Proving Woman (25 page)

⁹⁹
Ibid., pp. 35–36.

¹⁰⁰
Annales Wormatiensis
,
MGH SS
, 17:38, 40.

101
Gestorum Treverorum continuatio quarta
,
MGH SS
, 24:402.

¹⁰²
Despite the frequent biblical association of the verb
temptare
(or the variant spelling,
tentare
) with God (see Exod. 16.4; Deut. 8.2; 1 Cor. 10.13, etc.), the verb is nevertheless more weighted with diabolical associations
than is
probare
. Cf. Aquinas’s question as to whether temptation is the special job of the devil, in chap. 6, p. 238, below.

¹⁰³
Caesarius of Heisterbach,
Vita
, in “Des Cäsarius von Heisterbach Schriften,” p. 38; cf. Isentrud’s testimony in Huyskens,
Quellenstudien
, p. 126.

¹⁰⁴
Caesarius of Heisterbach,
Vita
, in “Des Cäsarius von Heisterbach Schriften,” p. 39.

¹⁰⁵
Ibid., p. 39.

¹⁰⁶
Ibid., prol., pp. 17, 38.

¹⁰⁷
Ibid., p. 46.

¹⁰⁸
Caesarius of Heisterbach,
Sermo de translacione
, in “Des Cäsarius von Heisterbach Schriften,” pp. 52–53.

¹⁰⁹
By citing a series of monastic catastrophes, Cassian demonstrates how Satan could lead ascetics into serious or even fatal
error (several brethren were tempted to commit suicide) if the said individuals failed to discern the true nature of their
spiritual impulses (John Cassian,
Conf
è
rences
2.5–8, ed. and trans. E. Pichery,
SC
42 [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1955], 1:116–19; trans. Boniface Ramsey,
Conferences
[New York: Paulist Press, 1997], pp. 87–90). The term
discretio
can be translated as either discernment or discretion, two meanings that were seen to be interrelated. In the early church,
discernment of spirits comes to be overshadowed by a view of discretion that was essentially synonymous with “prudence” in
scholastic theology. See Augusta Raabe, “Discernment of Spirits in the Prologue to the
Rule
of Benedict,”
American Benedictine Review
23 (1972): 399–403; cf. Regis Appel, “Cassian’s
Discretio
—A Timeless Virtue,”
American Benedictine
Review
17 (1966): 24–27.

¹¹⁰
Cassian,
Conf
è
rences
2.10,
SC
, no. 42, 1: 120; trans. Ramsey, pp. 90–91.

¹¹¹
Cassian,
Conf
è
rences
2.13,
SC
, no. 42, 1:124–26; trans. Ramsey, pp. 94–95. Cassian does admit, however, that such trust in submission is often disappointed,
exemplifying this with a tale of an elder who reproved a young man so harshly concerning his sexual temptations that the youth
was left in a state of dangerous despondency. When Abba Apollo, the most proven of the elders (
seniorum probatissiumus
), learned of the reason for the youth’s despair, he successfully prayed that the ungenerous confessor (who had himself never
truly been tested) be tormented by similar temptations. The Abba cites Job 5.18 on the relationship between divine hitting
and healing (Cassian,
Conf
è
rences
2.13,
SC
, no. 42, 1:126–29; trans. Ramsey, pp. 95–98).

¹¹²
John Climacus,
Scala paradisi
, step 4,
PG
88, cols. 679–80; trans. Colm Luibheid and Norman Russell,
The Ladder of Divine Ascent
(New York: Paulist Press, 1982), pp. 92–93.

¹¹³
John Climacus,
Scala paradisi
, step 4, cols. 693–96; trans. Luibheid and Russell, pp. 100–101.

¹¹⁴
Thus an elder advises a younger man to find “ ‘the harshest and strictest trainer in the Lord . . . and persevering daily
imbibe insult and scorn. . . .’ ” His imperfections were to be held at naught: “ ‘Even if you see him fornicating, do not
go away from him’ ” (John Climacus,
Scala
paradisi
, step 4, cols. 723–24; trans. Luibheid and Russell, p. 117).

¹¹⁵
John Climacus,
Scala paradisi
, step 4, cols. 725–26; trans. Luibheid and Russell, p. 118.

¹¹⁶
John Climacus,
Scala paradisi
, step 4, cols. 727–28; trans. Luibheid and Russell, p. 119; Cf. cols. 691–92, 709–10; trans. Luibheid and Russell, pp. 99,
109 where the superior is again compared with God.

¹¹⁷
Isidore of Seville,
Sententiae
3.1.4,
PL
83, col. 653; this quotation is from the chapter entitled “On the Scourges of God” (“De flagellis Dei”).

