|
Verbal Processes
In the following processes, I have given all names in what I at
least imagine to be their French form. Thus Petrus Iohannis Olivi
turns into Pierre Déjean Olieu, as he does in the Prous
selection. I urge you to remember that we're dealing with the same
person here, the man whose Apocalypse commentary I've translated in
another selection.
Bernard Maury
In the name of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, for his glory and
for the exaltation of his holy faith. Amen.
Since it is widely known that in certain parts of the world many people
of both sexes, abandoning the way of truth and the catholic faith, have
rebelled like those who would bite their own mother's breast,
pertinaciously asserting among other things that our Lord Pope neither
had nor presently has the power and authority to promulgate a certain
constitution which, with the council of the lord cardinals, he actually
did promulgate, one which begins Quorumdam, in which he leaves to
the judgment of Franciscan leaders all determinations concerning the
nature of the habit prescribed by the rule of that order, and concerning
certain other things recognized as pertaining to the salubrious
condition and proper administration of that rule. Rising up against
that constitution, these insurgents say the pope should no longer be
obeyed because what is contained in the constitution is against
Christ's counsel and the aforesaid rule. Our Lord Pope, they say,
cannot make determinations which contradict the rule, in fact to do so
is to attack the gospel of Christ, and that leads to the destruction of
the life of Christ. Many who obstinately and pertinaciously continue to
hold views of this sort have been, through judgment of the church,
relinquished to secular judgment and permitted themselves to be
burned as true heretics. In view of many burnings publicly conducted
in many places, both on this side of the Rhône and on the other, the
many sentences publicly pronounced by diocesan officials and by
inquisitors of heretical depravity against those holding the aforesaid
views as well as those who receive and defend them, and the public
preaching of those in orders against these views, by this time it should
be so obvious to all, clerics and laity, that these views are heretical,
reprove and insane, as to leave no room for further doubt or denial.
Nevertheless, many followers, male and female, of these heretics still
adhere to these errors, approving and praising them with obstinate
belief. Some, like heresiarchs, even defend these errors obstinately
and have defended the heretics who were thus condemned, insisting
that they were martyrs and saints, or in paradise, and that our Holy
Father and Lord Pope John XXII, the present pope, is not pope at all,
but on the contrary he and all his prelates, inquisitors and others who
consent to the punishment of the condemned are excommunicated and
separated from the Church of God as violators of evangelical truth;
And since it had come to the ear of the venerable and religious man
Friar Guillaume Astre, of the Franciscan Order, appointed by apostolic
authority inquisitor in the provinces of Arles, Aix, Vienne and Embrun
and in the city of Avignon, and it had in fact become evident to him
that in the area assigned to him a number of these little foxes were
running here and there secretly disseminated the aforesaid errors and
inducing many to believe them, and among this number was the evil
Pierre Trencavel, a fugitive who approved and obstinately defended
these errors, and had infected many; and many who suffered from this
illness and had been cured, abjuring all heretical depravity, later
inexcusably associated with that wicked heretic Pierre, giving him their
favor, aid, counsel and assistance, in this way adhering again to these
errors;
And since Lord Bernard Maury, a priest of Narbonne, was suspected
and accused of these offenses and thus, having been discovered within
the region assigned to the aforesaid Lord Inquisitor, was arrested on
his orders and brought into his presence; and since it was said that
this same Bernard Maury had confessed and been convicted of these
errors elsewhere and had on that account abjured all heresy in the
course of that judicial process, the Lord Inquisitor proceeded as
follows:
In the year of our Lord's incarnation 1326, on the 19th day in the
month of May, at l'Isle [sur Sorge] in the diocese of Cavaillon in the
county of Venaissin, in the house of the Franciscan Friars, in the
presence of myself (the notary undersigned below) and of the discrete
friars Pons Raoul (guardian of the Franciscan convent at l'Isle), Pierre
d'Avignon and Bernard Audibert (both of the same order), all summoned
and present as witness to these proceedings, the Lord Bernard Maury,
a priest of Narbonne, was brought to judgment in the presence of the
venerable and religious man Guillaume Astre of the Franciscan Order,
by apostolic authority inquisitor of heretical depravity in the provinces
of Arles, Aix, Vienne and Embrun and in the Venaissin county. The
aforesaid Bernard Maury, having sworn on God's Holy Gospels in the
hands of the Lord Inquisitor that he would tell the pure and full truth
concerning both himself and others, living and dead, and having been
asked by the same Lord Inquisitor whether he had ever, especially
since he reached the years of discretion, said, done held, believed,
asserted, approved or perpetrated anything against the catholic faith,
its articles of belief, or its ecclesiastical sacraments, or if he knows
anyone, living or dead, male or female, who said, did, held, believed,
asserted, approved or perpetrated any of the former, he said no, and
that he believed he had not done such.
Asked if before now he had ever been called or cited or interrogated
concerning the faith by some inquisitor or inquisitors of heretical
depravity, or by some other person or persons having authority in these
matters, he said around eight years earlier he had been cited, taken
prisoner, detained and investigated at Narbonne by the venerable and
circumspect Lords Bertrand Mathieu de Bouzigues and Bernard
Maynard, canons of the church of Saint-Just in Narbonne and vicars
general of the Reverend Father and Lord in Christ Bernard, by the grace
of God Archbishop of Narbonne, and by the Lord BarthŽlemy Pincard,
an official of Narbonne. He remained a captive in the prison of the
Lord Archbishop for around twenty-four weeks. After that he was
sentenced to wear a cross and perform other penances by the aforesaid
lords vicar, the official and the religious man Friar Jean de Beaune of
the Dominican Order, sometime inquisitor of heretical depravity at
Carcassonne. From the day he was sentenced - which was, it seemed
to him, within fifteen days before or after the feast of Saint Luke - until
the feast of Saint Martin or the Blessed Katherine, he had to wear two
yellow crosses visible on his outside clothing, and while wearing these
crosses he was to visit the cathedral and parochial churches of
Carcassonne, Limoux, Narbonne and Béziers, each of them once, and
every Sunday he was to hear the major mass in the church of Saint-
Just at Narbonne. He was also to announce his crime and explain to
the people in all these churches (except Narbonne) the reason why he
was performing these penances. From that time until Easter he was to
go to the Roman curia at Avignon and present himself to one of the
Lord Pope's penitentiaries, then bring back with him letters patent
attesting that he had done so. He performed all parts of this penance
faithfully, humbly and obediently, as he said, except that he did not
visit the churches at Carcassonne and Limoux because he was
excused from doing that part by special grace, as he said, and he says
he has in Narbonne letters patent and testimonials showing that he
completed the penance.
