1 Learning by Doing: Coping with Inquisitors in Medieval Languedoc James Given Department of History University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3275 Copyrighted material Please do not quote without author’s permission.
Oct 15, 2015
1
Learning by Doing: Coping with Inquisitors in Medieval Languedoc
James Given
Department of History
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-3275
Copyrighted material
Please do not quote without authors permission.
2
The twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were a period of great
development in the institutions of governance in medieval Europe. The amateurish and
ad hoc governing practices of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries gave way to ever
more professionalized and bureaucratic ways of doing things. The overwhelming mass
of archival documents bearing witness to this is matched by the extensive historical
literature on the subject. The evidence we have, however, gives us a one-sided
impression of this phenomenon. .
What we have is a bureaucrats vision of governing. Such a vision is necessarily
reductionist. Bureaucrats have to fit the complex, ever-changing, messy stuff of reality
into easily comprehended patterns that appear to be orderly and amenable to systematic
intervention.1
Some sources, however, do allow us glimpses of how the governed received the
efforts of their rulers. Among these is the rich mass of documentation relating to the
inquisition of heretical depravity in Languedoc in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
This vision of governance is something of a mirage. How the complex,
ever-changing, messy stuff of reality responded to the efforts to govern it is not given
much prominence in such a vision. How the actions of the governed shaped the process
and results of governance is often mysterious. This is especially true in the case of the
European middle ages. The great mass of the governed were illiterate, and hence
voiceless. Their reactions to the efforts of their rulers have to be read through the records
produced by those same rulers, who were not necessarily interested in saying much about
what we are interested in. The fact that the governed also often tried to hid their efforts
from their masters makes the problem even more difficult.
1 Scott, Seeing Like a State.
3
This material, spanning a period of well over a century, lets us to see how reactions to the
inquisitors changed over time. The evidence shows a distinct pattern of learning and
adjustment by the people of Languedoc. When the inquisition was first founded, its
procedures and personnel were in a state of flux. It was a new, unpredictable player in
the political arena. How best to deal with it was anything but clear. What we see is an
often flailing pattern of responses that betrays confusion, an often astonishing navet,
and resort to large-scale defiance and open violence, much of it counterproductive. As
the inquisition perfected its processes and became a regular part of the socio-political
landscape, however, people learned how to adjust to it. Responses to it became more
sophisticated -- and perhaps more effective. Some people, including those who had
passed through the investigatory and punitive machinery of the inquisitors, learned how
to colonize the inquisition, using it to accomplish their own ends.
***************
The early records of the Languedocian inquisitors reveal that it took time for
people to realize that they had to be careful of what they said, and to whom they said it.
The most eloquent example of this comes from the chronicle of Guillaume Pelhisson, one
of the first Dominican inquisitors in Languedoc. In April 1233 Gregory IX issued bulls
authoring the establishment of inquisitorial tribunals in Languedoc. By January 1234 the
provincial prior of the Dominicans in Toulouse was able to present a papal legate with a
list of inquisitors.2
2 Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition, 140.
One of the inquisitors first victims fell into their hands on the very
day when the canonization of St. Dominic was proclaimed in the city of Toulouse. On
August 5, 1234, the bishop of Toulouse, Raymond of Miramont, said a solemn mass in
4
Dominics honor in the Dominicans residence. As he and the friars were entering the
convents refectory, through the merits of the Blessed Dominic, as Pelhisson put it, a
man told the convents rector that some Cathar heretics were in the process of
administering to a dying believer the consolamentum, the ritual which enabled an
individual to escape from the demon-created prison of this world back to his/her true
home in heaven. This was happening at the house of Peitavin Boursier, who Pelhisson
claimed had long been something of a general courier for the heretics.3
Seating himself by her bedside, Bishop Raymond launched into a long discussion
about contempt for the world. Boursiers mother-in-law, who had just received the
consolamentum, thought she was talking to one of the Cathar Good Christians. The
bishop was able to get her to admit to many heretical beliefs. He then said, For the rest,
you must not lie nor have much concern for this miserable lifeHence, I say that you are
to be steadfast in your belief, nor in fear of death ought you to confess anything other
than what you believe and hold firmly to your heart. The dying woman answered, My
lord, what I say I believe, and I shall not change my commitment out of concern for the
miserable remnant of my life. The bishop replied, Therefore you are a heretic! For
what you have confessed is the faith of the heretics, and you may know assuredly that the
The prior
informed the bishop, and a crowd went to Boursiers house. There they found Boursiers
mother-in-law suffering from a high fever. One of those gathered at her sick-bed called
out, Look, my lady, the lord bishop is coming to see you. But the bishop and the others
entered the house so quickly that he did not have an opportunity to tell her that her visitor
was the Catholic bishop of Toulouse, not a Cathar bishop.
3 Douais, Sources, 97-98; translation from Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and
Inquisition, 214.
5
heresies are manifest and condemned. Renounce them all! Accept what the Roman and
catholic church believes. For I am your bishop of Toulouse, and I preach the Roman
Catholic faith, which I want and urge you to believe. Boursiers mother-in-law
courageously proved true to her vow, and refused to recant. The bishop condemned her.
She was immediately picked up, bed and all, and taken out of the city and burned.4 As
she cooked in a meadow belonging to the count of Toulouse, the bishop and the friars
happily repaired to their dinner.5
Even after the inquisitors had been at work for over a decade, some people had
still not learned that it was unwise to speak too frankly on matters of faith.
6 On February
2, 1248, Pierre Garcias of Toulouse was excommunicated by the inquisitors Bernard de
Caux and Jean de Saint-Pierre for failing to appear to answer charges that he was a
sympathizer with heresy.7 Pierre had made the mistake of discussing religion with one of
his relatives, Guillaume Garcias, a Franciscan living in Toulouse.8 Over six months
Pierre and Guillaume debated religion in the Franciscan convents common room.9
The friars reported what they had heard to the inquisitors. According to Pierre,
there was a good god who had made everything that was incorruptible and permanent,
Unknown to Pierre several other friars were hidden somewhere above the two where they
could overhear the conversation.
4 Her son-in-law, Peitavin Boursier, was arrested, along with another heretical
sympathizer. Neither showed her fortitude; both confessed their guilt and denounced many prominent persons in the city.
5 Douais, Sources, 98; translation from Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition, 215-216.
6 Douais, Documents pour servir l'histoire de l'inquisition, 2: 90-108. 7 Douais, Documents pour servir l'histoire de l'inquisition, 2: 74. 8 Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition, 242-249. 9 Douais, Documents pour servir l'histoire de l'inquisition, 2: 90.
