The Friar of Carcassonne
Page 27
* “ ‘Once there was a town in which there lived a good man, of whom it was said that nothing could anger him or make him angry’ ”: Testimony of Guillaume Rabaud, Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 165.
* “the other was lying through his teeth”: The French reads “il mentait par sa gorge,” meaning, literally, “he was lying in his throat.” The phrase appears again in the trial transcript, when Arnaud de Nougarède testified that Délicieux spat out the expression on hearing it suggested that he had bribed Picquigny (Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 192). I am not familiar with an English expression using “throat” for lying—though I have seen Délicieux’s remark translated as “Thou liest in the throat.” In both instances I judged it better to change the expression to the more familiar “teeth.” As the Italians famously say of translation: traddutore, traditore (translator, traitor).
* “ ‘Draw your own conclusions’ ”: Another vexed translation question. The French reads, elegantly, Me comprenne qui voudra, which may be translated any number of ways, none of them very satisfactory, such as “Understand whatever you want,” or perhaps even “Know what I’m sayin’?”
* “Good people, if anyone calls you a heretic, defend yourself as best you can, because you have the right to defend yourself”: Testimony of Giraud de Meaux, Duvernoy, Le procès, pp. 166.
* They would later say at his trial that he encouraged the people to murder them: Duvernoy, Le procès: Testimony of Arnaud Marsend (p. 171) and Bernard Trèves (p. 202).
* the city’s bishop, of an old Carcassonne family, who had been conspicuously silent in the dispute between the brash Franciscan and his Dominican foes: Peire de Rochefort. Friedlander, The Hammer, p. 129.
* his ancestor had been a famously live-and-let-live bishop who counted several Good Men and Good Women in his immediate circle of kinship: Bernard-Raymond de Roquefort, bishop of Carcassonne at the time of the Albigensian Crusade. His mother was a Good Woman; three of his brothers were Good Men. Michel Roquebert, L’ épopée cathare, 1198–1212, pp. 148–149.
* Scholarly examination of what remains of the secret agreement of 1299 has determined that Picquigny was right: The consensus is solid among Bernard’s biographers.
* As a jurist of Carcassonne sniffed at Bernard’s trial: Testimony of Peire Guilhe, Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 207.
* the word abjure appears but once in the document, in a passage of ecclesisastical boilerplate: Friedlander, The Hammer, p. 34.
* The inquisitor Geoffroy d’Ablis: On his background: Charles Peytavie, “L’Inquisition de Carcassonne, Geoffroy d’Ablis (1303–1316), le Mal contre le mal,” in Albaret, ed., Les Inquisiteurs, pp. 89–100.
* The moment for disclosure had arrived: On the reading and its riotous aftermath: Duvernoy, Le procès: Testimony of Pierre Vital of Carcassonne (p. 154).
* he hadn’t started the riot; the inquisitor had: Showing remarkable chutzpah, Bernard asserted this at his trial. Duvernoy, Le procès, pp. 116, 134.
14. THE WALL
* “Cohac! Cohac!”: Testimony of Bernard Trèves, Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 203.
* Masked men burst into their church, smashing windows and statuary: Duvernoy, Le procès: charge #26 of the sixty-item accusation drawn up by Gui (p. 43), testimony of Guillaume Olivède (p. 160), Bernard Trèves (p. 203), Pons Siméon (p. 208), Alice L’Alayrague (p. 211).
* the townspeople saw that Picquigny’s company included a lawyer who had advised the consuls in 1299: The unfortunate fellow was Guiraud Guiart. On the general chaos and disorder in Carcassonne in August 1303: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Drouin de Montchevrel (p. 169) and Arnaud Marsend (p. 171).
* the Franciscan convent had welcomed several dozen guests from Albi: Duvernoy, Le procès, charge #32 of the forty-four-item accusation drawn up by Castanet (p. 38), testimony of Guillaume Fransa (p. 62), Pierre de Castanet (p. 64), Bernard Bec (p. 68).
* Several witnesses at Bernard’s trial vividly remembered the morning: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Guillaume Fransa (p. 59), Jean Laurent (p. 173), Jacquet Barquinhan (p. 174), Bernard Audiguier (p. 175), Pierre Camelin (p. 178), Pons Siméon (p. 208), Pierre Ardit (p. 211), Pierre Guilhem (p. 212), Jean Gauthier (p. 212).