Asked why he was ordered to perform the aforesaid penances, he said
it was because, when he was asked by the lords vicar and official
whether the Lord Pope our Lord Pope John XXII could dress a
Franciscan in red or scarlet (lat. pesseto, fr. pesset), he told them no;
and also because, the he was asked by these lords if he believed the
Franciscan friars then imprisoned at Marseilles by the inquisitor of
heretical depravity earned merit while in prison, he said yes, he
believed they did; and also for two other things which he says he does
not remember, except it seems to him that it was because he
supported the appeals made to the Holy See by Friars Guillaume de
Saint-Amans, François Sans, Servian and many others then living in
the Franciscan convent at Narbonne.
Asked if at that time, before the aforesaid lords vicar, official and
inquisitor, he renounced the preceding errors and articles, all heresy in
general and aid or reception of heretics or those suspect concerning
the faith, he said yes.
Asked if he ever gave counsel, aid or favor to those friars disobedient
and rebellious toward our present Lord High Pontiff and the Roman
Church, and especially to those pseudofriars who at Marseilles,
Narbonne and Capestang were relinquished to the secular arm by the
inquisitors of heretical depravity and then burned, he said no, not after
the brothers burned at Marseilles had been brought to the inquisitor of
heretical depravity at Marseilles; before that, however, he had willingly
rendered them service, especially Guillaume de Saint-Amans and
others, supporting their appeals.
Asked if he believes or ever believed that the aforesaid pseudofriars
turned over to secular courts at Marseilles, Capestang and elsewhere
by inquisitors of heretical depravity and later burned were saints or
martyrs and saved (or at least destined for salvation), or whether he
believes instead that they are among the damned in hell because they
were disobedient heretics, he says that heretofore, that is,
immediately after they were burned, he thought they had died as good
men and as martyrs of God, and that they were destined for salvation.
Now, however, he said he believed they were damned and evil men
because they were disobedient to and rebellious against the Roman
Church.
Asked how long he had considered them damned, he said that five
years ago God had put it in his heart and mind that anyone disobedient
to the Roman Church will die in mortal sin.
Asked if he knows any person or persons who may believe that the
aforesaid burned friars are saints and martyrs of God destined for
salvation, he said he had heard many times in many places from
Pierre Trencavel of Béziers that the aforesaid burned friars were saints,
martyrs and friends of God, and he reputed them to be such.
Asked in what places on this side of the Rhône he saw the aforesaid
Pierre Trencavel and heard him say the above, he says that this coming
July (he does not remember the exact day) three years will have passed
since he, the speaker, traveled from Manosque, where he lived, to Apt,
summoned by Bérenger Hulard of Narbonne, who lived in Apt at that
time. He arrived at Apt, met Bérenger there, and spoken with him, he
was at a hostel run by someone called Marin, who is now dead. As he
and Marin were speaking together, Pierre Trencavel arrived at the
hostel and came over to them. When he saw Pierre he was
astonished. He and Pierre greeted and saluted one another, taking
one another's hands and embracing, but he does not remember
whether they kissed. After that they saw one another at intervals over
a period of days, a total of around six times. Sometimes (that is, twice)
Pierre ate and drank at the same table with him, Marin, Berrand Anniat
and another person who was Bertrand's companion. In that same
hostel there lived another man named Bertrand (he cannot remember
the surname), and these two Bertrands ran the poor house in Apt. On
one occasion Pierre slept with the speaker in the hostel, that is, they
slept together in separate beds. And it was there in the hostel that
the speaker heard Pierre say the pseudofriars burned in the aforesaid
places were saints, friends of God, and true martyrs, and he believed
them to be such.
Asked whether he ever heard him say anything there or elsewhere
about the plenitude of power belonging to our Lord High Pope, that is,
our Lord John XXII, by divine providence pope, he said he heard him
refer to our Lord Pope as the mystical Antichrist and as Jacques
Duze. Asked who was present, he named the aforesaid Marin,
Bertrand Anniat, and his companion Bertrand (whose surname he said
he did not remember). Asked what the mystical Antichrist was, and
whether he had heard it explained by the aforesaid Pierre, he said he
did not know what it meant, nor had he ever heard it explained.
Again, he says under interrogation that he saw the aforesaid Pierre
often, talked with him, and ate with him once at Sainte-Catherine
d'Aygues, when the speaker was staying with Lord Hugolin, a knight of
the Order of Saint-Jean of Jerusalem who had purchased the income
from Sainte-Catherine. Pierre came to see and visit Lord Hugolin (and,
he thinks, the speaker himself). He frequently saw Pierre Trencavel
and the Lord Hugolin shuts themselves up together in a room to speak
secretly with one another, but he says he does not know what they
were talking about, except that after Pierre left the Lord Hugolin often
said he knew many good things.
Again, he said under interrogation that the aforesaid Pierre stayed for
some time at Saint-Martin [de la Brasque] in the diocese of Aix, a
league from Sainte-Catherine. That was around three years ago this
coming August.
Again, Pierre, coming from Saint-Martin to Sainte-Catherine, asked the
speaker to accompany Andrée, Pierre's daughter, from Saint-Martin to
Avignon. He did so, and then with her and Cécile, Andrée's companion,
he returned from Avignon to Apt, where they found Pierre Trencavel,
Andrée's father. He left them there and went himself to Sainte-
Catherine. Asked why Andrée went to Avignon and in what hostel they
stayed, he says he himself went there to visit three women from across
the Rhône, and that they stayed at their house, near the monastery of
the Carmelites in Avignon, located in an alley with no cross-streets
(vico sine traversa).
Asked the names of the women, he said one was called Alazaïs (he
says he does not know her surname) and was from Narbonne. The
other was called Jacqueline. He does not know her surname either,
but her language or idiom suggests she was from Catalonia. He says
he does not know either the name or surname of the third.
Asked if he knows where the three women are now, he says he does
not know, but Alazaïs died around two years ago in Céreste and is
buried there, for he himself saw her buried in the cemetery of the
parish church there, although he says he does not know the name of
the church.
