THE SARACEN INVASIONS

OF PROVENCE

in the 8th-10th Centuries

By Gonzague de Rey

Translated by Robert W. Lebling

Bibliographic Information

Title: Les invasions des Sarrasins en Provence pendant le VIIIe, le IXe, et le Xe, siècle Author(s): Gonzague de Rey Publisher: M. Olive, Marseilles, France Publication Date: 1878 Reprinted: Editions Jeanne Laffitte, 2001, ISBN 2-7348-0665-7

Translation Copyright @ 2012 Robert W. Lebling

PRELIMINARIES

Invasions of Spain, Septimania and Aquitaine

______

The Saracens, masters of Spain, arrived in Provence after conquering Septimania

and extended their ravages through all of Aquitaine and part of France. Before

approaching the history of their invasions of our country, it is necessary to cast a glance

at their establishment in the kingdom of the Visigoths, less to interest ourselves in a

recital of these events than to clarify the dates, which will be useful reference points in

the difficult study of our own disasters.

Several Spanish authors have written the history of the Arab conquest. The most

accurate, because he lived in these unfortunate times, is Isidore of Beja. With the aid of

his chronicle, we will study the early years of the eighth century without preoccupying

ourselves too much with what has been written since then, as it lacks equal authority.

The last of the Visigoth kings is Roderick, who usurped the throne from Witiza in

the year 711. In fact Isidore of Beja tells us: “The year of the era 749, the 4th year of the

reign of Justinian, 5th of Walid, and 92nd of the Hegira, Roderick, on the invitation of the

nobles, seized the throne.”

The year 749 of the era of Spain corresponds to 711 A.D.; it is the same with the

92nd year of the Hegira, from January to October 18; Justinian,1 according to our author,

1 According to l’Art de vérifier les dates, the restoration of Justinian is at the end of 705, and Walid rose to the throne of the caliphs on October 10 of the same year. Isidore of Beja is often mistaken in giving the dates of accession for either the caliphs or the emperors of Constantinople, something the distance excuses sufficiently; but once these errors are recognized, one can follow the calculations accurately.

4

having been restored to the throne of Constantinople in 707, the 4th year of his reign

ended equally in 711; finally Walid, still according to our author, having succeeded the

Caliph Abdul Malik in December 707, the 5th year of his reign, calculated on the Arab

calendar, whose years have 11 days fewer than ours, begins near mid-October 711.

This year, 749 of the era and 711 A.D., is thus simultaneously the 92nd of the

Hegira, the 4th of Justinian, and in the two last months the 5th of Walid.

The usurpation of Roderick must thus be placed near the end of October in the

year 711 A.D.

How long did Roderick wear the crown of Spain? One chronicle, cited by

Baronius,2 and the Généalogie des rois Goths give him a reign of three years. Rodrigo of

Toledo provides some details; he recounts that the usurper sent Witiza, whom he

deprived of his eyesight, to Cordoba, and ruled for two years in consultation with him

and one year alone. These authors cite conflicting dates. Rodrigo Ximenes puts the first

invasion of Spain at 750 of the era, that is, 712 A.D.; Baronius at 752 of the era, that is,

714 A.D. Both agree in saying that the Visigoths at first resisted these attempts, directed

by traitors, the count Julian, governor of Tangier, and the two sons of the deposed king

Witiza; but that Musa, Walid’s commander-in-chief, passed into Spain with fresh troops

and crushed the Christian army.

Let us now look to our trusted guide, Isidore of Beja. He gives Roderick only one

year of rule: “regnum hortante senatu invadit; regnat anno uno.” This year of rule runs

2 Ann. Eccl. Vol. 8, p. 671.

5

from the moment of the definitive usurpation of Roderick, that is, from the end of 711;

this assertion does not expressly contradict the opinion of those who have this prince

reigning for two years with Witiza, assuming that these years are 710 and 711.

“Roderick,” says Isidore, “raised an army against the Arabs and the Moors that

Musa had sent, that is, Tariq, Abuzara and the others, who for a long time made journeys

through these lands, and ravaged their towns. He went into battle the 5th year of

Justinian’s reign, the 93rd of the Arabs, the 6th of Walid, the 750th of the Spanish era. The

army of the Goths was put to flight, and Roderick succumbed, losing at the same time his

crown and his country.”

Let us see if there is concordance among these diverse dates. The author

previously placed the restoration of Justinian in the year 707 A.D.; this was an error, but

it was what he believed. According to him, the 5th year of Justinian was thus the year 712.

According to him again, and following his previous calculations, the 6th year of Walid

began in September 712. The year 93 of the Hegira runs from October 19, 711, to

October 6, 712. Finally, the year 750 of the era centers on 712 A.D. Consequently, part of

September and October 712 belongs at the same time to the 5th year of Justinian, to the 6th

of Walid, and to 93rd of the Hegira.

Our chronicler thus is in agreement with himself; and, giving to Roderick,

crowned at the end of 711, one year of reign, he is justified in placing his fall at the end

of the year 712.

6

Isidore of Beja moreover insists on this date. He puts the entry of Musa into Spain

at about 350 years from the beginning of the empire of the Goths, and gives as a date for

the foundation of this empire the year 400 of the Spanish era, that is, 362 A.D.; 362 and

350 add up to 712.

On the testimony of this historian, we thus put the fall of the Visigoth empire in

the month of September or October 712.

The conquest of Spain was rapid, and after some years, the Muslims were at the

point of passing into Septimania, which had belonged to the Visigoths, who regarded it as

theirs by right. Isidore of Beja attributed the first attack by the Saracens on this side of the

Pyrenees to Alahor [Al-Hurr], lieutenant in Spain of the Caliph Sulaiman.

“From the time of Sulaiman,” he said, “Alahor employed nearly three years to

battle and pacify the minds; he marched on Narbonnaise Gaul, and soon afterward went

down again to the south of Spain, in order to impose taxes. It is thus that he occupied

himself during his three years of government.”

This agitation in Spain came from efforts at independence that had tempted the

predecessor of Alahor, efforts which had irritated the Arabs, and doubtless gave a little

hope to the patriotism of the conquered. Perhaps the expedition against Septimania was

only a way of diverting attention from the troubles at home.

Let us see if we can determine the epoch of that fruitless attempt.

First of all, this happened during the reign of Sulaiman. We should ignore the

chronology of Isidore of Beja, which is incorrect, as we have already observed, where it

7

concerns the caliphs of Baghdad; the dates of their accession are accurately established

by Arab historians, and are not subject to debate. Sulaiman ascended to the throne at the

beginning of 715 A.D.; he died on October 3, 717.3 The year of the era 750, 97th of the

Arabs, that is, in the four final months of 715 A.D., he named Alahor his lieutenant in

Spain, in place of Abdul Aziz, who had just been assassinated.4 Thus, considering on the

one hand that Alahor arrived in Spain at the end of 715, and on the other that he marched

against the Narbonnaise while Sulaiman was alive, and that on the death of this prince, on

October 3, 717, he was, as our chronicler informs us, at Cordoba, that is, far from the

Pyrenees, occupied with repressing sedition and collecting treasure, we must conclude

that his expedition was in 716, or at the latest in the first months of 717.

In 718, Zama was named to replace Alahor;5 he achieved the establishment of

taxes begun before him, divided the lands of the conquered among the conquerors; he

resumed the projects of his predecessor against Septimania, he marched on Narbonne and

captured it.

