No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
To the modem reader, schooled in the civil libertarian principles of John Stuart Mill, one of the most repugnant passages in the otherwise delightful History of Saint Louis by the Sire de Joinville is the passage in which Saint Louis discourses upon the defence of the faith. According to the King of France, it was hopeless to argue with nonbelievers. Only one recourse lay open to the God-fearing layman, and that was to defend his religion, not with words, but with a good cutting sword, until the opponent was able to argue no longer.' This passage has been considered typical of the policy of thirteenth-century French rulers. The French kings have been seen fighting the Albigensians, defending the faith in the Holy Land, and finally, executing the disasterous Crusade to Aragon in close league with the Papacy. A frequently quoted fact is that three successive French kings died on crusades in the thirteenth century. But this is only one side of the coin. Little noted by historians is the fact that the French monarchy in several cases actually posed as a defender of unbelief. This circumstance at first sight seems paradoxical, but on closer inspection it appears that the curious role of the French monarch as protector of heretics casts an interesting light on the methods of the Capetians in the development of royal hegemony. An interesting example is the case of the Amaurians of Paris.2 The members of the Amaurian heresy, unearthed in
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.