[SOLVED] A Medieval Village Four Questions – Humanities

For this assignment, there are four questions to answer. Each question should have 7-10 sentences minimum clearly answering what is being asked. Quotes should be used often, but not too much with proper citation. I have attached five readings as pdf documents which should be the only sources used. Do not use outside sources. Reading: Montaillou, pages vii-68; 140-168; 192-203; 251-276.Boyle, Montaillou RevisitedConfessions of Beatrice de Planissolles Parts 1 & 2 Answer ALL of the following questions 1. Montaillou has been both incredibly popular and immensely influential. Historians to tend to cite it liberally assuming without a second thought that it is a “typical” medieval village. Was it? Or was it closer to a “normal exception?”2. Montaillou, LRL tells us, had little hierarchy, especially by comparison to feudal, northern France. Does that mean that Montaillou was untouched by inequality or by oppression? Who was dominant in Montaillou and how did they acquire & maintain their dominance? 3. Thanks to Stork’s translation, we can compare LRL’s analysis of the Inquisition records with the Inquisition records themselves. Please compare Montaillou Chapter IX “The Libido of the Clergues”with “The Testimony of Beatrice de Planissoles Parts 1 & 2.” Does LRL sometimes err in his interpretations? Does he occasionally embroider (like Davis) on the truth? Would you interpret Beatrice’s story differently from LRL? 4. Boyle complains that LRL has ignored his source, the Inquisition. Natalie Davis has charged LRL with imposing contemporary categories on the Montaillou peasants. Are these charges justified? Be sure to cite specific passages in Montaillou.If I can be of any further help, please let me know.3/7/2017
amilhac.htm
Confession of Barthélemy Amilhac, priest,
concerning his complicity in and concealment of heresy
In the year of the Lord 1320, the 11th of September. It has come to the attention of our reverend father in Christ,
Monsignor Jacques, by the grace of God bishop of Pamiers, that Barthélemy Amilhac, priest of Lladros in the
diocese of Urgel, has been an accomplice in heresy, in giving assistance and counsel to Beatrice, spouse of Otho
Lagleize of Dalou, who was cited for heresy, and after appearing before the bishop, fled the bishopric of Pamiers and
took herself to other secret places. This Barthelemy knew that Beatrice was a heretic and erred concerning the
Christian faith, and did not denounce her to the inquisitors of heresy; because of this he is strongly suspected of
heresy himself, and furthermore strongly suspected of witchcraft and casting spells. He has been denounced for
putting himself in concubinage with this Beatrice, and after having known her carnally, helping her to leave the
bishopric of Pamiers where they had lived together, to take her into his country, for the purpose of there keeping her
as his concubine or public spouse, openly and with a pledge, according to the abuse of that country; moreover he
committed numerous and diverse thefts in the bishopric of Pamiers.
My said lord bishop, wishing to interrogate him concerning this subject, since he was arrested with the said Beatrice,
fugitive for heresy, had him brought before him in the Chamber of the episcopal seat of Pamiers, with the assistance
of Brother Gaillard of Pomiès, substitute for my lord the inquisitor of Carcassonne.
The said priest having appeared for questioning, my lord bishop received from him personally his pledge to tell the
pure and entire truth concerning that which preceeds and other facts concerning the Catholic faith, as much
concerning himself as charged as concerning others living and dead as witness. This same priest, on the faith of his
sworn oath, vowed and set down what follows concerning the charge of concealment of the heresy of this Beatrice, of
which, it is said, he had knowledge:
It was four years ago at Pentecost that I left Dalou in the diocese of Pamiers, where I had remained for three straight years.
The last year, from the month of January to Pentecost, I conducted myself badly with this Beatrice and knew her carnally
often in her house, which was close to the church.
The first time, I was solicited by her. One day when I was at the church teaching the schoolchildren of the town, including
two daughters of Beatrice named Philippa and Ava, Beatrice told me to come see her that evening, which I did. When I
arrived in her house, there was no one present but herself, and I asked her what she wished. She told me that she loved me
and that she wished that we could have carnal relations together, to which I consented. And forthwith, I knew her carnally in
the room of that house. I did this often afterwards, but I did not remain with her through the night. We watched intently, she
and I, for the moment where her daughters and her servant were no longer at the house and then we committed this sin.
At this time and previously, Guillaume of Montaut, the rector of the church of Dalou, said often, in my presence, that this
Beatrice was a public woman, and refused herself to no one who wished to have her. He said also that she was a terrible
heretic. At this time, I had not heard from anyone else that she was a heretic, and the rector never told me why she was. I did
not hear from Beatrice any word that resembled heresy.
Later, in the octave of Pentecost, when defaming rumours circulated against us, Beatrice told me that I should not remain for
any price in the country, because she was afraid that the brothers would do evil to her, and she said that she herself did not
wish to remain. She asked me then what the priests of the country of Pallars did when they had concubines or “housewives”
(“focorias”). I told her that they kept them openly and publicly just as the layfolk do their spouses, that these woman have
dowries, that their children succeed to the paternal and maternal inheritance. The priests promise their concubines to
maintain them during their entire life and provide for what is necessary and hold a wedding feast containing everything
except the sacramental vows of marriage, which are normally given in a true mariage. And these priests are entitled to have
concubines and even widows; they give something each year (or nearly so) to the bishop of the diocese, so that he will
permit them to live so.
