonwealth of variously governed territories that, by the time Henry died in 1189, included England, much of Wales, most of the western half of modern France and the eastern half of Ireland. In addition, the king of Scotland, the Welsh princes, and many of the Irish kings had been obliged to swear allegiance to the king. In the last few decades of the twelfth century most of the Angevin territories had well-defined if disputed boundaries, but those on the western fringe of the empire in Ireland were particularly fluid as the Anglo-Normans attempted to annex new territory in the west and north of the island, and as the Irish raided into the growing colony. The empire was thus subject to more or less constant skirmishing across Ireland, on the borders of Wales and Scotland, and the throughout the Angevin territories in France. Much of the local warfare within the Angevin empire centred on castles, with few battles fought between opposing armies in the field. Perhaps for this reason, the end of the twelfth century saw the introduction of several innovations in castle-design. Some of these were revolutionary as they saw a return to architectural features reminiscent of the last centuries of imperial Rome. Towers placed at intervals along the curtain walls had become common, but now these also saw the increasing use of multiple arrow loops to provide more effective flanking fire from several levels. Another was the reintroduction of round and D-shaped towers last employed by the Romans, and these gradually replaced rectangular flanking towers as the norm for the next century and a half. Roman towers of this type were still standing, if ruinous, in several places in medieval England and France. They were preserved on the city walls of Carcassonne (Aude) in the south of France, at Senlis (dép. Oise), just forty kilometres north of Paris, and at Le Mans (dép. Sarthe) in the heart of Angevin France. In south-east England, they are preserved on the walls of the Saxon Shore forts at, for example, Pevensey (East Sussex) and Portchester (Hampshire). Despite the fact that the Normans invading England in 1066 set up camp in Pevensey fort, they did not attempt to reproduce towers like the ones they found there in their own castles until over a century later. 1

78

John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (London, 1984).

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Fig. 5.1: Carrickfergus Castle. Top and middle: view from the north-east and from the west respectively. Bottom: a simplified plan of the castle with the medieval structure shown in black, and with diagonal striping indicating where walls have been removed. Small inset map: Angevin territories in Ireland around 1200 in dark shading: L: Leinster; Me: Meath; Mu: Munster; U: Ulster; location of the four principal castles discussed in the text: 1: Carrickfergus; 2: Kilkenny; 3: Nenagh; 4: Limerick.

Carrickfergus Castle (Fig. 5.1) is one fortress on the western fringes of the Angevin empire that seems to have been at the forefront of the changes in castle-design occurring at the turn of the thirteenth century. This article will consider developments at Carrickfergus in the context of the rapid changes in castle-design taking place around the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. 79

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

Great Towers: The First Angevin Castles in Ireland By the time the Anglo-Normans arrived in Ireland their Norman ancestors had been consolidating newly conquered territory in England and Wales for over a century through the construction of castles. The more important of these also became residential, administrative and judicial centres. The first Anglo-Norman castles had to be speedily erected and so were generally constructed from earth and timber.2 These included motte-and-bailey castles, mottes without baileys, and ringwork castles. Within a decade, these were being replaced by stone castles. In some cases the early earthwork castles were incorporated into the design of later stone castles, either wholly as at Kilkenny Castle around 1208, where the earlier ringwork is wholly preserved within its stone foundations, or in part as at Limerick in 1211–12.3 Square or rectangular great towers had dominated many of the larger stone castles built across England and Wales during the century following the Norman Conquest. These towers were still being built in England as late as the 1180s even though they had arguably become outdated by then. The most notable of these late examples was that built for King Henry II at Dover (Kent). More innovative designs were already becoming popular, and at Orford (Suffolk) in the 1160–70s Henry himself had built a polygonal great tower with a cylindrical core and three small square towers projecting from and buttressing the ­polygon and rising above it as turrets. Similar polygonal great towers already existed by this date in France, for example at the great Angevin fortress of Gisors (Eure) on the Norman border, where Henry II heightened Henry I’s polygonal great tower in the 1170s–80s.4 The first major stone castles in Ireland were begun in the second half of the 1170s. They included traditional great towers, most notably at Trim, 2

3

4

80

For the relatively low number of earth and timber castles built by the Gaelic-Irish before the Anglo-Norman invasion see McNeill, Castles in Ireland (London, 1997), pp. 10–15; Terry Barry, ‘The Origins of Irish Castles: a Contribution to the Debate’, in From Ringforts to Fortified Houses, ed. Conleth Manning (Bray, 2007), pp. 33–39; T. O’Keeffe, ‘The Pre-Norman “Castle” in Connacht: a Note on Terminology’, Journal of the Galway Historical and Archaeological Society 66 (2014), 26–32. Ben Murtagh, ‘The Kilkenny Castle Archaeological Project 1990–1993: Interim Report’, Old Kilkenny Review 4 (1993), 1101–17; Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle: Staged Development, Imperfect Realisation’, North Munster Antiquarian Journal 53 (2013), 135–71; Wiggins, A Place of Great Consequence. Jean Mesqui and Patrick Toussaint, ‘Le château de Gisors aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, Archéologie Médiévale 20 (1990), 253–317, at p. 27.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Maynooth, and Carrickfergus. The castle at Dunamase, probably also begun about that time, was a variation on this with a long, low rectangular great tower housing a single-storey hall with two storeys of chambers at its north end. Who built this is much disputed, with Strongbow, William Marshal and two of the royal custodians that came between as the prime suspects.5 Architecturally it seems too old fashioned for Marshal, but it is tempting to ascribe its beginnings to Strongbow (even if he did not complete the work in the few years left to him) because of similarities with the great tower at Chepstow (Monmouthshire) in his lordship of Striguil. Hugh I de Lacy’s great tower at Trim was built within a slightly earlier ringwork, and the tower itself was constructed with small square chamber towers at the centre of each face, an idea perhaps borrowed from King Henry’s castle at Orford.6 John de Courcy’s castle at Carrickfergus was probably constructed in stone from the start. His simple great tower was integrated into and defines the south-west angle of a polygonal stone curtain enclosing a small oval ward occupying much of the outer end of a rocky coastal promontory. The great tower at Trim stands in a large triangular ward enclosed from an early date by a stone curtain wall with open-gorged rectangular towers at intervals along its eastern front. The only other Irish castle with similar surviving towers is Carlingford, built around 1200, but they were also a feature of the castle begun in 1210 at Athlone (Co. Westmeath).7 These towers resemble those constructed for Henry II along the curtains of Orford in the 1160s, Bamburgh (Northumberland) and Windsor (Berkshire) in the 1160s–70s, and the 1180s inner ward and what remains unaltered from this period of the outer ward west of the polygonal Avranches tower at Dover. The twelfth-century towers and outer ward curtain at Dover are equipped with paired and triple crossbow loops that fan out from a single point or niche on the interior. The formidable Avranches tower itself has these on two levels below its battlements, permitting dense crossbow fire over a broad field. In Normandy, similar rectangular towers were built by Henry II in two phases between 1170 and 1180 at Gisors, again with paired and triple loops opening from single niches, and at Caen (dép. Calvados)

5

6 7

Brian Hodkinson, ‘A Summary of Recent Work at the Rock of Dunamase, Co. Laois’, in The Medieval Castle in Ireland and Wales, ed. John Kenyon and Kieran O’Conor (Dublin 2003), pp. 32–49 at pp. 46–49. O’Keeffe, ‘Angevin Lordship and Colonial Romanesque’. For Carlingford see McNeill, Castles in Ireland, pp.  40–43; Rory Sherlock, Athlone Castle: An Introduction to the History and Architecture of Athlone Castle (Athlone, 2016).

81

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

with single loops.8 Henry II’s barons followed his example. Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, rebuilt his castle at Framlingham (Suffolk) with opengorged rectangular flanking towers at frequent intervals along the curtain and with double crossbow loops in niches at first floor level in the south curtain that also contained the entrance. In Ireland, Carrickfergus Castle has a single small square crossbow tower, situated at the eastern extremity of the cross-cutting middle ward curtain,9 which is also characterised by triple crossbow loops covering the approaches on three sides. A similar triple loop once also defended the inner ward curtain over its original east-facing entrance gate but is now lost.10 Tom McNeill dates the tower to the works carried out while the castle was in royal hands between 1217 and 1222.11 A double crossbow loop is also a feature of the early cylindrical tower constructed in 1211–12 at the north-east angle of Limerick Castle.12 Two other innovations were introduced to English castle-building as part of Henry II’s works at Dover in the 1180s. The first was the concept of the concentric castle in which a succession of walls encircles the core of the fortress to provide defence in depth. At the peak of concentric development around 1300, each curtain overlooked those outside and permitted fire on and over the lower walls, while the space between became a narrow enclosed killing field should an enemy gain access. The other innovation, of central interest to this paper and discussed at length below, was the practice of placing two mural towers immediately either side of the entrance gate to strengthen the weakest point in the castle. This was not a new idea, having been employed in Roman fortifications a millennium before, but it was a novelty in medieval fortification. Castle gateways before the 1190s were commonly either a simple opening in the curtain, perhaps closely guarded by a flanking tower, or they passed through a single rectangular gate tower as was the case at Orford and at a slightly late date at Framlingham. The early Trim Gate at Hugh de Lacy’s castle in Meath is an Irish example of the latter, while the original gate into the inner ward at Carrickfergus appears to have been a simple opening in the curtain. There are two twin-towered gateways into Dover’s 8

9

10 11 12

82

Mesqui and Toussaint, ‘Le château de Gisors’, pp. 286–88; Le chateau de Caen: mille ans d’une forteresse dans la ville, ed. Joseph Decaëns and Adrien Dubois (Caen, 2009), pp. 22–23. Tom McNeill calls it the East Tower (Carrickfergus Castle, pp. 29–30); Ó Baoill calls it the Sea Tower (Carrickfergus, p. 16). McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, pp. 43–44. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 44. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle,’ p. 157.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

inner ward dating from Henry’s work in the 1180s. The northern King’s Gate has similarly sized rectangular towers on either side of the gate, but the southern Palace Gate has one tower much narrower than the other. The Porte des Champs at Gisors compares with Dover’s Palace Gate in its asymmetry, but the narrower tower has no internal chamber.

Revolutionary Designs Round towers became popular in castle construction early in the thirteenth century and soon became almost ubiquitous. Their unrivalled popularity persisted until the second half of the fourteenth century, when rectangular towers once again became common. It was popularly believed in Britain and Ireland until quite recently that round towers were introduced in the 1190s, largely because Henry II was still building rectangular towers there through the 1180s. Richard ruled the Angevin empire from 1189 to 1199, but left Europe to join and ultimately lead the Third Crusade the following summer. Philip Augustus of France travelled with him but returned to France early after falling out with Richard at the siege of Acre. Once home again, Philip took up the ancestral struggle with the Angevins over their French territories. In Richard’s absence Philip persuaded Richard’s younger brother John to surrender the Norman border fortresses of the Vexin, including the great fortress of Gisors. Thus one of Richard’s first tasks when he returned from crusade in 1194 was to refortify the Norman border. As part of this effort, he built the iconic Château Gaillard (dép. Ain) on the top of a chalk cliff overlooking the Seine between 1196 and 1198. Château Gaillard was unique in its day. It employed the principle of concentric defence as at Dover, with the inner ward enclosed within the middle ward except where both abutted the clifftop. The curtain of the inner ward was interrupted close to the cliff top by a beaked round great tower. Added to these was a separate triangular outer ward that projected towards the most threatening line of approach, along the ridge at the end of which the castle stood. A broad and very deep ditch was also excavated from the chalk around this most exposed salient. The novelty of Château Gaillard was the regular spacing of at least seven hollow round towers flanking the curtains of the outer and middle wards. There was only one rectangular tower and that projected out over the cliff from the middle ward curtain and functioned as a latrine tower. There were no towers on the inner ward curtain but the wall itself has a corrugated external face made up of seventeen contiguous, solid, shallowly projecting buttresses with curved outer faces that perhaps provided some flanking support. This purportedly impregnable 83

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

castle fell to Philip Augustus just six years after its completion, but only after a gruelling six-month siege. It succumbed first because the soft chalk foundation permitted the defences of the outer ward to be undermined and then because a new chapel added to the middle curtain by King John allowed French troops to gain relatively easy entry into the middle ward. For all the novelty of Château Gaillard, round towers had already been built earlier in the twelfth century. Most were free-standing great towers rather than mural towers. Perhaps the best known example was built by Thibaud V, count of Blois, just beyond the border of Normandy at Châteaudun (dép. Eure-et-Loir), between 1170 and 1190,13 but a much earlier example was built at New Buckenham (Norfolk) by William d’Albini, earl of Sussex, in the 1140s, perhaps influenced by the local style of church belfry.14 Philip Augustus constructed a cylindrical great tower at his new castle at the Louvre on the western approaches to Paris between 1190 and 1202,15 and this became the model for a series of great towers built across the former Angevin territory of Normandy after it fell to him in 1204. William Marshal built a cylindrical great tower at his castle at Pembroke (Pembrokeshire) soon after taking possession in 1200. At the Louvre (Paris), Philip’s great tower stood at the centre of an almost square ward with smaller hollow round and D-shaped towers at the angles and the midpoints of its four walls respectively (Fig. 5.2). These were perhaps the first round mural towers built in medieval France.16 The earliest round mural towers in England were probably those constructed at Conisbrough (Yorkshire) by William de Warenne, earl of Surrey, around 1200.17 These shallow solid D-shaped towers were perhaps influenced by the corrugations on the inner ward curtain at Château Gaillard. King John constructed similar towers at Scarborough (Yorkshire) between 1202 and 1206.18 Hollow round towers quickly followed, William Marshal probably already building them on his middle ward at Chepstow in the 1190s, and at Pembroke soon after 1200 13

14

15

16 17

18

84

Richard Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Castle at Chepstow and its Place in Military Architecture’, in Chepstow Castle. Its History and Buildings, ed. R. Turner and A. Johnson (Almeley, 2006), pp. 81–90, at p. 89. Goodall, The English Castle, p. 101; Richard Hulme, ‘Twelfth Century Great Towers – The Case for the Defence’, Castle Studies Group Journal 21 (2007–8), 209–29, at p. 222. Michel Fleury and Venceslas Kruta, The Medieval Castle of the Louvre: An Archaeological Account and Guide (Paris, 1989), pp. 39–42. Fleury and Kruta, The Louvre, pp. 43–46. Stephen Johnson, Conisbrough Castle (London, 2010), pp. 20–22; Goodall, The English Castle, pp. 149–50. John Goodall, Scarborough Castle (London, 2011), pp. 26–27.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Fig. 5.2: Comparative plans of selected castles dating from around 1200 and the early thirteenth century. Roscommon, dating from the later 1270s and typical of the late thirteenth century, is included for comparison. The Chepstow dates reflect current thinking. Black denotes the works of interest and grey denotes both earlier and later works. GH: gatehouse; GT: great tower; DT: Dungeon Tower, Pembroke; WT: White Tower, Kilkenny.

(Fig. 5.2).19 King John was building them at Corfe between 1200 and 1204, at Dover between 1204 and 1215, at Scarborough between 1207 and 1212, and at Kenilworth (Warwickshire) between 1210 and 1215.20 However, it was the continental Angevin territories that saw the first development of flanking round towers. While Henry  II was still building rectangular towers at Dover and elsewhere in England, he was also building polygonal and D-shaped towers at Gisors. The earliest of these are two pentagonal towers and one D-shaped tower built on the west curtain sometime in the 1180s, all open-gorged and supplied with 19

20

Richard Turner, Chepstow Castle (Cardiff, 2006), p. 36; Richard Avent, argues for a William Marshal I origin for Dungeon Tower (‘William Marshal’s Castle at Chepstow’, p. 84) while Neil Ludlow suggests it is the work of one of his sons after 1219 (Pembroke Castle – Birthplace of the Tudor Dynasty (Pembroke, 2014), pp. 8, 29). Goodall, The English Castle, p. 159; D. Thackray, Corfe Castle, Dorset (London, 1985), p.  38; Jonathon Coad, Dover Castle (London, 2007), p.  44; Goodall, Scarborough Castle, p. 15; Goodall, The English Castle, p. 159.

85

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

paired crossbow loops in single niches.21 The more sophisticated and fully enclosed D-shaped Tour du Diable, supplied with abundant arrow loops, was built during Henry’s last years or at the start of Richard I’s reign, and certainly before Philip Augustus acquired the castle from John in 1193.22 At Chinon (dép.  Indre-et-Loire) in greater Anjou, earlier rectangular mural towers were being replaced or supplemented by D-shaped towers by the 1180s at the latest, with additional D-shaped and round towers constructed during the reigns of Richard and John into the first years of the thirteenth century.23 Recent radiocarbon dating of Falaise (dép. Calvados) in Normandy indicates that Henry II and his sons were supplementing the existing curtain of the lower ward with D-shaped towers during the last two decades of the twelfth century.24

Twin-Towered Gatehouses Round or D-shaped towers were soon paired on either side of castle gates (Fig. 5.3). Historically this development was believed not to have occurred in Britain and Ireland before the 1220s when, for example, fine examples were constructed by Ranulf, sixth earl of Chester, at Beeston (Cheshire) and by King Henry III at Montgomery (Powys) in Wales.25 For this reason, despite misgivings over some architectural features,26 Tom McNeill originally dated the building of Carrickfergus gatehouse (see below) to the 1220–30s.27 Similarly, the outer gatehouse at Chepstow (Fig. 5.4) was 21 22 23

24

25

26 27

86

Mesqui and Toussaint, ‘Le château de Gisors’, pp. 288–91. Mesqui and Toussaint, ‘Le château de Gisors’, pp. 291–92. Bruno Dufaÿ, ‘Premier bilan des fouilles de la forteresse de Chinon, 2003– 2009’ Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 48 (2009) [http://racf. revues.org/1371]; Goodall, The English Castle, p. 129. François Fichet de Clairfontaine, Joseph Mastrolorenzo and Richard Brown, ‘Le château de Falaise (Calvados): état des connaissances sur l’évolution du site castral du dixième siècle au treizième siècle’, in Castles and the Anglo-Norman World, ed. J.A.  Davies, A.  Riley, J-M.  Levesque and C.  Lapiche (Oxford & Philidelphia, 2016), pp. 232–55, at pp. 244–45. Robert Liddiard and Rachel McGuicken, Beeston Castle (London, 2007), p. 23; L. Butler and J.K. Knight, Dolforwyn Castle, Montgomery Castle (Cardiff, 2004), pp.  6–7; both were cited by Frank Myles to support a late date for the twin-round towered gatehouse at Limerick (Archaeological Assessment of the Structure and Fabric of King John’s Castle, Limerick. Report for Shannon Development, Unpublished (1991), p. 14). Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Earls, Gunners and Tourists’, p. 166. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle’, p. 56.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Fig. 5.3: Comparative plans of selected twin-towered castle gatehouses dating from around 1200 and the early decades of the thirteenth century. Those for Chepstow, Limerick, Carrickfergus and Beeston show the successive levels of these gatehouses. Black and grey denote works of interest and later works respectively, while the diagonal black and white striping denotes earlier work at Kenilworth. Kilkenny shows the results of a ground radar geophysical survey with some interpretation by the writer depicted with dashed lines.

87

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

Fig. 5.4: Four gatehouses, clockwise from the top left: Porte des Champs, Falaise; the Louvre, Paris (© Jean-Louis Marrou, www.cvld.fr/un-fort-d-uncoffre-fort); Chepstow; King John’s Castle, Limerick; see colour plate 10.

attributed for a long time to the sons of William Marshal after 1220 rather than to their father.28 However, dendrochronological dating of the gates that hung in the gatehouse at Chepstow until 1964 showed they had to have been constructed between the late 1180s and the early 1190s.29 This suggested William Marshal the most likely architect of the gatehouse, soon after he came into possession of the castle in 1189.30 The Chepstow gatehouse thus became the earliest twin towered gatehouse with round towers in Britain and Ireland, and led to a reappraisal of similar gatehouses at other sites. The north 28

29

30

88

J.C. Perks, Chepstow Castle (London, 1967); J. K. Knight, Chepstow Castle and Port Wall (Cardiff, 1991). R.  Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Building Works at Chepstow Castle’, in The Medieval Castle in Ireland and Wales, pp. 50–71, at p. 53. Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Building Works’, p. 53; R. Avent and D. Miles, ‘The Main Gatehouse’, in Chepstow Castle. Its History and Buildings, pp. 51–62, at p. 53; Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Castle at Chepstow’, p. 84.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

g­ atehouse undermined at Dover during the 1216 siege and subsequently almost entirely subsumed into later rebuilding is now believed to have been an early element in King John’s works begun there in 1205. John also added twin D-shaped towers to the front of the existing twelfth-century rectangular gatetower into the outer ward at Kenilworth in the years 1210–15.31 The gatehouse at Pevensey (Sussex) has been attributed to the reign of Richard in the 1190s,32 but its deep D-shaped towers with their long arrow loops have a later feel to them, and for this writer their architecture is much more resonant of Gilbert Marshal’s work at Chepstow in the 1230s, when he also held Pevensey for a time.33 In fact, it has been suggested that King John’s reported dismantling of Pevensey when the Prince Louis invaded Kent in 1216 makes likely a complete rebuilding after 1219.34 Twin-towered gatehouses of the 1220–30s like that at Beeston typically comprise two D-shaped towers projecting from the face of the curtain, usually connected at first floor level via a passage or narrow chamber between them. Paired D-shaped towers flanking a gate passage evolved over the next sixty years, deepening to project well back into the castle and providing high status chambers above the entry level. These developments culminated in the great castles built by Edward I in Wales around 1300, Harlech (Gwynedd) and Beaumaris (Anglesey) in particular featuring massive twin-towered residential gatehouses. Roscommon Castle (Roscommon), built after 1275, is probably the best example of this development in Ireland.35 Gatehouses built between 1200 and 1220 were not residential. They usually comprised two closely spaced but otherwise independent towers on either side of the gateway, which might have had a small chamber above it to house the machinery for a portcullis, often serving also as a small chapel. At about the same time as the Chepstow gates were being constructed, Philip Augustus began building two gatehouses with twin D-shaped 31

32

33 34

35

Jonathon Coad, Book of Dover Castle and the Defences of Dover (London, 1995), pp. 36–37; Richard K. Morris, Kenilworth Castle, 2nd edn (London, 2010), p. 4. J.  Goodall, Pevensey Castle, revised edn (London, 2011), p.  22; Goodall, The English Castle, p. 148. C. Peers, Pevensey Castle (London, 1953), p. 4; Goodall, Pevensey Castle, p. 23. Bill Woodburn and Neil Guy, ‘The Castle Studies Group Conference – Pevensey’, Castle Studies Group Journal 19 (2005–6), 49–55, at p. 52. M.  Murphy and K.  O’Conor, Roscommon Castle: A  Visitor’s Guide (Roscommon, 2008), pp. 7–28; also D. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Roscommon Castle: Staged Construction, Unrealised Vision’ in Castles and Defences in Ireland and Abroad: Essays in Honour of David Newman Johnson, ed. B. Murtagh and J. Bradley (Dublin, forthcoming).

89

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

towers at the Louvre, at the centres of the east and the south walls (Fig. 5.4). Within a few years Richard was building Château Gaillard, which for a long time was thought to have no twin-towered gatehouse. The main entrance into the outer ward is adjacent to the ditch separating the outer and middle wards. Entry was through a rectangular gatetower, one side of which intersected with a single round tower.36 However, the round tower at the western angle of the middle ward overlooked the other side of the gatetower across the ditch between the wards, making a twintowered gatehouse superfluous. Recent archaeological examination of the castle further suggests that the entrance into the middle ward comprised two small, shallow projecting round towers or turrets on either side of the gate passage. Each tower or turret had a passage within,37 presumably giving access to one or more arrow loops. Recent re-examination of the small Porte des Champs at Falaise (Fig. 5.4), which has solid D-shaped towers on either side of the gate, suggests that it dates from the 1180s–90s.38 This could make the Porte des Champs the earliest of all the gatehouses with twin round towers discussed here, predating both Chepstow and the Louvre.

Eastern Influences There are plentiful examples in France and England of imperial Roman fortifications incorporating round mural towers, yet these did not inspire the development of new round towers much before the 1180s. It has been suggested that Byzantine fortifications in eastern Europe and Asia Minor provided the inspiration for western European round towers following the First Crusade, but it is difficult in that case to understand why they did not appear much earlier in the twelfth century. More specifically, Richard I’s experiences in the Holy Land on the Third Crusade in 1191 and 1192 have been cited in the past as the inspiration for Château Gaillard as a starting point for the widespread building of round towers. Richard’s crusading activities, however, were confined to the narrow coastal strip between Acre and Ascalon, and routes from there to Beit-Nuha, halfway towards Jerusalem. None of the 36

37

38

90

Though often referred to as D-shaped, the tower attached to the gatetower has a fully cylindrical core with the D-shape provided by a rear entrance passage into the guard chamber within. Dominique Pitte, ‘Château Gaillard: Recherches historiques et archaeologiques 1991–2000’, Monuments et Sites de l’Eure 106 (2003), pp. 42–43. Fichet de Clairfontaine, Mastrolorenzo and Brown, ‘Le château de Falaise’, p. 245.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

castles in that small area would have had round towers or the sophistication of Château Gaillard at that date. Even the great crusader castles that had survived as isolated outposts after the Muslim reconquest of almost all of the Crusader States following the battle of Hattin in 1187, such as Krak des Chevaliers, did not boast round towers before the thirteenth century. There was one Crusader castle with round towers dating from before the 1180s: Saône in present-day Syria, then in the principality of Antioch.39 This was already a strong castle when it passed from Byzantine into Crusader ownership around 1108. Multiple parallel curtains already provided a deeply defended eastern front that included a string of five small hollow round towers on its outermost curtain. Two of these towers were also paired on either side of a gate. Crusader lords held the castle for eighty years before it was captured in 1188 by Salah ad-Din (Saladin), and further strengthened its defences in the period up to the 1130s. They added large rectangular residential towers, one also a gatetower, on the south side of the castle and on the east side a square great tower was constructed over the Byzantine twin-towered gateway. In advance of the latter, a new T-shaped gatehouse was added to the eastern façade. This comprised a vaulted rectangular chamber projecting from the easternmost Byzantine curtain with two small hollow round towers at its outer angles (Fig. 5.3). Originally a door in the south side of the gatehouse led into a narrow, elongated, walled enclosure that led via a right-angled turn to the original Byzantine gate. When the great tower was built a new gate was opened up in the western end of the rectangular chamber. Subsequently a further curtain was added external to the easternmost Byzantine curtain, running south from the new gatehouse and flanked by another three small hollow round towers. The new curtain had the effect of reducing the projection of the gatehouse towers to relatively shallow arcs, not unlike the shallow curved buttresses on Château Gaillard’s inner curtain. While King Richard could not have visited Saône, those visiting the Holy Land before 1187 could have done so. One of these was William Marshal, who was in the Holy Land from 1184 to 1186. Nothing much is written about Marshal’s activities in the contemporary poem that recounts his life, other than to suggest that Marshal did a lot while there.40 The truth is, the period was one of relative tranquillity, for much of which Saladin was incapacitated by serious illness.41 Perhaps Marshal got to play a part in the uncontested 39

40 41

Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East (London, 2005), pp. 111–16. David Crouch, William Marshal, revised edn (London, 2016), p. 67. Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land (London, 2012), pp. 333–34.

91

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

relief of Krak in August 1184, under siege by Saladin for the second time in two years.42 It is likely that there was little for Marshal to do beyond travelling the country and taking part in tournaments and similar martial activities. Perhaps this included a visit to Saône, where he might have marvelled at the round towers and twin-towered gatehouse. These experiences could then have influenced the works he carried out on his castles at Chepstow and Kilkenny. His experience might have influenced castle-building beyond his own estates, indeed all the way to the heart of the royal court, since he returned to Europe to become one of Henry II’s, then Richard I’s, and finally John’s, chief courtiers. French crusaders returning from the Holy Land before 1187 would have brought similar influences and transmitted them to Philip Augustus, contributing to his designs for the Louvre.

Early Irish Gatehouses with Twinned Round Towers The early gatehouse at Chepstow (Figs 5.3; 5.4) is characterised by two smallish, fully round towers with the gate passage between them. The towers have significantly different diameters, perhaps because of poor planning allied with the restricted space on the clifftop site overlooking the River Wye. The upper storeys of both towers were truncated at the rear to facilitate two storeys of narrow chambers across the rear of both towers and over the extended gate passage between them, though these were probably not added until the later thirteenth century.43 Both towers have fully round interiors in the French style, rather than the open-gorged or D-shaped interiors favoured by English castle-builders.44 There are four castles in Ireland that have or had early gatehouses with twin round towers that are comparable with that at Chepstow. These survive at Carrickfergus, Nenagh (Co. Tipperary), and Limerick, but the last at Kilkenny has long since vanished. Kilkenny Castle was built by William Marshal as the administrative centre of the lordship of Leinster soon after he arrived in Ireland in 1207. He stayed for six years before King John called him back to England in 1213. The castle was an irregular pentagon with three more or less equal sides placed nearly at right angles and two much shorter sides that define an obtuse angle. There was a tower at the four near-right angles, three of which survive, and a gatehouse at the join of the shorter sides (Fig. 5.2). One of the towers, White Tower at the southern angle, has the scale of a great tower, comparable with that built by Marshal at Pembroke and 42 43 44

92

Hugh Kennedy, Crusader Castles (Cambridge 2001), pp. 50–52. Avent and Miles, ‘The Main Gatehouse’, pp. 57–59. Goodall, The English Castle, p. 147.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

was perhaps started first. Though the castle may not have been finished, it was complete enough to host King John in 1210.45 The original gatehouse at Kilkenny may have vanished completely but is illustrated on two eighteenth-century maps and in two 1698 views of Kilkenny Castle by Francis Place. These suggest it was a close copy of the gatehouse at Chepstow, right down to the unequal diameter of the towers (though for no obvious reason at Kilkenny).46 A recent geophysical survey of the castle and adjacent park using ground-penetrating radar revealed buried traces of the gatehouse (Fig. 5.3).47 One could tentatively suggest from this geophysical evidence that the Kilkenny towers were slightly smaller than those of Chepstow, and that there was a similar narrow rectangular structure across the rear of both towers. According to the Pipe Roll of 1211–12, the exchequer that year provided £733 16s 11d for the construction of a stone castle at Limerick.48 Tom McNeill has suggested that such a large sum must be the accumulation of several years’ expenditure, but Colin Veach believes it is for that year alone as it comes within the county farm section that deals with current debts and payments.49 Part of this huge sum of money was probably diverted into the construction of a new bridge over the River Shannon adjacent to the castle site.50 Only a small part of the castle we see today was completed within this spend.51 The 1211–12 work included several short lengths of polygonal curtain following the line of an earlier ringwork, with one substantial three-quarters round tower and a twin towered gatehouse with smallish three-quarters round towers (Figs 5.2; 5.3; 5.4). The gatehouse is truncated on the courtyard side to create a flat face against which timber accommodation could be constructed.52 All three towers were raised from two to three storeys when work on the castle recommenced in 1235.53 As at 45 46

47

48 49

50 51 52 53

Crouch, William Marshal, p. 116. Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘William Marshal’s Castle at Kilkenny’, in William Marshal and Ireland, ed. John Bradley, Cóilin Ó Drisceoil & Michael Potterton (Dublin, forthcoming). H.  Gimson, Kilkenny Castle Grounds, Kilkenny: Archaeological Geophysical Survey, Earthsound Archaeological Geophysics Report, Unpublished (2010), pp. 15, 19, Figs 14, 16. McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 46. My thanks to Tom McNeill for his comments to me on this, and many other points; Colin Veach, personal communication. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 160. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 145. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 159. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, pp. 147, 161.

93

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

Chepstow and presumably at Kilkenny, the gatehouse towers have fully round internal chambers. The gate passage was protected at its outer end by a portcullis and a set of gates, with an outer slot machicolation added high overhead when the towers were raised. The stone-walled passage originally extended back into the courtyard behind the surviving gatehouse structure. The castle at Nenagh was built as the administrative centre of extensive estates granted to Theobald Walter by Prince John in 1185. The castle is still dominated by a round great tower similar in scale to that at Pembroke and White Tower at Kilkenny (Fig. 5.2). It sits across a curtain that defines what is usually interpreted as a small, sub-circular ward, though this might as easily have been polygonal like so many other castles constructed in Ireland around 1200, since almost none of the curtain survives. Perhaps it too follows the line of an earlier ringwork. There were two smallish round mural towers closely spaced on either side of the great tower and a twin-towered gatehouse opposite the great tower. Only one gatehouse tower survives, but both were three-quarters round and truncated on the courtyard side to provide a flat face towards the courtyard, against which a stone hall was built at a later date (Fig. 5.3). The cores of all the towers are fully round. The gate passage was protected at its outer end by a portcullis, in front of which there was a two-slot drawbridge pit,54 and it appears to have extended into the castle courtyard at the rear of the gatehouse like at Limerick, though only a little of these two walls survives now in foundation.55

Carrickfergus Castle Carrickfergus Castle is one of the finest examples of an Anglo-Norman castle in Britain and Ireland, begun soon after 1177 and preserved b­ y continuous occupation until 1928. It is situated on an east-west orientated dolerite dyke that forms a low ridge of rock projecting out into Belfast Lough. The western foreshore has been largely reclaimed today, minimizing the visual impact of the castle from that side. At its core the castle comprises a tall, more-or-less square great tower that occupies the south-west corner of a small polygonal inner ward perched on the western edge of the ridge at its seaward end. The rest of the ridge is enclosed by intact but repaired and modified curtain walls that enclose a space that was once divided into a narrow middle ward around the two exposed sides of the inner ward and a much larger outer ward. The cross-wall between the 54

55

94

B.J.  Hodkinson, ‘Excavations in the Gatehouse of Nenagh Castle, 1996–97’, Tipperary Historical Journal [12] (1999), 162–82, at pp. 163–64. Hodkinson, ‘Nenagh Castle’, p. 163.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

middle and outer wards was reduced to its foundations in the eighteenth century. A large twin-towered gatehouse closes off the narrow landward neck of the outer ward (Fig. 5.1). Though the medieval walls of the castle were modified for artillery in post-medieval times, the castle we see today was essentially complete by the middle of the thirteenth century. Tom McNeill discussed the history and archaeology of the castle in great detail in 1981. More recently, he has reconsidered the dating of the gatehouse at Carrickfergus, and who exactly might have constructed it.56 In his 1981 monograph, McNeill put forward a chronology for the phased construction of Carrickfergus based on the architecture of the structure, the results of archaeological excavation to that date, and documentary evidence. The first phase involved completion of the great tower and enclosing inner ward by the castle’s founder, John de Courcy, between 1177 and 1190–95.57 A second phase saw construction of the middle ward curtain, of which only the foundations survive today. This curtain is or was interrupted by a small, rectangular open-gorged garderobe turret close to the western end, an open-gorged polygonal tower in front of the great tower that probably either contained or flanked the gate into the middle ward, and the square crossbow tower at the eastern end of the cross wall. This phase was attributed to the period of royal stewardship between the banishing of Hugh II de Lacy in 1210 and his return in 1223, and most probably between 1217 and 1222 during which time the custodian received the substantial sum of £500.58 A triple crossbow loop very similar to those in the crossbow tower was described as situated over the entrance to the inner ward when sketched by Samuel McSkimin sometime before 1832. McNeill identified this as not the current entrance, presumably opened to facilitate passage of the 1889 tramway, but the original gate into the inner ward, now blocked. This would mean that changes were also made to the inner ward between 1217 and 1222. It is tempting, though, to suggest that this feature was actually transplanted to that position around 1714, when the middle ward curtain was taken down. Because of its similarity to features in the crossbow tower, it might more easily be reconciled with an original location in the open-gorged polygonal tower associated with the middle ward gate.59 A third phase of works at Carrickfergus saw construction of the outer ward curtains, which are built against the middle curtain, and culminated 56

57 58 59

Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Earls, Gunners and Tourists’, pp. 165–66; Sarah Gormley and Tom McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus Castle, Co.  Antrim’, Castle Studies Group Journal 30 (2016–17), pp. 218–36. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 42. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 44. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, pp. 43–44.

95

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

in construction of the twin-towered gatehouse. Because of then-prevailing views on when gatehouses featuring twin round or D-shaped towers first appeared, this work was dated to between 1226 and 1242 under the reinstated Hugh II de Lacy, despite some architectural anachronisms.60 It has been argued since that the architecture of the gatehouse might have come from de Lacy’s experience in France, first on sojourn in Philip Augustus’s Paris and then on the Albigensian Crusade between 1211 and 1221.61 A final phase of medieval work saw modification of the gatehouse that included a narrowing of the passage, which was also vaulted and extended to the rear. This work was attributed most probably to Richard de Burgh sometime before 1315.62

The Great Gatehouse at Carrickfergus Castle The gatehouse at Carrickfergus is a complicated structure following various changes made to it over time (Figs 5.3, 5.5). Originally it had two fully circular, three-storey towers, but the inner arcs of both were taken off to give the gatehouse a shallowly concave inner face onto which projecting two-storey gabled structures were built over an extended gate passage. At the same time the upper levels were taken down, new battlements were constructed for artillery and the lowest storeys of both towers were ­infilled. Looking at the exterior of the castle, the west curtain of the outer ward abuts against the west tower of the gatehouse, demonstrating that the gatehouse was completed before the stone curtain of the outer ward was built or rebuilt.63 The gate passage is perhaps the most complicated feature of all.64 It is just 2 m wide, and for most of its length has a pointed barrel vault supported on four transverse ribs. The front (north) face of the gate passage has seen the insertion of several arches over time. A portcullis slot behind it is framed on the inside by a pointed segmental arch of Cultra stone reaching 4.75 m at its highest point and resting on two Cultra stone buttresses of different depths. The walls of the passage, from which the vault springs, 60 61

62 63

64

96

McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 45. Duffy, ‘Ung Sage et Valent Home’, pp. 137–38; ‘The Architecture of Defiance’, Archaeology Ireland 29 (2015), 20–23;’From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus’ (this volume). McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 46. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Earls, Gunners and Tourists’, p.  166; Gormley and McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus Castle’, p. 230. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, pp. 37–38.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Fig. 5.5: Carrickfergus Castle gatehouse. Left: the gatehouse exterior viewed from the north-east (note the twin-light window in the near, eastern, tower). Right: the gate-passage viewed from the interior towards the outer gates at the north end; see colour plate 11.

each contain a single niche under a segmental arch. These are of unequal depth, with the southern niche 1 m deep and the other 0.75 m deep. The rear walls of the niches seem to be the original passage walls. When the passage was first narrowed, the new walls each had a pair of niches under sharply pointed arches, the overall width of which required the lower 3.75 m of Cultra stone buttresses to be cut away. The paired niches were later filled, leaving the single niches there today. Towards the rear of the passage there is a second (south) portcullis slot, and immediately beyond that is a carefully set and dressed, semi-circular Cultra stone arch, which is integrated with the wall above.65 From this arch the passage extends another metre into the outer ward beneath a flat segmental arch. What is unusual about the gatehouse passage is the asymmetry of all these elements. The pointed Cultra stone segmental arch is not quite centred on the original passage as defined by the back walls of the niches, but is offset about 0.15 m to the east. While the east buttress of Cultra 65

Sarah Gormley and Tom McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus Castle, Co.  Antrim’, The Castle Studies Group Journal 30 (2016–17), pp.  171–87, at pp. 180–84.

97

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

stone might have carried the arch down to the ground, it is surprising that the west buttress is not symmetrical with it but is shifted nearly 0.4 m towards the crest of the arch. This suggests it was rebuilt or built out later to accommodate a narrow and off-centred portcullis. The ribbed vault over the passage is also off-centred with respect to the narrowed passage walls, compensating slightly for the different depths to which the walls were built out. An inserted relieving arch within the front face of the gatehouse is greatly offset with respect to both of the above and to the semi-circular post-medieval arch that defines the present entrance, which itself is not centred on the passage. The reason for all these changes in the passage and shifts of axis are not at all clear. In light of the 1190s date for the Chepstow gatehouse, McNeill now considers the rear semi-circular Cultra stone arch to be an original, in situ, feature of the twin-towered gatehouse, the whole dating from around 1200 or even earlier. An awkwardly positioned window in the second-storey chamber of the east tower that has two round-headed lights and inner arches supported on shafts with decorated capitals dating from no later than around 1200, he now also believes to be in situ.66 The mismatch between the curving outer arches of the window and the planar inner arches, he attributes to the latter either being transplanted from elsewhere,67 or constructed separately and without reference to the round shape of the tower. From this, McNeill has concluded that the twin-towered gatehouse was most probably built as a freestanding structure, as has been suggested elsewhere for the Chepstow gatehouse,68 most probably by Hugh II de Lacy between 1205 and 1210.69 Such a date for the gatehouse at Carrickfergus would put it on a par with Kilkenny as the first gatehouse of this type in Ireland. Presumably the outer ward curtains between the gatehouse and the inner ward must have been constructed soon after the latter was completed in 1222, and probably soon after the start of de Lacy’s second period of tenure.

Portcullises and T-shaped Gatehouses: Some Questions In his recently published study, Neil Guy established a chronology of gatehouse portcullis slots. A key result was identification of a change in portcullis slot profile from square to half-round around the 1230–40s, with 66 67

68 69

98

Gormley and McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus’ pp. 180–84. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 37; Gormley and McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus’ pp. 180–84. Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Building Works’, p. 69. Gormley and McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus Castle’, p. 233.

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

implications for the dating of some gatehouses.70 He paid particularly close attention to the Chepstow gatehouse in a lengthy appendix.71 Based on a close examination of the slots for Chepstow’s two portcullises and the relationship they had with the surrounding masonry, he suggested that the Chepstow gatehouse towers might not be any earlier than the 1230–40s. While yet allowing for the possibility that the twin-towered gatehouse was built by William Marshal, Guy went on to propose a thesis wherein the gatehouse began as a simple gateway in the outer curtain, similar to that in the middle ward curtain, and that this gateway was preserved but subsumed into a later twin-towered gatehouse built perhaps by Marshal’s younger sons or later still.72 If true, this would not alter the fact that twintowered gatehouses with round towers were being constructed across the Angevin empire from the 1190s, but it would remove Chepstow from the debate about their starting point. One feature of the Chepstow gatehouse that is rarely commented on is a slightly wider continuation of the gate passage at the rear of the towers, extending back into the outer ward for another 4.37 m. Only the north wall of this passage survives to its full length, set back nearly a metre from the passage wall between the towers. The extended passage wall has been thickened towards the north at a later date. The springing for the rear arch of the passage survives and there was a second storey over the passage, floored in timber.73 Only a stub remains of the south wall of the extended passage. Though no definitive observation can be made, from the geophysical survey results it seems that the gatehouse at Kilkenny had a similarly extended gate passage. Limerick Castle gatehouse also had a gate passage that extended at least 4.6 m into the castle ward beyond the rear of the two towers. The scars of its passage walls and a possible stone vault over the passage are still evident on the inner face of the gatehouse, and much or all of their length was revealed in archaeological excavation in 1993.74 This nearly square projection extended up to a second storey, but with thinner walls. Access from the second storey to the third storey and the battlements of the gatehouse towers was via a spiral stairway within the south-east corner of the east tower. There was no access originally into the lowest storey from ground level, but must have been via ladder from the floor 70

71 72 73 74

Neil Guy, ‘The portcullis – design and development – 1080–1260’, Castle Studies Group Journal 29 (2015–16), pp. 132–201. Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, pp. 193–201. Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 195; personal communication. Avent and Miles, ‘The Main Gatehouse’, p. 57. Wiggins, A Place of Great Consequence, pp. 155–57.

99

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

above. The second storey of gatehouse was entered via an external staircase up to a doorway in the rear extension, one sandstone jamb and rebate of which is still visible in the rear face of the east gatehouse tower (Fig. 5.3).75 The two-storey extension of the gatehouse passage into the castle at Limerick is quite unusual for this time. Most early twin-towered gatehouses either terminated flush with the inside of the curtain or extended back into a full-width chamber block at the rear, as became the norm later in the thirteenth century. T-shaped gatehouses76 only became popular from the middle of the fourteenth century, perhaps inspired by King Edward I’s 1275–81 Middle Tower and Byward Tower gatehouses that defended a new approach to London’s White Tower.77 Examples include Rye’s Landgate (Sussex, c. 1340), Windsor Castle’s Norman Gate (Berkshire, c. 1360), Canterbury’s Westgate (Kent, c. 1380), Donnington Castle (1385), Saltwood Castle gatehouse (Kent, c. 1390) and Carisbrooke Castle’s updated gatehouse (Isle of Wight, c. 1340). Connacht Tower at Athlone Castle, on the River Shannon in the west of Ireland, lost after the 1691 siege, was probably an Irish example.78 However, it appears that this form of gatehouse was not so uncommon from the first appearance of gatehouses with twin round towers. A really early example has to be the Crusader gatehouse at Saône, but Chepstow, Limerick and Nenagh are clearly also early examples. Another was perhaps King John’s north gatehouse at Dover dating from the mid1200s, though the fragmentary nature of its remains buried in the later Norfolk Towers after the 1216 siege make a number of interpretations possible.79 At Kenilworth we see something similar after 1210, though rather asymmetrical, following John’s addition of two dissimilarly sized D-shaped towers to the existing rectangular gatetower. The thinner walls of the inner gate passage at Pevensey compared with the thicker walls of the D-shaped outer towers might perhaps reflect the junction between an early rectangular gatehouse and a twin-towered façade added during reconstruction after 1219. Something similar might be argued for 75 76

77 78 79

Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 152. The term ‘T-shaped’ derives from understanding the line of the twin towers as the topstroke of the T and the narrow extension at the rear of these as the downstroke of the T; the term is used by Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p.  184 n.  15, following the description in Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 152. Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, pp. 194–95. Sherlock, Athlone Castle. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 154; compare with John Goodall, ‘Dover Castle and the Great Siege of 1216’ in Chateau Gaillard 19 (2000), p. 99, and the plan at the rear of Coad, Dover Castle.

100

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Fig. 5.6: Comparative plans of the twin-towered gatehouses at Carrickfergus, Chepstow and Limerick, showing the original lower two levels tentatively reinterpreted as discussed in the text. See text for details.

Dundrum, where thicker-walled D-shaped towers contrast with a thinner walled rectangular block flush with the curtain behind them. Others have been inferred at Kendal (Cumberland),80 which was in William Marshal’s hands between 1184 and 1189,81 and for the Porte des Champs at Falaise.82 What might be the significance of these observations for the early twin-towered gatehouses in Ireland? At Chepstow, Neil Guy suggests the possibility that a simple curtain wall gate has been subsumed into a somewhat later twin-towered gatehouse. The curtain wall gate must date back to William Marshal’s first ownership from about 1189–90. Could the rearward extension of the early gate passage behind the early 1190s gateway represent an early two-storey gatetower, around which the twintowered gatehouse was later constructed (Fig. 5.6)? The twin-towered modification could date from later in Marshal’s tenure, perhaps between 1205 and 1207 when he was estranged from King John’s court, or after 1213 in anticipation of the 1215–17 civil war. It could also still be the work of Marshal’s sons during the 1230s–40s. In favour of an elder Marshal origin is the irregularity and markedly unequal size of the two towers, their round interiors of limited size within thick walls, and the simple wedge-shaped arrow loops. All of these have an early appearance. By the 1220s, all of these features were much more regular, walls had become thinner and 80

81

Richard Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, Castle Studies Group Journal 26 (2012–13), 257–81, pp. 267, 269 Fig. 15. Crouch, William Marshal, pp. 9, 59, 62.

101

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

interior chambers larger. For Neil Guy’s chronology to apply, however, an early date for the gatehouse would require the insertion of the portcullis slots and associated masonry to have been a very precise and careful job. It is impossible to make any argument about the Kilkenny gatehouse, other than to refer back to Chepstow, its likely template. But the question might be asked of Limerick: could the rearward extension of the early gate passage represent an early two-storey gatetower? After the AngloNormans abandoned Limerick in 1176, leaving their ringwork castle to be dismantled by the Irish, they did not return until 1194–5. They must have reconstructed the earlier ringwork soon after their return because it was attacked in 1200.83 After that there is no record of work on the castle until King John’s massive spend in 1211–12. Since the castle remained outside the protection of Limerick’s town walls, it would be surprising if there was no attempt to improve upon its original earth and timber defences at an early stage. The least that might have been done is to build a twostorey stone gatetower, one that might later have been incorporated into the twin-towered gatehouse (Fig. 5.6). Perhaps what appears to be the remains of a vault over the extended passage is in fact all that remains of the front gate arch preserved in the fabric of the rear wall of the newer gatehouse. The portcullis slot and gate arch at the front of the gatehouse, however, must be of one build with the twin towers since at four locations the dressed sandstone of the arch is keyed into the fabric of the towers. Could a similar story be told for Nenagh as for Limerick? Prince John granted the territories for which Nenagh became the administrative centre to Theobald Walter in 1185. This date is too early for the castle we see today. The consensus of opinion seems to be that Nenagh’s great tower and twin-towered gatehouse are of one build, and could not have been begun before 1216–17.84 But once again, it seems unlikely that Walter would not have built a fairly substantial castle during the twenty years before his death in 1206. Perhaps that too was a ringwork castle, whether largely of earth and timber or of stone, but with at least a stone gatetower. This might also have been subsumed into a later twin-towered gatehouse built by the king’s agents soon after 1216–17, during the minority of Theobald Walter II, or perhaps shortly after Theobald reached his majority in 1221.

83

84

Kenneth Wiggins, The Anatomy of a Siege: King John’s Castle, Limerick, 1642 (Bray, 2000), p. 18. George Cunningham, The Anglo-Norman Advance into the South-West Midlands of Ireland 1185–1221 (Roscrea, 1987), pp. 69, 74; Hodkinson, ‘Nenagh Castle’, p. 178.

102

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

Carrickfergus: An Early Gatehouse Could these suggestions have any relevance to the Carrickfergus gatehouse, for which there is no evidence of any projection of its gate passage into the outer ward behind the twin towers? It should be noted here that the gates at Chepstow, Limerick and Nenagh are pushed well back between the towers, but the gate at Carrickfergus is positioned much further out. Consequently the two towers effectively define only shallow projecting arcs on either side of the gate, larger but not unlike those at Saône after the final curtain had been built and perhaps the entrance into the middle ward of Château Gaillard. At a conference in Carrickfergus Castle in 2011, Pamela Marshall suggested that there might have been a simple curtain wall around the outer ward with an arched gate that was later incorporated into the gatehouse, a suggestion with which there was some agreement.85 It seems unlikely that the whole of the rocky peninsular was not enclosed from the start, and since much of the building stone used in the castle came from quarrying its margins, some sort of stone wall rather than a timber palisade seems likely. Perhaps we can take Pamela Marshal’s suggestion a step further and interpret the original gate passage, its walls now visible only at the backs of the niches in the narrower vaulted passage, as representing an early gatetower, built by John de Courcy between 1178 and 1195 with halfround Cultra stone arches at both ends of the gate passage (Fig. 5.6)? The flat-carved inner arches of the awkward two-light window could perhaps then have been transferred to the east tower of the later gatehouse from the east wall of a small chapel over the early gate passage, a position similar to one inferred at Limerick.86 When might this early gatetower have been incorporated into the new twin-towered gatehouse? Paul Duffy very recently endorsed Tom McNeill’s 1981 suggestion of sometime after the mid-1220s, when Hugh II de Lacy returned from exile. McNeill would now like to push construction back to between 1205 and 1210, during Hugh II de Lacy’s seizure of the lordship of Ulster and before his exile in 1210, to permit contemporaneity with the in situ Cultra stone rear arch and the two-light window. However, if both could have been part of an earlier rectangular gatetower, later subsumed into the twin-towered structure, such an early date is once again not necessary for the twin-towered gatehouse. The middle ward curtain at Carrickfergus is a relatively simple affair, its towers with one exception little more than corrugations of the curtain. 85 86

Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘Earls, Gunners and Tourists’, p. 166. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, pp. 152–53.

103

Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler

The exception is the small square crossbow tower at the east end of the cross-wall. Although nothing can be said about the height of the curtain, or the presence or sophistication of arrow loop defences, it bears some comparison with the curtain of the lower ward at Dunamase. The latter is made up of straight segments with one rectangular tower formed by a corrugation of the curtain, but where Carrickfergus has one small square enclosed tower, Dunamase has a large rectangular gatehouse with guard chambers on either side of a long passage.87 The Carrickfergus curtain is thinner than that at Dunamase and, if the principles of concentric defence were applied in its construction, was probably lower too, so that it could be overlooked by the inner ward wall-walk that stands 9 m above the courtyard. If, as seems likely, William Marshal constructed the curtain at Dunamase, it was completed in the short period between Marshal taking possession of the castle in 1208 and King John taking it from him again in 1210. It has been argued that this is too short a period,88 but when compared with the two years it took to complete the whole of Château Gaillard from nothing, works with which Marshal must have been very familiar as one of King Richard’s chief councillors, it would seem to be more than adequate. Tom McNeill argued that the £500 recorded as being spent on Carrickfergus while the castle was in royal administration between 1217 and 1222 went most probably into construction of the middle ward curtain and the crossbow tower. The argument is supported in part by the similarity between the crossbow tower and near contemporary royal building works at Dover and elsewhere. Some of this money was probably spent upgrading the inner ward gateway at the same time. However, in light of the probable speed of work at Dunamase without the benefit of royal patronage and much more extensive royal works at Château Gaillard, royal work at Carrickfergus would have been slow progress. In addition, the amount of money seems large for the work carried out. How does it compare with money spent around the same time in England and Ireland? At Dover, Corfe, Scarborough and Limerick, the same money accounted in each case for between 30 m and 100 m of substantial curtain walling, and either one substantial round or polygonal tower and a twin-towered gatehouse with round or D-shaped towers, or two such towers and a part of an elaborate accommodation range.89 This makes £500 seem like a great expense for about 150 m of simple low curtain wall and one small

87 88 89

Hodkinson, ‘Recent Work at the Rock of Dunamase’, pp. 39–41. Hodkinson, Recent Work at the Rock of Dunamase’, p. 48. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, pp. 160.

104

Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design c. 1200

square tower. However, if one were to add one twin-towered gatehouse with fully round towers, the sum seems more reasonable. There are subtle differences between the four early Irish twin-towered gatehouses discussed here, assuming that the Kilkenny gatehouse was much the same as the one at Chepstow. Marshal’s gatehouse at Kilkenny probably dates from sometime after 1208, when Marshal was finally securely in control of Leinster. Based on the foregoing discussion, his gatehouse at Chepstow could date from around 1205 or from 1213. Limerick dates from 1211–12 and it has been argued elsewhere that Marshal, in the course of his support for the king’s justiciar, including on campaign in the west of Ireland, might have been influential in the design of Limerick.90 Both Chepstow and Limerick, and probably Kilkenny, have irregular, very thick-walled, solid round towers with small fully round interiors, whereas Nenagh and Carrickfergus have more regular circular forms with more spacious internal chambers, though still fully round. Both of the latter gatehouses were built most probably soon after 1217. Both were also built after Marshal had left Ireland and most likely came under the direction of royal engineers brought over from England, thus accounting for the subtle changes in design.

Conclusion This article traces the rapid evolution of castles in Ireland a century after a similar evolution began in Norman England. The decades around 1200 saw the reintroduction of round towers into defensive works across the Angevin empire, long after they had been abandoned with the fall of the Roman empire. In particular, four early Irish twin-towered gatehouses characterised by round towers at Kilkenny, Limerick, Carrickfergus and Nenagh are described and discussed in some detail with reference to the Chepstow gatehouse, now thought to be the earliest of this type in these islands. Recognition that most of these belong to a ‘class’ of T-shaped gatehouse of this period, anticipating by a century and a half their popularity in England and Ireland, suggests that perhaps the early Irish examples are in fact composite structures, in which a simple early rectangular gatetower has been subsumed into the more sophisticated twin-towered structure in each case. For Carrickfergus Castle, this has two possible implications. The first is that the whole rocky peninsular on which the castle is built was probably enclosed in stone from the start of building soon after 1177, with a 90

Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, pp. 156.

105

simple outer gatetower at the narrow neck of the peninsula contemporary with John de Courcy’s great tower and inner ward. The second is that the great twin-towered gatehouse might not have been built by Hugh II de Lacy either around 1200 or later after 1226, but instead could be of one royal build with the middle ward curtain and towers between 1217 and 1222, for the sum of £500.

Chapter 6 The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd): A Unique Window into Dissident Religiosity Anne Brenon Abstract The religious dissidence known today as Catharism, that Hugh de Lacy and his companions undertook to eradicate in the early thirteenth century was exemplified by the Cathar sacramental rite known as the consolament. The practice of this rite is mentioned in documents contemporary with the crusade but very few sources shed light upon the ministration of this ceremony. Similarly, the day to day realities of this religious dissidence, its methods of initiaton and sermon remain poorly understood, even though a number of Cathar manuscript volumes are known. Through a twist of history, a manuscript source that may contribute significantly to the study of the enigmatic Cathar rituals was rediscovered in Dublin in 1960, the very city where Hugh de Lacy’s father served as Justiciar of Ireland in 1172 and a city with de Lacy would attempt to capture following his return from Languedoc. This paper discusses the nature, origin and significance of the Dublin Occitan ritual, otherwise known as Trinity College Dublin, Manuscript 269.

Résumé La dissidence religieuse, dite ‘cathare’, que Hugues de Lacy et ses compagnons se sont engagés à éradiquer au début du XIIe siècle, a été caractérisée par le rite sacramentel connu sous le nom de consolament. Sa pratique est mentionnée dans les documents contemporains de la croisade mais peu de sources éclairent le ministère de cette cérémonie. De même, les réalités de la religiosité dissidente au quotidien, de ses modes d’initiation et de prédication restent mal connues, même si plusieurs livres manuscrits d’origine cathare ont été mis au jour. Par un caprice de l’histoire, l’une de ces sources originales, qui peut contribuer de manière significative à l’étude des rituels dissidents, a été redécouverte à Dublin en 1960 – la ville même où le père de Hugues de Lacy a servi comme Juge d’Irlande en 1172, et une ville que Lacy lui-même tentera de prendre après son retour de Languedoc. Cet article traite de la nature, l’origine et la signification du Recueil cathare occitan de Dublin, autrement connu comme Manuscrit 269 de Trinity College Dublin.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 107–128

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114240

Anne Brenon

Introduction Cathare religiosity is still poorly understood, as are the original sources which make it a subject within reach of research.1 This is certainly the case, for instance, with the exceptional corpus of documentation surviving amidst dissident religious literature describing the rituals of the consolament. This ritual, also known as ‘The Holy Baptism of Jesus Christ’, through ‘laying on of hands’ or the consolament of the Holy Spirit, was the sole sacramental gesture performed within Cathar churches. At least two of these documents, and perhaps a third, have survived copied within original Cathar collections. The oldest of these, the mid-thirteenth-century Florence Latin ritual, survives within a codex comprising mainly the ‘Book of the two Principles’,2 which associates it with Desenzano’s Italian Cathar Church (also known as the Albanist tradition), known to have preached ‘absolute’ dualism. The second of these, the Occitan Cathar ritual of Lyon, is ascribed a date of c. 1300 and is copied at the end of a complete Occitan version of the New Testament.3 The Latin ritual contains the solemn and developed liturgy of the consolament ceremony for the ordination of novices, preceded by that of the transmission of the Pater, within a church that is clearly dissenting yet still public and fundamentally free.4 Comparatively more synthetic, the Occitan ritual consists of a small general manual on Cathar ceremonies. These include a community penitential rite (also known as servisi), the novices’ consolament, with a brief mention of a traditional Pater liturgy, a general code of conduct for Cathars, and the consolament rite for the dying. Though similar in form to the Florence ritual, it shows characteristics of an underground and persecuted church, with impoverished structures. More specifically, it can be linked to the

1

2 3 4

The surviving corpus of Cathar literature, treatises and rituals was translated into French by René Nelli and a new edition was revised and expanded by Anne Brenon: Écritures cathares, ed. René Nelli and Anne Brenon, 3rd edn (Paris, 1995). A complete and definitive translation by Anne Brenon is scheduled for publication in 2018. Firenze Manuscript, Biblioteca Nazionale, Conv. Soppr. J II 44. Lyon Manuscript, Bibliothèque Municipale, PA 36. For a new analysis of the Florence codex see David Zbiral, ‘Heretical Hands at Work: Reconsidering the Genesis of a Cathar manuscript (Ms Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. J II 44)’, Revue d’Histoire des textes 12 (2017), 261-288.

108

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

last Cathar mission in Pays d’Oc, led by Pèire Autier, between 1300 and 1310, a time of intense inquisitorial repression.5 Besides the liturgical formulae traditionally found in the consolament service and a precise description of the ceremonial gestures, both rituals offer some examples of homilies for the celebrant – introducing Pater and homilies which legitimise the Cathar Church (‘Church of good Christians’) – placing the intended audience at the very heart of the dissident religiosity. The nature of the text makes it clear that there has been no interference of polemists or inquisitors in these writings. The authors, scribes and users of these heretic manuals are themselves clearly religious dissidents. These sermons are designed for an intended internal audience of the sacrament: pending novices surrounded by the ‘Holy Church Order’ (the episcopal hierarchy of the Cathar Church and members of diverse Cathar communities). They are not designed as combatative arguments to oppose opinions of theologians in a disputatio, nor as defence pleas to be put before an episcopal court, such as those of the early thirteenth century. The speech is devoid of any sleight of hand designed to seduce an audience, seek consensus, disarm critics, or hoodwink inquisitors. The ordained Cathar priest who preaches and teaches the proposed homilie addresses this reading to his brothers in religion and to them alone. The written speech places us within the strictest rules of Cathar religiosity. This illustrates the importance of such sources for enriching our knowledge on Cathar spirituality, and more specifically, on the self-representation of the dissent.6 As it turns out, Trinity College’s Library in Dublin retains a small medieval manuscript in Occitan. Its discoverer and publisher, a Belgian philologist named Théo Venckeleer, recognised the text as undoubtedly Cathar in 1960–61 and identified the manuscript as a copy of ritual excerpts.7 It consists of Ms 269 (formerly classified under A 6 10), a small vellum book dating from the second half of the fourteenth century, present in the Waldensian collection preserved in the Library of Trinity College. 5

6

7

Anne Brenon and David Zbiral, ‘Le codex cathare de Lyon, un livre de Pèire Autier?’, Archives ariégeoises 8, (Foix, 2016), pp. 9–37. For general information on Cathar Churches, the major reference work remains Jean Duvernoy, La religion des cathares (Toulouse, 1978). See also Pilar Jimenez, Les catharismes, modèles dissidents de Christianisme (Rennes, 2008); Anne Brenon, Les cathares (Paris, 2007). Théo Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: le manuscrit A.6.10 de la “Collection vaudoise” de Dublin. i. Une apologie’, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 38 (1960), 815–34; ‘Un recueil cathare: le manuscrit A.6.10 de la “Collection vaudoise” de Dublin. ii. Une glose sur le Pater’, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 39 (1961), 759–93.

109

Anne Brenon

Since its publication, this text is generally known as the ‘Dublin Occitan ritual’. The religious texts that it contains amount to a treatise or homilie on the ‘Church of God’, a synonym for the Cathar Church, and a gloss or commentary on the Lord’s Prayer (hereafter ‘Pater gloss’). These texts have been investigated and their Cathar nature has been confirmed.8 Their belonging to a pre-existing ritual, an argument which I myself defended for a number of years,9 seems less certain today. This however in no way diminishes the strong interest that they hold. We will attempt to better define what is represented in this Cathar collection, which chance has placed in Dublin, by first investigating the position it occupies within the Waldensian collection of Trinity College. Is it a foreign body amongst the other texts? We will then study the contents and characteristics of each major text it contains. This will enable us to situate this book in the context of the other known Cathar resources. Is Ms 269 a ritual similar to others or rather a relatively unique compendium of religious literature? This may lead us to formulate some assumptions on the context in which this book was designed (that is, the final era of the Occitan dissidence where historical Catharism no longer appears in documentary sources, but where other forms of religious dissidence rose up).

A Cathar Compendium within the Dublin Waldensian Collection Where does this manuscript come from? The most visible hypothesis is that this small Cathar manuscript, now catalogued in the Waldensian collection, does indeed belong to the collection, the origin of which is actually quite well known. It is important to acknowledge that a homogenic body of twenty-four Waldensian manuscripts are housed across seven European libraries.10 They consist of compendiums of religious literature written in Occitan, typically characterised by the unmistakable 8

9

10

An in-depth study has been published by Enrico Riparelli, ‘La “Glose du Pater” du Ms 269 de Dublin. Description, histoire, édition et commentaire’, Heresis 34 (2001), 77–129. Anne Brenon, ‘Syncrétisme hérétique dans les refuges alpins? Un livre cathare parmi les recueils vaudois de la fin du Moyen Age: le ms 269 de Dublin’, Heresis 7, (1986), 7–23; More specifically, my translations and comments on Ms 269 as the ‘Dublin Ritual’, in Écritures cathares, pp. 261–321. For an overview, see Anne Brenon ‘The Waldensian Books’, in Heresy and Literacy, ed. Anne Hudson and Peter Biller (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 137–59.

110

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

unity of their form, language (alpine sub-dialect of Provençal) and origin (the ‘Waldensian’ valleys of Piedmont). Their date of composition is estimated to have extended from the end of the fourteenth century to the end of the sixteenth. The main collections of these Waldensian texts are kept in Geneva (five m­anuscripts), Cambridge (five manuscripts) and Dublin (nine manuscripts). Isolated texts are found in Dijon, Carpentras , Grenoble, and Zürich. Thanks to the work of two of the first historiographers of the Waldensians, Jean-Paul Perrin (1618) and Jean Léger (1669),11 we can now confidently place the origin of at least two collections: those of Cambridge and Dublin. The nine Dublin manuscripts formed, along with three manuscripts in French and Latin, a collection of twelve volumes collected by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (1581–1656). Sir William Brereton recounts in his Travels visiting Ussher in Dublin in 1635, during which he had the opportunity to admire ‘ten or twelve volumes’. Ussher bought the manuscripts, or at least eight of them, from a French legal advisor who had himself obtained them from Perrin. Perrin reported that the manuscripts had been sent to him by the Synod of the Waldensian Valleys so as to use them as a resource in the writing of his own book Histoire des Vaudois. Dominique Vignaux, a minister, compiled them in the Pragela Valley, since Waldensian communities had rallied to the cause of the Reformation during the Synod of Chamforan in 1532. After James Ussher’s death, his library was eventually incorporated into the Trinity College Library where the small Waldesian collection12 was forgotten until it was gradually rediscovered from the mid-nineteenth century on. The texts had initially been catalogued as Italian or Spanish resources. In 1917 Mario Esposito recognised the small volume (currently Ms 269) as a part of the Waldensian collection which Théo Venckeleer was later to identify and publish as Cathar (in 1960–61). James Ussher’s Waldensian collection was now finally complete on the shelves of the Trinity College Library. In Venckeleer’s view the Cathar volume was not part of the collection of eight Perrin manuscripts in Occitan that Archbishop Ussher had purchased but that it must have been added to the lot before 1635, when Sir William Brereton visited Ussher. In my 1986 study, I reflected in detail on Venckeleeer’s points, which appear not to have taken into 11

12

Both of these men were protestant ministers who had access to many of these texts. Eight texts in Occitan from the valleys, one volume of transcriptions into Occitan made for the archbishop and the three volumes written in Latin and French.

111

Anne Brenon

sufficient account the genesis of the whole Dublin Waldensian collection.13 Moreover, Venckeleeer’s main argument was that Perrin does not mention the existence of this manuscript in his Histoire des Vaudois, while quoting and describing the others. Yet, an in-depth reading of Perrin’s study reveals his original cataloguing of the eight manuscripts passed on to him by Vignaux.14 The descriptions of these match the current Dublin collection. Located between the description of the manuscript currently classified as Ms 263 and that of Ms 259, the following entry can be found: ‘Item, an old vellum treatise, titled: “de l’Eglise” (on the Church)’. This entry, in my opinion, quite clearly refers to Ms 269, which is our Cathar manuscript. Ms 269 is indeed ‘an old vellum treatise’ – and quite probably the oldest volume of the collection. It begins with an untitled presentation, with an incipit that frames a large red ornamental initial enhanced with gold (Fig. 6.1), and that clearly refers to the Church, or Gleisa de Dio. Each of the eleven chapters of this presentation are introduced with a simpler initial, using one of the characteristics of this ‘Church of God’, highlighting the formula Aquesta Gleisa (‘this Church’). The ornamental initial and the incipit which could have drawn attention to the second text in the compendium, the ‘Pater gloss’, are not featured in the handbook. A superficial browsing of the manuscript is therefore likely to have resulted in Perrin’s description. Besides, as of yet we do not know of any Waldesian manuscripts that would match the description given here, neither within the Dublin collection nor amongst the other collections. Therefore, I see no reason for the Cathar volume kept in Dublin to be treated separately from the others. It was quite probably collected in similar conditions as the other volumes by Vignaux in the Waldesian valleys (most likely the Pragela Valley) during the second half of the sixteenth century, before ending up through the agency of Jean-Paul Perrin in the Waldesian collection of James Ussher. As shall be illustrated, an examination, however brief, of the forms and contents of this compendium does not contradict in any way the thesis of a former Waldesian immersion of this manuscript, but on the contrary complements such a thesis. The manuscript known as Ms 269 housed in Trinty College is a small volume of parchment, which measures 130  ×  90  mm and features 80 unnumbered folios. We will employ here the numbering system chosen by Venckeleer. It must be stressed, however, that the text contains a gap between folios 23 and 24, as a page was torn out at an unknown date. The text is laid out in long lines with clear, regular writing. The manuscript includes three texts: Text A, from fol. 1a to fol. 23a, is a treatise or a defence

13 14

112

Brenon, ‘Syncrétisme hérétique’, pp. 8–10. Jean-Paul Perrin, Histoire des Vaudois, 3 vols (Genève, 1618), 1:55–58.