¹¹⁸
Huyskens,
Quellenstudien
, p. 121.

¹¹⁹
Huyskens,
Der sog. Libellus
, p. 46.

¹²⁰
See Isentrud’s testimony, Huyskens,
Quellenstudien
, pp. 121–22.

¹²¹
See Huyskens’s introduction to ibid., p. 84.

¹²²
In his letter to Gregory, he merely says that he had rarely met a more contemplative woman, that various people had seen
her face shining marvelously, and that she experienced many raptures (Huyskens,
Quellenstudien
, p. 159). The handmaidens are a little more forthcoming, although Elisabeth’s humility made her extremely reticent (ibid.,
pp. 122–23). Cf. the expanded version (Huyskens,
Der sog. Libellus
, p. 37). The latter also recounts how Elisabeth, suspended in contemplation, might have been set on fire by a spark had not
one of the maids returned (ibid., pp. 72–73). The same story is told verbatim by Vincent of Beauvais,
Speculum Historiale
30.136, in
Speculum quadruplex
, 4:1279.

¹²³
John of Dambach,
Liber de consolacione humane vite vel De consolacione theologiae
, tract 3, Bodleian MS. 881, fol. 142r.

¹²⁴
Richer,
Gesta
4.35,
MGH SS
, 25:319, 321. Over time, one actually finds the occasional panegyric on Conrad, as in Jacobus Montanus Spirensis’s sermon
of 1511. See Kaltner,
Konrad
, p. 169 n. 1; May, “Zur Geschichte Konrads,” p. 88.

PART 2

Inquisitions and Proof

Chapter Four

Sanctity, Heresy, and Inquisition

Then the bishop, calling his vicar, immediately condemned [the old woman] as a heretic by the power of Christ. The vicar,
moreover, had her carried thus to the fire with the bed in which she lay, . . . and immediately

burned. . . . But the bishop and the friars and their companions, when this was done, went to the refectory

and they ate what things were prepared with joy, giving

thanks to God and blessed Dominic. The Lord performed

these things on the first solemnity of the blessed Dominic, to the glory and praise of his name and of his

servant, the blessed Dominic, and the exaltation of the

faith and the suppression of heretics and their belief.

(William Pelhisson,
Chronicon
ann. 1234)
¹

THE VERY FIRST FEAST DAY of Saint Dominic (d. 1221), founder of the order of inquisitors of heresy par excellence, was celebrated
by the quasi-miraculous discovery and immolation of an old Cathar granny on her deathbed. The holy women discussed thus far
represent some of the more nuanced ways in which sanctity was used to combat heresy. In this inquisitorial celebration of
Saint Dominic’s feast day, however, the struggle is naked and undisguised. Whether their power is operating overtly or more
subtly, however, saints can perform to their full potential as arms of orthodoxy only when the boundaries between orthodoxy
and heterodoxy have been decisively maintained. Yet saints and heretics would gradually lose some of this didactic tension
and become uncomfortably proximate over the course of the High and later Middle Ages. The gradual collapse of these polarities
was in many ways due, directly or indirectly, to the dependence on the inquisitional process as a primary means of classification.

The introduction of the inquisitional procedure was, as we have seen, the work of the thirteenth century. Prior to this, the
demarcation of heretics and saints occurred at a local level. An individual’s reputation would identify himor her as a paragon
of sanctity or a threat to orthodoxy. If a person was reputed by the vox populi to have led a holy life and continued to work
miracles after death, canonization simply required the translation of the individual’s remains by the bishop.
²
In this earlier period, the community had likewise played a fundamental role in the persecution of heresy. On the basis of
the scattered accounts that remain, individuals suspected of heresy were denounced to the bishop, who would, in turn, often
personally investigate the charges. Although members of the clergy were not permitted to shed blood and could thus not invoke
the death penalty, individuals deemed guilty and unrepentant often fell victim to mob violence. The sources tend to suggest
that this violence was spontaneous and the bishop powerless to defend heretics from the outraged populace. But the bishop’s
incapacity in such situations could also be read as tacit consent.
³