We decided then that we would leave for the country of Pallars. Beatrice took her old clothes and 30 silver pennies (libras
turonenses), and preceded me by 2 days. She waited for me at Vicdessos, then I followed her to Vicdessos and entered with
her into the country of Pallars. She had brought along her daughter Philippa.
When we were at Lladros, we went to a notary. Beatrice gave me title to her dowry of 30 pounds and I, for surety, pledged
all my goods and promised on my good faith that if there were sons or daughters from our union, that they would be heirs of
myself and of her. I promised to provide for their needs and to maintain them, both in sickness and in health, and of all this 1/5
http://web.archive.org/web/20071120005321/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/amilhac.htm
3/7/2017
amilhac.htm
myself and of her. I promised to provide for their needs and to maintain them, both in sickness and in health, and of all this
was made a matter of public record by Pierre de Lubersu, the priest of that place. I did not make any other vows toward
Beatrice, nor marry her, but I kept her with me in the same house, and often in the same place, in the same manner in which
the priests of that place maintain their “housewives” or concubines.
I remained with her thus for one year. At the time when I was in my country with Beatrice, I quarreled several times with her
and called her a terrible old woman and a heretic, reproaching her for coming from a heretical land. She replied that I was a
liar. We often had these words together. One time when we were getting along well, I asked her if she had ever seen heretics.
She replied that she had not seen them but she had been invited to see them when she lived at Montaillou. She said, when
she lived there, Madame Stéphanie de Châteauverdun, who is dead, often sent messengers for her to come see them. But
Beatrice, who knew that she was sending these messengers in order for her to come see heretics, did not go for that reason.
In the end Stephanie sent her a message that she should do good to the good Christians, which the others called heretics.
Beatrice, who wished to take counsel concerning this, spoke to the rector of Montaillou, who was her good friend and her
comrade (compère, compater) and ask him if it was good or bad to give something to the good Christians. The rector told
her that it was of great merit, because they were holy men, of whom it was said, that they endured persecutions for God just
as the apostles and martyrs had; what they did, they did justly and what they said was true, and therefore it was good to give
them something.
Then I said to Beatrice, “The priest who told you this was a heretic.” She replied, “No, he was a good and honest man and
known for such in the region. I then asked “And you believed the advice of this priest?” She said no. I told her that if she
was in the bishopric of Pamiers, or in a place where there was an inquisitor, I could have her arrested and that she knew
much more concerning heresy than what she said. Then she laughed and said that curés more resolute in their faith than I,
were of the sect of the good Christians. That same day, while we were talking of this subject, she told me that when she was
living in Montaillou, a sick woman had remained in “endura” for 15 days. After her death, she herself, Beatrice, was with a
woman of the place and there arrived another, her comrade (commère) of the name of Clergue, who asked the one who was
with Beatrice if all had been done well for this dead woman. She replied “well”, that nothing had been lacking, that there had
been plenty of time to do all that they wanted. The woman who had come then said “Thanks to God, that all has passed
well!”
She told me also that another person, at the time when she lived in Montaillou, was gravely sick and asked her sons to go
seek out the good Christians, who would save her soul. Her sons said that if they brought the good Christians there they
would lose all their goods. This sick woman replied “You then love your goods more than my soul?” According to Beatrice,
although the good Christians came to this sick woman, they did not have the chance to hereticate her.
­­­­­Did she give you the name of those persons who were hereticated, the names of those who did it or those who
were present?
No.
She told me when she was engaged to Otho of Lagleize her second husband and she had to come to Crampagna, some
persons of (the household of) Prades d’Alion came to find her. These women said to her “What do you wish to do? Why do
you descend to the home of the dogs and wolves? Now we have lost you, if you wish to go to the home of the wolves!”
Beatrice explained that by dogs and wolves, these people and she herself understood the faithful Catholics who lived in the
low country. I told her that if people said such things and if she were so often solicited to adhere to heresy by the people of
Montaillou and other places in the Sabartès, it would be astonishing if she was not a heretic. She replied that God had given
her great grace, when she had left the Sabartès, because if she had remained there one more year, the heretics would have
drawn her to them, since she was strongly solicited to do so. I asked her if she had seen these heretics, or given or sent them
anything. She said no.
­­­­­­Have you denounced all or any of these heretical things to my lord the inquisitor or to a bishop?
No, not until now.
­­­­­For how long were these reported vows held between you and her?
About 4 years. Later, I remained one year at the city of Carcassonne, in the church of St. Michael; another year I stayed as
priest at Sainte­Camelle near to M. Pierre Arnaud, the knight, and that year I was employed at the church of Mézerville.
Beatrice said at that time that God ought to see to it that the priests, priors, abbots, bishops, archbishops and cardinals would
no longer wish to sin carnally, because in fact they were worse, sinned more in this way, and wished to have women more
than other men. Thus she strove to excuse the sin of the flesh that she committed with me.
Later in the same year as above, the12th of September, in the Chamber of the bishop’s residence, before the bishop
and Gaillard of Pomiès.