* formal appeals to the pope to reverse the injustice of this day: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Jacquet Barquinhan (p. 174), Pierre Camelin (p. 178), Pons Siméon (p. 208), Jean Gauthier (p. 212).
* “When the existence of the Church is threatened”: The author of this remarkable passage was the bishop of Verden in Lower Saxony, Dietrich von Nieheim, in his De schismate libri III, in 1411. It is cited as the epigraph of the chapter entitled “The Second Hearing” in Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon, trans. Daphne Hardy, London, 1940, p. 97.
* “Behold, the Lord has sent down an angel to help us!”: Testimony of Raimond Arnaud, Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 177. In his testimony, Arnaud, a Dominican, relates an exemplum that Délicieux is supposed to have uttered from the pulpit. It concerns an owl-king that does nothing as his bird subjects are serially snatched away, so the beleaguered birds he is supposed to protect think of switching allegiances. Bernard is supposed to have repeatedly given a full public explanation of the story’s meaning, naming names and, essentially, unveiling the secret treasonous plot. It strikes me as a contrived, after-the-fact invention—the Dominican is alone in mentioning the tale, which he exposes with suspicious eloquence. The story seems crafted expressly for the purposes of further damning the Franciscan at his trial. Although other studies of the Carcassonne revolt accept and analyze it, I deemed the narrative’s other two exempla—the rams and the unflappable man—sufficient and credible enough to give a flavor of Bernard’s preaching.
15. TORTURE EXPOSED
* the nearly indignant references to it contained in the formal charges against him at his trial: Charges #15 and #16 of the forty-four-item accusation drawn up by Castanet, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 36.
* the torture in common use in his day: Peters, Torture, p. 68.
* he had suggested bringing along the prisoners who had been freed from it so that the monarch could see the marks of torture and mistreatment: Duvernoy, Le procès: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux (pp. 129, 133), Arnaud Garsie (p. 202).
* the identity of Picquigny’s ghostwriter: Further evidence of Bernard’s behind-the-scenes handiwork comes at the end of the letter, where its author takes a somewhat gratuitous swipe at the Dominicans for not living in poverty. This kind of mendicant indignation would not have been the work of a layman, Picquigny, but of a friar. Friedlander, The Hammer, p. 154.
* “There are no words, no expressions that We could use”: Entered as evidence in the court record, accompanying the testimony of Peire Pros, in Duvernoy, Le procès, pp. 197–198.
* who in reality do not preach, but rather breach divine law: Another instance of traddutore, traditore—the Latin wordplay in the original can be rendered effortlessly into French as prédicateur and prévaricateur. “Preacher” and “prevaricator” do not work at conveying the wordplay in English, nor, for that matter, do “preacher” and “breacher,” as the latter word is unusual and awkward. Hence the choice to switch the nouns to verbs.
* at one point Philip informed Délicieux and Picquigny that their oft-extended invitation had finally been accepted: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Arnaud Garsie, p. 76.
16. THE KING AND QUEEN IN LANGUEDOC
* In 1988, the Maison Seilhan . . . was purchased and lovingly restored by a group associated with the modern-day Dominican order: The people running the Maison encourage passers-by to drop in and take a tour, free of charge. On my visit there in the summer of 2009, a demurely dressed woman in her late thirties—a Dominican nun, I assumed—took me through the rooms and expertly explained the exhibits and the restorations. Toward the end of the tour, I pointed through a window at a half-timbered dwelling and said that I had just read in a glossy magazine about the Inquisition (the French newsstand is a thing of beauty) that the house across the way was, in fact,
where the inquisitors tortured people. Her smile vanished, and she exclaimed with wounded pride, “Oh non, monsieur, c’est bien ici que les supplices ont eu lieu!”—–you’re mistaken, sir, this is where the torture happened!
* The king made this journey only once in his thirty-year reign: Favier, Roi de marbre, p. 305.
* In the months and years to follow this tour, several senior officials were dismissed and replaced: Friedlander, The Hammer, p. 154–157.