6
and an evil god who had created everything that was corruptible and transient.10 The law
of Moses was nothing but shadow and vanity; the god who had given it to Moses was an
evil scoundrel. Jesus, his mother Mary and St. John the Evangelist had not had fleshly
bodies. John the Baptist was one of the greatest devils who had ever lived. There would
be no resurrection of the flesh. Christ had liberated no one from Hell. The only true
marriage was between god and the soul.11 Marriage after the flesh was no more than
prostitution; no man could be saved together with his wife. No one ought to be
condemned to death. If a man condemned a heretic to death, he was a murderer. The
mass was worthless, and had not been celebrated before the time of Pope Sylvester.
There was no purgatory; alms given for the dead were useless.12 The church would pass
away within twenty years. All preachers of the crusade were murderers; the crosses that
they gave out were only bits of cloth.13 The church was a whore who gives poison and
the power to poison to all who believe in it.14 If Pierre could lay hold of that God who
would save only one out of a thousand men made by Him and would damn the others, he
would break Him in pieces and rend him with nails and teeth as perfidiousand Peter
added, May he die of gout.15
By the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century suspects
had learned to be considerably more circumspect in what they said. Some Cathar
10 Douais, Documents, 2: 95-96. 11 Douais, Documents, 2: 99. 12 Douais, Documents, 2: 95-101. 13 Douais, Documents, 2: 91-95. 14 Douais, Documents, 2: 99. Translation from Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and
Inquisition, 246. 15 Douais, Documents, 2: 100. Translation from Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and
Inquisition, Heresy, 246.
7
believers, at least, seem to have been aware in one fashion or another that Romano-
canonical law required for proof of guilt the testimony of more than one witness. For, as
one believer observed in the early fourteenth century,
Many believers are unwilling to see the lords, that is,
the heretics, in the company of more than one or two
other believers at most. They do this lest, if they are
detected, they can be implicated by several witnesses.
For, as it was said, one or two witnesses can easily be
discredited, because one can immediately say that
they are ones enemies. Thus, they greatly prefer to
see the lords, that is, the heretics, either alone or with
one other believer, rather than with two16
Lying under oath presented ethical difficulties for many of those tried by the
inquisitors, especially the Cathar Good Christians who could not lie without destroying
the effects of the consolamentum that had cleansed them of their sins. Many suspects
therefore became adept at equivocation and misdirection. This was enough of a problem
that the authors of inquisitorial manuals felt compelled to comment on the evasive
answers that inquisitors might encounter. Bernard Gui in his Practica inquisitionis,
written in the 1320s complained about the deceptive speech of the heretics known as
Bguins. These were members of the Franciscan Third Order and followers of the
Spiritual Franciscans. They adhered to a rigid interpretation of the meaning and role of
poverty in St. Franciss rule, regarded the Franciscans burned for heresy at Marseilles in
16 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 74.
8
1318 as martyrs, revered the Languedocian friar Pierre Jean Olivi as a great teacher and
saint, and looked on Pope John XXII as the mystical antichrist.17
There are some malicious and crafty people among
the beguins who, in order to veil the truth, shield their
accomplices and prevent their error and falsity from
being discovered, respond so ambiguously,
obscurely, generally and confusingly to questions that
the clear truth cannot be gathered from their replies.
Thus, asked what they believe about some statement
or statements proposed to them, they reply, I believe
about this what the holy church of God believes, and
they do not wish to speak more explicitly or respond
in any other way. In this case, to exclude the ruse
they use (or rather abuse) in referring in this way to
the church of God, they should diligently, subtly and
perspicaciously be asked what they mean by the
church of God, whether they mean the church of
God as they understand it; for, as is clear from the
errors presented above, they use the phrase church
of God misleadingly. For they say they themselves
and their accomplices are the church of God or are of
According to Gui,
17 On these heretics, see Burnham, So Great a Light and Manselli, Spirituali e
Beghini in Provenza. This work has been translated into French by Jean Duvernoy: Spirituels et Bguins du Midi. On Olivi, see Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty and The Persecution of Peter Olivi.
9
the church of God. But those who believe differently
than they and persecute them they do not consider to
be the church of God or part of it. 18
The most elegant discussion of the stratagems employed by heretics to avoid
detection is found in the Directorium inquisitorum of the fourteenth-century Aragonese
inquisitor, Nicholas Eymerich. Although Eymerich was not Languedocian and his career
falls outside our time frame, he was shaped in the traditions first elaborated by his
Occitanian colleagues. Indeed, he studied Bernard Guis Liber sententiarum.
19
The first way [of concealing their errors] is by
equivocation. For example, if they are questioned
concerning the true body of Christ, they reply
concerning the mystical body of Christ. For
example, if it is said to them: Do you believe that
this is the body of Christ?, they reply, I believe that
this is the body of Christ. By this he means a stone
that he sees there, or his own body, which is the body
It is
therefore worth quoting him at length.
18 Gui, Manuel, 188-90; translation from David Burr,
http://www.history.vt.edu/Burr/heresy/beguins/Gui_beguins.html 19 In Questio LXXIII Eymerich asks whether the inquisitor can torture those
suspected of giving false testimony and whether, if such false witness is proved, he can punish those guilty of it. His answer is that the inquisitor can do so. He then notes: Concerning this, this event happened in Toulouse in 1312, as I saw in the sentence: For a father had deposed against his son concerning the crime of heretical depravity, and later he revoked his statement. Directorium, p. 622. Eymerich is here referring to the case of Pons Arnaud de Pujols of Sainte-Foy-dAigrefeuille, whom Gui sentenced to immuration on 22 April 1312 (Gui, Liber Sententiarum, 95).
10
of Christ, meaning that all corporeal bodies are
Christs, since they are Gods, and Christ is God...
The second way of evading a question or
misleading a questioner is by adding a condition. For
example, if it is asked: Do you believe in marriage
according to the sacrament?, he replies: If it
pleases God, I certainly believe it to be so,
understanding by this that it would not please God
that he believe this...
The third way of evading a question or misleading
a questioner is through redirecting the question. For
example, if it is asked: Do you believe that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?, he
replies, And what do you believe? And when he is
told, We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son, he replies, Thus I believe,
meaning, I believe that you believe this, but I do
not...
The fourth way of evading a question is through
feigned astonishment. For example, if it is asked:
Do you believe that God is the creator of all
things?, he replies with astonishment, and as if
confused, What else should I believe, should I not
11
believe this?, meaning that he ought not so to
believe...
The fifth way of evading a question is through
twisting the meaning of words. For example, if it is
asked: Do you believe that it is a sin to swear to tell
the truth in court?, he replies, shifting the meaning,
I believe that he who tells the truth does not sin.