At the time when I was living in Lladros with Beatrice, she told me that when she was at Montaillou, many people openly
said that one ought to do good to the pilgrims and all of the poor of the faith.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071120005321/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/amilhac.htm
They understood “the poor of the faith” to be
2/5
3/7/2017
amilhac.htm
said that one ought to do good to the pilgrims and all of the poor of the faith. They understood “the poor of the faith” to be
heretics, whom they called good Christians.
She told me at this time that she had heard, when she was at Montaillou, that a man of the region was gravely ill; the priest
brought him the body of the Lord, to give him communion. When the priest said that he had brought the body of the Lord
and asked him if he wished to receive it, the man responded “God protect me from eating the body of the Lord, because that
would be a very bad thing to do! ”
­­­­ Did she tell you the name of this man?
No.
That year, the Tuesday after the Nativity of St. Jean the Baptist (1 July 1320), I went to Pamiers, and from there I sent a
child to Beatrice, who was then at Varilhes. He went to Rieux de Pelleport and there found Alazaïs, the servant of Beatrice.
He told her from me to go see her mistress who was at Varilhes, and to make her come to Mas­Vieux. The above mentioned
Beatrice came with Alazais to Mas­Vieux after me, and we dined there in the house of a monk of that church. After the
meal, we went, by the road which is on the other side of the Ariège, toward Pelleport. When we were near Bénagues,
Beatrice and I went into a vineyard by the side of the road and there I knew her carnally. The servant waited for us on the
road. She had known for a long time that I loved Beatrice. This sin consummated, we resumed our journey. I walked with
Beatrice and she told me that Pons Bole, the notary of Varilhes, had told her that he had heard bad news about her. She had
asked him “What news?” and he had told her that the bishop of Pamiers wished to cite her.
I said to her “Why would the bishop wish to cite you?” She replied that she did not know why, and that she had no fear,
because she did not feel culpable, although this Pons had told her that she would be cited for heresy if she was not careful.
She asked me then, if it would happen that she was cited, if she should appear or not. I told her to appear, because my lord
the bishop would never do any injustice to her.
I gave her then 15 silver pennies, and 2 pennies to Alazäis, and I left them. We said nothing more and I did not see her again
until the Monday after the feast of St. James this year (28 July 1320), the Monday where Beatrice sent a boy to me from
Belpech, to the place where I was dwelling, at Mézerville.
This boy told me that a friend of mine, who was at Belpech, had sent him to me so that I could go there to find her, because
she wished to speak to me. Since I had no friend in this region, I asked him what this woman looked like who had sent him,
and he described certain traits of this woman by which I knew that it was Beatrice. I went as soon as possible to Belpech and
found her in a house near the castle. I took her away and took her to the house of Guillaume Mole, a parchment maker of
Belpech. We talked there in private, without a witness. Since she was carrying a trousseau of old clothes, I asked her why
she had come and where she wished to go. She replied that my lord the bishop of Pamiers had cited her and that she had
appeared before him the preceding Saturday. He had received her severely and told her that she was accused of heresy, in
particular because she had denied that the body of Christ was present in the sacrament of the altar, and said that, if the true
body of the Lord was on the altar, even if it was as big as Mount Margail, which is close to Dalou, it would have already
been eaten, by the priests alone. He told her that the heretics, Pierre, Jacques and Guillaume Authié, had been in her house at
Dalou, that she had received, adored and aided them, that she had had in her house Gaillarde Cuq, the divineress, and had
cast many spells with her help. When, she said, she had denied all of this to my lord the bishop, he told her that she was an
evil heretic, that her father, Philippe de Planissoles, had been a great heretic who had worn the crosses and that bad fruits
come from a bad tree (Mt. 7,17). She was very upset about this, more so because my lord bishop, whom my lord the
archdeacon of Majorque and Pierre, the rector of Pelleport, had supplicated in her favor, had not listened to them but had
spoken to the contrary and that he would hear nothing in her favor, although she spoke the truth. She was terrified also,
because she had seen many of the bishop’s men in his Chamber and she had the impression that they were going to arrest her
immediately. It seemed to her that my lord bishop was a terrible and cruel man. He arrested both men and women, he had
arrested Dame Lorda (na Lorda) and her daughter and others who came to him. Thus, her fear. Then, my lord bishop having
given her an order to return the following Tuesday, she returned to Varilhes. Her daughters, Condors, Esclarmonde, Philippa
and Ava came to her house and made great lamentation. Messire Pierre, rector of Rieux de Pelleport, told her that my lord
bishop of Pamiers was a terrible man and that he had found no sympathy from him when he had begged mercy for his
mother.
He told her also that he had reproached my lord bishop for destroying the people of the county of Foix, in citing them for
heresy and arresting them and that this caused great distress to madame the countess of Foix. According to what this rector
told the daughters of Beatrice, my lord bishop had replied that the countess of Foix did not love him, that he wished to do his
duty and it would not be for her that he would cease to do what he did.