* At once, he was met by a near hysterical mob, the handiwork of Délicieux: There is no eyewitness account of this welcome. However, from references made to it at Bernard’s trial, it seems to have been a notorious event at the time. Délicieux claimed that it was not his handiwork, but that assertion is clearly unbelievable. Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Arnaud Garsie (p. 78), Bernard Délicieux (p. 117), Gui Sicre (p. 165).
* A biographer of the great Capetian monarch states that Philip had two religions: Strayer, Reign, p. 13.
* Dominicans, Franciscans, bishops, royal officials, and a delegation from Carcassonne and Albi led by Délicieux were invited to a large hall: The Dominicans gamely tried to prevent Bernard from attending the meeting by complaining to his hierarchy that he had impeded the work of the Holy Office and was thus ineligible to speak. The Franciscan leadership conducted a speedy review and concluded he was innocent of the charge and thus could speak for them before the king (testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 84). As for the sequence of speakers at the meeting, I have found that, among all the friar’s biographers, the chronology established by Friedlander in The Hammer (chap. 5) to be the most convincing. There is a possibility that the leader of the Dominicans of Languedoc may have spoken to the king at a separate meeting, but that eventuality would not have affected the tenor or content of the discussion at the main meeting. The details of the presentations are found in Le procès.
* As one witness recalled at Bernard’s trial: “[Picquigny] had found the whole country to be in a very bad state”: Testimony of Arnaud Garsie, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 78.
* Unexpectedly, the Dominican superior then veered back to the case of Foulques de Saint-Georges: Testimony of Arnaud Garsie, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 201.
* The head of the Dominicans in Languedoc had admitted there could be no more than forty or fifty heretics in all of the country around Carcassonne and Albi: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 117.
* “I said that if Saint Peter and Saint Paul”: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 118.
* The inquisitors, Aycelin continued, would still be under the control of their local bishops: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 118.
* “should be congratulated in many ways, honored like golden candelabras of the church, to the sound of trumpets”: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 118.
* It was a wonder, he exclaimed, that the people of Languedoc did not rise up against the French who ruled them and shout as one: “Get out!”: Testimony of Peire Pros, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 195.
* Arnaud had it on good authority that Brother Nicolas was in the pay of the Flemish rebels: Testimony of Arnaud Garsie, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 201.
* Bernard Délicieux, who had in turn heard it from a high-placed cardinal in Paris the year before: He had been told this inflammatory gossip by Cardinal Jean Lemoine, Boniface’s ambassador to the French court. Lemoine stayed on in Paris, founding a famous college there. His name still graces a street and a Métro stop in the Latin Quarter.
* One witness claimed Patrice said to the king, “My lord, you must do us justice quickly”: Testimony of Arnaud Marsend, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 172.
* “Lord! Lord! Have pity on your wretched city which suffers so!”: Testimony of Bernard Audiguier, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 176.
* “Throw them out of here!”: Testimony of Bernard Audiguier, in Du-vernoy, Le procès, p. 176.
* Patrice ordered them to rip down the garlands and banners: Testimony of Bernard Audiguier, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 176.
* Witnesses at Bernard’s trial tell a strange tale of two large silver vases: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Arnaud Garsie (p. 79), Bernard Délicieux (p. 96), Guillaume Fransa (p. 185).
* The men of Carcassonne now looked, as one historian notes, “ridiculous”: Favier, Roi de marbre, p. 308.
* Guillaume de Nogaret finally took the Franciscan aside: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 101.
* Wait, he advised Bernard, until circumstances became more favorable: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 101.
17. INTRIGUE IN THE ROUSSILLON
* Once past the border town of Salses, they had left the kingdom of France: Testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 93. Bernard gave details of his itinerary to the court: he left Carcassonne, passed by Roubia, Fontfroide, and Salses, and then on to Perpignan.
* its fertile bounty a source of amazement for visitors from arid Languedoc: Once past Salses, the modern-day visitor immediately comes across the famous vineyards that produce Muscat de Rivesaltes, a sweet wine that was first produced in the Roussillon by none other than Arnaud de Vilanova.
* Testimony at Bernard’s trial . . . states that the Franciscan was seen twice conferring with the thirty-year-old prince: Duvernoy, Le procès: testimony of Arnaud Garsie (p. 79).
* “sinister words”: Testimony of Arnaud Garsie, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 80.
* The same reaction, only stronger, occurred in Albi: Testimony of Arnaud Garsie, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 81.