Asked if he ever heard Andrée speak of our present Lord Pope and his
power, or of the aforesaid burned friars, and whether she considered
them martyrs, he said no.
Asked, when he returned with Andrée and her companion Cécile to Apt,
whether he had eaten and drunk with the aforesaid Pierre Trencavel,
and in which hostel, and who were present, he said yes, and in the
hostel of the aforesaid Marin, and that those present were Andrée,
Cécile, Marin and the Lord Hugues Roubud, a priest. This priest was
sometime present at other meals mentioned earlier in which the
speaker dined with Pierre Trencavel, actually joining them in the
meal.
Again, he says under interrogation that this year, around the last feast
of All Saints, he went to Marseille, sent by a certain monk to bear a
letter to Lord Guillaume Raynaud, prior of Saint-Nicholas at Marseille,
and as he entered the city he met Pierre Trencavel and, when they had
mutually acknowledged and greeted one another, Pierre took him by the
hand and led him to a certain rented house (domum conduticiam)
where Pierre, Andrée and Cécile were living, and he dined with them.
When the meal was over, he left and has not seen them since, he
says.
Asked if he knows the whereabouts of Pierre, Bertrand, Andrée and
Cécile, or even suspects where they are, he said no.
He said under interrogation, however, that before he accompanied
Andrée to Avignon, he and the Lord Hugolin traveled from Saint-Martin
to Sainte-Catherine to visit Pierre, but they did not eat or drink with
him, he says.
Asked if he ever heard Pierre Trencavel say how he escaped from the
inquisitor's prison at Carcassonne, he said he did not remember
hearing that from Pierre. He heard from others that Pierre had been
captured by the lord inquisitor, but how the latter escaped from prison
he does not know, he says.
Asked if he knew, when he ate and drank with Pierre and conversed
with him in Apt, Sainte-Catherine, Marseille and Saint-Martin, that
Pierre was a fugitive sought by the inquisitor of Carcassonne as a
heretic, he said he knew well that the inquisitor was searching for
Pierre and that, if found, he would be arrested, but he did not know, he
says, that he was also sought by the lord inquisitor of Provence.
Asked why he did not try to capture him or inform the church, the
inquisitor or someone else about him, he said that due to his
ignorance he never entertained in his heart the thought that he should
capture him or reveal his presence. He says under interrogation that
he heard many people - he does not remember their names - say that
Pierre was a fugitive and had left the area of Narbonne and Béziers
with many books by Friar Pierre Déjean so that these books would not
be destroyed. Asked if he himself had seen Pierre carrying,
commending, supporting, defending or reading the books and ideas of
Friar Pierre Déjean concerning the Apocalypse and other books, he said
he saw that Pierre carried with him books and other writings by Friar
Pierre Déjean, such as a certain small work written in the vulgar
tongue concerning prayer and fasting, and another small work on
Christ's poverty. Pierre often read from these works, and he heard
Pierre say on many occasions that Pierre Déjean's views were holy,
evangelical and good.
Asked if he himself ever believed the views of Friar Pierre Déjean were
good, holy and evangelical, he said he formerly thought them to be
such, but now, since the church has damned and rejected them, he
himself does the same, wishing in his heart to adhere to the
sacrosanct Roman Church. He says, too, that he commended,
approved and praised the aforesaid doctrine frequently to many people
in many places.
Asked if he ever had or knows anyone who had bones of those burned,
he says no.
Asked if, when he was staying at Brignoles this year around Easter, he
had any books or other writings by Pierre Déjean, he says no, except
around this last feast of Saint-Martin Guillaume Déjean de Limoux
from the diocese of Narbonne, who said he was going to Rome, gave
him a book to hold for him until he returned, and that book mentioned
among other things the views of Pierre Déjean, especially his
exposition of the rule of Saint Francis. He read in this book two or
three times.
Asked why he fled Brignoles this last Easter when Elis Castres,
Raimonde Esquirol and Guillemette (whose surname he does not
know) were arrested there, he said it was through fear of the aforesaid
lord inquisitor and because he saw that these women had been
arrested by the court in that place by the command of the lord
inquisitor.
Asked where he went when he fled from Brignoles, and in what hostels
he stayed, he said that on the day he went to Luc and spent the night
there. He stayed there two days in the hostel where other people stay.
Finally he went to Draguignan, Grasse and Nice, staying in hostels
where other people stay in return for payment. Then he was arrested
by people from the office of inquisition and brought to Marseille, into
the presence of the venerable and religious man, the friar Michel Le
Moine of the Franciscan Order, inquisitor for heretical depravity. Later
he was remitted by him to the prison of the office of inquisition at
l'Isle and thus into the presence of the above-mentioned lord
inquisitor.
Asked how long it has been since he came from the Narbonne area into
this area on the other side of the Rhône, and why he did so, he said
that around the time of the next feast of the Lord's ascension it will
be three, years since he made the trip, and he never returned in the
intervening time. He came fearing that he would be arrested by the
inquisitor at Carcassonne, because others in that area who adhered to
the ideas of Friar Pierre Déjean had been arrested.
Asked if, in the intervening time, he had been cited, summoned or
hunted by the inquisitor at Carcassonne or his bishop for reasons of
the faith, he said no, not that he knew or had heard of.
Asked if he had taken another name besides Bernard Maury, he said
that from the time he stayed at Brignoles until his capture he called
himself Blaise Marty so that, if he was being hunted by the inquisitor,
he would not be found through his name.
Asked with which persons he was particularly familiar since coming to
these parts, he said with Elis Castres, Raimonde d'Esquirol and
Guillemette, the aforementioned women, who served him sedulously
while he was ill and in other ways as well. He often ate, drank,
associated and conversed with them at Manosque and Brignoles.
Asked if he saw, knew or believed that any or all of these women
adhered to the sect and ideas of Friar Pierre Déjean, he said he did not
see or know - nor does he presently know - of any error concerning the
faith on their part. He added, however, that these women saw and
listened to those who adhered to, commended and sustained the views
and writings of Pierre Déjean until the time they were arrested.