This said, their despair was redoubled, and that same night Pons Bole, notary of Varilhes said to Beatrice (or to her
daughters, according to what she told me), that it was necessary for Beatrice to flee beyond the mountain passes because on
this side of the passes she could not rest in security or avoid being arrested by my said lord bishop.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071120005321/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/amilhac.htm
3/5
3/7/2017
amilhac.htm
Then, for all these reasons, she fled, and came with her things to Belpech. I told her to return and appear the next day before
my lord bishop, as he had ordered her, and that she was wrong to flee, because she would be presumed guilty. She replied
that she would not go at any price, even if my lord bishop gave to her the entire bishopric, because she knew that he would
arrest her at once. But, she said, she wished to flee to Limoux, where she could hide. When my lord bishop did not find her,
he would cease pursuing her, because he would not think any more of her. And she asked me in tears to go with her to
Limoux, saying that she had no one else but me to give her aid and counsel. I told her that I could not go to Limoux with
her, because the rector of Mézerville had hired me and it was necessary that I be in the church around the time of the Feast
of the Invention of St. Stephen, which was close.
I remained in the house with Beatrice the following night and I knew her carnally, because we slept together in one bed.
The next day she asked me to come with her to Limoux, no matter the cost. Since we could find no beast to rent at Belpech,
on the counsel of our host, who said we could find an animal at Mas­Saintes­Puelles, I engaged a man of Belpech to whom I
gave as salary one tournois of silver, to go with her to Mas­Saintes­Puelles and carry her goods. I went with them half­way
along the route. On the way, she insisted so much, that I agreed to go with her to Limoux after the feast of the Invention of
St. Stephen, and that meanwhile I would procure the money for our expenses. But I did not promise her with my heart, I
wished only to get away, because when we were mid­route and I wished to leave her, she asked me in tears to go with her to
Mas­Saintes­Puelles. Out of pity for her, I went there and when I was there I left her and returned to Mézerville.
­­­­­Did you give her money at Belpech or after knowing that she was a fugitive for reason of heresy?
I only had 2 silver pennies. We spent one, she and I, for our needs when we were at Belpech, and the other I gave to the man
from Belpech who went with us. But if I had had any more money, I would have given to her willingly.
­­­­­When she was at Mas­Saintes­Puelles, did you send her anything?
No.
­­­­­Did you intend, after the feast of St. Stephen to go with her to Limoux?
No.
When I lived at Dalou, as vicar, I knew carnally two times a woman of Cerdagne who lived in that town.
After this, the same year as above, the 7th of November, the said Barthélemy appeared for questioning in the
Chamber of the bishop’s residence before my said lord bishop and Brother Gaillard of Pomiès, and his above
confession was read to him word for word and my lord the bishop asked him if he persisted and wished to persist in
all and all parts contained therein and if he wished to add or retract anything. He replied that he persisted and
wished to persist, and did not wish to add or retract anything. And then the said Barthelemy swore and took an oath
as follows and promised under the oath taken by him, and under the pain that he could incur if he fled for heresy, not
to leave the province of Toulouse without the special authorization of my said lord bishop and to appear on the days
he would be assigned by him or his successors, and pledging his person and his goods.
The tenor of this oath was the following
“I, Barthélemy, 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, defense 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 messenger 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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071120005321/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/amilhac.htm
4/5
3/7/2017
amilhac.htm
This pledge made, he asked absolution from the sentence of excommunication that he had incurred for these actions
and was absolved by my lord bishop, if all along he had plainly and perfectly told the truth as much concerning
himself as concerning others involving the crime of heresy, complicity and concealment of heretics.
The above­mentioned Barthelemy renounced and ended this affair and asked that judgement be rendered at once.
Made in the presence of my lord Germain de Castelnau, archdeacon of the church of Pamiers, Brother David, monk
of Fontfroide, Brother Arnaud du Carla of the order of Preachers of the convent of Pamiers, and myself Guillaume
Peyre­Barthe, notary of my lord bishop, who wrote that which precedes.
After this in the same year, the 5th of March, the said Barthelemy appeared in the Chamber of the Episcopal seat
before my said lord bishop, and there my lord bishop ordered him to be enclosed immediately in the prison of the
tower of the bishop at Pamiers, until the next Sunday (8 March 1321) and on that day to appear before him and
Brother Jean de Beaune, religious, inquisitor of heretical deviation in France commissioned by the apostolic See, to
hear definitive sentence on the facts which precede, committed and confessed by him in the house of the Preachers of
Pamiers.
On that Sunday the said Barthelemy appeared in the cemetery of Saint­Jean­Martyr of Pamiers, and was sentenced
by our said lord bishop and inquisitor as follows “Let it be known to all……..” See this sentence 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 the above confessions against the original.
Note 9. Condemned to the Wall the 8th of March 1321, he saw, as Beatrice his punishment commuted the fourth of July
1322, but into simple penitence, without wearing the cross. (Hist. Inquisitionis, p. 294). The leaves recovered from the
sentence of 8 March 1321 contain the final details concerning him:
“….he said that in that year his wife came to find him and told him that my lord the bishop of Pamiers had cited him in the
matter of heresy and that she wished at any price to flee, out of fear of this bishops. Although he counseled her not to flee
but to appear before my lord bishop, as he said, and she refused, he payed her expenses and arranged to have her baggage
carried by a man whom he paid for these services, and promised her (although he said that he had no intention of going
there) to procure money, to return to her and take her to Limoux, where she wished to flee. Meanwhile both of them were
arrested.” (Arch. dép. dee l’Ariège, 127J).