We have, from this epoch, a new source of important documents, on which we

can draw with confidence; this is the Chronicle of Moissac. It recounts in these terms the

invasion of Septimania:

3 Art de verifier les dates. 4 Isidori Pacensis chron. 5 Ibid.

8

“Senia, King of the Saracens, in the ninth year of their entry into Spain, besieged

Narbonne.”

If, by the entry of the Saracens into Spain, is meant the defeat of Roderick, that is,

September or October 712, the ninth year begins in October 720, and the siege of

Narbonne cannot be placed before the month of November. However a charter cited by

De Marca says: Tempore quod regnavit Aumar, Ibin-Aumar regente Narbone.6 “Under

the reign of Omar, while Ibn Omar governed Narbonne.” If the Saracens occupied

Narbonne during the reign of Omar, it had to have been captured before February 10,

720, the date of this prince’s death. The confusion is great, and in order to resolve it, it is

necessary to count the nine years of the Chronicle of Moissac not from the defeat of

Roderick but from the first entry of the Saracens into Spain, which can be put in the last

months of 711. In this fashion, the eight years of their sojourn ended in 719, and

Narbonne could have been taken either in December 719 or in January 720.

The Chronicle of Moissac continues: “He besieged Narbonne, captured it, ordered

the massacre of the men of this town, and sent the women and children as captives to

Spain. This very year, in the third month, they went to besiege Toulouse.”

In ipso anno, that is, the ninth year after the invasion of Spain, 720; mense tertio,

the third month, either of this ninth year, or after crossing the Pyrenees, dates that

moreover, according to the preceding calculation, just about coincide.

Let us continue to read from the Chronicle of Moissac:

6 Hist. de Languedoc de D. Vaissotte. Vol. I, p. 687.

9

“While they were besieging Toulouse, Eudes,7 prince of Aquitaine, came out

against them with his Aquitanian or Frankish soldiers, and attacked them. The Saracens

retreated, and most of them were massacred.”

The route from Narbonne to Toulouse took a long time to travel, or the siege was

prolonged, for Duke Eudes’ victory occurred only in the year 721. We find this date in

several chronicles, those of Hépidan, of St. Benignus, the Petavian, Nazarian and several

other annals; and always in just about the same terms:

DCCXXI. Ejecit Heudo Sarcinos de Equitaniâ. [721. Eudes ousted the Saracens

from Aquitaine.]

Some authors have even wanted to put the battle of Toulouse back a year or two,

citing the authority of Paul the Deacon [Paulus Diaconus] and of Anastasius the

Librarian, who put the victory of Eudes ten full years after the occupation of Spain. But

the texts of Paul the Deacon and of Anastasius contain a confusion between the victory of

Toulouse and that of Tours which is so flagrant that one is justified in not accepting their

opinion.

Moreover, we have new evidence that we must place the triumph of the Duke of

Aquitaine in the year 721. Zama had perished beneath the walls of Toulouse; Ambiza

was named his successor one month after his death. Now Isidore of Beja tells us that he

7 Eudes or Odo the Great (who died c. 735) was Duke of Aquitaine. He ruled the Duchy of Vasconia in southwest Gaul and the Duchy of Aquitaine northeast of the river Garonne. His realm extended from the Loire to the Pyrenees, and had its capital at Toulouse. -- RWL

10

began his rule in ærâ 759, Arabum 103, which corresponds to the last six months of 721.

The defeat of Zama is thus at the beginning of the same year.

Yet another proof: Ambiza wanted to avenge the Arab forces and he crossed the

Pyrenees again. Isidore of Beja informs us that he died at the end of this expedition, after

having governed Spain for four and a half years, and that his successor Jahic was named

in ærâ 763, anno Arabum 107, that is, from May 725 A.D. These four and a half years of

Ambiza’s government, placed between the siege of Toulouse and the second half of 725,

put Zama’s defeat properly in the first six months of 721.

The Chronicle of Moissac thus recounts for us this new war:

“Ambiza, King of the Saracens, attacked Gaul five years later, with a formidable

army; he took Carcassonne, advanced to Nîmes without resistance, and sent to Barcelona

the hostages that were handed over to him.”

They went even farther than Nîmes. Indeed, on this same date, the Chronicle of

Moissac adds: Augustodunum civitatem destruxerunt, “they destroyed Autun”; and

according to the Histoire du Languedoc, by D. Vaissette, it is in this same year that it was

necessary to lay siege to Sens, which the bishop Ebbon was able to lift with a vigorous

sortie of the inhabitants.

This was the first time that the Muslims attacked France proper; Sarcini venerunt

primitus, say the Nazarian annals and those of Hepidan; and the chronicles of St.

Benignus: Sarraceni irruerunt in Galliam.

11

If the Saracens were able to cross all of France in this manner, it is because Duke

Eudes, whom in their march to the north they had kept on their left side, did not attack

them, and because Charles Martel, at a time when they launched so audacious an

invasion, was then occupied in Bavaria.

The result of their expedition was, along with much booty, the conquest of

Septimania, where since the battle of Toulouse they had retained only Narbonne.

Relying on Bede, several reliable authors have set the year 729 as the time of a

new invasion of the Saracens into Gaul. Bede expresses himself thus:

“In the year 729 of the Incarnation, there appeared two comets next to the sun,

whose appearance spread terror…. They appeared in January and lasted almost two

months. In this same time, the Saracens cruelly ravaged Gaul, and these same people, a

little later, in the same province, paid the price of their perfidy.”8

Anastasius the Librarian, in his life of Gregory II, also mentions the appearance of

these comets, in the year 729, Indict. XII. The fact is thus constant. But is it necessary to

place in the same year the invasion of which, according to Bede, they were the

announcement? I think not. Bede is not explicit enough on this subject; he seems even to

be speaking here of the expedition conducted by Abdul Rahman in 732, because he adds

a bit later that the Saracens were exterminated.

It is true that his Histoire ecclésiastique stops in the preceding year, 731; but he

could have added this detail afterward. And there is even a fact that seems to justify this

8 Hist. Eccl. Angl. Sax. L. 5, c. 23.

12

supposition, cited by Fr. Pagi,9 that chapter 24, which is a recapitulation of the entire

work, bears only at the date 729: Cometae apparuerunt. [Comets appeared.] If the

original text had mentioned the Muslim invasion, this listing would have included the

event, which was at least as noteworthy as the appearance of a comet.

Moreover the Chronicle of Isidore of Beja shows us that the Saracens could not

attempt anything against France in this year.

Indeed, in 728 Oddifa was named governor of Spain; he was an inconsequential

man who undertook nothing of importance; he held this position for six months. In 729,

Autuman succeeded him; he ruled for five months and then died. His successor, of the

same name, remained in Spain for only four months. Then came Alhaytam, whose ten-

month administration was preoccupied with internal unrest, and who was finally replaced

by Abdul Rahman.

Where amid all this confusion would one put an important expedition? Thus we

believe that it is wrong to say, as does Venerable Bede, that in the year 729 the Arabs

entered France.

But, after seven years of respite, a new invasion was launched, the most

redoubtable that the Saracens had yet attempted.

