|
The year of the Lord 1320, the 19th of August. Grazide,
widow of Pierre Lizier of Montaillou, having sworn
on the holy Gospels of God to tell the truth as much
of herself as accused, as of other as witness,concerning
the fact of heresy of which she is strongly suspected
and the incest and the debauchery committed with her
by Pierre Clergue, rector of the church of Montaillou,
appearing judiciarily, said and affirmed:
|
|
|
|
About 7 years ago, in the summer the rector came
to the house of my mother and demanded of me to let
him know me carnally. As for me, I consented (I was
then still a virgin and must have been 14 or 15 years
old, so it seems to me). He took my virginity in the
grange where the straw is stored. He did not do me
any violence. He knew me after then quite often just
until the following January and that always at my
mother's house with her knowledge and consent to this.
This always took place during the day.
|
|
It seems to have been common practice for priests
to demand and receive sexual favours from their parishioners
in the middle ages. Records of a number of examples
like one have survived - in none of them is any surprise
expressed about the priests behaviour.
|
|
Later, in that month of January, the rector gave
me as a spouse to Pierre Lizier, my late husband,
after which this priest, with the knowledge and consent
of my said husband, knew me carnally often, and during
the four years that my husband lived. When my husband
asked me if this priest had had intercourse with me,
I told him yes, and my husband said to guard myself
well against other men, with the exception of this
priest. In any case, the priest never knew me when
my husband was at home, but only when he was absent.
|
|
This is the practice of "cogotia", remunerated
complaisance of a husband which appears to have been
common (In a treaty of 1275 the Count of Foix exchanged
with the men of the Valleys of Andorra the tax which
they received from this practice against the law of
Justice).
|
|
Q. Did you know then or have you since learned that
this priest was or was reputed to be the first cousin
of your mother Fabrisse?
A. I never knew it nor heard it said, nor that my
mother was in any way related to this priest.
|
|
|
|
Q. If you had known that your mother was a first
cousin to this rector, though in truth outside marriage,
would you have tolerated being known by him?
A. No. But, because this was pleasing to me and also
pleasing to the said rector, when we knew each other
carnally, I did not think I sinned with him.
|
|
|
|
Q. In being known by this priest, either before being
married or during the course of your marriage, did
you believe it to be a sin?
A. Because at that time it was pleasing both to me
and to the rector, I did not believe it and it did
not seem to be that this was a sin But now, when this
would not please me, if I were to be known by him,
I would believe it to be a sin.
|
|
|
|
Q. During some time you conducted yourself badly
with this priest while you had a husband. Do you believe
or did you believe that it was equally permitted to
you and without sin to unite yourself carnally with
your husband and with this priest and reciprocally?
A. It seemed to me more permissible to unite carnally
with my husband, nevertheless it seemed to me and
I believed as well that I sinned as little with this
priest as with my husband when I was known by both
of them.
|
|
|
|
Q. Did you have bad conscience of the fact that you
let yourself be known by this priest or did you believe
that such intrigues were displeasing to God?
A. I did not have a bad conscience and I did not
believe that this could be displeasing to anyone,
that I slept with this priest, because it was pleasing
to us, to him and to me.
|
|
|
|
Q. If such a union had been forbidden to you by your
husband, would you have believed it to be a sin if
you had then united with this priest?
A. Supposing that my husband had forbidden it, which
he did not do, I would not have believed it to be
a sin if I was united to the priest against his interdiction,
because that was pleasing to the priest and to me.
|
|
|
|
Q. you believe that if any man unites carnally with
any woman, who are not related within the degrees
of consanguinity, whether she is a virgin, deflowered,
married or not, but if such relations are pleasing
to that man and to that woman, that would be a sin?
A. Although all carnal union between man and woman
is displeasing to God, I do not believe that persons
sin in this manner, as long as it is pleasing to both
of them.
|
|
An answer likely to invite suspicions of Cathar belief.
|
|
Q. Since you believe, as you have said, that all
carnal union between man and women, even between husband
and wife is displeasing to God, do you believe that
the union of man and wife is more displeasing to God
than that between those who are not married?
A. It is more displeasing to God that the unmarried
unite themselves than when they are spouses.
|
|
The approved Catholic answer. The opposite would
have damned her.
|
|
Q. Do you believe that those people leading a good
and holy life go to paradise after death and that
sinners go to hell and do you believe that there is
a hell and a paradise?