English Translation © 1996 by Nancy P. Stork.
Return to Jacques Fournier Home Page
http://web.archive.org/web/20071120005321/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/amilhac.htm
5/5
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
Béatrice de Planissoles
part 1
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 above­mentioned facts and received the testimonials that
follow.
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.
­­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.
­­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 Raimond Gouzy, Sibille, the
servant of Michel Dupont of Foix, Esperte, wife of Arnaud of Varilhes.
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!”
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
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
1/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
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.
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 Mas­Saintes­Puelles, 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
Saintes­Puelles. 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.)
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
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
2/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
­­­­­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.
­­­­­To which persons and at what other times?
I no longer recall their names.
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 Raimond 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.
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 (Dominicans) who persecute the good Christians and chase them from the country.
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, Raimond 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.
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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
3/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
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 colors 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.
I said to Raimond 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.
Raimond 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 merry­go­round 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 Raimond 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,
Raimond 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.”
We did not speak any further of questions of heresy and a while later Raimond 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 Raimond to anyone?
No, except to a Friar Minor of the convent of Limoux, in sacramental confession.
­­­­­Has anyone else heard the heretical propositions that you heard from this Raimond?
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 Raimond
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 Raimond, 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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
4/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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 Raimond 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 “re­dyed” candle for the church of Saint Marie de Carnesses (church of Montaillou, pilgrimage
destination ­ the candle is for the rite of purification after childbirth ­ editor’s note). I called for a woman who lived with the
rector of Montaillou, Pierre d’Espéra (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
5/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
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 Raimond, 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 Raimond Clergue, heard anything.
This priest told me that God had only created spirits, those which can neither be corrupted or destroyed, because the world
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
6/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
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.
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 Raimond 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.
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.
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.
He told me also that Christ, although he dined with his disciples, never ate or drank, although it seemed as if he did so.
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.
He told me also that to swear falsely on the Gospels was not a sin, but only to swear falsely by God.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
7/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
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.
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 Raimond 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.
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 to truth. But when I was at Crampagna with
my second husband and I heard the preaching of the Preachers (Dominicans) and the Minors (Franciscans), 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.
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.
Beatrice de Planissoles confession continues…
English Translation © 1996 by Nancy P. Stork.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
8/9
3/7/2017
deplanis.htm
Return to Jacques Fournier Home Page
http://web.archive.org/web/20071114055814/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/deplanis.htm
9/9
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
Béatrice de Planissoles
part 2
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 (in current
coin?), 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.”
At the time when I was living at Montaillou and Prades, a rumor ran about among the believers that the heretics frequented
the houses of the brothers Raimond 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
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
1/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
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.
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 Raimond Maury her husband often gave them
alms, embracing poverty (Mc 12,44) 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.
Because of the remarks that I had heard on the subject of these heretics from the mouth of Raimond 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 Raimond 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 Raimond 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 precise, and she replied that I was “cilhard”, that is to say, that I had large
eyebrows (i.e. was nosy ­ editor’s note) and she would not tell me where her son was going. I said “And why not?” She told
me that I could not keep a secret. I assured her to the contrary and asked her also what her son was carrying in his sack. She
told me in truth that her son was carrying food in his sack and when I insisted and asked her several times to whom was he
carrying the food, she finally told me that he took it to the good men, whom the others call heretics, and moreover that these
were good and holy men, who endured much persecution for Christ. Furthermore, one ought not abandon one’s faith for any
human fear, because all that one saw in the world was of the devil, who ruled the world, who had made it, and all this would
be destroyed and lost like spider webs, with the sole exception of the spirits, which God had made. She told me also that
men could only be saved in their faith and belief and even more that it would suffice for salvation if one were received into
their sect at the end, no matter what sins one had committed in one’s life. She said that this was a great thing that one could
save one’s soul by believing in these men and dying in their house. I said nothing to this, unless I said that no good would
come to her son if he was arrested carrying his sack to the good Christians. Later, I did not speak to her of this subject. This
same Raimond drowned in the Douctuyre near the church of Our Lady of Vals.
About 20 years ago, when I was living at Prades, I went one day, I do not remember exactly when, to Caussou to visit Ava
my sister, the wife of Verèze, who was recovering from childbirth. The following Sunday I went to the church of Unac,
which is the parish church of Caussou. When I was there, Raimonde, the widow of Guillaume­Bernard of Luzenac, who had
also come there, embraced me and kissed me (because she was of my family) and said to me near to the entrance of the
church “And you, cousin, who are in the good country, have you not seen the good men again? As for me, if I were there, I
would see them gladly.” I asked her who she called “good men”; she replied that they were the good Christians. I told her
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
2/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
that I had not seen any, and I did not wish to see them. She told me that if I saw them and heard them just once, I would
never again want to hear anything else and having heard them one time, I would always be in a good state, wherever I went.
We said nothing more on this subject but we went into the church and heard mass.
The 12th of August before the bishop and Gaillard de Pomiès.
While my husband was still living, Raimond Clergue alias Pathau, the natural son of Guillaume Clergue (himself the brother
of Pons Clergue who was the father of Pierre Clergue the curé of Montaillou), took me one day by force in the chateau. One
year later, at the death of my husband Bérenger de Roquefort, he maintained me publicly. This did not hinder the curé, Pierre
Clergue, from soliciting me, even though he knew that his first cousin Raimond had possessed me.