In 732, under the leadership of Abdul Rahman, they took Bordeaux, destroyed the

army of Duke Eudes and pillaged Poitiers. France faced the fate of Spain without the

9 Critica in Baron. an. 729.

13

genius of the Duke of Austrasia, Charles Martel, who destroyed their innumerable

battalions not far from Tours.

The Second Continuator of Fredegar and many annalists after him have accused

Duke Eudes of luring the Saracens into Gaul.

It is not our task to try to exonerate him. Let us say, however, that the good faith

of the Continuator of Fredegar is on this occasion justifiably suspect; that Isidore of Beja,

whose work recites the events of this period, does not permit suspicion of anything

similar, and that diverse chronicles inform us to the contrary that Eudes and Charles

Martel made common cause at that time.

Karolus auxilio Eudetis in Aquitaniâ contra Saracenos pugnat.10 [Charles with

the help of Eudes fought against the Saracens in Aquitaine.] – Karolus cum Eudone

contra eos pari concilio dimicaverunt.11 [Charles, with Eudes, in equal counsel, fought

against them.]

In the time of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious [Louis I, third son of

Charlemagne], the Jews alone were accused of having summoned the Saracens, and for

this crime they underwent a humiliating punishment in Toulouse each year.12

10 Ann. Ottenburani. Pertz. 11 Ann. Magdeb. 12 Vita S. Theodardi.

14

In the end, Eudes became the first victim of these Saracens whom he was accused

of attracting; and it was he who assured their defeat by attacking them from the rear

during the battle of Tours.

We shall examine this battle, the most formidable of them all, only from the

chronological point of view, limiting ourselves to justification of the date 732, generally

accepted as that of Charles Martel’s victory.

The Chronicle of Herman le Raccourci and the Annals of Fulde say 726;

Sigebert de Gemblours says 730;

The Chronicle of St. Benignus: 733;

All the other chronicles and annals, and there are many, give the date of 732, and

most add that this was a Saturday in the month of October.

Abdul Rahman, according to Isidore of Beja, was made governor of Spain in the

year 769 of the era, that is, 731 A.D.; 113th of the Hegira that begins on March 15, 731,

and 9th of the caliph Hisham, again 731 according to his manner of calculating. He did

not cross the Pyrenees until he had finished with an important civil war, and therefore

could not find himself in the presence of Charles Martel before 732.

As for the date 733, we will not entertain it, because it is only found in the

chronicles of St. Benignus, and in terms insufficiently precise.

15

Such is the chronology of the Arab invasions of Septimania and Aquitaine. M.

Reinaud, who has recounted these events relying on the Moorish writers, has sometimes

given them dates different than those we have indicated.13

We have preferred to hold to the account of Isidore of Beja and of some

contemporary authors, because the Arabs have written nothing, as far as we know, that

dates earlier than the last years of the 10th century.14

Abdul Rahman’s attempt was the Saracens’ last against France proper. But they

remained masters of Septimania, and from there they resumed all their efforts against

Provence, much too close to the unfortunate empire of the Goths, and with which besides

they were already well-acquainted.

13 Invasion des Sarrasins en France by M. Reinaud, member of the Institute. 14 Ibid. Introduction, p. XIV.

CHAPTER I

Saracen invasions of Provence during the reign of Charles Martel

______

The first document in Provence that mentions the ravages of the Saracens is a

notice found at Saint-Maximin, in the tomb of St. Mary Magdalene. This document,

whose authenticity has been strongly challenged, and no less vigorously defended, is

important enough for us to sum up the historical evidence here, though it has already

been well reported several times.

In 1279, the prince of Salerno, son of Charles of Anjou, undertook an

investigation of the relics of St. Magdalene, which tradition said were hidden in a crypt of

the Church of Saint-Maximin. The excavations carried out in his presence brought the

discovery of a marble crypt, in which was a corpse, and with this corpse a parchment

already altered by time and humidity, which was read as follows:

“Anno nativitatis Dominicæ Septingentesimo decimo, VI° mensis Decembris, in

nocte secretissime, regnante Clodoveo piissimo francorum rege, tempore infestationis

gentis Sarracenorum, translatum fuit corpus hoc carissimæ et venerandæ beatæ Mariæ

Magdalenæ de sepulcro suo alabastri in hoc marmoreo, timore dictæ gentis perfidæ, quia

securius est hic, amoto corpore Cedonii.”1

“The year of the birth of Our Lord seven hundred ten, the 6th of the month of

December, in the night, and in secret, under the reign of Clovis, most pious King of the

1 Faillon, Vol. II, p. 802.

17

Franks, at the time of the ravages of the Saracens, the body of the much loved and very

holy Mary Magdalene was carried from her sepulcher of alabaster to this tomb of marble,

for fear of the said perfidious nation, and because here the security is much better; the

body of Cedonius having been removed.”

This statement was transcribed in the official report on the discovery of the relics,

an official report that Charles of Salerno had closed up in the very coffin in which were

placed the sacred bones, and that Dominique de Marinis, archbishop of Avignon,

rediscovered in 1660 in that coffin, when he had it opened before Louis XIV.1 As for the

original, it remained in the sacristy of the church, where it was protected up to the French

Revolution.

A large number of historians and critics have, in diverse epochs, studied this

precious document, and all have not read it in the same fashion.

Bernard de la Guionie, in his Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors, which he

wrote in 1320, says he saw the parchment of Saint-Maximin. He gives the date in Roman

numerals: “Anno Nativitatis Dominicae DCCX, VI die mensis decembris etc...” which

agrees with the official report of the discovery of the relics; but in place of “Clodoveo

francorum rege,” he read “Odoyne.” In his Miroir sanctoral, written some years later, he

repeats the same date, and this time all in letters: “Anno septingentesimo decimo, die

sexto mensis decembris,” and he spells the name of the ruling sovereign thus: “Odoino.”

1 Lettres patentes de Louis XIV. – V. Faillon, Vol. II, p. 1496.

18

The cardinal of Cabasolle, in 1355, read on the original: “Anno septingentesimo,

decembris decimal sexta die” and “Odoyno rege francorum.”

These variants evidently result from the fact that, in the 13th century, the

inscription was already difficult to read, and that moreover those who discovered it, and

later the authors who studied it, did not have a strong paleographic science. When, in

later centuries, good authors, such as Bouche, wanted in their turn to consult the original

parchment, it was too late; they were only able to make out isolated characters.

We are thus forced to rely on the versions bequeathed to us by the Middle Ages;

let us discuss them for a moment.

First of all, doubt exists only about the name of the ruling sovereign and about the

date; the rest of the text has been read in the same fashion, and should be considered

uncontested.

The dates given by Charles of Salerno, by Bernard de la Guionie and by Philippe

of Cabasolle, are evidently erroneous; and that is so for a simple reason: under the

Merovingians, and even under the Carlovingians, the days of the month were counted by

calends, nones and ides, and were not numbered from one to thirty, as at the time of the

discovery of the relics. It is thus not necessary to read either 700 and the 16th of

December or 710 and the 6th of December; but if the inscription bears all the numbers

which have been preserved, and we should believe that, because there is agreement on

that point between the two versions, these numbers all belong to the year, which will be:

“The year of the Nativity 716 in the month of December.”

19

We will adopt that date; it has moreover been accepted by D. Bouquet and other

critics.1

We will move on to the reigning sovereign.

