Source Documents: Béatrice de Planissolles, Testimony
to the Inquisition
|
Béatrice
de Planissolles was the Chatelaine - the wife
of the Chatelain - at the famous village of Montaillou.
The town is famous largely because of what happened
to Beatrice and the inhabitants of her village. They
were all arrested on the orders of the Bishop of Pamiers
on suspicion of Cathar
sympathies - what the Roman Catholic Church regarded
as heresy.
Béatrice first appeared before the Inquisition
on Saturday 26 July 1320 at the Episcopal Palace in
Pamiers. She had been summoned by Jacques Fournier, the Bishop of Pamiers, to answer charges
of blasphemy, witchcraft, and heresy, charges which
were not clearly distinguished. Witnesses were called
against Beatrice, but none for her. This was normal
in such cases.
Beatrice and witnesses spoke in Occitan,
but the record was transcribed in Latin.
|
|
|
Witnesses against Béatrice, widow of Otho Lagleize
of Dalou
|
The year of the Lord 1320, the 19th of June. After
it came to the attention of the Reverend Father in
Christ Monsignor Jacques, by the grace of God bishop
of Pamiers, that Beatrice, widow of Otho Lagleize
of Dalou, who lived in Varilhes, held certain sentiments
that seemed to hint at the Manichaean heresy, or touch
it, and especially against the sacrament of the altar,
he wished with the assistance of Gaillard de Pomiès,
substitute for my lord the Inquisitor of Carcassone,
to inform himself about the above-mentioned facts
and received the testimonials that follow.
|
|
The Manichaean
heresy in this context means Catharism.
The Inquisition,
manned largely by Dominicans, was well established
at Carcassonne.
|
Guillaume Roussel of Dalou, sworn witness and required
to tell the truth, says:
|
|
|
|
It was ten years ago, it seems to me, but I do not
recall clearly the season nor the day, I was at the
home of this Beatrice, in her house near the church
of Dalou, and there were Beatrice, two of her daughters
of whom one must have been six or seven years old
and the other 4 or 5, and several other persons around
the fire. I do not recall the names of these last
people.
We began to speak of priests and the sacrament of
the altar, which is the concern of the priests. Beatrice
said, it seems to me, that she wondered how, if God
was present in the sacrament of the altar, he could
permit himself to be eaten by priests (or even by
a single priest). Hearing this, I left that house
very upset.
|
|
The doctrine of Transubstantiation was then still
a novelty, much ridiculed by non-Catholics ever since
its formulation (formally 1215)
|
|
Why have you hidden this for such
a long time?
Because I was never questioned and
I did not think it was bad not to denounce this myself.
|
|
For most Inquisitors it was a crime not to denounce
one's friends and neighbours in these circumstances.
|
|
Did Beatrice say this in the manner
of a joke?
It did not seem to me that she said
it jokingly, but that she meant it, or so it seemed
from her expression and her word.
|
|
|
|
Did Beatrice go willingly to church?
No, not until she was reprimanded
by Barthelemy, a vicar of the said church. After that,
she went to church.
|
|
|
|
Who were the persons very intimate
with this Beatrice, who would have known her secrets?
Grazide, the widow of Bernard Pujol,
Bernarde, the wife of Garsiot, Mabille, the wife of
Raymond Gouzy, Sibille, the servant of Michel Dupont
of Foix, Esperte, wife of Arnaud of Varilhes.
|
|
Inquisitors were also
looking for their victims to name others - it was a
necessary part of the proof of their contrition. |
The same year and day as above, Guillaume of Montaut,
rector of the church of Dalou, a sworn witness, was
interrogated about that which precedes, and said,
|
|
|
|
It was 12 years ago - it seems
to me, though for sure I do not entirely recall the
day or the season - that I was at the church of Dalou
and found there Mabille Vaquier, of Dalou, who is
now dead. She said to me that she had reprimanded
this Beatrice, who was the wife of her uncle, because
she did not attend church, and also because she had
heard her speak such an evil utterance that she was
completely astonished. This utterance was the following:
"You believe that what the priests hold on the
altar is the body of Christ! Certainly, if that was
the body of Christ and even if it was as big as this
mountain (gesturing toward Mont Margail), the
priests by themselves would already have eaten it!"
|
|
A coomon jibe was that even if the body of Christ
had been as large as the Pyrenees or the Alps, it
would already have been eaten.
|
|
Around the same time, the late Jean
Roussel said to me at my home, where we were eating,
that he had heard Beatrice say "You believe that
what the priests have on the altar is the body of
Christ! Indeed, if that was the body of Christ, even
if it was as big as this mountain, the priests would
have already eaten it all!" And because of this,
he himself, Jean, had exchanged insulting words with
this Beatrice.
|
|
|
|
And he said nothing more, though he was interrogated
diligently. Asked if he were motivated or constrained
by entreaty, gain, love or hate in giving this deposition,
he said no, but that it was simply the truth.
|
|
|
Confession of Beatrice, widow of Otho Lagleize of
Dalou
|
|
|
|
The year of the Lord 1320, the Wednesday before the
feast of St. James (23 July 1320), there was sent
by the Reverend Father in Christ Monsignor Jacques,
by the grace of God bishop of Pamiers, a letter of
citation against Beatrice, widow of Otho Lagleize,
living in Varilhes, of which the tenor follows:
|
|
|
Brother Jacques, by divine aid bishop of Pamiers,
to his beloved in Christ, curé of Varilhes
or his vicar, greetings in the Lord.
We command you to cite at once, and immediately,
Beatrice, widow of Otho Lagleize, and Jeanne, wife
of Guillaume of Reumaze, Junior, to appear next
Saturday before us in our Seat at Pamiers, in person,
to respond to certain allegations concerning the
Catholic faith of which we wish to know the truth
from them and the answers to other questions as
may be reasonable.
Given at our episcopal seat, the Wednesday before
the feast of Saint James the Apostle 1320. Return
the letter with your seal as a sign that you have
passed on this mandate.
|
|
|
|
On the Saturday named in this letter, the said Beatrice,
cited by the curé of Varilhes (since this is
whose seal appeared on the back of the letter of citation),
appeared before the aforementioned bishop at his seat.