“How can you ask that?” I replied. “You know well that your cousin Raimond has had me. He will reveal all!” The rector
replied that such things should not be committed by force, nor would it hinder in anyway. “I know well what has gone on,
but I can be more useful to you and give you more gifts than that bastard!” He told me also that they could both maintain
me, he, the curé and Raimond. I told him that I would not permit that at any price, because there would be
misunderstandings between them because of me and each of them would vilify me because of the other.
And after the priest had possessed me I had no more relations with this Raimond, although he tried from time to time. There
was after this time a hidden hatred between Raimond and the priest because of this, which nevertheless I knew of.
When I was at Dalou, after having contracted marriage with my second husband, Otho Lagleize, a marriage which took
place at the Assumption of Saint Mary, this priest came to Dalou at the following harvest and told people that he was at
Limoux. Entering my house, he said to me that my sister Gentille, who dwelt at Limoux greeted me, and I let him enter. We
went together into the cellar, and he knew me carnally while Sibille the daughter of the late Arnaud Teisseyre, guarded the
door of the cellar.
She had brought me the preceding day a present from the rector, a blouse made in the style of Barcelona, which had one red
and one yellow ruffle at the collar, and told me that he would come the following day. In order that no one would find us,
and if someone did appear he would not believe that anything bad had happened between the rector and me, this servant
placed herself near the open door to the cellar, in which we were uniting ourselves, the priest and I. This sin committed, I led
him out of the house. When we were by the exterior door, I told him that I had given 5 sous to Bernard Belot. “Did he tell
you?” He told me that he had indeed told him and that I had done well to give him those 5 sous. I thought concerning those 5
sous that I had given them to Bernard so that he would take them for my part to the heretics and I believe that is what this
priest understood also.
When he came to see me at Varilhes, when I was sick, as was said, and told me to remember the remarks that we had had
together at Montaillou concerning the good Christians, and that it was not necessary for me to confess, he told me also that
he held the people of Montaillou beneath his feet because of the Inquisition. I replied “How indeed! You now persecute the
good Christians and their believers, you who usually wish them so much good?” He replied that he continued to wish them
well, but that he wished to avenge himself on the churls of the district who hated him, in any manner he could and that later
he would arrange it well with God.
About 12 years ago, I was at Dalou. One day, a priest brought the body of the Lord to the house of Pont de Dalou, where
Pierre du Pont, who wished to take communion, was dwelling. I went to this house and saw and heard the priest interrogate
the sick man concerning the articles of faith, and also ask him if he believed that this was the true body of Christ, by which
we make our salvation. The sick men said that he believed it and devoutly took the body of Christ into his hands. I returned
to my house with Grazide Pujol of Dalou. On the road I told her that the body of the Lord would have been better received if
this man had also said what he said above that if the body of the Lord was what the priests say it is, and if it was as large as a
mountain, it would have already been eaten by the priests alone. Grazida told me to be quiet, because if someone heard me
say words of this sort, they could be taken ill. I replied that I had said nothing bad, but that I was citing the words of the bad
man who had said them.
­­­­­Have you ever believed that the true body of the Lord was not in the sacrament of the altar?
No.
­­­­­Have you said to anyone these words or their equivalent?
I do not recall but if I do recall I will confess to it.
­­­­­Have you spoken to other people concerning the heretical remarks which were taught you by Raimond Roussel,
this priest and other persons named above? Have you instructed any other person, whom you have not already
named?
No.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
3/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
No.
­­­­­Have you heard heretical remarks from other persons named above by you?
No.
­­­­­Has anyone ever told you that the devil was the beginning and maker of corporeal creatures, in the sense that he
was not made or produced by God or by someone else, but that he was by himself and in himself a beginning, the
same as the good God is a beginning, not made nor produced by any another of the spirits?
I have not heard it said. These men never told me either that God had made the devil, or the contrary.
­­­­­Have you ever heard it said by these persons that there is a good God and an evil God?
No. They call God, he who made the spirits, and the devil they call creator of the world aand the one who who directs the
world. I have not heard him called “hylé”. (ylen)
­­­­­ Have you heard these people or others say that the good God made 10 worlds and that evil God 10 other worlds
and that the evil God with his 10 worlds and those who are in these worlds fought against the good God and his
world and the things which are in these worlds of God and that he was in part the vanquisher of the good God and
had conquered a portion of his worlds?
No.
­­­­­Have you heard said by these people or by others that the spirits are from the substance or the parts of God?
No, only what I have said above.
The 13th of August in the Chamber of the bishop’s palace, before the bishop alone.
­­­­­Have you heard these persons or others, whoever they might be, say that there are two spirits in man, of which
one inclines the man to the evil (and this is of the devil) and the other to do well (and this is of the part of God)?
No.
­­­­­ Have you heard them say that all the spirits created by God were of the same nature and condition?
This priest told me that all the spirits were created by God in heaven in the same condition; but some of them adhered to
God and rested in heaven with him, others rebelled against God (and these were sent to hell and are demons); others,
although they did not rebel against God, nevertheless followed the rebels, and they fell on the earth and in the air, and these
are the spirits which enter into the bodies of brute beasts and men and women, as was said.