He thus does not reply concerning the oath about
which he was questioned, but about telling the truth,
about which he was not asked...
The sixth way of evading a question is through an
open changing of the subject. For example, if it is
asked: Do you believe that after his death Christ
descended into Hell?, he answers, O my lord
inquisitor! How much should everyone contemplate
in his heart the fearful death of Christ! And I, a poor
wretch, do not? For I am poor on account of Christ,
and I have to beg for my food. And thus they switch
to talking about their poverty, or that of Christ...
The seventh way of evading a question is through
self-justification. For example, if it is asked: Do
you believe that Christ ascended into heaven?, or
something else concerning the faith, he replies,
12
justifying himself, O my lord, I am a simple man,
and illiterate, and in my simplicity I serve God, and I
know nothing about these questions, or these subtle
matters. You can easily trick me, and lead me into
error; for the sake of God, do not ask me about these
things...
The eighth way of evading a question is through
feigned illness. For example, if someone is
interrogated concerning his faith, and the questions
having been multiplied to the point that he perceives
that he cannot avoid being caught out in his heresy
and error, he says: I am very weak in the head, and
I cannot endure any more. In the name of God,
please let me go now. Or he says, Pain has
overcome me. Please, for the sake of God, let me lie
down. And, going to his bed, he lies down. And
thus he escapes questioning for a time, and
meanwhile thinks over how he will reply, and how
craftily he will conduct himself. Thus they conduct
themselves with respect to other feigned illnesses.
They frequently use this mode of conduct when they
see that they are to be tortured, saying that they are
sick, and that they will die if they are tortured, and
13
women frequently say that they are suffering from
their female troubles, so that they can escape torture
for a time...
The ninth way of evading a question is by feigning
stupidity or madness. For example, if they are
questioned concerning the faith, fearing lest they be
caught out in their errors through the efforts of the
inquisitor, they act as if they were mad, and out of
their minds, as did David before Achish, lest he be
caught out. And thus, when answering questions,
they laugh, and insert many irrelevant, ridiculous,
and foolish words. They thus reveal their heresies
and errors, but in such a way that they seem to say
whatever they say in jest. This mode of behavior
they frequently adopt when they realize they are
going to be tortured, or handed over to the secular
arm, in the hope that through such deceit they may
avoid torture or escape death. I have had much
experience with such people, who at times constantly
act out of their minds, but at other times have lucid
intervals...20
20 Eymerich, Directorium, 430-31.
14
Eymerichs point about feigned mental illness is illustrated by Pierre Dominici of
Narbonne, a Bguin. Pierre had been tried by the archbishop of Narbonne. He had
recanted his errors and been condemned to wear crosses. Once free of the archbishops
clutches, Pierre repented renouncing his beliefs and laid aside his crosses. Ultimately, he
fell into Bernard Guis hands. After two months of questioning, Pierre again recanted.
As a relapsed heretic, the only fate he could look forward to was death at the stake.
Perhaps to escape execution, he faked lunacy. Praising as holy individuals whom the
church had condemned as heretics, he composed a litany in which he inserted the names
of 70 heretics among the ranks of the holy martyrs, virgins, and confessors of the true
church. He went about the prison in Toulouse reciting this litany, sometimes in a loud,
sometimes in a low, voice. He also read his litany over in the presence of Gui himself. If
this folly was calculated, it failed to save him; he was relaxed to the secular arm on 12
September 1322.21
Prisoners simulated physical as well as mental illness. An example is provided by
Jacquette Amorosa of Lodve, a Bguin sympathizer condemned at Carcassonne on 1
March 1327. Jacquettes husband was also a sympathizer. When he was arrested by the
inquisitors, he managed through an intermediary to warn Jacquette not to confess.
Thanks to an ailment that made her hard of hearing, she contrived for a long time to
escape interrogation. When finally arraigned before the inquisitors, she continued to
claim that she was afflicted by her hearing problem, underlining her point by bursting
into tears.
22
21 Gui, Liber Sententiarum, 383-86.
In a similar, but slightly different, fashion, the old and inveterate opponent
22 Doat, 28: fols. 233v-235r.
15
of the Carcassonne inquisition, Guillaume Garric, claimed that he could not clearly
remember his involvement with heretical matters because of his advanced age.23
Some suspects learned that a properly subservient demeanor could go a long way
to save them. In the 1320s the Cathar believer, Condors Marty of Junac in the county of
Foix, who was then a fugitive in the Aragonese town of Morella, regaled some of her
companions with the story of how she had deceived the inquisitor of Carcassonne,
Geoffroy dAblis.
[W]hen she appeared in Carcassonne before the lord
inquisitor, she had confessed to some things concerning
herself and heresy and she had behaved humbly. The
inquisitor, receiving her testimony graciously, touched her
with his hand lightly on the shoulders. She then embraced
his leg, begging him to show mercy to her. The inquisitor
told her that she should not be afraid, for he would do her
no harm. Later the inquisitor released her, although she
had not confessed the half of what she had done and what
she knew about others24
In addition to learning how to outwit inquisitors during interrogations, some
Cathars became adept at feigning outward adhesion to Catholicism. Guillaume Blibaste,
a Good Christian from the county of Foix who in the early fourteenth century fled south
across the Pyrenees to escape the inquisitors described how he pretended to be a good
Catholic. He signed himself with the cross, since this was as good a way as any to shoo
23 Gui, Liber Sententiarum, 283. Douais, Guillaume Garric, 5-45. 24 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 71-72
16
away flies.25 Similarly, when his former companion and fellow Good Man, Raimond de
Toulouse, lay deathly ill in Tortosa, Guillaume summoned a priest to his comrades
bedside to give him communion. When the priest asked Raimond if he believed that the
consecrated host he was about to receive was the body of his savior Jesus Christ,
conceived by the holy sprit and born of the Virgin Mary, Guillaume replied that he
believed as a Good Man should, which is to say, not at all. Queried on the other articles
of faith, he gave the same answer. Then he received the host from the priest. When
Blibaste was asked if either he or Guillaume believed that the host was truly the body of
Christ, Guillaume replied, Of course not! But he who could not eat such a tiny piece of
bread would not have much of an appetite!26 At Raimonds funeral, Blibaste
continuing his mummery, sprinkling holy water on the funeral party. As he remarked
later, three or four drops of water certainly didnt hurt anyone, especially considering that
travelers endured worse on the road.27
**********
The inquisition always remained a dangerous player in the Languedocian political
arena. However, over time it in a sense became domesticated. Its procedures became
well know; its personnel absorbed into the networks of local society. For the
knowledgeable and well-connected, and the gold, it became a resource to exploit. Many
of those who appropriated the inquisitions resources for their own ends were former
heretical sympathizers who had passed through its machinery of investigation and
punishment. With first-hand, and often prolonged, contact with the system, they knew
25 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 53. 26 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 55 27 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 55.