My lord bishop admonished the said Beatrice that she
was strongly suspected of heresy according to information
which had been given to him and that she should reply
with pure and complete verity on all counts against
herself as principal and with others living and dead
as witness.
|
|
Beatrice was already guilty - it was a crime to be
suspected of heresy (not the same thing as being suspected
of the crime of heresy)
|
|
At this admonition and request the said Beatrice
said nothing, neither concerning herself nor concerning
others, nor did she wish to do so. My aforesaid lord
bishop, wishing to guide her, to encourage her to
tell the truth and hide nothing and not wishing that
she fall into perjury, asked her, without requiring
her to take an oath, if she had ever said that if
the sacrament of the altar was the true body of Christ,
it should not be permitted to be eaten by priests
and if it was as grand as Mont Margail, which is close
to Dalou, it would have long ago been consummed by
the priests alone. She said no.
|
|
|
|
He asked her if she had seen, received in her home
or had gone to see at any time Pierre, Jacques and
Guillaume Authié or other heretics. She said
no, except that she had seen Pierre Authié,
exercising his profession as a notary and in this
capacity he had written the act of sale of an item
of her husband. She had approved this sale by oath
and Pierre had written up the bill of sale and ratified
it. He was not reputed to be a heretic at this time
and she had not seen him otherwise.
|
|
Pierre, Jacques and Guillaume Authie were Cathar
Parfaits who had reindroduced the Cathar faith from
Italy.
|
|
Under questioning by the lord bishop, she said she
had been received once for one night at the house
of the late Gaillarde Cuq, but she had not heard her
speak of any divinations, nor seen any evil spells),
nor received any evil teaching from her.
|
|
|
|
My aforementioned lord bishop, seeing that this Beatrice
would not of her own will openly say anything concerning
the aforementioned without taking an oath, and wishing
to act with benevolence and to wait for her, assigned
to her the following Tuesday to appear before him
at the aforesaid seat, admonishing her to present
herself on that day in person and to be ready to respond
to the above allegations and others concerning the
faith, under her own oath. The assigned day the said
Beatrice accepted of her own free will, promising
by her own oath to appear before my lord the bishop
for the said assignation, and to respond to the above
allegations under oath and to do all that was necessary
in this same matter. And she was graciously excused
until the said Tuesday by my said lord bishop.
|
|
|
|
That Tuesday the said Beatrice did not appear, although
she was waited for patiently all the day and because
of this my said lord bishop held her to be in contempt
of court and accused her of such, ordering and seeing
to it that her failure was noted.
|
|
|
|
After this, the said Beatrice, sought after by the
men of the lord bishop carrying letters to bailiffs,
officials and justices and such as they were, was
found by them in flight, while she was hiding at Mas-Saintes-Puelles,
in the diocese of Saint Papoul and was taken prisoner
by the men of the lord bishop and the sergeants of
the Court of Mas-Saintes-Puelles. She was brought
to my lord bishop and presented to him the first of
August, the same year as above, with the objects listed
below having been found on her person. These were
all shown in the presence of the lord bishop and she
acknowledged that they had all been with her and that
she had fled with them. (This list occurs at the end
of her deposition.)
|
|
If Beatrice was a Cathar believer she would not have
been prepared to lie on oath, or even to take an oath,
something that all concerned would have been aware
of.
|
|
This done, my said lord bishop, holding her strongly
suspect concerning the Catholic faith, as much by
the preceding information as by her flight and by
the objects found on her, wishing to question her,
received from her an oath to tell the pure, simple
and entire truth both concerning herself as charged
as well as concerning others living and dead as witness,
on all questions touching the Catholic faith. When
the oath was taken he interrogated her:
|
|
|
|
Are you guilty of heresy? Have you
had relations and intimacy with the heretics Pierre,
Guillaume, Jacques Authié, other heretics,
worshiping them, seeing them giving or sending them
anything or favoring them in any manner whatsoever?
No, upon my oath, except for what
I have told you of Pierre Authié, that I ratified
a bill of sale for my husband the knight Bérenger
de Roquefort. After I had married this Bérenger,
at our wedding ceremony, I saw Guillaume Authié
dance. This was 24 years ago or so.
|
|
"Worship" - According to the Catholic Church,
Cathars "adored" or "worshipped"
their Parfaits.
This was a misunderstanding of a Cathar greeting ceremoniy
called the
Melhoramentum.
|
|
Do you know other persons, living
or dead, who had any type of relations or intimacy
or who committed anything in life or death related
to this crime of heresy?
No. But, when I was a little girl,
and I was staying at Celles, about 6 years before
marrying my first husband, the people went one day
to see the body of Christ at the church there. I heard
a mason (I do not know his name but I think he was
called Oudin) ask where the people were going. Someone
replied that they were going to see the body of Christ.
He said "They have no great need to rush or hurry
to see it, because even if the body of Christ were
as big as the Pech de Boulque, it would have already
been eaten many times over as pastry!" And these
words, which I had heard spoken by this man, I cited
sometimes, and repeated at Dalou without adding a
word. I do not remember if it was when the people
were going to see the body of the Lord at Dalou or
some other occasion. It seems to me that it has been
12 years since I cited those words.
|
|
Pech de Boulque = Peak of Boulque, another local
mountain.
|
|
To which persons and at what other
times?
I no longer recall their names.
|
|
Naming witnesses would
ensure that they were called before Inquisitors too. |
The 7th of August in the chamber of the episcopal
residence, before the bishop and Gailard de Pomiès:
|
|
|
|
It was 26 years ago in the month of
August (I do not recall the day) when I was the wife
of the late knight Bérenger of Roquefort, châtelain
of Montaillou. The late Raymond Roussel, of Prades,
was the bursar and the steward of our house which
we held at the castle of Montaillou. He asked me often
to leave with him and go to Lombardy to the Good Christians
who were there, saying to me that the Lord had said
that man ought to leave father, mother, wife, husband,
son and daughter and follow Him and He would give
him the kingdom of heaven. And since the present life
is brief and the heavenly kingdom eternal, it was
necessary that man not care about the present life,
in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven. When I
asked him "How could I leave my husband and my
sons?" he replied that the Lord had commanded
it, and it was better to leave a husband and sons
whose eyes were infected, than to abandon Him who
lives for all eternity and gives the kingdom of the
heavens.
|
|
Beatrice is quoting the New Testament here - the
same passages that Catholic preachers coited to encorage
men to go on crusade.
|
|
When I asked him "How can it
be that God has created such a quantity of men and
women if so many among them will not be saved?"