Asked if he knows why the women came to this area he says no,
although he heard them say they wished to go on pilgrimage to the
church of Blessed Francis in Assisi and to Rome. Asked why these
women - Elis, Raimonde and Guillemette - left Manosque, where they
normally lived, and came to Brignoles, he said that this year, around
the last feast of Saint-Michel, they heard that a beguin in Apt had been
arrested by the lord inquisitor and, fearing that they too would be
taken, they left Manosque and came to Brignoles with the ultimate aim
of continuing to Rome and Assisi if possible.
These things were done at l'Isle in the year and month and on the day
written above, and before the witnesses listed there. I, Pierre Roux,
notary public assigned to the office of inquisition, was present along
with the witnesses when the above occurred, and have written it down
as requested by the lord inquisitor.
After this, on the 25th of June in the same year, the aforesaid Bernard
Maury was led from the prison at l'Isle where he had been detained
and brought into the presence of the lord inquisitor at Avignon in the
house of the Franciscan Friars, and, brought to judgment before him,
swore on the holy gospels of God to tell the whole truth and nothing
but the truth concerning both himself and others, living and dead.
Examined and interrogated again by the aforesaid lord inquisitor, he
was asked first why he believed the above-mentioned pseudofriars to
be saints and friends of God when they had recently been burned at
the stake. He said he thought so because they had lived in poverty, he
had heard them commend poverty, and they lived a simple life. Asked
if he believed then that the inquisitors and other leaders who had
proceeded against them had sinned, he said yes.
Asked if he knows or has heard it said why those friars were burned,
he said he did not know for certain, but had heard it said by many
people in diverse places, both before they were arrested and after, that
they were arrested and condemned because they said and asserted
that neither their leaders nor the pope could change what they actually
had ordered to be changed in the rule of Blessed Francis, nor on this
account were they required to obey their leaders. But, since a long
time has passed and the speaker has a weak memory, he says, he
could not remember the precise reasons he heard why the pseudofriars
were condemned and judged to be heretics, unless someone were to
read them to him point by point. Thus the lord inquisitor had read to
Bernard the articles which, pertinaciously held and asserted by these
pseudofriars, constituted the reason why they were arrested and
condemned as heretics. The general tenor of these articles is as
follows:
The first is that a friar who has vowed to obey the rule of the Order of
Blessed Francis should not obey any leader who orders him to remove
his short, skimpy, habit, which differs from that worn by others in the
order, and that no mortal and compel them to abandon that habit, for
doing so would mean violating proper observance of the Blessed
Francis' rule and thus acting against the gospel itself. It would mean
denying the gospel and rule of Christ. From it would follow the
destruction of the life of Christ. It would be equivalent to throwing
Christ out of the synagogue, and it would show that all those who
proceed against the friars wearing short, skimpy habits err against the
true meaning of the evangelical rule and consequently against the
gospel and the faith.
The second, following from the first and making it more serious, is that
the Lord Pope neither had nor has the power or authority to promulgate
the constitution beginning Quorumdam, which he produced with the
advice of the cardinals, in which he left to the judgment of Franciscan
leaders determination of such matters as the length, width, form, etc.
of the habit worn by those who have vowed that rule; how vile clothing
should be; or when and in what quantity grain, bread and wine should
be stored by particular Franciscan houses. In this constitution he also
made it clear that in such matters friars were required to comply with
the decisions of their leaders, and he ordered those friars who had
donned short, skimpy habits to comply with the command of their
minister general and remove them, wearing instead those approved by
the minister general. In this and other matters he ordered them to
comply humbly with the minister general in accordance with the rule,
the declarations previously made concerning it, and the aforesaid
constitution.
Again, they insist that neither the pope nor other leaders should be
obeyed on those matters contained in the aforesaid constitution
because they contradict Christ's counsels and the Franciscan rule,
against which the pope cannot legislate.
When these articles were read, Lord Bernard replied that he had heard
it said by many before the above-mentioned friars were sentenced, and
even after, that the reason why the friars were arrested and
condemned as heretics was because they affirmed and held by these
articles, and would on no account come to their senses.
Asked if while the aforesaid brothers were alive he had heard any or
all of them assert or hold these things, he said yes, often and in many
places. And he himself firmly believed what they said before they were
captured, after they were captured, and even after they were
condemned, until the time when he abjured all heresy and was given
the penance by the diocesan official and inquisitor in his home area.
He already has explained how that came about. Moreover, he said it
seemed to him that in the appeals these pseudofriars sent to their
superiors while they were still alive - appeals with which he
wholeheartedly agreed - they held and asserted these things.
Asked if he had heard Pierre Trencavel explain why he called our
present Lord Pope the mystical Antichrist, he said he had heard Pierre
Trencavel say often, at diverse times (including after the speaker had
abjured), in places on this side of the Rhône, that the reason why the
Lord Pope was Antichrist and had no power was because he had
destroyed and was destroying that which was of God on earth by
persecuting and condemning the aforesaid friars and others who
adhered to them. He says, however, that after he abjured and did the
penance assigned to him he did not believe those errors. He confesses
furthermore that at the time he was arrested at Narbonne for these
things, before he abjured, he was placed in prison for these things with
many others who called themselves people of penance, and while in
prison he often conversed with these people. They all agreed it was a
great sin that they had been arrested for that cause.
For today's proceedings in the house of the Franciscan Friars at
Avignon, there were present along with the Lord Inquisitor the
religious and discrete men Friars Aymar du Barri and Raimond Fosset
of the Order of Franciscan Friars, as well as Master Guillaume Auriol, a
learned jurist, as witnesses.
I, Pierre Roux, the aforementioned notary, wrote it, etc.
Again, on the 26th of June in the same year Lord Bernard Maury,
brought from the prison at Soudan where he was detained to Avignon
on the order of the aforesaid Lord Inquisitor, appeared in judgment
before him in the above mentioned house of the Franciscan Friars at
Avignon. When he had sworn on the gospels of God to tell the truth,
he was examined and questioned again by the Lord Inquisitor so that
he might clarify the following point already made in the process: When
asked how long he had believed the condemned pseudofriars had died
good men and martyrs of God, and how long he had believed the
contrary, he had replied that five years earlier God had put into his
heart and spirit the conviction that all who disobey the Roman Church
die in mortal sin. Now, explaining himself, he says that when he was
given a penance and abjured, he firmly believed that he was unjustly
obliged to abjure and assigned a penance, because he did not think he
had erred, sinned in any way, or done anything against God on the
matter of faith, which should require him to abjure or merit his being
given a penance. And he continued to believe that until, five years ago
as he has said, God put in his heart the conviction that all who rebel
against the Roman Church die in mortal sin. Since then, he has
believed by divine illumination (and still believes) that he was justly
punished and was greatly in error when he believed that. He says,
however, that he performed and completed the aforesaid penance
humbly.