Charles of Salerno is mistaken in reading: “regnante Clodoveo.” The last prince

with this name died before the 8th century, before the Saracens even set foot in Europe.

Bernard de la Guionie and Philippe of Cabassole have substituted the name of Eudes for

that of Clovis; and they have done it, to all appearances, only on a more attentive reading.

But just one prince with this name ruled in France, the man who defended Paris against

the Normans in 886, two hundred years later. There arises from that so great a difficulty

that Launoy, and others after him, have concluded from it that our inscription is false, and

that it was invented by the monks of Saint-Maximin, to capture the good faith and

devotion of Charles of Salerno.

The response to this serious objection was given by Catel and by Fr. Pagi. They

proved that one must recognize this king in the person of Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine,

conqueror of the Saracens at the battle of Toulouse, and the auxiliary of Charles Martel at

the battle of Tours.2

Did Eudes ever take the title of king? One has to concede that the numerous

chronicles and annals that speak of him do not give him the title; some of them only call

him prince of Aquitaine. But it is incontestable that he affected, in his duchy, the

appearance of an independent sovereign; add to that the much more important reason that

1 Recueil des Histoir. des Gaules, Vol. III, p. 610. 2 Pagi. Crit. in Baron. Vol. III, p. 187.

20

he was the grandson of Charibert, to whom Dagobert, his brother, yielded the kingdom of

Toulouse. His uncle Hilderic, son of Charibert, also bore the title of King of Aquitaine, as

we see in the diploma of Charles de Chauve, dated in 845.1 It is true that on his death

Dagobert reunited Aquitaine to his crown; but he relinquished control of it again some

years later, in favor of Hilderic’s brothers, Boggis and Bertrand, with the title of

hereditary duchy.

Eudes was Boggis’s son, and, all-powerful in his realm, he doubtless regretted not

having this title of king, borne by his grandfather and his uncle. His pretensions even

seem to have been recognized in 719 by Chilperic II, King of Neustria. One reads in the

Second Continuation of Fredegar that to obtain the support of Eudes against Charles,

Duke of Austrasia, he sent him “regnum et munera.” Some historians have believed that

“regnum” meant only a crown, given with a title of honor; others have understood that it

was a question in this case of the very title of king.

But did this kingdom extend to Provence? The same diploma of Charles-le-

Chauve says that Eudes held his properties, concessions that were made to his father by

the king Dagobert “in pago Tolosano, Cadurcensi, Pictaviensi, Agennensi, Arelatensi,2

Sanctonensi et Petragoricensi.” [“in the towns of Toulouse, Cahors, Poitiers, Agen,

Arles, Saintes and Périgueux”]

1 Histor. des Gaules, Vol. VIII, p. 470. 2 The Chronicle of Verdun, written, it is true, in 1102, says even textually: “regnabat Aribertus in Provinciâ et Aquitaniâ.”

21

One sees from this that Eudes had possessions in Provence, and that his other

lands, in Périgord and Poitou, extended quite far into the north of France, so that the

Provençaux called him king of the Franks.

Thus, for us it is established that the body of St. Magdalene was buried

underground, in the month of December 716, during the reign of Duke Eudes of

Aquitaine, at the time of the ravages of the Saracens. So, were the Saracens in Provence

at this time? The inscription of Saint-Maximin does not say so precisely; but surely they

were not far away. And in effect we have seen, in the study that we have made of their

invasions of Septimania,1 that toward the end of 716, Alahor, governor of Spain for the

caliph Sulaiman, crossed the Pyrenees and came to attack Gothia.2 We are ignorant of the

details of this expedition; we do not know how far the Muslim army advanced; but it is

not impossible that the rapid Arab horsemen were able to push their advance to the banks

of the Rhone. This was enough to frighten a country without defense; and the conquest of

Spain was so swift that one could believe, in Provence, in the impending arrival of all the

Arab forces. Why should it come as a surprise that the monks of Saint-Maximin, seized

with panic, had then hidden the body of St. Magdalene, to guard against the sacrileges

that had terrified Spain?

That time however, Provence had nothing to fear. Its hour had not yet come.

1 Conf. sup. p. 9. 2 Isid. Pac.

22

We have seen, in 720, the successor of Alahor, Zama, seize Narbonne and attack

Toulouse. It is supposed that between these two sieges, Zama tried to cross the Rhone.

That opinion is based on a passage of Anastasius the Librarian, where he said:

“Cum jam Hispaniarum provinciam per decem tenerent annos pervasam, undecimo anno

Rhodanum conabantur fluvium transire. ”1 [When they had held sway throughout Spain

for ten years, in the eleventh year they tried to cross the Rhone River.] But there is

probably a copyist’s error here, and in place of Rhone it should read Garonne; for

Anastasius followed these lines with an account of the great victory won by Duke Eudes

under the walls of Toulouse.

So the entry of the Saracens into Provence ought to be delayed once more.

Baronius and Fr. Pagi have set the year at 729,2 relying on what was said in Bede

about the appearance of two comets, a frightening wonder that announced to the world

the devastations committed in Gaul by the enemies of the Christian name. Pagi even

believes that the massacre of the monks at Lérins, which we will be discussing, took

place in this year.

We have already seen that, to all appearances, the ravages that Bede indicated

with regard to the apparition of the comets were none other than those committed by the

Saracens in the grand expedition of Abdul Rahman in 732. But then even if one admits

that the Arabs entered France in 729, nothing in Bede’s text justifies the belief that they

1 Vita S. Gregorii II papæ. 2 Bar. Ann. Eccl. an. 729. – Pagi Crit. in Bar. an. 729.

23

crossed the Rhone. Baronius and Fr. Pagi do not give the reasons they have brought to

accept this fact. Everything indicates that they were deceived by these words: “in eâdem

Provinciâ pœnas luebant” [they paid the penalty in the same province], which they

interpreted as the defeat of the Saracens in Provence, whereas it was a question of the

province in which they were conquered by Charles Martel, Aquitaine.

However, the moment approached when Provence would undergo the fate of

neighboring lands.

Adon, who rose to become archbishop of Vienne in 860, and who thus wrote one

hundred and some years after the events that concern us, puts the arrival of the Saracens

in Province in the year 732.

According to him, Abdul Rahman, before encountering Charles Martel in the

plains of Tours, ravaged all of the Vienne area; this led to the belief that the Saracens had

crossed the Pyrenees with two armies, of which one invaded Aquitaine while the other

advanced to the Rhone; or at least that the Arab garrison at Narbonne had attempted a

diversion to the coast of Arles.

Here is Adon’s short account:

“The Saracens, with many troops and ships, ravage far and wide several towns of

Septimania and the Vienne area. Charles leads an expedition against them, and destroys

them totally, drives them back to Spain. The combat takes place in the month of

October.”

We can reconcile with Adon’s text this account by Rodrigo of Toledo:

24

“The year of the Arabs CXIIII [114], Abdul Rahman, anxious to obtain the palm

of victory, seeing his land covered with a large population, passes the straits, crosses the

mountains, and penetrates to the Rhone. His vast army having besieged Arles, the Francs

had a bit of good fortune; put to flight, prevented by the pursuit of the conquerors, the

Rhone engulfed their corpses, which it let wash up on its banks; and their tombs can be

seen to this day in the cemetery of Arles.”1

The terms employed by Rodrigo of Toledo, in the short preamble of his account

“cum videret terram suam multitudine repletam, fretosa dissulcans . . .” [“when he saw

its land filled with people and crisscrossed with rivers…”] have been taken by him from

Isidore of Beja, in connection with preparations for the war that ended in the battle of

Tours; he has thus followed the chronicle of the Spanish bishop, and surely his intention

is to recount the same events. So it would indeed be the same expedition which would

have had as the setting for its drama both the banks of the Gironde and those of the

Rhone.