17
better than most what the inquisitors procedures were, what information they interested
in, and what motivated them to display severity or clemency. These gamers of the
system28 were familiar with the beliefs, practices, and personnel of the heresies with
which they had been involved. They could thus concoct very persuasive false
allegations.29
The most spectacular example of such behavior is provided by the multifold
machinations of, Pierre de Gaillac, a notary from Tarascon in the county of Foix. He and
his family had been Cathar believers. In 1308 and 1309 he testified before Geoffroy
dAbliss tribunal in Carcassonne.
Moreover, some penitent heretics became low-level servants of the
inquisitors. They were well placed to influence their masters views.
30 It is possible that he was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment.31
Gaillacs testimony to Geoffroy dAblis was the beginning of a long and at times
rewarding relationship. Gaillac made a practice of denouncing various neighbors,
acquaintances, and rivals to the inquisitors. When Jacques Fournier began investigating
heresy in the diocese of Pamiers, Gaillac appeared before him at least three times as a
If this did happen, the consequences do not seem to have been too great,
for in the 1320s he was actively practicing as a notary.
28 A great deal of my thinking is due to Erving Goffmans discussion of the underlife of a public institution, in Asylums, 171-320.
29 This is a point made by a legal expert who in the 1330s was asked to examine some of the records of the Carcassonne inquisition. His remarks about the skill ex-Cathar believers could display in concocting false accusations against the innocent is in Doat, 32: fols. 171v-172r. Unfortunately, this legal expert cannot be identified.
30 Gaillacs deposition is printed in Pales-Gobilliard, LInquisiteur Geoffroy dAblis, 332-61. Interestingly, and most unusually, he was allowed to write out in his own hand a summary of his testimony, which was included in dAbliss register.
31 Pales-Gobilliard, LInquisiteur Geoffroy dAblis, 52.
18
witness against various people suspected of heresy.32 In addition, he was free in offering
advice to people about what they ought to say when questioned by the bishop.33
Gailacs skill in navigating the shoals of the inquisition enabled him, in company
with a number of other conspirators, to get one of his enemies condemned for heresy.
This was Guillaume Tron, another notary from Tarascon and Gaillacs professional rival.
Gaillac managed not only to get Tron was not only arrested and interrogated, but also
sentenced to immuration in Carcassonne for his supposed involvement with Catharism.
The inquisitors learned that they had condemned an innocent man only by
accident. On 14 August 1324 Bernard Mineur, a weaver, appeared before Jacques
Fourniers tribunal to report a suspicious conversation he had overheard. On the evening
of the preceding Friday, Bernard and a friend, Guillaume dAlion, had visited the Pamiers
residence (apparently a tavern) of a woman named Gauzia Desplas. As they sat drinking
in front of her house, Bernard saw four men seated at a table in front of a neighboring
building. Three of them he recognized as Pierre den Hugol, Pierre Peyre, and Jacques
Tartier of Qui. Bernard heard Pierre den Hugol say to one of the others, If you tell the
truth, all of us are lost! To this the man replied, If I dont tell the truth, the bishop will
know it, and misfortune will come to all of us.34
Given the atmosphere in Pamiers under Fourniers episcopate, Mineur suspected
that the men were talking about heresy. Nudging his companion Guillaume with his
32 On 24 October 1309 he gave testimony against both Raimond Vayssire of Ax-les-
Thermes and Arnaud Teisseyre of Lordat; on 3 April 1321 he testified about the late Simon Barre of Ax-les-Thermes. Duvernoy, Registre, 1: 273, 2: 196-97, 1: 299.
33 Duvernoy, Registre, 2: 434-35. 34 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 372
19
elbow, Mineur hissed, Listen to what those peasants are talking about.35 Guillaume,
who was suffering from a fever and had not been paying much attention to anything,
roused himself from his stupor and looked at the four men. The four, realizing that their
conversation had been overheard, got up to leave. As they hastened off, Hugol shrugged
his shoulders and said to the man he had been urging to remain silent, Well, then, say
what you want to say.36 Later that same day, Bernard again ran into Hugol and the
others. When the men spotted him, they began muttering among themselves, Thats
him!37 A few days later Mineur encountered Hugol and his friends yet again, this time
as they were drinking at another tavern. Bernard approached Hugol and asked him if he
had indeed said what Bernard had overheard. Pierre turned pale, paid posthaste for his
wine, and scuttled off with his companions as fast as he could.38
Fournier decided that the matter was serious enough to warrant further
investigation. On 9 September Pierre den Hugol was arraigned before the bishop. He
was the first of a parade of suspects in this affair to pass before Fourniers tribunal.
Eventually over the course of nine months he interrogated nine witnesses in this affair.
The story he wrung out of these reluctant witnesses was an unpleasant one of rivalry and
revenge.
As early as 1309 Gaillac had been trying to entangle Tron with the inquisition.
He informed the inquisitors that as he and Tron were returning to Tarascon from the
assizes held at Alet-les-Bains they fell into a discussion of the inquisition. Tron criticized
35 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 374. 36 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 374. 37 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 373. 38 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 373.
20
Gaillac for confessing about his involvement with heresy after only a short term of
incarceration. Tron also said, at least according to Pierre, that when he had been a
student at Toulouse, he had shared rooms with a clerk who was something of a free
thinker. This man maintained that it was contrary to nature and therefore impossible for
bread to be turned into the body of Christ during the mass. According to Gaillac, Tron
indicated that he was to some degree sympathetic to this opinion.39
Over the succeeding years Tron did little to ingratiate himself with Gaillac. Since
they were both notaries and residents of Tarascon, they were often in professional
competition. Tron found it easy to put Pierre at a disadvantage by alluding to his
heretical past. As Gaillac told Pierre Peyre:
I want to confound completely Master Guillaume Tron of
Tarascon because I cannot be in any court where he is
without him vilifying me; and because of this I would like
to see him destroyed or hanged. Therefore, even if I knew
that because of this my soul would go to one hundred
thousand devils, I intend to revenge myself on him, by
accusing him of heresy, whether truly or falsely, so that I
can confound and destroy him.40
To Peyres brother Raimond he explained that with Tron out of the way he and his friend
Guillaume Gautier would dominate the countys courts and grow rich.
41
39 Duvernoy, Registre, pp. 358-59.
40 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 389. 41 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 413.