A. I do not know. I have heard tell that there is
a paradise, and I believe it. I have heard tell that
there is a hell, but, that, I neither believe nor
deny. I believe that there is a paradise because that
is a good thing, from what I hear, but I do not believe
nor deny hell, because that is an evil thing.
|
|
Cathars believed in heaven, but not in hell (as understood
by Catholics)
|
|
(Interrogated in the same manner concerning the resurrection,
she replied that she neither believed it nor denied
it, but that she had often heard that we will rise
again.)
|
|
Cathars did not believe in the Resurrection
|
|
Q. Do you presently believe that when a carnal union
is pleasing to a man and a woman, that this is not
a sin?
A. I do not believe that that is a sin.
|
|
Suggestive of Cathar belief, but not enough to be
sure
|
|
Q. For how many years have you remained in this belief?
A. Since the moment when I was known by that priest.
|
|
The Inquisitor is interested in why she holds this
belief
|
|
Q. Who taught you this error?
A. No one, only myself.
|
|
The Inquisitor is probably interested in whether
the priest taught her this (as he did Beatrice de
planissoles)
|
|
Q. Have you taught it to anyone?
A. No. No one has asked me.
|
|
|
|
After this the same year as mentioned above, the
21st of August, the said Grazide appeared for questioning
in the Chamber of the bishop's palace of Pamiers before
my said Lord Bishop assisted by Brother Gaillard of
Pomiès, substitute for Monsignor the Inquisitor
of Carcassonne. Since she was suspected of the Manichean
heresy she was interrogated by my Lord the Bishop:
|
|
Manichean heresy = Cathar belief.
Her testimony suggests that the Inquisitors may have
had a conversation with her off the record.
|
|
Q. Do you believe that God made all the material
things which are to be seen in the world?
A. Those material things which which are good and
useful to men, these things God has made, such as
men, the beasts which he eats or which serve for transport,
such as cows, goats, horses, mules, and the fruits
of the earth and trees, which one eats. But I do not
believe that God made wolves, mosquitos, lizards and
other things harmful to men. And I do not believe
that God made the devil, because that is an evil thing
and God has never done anything evil.
|
|
A question designed to ascertain Cathar beliefs.
This answer alone was enough to condemn her.
|
|
After this, the same year, the 16th of November,
the said Grazide, leaving the prison of the château
of Allemans, in which she was restrained for 7 weeks
and a bit more, because she did not wish, it seemed,
to testify plainly, appeared for trial in the chamber
of the bishop's palace of Pamiers before my said Lord
Bishop, assisted by Brother Gaillard, and vowed and
deposed what followed of her own free will and spontaneously
and as she herself said, not by fear or threat of
torture.
|
|
! |
|
Between the moment when the rector deflowered me
and that moment where he gave me to my husband, one
day, I do not remember when, I was at the door on
the Baille de Montaillou with my mother Fabrissa.
The rector was walking up towards the château
and he rested a short while with us and we talked
jokingly of the sin of lechery. And then he said that
to have relations with a woman, as long as it was
pleasing to her was not a sin. He said also that one
woman was as good as another and that the sin was
the same with one or with another. This said, he continued
at once to the Château of Montaillou.
|
|
Suggestive of heresy (The priest Clergue was later
convicted)
|
|
Q. Did he say similar words in other circumstances?
A. I do not remember.
|
|
|
|
Q. Did he tell you that there is no hell?
A. No.
|
|
Looking for evidence against him now.
|
|
Q. Did he tell you that the devil had created certain
things in this world?
A. No.
|
|
again, looking for evidence against him. An affirmative
answer would have been fatal.
|
|
Q. Did you yourself believe that the carnal union
of man and woman outside of marriage is not a sin,
because of the remarks of this priest?
A. Yes, and this is why I did not believe it to be
a sin when I lay with him.
|
|
Contradicting her earlier testimony.
|
|
Q. Have you believed that it is an equal sin to have
relations with one woman as well as with any other,
because of the remarks of this rector?
A. No, on the contrary I have always believed that
it is more grave to have commerce with relatives than
with other women. I told him sometimes that I knew
my mother Fabrissa was his first cousin. He told me
that no one knew anything about it, because the mother
of the said Fabrissa had been the daughter of Guillaume
Clergue, the brother of Pons Clergue, father of this
rector.
|
|
Again, contradicting her earlier testimony
|
|
Q. Why did you not wish to confess from the beginning
when you were taught these errors concerning the sin
of the flesh?