The words of Adon and of Rodrigo Ximenes seem to be confirmed by the

accounts of some Arab authors, cited by M. Reinaud.2

“Among the places, says one of them, where the Muslims brought their arms, was

a town situated in a plain, in a vast solitude, and celebrated for its monuments.”

1 Rod. Hist. des Arabes, ch. 13. 2 Inv. de Sarr. p. 39 and 40.

25

And another adds that this town was built on the greatest river of the land, three

leagues from the sea; that ships were able to come there; and that the two banks of the

river were connected by an ancient bridge. In the neighborhood were roads.

This description applies well to Arles.

It is thus just about certain that the Saracens crossed the Rhone in 732; but it

seems they did not leave its valley and did not spread out into the country. They headed

toward the north, with the goal of reuniting their two armies in the very heart of France.

Thus far we have had only vague and uncertain facts on the invasions of the

Saracens in Provence; but we have finally reached an epoch whose chronicles, which are

the basis of the history of France itself, have preserved for us a lamentable memory. It is

true that we will still encounter plenty of uncertainty, and that we will be struck with

great difficulties; however, the account of these events, in their totality, has reached us;

and in bringing together the texts scattered among the old authors, we can assemble a true

account of the misfortunes of our country.

It was treason that opened the gates of Provence to the Saracens. But before

beginning this sad history, it is indispensable that we give an accounting of the state of

France in the 8th century, and to recall the bloody conflicts that broke out between

Charles Martel and Eudes of Aquitaine.

In 719, Eudes sustained Chilperic II against the Duke of Austrasia [Charles

Martel]; defeated by this one [Charles Martel], he [Eudes] had accepted a peace which he

26

broke in 730. This new effort did not go well for him; Eudes was again defeated in 731.

The arrival of the Saracens in 732 united the victor and the vanquished. But Charles

Martel profited from the ascendancy that the victory of Tours gave him, to encroach on

the independence of Eudes, and he considered Aquitaine, delivered by him from the

Saracens, as almost a conquered country. The second continuator of Fredegar informs us

that Charles placed his men everywhere in this duchy; and the Annals of Metz tells us in

no uncertain terms: “Totâ jam Aquitaniâ subactâ ad propria revertitur.” [“With

Aquitaine now totally subdued, he turned to his own affairs.”]

But France’s entire Midi, neglected by the Duke of Austrasia during these

quarrels, and as a result of successive uprisings by Saxons and Bavarians, was almost

detached from the crown. Charles Martel wanted to reestablish everything. In 733 he

came to Burgundy at the head of a mighty army, and installed as governors in this

kingdom men devoted to his power.1

In 735, Duke Eudes died. Immediately Charles Martel entered Aquitaine with an

army, and finally took control of the country.2

In 736, he resumed his expedition into Burgundy, and established governors in the

principal towns, notably at Lyon, Arles and Marseilles.3

1 Ann. Metenses. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

27

He hoped by these measures to establish for certain his power in this vast country

that extends from Lyon to the sea, and from the Rhone to the Alps; but he counted too

much on the loyalty of the men he placed in charge.

Maurontus was one of these governors; he was Duke of Marseilles, and held

considerable power thanks to Charles Martel. The Mayor of the Palace [Charles Martel]

had chosen him himself, since the Annals of Metz, dated 736, tell us: “He penetrated up to

Marseilles and to Arles, placing everything in the power of his dukes, and returned

happily to the seat of his power.”

Maurontus, far from his master, soon aspired to independence. He combined his

ambitious projects with the neighboring governors, disloyal like himself; and in 737 he

rebelled, calling to his aid the Saracens, who were very well disposed to support him.1

According to the Chronicle of Moissac, it was the Arabs of Septimania who came

to the aid of the rebel duke. We see that at that time Narbonne had for its governor Yusuf

ibn Abdul Rahman: that this Saracen entered into Arles without combat, and that,

immediately taking his portion, he made off with the public treasury.

It is true that this chronicle recounts these events without mentioning Maurontus

and his treason, and that it seems to place the capture of Arles in the year 735. But how

can we accept this date when, in 735, Charles Martel was in Aquitaine with an army.

Moreover the anonymous author adds that Yussef ravaged Provence for a period of four

years. But we have seen that in 736 Charles traveled through Provence to the sea, and

1 Ann. De Metz. – Chr. de Fontenelle.

28

established his government everywhere. Another confusing point: the Chronicle of

Moissac places in the same epoch the embassy sent by Pope Gregory III to the Duke of

Austrasia, while this embassy did not arrive in France until 741.

There is thus an error in the date 735, and the capture of Arles by Yusuf ibn

Abdul Rahman should be pushed back to the year 737. It was evidently the first act of the

allies of Maurontus.

It was then, it is said, that the Roman monuments were overturned, part of the

church of Saint-Honorat was destroyed and the suburb of Trinquetaille was razed.1

From Arles, the army of the Muslims marched on Avignon. One rather vague

tradition preserves the memory of the sack of Saint-Rémy, which they ruined in passing;2

doubtless they also took Tarascon; it is at this time that we must place the concealment of

the relics of St. Martha, if it had not already taken place in 716, as it did for the relics of

St. Magdalene.

Avignon was opened to the Infidels by Duke Maurontus. Some historians have

related that the inhabitants had tried to prevent the crossing of the Durance, and that they

had been crushed at the river’s edge, on a plain that owed its name Maupas, which it has

borne for many years, to this disaster.3 According to these writers, some years later the

town had a chapel built on this spot, with this inscription:

1 Saxi Pontificium Arelatense. – Lalauzière. 2 Statistique des bouches-du-Rhône, Vol. I, p. 1137. 3 Histoire d’Avignon par Nouguier.

29

“Sepultura nobilium Avenionensium qui occubuerunt in bello contra Sarracenos.”

[“Burial place of the Avignon nobles who fell in battle against the Saracens.”]

But nothing is less proven than this resistance; to the contrary, all the

contemporary monuments attest that Avignon was occupied without a struggle.

Sigebert says:

“Avignon taken by the Saracens, by ruse and with the consent of Maurontus.”

The Chronicle of Fontenelle:

“It was announced . . . that they took possession of Avignon through the treason

of some counts of Provence.”

And the Continuation of Fredegar:

“By the ruse and treason of a certain Maurontus and his confederates, they entered

Avignon.”

These texts are sufficient indication that this strong point was handed over by

treason.

Masters of Avignon, the Saracens committed a thousand depredations. The bishop

of this town was Jean II, who held that post from 720 to 750.1 He endured the pain of

seeing the invaders overturn the altars, and destroy the church of Saint-Marie, which was

rebuilt until by the bishop Joseph from 765 to 794, or more likely by Humbert, around

795.2

1 Gallia Christiana, Vol. I. 2 Gall. Chr. Vol. I.

30

But the Saracens did not limit their devastations only to the town of Avignon;

they soon filled the entire surrounding countryside, launching dreadful attacks. The

author of the Annales de Francs tells us:

“They ravaged all of the surrounding region.”