He replied that only the Good Christians will be saved,
and no other, neither religious, nor priest, nor anyone
with the exception of the Good Christians. Indeed,
he said just as it is impossible for the camel to
pass through the eye of a needle, so it is impossible
that those who have riches will be saved. It is because
of this that kings and princes, prelates and religious
and all those who have riches, will not be saved,
only the Good Christians. They remain in Lombardy,
because they do not dare do live here, where the wolves
and the dogs persecute them. The wolves and the dogs
are the bishops and the Preaching Friars who persecute
the Good Christians and chase them from the country.
|
|
"Good Christians" = Cathars
"Wolves" = Catholic bishops
"Dogs" = Domiminicans
|
|
He said he himself had seen and met
several of these Good Christians. They were such people
that when one had heard them speak, one could not
ever leave them them and if I myself heard them just
one time, I would be theirs forever.
|
|
|
|
When I asked him how we two could
flee and go to the Good Christians, because when my
husband found out, he would follow us and kill us,
Raymond replied that when my husband took a long trip
and was a little bit out of the country we could leave
and go to the Good Christians. I asked him how we
would support ourselves when we got there. He replied
that they would take care of us and give us enough
to live. "But", I said "I am pregnant.
What could I do with the infant I am carrying if I
leave with you for the Good Christians?" "If
you give birth to it among them, it will be an angel,
and with the aid of God they will make it a king and
a holy being because it will come without sin, having
no contact with the people of the world, and they
will instruct it perfectly in their sect, and it will
know no other."
|
|
|
|
He told me then that all the spirits
sinned at the beginning by the sin of pride, believing
that they knew more and were worth more than God and
for this they had fallen to the earth. These spirits
incarnate themselves as a result and the world will
not be finished before all of them are incorporated
in the bodies of men and women. This is how the spirit
of a baby who was just born is just as old as the
spirit of an old man.
|
|
The Cathar teaching concerning
the Fall of the angels was not then orthodox Catholic
belief, though it is now. |
|
He said furthermore that when the
spirits of men and women who are not Good Christians,
leave their bodies, they enter into the bodies of
other men and women until they have entered nine bodies.
If amongst these nine bodies the body of a Good Christian
is not found, the spirit is damned. If on the contrary
it finds the body of a Good Christian, the spirit
is saved.
|
|
Beliefs in reincarnation
and the transmigration of souls was standard Cathar
belief, though the details varied among different
groups of Cathars.
|
|
I asked him how the spirit of a dead
man or woman could enter through the mouth of a pregnant
woman and through there to the mouth of the fruit
which she carries in her womb. He replied that the
spirit could enter into the fruit in the womb of a
woman through any part of the body it wished. When
I asked him why infants do not talk from birth, if
they have the old spirits of other people, he said
the God does not wish this. He told me as well that
the spirits of God who have sinned place themselves
wherever they can in order to dwell there.
|
|
Beatrice's question about talking shows an advanced
capacity for rational thought.
In connection with demonic possession, the Catholic
Church faced exactly the same sort of problem in providing
a satisfactory answer (since as everyone knew demons
were fluent in Latin and Greek).
|
|
He encouraged me then to leave with
him to go to the Good Christians, citing as examples
many noblewomen who had gone. He first told me of
Alestra and Serena, two ladies of Châteauverdun,
who painted themselves with colours to appear to be
foreigners, in order not to be recognized and went
to Toulouse. Arriving at an inn, the hostess wished
to know if they were heretics or not, and gave them
live chickens, asking them to prepare them because
she had something to do in the town and left the house.
At her return she found the chickens still living
and asked them why they had not prepared them. They
replied that if the hostess would kill them they would
prepare them, but that they would not kill them. The
hostess hearing this, went to tell the inquisitors
that two heretics were at her inn. They were arrested
and burned. When they had to go to the pyre, they
asked for water to wash their faces, saying that they
did not wish to go to God painted thus.
|
|
The willingness to kill animals provided a simple
way of identifying Cathars as they would not kill
animals (other than fish).
Killing chickens was almost a standard test, and
the refusal to kill was sufficient evidence to justify
burning alive.
|
|
I said to Raymond that they would
have done better to abandon the heresy that caused
them to be burned and he said that the Good Christians
do not feel the fire, because the fire which burns
them can do them no harm.
|
|
Many people were at a loss to understand how Cathars
could so consisistently opt to burn alive rather than
abandon their faith.
|
|
Raymond told me again that one of
these two women, at the moment of leaving her house
in Châteauverdun had an infant in the cradle
and she wished to see it before leaving. She embraced
it, the infant laughed and and as she began to leave
the place where it was lying, she returned again to
him. The infant began to laugh and this merry-go-round
began again so often that she could not leave him.
She finally ordered the nurse to take away the child
and thus she left.
And Raymond told me this to encourage
me to do the same!
|
|
|
|
He told me as well that Stephanie,
the wife of the late Guillaume Arnaud, one of the
ladies of Châteauverdun had left all and gone
to the Good Christians. Prades Tavernier, who had
recently become a heretic and was called André,
had left with her. He said this to convince me to
leave but I told him that if 2 or 3 women of my rank
left with us, I would have an excuse, but that I would
not leave with him, while still young, because people
would say of us that we left the country to satisfy
our lust.
|
|
|
|
After having spread his heretical
discourse to me quite liberally at several times and
places and asked me to part with him, there came one
night when we had dined together and he entered secretly
into my bedroom and hid himself under my bed. I put
the house in order and lay down to sleep and when
all was quiet and everyone asleep and I myself was
sleeping, Raymond came out from under my bed, placed
himself next to me and began to act as if he wished
to know me carnally. I said "What is this?"