21
One of Gaillacs first steps toward mobilizing the resources of the inquisition
involved a chance meeting in 1318 with Raimond Peyre of Qui. Like Gaillac, Raimond
Peyre had passed through the investigative machinery of the inquisition of Carcassonne,
spending some time in the inquisitors mur.42 On his release Peyre had gone to work for
the inquisitors delivering letters summoning individuals to appear before the inquisitors.
On one of his errands he went to Tarascon. At one of the town gates he encountered
Guillaume Tron. Tron immediately showered abuse on him: Eh, Raimond Peyre, you
do nothing else than carry the Carcassonne inquisitors little notes to these parts? To
which Raimond replied, You call the letters of the lord inquisitor little notes? Is there
not a good man in these parts who would not gladly carry the lord inquisitors letters if he
wished it? Tron replied, You scum; you are so proud with your little notes, it seems as
if you came from Santiago [de Compostella]. Peyres last words to Tron were, Master
Guillaume, you are so proud; yet you will be glad someday if a man puts water in your
hands.43
Full of wrath, Raimond returned to Carcassonne and informed the inquisitor, Jean
de Beaune, about his conversation with Tron. The next day Peyres business brought him
back to the inquisitions building. In the great hall he encountered Tron again, this time
in the company of Bernard Aug of Tarascon. Not at all inhibited by his surroundings,
Tron resumed where he had left off at Tarascon: You traitorous scum; you should have
been burnt up with the letters youre carrying into the Sabarths; you destroy and beat
down the entire land. You do ill, and you sow discord between the men of the land and
42 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 435-36. 43 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 426-27.
22
the lord inquisitor; because of this misfortune will come to you.44
Raimond, having delivered his denunciation, made his way toward his lodgings.
As he was walking through the bourg, he encountered Pierre de Gaillac standing in the
doorway of the house where he was then living.
While Tron berated
Peyre, Aug was overcome with a fit of laughter. With this laughter ringing in his ears,
Raimond hastened back to the refectory to report this exchange to the inquisitor.
45 Raimond poured out the story of what
had happened between himself and the notary. Pierre, who had perhaps been waiting for
just such an opportunity, suggested that he and Raimond put their heads together and
work out a scheme for putting Tron and his wagging tongue into the prisons of the
inquisition.46
Gaillacs proposal was that Raimond denounce Tron as a Cathar believer.
47
The next morning the two visited the inquisitions headquarters. Gaillac, who
may not have completely trusted either Raimonds fortitude or his theatrical skills,
himself told the notary assigned to record Raimonds deposition the story they had
concocted. About fourteen years earlier Raimond had one evening visited the house of
Raimond felt some reservations about perjuring himself; but Pierre told him he need not
worry about retribution since it was the inquisitors practice not to reveal to the accused
the names of the witnesses against them. He also promised to help Raimond, whether in
legal or other matters, if he testified against Tron. With these reassurances, Raimond
agreed.
44 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 427; MS. 4030, fol. 307a-b. (Where Duvernoy reads
portatis, I read aportatis.) 45 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 418. 46 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 427-28. 47 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 428.
23
Guillaume Delaire in Qui. There he had found the Good Men Guillaume Autier and
Prades Tavernier. While he was talking to them, Guillaume Tron arrived. Tron asked
Peyre to leave so that he could speak with the heretics in private. Peyre went into the part
of the house known as the foganha, where the cooking fire was located. From there he
had been able to see Tron sitting and talking with the Good Men.48
When Gaillac and Peyre had finished their business and were leaving the
building, Pierre said to Raimond, Now misfortune will come to Guillaume Tron,
because he will be arrested by the lord inquisitor and detained in the mur. He also
warned Raimond, See to it that you stand firmly by the testimony you have given,
because if you contradict yourself or revoke the deposition, great misfortune will come to
you, because the lord inquisitor will arrest you.
49
Gaillac cast about for other allies. One of the first he found was Raimond Peyres
brother, Pierre, who lived in Qui. Like Raimond, he had had previous dealings with the
inquisition, having been a prisoner in the Carcassonne mur.
50
When Raimond arrived in Qui to visit his brother, Pierre complained to him
about the cape and the insults that Tron had heaped on him. He declared that he wanted
revenge on the notary. Raimond explained that his brother would probably never be able
Like his brother, he hated
Guillaume Tron. Sometime around 1316 Tron had lent him money, taking as security a
cape worth three sous in the money of Toulouse. Pierre had repaid the sum, but Tron had
refused to return the cape.
48 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 421-23. Every time Peyre appeared before the inquisitors
he altered the details of Trons alleged visit to Delaires house. See 3: 408-09 and 428 for slightly different versions of what happened there.
49 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 423. 50 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 387, 400.
24
to gain any satisfaction through the count of Foixs courts. He suggested that Pierre have
recourse to the Carcassonne inquisition. Raimond also told his brother that he and
Gaillac had already spoken to the inquisitors about Tron. Taken aback by the audacity of
this, Pierre asked Raimond if he could in good conscience bear false witness against
someone. To which Raimond replied, Whats it to you as long as we put Master
Guillaume in a tight spot by testifying against him?51 When Pierre replied that he was
pleased about what his brother and Gaillac had done, Raimond suggested that he go to the
inquisition with his own false testimony. Pierre demurred, stating that he could not spare
the time for a trip to Carcassonne. Later that same day Pierre went to Tarascon. There he
came across Tron and had a violent argument about his wifes cape.52
Later that same week Pierre ran into Gaillac at evening in the market place at
Qui. Gaillac invited him to accompany him to Tarascon. During their walk there,
Gaillac tried to persuade Pierre to go to Carcassonne to testify against Tron. Pierre
approved of what Gaillac and his brother had done, but said that the state of his affairs
would not allow him go to Carcassonne. He had also never seen Tron in the company of
heretics.
53
By the time the two reached Tarascon, the sun had set. In the market place they
found Master Guillaume Gautier and Raimond Peyre. Gaillac suggested that they all go
to a place just outside town called the Champ de Foire. Fearful of watchful eyes, he
insisted that they leave town one by one. As they were sneaking out of Tarascon, some
of the company encountered Pierre Lombard, Gaillacs brother-in-law, who decided to
51 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 396. 52 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 395-96. 53 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 389-90, 396-97.