And Adon:

“Consigning almost everything to the flames, befouling the monasteries and the

holy places, they chased a vast throng of people before them and transported them into

Spain.”

It is in this period that we must place the destruction of the town of Apt. The

bishops of Apt are known since Magnericus, who held the post in 791,1 and their names

have been preserved in local deeds; these indicate from that time onward a period of

peace, during which the bishops were able to reside in their diocese and administer it.

The disappearance of prior deeds suggests a catastrophe close to this date.

The Aptesian writers describe an interesting episode at this time, related in one of

the oldest deeds in their cartulary, the donation of Saignon to the church of Saint-Marie

and Saint-Castor.2

“I George and my spouse Deda, says the founder, we have resolved to yield unto

God, to Mary, mother of O.S. J.C., to St. Auspice and to St. Castor, a portion of our

patrimony, situated in the county of Apt, to wit: the village of Saignon. . . We had a son

1 Gall. Chr. Vol. I. 2 Gal. Chr. Vol. I aux Instrum.

31

named Sisinnius; the pagans abducted him and took him to Spain, where he remained for

seven years. We, his father and mother, have not ceased this whole time to pray and fast,

and we held a vigil every Saturday before the altar of St. Castor. But finally the mercy of

the Lord broke through. The seven years passed, while we held our vigil before the tomb

of St. Castor, all of a sudden during the first watch of the night, our son was there, before

us, wearing the irons of his long captivity, etc. . . . . . .”

And the charter ends with these words: “Castrum autem, ut erat datum, voverunt

cum filio, et firmaverunt privilegio et personarum testimonio, Caroli tempore.” [“Also a

castle, as was given, they pledged with their son, and fortified with privilege and the

testimony of persons, in Charles’s time.”]

Is this deed from the first half of the 8th century and is the indicated ruling prince

Charles Martel? This is not impossible; but certainly Sisinnius was not abducted during

the invasion of 737, and that is for a simple reason. The date indicated by these words:

“Caroli tempore” is that of the donation of Saignon, after Sisinnius had been held captive

for seven years. Now Charles Martel died in October 741, just five years after the

expedition of 737. The son of George and Deda was taken five years before this time. We

have seen that the Saracens had appeared once in the Rhone valley, toward the end of

732; it was doubtless then that they took him prisoner and carried him off to Spain.

They returned him or lost track of him in 739, during their second expedition

against Avignon, of which we will speak soon.

32

As for the charter, it was written later, and after the death of Sisinnius, according

to these words: “habuimus olim hæredem, etc. . .” [“we had once an heir, etc.”]

Along with Apt doubtless perished the monastery of Our Lady of Vaucelle, whose

ruins later became, under the name of Carluc, a dependent priory of Montmajour.

Cavaillon suffered the same fate. Its bishops are unknown; only the name of

Lupus is appended to the acts of the council of Narbonne in 791. The Gallia Christiana

attributes the destruction of its deeds to the Saracens, and even supposes that its episcopal

seat was vacated.

At Carpentras, a single bishop has left us evidence of his pontificate: this was

Amatus, who sat at the same council of Narbonne.

Finally, farther north, Saint-Paul-trois-Châteaux was also visited by Saracen

plunderers, and the monastery of Dusera was overturned.1

Nothing would have remained standing between the Rhone and the Durance if

Charles Martel had not come to the aid of this unfortunate country.

The Third Continuation of Fredegar, the Chronicle of Fontenelle and the Annals

of Metz have preserved for us an account of the expedition that the Duke of Austrasia

himself conducted in Provence.

The Saracens, they say, having crossed the Rhone, captured, through the treason

of Maurontus, the town of Avignon, a well fortified place, built on a hilltop.2 They

1 Gal. Chr. 2 Avignon thus occupied at that time the Rocher des Doms; only the suburb extended from the hill to the Rhone.

33

ravaged the entire country. But Duke Charles sent against them an army led by his

brother Childebrand, and by several counts and dukes. They arrived on the outskirts of

Avignon, set up their camp, took the suburbs and moved close to the town. Then came

Charles Martel himself, the great warrior. He surrounded the rampart and attacked it with

all sorts of machines. To the sound of trumpets, his soldiers hurled themselves against the

quaking enemy. They entered the town, burned it and massacred the Saracens and the

inhabitants.

Charles Martel, conqueror, resolved to pursue the invaders to their lair. He

crossed the Rhone with his army, entered Septimania and laid siege to Narbonne,

confining in this town the Muslim army and its king, whom the Annals of Metz name

Athima, and the Annals of Fontenelle Acluma.

On hearing the news, the Saracens of Spain raised an army, equipped it with

machines of war, and sent it to the aid of Narbonne, under the command of Omar. But

Charles Martel advanced toward this new enemy; he encountered it on a Sunday in the

valley of Corbières, attacked it and sent it head over heels. The Saracens, seeing their

chief killed, retreated toward the fleet that had brought them and threw themselves into

the sea, swimming to their ships. But the Francs pursued them, boarded boats and tracked

down the escapees in the midst of the waters.

Content with his victory, Charles Martel, summoned by a revolt of the Saxons in

the north of his domains, abandoned the siege of Narbonne. He traveled through

34

Septimania, destroying the most important towns, and he returned with his army loaded

with glory and loot.

Some authors have attributed to these events another date than that of 737.

The Chronicle of Herman and the Annals of Fulde give: 730, for the entry of the

Saracens into Avignon; 731, for the capture of this town by Charles Martel; 733, for the

victory that ended the war not far from Narbonne.

Sigebert puts the capture of Avignon in 735, the siege of Narbonne in 736.

This last author wrote almost 400 years after the wars that he describes; so the

flaws of chronology are abundant in his chronicle.

As for the Annals of Fulde, although interesting to consult, they often merit the

same reproach, and in this instance they are grossly mistaken. Indeed the author, or

perhaps an ignorant copyist, changes the dates of various phases of each event; he places

in the year 733 the defeat of the Saracens near Narbonne, in 734 the death of these same

Saracens engulfed in the sea as they fled, in 735 the lifting of their plunder, and in 736

the ravaging of Septimania by Charles Martel, in the days following his victory.

Herman le Raccourci is guilty of the same fault.

We thus have every reason to hold to the very detailed accounts of the continuator

of Fredegar, who wrote under the inspiration of Childebrand himself, and the Chronicle

of Fontenelle, whose anonymous author lived just a few years after the events that he

relates.

35

As great as the success of Charles Martel had been, his control of Provence was

not restored. Led into Gothia by the desire to strike the Saracens in Narbonne itself,

where their strength was most solid, he had left Duke Maurontus as master of the land

between the Durance and the sea. This traitor entered Marseilles and doubtless joined

forces with the remnants of the Muslim army shattered at Avignon. The Duke of

Austrasia had no sooner left Septimania ravaged by his troops, than the Saracens

reappeared once more before Arles, which they captured and destroyed totally. Here in

such terms the chronicles tell us of this invasion.

Paul the Deacon: “The Saracens once more having entered Gaul, they came to

Provence, and having seized Arles, they destroyed everything in the area.”