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

Fig. 6.1. The first page of the ‘Dublin Occitan Ritual’ (Trinity College Dublin MS 269 1r). Reproduced with permission; see colour plate 12.

of ‘the Church of God’ (Gleisa de Dio),15 over eleven chapters; Text B, from fol. 24a to 75a, is a commentary on the Lord’s prayer (‘Pater gloss’),16 also in eleven sections, and whose beginning, corresponding to the torn-out page, is missing; and Text C, from fol. 76a to 77a, is a short ­development titled 15 16

Otherwise an Apologia for the Cathar Church. The Waldesian manuscripts refer to this type of text as ‘glosa Pater’.

113

Anne Brenon

Sancta Gleisa (Holy Church). The book concludes with a pascal table laid out for the years 1376 to 1400, which provides a clue to the dating of the codex. We can therefore assume that this compendium was copied shortly before 1376, which acts here as a terminus ante quem. This pocket-sized handwritten book is skilfully crafted. Paragraphs and chapters are marked with initials and red-coloured incipits. A large ornamental initial enhanced with gold would have introduced each of the three texts: the initials in texts A and C are featured in fol. 1a and 76a, while that of text B disappeared along with the torn-out folio. The writing is both deliberate and easily legible throughout. The hands of three distinct scribes, though closely matched, are distinguishable. The first copied the whole of text A, the second the introduction and the four first chapters, and the third the last seven chapters of text B and the whole of text C. The pascal table copied in red ink was probably the work of a fourth hand. Text A in particular has been through several corrections. Some words forgotten by the first copyist were added in the margin, which might reflect a strong interest in the intellectual transmission of its contents. To summarise, it can be assessed that, given its external characteristics, this small volume hardly differs from the volumes collected from the Waldensian Valleys. Through its writing, its decoration and the textual layout, it greatly resembles bibles on parchment, which are the most archaic of Waldensian manuscripts (such as, for example, the Bible of Carpentras which dates to the end of the fourteenth century and ends on the pattern of a Glosa Pater). The language in the Dublin compendium appears to be an oriental Occitan dialect similar to Dauphinois-Alpine, which does not strongly differ from that commonly used in the whole Waldensian collection but belongs to an older form, with some declensions still noticeable. However, one cannot define this language as a simple archaic Waldensian, since no lexical trait specific to the Waldensian texts can be found in it. It is also worth noting that the specific Walsensian interpretations of the Scriptures (for instance, ‘the son of the Virgin’ instead of ‘the son of the man’) are absent from the biblical excerpts quoted here. In any case, based on its appearance, the small Dublin codex does not seem to differ much from the Waldensian books, amongst which it had been lost (or indeed hidden). The composition itself, featuring two religious treatises carrying evangelical tones, and the ‘Pater gloss’, is not remarkable at first glance within the Waldensian library, which includes dozens of treatises or evangelical sermons as well as five examples of a Pater gloss.17 One can very well assume that this manuscript was gathered 17

The Waldensian Pater glosses are divided into 4 different texts, copied into 8 manuscripts kept in Cambridge, Dublin, Geneva and Grenoble. Brenon,

114

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

in good faith as Waldensian during the sixteenth century by minister Vignaux and the Synod of the Waldensian Valleys. However, the contents of the two major texts it contains, as different as they may appear, are undeniably of Cathar inspiration.

The Contents of a Compendium of Cathar Religious Literature A. The Treatise of the Church of God This first text was interpreted by Théo Venckeleer as a template for a homilie read out during the consolament ceremony by the ordained celebrant – a very valid hypothesis. Regarding the content, the theological message of the treaty is the same as found in the templates preserved in the Florence and Lyon rituals. It consists of a legitimation, through Scripture of the Apostolicity, of a ‘Church of God’ which is not of Rome, and of the validity of its sacramental gesture of soul salvation as a ‘spiritual baptism of Jesus Christ’ or consolament. It must be stressed that this claim to build the real Christian Church, against the usurping Roman Church, as well as to possess ‘the greatest power of Salvation’ is one of the Cathar dissents’ fundamental themes. Does this mean however that the Dublin treatise is the mere remnant of a ritual sermon? Its layout as a catechesis treatise methodically structured into chapters, and of course the absence of any liturgical exchange between a celebrant, a congregation and an initiate, does not favour that interpretation, even though the tone used is of the direct kind of a rough rhetorical attack against the established Church. This text, under the title Gleisa de Dio, aims at ‘gathering some testimonies of the holy scriptures to help understand and know the Church of God’,18 i.e. the one true Church. Positive and negative arguments: the Church of God is most often defined as what it is, and in some cases in opposition to what it is not, i.e. the evil Roman Church (la malignant gleisa romana). It is therefore clearly a committed Cathar text. Contrary to the following ‘Pater gloss’, the treatise on the Church of God is, with two exceptions, exclusively based on the New Testament. This

18

‘Syncrétisme hérétique’, pp. 11, 22 n. 21. This is indeed contained in the very incipit of this treatise: ‘Al nom del Paire e del Fill e del Sant Sperit. Nos volem recontar alcun testimoni de las sanctas scrituras per donar entendre et conoiser la Gleisa de Dio’, (Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p. 820).

115

Anne Brenon

is not surprising given its subject matter. The treastise elaborates on the foundations of the Apostolic Church and is, in effect a guide to dissenting evangelism, elaborating on the apostles own ‘path to justice and truth’, drawing parallels with the path of the Good men,19 who are presented as the apostles’ direct successors. The text unites, in eleven themes, teachings that are at the same time scriptural, moral and polemic, based on the evangelical dualism of the ‘two Churches’. The first nine chapters mainly elaborate the teaching of the préceptes. They are as follows: 1:  The true Church of God – this Church (Aquesta Gleisa) – ‘is neither stone, nor wood, nor anything made by human hand’: the true Christians are themselves ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’. 2:  ‘ Through his prayer, sins are absolved’, for the ‘Church of God’ is that upon which Christ conferred the power ‘to bind and to loosen’ – where one finds the confirmation of the Apostolic brotherhood of the ‘Good Men’. 3:   ‘This Church shall not kill and does not abide any murder’ – this is the absolute evangelical non-violence. 4: ‘This Church shall not commit adultery or any form of defilement’. 5: ‘This Church shall not commit theft nor dishonest acts’. 6: ‘This Church shall not lie nor give false testimonies’. 7: ‘This Church shall not swear’. 8: ‘This Church shall not blaspheme nor damn.’ 9: ‘This Church shall abide by all commandments of life’s Law’. We will linger more specifically on the two last themes of the homilies on the Church of God, that is, the persecuted Church and the Church that baptises in the Spirit, because they bring us firmly back to the core teachings of Catharism. So far, the dictates of the previous themes could conceivably have expressed the critical evangelism of a group such as the Waldensians. However, in the final two themes, expressed in particularly clear rhetoric, we encounter the speech typical of dissident Catharism.20

19

20

The term ‘Good men/women’ was a common term employed by those we call Cathars in the modern literature to identify themselves. The texts are quoted here in Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’. Their translation into French are those from the Church of God treatise which

116

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

10: ‘This Church suffers persecutions, tribulations and martyrdom in the name of Christ’. The sign of the true Church of God is here presented as the Chuch persecuted as Christ and the apostles were persecuted. This theme presents relentless inculpatory evidence against the persecuting Church. This is a rhetoric typical in times of persecution, in which we find the explicit themes employed in the preaching of the last Occitan Cathars (or ‘Good Men’), in particular their leader, Pèire Autier, burnt at the stake in Toulouse in 1310.21 Dicam tibi causam quare nos sumus vocati heretici: propter hoc quia mundus odit nos. Et non est mirum si odit nos mundus [1Jo 3,13], quia etiam odio habuit Dominum nostrum, quem persecutus fuit et apostolos suos.22

Here is the incipit of the Dublin chapter: Aquesta gleisa sufre las persegacions e tribulacions e martiris per lo nom de Christ; car el meysme las suferc per voler reymer e salvar la soa gleisa, e mostre a lor e per obra e per parola que entro a-la fin del segle ille devon sufrir persegacions e ontas e malditz, aisicom el dis al-vangeli de Saint Johan [15,20]: ‘Si ill han persegu mi, e vos persegran…23

The gospel texts, including the Beatitudes (‘Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them…[Mt 5,10–12]’) are used as grounds for the argument. Thereby Mt 10,16: ‘See, I send you like sheep amongst wolves’. And finally, Mt 10,22–23, ending on the following advice: ‘[…] and when they will persecute you in a city, flee to another’. We can recognise here the scriptural basis for the definition

21

22

23

I have published in René Nelli’s work, Écritures cathares, pp. 274–88. For further information on Pèire Autier and his mission see Anne Brenon, Pèire Autier (1245–1310), le dernier des cathares (Paris, 2016). ‘I’m going to tell you the reason why we are called heretics: It’s because the world hates us, and this is not surprising [1Jo 3,13] as it hated Our Lord and persecuted him and his apostles.’ Pèire Maury’s statement before Jacques Fournier. Le registre d’Inquisition de Jacques Fournier, 1318–1325, ed. Jean Duvernoy, 3 vols (Toulouse, 1965), 3: 123 (my translation). Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p.  828; Écritures cathares, p.  283. ‘This Church suffers persecution, tribulations and martyrdom in the name of Christ, because he himself suffered them in his will to redeem and save his Church, and in order to show it, by his acts and words, that until the end of times it shall suffer persecution, shame and damnation, as is written in the gospel according to St John [ Jo 15,20]: “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you too…”’

117

Anne Brenon

of the ‘true Christian Church’, which, through an obvious parallel with the argument of the Dublin treatise, is given by Pèire Autier: Quia due Ecclesie sunt, et una fugit et parcit, et alia tenet et scoriat; et illa que fugit et parcit tenet rectam viam apostolorum: que non mentit nec fallat. Et illa Ecclesia que tenet et scoriat est Ecclesia romana.24

The persecutors are henceforth named, in the Dublin treatise and in the words of Autier. The strength of the biting criticism in that ‘Church of God’ treatise lies in the Scriptures, which all contradict the practices of the Roman Church. Persecution as a Christian criteria: Nota en cal maniera totas aquestas parolas de Christ son contrarias a-la gleisa maligna romana. Car ela non es persegua per ben ni per justicia que ela haya en si; mas per contrari ela persegh e aoci tot hom que no vol consentir a li sio peccat e a-las soas faituras. Ela non fugis de cita en cita [Mt 10,23], mas segnoriza las citas e los borcs e las provincias e se sey en grandeça en la ponpa d’aquest mont; e es temuda dels reys e dels emperadors e dels aotres barons.25

Criticised unambiguously as an institution of power, the Church of Rome is also reported as a persecutor: Ni ela non es aisicom las fedas entre los lops [Mt 10,16] mas aisicom son li lop entre las fedas e entre los bocs […] e sobre tot ela persegh e aoci la sancta gleisa de Christ, la cal sosten tot en-paciencia aisicom fay la feda que non se defent al lop …26

24

25

26

118

‘Because there are two Churches. One flees and forgives, the other possesses and flays. It is the one that flees and forgives which follows the apostles on the straight path, it does not lie nor deceive. And this Church which possesses and flays is the Roman Church.’ Pèire Maury’s statement, Duvernoy, Le registre d’Inquisition de Jacques Fournier 3: 123. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p.  828; Écritures cathares, pp. 283–84: ‘Notice how all these words of Christ contradict the evil Roman Church; because this church is neither persecuted for Good’s sake nor for its actions of justice, but on the contrary it is it that persecutes and kills anyone who does not consent to its sins and forfeitures. And it does not flee from city to city [Mt 10,23], but is ruling over the cities, villages and provinces, and sits majestically in the vanities of this world, feared by kings, emperors and other lords…’. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p. 828; Écritures cathares, p. 284. ‘It is not a case of ewes amongst wolves [Mt 10,16] but of wolves amongst ewes and billy goats (… ) But above all, it persecutes and kills the Holy Church of Christ, which suffers patiently like a ewe who cannot defend itself from the wolf…’.

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

The true Church is a ewe before the wolf, or a sheep to be slaughtered, according to the Epistle to the Romans: ‘We are being treated like sheep in a slaughterhouse’ [Rom 8,36]. Most scandalous, in the eyes of the Cathar author, is that the domineering and persecuting Roman Church does not hesitate to pass itself off as the lamb’. Mas contra de ço li pastor de la gleisa romana non se vergognan de dire que ille son las fedas e li agnel de Christ; e dizon que la gleisa de Christ que es perseguda de lor son li lop. Mas ço es cosa contraria, car al tenp passat li lop perseghian e aocisian las fedas; e ara seria retornat e reirevers: car las fedas sarian tan enrabiadas que elas mordrian e persegrian e aocirian los lops; e li lop sarian tant pacient que ille se laisarian manjar a las fedas…27

The uncompromising irony expressed by this Cathar polemist against Roman hypocrisy is a striking reminder of that of the last preaching of the ‘Good Men’, immortalised in the inquisitiorial records from the fourteenth century. He concludes by quoting scriptural excerpts that state that it is always ‘bad men who persecute good men and sinners who persecute saints’, and not the opposite, before ending on the first epistle of John -precisely, that which Pèire Autier used to to preach: ‘O brothers, don’t be surprised that the world hates you [1Jo 3,13]’ and which refers to the opposition between God and this world, the root of the New Testament and Cathar dualism. The logic presented by the Cathar author seems inassailable. Both Churches, the dissenting one and the official one, therefore invoque the same Scriptural arguments and claim to be the sole beneficiary of a legitimate apostolic inheritance. The only elements capable of differentiating them are their practices, their works – or ‘fruits’, to quote the founding parable of the good and the bad tree (‘it is by their fruits you shall know them’) permeating the Cathar dualistic argumentation. Who could deny that it is the Roman Church that chose to appear in this world as domineering and persecuting, while the last ‘Good Men’ end up in the flames of bonfires. One century after the writing of the ‘Church of God’ treatise, while the Waldensian communities in Piedmont – (who probably kept this 27

Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p. 828; Écritures cathares, p. 284. ‘But despite all of this, the ministers of the Roman Church are not ashamed of claiming that they are the sheep and the lambs of Christ; and they say that the Church of Christ, which they persecute, is the Church of wolves. But it is nonsense, because in the past wolves chased and killed sheep, while today things would need to be turned inside out, so that sheep be enraged enough to bite, chase and kill wolves, and that wolves be patient enough to let sheep devour them…’.

119

Anne Brenon

codex safe) were in turn being violently persecuted, a religious Waldensian treastise of Las Tribulacions, in a copy featured in the Dublin collection, made the enlightened statement that follows: ‘Jews persecuted Christ, and not the opposite; heretics persecuted Christians, and not the opposite’. In other words, true Christians are the persecuted, never the persecutors.28 11. ‘This Church performs the Holy spiritual baptism, i.e. the laying on of hands through which the Holy Spirit is given.’ If any doubt remained that the Dublin Occitan ritual describes point by point, the ‘true Church of God’, the consolament practice – for that is what is presented here in Chapter 11 – is the final, undeniable indicator. Following the evangelical préceptes to the letter, namely to imitate Christ and the apostles, the true Church defines itself as the holder of the tradition of the true baptism brought by Christ, which is a baptism of the Spirit and not a water baptism. The scriptural references are those featured also in the Cathar rituals of Florence and Lyon. The first quote is from Mt 3,11, regarding John The Baptist: ‘He that shall come after me, He will baptise you in the Holy Spirit’. Followed by the texts which show how Christ sent his disciples to baptise themselves: Mt 28,19 and Mc 16,15–16, which specify: ‘He will be saved he who believes and is baptised’ quoted here – and by so many medieval dissidents – to justify the rejection of the Catholic practice of baptism for children, considered too young to ‘believe’. The Roman practice baptismal is immediately refuted: Mas la gleisa malignant romana, aisicom orb e menador de orbs, dizon que Christ entendia del batisme de l’aiga tenporal lo cal fazia Johan batiste enant que Christ prediques. Als cals se po contradire per motas razons […] Si per lo batisme de l’aiga tenporal la gent es salva, donc Christ es vengu morir enbada: car enant havian lo batisme de la aiga. Mas certa cosa es que la gleisa de Christ batezava de aotre batisme que Johan batista29

28

29

‘Li Judio persegueron Christ, non Christ li Judio; li herege li christian, non li christian li herege.’ Anne Brenon, ‘Traité vaudois des Tribulations, Texte A, version du Ms 260 de Dublin’ Heresis 1 (1983), 25–31, at p. 29. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p.  830; Écritures cathares, pp. 285–86. ‘But the evil Roman Church, a liar and sower of lies, claims that Christ considered it to be the baptism of material water, which was John the Baptist’s practice before Christ started preaching. Which we can reject for different reasons […] If through baptism by temporal water people could be saved, Christ would have died in vain, since baptism by water already existed. But it is certain that the Church of Christ performed a different kind of baptism than that of John the Baptist…’.

120

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

The Cathar author quotes here Jo 4,1–2, which repeats a statement from the Baptist himself: ‘As for me, I baptise you in water, but He will baptise you in the Holy Spirit.’ The pioneering role of John the Baptist is clearly defined here: he came to ‘provide a strong testimony on Christ, whose arrival he preached’ (… El dones ferm testimoni de Christ lo cal el predicava avenidor);30 but between the two baptisms, Paul the apostle proved that only one brought salvation: ‘One faith, one Lord, one baptism [Eph 4,5].’ Mention is made here of several parts of the Acts and of the epistles showing apostles baptising in the Spirit. The Dublin treatise ends with a profession of faith in the legitimacy of the apostolic inheritance of the Church of God, very similar to that referred to in the other rituals, in particular the Lyon Ritual. The Occitan Lyon Ritual: Aquel sanh babtisme per loqual sant Esperit es datz a tengut la gleisa de Deu dels apostols en sa, e es vengutz de bos homs en bos homes entro aici, e o fara entro la fi del segle.31

The Dublin text: E de mot aotres que non eran apostol se troba que fazian aquest saint batisme aisicom ille havian receopu de la sainte gleisa: car la gleisa de Christ lo ha tengut sença deronpament e lo tenra entro a la fi aisicom Christ lor dis [Mt 28,19–20]: ‘Batizas los al nom del paire et del Fill e del Saint Sperit e vevos: yo soy ab vos per tot dia entro a consumacion del segle.32

All that is left for the author to do is state, along with the apostle Peter [1Pe 3, 20–21], that this baptism only warrants salvation, and that without it no one can be saved. The conclusion is written in Latin: ‘Suficiat modo de batismo.’ This short treatise on the Church of God offers the perfect summary of the Cathar ecclesiology, a catechesis of the arguments found in the Scriptures, 30 31

32

Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p. 830. Ms Lyon BM, fol. 477a. Transl. Écritures cathares, p. 232. ‘This Holy baptism by which the Holy Spirit is given was maintained by the Church of God from the time of the apostles until this day, passed on from good men to good men, and the Church shall do so until the end of time’. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une apologie’, p. 831. Écritures cathares, p. 287. ‘And many others, who were not apostles, happened to perform this holy baptism as they had received it from the Holy Church; because the Church of Christ has maintained it uninterruptedly and will keep doing so until the end, according to the words spoken by Christ to the apostles [Mt 28,19–20]: “Baptise them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and behold, I am with you always, until the end of time.”’

121

Anne Brenon

on which the ‘good men’ based the Christian legitimacy of their religious practices and of their power to save souls. Its type of exegesis is a resort to the ‘spiritual sense’ of the Scriptures, quite typical of the Cathar rhetorical style. The tone is direct and controversial, evocative of a preacher’s foreceful words. B. The ‘Pater gloss’ The preserved Cathar rituals, in particular the Florence ritual, indicate that within Cathar churches, the presentation of the Pater by the celebrant, plea after plea, is a major part of the tradition for the novice of the Lord’s Prayer, before his ordination through the consolament. The second main text in the Dublin compendium is the ‘Pater gloss’, which prompted Théo Venckeleer to identify the manuscript as a fragment of a ritual. It is in fact an unusual and difficult text. Very different in tone from the treatise on the Church of God, it is instantly differenciable from the presentation of the Lord’s prayer featured in the Latin Florence ritual, the only Cathar text to which it can be compared with. Long and complex, the Dublin gloss is closer in style and method to a scholarly theology presentation than to a composition destined to verbal delivery and catechesis. Furthermore, it diverges even more clearly from the model of glosses featured in Waldensian collections, which focus on another type of Pater text. The principal differences are: ‘supersubtantial bread’ in the Cathar texts as opposed to ‘daily bread’ in the Waldensian; the presence of the Greek doxology: ‘for to you belong the kingdom, the power and the glory, Amen’ in the Cathar version, not in the Waldensian version.33 It is also relevant that this gloss is based largely on the Old Testament.34 The Cathar author often refers to excerpts from psalms and wisdom literature: the character of David appears to play an important role in the implemented exegesis. Some prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah are also mentioned; amongst references to the New Testament, one can also find remarkable quotes from the Apocalypse. On the whole, this treatment of the Pater, is not very easy to grasp for the modern reader. The gloss illustrates a hierarchy of divine creation through seven substances, the highest being ‘light’ followed by ‘mercies’ or ‘visitations’, then ‘spirits’, and finally ‘lives’, ‘souls’, ‘hearts’ and ‘bodies’. 33 34

Further details available in Brenon, ‘Syncrétisme hérétique’, pp. 14–18. Cathar interest in the Old Testament is addressed in an overlooked article by David Zbìral, ‘A Compilation from Old Testament Sapiental Books in the Cathar Manuscript of the Liber de duobus principiis : Critical Edition with Commentary’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 20/1 (2015), 149-173.

122

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

Waterfall of ‘divine emanations’, celestial hierarchies which, according to Enrico Riparelli,35 researcher and author of a remarkable analysis on this text, belong undeniably, (despite minor archaic elements harking to to the fourteenth century) to the exegetical array and to the didactic processes of the medieval Cathar theologian culture. To illustrate our point, a brief analysis of the introduction and conclusion of this gloss shall suffice. The text,36 bereft of its beginning (the torn-out folio), opens up with a quote from prophet Jeremiah [ Jer 31,8–9] referring to the people of God gathered by the great saviour from the furthest corners of the earth, ‘in tears and in prayers’. From that truncated introduction on, the reader of the gloss is placed at the centre of a cosmogony of the fallen souls’ exile to this world and of their salvation by Christ who teaches them the Holy Prayer: E per ço lo nostre Segnor Yesu Christ es trames del Segnor que el queres aquel poble que era descaçat que el lo salves, aisicom Ysesu Christ [dis] al vangeli: ‘Lo fill de l’ome venc querir e salvar ça que era pert’ [Luc 19,10]. E per ço lo nostre Segnor Yesu Christ, cant el fo vengu del seti de la grandeça per querir e per salvar aquel poble, que el fora menesa luy de la terra de lo enemic, aisicom es dit desobre, luy parlant a aquel poble […] dis en lo evangeli […] [Mt 26,21]: ‘Vella e ora que no intre en tenptacion’. E per ço el nos ensegna orar aisi.37

The actual ‘gloss’ opens up then by the first plea – quoted in Latin, as are the following pleas – the comment itself being written in Occitan: Paster noster qui es in celis. Lo saint Paire en los esgardament del cal la nostra oracion es endreiçada aisicom lo encens, dizent lo salmista David [Ps 140,2]: ‘O Segnor, la mia oracion sia exaucida al tio esgardament aisicom lo encens. El es paire dels lumes, ço es de las caritas, aisicom Saint Jaco dis en

35

36

37

Riparelli, ‘La glose du Pater du ms 269 de Dublin’; see also Enrico Riparelli, ‘Les techniques d’exégèse des cathares’, Les cathares devant l’Histoire, Mélanges offerts à Jean Duvernoy, ed. Martin Aurell (Cahors, 2005), pp. 323–48. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une glose sur le Pater’. I have translated this text in Écritures cathares, pp. 289–321. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une glose sur le Pater’, p. 762. Écritures cathares, pp. 289–90. ‘And it is for this reason that our Lord Jesus Christ was sent by the Lord Father to seek the people who were exiled and save them, as he puts its himself in the gospel: “The son of man has come to seek and save what was lost [Luke 19,10]”. And for this reason our Lord Jesus Christ, when he came from the seat of greatness to seek and to save people by taking them out of the land of the enemy as described above, addressing the same people, he said in the gospel… [Mt 26–21]: “Watch and pray not to fall into temptation”. And this is why he teaches us to pray in this way.’

123

Anne Brenon

la pistola [Iac 1,17]: ‘Tot don fort bon e tot don perfeit es deisendent de sus, del paire dels lumes’.38

The general tone is set, and the psalmist is immediately called upon. Suffice to say that the dualistic cosmogony outlined in this text supports the entire speech. This metaphysical vision, in its complex and almost mystical medieval formula – as very convincingly shown by Enrico Riparelli – is specifically ‘Cathar’: it is based on the theme of exile (in this terrestrial world) and redemption (toward the Kingdom), which goes hand in hand with the metaphysics of double creation. It uses strong terms of dualistic opposition such as ‘the Father of the light’ or ‘the land of the enemy’. Nevertheless, this Cathar text gives way to a surprisingly ‘incarnationist’ vision of Christ’s nature and mission. In the plea on ‘supersubstantial bread’, the gloss refers to Christ as the ‘son of David’ according to the principle of carnal filiation: ‘The Lord, who is made of his seed according to the flesh…’ (Lo nostre Segnor, que es fait de la semença de luy segont carn…).39 The comment of the last word of the prayer, i.e. the word ‘Amen’, reflects a similar ‘incarnationist’ spirit. The terminal Amen of the Pater, personified as an acting being, is itself linked to the ‘Spirit of the first formed’, i.e. David’s. Which brings us to a rather grandiose final vision on Christ’s salvation mission: Car aquest Amen fara lo sio plaint sobre luy ab totz los lignages de la terra. Car per los sios pecatz nostre Segnor Yesu Christ fo passionat e mort per ço que, per la mort, sobres aquel que havia comandament de mort, ço es lo diavol, aisicom l’apostol dis als Hebraic [2,5]: ‘E que el desliores aquelos li cal, per la temor de la mort, eran encolpat per tota lor vita a la servitud’. Gracia sia ab tuit li fidel que son en Yesu Christ. Amen’40 38

39

40

Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une glose sur le Pater’, pp. 762–63; Écritures cathares, p. 290. ‘Paster noster qui es in celis. The Holy Father, to whom our prayer is addressed as incense, in the words of the psalmist David [Ps 140,2]: “O Lord, may my prayer rise to you like incense”, he is the Father of light, that is to say charities, as St James says in his epistle [ Jam 1,17]: “Every noble gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of light”’. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une glose sur le Pater’, p. 775; Écritures cathares, p. 306. Venckeleer, ‘Un recueil cathare: Une glose sur le Pater’, p. 785; Écritures cathares, pp. 320–21: ‘This Amen will indeed lament on itself along with all the lineages of the earth, because for his sins our Lord Jesus Christ endures passion and death, so as to overcome, through death, he who was ruling over death, that is the Devil, as the apostle said to the Hebrews [Heb 2,15]: “And may he free those who, by fear of death, were condemned all their life to servitude”. Grace be to all the faithful in Christ Jesus. Amen’.

124

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

The elegance of this formula on Christ’s mission and death is striking here. However, this elevated formulation, which places the death of Christ – and by extension his previous incarnation – as a central vector of his victory over Evil and of the final salvation of the ‘people of God’, does not really tally with the docetist tendancies or the spiritual vision of Christ’s nature and mission41 widely associated with Cathar thought, and which can be read in other sources albeit with certain slight differences. This is one of the two main reasons why I have in the past conjectured42 that the Pater gloss in the Dublin compendium could be a remnant from the Garatistes theology (who could today be termed ‘faltering dualists’) of the Italian church of Concorezzo,43 or even from the further reflection of Didier, the principal acolyte of Bishop Nazaire, who, before the midthirteenth century, attempted to reconcile his thoughts on the Incarnation and the Passion closer to Roman doctrine. My conjecture was perhaps a little too affirmative. Another motive behind this assumption in the very particular meaning given by the gloss to the figure of David. How can we not be tempted to recognise, in the architecture of this skillful text, organised around the character of David, referred to as ‘our father David’, ‘our first formed’, or ‘the spirit of the first formed’, a statement of traducianism, whose system, according to Rainier Sacconi, a well-informed, anti-Cathar polemist from the mid-thirteenth century, was unique to Concorezzo’s church? Traducianism, it must be remembered, is a form of transmission of souls, and with them of the original sin, down here in the human corporeal prison, from the soul of a first creature of God, a fallen angel, a ‘Primordial David’. ‘They [Concorezzo’s heretics] believe in the devil to have formed the first man’s body and instilled an angel in him after he had already partially sinned. Item, that all souls are stemming [ex traduce] from that angel.’44

41

42 43

44

The figure of Christ in Catharism, in all its complexities, is suject to a remarkably in-depth analysis by Enrico Riparelli, Il volto del Cristo dualista. Da Marcione ai catari (Bern, 2008). Écritures cathares, pp. 269–70. The treatise on ‘absolute’ dualism is specifically targeted against these Garatists. Also named ‘Book of the two principles’ this treatise also features in the Florence codex alongside the the Cathar ritual in Latin. ‘Item credunt quod dyabolus formavit corpus primi hominis et in illud effudit unum angelum qui in modico iam peccaverat. Item quod omnes anime sunt ex traduce ab ipso angelo.’ F. Šanjek, ‘Raynerius Sacconi O.P., Summa de Catharis’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 44 (1974), 31–60, at p. 58.

125

Anne Brenon

It consists of an alternative system to that, origenian model of the preexistence of souls and the fall of the angels, which seems more common among the Cathar beliefs: this third share of the stars in the sky, souls of God fallen with the dragon of the Apocalypse, defeated by St Michael the Archangel. One will note that the two types of explanations given to the Fall bring back to the essential common ground of the Cathar thought and dualist religiosity, that is the theme of the ‘people’s’ exile to this world, which is not God’s, and of the necessary redemption by Christ. Garatists as well as Albanists are considered ‘Cathars’. The Latin Florence ritual, originated from Desenzano, and the gloss in the Dublin Occitan compendium, probably inspired by Concorezzo, are Cathar religious texts. Text C, the third text in the compendium, is a short discourse on the Holy Church (fol. 76a–77a), and is entirely built on the theme of celestial Jerusalem as a biblical figure of the lost Kingdom, and on the Son of God’s salvific mission. ‘The heavenly Jerusalem is free; it is our mother [Gal 4, 26]’.45

MS 269 TCD - An instance of Cathar Spirituality sustaining Waldensian Evangelism? A dismantled ritual? Or a compilation of religious literature? The question of the nature of the Dublin compendium remains to be discyphered. Admittedly, the two principal texts it features can both be linked to similar themes existing in the Cathar rituals. But in the absence, in any form, of an exchange between a celebrant and a congregation, neither the ‘apologia of the Church of God’ nor the ‘Pater gloss’ could have been used in a l­ iturgical sense. We can hardly even assume that the two pieces, carefully copied with great skill to compose the compendium, could have been copied from a model derived from an old Cathar ritual. Indeed they differ too much in style and in form to possibly arise from a single source; and besides the ‘Pater gloss’ has nothing in common with a liturgical catechesis. Finally, the Cathar compendium of Dublin does not present itself as a ritual. It is obviously not meant to be used as a ritual by some shadowy, liminal Church, but as a source of religious teaching, as an evangelical spiritual (text A), or even mystical nourishment (text B) for use within a thriving dissident Christian community. Undeniably Cathar in its inspiration and its developments, the compendium represents a window into Cathar ways of thinking, behaving and believing, just as exceptional as the Florence and Lyon Rituals, and 45

Écritures cathares, p. 321.

126

The Occitan Cathar Manuscript of Dublin (Ms 269 Tcd)

the preserved Cathar treatises.46 It is quite original in comparison with other resources and despite the great discrepancy within its texts, it quite coherently provides us with an overview of the entire Cathar religious panorama. This includes a background of dualist cosmogony involving the suffering in exile of the people of God, to the optimistic christology implemented by the Church of Salvation. However, the context in which the treastise on the Church of God was written is one of hardly deniable persecution and violence, arising, no doubt from an era of Inquisition and secrecy. The vigorous and inspired diatribe against the ‘persecuting Church’ is a powerful evocation of the skilful and combatative words of the Cathar preachers. The ‘Pater gloss’ reflects, for its part, the serenity of a study office or a library in the medieval exegetical tradition. As of yet we do not know in which circumstances this compendium – a late copy (after 1350) – was composed. We can only suppose that it was copied within a Walsensian context, in the Piedmont valleys, of which it bears the inprint and where it was found. But who copied it? Was that person a Cathar or a Waldensian? Read and used by whom? Some of the last Cathar believers? Or Waldensian ministers also known as ‘barbes’? We are bound to suspect that at some stage an encounter or a contact happened between these dissident traditions. Could a remnant Cathar community, clinging to their books have survived through the fourteenth century, sharing the shelters of a Waldensian population suffering equally from the Inquisition? In any event, a time must have come where the Waldensians founds themselves to be the last custodians of the old books and their teachings. These persecuted minorities would likely have sought an intellectual and religious nourishment, firmly rooted in Holy Scripture, to comfort themselves. Whichever hand copied this manuscript, the Waldensians took ownership of the artefact, going so far as to entrust minister Vignaux with its safeguarding along with their own books and manuscripts two centuries later. All the persecuted Christians, whether Walsensian or Cathar, would have recognised themselves in the treatise on the ‘Church of God’. Walsensians and Cathars practised the observance of these precepts with the same degree of thoroughness. As far as we know, of course, the Waldensians did not perform baptism by the laying on of hands but at least laid their hands in an act of Christian benediction. One can object that the complex ‘Pater gloss’ in Dublin appears as a much too specific text to lend itself to reuse, regardless of the interest the Waldensians held 46

Primarily: an anonymous Cathar treatise (in Latin) from Languedoc (c. 1220) and the Book of two Principles (c. 1250). Translation into French and commentary by René Nelli in Écritures cathares, pp. 73–213.

127

Anne Brenon

for the Lord’s Prayer. But is it not also an exegetic document of the highest value, precious as a critical theological reflection, undeniably in the tradition of the Cathars and, subsequently, the Waldensians, from the heart of the Middle Ages? It is indeed reasonable to think that the treatise on the ‘Church of God’ and the ‘Pater gloss’ had kept their value in the eyes of these very literate communities, who were to maintain Christian dissidence alive up until the Reformation.47

47

Merci très amical à David Zbiral et Ylva Hagman. Translated from the French by Marie le Men of Tradofil Translations and Paul Duffy.

128

Chapter 7 Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland: The Other Simon de Montfort Jean-Michel Picard Abstract Hugh de Lacy’s deeds in Languedoc as a companion of Simon de Montfort during the Albigensian Crusade are known to us less from charters or annals than from a literary text, the Canso de la Crusada. The literary genre of the historical poem, be it Geste, Roman or Chanson (Canso in Provençal) was an important device not only as a tool of propaganda but also for shaping the identity of social groups in twelfth and thirteenthcentury Europe. Members of the de Lacy family are celebrated in such texts over three generations in Ireland, England and France. In Ireland, the reading or declaiming of such pieces was part of a wider cultural context where French was not only used among the warrior elite and the monastic orders but also by influent town folks as a prestigious medium reflecting the status of their town. The circulation of French texts in medieval Ireland lasted and implies the existence of complex networks. An interesting example is the TCD manuscript which contains the Annals of Multifarnham Abbey and also includes a poem in French lamenting the death of Simon de Montfort the younger.

Résumé Les exploits de Hugues de Lacy en Languedoc comme compagnon de Simon de Montfort dans la Croisade contre les Albigeois nous sont en grande partie connus, plus que par des chartes et des annales, par un texte littéraire, la Canso de la Crusada. Le genre littéraire du poème historique, qu’il soit Geste, Roman ou Chanson (Canso en Provençal) est un important vecteur non seulement pour la propagande des puissants mais dans la formation de l’identité de groupes sociaux dans l’Europe des XIIe et XIIIe siècles. La famille des De Lacy fait l’objet de mentions répétées dans ce type de textes sur trois générations, en Irlande, en Angleterre et en France. En Irlande, la lecture ou la récitation publique de tels textes s’inscrit dans un contexte culturel plus large, où la langue française était utilisée non seulement dans les milieux aristocratiques et ecclésiastiques, mais aussi par la bourgeoisie des villes pour exprimer son indépendance et sa prospérité. La circulation de textes en français est un phénomène durable qui implique l’existence de réseaux complexes. Un exemple intéressant est le manuscrit de Trinity College Dublin qui contient les annales de l’Abbaye de Multifarnham et dans lequel se trouve aussi un poème en français déplorant la mort de Simon V de Montfort.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 129–150

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114241

Jean-Michel Picard

A great deal of what we know about Hugh de Lacy’s deeds in Languedoc between 1210 and 1221 does not come from charters or annals but from a literary text. The Canso de la Crusada belongs to a literary genre that developed in the late twelfth century, based on the epic Chansons de Geste or Cantares de Gesta, celebrating iconic figures of the past such as Charlemagne and his nephew Roland, William of Orange and his nephew Vivian or El Cid in Spain.1 The new genre found in French under the title of Geste, Roman or Chanson (Canso in Provençal) is that of the historical poem, celebrating the deeds of the ruling warrior class who commissioned these works. Although written in verses, these are not poetic works, but the rhythm and rhymes are devices to help memorizing the content and allow better oral delivery when declaimed in public. The same can be said about the clichés and set phrases borrowed from epic poetry. In the context of patronage and aims of writing, the Canso de la Crusada is a peculiar case, since it is a composite text written by two authors who seem to have belonged to the two opposite sides of the Albigensian conflict. The first 2768 lines (131 stanzas or laisses) were written by William of Tudela, a cleric who had left his native Navarre to settle in Languedoc in the city of Montauban.2 He was in the service of Baldwin of Toulouse, the youngest son of Raymond V, Count of Toulouse, and Constance, daughter of Louis VI, king of France. Baldwin had been educated by his catholic mother in Northern France and took part in the Albigensian Crusade on the French side against his elder brother, Raymond  VI, Count of Toulouse. Needless to say the beginning of the Canso is written from the point of view of the crusaders. The second author, who is still anonymous, wrote the larger part of the Canso (6810 lines). His language and style show that he was from Languedoc and possibly from the Foix region.3 His sympathies clearly lie with the Toulouse side and he is openly critical of the crusaders. Hugh de Lacy appears as a main character in ten different episodes of the Canso de la Crusada, as one of the main supporters of Simon de 1

2

3

On the literary genre of the chanson de geste, see Sarah Kay, The Chansons de Geste in the Age of Romance. Political Fictions (Oxford, 1995). On William of Tudela, see Robert Lafont, ‘Guilhem de Tudela: ses origines, les origines de son art’, in Les troubadours et l’État toulousain avant la croisade (1209), ed. Arno Krispin (Toulouse, 1995), pp.  219–28, and Anne Brenon, ‘Le texte fondateur d’une conscience occitane?’, in Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219, chanson de la croisade contre les hérétiques d’Albigeois ou Cathares, ed. Anne Brenon and Christian Salès (Argelliers, 2012), pp. 73–86. Paul Meyer, La chanson de la croisade des Albigeois, 2  vols (Paris, 1875), 2: cvii–cxv.

130

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

Montfort, leader of the crusaders.4 In both parts of the Canso, he is portrayed, not only as a fierce warrior but also as a wise adviser or counsellor of Montfort. However, the portrayal is different in the two parts. In the part written by William of Tudela, Hugh is portrayed as a bold strategist, whose advice is to carry bold actions in open field, rather than fighting a defensive war, bogged down in a castle. For example, in the episode narrating the battle of Castelnaudary in September 1211, Hugh de Lacy plays an important role at the counsel of Simon de Montfort’s barons, called by their lord to advise him on the new threat from the large army gathered by Raymond VI of Toulouse: ‘Cant lo coms de Montfort los ac amonestatz Huges cel de Laisi s’en es en pes levatz: ‘Senher, so lidih el, pos cosselh demandatz, Digan cels que voldran totas lor volontatz; Que, si m’en voletz creire, ja aldres non faratz. Si vos en Carcassona dedins vos enserratz, S’el vos segon en sai vos seretz asetjatz; Sius metetz a Fanjaus e la los trobaratz. Tan vos sigran per tot, si lor es espiatz. Tro a la fin del mon seretz desonoratz. El plus frevol castel, si creire m’en voliatz. Que sia en vostra terra, aqui losatendratz. E si vos ve socors ab lor vos combatatz; Quel cors me ditz a certas que vos los venceratz’.5 When the Count of Montfort had addressed them, Hugh, the one of Lacy, got up on his feet and said: Lord, since you ask for counsel, Let all who wish to do so speak as they think; But, if you want to trust me, you will do this and nothing else If you lock yourself inside Carcassonne And if they follow you there, you will be besieged. If you camp in Fanjeaux, you will also find them there. So many spies they have that they’ll follow you everywhere. You will loose your honour until the end of the world. Trust me, you should wait for them In the weakest castle in your land. And with reinforcements, you will fight a battle against them. I am utterly convinced that you will defeat them.

4 5

Song of the Cathar Wars, stanzas 36, 91,169,71, 188, 193, 194, 195, 202, 210. Song of the Cathar Wars, stanza 91, lines 1993–2005.

131

Jean-Michel Picard

After such a speech, all the barons agreed with Hugh de Lacy and Montfort led them to Castelnaudary, where they defeated the troops of Raymond of Toulouse. In the part written by the anonymous Provençal author, Hugh de Lacy is mentioned in all the counsels held by Simon de Montfort, but he is portrayed as a grumpy vassal, critical of Montfort’s overenthusiastic zeal, and arguing for early withdrawal from the war. For example, when Montfort harangues his troops before the siege of Beaucaire (dép. Gard), promising to hang the townspeople whom he sees as traitors, Hugh de Lacy first gives him a lecture about just war and the value of oaths taken under duress: Mas n’Ugues de Laici li respondec per mal ‘…Greu pot hom castel toldre a senhor natural Car ilh lo comte jove per fin amor coral Aman mais trop el volon que Crist lesperital E si anc trachor foron volon estre leial Que cant eli jureron ins el libre missal Elh corneron forsat e non podion al Que ben es tortz e forsa on dreitz no pot ni val Car sagramen forsat a dreitura no val Car cel que comquier terra ni pren lautrui logal E merma la dreitura e pren lengan el mal Pert lonor comquerida e gazanha el cabal’.6 But Hugh de Lacy answered him wickedly: ‘…It is not easy to take a castle from its legitimate lord And these men so truly love their young count That they cherish him even more than divine Christ. If they ever were traitors, now they want to be loyal When they were forced to swear on the Missal, They sang under duress and could not do otherwise; For there is wrong and violence where there is no law; For a forced oath has no value in just law; For whoever captures a territory and takes another man’s abode, Demeaning justice and resorting to fraud and evil, He forfeits the honour of conquest and earns capital punishment’.

Then he moves on to the realities of war as opposed to the rhetoric, hinting at the incompetence of Montfort’s tactics: E si men voletz creire oimais parlerem dal Car anc mai no vi seti tant fort descominal

6

132

Song of the Cathar Wars, stanza 169, lines 4789–4803.

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

Car cels de dins an joia e sojorn e umbral E bon pa e clara aiga e bos leitz costal El vi de Genestet que lor ve per canal E nos estam sa fora el perihl terrenal E non avem mas polvera e la suzor el cal E vin torbat ab aiga e pan dur senes sai E estam tôt lo dia e la noit a jornal Garnitz de totas armas e gardam lo logal Que nos venham combattre e que nos cridan dal.7 And, do believe me, we will now speak of something else For I never saw such a strange siege, Where the besieged live in happiness, comfort and shade; They have good bread, clear water, and a nice high bed, And Genestet wine that comes to them on the canal. As for us, we are living outside, on dreadful ground, And we only have dust, sweat, and heat, And foul wine and water, and stale bread with no salt. We are outside day and night Leaden with our weapons and they watch the place To come and fight us and shout against us.

These passages are clear indications that, in the narrative script of the anonymous author, the character of Hugh de Lacy is portrayed as a man with his feet on the ground, clearly confident in his position, and who does not mince his words. Further evidence of this is found in Stanza 188, where Hugh de Lacy advocates early withdrawal, as it would be suicidal to continue the siege of Toulouse with only a third of his men: Coms, dit n’Ugs de Laici, nos em tant mescabat Caici pendrem martiri oi er tôt acabat Ca mi dona veiaire que del tertz em mermat Laissem aquesta guerra coi serem perilhat Que si gaire nos dura tuit em martiriat.8 ‘Earl, Hugh de Lacy says, we’ve been battered so much That we will suffer martyrdom here and all will be over I truly believe there are only a third of us remain Let us leave this battle where we are in danger For, if it lasts any longer we all will be sacrificed’.

7 8

Song of the Cathar Wars, stanza 169, lines 4804–14. Song of the Cathar Wars, stanza 188, lines 6410–14.

133

Jean-Michel Picard

And further, in Stanza 194, at the end of a speech where Simon de Montfort pushes for the fall of Toulouse, Hugh de Lacy intervenes to dampen his enthusiasm, doubting the success of the battle: ‘Senhors, no sai quem diga, so ditz n’Ugs de Lacis, Qu’a mi don’a vejaire qu’ab lor es sent Gernis Quels garda els governa e sembla e lor pais’.9 ‘Lords, I don’t know what to say, Lord Hugh de Lacy said, For it seems to me that Saint Sernin is with them Who protected them, lead them and kept them together in their country.’

With the reference to Sernin, patron saint of Toulouse, Hugh appears here as a good Christian warrior, who knows it is useless to fight unless God and his saints are on your side. As in all literary work, characters may or may not reflect reality. In the second part of the Canso de la Crusada, Hugh de Lacy acts as a counterpart to Simon de Montfort. While Simon is portrayed as a ruthless leader, with no moral sense, no pity for his fellow men and no religious piety, Hugh is pictured as the decent enemy, showing concern for the law, the welfare of individuals and the values of Christian decency. This is in keeping with the general ideological message of the second part of the Canso where the victory of the southern French at Toulouse and the death of Simon de Montfort are seen as the triumph of Divine right, justice, truth and faith against the wickedness and folly of megalomaniac rulers. On the one hand, the character of Hugh de Lacy in the Canso can be explained in terms of literary composition as the sceptic/ antagonistic element who, by contrast, allows the reader or listener to see the extent of Simon de Montfort cruelty and wickedness. On the other hand, it could be a reflection of the memory left by Hugh de Lacy in the Lauragais region during his short lordship, as a just and decent man in spite of belonging to the crusaders side. In any case, this portrayal of Hugh de Lacy probably never reached Ireland, for the good and simple reason that the text was written in Occitan (the Langue d’Oc) while, apart from Irish, Latin and English, the literary language in Ireland was French (the Langue d’Oïl).10 From the late twelfth century to the fifteenth century French was the language of the Plantagenêt kings of England and Ireland, and as such had the status of a

9 10

Song of the Cathar Wars, stanza 194, lines 7123–25. Oc meant ‘yes’ in the southern French languages (Occitan, Provençal, Limousin, Gascon) while oïl meant ‘yes’ in the northern French languages (Francien, Picard, Norman, Angevin, etc.).

134

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

prestigious medium of expression. In fact, between the Conquest and the accession of Henry IV in 1399, French was the mother tongue of all the kings of England. In Ireland, French would have been spoken mostly by the aristocracy, but not necessarily within the families associated with the conquest. Settler families of the first generation – fitzGerald, fitzMaurice, Prendergast, Roche, Barry – mostly came from families already settled in England for several generations and their links with the continent would have been severed after Philip Augustus took direct control of Normandy in 1204. But newcomers had arrived in the thirteenth century, Frenchmen from Anjou, Maine, Poitou and Saintonge, who were clients or vassals of the Angevin kings of England and were sent to Ireland as part of their service to the king (Fig. 7.1).11 These people were not absentee landlords and their letters, written in French, show that they took an interest in the people under their jurisdiction. For example, in May 1276, Geoffrey de Geneville, lord of Vaucouleurs in Champagne, brother of Jean de Geneville the chronicler, and husband of Matilda de Lacy, wrote in French to King Edward I to dissuade him from sending troops to attempt destroying what he calls the ‘bandits of the Dublin mountains’ (les maufesurs des mongtaingnes de Dyvelyne), in fact the Irish clans of Wicklow who continually defeated the Normans, including Geneville himself in 1274 at Glenmalure. He tells the king that it would lead to unnecessary loss of life and instead he advises him to enlist the co-operation of the lords of Leinster in order to deal successfully with the problem.12 Another example is William de Valence (of the powerful Lusignan family), who had married Joan, granddaughter of William Marshal, thus becoming lord of Pembroke and earl of Wexford. His letter in French, also addressed to Edward I, was written on behalf of the merchants of New Ross to obtain a royal order preventing the officials of Waterford from blocking the traffic of ships bound for New Ross: Saches Sire que les borgeis de Ros en Hirelande nus ont comunement requis que nus vus presons ke les nefs peusent saunz destorbance de vos gens et vos baillifs en Hirelande fraunchement venir a Ros, si com eles soleyent fere en tens des Mareschaus.13

11

12

13

On the Angevin kingship and Ireland, see Marie Therese Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989). London, Public Record Office, SC 1/18/13. See Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of Ireland, ed. J.T. Gilbert, 5 vols (Dublin, 1874–84), 2: plate lxxiv. London, Public Record Office, SC 1/21/39, Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 3: no. 1086.

135

Jean-Michel Picard

Fig. 7.1: Ireland in north-west Europe: a twelfth-century map showing Ireland, Britain and the Continent, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica (Nat. Lib. Ire MS 700, fol. 48r). Reproduced with permission; see colour plate 13.

136

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

Know, my lord, that the burgesses of Ross in Ireland have together requested that we should urge you to let the boats come freely to Ross without impediments from your agents and bailiffs in Ireland, as it used to be at the time of the Marshals.

French was also spoken as the legal language in the Irish courts until the fifteenth century. The Red Book of the Exchequer, which was written in Dublin, contained an interesting drawing representing a session at the court of the exchequer in Dublin. The characters representing the officials and the plaintiffs are pictured shouting at each other in French with their speech being part of the drawing as in modern comic strips. The herald shouts ‘A demain’ (Good bye), a judge ‘soient forfez’ (let them be condemned), a plaintiff ‘Chalange’ (I contest/I sue).14 Among the lower classes, French was not widely spoken, but using it was felt to be a sign of prestige and the burgesses of the Irish towns used it to record the important events of their cities or their families. The grants of liberties and free customs of Dungarvan (Co. Waterford), granted by King John in 1215, was written in French, based on the text of the grants and free customs of the small town of Breteuil-sur-Iton (dép. Eure). In Dublin, French was used by the Corporation both in the Chain Book (until 1486) and in the White Book (until 1471), which contain the by laws and records needed as precedents by the city authorities.15 In contrast to the Latin language found in the Charter of Dublin granted by King Henry II in 1171, French was used in the liberties and free customs of Dublin commissioned by the inhabitants of the city, whose names are mentioned at the end of the document: Ces sunt les leys & les usages de la cyté de Diveline les queux chescun cytein deit bien garder & fraunchement saunz blemeure kar sunt establiz par auncien temps. …D’autre part, nous cyteins qui avoms achaté les fraunchises de la cyté de Diveline qui nomez somes par noun sire Gilbert Lyvet, Rauf de la More, Thomas de la Cornere, Robert Pollard & plusurs autres prodeshommes de la dite cité avoms establi de part le roy que toutes les fraunchises avauntnomées soeint gardées saunz blemeure encuntre touz ceus qui vendrunt après nostre temps.16

14

15 16

For drawing see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_ id = 5. Dublin City Archives MSS C 1/2/1 and C 1/2/2. G. Mac Niocaill, Na Buirgéisí, XII–XV Aois (Dublin, 1964), pp. 2–59.

137

Jean-Michel Picard

These are the laws and customs of the city of Dublin which every citizen must keep well and frankly without blemish, because they have been established in the past. …Furthermore, we, the citizens who have bought the freedom of the city of Dublin and who are called by name Mr Gilbert Lyvet, Ralf de la More, Thomas de la Cornere, Robert Pollard, as well as several other personalities of the said city, we have established in the name of the king that all the aforementioned freedoms should be kept without blemish for all the people who will come after our own time.

The burgesses of New Ross also chose French to celebrate the wealth and the good government of their town on the occasion of the building of new walls in 1265. New Ross had been one of the first towns to be developed in Ireland by the Anglo-Normans. In the early thirteenth century, the town was renowned for the bridge built across the Barrow in 1210 at the behest of William Marshal. It was then known as Ross Ponte (Ross of the bridge). In 1265, in order to secure the town from the ravages of the war between Maurice fitzGerald, 3rd Lord of Offaly, and Walter de Burgh, the burgesses of Ross started to wall their town. To celebrate the occasion they commissioned a poem in French, which is one of the important works of Anglo-Norman literature written in Ireland. The anonymous author may have been a member of the Franciscan order, whose settlement in New Ross had taken place in the 1250s.17 The opening verses of this short poem (220 lines), with a pun on rimasser (to write in verse) et romancer (to write in French), presupposes the existence of a public able to understand French and the poet stresses that without a public, his words will have no worth: Talent me prent de rimaunceir S’il vous plet de escotier kar parole qe n’est oïe Ne vaut pas un aillie. Pur ce vous prie d’escoter Si me oïés bien aucer 17

It was edited by Hugh Shields, ‘The Walling of New Ross: A  ThirteenthCentury Poem in French’, Long Room 12–13 (1975–76), 24–33, and commented upon by William Sayers, ‘Anglo-Norman Verse on New Ross and its Founders’, Irish Historical Studies 28 (1992–93), 113–23; Keith V. Sinclair, ‘The Walling of New Ross: An Anglo-Norman Satirical dit’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 105 (1995), 240–80; Linda Doran, ‘New Ross: From European Archetype to Town “Situated in the Marches”’, in The March in the Islands of the Medieval West, ed. Jenifer Ní Ghrádaigh and Emmett O’Byrne (Leiden, 2012), pp. 79–96.

138

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

de une vile en Ireland La plus belle de sa grand Qe je sache en nule tere.18 I have the desire to versify in French if you will be pleased to listen for words that are not heard are not worth a single clove of garlic. That is why I ask you to listen and so hear me declaim high and clear about a town in Ireland, the finest of its size I know in any country.

The rest of the poem is full of joy and describes the pageant of the town folks joining in the initial work of excavating the fosse. The different trades come on different days, the vintners, merchants, sailors, drapers work on Monday, the tailors, dyers, fullers, saddle-makers work on Tuesday and so on until the Sunday which is devoted to the ladies. After a description of the town’s militia and defensive weapons, the poem ends on a last praise of New Ross: Kar ce est la plus franch vile Qe seit en certein ne en yle et tut hom estrange est ben venu e de grant joi est resceu e chater e vendre en pute ben Qe nul hom ne li demandra reen A Deu la vile je command et tous qe dedans sunt habitand. Amen. Amen. Amen.19 For it is the best free town to be found on continent or island and every stranger is welcomed and is received with great joy He can easily buy and sell and no one will ask him for anything. To God I commend the town and all who live within it. Amen. Amen. Amen.

Given the large majority of settlers from Wales, England and Flanders in the region, it is unlikely that all the citizens of New Ross would have 18 19

The Walling of New Ross, lines 1–9. The Walling of New Ross, lines 212–20.

139

Jean-Michel Picard

understood the poem. However, the upper bourgeoisie valued the medium of French sufficiently to commission and pay for it. Hugh de Lacy’s father, Lord of Meath (†1186), is one of the protagonists in the most important work of French literature written in Ireland. This text, known as La Geste des Angleis en Irlande (The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland) was written around the year 1200 in the new style of chronicle in verse mentioned above. It celebrates the deeds of Dermot mac Murrough and his Norman allies from the time of the abduction of Devorgilla by Dermot in 1152 to the siege of Limerick in 1175. It is preserved in a thirteenth century manuscript that came originally from Waterford.20 The work bears the marks of a professional writer commissioned to praise the deeds of aristocratic patrons. The language is definitely Anglo-Norman, but the author seems to be well informed about Ireland as his knowledge of place names and Irish proper names shows. He probably wrote for a group of Norman families in South Leinster, for apart from the main two characters – Dermot mac Murrough and Strongbow – praise is concentrated on Raymond Le Gros, Robert de Quincy and Maurice de Prendergast. An indication to a possible patronage is given by the repeated mention of Philip de Prendergast (†c. 1230) and his marriage to the daughter of Robert de Quincy, who was himself the son in law of Strongbow. Hugh de Lacy the elder appears in this text as a companion of King Henry II (Fig. 7.2), coming with him to Ireland in 1171. He is portrayed as a fierce warrior, surrounded by his own vassals and needed by the king to consolidate the Norman presence in Ireland: Lores fist li rei mander Huge de Laci tut premer E ses cuntes e ses vassals E ses baruns naturals. Li riche rei ad dunc baillé Dyvelin en garde la cité E le chastel e le dongun A Huge de Laci le barun … Eynces que, a cel termine Li reis departi de Dyveline, A Huge de Laci ad doné Mithe tut en erité: Mithe donat li guerrer Pur cincquante chevaler

20

London, Lambeth Palace, MS Carew 596.

140

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

Fig. 7.2: Henry II, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica (Nat. Lib. Ire MS 700, fol. 72r). Reproduced with permission; see colour plate 14.

Que li barun feïst aver Le servise quant eust mester.21 Then the king sent first For Hugh de Lacy And for his earls and vassals And his rightful barons. The mighty king then gave 21

La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, lines 2707–30.

141

Jean-Michel Picard

The custody of the city of Dublin And the castle and the keep To Baron Hugh de Lacy … At this time, before The king left Dublin, He gave Hugh de Lacy All Meath in fee: He gave Meath to the warrior For the service of fifty knights Which the baron had to provide Whenever service was needed.

However, Hugh de Lacy did not belong to the group of knights who had commissioned the Geste des Angleis en Irlande. It is even likely than Henry II had left Hugh de Lacy in Ireland precisely to keep in check any ambitions by Richard de Clare (Strongbow) and his supporters to take over the whole of Ireland. This would explain why he is portrayed as a bad vassal who does not fulfil his contract of service to his lord when called for help in Normandy, in contrast to the generous attitude of Robert fitzStephen and Maurice Prendergast (of Ossory): E le cunte derichef A Weiseford tramist par brief, As baruns manda altre tel De part le rei curt mantel K’il passassent san demore En Normandie li reis succurre. …Le fiz Estephene altresi La mer passa al rei Henri, E Moriz Ossriat Ki pus mist en O Kencelath; E Huge de Laci, qui tant iert fer, Pur sa tere herberger, Vers Mithe s’en est turné Od meint vassal alosé. De cil Huge ne voil plus dire, Des baruns vassals vus voil descrire.22 And the earl immediately Sent a message to Wexford He sent the same message to the barons On behalf of King Curt Mantel 22

La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, lines 2928–43.

142

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

To cross over without delay To succour the king in Normandy. … fitzStephen also crossed the sea To King Henry And Maurice of Ossory Who later lived in Uí Chennselaig But Hugh de Lacy, who was so fierce, In order to protect his own territory Returns to Meath With many renowned vassals. I will not continue about this Hugh, But describe what the brave vassals did.

We know from Roger of Howden’s Gesta regis Henrici II that, in fact, Hugh de Lacy senior did go to Normandy to fight for Henry  II and that he was in charge of the defence of Verneuil, together with Hugh of Beauchamp, against the French troops of King Louis VII in 1173. Far from being selfish and unfaithful to his lord, Hugh de Lacy is praised for his bravery, his determination and his fearlessness in front of the war machines deployed by the king of France.23 Roger of Howden was part of the retinue of King Henry II and so was Wace, who wrote the Roman de Rou, a long poem in French in praise of the Norman ancestors of King Henry II, probably over a period of fourteen years between 1160 and 1174. The poem was commissioned by the king and, here again, the de Lacy are mentioned through the figure of Ilbert de Lacy (later Lord of Pontefract †1093), also praised for his impetuosity in battle and his fearlessness. At the battle of Hastings, Ilbert de Lacy fights in a unit made of his nearest neighbours in Normandy, the lords of Vitry (dép. Val-de-Marne), Vaudry (dép. Calvados) and Tracy (dép. Oise), and in the next unit we find Hugh de Montfort and Richard de Courcy: Cil de Uictrie e de Lacie, De Valdairie e de Tracie, Icil furent en un conrei, Sor Engleis fièrent a desrei; Ne dotèrent pel ne fosse. Maint home ont le ior enuerse, Maint boen cheval i out tue, 23

Roger of Howden, Gesta regis Henrici, ad 1173, in The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols (London, 1867), 1: 49–50): ‘Sed Hugo de Lasci et Hugo de Bellocampo, qui inde constabularii erant, villam Vernolii viriliter et constanti animo defenderunt, cum militibus et servientibus qui intus errant, nec regem Franciae, nec machinas suas timebant’.

143

Jean-Michel Picard

E d’els meismes maint naffre. Hue li sires de Monfort, Cil d’Espinep, e cil de Port, Cil de Corcie, e cil de Jort I ont le ior maint home mort.24 The Lords of Vitry and of Lacy, of Vaudry and of Tracy, they were in the same company and struck the English impetuously, fearing neither pike nor ditch. They knocked down many men that day and killed many a good horse And many of them were wounded. Hugh the lord of Montfort, The lords of Epinay and Port, of Courcy and of Jort, killed many men that day.

In his Roman de Rou, Wace strove to be as historically accurate as possible, using documents written in Latin in the previous century,25 but he wrote in the context of a court milieu and the choices he made in highlighting the heroic acts of specific warriors may well reflect the status of their families in his own time. Our own Hugh de Lacy is celebrated in another French poem, the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, written in the 1220s to celebrate the life of William Marshal. The work was commissioned by Marshal’s son, William, earl of Pembroke. It is a lengthy text (19, 214 lines), belonging to the genre of historical poems mentioned above. The writer is anonymous but he must have lived a long time in the entourage of the Marshal family, collecting memories from all and especially from Jean d’Erlée, William Marshal’s squire and companion. The context of the passage below is the cold war between William Marshal and King John in 1207–8. On the side of King John was Meiler fitzHenry, one of the original settlers in Ireland, parent of the fitzStephen and fitzGerald, who took the opportunity of the dispute to increase his land control. Here Hugh de Lacy is portrayed as

24

25

Wace, Roman de Rou, ed. Anthony  J. Holden, 3  vols (Paris, 1970–73), lines 8489–8502. Elisabeth Van Houts, ‘Wace as Historian’, in The History of the Norman People. Wace’s Roman De Rou, ed. Glynn Burgess (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. xxxv–lxii; Carolyn Anderson, ‘Wace’s Roman de Rou and Henry II’s Court: Character and Power’, Romance Quarterly, 47 (2000), 67–82.

144

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

the mighty earl of Ulster, answering gallantly to the call of the followers of William Marshal and coming down to Leinster with a professional army: E dist Jordan: ‘Ge loereie Volentiers, s’il a qui m’en creie, Que l’on enveiast sanz plus Por le conte de Weluestirre E por Radulf le filz Paien. …Lores esgardérent & eslurent Tuit ensemble, si comme il durent, Que por le conte enveiereient Jordan, & si li preiereient Qu’al Marechal venist aidier, Quer molt en aveit grant mestier. Jordan i ala esramment, E il i vint molt richement seissante cinc chevaliers beles armes e destriers, E o deus cenz serjanz armez, Vaillanz e pruz e alosez. S’amena mil hommes de pié Qui tôt érent encoragié De bien ferir e de bien faire. Tuit saveient lancier e traire. Ne voil aconter toz lor fèz Dunt il [i] out molt de bien fèz, Quer ce resemblereit vantance. En elz n’out orgoil ne boubance. Mais ce que Meliers cuida faire, Des terres al conte a mal traire. Firent de lui la gent le conte, Quer la soe mistrent a honte’.26 And Jordan said: ‘I would strongly advise, if you believe me that we send immediately for the Earl of Ulster and for Raoul fitzPayne. …So they decided and chose all together, as was their duty, that they would send Jordan

26

History of William Marshal, lines 13746–13786.

145

Jean-Michel Picard

to fetch the Earl and beg him to come and help the Marshal, as he was in great need of his help. Jordan went there in a hurry and the Earl came in great force with sixty five knights top quality weapons and war horses with two hundred armed soldiers, brave, valiant and reliable. He brought one thousand foot soldiers who were fully intent on action and striking good blows. All were expert at casting arrows and spears. I do not wish to tell all their deeds, which were many and excellent because it would seem like boasting. There was no conceit or arrogance in them. But let’s say that the Earl’s people did to Meiler what he intended to do to the Marshal’s lands in terms of suffering, for they laid waste to his own territory.

Like the La Geste des Angleis en Irlande, the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal had a limited circulation, mostly among the entourage of the families for which these texts were written, but their verse form allowed the fame of warriors such as Hugh de Lacy to spread in French speaking circles, in a large Angevin empire where the performance of songs and story telling was an important element of court life. Outside the Norman warrior class, French was spoken and written among the new religious orders introduced in Ireland as part of the reform of the Irish Church started at the Synod of Cashel in 1101.27 The foundation of St Mary’s Abbey in 1139 relied on the input of reformer monks from Savigny in Normandy, that of Mellifont in 1142 brought in to Ireland Cistercian monks from Clairvaux at the request of Máel Máedoc Úa Morgair (St Malachy). Malachy was also responsible for the introduction of Augustinians from Arrouaise in the foundation of St Mary’s, Louth (Co. Louth), also in 1142. Few of the thirteenth-century authors who wrote in French in Ireland are known by name. However, this is the case of Geoffrey of Waterford, who belonged to the Dominican convent founded there in 1226 and adapted several classical works from Latin into

27

See Flanagan, Transformation of the Irish Church.

146

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

French.28 Another is Adam of Ross (= New Ross), who belonged to the Cistercian abbey of Dunbrody (Co. Wexford), founded in 1171, and who translated into French the Visio sancti Pauli, an important source for the medieval visions of the otherworld.29 Again, these texts had limited circulation but would have been read among the educated elite in Ireland. For example, the Adam of Ross text is found in a manuscript that belonged to the Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem at Waterford. This Waterford manuscript also contains other works in French including the Lois et usages de la cité de Waterford, the Prophéties de Merlin (another Franciscan composition), a French version of the Sex aetates mundi and several medicinal recipes, charms and incantations against pests and diseases.30 Through the network of Cistercians, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians, French texts were imported into Ireland, often via England, and are found in late thirteenth/early fourteenth-century manuscripts compiled in Ireland. A good example of these is the Black Book of Christ Church Cathedral, which once belonged to Henry La Warr, prior of Christ Church from 1301 to 1317. Before coming to Dublin, La Warr had been an Augustinian Canon at Bristol and the books he brought with him included works in Latin, English and French.31 Another example is a manuscript from the Augustinian Abbey of St-Thomas in Dublin, founded in 1177 under the reformed rule of St Victor Abbey, Paris. Hugh de Lacy senior had been a patron of the abbey and was finally buried there with his wife Rohese.32 It contains a mixed collection of Latin texts including Patristic literature, monastic rules, a treatise on good manners, but also proverbs in French.33 One of these composite manuscripts bring us back to Toulouse and the Albigensian crusade. 28

29

30

31

32 33

See Yela Schauwecker, Die Diätetik nach dem ‘Secretum secretorum’ in der Version von Jofroi de Waterford (Würzburg, 2007). See L. E. Kastner, ‘The Vision of Saint Paul by the Anglo-Norman trouvère Adam de Ross’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 29 (1906), 274–90. On this manuscript (now Cambridge, CCC, 405), see V.  Sinclair, ‘AngloNorman at Waterford’, in Medieval French Textual Studies in memory of T. B. W. Reid, ed. Ian Short (London, 1984) pp. 219–38. See Aubrey Gwynn, ‘Some Unpublished Texts from the Black Book of Christ Church, Dublin’, Analecta Hibernica 16 (1946), 281–337. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 348–49. Now Trinity College Dublin, MS 97, [B. 3. 5.]; see Marvin L. Colker, Trinity College Library, Dublin: Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts, 2 vols (Dublin, 1991), 1: 183–95; Lisa Shields, ‘French Texts in the Library of Trinity College Dublin’, Hermathena 120 (1976), 90–100.

147

Jean-Michel Picard

This manuscript (Trinity College Dublin, MS 347, [C.5.8]) belonged to the Franciscan friary of Multyfarnham (Co. Westmeath), founded in 1236 by William Delamar. This is the manuscript that contains the so-called Annals of Multifarnham, an important text for the history of Ireland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,34 and also an intriguing treatise of geography describing the Scandinavian landings in North America.35 It also contains a long poem in French lamenting the death of Simon V de Montfort at the battle of Evesham on 4 August 1265. The text was probably written by a Franciscan in England shortly after the event: Chaunter m’estut, mun quer le voit, en un dur langage Tut en pleurant fut fet le chant de nostre barnage Qui pur la pes si loin aprés se lessa detrere sun cors trancher pur ben saver la gent de Engleterre Ore est occis la flur de pris ke tant saveit de guerre Li quens Munfort, sa dure mort en plura Engletere.36 Sing I must My heart sees it, in a cruel language. All in tears I wrote the song about our valiant lord who for the sake of peace so far removed

34

35

36

See Bernadette Williams, The ‘Annals of Multyfarnham’: Roscommon and Connacht Provenance (Dublin, 2012). See Marvin  L. Colker, ‘America Rediscovered in the Thirteenth Century?’, Speculum 54 (1979), 712–26. Hugh Shields, ‘The Lament for Simon de Montfort: an Unnoticed Text of the French Poem’, Medium Aevum 41 (1972), 202–7.