He said to be quiet. I replied "What, churl,
remain quiet!" and began to cry and call my sevants
who slept near me in the chamber, saying to them that
there was a man in my bed.
Hearing this, he left both bed and
chamber. The next morning, he said to me that he had
done badly to hide himself close to me. I told him
"I see now that all your invitations to go to
the Good Christians are only intended to possess me
and sleep with me. If I did not fear that my husband
would not believe that I have done nothing dishonest
with you, I would send you immediately to the tower
dungeon."
|
|
It was normal at this time for servants to sleep
in their master's or mistress's bed chamber.
|
|
We did not speak any further
of questions of heresy and a while later Raymond left
our house and returned to his home at Prades.
|
|
|
|
Have you believed and do you believe
still that which he told you concerning the Good Christians,
concerning the sin of the spirits in the sky and the
reincarnation of spirits?
No.
|
|
|
|
Have you ever revealed the propositions
of Raymond to anyone?
No, except to a Friar Minor of the
convent of Limoux, in sacramental confession.
|
|
Friar Minor = Franciscan.
There was a Franciscan convent (friary) at Limoux. |
|
Has anyone else heard the heretical
propositions that you heard from this Raymond?
I do not recall that there was anyone
else present.
|
|
|
|
Alazais Gonelle, from the diocese
of Alet, often came to my house to talk to me and
she told me on the part of this Raymond that it would
be good for us to leave for Lombardy and the Good Christians, because they alone would save our souls,
since one could only be saved in their sect. If I
wished to leave with Raymond, she herself, Alazais,
would leave with us and she knew that if some of us
left for Lombardy and the Good Christians, Algée
of Martre, from Camurac in the diocese of Alet, would
leave with them.
|
|
Alet = Alet-les-Bains
Lombardy was a place of refuge for Cathars. The local
animosity to the papacy meant that the Church authorities
had less freedom than elsewhere to persecute people
for holding religious views other than Roman Catholic
ones.
|
|
This Alazais was the concubine of
Guillaume Clerge, the brother of the rector of Montaillou
and this Algée is the sister of the mother
of the rector. But I have never seen Algée.
|
|
|
|
What do you understand by these
Good Christians whom Raymond and this Alazais cite
constantly?
By 'Good Christians' I understand
heretics.
|
|
|
|
About 25 years ago, I was living in
Montaillou and one day in the month of July, Alazais,
the wife of Bernard Ribas of Montaillou knocked on
my door. I went to see what she wanted. She said that
she wanted vinegar. I ordered it to be given to her.
She then said that she did not want any, but that
she wished to speak to me. I said that I could not
and she left. The same day she came back to my house
and knocked on the door. I sent to know what she wanted
and she said that her daughter was sick and asked
me to come down to her house, because her daughter
wished very much to see me. I said to her that I could
not come down to her house, because it was only a
short time since I had come from childbed. This Alazais
came again to my house, the same day, asking and supplicating
that I would come to see her daugher, which I did
not wish to do.
|
|
|
|
The same day, I had made a "re-dyed"
candle for the church of Saint Marie de Carnesses.
I called for a woman who lived with the rector of
Montaillou, Pierre d'Espéra [Espéraza
?] (this woman was from Limbrassac) and we went together
to the church. In the descent from Montaillou, we
met this Alazais who was driving 2 geese; she asked
me to come to her house to see her daughter Guillemette
(the wife of Pierre Clergue of Montaillou). I said
that I could not go, and she said that her brother
Prades Tavernier was there and wished to speak with
me because Stephanie, the wife of Guillaume Arnaud
of Châteauverdun, had been charged with a message
that he wished to give to me.
|
|
Saint Marie de Carnesses = the church of Montaillou,a
pilgrimage destination. The candle is for the rite
of purification (ritual cleansing of sin) after childbirth
|
|
But since it was well known that Prades
Tavernier had left the country with Stephanie to travel
to the heretics, I asked Alazais to leave me, because
I did not wish to talk to Prades. She left me then
and I did not see Prades Tavernier nor speak to him
after he departed the country with Stephanie.
About 21 years ago, about one year
after the death of my husband, I wished to go to confess
at the church of Montaillou during Lent. When I was
there, I went to Pierre Clergue, the rector, who listened
to confessions behind the altar of Saint Mary. As
soon as I had kneeled down before him, he embraced
me, saying to me that there was no other woman in
the world that he loved so much as me. In my stupefaction
I left without being confessed.
|
|
"Solicitation" was a very common clerical
crime, though very rarely punished. Confession boxes
were introduced much later to try to reduce the incidence
of solicitation.
|
|
Later, towards Easter, he came to
visit me several times, and asked me to give myself
to him. I said to him one day when he was soliciting
me in my own home that I would rather give myself
to 4 men than to one priest, because I had heard that
a woman who had been known carnally by a priest could
not see the face of God. To which he responded that
I was stupid and ignorant, because the sin was the
same for a woman to be known by her husband or by
any other man, equally whether the man was her husband
or a priest. It was an even greater sin with a husband,
he said because the spouse believed she did not sin
with a husband, but she had a conscience with other
men. The sin was therefore greater in the first case.
|
|
The beliefs ascribed here to Pierre Clergue are prima
facie evidence that he was a Cathar believer.
|
|
I asked him how he could talk thus,
being a priest, because one said in church that marriage
had been instituted by God and that it was the first
sacrament, instituted by God between Adam and Eve,
so that there would be no sin when spouses knew one
another. He replied "If it was God who instituted
marriage between Adam and Eve and if he created them,
why did he not guard them from sin?" I understood
then that he was saying that God did not create Adam
and Eve and had not instituted marriage between them.
He added that the Church taught many falsehoods. The
ecclesiastics said this, because they were not inspired
by respect or fear. Indeed, in part the Gospel and
the Pater, and all the other texts of Scripture were
"affitilhas", a word that one uses in the
vulgar tongue to designate words that one adds to
what one has heard. I replied to him that because
of this the ecclesiastics plunged the people into
error.
|
|
affitilhas = apocryphal
gloss. Exactly the same charge made by many modern scholars. |
The 8th of August 1320, in the Chamber of the bishop's
palace, before the bishop and Gaillard of Pomiès.
|
|
|
|
Speaking of marriage, he said to me
that many of the rules governing it did not proceed
from the will of God, who had not forbidden wedding
one's own full sister nor another blood relative,
since in the beginning brothers knew their sisters.