25
tag along. When the group reassembled in the fields, everyone vented his particular
grievances against Tron. They agreed to cooperate in lodging false accusations against
him and swore to keep the plot a secret.54 Gaillac also recruited some other participants
for the conspiracy.55 Although this conspiracy ultimately unraveled, Gaillac and his
fellows enjoyed a considerable measure of success. They got Tron arrested, convicted,
and imprisoned. Had a weaver having a drink not happened to overhear a tavern
conversation, Tron might well have died in the Carcassonne mur.56
**********
Over time people became more skilled in evading, confusing, or manipulating the
inquisitors. They also became more judicious in the use of violence against the
inquisitors or their agents. Open, violent challenges to the inquisitors were never very
common.57
The first decade of inquisitorial activity in Languedoc saw spectacular, large-scale
violence. In June 1234, Arnaud Catalan, who was investigating heresy in Albi, ordered
the exhumation and cremation of the remains of a woman named Boysenne. The bishop
of Albis bayle, frightened by the unsettled mood of the city, refused to carry out his
order. Arnaud therefore went himself to the cemetery and delivered the first mattock
They always carried high risks. Retaliation for assaults on inquisitors could
have, as we will see, significant consequences. During the thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries, however, people learned to avoid dramatic, large-scale violence in favor of
more small-scale, discrete, and highly targeted actions, which carried less dire
consequences.
54 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 390-91, 396-99, 414-15. 55 Duvernoy, Registre, 3: 431, 447-48.
56 For a more detailed account, see Given, Factional Politics, 233-250. 57 Given, Inquisition, 112-117.
26
blows to Boyssenes grave. Leaving others to finish the job, he set off for the cathedral,
where a synod was being held. But he was overtaken by the bishops terrified servants.
They reported that they had been ejected from the churchyard. Catalan went back to the
cemetery to confront those who had defied his orders. He was grabbed by a man who
shouted, Get out of the city, you villain. The mob dragged Catalan out of the
graveyard and through the city toward the river Tarn, beating him and shouting, Away,
rid the earth of this fellow! He has no right to live. A local priest named Isarn who was
following the crowd in the expectation of witnessing the inquisitors martyrdom was also
seized and beaten. The two were finally rescued by some sympathetic townsmen. As the
clerics made their way to the cathedral, the aroused townspeople shouted after them,
Death to the traitors!, and, Why dont they cut off the traitors head and stuff it in a
sack and throw it in the Tarn? Once safely back at the cathedral, Catalan
excommunicated the entire city.58 According to the note we have recording this incident,
its ultimate outcome was not good for the Albigeois. Many misfortunes overtook those
people later in the time of Friar Ferrier, the inquisitor, who seized and imprisoned a
number of them and also had some burned, the just judgment of God thus being carried
out.59
The most famous attack on the inquisitors, and that most freighted with
consequences, was the massacre at Avignonet at May 28, 1242. The Dominican,
Guillaume Arnaud, and the Franciscan, Etienne de Saint-Thibry, had been investigating
heresy in the region southeast of Toulouse. When they stopped at Avignonet, they were
58 Pelhisson in Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition, 226-28. 59 Pelhisson, in Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition, 211
27
lodged in the count of Toulouses small, ungarrisoned castle. The counts bayle,
Raymond of Alfaro, was the son of a Navarrese mercenary captain and an illegitimate
daughter of the count. For some time he had been in contact with the Cathar stronghold
at Montsgur. Over the years a castle perched on top of a precipitous hill there had been
turned into a safe refuge for Cathar Good Men, their believers, and other fugitives.
Raymond sent word of the inquisitors visit to Montsgur. From there Pierre Roger of
Mirepoix set out with a raiding party. He stopped at the town of Gaja, where he took up
a reserve position; the rest pushed on. By nightfall they arrived at Avignonet. A
messenger shuttled back and forth between them and the town, keeping the raiders
informed of the activities of their prey. Once the inquisitors and their companions
prepared for bed, Avignonets gates were opened and the raiders were led to the castle.
Raymond of Alfaro met them with torches. With axes they broke down the door to the
inquisitors quarters, and hacked them to death. Eleven men died. The killers, laden with
loot, returned to Gaja. Despite Pierre Rogers unhappiness that no one had brought him
Guillaume Arnauds skull, which he had planned to use as a drinking cup, they returned
in triumph to Montsgur.
They had gone too far. In the summer of 1243, the kings seneschal of
Carcassonne laid siege to Montsgur, reinforced with troops from the archbishop of
Narbonne and the bishop of Albi. The siege dragged on through the winter. In March,
the castle surrendered. Two hundred men and women who refused to renounce heresy,
including several prominent Good Men, were burned. The murders of Avignonet had
28
produced one of the most notable catastrophes for those Cathars and their adherents who
had survived the bloody wars of the first decades of the thirteenth century.60
By the early fourteenth century heretics and their supporters had learned to
become more targeted, and discrete, in their use of violence. An interesting anecdote
from the register of Geoffroy dAblis, the inquisitor of Carcassonne, illustrates this. On
13 June 1308 Guillaume de Rods of Tarascon appeared before dAbliss lieutenants,
Graud de Blomac and Jean du Faugoux. Guillaume told them that about nine years
earlier on a Wednesday just before Pentecost he had received a letter from his brother
Raimond, a Dominican friar of Pamiers. His brother asked him to come immediately to
Pamiers, because there was danger in delay. Guillaume arrived the next day. His
brother told him that a Bguin (at this time the Bguins were still regarded as orthodox)
named Guillaume Dejean had informed Raimond de Rods fellow Dominican,
Guillaume Pons,
61
60 Wakefield, Heresy, 169-173; Dossat, bcher de Montsgur, 361-378;
Duvernoy, Le dossier de Montsgur.
that he had stumbled across some Cathars up in the mountains of the
county of Foix. When Dejean arrived in the village of Mrens, a man named Pierre
Amiel had asked him if he would like to meet the heretics Pierre and Guillaume Autier
and hear their preaching. Dejean agreed. Amiel introduced him to the Good Men, with
whom Dejean had a long conversation. Dejean brought word of his discovery to Pamiers,
intending to arrange the Autiers arrest. One of the things Dejean had learned from the
Good Men was that Guillaume de Rods had received them in his house in Tarascon.
The Dominican to whom Dejean had spoken passed this information on to his fellow
friar, Raimond de Rods. Alarmed, Raimond had written to his brother.
61 Or perhaps Raimond de Lacourt.
29
Once Guillaume de Rods arrived in Pamiers, his brother asked him if he had
indeed had dealings with the heretics. Guillaume assured Raimond that the Bguin was a
liar and that he had never received the Autiers. But, armed with his brothers
information, he went to Ax-les-Thermes to warn Raimond Autier, the heretics brother,
of what was afoot. Word spread; and one day Guillaume Delaire of Qui, another Cathar
sympathizer, spotted Dejean in the plaza at Ax-les-Thermes. He asked him if he was
looking for the heretics. When Dejean said that he was, Delaire offered to guide him to
Larnat, where Pierre and Guillaume Autier could be found. However, when they reached
Larnat and were on the bridge of Alliat, Pierre, together with Philippe de Larnat, a local
domicellus, seized the Bguin, striking him so that he could not call out for help. They
took him into the hills above the town and questioned him about what he was up to.