148

Transmission and Circulation of French Texts in Medieval Ireland

let himself be tortured and his body cut to pieces in order to save the people of England. Now he is slain the flower of excellence, who knew so much of war The Earl Montfort, his cruel death. England will mourn.

This poem was meant to be sung, as the refrain Ore est occis (Now he is slain) following each of the nine stanzas shows, and sung in Ireland as the changes to the original text written in England seems to indicate (for example in the refrain sa dure mort molt en plorra la terre (His cruel death the land will deeply mourn) is changed to sa dure mort en plura Engletere (his cruel death England will mourn).37 Again, it should be emphasised that, in societies of strong oral tradition, the composition of poems and songs certainly produced a wider circulation than the small number of surviving manuscripts might lead us to believe. Now, the Simon de Montfort celebrated in this song is not the leader of the Albigensian crusade who sacked Béziers (dép. Hérault) and took Carcassonne in 1209, but his son Simon V de Montfort. He had been brought to Languedoc as a child by his mother, Alix de Montmorency, in 1210 and was probably at the siege of Toulouse when his father was killed in 1218.38 After the death of his mother in 1221, his education was taken over by his older brother, Amaury, who had fought with their father at Beaucaire and Toulouse and succeeded him as lord of Toulouse, Albi, Béziers and Carcassonne. He probably took part in the renewed Albigensian crusades of 1226–29 and John Robert Maddicott has suggested that Simon’s siege of Rochester in 1264 is reminiscent of Louis VIII’s siege of Avignon (dép. Vaucluse) in 1226, with a similar use of artillery and boats.39 In any case, whether he was at the siege of Avignon or not, his war experience in the south of France would explain his renowned military ability in England. 37

38

39

Original text edited from manuscript London, British Library, Harley 2253 by Isabel Aspin, Anglo-Norman Political Songs (Oxford 1953), no. 3. On Alix de Montmorency and her active participation in the Albigensian crusade see Monique Zerner, ‘L’épouse de Simon de Montfort et la croisade albigeoise’, in Femmes: Mariages-Lignages, XIIe-XIVe siècles, Mélanges offerts à Georges Duby, ed. J. Dufournet, A. Joris, P. Touret, and Dominique Barthélemy (Turnhout, 1992), pp. 449–70. John Robert Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge 1994), p. 6.

149

Jean-Michel Picard

The background of the song that laments his death is the English Barons’ War of 1261–67, where Simon V de Montfort led the rebellion against King Henry III until his untimely demise in 1265. He was a charismatic leader and soon after his death became the object of a cult, a true saint associated with a series of miracles.40 In Ireland there was certainly a lot of interest for the Baron’s War.41 Simon V de Montfort had married the widow of William Marshal the younger and had lands in Leinster. Although the majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy in Ireland remained loyal to the king and to his son Edward, lord of Ireland, Simon was admired by those who objected to the king’s rule and he had strong supporters, such as Gilbert de Clare, Lord of Kilkenny. The second Barons’ War also provided the background for the warfare between Walter de Burgh and Maurice fitzMaurice which we mentioned in connection with the walling of New Ross. The fact that the Lament for Simon de Montfort is found in Ireland in a manuscript belonging to a Franciscan Friary is not surprising as Simon’s spiritual director was the Franciscan Adam de Marisco, the famous Oxford scholar. Throughout the 1250s, Montfort’s continuous demands for the reassertion of Magna Carta, leading to the creation of the first English parliament in Westminster in January 1265, was supported by his Franciscan advisors. In Ireland, as elsewhere in Europe, books were as much part of the material culture of the medieval elite as castles, swords, armours or catapults, and possibly just as efficient in the struggle for power or for a fairer balance of power between parties with conflicting interests. Whether prestigious or more modest (like the Multyfarnham manuscript), the books and their content were builders of identity and vectors of beliefs and ideologies. As the cases of Hugh de Lacy in the Canso or Simon de Montfort in the Lament illustrate, literary texts also insured that the men and women who lived in the places we now inhabit would not be forgotten and, perhaps, that some of us might learn from these lessons of the past.

40

41

Thomas  J. Heffernan, ‘‘God hathe schewed ffor him many grete miracules’: Political Canonization and the Miracula of Simon de Montfort’, in Art and Context in Late Medieval English Narrative, ed. R.  Edwards (Cambridge 1994), pp. 177–92; John St Lawrence, ‘A Crusader in a “communion of saints”: Political Sanctity and Sanctified Politics in the Cult of St Simon de Montfort’, Comitatus 38 (2007), 43–67. See Robin Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), pp. 59–69.

150

Section II

Exile

Chapter 8 Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc Pilar Jiménez Sanchez Abstract Best known today by the name of Cathars, this medieval dissidence arose across the territories of the Christian West in the mid-twelfth century from present-day Germany and Belgium, to the principalities of northern France (Flanders, Champagne, Burgundy), and south to the Languedoc and Italy. Its followers were known by different names given by their Catholic opponents in the different territories where they appeared. In the more northern parts of Christendom, they were known as Cathars, Piphles, Bougres or Patarins while they are named Arians then Albigensians in southern France. Known to each other simply as the good men/women in Languedoc, and the good Christians in Italy, this name could refer to the moral and religious quality of the followers of this dissidence. This article examines the origins and the evolution of the organization of the Cathar dissidence in the context of its implementation in Languedoc.

Résumé Surtout connue aujourd’hui par le nom de Catharisme, cette dissidence médiévale surgit un peu partout dans les territoires de l’Occident chrétien du milieu du douzième siècle: dans l’actuelle Allemagne et Belgique, dans les principautés du Nord de la France (Flandres, Champagne, Bourgogne), mais aussi en Languedoc et en Italie. Ses adeptes sont connus sous différents noms donnés par leurs détracteurs catholiques selon les régions où ils apparaissent. Dans les contrées plus septentrionales de la Chrétienté, ils sont appelés Cathares, Piphles, Bougres ou Patarins tandis qu’ils sont nommés Ariens puis Albigeois dans le Sud de la France. Eux-mêmes s’appelaient tout simplement bons hommes/bonnes femmes en Languedoc, bons chrétiens/bonnes chrétiennes en Italie. Cette appellation a pu faire référence à la qualité morale et religieuse des adeptes de cette dissidence. Cet article examine les origines et l’évolution de l’organisation de cette dissidence dans le contexte de son implantation en Languedoc.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 153–165

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114242

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

La naissance d’une nouvelle Église au cœur du moyen-âge occidental La genèse de ce phénomène pluriel et endogène au christianisme occidental peut remonter, d’après moi, aux débats du IXe siècle carolingien relatifs à la ‘société chrétienne’, mais il faudra attendre la première moitié du XIIe siècle pour voir surgir une nouvelle Église.1 Issue probablement de la dite ‘réforme grégorienne’ qui s’achève dans les premières décennies du XIIe siècle,2 cette Église s’invite à la réflexion sur l’origine du Mal qui hante la pensée chrétienne, participant au processus de rationalisation qui traverse le christianisme médiéval. Inspirés du modèle de pauvreté du Christ, les adeptes de la nouvelle dissidence se considèrent comme les vrais chrétiens, héritiers des apôtres et de leur tradition, accusant la hiérarchie catholique de l’avoir trahi. Fortement influencés par la spiritualité monastique dominant les siècles précédents, ils poussent à l’extrême certains passages du Nouveau Testament où est formulée l’existence de deux mondes opposés: un bon et spirituel et l’autre, mauvais et matériel. Pour eux, seul le monde spirituel a été créé par Dieu, le mauvais étant l’œuvre du diable. C’est ce dernier qui a introduit les anges, âmes créées par Dieu dans les corps de chair, qui sont œuvres du diable. Le Fils de Dieu, Jésus, n’a pas vraiment été incarné (docétisme), mais a été envoyé sur ce monde par le Père pour porter aux hommes le Saint Esprit (consolateur) par l’imposition des mains, sacrement que les bons hommes occitans appellent consolament, consolamentum en latin.3 C’est autour de ce sacrement que les adeptes de la dissidence dite cathare élaborent leur doctrine du salut qui, conjuguée à une pratique rigoureuse de l’ascèse, leur permet de critiquer l’efficacité des sacrements catholiques (mariage, eucharistie, baptême d’eau).4 Face au baptême d’eau, qu’ils récusent, le sacrement du consolamentum représente l’entrée en religion du nouveau chrétien cathare, c’est-à-dire du 1

2

3

4

J’ai abrégé l’appareil critique de cette communication, renvoyant pour l’ensemble des références à ma thèse: Pilar Jiménez, Les Catharismes. Modèles dissidents du Christianisme médiéval (XIIe–XIIIe siècles) (Rennes, 2008). Pilar Jiménez, ‘Les débuts de la dissidence des bons hommes en Languedoc. Au temps de la dénomination Ariana haeresis’, in Dissidences en Occident, des débuts du Christianisme au XXe siècle. Le religieux et le politique, ed. Jean-Pierre Albert, Anne Brenon & Pilar Jiménez (Toulouse, 2016). Rituel occitan de Lyon: Léon Clédat (ed.), Le Nouveau Testament traduit au XIIIe siècle en langue provençale, suivi d’un rituel cathare (Paris, 1887; Genève, 1968), p. xvii; Écritures cathares, ed. Nelli and Brenon (Monaco, 1995). Jiménez, Les Catharismes, pp. 141–44.

154

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

bon homme ou de la bonne femme Languedocien. Avant de le recevoir, le futur baptisé doit suivre une période de catéchèse où apprendre la règle de justice et de vérité évangélique, à savoir l’interdiction de commettre homicide, adultère, vol et prestation du serment (interdiction de jurer), ainsi que les préceptes de la morale cathare exigeant une vie organisée entre prières et travail, tout en observant rigoureusement la chasteté.5 Les bons hommes/bonnes femmes, les religieux cathares, s’organisent en communautés séparées d’hommes et de femmes. Elles constituent des ‘maisons’ de travail, les maisons d’hérétiques ou domi hereticorum comme les qualifient plus tard les inquisiteurs, où les religieux se consacrent à des activités liées à l’artisanat local, assurant ainsi leur propre existence et celle de leur église.6 Chacune est placée sous l’autorité d’une hiérarchie: évêque, diacres et anciens, chaque église est autonome et indépendante des autres, ne reconnaissant pas une autorité supérieure à celle de l’évêque, récusant celle d’un pape. A partir de la fin du douzième et au début du XIIIe siècle, chaque ville ou bourg fortifié disposait d’un nombre varié des ‘maisons de bons hommes/ bonnes femmes’, résultat de la sédentarisation des ‘bons hommes’ dans le Midi. Ces ‘maisons’ remplissaient des fonctions très diverses, certaines à la fois véritables ateliers artisanaux et lieux d’instruction professionnelle et religieuse des fidèles, d’autres, simples maisons conventuelles où se pratique uniquement une vie religieuse. Des raisons économiques, liées au développement et à l’expansion du commerce en milieu urbain et à celui de l’activité artisanale en milieu rural, peuvent expliquer l’organisation et l’implantation des communautés dissidentes sous forme de ‘maisons’. A une époque où les laïcs, soucieux de leur salut, s’impliquent de plus en plus dans la vie religieuse, ces ‘maisons’ ont sans doute joué un rôle très important car à l’intérieur il était possible de mener une vie consacrée à Dieu, en observant les préceptes de la règle évangélique. Devant la rareté de monastères féminins dans le Midi du XIIe siècle, ce sont probablement les femmes qui en ont profité le plus. En témoigne, l’exemple de la famille de Laurac au sein de laquelle Blancha, l’une des héritières de cette puissante seigneurie du Lauragais toulousain du XIIe siècle, devient lors de son veuvage bonne femme et ouvre sa propre ‘maison’.7 A Laurac même 5 6

7

Clédat, Le Nouveau Testament, p. xix. Anne Brenon, Le choix hérétique. Dissidence chrétienne dans l’Europe médiévale (Cahors, 2006), pp.  142–43; Gwendoline Hancke, ‘La prédication féminine chez les cathares’, Les Cathares devant l’histoire, pp. 296–306. Gwendoline Hancke, L’hérésie en héritage. Familles de la noblesse occitane dans l’Histoire, du XIIe au début du XIVe siècle: un destin commun (Cahors, 2006), pp. 231–32.

155

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

résidait un diacre de l’Église des bons hommes de Toulouse. Trois autres sont attestés à partir de 1204 et jusqu’à 1256: Isarn de Castres (1204–9), Raimond Bernard (1209–30) et Arnaud Pradier (1235–56).8

L’Église des bons hommes du Languedoc Apparition et expansion des bons hommes Au milieu des années 1160, dans le Midi de la France apparaissent les premières mentions des ‘bons hommes’. D’abord, dans les actes de Lombers, castrum du Tarn, près d’Albi, où s’est déroulé le premier jugement pour hérésie en 1165. Les seigneurs de ce village fortifié accueillent les adeptes d’une secte qui se nommaient eux-mêmes ‘bons hommes’. Après avoir été interrogés sur leur foi au cours d’un procès de justice conduit à l’initiative de l’évêque catholique d’Albi, et mené devant les principales personnalités politiques et religieuses de la région, les ‘bons hommes’ sont jugés hérétiques ainsi que la secte d’Olivier et ses adeptes sans oublier ceux qui les soutiennent. C’est ainsi que les seigneurs de Lombers seront visés.9 Deux ans plus tard, la Charte de Niquinta, un autre document ayant soulevé de fortes controverses quant à son authenticité, rapporte un autre événement important pour la connaissance des premiers temps d’implantation des bons hommes dans le Languedoc. D’après la Charte de Niquinta, une assemblée réunissant les bons hommes et bonnes femmes de la région de Toulouse et de ses environs s’est tenue dans le bourg fortifié de Saint-Félix de Caraman, aujourd’hui Saint-Félix de Lauragais (dép. HauteGaronne), dans le Toulousain, vers 1167. A cette réunion assistent, outre l’évêque des bons hommes d’Albi, le seul existant alors dans la région, les représentants des communautés des bons hommes de Toulouse, de Carcassonne et du Val d’Aran avec leur conseil respectif. D’autres évêques dissidents (hérétiques) de la chrétienté occidentale y assistent également accompagnés de leur conseil, à savoir l’évêque de l’Église de France et celui d’Italie. L’assemblée est présidée par un dénommé ‘papas Nicétas’ (pope en grec, prêtre). Il ordonne trois nouveaux évêques, celui de la communauté 8 9

Jean Duvernoy, Le Catharisme. L’histoire des Cathares (Toulouse, 1989), p. 349. Giovanni Mansi, ‘Concilium Lumbariense’, in Sacrorum Conciliorum, vol. XXII (Venise, 1778), col.  157–68. Sur l’assemblée de Lombers: Pilar Jiménez, ‘Les débuts de la dissidence des bons hommes en Languedoc. Au temps de la dénomination Ariana haeresis’, in Dissidences en Occident des débuts du christianisme au XVe siècle, ed. Jean-Pierre Albert, Anne Brenon, Pilar Jiménez (Toulouse, 2015), pp. 67–86.

156

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

des bons hommes de Toulouse, de Carcassonne et du Val d’Aran, et confère le consolamentum à tous les bons hommes et bonnes femmes présents à l’assemblée. Ce texte nous informe de la naissance de ces trois nouvelles églises se partageant les zones d’influence du Midi, témoignant ainsi de l’expansion de la dissidence dans ces régions autour des années 1160.10 En effet, dès la fin du douzième et au début du XIIIe siècle, la dissidence des bons hommes parvient à se répandre et à s’implanter sur les territoires des trois principautés méridionales, le comté de Toulouse, le comté de Foix et les vicomtés des Trencavel: c’est-à-dire dans l’Albigeois (au Nord de la Montagne Noire, au pays de Lavaur (dép. Tarn), une partie du Lauragais, en pays de Castres et de Lautrec), dans le Toulousain (depuis l’Agenais et bas Quercy, au Nord, jusqu’au Lauragais et dans toute la vallée de l’Ariège, au Sud), mais aussi dans le Carcassés, le Minervois, le Biterrois, le Cabardès, le Razès, la haute vallée de l’Aude, les Corbières (dép. Aude), dans le Termenès, et vers le comté de Foix, jusqu’au Sabarthès et aux Fenouillèdes, puis en Catalogne.

Mais, qui étaient les bons hommes? Nous l’avons évoqué plus haut. Les ‘bons hommes/bonnes femmes’ contestent l’autorité de l’Église catholique et se considèrent comme la véritable Église chrétienne héritière des temps apostoliques. Mais, qui étaient-ils et comment sont-ils parvenus à s’installer dans le Midi de la France? Les ‘bons hommes’ appartenaient probablement à la petite noblesse et/ ou à l’élite villageoise, composée de petits propriétaires fonciers et des plus riches artisans.11 Les communautés des ‘bons hommes’ du Midi résultent, d’après moi, de l’action des prédicateurs itinérants, clercs en rupture avec le modèle d’Église proposé par Rome dans les premières décennies du XIIe siècle. Dans un premier temps, l’action des prédicateurs a pu recruter parmi les familles de la petite noblesse et/ou de l’élite villageoise, favorisant l’implantation locale des ‘bons hommes’, comme à Lombers sous la tutelle d’un dénommé Olivier, probablement un clerc. Le recrutement des bons hommes parmi les familles de la petite aristocratie a permis d’affirmer 10

11

David Zbiral, ‘La charte de Niquinta et le rassemblement de Saint-Félix, état de la question’, in 1209–2009, cathares: une histoire à pacifier?, ed. Anne Brenon (Portet-sur-Garonne, 2010), pp. 31–44. Jean-Louis Biget, ‘Notes sur le système féodal en Languedoc et son ouverture à l’hérésie’, Heresis 11 (1988), 7–16; Jean-Louis Biget, ‘Hérésie, politique et société en Languedoc (v. 1120-v. 1320)’, in Le Pays cathare. Les religions médiévales et leurs expressions méridionales, ed. Jacques Berlioz (Paris, 2000), pp. 17–80, at p. 23.

157

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

à certains historiens que dans le Midi la dissidence devient une ‘affaire de famille’.12 En accueillant les bons hommes, la noblesse rurale a sans doute réagi à la situation de progressive détresse économique et sociale dans laquelle elle s’installait: dans le Midi le droit d’ainesse n’existe pas à cette époque et les membres des familles de la petite aristocratie rurale, de plus en plus nombreux, doivent se partager les mêmes revenus. Ceci explique l’appauvrissement de certaines familles. De leur côté, la bourgeoisie urbaine est aussi attirée par la dissidence. La bourgeoisie, dont le pouvoir politique et économique ne cesse de s’accroitre, devient un frein face aux prétentions des grands seigneurs féodaux. Le comte de Toulouse Raimond V doit se confronter, non seulement à la résistance de l’aristocratie locale, laïque et ecclésiastique, mais aussi à un patriciat urbain de plus en plus puissant dont une partie a probablement adhéré à l’hérésie. Ce fut sans doute le cas de Pierre Maurand, l’un des personnages les plus importants du patriciat toulousain qui abjure publiquement lors du procès mené contre lui par la légation cistercienne conduite par Henri de Marcy en 1179.13 En application des mesures coercitives prises par le IIIe concile de Latran, tenu la même année 1179, deux ans plus tard, en 1181, la première mini croisade est lancée contre la ville de Lavaur, cœur des domaines des vicomtes Trencavel. A cette même occasion, un autre jugement contre deux membres de la hiérarchie dissidente toulousaine fini par obtenir l’abjuration de Raimond de Baimiac et Bernard Raymond.14

12

13

14

158

Michel Roquebert, ‘Le catharisme comme tradition dans la “Familia” languedocienne’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 20 (1985), pp. 221–42. John Mundy, ‘Noblesse et hérésie. Une famille cathare: les Maurand’, Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 29 (1974), 1211–33; The repression of catharism at Toulouse. The Royal Diploma of 1279 (Toronto, 1985); ‘L’usurier, un hérétique? La décrétale Ex gravi (1311/12) et les mutations de la société citadine aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, in Pouvoir, justice et société. Cahiers de l’Institut d’Anthropologie juridique 4 (1999), pp. 399–447. Bernard Raymond (Bernardus Raimundum) est élu et ordonné évêque de l’Église des bons hommes de Toulouse à Saint Félix, d’après la charte de Niquinta. Le même acte cite Raymond de Baimiac (Raimund. de Beruniaco) parmi les témoins de la communauté des bons hommes de Toulouse participant au partage des diocèses de Toulouse et de Carcassonne. Une édition de la charte: Pilar Jiménez, ‘Relire la Charte de Niquinta; 2. Sens et portée de la Charte’, Heresis, 23 (1994), 1–28.

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

‘Une affaire de famille’ Aux limites des trois domaines princiers de l’époque – comte de Toulouse, comte de Foix et vicomtes Trencave – les villages fortifiés de Fanjeaux (dép. Aude), de Laurac ou de Montréal (dép. Aude), situés à la frontière du Lauragais et du Carcassès, constituent des bastions très importants de la dissidence des bons hommes. C’est à Fanjeaux que les premières ‘maisons hérétiques’ sont attestées. C’est aussi dans ce bourg fortifié que réside le coadjuteur de l’évêque des bons hommes de Toulouse, Guillabert de Castres, qui, en 1204, donnera le consolamentum à l’épouse et à la sœur du comte de Foix qui deviennent ainsi ‘bonnes femmes’. C’est aussi vers 1202, que se retrouve veuve l’héritière de la seigneurie de Laurac, Blancha, probablement épouse de l’héritier de la seigneurie de Roquefort (dép. Lot-et-Garonne) et de Montréal (Fig. 8.1), Aiméric, décidant alors de se faire bonne femme, religieuse. Elle s’installe à Laurac avec une de ses filles, Mabelia, également bonne femme. Pendant cinq ans, Blancha élève dans sa ‘maison’ son petit-fils Bernard Oth de Niort. Sa maison est, non seulement un centre de vie religieuse fréquentée par des évêques et diacres qui y prêchent, mais aussi un lieu de rencontre des nobles du castrum, membres de sa famille et même d’ailleurs, cas de Bertrad de Saissac et de Raimond Roger, comte de Foix. Blancha meurt probablement brûlée par les croisés, au moment du déclenchement de la croisade en 1209. La famille de Laurac est un exemple confirmant que la dissidence des bons hommes était donc une ‘affaire de famille’. Non seulement la sœur de Blancha de Laurac, Azalais de Montferrand, devient aussi bonne femme et tient sa ‘maison’ à Fontiers du Razès (attestée dans les sources jusqu’en 1228), mais tous les enfants de Blancha, quatre filles et un fils, sont compromis dans l’hérésie et la croisade. Son fils, Aiméric, seigneur de Laurac, est aussi l’héritier de Montréal et de Roquefort, la puissante seigneurie de la Montagne Noire.15 La première fille de Blancha, Géraude, châtelaine de Lavaur, meurt lapidée dans un puit lors du siège du castrum par les croisés de Simon de Montfort en 1211. Avant la Croisade, en 1207, dans le bourg voisin de Montréal, se tient une dispute théologique qui durera quinze jours (au sujet de la nature de l’Église catholique et sur le problème de l’eucharistie). Dans la dispute s’affrontent le futur saint Dominique et son évêque, Diego d’Osma, ainsi que les légats cisterciens Raoul et Pierre de Castelnau, aux membres du parti des bons hommes, à savoir Guillabert de Castres, Pons Jourda, 15

Gwendoline Hancke, ‘La famille de Roquefort à l’époque du catharisme (XIIIe siècle)’, in Roquefort de la Montagne Noire. Un castrum, une seigneurie, un lignage, ed. Pierre Clément (Portet-sur-Garonne, 2009), pp. 67–182.

159

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

Limites des comtés Villes

Count of Gévaudan

Count of Agde

Count of Toulouse Montgey

Count of Provence

Viscount Trencavel

Agde

ROQUEFORT St-Papoul Laurac Montréal

Count of Foix

Count of Narbonne

Mediterranean Sea

Aragonese Territories

50km

Fig. 8.1: Roquefort dans le pays cathare occitan.

Arnaud Hot et Benoît de Termes. Assistent à la réunion des habitants de la région, ainsi que les chevaliers de Montréal, tel Aimeric de Montréal ou Roquefort, seigneur de Laurac et fils de Blancha de Laurac.16 La plupart des familles nobiliaires des villages fortifiés de la Montagne Noire, comme Saissac (dép.  Aude), Cabaret (Lastours, dép. Aude), Hautpoul (dép. Tarn) ou Aragon, mais aussi des Corbières, comme Termes ou Durfort, protègent les dissidents. Les seigneurs de Saissac font partie des plus importants vassaux des vicomtes Trencavel. Bertrand de Saissac, désigné par Roger Trencavel en 1193 comme tuteur de son fils, tolère et accueille des hérétiques, dès 1195.17 En 1209, à Saissac, la Croisade chasse les seigneurs et leurs biens sont donnés à Bouchard de Marly, compagnon de Simon de Montfort, chef des croisés. 16

17

Pilar Jiménez, ‘Identités en conflit. Disputes entre catholiques et “bons hommes” à la veille de la croisade contre les Albigeois, 1206–1207’, in Perverse Identities, Identities in Conflict, ed. Flocel Sabaté (Bern, 2015), pp. 59–80. Claudie Duhamel-Amado, ‘L’entourage des Trencavel au XIIe siècle’, in Les voies de l’hérésie. Le groupe aristocratique en Languedoc, XIe-XIIIe siècles, ed. Marie-Paule Gimenez, 3 vols (Carcassonne, 2001), 1: 11–44.

160

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

AGEN

Limites des diocèses Présence d’évêque Présence de diacre

Agen

ALBI

Lombers Lavaur

CARCASSONNE

Saint-Paul-Cap-de-Joux

Cabaret

Servian

Aragon

TOULOUSE Pieusse

RAZÈS Montségur

Quéribus

Mediterranean Sea

Val d'Aran

50km

Fig. 8.2: Évêchés cathares et zones de predication aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Cercle et nom: présence attestée d’évêque; carré: présence attestée de diacre.

Les seigneurs de Cabaret appartiennent à une puissante famille du Carcassès et, au début de la Croisade leur village figure parmi les trois places les plus importantes de la région, avec Termes et Minerve, susceptibles d’être assiégées. Pierre Roger, père du seigneur de Cabaret au moment de la Croisade, fut viguier de Carcassonne pour les Trencavel en 1204, et fait partie des barons et grands de la cour. Ce castrum accueille le diacre Arnaud Hot, qui participe au débat controversé de Montréal, en 1207. De même, les membres du lignage d’Hautpoul, castrum au Nord de Carcassonne, appartiennent à l’entourage des Trencavel. Les seigneurs d’Aragon, village situé au Nord-Ouest de Carcassonne, au pied de la Montagne Noire, sont des vassaux du vicomte Trencavel dès le milieu du XIIe siècle. La s­ eigneurie ­montagnarde du Termenès constitue une zone tampon entre les territoires des vicomtes Trencavel, des vicomtes de Narbonne et des rois 161

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

d’Aragon. Les adeptes ou sympathisants de la dissidence des ‘bons hommes’ se recrutent ici dans le milieu aristocratique et c’est à la famille des seigneurs de Termes qu’appartenait probablement le diacre cathare Benoît de Termes, attesté dans ce village fortifié (castrum) en 1207. Il devient plus tard évêque de l’église du Razès, créée en 1226 à Pieusse, près de Limoux (dép. Aude).18 L’accueil et l’implantation de la dissidence des ‘bons hommes’ dans les zones rurales du Midi se fait donc principalement par la voie de la noblesse castrale. Elle entretient des solidarités vis-à-vis de parents et amis, croyants et parfaits, assurant ainsi la stabilité des réseaux de lignages à l’intérieur desquels on peut trouver des branches familiales plus ou moins gagnées à l’hérésie face à d’autres qui se montrent moins réceptives. Ces réseaux de solidarité aboutissent aux Trencavel par des liens de fidélité et s’appuient sur un dispositif complexe de relations de réciprocité.19 La Croisade de 1209 portera un coup décisif à la situation de relative stabilité dans laquelle vivaient les communautés des ‘bons hommes’ sous la protection de l’aristocratie méridionale qui les accueillait.

La Croisade contre les Albigeois (1209–29) ou le début de la fin de l’Église des bons hommes En 1208, suite à l’assassinat du légat pontifical Pierre de Castelnau, le pape Innocent III lance l’appel à la croisade, première guerre sainte contre les hérétiques du Midi, les Albigeois. Jusqu’alors réservée aux infidèles (juifs et musulmans), la croisade est maintenant justifiée pour combattre les hérétiques, c’est-à-dire des chrétiens dissidents de l’Église de Rome. Le pape appelle ainsi les ‘chevaliers du Christ’, les croisés, barons de toute l’Europe: Bourgogne, Flandres, Champagne, Normandie, Picardie, Bretagne, Rhénanie, Lorraine, Angleterre,20 Italie, Bohème, mais aussi du Midi: Quercy et Auvergne. Organisés sous la tutelle de l’abbé de Cîteaux (dép.  Côte-d’Or), Arnaud Amalric (ou Arnauld-Amaury), les croisés visent les domaines du comte de Toulouse et des vicomtes Trencavel, exposés en proie. Le pape leur accordera les mêmes récompenses qu’aux croisés combattant les infidèles en Terre Sainte. 18 19

20

Pour l’ensemble des familles, voir Les voies de l’hérésie, 2. Claudie Duhamel-Amado, Genèse des lignages méridionaux: L’aristocratie languedocienne du Xe au XIIe siècle (Toulouse, 2001), pp. 203–17. Hugues de Lacy, comte d’Ulster, fait partie des chevaliers croisés venant alors dans le Midi: Paul Duffy, ‘Le comte d’Ulster et la croisade des Albigeois’, Les Annales du Midi 285 (2014), 5–28; Duffy with Brown, ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’.

162

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

La Croisade contre les Albigeois n’est pas une guerre du Nord contre le Sud. Les contingents de la première armée de croisés agissant au printemps 1209 contre les villages de Dordogne, du Lot et de l’Agenais (Casseneuil, Lot-et-Garonne) sont originaires de l’Auvergne et du Quercy (le vicomte de Turenne, Bertrand de Cardaillac, Ratier de Castelnau et Bertrand de Gourdon). Les territoires du vicomte Trencavel, seigneur d’Albi, Carcassonne et Béziers sont les premiers visés. Ils sont le terrain de nombreux épisodes de la croisade: prise de Béziers et de Carcassonne, guerres de Castelnaudary et de Limoux, de Cabaret et des Corbières. A partir de 1211, les territoires du comte de Toulouse, y compris ceux du Bas-Quercy sont attaqués. Avant la prise de Toulouse en 1217–18, ce fut le tour de Bruniquel, Cassenneuil et Moissac (dép. Tarn-et-Garonne). Après une courte période de reprise par les occitans, entre 1218 et 1226, la contre-offensive royale se produit en 1226. Elle se solde en 1229 par la victoire des croisés et la soumission du comte Raymond VII à la couronne de France. Le comte doit accepter les clauses du traité de Meaux-Paris (1229) qui préparent, à terme, l’annexion du Midi à la couronne capétienne, réalisée en 1270.21

Le repli des ‘bons hommes’ à Montségur et leur chute Depuis la fin de la Croisade, le château de Montségur, en Ariège, va s’ériger en lieu de refuge autant de la hiérarchie dissidente et des ‘bons hommes/ bonnes femmes’ persécutés par l’Inquisition que des seigneurs dépossédés de leurs biens (faydits). Tous jouiront de la protection des seigneurs locaux, liés entre eux par des liens familiaux ou d’alliances. Ces réseaux de solidarité lignagers ont été perturbés par l’action de l’Inquisition, surtout à partir des années 1240. C’est alors qu’une grande enquête est lancée par les inquisiteurs en Lauragais, en pays de Castres, de Lavaur et dans le Quercy.22 En réaction au zèle inquisitorial, un commando partant de Montségur tuera deux inquisiteurs à Avignonet (dép. Haute-Garonne), en mai 1242. La réaction de l’Église ne se fait pas attendre, prêchant la 21

22

Parmi l’abondante bibliographie, un ouvrage collectif aborde la question: La croisade Albigeoise. Actes du colloque du Centre d’Études Cathares (Carcassonne, 4–6 octobre 2002), ed. Michel Roquebert and Marie-Paule Gimenez (Carcassonne, 2004). Bernard de Caux et Jean de Saint-Pierre (1245–1253), Enquêtes à Agen, Cahors, Toulouse, Fonds DOAT, Bibliothèque nationale du France, 22, ff.  1–11; et ‘Enquêtes, Toulouse BM, Ms 609’, Revue Archéologique du Midi de la France 2 (1968), 1–12.

163

Pilar Jiménez Sanchez

croisade contre ceux de Montségur. Le sénéchal de Carcassonne commence le siège du castrum en avril-mai 1243. Montségur finit par se rendre au début de l’année suivante et ceux qui refusèrent de faire profession de foi catholique (environs 224 assiégés) furent condamnés au bûcher, allumé au pied du pog le 16 mars 1244.23

L’Inquisition, ‘marteau des hérétiques’ Après la victoire des croisés, en 1229, un Concile se réunit à Toulouse pour déterminer le nouveau programme de lutte contre l’hérésie dans le Midi. La création de l’Université de Toulouse fait partie des mesures adoptées et elle devait former les futurs prédicateurs, les dominicains. En 1233, le pape Grégoire IX crée le tribunal de l’Inquisition qu’il leur confie. Il met en place une procédure accusatoire dite d’ ‘office’ d’après laquelle la dénonciation d’un témoin devant l’Inquisition peut servir de preuve pour établir la culpabilité d’un individu. Pour les inquisiteurs, l’aveu devient l’arme la plus puissante pour chasser les hérétiques. En un siècle d’action méthodique, la nouvelle institution portera un coup fatal à la dissidence des ‘bons hommes’ puisqu’elle parvient à désarticuler l’organisation des dissidents ainsi que son système de recrutement.24

Le dernier souffle du Catharisme La répression de l’Inquisition et les transformations sociales, politiques, économiques et culturelles provoquent la désertion progressive des adeptes et, à terme, la disparition du catharisme dans le Midi. Depuis la chute de Montségur, la hiérarchie cathare de Toulouse vit en exil en Lombardie (Italie) où elle est encore attestée dans les années 1270–80. Les ‘bons hommes/bonnes femmes’ sont dépourvus de leur clergé et la dissidence adopte un caractère résiduel. Les adeptes sont surtout des artisans ou des paysans, les élites bourgeoises ayant déserté. Vers 1300, lorsque les frères Autier essaient de raviver la dissidence à partir du haut comté de Foix, elle comptait uniquement une quinzaine de bons hommes dans le Midi. Ils parcourent les mêmes territoires où la dissidence avait jadis fait souche, outre le haut comté de Foix, la plaine du Lauragais et le Toulousain jusqu’au 23

24

Montségur, la mémoire et la Rumeur 1244–1994, ed. Claudine Pailhes (Foix, 1995). Sur ce vaste sujet, synthèse de Jean-Louis Biget, ‘L’Inquisition en Languedoc (1229–1329)’, in L’Inquisizione. Studi e Testi 417, ed. Agostino Borromeo (Vatican, 2003), pp. 41–94.

164

Origines et implantation de l’Eglise des bons hommes en Languedoc

Bas-Quercy. La contre-offensive inquisitoriale ne se fait pas attendre et l’action menée par Bernard Gui au tribunal de Toulouse entre 1307 et 1322 portera un coup fatal aux effectifs que la dissidence avait réussi à faire dans le nord Toulousain.25 Au tribunal de Carcassonne, succède à Geoffroy d’Ablis (1308–9), qui conduisait ses enquêtes surtout en Sabartès,26 Jacques Fournier, évêque de Pamiers et inquisiteur entre 1317 et 1325.27 C’est lui qui, en 1321, juge et condamne au bûcher le dernier ‘bon homme’ connu, Guillaume Bélibaste, exilé dans le royaume de Valence (à Morella, en Espagne) et vivant près d’une communauté de croyants ariégeois. Dans les premières décennies du XIVe siècle, l’Église des bons hommes s’éteint définitivement. Cette Église chrétienne ne réussit pas à survivre à l’époque médiévale qui l’a vu naitre.

25 26

27

Bernard Gui, Sentences, ed. Annette Pales-Gobilliard (Paris, 2004). Annette Pales-Gobilliard (ed. et trans.), L’Inquisiteur Geoffroy d’Ablis et les cathares du comté de Foix (1308–1309) (Paris, 1984). Le registre d’Inquisition de Jacques Fournier, ed. et trad. Jean Duvernoy (Paris-La Haye, 1978; Paris, 2004).

165

Chapter 9 Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy Daniel J. F. Brown Abstract This paper examines the two principal strategies available to incoming lords in the middle ages, in the context of Hugh de Lacy’s tenure in Ulster and Languedoc. As first outlined by David Crouch in his study of de Lacy’s contemporary, William Marshal, a lord installed in a new land would often seek to secure his position by replacing the existing aristocratic and religious elite with his own followers or sympathisers. Alternatively, the lord might attempt to offset political opposition by a strategy of assimilation, adopting names or symbols associated with a previous regime, or stimulating feelings of loyalty from his new tenants through the mechanism of patronage. Perhaps because it arose more naturally from feelings of insecurity, or satisfied the obligation to reward one’s own supporters, it was the ‘rough’ strategy of colonisation which was most popular among medieval lords. It was rather the ‘soft’ strategy of assimilation, however, which best characterised Hugh de Lacy’s two experiences as an aristocratic interloper: first, in 1205–10, usurping the first Anglo-Norman conqueror of Ulster, John de Courcy; second, in c. 1211–20, replacing members of the Occitan nobility as the crusader seigneur of Castelnaudary and Laurac. In Ulster, the evidence from de Lacy’s own comital acta does not sustain the idea of a wholesale clearout of de Courcy adherents after 1205, nor was there any apparent attempt on the new lord’s part to establish new religious institutions in opposition to those so closely associated with the previous regime. In Languedoc, de Lacy and his fellow crucesignati were legally required to expel heretics and ideological opponents of the crusade from their lands, upon pain of forfeiture. The records of later inquisitions into heresy, however, show that the ‘good men’ and ‘good women’ of Castelnaudary and Laurac remained active in the social life of their communities, even under the crusader overlordship of Hugh de Lacy.

Résumé Cet article examine les deux principales stratégies pratiques pour des nouveaux seigneurs au Moyen Age, dans le cadre du mandat d’Hugues de Lacy en Ulster et en Languedoc. Comme décrit en premier par David Crouch dans son étude sur William Marshal, un contemporain de de Lacy, un seigneur installé dans un nouveau pays cherche souvent à assurer sa position en remplaçant l’élite aristocratique et religieuse en place par ses propres partisans ou sympathisants. Sinon, le seigneur peut tenter de compenser l’opposition politique par une stratégie d’assimilation, en adoptant des noms ou des symboles associés au régime précédent, ou de stimuler les sentiments de loyauté de ses nouveaux sujets à travers le mécanisme du patronage. Peut-être parce qu’elle découle naturellement du sentiment d’insécurité, ou qu’elle permet mieux de satisfaire à l’obligation de récompenser From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 167–188

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114243

Daniel J. F. Brown ses propres partisans, c’est la stratégie ‘dure’ de la colonisation, qui a été la plus populaire chez les seigneurs médiévaux. C’est pourtant la stratégie ‘douce’ de l’assimilation qui caractérise le mieux deux expériences d’Hugues de Lacy en tant qu’intrus aristocratique: tout d’abord, en 1205–10, quand il usurpa la place de John de Courcy, le premier anglonormand conquérant de l’Ulster; ensuite, vers 1211–20, en remplaçant les membres de la noblesse occitane comme seigneur de Castelnaudary et Laurac. En Ulster, les propres registres comtaux de de Lacy n’offrent aucune preuve d’une purge totale des adhérents de Courcy après 1205. Il n’y a aucune tentative apparente de la part du nouveau seigneur d’établir de nouvelles institutions religieuses en opposition à celles si étroitement associées au régime précédent. En Languedoc, de Lacy et les autres croisés étaient légalement tenus d’expulser les hérétiques et les adversaires idéologiques de la croisade de leurs terres, sous peine de déchéance. Cependant, les dossiers d’inquisition des années postérieures au départ d’Hugues de Lacy montrent que les ‘bons hommes’ et ‘bonnes femmes’ de Castelnaudary et Laurac étaient restés actifs dans la vie sociale de leur communauté, pendant les années même où il était leur seigneur.

On 25 June 1218, near the abbey of Saint-Sernin in Toulouse, a stone was hurled towards the leader of the Albigensian Crusade, crushing along with Simon de Montfort the hopes of his inner circle, including Hugh de Lacy, whose territories in the Midi would soon be reconquered by a resurgent southern nobility.1 A generation later, between May 1245 and August 1246, the same Romanesque basilica took on a very different meaning for those who had celebrated the earlier demise of the crucesignati, when the inhabitants of the Lauragais were summoned to Saint-Sernin by the Dominican inquisitors, Bernard de Caux and Jean de Saint-Pierre. There, in cloisters once resonant with voices in defiance of the crusade, thousands of people from communities all over the fertile plain between Toulouse and Carcassonne now quietly confessed or denied their knowledge of, or encounter with, the ‘Cathar’ heresy, and those bons omes (‘good men’) and bonas femnas (‘good women’) who practiced it.2 For a great many, the experience of indicting one’s friends and familiars, or being accused in return, must have been at best daunting, and 1 2

Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 172, stanza 205. MS  Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, 609 (hereafter MS  609, references to which, below, are taken from the transcript by Jean Duvernoy, accessed at www.jean.duvernoy.free.fr). For an excellent study of the depositions, see Mark Pegg, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245–46 (Princeton, NJ, 2001). While ‘Cathar’ was not used by contemporaries, a variety of terms were employed by the people of Languedoc to refer to the heretics of their communities, of which bons omes (‘good men’) or bonas femnas (‘good women’) were among the most popular: Pegg, The Corruption of Angels, pp.  15–20; Daniel Power, ‘Who Went on the Albigensian Cusade?’, English Historical Review 128 (2013), 1047–85, at pp. 1070–5.

168

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

at worst, utterly traumatic. For others, however, the inquisitorial office apparently provided a welcome opportunity to settle old scores. In one of the most intriguing series of extant testimonies, it was heard that Bernard de Quiders, lord of Le Mas-Saintes-Puelles (dép. Aude), had interrupted a game of dice between some local men in the workshop of Peter Gauta by urinating on the tonsure of an acolyte, Peter-Raymond Prosat.3 Such a bizarre, even comical offence does not immediately demand a sinister motive. When viewed in their proper context, however, the actions of de Quiders appear nothing less than a political statement. The events recounted in the deposition of Peter-Raymond Prosat occurred around 1219: that is, around the same time as those members of the local nobility dispossessed by crusader interlopers returned to their former territories in the Lauragais, buoyed by the death of Simon de Montfort and the resulting recovery of the Ramondine cause.4 Whether Bernard de Quiders had been part of this aristocratic diaspora depends on how credible we find his own later testimonies at Saint-Sernin, in which Bernard attempted to portray himself as every inch the orthodox seigneur. He, along with his brothers (including the prior of Le Mas, no less), had ‘dragged away’ (abstraxerunt) his mother and sister from heretical company, giving them meat to eat, in contravention of the heretics’ strict vegetarian diet.5 True, Bernard had resided for a time in the same house as his sister, Galharda (in 1222), but he claimed to have been protected from her deviating behaviour by a dividing wall.6 As we shall see, it was by no means uncommon for heterodox and orthodox in the Lauragais to be separated by physical boundaries, even within the home. De Quiders’ protestations of innocence were not entirely convincing at the time, however: alongside

3

4

5

6

MS 609, fo 3v, 18r; W. L. Wakefield, ‘Heretics and Inquisitors: the Case of Le Mas-Saintes-Puelles’, Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983), 209–26, at p.  16; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, pp. 124–25. Crusader occupation of the Lauragais was effectively ended by the defeat of Hugh de Lacy and his companions at the battle of Bazìege, in 1219, and de Lacy’s castrum of Castelnaudary fell to the southerners in July 1220: Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 182–83, stanza 210; William of Puylaurens, Chronicle: The Albigensian Crusade and its Aftermath, ed. and trans. W. A. Sibly and M. D. Sibly (Rochester, NY, 2003), pp. 63–64. MS 609, fos 16v–17r; Pegg, The Corruption of Angels, pp. 81–82. Crezens abstained from meat out of fear that the deceased animal represented a reincarnated human being: see J.  H. Arnold, Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject in Medieval Languedoc (Philadelphia, PA, 2001), ch. 4. MS 609, fo 16v; Pegg, The Corruption of Angels, p. 99.

169

Daniel J. F. Brown

his deposition a scribe commented that ‘it is said that [Bernard] and his wife Saurimunda are worse than all the others in Mas-Saintes-Puelles’.7 At the very least, if de Quiders was not himself a crezen, he is likely to have been a local lord of the kind accused by William of Tudela of having ‘maintained the heretics in their castles and in their towers’.8 Bernard’s ostensible reputation as a heretic sympathiser was surely enough to earn expulsion from his crusader-occupied lands. It seems plausible, therefore, to suggest that his vulgar display in the workshop of Peter Gauta was not simply (or only) a protest against the coarse language of the dice players, as Bernard claimed in his own deposition, but was instead intended to function as a display of reclaimed seigneurial authority, following an interlude enforced by such representatives of orthodoxy such as the acolyte, PeterRaymod Prosat. That de Quiders was required to atone by wearing two yellow crosses, the distinguishing mark of the heretics, certainly suggests that the truer version of events in 1219 was presented by the sometime sodden cleric, who accused Bernard of having acted ‘in opprobrium and vituperation of the whole catholic Church’.9 One more inference can be made: if Bernard de Quiders had been expelled from Le Mas during the war, it is likely that his exile was ordered by Hugh II de Lacy, whose lordship in the Lauragais included the fortified village (castrum) of Le Mas, situated just west of Hugh’s seigneurial centre of Castelnaudary.10 Just as it illuminates the techniques employed by lapsed lords, such as Bernard de Quiders, to reassert their authority after a period of interruption, therefore, the uproar in a craftsman’s workshop has a significant bearing on our understanding of how an interloper, like Hugh de Lacy, might choose to consolidate his power in a new setting. The two broad types of strategy available to lords of new acquisitions were outlined by David Crouch in his study of William Marshal’s lordship in England and Ireland. In choosing the soft approach, the incomer might seek to win the allegiance of those under his sway by a process of assimilation: lavishing patronage on tenants and churchmen, or appropriating feelings of loyalty by adopting names or symbols associated with the previous dynasty. Alternatively, through policies of colonisation, lords 7

8 9 10

MS 609, fo 16v: iste et uxor eius Saurimunda sunt pejores omnibus de [Manso] ut dictur; Pegg, The Corruption of Angels, p.  23; Wakefield, ‘Heretics and Inquisitors’, pp.  221–22. De Quiders’ wife, Saurimunda, confessed to having associated with some heretics only after being held in prison for twelve days: MS 609, fos 21v–22r; Pegg, The Corruption of Angels, p. 23. Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 18–19, stanza 15. MS 609, fo 3v; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, pp. 124–25. For a fuller study of de Lacy’s lordship, see Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 4.

170

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

ripped up the tenurial and spiritual fabric of their lordship, replacing the existing aristocratic elite with their own supporters, and throwing up new religious houses filled with clerical staff sympathetic to the founder. The latter strategy appealed most to lords whose positions were especially precarious. For this reason, it was favoured by William Marshal in Ireland, whose status as an absentee curialis had not endeared him initially to the battle-hardened frontiersmen of Leinster, and whose eventual renovation of his Irish lordship involved its division among his entourage and outfitting with new abbeys.11 Such policies were not reserved for the Angevin frontier: in the English honour of Huntingdon, which changed hands several times between competing dynasties during the twelfth century, ‘whenever the seesaw of fortune favoured one side against the other, there would be a new colonisation of one side’s followers, and a clear-out of those of the other side’.12 Yet, despite the intrinsic attractiveness of expulsion, confiscation, or forfeiture, in examining the lordship of William Marshal’s contemporary, Hugh de Lacy, in two different geographical and political settings, it shall be suggested that the experience of Bernard de Quiders was an exception; it was for the most part the road less travelled by the medieval nobility – that involving assimilation rather than colonisation – which de Lacy preferred to follow in Ulster and Languedoc. A serious threat to any new lord was the ‘hovering presence’ of the person they had replaced.13 Upon assuming control of his earldom of Ulster in 1205, therefore, one of Hugh de Lacy’s most pressing concerns was how to counteract the danger posed by the man he had usurped, John de Courcy, who remained at large under the protection of Irish allies, and continued to represent an alternative focus of fidelity for the barons of Ulster.14 De Lacy had been personally belted as earl of Ulster by King 11

12 13 14

David Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship in Angevin England and the Career of William Marshal’, in The Ideals and Practice of Medieval Knighthood II: Papers From the Third Strawberry Hill Conference, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill and Ruth Harvey (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 1–25. Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship’, p. 8. Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship’, p. 6. In 1205 de Courcy and a force of Manx associates attempted to recover Ulster, landing at Stangford (Co. Down) and laying siege to the castle of Dundrum, only to be defeated by the army of Hugh de Lacy’s elder brother, Walter, lord of Meath: Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles, ed. and trans. George Broderick and Brian Stowell (Edinburgh, 1973), s.a. 1206. Thereafter, de Courcy sought refuge in the Irish kingdom of Tír Eógain, west of the River Bann: Annala Uladh. Annals of Ulster, Otherwise Annala Senait, Annals of

171

Daniel J. F. Brown

John, but royal endorsement could only go so far towards recommending an incoming lord to his new tenants. Indeed, de Lacy may well have been aware of the warning from history provided by his English consanguineus, Ibert II de Lacy, who had assumed control of the honor of Pontefract in 1135, but only after tenants loyal to Ibert’s father, Robert, had taken advantage of the death of King Henry I to murder the lord imposed on them by the crown.15 De Lacy’s second problem was the opposition of influential churchmen loyal to John de Courcy. Many of Ulster’s clergy had strong ties to the previous regime, having either been transplanted to Ulster by de Courcy, or having benefitted from his energetic patronage.16 The quality of de Lacy’s dominical lordship may have been especially impaired by the sentence of excommunication likely to have been pronounced against him by the primate of Ireland and de Courcy partisan, Archbishop Eugenius (Echdonn Mac Gilla Uidir) of Armagh.17 Although chiefly a spiritual punishment, part of the effectiveness of excommunication was its potential to unravel social ties and undermine the exercise of power. Uncertainty surrounded the anathemised authority’s right to collect rents or debts,18 and in the late twelfth century Hugo of Pisa’s Summa urged the vassals of an excommunicate lord to withdraw from his company, refraining from aiding or defending him.19 The accompanying withdrawal of clerical services from an excommunicate’s land could also prove problematic. Invoking divine intervention, the judicial ordeals, which still presided over a wide-range of crimes in the Irish liberties, were overseen and officiated by the Church. A treatise of Bishop Gilbertus of Limerick (1106–38) stated the obligations of priests to include the blessing of bread and water used in the ordeals, while the judicial ‘hot iron’ was to be consecrated by a bishop.20 In short, secular lordship could not function without the cooperation of local churchmen, and any censure applied to de Lacy by Eugenius could have

15

16 17 18

19

20

Senat; A  Chronicle of Irish Affairs, ad  431–1131,  1155–1541, ed. Bartholomew Mac Carthy, 4 vols (Dublin, 1893), 3: s.a. 1205; Annals of the Four Masters, 3: s.a. 1204 [recte 1205]. Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols (London, 1884–9), 3: 140; Wightman, The Lacy Family, pp. 68–73. See below (p. 178–79). Pontificia Hibernica, 1: no. 64, and below. Jay Gundacker, ‘Absolutions and Acts of Disobedience: Excommunication and Society in Fourteenth-Century Armagh’, Traditio 64 (2009), 183–212, at p. 197. Elizabeth Vodola, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (London, 1986), pp. 67–69, 219–20. Flanagan, Transformation of the Irish Church, pp. 66–68.

172

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

gravely undercut Hugh’s capacity to discipline and punish, a necessary prerogative in frontier conditions. The creation of the earldom of Ulster in May 1205 followed a protracted and bloody conflict between de Lacy and de Courcy factions, the best (yet underused) source for which is de Courcy’s own complaint to the papal curia, detailing his usurpation at the hands of his enemies, and related in a letter of Pope Innocent III from July 1205 ordering an investigation into the legality of de Lacy’s actions, and authorising a sentence of excommunication to be pronounced against him should it be found that an unjust war had been waged against de Courcy.21 The accepted view of historians has been that the regime-change in Ulster conformed to what we may term the ‘Huntingdon model’, by which the incoming lord cleared the board of his rival’s supporters. T. E. McNeill, for example, judged that the loyalty of de Courcy’s seigneurial household ‘resulted in their disappearance’ after 1205.22 This interpretation is directly contradicted by de Courcy’s own ex parte statement, however, which accused members of his inner circle of treachery: When [de Courcy] was rejoicing in tranquil security and placed no small trust in those of his household and servants, the noble man Hugh de Lacy, with the counsel of those in whom [ John] trusted, intruded into his land with a large army and waged war against him, with John’s men rebelling/ defecting against him in the conflict.23

What exactly happened to this group of defectors is not altogether clear. According to the fourteenth-century annals compiled by John de Pembridge, head of the Dominicans in Ireland (1331–43), de Lacy dealt out rough justice to those who had broken the code of aristocratic honour by abandoning their lord, lining his own pockets in the process: ‘then Hugh de Lacy, earl, repaid and gave gold and silver to all the traitors to John de Courcy, greater [or] lesser, but at once hanged all the said traitors and took all their property, and so Hugh de Lacy was lord over all Ulster’.24 An embellished version of this account is found in the sixteenth-century Book of Howth, which describes how de Lacy expelled the deserters, only 21 22 23 24

Pontificia Hibernica, 1: no. 64. T. E. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster (Edinburgh, 1980), pp. 63–64. Pontificia Hibernica, 1: no. 64. Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin: With the Register of its House at Dunbrody and Annals of Ireland, 1162–1370, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols (London, 1884–6), 2:  308–9. For Pembridge’s annals, based on an earlier Cistercian chronicle maintained in Dublin, see Bernadette Williams, ‘The Dominican Annals of Dublin’, in Medieval Dublin 2 (2001), 142–68, at pp. 153–68.

173

Daniel J. F. Brown

for them to be forced to port at Cork ‘by chance of weather and lack of skilful men’. Being brought before the earl, Hugh ‘took from them their treasure, and after hung [sic] them in chains till they consumed all away’.25 This extra tantalising detail is compromised, however, by the interests of the work’s patron, Christopher St Lawrence, baron of Howth (Co. Dublin), who claimed ancestry from one of de Courcy’s (presumably faithful) vassals, Tristram Amaury St Lawrence. As a result, the Book is eager to portray de Courcy as the heroic victim of betrayal, induced by ‘evil, false, feigned and envious tales’ devised by Hugh de Lacy.26 It is also conditioned by Howth’s disillusionment with Elizabethan policy towards Ireland, with de Courcy’s downfall being presented as an allegory, foreshadowing the mistreatment of the Anglo-Irish nobility by ‘new men’ imported from England.27 The execution of defectors by Hugh de Lacy would certainly have delivered a stark reminder to the remaining tenant community about the consequences of disloyalty, while generating a pool of wealth to be distributed among the earl’s own followers. The testimonies of these much later sources, however, are directly contradicted by the charter evidence, in which some of John de Courcy’s entourage appear alive and well in Hugh de Lacy’s earldom. In January 1207 de Lacy granted to his brother-in-law, Roger Pipard, the Ulster cantred of Dufferin (Co. Down).28 Among the witnesses to the accompanying charter, issued at Rathbeggan in Hugh’s barony of Ratoath (Co.  Meath), we find no fewer than three former associates of John de Courcy. Walter Logan gave his name to Ballywalter (Co. Antrim),29 and had witnessed a charter of de Courcy to the church of St Patrick at Downpatrick, between 1183 and 1200.30 That same instru25

26 27

28

29

30

Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, 1515–74 [etc.], ed. J. S. Brewer and William Bullen, 6 vols (London, 1867–73), 6: 111–12. Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts, 6: 111. Valerie McGowan-Doyle, The Book of Howth: Elizabethan Conquest and the Old English (Cork, 2011), pp. 12–14, 55–58. MS  Dublin, National library of Ireland, 971; Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. Edmund Curtis, 6  vols (Dublin, 1932–43), 1: no.  863. Dufferin (from Duibthrian = ‘the black third’), was later the bailiwick of Blathewyc (from ‘Uí Blaithmeic’, covering north co. Down) which also absorbed the bailiwick of Ards (the Ards peninsula): MacCotter, Medieval Ireland, p. 232. Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down, Connor and Dromore, ed. William Reeves (Dublin, 1850), p. 67. Gearóid Mac Niocaill, ‘Cartae Dunenses’, Seanchas Ard Mhacha 5 (1970), 418– 24, at pp. 419–21.

174

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

ment was witnessed by William Hacket, presumed relative of the Reginald Hacket who attested Hugh de Lacy’s charter of January 1207. It also named as de Courcy’s seneschal, or steward – the most important position in the noble household – one Richard fitzRobert, another of the witnesses to de Lacy’s grant to Roger Pipard. It seems very likely that these three men were among the group denounced as traitors by John de Courcy to the papal curia, and that their defection had earned them a place in Hugh de Lacy’s lordship. With least to fear from Hugh de Lacy after 1205 were those landed families with existing connections to their new overlord. Seán Duffy has shown that Richard Talbot, lord of Ballyhalbert (Talbetona or Talbotyston in the fourteenth century) in the district of Ards (Co. Down),31 was probably drawn to John de Courcy’s conquest from Yorkshire.32 Talbots were also closely affiliated with the de Lacys in England, however. During the civil war of King Stephen’s reign, Geoffrey Talbot and Gilbert de Lacy (head of the Herefordshire de Lacys and grandfather of Hugh II), described as Geoffrey’s cognatus, raided Bath (Gloucestereshire) on behalf of the empress Matilda.33 In 1156 one Richard Talbot held the Herefordshire manor of Linton with Hugh de Longchamp, another de Lacy associate.34 This is unlikely to have been the same Ulster tenant of John de Courcy, but an established familial link in an English context may explain the adherence of the Talbots to Hugh de Lacy after 1205.35 Of course, the obligations of lordship required Hugh de Lacy to give shares in his new lordship to the men who had helped win it for him. 31

32 33

34

35

H. C. Lawlor, ‘Mote and Mote-and-Bailey Castles in de Courcy’s Principality of Ulster: Part 1’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 3rd ser., 1 (1938), 155–64, at p. 159; Ecclesiastical Antiquities, pp. 20, 56. Seán Duffy, ‘The First Ulster Plantation’, pp. 21–22. Gesta Stephani, ed. K. R. Potter and R. H. C. Davis, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1976), pp. 58–59. G.  E. Cockayne, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, ed. Vicary Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, Duncan Warrand, Lord Howard de Walden, G. H. White and R. S. Lea, 2nd edn, 8 vols (London, 1910–59), 12: 607. Robert Talbot witnessed a charter of Hugh II de Lacy in Ulster in 1227× 42: Christ Church Deeds, ed. M.  J. McEnery and Raymond Refaussé (Dublin, 2001), p. 42, no. 35. He was disseised in 1210 and 1224 for his part in de Lacy’s rebellions: see Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati 1204–27, ed. T. D. Hardy, 2 vols (London, 1833–44), 1: 223a, 226a, 241a; 2: 32a; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, p. 191; Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: nos 626, 643, 663, 707, 1263.

175

Daniel J. F. Brown

Some de Courcy tenants must either have had their lands confiscated and reassigned or their conditions of tenure adjusted. Lack of evidence precludes a comprehensive survey of landholding changes, but there may have been more comital grants of the kind made to Roger Pipard, which placed an intermediate authority between Hugh de Lacy and those who had held directly from John de Courcy in Dufferin.36 The earl’s brotherin-law also assumed mesne-lordship over other de Lacy tenants installed in the locality such as the de Mandevilles, drawn from Hugh’s estates in Uriel.37 The intrusion of new men was always unpopular with existing communities, and the subscription of former de Courcy vassals to the grant of Dufferin may have been a legitimising tactic on the earl’s part, mitigating any offence caused by the reorganisation of the cantred’s tenurial structure. Ulster’s political landscape was undoubtedly adjusted after 1205, but there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of systemic displacement of existing tenants. But what of the local church, which owed so many of its lands, privileges and members to the previous regime? Ensuring that ‘military domination was followed by spiritual domination’,38 few strategies recommended themselves more to incoming lords than the foundation of new religious houses, and John de Courcy had introduced several monasteries to Ulster affiliated with his familial lands in England. Benedictines from St Werburgh’s, Chester, provided a new chapter for the cathedral church at Downpatrick. The same order provided communities at Nendrum and St Andrew in the Ards (Black Abbey), respectively cells of St Bees (Cumberland) and Stogursey (Somerset). Cistercians were introduced from Cumbria to staff the abbeys of Inch and Iugum Dei (Grey Abbey), while the Augustinians were represented at Toberglory, near Downpatrick, a cell of St Mary’s, Carlisle (Cumbria).39 At Carrickfergus, Premonstratensian canons were introduced from the Scottish abbey of Dryburgh, to serve the spiritual needs of de Courcy’s seigneurial caput 36

37

38

39

Including Elias of Chester at Rathgorman; Richard de Dundonald at Dundonald; and William Copeland around Donaghadee: Duffy, ‘First Ulster Plantation’, pp. 16–17, 19–20. Brendan Smith, ‘Tenure and Locality in North Leinster in the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland, pp. 29–40, at pp. 34–35; Lawlor, ‘Mote and Mote-and-Bailey Castles’, p. 161. Brock Holden, Lords of the Central Marches: English Aristocracy and Frontier Society, 1087–1265 (Oxford, 2008), p. 82. See Duffy, ‘First Ulster Plantation’, pp. 5–10; M. T. Flanagan, ‘John de Courcy, the First Ulster Plantation and Irish Church Men’, in Britain and Ireland, 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change, ed. Brendan Smith (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 154–79, at pp. 165–70.

176

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

from their monasteries at St Mary’s Abbey (Woodburn) and Dieux la Croisse (White Abbey).40 Hugh de Lacy’s early treatment of the Church in Ulster stands in stark contrast with his predecessor’s ingratiating piety. Seemingly willing to eschew the obvious benefits of sponsorship, no new spiritual centres were founded by the earl in 1205–10, nor can a single grant to a church or churchman in Ulster be credited to him. The only known ecclesiastical beneficiary of de Lacy’s patronage in this period was the abbey of St Thomas, Dublin, where his father and mother were buried, to which Hugh granted the church of Dundalk, with appurtenances, oblations and the obventions of the castlery of Dundalk.41 De Lacy had hardly been an enthusiastic patron of the Church prior to his acquisition of Ulster, but this had owed more to the realities of lordship than to some areligious sentiment. Even before its award to Hugh I de Lacy, in 1172, the Irish over-kingdom of Mide, with Brega, was already densely populated by viri religiosi, and the subsequent placement of Anglo-Norman manors at existing monastic centres was as much a space-saving endeavour as it was a political strategy.42 By the time Hugh II was politically active in Meath, more land in the liberty had been alienated to the religious houses associated with the settler community.43 His early charters were mainly confirmations or renewals of anterior grants, and no novel endowments were forthcoming once the Lord John’s intrusive patronage in Ratoath had been overcome.44 De Lacy had not been alone in exhibiting such parsimonious piety. As the first waves of Anglo-Norman conquest had subsided and land became less available, so too the impetus for religious sponsorship had begun to recede. Even in the registers of Llanthony, one of the institutions most favoured by the barons of Meath, records of new endowments in Ireland diminish conspicuously at the end of the twelfth century.45 As new fron40

41 42

43 44 45

Miriam Clyne, ‘The Founders and Patrons of Premonstratensian Houses in Ireland’, in The Regular Canons in the Medieval British Isles, ed. Janet Burton and Karen Stöber (Turnhout, 2011), pp. 145–72, at pp. 148–54. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, p. 9. F. J. Byrne, Irish Kings and High-Kings (London, 1973), p. 269; M. T. Flanagan, ‘Anglo-Norman Change and Continuity: The Castle of Telach Cail in Delbna’, Irish Historical Studies 28 (1993), 385–89; Edel Bhreathnach, ‘Authority and Supremacy in Tara and its Hinterland, c.  950–1200’, Discovery Programme Reports 5 (1999), 1–25, at pp. 15–17. Murphy and Potterton, Dublin Region in the Middle Ages, pp. 81–84. See Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Appendix I, nos 1–3, 5–6. Hogan, The Priory of Llanthony Prima and Secunda, p. 70.

177

Daniel J. F. Brown

tiers opened up, however, the pulse of patronage quickened again, and it is no surprise that the earliest evidence for a novel pious donation of Hugh II de Lacy’s comes from the period subsequent to his marriage, to Lescelina de Verdun when he granted Ballymascanlan (Co. Louth), in the contested portion of Uriel, awarded to Hugh as part of his marriage agreement, to Mellifont Abbey (1194 × 1205).46 In Ulster, de Lacy may again have been confronted with an excess of sacred space. The bishop of Down cannot have been far from the mark when, in 1269, he claimed that his diocese contained ‘more priests and religious than in any other part of equal dimensions in Ireland’.47 This state of affairs owed much to the zealous patronage of John de Courcy, who had boosted the reforming programme within the diocese of Ulaid, and subsumed the secular power-base of his Dál Fiatach precursors, by creating a kind of ecclesiastical sub-lordship around Downpatrick, supported through the lavish bestowal of tithes from John’s animals and hunting; revenues from several of his ferry crossings; as well as proceeds of justice in ecclesiastical land.48 At the end of a protracted struggle for Ulster, and having to manage a frontier lordship in Uriel in addition to his estates in Meath, it would be little wonder if Hugh de Lacy was initially reluctant to add to the material advancement of the Church at the expense of his comital demesne and revenue.49 This said, de Lacy’s coffers cannot have been much more depleted in 1205 than upon his restoration to Ulster in 1227, after which he introduced the Franciscans and Hospitallers into the earldom and lobbied for the construction of a new Cistercian abbey.50 The function of monastic communities as buttresses of secular lordship could render them vulnerable to the political opponents of their patron. In 1204, betraying some feelings of insecurity as John de Courcy’s fortunes waned, the monks of Black Abbey in the Ards sought protection and confirmation for their property from the papal curia.51 However, if there 46

47 48

49

50 51

Fr. Colmcille, ‘Three Unpublished Cistercian documents’, Journal of the County Louth Archaeological Society 13 (1955), 252–78, at pp. 254–55. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no. 2551. Mac Niocaill, ‘Cartae Dunenses’, pp.  419–21, nos 1–8; Flanagan, ‘John de Courcy’, pp. 155–70; Ann Hamlin, ‘The Early Church in County Down to the Twelfth Century’, in Down History and Society: Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County, ed. Lindsay Proudfoot (Dublin, 1997), pp. 47–70. A similar privation may have caused William Marshal to wait two decades after his acquisition of Leinster in 1189 before adding to the religious infrastructure of his Irish lordship: Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship’, pp. 19–25. See Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Ch. 6. Pontificia Hibernica, 1: nos 59–60.

178

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

is no evidence that Hugh de Lacy supplemented the privileges of his rival’s foundations after 1205, neither is there anything to show that he treated them roughly. We have seen that prior links with de Lacy or his socii had prompted the defection of some of John de Courcy’s followers, and the same connections may also have safeguarded Ulster’s regular clergy. The installation of the canons of Prémontré at Carrickfergus, by 1183, has stood out as unusual among the foundations orchestrated under John de Courcy because their filiation, Dryburgh Abbey, was located in a region of Scotland with no obvious historical links with north-east Ireland.52 Duffy unravelled this particular mystery in noting Dryburgh’s foundation by the de Moreville lords of Lauderdale and Cunningham, whose close ties with north-west England placed them within John de Courcy’s sphere of operation.53 The political landscape of the Irish Sea zone was re-drawn in 1186 on the death of William de Moreville, however, after which his impressive assemblage of property came to be controlled by his brotherin-law, Roland, lord of Galloway.54 Inconveniently for John de Courcy, the creation of the de Moreville-Galloway hegemony placed Dryburgh under the patronage of the dynastic competitors of Duncan mac Gillebrigte, lord of Carrick, who was at that time allied with the lord of Ulster.55 Before 1203, no doubt adding to de Courcy’s discomfiture, Roland’s son, Alan, married a daughter or sister of Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester and consanguineus of de Courcy’s competitor, Hugh II de Lacy.56 The installation of Premonstratensians in Ulster may have been initiated under John de Courcy, but in light of Dryburgh’s situation within the hegemony of Alan fitzRoland (Alan of Galloway), as well as Alan’s connections with the Pontefract de Lacys, the white canons at Carrickfergus may not have been overly alarmed by Hugh de Lacy’s assumption of lordship in 1205. Nor may the earl have been automatically disposed against them, or the communities at Nendrum and Grey Abbey, whose parent houses in Cumberland (St Bees and Holm Cultram) benefitted from the

52

53 54

55

56

J.  R.  S. Phillips, ‘The Anglo-Norman Nobility’, in The English in Medieval Ireland, ed. J. F. Lydon (Dublin, 1984), p. 101. Duffy, ‘First Ulster Plantation’, pp. 10–11. Keith Stringer, ‘The Early Lords of Lauderdale, Dryburgh Abbey and St Andrew’s Priory at Northampton’, in Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland, ed. Keith Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 44–71. Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols (London, 1869–71), 4: 25. R. D. Oram, The Lordship of Galloway (Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 112–13.