But when many brothers had only one or two beautiful
sisters each one wished to have them. As a result
there was bloodshed between them and that is why the
Church has forbidden a brother to know carnally his
sister or blood relative. But before God the sin is
the same, whether it concerns a stranger, a sister
or another relative because the sin is just as bad
with a wife as with another, to the point where it
is almost greater between man and wife because one
does not confess it and is united without shame.
|
|
We have only Beatrice's word that Pierre Clergue
believed this, but it is a fact that many patriarchs
of the Old Testament committed incest without any
divine disapproval.
|
|
He added that marriage was perfect
and accomplished when one person promised his faith
to another. What one does in Church to the spouses,
such as nuptial benediction was only secular pomp
and had no value and had only been instituted by the
Church for the glory of this world.
He told me as well that a man and
woman could commit freely any sort of sin while they
lived in the world and live according to their good
pleasure. It was sufficient to be received into the
sect of the Good Christians at one's death to be saved
and be absolved of all the sins committed in this
life. He said this was justified because Christ had
said to his apostles to leave father, mother spouse
and children and all that they possessed to follow
Him, in order to have the kingdom of heaven. Peter
replied to Christ, "If we, who have left all
and followed You, we have the kingdom of heaven, what
will be the fate of those who are sick and cannot
follow You?" The Lord replied to Peter that his
"friends" would come and impose their hands
on the heads of the sick. The sick would be cured,
and, once cured, would follow him and have the kingdom
of heaven.
|
|
All this further indicts Pierre Clergue as a Cathar.
As Beatrice would have known, it was only by fingering
others that she might hope to receive a small punishment
rather than death.
|
|
These "Friends of God" the
rector said were the Good Christians, who are called
heretics. The imposition of hands that they give to
the dying saves them and absolves them of all their
sins.
To prove that it would be better for
the world if brother were to marry sister he told
me "Look, we are four brothers. I am a priest
and do not wish to marry. If my brothers Guillaume
and Bernard had wed Esclarmonde and Guillemette, our
sisters, our house would not have been ruined by having
to give them a dowry. Our house would have remained
intact. With one woman who could have entered into
the house for Raymond, our brother, we would have
had enough spouses and our house would have been more
rich. It is thus better that the brother wed the sister
or the sister the brother, because when she leaves
the paternal house with a large sum to wed a stranger
the house will find itself ruined."
|
|
Catharss sometimes described themselves as the Friends
of God.
This has always been a justification for close blood
marriages, but anyone raised in the countryside will
be aware of the genetic disadvantages.
|
|
With these arguments and many others,
he influenced me to the point that during the octave
of Saints Peter and Paul I gave myself to him one
night in my house. This happened again often, and
he saw me then during one and a half years, coming
to spend the night two or three times per week in
my house near the chateau of Montaillou. I myself
went twice to his house, to unite myself to him. He
also knew me carnally one year on the night of Christmas
and he nevertheless said mass the next day, even though
there were other priests present.
|
|
|
|
That night of the Nativity, when he
wished to have relations with me, I said to him "How
can you wish to commit such a grave sin on such a
holy night?" He replied that the sin of having
commerce with a woman was the same on the night of
the Birth of the Saviour as on any other night. Since,
both at that time and others, he said mass the next
day after having known me the preceding night, without
being confessed (because there was no other priest,)
I often asked him how he could celebrate mass after
having committed such a sin the preceding night. He
replied that the sole valid confession is that which
one makes to God, who knows the sin before it is committed
and who alone can absolve it. But the confession that
one makes to a priest who does not know it until the
moment it is spoken and who has no power to absolve
is worth nothing and is only done for the pomp and
ostentation of the world. Because God alone can absolve
sins, man does not have the power.
|
|
|
|
He added that I ought not confess
the sin which I committed with him to another priest,
but to God alone, who knew it and could absolve me,
which no man could do. To incite me to believe that
neither the Sovereign pontiff nor the other bishops
nor the priests who depend on them have this power,
he alleged that St. Peter was not a pope in this life,
but as soon as he had died his bones were thrown into
a pit where they remained for a number of years. When
they were discovered they were washed and placed on
the throne on which the Roman pontiffs sat. Just as
the bones of St. Peter did not have the power to absolve
when they were enthroned and made apostolic, neither
Peter, who had become "apostolic" nor the
Roman pontiffs who had been made Popes on that throne
could absolve. Only the Good Christians who suffered
persecutions and death, like Saints Lawrence, Stephen
and Bartholemew, could absolve, but not the bishops
nor the priests subject to the Roman church, who were
heretics and persecutors of the Good Christians. God
had taken this ability from them and retained it for
Himself and transmitted it only to the Good Christians
whom he had known and announced in advance would suffer
persecution.
|
|
"he alleged that St. Peter was not a pope in
this life, but as soon as he had died his bones were
thrown into a pit where they remained for a number
of years" - it is astonishing how early oral
traditions like this survived into the Middle Ages
and beyond, despite the efforts of the Roman Church
to suppress them.
"priests subject to the Roman church, who were
heretics and persecutors of the Good Christians"
- a distinctively Cathar view
|
|
I asked him then, if the confession
made to priests was worth nothing, and they had no
power to absolve, why he himself heard confessions,
made absolution and imposed penances. This priest
told me that it was necessary for him and the other
priests to act thus, even though it was worth nothing,
because without it they would lose their revenues,
and no one would give them anything if they did not
do as the Church prescribed.
|
|
A common observation of Catholic priests into modern
times, often voiced publically only after leaving
the Church.
|
|
But only the Good Christians and those
who were received by them after having adored them
could absolve other men of their sins. And it was
not necessary for those who wished to be absolved
by them to confess to them, it sufficed to give oneself
to God and to the Good Christians, and they would
absolve them solely by the imposition of hands.
|
|
"Adored" -
According to the Catholic Church, Cathars "adored"
or "worshipped" their Parfaits.