When he admitted that he was trying to arrest the heretics, they threw him off a high cliff
into a ravine or cave, where his body was never discovered.62
***********
The final issue I want to discuss is underground organization. Of the subjects
connected to the inquisition, this is among the most difficult to grasp. The evidence is
even more fragmentary and ambiguous than usual. In the thirteenth century there is
evidence of lords and village communities organizing to try to rescue Cathar Good Men
who had been arrested.63
62 Pales-Gobilliard, LInquisiteur Geoffroy dAblis, pp. 150-54, 158. The quotation
is from p. 152.
But the dominant impression is one of fumbling efforts to
organize an underground, with people shuttling from one hiding place to another in
63 Doat, 23: fols. 69r-70r; Doat, 26: fols. 40r-40v; MS. 609, fol. 31v, 33r, 34v, 37r.
30
forests, vineyards, and leper houses.64 The surviving sources tell us of Cathar believers
in the 1230s who were so terrified by the burning of people who had harbored Good
Christians that they did not dare give shelter to any of them.65
Fugitives from the inquisitors could find themselves almost completely on their
own. This included one Arnaud Cimordan de Gasconia told the inquisitor Pons de
Parnac in 1276. Arnaud had fallen into the hands of the inquisitors as early as the 1240s,
when he had appeared before Bernard de Caux. Imprisoned in the mur at Toulouse, he
found conditions there intolerable. Most people condemned to imprisonment by the
inquisitors were supported by the king, since it was he who benefited from the
confiscation of their property. However, Arnauds property had passed to the bishop of
Toulouse, who did not prove as generous as the king. Although royal agents made
regular deliveries of food to the mur, Arnaud was expected to obtain his bread by sending
a messenger to the bishops palace. Arnaud had trouble securing the services of such a
messenger, so he often had to do without. When he did receive his ration, he found the
bread so hard as to be inedible. Not only did Arnaud not get enough to eat, he also
lacked clothes and other necessities. He therefore escaped.
His wanderings took him through Gascony, into Bigorre, and back into the region
around Toulouse, evading arrest on at least one occasion, marrying, and working as a
common laborer. Most interesting are the dealings he had with various churchmen.
Many of these used their knowledge of his fugitive status to exploit him. When Arnaud
first escaped, he went to the abbey of Gimonts grange at Aiguebelle. There he kept the
64 Doat, 23: fols. 61r-62v; 26: 14r-14v; MS. 609, fol. 44r 70v, 88r 201v; Doat, 24: 115v-116r, 223r-223v.
65 Doat, 23: fols. 112r.
31
story of his escape secret. However, when he left Aiguebelle and went in search of work
harvesting grain and grapes, he revealed the fact of his escape to one Pierre Binhac, the
prior of Minhac.66
Arnaud seems to have had better luck at the abbey of Feuillant. Here at least he
was paid during the seven years he spent working for the monks. To this new set of
employers Arnaud once again revealed that he had escaped from the mur and beseeched
them to intercede on his behalf with the inquisitors. He gave 2 sous morlanos to one of
the monks, named Raimond Sanche, in the hopes that he would persuade the abbot, a
man named Auger, to take up his cause. To Abbot Auger himself Arnaud offered 15 sous
morlanos. A more honorable man than the prior of Minhac, the abbot refused to take his
money, telling Arnaud that he saw no other remedy for him than to return to the prison
from which he had escaped.
Not only did Pierre not pay him for his labor, Arnaud wound up
giving the prior 10 sous of Toulouse so that he would intercede for him with the bishop
of Toulouse and the inquisitors. The prior took the money, but did not live up to his end
of the bargain.
Arnauds final effort to get a churchman to help him was an interview, arranged
by his wife, with the parish priest of Gasconia, Arnaud Escoulan. Arnaud gave the priest
5 sous of Toulouse to arrange his long-sought reconciliation with the inquisitors. If the
priest succeeded, Arnaud promised that he would give him he would give him another 10
sous, as well as some linen. The priest took the money, but did nothing. Unable to find
66 This is a tentative identification of Benito. Minhac was a grange that belonged
to the Cistercian abbey of Bonnefont. See Higounet, Granges et bastides de labbaye de Bonnefont, 275-83. Another possible identification would be Saint-Bat (Haute-Garonne).
32
an intercessor, Arnaud ultimately surrendered himself directly to the inquisitor, Pons de
Parnac in 1276.67
By the end of the thirteenth century, however, it seems that the Cathars had
improved their mechanisms for keeping an underground church safe. This is illustrated
by the success of the last major Cathar missionary effort in Languedoc.
68 This was
largely the work of two brothers, Pierre and Guillaume Autier, notaries from the town of
Tarascon in the county of Foix. After fleeing to Italy, where they became Good
Christians, they returned to Foix around Lent of either 1298 or 1299. 69 Together they
brought about the last efflorescence of Catharism in the south of France. They gathered a
group of other Good Men, including Pierres son Jacques. This group embarked on its
task of preserving the spirits of the remaining believers and seeking new converts at an
unusually favorable moment. The inquisitors of Carcassonne and Toulouse were
distracted by quarrels with the people of Albi and Carcassonne, who at times managed to
secure the intervention of the pope and the king of France.70 Looking back at these
unhappy years, the inquisitor Bernard Gui noted, During this persecution of the
inquisitors and interference with their office, many heretics came together, and their
numbers began to multiply and heresies sprouted up and infected many people...71
67 Doat, 25, fols. 220v-225r; a transcript is printed in Douais, Documents, 1: lxxxi, n.
1.
For
almost a decade the Autiers and their companions were able to criss-cross Languedoc,
preaching to secret gatherings of believers, and conferring the consolamentum on the
68 Marie Vidal, Les Derniers ministres, 57-107, and Vidal, Doctrine et morale, 85 (1909): 357-409; 86 (1909): 5-48.
69 The date of the Autiers arrival from Lombardy is that proposed in Vidal, Derniers ministres, p. 66.
70 Friedlander, Hammer of the Inquisitors. 71 Gui, De fundatione, 204.
33
dying. They created a network of supporters, guides, and safe-houses that covered much
of the county of Foix and reached even into the city of Toulouse.72
Similarly, the heretical group known as Bguins revealed an admirable ability to
construct an underground network. During the 1320s, and possibly beyond, the Bguin
community of Montpellier, composed of recent immigrants to the city, members of the
local merchant and intellectual elite, as well as sympathetic Franciscans, maintained a
network of safe-houses where fugitive Bguins and Spiritual Franciscans could find
shelter, food, and care in periods of sickness.