Sigebert: “DCCXXXVIII. [738.] Arles, a town in Gaul, taken by the Saracens,

and everything in the neighborhood destroyed.”

Ekkéard delays the capture of Arles by one year: “The year of the Lord 739, the

Saracens, invading Gaul, took the town of Arles.”

With Arles taken, the Arabs, as in the previous invasion, marched on Avignon,

where they settled. All went well for them for some months. But as soon as Charles

Martel had overcome the rebel Saxons, he led his army into Provence, quite resolved this

time to finish with these intractable invaders. And fearing that Maurontus and his allies

had taken refuge in the Alps, he asked for the help of the King of the Lombards,

Liutprand, who happened with his army to occupy the mountains of the coast of Italy.

This fact is attested for us by Paul the Deacon first of all:

36

“Charles sent ambassadors with gifts to Luitprand, asking him for help against the

Saracens. That man came to his aid without delay with the entire Lombard army. Seeing

this, the Saracens soon fled from these lands, and Luitprand regained Italy with his

army.”1

And Sigebert:

“Charles marched against them, after having called to his aid Luitprand, King of

the Lombards, and send them fleeing in terror of his name.”

Many other historians speak of this alliance in similar terms.

Finally, the epitaph engraved on Luitprand’s tomb says:

“ . . . . . . . . . Deinceps tremuére feroces

Usque Sarraceni, quos dispulit impiger, ipsos

Cúm premerent Gallos, Carolo poscente juvari.”

[“. . . . . . . . .Then they trembled,

These ferocious Saracens, whom he quickly split,

Under pressure from the Franks, Charles urging them on.”]

Baronius believes that if, when in 741 Gregory III, pressed by the Lombards, sent

an appeal for help to Charles Martel, that leader did not show himself to be in a hurry to

1 Hist. des Lombards.

37

serve him, this is because he did not dare to take up arms against the man who had come

so effectively to his aid.1

We see now, according to our better French chroniclers, what the result was of

that second expedition of Charles Martel.

The third continuator of Fredegar, after having recounted the first campaign, and

the ravaging of Septimania by the Austrasian army, adds:

“Finally, in the course of this year, in the second month, he sent into Provence his

brother, already named, with several dukes and counts, and an army. They arrived at

Avignon; Charles hurried to catch up with them, and he put once more under his control

all of this country up to the shores of the great sea; Duke Maurontus fled into the

impenetrable boulders of the coastline, which were for him an assured fortress.”

This passage seems to say that the Duke of Austrasia retook Avignon in the

second month of the year that saw his first arrival in Provence: “Denuo curriculo anni

illius, mense secundi.” But one cannot pack so many events into just two months:

especially since we know that he was recalled to Saxony after the victory in Narbonne.

The text has no doubt been altered due to a copyist error, perhaps a relatively recent one,

seeing that the French chronicles of Saint-Denys, translating Fredegar in the 13th century,

say the following: “In the second month of the year after the one in which they came.”

Moreover, a number of other, more detailed testimonies place the second expedition in

the year 739.

The Chronicle of Fontenelle, among others, tells us: 1 Ann. Eccl.

38

“The Year of the Incarnation DCCXXXIX [739], which was the 27th of the

government of Charles, the second of the reign of Hilderic, Merovingian king, and the

ninth of Pope Gregory, Charles, reassembling his entire army, came into Provence, took

Avignon a second time, and traversing all of Provence, up to the sea, arrived at

Marseilles; he put to flight Duke Maurontus, and having no adversaries from this time

forward, submitted all of this country to the empire of the Franks.”1

The Nazarian and Petavian Annals, as well as those of Hildesheim, agree on

leading Charles Martel into Saxony in the year 738 and returning him to Provence in 739.

The Chronicle of St. Benignus confirms the same date. The Gestes des rois francs, in

speaking of this second campaign, tell us:

“The year after, in the month of February, he sent into Provence his aforesaid

brother, and then following him, he arrived in Avignon.”

Finally the Chronicle of Ademar, monk of Angoulême, says the same thing in the

same terms, and calls Maurontus King of the Saracens: “fugato rege Saracenorum,

nomine Aronto.”2

To recapitulate the diverse texts which have helped us to understand this double

invasion, the Saracens took Avignon for the first time in 737; Charles Martel, after

having crushed them, crossed the Rhone, laid siege to Narbonne and defeated the Infidels

1 The synchronisms indicated in the text are false, for the 27th year of the government of Charles Martel would be 741, the year of his death. As for King Childeric, who is mentioned here, he ascended to the throne under the son of Charles Martel, in 742; finally, Gregory III did not begin his ninth year until March 739. 2 Labbe. Bib. ms.

39

again in the valley of Corbières in 737 or at the beginning of 738; in 738, he went into

Saxony; the Saracens again seized Arles and Avignon; the Duke of Austrasia returned in

February 739, aided by King Luitprand who protected the frontier in the East, and chased

them from their conquests.

This second campaign seems to have been easier than the first, and Sigebert de

Gemblours even says that he sent the Saracens running out of sheer terror at his name.

Charles Martel went down to Marseilles, pursuing the Saracen bands, and he

chased from this city the rebel Maurontus.1 According to a rather vague tradition,

recorded in the Statistique des Bouches-du-Rhône, a last battle was fought north of

Marseilles, and not far from the ramparts, where today lies the village of Canet. A

memory of this action remained in the name “Champ Marlet,” i.e., “Charles Martel,” that

this neighborhood bore in days gone by.2

It is not impossible that the road to Avignon, by which the Frankish army must

have arrived, passed through Canet; and even this name, which we believe is a corruption

of the word “Camine,” indicates most often a village situated on a grand thoroughfare.

Perhaps Maurontus brought the last of his forces there to encounter Charles Martel, and

the collision took place on the hills that bordered the valleys of Saint-Joseph and the

Aygalades. This can be supposed, but no ancient monument testifies to it; the chronicles

of that epoch say only that the Duke of Marseilles was obliged to take flight before the

1 Ann. Nazar. Hild. Petav. 2 Statist., Vol. I, p. 106.

40

conqueror. Taking with him the remnants of the Saracen armies, his allies, he went

looking for a refuge in the escarped and impenetrable mountains that border the sea, that

is to say, in the hills and forests situated between the town of Hyères and the river

Argens, which have born to this day the name Maures.1

These bands were doubtless of little importance, since Charles Martel then

captured again the road to Austrasia, considering the country as pacified, and Provence as

definitively placed under his domination. The Saracens, however, irritated by their defeat

and not having any other means of existence but brigandage, had to wreak havoc around

them, We can suppose, without fear of being mistaken, that, from the mountainous

wooded region where they had established their lair, they often descended into the plains,

attacking the undefended villages, pillaging the countryside, and destroying the churches

and the convents.

It is in this time-period that we must place the sack of the abbey of Lérins and the

martyrdom of St. Porcarius.

The Acts of St. Porcarius, edited by Barral2 from the manuscripts of his

monastery, do not give the precise date of this event. The author only tells us that the five

hundred monks of Lérins were martyred in the time of Charles Martel, around the year

730, and on the eve of the nones of August. In this uncertainty, Fr. Pagi has adopted the

1 Honoré Bouche, La chorographie ou description de Provence et l'histoire chronologique du mesme pays,Vol. I, p. 702. 2 Chron. S. S. Ler.