This was a misunderstanding of a Cathar greeting ceremoniy
called the
Melhoramentum. |
|
He told me all this and what follows
at my house, from time to time near a window which
looked over the road, during which time I deloused
his head, sometimes by the fire, sometimes when I
was in bed. We guarded against being heard by others
when we talked of this subject. I do not recall well
if Sibille my servant, the daughter of Arnaud Teisseyre
of Montaillou, who became the concubine of Raymond
Clergue, heard anything.
|
|
|
|
This priest told me that God had only
created spirits, those which can neither be corrupted
or destroyed, because the world of God would live
eternally. But all the bodies which one sees and one
senses, that is to say the sky and the earth and all
that is found therein, with the sole exception of
spirits, these were created by the devil, who rules
the world. Because it was he who made them all - he
who could not make anything stable and solid - these
things are the prey of corruption.
He told me one time that God in the
beginning made a man who talked and walked. Upon seeing
this man, the devil made the body of another man,
who could not walk or talk. God said to him "Why
do you not make your man the sort who can walk and
talk?" The devil replied that he could not, and
asked God to make his man walk and talk. God replied
that he would do so willingly, since what he would
put in this man would be from Him, God. The devil
replied that he would like that. God then breathed
into the mouth of the man that the devil had made
and this man began to walk and talk. Because of this,
the spirit of man is from God and the body is from
the devil.
|
|
More confirmation of
the priest's Cathar beliefs. |
|
He told me also that God had made
all the spirits of heaven and that these spirits sinned
by the sin of pride, wishing to be equal to God. By
reason of this sin they fell from the sky through
the air and onto the earth. They dwell and penetrate
into the bodies they meet, indiscriminately, whether
into the bodies of brute beasts or the bodies of men.
And these spirits who are in the bodies of brutes
are also endowed with reason and knowledge just as
those in human bodies, except that they cannot talk
when they dwell in the bodies of brute beasts. And
the fact that the spirits who are in the bodies of
brutes are endowed with reason and knowledge can be
seen because they flee what is noxious to them and
seek what is profitable. This is why it is a sin to
kill such a brute beast or a man, because each one
as well as the other has a spirit endowed with reason
and understanding. He said also that it was necessary
for these spirits to enter into a human body to do
penance for this sin of pride and that this must be
done before the world is finished. It is only in human
bodies, he said, that the spirits can do penance for
this sin. They cannot do it in the bodies of brute
beasts.
|
|
All, apparently, conventional
Cathar belief. |
|
He told me also that if these spirits
who have thus sinned can enter into the body of a
Good Christian they rejoice greatly because when they
leave that body they will return to the sky from which
they fell. If they have not entered into the body
of a Good Christian, but into another man or another
woman, when they leave the body, they enter, if they
can, into the body of another man or woman and so
on up to nine bodies (if they do not enter into the
body of a Good Christian man or woman).
But, if in these nine bodies which
they enter successively there is not the body of a
Good Christian man or woman, upon leaving the ninth
body they are totally lost and can never more do penance.
He told me that all this is true in a general manner,
but when spirits who consent to the betrayal of Christ,
as was the case of Judas and other Jews, leave their
bodies, they are immediately lost and cannot do penance
later. They will no longer enter into human bodies
to do penance. But those who were present at the betrayal
of Christ, without consenting, enter into nine bodies,
like the others.
This priest told me also that only
those spirits who enter into the body of Good Christians
will be saved and no others, whether Christian, Jew
or Saracen. According to what he said, all the Good Christians, those who adore them, believe in them
and enter into their sect will be saved. And he said
his mother Mengarde was saved, because she had done
much good to the Good Christians, and na Roqua and
Raymond Roché her son, who were imprisoned
for a while because of heresy, drew all their subsistence
from her house. His mother did so much good for these
two because they were heretics and believers.
|
|
Clearly Cathar beliefs, though different Cathar groups
favoured different details - eg sometimes 7 rather
than 9 incarnations.
Could there be a connection here with the idea of
"nine lives".
"Adored" - According to the Catholic Church,
Cathars "adored" or "worshipped"
their Parfaits.
This was a misunderstanding of a Cathar greeting ceremoniy
called the
Melhoramentum.
|
|
This priest told me also that those
spirits who were in the heavens and sinned in rebelling
against God divided themselves - certain ones of them
plotted and rebelled against God and those were the
first to leave the heavens. Their sin was as grave
as hell and they are demons. But there were other
spirits who did not plot the revolt against God nor
rebelled overtly, but who wished to follow those who
engineered this revolt. These ones fell onto the earth
and into the air and are incorporated into the bodies
of men and animals, do penance and are saved or damned,
as was said previously.
He told me also that the Good Christians
do not believe that God can make the seeds of those
things born on the earth increase, bloom and multiply.
If this was so, God would also be able to make a seed
grow as well on bare rock as in arable soil and seeds
thrown on the rock would grow just as well as those
thrown into the soil. But this happens, he said because
the earth is fertile, and God intervenes in no way.
|
|
At least from a secular point of view, Beatrice is
voicing better reasoned questions than the professional
theologian philosophers of her time.
|
|
He told me also that the Good Christians
do not believe that Christ took human flesh from the
holy Virgin, nor that he descended to take human flesh
from her, because before Saint Mary was born, Christ
existed for all eternity. He only hid himself (s'adombra)
in the blessed Mary, without taking anything from
her. Explaining this word (adombration) this priest
told me that the wine in the tun is within its shadow
without taking anything from it, but is merely contained.