179

Daniel J. F. Brown

generosity of Alan fitzRoland and his forebears.57 Ultimately, given that patronage of the Church was an almost universally accepted method for new lords to help establish themselves, the negative evidence for any such patronage in the period 1205–10 may only go to show that de Lacy was comfortable with the spiritual status quo in Ulster. In 1212 de Lacy reprised his role as incomer, this time as one of Languedoc’s crusader lords. Any misgivings Hugh may have felt at being accorded Castelnaudary (dép. Aude), by his own admission the ‘weakest’ fortress in the crusader conquests,58 were dispelled by the further award of two other notable castra in the Lauragais region, Laurac (Fig. 9.1) and Renneville. These had been part of the assemblage of Aimery de Laurac of Montréal – ‘the most powerful and noble man in the whole area except for the counts’59 – before their confiscation by the crusaders in 1209, in exchange for other unfortified villages in the open country. Outraged by the diminishment of his fief and dignity, Aimery had subsequently defected to Count Raymond of Toulouse on two separate occasions and was executed at Lavaur in 1211, alongside his sister and lady of Lavaur, Girauda, ‘a heretic of the worst sort’.60 Unlike John de Courcy, Aimery of Montréal was already dead by the time Hugh de Lacy took possession of his lands. Nevertheless, Aimery’s surviving sisters had married into several other noble families in the region, and there was a genuine danger of such a powerful ‘heretical network’ becoming an alternative object of regard for the inhabitants of Hugh’s castra, whose loyalties appear to have been somewhat mutable.61 During the siege of Castelnaudary in 1211, as the banner of Toulouse had approached the castrum, William of Tudela informs us that some inhabitants who had been guarding the outer defences on behalf of the crusader garrison ‘climbed the walls, crossed over to the enemy, and abandoned the bourg’.62

57

58 59

60

61 62

The Register of the Priory of St Bees, ed. James Wilson (Durham, 1915), pp. 71–72; The Register and Records of Holm Cultram, ed. Grainger Francis and W.  G. Collingwood, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Record 7 (1929), 48–56. See above (p. 29). Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, trans. W.  A. Sibly and M.  D. Sibly (Woodbridge, 1998), p. 73, stanza 135. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p.  111, stanza 215; Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 41, stanza 68; Malcolm Barber, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Abingdon, 2014), pp. 35–42. Barber, The Cathars, p. 35. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p. 131, stanza 256.

180

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

Fig. 9.1: The modern town of Laurac from the south; see colour plate 15.

As an earl in Ulster, the highest rank available to the Angevin nobility, Hugh de Lacy had been free to craft his own brand of power. In Languedoc, however, Hugh’s freedom to respond to the challenges of lordship was constrained by his status as a subordinate of the chief crusader, Simon de Montfort, whose aims and objectives theoretically dictated the policies of the crusader seigneurs. Fortunately, we know exactly what was expected of de Lacy and his fellow lords in return for their share in the crusader conquests. The statutes of Pamiers,63 set out in December 1212, envisioned a south ‘recast in a northern mould’, replacing the loose traditions of the Midi in regard to ‘feudal’ service with the more stringent customs of the Paris region.64 The crusader-lords were obliged to provide de Montfort with the service of French knights, to the exclusion of milites istius terrae, ‘whenever and wherever there is a war against his person’.65 Leave would be granted to depart the theatre of war, but only for a period of time agreed by the chief crusader.66 Permission was required to build or

63

64 65

66

An English translation is available in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, pp. 321–29, based on Pierre-Clément Timbal, Un Conflit d’Annexion au Moyen-âge: L’Application de la Coutume de Paris au Pays Albigeois (Paris, 1950), pp. 177–84. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 154. Nos 17,  18,  21–22, published as Appendix H in Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, pp. 321–29 (here 323–24). No. 19, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, Appendix H, p. 324.

181

Daniel J. F. Brown

rebuild fortresses, and existing castles were to be surrendered if required for the waging of war.67 To incentivise the resettlement of the towns and villages ‘left empty through fear of the crusaders’, administration was also tightly controlled;68 the imposition of novel exactions was forbidden, as was the exceeding of existing taxes.69 Above all, de Montfort’s barons were to be the local enforcers of religious orthodoxy, bound to proclaim, capture and pursue the enemies of God whenever the opportunity arose, upon pain of forfeiture. ‘Whoever in future knowingly permits a heretic to stay in his territory, whether for money or any other cause’, proclaimed the eleventh statute, ‘let him for this single reason lose all his land forever’.70 In essence, the strategy envisaged by the crusade leadership was one of rough colonisation: the systematic removal of heretics and their sympathisers from their respective communities. To what degree Hugh de Lacy conformed with this policy, however, is open to interpretation. As participants in an ‘unremitting war of movement’,71 the crusader-lords were not afforded the luxury of constantly supervising their new possessions. The delegation of administration and organisation to trusted retainers was therefore of paramount importance, and an indication of those whom de Lacy charged with the oversight of his lands, replacing the deputies (vicars or sub-vicars) employed by his southern precursors,72 may be found in the witness clauses to Hugh’s charters conveying property and privileges on the local convent of Prouille (alias Prouilhe, Fanjeaux, dép. Aude), founded c. 1207 by St Dominic of Osma to shelter converted 67

68 69

70

71 72

Nos 20,  23, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, Appendix H, pp. 324–25. For the custom of rendering castles to overlords in the kingdom of France, see Charles Coulson, ‘Fortress-policy in Capetian Tradition and Angevin Practice: Aspects of the Conquest of Normandy by Philip II’, AngloNorman Studies 6 (1983), 13–39. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p. 61, stanza 110. Nos 8,  26,  31, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, Appendix H, pp. 322–26. These included the guidagia and pedagia, which provided for armed guards along thoroughfares, and ‘frequently sold off by the higher nobility to castellans living along the route’: Elaine Graham-Leigh, The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade (Woodbridge, 2005), p. 97. Nos 11,  37, Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, Appendix H, pp. 322, 327. Barber, The Cathars, p. 130. Graham-Leigh, Southern French Nobility, pp.  135–36. The disappearance of witness-lists in northern France around this time represents ‘a major shortcoming for reconstructing sociopolitical connections’: Power, ‘Who Went on the Albigensian Crusade?’, p. 1054.

182

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

heretic women.73 Several of these witnesses were well-used to the challenges posed by frontier lordship, having followed de Lacy into exile from Ireland. During Hugh II’s Irish rebellion of 1223–4, Ralph Pedelowe would be tasked with buying arms and clothes from the Ostmen of Dublin,74 and the value of his service may be inferred from his later installation in the earldom of Ulster around Larne, close to de Lacy’s seat at Carrickfergus.75 Both Henry Wallensis (alias Walsh) and Henry fitzLeon had served de Lacy prior to his exile in 1210, and appear to have remained in Hugh’s coterie after his restoration to Ulster in 1227.76 Back in Ireland, in a charter which must date to 1213, John fitzLeon dedicated a grant relating to the church of Donaghmore (Co. Meath), for the well-being of the soul of his lord, Hugh de Lacy (pro salute anime domini mei).77 The common distinction between the souls of the living (pro salute anime) and the dead (pro anima) implies that the dedication pertained to Hugh II de Lacy, lord of Ratoath until 1210, a striking testament to the kind of loyalty which, even in exile, the younger Hugh was able to inspire from among his former tenants in Meath. John’s dedication to his ‘living lord’ was possibly also invested with a hope that his presumed relative, Henry fitzLeon, was still alive and well with de Lacy in southern France. In further testament to the durability of the bond between lord and vassal, another of the witnesses to Hugh de Lacy’s grants in favour of Prouille was Hubert Hose, who had been arrested by King John’s forces at Carrickfergus in 1210, only to escape from royal custody in 1213 and join his lord in Occitania by the next year.78

73

74

75 76

77

78

Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Prouille, ed. Jean Guiraud, 2 vols (Paris, 1907), 2: 135–36. Daniel J. F. Brown, ‘The Citizens and Archbishop of Dublin during Hugh de Lacy’s Irish Rebellion, 1223–4’, in Medieval Dublin 15 (2016), 253–63. Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 1226–57 [etc.], 6 vols (London, 1903–27), p. 287. See Brown, Hugh de Lacy, Appendix  I, nos 8,  22,  25–29. Walshestown is a townland in the parish of Saul (co. Down): Ecclesiastical Antiquities, pp. 39–40. The fitz Leons, taking their eponym from Leonisius de Bromiard, were tenants of Hugh II de Lacy in Ratoath, at Flenstown (par. Donaghmore, from ‘Fitzleonstown’): Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 10–14, 20–25; Murphy and Potterton, Dublin Region in the Middle Ages, p. 82. Register of the Abbey of St Thomas, pp. 282–83. For the date of this grant I am grateful for the advice of Prof. M. T. Flanagan, Queen’s University Belfast. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Fourteenth Year of the Reign of King John, ed. P. M. Barnes (London, 1955), pp. 157–58; Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no. 453.

183

Daniel J. F. Brown

The other intriguing aspect of the witness lists are those toponyms (Belfort, Saint-Julien, Saint-Gauderic) associated with localities in the Aude.79 The crusader occupation of Languedoc was no simple clash between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ values: much as membership of de Lacy’s entourage in Ireland allowed cadets from middling families to achieve land and status, alliance with the new overlords of the Midi must have been attractive to those local members of the lesser nobility otherwise restricted by the prevailing attitudes concerning inheritance and landholding. As we have already seen in an Ulster context, there was room at the lord’s table for members of the local tenant community, as well as Hugh’s own trusted vassals. Other pieces of charter evidence are more ambiguous. De Lacy’s grant to Prouille of land at Agassens, in late February 1217, included several plots formerly held by certain individuals, including ‘the condomina formerly belonging to Roger d’Orsans’ in the tithe-land of St Peter at Agassens.80 Condomina were the best plots of land appurtenant either to churches or towns, and could not normally be purchased or acquired by anyone of ordinary status.81 As such, it seems likely that the Roger d’Orsans from de Lacy’s charter was synonymous with the Raymond-Roger d’Orsans, miles, found by later inquisitors to have consorted with prominent local heretics. Raymond-Roger denied any involvement with the heretics in his own deposition, made on 4 March 1246, even though he admitted having seen the ‘good men’ in public at Laurac thirty years previously: that is, in 1216, during Hugh de Lacy’s tenure.82 The possible implication, therefore, is that the lands of at least some heretics or their sympathisers were confiscated under Hugh de Lacy’s supervision. Significantly, the form of the ‘que fuerunt’ conveyances in de Lacy’s charter from February 1217 calls to mind the Liber Reddituum Serenissimi Domini Regis Francie, an assessment of the royal bailie of Castelnaudary made in 1272, which designated certain plots of land in a similar manner (item [dominus rex] habet I eminam terre qui fuit…), seen by Jean-Paul Cazes as evidence of comital appropriation of lands once owned by heretics.83 79

80 81

82 83

See Antoine Sabarthès, Dictionnaire Topographique du Département de L’Aude Comprenant les Noms de Lieux Anciens et Modernes (Paris, 1912), pp. 27, 387, 396–97. Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Prouille, 2: 135–36. Jean-Paul Cazes, ‘Structures agraires et domaine comtal dans la bailie de Castelnaudary en 1272’, Annales du Midi 99 (1987), 453–77, at p. 457. MS 609, fos 152v, 154, 158, 164. Cazes, ‘Structures Agraires et Domaine Comtal’, p.  465: ‘likewise [the lord king] has 1 piece of land which belonged to…’

184

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

As a caveat, however, local men were evidently engaged as mercenaries by the crusaders, and so it is perfectly possible that those named as former landholders in de Lacy’s grant were not heretics, but had instead vacated their lands by virtue of their deaths in service to the crusade.84 It remains unclear the extent to which the towns and villages under de Lacy’s sway were affected by the advent of the crusaders. In his case-study of Le Mas, W. L. Wakefield noted that the castrum ‘is not mentioned as a scene of conflict; no member of the leading families is recorded as having had a fighting part, nor are confiscations of property there known’.85 Nevertheless, we have seen that the lord of Le Mas, Bernard de Quiders, had probably been dislocated by Hugh de Lacy’s arrival, and Wakefield notes other crezens who appear to have left Le Mas during the war.86 As in Ulster, it seems likely that certain individuals lost their lands or positions as a result of Hugh de Lacy’s installation, but there is little else to show that de Lacy implemented a broad policy of confiscation or forced conversion. The effect of the crusade on the social and religious life of some individuals is difficult to gauge. In 1205 one girl, Crivessent Pelhicier, had gone to stay at Laurac with her grandmother and socii sui heretices, with whom she lived for five years.87 This may well have been the very home established for the good women at Laurac by Blanca, mother of Aimery of Montreal and a Cathar perfecta (ordained believer), against such communities the convent of Prouille was intended to function as an orthodox counterpoint.88 However, whether Crivessent’s stay was interrupted by the arrival of the crusaders, sworn to expunge heresy from their new seigneuries, or by some other circumstance, is impossible to say. Evidently some townspeople were prepared to renounce their beliefs under pressure from the Church, although the doctrines of the heretics retained their allure. William Auteri told his inquisitors that his mother and father, from Villepinte (dép. Aude), near the eastern extremity of de Lacy’s lordship, had been reconciled ad fidem catholicam by the blessed Dominic (of Osma, founder of the convent of Prouille), in 1216.89 Later, however, William’s mother had returned to this vomitum and was burned 84

85 86 87 88 89

See, for example, the capture of Lambert de Thury (de Montfort’s marshal) and the Englishman, Walter Langton, in 1211, while riding near the land of the count of Foix ‘with a large group of local men’: Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, pp. 127–28, stanza 248. Wakefield, ‘Heretics and Inquisitors’, pp. 214–15. Wakefield, ‘Heretics and Inquisitors’, p. 215. MS 609, fo 85v; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 119. Barber, The Cathars, p. 35. MS 609, fo 251r.

185

Daniel J. F. Brown

(combusta). Those resisting conversion existed on the fringes of society, at once objects of deference and derision. On one occasion Raymond Arrufat had ‘adored’ the bons omes in the house of the lady Minha at Castelnaudary; at another time, he mocked his heretic half-sister by sending her three putrid fish.90 Crucially, it does not appear that ordinary crezens were completely ostracised from their communities, although they might have been physically separated. The Pamiers decrees compelled the crusaders to root out ‘enemies of the faith’ from their lands, but in reality this label seems only to have applied to those actively resisting the work of the Church, and even perfecti were permitted to live outside town walls at an authorised location.91 In 1216 one Peter Serni stayed for three days at Laurac, constructing a partition wall in the house of one heretica, of the kind which would later separate Bernard de Quiders, lord of Le Mas, from his sister.92 Around the same time, Peter was also commissioned to build a new stone gateway for the town; despite some Romanesque-like detailing (not all of it in situ?), the extant Saliège gate, framing Laurac’s principal entrance (Fig. 9.2), is conceivably this new gateway.93 He and his six companions ate their meals, de mandato communitatis eiusdem ville, at the house of one Izarn de Castres.94 De Castres was the same heresiarch who, in 1208, had disputed the essence of holiness in front of all the inhabitants in the public square at Laurac.95 Clearly, the bons omes could still perform an important function within their communities. Mark Pegg has identified the house of de Castres as a ‘focal point, a safe domus, a separate space, where working men not from the village could eat and stay without disturbing the tempo of Laurac’.96 The interaction between the heterodox and orthodox of Laurac and Castelnaudary, however, could only have continued with the permission of the overlord, Hugh de Lacy. The business of frontier lordship, whether in Ireland or southern France, was not suited to everyone. Recounting the fall of Carcassonne to the 90 91

92 93

94 95 96

MS 609, fo 250b: tres pices salsos putridos pro derrisione. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p.  323 (no.  15). See, however, the apparently contradictory statute (above, no. 11), forbidding the crusaders knowingly to allow heretics to reside within their territories upon pain of forfeiture. MS 609, fo 24v; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 120. I am grateful to Paul Duffy and Prof. Tadhg O’Keeffe for their advice on this matter. MS 609, fo 24v; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 120. MS 609, fo 198r; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 83. Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 120.

186

Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship under Hugh II de Lacy

Fig. 9.2: The Porte de Saliège, Laurac, viewed from outside (a) and inside (b) the town; see colour plate 16.

187

Daniel J. F. Brown

crusaders in 1209, William of Tudela remarked on the reluctance of the northerners to settle in the lands they had conquered: ‘the mountains are wild and the passes dangerous and none of them wanted to be killed in that country’.97 Dangerous though it was, however, the Midi was hardly any more hazardous than the Irish terra guerre in which Hugh de Lacy had forged his reputation, nor the passes of the Black Mountains any less safe than the Fews of Armagh. For those operating under such pressured conditions, it was a strategy of colonisation which most appealed. Quite naturally, the incoming lord was likely to feel threatened; correspondingly, we might understand if he wanted to root out those who might prove disruptive to his lordship. The advantage of this strategy, as Crouch has shown, is that it ‘combined policy with patronage’, allowing the lord to reward his own supporters with the lands and privileges taken from those loyal to the previous regime.98 The disadvantage of a colonising strategy, however, was that it often only served to make the lord’s position more insecure: stirring-up feelings of resentment from among the dispossessed; creating economic and social disruption; weakening the lord’s power in the longer-term through ‘political debilitation’.99 In contrast, the strategy of assimilation mixed conquest with conciliation, power with persuasion. No lord could afford to be completely reliant on the soft-approach, and we certainly see elements of political colonisation in action under Hugh de Lacy: through the patronage of family members or the selected dispossession of political enemies. In Ulster, however, there was no wholesale uprooting of John de Courcy’s followers, nor was there any perceivable attempt to establish new colonies of canons and monks as counterpoints to those installed by the previous regime. In exile de Lacy adopted another identity as a member of Simon de Montfort’s inner circle. Yet, he seems to have preserved the freedom to craft a lordship strategy best suited to his circumstances. Whereas the ideologues among the leadership of the crusade demanded the expulsion of dissenters from God’s land, under Hugh de Lacy the ‘good men’ and ‘good women’ were kept merely at arms-length, living within reach of their orthodox friends and families. Ultimately, de Lacy’s political choices underline a feature of successful lordship often invisible in contemporary sources preoccupied with violence and the disturbance of peace: namely, the sensitivity required of a lord to those under his dominion.

97 98 99

Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 27, stanza 36. Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship’, p. 6. Crouch, ‘Strategies of Lordship’, p. 8.

188

Chapter 10 Simon de Montfort – un croisé dans l’ame? Jean-Louis Gasc Abstract Executioner of Languedoc for some, ‘knight of Christ’ for many others, Simon  IV de Montfort has often been presented as a simple minor lord of Île de France, fierce and bloodthirsty, taking part in the so-called crusade against the Albigensian for plunder and to conquer southern lands. This simplistic and caricatured view of history is often endorsed by the existing large body of popular literature. The historical reality is somewhat different, and of course more complex. To try to understand de Montfort’s character and the makeup of his entourage, we must rely on the often contradictory contemporary chroniclers. For some, such as his companion, Cistercian monk Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, de Montfort was saint and martyr while in the work of the anonymous author of the Canso, he is represented as a bloodthirsty and ‘cursed tyrant’. This article aims to examine in full the career and temperament of Simon de Montfort in order to better understand the motivations of this man so inextricably linked to the history of the crusade against the Albigensian and a figure so important in the destinies of Hugh de Lacy in Languedoc.

Résumé Bourreau du Languedoc pour les uns, ‘chevalier du Christ’ pour bien d’autres, Simon IV de Montfort a souvent été présenté comme un simple petit seigneur d’Île de France, féroce et sanguinaire, prenant part à la croisade dite contre les Albigeois pour piller, et conquérir des terres méridionales. Cette vision simpliste et caricaturale de l’histoire est souvent véhiculée par une littérature à caractère commercial. La réalité historique est quelque peu différente, et bien entendu plus complexe. Pour tenter de comprendre ce personnage et son entourage, il faut nous appuyer sur les chroniques qui, pour les unes, comme celle de son chroniqueur le moine cistercien Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, le présentent comme saint et martyre ou pour d’autres, comme l’œuvre du continuateur anonyme de la Canso, le représentent comme sanguinaire et d’une ‘tyrannie maudite’. Cet article vise à donner une approche du caractère de Simon de Montfort afin de mieux comprendre sa destinée exceptionnelle au coeur de l’histoire de la croisade contre les Albigeois. Sa trajectoire contribue à éclairer l’épopée des chevaliers croisés et en particulier la destinée d’Hugues de Lacy en Languedoc.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 189–209

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114244

Jean-Louis Gasc

Simon de Montfort, un grand seigneur d’île de France Cet article vise à étudier dans sa totalité la carrière et tempérament de Simon IV1 de Montfort afin de mieux comprendre les motivations de cet homme si inextricablement lié a l’histoire de la croisade contre les Albigeois et d’un si grande importance dans les destins d’Hugues de Lacy en Languedoc. Son père, Simon  III, avait épousé Amicie la fille de Robert  III de Beaumont qui lui apporta le comté de Leicester. A la mort de Simon III avant 1195, Simon IV est désormais un des grands seigneurs d’Île de France. Représenté dans une iconographie tardive comme un homme mûr portant fièrement la barbe,2 Simon n’a sans doute pas encore 25 ans lorsque, le 28 novembre 1199, avec son frère Gui, il prend la croix au tournoi du château d’Ecri-sur-Aisne, aujourd’hui Asfeld dans les Ardennes. Sa devise aurait été une expression de défi: ‘Viens çà, je te la challenge’. Mais le destin de Simon de Montfort comme pour ces jeunes chevaliers d’Île de France ou de Bourgogne en quête de prouesses passait par une véritable guerre, et bientôt la croisade, la guerre sainte allait succéder aux tournois.

Le croisé contre l’infidèle Le dernier grand tournois du siècle offert par le jeune comte Thibault de Champagne et sa jeune épouse Blanche de Navarre devait accueillir toute la chevalerie et la noblesse champenoise mais aussi les grands seigneurs de France. Simon et son frère Gui étaient de cette fête, quand le curé de Neuilli, Foulques ‘doué d’une éloquence vive et populaire’, envoyé par le pape Innocent  III ‘pour prêcher la croix sous son autorité’, exhorta tout le monde à prendre la croix pour libérer Jérusalem: ‘Tous ceux qui

1

2

Michel Roquebert dans son ouvrage Simon de Montfort : Bourreau et martyr (Perrin, 2005) fait remarquer qu’André Rhein a commis l’erreur en 1910 de nommer le chef de la croisade Simon IV († 1218). En effet, Amicie de Montfort, connue comme femme de Simon IV, est la mère de notre Simon de Montfort, qui est donc Simon V (pp. 39–41). Pourtant, en pays anglophone, le fils de notre Simon de Montfort, qui tient une place importante dans l’histoire de l’Angleterre, porte le titre de Simon V de Montfort († 1265). C’est cette numérotation que nous gardons, pour respecter l’unité de ce volume. Peinture sur toile de Simon Vouet (1590–1649).

190

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

se croiseraient et feraient le service de Dieu un an dans l’armée seraient quittes de tous les péchés qu’ils avaient faits, dont ils seraient confessés’.3 Auparavant le même Foulques de Neulli avait tenté, en vain de convaincre le roi de France Philippe Auguste. Ce dernier ne devait pas voir d’un mauvais œil ses plus redoutables vassaux prendre le chemin de Jérusalem. ‘Beaucoup se croisèrent parce que l’indulgence était si grande’. Le chroniqueur Geoffroy de Villehardouin souligne qu’outre la prise de la croix par le jeune Thibaut de Champagne et le comte Louis de Blois (cousins germains et neveux du roi de France et du roi d’Angleterre), celle-ci fut suivie de la prise de la croix par deux ‘très hauts barons de France’: Simon de Montfort et Renaud de Montmirail. ‘Bien grande fut la renommée par les pays quand ces deux hauts hommes se croisèrent’.4 La croisade a du mal à se mettre en place, les préparatifs durent et sont encore retardés par la mort du jeune comte Thibault de Champagne, le 24 mai 1201. Il faut trouver un autre chef. Simon de Montfort fait partie de la délégation qui demande au duc Eudes de Bourgogne de se croiser. C’est en définitive Boniface, le marquis de Montferrat qui est choisi. Il est décidé que les croisés partiront de Venise. Le doge de Venise, Enrico Dandolo, un vieillard (dont on dit qu’il aurait eu plus de 90 ans) prend lui aussi la croix. Il avait déjà chiffré les besoins des croisés. Mais tous les croisés ne s’étant pas présentés à Venise, l’argent – une somme considérable de 34000 marcs – manque pour le passage. Les croisés ‘obtiennent un répit’, un accord leur est proposé, ils doivent promettre aux Vénitiens de les aider contre le roi de Hongrie en allant reprendre le port concurrent de ‘Jadre’, Zara, aujourd’hui Zadar en Croatie. Le 8 octobre la flotte quitte Venise et, un mois plus tard, le 10 novembre arrive devant le port de Zara. Les croisés que le chroniqueur Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay appelle des ‘pèlerins’ plantent leurs tentes aux alentours des remparts. Mais Simon de Montfort et Gui, abbé des Vaux-de-Cernay – qui avait participé à l’éducation de Simon de Montfort – ‘ne suivirent pas la multitude pour faire le mal’ précise le chroniqueur, au contraire, ils vont camper à l’écart, loin de la ville. Le 12 novembre une délégation d’habitants vient proposer au Doge de se rendre mais les barons et les Vénitiens hésitent. Le Pape Innocent III, qui avait appris le détournement de la croisade, avait envoyé une bulle à l’assemblée des croisés, ‘[…] leur interdisant de causer le moindre tort à la ville chrétienne de Zara, sous peine de perdre 3

4

La conquête de Constantinople par Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin, trans. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1872), p. 5. La conquête de Constantinople, p. 5.

191

Jean-Louis Gasc

l’indulgence qu’il leur avait été accordée et d’encourir l’excommunication la plus grave’.5 Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, témoin oculaire de cette expédition, que nous retrouverons aux côtés de Simon de Montfort pendant la croisade contre les Albigeois, rapporte que son oncle l’abbé Gui des Vaux-de-Cernay se dressa face à l’assemblée des comtes et des barons pour leur notifier cette bulle papale en rappelant aux croisés qu’ils étaient aussi des pèlerins et que la ville était peuplée de chrétiens. Les Vénitiens auraient voulu le tuer mais Simon de Montfort leur tient tête et proclame qu’il n’est pas venu pour ‘détruire des chrétiens’. Plus tard il n’aura aucun scrupule à éliminer les hérétiques du Languedoc et leurs protecteurs, donc d’autres chrétiens. Simon de Montfort, accompagné par d’autres seigneurs, choisit de quitter cette expédition qui n’était plus une croisade. En mars 1203 il gagne la Syrie, et pendant plus d’un an, ‘il fit maintes prouesses en combattant les infidèles’, précise Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay qui va lier cette épopée contre l’infidèle à celle qu’allait connaître plus tard Simon de Montfort, lors de la croisade ‘contre les Albigeois’. ‘Dès cette époque, il mérita les honneurs qu’il obtint plus tard en abattant l’hérésie’.6 En 1204 Simon de Montfort revient sur ses terres. Son oncle Robert, comte de Leicester, vient à mourir sans héritier et Amicie, la mère de Simon de Montfort hérite des possessions anglaises. Mais Jean Sans Terre met la main sur ce comté c’est à dire sur les possessions que les seigneurs de France fidèles à Philippe Auguste ont en Angleterre. Cela n’empêchera pas désormais Simon de Montfort de se présenter systématiquement comme comte de Leicester. Montfort administre ses terres et exerce sa fonction de gruyer des forêts royales, il en est en quelque sorte l’administrateur, ce qui lui vaut ces deux sceaux que nous lui connaissons: où il n’apparaît pas comme maints chevaliers en pointant une lance, mais chevauchant tout en soufflant de la corne, avec à ses côtés des chiens de chasse. A cette même époque la prédication anti-hérétique en Languedoc semble battre de l’aile. L’assassinat du légat du Pape Pierre de Castelnau en 1208 va précipiter les évènements. Le pape Innocent III décide de lancer une nouvelle croisade cette fois-ci contre ‘les Albigeois’ c’est à dire les hérétiques du Languedoc ou plutôt les seigneurs méridionaux, qui tolèrent et protègent cette dissidence et cette contre-église chrétienne.

5

6

Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay Histoire albigeoise, ed. and trans. Pascal Guébin and Henri Maisonneuve (Paris 1951), p. 48. Histoire albigeoise, p. 49.

192

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Le croisé contre l’hérétique Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay rapporte que son oncle Gui, mandaté pour promouvoir l’affaire de la foi contre l’hérésie, revenant d’une visite au duc de Bourgogne, porte à Simon de Montfort ‘des lettres’ que ce dernier lui adressait en lui demandant de s’engager comme lui dans ‘l’armée du Christ’. C’est une volonté divine qui aurait alors scellé la destinée de Simon de Montfort. Le signe a lieu dans l’église de Rochefort. Comme l’abbé lui demandait de venir à part pour lui montrer la lettre du duc, le comte traverse le chœur, et poussé par une inspiration divine, saisit le psautier qu’il trouve sur le lutrin, il l’ouvre intentionnellement et, posant le doigt sur la première ligne, il dit à l’abbé: ‘Expliquez-moi ce passage’. Le psaume de l’écriture était celui-ci: Dieu a ordonné à ses anges de te protéger dans toutes les voies: ils te porteront dans leurs mains, de peur que tu ne heurtes le pied contre la pierre. que ce fut-là disposition providentielle, la suite de l’histoire l’a amplement confirmé.7

Il faut donc une volonté divine pour que Simon de Montfort s’affranchisse de sa fidélité au roi de France. Philippe Auguste, de son côté ne veut pas entendre parler d’une croisade contre son cousin, le comte de Toulouse, ni obéir au Pape pour participer à cette expédition. Simon de Montfort quant à lui, préfère obéir au Pape qu’à son suzerain. Il ne peut plus échapper à son destin et devient ou redevient ce chevalier du Christ, ce guerrier de Dieu celui qui s’est fidèlement battu pour le pape Innocent III et l’Église romaine en terre sainte, celui qui avait épargné les chrétiens catholiques de la ville de Zara. Il allait devenir le chevalier providentiel et exemplaire que cette nouvelle croisade attendait. Appliquez vous à détruire l’hérésie par tous les moyens que Dieu vous inspirera. Avec plus d’assurance encore que les sarrasins, car ils sont plus dangereux.8

Le 22 juillet 1209, quand la gigantesque armée croisée arrive devant Béziers les habitants de la cité refusent de livrer à leur évêque 223 présumés hérétiques dont ce dernier avait dressé la liste. La suite nous la connaissons. Pour Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, les habitants ont préféré mourir, c’était sans doute un choix inventé pour minimiser la responsabilité des croisés dans ce gigantesque massacre. ‘Se dressant contre Dieu et contre l’Eglise,

7 8

Histoire albigeoise, p. 46. Histoire albigeoise, p. 32.

193

Jean-Louis Gasc

faisant un pacte avec la mort, ils aimèrent mieux mourir hérétiques que vivre chrétiens.’9 Selon la chronique tardive de Césaire d’Heisterbach, les croisés auraient demandé, à ‘celui sans lequel on n’aurait rien fait’, c’est à dire le légat du pape, Arnaud Amalric, chef spirituel de la croisade, comment reconnaître, ‘les bons des mauvais’, et l’abbé de Cîteaux aurait répondu: ‘Tuez les tous, car le Seigneur connaît les siens!’ (Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius).10 Parfois cette phrase est prêtée par erreur à Simon de Montfort. De toutes façons cette manière de faire était le principe même de la croisade, la volonté papale s’exprimait par la force armée des croisés. Dans leur rapport adressé au pape, l’abbé de Cîteaux Arnaud Amalric et les légats de la croisade précisent: Les nôtres, n’épargnant ni le rang, ni le sexe, ni l’âge ont fait périr par l’épée environ vingt mille personnes, et après un énorme massacre des ennemis, toute la cité a été pillée et brûlée. La vengeance divine a fait merveille!11

C’est en fait à Carcassonne que Simon de Montfort va se distinguer. Pour son chroniqueur il fait montre de bravoure et de courage: il est le seul chevalier à se jeter dans le fossé pour contribuer à la prise du premier faubourg. Puis, de même, il se jette à nouveau dans un fossé, accompagné d’un simple écuyer pour sauver un chevalier blessé.12 La cité de Carcassonne tombe en quinze jours, son jeune seigneur Raimond Roger Trencavel est retenu prisonnier: il s’est livré comme otage et permet ainsi à son peuple de partir avec la vie sauve. Les croisés doivent choisir un nouveau vicomte.

Le vicomte providentiel Pour procéder à la désignation d’un nouveau vicomte, deux évêques, quatre chevaliers autour de l’inévitable abbé de Cîteaux, Arnaud Amalric, ‘légat du siège apostolique’, s’engagent à choisir celui, ‘qu’ils estiment le plus utile à Dieu et au siècle.’ Mais le comte de Nevers ayant refusé, tout 9 10

11

12

Histoire albigeoise, p. 41. Sur cette phrase voir Jacques Berlioz, ‘Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens’: le massacre de Béziers (22 juillet 1209) et la croisade contre les Albigeois vus par Césaire de Heisterbach (Portet-sur-Garonne, 1994). Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, 221  vols (Paris, 1844–55), 216: p.  77, col. 139. Histoire albigeoise, p. 43.

194

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

comme le duc de Bourgogne, c’est finalement Simon de Montfort, ‘comte de Leicester’, qui est alors désigné comme celui qui allait recevoir la terre des ‘hérétiques’. Simon de Montfort n’a pas été choisi simplement pour sa bravoure mais aussi pour son passé, de chevalier fidèle au saint Siège. Pressé par Arnaud Amalric, Simon IV de Montfort accepte de devenir le nouveau vicomte de Carcassonne, de gouverner la terre et d’y combattre l’hérésie. Voici le portrait saisissant qu’en dresse le moine des Vaux-de-Cernay: ‘Mettons en premier lieu son illustre origine, son inébranlable courage et sa connaissance approfondie du maniement des armes. De plus si nous passons à l’aspect physique, sa stature était haute, sa chevelure remarquable, son visage élégant, son aspect agréable, ses épaules saillantes, ses bras musclés, son torse gracieux, tous ses membres agiles et souples, son allure vive et alerte: il ne prêtait pas à la critique, même aux yeux d’un ennemi ou d’un jaloux […] Sa parole était éloquente, son affabilité accessible à tous, sa camaraderie aimable, sa chasteté absolue, son humilité exceptionnelle: il était doué de sagesse, tenace dans ses décisions, avisé dans ses conseils, équitable dans ses jugements, compétent dans les questions militaires, prudent dans ses actions, difficile à mettre en train, mais persévérant jusqu’à l’achèvement de sa tâche, adonné tout entier au service de Dieu. […] Combien furent prévoyants les chefs qui l’ont élu, combien raisonnables les croisés (les pèlerins) qui l’ont acclamé en désignant un homme si religieux, pour défendre la vraie religion…’13

Simon de Montfort peut avoir environ trente-quatre ans, au moment où il s’installe dans le palais comtal de Carcassonne. Simon va devoir occuper l’ancienne vicomté avec ce qu’il lui reste de fidèles et de proches. La grande armée croisée se sépare et la plupart des chevaliers et seigneurs rentrent chez eux. Ils n’étaient donc pas venus pour conquérir des terres. Simon va devoir garder le pays il doit s’appuyer sur ses plus fidèles compagnons d’armes qui garderont les villes dont ils seront les nouveaux seigneurs. Pendant ce temps, il laisse probablement mourir dans son propre cachot le vicomte Raimond Roger Trencavel. Au même moment le pape Innocent III ratifie l’investiture de Simon de Montfort les 11 et 12 novembre de cette même année 1209, c’est à dire un jour après la mort de Raimond Roger Trencavel.14 Mais Innocent III écrira plus tard, et il était probablement bien renseigné, que ce jeune vicomte avait été assassiné.

13 14

Histoire albigeoise, p. 46. Patrologia Latina, 216: 83, col. 151–52.

195

Jean-Louis Gasc

Simon de Montfort: ‘Le plus doux des hommes?’ Pour André Rhein, en 1910, ‘La mémoire de Montfort a été noircie par les légendes que l’esprit de parti n’a cessé de mettre en circulation sur la croisade des Albigeois. Ce fut évidemment une expédition assez sanglante, mais dans toutes les guerres, principalement à cette époque, on pourrait trouver des exemples de pires cruautés, et l’anarchie morale et religieuse dans laquelle sombrait la civilisation méridionale nécessitait une prompte et énergique répression’.15 Bien, des historiens ont tentés et essayent encore de minimiser les faits sanglants liés à la persécution des hérétiques. Soit en justifiant les faits de guerre par le contexte de l’époque, soit en minimisant l’existence même des victimes, en les rendant parfois responsables de leur propre disparition. Lorsque les victimes choisissent leurs sorts, leurs bourreaux n’en sont plus, ils ne sont que les exécutants d’une justice divine, des pèlerins plus que des croisés, le bras armé de Dieu. En 1210, celui que Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay qualifie de ‘plus doux des hommes’ se venge de l’affront que lui avait fait un chevalier occitan Guiraud de Pépieux et fait crever les yeux et couper le nez d’une centaine de défenseurs de Bram près de Carcassonne. Un seul d’entre eux n’est qu’éborgné, afin de conduire jusqu’à Cabaret la sinistre colonne, ‘le cortège ridicule de nos ennemis’, souligne Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay qui voit dans cet acte celui de la justice divine: C’était justice de les voir tomber dans la fosse qu’ils avaient creusée et goûter de temps en temps au calice qu’ils avaient si souvent fait boire aux autres. Jamais le noble comte ne se complaisait à un acte de cruauté ni aux souffrances d’autrui: Il était le plus doux des hommes…16

La conquête de la vicomté de Carcassonne fut bien entendu jalonnée de massacres et de bûchers. À Carcassonne, Montfort fait par exemple traîner à travers la ville, attaché à la queue d’un cheval, un clerc qui avait rallié la résistance occitane, puis il le fait pendre. Avant de s’emparer de Limoux Montfort fait pendre plusieurs habitants des places qui lui résistaient, ‘aux potences qu’ils avaient méritées.’ Si les résistants sont voués à la pendaison les cathares seront quant à eux voués aux bûchers. A Minerve en 1210, Montfort assiste au premier grand bûcher de la croisade. L’abbé Arnaud Amalric, ‘qui souhaitait vivement la mort des 15

16

André Rhein, La Seigneurie de Montfort en Iveline, depuis son origine jusqu’à son union au duché de Bretagne (Xe-XIVe siècle) (Versailles, 1910), p. 68. Histoire albigeoise, p. 62.

196

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

ennemis du Christ’, ordonna que le seigneur et tous les habitants aient la vie sauve y compris les croyants des hérétiques, s’ils voulaient etré ré-conciliés et obéir à l’Eglise. Quant aux hérétiques parfaits,17 qui étaient extrêmement nombreux, ils seraient eux aussi épargnés s’ils voulaient se convertir. Mais la ville appartiendrait au comte. En entendant cela, un des fidèles compagnons de Simon de Montfort, Robert de Mauvoisin, craignant que les hérétiques ne se convertissent par peur du feu s’indigne de cette mesure qu’il juge trop clémente. Mais l’abbé le rassure: ‘Ne craignez rien, je crois que très peu se convertiront’. Avec la bénédiction d’Arnaud Amalric, Montfort fait conduire les ‘bons hommes et bonnes femmes cathares’ en dehors de la ville vers le lieu du supplice. Depuis les hauteurs du causse avoisinant, on peut assister à l’exécution: ‘On prépare un grand bûcher; on les y jette tous. À vrai dire les nôtres n’eurent même pas besoin de les y jeter, tous obstinés qu’ils étaient dans le mal, ils se précipitaient dans le feu’. D’après le chroniqueur de la Chanson de la croisade: Ils y brûlèrent maint hérétique félon, de mauvaise engeance, et nombre de folles hérétiques qui braillaient dans le feu. […] Puis on jeta les corps et les enfouit dans la boue, de peur que ces ordures infectassent notre gent étrangère.18

Ce fut le premier grand bûcher de la croisade… 140 brûlés. On remarque que pour le moine des Vaux-de-Cernay, les hérétiques n’ont pas simplement mérité la mort, mais ils la choisissent et l’assument en refusant de se convertir et en se précipitant eux-mêmes dans les flammes. Les années 1210–11 voient Simon de Montfort devenir le véritable maître du pays. Après avoir conquis la vicomté de Carcassonne, il peut diriger désormais la croisade contre le comte de Toulouse. Les forteresses tombent les unes après les autres accompagnées de massacres et de bûchers. Au mois de mai 1211 le plus grand bûcher de la croisade à lieu à Lavaur. Tandis que 60 chevaliers résistants sont pendus aux potences, puis passés au fil de l’épée car les potences avaient cédées sous leur poids, la 17

18

Le mot ‘parfait’ ne signifie pas que l’hérétique cherchait la perfection ou la pureté, mais qu’il avait reçu le baptême du Consolament, par imposition des mains de sa hiérarchie et qu’il était ainsi entré en religion (à l’image des moines catholiques). Vivant désormais en communauté, le ‘bonhomme ou la bonne Dame’ ainsi ordonnés étaient désormais astreints à la règle de vie évangélique à laquelle ils s’étaient engagés. Le mot ‘parfait’ comme celui de ‘revêtu’ distingue les religieuses et religieux cathares de leurs simples croyants. Eugène Martin Chabot, La chanson de la croisade albigeoise éditée et traduite. Édition révisée, 3 vols (Paris, 1957–62), 2: 58–59.

197

Jean-Louis Gasc

Dame de la ville, Guiraude, a beau, ‘pleurer, crier et hurler’, Simon ordonne qu’elle soit jetée tout au fond d’un puits et que son corps soit recouvert par des pierres, ‘au grand émoi de la foule’. Enfin, on fait brûler dans un pré, ‘une infinité d’hérétiques, avec une joie extrême.’. ‘Ce fut en été, à la Sainte-Croix de mai’, à Lavaur 400 brûlés!19 Mais en septembre 1211 le comte de Toulouse, Raimon VI décide de passer à l’offensive. Sur les conseils du chevalier ‘hiberno-normand’ Hugues de Lacy, Simon de Montfort décide d’attendre l’ennemi dans Castelnaudary plutôt qu’à Carcassonne ou encore à Fanjeaux, c’est-à-dire directement à la frontière du comté de Toulouse. ‘Si vous voulez m’en croire, c’est dans le plus faible château qui soit en votre terre que vous les attendrez. Et s’il vous vient du secours, vous leur livrerez bataille, et mon coeur me dit pour certain que vous les vaincrez.’20

Hugues de Lacy avait vu juste et malgré son infériorité numérique, en fin stratège Simon de Montfort profitant de l’attentisme frileux du comte de Toulouse réussit à contrer efficacement la coalition occitane, malgré la bravoure des chevaliers du comte de Foix. Après cet échec au pied de Castelnaudary, la guerre prend une dimension psychologique. Le comte de Foix fait annoncer dans toutes les localités avoisinantes que Simon de Montfort a été écorché et pendu. S’en suit un soulèvement général contre les garnisons françaises qui occupent le pays. L’infatigable Simon de Montfort doit reprendre sa lutte. Il reçoit à la Noël 1211, un renfort inespéré et prestigieux: Gui de Montfort son propre frère.

La réaction de Montfort Après le siège de Castelnaudary, Simon de Montfort a récupéré une partie des seigneuries qui s’étaient rebellées. Il prend Hautpoul en 1212 tandis que les espoirs occitans se tournent désormais vers le très catholique roi d’Aragon, beau frère du comte de Toulouse, auréolé de sa récente victoire contre les sarrasins à la bataille de Las Navas de Tolosa.

19 20

Chabot, Chanson de la croisade des Albigeois, 2: 85–86. Chabot, Chanson de la croisade des Albigeois, 2: 111.

198

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

La victoire du Lion Muret (12 septembre 1213) À la fin de l’été, le roi d’Aragon passe les Pyrénées, accompagné par un millier de cavaliers. Aux mille cavaliers aragonais, chevaliers et écuyers compris, se joignent les cavaliers des comtes occitans, soit en tout près de deux mille cavaliers. Les milices toulousaines devaient également être très importantes, de 4000 à 10000 piétons. Dans le château qui domine la ville, les chevaliers français ne sont pas assez nombreux, ils n’ont plus assez de vivres pour tenir un siège et envoient un messager à Simon de Montfort qui séjourne à Fanjeaux. Simon de Montfort se met en route, il n’est accompagné ‘que’ par 800 chevaliers, sept évêques et trois abbés. Le roi d’Aragon pense pouvoir piéger Montfort dans la ville de Muret. Ainsi tout a été fait pour que ce dernier entre sans peine dans la ville assiégée: le pont est resté libre à l’est de la Garonne. Le comte et ses chevaliers pénètrent dans la ville sans être inquiétés. Il est décidé de ne combattre que le lendemain, moins pour laisser une chance aux négociations de paix, que pour attendre l’arrivée de renforts et le soir venu, le vicomte de Corbeil arrive de Carcassonne avec un renfort de chevaliers croisés. Le Jeudi 12 septembre Au petit matin, après la messe célébrée dans les deux camps, on tient conseil. Le roi d’Aragon refuse de parlementer et rassemble dans la plaine ses alliés. Raimond VI de Toulouse, toujours aussi prudent, ne souhaite pas qu’un combat soit mené en rase campagne. Il suggère, comme pour le siège de Castelnaudary, de fortifier le camp et d’attendre Montfort et ses chevaliers avec des arbalétriers. Raimond VI est jugé trop prudent, un chevalier aragonais, Miquel de Lucia, le lui reproche vivement et c’est à nouveau sans réelle stratégie, que les troupes méridionales vont affronter l’armée croisée et sa chevalerie lourde. Pourtant les nombreux piétons toulousains qui tiennent la ville assiégée avaient même réussi deux jours plus tôt à entrer dans la ville en forçant les Français à se replier dans le château, sur la hauteur. Mais le roi d’Aragon qui ne voulait pas prendre la ville de Muret, mais seulement battre Simon de Montfort, avait ordonné aux Toulousains de se replier. Simon de Montfort, quant à lui est un véritable stratège: on le surnommera bientôt le loup. Pourtant la journée commence par de mauvais présages. Il perd ses chausses à la messe puis tombe deux fois de cheval. 199

Jean-Louis Gasc

Puis, après les habituelles bénédictions, il dirige sa troupe au sud-ouest de la ville, la contourne par l’Est, longe la Garonne. Masqué par la ville ellemême, il peut franchit au pied de la butte du château, le pont St Sernin au nord-est de la ville sur la Louge, puis fait mine de quitter les lieux et de fuir vers le nord provoquant la réaction qu’il espérait de la chevalerie coalisée. Les troupes du roi d’Aragon se sont divisées en trois escadrons: devant, l’inévitable comte de Foix est accompagné de chevaliers catalans; dans la seconde ligne le roi d’Aragon a pris place anonyme au milieu des siens et pour combattre il a échangé ses armes contres celles d’un de ses chevaliers. Le troisième corps est composé des réserves, de la chevalerie toulousaine. Mais les chevaliers toulousains n’ont pas pris position dans la plaine, ils sont regroupés derrière un fossé. Tandis que la chevalerie coalisée se dirige vers la troupe de Montfort qui semble fuir, celle-ci fait subitement demi-tour et se met à charger. Elle est composée de trois escadrons. Le premier est dirigé par Guillaume des Barres, toutes les bannières sont en tête, déployées fièrement; le second escadron est confié à Bouchard de Marly; Simon de Montfort reste dans le troisième et opère un mouvement tournant. L’assaut est donné: en hurlant, le premier escadron croisé s’élance au grand galop, le second attend un peu puis s’élance à son tour. Les chevaliers dirigés par Guillaume de Contres pénètrent violemment dans les lignes du comte de Foix, qui ne peut se ressaisir ni venir au secours de ses lignes arrières. La cavalerie lourde des croisés est alors renforcée par l’arrivée du second escadron et ce sont près de 600 chevaliers qui fondent au grand galop sur les lignes aragonaises désorganisées. Les croisés foncent vers l’étendard du roi Pierre II, le choc des armes et des coups portés par l’air remontent jusqu’à la colline, où sur un cheval désarmé le futur comte de Toulouse, le jeune Raimond observe les combats. Le chroniqueur Guillaume de Puylaurens précisera plus tard qu’il semblait que des cognées abattaient des forêts. Dans la mêlée, le roi d’Aragon a beau crier qu’il est le roi, il n’est pas entendu et frappé à mort, il s’abat sur le sol. En voyant leur roi mort, les chevaliers aragonais se replient aussitôt, poursuivis par les chevaliers croisés, et subissent de lourdes pertes. Simon de Montfort, quant à lui, s’élance vers les lignes toulousaines prisonnières de ce fossé et ne pouvant manœuvrer, car elles n’ont aucun recul pour charger. Le combat est confus et les chevaliers du comte Raimond VI ne trouvent leur salut que dans la fuite, la bataille est perdue. Montfort se replie, prudemment, avec une lenteur calculée, pour protéger sa troupe et dissuader les chevaliers coalisés de revenir combattre. 200

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Les piétons toulousains qui assiègent la ville, ne savent pas encore que le roi vient de mourir. Pris en chasse par les chevaliers croisés, les milices toulousaines s’enfuient à pied jusqu’aux embarcations laissés sur la Garonne. Certains parviennent à s’échapper, mais les autres se noient, ou sont passés au fil de l’épée. Pas une famille de Toulouse n’aurait échappé au deuil. Cette défaite marque un tournant dans la croisade contre les Albigeois. Le rêve d’un état transpyrénéen s’évanouit, tandis que la position de Montfort est considérablement renforcée. Raimond VI de Toulouse n’a que le choix de se soumettre une nouvelle fois à l’autorité du pape et de son légat tandis qu’il fait pendre pour traîtrise, son frère Baudoin de Toulouse, un des plus fervent défenseur de la croisade et qui avait participé, au côté des croisés, à la bataille de Muret. Montfort achève sa conquête: Agenais, Quercy, Périgord et Rouergue sont désormais soumis. La vicomté de Carcassonne et le comté de Toulouse sont passés sous sa domination et celle de l’Église. En 1215, le IVe concile du Latran, convoqué par le Pape Innocent III, rassemble à Rome, dans la basilique du Latran, ‘patriarches, archevêques, évêques, abbés et prélats’, dix-neuf cardinaux, quatre cent douze évêques et archevêques, plus de huit cents abbés ou prieurs. Plus de mille laïcs, ‘comtes et vicomtes de maints pays’ Le comte de Toulouse est là, avec son fils Raimond et le comte de Foix et, accompagnés par de nombreux vassaux, ils implorent la restitution de leurs terres. Le concile débute le 11 novembre 1215. Sur le plan théologique sont condamnées les visions de l’abbé Joachim de Flore, mais aussi toutes les doctrines qualifiées d’hérétiques. L’accent est mis sur la trinité et l’unité de l’Eglise de Rome est réaffirmée autour de la personne du Christ. La transsubstantiation eucharistique devient un dogme et la vie des fidèles est réorganisée et normalisée. La confession et la communion sont désormais obligatoires, au moins une fois par an. À côté de l’organisation de la chrétienté et de la définition des dogmes et sacrements, l’affaire qui tient à coeur à Innocent III, c’est celle de la croisade en Terre Sainte. Après la grande avancée de la croisade de la Reconquista en Espagne, la ‘croisade Albigeoise’ est relancée, car elle est assimilée à la croisade en Terre sainte. Le croisé en Languedoc bénéficiant des mêmes indulgences que celui qui combat en Terre sainte. Par ailleurs pour ce qui concerne ‘l’affaire de la Paix et de la Foi’ face aux comtes occitans voulant récupérer leurs terres le pape Innocent III décide: sensible aux arguments des comtes occitans, il donne cependant la terre, ‘toutes les terres des hérétiques’ à Simon de Montfort. 201

Jean-Louis Gasc

Pour faire bonne mesure, le Pape accorde au fils de Raimond VI le Venaissin et le marquisat de Provence, et au comte de Foix, il restitue son château après enquête. En conclusion, la sentence d’Innocent III apparaît équilibrée: Montfort, le vainqueur, est le maître du pays… conquis, car les autres terres de Toulouse sont données au jeune Raimond. Lorsque les délégués de Simon de Montfort reviennent du concile, ce dernier se rend en France auprès du roi Philippe Auguste, pour lui faire hommage de la terre que le pape vient de lui donner. Simon de Montfort triomphe, vicomte de Carcassonne, le voici désormais comte de Toulouse, le pape et le roi l’ont reconnu ainsi. Mais pas le jeune Raimond de Toulouse.

La Reconquista En 1216, les hommes de Simon de Montfort sont pris au piège dans le château de Beaucaire tandis que la ville autour est fidèle au jeune comte. Il va s’en suivre un siège extraordinaire où les assiégeants du château seront bientôt les assiégés de Simon de Montfort, mais en vain. Simon de Montfort serait devenu ‘noir de colère’ en voyant ses armoiries au-dessus du donjon assiégé. Malgré des assauts répétés, la ville de Beaucaire résiste à Simon de Montfort tandis qu’à l’intérieur de la ville dans le donjon assiégé la situation s’aggrave, les vivres viennent à manquer. Contraint de négocier, Montfort obtient la vie sauve pour ses hommes assiégés. Raimond le jeune est victorieux, il va garder les chevaux, les armes, les équipements et plus encore, c’est à dire la fierté d’un peuple qui a résisté et vaincu, celui qui depuis sept ans ensanglantait leur terre. Le 24 août 1216, Simon de Montfort, ‘en proie à une grande colère’, lève le siège de Beaucaire, et prend la route de Nîmes puis celle de Toulouse.

La dernière chevauchée de Montfort Simon de Montfort revient à Toulouse à bride abattue. Pour l’auteur de la Canso, il n’aurait mis que trois jours au lieu de cinq pour le trajet de Beaucaire à Montgiscard près de Toulouse. Cinq jours donnent une distance de 55 km par jour, trois jours de 90 km par jour! Il faut comprendre qu’il est revenu rapidement. Arrivés à Toulouse des éclaireurs de Montfort sont pris en otage par les Toulousains. A son tour Simon de Montfort, furieux, ordonne que l’on mette le feu à une partie de la cité, et fait prendre en otage dans le château 202

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Narbonnais les notables venus parlementer avec lui. L’évêque Foulques parcourt les rues de la ville, accompagné par l’abbé de Saint Sernin: ‘Allez au devant du comte accueillir son lion.’ Pendant que les Toulousains délibèrent, les soldats de Montfort pénètrent dans la ville, commencent à la piller, maltraitent ses habitants. Cela provoque le soulèvement de la population. Toulouse se soulève et résiste: femmes, enfants tout le monde dresse des barricades et les chevaliers français sont repoussés. Des poutres et des tonneaux barrent les places. Montfort ordonne que l’on mette le feu. Et toute la nuit, la population toulousaine combat à la fois les incendies et les assaillants. Montfort a bien tenté, avec ses chevaliers, de reprendre la ville. Mais dans les rues, sa chevalerie est prise au piège, il repart, vaincu, s’enfermer dans le château Narbonnais. Le lendemain, Montfort ordonne que tous les habitants se rassemblent dans l’église Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines. Ils sont à sa merci, il n’est plus question de traiter. Montfort fait confisquer toutes les armes. Tout chevalier, notable ou noble dame doit quitter la ville. Mais avant, Simon de Montfort exige qu’on lui verse: ‘trente mille marcs d’argent.’ Dans toute la ville, des démolisseurs abattent remparts et tours, tandis que les hommes de Montfort pillent avec violence la ville toute entière. Après avoir marié son fils puîné, Guy, avec Peironelle de Bigorre, Montfort tente en vain d’assiéger le château de Lourdes. Il revient à Toulouse peu après et exige: ‘Les quoteparts de ceux qui avaient quitté la ville’. Les Toulousains doivent à nouveau payer, de gré ou de force. Infatigable Montfort fait ensuite le siège de Montgrenier au sud de Foix, le 25 mars 1217, la place forte est livrée et une trêve d’un an conclue, entre Roger Bernard et Simon de Montfort. On retrouve ensuite Simon de Montfort à Carcassonne, quartier général de la croisade, puis il chevauche jusqu’à Agen. Il part ensuite chasser et traquer quelques chevaliers faydits dans les forteresses situées dans les Corbières, aux alentours de Termes. Fin mai, il apprend que la Provence vient de se rallier au jeune Raimond de Toulouse. Il va y faire la guerre à Adhémar de Poitiers et monte assiéger la forteresse de Crest au mois d’août 1217, au nord-est de Montélimar. Montfort parcourt avec sa troupe et ses barons des distances incroyables mais cette grande chevauchée sera la dernière. Le comte de Toulouse profitant de l’éloignement de Simon de Montfort est revenu d’Espagne, prêt à la reconquête. Le 13 septembre, Raimond VI, accompagné d’une petite troupe de chevaliers faydits, profitant d’un épais brouillard matinal montant de la Garonne, franchit le gué du Bazacle et entre dans sa ville ‘par les portails voûtés’. 203

Jean-Louis Gasc

E cant viro la vila, no n’i a tant arditz Que de l’aiga del cor non aiaolhls complitz Cascus ditz e’l coratge: ‘Virge emperairitz, Redetz me lo repaire on ai estat noiritz!’.21 Et quand ils virent la ville, il n’y en a pas eu un si hardi que des larmes du coeur n’en eut les yeux remplis Chacun dit en son coeur: ‘Vierge impératrice, rendez-moi la demeure où j’ai été nourri.’ Mieux vaut pour moi y vivre ou y être enseveli que de parcourir le monde, errant et déconsidéré. […] Et quand le comte entra par les portails voûtés le rejoint tout le peuple, les grands et les petits les barons et les dames les femmes et leurs maris devant lui s’agenouillent, embrassent ses habits et les pieds et les jambes et les bras et les doigts. Avec des larmes de joie, il est reçu dans la joie Car la joie qui revient est graine et fleur. Ils se disent l’un à l’autre: ‘Maintenant nous avons retrouvé Jésus-Christ et l’étoile du matin qui nous a éclairé car voici notre seigneur qui était perdu et honneur et Paratge qui étaient ensevelis ont retrouvé vigueur santé et guérison. Et tout notre lignage sera toujours prospère.’22

Depuis le château Narbonnais, la comtesse de Montfort voit Toulouse se soulever, on dresse des barrières, on creuse des fossés, de jour comme de nuit, tout autour de la ville. Alix de Montmorency appelle au secours son beau-frère et son fils restés à Carcassonne. Ils arrivent bientôt, et s’installent eux aussi dans le château Narbonnais, avec les renforts venant de Carcassonne. Simon de Montfort apprenant le retour de Raimond VI dans Toulouse, alors qu’il se trouve encore de l’autre côté du Rhône, rentre aussi vite qu’il peut. Face au château Narbonnais, les Toulousains construisent des fortifications, palissades et barrières. Depuis le château Narbonnais, personne n’ose sortir. Dans la ville tout le peuple est à l’ouvrage, construisant des défenses de jour comme de nuit, dressant dans les rues des barricades, tandis qu’on fait le guet, apparemment dans la joie et l’allégresse: 21 22

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 5852–57. Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 5862–74.

204

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Dans les rues il y a des lumières et des chandeliers; tambours et tambourins et clairons font tempêtes; les jeunes filles et les femmes, mues par une sincère allégresse, chantent sur un air joyeux des ballades et des danses.23

Gui de Montfort et Gui, le frère et le fils de Simon de Montfort, arrivent en renfort à Toulouse, le 22 septembre. L’attaque des chevaliers se fait à pied. Les chevaliers bien rangés, l’épée à la main entrent dans Toulouse, détruisent les obstacles dressés au milieu des rues pour faire obstacle aux chevaux. Mais la population se défend avec acharnement et c’est une véritable guérilla urbaine qui oppose les chevaliers français au peuple de Toulouse et cette mêlée tourne à l’avantage du peuple. En arrivant à Toulouse, Montfort voit bien que la situation est critique. Le château Narbonnais où réside son épouse est assiégé, la ville de Toulouse relève ses murailles, et pire encore, vient de retrouver sa fierté. Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay précise qu’à peine arrivé à Toulouse Simon de Montfort veut immédiatement attaquer la ville mais qu’il en est ‘violemment repoussé’. Il installe son camp ‘contre le château Narbonnais’. Dans les combats qui suivent le jeune fils Gui de Montfort est gravement blessé par une arbalète maniée par son beau père le comte de Comminges. C’est une pluie de flèches qui s’abat sur les combattants, les croisés se replient, la Canso salut cette victoire: Toulouse! Elle a maté les insensés! La Croix, à elle seule, vient d’abreuver le Lion de sang et de le rassasier de cervelles, fraîchement arrosées; le rayon de l’étoile a illuminé les ténèbres; aussi Mérite et Paratge retrouvent leur dignité.24

Simon de Montfort a franchi le fleuve et occupe longtemps le faubourg Saint-Cyprien de sorte que la ville soit bloquée et assiégée du côté de la Garonne et des ponts. Son fils, Amaury de Montfort, garde l’autre rive et le château Narbonnais, mais cette tentative d’occuper les passages sur la Garonne ne dure qu’un temps. L’armée de Montfort divisée est moins forte, et Simon de Montfort est contraint de retraverser à nouveau le fleuve en sens inverse. Mais la barque chavire et le cheval se noie. Imaginons la joie des Toulousains! Mais Montfort refait surface, et on le tire sur la barque. Pierre des Vaux de-Cernay écrira qu’il fut sauvé par miracle. Entre temps, le comte de Foix, accompagné par de nombreux chevaliers catalans et aragonais, est entré en renfort dans Toulouse. La ville est en liesse: la nuit, tambours et trompettes retentissent par les rues, à la lueur des torches et des chandelles. 23 24

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 5960–63. Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 6418–22.

205

Jean-Louis Gasc

On construit des machines, de guerre, pierrières et mangonneaux, pour démolir le château Narbonnais. Des convois de vivres, parviennent à entrer dans la ville, tandis que Simon de Montfort dans le froid de l’hiver, tente un assaut mais les chevaux s’embourbent dans les fossés glacés. Vers Pâques, les combats reprennent avec une grande violence. Les chevaliers toulousains tentent de s’emparer du campement croisé, on combat sous les remparts de Toulouse, sous les regards des défenseurs de la place qui n’hésitent pas à sortir pour soutenir leur cavalerie lorsque celle-ci est en péril. Dans la mêlée Simon de Montfort tombe de cheval, attaqué de tous côtés, il réussit cependant à se dégager. La comtesse de Montfort qui était rentrée à Paris avec l’évêque Foulques de Toulouse, revient au mois de mai, accompagnée par une grande quantité de croisés. Avec leur chevalerie lourde bardée de fers, les Français ne peuvent toujours pas franchir les fossés et les barricades. Bientôt les combats se déroulent sur la Garonne autour des ponts, détruits en partie par de violentes inondations. Les combats se déroulent jusqu’en juin. Le 2 juin à l’aube, Montfort et ‘sa belle compagnie’, change de stratégie et s’attaque aux cultures et aux vignes. Les Toulousains, se précipitent pour occuper les alentours, jardins, vignes et chemins pour défendre l’approche des portes de la ville. La chevalerie du comte de Foix arrivée en renfort sera victorieuse de Montfort qui essuie une nouvelle défaite, cette fois ci en rase campagne, un terrain qui lui avait toujours été favorable. Toulouse va retrouver un nouvel espoir avec la venue du jeune comte Raimond. Mais le Fils de la Vierge pour les réconforter, leur donne une joie avec un rameau d’olivier, une claire étoile luit sur la montagne, le vaillant jeune comte héritier de la lumière entre par la porte avec la croix et l’acier25.

La mort du Lion Le siège dure depuis près de neuf mois quand le dimanche 24 juin 1218, les croisés changent de tactique et mettent en oeuvre une énorme galerie de bois recouverte de poutres et de peaux de bêtes. Une foule de piétons, au son des cors et à coups de sifflets, pousse la chatte, depuis le camp des croisés, entre le mur de la cité et le château Narbonnais. Mais les Toulousains semblent habiles à manier leurs trébuchets et parviennent par deux fois à atteindre la chatte et à lui infliger de sérieux dégâts. 25

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 7910–15

206

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Fig. 10.1: La mort de Simon de Montfort, par Alphonse de Neuville (1883).

Cette ‘chatte’ était accompagnée par une tour de bois, montée sur roues. Face à cette nouvelle menace les Toulousains construisent de nouvelles fortifications. 207

Jean-Louis Gasc

Puis on décide alors de faire une sortie pour mettre le feu à ces machines de guerre. Le lendemain, le 25 juin, à l’aube, on décide aussi d’attaquer les croisés de bonne heure, pendant que certains dorment encore ou assistent à la messe. La bataille fait rage près de la porte de Montoulieu. Simon de Montfort va vite s’armer pour mener une charge. Mais il doit bientôt se replier à l’abri de claies, à cause des nombreuses pierres et projectiles envoyés par les Toulousains, son frère Guy est atteint au flanc gauche par un arbalétrier, son cheval reçoit un fer de trait en pleine tête. Simon de Montfort se précipite pour secourir son frère (Fig. 10.1). Mais du côté de Toulouse les femmes qui participent à la défense s’affairent autour d’une machine: Voici que de la ville, on amène un pierrier, qui était de saint Sernin, fait par un charpentier. Le manoeuvrent des femmes et filles mariées. Et vint tout droit la pierre, frappa où il le fallait Sur la tête du comte, sur son heaume d’acier. Que les yeux, la cervelle en sont éparpillés. Et le front les mâchoires et les dents sont brisées. Le comte est tombé mort, pâle et ensanglanté. […] Aussitôt dans la ville entra un messager Avec cette nouvelle la joie a éclaté par toute la ville on court vers les moutiers on y allume des cierges, dans tous les chandeliers Et l’on s’écrie: ‘ la Joie! car Dieu est miséricordieux Paratge resplendit à présent pour toujours Le comte qui était le mal et aussi meurtrier et mort sans confession car il était mauvais. Mais les cornes et les trompes et les carillons, les tintements et les sonneries des clochers, les tambours, les timbales et les clairons font retentir la ville jusque dans les palais.26

L’auteur anonyme de la Chanson de la croisade dresse au comte abattu la plus cinglante des épitaphes: ‘Tout droit à Carcassonne, on va l’ensevelir Au moutier Saint-Nazaire on célèbre l’office Dans l’épitaphe et dit, pour celui qui sait lire, qu’il doit ressusciter qu’il est saint et martyr. et du cadeau du ciel hériter et jouir. et porter la couronne, et au ciel resplendir Et moi j’ai entendu dire, s’il doit en être ainsi 26

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 8448–82.

208

Simon de Montfort – une croisé dans l’ame?

Si répandre le sang et tuer des hommes perdre des âmes, animer des tueries écouter les erreurs allumer des incendies et ruiner nos barons et ‘paratge’ bannir et s’emparer des terres et l’orgueil soutenir et attiser le mal et puis le bien honnir Et massacrer des femmes et puis tuer leur fils un homme peut en ce siècle conquérir Jésus Christ Qu’il porte alors couronne et au ciel resplendisse!’27

Dans l’ancienne cathédrale Saint-Nazaire de Carcassonne, encore romane, Simon de Montfort fut enterré dans une chapelle absidiale. En 1224, il fut exhumé par son fils Amaury vaincu, et ses restes enterrés près de son château de Montfort, dans l’église du prieuré des Hautes-Bruyères. La mort de Montfort ne marque pas la fin de la croisade. Cette dernière se termine en 1229 avec le traité de Paris, quand Raimond VII se soumet devant sa cousine Blanche de Castille. Carcassonne devient alors une sénéchaussée française. Toulouse ne le devient que plus tard, en 1271 à la mort de la fille de Raimond VII, Jeanne de Toulouse et de son mari Alphonse de Poitiers. La guerre sainte menée par les seigneurs du Nord sur les terres languedociennes n’eut donc d’autres résultats que politiques et militaires et ce, malgré vingt longues années de guerre, de massacres et de bûchers collectifs. A partir de 1233, il fallu, à la papauté et à son tribunal inquisitorial confié aux ordres mendiants, un siècle de terreur là, où l’ardeur et le fanatisme d’un chevalier de Dieu, avec son cortège de ravages et de massacres, avait échoué face au courage d’un peuple rebelle et d’une noblesse empreinte de Paratge.28

27 28

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: v. 8681–96. Paratge, ce mot employé dans la chanson de la croisade désigne la noblesse de cœur, la grandeur d’âme, l’esprit chevaleresque.

209

Chapter 11 Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois, d’un seigneur du Nord Jean-François Vassal Abstract A native of northern France, in the current department of Yvelines, Pierre de Voisins as much as Hugh  II de Lacy is an often overlooked witness to the Albigensian Crusade. This article attempts to illustrate that minor lords such as Pierre de Voisins, although often lost in in the shadow of the major players of the period, deserve to be recognized as crucial actors in the medieval history of Western Europe. Simon IV de Montfort’s lieutenant, Pierre de Voisins, a brave and loyal knight, played an important role in this episode of the history of France. Returning from crusade in Jerusalem, he arrived at Castres, during the winter of 1211, with Guy de Montfort, Simon’s brother, and  became a constant presence throughout all of the gains and reverses of the Crusade. He was before the walls of Toulouse in 1218 when Simon de Montfort fell. He returned to the south of France with Louis VIII in 1226, and in 1230, he was one of the last remaining lieutenants of the ‘old guard’ in Occitania. In 1231, the king confirmed his titles for lands lying between Carcassonne and Bugarach. From this point on, Pierre des Voisins would not return to Voisins-le-Bretonneux, his native lands located in Ile-de-France, settling permanently in the County of Razes. Planting roots in Occitania, his descendants would go on to give rise to many of the great family names of the locality such as the lords of Limoux, Alzau, Arques and many others.