73 In 1324 they even managed to arrange a
fairly large-scale emigration of Bguins to Sicily via Agde, Barcelona, and Sardinia.74
*************
To conclude: What I have suggested is that we can see a distinct pattern in which
the people of Languedoc over time learned how to cope with a new, and initially very
confusing and confounding, organ of governance and repression, the inquisition of
heretical depravity. I will admit that there is a significant problem with what I have tried
to argue. All the evidence about methods by which people learned to cope with the
inquisitors comes from efforts at coping that failed. Efforts at coping that succeeded are
forever lost to us. The dark number of successful efforts will forever be unknowable.
But I would like to think that the material I have gathered here casts some light on how
people sought to naturalize a very new player in the arena of local politics. And I
would like to think that this in turn may help cast some light on the larger, and even more
72 On this see, inter alia, the articles by Vidal, Les Derniers ministres, and
Doctrine et morale; Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou; Benad, Domus und Religion; Roquebert, Les Cathares: de la chute de Montsgur aux derniers bchers; Stoodt, Katharismus im Untergrund; Weiss, The Yellow Cross.
73 Burnham, So Great a Light, 95-133. 74 Burnham, So Great a Light, 111-113.
34
obscure, question of how people adopted to the new governing institutions of the central
middle ages.
35
References
Benad, Matthias. Domus und Religion in Montaillou: Katholische Kirche und
Katharismus im berlebenskampf der Familie des Pfarrers Petrus Clerici am
Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts. Tbingen, 1990.
Burnham, Louisa A. So Great a Light, So Great a Smoke: The Beguin Heretics of
Languedoc. Ithaca, 2008.
Burr, David. Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper
Controversy. Philadelphia, 1989.
Burr, David. The Persecution of Peter Olivi (Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, n.s., vol. 66, pt. 5.) Philadelphia, 1976.
Dossat, Yves. Le Bcher de Montsgur et les bchers de linquisition. In Le Crdo,
la morale et linquisition, 361-378. Toulouse, 1971.
Douais, Clestin, ed. Documents pour servir lhistoire de linquisition dans le
Languedoc. 2 vols., Socit de lHistoire de France, 299, 300. Paris, 1900
Douais, Clestin. Guillaume Garric, de Carcassonne, professeur de droit, et le tribunal
de lInquisition (1285-1329). Annales du Midi 10 (1898): 5-45.
Douais, Clestin. Les Sources de lhistoire de lInquisition dans le Midi de la France aux
XIIIe et XIVe sicles: mmoire suivi du texte authentique et complet de la Chronique
de Guilhem Pelhisso et dun fragment dun registre de linquisition. Paris, 1881.
Duvernoy, Jean, ed. Le Registre dinquisition de Jacques Fournier (1318-1325). 3 vols.
Toulouse, 1965.
36
Duvernoy, Jean. Le dossier de Montsgur: interrogatoires dinquisition, 1242-1247.
Toulouse, 1998.
Eymerich, Nicholas. Directorium inquisitorum F. Nicholai Eymerici ordinis
Praedicatorum, cum commentariis Francisci Pegae sacrae theologiae ac iuris
utriusque doctoris. Venice, 1595.
Friedlander, Alan. The Hammer of the Inquisitors: Brother Bernard Dlicieux and the
Struggle against the Inquisition in Fourteenth-Century France. Leiden, 1999.
Given, James. Factional Politics in a Medieval Society: A Case Study from Fourteenth-
Century Foix. Journal of Medieval History 14 (1988): 233-250.
Given, James B. Inquisition and Medieval Society: Power, Discipline, and Resistance in
Languedoc. Ithaca, 1997.
Goffman, Erving. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. Garden City, 1961.
Gui, Bernard. Liber sententiarum. Published in Limborch, Philipp van, Historia
inquisitionis, cui subjungiter Liber sententiarum inquisitionis Tholosanae ab anno
Christ MCCCVII ad annum MCCCXXIII (Amsterdam, 1692).
Gui, Bernard. De fundatione et prioribus conventuum provinicarum Tolosanae et
Provinciae Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. by P. A. Amargier. Rome, 1961.
Gui, Bernard. Manuel de linquisiteur, ed. and trans. by G. Mollat. 2 vols. Paris, 1926-
1927.
Higounet, Charles. "Granges et bastides de l'abbaye de Bonnefont." In Paysages et
villages neuf du Moyen Age, 275-283. Bordeaux, 1975.
37
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 1324. Paris, 1975.
Manselli, Raoul. Spirituali e Beghini in Provenza. Rome, 1959.
Manselli, Raoul. Spirituels et Bguins du Midi, trans. by Jean Duvernoy. Toulouse,
1989.
Pales-Gobilliard, Annette, ed. LInquisiteur Geoffroy dAblis et les cathares du comt de
Foix (1308-1309). Paris, 1984.
Pales-Gobilliard, Annette, ed. Le Livre des sentences de linquisiteur Bernard Gui, 1308-
1323. 2 vols. Paris, 2002.
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, Collection Doat.
Roquebert, Michel. Les Cathares : de la chute de Montsgur aux derniers bchers (1244-
1329). Paris, 1998.
Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. New Haven, 1998.
Stoodt, Hans Christoph. Katharismus im Untergrund : Die Reorganisation durch Petrus
Auterii, 1300-1310. Tbingen, 1996.
Toulouse, Bibliothque Municipale, MS. 609.
Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, MS. 4030
Vidal, Jean-Marie. Les Derniers ministres de lalbigisme en Languedoc: leurs
doctrines. Revue des Questions Historiques, 79 (1906): 57-107.
Vidal, Jean-Marie. Doctrine et morale des derniers ministres albigeois. Revue des
Questions Historiques , 85 (1909): 357-409; 86 (1909): 5-48.
38
Wakefield, Walter L. Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France, 1100-1250.
London, 1974.
Weis, Rene. The Yellow Cross: The Story of the Last Cathars, 1290-1329. New York,
2001.
There are some malicious and crafty people among the beguins who, in order to veil the truth, shield their accomplices and prevent their error and falsity from being discovered, respond so ambiguously, obscurely, generally and confusingly to questions...The most elegant discussion of the stratagems employed by heretics to avoid detection is found in the Directorium inquisitorum of the fourteenth-century Aragonese inquisitor, Nicholas Eymerich. Although Eymerich was not Languedocian and his career fa...