Asked if, in the last three years, a period when he still associated with
Pierre Trencavel, he considers or considered Pierre to be a good man
or an enemy of God, he says he never heard Pierre say or saw him do
anything that would make him think Pierre should be considered a bad
man or mortal sinner, and so he considered him a good man and a
faithful catholic.
Asked if he wants to change, add, correct or withdraw anything in his
testimony, he says he has changed all that had to be changed, as one
finds successively in the process, and he wishes to persist and
persevere in what has thus been changed and corrected. If he has said
anything that goes against the faith or the Roman Church, he is ready,
he says, to submit himself to the correction of the Lord Inquisitor.
Done at Avignon in the house of the Franciscan Friars, in the presence
of the witnesses gathered, religious and discrete persons, the Friars
Raimond Boufil and Simon de Maillane of the Franciscan Order and
Master Guillaume Auriol, learned jurist.
I, Pierre Roux, the aforenamed notary, wrote it, etc.
Later, on the 2d of July in the same year, Lord Bernard, led from prison
into presence of the Lord Inquisitor in the house of the Franciscan
Friars at Avignon, having sworn with his hand on the holy gospels of
God, examined and questioned in judicial process again by the same
Lord Inquisitor, was first asked in what way he adhered to the appeal
or appeals made by the aforesaid pseudofriars. He said he was sent
from Narbonne to Avignon by Friar Guillaume de Saint-Amans and
many others who held these views, so that he could act as their
procurator in presenting the appeal. He did so, but at that time he
thought he was offending neither God nor the church.
Asked why, after he had abjured, he heard Pierre Trencavel say the
things he has reported above, and also heard Pierre say he was a
fugitive sought by the office of inquisition, and yet he continued to
associate with Pierre frequently as he said and never entertained in
his heart the idea that he should avoid Pierre or report him to the
church, he said it was through his ignorance, and he said earlier. And
he wished to give no further answer on this matter.
Asked if he formerly believed, now believes, or in fact ever believed
Pierre's words to be heretical or against the faith, he said at the time
Pierre spoke them he did not know whether they were or not, but now
he knows that they are.
Asked if, when Pierre Trencavel uttered these words, the speaker
believed that he spoke them intentionally, he replied that he thought
Pierre spoke both with his mouth and with his heart.
Asked what moved the speaker to associate with Pierre Trencavel so
frequently after he had abjured, he said it was the fact that, during the
time when the aforementioned condemned were still alive, he and
Pierre Trencavel had associated with them at Narbonne before they
were arrested.
Again asked by the Lord Inquisitor if he believed the words of Pierre
Trencavel as reported by him above were wholly or partly true, Lord
Bernard replied as he had earlier.
At today's proceedings the religious men Friars Raimond Boufil and
Bernard Morguil of the Franciscan Order, and Master Guillaume Auriol,
a learned jurist, were present as witnesses.
I, Pierre Rux, the aforementioned notary, wrote it, etc.
After this, on the 17th of July in the same year, around the hour of
tierce, Lord Bernard, led from prison into presence of the Lord
Inquisitor in the house of the Franciscan Friars at l'Isle, was
reexamined under oath by the Lord Inquisitor. He said he wished to
stand by what he had said so far in the process, wishing to change,
correct, or withdraw nothing more.
Asked if, when he associated with Pierre Trencavel, visiting him and
eating and drinking with him as described above, he knew or heard it
said that this Pierre had already been judged a heretic by the church,
except that, as he confessed earlier, he had heard it said that Pierre
had been arrested by the inquisitor at Carcassonne's men and that,
having escaped from prison, Pierre had fled and said he had come to
this area on the other side of the Rhône through fear of the inquisitor
at Carcassonne, but not that he was sought by the inquisitor in this
area. And the Lord Inquisitor admonished Lord Bernard charitably and
with the best intentions that, having searched his heart and
conscience, he must tell the pure and complete truth on these
matters. He gave him until vespers to think about it and warned him
that, unless he confessed the pure, full truth on these matters
without any falsity or dissimulation, he would not be able to hide the
truth longer before being proceeded against with all the rigor demanded
by canon law and, if necessary, through torture. And Lord Bernard
responded immediately that he had spoken the entire and pure truth
on the preceding, and that in his conscience he did not think he had
erred, sinned or offended in what he had testified. He said, however,
that if it seemed to the Lord Inquisitor that he had erred, sinned or
offended in any of it, he subjected himself to the mercy, justice and
will of the church and the Lord Inquisitor and was ready to receive and
submit fully to whatever punishment or penance was enjoined.
At this session the religious and discrete men Friars Guillaume
Mercader, Guillaume de Nagia and Raimond Boufil of the Franciscan
Order were summoned and present as witnesses.
And I, Pierre Roux, notary, wrote these things, etc.
At the hour of vespers the Lord Bernard was led out of prison and into
the presence of the Lord Inquisitor in the aforesaid house of the
Franciscan Friars. Then he was reexamined under oath by the
aforesaid inquisitor concerning that which he had been
summoned at that hour, and generally so that he should speak the
pure and complete truth concerning all that had occurred after his
condemnation at Narbonne, as is contained in the preceding process.
He replied that he had spoken and confessed the pure and complete
truth in the preceding process, and said he knew nothing beyond what
he had said there.
At this session were present Friars Raimond Boufil, Guillaume de
Nagia and Pierre Figuire of the Franciscan Order, and Master Bertrand
Boutan of l'Isle, notary.
And I, Pierre Rux, notary, wrote it.