Résumé Originaire du nord de la France, dans l’actuel département des Yvelines, le seigneur Pierre de Voisins est un témoin oublié de la Croisade en Albigeois, comme c’est le cas d’ailleurs pour Hugues II de Lacy. Aussi, allons-nous essayer dans cet article de montrer que des personnages comme Pierre de Voisins, au début du XIIIe siècle dans notre Europe occidentale, bien qu’ils aient vécu dans l’ombre de grands noms, méritent d’être reconnus comme acteurs de cette histoire médiévale. Lieutenant de Simon de Montfort, Pierre de Voisins, chevalier brave et fidèle, a joué un rôle important dans cet épisode de l’histoire de France. De retour de Jérusalem, il arrive à Castres, durant l’hiver 1211, avec Guy de Montfort, le frère de Simon, et sera présent tout au long de cette Croisade. Il est là, par exemple, lorsque Simon de Montfort est tué devant Toulouse en 1218, il revient avec Louis VIII dans le sud de la France en 1226, et en 1230, il est l’un des derniers

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 211–228

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114245

Jean-François Vassal lieutenants de la ‘vieille garde’. En 1231, le roi confirmera ses assignations pour les terres entre Carcassonne et Bugarach. Dès lors il ne rentrera plus à Voisins-le-Bretonneux, son pays natal situé en Ile-de-France, et il s’installera pour de bon dans le Comté du Razès. Ses descendants donneront les noms de nombreuses grandes familles locales telles que les seigneurs de Limoux, Alzau, Arques et bien d’autres.

Introduction En décembre 1211, trois ans après que le Pape Innocent III a prêché la Croisade en Albigeois, Robert Mauvoisin revient de France avec une centaine de chevaliers qui s’étaient croisés sous la prédication de Foulque et Guy des Vaux-de-Cernay. Ces renforts offrent à Simon IV de Montfort l’opportunité de reconquérir le pays perdu récupérant le Lauragais et le Sud-Albigeois et laissant à Raymond VI tout le pays entre le Tarn et l’Aveyron. Sa campagne de reconquête le conduit à Castres où il décide de passer Noël. C’est le 25 décembre 1211 que Simon a la joie de voir arriver son frère Guy rentrant de Palestine où il était resté depuis 1202.1 Voici le témoignage de cette rencontre fait par Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, qui venait de rejoindre son oncle: ‘Cela fait, notre comte vint à Castres… Il y séjournait et y célébrait la fête de Noël quand arriva son frère Guy qui revenait des pays d’outre-mer. Guy s’était embarqué avec son frère, mais il était resté dans les pays d’outre-mer quand son frère les avaient quittés: il y avait épousé…, Héloïse d’Ibelin, veuve de Renaud de Sidon, de sang royal, qui venait aussi dans le Midi de la France avec les enfants qu’elle avait eus de Guy’.2 L’arrivée de Guy de Montfort, homme aguerri à la guerre, va avoir une grande importance et Simon de Montfort va l’utiliser pour diriger la guerre à chaque fois qu’un second front va s’avérer nécessaire, en particulier dans le comté de Foix.3 Ainsi, tous ces renforts arrivent, au moment des fêtes de Noël alors que généralement la prise de la croix et la levée se faisaient à Pâques. Il fallait donc plus que des motifs spirituels ou pécuniaires pour conduire ces hommes auprès de Simon de Montfort, comme ceux qui restèrent auprès de lui en 1209. Et en effet, certains d’entre eux connaissent bien Simon et Guy de Montfort, comme Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, puisque déjà en 1202 devant

1 2 3

Michel Roquebert, Simon de Montfort, bourreau et martyr (Paris, 2005), p. 258. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p. 118. Monique Zerner-Chardavoine, La Croisade Albigeoise (Paris, 1979).

212

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

Zara ils faisaient partie du groupe qui avait pris la tête de l’opposition de la Croisade vers Constantinople, et s’étaient rendus en Palestine. Certains étaient ensuite rentrés avec Simon de Montfort, d’autres étaient restés avec Guy de Montfort. Mais au-delà de ces liens, qui firent de ces hommes des compagnons d’armes, ils venaient surtout d’une même zone géographique, en Ile-de-France, et se retrouvaient donc rattachés les uns aux autres par des liens de vassalité aux Montfort, mais également par des alliances familiales et/ou des liens de voisinage. Ainsi Pierre de Richebourg était le vassal de Simon de Montfort, Bouchard de Marly, surnommé Bouchard de Montmorency était le cousin de la femme de Simon de Montfort, Alix de Montmorency, les frères Amaury, Guillaume et Robert de Poissy et leur cousin Simon étaient des voisins et alliés des Montfort, Guy de Lévis, voisin et allié des Montfort avait combattu aux côtés de Simon de Montfort lors de la Quatrième Croisade et se tient dès le début de la Croisade en Albigeois à ses côtés. Pour en revenir à Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, il vient de l’abbaye du même nom, située sur l’aire d’influence de la seigneurie des Montfort. Enfin, c’est au sein de cette zone géographique, que nous trouvons le nom de Voisinsle-Bretonneux dont est issu un certain Pierre de Voisins. Ce nom de Pierre de Voisins revient plusieurs fois dans La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise. Il apparaît également que la famille des Voisins jouissait, en Languedoc, d’une notoriété non négligeable au fil des générations, et l’on peut, dans certains documents, lire les propos suivants: ‘La famille des Voisins, l’une des plus anciennes et des plus illustres de la province…’,4 ‘La famille des Voisins est l’une des plus puissantes lignées féodales du Languedoc…’,5 ‘De Voisins, en Languedoc, maison d’ancienne chevalerie…’,6 ‘Pierre de Voisins, venu en Languedoc avec Simon de Montfort et Guy de Lévis, joua un grand rôle dans l’armée des croisés, obtint la confiance de la reine Blanche et de son fils Saint-Louis…’.7 Ainsi, ce personnage et sa descendance semblent avoir joué un rôle important dans la Croisade en Albigeois. Et pourtant, dans la plupart des 4

5 6

7

Magloire Nayral, Biographie Castraise, ou Tableau historique, analytique et critique des personnages qui sont rendus célèbres à Castres ou dans les environs, 4 vols (Castres, 1835–38), 3: 531. Jean Sarrand, Couffoulens, 2000 ans d’histoire (Saint-Pons, 2000). Jean-Baptiste de Courcelles, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France, 5 vols (Paris, 1820–22), 2: p. 476. Joseph-Nicolas Pavillet, Histoire généalogique de la Maison de Villeneuve en Languedoc (Paris, 1830), p. 334.

213

Jean-François Vassal

ouvrages sur la Croisade, son nom n’apparaît pas. C’est pourquoi, le but de cet article est de faire la connaissance de Pierre de Voisins et de son fils Pierre II de Voisins, et d’en retracer l’histoire au cœur de cette Croisade. En effet, nous parlerons du père et du fils car si depuis longtemps seul le nom de Pierre de Voisins, sans distinction, était mentionné dans les ouvrages concernant cette Croisade, nous pouvons, grâce à des recoupements (un cartulaire de l’abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Roche intitulé Confirmatio de eodem, daté de décembre 12358 et une charte du cartulaire de Carcassonne, de 1247, où il est question de rendre à Pierre de Voisins des biens qui appartenaient au père Pierre),9 confirmer qu’il n’y a pas eu un témoin de cette Croisade en Albigeois mais bien deux témoins, Pierre de Voisins (1175/1177–1235) et Pierre II de Voisins, son fils (1205–68).

Pierre de Voisins un seigneur du Nord Pierre de Voisins, est issu d’une famille seigneuriale d’Ile-de-France qui possède la terre de Voisins en Parisis (Vicini) appelée aujourd’hui Voisinsle-Bretonneux, dans les Yvelines, près de l’abbaye de Notre-Dame de La Roche. Cette seigneurie, est une ancienne Maison située dans le Comté de Paris, vers Versailles,10 et se trouvait dans la forêt d’Yveline donnée à l’abbaye Saint-Denis par le roi Pépin le Bref en 768. Le premier seigneur de la lignée des Voisins fut Hugues de Voisins qui vivait sous le règne de Louis VI le Gros au début du XIIe siècle. Suivent ensuite Rodolphe de Voisins, puis Milon et son frère cadet Guillaume. Puis vient Pierre de Voisins, fils ainé de Guillaume de Voisins. Ainsi, né en 1177 (ou 1175) Pierre de Voisins, chevalier, aurait pris part, tout jeune, à la Troisième Croisade en 1188, rentrant en 1192, avant de suivre Simon de Montfort, en 1202, lors de la Quatrième Croisade, puis le rejoindre en cet hiver 1211 dans le Midi. Les textes de Saint-Hilarion et de Longvilliers dans les Yvelines, font mention de Pierre de Voisins, chevalier, accompagnant Simon de Montfort, à la Quatrième Croisade. 8

9

10

Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Notre-Dame de la Roche, ed. Augste Moutié (Paris, 1862), acte 67. Cartulaire et archives des communes de l’ancien diocèse et de l’arrondissement administratif de Carcassonne, ed. Jacques-Alphonse Mahul, 5 vols (Paris, 1857– 67), 1: 176. François-Alexandre de la Chenaye-Desbois, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, 12 vols (Paris, 1757–65), 12: 813.

214

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

Le père de Simon de Montfort, était gruyer royal de la forêt d’’Iveline’, près de laquelle se trouve la seigneurie des Voisins au nord, jusqu’à ce qu’en 1204, les Montfort en deviennent propriétaires par suite de l’échange fait entre Philippe Auguste et Amicie de Beaumont, comtesse de Leicester. De plus, Simon de Montfort, est issu de la maison de Montfort-l’Amaury, famille de rang baronnial d’Ile-de-France et géographiquement proche voisin de Pierre de Voisins. Aussi, tout laisse à penser que Pierre de Voisins et Simon de Montfort se connaissaient bien et que cette proximité des liens allait jouer un rôle important dans la confiance qu’allait attribuer Simon de Montfort à Pierre de Voisins lors de la Croisade en Albigeois.

1211–25 Ainsi, Pierre de Voisins, après être resté aux côtés de Guy de Montfort lors de la Quatrième Croisade, rentre avec lui en Europe, et rejoint Simon de Montfort, en cette fin d’année 1211, au côté des seigneurs et/ou chevaliers d’Ile-de- France déjà mentionnés. Cette connivence avec les Montfort, ainsi que son expérience du combat, vont rapidement faire de Pierre de Voisins un des fidèles lieutenants des Montfort durant toute la Croisade, comme le sera également Guy de Lévis, dont le domaine primordial était la terre de Lévis près de Versailles11 et également voisin de Pierre de Voisins. A ces seigneurs qui vont rester, Simon de Montfort va attribuer des domaines, fruits de leurs conquêtes. Ainsi Pierre de Voisins, qui va conquérir la région couvrant Carcassonne vers le sud, recevra, en 1215, de Simon de Montfort, toutes les confiscations faites, pendant la Croisade. Ces donations ne sont pas uniquement des récompenses, mais des gestes de confiance permettant à la fois pour Simon de Montfort de fidéliser ses lieutenants, et déléguer la gestion économique, politique et militaire de ces nouveaux territoires. Remarquons d’ailleurs qu’à l’ouest des territoires attribués à Pierre de Voisins, sur le comté du Razès, se trouve Hugues II de Lacy, seigneur de Castelnaudary et de Laurac, autre fidèle de Simon de Montfort. Ainsi Montfort a confié à ces deux hommes les territoires limitrophes à Carcassonne et donc stratégiquement primordiaux. Aussi, durant cette période, l’on retrouve Pierre de Voisins, non plus comme témoin d’actes notariés signés de Simon de Montfort, mais comme signataire de ces actes pour Simon de Montfort. Ainsi en 1215, Pierre de Voisins,

11

Chenaye-Desbois, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, 12: 813.

215

Jean-François Vassal

portant le titre de maréchal,12 accompagné du sénéchal d’Agenais, et de Guy de Lévis, reçoit d’Itier de Villebosc et Guiscard Cabrols, chevaliers du pays d’Agenois, en acte de soumission, leur château et domaines en l’absence de Simon de Montfort.13 Voici comment l’acte présente Pierre de Voisins: ‘à leur très illustre et très cher seigneur, Simon par la grâce de Dieu comte de Toulouse et de Leycestre, vicomte de Béziers et de Carcassonne et duc de Narbonne, que pendant l’absence de son altesse, s’étaient rendus devant son maréchal, Pierre de Voisins (marescalo vestro, D. Petro de Vicinis) […]’. Pierre de Voisins est également un homme pieux et fera partie de ceux qui, comme Simon de Montfort, feront des donations afin d’aider à la fondation du monastère de Prouille. Ainsi Hugues de Lacy ‘seigneur de Laurac et Castelnaudary’, Lambert de Thury ‘seigneur de Puivert’ et Alain de Roucy ‘seigneur de Montréal et Bram’ font des donations en 1213 et 1214.14 En avril 1216, Pierre de Voisins donne au couvent, ‘la villa de la Redorte, près de Sainte Colombe sur l’Hers’. En juin de la même année, c’est Guy de Montfort qui fait à l’église de Prouille, une aumône de cinquante sous melgoriens.15 De plus, c’est entre 1212 et 1215 que Pierre de Voisins et le sénéchal de Carcassonne, à la demande de l’Église, arrêtent, à la Bessède, Esclarmonde de Foix et tout un groupe de femmes membres de l’ordre des diaconesses.16 Comme nous l’avons déjà évoqué, Pierre de Voisins est aussi un vaillant combattant et meneur d’hommes, sur lequel Simon de Montfort peut compter. On le retrouve, combattant au siège de Toulouse, en 1218. Ainsi peut-on lire dans la Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, un texte retraçant un des faits de cette ‘bataille de Toulouse’ en février 1218: L’armée des Toulousains est conduite au combat par Bernard de Comminges. Il chevauche devant, criant sus aux Français, exaltant les courages. Le comte de Montfort et son fils Amaury, Alain, Foucaud, Robert de Picquigny et Pierre de Voisins, Manassès de Cortit et Robert de Beaumont, et Hugues de Lacy et Roger d’Andelys piquent des éperons en tête de leurs troupes.17

12 13

14 15 16

17

Courcelles, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France, 2: 476–77. Dom Claude Devic et Dom Joseph Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 10 vols (Toulouse, 1840–46; repr. Nîmes 1994), 5: 596–97. Duffy with Brown, ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’. Michel Roquebert, L’épopée cathare, 4 vols (Toulouse, 1970–89), 2: 357. Napoléon Peyrat, Histoire des Albigeois, 3  vols (Paris, 1870–72, repr. Nîmes, 1996), 2: 44–45. Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, ed. Henri Gougaud (Paris, 1989), p. 413.

216

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

Également d’après cette Chanson, Pierre de Voisins, ainsi que le sire Foucaud de Berzy, escortent, en février 1218, la comtesse Alix de Montmorency, accompagnée de l’évêque Foulque, déléguée pour Paris, afin d’aller demander de l’aide à son frère, Mathieu de Montmorency, héros de Bouvines, pour aider Simon de Montfort au siège de Toulouse.18 Là encore, Pierre de Voisins est présenté comme l’homme de confiance de Simon de Montfort qui n’hésite pas à lui confier la sécurité de son épouse. La mission sera d’ailleurs un succès puisque Pierre de Voisins revient en Languedoc avec des renforts en avril 1218. Il fallait alors compter un mois de chevauchée pour rejoindre Paris en partant de Toulouse. Le 15 avril 1218, le texte raconte comment Simon de Montfort et ses fidèles repoussent la cavalerie toulousaine: Le comte de Montfort sort vaillamment du camp. Robert de Picquigny et Lambert de Limoux, Evrard de Villepreux, sire Hugues de Lacy, Régnier de Chauderon et Pierre de Voisins, sire Guy de Lévis et Gautier le Breton, sire Sevin Gorloin et Renaud le Frison l’accompagnent. […]  Pierre de Voisins cogne avec acharnement. Cerné, jeté à terre, il perd là sa monture et rejoint en courant ses compagnons croisés tandis qu’un Toulousain empoigne son cheval par les rênes en hurlant: ‘Barons, tous à l’assaut!’ Il frappe un chevalier au défaut de l’armure. L’autre si durement s’abat que le sol tremble.19

Ce même mois d’avril 1218, Pierre de Voisins est l’acteur d’un fait héroïque que nous rapporte Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay: Il arriva à Toulouse en ce temps-là que les assiégés, piétons et cavaliers, firent une sortie à l’improviste pour essayer de s’emparer de notre camp où se trouvait très peu de monde. Un brave chevalier, nommé Pierre de Voisins était prêt à exposer sa vie pour les repousser; il n’avait qu’un seul compagnon. Quand il fut entouré par les Toulousains, le noble comte de Montfort qui ne voulait pas laisser périr quelqu’un des siens, mais était prêt à donner sa vie pour ses amis, se précipita sur les ennemis avec un unique compagnon pour dégager le dit Pierre. Tous les ennemis l’attaquent avec violence, faisant converger leurs efforts contre lui: il reçoit des coups de toutes parts. Mais l’homme de Dieu, intrépide au milieu de ses ennemis, ne cesse d’abattre ses adversaires de tous côtés avec le dit Pierre qui dans ce combat travailla vaillamment pour son suzerain.20

18 19 20

Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, p. 419. Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, pp. 425–26. Peter des Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, p. 230.

217

Jean-François Vassal

Enfin, au début du mois de juin 1218, Pierre de Voisins est appelé par Joris au secours lors d’une sortie des Toulousains: Or, pendant ce temps-là, cent soixante-trois hommes  […] empoignent leurs épées, leurs masses, leurs arcs turcs, et traversent le fleuve. Alors au camp croisé, parmi les pavillons, Joris appelle Pierre de Voisins et lui dit: ‘Nous voilà mal en point. Voyez venir vers nous ces gens de la cité, voyezles traverser le fleuve, comme foudre!’ Aussitôt les Français revêtent leurs hauberts, leurs heaumes de Pavie et bondissent en selle…21

C’est encore là que Pierre de Voisins est mis en valeur lorsque le 25 juin 1218, jour de la mort de Simon de Montfort, il défend vaillamment les archers tout en tâchant de contenir l’attaque toulousaine: ‘Sire Aimery, Renaud et Pierre de Voisins protègent les archers et contiennent l’attaque, mais ils n’en peuvent plus’.22 Pierre de Voisins est donc présent le jour de la mort de Simon de Montfort. Et d’ailleurs très proche, puisque le même Aimery qui protège les archers aux côtés de Pierre de Voisins, est celui qui va recouvrir d’un linge le corps de Simon de Montfort: ‘Aussitôt Aimery et Josselin accourent, et d’une cape bleue recouvrent le corps de leur seigneur’.23 Dès le 25 juillet, Amauri, le fils de Simon lève le siège, donne à Simon de Montfort une sépulture provisoire à Carcassonne, dans l’église de SaintNazaire. Puis en 1224, un cortège funèbre ramène sa dépouille en Ile-deFrance. Parmi ceux des fidèles qui escortent le cortège l’on retrouve Pierre de Voisins aux côtés de Guy de Montfort, Bouchard de Marly, Lambert de Thury, Guy de Lévis, Amaury et Simon de Poissy et Jehan de Bruyères.24 L’inhumation a lieu, en cette même année 1224, dans le prieuré fontevriste de Hautes-Bruyères, près de Chevreuse, à une lieue de Montfort.25

1226–35 Pierre de Voisins, Guy de Lévis, Guy de Montfort, son fils Philippe, comme d’autres chevaliers français, vont revenir dans le Midi accompagnant l’armée royale en 1226. En effet, le 28 janvier 1226 est proclamée l’excommunication solennelle de Raymond VII par le cardinal Saint-Ange au Concile de Bourges. Au même moment, Amauri VI de Montfort cède 21 22 23 24 25

Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, pp. 467–68. Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, p. 489. Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, p. 491. Peyrat, Histoire des Albigeois, 1: 37. Yves Dossat, ‘Simon de Montfort’, in Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse, 1969), pp. 281–302.

218

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

ses droits sur le Languedoc au Roi et reçoit en échange le titre de Comte et de Connétable de France. Le 30 janvier 1226, Louis VIII prend la croix et conduit la Croisade Royale. Ainsi, les anciens compagnons de Simon de Montfort, connaissant le pays, se retrouvent désignés afin de constituer l’état-major d’Humbert de Beaujeu, proche de la couronne. Affaibli par quinze années de lutte, le pays occitan n’est plus en état de résister à une nouvelle invasion. Avignon succombe à un long siège, Carcassonne ouvre ses portes à l’armée royale. Seule Toulouse se prépare à tenir le siège mais le roi, malade, renonce à l’attaquer et décide de rentrer, laissant la région toulousaine en proie à son armée. Il meurt en chemin le 8 novembre 1226 à Montpensier, en Auvergne, laissant la régence à son épouse Blanche de Castille. Dès 1226, Pierre de Voisins, et ses compagnons sont rétablis, par le roi Louis  VIII, dans leurs domaines qu’ils viennent de reconquérir. Ces rétablissements sont primordiaux pour le Roi. En effet, Simon de Montfort, avait à l’époque envoyé Pierre de Voisins dans les Corbières afin de s’emparer des castra de la Frontière d’Aragon et lui avait attribué en 1215 ces conquêtes. Aussi lorsque les possessions sont rendues à Pierre de Voisins en 1226, et confirmées par un assignat en 1231, cela n’est pas anodin mais stratégique. De Carcassonne à Bugarach et le long de l’Aude, le roi assigne ce secteur à l’ancien lieutenant et ami fidèle de Simon et Guy de Montfort, Pierre de Voisins, sur qui il sait pouvoir compter. Cet alignement de lieux fortifiés permet de contrôler la frontière d’Aragon et de faire front aux forteresses encore non conquises qui se trouvent à l’ouest comme Montségur.26 Ainsi Louis VIII, avant de mourir, avait positionné sur les flancs de Carcassonne, comme des camps fortifiés, les fiefs des barons français restés dans le Midi. Les compagnons de Simon de Montfort, rétablis par le monarque, furent irrévocablement restaurés par le traité de Paris. De plus, les chefs croisés, déjà unis par leurs origines, et alliés aux maisons des Montfort et des Montmorency, furent soumis au droit féodal du nord et devaient s’unir entre eux par le mariage pour que leur pouvoir ne soit pas affaibli pas par le partage de leurs fiefs entre leurs descendants.27 D’anciens compagnons croisés et fidèles au roi et surtout à Blanche de Castille, tels que Guy de Montfort ou Bouchard de Marly, allaient aussi trouver la mort à cette époque. Pierre de Voisins, de par ses possessions et son ancienneté, devient, alors, une figure importante dans cette région et allait être souvent un garant important dans les signatures de chartes, 26

27

Ernest Roschbach, Histoire Graphique de l’ancienne province de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1904). Peyrat, Histoire des albigeois, 1: 243–44, 253–54.

219

Jean-François Vassal

traités ou autres actes historiques. D’autant que le roi mort, Blanche de Castille a besoin d’hommes de confiance sur place. Aussi Pierre de Voisins ne rentre plus en Ile-de-France et gère par missives les affaires du fief familial, comme nous le montre une charte de juillet 1228 dans laquelle, il confirme le don de sa sœur Sibille sur la dîme de Maule.28 Il commence à trouver sa place au sein du réseau de seigneurs fidèles à la couronne. Ainsi, il est témoin de la signature d’un acte, le 21 novembre 1228 dans lequel Bernard et Olivier de Penne cèdent leur château au roi, en présence de l’archevêque de Narbonne, l’évêque de Carcassonne, Guy de Lévis et Eudes Queux.29 Le 16 juin 1229, Pierre de Voisins est présent à la signature de l’acte, par lequel, Roger-Bernard comte de Foix se soumet et remet les châteaux de Lordat et de Montgrannier, sous les conseils de Raymond VII.30 Sont présents à cette signature, aux côtés de Pierre de Voisins, Mathieu de Marly, lieutenant du roi de France, Pierre de Colmieu, vice-légat du pape, Amiel, archevêque de Narbonne, les évêques de Tournay, Toulouse, Carcassonne, et Couserans, les abbés de Lagrasse, Bolbonne, Foix et Combelongue, André et Guillaume de Chauvigny, Guy de Lévis, Lambert de Thury, Robert de Boves.31 Guy de Lévis mort en 1230, Pierre de Voisins reste l’un des derniers lieutenants de la vieille garde. Aussi, c’est en 1231, que les rentes et terres, qu’il possédait déjà, lui sont officiellement assignées.32 Rappelons qu’entre 1212 et 1218, Pierre de Voisins s’était vu conférer le Chercorb, et le haut Razès, avec Couffoulens, Arques, Alet et Limoux.33 Le 27 décembre 1229, à Orange, le légat pontifical, Romain de Saint-Ange fait savoir qu’Adam de Milly, doit assigner, sur le diocèse de Carcassonne, un revenu de mille livres tournois à Pierre de Voisins.34 C’est en Septembre 1231 à Béziers, que Pierre de Voisins reçoit officiellement d’Adam de Milli, lieutenant du roi Saint-Louis, plusieurs rentes et propriétés.35 Il reçoit mille livres 28

29 30 31 32

33

34 35

Adolphe de Dion, Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Porrois, 1 vol. (Paris, 1903), 1: 111–12 (Acte 103). Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 5: 649. Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 5: 372, 659–60. Peyrat, Histoire des albigeois, 1: 213. Voir l’acte de 1231 retranscrit dans Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 5: 670, et dont l’original est aux archives départementales de l’Aude, sous la cote 2 E 102/1. Jean-Louis Biget, ‘La dépossession des seigneurs méridionaux dans la Croisade Albigeoise’, in La croisade albigeoise, ed. Roquebert et Gimenez, pp. 261–99, at p. 267. Biget, ‘La dépossession des seigneurs méridionaux’, p. 277. Nayral, Biographie Castraise, 3: 531.

220

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

melgoriennes de revenus et cent autres livres et les lui fait assigner et asseoir sur une grande partie du Razès et sur le diocèse de Carcassonne. Ce vaste alleu vicomtal, que le roi lui assigna, se trouvait sur les deux rives de l’Aude et jusqu’aux pieds des Pyrénées, comprenant le castrum d’Albedun. En 1231, Pierre de Voisins, fait évacuer le castrum et la population est regroupée dans le nouveau village de Saint-Just de Voisins appelé aujourd’hui Saint-Just-et-le-Bézu. Ce castrum a un rôle stratégique, il domine, de sa crête, la région de Bugarach. Ce château, comme Blanchefort, défendait le chemin stratégique qui allait de Rhedae en Espagne, ce qui permettait de surveiller toute la plaine. A Alet, Pierre de Voisins récupère la leude sur le sel et le droit de péage sur les radeaux qui passaient sous la ville. Quant à Arques (dép. Aude), qui avait été rasé lors de la Première Croisade et dont il ne restait que l’église et le prieuré, Pierre de Voisins récupère les droits d’affouage et de forestage des faidits. Il récupère également Belcastel, Blanchefort, Bugarach et Caderone. Le château de Caderone ne fut pas détruit par l’armée de la Croisade et Pierre Voisins l’avait conservé comme manoir seigneurial. Lui est remis également Couffoulens: avec la possession de ce puissant château, ancienne propriété des Trencavel, Pierre de Voisins va s’appliquer à effacer toute trace d’hérésie cathare sur ce fief.36 Il reçoit Couiza, Coustaussa, Cros. La villa de Dent fait également partie de son assignat. Les habitants doivent se replier sur les nouveaux habitats créés par le nouveau seigneur sur l’actuel plateau de Saint-Ferriol. Citons également dans cet alleu Escueillens, Festes, Limoux, Laurens, Luc, Montferrand, Pech Saint-Marie près de Saint-Hilaire, Quierium (Quercus) de Mallet, Rennes, Sougraigne, et Villar Saint-Anselme en Razès. Les terres assignées à Pierre de Voisins comprenaient deux cent quarante-trois feux qui s’accrurent de cent vingt-trois feux acquis dans le Termenez, ce qui lui donnait environ deux mille vassaux, la ville de Limoux n’étant pas comprise. De plus Pierre de Voisins reçoit la seigneurie de Puivert, qui avait été donnée à Lambert de Thury. Quatre ans plus tard, en 1235, Pierre de Voisins va décéder, laissant place à son fils aîné Pierre de Voisins.

1235–68 Pierre II de Voisins Pierre II de Voisins (né en 1205) va prendre la succession de son père, recevant l’ensemble des possessions acquises. Rapidement, ce fils va réussir à se faire une place et jouer un rôle important quant à l’administration de cette nouvelle région tout en confirmant son dévouement au Roi et à l’Église. 36

Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 5: 384–85.

221

Jean-François Vassal

Tout d’abord le nom de Pierre  II de Voisins est rattaché à celui de l’Inquisition, ainsi en février 1237, Guilhem d’Aniort est condamné par le tribunal d’inquisition de Carcassonne à la détention à vie dans les tours de Carcassonne. Ce jugement est rendu à Carcassonne par l’inquisiteur Guilhem Arnauld, assisté du grand archidiacre de Saint-Nazaire, de l’évêque Claris, du sénéchal Jehan de Fécamps, de Guy II de Lévis, de Pierre II de Voisins.37 Puis nous perdons sa trace jusqu’en 1240, lors du siège de la Cité de Carcassonne, où il va faire preuve de vaillance et de courage. Son action est citée dans le rapport rédigé par Guillaume des Ormes, sénéchal de Carcassonne en septembre 1240, et destiné à Blanche de Castille: Sachez enfin, Madame, que le seigneur Pierre de Voisins, votre connétable pour Carcassonne, Raimond de Capendu, Gérard d’Ermenville, se conduisirent fort bien dans cette affaire. Mais je dois dire que le connétable peut être placé au-dessus de tous pour sa vigilance, son courage au combat et dans la défense […]38

Information ici précieuse, Pierre  II de Voisins est nommé connétable, ce qui déjà est une responsabilité hautement importante pour l’époque, mais surtout un signe de confiance de la part de la couronne. C’est à ce titre que le ‘sire de Limoux’, Pierre de Voisins, est convoqué avec d’autres chefs français, et qu’Hugues d’Arcis décide de l’attaque du camp de Nore.39 Nous le retrouvons après cet épisode, en 1247 lorsqu’Olivier de Termes fait sa soumission au Roi de France et se dessaisit, en faveur de son souverain, de tout ce qu’il possède dans le pays de Rhedae, à l’exception de deux ou trois petits villages. Tout ce vaste territoire est ajouté aux possessions de Pierre II de Voisins, qui se voit ainsi dédommagé de l’abandon des droits seigneuriaux qu’il avait sur la ville de Limoux. L’assise des possessions des Voisins lors de la charte de 1231 et complétée par ces nouvelles acquisitions est confirmée par le Roi dans une charte d’août 1247,40 puis une seconde à Aigues-Mortes au mois d’août 1248. Cette date correspond avec le départ de Saint-Louis pour la Sixième Croisade, auquel se serait joint Pierre II de Voisins (l’on retrouve ses armoiries dans la quatrième salle carrée des croisades à Versailles).41 Mais il semble que le départ de 37 38

39 40 41

Peyrat, Histoire des albigeois, 2: 189. Laurent Albaret et Nicolas Gouzy, Les grandes batailles méridionales (Toulouse, 2005), p. 176. Peyrat, Histoire des albigeois, 2: 326. Cartulaire et archives des communes… de Carcassonne, 1: 176. Charles Gavard, Galeries Historiques du Palais de Versailles, 10 vols (Paris, 1839– 53), 6: 424; César Cantu, Histoire Universelle, 52 vols (Paris, 1840–90), 10: 635.

222

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

Pierre II de Voisins fut écourté, puisque nous le retrouvons en décembre 1249 dans le Midi. Remarquons également dans la charte de 1247 que le Roi parle de Pierre II de Voisins en ces termes ‘notre cher et fidèle Pierre de Voisins’, ce qui montre bien la confiance qu’a su gagner Pierre II de Voisins, tout comme son père, auprès de la couronne. Après la mort de Raymond VII, Alphonse de France, gendre et héritier de Raymond lui succède au comté de Toulouse. Saint-Louis est alors en Palestine avec son frère Alphonse, et la Reine Blanche, restée en France, s’occupe de la régence du royaume. La reine envoie des commissaires pour prendre possession des états du comte Raymond, au nom d’Alphonse. Ils reçoivent le serment de fidélité des seigneurs en décembre 1249, dont Pierre II de Voisins, rentré prématurément de son périple.42 En septembre 1250, à son retour à Aigues-Mortes, Alphonse de Poitiers, part prendre officiellement possession de son héritage mais, souffrant, il rentre en Ile-de-France. Avant de partir et sous les conseils de Sicard d’Alaman, Alphonse de Poitiers va nommer dès 1251, Pierre II de Voisins, sénéchal de Toulouse et de l’Albigeois.43 Dès lors, Pierre II de Voisins fait partie d’un réseau proche de Blanche de Castille et d’Alphonse de Poitiers et se voit immédiatement confier d’importantes tâches. Ainsi, le 5 juillet 1251, Alphonse de Poitiers reçoit à Milhaud l’hommage de Guillaume de Barrière, en présence de l’évêque de Toulouse, de Pierre II de Voisins sénéchal de cette ville et Jean d’Arcis son sénéchal de Rouergue. Puis, nous retrouvons en août 1251, Pierre II de Voisins, à Toulouse donnant le bail de la nouvelle monnaie de Toulouse, sur laquelle Alphonse avait réglé les droits que les monnayeurs devaient prendre. En 1252, Pierre II de Voisins est témoin de la signature du traité entre, Charles, frère du roi, et la communauté de Marseille autorisant certaines prérogatives qui en font une ville libre sous la dépendance d’un suzerain. La même année, la Reine Blanche et son fils Alphonse, donnent à Pierre II de Voisins, sénéchal de Toulouse, l’ordre de sommer le comte de Comminges de lui remettre sa fille.44 A cette sommation, le sénéchal invite à en être témoins l’évêque de Toulouse et les chefs du chapitre métropolitain, les abbés des principaux monastères, Roger comte de Foix, Jourdain de Saissac, Sicard d’Alaman, et bien d’autres.45 Dans une charte datée du camp de Jopée, au mois de 42 43

44 45

Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 475. Étienne-Léon de Lamothe-Langon, Jean Laurent-Gousse, Alexandre De Mège, Biographie toulousaine, 2 vols (Paris, 1823), 1: xlvii. Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 491. Louis Lainé, Archives généalogiques et historiques de la Noblesse de France, 11 vols (Paris, 1828–50), 3: 14; Pavillet, Histoire généalogique de la Maison de Villeneuve, p. 224.

223

Jean-François Vassal

décembre 1252, par laquelle Saint-Louis confirme une sentence d’Olivier de Termes, en faveur des chevaliers qui servaient en Terre Sainte pour Alphonse, comte de Toulouse,46 sont cités Geoffroy de Penne, Pierre de Gimel, Bernard de Montault, Arnaud de Marquefave d’une part et Pierre de Voisins d’autre part, pour le comte de Poitiers en Terre Sainte. Cela tend à confirmer que Pierre II de Voisins joue également un rôle important en tant qu’exécuteur des sentences royales dans cette région. Puis, Pierre II de Voisins, sénéchal de Toulouse et d’Albigeois, cesse ses fonctions le 14 février 1254 ou le 1 mars 1254 et est remplacé par Hugues d’Arcis. Il semble que la perte du poste de sénéchal précède la rentrée prématurée en France de Louis IX en avril 1254, à l’annonce du décès de sa mère Blanche de Castille. Mais cela ressemble plus à un remaniement qu’à une sanction puisque quelques mois plus tard, Pierre II de Voisins est nommé sénéchal de Carcassonne d’août 1254 à décembre 1254.47 Dans une lettre du 23 Juin 1255, Louis IX, roi de France, ayant appris que le roi d’Aragon avait demandé de traverser le Languedoc, avec toute son armée, pour se rendre dans son fief de Montpellier, mande au sénéchal de Carcassonne de permettre le passage, à condition néanmoins que le roi d’Aragon donne des sûretés que ni lui ni ses troupes ne causeront aucun dommage dans le pays. Il ordonne de convoquer le maréchal de Mirepoix, Pierre II de Voisins, et les prélats qui paraîtront de sages conseillers, pour examiner les sûretés que le roi d’Aragon devra donner en cette occasion.48 Au mois de mai 1258, Pierre  II de Voisins, accompagné de Boson de Monestier et Pierre de Grave, se retrouve, en tant que ‘noble seigneur et chevalier’, arbitre d’un différend entre Philippe II de Montfort, seigneur de Castres et Pierre, vicomte de Lautrec.49 Parallèlement, la même période voit l’agrandissement de ses possessions: Montjoi et Lanet seront vendus aux Voisins, ainsi que le château de Montcournié par Olivier de Termes en 1260. L’assise des possessions des Voisins lors de la charte de 1231 et la confirmation de 1248 est, pour compléter ces nouvelles acquisitions, une nouvelle fois, confirmée par le Roi qui va l’approuver par une charte du mois de juin 1260, à Saint Germain 46 47

48 49

Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 491–92. Alan  R. Friedlander, The Administration of the Seneschalsy of Carcassonne: personnel and structure of royal provincial government in France, 1226–1320, PhD Thesis, University of California at Berkeley (1982), p. 264; Léon Ménard et Charles de Baschi Aubais, Pièces fugitives pour servir l’Histoire de France, 2 vols (Paris, 1759), 2: 49. Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 507. Nicolas Viton de Saint-Allais, Nobiliaire universel de France, 18  vols (Paris, 1814–21), 9: 37–38.

224

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

en Laye.50 Suivant cette dernière, le roi confirme en faveur de Pierre II de Voisins, la possession de tous les domaines qu’avait acquis son père, avec la haute et basse justice, sous le service de cinq chevaliers. Enfin, de 1259 à 1262, Pierre de Voisins, sur ordre du roi, doit accompagner les clercs Nicolas de Châlons et Henri de Vézelay,51 le commissaire du roi qui s’est vu confier la grande enquête royale entamée en 1257 par Guy Foulcois, l’archevêque d’Aix, sur ‘les restitutions et amendes aux baillages de Carcassonne et de Beaucaire’. Henri de Vézelay examine donc les réclamations des communautés et des particuliers des sénéchaussées de Beaucaire et de Carcassonne.52 Ils ont pour mission de restituer les biens mal acquis au domaine. Ils sont qualifiés ‘inquisitores in partibus Albigensibus’, dans une requête que Pons, évêque de Béziers, leur présenta en 1262.53 Et leurs sentences prononcées au cours de leur mission,54 sous la forme de mandements adressés à Pierre d’Auteuil, sénéchal de Carcassonne et de Béziers55 chargé de les mettre à exécution, sont libellées au nom de: maîtres Henri de Vézelay, Nicolas de Châlons56 et Pierre de Voisins, clercs, inquisiteurs députés par le très illustre seigneur roi de France dans la région de l’Albigeois pour les amendes et restitutions dues à ce même seigneur roi.57

Investi du droit de haute et basse justice sur son vaste domaine, Pierre de Voisins se rend, en 1265, sur les terres de sa seigneurie pour exercer des poursuites contre certains de ces sujets dont il avait à se plaindre, et ce afin de rétablir le calme sur les terres de sa baronnie. Mais le roi Saint-Louis douta de la culpabilité de ces sujets, et apprenant leur exécution, il ordonna au sénéchal de ne plus avoir à ‘connaître de ces sortes d’accusations’, réservant 50 51

52 53 54 55

56

57

Ménard et Aubais, Pièces fugitives pour servir l’Histoire de France, 2: 49. Léopold Delisle, ‘Visites pastorales de maître Henri de Vezelai, archidiacre d’Hiémois en 1267 et 1268’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes 54 (1893), 457–67. Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 531–32. Guizot, Collection des mémoires relatives à l’Histoire de France, p. 353. Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 24: 619–95. Auguste Molinier, Catalogue des actes de Simon et d’Amauri de Montfort (Paris, 1873). Sur Nicolas de Châlons, voir Odile Grandmottet, ‘Les officialités de Reims’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 4 (1955) 77–106, at pp. 101–2. ‘magistri Henricus de Virziliaco, Nicolaus de Catalaunis et Petrus de Vicinis, clerici inquisitores, deputati ab illustrissime domino rege Francie in partibus Albigensii super injuriis et emendis ipsius domini regis’ (Devic et Vaissète, Histoire Générale du Languedoc, 6: 531).

225

Jean-François Vassal

à ses officiers de la justice royale la poursuite des crimes de sorcellerie (l’on retrouve d’ailleurs un récit, tiré d’une complainte, Le Roman,58 qui fait mention de ces évènements). Pierre de Voisins meurt en 1268 et serait enterré dans l’église de Couffoulens.59 Selon ses dernières volontés, sa veuve, Jeanne de Voisins, en novembre 1268, ordonne que chaque année, la veille de Noël, soit versée une rente de cent sous tournois au monastère de Prouille.

Conclusion Au début de la Croisade, le Roi refuse que des princes de sang s’engagent. Aussi ce sont des vassaux, des barons du Nord qui prennent la croix individuellement. Comme nous l’avons vu, Pierre de Voisins n’était pas de ceux-ci, car il était déjà, semble-t-il, parti quelques années plus tôt lors de la Quatrième Croisade et était resté sur place aux côtés de Guy de Montfort. Ce n’est que deux ans plus tard en décembre 1211 qu’il rejoindra ses compagnons d’Ile-de-France dans le Midi. L’Eglise va offrir la rémission des pêchés présents et futurs et les terres prises aux ‘Cathares’ seront attribuées aux croisés. Pierre de Voisins sera de ceux qui poursuivront cette Croisade obtenant alors un nombre important de ces terres. Aussi est-il montré, à l’égal de ses pairs, comme un conquérant ayant dépouillé les seigneurs du Midi de leurs terres. Mais ce faisant, il va s’implanter dans cette région du Sud et sa famille deviendra, l’une des plus célèbres et puissantes familles du Languedoc, jouant un rôle important dans la vie économique, politique et militaire du Midi. Un des premiers exemples encore présent de nos jour, de l’héritage des Voisins pour la région de l’Aude et du patrimoine culturel et architectural qu’ils ont légué est la construction du château d’Arques. A la mort de Pierre II de Voisins, ses domaines furent partagés entre ses fils. L’un d’entre eux Gilles de Voisins eut pour son lot la baronnie d’Arques et de Couiza. Après avoir abandonné le manoir seigneurial de Couiza que son père avait fait bâtir, il fixa sa résidence à Arques qui se trouvait au centre de son domaine. Il y fit édifier un magnifique donjon, joyau de l’architecture militaire de l’époque dans cette région de l’Aude.60 Puis le village se construisit sous la protection du château et il mit tout en œuvre pour y attirer, les anciens habitants et faire 58

59 60

L’existence de ce texte est rapportée, d’après une tradition orale, par Louis Fédié, Le Comté de Razés et le Diocèse d’Alet. Notices historiques (Carcassonne, 1880), p. 249. Sarrand, Couffoulens, p. 15. Louis Fédié, Le Comté de Razés et le Diocèse d’Alet, pp. 253–57.

226

Pierre de Voisins. L’Histoire, au cœur de la Croisade en Albigeois

oublier le souvenir cruel de son père. Ceci est un exemple de ce que, dès la troisième génération des Voisins dans le Midi, les fratries s’exercèrent à faire. Leurs descendances donnèrent entre autres les branches des seigneurs de Limoux, Montaut, Pezens, Moussoulens, Brugairolles, Alzau, Arques, Blagnac, Cornebarrieu, Cabardès, La Grave, Saint-Avit, La Cassaigne, Frandat, Lavernière, Mirabel.61 Si Pierre de Voisins est resté le plus souvent dans l’ombre de l’Histoire, revisiter ses actions permet de le restituer en tant que témoin privilégié de cet épisode de l’Histoire de France, tout comme son fils Pierre II de Voisins. Mais ceci n’est que le début d’une aventure. Cette étude permet d’ouvrir des portes, de tracer pour l’avenir de nouvelles pistes de recherches tant sur Pierre de Voisins et sa descendance que sur d’autres acteurs de cette Croisade en Albigeois, comme Hugues II de Lacy qui, témoins oubliés, mériteraient d’être redécouverts, permettant ainsi d’éclairer une partie des zones d’ombre qui encore de nos jours sont pour certains une plaie non encore cicatrisée d’une sombre page de l’Histoire de France.

61

Maurice Vuillier, Histoire de la famille de Voisins: des origines à nos jours (Toulouse, 2009).

227

Jean-François Vassal

Fig. 11.1: Voussoir avec la crête de Voisin au-dessus de l’entrée principale du château d’Arques; see colour plate 17.

228

Chapter 12 The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218 Jean Catalo Abstract In 1217 the count of Toulouse Raymond  VI slipped back into the town of Toulouse following a brief exile in the kingdom of Aragon. The count and his son, Raymond VII had sought restitution of their lands at the Lateran Council in 1216 where Pope Innocent had ruled against Raymond VI due to his record as a harbourer of heretics. The pope however had refused to prosecute the young count, Raymond VII with the same interdiction. News of the pope’s attitude spread throughout the south of France resulting in a huge upswell of optimism for a people suffering under the harsh yoke of Simon IV de Montfort and his implanted lords who were ruling Occitania in accordance with Simon’s Statute of Pamiers, promoting the culture of Francia at the expense of the Occitan culture. The rapturous reception of Raymond  VI by the Toulousains, who had been forced to submit to de Montfort in 1213, resulted in the town declaring for the count, and in the flight of the crusader garrison leaving Simon de Montfort’s family (including his wife and ten-year old son, Simon V) sealed up inside of the seat of comital power, the Château Narbonnais on the southern fringe of the town’s defences. De Montfort lost no time in gathering his forces, marching on Toulouse with murderous intent in the company of his knights, engineers, foot soldiers and local sympathisers. Among the lieutenants of this council of war we find Hugh II de Lacy, exiled earl of Ulster and lord of Castelnaudary and Laurac. The lynchpin to the town’s defences was the Château Narbonnais, residence of the counts of Toulouse, symbol of the count’s power and the heraldic symbol of the town of Toulouse itself. This impregnable fortress had been commandeered by Simon de Montfort in 1213 following his usurpation of the title of Count of Toulouse and served as one of the bases of operations of the crusading forces during the protracted siege that was to unfold over the summer and winter of 1217–18. The nature, form and location of the Château Narbonnais has long been discussed, disputed and argued over in the literature. The apparent abundant descriptions of the castle gleaned from the richly described Canso seemed to confict with a later account dating to the sixteenth century which describes the destruction of the Château Narbonnais, and much ink has been spilled in efforts to reconcile the two descriptions. The principal variance between the two sources relates to the fact that the Château Narbonnais seems to be described in the Canso as a freestanding castle, distinct from the town walls while the later description of its destruction describes it unequivocally as an intramural structure. The following article discusses this critical defensive element, its evolution from Roman gatehouse to comital castle to Royal Palace in light of extensive archaeological works.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 229–246

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114246

Jean Catalo

Résumé En 1217, le comte de Toulouse Raymond VI s’est glissé de nouveau dans la ville de Toulouse après un bref exil dans le royaume d’Aragon. Le comte et son fils, Raymond VII, avaient demandé la restitution de leurs terres au concile de Latran en 1216 où le pape Innocent avait statué contre Raymond VI en raison de ses crimes allégués de soutien aux hérétiques. Le pape avait cependant refusé de condamner le jeune comte, Raymond  VII, avec la même interdiction. Les rapports de l’attitude favorable du pape envers Raymond  VII se propagent dans tout le Sud de la France créant un puissant élan d’optimisme. La population souffre sous le joug sévère de Simon IV de Montfort et ses seigneurs étrangers qui gouvernent selon le statut de Simon de Pamiers, qui exigeait la promotion de la culture de France. L’accueil de Raymond VI par les toulousains, qui avaient été contraints de se soumettre à de Montfort en 1213, est enthousiaste. La garnison des croisés doit abandonner la ville au comte, laissant la famille de Simon de Montfort (y compris sa femme et son fils de dix ans, Simon V) piégée à l’intérieur du château Narbonnais sur la frange sud des défenses de la Cité. De Montfort ne perdit pas de temps à rassembler ses forces, pour marcher sur Toulouse avec ses chevaliers, des ingénieurs, des fantassins et des sympathisants locaux. Parmi les lieutenants de de son conseil de guerre, nous trouvons Hugues de Lacy, comte d’Ulster exilé, seigneur de Castelnaudary et Laurac. Le pivot des défenses de la ville est le château Narbonnais, résidence et symbole de la puissance des comtes, emblème héraldique de la ville de Toulouse elle-même. Cette forteresse imprenable avait été saisie par Simon de Montfort en 1213 suite à son usurpation du titre de comte de Toulouse. Elle sert alors de point d’appui aux forces croisées pendant le siège prolongé qui va se dérouler au cours de l’été et l’hiver 1217–18. La nature, la forme et l’emplacement du château Narbonnais ont longtemps été discuté et contesté par les érudits. Les descriptions du château glanées dans la Canso semblaient en conflit avec une description de la destruction du château comtal datant du XVIe siècle. Beaucoup d’encre a coulé pour tenter de réconcilier les deux sources. La différence principale entre elles résidait dans un château Narbonnais décrit dans le Canso comme un château autonome distinct des murs de la ville, alors que la description de sa destruction le plaçait sans équivoque comme une structure intra-muros. D’importantes fouilles archéologiques ont enfin tranché la question, redécouvrant le système défensif essentiel de ce monument, et son évolution de porte gallo-romaine en château comtal puis en palais royal.

Introduction The large civil engineering works necessitated by the redevelopment of the Toulouse District Court in 2005 gave rise to an important programme of archaeological rescue excavations at the site of the mercurial Château Narbonnais.1 The modern courthouse is located on the site of the old 1

Several excavation phases were undertaken as the development progressed: 1999, 2002–3, 2005–6.

230

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

Parliament, itself sited on the former medieval royal palace. Contrary to expectations, the foundations of the Château Narbonnais which was levelled between 1549 and 1556 were able to reveal much concerning the long history of the site and the fluctuating fortunes of this seat of municipal power and justice. While the first references to the Château Narbonnais dates to the beginnings of the twelfth century,2 it was in the thirteenth century that this seat of comital power was also adopted as the very representation of the town of Toulouse in the count’s heraldry. It features prominently in the chronicles of the Albigensian Crusade, that major historical turning point which resulted in the attachment of Languedoc to the crown of France. The iconic status of the Château Narbonnais derives from its function as the residence of the counts of Toulouse, one of the great princely families of the medieval West. The Château Narbonnais was the visible manifestation of their power and is a reflection of the ­interdependent relationship between the counts and the citizens of Toulouse. The excavations at the District Court were particularly fruitful owing to several factors. These included the large surface area of the dig, the identification of an extended chronology at the site, and an intact stratigraphy in excess of 3 m deep, complemented by and an extensive record of historical documents relating to the site. The interpretation of these results was greatly aided by the findings of several other rescue excavations in the immediate area (Fig. 12.1).3 Based on these findings, this article presents the chronological development of certain aspects of the defensive system of the Château Narbonnais, coupled with a brief examination of the changing temporal powers that occupied the site during the high medieval period.

The Town Gate The name ‘Château Narbonnais’ comes from the Gallo-Roman gatehouse which controlled entry into the south-eastern section of the walled circuit of Toulouse from the first century ad. This gatehouse gave onto the ‘voie 2

3

In 1115 et 1127 (Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Lézat, éd. A.-M. Magnou et P. Ourliac, 2 vols (Paris, 1984–85), 1: no. 1343 et 1347. Site of allées Paul-Feuga (under the direction of Gilles Peyre) and the Metro site Palais-de-justice (under the direction of Didier Paya).

231

Jean Catalo

Fig. 12.1: Location of archaeological work at the courthouse, Toulouse, and its vicinity.

Narbonnaise’ or ‘Narbonne way’ to the south-east of the town which was a Roman road traversing the Roman Province of the same name.4 The structure, which was to form the basis of the medieval castle, consisted of a vaulted passage piercing the Roman wall protected by two flanking towers ‘à talon’.5 The wall, constructed of small rubble coursed limestone and brick is particularly well preserved at nearly 2 m high. The original form of the Narbonne gate seems to have endured several centuries and was probably very similar to the northern gate of the town.

4 5

http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/. These ‘tours à talon’ were rectangular in plan with polygonal apsidal projections on the external façade.

232

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

The excavation of a burial ground at the foot of the Roman wall near to the gatehouse, provided the means to date the first fortifications built outside of the gatehouse to the end of the ninth century. These immense fortifications take the form of a 20 m wide fosse that encircled the entire walled circuit of the town. Near the Roman gatehouse, radiocarbon dates derived from the burials and a coin, retrieved from the lower horizons of the moat and dating to the reign of Odo, signifies that the fosse was created before ad  887/98 and perhaps even as early as ad  860. This date is significant when examined in conjunction with evidence from the written sources. Three sieges of Toulouse are attested to in the late ninth century. Charles the Bald besieged the town in 844 and again in 849. These sieges were followed by a further siege in 864 by Pepin II and the Normans. Sometime after 898, the broad fosse was remodelled into a narrower V-shaped ditch running along the southern bank of the town defences. This action was repeated in 990 and again in 1026. What might initially appear as a reduction of the defensive element is in fact related to a shoring-up of the gatehouse function. At this time, the Narbonne Gate was also strengthened by the construction of massive buttresses of reused redbrick and rubble. These consolidating works are p­ articularly  marked  at the eastern tower of the gatehouse. The placement of the reinforcements is telling as they were not erected at the chamfered corners of the tower, which would have implied a need to bolster a weak façade. The addition of buttresses is, rather, associated with a general widening of the thickness of the wall of the tower. Following the buttressing works, the combined masonry of wall and buttress attained 2.40 m in width, corresponding to the width of the original Roman wall. Built in the same phase of work, the buttresses and the reshaping of the fosse were intended to strengthen the gatehouse function. Although the title ‘count of Toulouse’ existed when the initial phase of the Carolingian fosse was dug around the town, the Narbonne Gate does not appear in the sources as a residence of the counts. The gate’s function as a major entranceway into the town at this time is not in doubt given the identification of a passage, located at the narrowing of the circuit of the ditch, which leads to the western side of the gatehouse. Strengthening the structure of the gate towers, and the control of access through the remodelling of the fosse, may correspond to the first major development in the life of the Château Narbonnais. The emergence of

233

Jean Catalo

the line of counts from the house of Toulouse-Rouergue6 and their claims on Aquitaine led to retaliations including the firing of Toulouse in 1064. The emphasis on the passive defence of the Narbonne Gate7 could be a response to this conflict. However, other town entries may also have been strengthened, and it is difficult to determine whether or not these fortifying works owe anything to a particular comital presence/interest at the site during this period.

The Defence of the Castle of Count Raymond V This system of moats associated with the Narbonne Gate was maintained without significant modification until the mid-twelfth century when it was extended towards the south with the creation of a double ditch separated by a bank 2 m to 5 m wide. This bank was reinforced by a timber palisade running along the the crest of the newly created escarpment. We can see therefore that the increasing sophistication of the town defences was triggered around ad 1000 with the emergence of the counts and continued with the multiplication of lines of defence in the twelfth century. One of the primary purposes of the V-shaped ditch was to safeguard the route of the ‘Narbonne way’ towards the gatehouse. This indicates that the Narbonne Gate endured as an entranceway into the town at this time but had not yet begun to fulfil the functions of a fortress, despite being named as the seat of the counts of Toulouse (Fig. 12.2). The town gate seems to have transitioned into a castle only after the definitive closure of the gate passage with a massive masonry wall coupled with significant changes to the system of fosses. The foundation of the 32 m long and 2.40 m wide wall constructed of brick, mortar and embedded pebbles, rests upon on a solid layer of marl about 4 m below present ground-level. Equipped with two powerful exterior buttresses, this defensive wall also served to 6

7

Gérard Pradalié, ‘Les comtes de Toulouse et l’Aquitaine (IXe-XIIe siècles)’, Annales du Midi, 117 (2005), 5–23. ‘Passive defences’ is a term used here to describe the system of ditches and lists which were not manned by defenders but were nonetheless instrumental in the town’s defence. Lists (French lices) are the areas of ground enclosed by the complex system of defensive elements at Toulouse. They provided safe areas within which defending troops could marshal for sorties while also serving as deadzones or killing fields to be traversed by assailants, fully exposed to defensive fire from the crenellations, loops and bretèches of the walls. The lists are an essential component of the system of ‘passive defence’ employed to such effect by the defenders of Toulouse during the siege of 1217–18.

234

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

Fig. 12.2: Reconstructed cross-sections of the outer defences of the Château Narbonnais

support the interior structures of the building. The space in front of the old Roman gate thereby became the southern wing of a new fortress. The raising of this wall closed off the town entrance, blocking the former gate passage. The wall is unambiguously defensive in its dimensions, with a width equal to that of the Roman rampart. The construction of this wall would certainly have led not only to major changes in access to the town but also to changes in the role of the former gatehouse within the system 235

Jean Catalo

of municipal defences and, perhaps most importantly, to changes in the effective power of the count. The dating of this change is provided by the chronology of the burials established pre-1155 on the embankments and ditches surrounding the castle. The transformation of the Narbonne Gate was completed sometime after the mid-twelfth century, during the reign of Count Raymond V (1148–94). A Raymondine obol8 dating to 1175–1249 discovered within the castle suggests a date range of 1155–75 for the foundation of the masonry wall that sealed the gate passage. A sense that the Château Narbonnais retained a visible semblance of a gatehouse following these works is contained in the Canso which describes the wife of Simon de Montfort observing civil unrest below in the streets of Toulouse during the uprising of 1217: ‘High up in a vaulted archway of the great rich palace stood the countess in desperate anxiety’.9 The Canso describes how, in an attempt to quell this uprising, the crusaders launched an attack from the château. The anonymous composer of the Canso relates the fierceness of the combat: Now with warcries, every man is engaged. Sharp fly the javelins, the lances, the 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 skies. How many armed knights you would have seen there, how many good shields cleft, what ribs laid bare, legs smashed and arms cut off, chests torn apart, helmets cracked open, flesh hacked, heads cut in two, what blood spilled what severed fists, how many fighting men and others struggling to carry away one they’d seen fall! Such wounds, such injuries they suffered that they strewed the battlefield with white and red.10

Hugh de Lacy, exiled count of Ulster, was among the assailants in this action and the anonymous composer of the Canso reports him giving the following speech: By God […] we are cut to pieces, we shall die here. Today will finish it, for I’m sure we have lost a third of our men. Let us withdraw or they will destroy us.11

8

9 10 11

‘Raimondine’, or ‘Raymondine’, the name given to the denarii struck by the counts of Toulouse, whose principal mint was at Albi. The counts of Toulouse from 1088 to 1249 all bore the name of Raimond, and this name occurs on all the coins’: Robert R. Frey, A Dictionary of Numismatic Names (New York, 1927), p. 195. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 123, verse 183. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 133, verse 188. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 133, verse 188.

236

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

Following the retreat, the crusaders hold council in the Château Narbonnais where ‘they met on the paved floor of the castle’s ancient tower to discuss their plans’.12 This passage illustrates that to contemporary commentators, the age and prestige of the Château Narbonnais was well known, highlighted no doubt by the contrast of Raymond V’s recent wall which was built against the centuries-old façade of the flanking towers. The remodeling of the Château Narbonnais by Raymond  V necessitated a relocation of the town gate to the west of the former gatehouse. The new access into the town was achieved by breaching the Roman rampart. The layout of the system of fosses in this area was also strongly affected by this change. The ground gained towards the south of the castle prompted an equivalent change in the line of the banks and fosses which were enlarged to distinguish their new status as comital as opposed to municipal monuments. From the first siege Toulouse in 1211, the chroniclers of the Albigensian Crusade mention these ditches in the context of attempts made by the crusading forces to backfill the fosses to gain access to the walls. The crusaders cut down all of the vines, corn and trees they could find, everything that grew and piled it into a heap near a gully. With that, they thought, they would surely be able to fill up the ditches as they intended.13

The new town fosse measured over 14.50 m wide and was dug through the watertable which runs across the top of the underlying marl deposits in this area. This ensured that the system of fosses was permanently filled with water. Its location in front of the castle most likely delimitated a trapezoidal space about 32 m long and about 64 m at its greatest width. This platform was supported by an escarpment wall, reinforced by the northern semi-circular ditch and the possible continuation of a palisaded bank dating to the period preceding the castle formation. This configuration could therefore correspond to a barbican erected to bolster the defence of the castle by Raymond V. This Narbonne Barbican is mentioned in the anonymous chronicle of the Crusade in 1217–18.14 Even though the exact nature of its design remains unknown, it might be suggested that the location of the barbican gate may be analogous with that of the town gate dating from the end of the medieval period. Indeed, the east-west axis and the position of the opening suggest the existence of a building as the focal point of the new line of defence. In its final state, this extremely 12 13 14

Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 134, verse 189. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 46, verse 80. Histoire anonyme de la guerre des Albigeois, ed. Jules Gounon-Loubens (Toulouse, 1863).

237

Jean Catalo

massive gateway, 20 m by 10 m, had no equivalent in Toulouse. A 177815 description of the Royal Palace, informs us that this structure was a brick building with two floors, only the second floor covering the entranceway. This gateway is almost certainly the Narbonne Barbican which would become known as the town gate after the end of the Crusade, then called the Castle Gate from the royal period onwards. The correspondence of the fosse with the one described during the siege of Toulouse is also confirmed by the transformation of the enclosure of the cemetery at the foot of the castle. The excavation of the subway station Palais de Justice and Allées Paul Feuga showed that the first enclosure of the cemetery from before 1190 was amended by a shift of the street leading to the new gate.16 The axis of the new street, la Rue Droite (‘the straight street’), is indicated by the new line of vaults constituting the western limit of the cemetery. This line of vaulting terminates at the assumed location of the entrance to the Barbican and subsequent town gate of the late medieval period as discussed above. The dating of burials within the castle bailey shows that interments stopped abruptly at the end of the twelfth century. While the principal fosse surrounding the walls of the town seems to date from the time of the Crusade, other stretches of fosse and lists17 are also cited as places of fighting in October 1217. An indication as to the formidable array of defences confronting the crusaders in 1217 is evoqued in vivid detail by the anonymous author of the Canso: But the men of the town and their natural lord [Raymond VI] manned the lists and occupied the levels […] On the sentry-walks and in the brattices stood valiant men, strong and secure, bearing halberds and stones. Down below on the ground, others held lances and boar-spears to defend the lists and prevent any approach to the barricade. Within the arrow-loops and embrasures were the archers defending the galleries and outworks with all kinds of bows, arbalests and handbows. The tubs were filled with arrows and crossbow bolts. And all around stood the people grasping axes, clubs and cudgels, the women and ladies bringing containers full of gathered stones, large ones and fist-sized pebbles. Toulouse stood to its defences.18

15

16

17 18

Jean Rocacher, ‘La description du palais du parlement de Toulouse par l’ingénieur François Garipuy (31 août 1778)’, Mémoires de la Société Archéologique du Midi de la France 51 (1991), 248–49. D. Paya, ‘Le cimetière Saint-Michel de Toulouse: organisation et typologie des tombes’, Actes 4e Congrès International d’Archéologie Médiévale et Moderne, du 3 au 8 septembre 2007à Paris [http: //medieval-europe-paris-2007.univ-paris1. fr/paya.pdf ]. See Note 7 above. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 132, verse 187.

238

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

To fully grasp the resources and determination of the population of Toulouse at this time, it is important to understand the relative size and prosperity of the city in the early thirteenth century. From the eleventh century Toulouse was unchallenged as the largest city in southern France and could be confidently called one of the largest urban centres in Western Europe. As capital of the ancient Carolingian kingdom of Aquitaine, capital of Visigoth kings, and as an important city in the Roman Province of Gallia Narbonensis or Transalpine Gaul, Toulouse had strutted the European stage for over a millennium. Its population, estimated at over 20,000 in 120019 increasing to 25–30,000 by 1250 rivalled that of London, capital of the Angevin empire (30,000),20 and dwarfed that of contemporary Dublin (not far exceeding 10,000).21 In its size and economic output, medieval Toulouse was comparable in its own right to Paris which boasted an estimated population of 50,000 in 1215 and was on its way to becoming the largest city in Western Europe.22 The Canso describes numerous examples of the lists in action: Both outside on the castle’s crenelated ramparts and inside in the lists, skilled bowmen keep up a rapid fire of slender steel-tipped shafts  […] French and de Berzy’s men draw so near that only the lists and ditch hinder them.23

The importance of Toulouse’s passive system of defence to its inhabitants can be seen in their eagerness to preserve the lists against any effects of urban sprawl. In 1219, the ditches and the lists were subject to strict regulation by consuls anxious to maintain their defensive function.24 The Toulouse councillors decided that the lists established in front of the principal fosse were communal property. It was decreed that the land between

19

20

21

22

23 24

John Haines, Eight Centuries of Troubadours and Trouveres (Cambridge, 2004), p. 14. Gwyn  A. Williams, Medieval London: From Commune to Capital (London, 1963), p. 315. Art Cosgrove, A New History of Ireland II: Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Dublin, 1987), p. 234; Margaret Murphy and Michael Potterton ‘Investigating Living Standards in Medieval Dublin and its Regions’, in Medieval Dublin 6 (2005), 224–56, at p. 191. Philippe Lorentz and Dany Sandron, Atlas de Paris au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2006) p. 37. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 132, verse 188. Archives Municipales de Toulouse, AA 1, Actes capitulaires, 91:  5 août 1219: deepening and expansion of four sides, ‘…eceptis ecclesis et hospitalibus et reclusis et sepulturis…’.

239

Jean Catalo

the principal fosse and the fosse of the lists must remain free, except for the churches, hospitals, anchorite cells and tombs already there. The outer fosse enclosing these lists was located twice during archaeological operations.25 Shallower than the principal fosse, it nevertheless reached the level of the water table 2 m below present ground level. The width of the ditch at this time is estimated at about 6 m.26 These ‘passive’ defences of the town were instrumental in the survival of Toulouse during the siege, and the chronicler William of Puylaurens, writing several decades after the event, illustrates how these defences played a direct role in the death of Simon de Montfort: As the besiegers and the besieged had spent the entire winter in combat usig ballistic machines and other siege engines, count Simon, reinforced by newly arrived pilgrims, redoubled his sorties and runs on the town. But as the inhabitants of the town maintained their barriers, and their fosses greatly inhibited the crusaders, they resolved finally to construct a wooden engine known as a ‘cat’ which served to carry earth and other materials to infill the fosses in order to advance over the ditches, engage in close combat, break down the palisades and enter the town […] one day [the count] entered into this engine, the day after the nativity of John the Baptist, a stone cast from an enemy mangonel fell on his head and he expired on the spot.27

From the archaeological and documentary evidence we can reconstruct the defensive system of ditches surrounding Toulouse on the eve of the Albgensian Crusade. This system appears to have comprised of: 1. 9 m–10 m of sloping ground at the external base of the town wall; 2. the gently sloping, partially refilled Carolingian ditch approximately 20 m wide and recut in places as per alongside the Château Narbonnais; 3. the principal fosse, 13 m–18 m in width; 25

26

27

In 1992, a 20 m long stretch of a channel about 3 m wide was identified roughly a block from the site at allées Paul Feuga. In 2002, during works in advance of the Metro Station construction, François Verdier discovered an identical channel 3 m-4 m wide about 50 m outside of the line of the Roman wall. The ratio 2:1 is pertinent for the width of the ditch to the height of the bank. This gives an idea of the profile of the ditch surrounding the château Narbonnais which had a similar profile. Guillaume de Puylaurens, Chronique de l’expédition contre les Cathares, trad. François Guizot (Paris, 2012), pp. 67–68.

240

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

4. 20 m-wide lists; 5. the outer fosse, 6 m wide (see Fig. 12.2). Superimposing this schema over a map of the perimeter of the right bank of the town illustrates that many religious buildings and cemeteries were contained within the lists. The schema of enclosing elements surrounded not only the walled circuit of the town but also enclosed the walled suburbs illustrating to what extent all levels of Toulousan society were united by the imperatives of the crusader sieges. This series of banks and fosses, bristling with stakes, palisades and barriers extending as far as 80 m out from the curtain wall surrounding the town, was designed to keep riders and war machines at the furthest possible remove from the walls. We can see therefore that the creation of the Château Narbonnais – that declaration in stone of the Count’s power, built from one of the principle gatehouses of the town – did not affect the integrity of the defences of Toulouse. The change did not occasion a shift in the dynamic between town and castle. Among the different types of possible association between town and castle,28 the conjunction of the two at Toulouse remained steadfast, in spite of the development of a defensive system which, in some measure cut the castle off from the town. This relationship between town and castle fittingly describes the type of comital control exercised over the town; never expressed by submission but rather by a covenant with the people of Toulouse. The loyalty of Toulouse was often assured by the rights of concession and conciliation treaties between the counts and the consular representatives of town.29 The only substantial disruption to the unity of town and castle came during the Albigensian Crusade when Simon de Montfort, intent on the subjugation of the population, demolished all of the towers of the nobility and tore down the defences of the town. He completely isolated the Château Narbonnais with a system of ditches running inside of the town walls and the outer fosse. This episode marks the culmination of the military evolution of the site, however, no specific evidence for these works were uncovered during the archaeological excavations. This deficiency can be explained perhaps by the fact that the area excavated, occuring to the south of the castle, was never directly subjected to a siege. The fortress itself, throughout its long history, was never taken through military action. 28

29

See Gilles Blieck, Philippe Contamine, Nicolas Faucherre and Jean Mesqui, Le château et la ville conjonction, opposition, juxtaposition (XIe-XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2002). See Gérard Pradalié, ‘La ville des comtes,’ in Nouvelle histoire de Toulouse, ed. Michel Taillefer (Toulouse, 2002), pp. 61–92.