Just so Christ dwelled in the Virgin Mary, without
taking anything from her, but was simply in her as
the contained is within the container.
|
|
Not in itself heretical - medieval philophers considered
this a possibility: they expressed it differently,
as water passing through a pipe.
|
|
He told me also that Christ, although
he dined with his disciples, never ate or drank, although
it seemed as if he did so.
|
|
A characteristically
Dualist belief. |
|
He told me also that since the outrage
of crucifixion was performed on Christ on the cross,
no one should adore or venerate the cross.
|
|
A Characteristically
Dualist belief. |
|
He told me also that to swear falsely
on the Gospels was not a sin, but only to swear falsely
by God.
|
|
According to other Cathar
souces, answearing was sinful. |
|
He told me that the church of God
exists only where there is a Good Christian, because
he is the Church of God, but anywhere else there is
no Church of God and the other men are not the Church
of God.
|
|
|
|
He told me also that when the Good Christians are burned for their faith, they are martyrs
of Christ.
|
|
|
|
He told me also that when these Good Christians have received someone into their sect,
they should afterwards neither eat nor drink, except
cold water, and, when these people then die of starvation,
they will be the saints of God.
|
|
Apparently a reference
to the Endura.
Either Beatrice or the scribe seems to have missed out
important details here. |
|
He told me also that the fire in which
the Good Christians were burnt did not make them suffer,
because God assisted them so that they would not suffer
the fire nor have great pain.
|
|
|
|
The said Raymond Roussel told me of
a man who was gravely ill, when a priest came to him
and asked if he wished to see and receive the body
of the Lord. This man replied that he wished to see
the body of the Lord more than anything else in the
world. This priest went to seek the body of the Lord
and bring it to this sick man. He took it out of its
case and held it in his hands, showing it to the sick
man and asked him about the articles of faith, especially
if he believed that this was indeed the body of Christ.
The ill man, indignantly replied to the priest "You
stinking villainous churl, if that which you hold
were the body of Christ, and even if it was as big
as a large mountain, you and your fellow priests would
have long since eaten it!" And he refused to
receive the body of the Lord.
Pierre Clergue, the rector told me
that this world here, which the devil made, grows
corrupt, dwindles to nothing and will destroy itself
entirely, but before that happens, God will reassemble
his friends and draw them to himself, so that they
will not see the tumult that there will be at the
end and destruction of the world.
|
|
For this paragraph, the
subject has switched from Pierre Clergue to Raymond
Roussel. |
|
When I left the country of Alion to
contract marriage with my second husband, Otho Lagleize
of Dalou, this rector told me that he was displeased
that I was going down to the low country, because
I could never save my soul there, since no one would
dare henceforth to speak to me of the Good Christians
or to come see me to save my soul. I was going to
live with wolves and dogs, of which, he said, none
will be saved. He called dogs and wolves all the Catholics
who were not of the sect of the Good Christians.
|
|
|
|
He told me as well that if one day
my heart inclined me to be received in the sect of
the Good Christians, that I should let him know at
once, because he would see to it that there was a
Good Christian to receive me into the sect and save
my soul. I told him that I did not wish to be received
into such a sect, but that I wished to be saved in
the faith where I found myself, citing my sister Gentille,
who used this phrase first.
|
|
|
|
And these heretical arguments
continued between us during approximately two years,
and this priest taught me all of this.
|
|
|
|
These errors and these heresies
that the rector of the church of Montaillou, Pierre
Clergue, told you and taught you, did you believe
them and do you still believe them?
Last year, when I left the country
of Alion (Montaillou), from Easter until the following
August, I believed these errors plainly and perfectly
to the point where I would not hesitate to undergo
any pain for their defense. I believed that they were
true, as taught by this priest, who, because he was
a priest, I believed to speak the truth. But when
I was at Crampagna [Campagna ?] with my second husband
and I heard the preaching of the Preachers and the
Minors, and I dwelt among faithful Christians, I abandoned
these errors and heresies and I confessed to the tribunal
of penance to a Franciscan of the convent of Limoux,
in the church of Our Lady of Marseille, where I had
gone to see my sister Gentille, who lives in Limoux
and was the wife of the late Paga of Post. This confession
I made 15 years ago and for about 5 years I remained
believing these heresies without confessing them,
though I confessed in that time other sins I had committed.
|
|
Preachers = Dominicans
Minors = Franciscans
church of Our Lady of Marseille or Marceille lies
just outside Limoux.
|
|
At the time when I believed in these
heresies, I did not see (neither before nor since)
a heretic that I knew to be a heretic, although I
believed them to be the good men, because they suffered
matyrdom for God and also because of what this priest
had taught me, that it was only in their sect that
one could be saved.
|
|
|
| I have great regret at
having heard these heretical remarks and more to have
believed these heresies and I am ready to undergo the
penance which my lord bishop would like to impose on
me for this. |
|
|
The 9th of August 1320 in the chamber of the bishop's
palace, before the bishop and Gaillard de Pomiès.
|
|
|
|
Nineteen years ago on the Assumption
of Saint Mary (15 August 1301) I left Prades in the
country of Alion, where I lived in a house near the
church and came to Crampagna to wed Otho Lagleize.
Before I left Prades, Bernard Belot of Montaillou,
who later died in the Wall of Carcassonne, came to
find me and told me that the rector of Montaillou,
Pierre Clergue, mourned much for me, because I was
going to the low country where I would not have the
Good Christians to save my soul. The Good Christians
did not trust the people of the low country at all,
and no one there dared to speak of them and their
life. Because of this the priest had fear that I would
lose my soul when I descended into the low country
where there are no Good Christians. Bernard told me
also that the Good Christians, if they dared, would
ask me to see them, because no one could be affirmed
in their faith without having seen them and heard
them speak. I told him that I did not wish to see
them and that I did not have the heart to do it. He
told me then to send them something as a sign of recognition,
because when one of them received a kindness from
another he would to pray to God for him. These Good Christians, he told me only pray for someone from
whom they receive something. I asked him "And
what should I send them?" He told me that it
would suffice to send them anything if one wished
them to pray God for you. I gave him 5 Parisian sous,
a coin then in circulation, to bring to these Good Christians and I said "I do not know who will
receive this money, but may it be for the love of
God."
|
|
"the Wall of Carcassonne" - a closed prison
where the prisoners were immurred on a diet of bread
and water until they died - typically after a few
months.
|
|
At the time when I was living at Montaillou
and Prades, a rumour ran about among the believers
that the heretics frequented the houses of the brothers
Raymond and Bernard Belot, who lived together, and
of Alazais den Riba, sister of the heretics Prades
Tavernier, and of Guillaume Benet, brother of Arnaud
Benet of Ax, who were all from Montaillou. And it
was said that they served as guides to these heretics
and knew their itineraries.
|
|
|
|
The same year when I sent this money
to the heretics by the intermediary of Bernard Belot,
I was at Crampagna with Guillaume Othon my second
husband, toward the feast of Saint Michael in September.