* Other towns they approached, such as Limoux and Cordes, had turned them down, too: Duvernoy, Le procès: for Cordes, testimony of Bernard Délicieux (p. 100); for Limoux, Gui Sicre (p. 164), Pierre Gaytou (p. 213), Jean Laures (p. 214), Pierre Raimond Salavert (pp. 214–215), Michel Sartre (p. 215), Isarn Servel (p. 216), Raimond de Niort (p. 217). Gaytou, Laures, and Sartre stated that when the consuls of Limoux turned down Bernard’s offer, he called them swine.
* the town of Elne: Although it has no bearing whatsoever on this story, Elne provides a golden nugget of useless knowledge from the French language’s always interesting trove of gentilés, that is, the names given to inhabitants of particular localities. Taking its derivation from the old Iberian name for the town, the word for a man of Elne is an Illibérien; a woman, an Illibérienne.
* judged the plan “silly” and “hopeless”: Strayer, Reign, p. 14.
* Perthus Pass: At 290 meters, one of the lowest passes of the Pyrenees. Standing on the Franco-Spanish border (the Roussillon became French in 1659 with the signing of the Treaty of the Pyrenees), it has witnessed much drama, particularly in 1939, when the defeated Republicans fled Catalonia via Perthus at the close of the Spanish Civil War.
* Bernard and his companion called in at a local church and found lodging: Most of the information about this visit, including the prevarications over matter of fact, come from the same source, the testimony of Bernard Délicieux, in Duvernoy, Le procès, pp. 87, 93–94, 97 (the urination story), 100, 103 (full confession).
* Two Catalans who testified at Bernard’s trial: Duvernoy, Le procès: Bérenger d’Oms (p. 155) and Raimond Guilhem of Perpignan, who was King Jaume’s chancellor (p. 157). They provided the colorful details of the beating of Ferran.
* Bernard hotly replied that he had met with sons of far more important kings: Testimony of Raimond Guilhem, in Duvernoy, Le procès, p. 158.
* “We have heard reports about Fr. Bernard Délicieux”: Original letter in Hauréau, Bernard Délicieux, pp. 190–191. Translated in Friedlander, The Hammer, p. 219.
18. SURVIVAL
* Peyre-Cavaillé had been picked up on suspicion of heretical leanings in late 1304: Brenon, Pèire Autier, pp. 276–278. The information on this interview and on the subsequent raid at Limoux comes from the depositions made at the inquisition of Jacques Fournier a
decade and a half later. The inquisition register has been translated in its entirety into French: Jean Duvernoy, ed., Le Régistre d’Inquisition de Jacques Fournier, évêque de Pamiers, 3 vols., Paris, 1978.
* an established Church, run by a dozen or so well-trained and much beloved Good Men: Details of the revival come from Brenon, Pèire Autier, and Weis, Yellow Cross.
* “There are two Churches”: Testimony of shepherd Pierre (Peire) Maury in Duvernoy, Le Régistre, p. 925. In Weis, Yellow Cross, p. xxviii. Brenon, who uses Duvernoy’s French translation, speculates (Pèire Autier, p. 262) that Autier’s description of the Roman Church that “possède et écorche” is directed at shepherds who, when shearing their sheep, must take care not to skin (écorcher) them. Thus a less elegant translation might be the Church “that owns and skins/scorches.”
* “As Bernard Gui observes with savage exultation”: Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vol. 2, New York, 1887, p. 106. Lea’s masterly three-volume work has been mostly superseded by subsequent scholarship, his full-throated indignation at the crimes of inquisition toned down by subsequent revisionists and less passionate, more detached specialists. However unfashionable Lea’s humanity, the work remains a wonderful read, with passages of stirring prose. On the risks run by the peasantry sheltering the Good Men of the Autier revival: “Few more touching narratives can be conceived than those which could be constructed from the artless confessions extorted from the peasant-folk who fell into the hands of the inquisitors—the humble alms which they gave, pieces of bread, fish, scraps of cloth, or small coins, the hiding-places which they constructed in their cabins, the guidance given by night through places of danger and, more than all, the steadfast fidelity which refused to betray their pastors when the inquisitor suddenly appeared and offered the alternative of free pardon or the dungeon and confiscation” (vol. 2, p. 61).