241

Jean Catalo

The Creation of the Royal Castle In 1249, Alphonse of Poitiers, brother of Louis IX and spouse of Raymond VII’s daughter, took control of Toulouse and the town fell under royal control in all but name. The attachment of Toulouse to the royal domain was comprehensively achieved during the reign of Philip III (1271–85) when Alphonse died without issue. Toulouse became the most important southern town of the royal domain which had expanded by 15% with the appropriation of Alphonse’s lands. This significant expansion was particularly advantageous for the new king who was heavily involved in a succession of conflicts in the Mediterranean region. While Toulouse was never threatened or directly affected by these events, the town’s geostrategic role changed intrinsically with its attachment to the Capetian realm. Toulouse became, along with Carcassonne, a stronghold and bulwark of all military action in the southern Capetian zone of influence. The town of Toulouse maintained this role during the military takeover of Guyenne in 1294–96. An extensive program of land purchases was carried out to facilitate extensions to the Château Narbonnais in 1274. A range of new and renovated structures fulfilling a host of different functions were constructed around the old castle in 1287 to form the ‘Salle neuve’ or ‘Royal Palace’. The construction of this complex, built entirely in brick, necessitated a reorganization of the entrance to the town with the erection of a new wall, 32 m south of the Château Narbonnais, inserted between the Roman wall that formed the town walls and the system of passive defence (namely the fosses and the lists: Fig. 12.3). This wall survives for a stretch of 35 m, preserved within the fabric of the present District Court. A further 40 m long stretch of this wall was uncovered during the excavation of the site and its foundations were observed to rest upon the scarp of the principal fosse discussed above. From west to east, this wall, crowned with crenellations, included an integral tower commanding the ditch and a series of external buttresses, some of which served as flanking bretèches. A high gallery supported upon massive pillars seems to have connected the curtain wall to the castle. The principal fosse was widened to 18 m wide and excavated to a depth of up to 9 m deep. The upcast from this excavation was then used to raise the level within the new enclosure. A counterscarp wall topped by a parapet separated the ditch that ran along the street to the barbican gate of the town. An indispensable map of the courthouse dating from 1778 combined with the archaeological results permits us to paint a complete picture of this defensive system which survived up until 1549–56 when the Château Narbonnais was destroyed. In this new arrangement, the two strong points 242

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

Fig. 12.3: General view, Cité judiciaire, Toulouse: to the left are the foundations of the castle, to the right the tower and the ditch of the royal fortifications, and in the background the elevation of the rampart inserted into the current court of justice (© Olivier Dayrens, Inrap); see colour plate 18.

of the town entrance – the town gatehouse and barbican – combined in a triangular arrangement with the intramural tower. The barbican entrance which became known as Porte Saint-Michel, was equidistant (about 25 m) from the entrance into the town proper, known as the Castle Gate and the intramural tower on the opposite side of the fosse (Fig. 12.4). The eastwest progression of the defensive elements can be best understood in the context of the defence of the counterscarp of the fosse which controlled access to the barbican. The presence of a tower at this location really only makes sense as an added protection to the barbican. Similarly, the new western wall of the royal enclosure covered the passage between the Castle Gate and the entrance into the town through the Roman rampart. This straight 50 m long passageway appears as the street ‘between two gates’ from 1312 on. Halfway along the length of this street, also known as the street ‘infront of the salles neuve’ an entrance gate opened into the courtyard of the royal enclosure. Both sides of the royal enclosure therefore defended access to the town, and were themselves defended by the former Château Narbonnais. To penetrate to the centre of the complex within the old comital castle, remodelled as the Royal Palace, a potential assailant would have had to overcome no less than four gates defended by ramparts: the Porte Saint-Michel to the barbican, the town 243

Jean Catalo

place du pala is

rempart antique

rue entre deux portes

château

galerie haute portanel

tour fossé majeur

porte du chateau

rue porte de la barbacane

restitution

action de défense

cadastre actuel

plan 1778

construction

fossé

fossé des lices

0

20 m

F. Callède INRAP-2007

Fig. 12.4: suggested reconstruction of the defence system of the royal palace.

gate, the gate of the salles neuve and the gate of the Château Narbonnais itself. The combination of the defences of the town and castle shows that the intramural tower formed part of an architectural project that was not limited to a purely defensive role.

244

The Château Narbonnais of Toulouse during the Siege of 1218

Conclusions Analysis of the fortifications built at the very end of the thirteenth century, reveals a decidedly military design oriented on the defence of the barbican gate and the town gate immediately to the west. This is was not a simple element enclosing the cloister of the royal enclosure with crenellations which were more or less ostentatious but was rather a serious defensive work of consideralble complexity. The merlons exhibit indicators of a system of permanent hoarding which would have complemented the angles of fire otherwise provided by the arrow loops in the masonry (Fig. 12.5). The military effectiveness of the medieval wall was therefore based on its integration into a wider defensive model which retained the count’s castle at the centre, and the town gate as an essential component. This coherence in the collective system of fortifications reflects a new alliance between the royal power and the people of Toulouse. Philip III actually proved to be very accommodating with the population and ensured his support with an amnesty and the establishment of customs. The expansion of the area of the palace, three to four times larger than the count’s castle, was therefore designed to follow the same logic as the count’s castle. The royal Château Narbonnais was integral to the wider defences of the town, as much as it benefited from their broader protection. The three main gates of the Château Narbonnais, namely Town Gate, Comital Castle and finally Royal Palace, present a picture of the shifting and innovative ways in which power was expressed at Toulouse. Initially, the prestige of the Gallo-Roman monument seems to have provided sufficient gravitas to characterize the nature of this power. Once the monument took on the name of ‘castle’ at the turn of the twelfth century, its structure, although refortified, retained its primary function as a gateway. It was not until the years 1160–70 that the castle acquired a form and a status distinct from the entranceway to the town. Despite this transformation, it remained integrated into the defensive system of the town while controlling one of its main access ways. This conjunction between town and castle persevered until the late middle ages despite the radical change experienced by the town following the Albigensian Crusade when power passed from the counts of Toulouse to the Royal administration of Capetian France.30

30

Translated from the French by Paul Duffy.

245

Jean Catalo

Fig. 12.5: Crenellations of the thirteenth-century rampart during the course of restoration (© Olivier Dayrens, Inrap); see colour plate 19.

246

Section III

Restitiution

Chapter 13 Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille Lucien Aries Abstract Where and how the battle of Baziège was contested in 1219 is examined afresh taking into account of significant topographical changes wrought on the landscape between 1710 and 1750 to correct the course of the Hers River. At the time of the battle, the Hers was a very winding river which followed a wide meander, of several hundred meters to the gates of Baziège; the town was built on the right bank (or external edge of the meander). The battle took place within the teardrop shaped stretch of land contained within the course of the meander, on the left bank of the river. The crusaders had positioned their camp as close to the town as possible in order to monitor the enemy. From the opening phase of the Occitan attack, the Crusaders were surrounded and trapped in the meander of the river by a light cavalry of mounted archers and scouts. Exposed, weakened and without possibility of a quick retreat across the marshy plain, they could not withstand either the heavy cavalry charge of the Count of Foix and Raymond the young count of Toulouse, nor the flood of infantry of the Occitan army. This unprecedented defeat of the Crusaders, among them Hugh De Lacy, can be explained by the size of the Occitan forces, within the broader context of the siege of Marmande, and by the rallying of major Occitan forces in Toulouse. However, the tactics of encircling and trapping the Crusaders within the bend of the river prevented the northerners from deploying their heavy cavalry and contributed significantly to victory.

Résumé Le lieu et le déroulement de la bataille de Baziège de 1219 est précisé en tenant compte des importants travaux effectués entre 1710 et 1750 pour rectifier l’Hers. A l’époque de cette bataille, l’Hers était une rivière très sinueuse qui présentait un vaste méandre de plusieurs centaines de mètres aux portes de Baziège; le bourg était construit sur sa rive droite (rive concave ou externe). La bataille s’est déroulée dans le lobe de terre du méandre, sur la rive gauche de la rivière. Les croisés y avaient installés leur campement au plus près du village pour surveiller l’adversaire. Dès la première phase de l’attaque occitane, les croisés encerclés se sont fait piéger dans le méandre de la rivière par une cavalerie légère d’arbalétriers et de percussores. Cernés, affaiblis, sans aucune possibilité de replis dans la plaine marécageuse, ils n’ont pu résister ni à la charge des cavaleries lourdes du Comte de Foix et de Raymond

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 247–262

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114247

Lucien Aries le Jeune, ni au déferlement des fantassins de l’armée occitane. La défaite des Croisés, y compris Hugues de Lacy, s’explique par l’importance des forces occitanes, dans le contexte du siège de Marmande, et du regroupement d’importantes forces occitanes à Toulouse, mais aussi par la tactique d’encerclement dans le périmètre d’un méandre, trop petit pour permettre le déploiement de leur cavalerie lourde.

Introduction Tandis que se déroule le siège de Marmande (dép. Lot-et-Garonne), début 1219, le comte de Foix et le fils du comte de Toulouse (Raymond le Jeune) défient la chevalerie croisée en rase campagne à Baziège (dép.  HauteGaronne) et remportent une célèbre victoire. Cette bataille est relatée avec beaucoup de détails par l’Anonyme dans La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise (la Canso).1 L’auteur consacre près de 240 vers à cette bataille; comparé aux quelques 260 vers qui relatent la célèbre défaite de Muret, ce nombre montre l’importance de l’affrontement dans le contexte de l’époque. Guillaume de Puylaurens dans sa Chronique évoque aussi la bataille de Baziège.2 Michel Roquebert3 puis Jean Odol4 ont parfaitement analysé le déroulement de cette bataille, néanmoins, la date précise, le lieu exact et les circonstances de l’affrontement auquel a participé Hugues de Lacy,5 restent méconnus et font toujours l’objet d’hypothèses. La localisation exacte de l’affrontement doit prendre en compte les importants remaniements de terrains entrepris au XVIIIe siècle pour rectifier l’Hers et assainir la plaine marécageuse. Par ailleurs, pour préciser les circonstances exactes de la bataille de Baziège, il est nécessaire de la replacer dans le contexte du siège de Marmande, et de la dynamique de reconquête des Occitans pour bouter les Français hors de leurs terres.

1

2

3 4 5

La chanson de la croisade albigeoise, texte occitan, éd. Henri Gougaud, trans. Eugène Martin Chabot (Paris 1989), pp.  521–31 laisses 210–11, pp.  198–212 laisses 135–41. Guillaume de Puylaurens, Chronique 1145–1275, ed. and trans. Jean Duvernoy (Toulouse, 1996), pp. 111–13. Roquebert, L’épopée cathare, 3: 202–8. Jean Odol, La Bataille de Baziège (Baziège, 2009), pp. 15–83. Paul Duffy, ‘Hugues de Lacy, comte d’Ulster et seigneur de Castelnaudary’, Bulletin de l’association de recherche Baziègeoise 24 (Baziège, 2013), 8–27.

250

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

Contexte et circonstances de la bataille Amaury de Montfort met le siège devant Marmande au début de l’année 1219. Raymond en avait renforcé la défense et confié le commandement au Sénéchal d’Agenais Guillaume-Arnaud de Tantalon, assisté de deux grands seigneurs, Centulle d’Astarac et Arnaud de Blanquefort. La maison d’Astarac était une lignée féodale issue de la maison de Gascogne qui possédait le comté du même nom depuis le Xe siècle, au sud du département du Gers et au nord des Hautes-Pyrénées.6 Arnaud de Blanquefort, seigneur de plus modeste lignage, venait probablement de Blanquefort, une place située dans le Gers entre Auch et Toulouse.7 Après son périple en Rouergue, fin 1218 et janvier 2019, Raymond le Jeune était rentré à Toulouse, pour refaire ses forces. Marmande se défend bien avec l’aide de nombreux seigneurs venus à sa rescousse: Pons et Guillaume Amadieu, Araimfre de Montpezat, Vicomte Vézian de Lomagne, Amadieu de Bouglon, Gaston de Gontaud. Devant cette résistance, Amaury de Montfort préfère attendre les renforts promis par Philippe Auguste, roi de France; la coutume voulait, par ailleurs, que l’on évite de se battre l’hiver et pendant les périodes de paix imposées par l’Église (Paix de Dieu, Trêve de Dieu). Les renforts ne vont arriver que vers le 2 ou 3 juin, sous la conduite du fils de Philippe Auguste, le futur Louis VIII, surnommé ‘le Lion’; il a pris la croix contre les hérétiques toulousains le 20 novembre 2018, auréolé de sa victoire sur Jean sans Terre, roi d’Angleterre, à La Roche-aux Moines en 1214.8 La Canso ne donne pas d’information sur les intentions du comte de Toulouse pour secourir en plein hiver les Marmandais assiégés et affamés. L’Anonyme indique seulement que le jeune comte est sorti de Toulouse aux beaux jours avec son armée pour voler au secours du comte de Foix encerclé dans Baziège par les Croisés. La Canso n’indique pas non plus les raisons de la présence du comte de Foix avec toute sa troupe aux environs de Baziège. Pour l’Anonyme, le comte de Foix et sa troupe déferlent soudain en pays Lauragais, font main basse en passant sur le bétail qu’ils

6

7 8

Nicolas Guinaudeau, Fortifications seigneuriales et r´esidences aristocratiques gasconnes dans l’ancien comt´e d’Astarac entre le X`eme et le XVI` siècle (Bordeaux, 2012). Roquebert, L’epopée cathare, 3: 153. Stephen Church, King John, England, Magna Carta and the Making of a Tyrant (London, 2015), p. 208.

251

Lucien Aries

trouvent, prennent logement au château de Baziège, et c’est alors que les Croisés viennent lui chercher noise. Pour François Guizot, dans son Histoire de la Guerre des Albigeois, le jeune comte a rassemblé à Toulouse une grande armée et se prépare à secourir ceux de Marmande qui se défendent bien. Comme le jeune comte voulait partir, lui vint un messager pour qu’il aille promptement et sans délai donner secours au comte de Foix, qui était entré dans le Lauragais avec une petite troupe, y avait fait la plus belle prise de bétail et de gens que personne eût jamais faite en ce temps, car il avait pris tout le bétail du Lauragais, tant bœufs que vaches, juments, brebis, et autres bêtes et les menait à Toulouse. Mais ceux qu’Amory avait laissé en garnison, tant pour le pays de Lauragais que celui de Carcassonne s’étaient réunis, et étaient venus à sa rencontre pour lui ôter son butin. Quand donc le comte de Foix vit le grand nombre de gens qui venaient vers lui, il se retira dans Baziège, en attendant le secours qu’il avait fait demander au jeune comte. Le jeune comte vint avec tous ses gens, dont le comte de Foix fut fort joyeux.9

Le récit de Guillaume de Puylaurens ne concorde ni avec le texte très détaillé de l’Anonyme dans la Canso, ni avec celui de François Guizot, présenté ci-dessus. Pour Guillaume de Puylaurens, les frères Foucaud et Jean de Berzy, hommes énergiques et combattifs, ainsi que plusieurs autres sortirent de l’armée pour le pillage, firent une course de toute audace sur les terres de Toulouse, et rassemblèrent un butin de mouton. Le fils du comte, qui était à Toulouse, courut sur eux, les trouva qui s’attardaient près de Baziège. S’ils avaient abandonné leur butin, ils pouvaient s’en aller sans dommage. Mais ils trouvèrent le combat en campagne qu’ils recherchaient.10

Ce récit très court, ignorant notamment la présence du comte de Foix dans cet affrontement et non corrélé au siège de Marmande, semble trop éloigné de ceux de l’Anonyme et de François Guizot pour être pris en considération. Dans le contexte de la reconquête occitane, le comte de Toulouse et son allié le comte de Foix, tous deux sur le pied de guerre, n’ont pas pu rester inactifs devant la défense héroïque de Marmande. Par ailleurs la présence du comte de Foix avec sa troupe aux portes de Toulouse, est difficile à expliquer par une simple opération de pillage qu’il aurait menée 9

10

François Guizot, Histoire de la guerre des Albigeois, Mémoires sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1824), p. 191. Guillaume de Puylaurens, Chronique 1145–1275, p. 111.

252

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

en Lauragais au nez et à la barbe de Raymond VI, ou par l’ouverture d’un second front qu’il aurait ouvert avec une armée trainant un embarrassant bétail et des gens pour mener les bêtes et les convois. Comme l’indique François Guizot, la grande armée rassemblée autour du comte de Toulouse pendant l’hiver 1219, est probablement destinée à délivrer Marmande dès que le temps le permettra, c’est-à-dire aux premiers beaux jours du printemps.11 L’hypothèse que Raymond le jeune attend à Toulouse, le comte de Foix qui arrive avec des vivres, pillés au passage en Lauragais, pour nourrir l’armée et secourir les assiégeais de Marmande est très plausible. La présence, aux côtés du comte de Foix, de ses deux fils, Roger-Bernard et sire Loup (demi-frère), de grands seigneurs et de très nombreux faydits bien connus, montre qu’il s’agit d’une troupe partie pour une campagne militaire de grande ampleur. De même, l’armée des croisés avec les vétérans majeurs de la croisade et tout un troupeau de moutons, aux portes de Toulouse, pourrait être une troupe allant renforcer le siège de Marmande ou contrarier le plan des Occitans pour délivrer la ville.

Date Dans la Canso, le récit de la bataille de Baziège est effectué au milieu de celui du siège de Marmande. L’Anonyme arrête le récit du siège de Marmande, pour raconter la bataille qui se déroule à Baziège. Quand la bataille de Baziège est terminée, l’Anonyme reprend le récit du siège, en précisant qu’un messager est allé à Marmande pour annoncer que le comte a vaincu les Français, que les frères de Berzy sont prisonniers et que leurs compagnons sont tous morts au combat; Amaury furieux se venge sur la ville, sans attendre l’arrivée des renforts promis par le roi de France et qui arriveront quelques jours après, le 2 juin. Il est donc parfaitement établi que la bataille de Baziège s’est déroulée pendant le siège de Marmande, au printemps, au mois d’avril ou de mai. Selon l’Anonyme, les Occitans doivent franchir un dernier obstacle qui sépare les deux armées: un fossé (petitz fossatz) sans pont ni planche. Les différents auteurs ont identifié cet obstacle comme étant l’Hers (rivière); une rivière qui coule à très faible débit en période d’étiage, après ses traditionnelles crues hivernales. L’Hers étant qualifié de simple petit fossé, il est probable que l’affrontement ne se soit pas déroulé au tout début du printemps, mais plutôt au mois de mai.

11

Guizot, Histoire de la guerre des Albigeois, p. 191.

253

Lucien Aries

Lieu de l’affrontement La lecture de La Canso amène à conclure que l’affrontement s’est déroulé à proximité de Baziège, au bord de l’Hers, sur la rive opposée au village, c’est à dire rive gauche. Pour localiser le champ de bataille, il est nécessaire de prendre en considération les importants remaniements de terrain entrepris au XVIIIe siècle, pour rectifier l’Hers afin de limiter les risques d’inondation et d’assécher la plaine. Le creusement du lit artificiel rectiligne, commencé en 1710 fut achevé vers 1750. Avant ce remaniement, au temps de la croisade, en période de basses eaux, l’Hers dessinait de multiples méandres libres dans un fond de vallée humide et boisée. Le dessin de François Andréossy et Jean Cavalier de 1665, illustrant le projet de canal pour la communication des mers par Garonne et Aude en Languedoc,12 montre que Baziège était construit sur la rive concave (rive externe) d’un très vaste méandre, de près de 700 mètres de longueur et d’environ 400 mètres d’amplitude. Après rectification, l’Hers coule à plus de 300 mètres du centre historique de l’agglomération. L’ancien lit de l’Hers à proximité du village peut être identifié au ruisselet dit ruisseau des Espaces, dit Hers-vieux selon la tradition orale, qui coulait à l’emplacement des actuelles allées Paul Marty (ancien foirail), maintenant busé et recouvert pour l’aménagement de la voirie et de la coopérative agricole. Ainsi, au temps de la croisade, les actuels terrains de sport, tennis et football, de la plaine d’Amont, l’école maternelle, l’Ecole élémentaire, les Gourgues, situés rive droite, étaient sur la rive gauche de l’Hers et dans le méandre. Le village a pu profiter de la proximité de la rivière pour se doter de fossés remplis d’eau, sortes de douves, pour protéger le cœur de l’agglomération. Le réseau d’égouts très important avec voûtes en briques, résultant du recouvrement d’anciens fossés pour l’aménagement et l’agrandissement du village, témoigne de la présence de ces fossés. Sur la figure 2, sont dessinés les pontils, permettant le passage de la voie surélevée pour franchir la zone marécageuse en direction de Montgiscard, sans entraver l’écoulement de l’eau en période de crues. L’endroit a été choisi au regard de la stabilité du sol et de l’étroitesse de la zone marécageuse: les fondations de ces petits ponts dateraient de l’époque romaine. Cette voie, unique accès au village 12

Jean Cavalier et François Andréossy, Plan géométrique du Canal pour la communication des mers par Garonne et Aude en Languedoc (dessin, 1665). Voir Pierre-Paul Riquet Baron de Bonrepos, Histoire du Canal de Languedoc (Paris, 1805), pp. 216–18.

254

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

depuis la rive gauche, située à l’ouest du bourg, est facile à garder en cas d’attaque. Cette configuration explique l’absence de pont ou de planche à l’emplacement choisi par les croisés pour établir leur campement: emplacement situé rive gauche, au plus près du village, pour observer l’ennemi à l’abri du cours d’eau. Ainsi, les croisés ont pu établir leur campement dans le lobe du méandre de l’Hers, la rivière offrant une défense naturelle sur trois côtés, face à l’ennemi; le côté sud, ouvert sur la plaine marécageuse, a dû être mis en défense, en cas de contournement par l’ennemi, par quelques abatis d’arbre de la forêt voisine. Selon cette hypothèse, l’emplacement du champ de bataille serait occupé par l’école maternelle, les Gourgues, les terrains de sports (football, tennis) et pouvait s’étendre au plus loin jusqu’à La Boulbène et Les Landes.

Forces en présence Aux côtés du comte de Foix Raymond-Roger et de ses deux fils, RogerBernard et Loup de Foix,13 il y a de grands seigneurs comme GuilhemBernard d’Arnave et Bernard-Amiel de Pailhès ainsi que de nombreux faydits: Isarn Jourdain, Chabert de Barbaira, Guillaume de Niort,14 Aimery de Clermont et Raymond-Arnaud Delpech (ou du Pech), Jourdain de Cabaret, Robert de Tinhes et ses Carcassonnais. Raymond le jeune,15 a vingt-deux ans. Etant l’unique héritier de la dynastie toulousaine, sa mort serait une grande catastrophe pour le comté. Il arrive à Baziège avec une véritable armée et sa garde personnelle. Cette garde ou mainade (mesnie) est constituée d’une quinzaine de compagnons prêts à se sacrifier pour le protéger. Arnaud de Villemur, grand seigneur vassal, qui porte sa bannière, veille aussi sur le jeune comte; il est son ange gardien. L’Anonyme dans la Canso, donne les noms de ceux qui accompagnent Raymond le jeune pour affronter les croisés à Baziège; Bertrand16 fils naturel de Raymond VI, de grands seigneurs vassaux comme Bertrand Jourdain de l’Isle, Bertrand de Gourdon faydit du Carcassès, trois membres de la célèbre famille Unaud de Lanta (Guiraud, Guillaume et Raymond), 13 14 15

16

Sire Loup, demi-frère de Roger-Bernard, fils du comte de Foix Raymond-Roger. Guillaume de Niort, gendre de la parfaite Blanche de Laurac. Raymond le Jeune, fils de Raymond VI et de Jeanne d’Angleterre (4e épouse du comte Raymond VI). Fils naturel de Raymond VI, demi-frère de sang de Raymond le jeune.

255

Lucien Aries

Isarn de Montaud dit l’Abbé, Amalvis de Pestillac17 un Quercynois, Hugues de Lamothe un Montalbanais, Rodrigue et Hugues d’Alfaro chevaliers navarrais.18 Il y a aussi les chevaliers et la milice communale de Toulouse, ainsi que des bandes de routiers espagnols avec leurs capitaines, comme probablement Garcia Sabolera, Garcia Coradias et Pierre Navarre. Bernard IV de Comminges aurait été là aussi, selon François Guizot. Du côté des croisés, Raymond le jeune (comme indique l’Anonyme) identifie dès son arrivée à Baziège les bannières d’Alain de Roucy,19 de Foucault de Berzy20 et aussi celle d’Hugues de Lacy qui avait reçu la seigneurie de Castelnaudary et de Fanjeaux au lendemain de la bataille de Castelnaudary en 1211. Sont aussi présents d’autres vétérans de la croisade comme Jean de Berzy, frère de Foucault, Thibaud de Nonneville et Sicard de Lautrec. Il y a également des chevaliers moins connus comme Jean de Bouillon, Amaury de Lucy, Evrard de Torlet et Jean de Monceaux. Des seigneurs occitans transfuges combattent aux cotés des croisés, des traîtres qui avaient souvent profité de la croisade pour régler des comptes personnels, agrandir leurs territoires ou autre: Jean de Lomagne, Sicard de Montaut,21 Pierre Guillaume de Séguret22 et surtout le vicomte Sicard de Lautrec qui avait joué la carte des Montfort pour acquérir une certaine indépendance vis-à-vis de Raymond VI.

17 18

19

20

21

22

Pestillac, château dans la commune de Montcabrier (canton de Puy l’Evêque). Hugues d’Alfaro chevalier navarrais, ancien sénéchal de Raymond  VI en Agenais épousa Guillemette fille naturelle de Raymond VI; son fils Raymond Alfaro organisa l’assassinat des inquisiteurs à Avignonet en mai 1242. Une des premiers compagnons de Simon de Montfort, combattant infatigable, seigneur de Termes, pedra la vie au siège de Montréal en 1220 ou 1221. Foucaud, homme habile, entreprenant et cruel, bourreau du Lauragais, seigneur de Puylaurens. Sicard de Montaut a des attaches cathares; son épouse, Aiceline est croyante cathare, sa belle-mère est la Parfaite Marquésia de Fourquevaux, sa belle-sœur est Corba de Péreille, elles périrent dans les flammes du bucher de Montségur en 1244. Pierre Guillaume de Séguret avait dû quitter le marquisat de Provence, après le siège de Beaucaire, parce qu’il n’y était plus en sécurité et qu’il ne pouvait compter que sur un retour massif de la Croisade.

256

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

Préparatifs de l’attaque Raymond le Jeune arrive avec son armée côté rive droite de l’Hers; le comte de Foix est retranché dans le bourg avec son armée et son butin de bétail. Les Croisés occupant la rive gauche, tiennent à l’ouest la route aménagée à travers la plaine inondable: ils ont établi leur campement sur la langue de terre d’une dizaine d’hectares entourée par le vaste méandre de l’Hers. Les Occitans tiennent conseil. Dans la Canso, l’Anonyme relate longuement la discussion entre Raymond le Jeune, sa garde rapprochée et le comte de Foix. Le jeune comte pressé d’en découdre, harangue ses troupes: Aux armes, chevaliers! C’est l’instant d’être braves! Que nul n’ait parmi vous à rougir de ce jour! Par la Vierge Marie qui porta Jésus-Christ, s’ils veulent là dehors tâter de la bataille, ils vont être servis!23

L’entourage du jeune comte a du mal à lui faire comprendre, qu’il ne serait pas raisonnable qu’il risque sa vie dans un affrontement où les adversaires sont de trop bas lignage. Sa mort serait une véritable catastrophe pour la cause occitane. Sire comte, répond sire de Villemur, ayez d’abord souci de tenir votre rang Amaury de Montfort n’étant point du combat, vous devez, à mon sens, éviter d’y paraître. Foucault, certes est vaillant, mais de trop bas lignage pour que vous engagiez contre lui votre honneur.24

Raymond le jeune accepte de ne pas être au premier rang, et que ce soit le comte de Foix, avec ses gens, qui commande l’assaut à la première ligne. Le jeune comte, véritable chef de guerre de la bataille qui se prépare, impose sa stratégie et explique son plan de bataille: Roger-Bernard, vous-même,25 les gens du Carcassès que je sais bons guerriers, audacieux, durs à cuire, et cogneurs émérites, ceux de votre comté, vos parents, vos barons, et vos gardes du corps, sortirons les premiers. Vous aurez pour mission d’engager le combat. Moi, avec les meilleurs chevaliers de mes terres, Mes barons familiers, les hommes de ma garde, 23 24 25

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: stanza 210. Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: stanza 211 v. 7–10. Comte de Foix.

257

Lucien Aries

Les toulousains en qui j’ai parfaite confiance et mon frère Bertrand qui piaffe d’impatience, Nous vous suivrons de près. Nous vous épaulerons Et nous savourerons ensemble la victoire.26

Pierre Navarre craint pour la vie de Raymond le Jeune et donne d’ultimes conseils: Seigneurs, francs chevaliers, dit Pierre Navarre, Protégez de tout coup le comte Raymondet Car de la fleur d’honneur il est dépositaire. S’il lui venait malheur, tout espoir périrait.27

Après d’interminables harangues, largement relatées par l’Anonyme, les différentes composantes de l’armée des méridionaux se dirigent avec détermination vers les croisés, pour se ranger en ordre de bataille. Alerté par le cliquetis des fers, Foucault de Berzy sort de son campement, et s’approche de la berge de l’autre côté du ruisseau, pour comprendre le mouvement de l’ennemi, identifier l’adversaire et évaluer ses forces; il les regarde et reconnait toutes les enseignes. Bien que surpris par l’importance de l’armée des Occitans, il décide de l’affronter plutôt que de repartir vers Carcassonne en abandonnant son butin. Dans les rangs des croisés, tous ne partagent pas cet avis: ‘Un instant, messeigneurs. Je connais bien ces gens, dit le vicomte de Lautrec. A mon avis, accepter le combat serait déraisonnable’. ‘Vicomte, dit Thibaud partez si vous voulez. Nous restons. Pour ma part je nous donne vainqueur’.28

Foucault de Berzy range à son tour ses hommes en ordre de bataille. Les deux armées sont toutes proches. Dernier obstacle entre elles, un ruisselet sans pont, ni planche. Les Occitans ayant pris l’initiative de l’attaque choisissent le meilleur moment et le meilleur endroit pour franchir la rivière. Ils cherchent le point faible du retranchement des croisés et le passage de l’Hers le plus commode, ou quelque peu aménagé, un passage à gué par exemple; la rive extérieure du méandre qu’ils occupent, zone d’érosion naturelle, est plus escarpée que la rive intérieure, zone de dépôt d’alluvions diverses (vase, argile, limon, sable, graviers, galets), qui est généralement 26 27 28

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: stanza 211 v. 26–37. Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: stanza 211 v. 51–54. Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: stanza 211 v. 84–88.

258

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

en pente plus douce. Cette recherche du lieu de franchissement approprié explique le passage de la Canso décrivant les méridionaux chevauchant sur la rive, sous les yeux des croisés. Les Occitans ont choisi, peut-être, de passer la rivière plus à l’est, au niveau du pédoncule du méandre (début de méandre), pour attaquer l’ennemi sur ses arrières, l’encercler et couper sa retraire vers le sud. Cette tactique fait bénéficier les Occitans d’un effet de surprise; les croisés, ignorant jusqu’à la dernière minute où se fera l’attaque, ne peuvent organiser une défense appropriée.

Le combat De part et d’autre les trompes sonnent l’engagement. Les croisés, sur la défensive, attendent courageusement l’assaut. Doit-on cette tactique d’attente au stratège Hugues de Lacy? Au siège de Castelnaudary en 1211, il avait conseillé à Simon de Montfort d’attendre dans le château les renforts de Carcassonne pour prendre en étau les Occitans. Les croisés attendent-ils des renforts pour attaquer? Le texte de l’Anonyme, en bon accord avec celui de Guillaume de Puylaurens, fait apparaître un plan d’attaque des Occitans qui comporte trois phases. La cavalerie légère du comte de Foix est la première à franchir le ruisseau et à attaquer le camp des croisés. Très mobile, constituée d’arbalétriers, et de precussores, c’est à dire de frappeurs armés de frondes et de javelines, elle encercle les croisés dans leur retranchement; une volée de pierres, flèches, carreaux d’arbalète et javelines s’abat sur des Croisés statiques, alourdis pas le poids de leur armure. Cette tactique d’harcèlement et d’affaiblissement de l’adversaire fait subir des pertes sérieuses aux Croisés. Raymond VI n’avait pu l’imposer au roi d’Aragon à la bataille de Muret de 1213, mais elle avait été appliquée avec succès par le comte de Foix à la bataille de Saint-Martin-Lalande en 1211.29 Immédiatement après ce premier assaut, ne laissant aucun répit à l’adversaire, la cavalerie lourde du comte de Foix franchit le ruisseau et charge les Croisés. Dans la foulée, Raymond le jeune, comme il l’avait promis, vient à la rescousse et charge à son tour avec sa propre cavalerie lourde. Commence alors une grande et sanglante mêlée entre des Occitans en grand nombre et des croisés cernés de toute part dans leur retranchement du fameux méandre de l’Hers.

29

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: staza 211 v. 96, 97, 98.

259

Lucien Aries

L’Anonyme raconte avec de nombreux détails cette mêlée, en insistant sur la bravoure du jeune comte: Le comte Raymondet surgit, impétueux comme un lion royal au-devant de ses hommes. Emporté droitement par son palefroi noir, le front bas sous le heaume et la lance dardée, il charge au plus épais de l’ardente mêlée.30

Selon la Canso, Jean de Berzy en personne veut lui barrer la route, Raymondet le frappe si fort de son épieu niellé qu’il lui fend le haubert, le pourpoint, la tunique, le fait tomber de cul, et passe son chemin en criant ‘Cognez donc, chevaliers de Toulouse! Tranchez, trouez, tuez, sus à ces étrangers!’. Jean de Berzy se remet sur ses pieds et reprend le combat, épée à la main. Le jeune comte retourne dans la mêlée, frappe et frappe encore protégé bravement par sa mesnie. Pour les croisés, submergés par les Occitans, seule l’élimination du jeune comte est à même de renverser la situation, comme cela avait été le cas à Muret avec la mort du roi d’Aragon. Pierre-Guillaume de Séguret, seigneur occitan transfuge, fonce sur Raymondet. Selon la Canso, d’un coup d’épée, il tranche les courroies qui maintiennent le haubert du jeune comte, et brise sa ceinture en rugissant ‘Tous sur lui, chevaliers!’. Autour du jeune comte et de sa mesnie, les corps à corps s’engagent, ‘dans un tumulte épais de ferraille et de cris’. Dans la troisième phase, les fantassins de l’armée occitane, piétons de la milice toulousaine et routiers de Navarre, déferlent en rangs serrés sur les Français, se mêlent aux combattants désarçonnent barons et chevaliers, égorgent les blessés à terre: c’est un carnage. Quand le vicomte de Lautrec voit cette déconfiture, il fuit avec ses gens pour se sauver.31 D’autres, comme Hughes de Lacy, font de même et se sauvent ‘par le secours d’une fuite sur leurs chevaux rapides’.32 Pierre Guillaume de Séguret est aussitôt pendu comme traître. Foucaud de Bercy, Jean de Berzy et Thibaud de Nonneville sont faits prisonniers, conduits à Toulouse et enfermés au Château Narbonnais pour être échangés contre des Occitans; Jean de Bercy sera transféré à Niort, au pays de Sault, pour être échangé contre Bernard-Othon de Niort, tombé aux mains des croisés. Leurs autres compagnons sont tous morts sur le champ de bataille. Raymondet revient le jour même à Toulouse.

30 31 32

Grandes pages de la Canso 1208–1219: staza 211 v. 115–19. Guizot, Histoire de la guerre des Albigeois, p. 194. Guillaume de Puylaurens, Chronique 1145–1275, p. 111.

260

Bataille de Baziège de 1219: Données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille

Conclusion La bataille de Baziège de 1219 s’est déroulée fin avril ou début mai, dans le contexte du siège de Marmande et de celui du regroupement d’importantes forces occitanes à Toulouse dans une dynamique de reconquête. L’armée occitane est venue secourir le comte de Foix assiégé dans Baziège, par des croisés installés en face du village, dans le lobe de terre d’un vaste méandre de l’Hers, ouvert sur une zone marécageuse. La défaite des croisés s’explique par l’importance des forces occitanes, mais aussi par la tactique originale des Occitans consistant, dans une première phase, à encercler et à affaiblir les croisés par une cavalerie légère très mobile, dans le périmètre du méandre, trop petit pour permettre à leur cavalerie lourde de se dégager et de se déployer.

261

Lucien Aries

Fig. 13.1: Carte du champ de bataille de Baziège. Inset en haut à gauche: Partie du dessin illustrant le projet de canal pour la communication des mers par Garonne et Aude en Languedoc, par François Andréossy et Jean Cavalier (1665).

262

Chapter 14 Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down) Philip Macdonald Abstract Situated upon a prominent summit overlooking the coastal town of Dundrum and the adjacent tidal inlet of Inner Dundrum Bay in Co. Down, Dundrum Castle commands a strategic position, close to a historically comparatively safe anchorage, on the border of the three medieval lordships or baronies of Lecale, Kinelarty and Iveagh. As the first earl of Ulster, Hugh de Lacy possessed the castle from 1205 to 1210 and, following his restoration to his Irish lands, from 1227 until his death in 1243. Dundrum Castle has an imperfectly understood, long and complex history. Occupation of the castle extended both before and after the period of de Lacy’s possession. Artefactual and place-name evidence indicates the castle was built upon the site of a high-status settlement dating to the early medieval period. The earliest phase of the castle itself can confidently be attributed to John de Courcy and probably dates to the period immediately following his invasion of Ulster in 1177. After the death of de Lacy, ownership of the Castle reverted to the Crown before it was granted, as part of the earldom of Ulster, to Walter de Burgh in 1264. William de Burgh, the last resident earl of Ulster, was murdered in 1333 and following the subsequent decline of the Anglo-Norman earldom in the fourteenth century, the castle was occupied by a branch of the Magennis family. In the aftermath of the Nine Years’ War (1594–1603) the castle and its associated estate was held by Edward Cromwell, whose son subsequently sold it to the Blundell family. After being garrisoned during the wars of the 1640s the castle was apparently slighted by Parliamentarian forces and never occupied again. This paper seeks to ascertain to what degree specific building elements and phases can be attributed to the various lords who directed the castle’s destiny during this time. Particular focus is given to the role of Hugh de Lacy.

Résumé Situé sur un sommet de premier plan avec vue sur la ville côtière de Dundrum et face au goulet maritime qui donne accès à la baie interne de Dundrum dans le comté de Down, le château de Dundrum occupe une position stratégique, à proximité d’un ancrage historique relativement sûr, à la frontière des trois seigneuries médiévales ou baronnies: Lecale, Kinelarty et Iveagh. En tant que premier comte d’Ulster, Hugues de Lacy posséda ce château de 1205 à 1210 et, après la restitution de ses terres irlandaises, de 1227 jusqu’à sa mort en 1243. Le château de Dundrum a une histoire longue,

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 263–276

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114248

Philip Macdonald complexe et mal comprise. L’occupation du château s’étend à la fois avant et après la période de possession de de Lacy. Les preuves matérielles et toponymiques indiquent que le château a été construit sur un site ecclésiastique important datant du haut moyenâge. La première phase du château lui-même peut être attribuée en toute confiance à John de Courcy et probablement remonte à la période qui suit immédiatement son invasion de l’Ulster en 1177. Après la mort de de Lacy, la propriété du château revint à la Couronne avant d’être accordée, dans le cadre du Comté d’Ulster, à Walter de Burgh en 1264. William de Burgh, le dernier comte d’Ulster résident, fut assassiné en 1333 et suite au déclin du comté anglo-normand au XIVe siècle, le château fut occupé par une branche de la famille gaélique des Magennis. Au lendemain de la guerre de Neuf Ans (1594–1603) entre l’aristocratie gaélique et les armées anglaises des Tudors, le château et son domaine furent tenu par Edward Cromwell et vendu par la suite à la famille Blundell par son fils Thomas Cromwell. Après avoir servi de garnison pendant les guerres Cromwelliennes des années 1640, le château fut apparemment abimé par les forces parlementaires et ne fut plus jamais occupé. Ce document vise à déterminer dans quelle mesure des éléments et des phases de construction spécifiques peuvent être attribués aux différents seigneurs qui ont dirigé le destin du château au cours des siècles. Une attention particulière est accordée au rôle d’Hugues de Lacy.

Prior to the work of Dudley Waterman in the middle of the twentieth century, Dundrum Caste had been largely neglected by both historians and archaeologists. This neglect probably arose from the medieval remains of the castle only being identified as those of the historical Castrum de Rath in the first decade of the twentieth century.1 Prior to this identification, historical accounts of the site were understandably confused and bedevilled by a spurious Templar association derived from Harris’s survey of Co. Down.2 The most significant of the early accounts of the site was that published by the Belfast-based antiquarian

1

2

George Savage-Armstrong, A  Genealogical History of the Savage Family in Ulster, being a Revision and Enlargement of Certain Chapters of ‘The Savages of the Ards’ Compiled by Members of the Family from Historical Documents and Family Papers (London, 1906), pp. 17–19; Goddard Henry Orpen, ‘Dundrum Castle, County Down. Identified with the “Castrum de Rath”’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 39 (1909), 23–29, at p. 23. Walter Harris, The Ancient and Present State of the County of Down. Containing a Chorographical Description, with the Natural and Civil History of the Same (Dublin, 1744), p. 267.

264

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

James J. Phillips, which included a ground plan of the castle.3 Although Phillips’ plan is best regarded as a measured sketch, rather than an accurate survey, it remains a key source for evaluating aspects of the castle’s architectural sequence. Significant archaeological study of Dundrum Castle only began in the 1950s when a series of partially published excavations were undertaken by Dudley Waterman in advance of both the publication of the Archaeological Survey of County Down4 and conservation works prompted by the monument being brought into State Care in 1954.5 In recent years, Dundrum Castle has been the subject of a renewed phase of fieldwork that has included both survey and excavation (Fig. 14.1).6 Although the castle consists of an inner and outer ward, the AngloNorman elements of the castle appear to be restricted to the inner ward. Today, standing within the inner ward, are the remains of a large, freestanding, circular great tower and an apparently asymmetrical gatehouse with a single projecting semi-circular tower. Located in the south-western part of the inner ward, the circular great tower is an impressive, threestorey structure with an external diameter at the foot of its base batter of 14.9 m. It was built directly over a deep, rock-cut cistern used for water storage and fed by natural seepage. The ground floor, which would have originally only been accessible from the first floor via a vaulted spiral stair, was presumably used for storage, whilst study of the tower’s extant joist 3

4

5

6

James  J. Phillips, The Annals and Archaeology of Dundrum Castle (Belfast, 1883), p. 17. An Archaeological Survey of County Down, ed. E.M.  Jope (Belfast, 1966) pp. 207–11. Dudley M. Waterman, ‘Excavations at Dundrum Castle, 1950’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 3rd ser. 14, (1951), 15–29; Dudley  M. Waterman, ‘A note on Dundrum Castle, Co. Down’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology Archaeology 3rd ser., 21, (1958) 63–66; Dudley M. Waterman, ‘The water supply of Dundrum Castle, Co. Down’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 3rd ser. 27 (1964), 136–39. Philip Macdonald, ‘Excavations at Blundell’s House, Dundrum Castle’, Lecale Review vol. 9, (2011), pp. 55–59; Philip Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, County Down 2012 and 2013,  2  vols, Centre Archaeol. Field. Data Structure Rep.  No.104 (Belfast 2014); Philip Macdonald, ‘Dundrum Castle, County Down’, Castle Studies Group Journal 28, (2014), 41–45.

265

Philip Macdonald

Fig. 14.1: Plan of Dundrum Castle (after Waterman, ‘Excavations at Dundrum Castle’), showing the positions of the excavations.

holes and the plans of the floor beams they supported suggests the upper two floors originally formed grander chambers.7 The great tower was altered during the later medieval period with the construction of several mural chambers on the upper floor and the insertion of a ground-floor entrance that was defended by a box machicolation built at roof level. The apparently asymmetrical gatehouse that separates the inner and outer wards consists of a pair of two-storied towers separated by a central passageway. That the gatehouse is built over a reduced length of the southern part of the curtain wall indicates it was not the castle’s original entrance, which is instead presumed to have been located in the eastern angle of the inner ward. Today, only the eastern tower of the gatehouse has an outer projecting semi-circular element and Waterman considered this to be a true reflection of the structure’s original plan. In reaching this conclusion he was informed by unconvincing excavation evidence and the assumption that the only practical line of approach to the gatehouse was from the west, through the space that would have been occupied by any projecting element of the western tower. Waterman’s interpretation has 7

T. E. McNeill, ‘Squaring Circles: Flooring Round Towers in Wales and Ireland’, in The Medieval Castle in Ireland and Wales, pp. 96–106.

266

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

long been considered problematic because a c. 1800 estate map depicts the gatehouse as having two projecting semi-circular towers (Fig. 14.2 top) and the 1883 plan by John Phillips details the remnant stubs of the ‘missing’ tower (Fig. 14.2 bottom). It has recently been argued that the gatehouse was originally accessed directly from the south across a ditch formed by a rock-cut inner edge and a counterscarp bank that was subsequently removed when the outer ward was constructed.8 It is possible that the western projecting tower of the gatehouse was undermined during the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century in order to create a more ‘picturesque’ ruin of the castle, adding to the difficulties Waterman experienced in interpreting the gatehouse. Other architectural features present in the inner ward include the recess for a double latrine that is preserved within the fabric of the south-western section of the curtain wall. Situated above the latrine recess are traces of a triangular pediment that indicate the latrines were located on the first floor of a gabled building, probably a hall, which extended into that part of the inner ward subsequently occupied by the large circular tower. That the double latrine is integral to the curtain wall indicates the building it serviced was constructed at the same time as the curtain wall; that there is no trace of projecting masonry either side of the latrine suggests the building was a timber construction. The recent excavations have demonstrated that following the demolition of this building, the ground surface within at least this part of the inner ward was raised by deliberately dumping a series of deposits in order to create a level ground surface.9 That the bottom of the large circular tower’s base batter coincides with the upper surface of these levelling deposits suggests its construction either post-dated or broadly coincided with their deposition. The only other visible evidence of a possible Anglo-Norman structure within the inner ward is a 13.8 m length of masonry walling that butts up against the north-eastern part of the curtain wall’s circuit. This wall probably represents the remains of a substantial, two-storied, medieval building. Both Waterman’s and the recent excavations have uncovered evidence of a small number of other structures within the inner ward. The remains of a near-circular, clay8 9

Macdonald, ‘Dundrum Castle, County Down’, pp. 44–45. These levelling deposits were previously misidentified as part of the bank of a ringwork-like defence dating to the ‘campaigning’ phase of John de Courcy’s conquest of Ulster (Waterman, ‘A note on Dundrum Castle’, pp. 64–65).

267

Philip Macdonald

Fig. 14.2: Dundrum Castle plan, c. 1800 (top) and 1883 (bottom).

bonded stone revetment within the interior of the inner ward revealed by excavation are assumed, in advance of radiocarbon dating, to represent the truncated base of a pre-Norman building platform. A right-angled 268

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

corner of dry-stone or clay-boned masonry uncovered by Waterman is also likely to be pre-Norman.10 The probable Anglo-Norman features within the inner ward revealed by excavation include the filled-in remains of a postern gate in the north-western part of the curtain wall and the remains of a timber building partially excavated immediately adjacent to the passage through the secondary gatehouse. No direct dating evidence for the timber structure was recovered, however, given its position, it is reasonable to assume it was demolished prior to construction of the secondary gatehouse. The ditch that surrounds the inner ward on its northern and western sides probably served as a quarry for the inner ward’s curtain wall and other early masonry features. This ditch appears to have followed, and largely destroyed, the line of the site’s pre-Norman, defensive, enclosure. Although the castle ditch has been much altered by subsequent quarrying, it appears to never have continued around the eastern edge of the inner ward, which stands on the top of a steep slope. The southern edge of the inner ward is defined by a near-vertical, rock-cut edge that separates it from the outer ward and, as noted above, appears to continue the line of the inner edge of the castle ditch. The only other probable Anglo-Norman features at Dundrum Castle are the remains of two lime kilns within the north-eastern part of the outer ward. These kilns were detected during a geophysical survey conducted in 2012. Excavation of one of the kilns demonstrated that it was built into the face of a five-metre deep quarry. It is assumed, rather than demonstrated, that its construction predates the creation of the outer ward. The precise date of the outer ward is itself unknown – it is first explicitly attested in a now-lost ‘docket in the Record Office’ dating to 1601 in which the ‘outer court’ of the castle is described as being ‘surrounded with a ruined wall’.11 The absence of projecting towers within the outer ward’s curtain wall and the simple form of its gate has prompted McNeill to plausibly suggest it post-dates the Anglo-Norman period.12 Certainly, if the gun loops present on the wall are integral features of original lengths of the curtain, as the example on the eastern side of the circuit appears to be, then an Anglo-Norman date for the outer ward can be dismissed. The burial of a gun loop within the south-eastern section of 10

11 12

The duration of the pre-Norman occupation of the site and whether it was occupied at the time of the Anglo-Norman invasion is unknown, although parallels between a copper alloy roundel recovered by Waterman from a secondary context and decorative motifs contained within the Book of Durrow suggest activity dating to at least the middle of the seventh century. Annals and Archaeology of Dundrum, pp. 15, 19. McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 194.

269

Philip Macdonald

the outer ward’s curtain wall suggests that at a late date the ground level within the south-east part of the outer ward was raised – possibly using spoil displaced from the slighting of the putative counterscarp bank separating the inner and outer wards noted above. The only standing remains within the outer ward are those of a seventeenth-century house. In attempting an assessment of Hugh de Lacy’s contribution to Dundrum Castle it is necessary to consider the architectural and archaeological evidence outlined above within its historical context. Regrettably, few medieval sources dating to the Anglo-Norman period of occupation survive. The earliest historical reference to the castle is contained within the Chronica Regum Manniæ et Insularum, which records that in 1205, following his initial expulsion from Ulster, John de Courcy, with the aid of his brother-in-law the Manx king Rǫgnvaldr, commenced a siege of the ‘castellum de Rath’ prior to their forces being routed by Hugh de Lacy.13 Given that Dundrum Castle existed to be laid siege to less than a year after his expulsion, it is almost certain that de Courcy was responsible for having the castle built, presumably shortly after 1177. The next surviving historical reference to Dundrum Caste dates to 1210 and the expulsion of de Lacy from Ulster. The prestita roll records that, following his advance into Ulster, King John entered Dundrum Castle on the fourteenth July and whilst there made payments to various workmen, including carpenters, quarrymen, ditchers and miners.14 The small size of the payments indicates these workmen, who undoubtedly formed part of John’s army, only undertook minor works, which were presumably repairs to the castle need as a result of either an unrecorded skirmish or an attempt on behalf of de Lacy to slight the castle prior to John’s arrival. For the purposes of considering the architectural sequence of Dundrum Castle, the most significant thirteenth-century source is the 1211–12 pipe roll, which survives in the form of a seventeenth-century copy preserved in Armagh Public Library. Although the identification of the relevant section of the pipe roll with Dundrum Castle, and its associated manorial estate, is inferred, rather than explicitly recorded, there are strong grounds for accepting the identification.15 The pipe roll accounts for work on a large tower (magne turris), a small tower or turret (parue turelle), a [new] hall (… aula) and a new granary (granario nouo) costing a total of

13

14

15

Cronica Regum Mannie et Insularum. Chronicles of the Kings of Man and the Isles, ed and trans George Broderick, 4th ed. (Douglas, 2004), fol. 41r. Rotuli de Liberate et Misis et Praestitis, p. 196; Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no. 404. Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, p. 13 n. 11.

270

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

£11–8s–6d.16 It has been plausibly pointed out that the recorded sum is too small to indicate that the recorded structures were built from scratch in the year 1211–12.17 This suggests that the construction work on the large tower and small tower or turret, as well as the hall and granary, had begun, and perhaps even been completed, before this date. Subsequent lines in the pipe roll, which almost certainly also refer to Dundrum, detail expenditure, amongst other things, upon a new stable (stabulo nouo), a cable or stout rope (cabulo), lead (plumbo), tools and supplies for a smithy (vtensilibus fabrice and vtensilibus positis ibidem), and wages for two knights (militum), a chaplain (capellani), ten men-at-arms (armatorum) and seven unarmed men (non armatorum), as well as a new barn or possibly grange (noua grangia), associated fulling mills (follatis ibidem) and a salt-pan (patella salinaria).18 Apart from the large tower, small tower or turret and the [new] hall, it is not certain whether the recorded and implied structures detailed in the pipe roll were located within the castle or elsewhere within the Dundrum manorial estate. Certainly, the salt-pan would have been located on the edge of Inner Dundrum Bay and it is possible that the chapel, implied by the wages of the chaplain, was located at the early ecclesiastical site of Kilmegan two kilometres to the northwest of the castle.19 Presumably, the fulling mills would have drawn their power from either the nearby Moneycarragh River or Inner Dundrum Bay and so would also not have been located at the castle. That the pipe roll records the new barn (or possibly grange) as being associated with the mills suggests that much of the expenditure recorded in the pipe roll may relate to an outlying farm centre. The character of the expenditure suggests that, following Dundrum Castle coming under royal control in 1210, there was significant reorganisation of the castle’s associated manor that may have involved the transfer of some economic functions from the castle itself to elsewhere on the estate. Immediately following de Lacy’s expulsion, King John appointed Roger Pipard as seneschal of Ulster.20 Pipard, who was married to Alice de Lacy (Hugh de Lacy’s sister), apparently held Dundrum Castle until at least July 1215 when he received a command, preserved in the patent rolls, to deliver Dundrum, as part of the bailiwick of Hulton [Ulster] to representatives 16

17 18 19 20

Oliver Davies and David. B. Quinn (eds), ‘Irish Pipe roll of 14 John, 1211–12’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 3rd ser., 4 [Supplement] (1941), 1–76, at pp. 58–59, line 1. Castles in Ireland, pp. 27–28. Davies and Quinn, ‘Irish Pipe roll of 14 John’, pp. 58–59, lines 2–18. Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum, p. 118. Smith, Colonisation and Conquest in Medieval Ireland, p. 48.

271

Philip Macdonald

of Henri de Londres the then justiciar in Ireland.21 Whether this transfer was possible is uncertain as the patent rolls preserve a subsequent order to Pipard, issued in the name of the boy-king Henry III, to surrender the king’s ‘Castle of Rath’ to the next justiciar, Geoffrey de Marisco.22 An instruction issued to Walter de Lacy (Hugh’s brother), dating to late January 1217, to deliver Dundrum and Carlingford Castles to Geoffrey de Marisco suggests that during the early part of the minority of Henry III, Walter had pre-empted any potential initiative of the new government to restore displaced feudatories in Ireland by seizing Dundrum Castle. That, as part of the preparations to fortify the royal castles in Ulster in anticipation of Hugh de Lacy’s subsequent attempt to regain his confiscated lands by force of arms, custody of Dundrum Castle was given to John de Tiwe during the summer of 122323 suggests that Walter de Lacy did obey the instruction to surrender Dundrum Castle in 1217. As part of the eventual process of restoring his lands to Hugh de Lacy, custody of Dundrum Castle was first committed to Walter de Lacy in 122624 before being passed to Hugh the following year.25 Unfortunately, no historical documents relating to Dundrum Castle during Hugh de Lacy’s second tenure as earl of Ulster are known. The handful of available later Anglo-Norman sources casts little light on the castle’s architectural sequence and are only briefly reviewed here. Following his death in 1243, the earldom of Ulster, and by extension Dundrum Castle, reverted to the Crown and was administered by the king’s senechals until 1254 when it was granted to Prince Edward as part of the Lordship of Ireland. The only surviving reference to Dundrum Castle during this period of royal control is an entry in the pipe roll for 1260–61 that records freestone being brought from Down and iron from Drogheda to repair the gates and doorways of the castle.26 Only two sources relating to Dundrum Castle during the de Burgh period of the earldom of Ulster survive. The first details a payment to William fitzWarin for wages to the constable of the ‘castle of Rath’ during 1274–76,27 whilst the second records the value of Dundrum in the Inquisition Post Mortem compiled following the murder of William de Burgh in 1333. Although 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no. 611. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no.741. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no.1128. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: nos.1371, 1385. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no.1498. Orpen, Ireland Under the Normans, 3:  279; McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster, pp. 22–23. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1: no. 2073.

272

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

the latter source is of considerable value in assessing the character of the manorial estate associated with the castle, it simply describes the castle itself as being ruinous and of no annual value due to the scale of repairs need to its fabric.28 The damage to the castle presumably arose from either Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars (1315–18) or the conflict between William de Burgh and his barons. The final documentary reference to Dundrum Castle during the Anglo-Norman period records the committing of Nicholas Taaff to custody of the ‘cast’ del Rath’ in 1346.29 Unfortunately, this final reference casts no light upon which elements of the castle can be attributed to Hugh de Lacy’s tenure, which had ended over a century previously. In order to assess Hugh de Lacy’s contribution to Dundrum Castle it is necessary to integrate the available historical, archaeological and architectural evidence. Unfortunately, the available evidence is simply not detailed enough to be overly precise when attributing dates to the various surviving or historically attested elements of the castle. Consequently, any consideration of the subject cannot avoid an unsatisfactory reliance on conjecture. Whilst a valid way of demonstrating potential sources of influence, the ‘biographical’ approach to identifying architectural influences advocated both in this volume30 and elsewhere31 is not without difficulties. Anglo-Norman figures such as John de Courcy, Hugh de Lacy and Roger Pipard were dynamic members of the aristocratic part of the Angevin World. They deliberately moved around, took an interest in and interacted with other members of their own section of society in ways that would have seen the extent of their world of experience extend over not just Ireland and Britain but also over the continent and the Holy Land. They subscribed to what has been termed an ‘aristocratic Norman world view’,32 which saw military power and force of arms as a central interest and legitimate (as well as legitimating) form and expression of power. Consequently, they would have kept themselves appraised of develop28

29

30 31

32

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office: Edward III, ed. J. E. E. S Sharp (London, 1909), 7: 374, no.537; Orpen, Ireland Under the Normans 2: 54, 60. Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Calendarium, Hen. II–Hen. VII, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin, 1828), p. 50. Duffy, ‘Carcassonne to Carrickfergus’. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster, p. 22; Castles in Ireland, pp. 91–92; ‘Squaring Circles’, p. 98; ‘The Round Tower c.1200–1210?’, Castle Studies Group Journal 28 (2014), 46–50, at p. 49. Stephen Flanders, De Courcy. Anglo-Normans in Ireland, England and France in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Dublin, 2008).

273

Philip Macdonald

ments in military architecture, in as many ways as they could, even when physically located in an isolated place such as Ulster on the edge of the Angevin World. They would not have needed to personally participate in events, such as the Albigensian Crusade, in order to be influenced by the experiences of their peers who did participate. Consequently, it is not possible to confidently identify sources for the architectural ideas that de Lacy expressed through castle building based upon his personal experiences or familial connections alone, or conversely suggest that manifestations of the architectural influence of events such as the Albigensian Crusade would have been restricted to just those who participated in it. Whilst being a valuable method for identifying potential, or even likely, sources of influence in a castle’s design, such approaches are not unproblematic. It is comparatively much easier to identify, with a reasonable degree of confidence, at least some of the elements of Dundrum Castle that must have been built for John de Courcy. As argued above, that he lay siege to it in 1205 indicates de Courcy must have been responsible for having Dundrum Castle built. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that de Courcy is responsible for the earliest phase of the castle, that is, the curtain wall of the inner ward, the surrounding rock-cut ditch and the twostoried hall served by the double latrines built into the curtain wall. The two-storied hall is likely to have been one of a number of timber buildings de Courcy built within the inner ward. The precise date of these features is unknown, but they almost certainly date to either the ‘campaigning’ phase of de Courcy’s Ulster enterprise or shortly afterwards, say c. 1180. Whether de Courcy was responsible for the subsequent demolition of the hall serviced by the double latrine, the raising and levelling of the ground surface within the inner ward and the construction of the circular great tower is uncertain. As a type, circular great towers had French origins and enjoyed a relatively brief vogue during the phase of castle building in Ireland and south Wales from around 1200 to 1240.33 It has been widely accepted that the ‘magne turris’ recorded in the 1211–12 pipe roll is the circular great tower within the inner ward.34 Although this terminus ante quem is consistent with the architectural date of the tower, it does not help resolve whether the circular great tower was built by John de Courcy or Hugh de Lacy. De Courcy certainly undertook 33 34

O’Keeffe, Medieval Irish Buildings, pp. 227–30. Although this is an assumption, if the circular great tower is not the structure recorded in the pipe roll then it would mean that a comparable tower must have been demolished prior to the construction of the surviving circular great tower. Although excavations within the inner ward have not been extensive, no trace of a demolished magne turris has been uncovered.

274

Identifying Hugh II de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle (Co. Down)

considerable building works throughout his time in Ulster. Along with his wife Affrica Guðrøðardóttir, he was responsible for instigating work at the large number of ecclesiastical centres they either established or re-founded, and at Carrickfergus Castle works plausibly attributed to de Courcy include the rectangular great tower, the inner ward and possibly the gatehouse.35 McNeill has argued that the great tower at Dundrum was built by Hugh II de Lacy, variously citing the parallels with Pembroke Castle and the apparent prominence of masons from Pembroke in late twelfth-century Ulster, and de Lacy’s strong Welsh connections to support his suggestion.36 The fact that de Courcy still held Dundrum in the late twelfth century notwithstanding, the evidential basis for making a confident judgement on the matter is wanting. It may be that specialist analysis of the assemblage of pottery recovered during recent excavations from a context predating the raising of the ground level within the inner ward, and by extension the construction of the great tower, may yet resolve this question of attribution. As well as recording the presence of a great tower whose construction would have necessitated the demolition of de Courcy’s hall, the 1211–12 pipe roll also references a hall and a small tower or turret. The hall must have been constructed as a replacement for that built by John de Courcy and demolished to accommodate the circular great tower. No recognisable trace of this second hall survives at Dundrum and it is uncertain whether it was a timber or masonry structure, although it is possible that the undated, 13.8 m length of masonry butting against the north-eastern part of the curtain wall might have been part of a hall. It is also uncertain where the small tower recorded in the pipe roll was located, however, the presence of a probable latrine chute in the curtain wall of the outer ward immediately adjacent to the gap in the eastern angle of the curtain wall of the inner ward, which is assumed to form the original entrance to the castle, offers a potential clue. Although this section of the curtain wall has been rebuilt several times, it is possible that the opening is an early feature suggesting that adjacent to the inner ward’s original entrance there was once a structure whose north-east wall was subsequently incorporated into the curtain wall of the outer ward. It is possible that this structure was the smaller tower attested in the pipe roll which, given its location, commanded the original entrance into the castle. Excavation would be required to assess whether this was indeed the case and, if so, whether the tower was built by John de Courcy or Hugh de Lacy. 35

36

T.  E. McNeill, ‘Carrickfergus Castle, County Antrim’, Castle Studies Group Journal 28 (2014), 9–30. McNeill, ‘Squaring Circles’, p. 98; ‘The Round Tower’, p. 49.

275

Philip Macdonald

The final element of Dundrum Castle that might be attributable to Hugh de Lacy is the gatehouse. If, as argued above, it is accepted that this building originally consisted of two flanking towers with apsidal projections of D-shaped plan then it can be identified as an example of a not uncommon type. Although no historical documentation survives for Hugh de Lacy’s second tenure as earl of Ulster, McNeill has speculated that, concerned by how easily Dundrum had fallen to King John in 1210, de Lacy may well have been responsible for strengthening Dundrum Castle by adding the new gatehouse.37 In considering the likely architectural date range of this type of gatehouse, it is perhaps useful to distinguish between those whose flanking towers are near circular in plan, such as Carrickfergus Castle, and those whose flanking towers are D-shaped in plan with apsidal projections beyond the line of the curtain wall, such as at Dundrum. Although Irish examples of the latter type become more common after the 1250s,38 a reassessment of the date of the north gatehouse at Dover Castle39 suggests that, on architectural grounds, a date at any point within the thirteenth century for the example from Dundrum Castle cannot be dismissed. Unfortunately, Waterman’s investigations in the gatehouse failed to produce any direct evidence for the structure’s date and, whilst an attribution to de Lacy’s second tenure as earl of Ulster is plausible, new excavations within the gatehouse will be required to resolve the question of its date. A consideration of the available historical, architectural and archaeological evidence has failed to identify, with any certainty, any element of Dundrum Castle that can be attributed to the two periods when it was held by Hugh de Lacy. Regrettably, the quality of the evidence is not good enough to make such assertions with any confidence. Although ‘biographical’ approaches to the problem have resulted in plausible suggestions that the circular great tower was built during Hugh de Lacy’s first tenure as earl of Ulster (1205–10) and that the secondary gatehouse was built during his second tenure as earl (1227–43),40 it must be accepted that without both the specialist analysis of material recovered from the recent excavations and further excavation it will not be possible to identify conclusively, which elements of Dundrum Castle can be attributed to Hugh de Lacy.41 37 38 39 40 41

McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster, p. 22; Castles in Ireland, pp. 91–92. O’Keeffe, Medieval Irish Buildings, p. 252. Avent, ‘William Marshal’s Castle at Chepstow’, p. 86. Duffy, ‘Carcassonne to Carrickfergus’. I am grateful to Paul Duffy for his encouragement to prepare this paper and to Liam McQuillan, with whom I co-directed the recent excavations at Dundrum Castle, for his assistance in developing the ideas presented here.

276

Chapter 15 Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24 David McIlreavy Abstract In considering the history and archaeology of the Angevin earldom of Ulster, the formation of the county of Twescard has remained one of the central developmental issues yet to be adequately investigated. Even the foremost commentator on the history of the earldom, T.  E. McNeill has failed to provide a formation period other than during Hugh de Lacy’s second term as earl of Ulster 1227–43. This paper is the first to offer not only a succinct date range for the formation of the county of Twescard, but also to propose the mechanisms which facilitated this formation. This paper will demonstrate that the lands which would comprise the county of Twescard were seized by Hugh de Lacy from Mac Uchtraigh magnates and the Gaelic Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri in northern Ulster during the period 1223–24. It will also propose that incorporation of these lands within the earldom of Ulster was formalised prior to, and as an integral part of the negotiations for, the re-grant of de Lacy’s former title. The paper will also discuss the historical and archaeological markers for the proposed campaign by de Lacy and his ally Aedh Meith O’Neill. Finally, this paper will propose that the seizure of these lands in northern Ulster following the Albigensian Crusade, and their use as leverage in subsequent negotiations for the return of his title as earl of Ulster, was the central principle of Hugh de Lacy’s actions in Ireland during this period 1223–24. This proposal has profound implications for historical interpretations of the period known as de Lacy’s ‘rebellion’ in Ireland, and will serve to reconnect his actions into a coherent campaign with a clear purpose.

Résumé En examinant l’histoire et l’archéologie de la seigneurie Angevine d’Ulster, la création du comté de Twescard demeure l’un des problèmes majeurs à étudier correctement pour l’histoire du développement de cette seigneurie. Tom E. McNeill, le principal historien de cette seigneurie, n’a lui-même pas réussi à fournir de datation plus précise pour la formation de ce comté que la période du second mandat d’Hugues de Lacy en tant que Comte d’Ulster dans les années 1227–43.1 Cet article est le premier à offrir non seulement une plage de dates succincte pour la formation du comté de Twescard, mais aussi à présenter les mécanismes qui ont facilité cette formation. Nous démontrons que les terres

1

McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 22.

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 277–294

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114249

David McIlreavy qui composeront le comté de Twescard ont été saisies par Hugues de Lacy sur le territoire de la puissante famille des Mac Uchtraigh et dans le royaume gaélique irlandais de Uí Thuirtri dans le nord de l’Ulster au cours de la période 1223–24. Nous montrons aussi que l’incorporation de ces terres dans le comté de Ulster a été officiellement approuvée à l’avance, en tant que partie intégrante des négociations en vue de la restitution de l’ancien titre de Lacy. Cet article discute également des preuves historiques et archéologiques de l’hypothèse de la campagne entreprise par de Lacy et son allié Aedh Meith O’Neill, roi de Tír Eoghain. Enfin, cet article propose que la saisie des terres dans le nord de l’Ulster au retour de la croisade des Albigeois, et leur utilisation comme levier dans les négociations ultérieures pour le retour de son titre de comte d’Ulster, fut le principe central de l’action de Hugues de Lacy en Irlande au cours de cette période 1223–24. Cette proposition a des implications profondes pour les interprétations historiques de la période connue en Irlande sous le nom de ‘Rebellion de de Lacy’, et servira à mieux comprendre ses actions au sein d’une campagne cohérente avec un objectif clair.

