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Please do not quote without authors permission.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...