After that, on the 15th of November in the same year, the Lord Bernard
appeared in judgment in the house of the Franciscan Friars at Avignon
before the Reverend Father Lord Raimond, by the grace of God Bishop
of Saint-Papoul, deputed by our Most Holy Father and Lord in Christ
Pope John XXII to announce a certain judgment, and before the
aforesaid inquisitor. The confessions and the further questions
inspired by them as given above were read in their entirety, and
Bernard, having been asked by the Lord Bishop and Lord Inquisitor,
affirmed that he had confessed before the Lord Inquisitor, been further
questioned by him, and persevered in his confession just as was
written in the document read to him. He said he still wished to
persevere. Then he was charitably and with the best intentions by the
Lord Bishop and Lord Inquisitor that he should confess the pure and
complete truth, and it was explained to him that if he maliciously
concealed the truth on one matter, he would be guilty of all. He was
also admonished to look to the salvation of his soul and asked
whether, when he heard from Pierre Trencavel in the territory on this
side of the Rhône the words given above against our Lord Pope - i.e.
describing him as the mystical Antichrist and saying that he destroyed
whatever was of God on earth because he condemned and persecuted
those holding the aforesaid views, and claiming that he had no power
to change anything in the rule of the Blessed Francis, and insisting
that those who had been burned were holy martyrs or on the path to
salvation, and similar things recorded in the preceding process -
whether, when he heard these things, he believed them to be true. He
replied that at the time he believed that what Pierre said was true, but
now he believed they were not true. He said, moreover, that at the
time he believed they were true, not only because it was Pierre who
said them, but also because of the words from the writings of Friar
Pierre Déjean cited in support of them.
Again, asked by the Lord Bishop if he wished a copy of the commission
made to him in this matter or of the present process, or if he wished to
say anything in his own defense, he said no, but he asked that they
show grace and mercy toward him and said he was ready to comply with
all commands they might give him. Immediately after that the Lord
Bishop and Lord Inquisitor instructed Bernard to hear his sentence the
next day at tierce in the house of the Franciscan Friars.
These things were done in the aforesaid house of the Franciscan Friars
at Avignon. The religious men Friars Raine de Graitian, chaplain to our
Lord Pope, Geoffroi Lagerat, guardian of the Franciscan convent at
Avignon, and Aymer du Barri, all of the Franciscan Order, and Master
Guillaume Auriol, learned jurist, were summoned and present as
witnesses, and I, Pierre Roux, notary, wrote this, etc.
Alarassi Biasse
Alarassi Biasse of Sauvian in the diocese of Béziers, niece of Friar
Pierre Déjean Olieu formerly of the Franciscan order, as we legally
learned through her confession made during judgment, received in her
house two Franciscans of whom she gives the names. They had first
been at her house in Franciscan habits, then in secular clothing, more
precisely in blue clothing worn over their Franciscan habits. These
friars told her that they were traveling in secular clothing because they
did not want to go to the far-off convents where they had been sent by
their ministers, having looked and the sealed letters they bore with
them and discovered that they contained orders to imprison them once
they arrived. They said that six of them had been staying together at a
hostel in Toulouse, which they did not identify.
Again she said that these two friars, one of whom was a relation of
hers, stayed in her home dressed in secular garb from Easter into the
month of June, just after the wheat was harvested. She and her
mother provided for their needs. She added that two other apostate
friars of the Franciscan order, whom she named, came to her house
dressed in blue clothing and visited the first two. They stayed in the
house with them, wearing secular clothing over their Franciscan
habits. She gave one of them four canne of blue cloth out of which he
made a tunic. Later they returned to Toulouse, where, as has been
said, the six had stayed together for some time disguised as
seculars.
Again, she received in her home and gave drink to two men who said
they had come from Sicily in search of the aforesaid apostate
Franciscans who did not dare to go about or show themselves in public.
Their aim was to bring these friars to Sicily. In order to discern
whether she could trust these two men enough to reveal the presence
of the aforesaid friars, who were then hiding in her solar, she went to
Toulouse and consulted Pierre Trencavel. He replied that she could
trust the two and that the hidden friars could confidently leave and
cross the sea with them. Once she had heard this, she returned to
Sauvian and relayed all that she had learned from Pierre Trencavel to
the fugitive friars. Fifteen days later the two men returned with a boat
and came to her house. Later four more friars (whom she named)
arrived and on a certain Saturday night all six friars boarded the boat
along with the two men and they all left. Once they arrived in Majorca
two of the friars returned to Sauvian and told her all that had
occurred.
Again, she received in her home many other beguins (whom she
named).
Again, she sometimes heard Pierre Trencavel say that the Franciscan
friars burned at Marseilles were condemned unjustly and were holy
martyrs. Asked if she believed what Pierre had said, she responded
that women are of such a nature that whenever they hear something
new they believe it easily, and thus she believed what she heard said
about the friars condemned and burned at Marseilles, namely that they
had been unjustly condemned and were saints. She said she did not
know or remember how long she continued to believe it.
Again, she heard from one of the aforesaid apostates that the aforesaid
friars were considered unjustly condemned saints.
Again, she said that after she had believed this for some time she
confessed to the rector of the church at Sauvian. In the process,
among other things, she revealed her conscience to the rector, saying
she did not know whether to believe the aforesaid friars were justly or
unjustly condemned, since some said they were justly condemned,
while other said unjustly and thought them saints. The rector told her
that our Lord Jesus Christ had given his power to the Blessed Apostle
Peter, and that whatever the latter did on earth was done in heaven.
Thus, since the aforesaid friars were condemned by the church, she
should believe that they were condemned justly. And thus from that
moment on she cast off her former belief and persevered in it no more,
as she said.
Asked what she thought about the writings and person of friar Pierre
Déjean, she replied that henceforth she would believe whatever the
church should decide or will decide.
The aforesaid did all this four years and more before she confessed it
during the judgment process, nor did she ever during the intervening
time reveal what she knew about the aforesaid apostates or beguins to
anyone who might capture them or wish to do so; nor did she confess
all this until she was captured, brought to Carcassonne, and placed in
prison. She says she repents.
Guillaume Doumergue Verrier
Guillaume Doumergue Verrier, maker of candles from Narbonne,
already a fugitive, long publicly cited and excommunicated as suspected
of heresy and complicity with the beguins, was finally found, arrested
in the town of Orange, and brought to the prison at Carcassonne. As
we legally learned through his confession made in judgment during the
month of May in the year of our Lord 1325, he received many beguins in
his house and accompanied from place to place Pierre Trencavel of
Béziers, whom he knew to have escaped from prison and been
condemned as a heretic, eating and drinking with him and frequently
listening to his words against the pope and the church. He heard from
Pierre Trencavel and from many others (whom he names) that the male
and female beguins condemned at Narbonne and elsewhere, as well as
the friars minor burned at Marseilles, were good people unjustly
condemned and holy martyrs now in paradise. He said this frequently
and believed it, he says. In particular when he was taken prisoner at
Avignon, then interrogated by the lord pope's chamberlain and the
Archbishop of Aix on the pope's orders, he said he held similar views of
this sort.