Introduction It is January 1223, Hugh de Lacy, former earl of Ulster and Albigensian crusader and ally Aedh Meith O’Neill, king of Tír Eoghain, lead their combined forces towards the River Bann crossing at Cúil Rathain, the modern settlement of Coleraine. Their objective is the destruction of the castle belonging to Tomás Mac Uchtraigh, earl of Atholl. This action will open a passage to facilitate an assault on lands held by other Mac Uchtraigh magnates and northern lands belonging to the Gaelic Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri. For his part, De Lacy has little to lose, facing charges of rebellion in the recently concluded war on the Welsh borders against William Marshal the younger, co-prosecuted by Llewellyn ab Iorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd. More seriously, de Lacy’s entry into Ireland is in direct contravention of orders issued by Henry III. The planned assault against the castle at Cúil Rathain, adjoining Mac Uchtraigh territories and the northern lands of the Gaelic Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri, is central to de Lacy’s audacious gamble to regain possession of the earldom of Ulster. Through his sponsor in England, Ranulf de Blondeville, earl of Chester and Lincoln, and supporters still resident in the Angevin settlement of Ulster, de Lacy has been thoroughly apprised over the past year as to the degree of disaffection within the baronial Angevin elite and the Gaelic-Irish O’Neill west of the Bann.

278

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

The baronial elites in Ulster are well known to be restless over the failed territorial expansion of the earldom of Ulster since 1210. In particular the scale of speculative grants issued by King John to members of the Mac Uchtraigh family has strained loyalty to the crown. The O’Neill for their part are desperate to strike at both the Mac Uchtraigh and the kingdom of Uí Thuitri, the former as part of their wider involvement in politics in the western Scottish Isles, and the latter which they still regard as part of the wider O’Neill hegemony. De Lacy has gambled significantly on attracting the support of both these groups in Ulster. In return for the tacit support of the local Angevin baronial elite he has offered promise of rich lands to be settled in the north of Ulster. In return for tangible military support he has guaranteed to the O’Neill the spoils of war against both the Mac Uchtraigh and Uí Thuirtri. To both groups he has alluded to sympathetic treatment on his restoration as earl of Ulster. However, it will take all of de Lacy’s political and military skills to organise and prosecute the planned campaign. As the combined de Lacy and O’Neill force assembles on the west side of the Bann in preparation for the assault, de Lacy can have been forgiven for some trepidation, as the culmination of ten years in exile prepares to play out on the stage of medieval Ulster. Here follows the story of that campaign, from his assault on Coleraine in January 1223 until his truce with William Marshal the younger in late ad 1224.

Placing Twescard The name Twescard is an Anglicisation of the Gaelic Irish word tuaisceart, meaning ‘the north’. This paper proposes that the complete root of the later name is tuaisceart Uí Thuirtri, referring to northern lands of the Gaelic-Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri, although as will be seen some areas of this former Uí Thuirtri hegemony were in the possession by members of the Mac Uchtraigh family. Bardon notes that Twescard encompassed the northern coastlands of eastern Ulster, with major centres in the modern area of Coleraine and the lower Bush Valley, whilst McNeill identifies the county of Twescard as straddling the Bann River in 1333 (Fig.  15.1).2 Bardon further states 2

Jonathan Bardon, A  History of Ulster (Belfast, 2005), p.  42; McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 34, Fig. 9.

279

David McIlreavy

that this area was to become one of the most prosperous parts of the later earldom of Ulster.3 McNeill4 notes that the manors and parishes within the county of Twescard were remarkable for their large size in 1306. Even by 1333, very few of these lands were recorded as ‘subinfueded out of the earl’s demense or not let on subordinate tenure’.5 However, whilst the economic importance of Twescard to the later earldom is well attested, as demonstrated by the Account Rolls of the Ministers of Elizabeth de Burgh (1353–60),6 the period which saw its incorporation into the earldom of Ulster has never been explicitly explained. In regard to this explanation it is necessary to indicate the complex socio-political settlement which held sway in Ulster immediately prior to de Lacy’s actions 1223–24. This identification is particularly important as this paper proposes one of the main reasons for the misinterpretation of the focus of de Lacy’s actions during his ‘rebellion’ has been an inaccurate interpretation of the human geography of north Ulster during this period.

Ulster in Late 1222 In late 1222 the earldom of Ulster had been under royal administration for approximately twelve years since the expulsion of de Lacy by King John in 1210. Whilst the territory which de Lacy had held in 1210 remained largely under Angevin control, the absence of a resident earl had led to a growth in political jostling between various factions within the baronial elite. Such hothouse political feuding had been fanned by the failure of King John’s expansionist policies for the Angevin settlement in Ulster to the north and west. Simms notes that when King John had displaced de Lacy from Ulster, he had instigated a campaign against the kingdoms of Tír Eoghain and Uí Thuirtri in Ulster;7 these campaigns lasted until 1212. The O’Neill of Tír 3 4 5 6 7

Bardon, A History of Ulster, p. 42. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 27. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 29. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, pp. 136–47. I am grateful to Dr Katherine Simms for a copy of her unpublished paper on this topic (The Medieval Chieftains in County Antrim: Irish, English, Scots and

280

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

Fig. 15.1: The area of Twescard as defined by Bardon (A History of  Ulster) and McNeill (Anglo-Norman Ulster), showing sites mentioned in the text.

281

David McIlreavy

Eoghain would appear to have remained unconquered by the campaign, to the extent that Angevin authorities were even forced to divert men and materials to areas such as Clones against O’Neill counter incursions. As part of the same suite of actions, a nine-week military campaign against the Gaelic-Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri would seem to have secured at least the tacit subservience of that kingdom. The conclusion to the campaign refers to the seizure of Uí Thuirtri treasure and an agreement to pay a ‘rent’ for the kingdom.8 It appears that the Uí Thuirtri assumption of what might be termed protectorate status under the Angevin imperial project did not practically impact on the relative independence of the kingdom. Furthermore, it is here proposed that the Uí Thuirtri remained in control of most of eastern Ulster to the north of the Angevin earldom. In the years after the largely inconclusive military campaigns in the north, King John seems to have attempted to delegate further expansion of the Angevin settlement to Scottish magnates. This delegation consisted of a number of land grants to various members of the Mac Uchtraigh family, including Alan fitzRoland, Lord of Galloway and hereditary Constable of Scotland, his brother Tomás Mac Uchtraigh, earl of Atholl, and their uncle Domhnach fitzGilbert, earl of Carrick (Fig. 15.2). McNeill notes that the grants ranged from those that had a real possibility of successful implementation, to more speculative grants requiring proactive military efforts.9 Indeed, as McNeill, infers a substantial extent of these grants would have been considered unenforceable. An example of the scale of such a grant can be seen in McNeill’s summary of the 1212 grant to Alan fitzRoland, Lord of Galloway: ‘To Alan was granted all of south Co.  Antrim, Dalrriada [Dál Riata], Rathlin, Twescard (the north in Irish), the region around Larne and two cantreds across the Bann, one of them (Kunnoch = Ciannachta) the lands of the O’Cahans, for the service of 140 knights […] reserved from it are lands already given to Duncan […]. In 1215 these […] are recorded precisely as two carucates and eight acres’.10

8 9 10

Welsh). Davies and Quinn, ‘Irish Pipe roll of 14 John’. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 14. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 15.

282

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

Fig. 15.2: Areas granted to the de Galloways.

283

David McIlreavy

However, the Mac Uchtraigh family had pre-existing involvements in northern and eastern Ulster prior to King John’s grants, connections which are often overlooked. In particular Domhnach fitzGilbert’s involvement in Ulster may be traced to at least 1197, when he came to the aid of John de Courcy, in a campaign against Gaelic-Irish magnates whom de Courcy deemed responsible for the death of his brother Jordan.11 FitzGilbert retained at least a portion of his lands during the first tenure of Hugh de Lacy as earl of Ulster from 1205–10, although Duffy12 notes that he lost a substantial part in 1219 when the Justiciar, Geoffrey de Marisco, accused him of conspiring against King John during the period 1215–16. Despite a successful petition for the return of his lands, sanctioned by Henry III, the situation had still not been resolved by 1222. The dispute continued until 1224, by which point fitzGilbert accused de Lacy of illegally seizing parts of his remaining lands.13 However, with relevance to the scope of this paper, it would seem reasonable to suggest that the extent of fitzGilbert’s lands in late 1222 did not extend much further than the immediate environs of Ballygalley. Probably the most overtly speculative grant was issued to Tomás Mac Uchtraigh, comprising, as McNeill notes ‘O’Neill’s part of Derry and the ‘cantred of Talachot (Tullahogue – the centre of Cenel Eoghain) in 1213. In that year Thomas was granted 3 knights fees on each side of the Bann, presumably those reserved from Alan’s grant in 1212 (Tescard and Ciannachta), the first fee described as near Mount Sandel’.14

Tomás is recorded as founding the castle at Cúil Rathain, with English assistance in 1214,15 using material derived from ‘all the cemeteries, fences and buildings of that town, save the church alone’. In 1215 Tomás was granted custody of Coleraine and Mount Sandel castles and ten fees on either side of the Bann near the castles.16 A confirmation of custodianship for Antrim Castle, in the same year, may have been designed to encourage 11 12

13

14 15 16

Annals of Roger de Hoveden, ed. Henry T. Riley, 2 vols (London 1853), 2: 404. Sean Duffy, ‘The Lords of Galloway, Earls of Carrick, and the Bissets of the Glens: Scottish Settlement in Thirteenth-Century Ulster’, in Regions and Rulers in Ireland, 1100–1650, ed. David Edwards (Dublin, 2004), pp. 37–50, at pp. 43–44. Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London, ed. Joseph Bain, 5 vols (Edinburgh, 1881–88), 1: no. 879. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 15. Annals of Ulster, 3: s.a. 1214. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 15.

284

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

Tomás to invest more actively in prosecuting the more speculative areas of his grant above. Therefore, this paper proposes that by late 1222 the socio-political settlement of eastern Ulster was largely formed by two power blocs. To the south, a territorially constrained Angevin settlement held sway over an area which had not expanded since 1210. To the north, the GaelicIrish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri controlled a substantial tract of territory in Ulster, at least equal in area to that of the Angevin earldom. Further, it is possible that the kingdom of Uí Thuirtri may have been in a period of political ascendance by late 1222, forming the dominant socio–political power base in northern Ulster east of the Bann River. This political ascendance was based on a history of successful prevention of Angevin encroachments dating to the earliest years of John de Courcy’s actions in Ulster. The repulsion of de Courcy from Uí Thuirtri lands is recorded in the Annals of Ulster for 1176–8,17 whilst the virtual annihilation of his forces in 1178 near ‘Sgrig Arcaidh’ in Uí Thuirtri territory18 seems to have cowed even the ‘princepts Ulaidae’. In addition, the aforementioned offensive by royal forces in 1211/12 only resulted in the seizure of wealth, not the actual occupation of their territory. This defensive reputation of the Uí Thuirtri, at least by late 1222, would seem to have been bolstered by a number of polygonal stone walled enclosure sites, situated on the border areas of this kingdom. These include structures at Cross, Toome, Connor, Doonbought and Court MacMartin (Fig. 15.1). These enclosures have been recognised within the archaeological record by a number of commentators, not least McNeill who not only partially excavated the example at Doonbought,19 but has discussed similar constructions throughout Ireland.20 This paper differs from McNeill’s interpretation in attributing the construction of the aforementioned structures to the Uí Thuirtri. The development of these structures almost certainly arose from surrounding examples such as that constructed at Coleraine, and even Seafin on the borders of the Angevin settlement. It is the contention of this paper that the development of polygonal stone enclosures on the borders of the Uí 17 18 19

20

Annals of Ulster, 3: s.a. 1176–78. Katherine Simms, Medieval Chieftains. Tom  E. McNeill, ‘Excavations at Doonbought Fort, County Antrim’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 40 (1977), pp. 63–84. Tom  E. McNeill, ‘The Stone Castles of Northern County Antrim’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 46 (1983), 101–28; ‘Castles of Ward and the Changing Pattern of Border Conflict in Ireland’, Chateau Gaillard 17(1996), 127–33; Castles in Ireland, pp. 155–56.

285

David McIlreavy

Thuirtri may be taken as an indication of political confidence in the face of insecure Scottish grantees and a divided earldom of Ulster. Having highlighted the relatively complex socio–political settlement of eastern Ulster in late 1222, it is important to consider the political development of Hugh de Lacy in the period immediately preceding his ‘rebellion’. As this paper will show, the year preceding his arrival in Ireland saw a dramatic change in his strategy for negotiation regarding a re-grant of the earldom of Ulster.

Hugh II de Lacy in 1222 By the start of the 1222 de Lacy had probably been in England for some months petitioning for his restoration as earl of Ulster. Letters issued from the Minority government of Henry III had guaranteed Hugh and his retinue safe conduct into England from September 1221 until Christmas.21 The Annals of Dunstable22 state that Hugh de Lacy petitioned for the full return of his lands, but the request was denied, although an annual pension of 300 marks was offered in restitution. De Lacy appears to have been incensed by the offer, a negligible payoff considering previous offers of full restoration. His elder brother Walter had even negotiated the restoration of Hugh’s lands in Ulster as early as 1215, whilst less than a month after the death of King John in 1216, the new Minority government had offered complete restoration as earl of Ulster. The young King Henry III even wrote to de Lacy stating that ‘if John our father of good memory truly did you wrong in any way, we should be free of that wrong…’.23 The offer of full restoration seems to have remained open to de Lacy as long as William Marshal the elder, earl of Pembroke, held sway in the minority government. However, with the death of this titan of Angevin politics in 1219, and the assumption of his titles by his son, William Marshal the younger, de Lacy suddenly found that his previous negotiating position had drastically altered to his detriment It was during this period that de Lacy found himself drawn into the social circle of another senior figure within the minority government, in the person of Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th earl of Chester and 1st earl of Lincoln. The de Lacy family had strong familial links with Chester, and after the death of William Marshal the elder de Blondeville had become 21 22 23

Veach, Lordship, p. 192. Veach, Lordship, p. 193. Bardon, A History of Ulster, p. 42.

286

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

increasingly disenchanted with the policies of the Minority government. In particular, his loyalty was highly dependent on the maintenance of his status, especially through the distribution of royal favours.24 It seems that de Blondeville and de Lacy developed a powerful influence over each other. In de Blondeville, de Lacy cultivated a well-respected sponsor who could support his retinue and keep him informed of governmental politics. In de Lacy, the elder statesman had found a bold ally who would be a leading proponent of action against William Marshal the younger. During this period de Lacy also allied himself with Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd. The Welsh magnate was also allied to de Blondeville through the marriage of his daughter to the latter’s heir John of Scotland, ninth earl of Huntingdon. In 1222 de Lacy is found as a witness to this marriage alliance, confidently signing himself as ‘earl of Ulster’.25 It would seem by the time of this marriage the de Lacy alliance with de Blondeville had already begun to bolster aspirations for a final settlement of Ulster in the former’s favour. In mid-1222, open hostilities erupted between William Marshal the younger and Llywelyn supported by magnates in south Wales. De Lacy acting in support of Llywelyn’s forces crossed the border from Wales and seized Kinnerley and Whittington castles in Shropshire, whilst an attempt was also made to move on Pembroke castle itself. In response Marshal himself raised a large force in Ireland and crossed to Wales, landing at St David’s determined to crush the rebellion. Simultaneously, a royal army marched on Montgomery castle in the Welsh marches in support of Marshal. By October Llywelyn was forced to accept terms with representatives of King Henry III at Montgomery, in return for a restitution of lands to himself and allies.26 With Marshal and his army engaged in the settlement of affairs in Wales, de Lacy used the opportunity to leave Wales with his retinue in defiance of orders by Henry  III.27 While royal authorities in England seemed to be largely uncertain of Hugh’s intended destination, it is the contention of this paper that Hugh proceeded to Tír Eoghain to meet with his new ally, Aedh Meith O’Neill. ‘Hugh as the King hears, is now plotting forcibly to invade the King’s land of Ireland, wherefore the King

24

25 26

27

Iain Soden, Sir Ranulf de Blondeville: The First English Hero (London, 2009), Ch. 9. Veach, Lordship, p. 192. John E. Lloyd, A History of Wales: From the Norman Invasion to the Edwardian Conquest (New York, 2004), pp. 661–63. Veach, Lordship, pp. 192–93.

287

David McIlreavy

commands the governor to provide against Hugh’s attack by fortifying with victuals and men the King’s Irish castles’.28 It is unlikely that Hugh’s actions would have been possible without a keen appreciation of the socio political situation in Ulster. Whilst undoubtedly de Lacy had his own sources within Angevin Ulster, the prestige and resources of a figure such as de Blondeville must have allowed de Lacy to present a much more plausible suggestion of success to potential allies. What actual material assistance de Blondeville would have been willing to supply is debatable, but by November 1222, de Lacy and his retinue were almost certainly in O’Neill territory, and preparations for the assault on Cúil Rathain were nearing their final stages. Having considered the socio-political settlement of Ulster in late 1222, and the political development which de Lacy had undergone during the year prior to landing in Ulster, this paper will now set out the proposed course of his campaign in Ireland. The paper proposes that the seizure of land from the Mac Uchtraigh grantees and the Uí Thuirtri was central to de Lacy’s strategy, and will identify the historical and archaeological markers which support the identification of the campaign in Ulster.

The Campaign in Ulster The campaign opened in January 1223, with the seizure and destruction of the castle at Cúil Rathain. Whilst this site has been presented as the centre of Tomás Mac Uchtraigh’s possessions in northern Ulster, its morphology has never been formally discussed. The annalistic entry relating to its construction29 suggests the existence of a settlement at Cúil Rathain prior to its construction. However, the description of salvaged stone utilised in the castle construction, including that from a graveyard, is not suggestive of a particularly imposing structure. It may be more accurate to describe the castle as partially constructed of stone, although almost certainly to the plan of a polygonal enclosure. The annalistic sources even note that the castle of Coleraine was razed as a result of the attack, further indication of its relatively insubstantial fabric. In comparison to the suggested Uí Thuirtri fortress at the Bann river ford of Cross, the Mac Uchtraigh castle was an obvious military choice for de Lacy to open his assault. The destruction of the castle also delivered an important political message to the Mac Uchtraigh family, that they no longer had a secure base to land forces in Ulster. Whilst descriptions of 28 29

Bardon, A History of Ulster, p. 41. Annals of Ulster, 3: s.a. 1214.

288

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

the raising of the siege at Carrickfergus indicate that de Lacy and his allies had access to boats with which to prosecute a naval blockade, how exactly a determined Mac Uchtraigh counterattack would have been repulsed is unknown. The failure of such a counter attack to materialise may well have been due to continuing Mac Uchtraigh political entanglements in the Scots Isles,30 a fact that de Lacy’s intelligence gathering would have made abundantly clear. The seizure of the ford at Cúil Rathain, the time of year chosen for the assault, and the destruction of the Mac Uchtraigh castle would have sent shockwaves through the kingdom of Uí Thuirtri. The recognition that the effective collapse of the centre of Scottish grantee lands left their northern frontiers exposed to de Lacy and O’Neill would have been alarmingly obvious. It is at this point that the importance of an alliance with the O’Neill would have borne fruit. It is probable that O’Neill forces unleashed against the tuaisceart Ui Thuitri, would have been comprised of mounted Irish, similar to the hobelar,31 or even the postulated muntator,32 supported by kerne infantry. Estimates of the effective range for hobelar forces, up to seventy miles in a day, would have made this a perfect tool to destabilise the northern border lands of Uí Thuirtri, driving off portable wealth such as cattle, and destroying seed crop due to be planted in the spring (Fig.  15.3). De Lacy’s tactics in Ulster simply replicated those scorched earth tactics which he had seen extensively used during Albigensian crusade. It is here proposed that the response of the Uí Thuitri was the construction of a number of what we might term ‘watchtower’ mottes between Cross and the fortress of Doonbought (Fig. 15.3). The best preserved of these watchtower mottes can be seen at Drummard (Fig. 15.4), to the east of the present settlement of Ballymoney (Co. Antrim). The dimensions of the structure make it obvious that it was not designed to function as long term defensible fortifications, but rather to facilitate the ignition of a warning signal. Whilst Drummard is included in McNeill’s gazeteer of motte structures in Ulster,33 it should more plausibly be regarded as a purely Uí Thuritri 30

31

32 33

Richard Oram, Domination and Lordship: Scotland 1070–1230 ad, (Edinburgh 2011), Ch. 5. James Lydon, ‘The Hobelar: An Irish Contribution to Medieval Warfare’, The Irish Sword 2 (1954), 12–16. Robert Jones, Re-thinking the Origins of the Irish Hobelar (Cardiff, 2008), p. 8. T.E McNeill, ‘Ulster Mottes: A  Checklist’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 38 (1975), 49–56.

289

David McIlreavy

Fig. 15.3: The assumed range – about 20 miles – of de Lacy mounted forces based at Coleraine; the line of ‘watchtower mottes’ of the Ui Thurirti to the east of Cross, that nearest to Cross being Drummard, the best preserved of the group; the route of de Lacy forces assault on Doonbought; the location of the Fews of Armagh, the area that O’Neill and de Lacy fortified to deter the Marshall’s assault against them.

adaptive response to a specific threat. Only further field and documentary research may confirm the existence of other surviving examples of this proposed defensive line. 290

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

Fig. 15.4:  The motte at Drummard.

Shortly after the destruction of the castle at Coleraine, it is likely that de Lacy left Ulster in the company of O’Neill to push his ‘invasion’ into de Lacy lands in Meath. Brown has stated that de Lacy’s forces, including loyal elements from his Meath estates, and a contingent of Gaelic Irish led by Aedh O’Neill, campaigned almost to the gates of Dublin. Indeed, the scale of the unpreparedness by Henry of Londres, the then Justiciar, saw the negotiation of a humiliating truce with de Lacy until the following summer. Whilst this paper does not dispute the security that settlement of the de Lacy lands in Meath offered to Hugh, it would note that the campaign around Dublin afforded the important opportunity of securing extra material for an invigorated decisive strike against the Uí Thuirtri. Indeed, Brown notes several instances of supplies being sold and in some cases advanced, to de Lacy from Ostmen and prominent Dublin citizens during his operations around Dublin.34

34

Daniel  J.  F. Brown, ‘Civil Disobedience: the Citizens and Archbishop of Dublin during Hugh de Lacy’s Irish Rebellion, 1223–4’, Medieval Dublin 15 (2016), 253–63, at pp. 258–61.

291

David McIlreavy

Following several inconclusive engagements, de Lacy returned to Ulster. The question of how such an enlarged force would have been conveyed to Ulster without interference deserves much deeper research, but it is probable that de Lacy was facilitated, either by sympathetic allies near Dublin or even by the authorities themselves, in drawing his forces away from the capital. The point of his landing is suggested to have been on the eastern coast of Ulster, north of Carrickfergus. There he would seem to have begun a siege of the royal garrison there, part of the ‘strong familia’ that Henry of Londres had claimed to have installed there in his explanation to the king.35 The siege of Carrickfergus would seem to have been prosecuted by de Lacy himself, although the scale of available forces which he committed to the action must at present remain a matter of debate. McNeill’s36 note that the relieving force sent by Marshal comprised twenty knights and twenty other soldiers may be an indication of the scale of forces involved. References to a despoilment of the Premonstratensian abbey in Carrickfergus and to raids as far as Ballygalley37 are suggestive that at least some of de Lacy’s forces were mounted. As noted before in relation to his transport from Wales in 1222 and the potential for a river blockade at Coleraine, de Lacy must have had access to some size of naval transport, as he deployed eight boats in his attempt to prevent Marshal’s relief force from landing.38 However, it is the contention of this paper that the siege of Carrickfergus must be seen as a tactical action designed to facilitate a larger force moving through the Glens of Antrim to assault Doonbought (Fig. 15.3). The polygonal enclosure itself seems to have been abandoned during this phase of the campaign. Indeed, lack of evidence for military action in McNeill’s excavations would suggest that it was considered indefensible. At this point in the campaign it would seem that de Lacy had not only annihilated the Mac Uchtraigh holdings in north and east Ulster, but had also forced the Uí Thuirtri to a line extending from the fortress of Cross, to the area east of modern Ballymoney to behind the Clough river in the east of Uí Thuirtri territory. This was a substantial territorial gain, a land area rivalling that already held by the earldom of Ulster, and it would seem that the majority of his enlarged forces would have been involved in the garrisoning of these acquisitions. 35 36 37 38

Brown, ‘Civil Disobedience’, pp. 258–61. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster, p. 18. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster, p. 18. McNeill, Anglo Norman Ulster, p. 18.

292

Making Twescard: The de Lacy/O’Neill campaign in Northern Ulster 1223–24

This was to be the maximum territorial gain which de Lacy and his ally would manage in northern Ulster, with the landing of the new justiciar, William Marshal the younger, in early 1224, spelling the end of the explicit military campaign for de Lacy and O’Neill. Even without the arrival of Marshal, it is the contention of this paper that de Lacy and O’Neill would have found their military resources stretched in securing the former Mac Uchtraigh and Uí Thuirtri lands. The combined seizure of Trim and broken siege of Carrickfergus meant that the offensive against the Uí Thuirtri became a secondary consideration. De Lacy now faced a huge feudal army assembled by Marshal at Dundalk,39 and was forced to accompany O’Neill to the Fews of Armagh (Fig. 15.3) to assist with the presumed assault on Tír Eoghain. With Marshal assembled in Dundalk with his feudal force, and de Lacy and O’Neill fortifying the Fews, a military confrontation appeared inevitable. Marshal however would have been made aware by local intelligence that to force the Fews and crush de Lacy would involve a bloody attritional campaign, which would be unnecessarily expensive given his relatively untested force. De Lacy had chosen the stage for his negotiations well, and it would have been clear to Marshal that the tacit support of the baronial elite in Ulster could have erupted into open support if he pursued de Lacy further. The combined material drains on Marshal’s resources, having campaigned in Wales and Meath, both in relatively quick succession, the relatively untested nature of his forces, and the delicate political tightrope he walked as part of the Minority government, meant that he could simply not afford to act against de Lacy. Instead, we find that de Lacy and Marshal agreeing to a truce in late 1224, with Marshal even supporting the award of a maintenance grant to de Lacy during further negotiations. What made all the difference, as de Lacy had clearly calculated, were the former Mac Uchtraigh and Uí Thuirtri lands he now held in northern Ulster. He now held a territory that rivalled the earldom of Ulster in area, which he could bring into the Angevin settlement if restored to his former title. The price of his restoration was certainly the binding of these lands to those of the existing earldom for perpetuity.

39

Veach, Lordship, pp. 205–6.

293

David McIlreavy

Conclusion: A New Interpretation of Hugh de Lacy’s Rebellion, 1223–24 This paper has endeavoured to bring to light the forgotten campaign prosecuted against the Gaelic Irish kingdom of Uí Thuirtri during the period 1223–24. While many questions remain to be answered with regard to the campaign, and the delicate political negotiations which followed the truce of 1224, this paper endeavors to realign traditional commentaries of de Lacy’s ‘rebellion’ in Ireland. De Lacy’s experience with the ‘new’ minority government from late 1221 had convinced him that a drastically new negotiating position was required if he was to regain his former title and possessions in Ulster. In this respect his sponsorship by de Blondeville may be seen as the catalyst which which provoqued de Lacy’s reaction. Only further research may reveal the extent to which de Blondeville explicitly encouraged de Lacy’s eventual course of action. What is clear is the extent to which the seizure of the northern lands of Uí Thuirtri may be seen as a central part of de Lacy’s plans during 1223–24. Importantly, the achievement of such a goal would have placed him in direct juxtaposition with the stalled Scottish settlement under the Mac Uchtraigh. By recognising that the seizure of the northern lands of Uí Thuirtri formed the central tenet of de Lacy’s actions, the various elements of his ‘rebellion’ can be proposed to have played previously unrecognised supporting roles. His participation in the border campaign of Wales was designed to weaken Marshal in preparation for de Lacy’s primary assault against the Mac Uchtraigh and Uí Thuirtri. Similarly, his actions in Meath, and in particular his advance on Dublin, was designed to obtain a truce from the then Justiciar, and to extract additional supplies to further assault and hold territory in Uí Thuirtri. De Lacy was not simply a rebel reacting to events as they presented, he had a clear plan of action which would allow him to secure the greatest negotiating asset possible. In conclusion, it is proposed that de Lacy foresaw the end of his actions, and had planned accordingly, carefully presenting the prospect of a bloody campaign with Marshal in the Fews of Armagh counterbalanced with a peaceable land acquisition which looked to re invigorate the Angevein settlement in Ulster. In this we see the true scale of de Lacy’s vision, the calculated risks that he was willing to take to secure that vision, and the largely unappreciated creation of opportunity which drove it.

294

Chapter 16 From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus: The Legacy of de Lacy’s Crusade experience in Britain and Ireland Paul Duffy Abstract Hugh de Lacy’s exile in Capetian France and in Occitania lasted over a decade and spanned a period of significant change, expansion and consolidation in the French kingdom. Pioneering siege tactics and corresponding innovations in castle design formed part of de Lacy’s direct experience. Fulminating ecclesiasts, municipal protorepublics, emergent religious orders and ever-shifting political boundaries were also realities of de Lacy’s crusader lordship. It has been shown that de Lacy’s heritage as a marcher lord at the frontier between two societies in Ireland furnished him with valuable experience and insight of frontier politics and warfare that was used to great effect in Occitania. What remains to be explored however, is how Hugh’s exposure to military and religious developments and political networks on the continent influenced his actions following his flight from Occitania in 1221. This chapter explores some possible Capetian and Languedocian influences that may have shaped aspects of Hugh de Lacy’s career post 1220, potentially leaving an enduring mark on the landscape of modern Ireland. In particular, this paper proposes that Capetian developments in defensive architecture were disseminated by de Lacy to Wales, the Welsh March and into Ireland.

Résumé L’exil de Hugues de Lacy en France capétienne et en Occitanie a duré plus d’une décennie, pendant une période de changement significatif, d’expansion et de consolidation dans le royaume de France. Des tactiques de siège nouvelles et des innovations correspondantes dans la conception du château firent partie de l’expérience directe de de Lacy. Ecclésiastiques fulminants, proto-républiques municipales, ordres religieux émergents et frontières politiques toujours changeantes furent aussi les réalités de la seigneurie du croisé de Lacy. Il a été démontré que l’héritage de de Lacy comme seigneur opérant dans la zone frontière entre les deux civilisations en Irlande lui a fourni une expérience précieuse et un aperçu de la politique et de la guerre de frontière qui a été utilisé à bon escient en Occitanie. Il nous reste cependant à explorer la question de savoir comment le contact d’Hugues de Lacy avec les nouveaux développements militaires et religieux et les réseaux politiques sur le continent a pu influencer ses

From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne. The Epic Deeds of Hugh de Lacy during the Albigensian Crusade, ed. by Paul Duffy,Tadhg O’Keeffe and Jean-Michel Picard,Turnhout, 2017 (Outremer, 5), pp. 295–328

F H G DOI: 1.1/M.OUTREMER-EB.5.114250

Paul Duffy actions après son départ de l’Occitanie en 1221. Ce chapitre explore quelques-unes des influences capétiennes et languedociennes possibles, qui ont pu façonner certains aspects de la carrière de Hugues de Lacy après 1220, laissant potentiellement une marque durable sur le paysage de l’Irlande moderne. En particulier, ce document propose que les développements en architecture défensive capétienne ont été diffusés par de Lacy au Pays de Galles, en Angleterre et en Irlande.

Exiled Earl, Expelled Lord As has been explored in the preceding chapters, Hugh II de Lacy, exiled earl of Ulster, spent ten years on the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc where he reigned as lord of Castelnaudary and Laurac. A decade of intense warfare including extended sieges and battles on open ground, in addition to innovative developments arising from religious and political turmoil must surely have furnished this experienced knight with progressive ideas which may have influenced aspects of his later career. Following the dramatic death of Hugh’s feudal lord Simon  IV de Montfort in 1218 and the subsequent defeat of de Lacy and his allies at Baziege in 1219,1 it is uncertain whether de Lacy’s position as a crusader lord remained tenable. Presumably many of the inhabitants of his lands had joined the general meridional uprising led by Raymond VI of Toulouse, but the reissuing of a grant to Dominic and the nascent Dominican Order in 1218 suggests that de Lacy still exercised some degree of lordship following the failed siege of Toulouse. By 1219, however, the count of Foix was raiding the Lauragais, carrying off ‘cows, oxen, villeins and peasants’ presaging the collapse of crusader control in Occitania.2 With the might of Toulouse unbroken to the west and the meridional star in the ascendant, it is likely that de Lacy stayed close to the new chief of the crusaders – Simon’s son Amaury VI de Montfort – as he traversed the Lauragais in an attempt to quench the fires of insurrection in numerous towns with limited success. Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, an eyewitness to the siege from the crusaders’ camp, states that ‘all of the French knights holding fiefs for de Montfort paid homage to the new count, Amaury and swore him fidelity’.3

1

2 3

Aries, ‘Bataille de Baziège de 1219: données nouvelles sur le cadre de la bataille’ (this volume). Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 182. Peter des Vaux des Cernay, Histoire de l’hérésie des Albigeois et de la sainte guerre entreprise contre eux (de l’an 1203 à l’an 1218) trans. Joseph Vaisette, ed. Francois Guizot and J. L. J. Brière (Paris 1824) p. 343.

296

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

The battle of Baziege4 sees the final mention of de Lacy in the narrative sources of the crusade. By 1220 de Lacy’s caput of Castelnaudary had been retaken by Raymond VII of Toulouse.5 Forces under Amaury de Montfort besieged the town during the winter of 1220–1 and it can be assumed that this was de Lacy’s last act in Languedoc. During the operation Amaury’s brother, Guy de Montfort was killed and expected reinforcements from the north were not forthcoming. The siege collapsed and the situation worsened for the crusdaers with Agen, Moissac and Quercy declaring for Raymond VII.6 The young count pushed his advantage, taking Puylaurens (dép. Tarn), Lavaur and Montréal, while Amaury’s control was reduced to Carcassonne and its immediate surroundings.7 In 1224 Amaury de Montfort rode to Paris and ceded his rights in Languedoc to King Louis VIII. Failure of the siege of Castelnaudary ended de Lacy’s Languedocian lordship and in 1221 the exiled earl of Ulster and expelled lord of Castelnaudary and Laurac turned his considerable energies to the issue upon which he had been brooding for eleven years: restitution of his earldom.

Negotiations with the Minority Government of Henry III Following the collapse of his lordship in Languedoc, Hugh de Lacy travelled under safe-conduct to England for an audience with the fourteenyear-old king Henry III in 1221.8 De Lacy had been absent from Angevin politics since before the death of King John and the administrative landscape had changed drastically in the intervening years. During de Lacy’s absence, Magna Carta had been introduced; the death of John had resulted in the minority government of Henry III led by the regent, Hugh’s old rival William Marshal.9 Following the death of Marshal in 1219, the role of regent had passed to Hubert de Burgh, despite previous claims to the position made by Ranulf of Chester. In the aftermath of John’s death Hugh had been offered restoration of his estates through the agency of Ranulf, and of William Ferrers on the condition that he swear fealty to the new 4 5

6

7 8 9

Aries, ‘Bataille de Baziège de 1219’ (this volume). William of Tudela, Anonymous, La chanson de la croisade albigeoise, 3: pp. 265–81. Michael Costen, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade (Manchester, 1997), p. 151. Zerner-Chardavoine, La croisade albigeoise, p. 179. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, p. 301. Duffy with Brown: ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’.

297

Paul Duffy

king.10 Hugh had refused conciliation at this time and his continuing exile had therefore, in some sense been a self-imposed one. Following Hugh’s negotiations in 1221, the minority government under direction from the justiciar Hubert de Burgh, denied the restitution of the earldom of Ulster to Hugh. De Burgh was doubtless influenced by his alliance with William Marshal the younger whose interests in Ireland ran contrary to those of Hugh.11 Instead, Hugh was offered the lands he had formerly held of Walter de Lacy in Meath and the lands acquired through his marriage to Lescelina de Verdun in Uriel.12 Hugh characteristically refused such a compromise and immediately began agitating along the Welsh March. He sought out two former allies who were at this time similarly discontented with the Angevin administration: Earl Ranulf of Chester and Llyweyln ab Iorwerth of Gwynedd the most powerful Welsh Prince of the period.

Triumverate In 1222 Hugh de Lacy appears as a witness to two charters of Earl Ranulf of Chester, one of them a marriage agreement between the earl’s nephew and heir John the Scot and Llywelyn’s daughter.13 In styling himself earl of Ulster on these documents, Hugh’s intentions were made clear and Ranulf, who had himself witnessed de Lacy’s original grant of Ulster in 1205, was clearly supporting the dispossessed earl’s claim to restitution. Colin Veach has highlighted documentary evidence of an unspecified blood relationship between Ranulf and the de Lacy brothers, further strengthening this association.14 The breath of Ranulf ’s aspiration of autonomy for his own domain of Chester has been discussed by Rachel Swallow who has drawn attention to the quasi-royal organisation of Ranulf ’s court and the issuing his own Magna Carta exclusively for Chester in 1215.15 Swallow illustrates that Ranulf considered his holdings as existing outside of the Angevin 10 11 12 13

14 15

Veach, Lordship, p. 169. Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450, p. 158. Veach Lordship, pp. 193–94. The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c. 1071–1237 ed. Geoffrey Barraclough (Gloucester, 1988), no.  411; Frame, Ireland and Britain, pp. 44, 160–62; Veach, Lordship, pp. 192–93. Veach, Lordship, p. 193. Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, no.  394; Rachel Swallow, ‘Gateways to Power: The Castles of Ranulf III of Chester and Llywelyn the Great of Gwynedd’, Archaeological Journal 171 (2014), 289–311, at p. 289.

298

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Realm. Ranulf ’s pretentions had suffered at the hands of the justiciar Hubert de Burgh who actively sought to curtail the earl of Chester’s powers. It seems that Ranulf welcomed the opportunity to flex some political muscle in a proxy war against the justiciar. The opportunity was to present itself in 1223 when Llyweyln launched attacks against William Marshal in southern Wales. In addition to the marriage alliance between Ranulf and Llyweyln William de Lacy, Hugh’s half-brother, married Gwenllian, another of Llyweyln’s daughters, probably in the same year.16 Llyweyln had already proved willing to enter into war on the part of Hugh de Lacy during his rebellion of 1210 and this marriage arrangement cemented the alliance. The Barnwell annalist states that in 1210 many of the Welsh allied themselves to ‘de Braose and Hugh de Lacy and launched attacks into England’.17 Given that Philip Augustus was almost certainly the driving force behind the events of 1210,18 Llyweyln’s complicity seems certain considering that he agreed a treaty of alliance with Philip in 1212.19 Such trilateral manoeuvring between these powerful magnates resulted in purposeful, long-sighted unions, firming up a nexus of power between all three families. Rachel Swallow discussing the alliance between Llyweyln and Ranulf writes that ‘dynamic allegiances between lords were key components in how power was expressed’.20 With this conspicuous expression of power centring on the figure of Hugh de Lacy in 1222–3, a figure acting outside of the sanctioned limits of the Angevin administration under the assumed title of earl of Ulster, the lines of war were drawn. Hugh de Lacy and Llyweyln with support from Ranulf made war against William Marshal (supported by Hubert de Burgh) in South Wales. Matthew of Paris records that Llyweyln’s Welsh war of 1223 against William Marshal was supported by Hugh de Lacy and his followers and records that Ranulf opposed the king and justiciar in 1224.21 Following Llyweyln’s coming to the king’s peace, de Lacy made for Ireland where he unleashed war upon the realm. Robin Frame has described the Irish conflict as essentially an extension of the Welsh war against Marshal.22 The 16

17 18 19 20 21

22

Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, no. 337; Veach and Verstraten Veach ‘William Gorm de Lacy’, p. 72. Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2: 202, s.a. 1210. Duffy with Brown, ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’. Holden, ‘King John’, p. 18. Swallow, ‘Gateways to Power’, p. 289. Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols (London, 1872–83), 3: 82–83. Frame, Ireland and Britain, pp. 158–59.

299

Paul Duffy

conflict ended in a standoff between William Marshal and Hugh de Lacy in the Mourne Mountains later in the year.23 De Lacy negotiated his terms adroitly and by 1227 he had once again secured the earldom of Ulster.24 This final episode in the story of Hugh’s shifting fortunes completes the cycle of his seventeen year exile to restitution. The circuitous route necessitated towards restitution exposed de Lacy to wide ranging ideas in castle design, siege warfare, and political organisation.25

Francia The great revolution in defensive architecture seen towards the end of the twelfth century across the Angevin and Capetian realms can be attributed to the crucible of conflict occurring along the Normandy frontier. The standoff between the two visionary fortifiers, Richard Lionheart and Philip Augustus gave rise to the celebrated Plantagenet chef d’ouvre of Château Gaillard and the Capetian constructions at Gisors and the Louvre. Where Richard’s reign was cut short, Philip was afforded the luxury of several decades to develop his ideas and implement wide reaching systematic changes based upon his new defensive principals. This development represents a very impressive implementation of an architectural package, adopted and disseminated across the expanding Capetian domain in a remarkably short timespan (1190–1220).26 To achieve these sweeping innovations, Philip employed the expertise of several visionary architects. In the words of Paul Dechamps, ‘Philip Augustus created a veritable engineer corps and these masters… worked with very strict principles of fortification and followed rules governing the height and thickness of walls, of towers and the length of curtain

23 24 25

26

MacIlreavy, ‘Making Twescard’, this volume. For a detailed discussion on Hugh’s restitution see Brown, Hugh de Lacy. The Statue of Pamiers, instituted by de Montfort is of comparable significance to Magna Carta in that its articles deal with such problems as the sale of justice, terms of military service and rights of inheritance for heirs and widows. The Statute of Pamiers was instituted in 1212, preceding Magna Carta by three years. Yves Gallet, ‘Gautier de Meulan, un “architecte-ingénieur” méconnu du début du XIIIe siècle’, Bulletin Monumental 155 (1997), 135–38; Andre Chatelain, ‘Recherche sur les châteaux de Philippe Auguste’, Archéologie Médiévale 21 (1991), 118–26; Paul Deschamps, ‘Forteresses de la France médiévale’, Journal des Savants 2 (1971), 106–18.

300

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

walls’.27 Philip’s reign marks the era of the large cylindrical keep and, thanks to the survival of many costing documents (devis), it is clear that several of these constructions had exactly the same proportions which were based on the dimensions of the tower of the Louvre.28 Standardised plans and competent teams allowed the rapid fortification of towns at the least possible expense as at Paris, Laon (dép.  Aisne), Compiègne (dép.  Oise), Melun (dép.  Seine-et-Marne), Evreux (dép.  Eure), and Corbail (dép. Essone).29 A similar standard model of gatehouse design can also be inferred from the architectural remains form the era. Castles such as Dourdan (dép. Essonne), Falaise, Ferté-Milon (dép. Aisne) and Soissons (dép. Aisne) were all constructed or remodelled under a systematic Capetian model incorporating two strong D-shaped or circular gate towers flanking the entranceway.30 That developments from Capetian France were disseminated and adopted across Britain and Ireland from the late 1100s is not in question. However, the mechanisms by which these transmissions were effected present one of the most intruiging (and speculative) arenas in modern castle studies. The question has been approached in two ways in the past, either by what we could term the ‘travelling mason’ model or alternatively by the biographical method.31 My own understanding of the personality traits required in a successful baronial magnate has led me to favour the ‘biographical model’. François Matarasso, discussing French influences into Britain, shares the following reflection ‘…cultures met in conflict and in peace, where the arts of warfare and architecture were pursued with equal vigour: centuries later it is rarely possible to draw precisely the route along which ideas travel’.32 I believe, however, that the case of Capetian influence, so strongly tied to an individual (Philip Augustus) presents us with one of the rare instances where transmission of such ideas can in fact be closely traced through study of contemporary documents and biographies. It is my contention that the first appearances of Capetian inspired works in Britain and Ireland can be attributed to a handful of influential members 27 28 29

30

31

32

Deschamps, ‘Fortresses de la France médiévale’, pp. 110–11. Philippe Durand, Le château-fort (Paris, 1999), p. 52. Michel Bastien and Alexandre Gady, A la découverte de l’enceinte de Philippe Auguste (Paris, 2005) p. 33; Gallet, ‘Gautier de Meulan’, pp. 135–38. Jean Mesqui, ‘La fortification des portes avant la Guerre de Cent Ans’, Archéologie Médiévale 11 (1981), 203–29, at p. 206. Macdonald, ‘Identifying Hugh de Lacy’s Contribution to Dundrum Castle’ (this volume). François Matarasso. The English Castle (London, 1995).

301

Paul Duffy

of Angevin aristocracy who acted as vectors of new ideas in defensive architecture in the early thirteenth century. First, there is William Marshal the elder who is credited with probably the earliest and ‘most Capetian’ of circular donjons, Pembroke c. 1200 with a stone vaulted roof. Similarly, Marshal built Hook lighthouse (Co. Wexford) at roughly the same time; it is in many ways comparable to Pembroke, and the only circular tower of the period in Ireland with a Capetian style vaulted roof. A measure of the importance of this design to Marshal can be inferred by its utilisation as the first structure to be seen upon sea approach not only to his earldom of Pembroke but also to his earldom of Leinster (via Wexford). Marshal also constructed Capetian style works at Kilkenny (c. 1210) and potentially at Chepstow (discussed below). Marshal had an extensive career in Capetian France and famously did homage to Philip for his French lands in 1204. Another well documented dealer in the Capetian form was King John who undertook a number of progressive royal works, particularly in Ireland, where from possibly as early as 1204 he was constructing large-scale circular towers and castles with twin towered gatehouses clearly exhibiting Capetian influence. Most notably, John built Dublin Castle (c. 1204), Limerick (c. 1210), Dungarvan (c. 1210), Dover (c. 1216), Kenilworth (c. 1216), and so on. John’s relationship with Philip was close during Richard’s reign with John conspiring with and paying homage to the French King in 1193. Hubert de Burgh remodelled Skenfrith, Grosmont, Montgomery and White Castle in the Welsh Marches from c. 1220–40. His progressive designs owe more than a little to Philip Augustus. The Capetian model is nowhere more evident than at White Castle which would look quite at home on the borders of Poitou or Normandy. De Burgh was castellan of Chinon under King John in 1204 where he withstood a determined Capetian siege for a year. Following the ultimate fall of Chinon, de Burgh was held captive in the castle itself until 1207. Immediately following its capture, Philip actioned the remodelling of this strategic fortification, which guarded the gates to Poitou. Assuming that, as a nobleman, the terms of his emprisonment afforded him some freedom within the castle, de Burgh would have been immersed within the noise and bustle of ingenious Capetian fortifying works for two years with little else to draw his attention. As explored below, the exile and restitution of Hugh de Lacy, earl of Ulster, presents us with another plausible vector for new architectural ideas, this time into the north of Ireland. A  particular form of linear thinking has dominated discussion on influences in castle design. Transmission of these new ideas was not an orderly rolling out of a package 302

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

of architectural features. Rather, magnates such as Marshal, John and de Lacy through their own personal experiences seeded these ideas in several places independently, often with little or no cross pollination. There is no reason to assume that de Lacy ever saw Limerick Castle or that de Burgh was ever exposed to Carrickfergus. With this in mind, we can now examine the potential role played by Hugh de Lacy in that transmission. At the same moment in time that Philip Augustus was beginning his reign, it is likely that Hugh II de Lacy was cutting his teeth as a youth in Ireland, with all of the ardour and impatience he was to show in later life. An apprenticeship under his father’s relentless regime of fortification across Leinster33 would have informed his mind at a young age to the problems of fortifying positions and controlling key points in the landscape. Growing up in this environment, Hugh would have learned to assess the military strengths and weaknesses of a diverse range of landforms, applying adaptable approaches of defence to different situations. Practical castle design would have interested Hugh and the innovative methods applied to the universal problems of defence that he experienced first-hand on the continent would surely have excited his interest.

Evreux and Paris As discussed elsewhere,34 scholarly consensus is that de Lacy’s exile from Ireland in 1210 was the result of involvement in a secret alliance with Philip Augustus.35 During Hugh’s resistance to John’s royal army in 1210, the young earl of Ulster placed immense faith in the strength of his stone castles at Dundrum and Carrickfergus. The failure of these fortifications to significantly halt the progress of the royal army directly resulted in his expulsion from Ireland; an episode which proved to be an invaluable lesson for de Lacy.36 De Lacy arrived in France in the period that Phillip’s master engineers were perfecting their art. The name of ‘Maitre Guillaume de Flamenville’ appears many times in the chartulary of Philip Augustus as a mainstay of the kings engineer corps. He has been connected with fortifying works at Pont de l’Arche, Evreux, Melun and, in 1210, the vast fortification known 33

34 35

36

Hugh I de Lacy the elder constructed a vast array of both earth-and-timber as well as stone castles, notably at Trim, Kilkea and Clonard. Duffy with Brown ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’. Duffy, ‘Ung Sage et Valent Home’, pp.  137–38; Brown and Duffy ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’. Duffy, ‘Ung Sage et Valent Home’, p. 142.

303

Paul Duffy

as the curtain wall of Philip Augustus on the right bank of the Seine, Paris.37 At Evreux, ‘Maitre Guillaume’ was tasked with the construction of a strong curtain wall and gatehouse which was achieved by 1203.38 The northern wall enclosing the right bank at Paris had been finished early in 1210 by ‘Maitre Guillaume’ himself and stretched for 2800 metres interspersed with 39 intramural round towers.39 It has been argued that, upon arrival in France in 1210, de Lacy may have been at St Taurin near Evreux,40 a foundation with strong de Lacy ties. In this case he would have spent some time in the vicinity of the newly constructed curtain wall and gatehouse at Evreux. From here, given the events of 1210, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have sought audience with his co-conspirator, King Philip at Paris. Approaching Paris from the direction of Evreux, de Lacy would have entered the city through the imposing twin towered gateway of Porte Saint-Honoré finished a few short months earlier. The scale of the recent building works and the brilliant façade of the dressed limestone cannot have failed to impress. De Lacy’s presence in Paris at this time is corroborated by the fact that he was installed at as a captain of the Albigensian Crusade soon after, a campaign which was operating, nominally at least, under the control of Phillip Augustus. De Lacy’s arrival in Languedoc in 1211 coincides with the arrival of a large contingent of forces sent to bolster the flagging crusade. This contingent left from Paris, led by Pierre de Nemours, bishop of the city in Spring 121141 and we can assume that de Lacy was among their ranks, exiting the city through one of the southeastern gatehouses.

37 38 39

40

41

Chatelain, ‘Recherche sur les châteaux de Philippe Auguste’. Chatelain, ‘Recherche sur les châteaux de Philippe Auguste’, p. 123. Pierre Maurice Garçon, ‘L’enceinte de Philippe Auguste à Paris’, in L’enceinte et le Louvre de Philippe Auguste, ed. Maurice Berry and Michel Fleury (Paris, 1988), pp. 53–74, at p. 55. Duffy with Brown ‘From Carrickfergus to Carcassonne’; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 2: 82, 258; Veach, Lordship, p. 144. Georges Bordonove, La Tragédie Cathare (Paris, 2011), p. 283.

304

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Occitania Throughout the following decade de Lacy was engaged in numerous battles and sieges around Languedoc. As discussed in preceding chapters in this volume de Lacy had already gained lands and a title in the Lauragais to the east of Toulouse by the summer of 1211. Over the course of the conflict in the Languedoc, Hugh’s understanding of, and engagement with, the problem of fortification would have been subjected to a developmental process inaccessible to many of his contemporaries in Ireland. According to the narrative sources, de Lacy participated in the siege of Castelnaudary in 1211, the battle of Muret in 1213, the siege of Beaucaire in 1216, the great siege of Toulouse 1218, and the battle of Baziège 1219.42 It is also very likely that de Lacy was present at the siege of Lavaur and the subsequent first siege of Toulouse in June 1211. Although not directly mentioned in the sources, it is almost certain that de Lacy would also have participated in the siege of Castelnaudary, 1221, the town that formed the caput of his Languedocian lordship. During his time as a captain and confident of Simon de Montfort, de Lacy would have spent no small amount of time in the count’s court in the heavily defended Carcassonne43 and the narrative sources of the crusade place him there on at least two occasions. Carcassonne Many of these ‘Cathar Castles’ besieged by the crusaders throughout Languedoc occupy at times vertiginous heights on mountainous bluffs and rocky outcrops. With his background as a castle builder and his childhood in the company of his father, the fortifier of Meath, de Lacy would have been particularly receptive to the knowledge that was to be gained from this succession of engagements. Teams of engineers accompanied the crusaders during these campaigns and siege engines including perriers, mangonels and covered fighting galleries were extensively used. One can imagine the conclaves of captains and engineers putting forward strategies and plans of attack and building siege engines to fit their designs. Although the architecture of the indigenous meridional lords was far from ineffectual,44 Philip Augustus’ program of fortification 42

43 44

Chabot, Chanson de la croisade des Albigeois, 2: 119–21, 168; Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 89, 102, 106, 133, 145, 147. Song of the Cathar Wars, p. 50. The siege of Beaucaire by the crusaders was unsuccessful in 1216 and the fortifications of Toulouse weathered both the 1211 and the 1217–18 sieges

305

Paul Duffy

was assiduously extended over the newly conquered territories around Toulouse and Carcassonne from the 1220s onwards. This may have had much to do with asserting an ethnic identity through an instantly recognisable architectural style. The Statute of Pamiers, de Montfort’s constitutional code governing how the crusaders should act in their newly conquered territories, is explicit when it comes to enforcing the customs of Francia while renouncing those of Languedoc.45 Discussions upon the improvement of fortifications and the application of the ‘new architecture’ would have been lively. While the Capetian model of architecture may not have been applied to Carcassonne until after 1229, it is quite possible that plans for the redesign had been discussed, mooted and drafted many years before then during Simon de Montfort’s tenure as count. It is uncertain whether the crusaders during de Montfort’s tenure (1209–18) had either the time or resources to dedicate to the fortifications of Carcassonne. However, works would surely have been planned and perhaps started and, considering the edict set out in the Statute of Pamiers favouring all things French above those of Occitania, the new fortifications would certainly have been designed in the mould of the great works of Philip Augustus. This suggestion bears weight in light of the fact that Pierre II des Voisins, son of Hugh de Lacy’s companion discussed by Jean-Francois Vassal in Chapter 10 of this volume was the constable of Carcassonne from 1240 during the period of the rebuild of the outer walls.46 When the château comtal at Carcassonne was redesigned (c. 1220–40), it was done so as a paragon of the Capetian ‘package’ with a strong enclosing wall interspersed with intramural towers at regular intervals with access provided by a twin towered gatehouse (Figs 16: 1, 2). The towers of this gatehouse were of D-shaped plan with one accessible cross-axis open space running across the upper floor, creating a single open space between both towers. Access to the gatehouse was via a bridge spanning a substantial rock-cut ditch. A secondary curtain wall surrounding the entirety of Carcassonne’s rocky plateau was constructed by the Capetian administration sometime after 1250.

45 46

admirably. The castrum of Cabaret/Lastours (dép.  Aude) was considered by the crusaders to be an impregnable fortress. Roquebert, L’epopée cathare 1: 502–5. Jean-Francois Vassal, ‘Pierre de Voisins.’ L’histoire au cœur de la croisade en Albigeois d’un seigneur du nord’, this volume.

306

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Carcassonne

N 100m

Fig. 16.1: Plan of Carcassonne c. 1250. The outer wall is a later addition.

Beaucaire The Canso records that de Lacy was particularly impressed with the defensive capabilities of this stronghold in Provence.47 The sole remaining vestiges dating to the time of the siege of 1216 comprise the foundations of two circular intramural towers with battered bases.48 Remodelled c. 1229, the Capetian works compare very favourably with the works undertaken at Carrickfergus attributed to MacNeill’s phase two of building at the castle, the phase traditionally attributed to de Lacy post-1227 (Fig. 16.3).49

47 48 49

Chabot, Chanson de la croisade des Albigeois, 2: 119–21. Yves Gasco, Le château de Beaucaire (Rennes, 2002) p. 21. McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 56; O’Baoill Carrickfergus, pp. 22–23; Duffy, ‘The Architecture of Defiance’.

307

Paul Duffy

Fig. 16.2: The early thirteenth-century gate of Carcassonne; see colour plate 20.

308

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Carrickfergus

Beaucaire

Pre-Capetian castle

De Lacy's additions

Capetian remodelling Royal works

N 20 m

De Courcy's castle

Fig. 16.3: Simplified plans of Beaucaire and Carrickfergus castles.

Toulouse As discussed by Jean Catalo in Chapter 11, the emblematic Château Narbonnais of Toulouse was in fact a massive, re-purposed, twin towered gatehouse of Classical date. This building still retained its basic form, composed of two rectangular towers with polygonal apsidal projections flanking a gate passage spanned by a vaulted archway. Though the gate passage had been closed up and incorporated into the castle, descriptions from the Canso make clear that its original twin-towered form was still recognisable during de Lacy’s year besieging the town walls from the crusaders base at the Château Narbonnais. Castelaudary/Laurac Given that the defences of Castelnaudary, de Lacy’s caput were reported to be very weak in 1211, it seems inevitable that he would have refortified the town and castle during his ten year reign. Unfortunately, any such works which may have been undertaken by de Lacy were destroyed in 1229 under the terms of the treaty of Paris which saw the territories in the 309

Paul Duffy

south of France irrevocably attached to the Capetian crown.50 At de Lacy’s other centre of Laurac, the remains of a motte castle can still be viewed at the apex of the town. The form of the structure which stood at the summit of this mound is currently unknown. Evidence of such fortifications would have provided a valuable insight into the development of de Lacy’s understanding and utilisation of defensive principals. Construction of a new gate at Laurac is recorded in 121551 but it is uncertain whether this was carried out at the behest of de Lacy or whether the town consuls in Laurac maintained some authority for such civil works. In addition to codified building packages, standardised Capetian siege warfare can also be inferred from the sources. The second siege of Toulouse is fabulously evoked by William of Tudela’s anonymous successor in the Canso including rich detail of siege warfare.52 Many of these descriptions have been corroborated through archaeological investigation and the scale of the fortifications protecting the city during the siege has been explored by Jean Catalo in Chapter 11 of this volume. The tactics employed by Simon de Montfort in 1218 are mirrored perfectly by the tactics used by Prince Louis at Dover in 1216 and 1217 which included the use of Perriers, mangonels, a trebuchet and mining of the walls with the use of a ‘cat’ or covered fighting gallery.53 John Goodall has speculated that Louis’s trebuchet may have been the first ever seen in England.54 Matthew of Paris relates that this conspicuous trebuchet was named Malvoisin (bad neighbour).55 This laconic turn of phrase seems to have been a staple of Capetian campaign humour as the trebuchet used to devastating effect by de Montfort at the siege of Minerve in 1210 was also named Malvoisin.56 Goodall, in discussing these tactics, has pointed out that very similar stratagems were employed by Philip Augustus at Château Gaillard in 1204,57 suggesting that Philip’s

50

51

52 53 54

55

56 57

Edgar P. Boutaric, Saint Louis et Alphonse de Poitiers: étude sur la réunion des provinces du Midi et del’ouest à la couronne (Paris, 1870), p. 39. Brown, ‘Strategies of Comital and Crusader Lordship’ (this volume); MS  Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, 609, fo 24v; Pegg, Corruption of Angels, p. 120. Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 122–72. Michel, Histoire des Ducs de Normandie, p. 178. John Goodall, ‘Dover Castle and the Great Siege of 1216’, Chateau Gaillard 19 (2000), pp. 91–102, at pp. 94–95. Matthew of Paris Mathaei Paresiesis Chronica Majora, 3  vols, ed. H.J.  Luard (London, 1874–76), 2: 664. Bordonove, La Tragédie Cathare, p. 260. Goodall ‘Dover Castle’.

310

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Capetian ‘package’ included standardised defensive architecture and siege warfare arising from his own direct experiences. In this context, it is perhaps beyond coincidence that while fulfilling his feudal obligation on an expedition to Connacht in 1235, Hugh de Lacy was present at Loch Cé when, in their first recorded use in Ireland, siege engines were employed against the MacDermotts on the island fortification. Perriers or mangonels and covered fighting galleries (comparable to the ‘cats’ employed by Prince Louis and de Montfort) mounted on ships are specifically mentioned in the annals for 1235.58 If not the originator of these stratagems, de Lacy, after ten years in the presence of such machines of war, was surely one of their principal exponents. Once reinstated to his earldom in Ireland, de Lacy embarked upon a program of fortification of his own. His time in France must certainly have influenced these building programmes.

England/Wales Beeston, Bolingbroke and Chartley The years following 1220 witnessed a boom in innovative castle design in the Welsh March, North Wales and Northern England. The upsurge of circular keeps from the year 1220 is matched by a proliferation in the appearance of twin towered gatehouses of sophisticated design. Ranulf of Chester emerges as the driver of the latter and he has been attributed with constructing Whittington Castle gatehouse for King Henry III around 1220.59 Soon after, possibly motivated by the slighting demands made by Hubert de Burgh and the minority government, Ranulf began fortifying his holdings in Cheshire and Lincolnshire with the castles of Beeston, Bolingbroke and Chartley (Fig. 16.4). Many scholars have drawn attention to the progressive design of these three castles which represent the first castles of this kind in England.60 The gatehouses of these three castles have been viewed as the first true twin 58

59 60

Annals of Lough Cé, p.  329; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 3:  183–84; Kieran O’Conor, Niall Brady, Anne Connon and Carlos Fidalgo, ‘The Rock of Lough Cé, Co. Roscommon’ in Medieval Lough Cé, ed. Thomas Finan (Dublin 2010), pp. 15–42, at p. 17. Swallow, ‘Gateways to Power’, p. 296. Rachel Swallow, ‘Castle in Context? Redefining the Significance of Beeston Castle, Cheshire’, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 81 (2006), 65–82, at pp. 70–73; Tom McNeill, English Heritage Book of Castles (London 1994),

311

Paul Duffy

Inner ward

Ditch

Outer ward

Outer gateway

50m

Beeston

N

20m

Chartley

Bolingbroke

Montlhéry (not to scale)

Fig. 16.4: Plans of Beeston, Bolingbroke, Chartley and Montlhéry castles.

towered gatehouses in England given that one accessible cross-axis open space runs across the upper floor of these gatehouses, giving access to both towers.61 All three gatehouses are almost identical in plan with diameters

61

312

p.  92; R.  Allen Brown, The Architecture of Castles: a Visual Guide (London, 1984) p. 7; Matarasso The English Castle, pp. 109–15. Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 263; R. Allen Brown, English Castles, revised edn (London 2004) pp. 64–67; Guy notes that this observation relates to the fact that there was ‘apparently, one accessible open space that ran right across the upper floor of the gatehouse, giving access to

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Fig. 16.5: The inner ward gatehouse of Beeston Castle; see colour plate 21.

of 8–9 m and walls of a uniform 3.7 m thickness. At Beeston, the imposing setting of the gatehouse, perched on the edge of a formidable rock-cut ditch, was further highlighted by the choice of a differing colour stone for the gatehouse (Fig. 16.5).62 The castle complex as a whole encloses a prominent raised and rocky bluff and Nevell notes of contemporary castles that ‘very few were situated on such high, isolated places in England, and it was far more common for castles to be near centres of population and important travel routes’.63 Through the sources cited above, Hugh de Lacy can be placed in the retinue of Ranulf at precisely the point in time accepted for the commencement of works at Beeston and Bolingbroke (1221–23). Was de Lacy, fresh from the Capetian milieu, a contributing force to the architectural developments at Beeston, Chartey and Bolingbroke?

62 63

both towers, although the section directly above the short gate-passage is too shallow for any practical domestic use, but simply to handle the drawbridge or portcullis mechanisms and act as a corridor to link the two towers. This open crosstower arrangement is not necessarily true of the earlier King John gatehouses or of White Castle (in its original 1200/1220s format) or Whittington’ (Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 206 n. 15). Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 265. Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 265.

313

Paul Duffy

Carcassonne

Beeston

Criccieth Fig. 16.6: Plans of the twin-towered gateways at Carcassonne, Beeston and Criccieth (not to scale).

Rachel Swallow has recently pointed out the clear similarities between the geographical siting and gatehouse design employed by Ranulf at Beeston and by Llywellan at Criccieth at around the same time (Fig. 16.6).64 The ensemble at Beeston is strikingly similar in plan, siting and internal organisation to the Capetian works undertaken at Carcassonne. Matarasso has also pointed out that Philip Augustus’s castle at Montlhéry (dép. Essonne) and Ranulf ’s Chartley (Staffordshire) could almost have been constructed from the same plans (Fig. 16.4).65 François Guyonnet in his archaeological study of the château comtal at Carcassonne has proposed a date of 1240–50 for the gatehouse.66 Loppe

64 65 66

Swallow, ‘Gateways to Power’, p. 304. Matarasso, The English Castle. p. 114. François Guyonnet, ‘Le château comtal de Carcassonne: nouvelle approche archéologique d’un grand monument méconnu’ in Trente ans d’archéologie médiévale, en France un bilan pour l’avenir IX congrès international de la Société d’archéologie médiévale, ed. Jean Chapelot (Caen, 2010) pp. 271–89, at pp. 284–85.

314

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

and Gardel tentatively agree with this date,67 but a number of authors prefer a date of 1226–3068 and a question remains as to what works the crusaders under Simon de Montfort built during the years 1209–18. The intrinsic layout of Carcassonne with its external curtain wall dramatically surrounding the rocky plateau and the internal château comtal had existed from the mid-twelfth century.69 It is unclear what kind of gateway into this central court existed prior to the current gatehouse but Guillonet proposes that the deep fosse cutting the château comtal off from the rest of the walled town was in place during de Montfort’s reign making Hugh a plausible vector of transmission for the design of Carcassonne to Chester.70 It has been suggested that Ranulf ’s castle at Saint-James-de-Beauvron (dép. Manche) in Normandy may have provided the model for the English gatehouses. However, the gatehouse at Whittington, described by Neil Guy as intrinsically inferior to Beeston, was built by Ranulf in 1220. By some agency, Ranulf was subjejcted to a developmental process by the time Beeston was designed. Again it is tempting to see this agency as Hugh de Lacy. Interestingly, according to this proposal, Ranulf ’s French castle would therefore have been influenced by castles in the department of Eure via Chester! This almost paradoxal possibility illustrates to some extent the problems inherent in the assigning of inspiration for castle design to individuals given the breath of baronial mobility and interplay during this period. Longtown Where exactly was Hugh de Lacy from 1221 to 1223? Close enough to be in the entourage of Ranulf, whilst remaining close to the king during

67

68

69 70

Frédéric Loppe, Marie-Elise Gardel, Vianney Forest, Guy Rancoule, Isabelle Rodet- Belarbi, ‘Carcassonne, château comtal: essai de datation des structures d’après les sondages de 1993’, Archéologie du Midi Médiéval 21 (2003), 71–105, at p. 77. Pierre Héliot proposes 1226–40 ( ‘L’âge du château de Carcassonne’, Annales du Midi 78 (1966), 7–21); Yves Bruand proposes c. 1230 (‘La Cité de Carcassonne: la Citadelle ou Château comtal’, Congrés archéologique de France, 131e session: Pays de l’Aude (Paris, (1973), 516–31); Alain Salamagne proposes a post-1240 date for the gatehouse, speculating that work undertaken by the crusaders would have been limited to rebuilding of the existing walls (‘Les fortifications royales de Carcassonne et le problème des embrasures de tir au Moyen Âge’, Archéologie du Midi médiéval 17 (1999), 93–107, at p. 105). Guyonnet, ‘Le château comtal de Carcassonne’, p. 281. Guyonnet, ‘Le château comtal de Carcassonne’, p. 281.

315

Paul Duffy

negotiations. It is uncertain to what degree he was harboured by his brother Walter. Walter had negotiated for the restitution of Hugh’s earldom in 1215 but Hugh’s actions in 1221–4 caused Walter significant cost and inconvenience including the confiscation of his castles of Ludlow and Trim for a period of two years. However, until the outbreak of war between Llyweyln and William Marshal early in 1223, Hugh was not technically an enemy of the crown. It seems probable that Hugh de Lacy spent some time at Ewias Lacy, conveniently located between the holdings of his two allies Ranulf and Llyweyln. The de Lacy castle at Longtown in Ewias Lacy underwent a programme of redesign at precisely this time (c. 1220), a design which included the construction of a circular keep and a small inner gate with solid round turrets and grooves to accommodate a portcullis.71 This diminutive gate may be seen as an attempt to construct an entranceway comprising a schematic version of the Capetian gatehouse. In addition it is believed that the circular keep atop the motte was constructed at this time.72 The layout of Longtown recalls that of Chartley built at approximately the same time.

Ireland Traditionally, Hugh de Lacy, earl of Ulster has been associated with three significant building projects in the years following his restitution in 1227. These are the construction of the outer ward and twin towered gatehouse of his caput at Carrickfergus Castle, works at the gatehouse of Dundrum Castle,73 and the construction of Greencastle. Examination of these works in light of the evidence presented above in relation to de Lacy’s movements in the preceding seventeen years shows up some interesting parralells. Carrickfergus The subject of the phasing of Carrickfergus gatehouse (Fig.  16.7) has undergone scrutiny in recent years with Tom McNeill,74 Daniel Tietzsch71 72

73 74

Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 185. Nicky Smith, Longtown, Herefordshire. A  Medieval Castle and Borough. English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Report Series AI/26/2003, p. 7; Paul Remfry, Longtown Castle, 1048–1241 (Worcester, 1997). McNeill, Carrickfergus Castle, p. 22; Castles in Ireland, pp. 91–92. As per Tom McNeill’s paper at the Carrickfergus to Carcassonne conference at the Carrickfergus Town Hall, 29 October 2015, his recent re-examination suggests the period 1200–10 for the construction of the Carrickfergus gatehouse

316

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Fig. 16.7: The gatehouse at Carrickfergus Castle; see colour plate 22.

