Introduction to the translation

The application of legal ideas to the practical business of an inquisition tribunal threw up questions for the inquisitors. These questions were often directed to legal experts, and the consultations that were sent in response to these queries provide a crucial insight into the work of the inquisition and the sticking points encountered by the inquisitors who were trying to find their way through a developing procedure. Where the response had a wider application, these texts were often copied and shared amongst inquisitors, and many of them survive (often via inquisitorial handbooks). The consultations are most readily accessible in a recent edition by Riccardo Parmeggiani, I consilia procedurali per l’inquisizione medievale (1235-1330)(Bologna, 2011), which collects most of the surviving texts and also provides a valuable introduction to the material. We begin below with a translation of one of the earliest, from 1235.

Consultation of Jean of Bernin, 1235

John of Bernin, Archbishop of Vienne (1218-66), was nominated by Gregory IX as papal legate in Languedoc on 27 July 1233. The job was driving heresy out of the provinces of Narbonne, Arles, Aix and Vienne and also in the Catalan dioceses of the province of Tarragona, and he seems to have acted in this capacity up to 16 March 1238. This consultation, produced at the request of the provincial of the Dominicans of Provence, Romeu de Llivia, is edited in Parmeggiani, I consilia procedurali per l’inquisizione medievale, p.10.

The counsel of the Lord [Archbishop] of Vienne, by which three queries are resolved J(ohn) by the mercy of God called Archbishop of the holy church of Vienne, legate of the Apostolic See, to his beloved son in Christ, brother Romeus, Provincial Prior of the Order of Preachers in the province of Provence, greetings in the Lord. On those matters on which you humbly asked to be instructed by us, we answer you by the tenor of the present letters:

As it seems to us, the commission made to you by the Lord Pope, to inquire into heretics, has in no way expired because of the commission on the same matter afterwards made to us.

Also because a person, secretly confessing his fault, is absolved by canon law, it does not mean that he can escape a public penalty under secular law, if afterwards he has been publicly convicted or has confessed.

Furthermore, if someone at your command has imposed an insufficient penalty on someone publicly confessing on the matter of heresy, away from the hubbub of the court, you can and should remedy this, imposing a public or greater penalty on the same person, publicly confessed, according to the quality of his fault; nor should someone of this sort confessing and punished in this way be harassed in future on precisely the same fault, since God does not judge the same thing twice.

Given at Manosque, in the year of the Lord 1235, six days before the ides of May [10th May].

Consultation of Gui Foulques, 29 December 1261, Narbonne

From Riccardo Parmeggiani, I consilia procedurali per l’inquisizione medievale (1235-1330) (Bologna, 2011), no. 13, p.71; see also Vasil Bivolarov, Inquisitoren-Handbücher (Wiesbaden, 2014), p. 192.

Arnold [corr. William], by the grace of God archbishop of the holy church of Narbonne, to the inquisitors of heretical wickedness etc.

We consider that your request for advice about the matter of Albert of Montecogul should be answered in this way: that, if you can establish that after abjuring heresy he has relapsed into the same, we believe that, in accordance with the decretal Ad abolendam, etc., illos quoque, he should be relinquished to the secular court without a hearing. If, however, it is not established that he has abjured heresy, and afterwards returning to the same he can truly be said to have relapsed, since he was taken in heresy, and so often condemned for heresy, and, as you claim, has not fully confessed even now, if such things can be found proved against him by suitable witnesses, besides his confession, that it is likely that he is maliciously silent about them, we believe that he should be judged a heretic.

Item, if he fully confesses his heresy and promises that he will be subject to the commands of the Church in all things, since he was taken in heresy we believe, in accordance with the decretal Excommunicamus, that he should be cast into perpetual prison, especially if by chance his subterfuges and crimes are manifest.

In respect of those, indeed, who say that they had previously confessed their old heresies to other inquisitors, if these confessions can now not be had, from the same inquisitors or otherwise, and the said persons say that they do not remember what crimes they committed, we believe that this distinction should be made: that if the aforesaid persons are suspected and defamed of heresy, a confession should be extorted from them, according to the quality of the persons, by a harsh prison and a constricted life; and if it cannot be extorted in that way, since they confess that they once confessed their heresies, since it is supposed that they are hiding the truth through malice, and it does not appear that they have received a penance, we believe that they are to be condemned to the cross or to prison – as seems expedient to your discretion and the nature of the business.

Those indeed who, after twenty years or thereabouts, can credibly be convicted of heresy, we do not think can be excused, on the pretext of time, from proceedings against them to the cross or to prison, as the nature or amount of the crime requires this.

Against those persons, moreover, who were hereticated or consoled by heretics in death, notwithstanding any nobility or power, we ask and advise that you should proceed manfully, without consideration of the person, insofar as you can in accordance with God, and justice, and the form of the inquisition.

Item, the lords who receive the confiscated property of heretics and their baillis, since they receive the wealth of great and rich persons, can and should be compelled to bear the load both of these people and of the poor.

Given at Narbonne, four days before the kalends of January.

Consultation of William de la Broue, 1st October 1248, Narbonne

From Riccardo Parmeggiani, I consilia procedurali per l’inquisizione medievale (1235-1330) (Bologna, 2011), no. 8, p. 46; see also Vasil Bivolarov, Inquisitoren-Handbücher (Wiesbaden, 2014), p. 191.

William, by the grace of God archbishop of the holy church of Narbonne, to the men of religion, brothers of the Order of Preachers, Bernard of Caux and John of Saint-Pierre, by apostolic authority constituted inquisitors of heretical wickedness in the province of Narbonne, greetings in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

About Peter William of Niort and his wife, Arnold Sabbatier and Rixenda, his wife, William Arnold, comb-maker, and Guillelma, his wife, etc – of whom some have relapsed into the crime of the heretical taint that they had abjured; some, when they had earlier been condemned as their crimes demanded, afterwards returning to their right minds subjected themselves to the commands of the Church; some, when they had sinned in the aforementioned crime to such an extent that they could deservedly be judged their believers, summoned generally after the burning of books, never troubled to come within the period assigned; some were found to have suppressed the truth, which you could establish either from witnesses or from their own confessions, from books which have been burnt or books of penances, or by other acts of inquisition - we advise that, if, telling the whole truth about themselves and others, with contrite hearts, they humbly wish to return to ecclesiastical unity and to obey your commands, you should cast them into perpetual prison, in accordance with the apostolic command; and if by chance, when they have been offered the opportunity of legitimate defence, they have not defended themselves, or have obstinately refused to obey your commands, judging them to be heretics, you should relinquish them to secular judgement.

We also advise that, however culpable in the said crime you may have found someone, if you can canonically establish that there were signs of his conversion and penitence at the end, you should not proceed to the condemnation of the same deceased person, but, as if he had died, having confessed to you but without a penance having been imposed upon him, you should demand a fitting compensation from those to whom his goods have come. Moreover we understand ‘canonically establish from signs’ to mean if his confessor has deposed that the deceased confessed to him that he had sinned in the said crime, or if, if the statement of his confessor has been lost in the burning of books or otherwise, and the same confessor is dead, the notary who had received it has sworn that the same confessor deposed in the aforesaid form.

Given at Narbonne, on the kalends of October, in the year of Our Lord 1248.