­­­­­Have you heard them say that the devil, moved by pride and envy against God has made this world and all that is
found in it, except the spirits, to appear to be equal to God?
No, but only that the devil has made all visible things. Why he made them, I never heard.
­­­­­Did you hear them say that the scriptures of the Old Testament are not of the good God?
Not particularly, unless it was when this priest told me that all the scriptures, with the exception of the Gospels and the Pater,
were “affitilhas” and lies.
­­­­­Have you heard that the Son descended into the Virgin Mary and hid himself in her?
I heard this priest say that it was not the Father who descended, but that he sent the Holy Spirit who hid himself in the Virgin
Mary.
­­­­­Do they call the mother of God Saint Mary, because according to this priest, the Holy Spirit did not take human
flesh from her?
Yes
­­­­­Did you hear him or any others say that Christ was dead?
This priest said that indeed he had been crucified, but I do not recall hearing him say that he was dead.
­­­­­When he spoke to you of Jesus Christ have you ever heard him call him true man?
This priest called him true God, but I do not recall having heard him call him true man.
­­­­­Did he say that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead?
He said indeed that Christ was resurrected, but I do not recall if he said that he was resurrected from the dead.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
4/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
­­­­­Have you heard him say that Christ would judge the good and the evil in the last Judgement?
Yes.
­­­­­That all the men resurrected with their bodies would come to the Judgement of Christ?
He said “We will all come to the Judgement of Christ in which there will be many called and few chosen” (Mt. 20, 16) and
those few chosen would be only the good Christians, and those who were received by them upon their death. Even if one has
believed in the good Christians during his life, if one was not received into their sect at the end one will not be saved.
He said also that no one, of any order, state, or condition whatsoever, good Christians excepted, and those whom they
received at their demise, will be saved. And although he said that all would come to the Judgement of Christ, I never heard
him say, either to other believers or heretics that men would rise or come to the Judgement of Christ with their own bodies.
­­­­­This priest or the other believers, did they deny the baptism of water, confirmation, the sacrament of the altar, of
ordination or extreme unction?
I never heard them speak of the other sacraments, nor deny them, except those of penitence and mariage.
And she said nothing more concerning the Manichaean sect.
The 22nd of August in the chamber of the bishop’s palace, before the bishop and Brother Gaillard de Pomiès.
Mengarde, the widow of Pons Clergue, told me one time, after the death of my first husband, in her house, while we were
talking of na (Dame) Roqua and her son Raimond Roché, who had been imprisoned for heresy, that a man who did good for
them was a good man. I replied that that was well, because na Roqua was an honest woman. Mengarde then said to me, “If
you only knew, it is good to do good to this Roqua”. Paying attention to these words, I thought that Mengarde had told me
this because she agreed with na Roqua concerning heresy.
At the time when I was living in Prades, after the death of my first husband, I was living in a small house touching that of
Jean Clergue, rector of Prades at the hostel (l’hôtel) of Pierre Gulihem of the said place. Since this house was next to that of
the curé all that passed in one could be heard in the other. Pierre Clergue, curé of Montaillou, who had come to see me, told
me that he would send me Jean, his student, whose family name I have forgotten the following night to seek me to sleep
with him the following night. I agreed to this.
I was thus at my house at the time of the first sleep (primum sommpnium), awaiting this student. He arrived and I followed
him through a very dark night and we arrived at the church of Saint Peter of Prades, where we entered. We found Pierre
Clergue who had made a bed in the church. I said to him “Alas! How can we do such a thing in the church of St. Peter?” He
replied “Oh what a great shame it will be to St. Peter (O que gran dampnagge y aura sent Peire?!” This said, we placed
ourselves on the bed and slept together in the church and that night he knew me carnally in church. Later, before dawn, he
himself took me from the church and back to the door of the house where I was living.
I had asked him at the beginning of our relations “What shall I do if I become pregnant from you? I will be dishonored and
lost.” He told me that he had an herb and if a man carries this herb when he is with a woman, he cannot engender nor can the
woman conceive. I said to him “What is this herb? Is it the same that the cowherds put over the pots of milk when they are
sent to the rennet, which prevents the milk from curdling while it is in the pot?” He told me to not worry about what herb it
was, but that it was an herb with this virtue, and that he had it.
After this, when he wished to possess me, he carried something rolled up and threaded in a sac of linen, the size and length
of an ounce or of the first joint of my little finger, with a long thread that he passed around my neck. And this thing which he
said was an herb hung down between my breasts just to the beginning of the stomach. He placed it thus always when he
wished to know me and it rested at my neck until he arose. When he wished to rise, he took it off my neck. And if
sometimes, in one night, this priest wished to know me two times or more, he would ask me, before we united, where the
herb was. I would take it, finding it by the thread which I had around my neck and place it in his hand. He would take it and
place it before the opening of my stomach, the thread passing between my breasts. It was thus that he united with me, and no
other way. I asked him one day to let me have this herb. He told me that he would not do so, because then I could give
myself to some other man without conceiving. He would not give it to me, in order that I would abstain out of fear of the
consequences. He did this above all in thinking of his cousin Raimond Clergue, alias Pathau, who had once maintained me,
before this priest, his first cousin, had me, because they were jealous of each other.