A certain consensus between clergy and laity was thus the key to the determination of sanctity and heresy up until the end
of the twelfth century. Although the community would continue to play a substantial part in the identification of these two
states, this role was undoubtedly curtailed with the centralization of the canonization of saints and the prosecution of heretics
through the papacy, which were roughly concurrent developments. At Lateran IV, Innocent III had attempted to stem the burgeoning
cult of relics, insisting that public veneration be contingent on papal authorization. Similarly, the first papal canonizations
were performed during his pontificate.
⁴
As noted in chapter 1, it was also Lateran IV that both assumed an intransigent position on heresy, compelling secular and
religious authorities to take action, and further introduced the inquisitional procedure for the prosecution of criminous
clerics.
⁵
The application of this same procedure to distinguish heretics and saints alike would soon follow. Innocent III was also the
first to require that canonizations comply with an inquisitional format, while further refinements occurred under Gregory
IX.
⁶
We have already seen the pivotal role played by his penitentiary, Raymond of PeÑafort, in the promotion of the
inquisitio
with respect to both sanctity and heresy. Thus in 1232 he sent Conrad of Marburg an interrogatory for witnesses attesting
to the miracles of Elisabeth of Hungary. Raymond’s 1235 “consultation” with the bishop of Tarragona, moreover, serves as a
kind of prototype for the interrogations proposed in manuals developed for the inquisitors of heresy.
⁷

Over the course of the thirteenth century, the growing emphasis on inquisitional procedure corresponded to a gradual decline
in the fortunes of holy women. Their spirituality, always suspect to some minds, was no longer so clearly perceived as a vehicle
for affirming orthodoxy; meanwhile, the criteria for proving some of their dramatic spiritual claims were becoming more stringent.
The example of Elisabeth of Hungary already offers a compelling instance of howthe confessional relationship could be overshadowed
by the priest’s dual role of confessor and inquisitor. This chapter examines howthe very enlistment of the inquisition for
both sanctity and heresy intensifies any implicit tendency for the two extremes to dissolve into one another—a dangerous trend
that could permit the dramatis personae of the respective dramas to end up in the wrong play. What follows is a summary of
inquisitional procedure as applied first to heresy and then to sanctity, ultimately with a view to illuminating how parallels
in procedure led to the other more disturbing synchronicities.

HERESY AND SANCTITY: TWO DIRECTIONS, ONE ROAD

The procedure employed by the inquisitors of heresy was basically in place by the mid–thirteenth century.
⁸
An inquisitor (usually a Dominican, but sometimes a Franciscan “to temper rigor with sweetness,” as one chronicler put it)
⁹
would arrive in a given place and call the people together for a “general sermon,” first authorizing his task through letters
from the pope and the archbishop. If this was the first time the area was associated with heresy, a period of grace was announced
during which individuals who came forward voluntarily to attest to their own or their neighbors’ guilt would be pardoned and
spared death, imprisonment, exile, or confiscation of goods. Such “volunteers” might even evade public penance if they were
not widely known as heretics or heretical sympathizers. But the period of grace was reserved only for areas in which heresy
was widespread. Moreover, only first-time offenders could avail themselves of its benefits.
¹⁰

Although their activities were certainly authorized and sometimes coordinated by the papacy, the inquisitors traveled with
only a skeleton entourage, thus requiring the cooperation of various local authorities. First and foremost among these was
the bishop. Indeed, the inquisitors were, in theory, not permitted to go forward without episcopal cooperation since the presence
of the bishop or his official was necessary to legitimize the various stages of the proceedings. Moreover, episcopal concurrence
in the death sentence, after much back-and-forth, was finally upheld as the rule in 1317.11 The bishop was also supposed to
foot the bill for the inquisition’s expenses. But Gui Foucois (the future Clement IV, d. 1268) was sufficiently realistic
about the difficulties in making the bishops pay up, describing them as having “grasping hands and constipated purses” (
tenaces
sunt manus, et marsupia constipata
). His contingency plan was to raise the requisite funds by assigning money payments as penance.
¹²
We can see this policy at work in the trial of the Guglielmites, discussed below, in which the inquisitors consistently set
high bail at the outset and assigned fines as penance.
¹³
Two impartial men, unaffiliated with the inquisition but generally from the Dominican order, were recruited to be present
at the actual interrogation of the defendant and witnesses alike. Sworn to silence, these observers of the proceedings were
the only exception to the complete secrecy of the tribunal. They were required to sign along with the notary testifying to
the regularity of the process.
¹⁴
Finally, the inquisitors must also assemble “some other persons, provident, and honest, and learned in the law,” as representatives
of the community (these, in practice, tended to be clerics) to reviewthe entire procedure and give counsel with respect to
the final sentencing.
¹⁵