Again, he believed that Pierre Déjean, formerly a brother minor, was an
uncanonized holy man in paradise and his writings or doctrine was
good, holy and approved by the Council of Vienne.
Again, he believed that Jesus Christ possessed nothing either privately
or in common.
Again, he heard from some spiritual brothers minor and beguins the
following: that the eleventh horn of which the blessed John speaks in
the Apocalypse refers to the a certain small king who is to appear and
be established by a false pope, who is in turn established by that small
king; and that the pope is suspected to be brother Angelo of the
Franciscan order; and that the false pope will leave the highest and
greatest order in the world, that is, the Franciscan order; and that ten
kings will come from the east and attack the pope.
Again, he heard that twelve evangelical men will depart from the
aforesaid Franciscan order, go to the Greeks, preach to them, and
traveling beyond the sea should convert both the Greeks and the
Saracens to the faith of Christ, then come to the Roman church and
say, "You have killed the friends of God!"
Again, he heard that those ten kings or the eleventh king will
humiliate the carnal Roman church, and the eleventh horn will
especially contribute to its humiliation.
Again, he heard that the beguins will obey neither this present pope
John nor the one who will be falsely elected, because that falsely
elected pope will be a heretic; but others besides the beguins will leave
this present, canonically elected pope and adhere to the heretical false
pope because they see him leading a good life; and that falsely elected
pope will be the great Antichrist, just as the Lord Pope John was the
mystical Antichrist. (For just as John the Baptist prepared the way for
Jesus Christ, so the Lord Pope John prepares the way for the future
great Antichrist. That is what this Guillaume understands from the
aforesaid things he has heard.
Again, they suspected that the aforesaid Lord Pope John was a heretic
and the mystical Antichrist because he condemned and burned the four
Franciscan brothers at Marseilles, or because he caused them to be
burned because they asked to observe their vows purely, and because
the Lord Pope issued a decretal dealing with granaries, wine cellars
and clothing. They said he had erred because his dispensations led, as
they said, to tearing down rather than building up, and he could not do
that. That is what they said as he has reported it.
The aforesaid Guillaume Verrier confessed all this while under
judgment, partly during the vigil of the Lord's ascension; and later he
said he repented and wanted to abandon his errors. Then, in time, -
more precisely during the following October - while being interrogated
more fully on the aforesaid subjects, he said he wanted to explain what
he had been questioned about at Avignon by the Archbishop of Arles,
chamberlain of the Lord Pope, and the Archbishop of Aix. He explained
as follows: He says he believes that the friars condemned at
Marseilles as well as those of the third order (that is, those called
beguins) condemned at Narbonne and elsewhere were glorious
martyrs.
Again, he believes that the aforesaid Pierre Déjean is an uncanonized
saint in paradise, and that his doctrine is catholic, conforming to the
faith.
Again, he says he believes that Christ had nothing either privately or
in common due to the holy and perfect life he led. He offers for this
the authority of the gospel, "You shall carry neither gold, nor staff, nor
belt, etc." Again, he cites Christ's words to the young man, "If you
wish to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give it to the poor, and
follow me." Again, "The birds of the sky have nests, etc." Again, he
says if Christ had possessed anything privately or in common, that
Saint Francis would have been more perfect that Christ, which is
untrue.
Again, he says the rule of Saint Francis is evangelical.
Again, he says that in view of what Lord Pope John has done, he seems
to be the mystical Antichrist, but he would not affirm this and would
not want to suffer death for it.
Again, he thinks the decretal the Lord Pope made on the property
possessed privately and in common by Jesus Christ and the apostles
is evil and wicked, that in this decretal the aforesaid Lord Pope has
rejected and condemned the poor life of Jesus Christ. He says the
same of the pope's other decretal concerning granaries and wine
cellars. Moreover, as for anyone who has been or will be condemned
because they refuse to accept the aforesaid decretal on the private and
common property of Christ and the apostles, he says he considers
them holy martyrs.
Asked if he wishes to stand by these statements, he says he does.
Again, speaking of those who, whoever and of whatever condition they
may be, consent and adhere to the aforesaid pope's declaration
concerning the private and common possessions of Christ and the
apostles, pertinaciously standing by it and refusing to receive
correction when it is offered them, wishing on the contrary to live and
die in this belief, he says he considers such people to be heretics,
although he does not consider such those who believe this but later
repent and wish to receive correction.
Asked why he formerly said he wanted to abandon the preceding beliefs
and repent, he says he felt differently about it in his heart than he now
does, for God has placed a different intention in his heart; and he
wishes to hold to that intention - that is, the most recent one - and
persevere in it since it has been given to him by God.
And it was shown him in that very place, by many arguments and
authorities of sacred scripture which are more fully given in his
confession, that in believing thus he erred against the holy catholic
faith, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, against the words of the
saints (especially those of Saint Augustine), and against papal power,
and that he defended errors - even heretical ones - condemned by the
church, erroneous doctrine, etc.
Having been warned that he must entirely abandon these errors and
abjure them, he replies that he holds, not error or heresy, but the pure
truth of the catholic faith in which he wishes to live and die, and that
he wishes to persist in the preceding so long as it shall please God.
Committing these things over nine years before having confessed the
aforesaid at diverse times and places . . . [The manuscript breaks off at
this point.]
Lodève Processes
Crimes of the Beguins at Lodève, in a sermon delivered there in
the year of our Lord 1323.
Bernard Durban, blacksmith of Clermont, living at Lodève, says he
belongs to the third order of the Blessed Francis, was arrested in
Lodève in the year of our Lord 1320 by the Reverend Father Bishop of
Lodève's representatives on suspicion of heresy and Beguin error. He
swore on the holy gospels of God that henceforth he would associate
with no one who was suspected of heresy, no one who aided such, and
no messenger of such, and that he would profess no type of heresy.