41

date 7291; Mabillon inclines toward 732.2 But we saw earlier that the Saracens had still

not entered Provence by 729, and that in 732 they had not extended their raids outside the

valley of the Rhone.

The destruction of Lérins could only be placed in the two great invasions repelled

by Charles Martel: either in the first, during which the Duke of Austrasia laid siege to

Narbonne, leaving Provence in the hands of Maurontus, or more likely in the second,

when Maurontus and his allies withdrew from Marseilles into the foothills of the Maures

Mountains.

The Acts add that the monastery was reestablished some years later, when the

Franks had chased the Saracens from Provence.

Was the author referring to the success of Charles Martel, which would require us

to move back some years the destruction of that illustrious abbey? As he is not a

contemporary, one could well accuse him of having added a bit of confusion to these

events, whose precise date he did not know; but it is more likely he is speaking of the

complete expulsion of the Moors, due to the arms of Pepin, who in 752 deprived them of

Septimania, and a little later, the important locale of Narbonne.

In fact an old manuscript of Lérins, which Gioffredo had seen, placed the

restoration of the monastery at this date3:

1 Pagi. Crit. in Bar. 2 Mabillon An. Ben. Vol. II. 3 Gioffredo Hist. des Alpes-Marit.

42

“Anno ab Incarnato Dei Verbo 752, Lerinense Monasterium restitutum est per

Eleutherium virum Dei. Hic adiens Pipinum Francorum Regem etc…”

One can thus view it as certain that the Moors sacked Lérins during the time of

Duke Maurontus, in the year 739 or 740.

The martyrdom of St. Porcarius is one of the greatest glories of the Church of

Provence: and we do not resist the pleasure of giving here the summary of the Acts that

Barral has preserved for us.1

“In the time of Charles, who owed to his victories the surname Martel, God,

wishing to punish the sins of men, allowed the army of the son of Agar to invade Gaul.

This cruel nation, ravaging all during its passage, reached Narbonne, which it undertook

to submit to its empire, in order to abolish the reign of Christ. The Christians fled their

villages, and took refuge in the mountains; for nothing could resist them. Soon the entire

country was but a desert.”

At that time the monastery of Lérins flourished, renowned for the number and

piety of its monks. St. Porcarius was its abbot and pastor.

An angel appeared to him in his sleep and said to him: “Get up and hide the relics

of the saints; the barbarians are near, and your island is going to be sanctified by the

blood of its monks. Be strong and give strength to your brothers.”

Porcarius, awakening, saw a great flame that rose from the earth up to heaven,

and with this sign he recognized that his vision came from God. He immediately went

and prostrated himself before the altar of St. Peter, protector of the monastery, and in 1 Barral Chron. Lerin. p. 220.

43

tears implored his help. Then he celebrated the mass of the Holy Spirit. He called the

monks together and said to them:

“My dear ones, I announce to you a great joy; our Father is going to visit the

vineyard; he calls his workers, and wants to dye their robes in their blood, in order to let

them take their seats at the wedding ceremonies of the Lamb.”

And while he spoke, a brilliant cloud extended itself over the monks, and a voice

was heard to say: “Come, blessed people, take possession of the kingdom which has been

prepared for you since the beginning.”

Then Porcarius announced that the barbarians were advancing, that in ten days

they would approach Lérins, and that it was necessary to prepare to die. He sent to Italy

sixteen children and thirty-six young people, whom they feared would be threatened by

the seductions and threats of the Saracens, and to whom he entrusted the mission of one

day rebuilding the abbey; and he offered to those who dreaded death the option of

accompanying this young colony out of the country. After ten days of reflection and

examination, five hundred five monks decided to remain, desiring to give their blood to

Jesus Christ. But, at the last moment, two young monks, Columbus and Eleutherius,

fearing the tortures that awaited them, left their brothers and hid themselves in a cave on

the coast.

Finally the enemy arrived; they invaded the monastery, destroyed the churches,

smashed the crosses and profaned the altars. They looked for the abbey’s treasure, and to

discover it, they tormented the monks. They tried to win over the youngest ones, as much

44

by promises as by threats, and to frighten them they cruelly tortured the oldest ones.

Then, seeing that they were totally unwavering, they immolated young and old, saving

only four robust monks, whom they threw on board the vessel of their commander.

However Columbus and Eleutherius, hidden in their cavern, cast timid glances

outside, and they saw the souls of their brothers who, brilliant as the stars, rose to heaven

in the midst of angels who glorified them.

Seeing this, Columbus said to his companion: “Why have we fled a similar fate?

Let us also go to receive the palm, and rise to God.” Eleutherius did not have the courage

to follow his advice; but Columbus hurled himself from the grotto; he was seized by the

soldiers and immediately massacred.

However the Infidels, having finished their work of destruction, took to their ships

and arrived at the port of Agay. There the four prisoners, having obtained permission to

disembark, hurled themselves into the forest, protected by help from on high, fled to

Arluc. Finding in this place, on the river Saigne, a small boat, they took it and traveled to

Lérins, where they arrived at dawn. They disembarked, and seeing this blessed land once

again, covered the cadavers of their companions, they filled the air with their moans, all

saddened by having not merited like them the palm of martyrdom. Eleutherius, hearing

their sobs, left his retreat and joined them, regretting this time not having joined his fate

to that of Columbus.

And just at the moment when the day returned to illuminate this field of carnage,

a vast swarm of sea birds began to flutter about over the isle, making plaintive cries, as if

45

they were sobbing over the deaths of the saints and taking part in their funerals; and they

did not cease their laments until the five survivors had consigned to the earth the relics of

the glorious martyrs.

After having accomplished this pious obligation, Eleutherius and the others went

to Italy to search for their companions; the Franks having chased the Saracens from

Provence, they returned all together and rebuilt the abbey.

These saints suffered in about the Year of the Lord 730, and on the eve of the

nones of August.

Other, shorter Acts1 show us the monks, frightened by the announcement of

martyrdom, remaining hesitant up until the last day. Then, sighting the approaching

Saracens, they wanted to flee; but it was too late, because Porcarius had sent off the

transport boats. The holy abbot rallied their courage with his words; he took a

processional crucifix and marched ahead of them; with his example, all were filled with

faith and exhilaration; and, dressed in white, they went to the enemy.

Around this time, the town of Nice was ruined from top to bottom by the

Saracens.2 Durante, who places this cruel event in 729, assures us that the Infidels

attempted at that time to penetrate into Italy through the Ligurian Alps, but they were

repulsed by the local inhabitants. He adds that a monk named Ebbon then traveled along

the coast of Provence and Liguria, stirring up the local populace to arm themselves for

1 Barral, p. 223. 2 Hist. de Nice p. 109.

46

this holy war, and predicting the impending destruction of Saracen power in the fields of

Poitiers.

Could this episode have been fabricated from a vague memory of an armed act by

the bishop Ebbon, who repelled the Muslims when they attacked the town of Sens in

725?

The Saracens had thus failed in their attempt to join Provence to their empire of

Spain and Septimania; and Duke Maurontus did not succeed in detaching his government

from the crown of France. But this beautiful land, sacked by several formidable

invasions, remained covered with ruins. The Muslims had come to know it better; and for

some years afterward their pirates became part of it, and brought as much suffering as

great armies.

[For the complete translation contact

Robert Lebling: lebling(at)yahoo(dot)com.]