Tyler,75 Neil Guy76 and myself77 presenting differing views on the date of construction and possible influences on the monument. McNeill’s current hypothesis holds that the gatehouse is a copy of the Marshal gatehouse at Chepstow and was constructed by Hugh de Lacy not following his restitution but rather in the years 1205–10 prior to his exile. A date of c. 1200–10 for the construction of the Carrickfergus gatehouse however disregards the historicial record relating to the lords of Ulster at this time. From 1201, the erstwhile allies Hugh de Lacy and John de Courcy were engaged in

75

76 77

(Sarah Gormley and Tom McNeill, ‘Recent research on Carrickfergus Castle, Co. Antrim’). The argument has been muddied by the blanket acceptance by scholars of the 1180–90 date attributed to the outer gatehouse at Chepstow gatehouse (Avent and Miles, ‘The Main Gatehouse’). This date is by no means conclusive and is unhelpful in the case of Carrickfergus. Neil Guy (‘The Portcullis’) has put forward very convincing alternative dating possibilities for Chepstow based on detailed architectural analysis. If the Chepstow gatehouse in its current form dates to the late twelfth century, it seems to have stood alone in the Angevin architectural canon for a generation before inspiring imitations. If a later date is accepted, it is unclear which came first, the gatehouse at Chepstow or that of Carrickfergus. Tietzsch-Tyler, ‘King John’s Castle’, p. 156; ‘Carrickfergus and the Revolution in Castle Design’, (this volume). Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 194. Duffy, ‘The Architecture of Defiance’.

317

Paul Duffy

a very brutal and draining war. From his installation as earl of Ulster in 1205 de Lacy was concerned with defending his nascent earldom against John de Courcy’s recovery attempts; in 1206 to beginning of 1207 he was engaged in campaigning in Armagh/Tyrone, and subsequently embroiled in the baronial crisis of 1207–8. For much of that five year period Hugh was itinerating, either on the borders of his lordship, or in Meath, and was not well-placed to oversee such a significant project at Carrickfergus. The later period would make much more sense, at a time when Hugh was also spending on religious institutions and other improvements to fortifications.78 Elsewhere in this volume, Daniel Tietzsch-Tyler has put forward an argument that the gatehouse towers may have been a royal work influenced directly by the Marshal family during Hugh’s absence on crusade. This is a very developed and valid argument which has a lot of merit. In the context of de Lacy and his time in the Capetian mileu, it is interesting, however to consider the following three points. First, there is the similarity between the Carrickfergus gatehouse and those erected at Paris. The Paris gatehouses consisted of: ‘two round towers of considerable size, roughly 15 m high and 8 m in diameter flanking an ogival arched opening sealed by two wooden doors set into the walls. There was no need for a drawbridge as there was no external ditch at Paris. All gates were constructed in an identical manner and the cost of each was 120 livres tournois, paid in full by the king’.79 The towers themselves were of three levels with arrow slits, the floors rib vaulted, sometimes connected with the upper levels by a stairway running within the width of the wall, as at Carrickfergus. The passage was defended by wooden doors and a portcullis, and the thickness of the Parisian wall is 3 m at its base, 2.3–2.6 m at ground level, 1.4 m at summit.80 At Carrickfergus the width of the walls at the base are also 3 m thick reducing to 2.5 m at the second floor level. The manner of construction of the Paris curtain wall is comparable to that employed at Carrickfergus. Each wall was approximately 0.5 m wide, constructed of blocks varying 0.55–1.1 m in length laid in courses 0.2–0.4 m high. The rubble core was consolidated with a very hard mortar in which no putlog timbers were used.81 78

79 80

81

318

I am very grateful to Dr Daniel Brown for his comments which have informed these observations. Bastion and Gaudy, A la découverte de l’enceinte de Philippe Auguste, p. 35. Jean Mesqui, ‘Construire une enceinte urbaine au temps de Philippe Auguste’, in L’enceinte et le Louvre de Philippe Auguste, pp. 75–84, at p. 78. Garçon, ‘L’enceinte de Philippe Auguste’, p. 55.

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

McNeill’s in-depth investigation of the Carrickfergus gatehouse has noted that, unlike at Chepstow, the two gatehouse towers were initially poorly linked, probably by a wooden passage spanning the entrance passageway.82 Similarly, the gatehouses seem to have been poorly articulated at Paris and it has even been suggested that originally, they may not have been linked at all but rather that the passage between was open to the sky.83 Second, there is the occurrence of a chapel within the gatehouse, unknown elsewhere in Ireland84 but a common feature in France, particularly in the territory of the de Montfort family in the department of Eure. At Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle (dép. Eure), for example, a chapel occupies the room over the passage of the fortified gatehouse.85 This arrangement was primarily to afford a spiritual protection to the castle entrance. Further examples can be seen at Mehun-sur-Yèvre (dép. Cher) and at Angles-sur-l’Anglin (dép. Vienne), both places that lie on a potential route south to Carcassonne from Paris.86 As discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume, Hugh de Lacy most likely arrived in Languedoc in the company of a cohort of reinforcements raised in Paris and les south by Robert de Courteney and Peter of Auxerre. Angles-sur-l’Anglin was more likely to be a stop on the progression of crusaders southwards given it was a Courteney holding. The gateway chapel at Angles-sur-l’Anglin dedicated to Sainte-Marie also calls to mind the ‘tour Chappelle’ of Carcassonne, which bore the same dedication. This chapel, housed within a D-shaped tower within the comital castle was extant in the early thirteenth century.87 And third, there is the favourable comparison between the works at Carrickfergus traditionally ascribed to Hugh and the type of Capetian remodelling seen across Occitania, such as at Beaucaire and Carcassonne. In addition to these points, Avent’s work on the Chepstow gatehouse which purported to push back the dating of this monument into the closing decades of the twelfth century has recently been questioned by

82 83 84

85

86

87

McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 88. Garçon, ‘L’enceinte de Philippe Auguste’, 55. Note, however, that Tietsch-Tyler has made a case for such at Limerick (‘King John’s Castle’, p. 152). Maire Casset, Les évêques aux champs: châteaux et manoirs des évêques normand au Moyen Age (XI–XV siècles (Caen, 2007), p. 144. Philippe Durand, ‘La protection religieuse de l’entrée du château à l’époque romane en Haut-Poitou’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 31 (1988), 201–12. Loppe et al, ‘Carcassonne, château comtal’, pp. 72–74.

319

Paul Duffy

Neil Guy.88 Guy is unconvinced that the current form of the Chepstow gatehouse was extant c.  1180, raising the possibility rather that it may not have been developed until into the thirteenth century. This in some way invalidates the insistence by certain scholars that the Carrickfergus gatehouse was constructed in direct imitation of the Marshal works as the gatehouses may indeed by contemporary. A comparison between the Capetian works undertaken during the remodelling of Beaucaire and the fortifications built by de Lacy on his return to Carrickfergus illustrate very effectively the degree to which the earl had been imbued with the Capetian ideal (Fig. 16.3). In both instances curtain walls have been added, following closely the contours of the natural rocky outcrop upon which the castles stand. The bulk of the work at Beaucaire can be attributed to the Capetian consolidation of the region from 1229 onwards.89 Neil Guy proposes a date of c. 1230 for the machicolation arch at Carrickfergus, a design synonymous with Limerick Castle but also, as we have seen, present at the château comtal, Carcassonne and Castleroche.90 If de Lacy did return to his caput to find a new gatehouse in place, I believe it is reasonable to propose that he added the machicolation arch and the chapel. Dundrum Dundrum Castle as described by MacNeill and Waterman comprises an inner ward which contains a circular great donjon surrounded by a curtain wall (shell keep) access to which is via a twin towered gatehouse of asymetrical form recalling the design of Pembroke castle. Philip Macdonald has detailed his recent work at Dundrum Castle in this volume. The circular keep is widely accepted to have been standing in 1211–12 when reference is made to a magne turris in addition to a lesser tower and a hall in the section of the pipe roll identified with Dundrum Castle.91 Evidence from excavations and architectural analysis has identified several previous rectangular buildings within the inner ward of the castle probably including a rectangular gate tower and a first floor hall dating from the era of 88 89

90 91

Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 193. Jean Mesqui, ‘Parement à Bossage dans la fortification et génie civil en France au Moyen age’, Château Gaillard 11 (1982), 97–126, at p. 100; Gasco, Le Château de Beaucaire, p. 15. Guy, ‘The Portcullis’, p. 186. Philip Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, County Down 2012 and 2013, Data Structure Report 105, Unpublished (2014).

320

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

John de Courcy.92 This first-floor hall was deliberately demolished prior to the construction of the current circular donjon. The deliberate action of destroying the outmoded square gatetower and the rectangular donjon and replacing these with a twin towered gatehouse and circular donjon is a very clear statement of intent. In the context of Rachel Swallow’s thesis discussed above, in explicitly rebuilding Dundrum in the mould of works undertaken by Philip Augustus, Ranulf of Chester and Llyweyln ab Iorwerth, the new gatehouse at Dundrum makes sense. Philip Macdonald’s work has done much to redress a misdiagnosis relating to the Dundrum gatehouse93 which is widely accepted to have been constructed by Hugh following his return to Ulster.94 Disregarding the often repeated asymmetry of the towers, the gatehouse is very recognisable within the context of gatehouses of Beeston, Bolingbroke, Criccieth and Carcassonne, discussed above. The gatehouse consists of a pair of two-storied, rectangular towers that flank a central passageway. As discussed by Macdonald, both towers were probably furnished with a D-shaped apsidal projection. The gatehouse is most likely perched on the edge of a significant rock cut ditch with counterscarp (largely removed in post medieval times) which would have required a bridge to allow access to the entranceway.95 The surviving fabric of the gatehouse demonstrates, as first observed by Waterman, that it was built of rubble larger, more regularly bedded and of stone darker in colour than that used elsewhere in the castle96 recalling Nevell’s observation cited above that the Beeston gatehouse to the inner ward availed of different colour stone than the rest of the curtain wall to further emphasise its imposing dimensions and setting.97 This fact coupled with the similarities in plan and siting intimately link the gatehouses of Dundrum and Beeston eloquently reflecting the close ties between Ranulf of Chester and Hugh de Lacy.

92 93

94

95

96

97

Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, pp. 41, 123. McNeill discusses this structure as an asymmetrical gatehouse with a single projecting D-shaped tower and compares it with Pembroke (Castles in Ireland, pp. 91–92). McNeill, Castles in Ireland, pp.  91–92; Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, pp. 40–41. See Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, p. 41 for discussion. Archaeological Survey of County Down; Macdonald, Geophysical Survey and Excavation at Dundrum Castle, p. 39. Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 265.

321

Paul Duffy

Greencastle

N

20 m

Fig. 16.8: Plan of Greencastle, with original fabric shown in black.

Greencastle The large rectangular keep and curtain wall at Greencastle is attributed as a fresh build by de Lacy post-1227 (Fig. 16.8).98 The surviving elements of the castle include portions of the curtain wall, the floor plan of the north-east intramural flanking corner tower surviving with fragmentary traces of the north-west and south-west towers also surviving. While McNeill has drawn parallels with the overall curtain wall plan of Hubert de Burgh’s castle at Skenfrith, the angle towers are very similar in plan to those at Ranulf ’s works, particularly at Bolingbroke. The substantial rock-cut ditch is in keeping with the castles discussed above (Beeston, Bolingbroke, Dundrum and Carcassonne). The fragmentary south-west mural tower ‘more than three quarter round’ has been identified as the probable location of the entranceway.99 Waterman has suggested that this entranceway was likely to have been a gate tower 98 99

McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 88. McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 91.

322

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

that may even have resembled the famous Dublin Gate at Trim, but he concedes however that due to the robbing out of the curtain wall, the entrance could well have been almost anywhere along the perimeter of the castle.100 A comparison of the plan of Bolingbroke may help here. As per Ranulf ’s castle, the intramural towers are D-shaped in plan and note the positioning of the great hall at Bolingbroke in relation to what McNeill terms the great chamber. Given the crowded circuit of Bolingbroke or even Chartley, the unaccounted for stretches of the curtain wall would easily allow for a twin towered gatehouse, possibly at the south-west corner of Greencastle. Indeed, it would be very unusual for de Lacy to construct a gate tower when his allies in France, England and Wales were constructing twin towered gatehouses such as that built by Hugh himself at nearby Dundrum. The donjon at Greencastle presents, however, a major problem in terms of the argument presented thus far of Capetian influence in Hugh de Lacy’s post-1227 builds. McNeill has identified this structure as a first-floor great hall which probably had a first-floor dias facing the entranceway.101 O’Keeffe has published work placing the Greencastle donjon within a typological series of explicitly English-style, rectangular donjons with corner pilasters built in Ireland c. 1220–40.102 The only suggestion that I can make here – without reverting to the weak argument that the size and shape of the Greencastle donjon (without the pilasters) somewhat approaches the size and shape of the hall at Carcassonne and even the Présidial at Castelnaudary which is suspected to retain the plan of the castrum of de Lacy’s Languedocian caput – is that the Greencastle donjon may have been constructed at a time when it was politic for de Lacy to make a statement of loyalty to a historic Angevin ideal harking back to the great twelfth-century donjons built by Henry II.103

100

101 102

103

Dudley Waterman, A.  E.  P. Collins W.  R.  M. Morton and Margaret Jope Excavations at Greencastle, Co.  Down, 1951 Ulster Journal of Archaeology 15 (1952), 87–102, at pp. 91–100. For a discussion of the Dublin Gate at Trim in the context of Hugh de Lacy’s building projects in Ulster see Duffy ‘Architecture of Defiance’. McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 89. These include Coonagh Co.  Limerick, Corcomohide Co.  Limerick, Clonmacnoise Co. Offaly, Castlekirke Co. Galway and Clough Co. Down. For full discussion see Tadhg O’Keeffe, ‘Building Lordship in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: the Donjon of Coonagh Castle, Co.  Limerick’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 141 (2011), 91–127, at p. 119. O’Keeffe, ‘Building lordship’, p. 118.

323

Paul Duffy

St Laurence’s Gate, Drogheda Although traditionally ascribed a mid- to late thirteenth-century date, Tadhg O’Keeffe has recently suggested that St Laurence’s Gate in Drogheda may in fact be associated with a 1234 murage grant to the town.104 O’Keeffe suggests that the the barbican gate may date therefore to the moment of reconciliation between the de Lacys and the de Verduns who both held important stakes not only in the town of Drogheda but also in Co. Louth. If the St Laurence’s Gate were to be encountered in the Isle de France it would be considered an unambiguously Capetian structure, typical of the type of gatehouses discussed above. In particular, it resembles the freestanding barbican gate at Yèvre-le-Châtel (dép. Loiret), constructed c. 1200, (and also on de Lacy’s presumed route south in 1211). As discussed by Jean Catalo in Chapter 11 above, a freestanding barbican gate was one of the principal defensive elements used at the Château Narbonnais during the siege of Toulouse in 1218. Castleroche (Co. Louth) The impressive fortification of Castleroche is recorded in documentary sources as having been constructed by Roesia de Verdun in 1236.105 The Close Rolls of Henry III contain an entry to the effect that in this year she had ‘built a good castle strongly in her land against the Irish’, something which ‘none of her predecessors was able to do’. Mark Hagger, preeminent scholar of the de Verduns in Ireland and Britain, has proposed a link between the design of Beeston and Castleroche.106 The similarities in design and siting of Castleroche and Beeston have also been outlined by MacNeill who went so far as to suggest that the design for Beeston was brought directly from England with Roesia and replicated at the ‘castellum de rupe’, the castle of the rock.107 Interestingly, this is the exact Latin epithet given to Beeston which was also coined for the formidable Château

104

105

106

107

Tadhg O’Keeffe, ‘Roesia de Verdon and the Building of Castleroche, Co. Louth’, Castle Studies Group Journal 28 (2014–5), pp. 124–34, at p. 130; Thomas, The Walled Towns of Ireland, 2: 74. Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1224–37, ed. A. E. Stamp (London, 1927), p. 364. Mark Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family: the de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales 1066–1316 (Dublin, 2001). McNeill, Castles in Ireland, p. 87.

324

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

Gaillard in the département of Eure.108 Once again at Castleroche, we encounter a twin towered gatehouse with articulated D-shaped towers flanking a gate passage perched on the edge of a rock-cut ditch accessed via a bridge. Nevell, discussing Beeston, points out that the castle’s chambers were within the upper stories of the gatehouse.109 The same has been claimed for Castleroche110 and, Tadhg O’Keeffe, although not entirely convinced of the Beeston/Roche parallel, makes the observation that ‘the siting of a stronghold on a rocky crag may seem to be an obvious defensive necessity but of the early thirteenth-century castles in Ireland only Dunamase and Roche and Carrickfergus availed of such a feature (Trim conspicuously did not)’. This echos Nevell’s sentiment, expressed when discussing Beeston: ‘whilst a castle such as Beeston conforms to the popular image of what a castle should look like, very few were situated on such high, isolated places in England, and it was far more common for castles to be near centres of population and important travel routes’.111 This is in stark contrast to fortifications in Occitania where the majority of the castles besieged by the crusaders occupy at times vertiginous heights on mountainous bluffs and rocky outcrops. Further, the similarity in plan between the flanking tower at Castleroche and the north-east tower at Greencastle bear remarking upon. In 1235, a year before the reported construction of Castleroche, Roesia brought an end to a longstanding dispute with Hugh de Lacy through a sale of land around Dundalk, bringing our proposed vector of innovative castle design into the conversation on Castleroche.112 The dispute with Hugh de Lacy centred on lands acquired by him through his marriage to Lescelina de Verdun (adjacent to Castleroche).113 During ‘Hugh de Lacy’s’ war in 1223– 24, he had aggressively wasted the land of his brother in law Nicholas de Verdun. Nicholas’s castle at Dundalk (Co. Louth), had been restored him in 1220 and he may have been taking liberties with land Hugh regarded as rightfully his own. The building of Castleroche occurred therefore well within the sphere of influence of Hugh de Lacy. As discussed above, his connections with Ranulf are directly attested to in numerous contemporary records and aspects of the design of ‘castellum de rupe’ or castle on the rock at Beeston 108

109 110 111 112 113

Ernest Nègre, Toponomie General de la France, etymologie de 35.000 noms de lieux 3 vols (Genève, 1990–8), 3: 1461. Nevell, ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 265. O’Keeffe, ‘Roesia de Verdun’, p. 123. Nevell ‘Castle Gatehouses in North West England’, p. 265. Otway-Ruthven ‘The Partition of the De Verdon Lands’, p. 404. O’Keeffe, ‘Roesia de Verdun’, p. 126.

325

Paul Duffy

are in keeping with the numerous strongholds besieged by de Lacy in France. However, it must be pointed out that the scale of the chambers accommodated within the gatehouse at Castleroche dwarf any such spaces at Beeston or any gatehouses that may have been constructed by de Lacy post 1227 (Dundrum and Carrickfergus). Tadhg O’Keeffe has pointed out a strong similarity between the innovative gateouses of Castleroche and Tonbridge (itself thought to be derived from the lost gatehouse at the Tower of London).114 O’Keeffe postulates a royal connection and indeed it seems that a source of inspiration beyond that of de Lacy must be sought here. Clough Oughter Co. Cavan As we have seen, William Gorm de Lacy had been implicated in Hugh’s intriguing with the Welsh in 1223 and had married into the family of Llyweyln ab Iorwerth. William had also joined Hugh’s war in Ireland in 1217 and had taken control of Dundrum and Carlingford on Hugh’s behalf.115 In 1221, Willian Gorm de Lacy was tasked with the construction of three stone castles for Philip de Angulo, a vassal of Walter de Lacy, in Bréifne (modern Cavan/Leitrim and parts of Sligo).116 Unsurprisingly, the castles attributed to William display a clear preference towards the circular as per the works of his brother Hugh at Dundrum and his father in law at Dolbardarn. Clough Oughter in Co. Cavan was one of these castles, while Conleth Manning has pointed to a tower on Port Island in Lough Macnean, also Co. Cavan, as a second.117 Manning has also drawn attention to particular similarities between Clough Oughter and Dolbardarn pointing out that the suspected countersunk roof at Clough Oughter finds parallel at Dolbardarn.118 Finally, the arrangement of flooring beams at Clough Oughter and Dolbardarn compares very favourably. The only significant difference between the two towers noted by Manning is that there is no intramural stair at Oughter.

114 115 116

117 118

O’Keeffe, ‘Roesia de Verdun’, p. 130. Veach and Verstraten Veach, ‘William Gorm de Lacy’, p. 69. Conleth Manning, Clough Oughter Castle, Co. Cavan: archaeology, history and architecture: Department of the Arts, Heitage and the Gaeltacht Archaeological Monograph Series No. 8 (Dublin, 2015), p. 6. Manning, Clough Oughter Castle, p. 198. Manning, Clough Oughter Castle, p. 199.

326

From Carcassonne to Carrickfergus

This comparison is borne out by McNeill’s study of the methods of flooring employed at Dundrum and that other circular donjon Clough Oughter and the donjons of Longtown, and Dolbardarn.119 McNeill also states that ‘round towers were associated in the first instance with display. From there, in Ireland, but above all in Wales, the prestige of these examples spread to lesser lords including Welsh princes. The fashion might spread to other castles as a conscious imitation by the lord commissioning the tower, associating himself in some way with the Marshals, or it might be a much less conscious feature used by the masons in the areas involved’.120 I would argue that, just as with the Carrickfergus gatehouse, not everything circular was a nod to the Marshals, with different barons employing circular donjons and towers for a host of differing motivations, both personal and political.

Conclusions The defensive architecture of the thirteenth century contains codified within the spring of its arches, the shape of its fenestration and the coursing of its stone a range of complex, even esoteric meaning. While designs were doubtless dictated to some degree by topography, necessity of function and finance, such huge projects built with personal wealth would surely have been subject to personal tastes. The domineering presence of a stone castle on the landscape has been recognised in recent times as being a statement of intent as much as a functioning defensive structure or garrison. The effect of such monumental structures would have been considerable, particularly on the native Irish, whose defensive architecture prior to the middle of the twelfth century was limited. What other statements, however, might these structures have been making? To a travelled thirteenth-century nobleman approaching the vast ensemble of buildings of a baronial castle, the shape of the keep, the style of the intramural towers and the mechanism of the gatehouse would have communicated very obvious messages through their resonance with other fortresses. Hugh de Lacy’s prolonged experience of siege warfare during the Albigensian crusade exposed him to a range of influences which would have provided scope for a developmental process unavailable to many of his peers; an experience reflected perhaps in his building projects post 1227.

119 120

McNeill, ‘Squaring Circles’, p. 103. McNeill, ‘Squaring Circles’, p. 98.

327

Paul Duffy

The evidence presented highlights the emergence of innovative castle design in England and Wales driven by the princes Llywellan and Ranulf. These castles exhibit particular Capetian characteristics and appear at precisely the time that Hugh de Lacy is attested to in the documentary sources in the entourage of both of these men. Swallow, discussing specifically Ranulf ’s Beeston design and Llywellan’s Criccieth, has argued for ‘a specific political alliance that facilitated the building of similar castles at similar times’. This statement can be extended to include Hugh de Lacy who formed an intrinsic part of this alliance. The suspected twin towered gatehouse at Dundrum and, to a lesser extent, that of Carrickfergus, fit into Swallow’s thesis. Considering the evidence, Hugh II de Lacy emerges from the historical record as the most convincing vector for the transmission of the innovative and distinctly French style encountered at Beeston, Bolingbroke, Chartley and Dundrum. It is perhaps at Beeston that we encounter the closest parallel to the chatalet at Carcassonne commanding a rock cut ditch accessed by a bridge. While circular donjons and twin-towered gatehouses of various forms undisputedly entered Ireland through multiple channels as evidenced at castles such as Nenagh, Inchiquin, Dunamase and Dungarvin, this paper has sought to follow a single, yet significant vector of influence in answer to Matarrasso’s statement that ‘centuries later it is rarely possible to draw precisely the route along which ideas travel’. While conclusiveness in such things is rarely possible, it is hoped that detailed study of de Lacy’s movements during and after the Albigensian Crusade and analysis of his political motivations, has opened up discussion on the routes through which innovative castle designs entered Ireland. Whatever the reality, the scope of Hugh’s ambition spanned kingdoms and his actions in the period, beginning with his rebellion and ending with his restitution, were of far-reaching significance. In this context, it is fascinating to consider that a number of enduring structures in the modern landscape of Ireland owe their genesis to the intense and dogged theatre of a religious war that was waged across the far flung hills and valleys of southern France in the early thirteenth century.

328

Index of Names and Places Ablis, Geoffroy de 165 Acre, Israel xvii (map), 83, 90 Adam of [New] Ross 147 Adrian IV, pope 14, 15n Africa, North, 73 Agassens (dép. Aude, France) xxi, 184 Agen (dép. Nouvelle Aquitaine, France) xxi, 13, 163n, 203, 297 Alan of Galloway: fitzRoland, Alan 179, 180, 281, 282, 284 Albi (dép. Tarn, France) xxi (map), 2, 13, 149, 156, 163, 236n Albini, William de 84 Alexander III, pope 14 Alaman, Sicard de 223 Alfaro, Hugues de 256 Alfaro, Rodrigue de 256 Alton (Staffordshire, England) xix (map), 18 Arnauld-Amaury: see Amalric, Arnaud Amadieu, Guillaume 251 Amalric, Arnaud 162, 194, 195, 197, 197 Andréossy, François 254, 262 (fig) Angles-sur-l’Anglin (dép. Vienne, France) xx (map), 319 Angulo, Gilbert de 17 Angulo, Philip de 326 Anjou, France 78, 86, 135 Aquitaine, Eleanor of 78 Aragon, Spain 160, 161, 162, 198, 199, 200, 219, 224, 230, 259, 260 Ards (Co. Down, Ireland) 28n, 175, 176, 178 Aries, Lucien ix, 5, 247, 296n, 297n Armagh (Co. Armagh, Ireland) 270, 290 (fig), 293, 284, 318 Arnave, Guilhem-Bernard de 255 Arques (dép. Aude, France) 212, 220, 226, 227 Arthur of Brittany 21, 22n Asia Minor 90

Astarac, Centulle de 251 Athlone (Co. Westmeath, Ireland) xviii (map), 81, 100 Autier, Pèire 109, 117, 118, 119, 164 Auteri, William 185 Auvergne, France 162, 163, 219 Avignon (dép. Vaucluse, France) xx (map), 149, 219 Avignonet (dép. Haute-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 163, 256n Baimiac, Raimond de 158 Baldwin of Toulouse 28, 130, 201 Balkans 13 Ballybin (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 18 Ballyhalbert (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii (map), 175 Ballymagarvey (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 16 Ballymascanlan (Co. Louth, Ireland) xviii (map), 178 Baltic 10 Bamburgh (Northumberland, England) xix (map), 81 Bann, river, Ireland 20, 171n, 278, 279, 282, 284, 285, 288 Barbaira, Chabert de 255 Barrow, river, Ireland 138 Barry family 135 Barry, Terry 48, 49, 50, 61n, 80n Baziège (dép.Haute-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 5, 169n, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 261 Beaucaire (dép. Gard, France) 305, 307, 309 (fig), 319, 320 Beauchamp, Hugh of 143 Beaumaris (Anglesey, Wales) xix (map), 89 Bective (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 26

Index of Names and Places

Beeston (Cheshire, England) 311, 312 (fig), 313, 314, 315, 321, 322, 324 Beit-Nuba, Israel xvii (map), 90 Belfast (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii (map), 3, 57, 60, 74, 94, 264 Belfort sur Rebenty (dép. Aude) xxi (map), 184 Bernard of Clairvaux 26 Bernard IV de Comminges 205, 216, 223, 256 Bertrand de Cardaillac 163 Bertrand de Gourdon 163, 255 Bertrand de Saissac 159, 160 Béziers (dép. Hérault, France) xxi (map), 149, 163, 193, 194n, 216, 220, 225 Bigod, Roger 82 Blanche de Navarre 190 Blanquefort, Arnaud de 251 Blondeville, Ranulf de 86, 278, 286, 287, 288, 294, 297, 298, 299, 311, 315, 316, 321, 322, 325, 328 Blundell family 263 Bolingbroke (Lincolnshire, England) xix (map), 311, 312 (fig), 313, 321, 322, 323, 328 Bouglon, Amadieu de 251 Braose, William de 17, 22n, 24, 299 Brenon, Anne 5, 107, 108n, 109n, 110n, 112n, 114n, 117n, 120n, 122n, 130n, 154n, 155n, 156n, 157n Brereton, Sir William 111 Breteuil-sur-Iton (dép. Eure, France) xxi (map), 38n, 137 Bristol, England xix (map), 38n, 69, 147 Brown, Daniel J.F. ix, 4, 61n, 162n, 167, 170n, 177n, 178n, 183n, 216n, 291, 292n, 297n, 299n, 300n, 303n, 304n, 310n, 318n Bruce, Edward 74 Bruce, Robert 273 Buckenham (Norfolk, England) xix, 84 Bulgaria 1 Burgh, Elizabeth de 280 Burgh, Hubert de 297, 298, 299, 302, 303, 311, 322

330

Burgh, Richard de 96 Burgh, Walter de 63, 138, 150, 263, 264, 272 Burgh, William de 19, 74, 272, 273 Burgundy, France 152 Cabaret (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 160, 161, 163, 196, 306n Cabaret, Jourdain de 255 Caen (dép. Calvados, France) xxi (map), 81, 82n Cambridge, England xix (map), 111, 114n, 147n Campeaux (dép. Oise, France) xxi (map), 16 Carcassonne (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 3, 4, 9, 13, 24n, 25, 27–28, 34n, 35, 46n, 48n, 61n, 78, 96n, 131, 149, 156–57, 158n, 161, 162n, 163–65, 168, 186, 194–99, 201–4, 208–9, 211, 214–16, 218, 219–22, 224, 242, 252, 258–59, 273n, 295, 297, 299n, 303n, 304n, 305–6, 307 (fig), 308 (fig), 314 (fig), 315, 316n, 319–23, 328 Carlow (Co. Carlow, Ireland) xvii (map), 47, 49 Carisbrooke (Isle of Wight, Hampshire, England) xix (map), 100 Carlingford (Co. Louth, Ireland) xviii (map), 8, 74, 272, 326 Carlisle (Cumbria, England) 176 Carnrawsy (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 58 Carpentras (dép. Vaucluse, France) xx (map), 111, 114 Carrickfergus (Co. Antrim, Ireland) vii, xviii (map), 4, 24, 22, 34n, 35, 43, 46n, 57, 59 (fig), 60, 61n, 62 (fig), 63, 64 66, 68, 69, 70, 72–77, 79, 81–82, 86, 87 (fig), 92, 94–98, 101n, 103–6, 162n, 176, 179, 183, 216n, 273n, 275–76, 289, 292–93, 295, 297n, 299n, 303, 304n, 307, 309n, 316–20, 325–28

Index of Names and Places

Cashel (Co. Tipperary, Ireland) xvii (map), 12, 146 Cassenneuil (dép. Lot-et-Garonne, France) xxi, (map), 163 Castelnau, Pierre de 13, 159, 162–63, 192 Castelnau, Ratier de 163 Castelnau, Raoul de 159 Castelnaudary (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 3, 9, 15, 29, 131–32, 163, 167, 169n, 170, 180,184, 186, 198–99, 215–16, 229, 250n, 256, 259, 296–97, 305, 309, 323 Castleroche (Co. Louth, Ireland) xviii (map), 320, 324–26 Castres 159, 211–12, 213n, 224 Castres, Guillabert de 159 Castres, Isarn (Izarn) de 156, 186 Catalo, Jean ix, 5, 229, 309–10, 324 Catalonia, Spain 24n Catalan knights 200, 205 Caux, Bernard de 163n, 168 Cavalier, Jean 254, 262 (fig) Cazes, Jean-Paul 184 Champagne, France 135, 153, 162 Champagne, Thibault de 190–91 Charlemagne 130 Charles the Bald 233 Chartley (Staffordshire, England) xix (map), 311, 312 (fig), 316, 323, 328 Château Gaillard (dép. Eure, France) xxi (map), 83–84, 90–91, 100n, 103–4, 300, 310 Château Narbonnais, Toulouse 5, 203–6, 229–46, 260, 309, 324 Châteaudun (dép. Eure-et-Loir, France) xxi (map), 84 Chepstow (Monmouthshire, Wales) 4, 81, 84, 85 (fig), 86, 87 (fig), 88 (fig), 89–90, 92–94, 98–103, 105, 276n, 302, 317, 319–20 Chester (Cheshire, England) xix (map), 176, 286, 298, 299n, 315 Chinon (dép. Indre-et-Loire, France) xx (map), 86, 302 Cîteaux (dép.Côte-d’Or, France) xx (map), 162, 194

Clahull, John de 49 Clandeboye O’Neill dynasty 61, 75 Clare, Gilbert de 150 Clare, Richard de (Strongbow) 14, 142 Clermont, Aimery de 255 Clonard (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 36, 53–54, 303n Clones (Co. Monaghan, Ireland) xviii (map), 282 Clough Oughter (Co. Cavan, Ireland) xviii (map), 326–27 Coleraine (Co. Derry, Ireland) xviii (map), 278–79, 284–5, 288, 290 (fig), 291–92 Colp (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 18 Compiègne (dép. Oise, France) xxi (map), 301 Concorezzo, Italy vii (map), 125 Conisbrough (Yorkshire, England) 84 Connacht, Ireland 16–20, 48, 80n, 148n, 311 Connor (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xvii (map), 58n, 174n, 285 Constance, daughter of Louis VI 130 Constantinople, Turkey xvii (map), 10, 191n, 213 Coradias, Garcia 256 Corbail (dép. Marne, France) xx (map), 301 Corbières (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 157, 160, 163, 203, 219 Corfe (Dorset, England) xix (map), 85, 104 Cornere, Thomas de la 137–38 Cotentin, France 17 Courcy, Affreca de 60, 275, Courcy, John de 172–76, 178–80, 188, 263, 267n, 270, 273–75, 284–45, 309 (fig), 317–18, 321 Courcy, Richard de 143 Court MacMartin (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xvii (map), 285 Criccieth (Gwynedd, Wales) xix (map), 314, 321, 328

331

Index of Names and Places

Cromwell, Edward 263–64 Cross (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii, 285, 288–89, 290 (fig), 292 Crouch, David 16, 21n, 91n, 93n, 101n, 167, 170, 171n, 178n, 188 Cumbria, England 60, 176 Cumberland, England 176, 179, 180n Dál Fiatach 178 Dál Riata 282 Dalmatia 13 Damville (dép. Eure, France) xxi (map), 25 Dandolo, Enrico 191 David, King (biblical) 122–25 Delaney, Tom 61, 62 (fig), 68, 69n 70 Delpech, Raymond-Arnaud 255 Deschamps, Paul 300n, 301n Dijon (dép. Côte-d’Or, France) xx (map), 111 Dolbardarn (Gwynedd, Wales) xix (map), 326–27 Dominic of Osma, St 10, 182, 185, 296 Donnington (Berkshire, England) xix (map), 100 Doonbought (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii (map), 285, 289, 290 (fig), 292 Dordogne, France 163 Dourdan (dép. Essonne, France) xxi (map), 301 Downpatrick (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii (map), 20, 61, 174, 176, 178 Dover (Kent, England) xix (map), 10, 12, 44, 80, 81–83, 85, 89, 100, 104, 276, 302, 310 Drogheda (Cos Meath, Louth, Ireland) xviii (map), 73, 75, 272, 324 Dryburgh (Berwickshire, Scotland) xix (map), 58, 176, 179 Drumard (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii (map) Dublin (Co. Dublin, Ireland) xviii (map), 5, 9–12, 17n, 18, 22, 35, 46– 47, 53–54, 60, 73, 107, 109–15,

332

117–18, 120–22, 123n, 125–27, 129, 135, 137, 142, 147–48, 173n, 174, 177, 183n, 239, 291–92, 294, 302 Dufferin (Co. Down, Ireland) 174, 176 Duffy, Paul ix, 1, 3–5, 9, 24n, 27n, 34, 44n, 46n, 58n, 96n, 103, 128n, 162n, 186, 216n, 245n, 250n, 273n, 276n, 295, 297n, 299n, 303n, 304n, 307n, 317n, 323n Duffy, Seán 17n, 22n, 24n, 32n, 38n, 47n, 60n, 61n, 175, 176n, 179, 284 Duleek (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 17–18 Dunamase (Co. Laois, Ireland) xviii (map), 44, 49, 81, 104, 325, 328 Dunbrody (Co. Wexford, Ireland) xviii (map), 147, 173n Duncrue Fort (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 59 Dundalk (Co. Louth, Ireland) xviii, 19, 22, 177, 293, 325 Dundrum (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii (map), 4, 22, 24, 101, 171n, 263–76, 301n, 303, 316, 321–23, 326–28 Dungarvan (Co. Waterford, Ireland) xviii (map), 137, 302 Dunrock (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland), 59 Dunshaughlin (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 18 Durrow (Co. Offaly, Ireland) xviii (map), 15, 269 Edward I, king of England 89, 100, 135 El Cid 130 England 2, 10–11, 15–16, 18, 19n, 21n, 23–24, 29, 43–44, 47, 69, 78, 80, 84–85, 90, 92, 101n, 104–105, 129, 134–35, 139, 147–49, 170, 171n, 174–76, 179, 251n, 273n, 278, 286–87, 297, 299, 310–13, 321n, 323–25, 328 Épinay (dép. Eure, France) xxi (map), 144

Index of Names and Places

Esposito, Mario 111 Essartis, Roger de 23, 25 Eugenius, archbishop 172 Evesham (Worcestershire, England) xix (map), 148 Évreux (dép. Eure, France) xxi (map), 301, 303 Ewyas [Lacy] (Herefordshire, England) 15, 316 Falaise (dép. Calvados, France) xxi (map), 86, 88 (fig), 90, 101, 301 Fanjeaux (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 28, 131, 158n, 159, 182, 198–99, 256 Ferns (Co. Wexford, Ireland) xviii, 49, 50 Ferté-Milon (dép. Aisne, France) xxi, 301 FitzGerald family 135 FitzGerald, Maurice 138, 144 FitzGilbert, Domhnach 282, 284 FitzHenry, Meiler 144 FitzLeon, Henry 183 FitzLeon, John 183 FitzMaurice family 135 FitzMaurice, Maurice 150 FitzPayne, Raoul 145 FitzRobert, Richard 175 FitzRoland, Alan 179–80, 282 FitzStephen, Robert 142–44 FitzWarin, William 272 Flanders, Belgium 139, 153 Flanders, Baldwin of 25 Foix (dép. Ariège, France) 130, 157, 160 (fig), 164, 165n, 185n, 212, 220 Foix, Count of 13, 15, 159, 198, 200–2, 205–6, 220, 223, 249, 251–55, 257, 259, 261, 296 Foix, Esclarmonde de 216 Fore (Co. Westmeath, Ireland) xviii (map), 47 Fournier, Jacques 117n, 118n, 165 Framlingham (Suffolk, England) xix (map), 82

France 1–6, 9–10, 13–14, 21, 23, 24n, 29, 34, 35, 69, 73, 77–78, 80, 83, 84, 86n, 90, 96, 129–30, 143, 149, 153, 163, 251, 252n, 273n, 295, 301–4, 310, 314n, 315n, 319, 320n, 323, 324, 325n, 326, 328 Friar’s Glen (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 58 Galloway, Alan of (see Alan FitzRoland) Galloway, Roland of 179 Gasc, Jean-Louis ix, 5, 189 Gascony, France 29 Gauta, Peter 169–70 Geneville, Geoffrey de 32, 47, 56, 135 Geneville, Jean de 135 Geoffroy de Villehardouin 191 Gers, France 251 Gibraltar 72 Gilbertus of Limerick 172 Giraldus Cambrensis 15, 16n, 136 (fig), 141 (fig) Gisors (dép. Eure, France) xxi, 80–81, 82n, 83, 85, 86n, 300 Glendalough (Co. Wicklow, Ireland) xviii (map), 12 Glenmalure (Co. Wicklow, Ireland) xviii (map), 135 Gloucestershire, England 16n Gontaud, Gaston de 251 Goodall, John 44, 84n, 85n, 86n, 89n, 92n, 100n, 310 Gourdon, Bertrand de 163 Greencastle (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii (map), 74, 316, 322–23, 325 Gregory IX, pope 164 Grenoble (dép. Isère, France) xx (map), 111, 114n Grey Abbey (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii, 176, 179 Gros, Raymond le 140 Grosmont (Monmouthshire, Wales) xix (map), 302 Gui, Bernard 165 Guy, Neil 315

333

Index of Names and Places

Guyenne, France 242 Guyonnet, François 315 Guzmán, Dominic de (see Dominic of Osma) Gwynedd, Wales 24, 89, 278, 287, 298 Gwynn, Aubrey 11n, 12n, 35n, 36–37, 147n Hacket, Reginald 175 Hacket, William 175 Hagger, Mark 19n, 324 Ham Green (Bristol, England) 69 Harlech (Gwynedd, Wales) xix (map), 44n, 89 Hattin, Israel xvii (map), 91 Hautpoul (dép. Tarn, France) xxi (map), 160–1, 198 Hayden, Alan 32n, 39n, 42n, 43n, 48–52 Heisterbach, Césaire de 193, 194n Henry of London (d 1228) 11–12, 271 Henry I, king of England 80 Henry II, king of England 2, 3, 14, 15, 18n, 31, 35, 38n, 61, 77, 80–83, 85, 86, 92, 140, 141 (fig), 142–43, 144n, 150, 172n, 323 Henry III, king of England 61, 272, 278, 284, 286–87, 297, 311, 324 Henry IV, King of England 135 Herefordshire, England 15, 16n, 175, 316n Holden, Brock 21n, 22n, 23n, 24, 144n, 176n, 299n Holm Cultram (Cumbria, England) xix (map), 179, 180n Holy Land xvii (map), 10, 20, 25–26, 90–92, 273 Honorius III, pope 11 Hook (Co. Wexford, Ireland) xviii (map), 302 Hose, Hubert 183 Hot, Arnaud 160–1 Howth (Co. Dublin, Ireland) xviii (map), 173–74 Hugo of Pisa 172 Hungary 10

334

Iberia 1, 10 Inchiquin (Co. Cork, Ireland) xviii (map), 328 Innocent III, pope 2, 10, 12, 20, 26, 162, 190–3, 195, 212 Ireland xviii (map), 1–5, 9–12, 14–16, 17n, 18n, 19n, 20–24, 25n, 26, 27n, 29, 31–32, 34–36, 37n, 38n, 39, 41n, 43n, 44n, 46–47, 48n, 49, 53n, 54, 56, 58n, 59n, 60–1, 68n, 72–80, 81n, 82–83, 86, 88–89, 93n, 94, 96n, 98, 100–1, 102n, 104–5, 107, 129, 134–35, 136 (fig), 137–40, 142, 144, 146– 50, 170–74, 175n, 176n, 177–79, 183–84, 186, 239n, 264n, 266n, 269n, 270n, 271n, 272 74, 276n, 277–78, 284n, 285–88, 294–95, 298–99, 301–3, 304n, 305, 311, 316, 319, 321n, 322n, 323–28 Isle of Man 60 Italy xx (map 4), 13, 153, Jaffa, Israel 26 Jeremiah, the prophet 122–23 Jerusalem, Israel xvii (map), 10, 90, 126, 147, 190, 191, 211 Jiménez Sanchez, Pilar x, 5, 109n, 153, 156n, 158n, 160n John, lord of Ireland, king of England 10, 12, 18–24, 28–29, 32, 34, 61, 77, 84–86, 89, 92–94, 100–2, 104, 137, 144, 172–73, 177, 183, 251n, 270, 275, 279–80, 282, 284, 286, 297, 299n, 302–3 Jourda, Pons 159 Jourdain, Isarn 255 Jourdain de l’Isle, Bertrand 255 Kendal (Cumberland, England) xix (map), 101 Kenilworth (Warwickshire, England) xix (map), 85, 87 (fig), 89, 100, 302 Killyann (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 58

Index of Names and Places

Kilkenny (Co. Kilkenny, Ireland) xviii (map), 49, 79 (fig), 80, 85 (fig), 87 (fig), 92–94, 98–99, 101, 105, 150, 302 Kinnerley (Shropshire, England) xix (map), 287 Krak des Chevaliers, Syria xvii (map), 90 Lacy family 4, 15–16, 23–24, 26, 32, 34, 39, 53, 56, 175, 179, 298, 304, 324 Lacy, Alice de 271 Lacy, Gilbert de 175 Lacy, Hugh I de 14–18, 26, 34–37, 40, 43, 47–48, 51–53, 56, 81–82, 138, 140–44, 147, 177, 303n Lacy, Hugh II de, earl of Ulster x, 2–8, 9–30, 31–35, 56, 61, 63, 92, 95–96, 98, 103, 106, 107, 129, 130–34, 144, 146, 150, 162n, 167–8, 169n, 170–88, 189–90, 198, 211, 215–17, 227, 229–30, 236, 249–50, 256–60, 263 64, 270–76, 277–82, 286–89, 290 (fig), 291–94, 295– Lacy, Ilbert de 143 Lacy, John de 23 Lacy, Matilda de 135 Lacy, Roger de 179, Lacy, Rose de 53 Lacy, Walter II de (d 1243) 16n, 17– 18, 34–35, 38, 45, 53, 272, 297, 326 Lacy, William Gorm de 16, 19n, 299, 326 Lamothe, Hugues de 256 Languedoc, France 2–5, 9, 13–14, 24n, 26–27, 29, 32, 107, 127, 130, 149, 153, 154n, 156, 157n, 160n, 164n, 167–68, 169n, 171, 180, 181, 184, 189, 190, 192, 201, 213, 216n, 217, 218n, 219, 220n, 221n, 223n, 224, 225n, 226, 231, 254, 262 (fig), 295–97, 304 6, 319, 323 Laon (dép. Aisne, France) xxi (map), 301

Lassy (dép. Calvados, France) xxi (map), 15–16 Lauderdale, Scotland 178, 179n Laurac (dép. Aude, France) vii, xxi (map), 3, 9, 15, 29, 155, 159, 167, 168, 181, 184–86, 187 (fig), 215– 16, 230, 255n, 296, 309–10 Laurac, Aiméric de 159 Laurac, Blancha de 155, 159–160, 185 Laurac, Géraude de 159 Lautrec, Sicard de 256 Lavaur (dép. Tarn, France) xxi (map), 157–59, 163, 180, 197–98, 297, 305 Le Coudray-Salbart (dép. DeuxSèvres, France) xx (map), 44, 45 (fig), 46 Le Mans (dép. Sarthe, France) xx (map), 78 Le Mas-Saintes-Puelles (dép. Aude, France) 169n, 170, 185–86 Le Pin-au-Haras (dép. Orne, France) xxi (map), 17 Leask, Harold 48 Léger, Jean 111 Leinster, Ireland 21, 79 (fig), 92, 105, 135, 140, 145, 150, 171, 176n, 178n, 302–3 Limerick (Co. Limerick, Ireland) xvii (map), 17, 47, 49, 79 (fig), 80, 82, 86n, 87 (fig), 88 (fig), 92–94, 99–100, 101 (fig), 102–5, 140, 172, 302–3, 319n, 320, 323n Limoux (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 162–63, 196, 211 2, 217, 220–22, 227 Linton (Herefordshire, England) xix (map), 175 Llanthony Prima (Gwent, Wales) xix (map), 18, 36n, 53n, 177n Llanthony Secunda (Gloucestershire) xix (map), 18, 36n, 53n, 177n Llywelyn ab Iorwerth 23, 24, 287, 298, 299, 315, 321, 326 Lomagne, Jean de 256

335

Index of Names and Places

Lomagne, Vicomte Vézian de 251 Lombardy, Italy 10, 164 London, England x, xix (map), 11, 239, 326 Longchamp, Hugh de 175 Longtown (Herefordshire, England) xix (map), 315 16, 327 Lorraine, France 162 Lot, France 163 Louis VI, king of France 130, 214 Louis VII, king of France 77–78, 143 Louis VIII, king of France 14, 16n, 89, 149, 211, 219, 251, 297, 310–11 Louis IX, king of France 213, 220, 222–25, 242 Louis de Blois 191 Louth, Ireland 19, 26, 73–74, 146, 178, 324–25 Louvre (Paris, France) 84, 85 (fig), 90, 92, 300–1, 318n Ludlow (Shropshire, England) xix (map), 40, 316 Lyvet, Gilbert 137–38 Macdonald, Philip x, 4, 263, 265n, 267n, 301n, 320–21 Mac Murrough, Dermot 140 Mac Murrough, Devorgilla 140 Mac Uchtraigh dynasty 277–79, 282, 284, 288 Mac Uchtraigh, Tomás 282, 284, 288 89–94 Maddicott, John Robert 149 Magennis family 263–64 Maine, France 135 Malachy of Armagh 26, 146 Mandeville family 176 Manning, Conleth 80n, 326 Marcy, Henri de 158 Marisco, Adam de 150 Marisco, Geoffrey de 272, 284 Marly, Bouchard de 160, 200, 213, 218–20 Marly, Matthew de 220 Marmande (dép. Lot-et-Garonne, France) 249–53, 261

336

Marshal, family 318, 144 Marshal, Gilbert 89 Marshal, William I 21, 44, 47, 49, 81, 84, 85n, 88, 91 92, 93n, 98n, 99, 101, 104–6, 138, 144–46, 167, 170–71, 178n, 276n, 279, 286, 302–3, 317, 320, 327 Marshal, William II 144, 150, 278, 286– 87, 290 (fig), 292–94, 297, 316 Marshall, Pamela 103 Matarasso, François 301, 312n, 314 Matthew of Paris 299, 310 Mauléon, Savary de 29 Maurand, Pierre 158 Maynooth (Co. Kildare, Ireland) xviii (map), 43, 49, 81, 82, 86, 93, 95, 96n, 97n, 98, 103, 104, 1 McDonnell family 66 McIlreavy, David x 4, 277 McNeill, Tom 44n, 49, 50, 58n, 80n, 173, 266n, 269, 272, 273n, 275–77, 279 80, 281 (fig), 282, 284–85, 289, 292, 307, 311n, 316– 17, 319, 321n, 322–23, 324n, 327 McSkimin, Samuel 95 Meath, Ireland 9, 15, 16n, 17–18, 22, 24, 26, 31–32, 33 (fig), 34n, 38n, 39n, 48n, 49n, 52n, 53–54, 56, 79 (fig), 82, 140, 142–43, 171n, 173n, 174, 177–78, 183, 291, 293–94, 298, 305, 318 Mehun-sur-Yèvre (dép. Cher, France) xx (map), 319 Mellifont (Co. Louth, Ireland) xviii (map), 26, 146, 178 Melun (dép.Seine-et-Marne, France) xxi (map), 301, 303 Meulan, Count Robert of 17 Midi, France 24n, 25, 29, 155–58, 162–64, 168, 181, 184, 188, 212, 214, 218–19, 223, 226–27 Moissac (dép. Tarn-et-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 163, 297 Moneycarragh, river, Ireland 271 Montaud, Isarn de 256 Montaut, Sicard de 256

Index of Names and Places

Montferrand, Azalais de 159 Montfort family 214–15 Montfort, Countess de (see Alix de Montmorency) Montfort, Amaury VI de 205, 225n, 251, 257, 296–97 Montfort, Guy I de 198, 205, 297 Montfort, Guy II de 205, 208, 212–13, 214–15, 218–19, 226 Montfort, Hugh de 143–44 Montfort, Philippe II de 224 Montfort, Simon III de  Montfort, Simon IV de 2, 5, 9, 13–14, 24–25, 27, 29, 129, 131–34, 159–60, 168, 181–82, 185, 188, 189–209, 211–19, 225n, 230, 236, 240–41, 256n, 259, 296, 300n, 305–6, 310–11, 315 Montfort, Simon V de 4, 148–50 Montgomery (Powys, Wales) Montmorency, Alix de 204, 206 Monmouth, Rode de 53 Montpezat, Araimfre de 251 Montréal (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 159, 160–1, 180, 185, 216, 256n, 297 More, Ralf de la 138 Morgallion (Co. Meath, Ireland) 17 Mortimer, Roger 32 Mount Sandel (Co. Derry, Ireland) xviii (map), 284 Multyfarnham (Co. Westmeath, Ireland) xviii (map), 148, 150 Muret (dép. Haute-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 29, 199, 201, 250, 259–60, 305 Murphy, Eileen, 72 Navarre, Spain 25, 130, 260 Navarre, Blanche de 190 Navarre, Pierre 256, 258 Navas de Tolosa, Spain xvii (map), 25, 198 Nazaire, bishop 125 Nendrum (Co. Down, Ireland) xviii (map), 176, 179

New Ross (Co. Wexford, Ireland) 135, 138–39, 147, 150 Newark (Nottingham, England) xix (map), 40 Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Northumberland, England) xix (map), 44, 45 (fig) Newtown Trim (Trim, Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 34n, 52–55 Nenagh (Co. Tipperary, Ireland) xviii (map), 79 (fig), 92, 94, 100, 102–3, 105, 328 Neulli, Foulques de 191 Niort 260 Niort, Bernard Oth de 159, 260 Niort, Guillaume de 255 Nobber (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 17 Normandy, France 15n, 16–17, 20, 29, 78, 81, 84, 86, 135. 142–43, 146, 162, 182n, 300, 302, 310, 315 Ó Baoill, Ruairí x, 4, 57, 58n, 60n, 61n, 64n, 66n, 68n, 72n, 82n O’Keeffe, Tadhg x, 1, 4, 31, 34n, 36n, 39n, 40n, 43n, 44n, 46n, 47n, 54n, 80n, 81n, 186n, 274n, 276n, 323–26 O’Neill family 61, 66, 75, 278–80, 282, 284, 288–89 O’Neill, Niall 75 O’Neill, Aedh Meith 277–78, 287, 289, 291, 293 Ó Tuathail, Lorcán 10 Occitania 2–3, 24 25, 183, 211, 229, 295–96, 305–6, 319, 325 Odo, King 233 Odol, Jean 250 Orford (Suffolk, England) xix (map), 80–82 Orléans (dép. Loiret, France) Orpen, Goddard 22n, 264n, 272, 273n, 304n, 311n, 48 Orsans, Raymond-Roger de 184 Osma, Diego de 159

337

Index of Names and Places

Pailhès, Bernard-Amiel de 255 Paris, France xxi (map), 78, 84, 88 (fig), 96, 147, 163, 181, 206, 209, 214, 217, 219, 238n, 239, 297, 301, 303–4, 309, 318–20 Pays d’Oc, France 109 Pech 221 Pech, Raymond-Arnaud du (see Raymond-Arnaud Delpech) Pegg, Mark 168n, 169n, 170n, 186, 310n Pembridge, John de 173 Pembroke (Pembrokeshire, Wales) xix (map), 21, 84, 85 92, 94, 135, 144 (fig), 275, 286–87, 302, 320, 321n Pepin II, mayor of the palace, Francia 233 Pepin III king of the Franks 214 Perrin, Jean-Paul 111–2 Pestillac, Amalvis de 256 Peter II, king of Aragon 29, 198–200 Pevensey (Sussex, England) xix (map), 78, 88, 89n, 100 Philip II (Augustus), king of France 2, 14, 16n, 21n, 23–25, 77–78, 83–84, 86, 89, 96, 135, 182n, 191–93, 202, 215, 251, 299–306, 310, 314, 318n, 319n, 321 Philip III, king of France 242, 245 Phillips, James J. 265, 266n, 267 Picard, Jean-Michel x, 1, 4, 129 Picardy, France 134n, 162 Piedmont, Italy 111, 119, 127 Pieusse (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 162 Pipard, Roger 174–76, 271–73 Poer, Robert 18 Poitou, France 29, 135, 302, 319n Pollard, Robert 137–38 Pons, bishop de Béziers 225 Pontefract (Yorkshire, England) xix (map), 14, 143, 172, 179 Port Island (Co. Cavan, Ireland) xviii (map), 326 Portchester (Hampshire, England)

338

xix (map), 78 Pragela Valley, Italy 111–12 Prendergast family 135 Prendergast, Maurice de 140, 142 Prendergast, Philip de 140 Prince Louis (see Louis VIII, king of France) Prosat, Peter-Raymod 169–70 Prouille (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 182–85, 216, 226 Provence, France x, 3, 16 (fig), 202–3, 307 Puylaurens (dép. Tarn, France) xxi, 297 Quercy, France 157, 162 63, 165, 201, 256, 297 Quiders, Bernard de 169–71, 185–86 Quiders, Galharda de 169 Quiders, Saurimunda de 170n Quincy, Robert de 140 Ranulf, earl of Chester (see Ranulf de Blondeville) Rathbeggan (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii, 174 Rathlin (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii (map), 282 Ratoath (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 17–18, 174, 177, 183 Raymond V, count of Toulouse 130, 234–37 Raymond VI, count of Toulouse 29, 130–32, 180, 193, 197–98, 200–4, 212, 229, 238, 252, 256, 259, 296 Raymond VII, count of Toulouse 11 (fig), 163, 200, 202–3, 205–6, 208–9, 218, 220, 223, 242, 249– 52, 255–60, 297 Razès (dép. Haute-Vienne, France) xx (map), 157, 159, 162, 211–12, 215, 220–21, 226n Redcliffe (Bristol, England) 69 Renneville (dép. Haute-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 27, 180 Rhineland 2

Index of Names and Places

Richard I, king of England 77, 83, 86, 89 92, 96, 104, 143n, 172n, 300, 302 Roche family 135 Rochester (Kent, England) xix (map), 149 Rochfort, Simon de 53–54, 56 Roger of Howden 143 Roger, Pierre 161 Roger, Raimond count of Foix 159 Roland of Galloway 179 Rome, Italy xvii (map), 1, 10–13, 15, 26, 78, 115, 118, 157, 162, 201 Roquebert, Michel 158n, 163n, 190n, 212n, 216n, 220n, 250, 251n, 306n Roquefort (dép. Lot-et-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 159, 160 (fig) Roscommon (Co. Roscommon, Ireland) xviii (map), 85 (fig), 89, 148n, 311n Rouen (dép. Seine-Maritime, France) xxi (map), 69 Rye (Sussex, England) xix (map), 100 Sabolera, Garcia 256 St. Andrew’s (Fife, Scotland) xix (map), 23 St Bees (Cumbria, England) xix (map), 176, 179, 180n Saint-Félix de Caraman (dép. HauteGaronne, France) xxi (map), 156 Saint-Gaudéric (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 184 Saint-James-de-Beuvron (dép. Manche, France) xxi (map), 315 Saint-Julien (dép. Côte-d’Or, France) xx (map), 184 Saint-Just de Voisins 224 Saint-Just-et-le-Bézu 224 Saint-Louis (see Louis IX, king of France) St Lawrence, Christopher 174 St Lawrence, Tristram Amaury 174 Saint-Philbert-sur-Risle (dép. Eure, France) 319 Saint-Pierre, Jean de 163n, 168 Saintonge, France 69, 135

Saint Sernin 134, 168, 200, 203, 208 Saissac (dép. Aude, France) xxi (map), 160 Saissac, Bertrand de 159–60 Saissac, Jourdain de 223 Saladin 91–92 Saltwood (Kent, England) xix (map), 100 Saône, Syria xvii (map), 91–92, 100, 103 Scarborough (Yorkshire, England) xix (map), 84–84, 104 Scotland 3, 10, 23, 58, 70, 74, 78, 175n, 179, 282, 284n Scotland, John of 287, 289n Sées (dép. Orne, France) xxi (map), 17 Séguret, Pierre Guillaume de 256, 260 Senlis (dép. Oise, France) xxi (map), 78 Serni, Peter 186 Sherborne (Dorset, England) xix (map), 40 Sicily 10 Shropshire, England 40, 287 Simpson, Lesley 61, 62 (fig), 64n, 68n, 69n, 70 Skenfrith (Gwent, Wales) xix (map), 302, 322 Skreen (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 19 Soissons (dép. Aisne, France) xxi (map), 301 Staffordshire, England 16n, 18, 314 Stephen, king of England 175 Striguil, lordship of 81 Surrey, England 84 Sussex, England 78, 84, 89, 100 Swallow, Rachel vii, 298–99, 311n, 314, 321, 328 Sweetman, David 48–52, 53n Talbot’s Castle 40 (fig) Talbot family 175 Talbot, Geoffrey 175 Talbot, Richard 175 Talbot, Robert 175n Termes (dép. Aude, France) 160–62, 203, 256n

339

Index of Names and Places

Termes, Benoît de 160, 162 Termes, Olivier de 224 Thomas, Avril 37 Thibaud V, count of Blois 84 Thibaud de Nonneville 256, 258, 260 Tietzsch-Tyler, Daniel xi, 4, 46n, 58n, 77, 80n, 82n, 86n, 89n, 93n, 95n, 96n, 100n, 103n, 104n, 105n, 317n, 318 Tinhes, Robert de 255 Tír Eógain, Ireland 20, 171n Tobergal (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 58 Toome (Co. Antrim, Ireland) xviii (map), 285 Toulouse (dép. Haute-Garonne, France) xxi (map), 13, 15, 25–26, 117, 130, 156–59, 162–65, 168, 201–9, 211, 216–17, 220, 223–24, 229–46, 249–53, 256, 260–61, 305–6, 309–10, 324 Siege of 1218 5, 133–34, 147, 149, 203–8, 216–17, 219, 296, 324 Toulouse, Count of (see Raymond V–VII, also Simon de Montfort and Amaury de Montfort) Tracy (dép. Calvados, France) 143–44 Trencavel, Raimond Roger 194–95 Trencavel family 157–58, 160, 161–63, 221 Trencavel, Roger 160, 194 Trevet (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 17 Trim (Co. Meath, Ireland) xviii (map), 4, 31–56, 80–82, 293, 303n, 316, 325 Trim, Dublin gate (Co. Meath, Ireland), 44, 45, 46, 56, 323 Tuam (Co. Galway, Ireland) xviii (map), 9 Tullahogue (Co. Tyrone, Ireland) xviii (map), 284 Twescard, Ireland 227–94 Tyrel, Hugh 47–48

340

Ua Conchobair, Ruaidrí 16, 18 Ua Lonngargáin, Donnchad (d 1223) 12 Uí Chennselaig 143 Uí Thuirtri 277–80, 282, 285, 288–89, 291–94 Ulster, Ireland 3 5, 9, 15, 18n, 19–29, 32, 34, 56–61, 70, 73–75, 79 (fig), 103, 145, 162n, 167–79, 181, 183– 85, 188, 229, 236, 250n, 263, 264n, 267n, 270–72, 273n, 274–94, 296–300, 302–3, 316–18, 321, 323n Unaud, Guiraud de 255 Unaud, Guillaume de 255 Unaud, Raymond de 255 Uriel, see Louth 19, 176, 178, 298 Ussher, Archbishop James 111–12 Val d’Aran, Spain 156–57 Valence, kingdom of 165 Valence, William de 135 Vassal, Jean-François xi, 5, 211, 306 Vaudry (dép. Calvados, France) xxi (map), 143–44 Vaux-de-Cernay, Gui des 191 Vaux-de-Cernay, Pierre des 180n, 181n, 182n, 185n, 186n, 189, 192n, 193, 195–97, 205, 212–13, 217, 296 Veach, Colin 16n, 17n, 18n, 23n, 24, 25n, 93, 286n, 287n, 293n, 298, 299n, 304n, 326n Venckeleer, Théo 109, 111–12, 115, 116n, 117n, 18n, 119n, 120n, 121n, 122, 123n, 124n Verdun family 19, 324 Verdun, Bertram III de 18, 26 Verdun, Lescelina de 26, 178, 298, 325 Verdun, Nicholas de 22, 325 Verdun, Roesia de 324, 326n Verdun, Thomas de 19 Verfeuil (dép. Gard, France) xxi (map), 26 Vexin, France 83 Vignaux, Dominique 111–12, 115, 127

Index of Names and Places

Villepinte (dép. Seine-Saint-Denis, France) 185 Vitry (dép. Val-de-Marne, France) xxi (map), 143 Voisins family 213, 224, 226 Voisins, Jeanne de 226 Voisins, Gilles de 226 Voisins, Guillaume de 214 Voisins, Hugues de 214 Voisins, Milon de, 214 Voisins, Pierre de, 211–221, 223–24, 214, 226 Voisins, Pierre II de 211, 221–26 Voisins, Philippe de 218 Voisins, Rodolphe de 214 Wakefield, W. L. 169n, 170n, 185 Wales 4, 16, 19n, 24, 44n, 78, 80, 81n, 86, 88n, 89, 139, 266n, 274, 287, 292–94, 299, 311, 323, 324n, 327–28 Walter [Butler], Theobald I 94, 102 Walter [Butler], Theobald II 102 Ware, Sir James 36 Warenne, William de 84 Warr, Henry la 147 Waterford (Co. Waterford, Ireland) xviii (map), 73, 135, 137, 140, 146–47

Waterman, Dudley 264–67, 268, 269n, 276, 320–22, 323n Weobley (Herefordshire, England) xix (map), 15 White Abbey (Co. Antrim) xviii (map), 177 White Castle (Monmouthshire, Wales) xix (map), 302, 313n Whittington (Shropshire, England) xix (map), 287, 311, 313n, 315 Wicklow, Ireland 135 William of Orange 130 William of Puylaurens 26n, 169n, 200, 240n, 250, 252, 256n, 259, 260n William of Tudela 24, 27–28, 130–31, 170, 180, 188, 297n, 310 Wiltshire, England 16n Windsor (Berkshire, England) xix (map), 81, 100 Woodburn (Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, Ireland) 58n, 177 Wryngton, Robert de 73 Wyk, John 73 Yèvre-le-Châtel (dép. Loiret, France) xxi (map), 324 Zadar, Croatia xvii (map), 191 Zürich, Switzerland xvii (map), 111

341

Colour Plates

Plate 1: Count Raymond VII before the pope at the Lateran Council, Rome, from the illustrated manuscript of the Canso (Bibl. Nat., MS 25425, fol. 41, RC-A-44045) (Fig. 2.1).

Colour Plates

Plate 2: Hugh II de Lacy’s grant of the town and appurtenances of Renneville to the order of St John of Jerusalem, Toulouse (Conseil général de la ­HauteGaronne, Archives départementales, H Malte Renneville, no. 1) (Fig. 2.2).

Plate 3: The ‘south donjon and logis’ at Carcassonne where the council of 1211 probably took place (Fig. 2.3).

344

Colour Plates

Plate 4: Trim donjon from the north-north-west, showing the visible scars from the now-lost projecting tower on the tower’s north side (Fig. 3.5).

345

Colour Plates a

b

c

Plate 5: Trim Castle’s Dublin Gate (a); the gatetower of Le Coudray-Salbart (b); the Black Gate of Newcastle (c)(Fig. 3.6).

Plate 6: The Dublin Gate viewed from the top of the donjon (Fig. 3.7).

346

Colour Plates

Plate 7: The medieval town ditch, located below a seventeenth-century stone building, during excavation at Essex Street (© Historic Environment Division, DfC) (Fig. 4.6).

Plate 8: The thirteenth-century pottery kiln at Irish Quarter with pots still in situ, during excavation (© Historic Environment Division, DfC) (Fig. 4.6).

Plate 9: Some of the reconstructed thirteenth-century pottery vessels found at Irish Quarter (© Historic Environment Division, DfC) (Fig. 4.7).

347

Plate 10: Four gatehouses, clockwise from the top left: Porte des Champs, Falaise; the Louvre, Paris (© Jean-Louis Marrou, www.cvld.fr/un-fort-d-un-coffre-fort); Chepstow; King John’s Castle, Limerick (Fig. 5.4).

Colour Plates

348

Plate 11: Carrickfergus Castle gatehouse. Left: the gatehouse exterior viewed from the north-east (note the twin-light window in the near, eastern, tower). Right: the gate-passage viewed from the interior towards the outer gates at the north end(Fig. 5.5).

Colour Plates

349

Colour Plates

Plate 12: The first page of the ‘Dublin Occitan Ritual’ (Trinity College Dublin MS 269 1r). Reproduced with permission (Fig. 6.1).

350

Colour Plates

Plate 13: Ireland in north-west Europe: a twelfth-century map showing Ireland, Britain and the Continent, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica (Nat. Lib. Ire MS 700, fol. 48r). Reproduced with permission(Fig. 7.1).

351

Colour Plates

Plate 14: Henry II, from Giraldus Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica (Nat. Lib. Ire MS 700, fol. 72r). Reproduced with permission(Fig. 7.2).

352

Colour Plates

Plate 15: The modern town of Laurac from the south(Fig. 9.1).

Plate 16: The Porte de Saliège, Laurac, viewed from outside (a) and inside (b) the town (Fig. 9.2a and b).

353

Colour Plates

Plate 17: Voussoir avec la crête de Voisin au-dessus de l’entrée principale du château d’Arques(Fig. 11.1).

354

Plate 18: General view, Cité judiciaire, Toulouse: to the left are the foundations of the castle, to the right the tower and the ditch of the royal fortifications, and in the background the elevation of the rampart inserted into the current court of justice (© Olivier Dayrens, Inrap) (Fig. 12.3).

Colour Plates

355

Plate 19: Crenellations of the thirteenth-century rampart during the course of restoration (© Olivier Dayrens, Inrap) (Fig. 12.5).

Colour Plates

356

Colour Plates

Plate 20: The early thirteenth-century gate of Carcassonne(Fig. 16.2).

357

Colour Plates

Plate 21: The inner ward gatehouse of Beeston Castle(Fig. 16.5).

Plate 22: The gatehouse at Carrickfergus Castle (Fig. 16.7).

358