He told me also that he did not wish that I should have a child by him while my father, Philippe de Planissoles, was alive,
because that would be a great shame for him, but that after his death he would very much like for me to bear a child of his.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
5/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
After this, the same year as above, the 25th of August, the said Béatrice appeared for questioning in the bishop’s
palace of Pamiers before the said lord bishop, assisted by Brother Gaillard de Pomiès, substitute of the lord
inquisitor of Carcassonne, in the presence of the religious person Brother Guillaume Séguier, prior of the convent of
the Preachers of Pamiers, of the discrete person master Bernard Gaubert, jurist and me the below­written notary.
Since she was gravely ill and confined to bed, and seemed indeed to be near death, my said lord bishop told her that
if she had concealed anything concerning the heresy in the confession she had made above, concerning her self or
others, or if she had accused a person against truth and justice she should avow and reveal it or again she could
disculpate (exonerate) the person whom she might have accused against justice. And my lord bishop enjoined her to
do this at the peril of her soul. She replied, by disculpating this rector and accusing the above mentioned Raimond
Roussel concerning the articles below:
Although she had said in her above confession that the rector had told her that God alone created the spirits and all
the bodies that one saw and one sensed, those of the earth and the sky and all those which are found there, but that it
was the devil, who directs the world, with the exception of the spirits, since the spirits live eternally, but that the
corporeal things will be destroyed and corrupted, she said now, with a better memory returning to her, that it was not
the rector who had told her this, but the said Raimond Roussel, and that near to the door of the chateau of
Montaillou.
That which she said had been told to her by the rector ­ that Christ did not descend from heaven and did not take
flesh from Saint Mary, but that the Holy Spirit only hid itself in her, in explaining the word “adombrationis” in the
manner above ­ was in fact not told her by the rector, but by Raimond Roussel and that in the same place as the
preceding article.
All the rest, together or in detail that she has confessed concerning the fact of heresy against herself, this rector and
the other persons, both living and dead, and which is contained in these confessions above, she said in her own words,
at peril of her soul, was true.
The above were read to her intelligibly and in the vulgar tongue. Those heretical articles which she had avowed in
her preceding confessions above against herself, and the said rector and Raimond Roussel, she confirmed entirely
and simply, and said they were true, except those which she had retracted in her preceding confession (not
concerning the articles themselves, but concerning the person who had taught them to her.)
Asked if she had instructed any other person in all these articles or any of them, if not as she had deposed, she said
no.
­­­­Why did you flee when you were cited by my said lord bishop and told to appear under accusation of heresy?
I fled out of the fear that I had for my lord bishop, because of what I had committed in the matter of heresy, and above all
because the lord, when I appeared before him the first time, named to me my father Philip, who had been accused of this
crime. I realized for some time before my lord bishop cited me, that he was going to do it, and I sent therefore to Barthélemy
Amilhac, a priest who for a certain time has conducted himself badly with me, to discuss with him and take counsel with
him to know what I ought to do if I were cited for heresy by my lord the bishop. He came to Varilhes, where I was living,
but without entering into the town, and we talked together. I told him that I understood that my lord had interrogated
witnesses against me in the matter of heresy and that I was afraid of being cited concerning this subject. I asked if it seemed
to him more expedient to flee than to appear for this citation. He told me “Do you feel you are guilty?” I said no, and that he
would know if I had committed something of this sort, because I would have told it to someone I loved so well.
Barthélemy then told me that it would be better to appear, since I did not feel I was guilty, because he said, my lord bishop
would not do any injustice to me. This said, he left me. Then, when I appeared, as cited by my lord, I was terrified and upon
my return to Varlihes, I thought about fleeing and I got together the things I wished to bring with me. I did not say to anyone
that I wished to flee. On the contrary, I said to my daughter Condors that I would return to my lord bishop on the day he had
assigned me. I made the promise to her, embraced her and fled toward Belpech in the diocese of Mirepoix. Arriving there, I
sent for Barthélemy, this priest, at Mézerville, where he lived. He came at once to find me at Belpech.
Arriving and seeing my trousseau of clothes, which I had brought with me, he said “Why have you come here? What do you
intend to do, thus carrying so many clothes with you?” I took him aside, and told him that I had been cited by my lord
bishop, that I had appeared, and that he had told me that I had said the body of the Lord was not in the sacrament of the altar,
and that if it had been as big as a mountain, it would have already been eaten by the priests alone. He also said that I had
seen Pierre, Guillaume and Jacques Authié the heretics, that I had heard them and I believed in them, and that I had
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118015543/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/Fournier/beat2.htm
6/8
3/7/2017
beat2.htm
consulted the late Gaillarde Cuq, sorcerer and divineress and committed sorcery on her advice. Although I did not feel that I
was guilty, I wished to flee nevertheless and go to Limoux to my sister Gentille, to hide myself there.
He replied that I was wrong to flee and I should return and appear before my lord the bishop. I replied that I would not do
this for anything, even he he were to give the all the bishopric of Pamiers. The priest said to me “If this is the case and I
cannot retai…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.