Bernard Belot came to see me at Crampagna, in the
house or domain called Carol, where I lived at that
time, and told me that the rector of Montaillou greeted
me and was sending to me through him the act of marriage
for my first marriage, in which was found the assignation
of my dowry. I had left this document in deposit with
the rector. Since I had no need to concern myself
with this document, having already paid the heirs
of my first husband, I thought that this Bernard was
bringing me a message from the rector and I spoke
to him in secret. He said that the rector greeted
me and asked me to recall the remarks that he had
made between us concerning the sect, the state and
the way of life of the good men. I told him that I
did not wish to remember them, and that, on the contrary,
it displeased me greatly to have already heard or
spoken of them. I told him it was worth more to hear
the remarks of the Preaching Friars and the Minor
Friars, than to speak of the sect and way of life
of the heretics. Bernard told me that my heart had
quickly changed and that the remarks that the rector
and he had made to me had been lost. They had suspected
immediately, he told me, when I descended into the
low country that they had lost their good words. I
told him that in the future he should not send me
any more messages of this type, because if my husband
knew it, no good would come of it. "In the future,
do not return, because if you come to the house, my
husband will think at once something evil on my account,
either evil conduct or some other evil thing."
|
|
|
|
It was then that he left me, malcontent
with my response and saying that they could not believe
that their good words could be so quickly lost.
|
|
|
|
Twelve years ago, I was gravely ill
at Varilhes in the house of the late Otho, my husband.
This priest came one day to the synod at Pamiers and
he entered into my house to visit me. When he was
with me he seated himself at the head of the bed on
which I was resting and asked me how I was, feeling
my hand and arm. I told him that I was gravely ill.
He then said to my late daughter Béatrice,
who was present, to leave the chamber because he wished
to speak to me alone. When she had left, he asked
me how my heart was. I told him that it was very weak
and that I had great fear of the remarks that had
passed between us (I understand by that the heretical
remarks above, which this priest had taught me). I
had such fear that I did not dare to confess these
sins to any priest, out of fear that he would judge
me suspect concerning the faith. He told me to have
no fear about that, because God, who knew my sin and
alone could absolve sins, would remove it from me,
and that it was not necessary to confess to any priest.
He told me also that I would be quickly healed, and
that he, when he descended to Pamiers, would see me
and that we would speak together concerning these
remarks. This said, he left me and after I did not
see him again. He sent me all the same an engraved
flask of sugar.
|
|
|
|
About 21 years ago, I was at Montaillou
after the death of my first husband. One day, near
Christmas, I was at the house of Alazais Maury of
Montaillou. As we were warming ourselves at the fire
Gauzia, the wife of Bernard Clergue, came by, and
asked Alazais in my presence if Guillemette, the widow
of Pierre Faure of Montaillou, was dead. Alazais said
yes, that she was buried. Gauzia said then "And
did you do well?" Alazais replied 'Yes, by my
faith, well." Gauzia said again "And you
did well, well? Nothing was lacking?" Alazais
replied that all was done "well" and there
was no obstacle to doing it. Gauzia then said "Thanks
be to God!" This said, she sat down near the
fire. As for myself, I did not understand why they
exchanged these words between themselves, nor what
they meant, but later, several days after, I found
Alazais, I do not remember where and I asked her what
the words that I had heard exchanged between her and
Gauzia meant . She told me that it meant nothing special.
I told her that, on the contrary, one did not say
such words for nothing. She told me that she did not
dare to reveal to me what they meant, because she
had fear that I would denounce her. I promised her
by my faith to guard her secret. She told me then
that the Good Christians had come to the house of
this sick woman, Guillemette and had received her
into their sect, to make her a Good Christian. After
this, they told her to eat or drink nothing except
for cold water, which she did, neither eating nor
drinking anything except cold water. She remained
thus for nearly 15 days, until her death.
|
|
Again, Beatrice seems to describing the Endura,
though she seems not to understand it fully.
|
|
From this moment, this Alazais began
to see me and she spoke to me of the Good Christians,
saying that they were holy and good men and it was
necessary to have confidence in them rather than in
the clerics, because they withstood many persecutions
for Christ, and that the clerics did not withstand
persecutions, but enjoyed the pleasures of the world.
|
|
|
|
She said that no one should leave
the sect of the Good Christians for any danger or
misfortune which might threaten. She said also that
one could only be saved in this sect or belief, and
whatever sins a man had committed in this present
life, as long as he was received by them at the end,
would be remitted and he would be saved.
|
|
|
|
She said also that the Good Christians
did not dare to show themselves because the Church
persecuted them and destroyed them and that it was
a great kindness to give them gifts, that she herself
and Raymond Maury her husband often gave them alms,
embracing poverty by depriving themselves of nourishment
to be able to give it to them, and often sending them
wheat and other things they had, and always the best.
I asked her then "These Good Christians accept
wheat?" She said yes, and I gave her a quarter
bushel (boisseau de village d'un quart de farine de
froment) of wheat flour to give to the good men on
my part. I do not know, in any case, whether she gave
this wheat to them or not.
|
|
embracing poverty (Mark
12,44) |
|
Because of the remarks that I had
heard on the subject of these heretics from the mouth
of Raymond Rousel and the priest, I believed that
what Alazais told me concerning the Good Christians
was true, and it was for this reason that I gave them
wheat through her. After this, I did not talk anymore
of these heretics to Alazais.
|
|
|
|
About the same time, certain people
said that Raymond Azéma, the son of Alazais,
wife of Pons Azéma, travelled with the heretics.
One night at the beginning of the evening, I was at
her house and Raymond arrived, carrying a sack, which
seemed to be full of something, and he departed quickly.
I asked Alazais where her son was going at such an
hour. She told me that he was going somewhere. I asked
her to be more preci | | |