After this, as is stated in his confession regularly obtained in judicial
process on the 5th of August in the year of our Lord 1322, having heard
that his sister Esclarmonde and many others (seventeen in all), men
and women, were to be burned at the stake at Lunel, he went there
with someone whose name he has given to see these heretics and his
sister burned. The next day he left with many others who had been
there and passed near the place where these heretics had been
burned. There were a number of bodies that had not been completely
burned, and when he had walked about a quarter of a half-league
someone whose name he has given came with certain others carrying
the bones and bodies of the burned. At Bernard's request, this person
whom he has named gave him some bones and flesh said to have been
from Esclarmonde, his condemned sister. He took and kept the flesh
and bones, carrying them to his home in Lodève. Then he placed them
in a wall of his house and kept them there. Asked why he wanted to
have and preserve these bones and this flesh, he said is was because
of the love and affection he felt for his sister. Moreover, although he
was present at his sister's condemnation and heard her condemned for
heresy, because of the noise from those present he could not hear
what happened. He heard from some of those present that his sister
had asked for her confession to be recited to her and this request had
been refused. Because of this he began to wonder whether she had
been condemned justly or unjustly, and had begun to suspect the
latter. He revealed none of this until after his associates were
arrested, nor was he discovered until a certain canon brought him to
justice.
Jacqueline Amouroux, wife of Amouroux Loret of Lodève, as is stated in
her confession regularly obtained in judicial process, was summoned
as one suspect of heresy and beguin error by those who at that time
serving as the Reverend Father Lord Bishop of Lodève's
representatives. Admonished by these representatives, she swore on
the holy gospels of God that henceforth she would associate with no
one who was suspected of heresy, no one who aided such, and no
messenger of such, and that he would profess no type of heresy. After
this, on the 26th of July in the year of our Lord 1322, she confessed in
judicial process that during that year, around the feast of the Blessed
Michael, someone whom she named came to her bringing a sack of
bones and told her to take care of it. Again, she said that the same
year and day someone named by her, came and gave her part of the
breast belonging to a woman burned at Lunel. She took and kept it
until a certain Monday when she heard that beguins were being
arrested and burned for doing such things, so she threw these things
in a pig pen. Shown the sack, she identified it as the one which had
contained the bones and acknowledged she had indeed heard it said
that they were from the beguins who had been burned. She concealed
these things and confessed only after she had been arrested and led to
the bishop's representatives. She said she repented.
Manenta, wife of Bernard Arnaud, a cobbler of Lodève, as is stated in
her confession regularly obtained in judicial process, confirmed that
she sometimes displayed devotion toward the condemned and burned
beguins, considering them saints because of the asperity of the life
they led. She also said that she had been given by someone whom she
named, and in fact still possessed, a volume which had belonged to her
sister-in-law burned at Lunel, but she claimed that she displayed no
devotion toward it [several words missing in record] many times that
these burned beguins were saints and martyrs, but now she does not
believe it, as she claims. She says she repents and is willing to accord
herself with the command and correction of the Holy Church of God.
She concealed these things and confessed only after she had been
summoned and cited.
Bérenger Roque of Clermont in the diocese of Lodève, a parchment-
maker, as is stated in his confession regularly obtained in judicial
process, knew and often associated with Pierre Bru, a priest, with Jean
Durban, Esclarmond Durban and Jean Houlier (alias Essorbon), and
with many other beguins who were condemned and burned. He was
present at some of their executions and, because he saw while they
lived that their lives were holy and their actions admirable, at the time
of their deaths he believed they had met a good end and died well. He
was at Lunel when the beguins were burned, and as he returned home
someone named by him gave him a piece of flesh belonging to one of
those who had been burned. He took it due to the devotion in which
he then held these heretics, because he himself had experienced their
holy lives and behavior. He put this piece of flesh in a pomegranate
shell on a table in his house and left it there two or three months.
Having been told by others that it could not be corrupted, he inspected
it after that time and, seeing that it was rotting, he removed it from his
house and threw it into a field when he was on the way to his garden.
Again, he said he had seen in his house someone named by him kiss
the heart of a beguin burned at Lunel.
Again, he said that, when he returned from Lunel after the burning,
someone named by him showed him, while they were in a hostel at
Montpelier, a sack in which there were many bones and body parts of
those who had been burned, and they agreed with one another that the
beguins had received their death and martyrdom well.
Again, he said he was present at the burning of those who had been
condemned at Béziers, when two were removed from the fire. He
concealed these things and revealed them only after he had been
arrested, nor [several words missing] then he acknowledged everything.
He said he repented.
Martin de Saint-Antoine, alias Allègre de Clermont, of the diocese of
Lodève, having been in the year of our Lord 1320 arrested at Lodève by
representatives of the Reverend Father Lord Bishop of Lodève on
suspicion of heresy and beguin error, swore that henceforth he would
not receive anyone suspect of heresy, anyone who defended it, or
anyone serving as messenger for heretics, and that he would adhere to
no type of heresy himself. Later, however, as is stated in his
confession regularly obtained in judicial process, when he heard that
certain beguins, male and female, were to be burned at Lunel, he went
with certain others named by him to Lunel. The day after they were
burned, when the fires were completely extinguished, some bodies
remained almost in their entirety, as he said. His group found
Esclarmonde Durban, took her (or her cadaver), and broke it up still
more so that they could put it in a little sack. Martin himself took the
woman's heart or kidney and brought it to Clermont. He kept it there
and still has it in his house, as he said. Asked why he took something
from this woman rather than others, he said it was because, having
seen and known her, he knew that she had led a good life, and because
he had heard that, as she was going to the flames, she asked that
what she had said be read to her and they had refused. Thus he
believed that she had been unjustly condemned. He said he showed
the aforementioned heart or kidney to some people named by him and
one of them (whom he named) looked at the heart, crossed himself,
and kissed it, and asked Martin to give it to him in its entirety or divide
it with him, giving him half. Martin refused, as he said. He hid it and
denied under oath that he had it until he was arrested, even denying it
after until someone who had been present revealed the whole thing.
He said he repented.
[Other cases follow.]
Translation by David Burr [[email protected]]. See his home page. He indicated that the translations are available for educational use. He intends to expand the number of translations, so keep a note of his home page.
Paul Halsall Jan 1996
[email protected]u
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 February 2025 [CV]
|