A. When I was cited, the first time, I came with
Alazais Azema, who could not walk well nor keep up
with the others. On the road, she told me that the
rector of Montaillou had done much good for me, and
he had married me, that I should not speak ill of
him, even if I should swear to tell the truth, because
it is a great thing to establish a person (i.e. Pierre
has married her to Pierre Lizier - he does not leave
her to become a concubine or whore). It was not a
sin, I must remain firm and constant. I was afraid,
also, if I said the truth of the rector and his brother,
that they would kill me or maltreat me.
|
|
|
|
Q. Do you wish to persist in your preceding depositions?
A. Yes.
|
|
|
|
Q. Do you repent of the errors that you have testified
to have believed?
A. Yes.
|
|
|
|
And she was instructed in the contrary by my said
lord the bishop. This instruction ended, she said
and confessed that she believed and would believe
for all the days of life to come that all carnal coitus,
except that between a legitimate man and wife is a
mortal sin.
|
|
|
|
Item she said that she believes and will believe
in the future that the carnal union of man and legitimate
wife is not a sin.
|
|
|
|
Item she said that she believes and will believe
always in the future that there is a hell in which
evil men and evil demons will be perpetually punished
(and a heaven where the holy men and saints and angels
will be perpetually glorified).
|
|
|
|
Item she said she believes now and in the future
that all men will be resurrected in the same flesh
that they have now, in which each one will receive
according to his acts, whether good or evil.
|
|
|
|
This done, the said Grazide swore and recited the
formula which follows:
|
|
|
|
"I, Grazide, appearing for questioning before
you, Reverend father in Christ My Lord Jacques, by
the grace of God bishop of Pamiers, abjure entirely
all heresy against the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ
and the Holy Roman Church, and all beliefs of heretics,
of whatever sect condemned by the Roman Church and
especially the sect to which I held, and all complicity,
aid, defence and company of heretics, under pain of
what is rightfully due in the case of a relapse into
judicially abjured heresy;
|
|
|
|
Item I swear and promise to pursue according to my
power the heretics of whatever sect condemned by the
Roman Church and especially the sect to which I held,
and the believers, deceivers, aiders and abetters
of these heretics, including those whom I know or
believe to be in flight by reason of heresy, and against
any one of them, to have them arrested and deported
according to my power to my said Lord Bishop or to
the Inquisitors of the heretical deviation at all
time and in whatever places that I know the existence
of the above said or any one of them.
|
|
|
|
Item I swear and promise to hold, preserve and defend
the Catholic Faith that the Holy Roman Church preaches
and observes.
|
|
|
|
Item I swear and promise to obey and to defer to
the orders of the Church, of My Lord the Bishop and
the Inquisitors, and to appear on the day or days
fixed by them or their replacements, at all times
and in whatever place that I receive the order or
request on their part, by messanger or by letter or
by other means, to never flee nor to absent myself
knowingly or in a spirit of contumaciousness and to
receive and accomplish according to my power the punishment
and the penance that they have judged fit to impose
on me. And to this end, I pledge my person and all
my worldly goods.
|
|
|
|
After this swearing, she renounced and finished and
asked what sentence would be passed on her.
|
|
There has never been any opportunity for a defence,
or for neutral witnesses. No charges were formulated
and guilt has simply been assumed.
|
| Made the same year and day as above, in
the presence of My Lord the Bishop, Brother Gaillard,
and Brother Arnaud of Carla from the Order of Preachers
of the convent of Pamiers, and myself Guillaume Peyre-Barthe,
notary of My Lord the Bishop, who recited and wrote
that which precedes. |
|
Order of Preachers = Dominicans
|
|
After this, the same year as above, the 7th of March
in the house of the Preachers of Pamiers.
|
|
|
|
Made the same year as above, in the presence of Brother
Gaillard de Pomiès, prior of the convent of
the Preaching Friars of Pamiers, Brother Arnaud du
Carla, of the same convent, witness at these convocations,
and myself Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my said
Lord Bishop, who has recited and written all of this
in the presence of Master Barthélemy Adalbert,
notary of the Inquisition, who wrote also in his protocol
the ratification of the confession of the said Grazide.
|
|
|
|
And the Sunday assigned to the said Grazide, she
appeared in the cemetery of Saint-Jean-Martyr of Pamiers
and was given her sentence by the said Lords Bishop
and Inquisitor according to what follows "Let
all know, etc." See the sentence in this case
in the Book of Sentences of the Inquisition."
|
|
|
|
And I, Rainaud Jabbaud, cleric of Toulouse, sworn
to the service of the Inquisition, have, on the order
of My Lord the Bishop, faithfully corrected this confession
against the original.
|
|
The sessions would have been conducted in Occitan.
|
| |
|
|
The translation above is based on that of Nancy P. Stork.
(© 1996). A few changes have been made - eg preferring
English name spellings rather than French for Occitan names,
when the Occitan form is not used.
Annotations are the web-master's.