The secular authorities were responsible for the more penal aspects of the prosecution: the apprehension, torture, imprisonment,
execution, forfeiture of property, or the destruction of the homes of heretics and their sympathizers. The inquisitors were
further empowered to make secular rulers “do justice,” even in the event that the individuals in question were excommunicated.
¹⁶
A notary was recruited to render the proceedings in a legal form and to attest to every document. Inquisitors could also press
into service members of religious orders, particularly the mendicant orders, to act as scribes responsible for molding the
deponent’s testimony, though this task could also be performed by appropriate laymen when necessary. Almost all of the depositions
required translation into Latin and the recasting of a first-person dialogue into a third-person narrative that, very often,
suppressed the question that had prompted a particular answer. These literate conscripts would also be required to write the
citations of witnesses, the depositions resulting from the cross-examinations, and the sentences. From the later thirteenth
century on, most of the inquisitors’ manuals were equipped with diverse sets of formulas for producing the appropriate documents.
According to Bernard Gui, the scribes might also be obliged to attend enforced study sessions in order to familiarize themselves
with the necessary forms.
¹⁷

The period of grace was not to exceed thirty days. Once this time had elapsed, parishioners suspected of heresy were summoned
and questioned according to the interrogatories developed for this purpose. The inquisition operated ex officio on the basis
of rumor or denunciation.
¹⁸
Thus in the event that heresy was believed to be rife in an area, the inquisitors might summon all parishioners of legal age
(twelve for women, fourteen for men), or even younger if the child in question was a known offender. Occasionally, specific
individuals could be summoned as a result of a direct
accusatio
by another, although this older form was becoming increasingly rare.
¹⁹
Interrogation occurred in private, while those examined were warned to keep their testimonies secret.
²⁰
Most of the later manuals contain descriptions of the various heresies afoot in the High and later Middle Ages, proffering
specific articles upon which suspected members of different sects should be quizzed, and volunteering ingenious strategies
of entrapment. As with other trials, legal defense was, theoretically, permitted to defendants, although in practice it was
discouraged and rarely obtained. The prosecution of heresy, however, differed from other legal proceedings insofar as the
names of witnesses were suppressed, a procedure sharply counter to Lateran IV’s directives on other kinds of inquests.
²¹
Those accused were nevertheless given the opportunity to list their mortal enemies. (The latter were still permitted to testify,
but their testimony was to be scrutinized more critically.)

With the issue of Clement IV’s bull
Ad extirpanda
, inquisitors were permitted to apply torture in order to extort a confession.
²²
They were exculpated from the implications of this and other routine inquisitorial practices by a papal indulgence, which
pardoned any sin they might incur in the pursuit of their duties. Inquisitors could also absolve each other, their confreres,
and their familiars (individuals the like of Conrad of Mar-burg’s motley informers and go-betweens) from any sins they might
have incurred.
²³
Although two witnesses were required to indict an individual, torture could be applied on the basis of “partial proof”—suspicion
cast by the testimony of a single witness.
²⁴
It could be applied only once—that is, unless newproofs appeared against the individual. But even such strictures were foiled
by the fact that, instead of reapplication, the inquisitors discovered the solution of continuous torture, which was permitted
to last three days. That the inquisitor might stand in need of any special indulgence for which he would be eligible is suggested
by Nicolas Eymeric, whose manual gives one of the most complete accounts of torture, including dark hints about the “many
licit tricks [
cautelas
] the judges can apply in words and deeds, so that the truth can be had—which experience and practice and the different kinds
of business will teach better than the art or doctrine of anyone.” The notary is required to give a detailed account of the
proceedings, including howthe individual was questioned, although these documents rarely seem to survive.
²⁵
Later the defendant, removed from the instruments of torture, is expected to affirm his or her testimony, which should ideally
eventuate in a confession. If he or she refuses to confess, torture may be reapplied.
²⁶
According to some legal opinions, a witness can also be tortured—especially when his or her testimony indicts a member of
the clergy.
²⁷
Eymeric permits the torture of a cleric only if his crime is infamous.
²⁸

All confessions, whether extracted through torture or not, were duly recorded and read back in the vernacular so the defendant
had the opportunity to make corrections—a process that was supposed to occur in the presence of two members of the clergy.
²⁹
But such transcripts were far from verbatim accounts. Bernard Gui (d. 1331), for example, recommends that not everything in
a defendant’s deposition be written down, except in summary. Likewise, the anonymous
Concerning the Office of
the Inquisition
permits the inquisitor to add material in the event that the defendant’s answer was confused or incomplete and there is no
occasion for reexamination.
³⁰
With regard to heretical doctrines, university and conciliar tribunals were inclined to develop lists of condemned articles
extracted from proscribed works that a given author, if still living, was required to renounce. Occasionally, the same procedure
was undertaken on behalf of less erudite heretics, although this is rather rare.
³¹