For a long time, historians have deduced from inquisition records that heresy passed easily from person to person along horizontal, familial lines. However, it was not until Michel Roquebert’s article, ‘Le catharisme comme tradition dans la “familia”
Languedocienne’, was published in 1985, that vertical ties of dependency were introduced as similarly plausible routes for the spread of heretical ideas. Building closely on the work of scholars who had emphasised the important role played by the aristocracy and the aristocratic family in the spread of Cathar popularity in thirteenth- century Languedoc, Roquebert wrote about dependency ties as channels for the transmission of Cathar ideas strictly within the context of the familia, or ‘household’.1
More recently, Chris Sparks made a similar comparison between ties of family and of dependency with reference to Jeremy Goldberg’s apprenticeship model. Goldberg sees employers as acting in loco parentis for the apprentices they took on, assuming
responsibility for the apprentice’s wellbeing and imposing the family’s own moral code for the period of the apprenticeship. Sparks suggests that such circumstances in the towns of medieval Languedoc may have led to the exposure of apprentices to the religious preferences and induction to the religious networks of their employers, in a manner modelled on the introduction of a child to the beliefs and connections of their parents.2 The problems with adhering too rigidly to such a model as this have already
been outlined above, in my family chapter, but it is important to recall briefly here that just as children were not passive objects onto which ideas and beliefs could be
imprinted, neither were dependents.3
In general, the link between the beliefs of lords and their dependents has remained an under-explored area of the historiography for several reasons. In the first place, the current academic climate is not particularly receptive to the kind of ‘top-down’ model
1 M. Roquebert, ‘Le catharisme comme tradition dans la “Familia” Languedocienne’, in Effacement du
Catharisme (XIII-XIVesiècles), Cahiers de Fanjeaux 20 (1995), pp. 221-42. Roquebert’s ideas about the vertical spread of heresy through dependency ties have been repeated (less discerningly) in recent texts, including M. Lambert, The Cathars (Oxford, 1998), p. 68. On Roquebert’s contribution to the
historiography see my introduction, p. 20.
2 C. Sparks, Heresy, Inquisition and Life Cycle in Medieval Languedoc (York, 2014), pp. 78-80. J.
Goldberg, ‘Orphans and Servants: The Socialisation of Young People Living Away from Home in the English Later Middle Ages’, in Adoption et fosterage, ed. M. Corbier (Paris, 1999), p. 242 and ‘Masters and Men in Later Medieval England’, Masculinity in Medieval Europe, ed. D. M. Hadley (Harlow, 1999), pp. 56-7.
which represents the passage of ideas from lords to their dependents. In the second, as shown in the previous two chapters, studies of heresy and power structures in southern France tend to be dominated by ideas about the strength of horizontal networks, with vertical ties either being overlooked, or depicted as a weakness which allowed heretical ideas to gain a foothold and flourish in the region. My main goal is to push this
discussion beyond the vague idea that heresy passed from lords to their dependents, by looking at the specific ways that different types of dependent relationships produced opportunities for the spread of Cathar ideas.
Ideas in the historiography about exactly what constitutes a ‘dependent relationship’ are conflicted. Much of the confusion originates from the primary sources themselves, and the fact that identical language – that of ‘being someone’s man’ – is used to designate both serfdom and vassalage.4 Although this certainly does not mean that contemporaries
did not recognise the difference between these states, it does complicate the matter of distinction for historians.
A more nuanced understanding of dependency has already developed in other fields. Many historians now represent dependency less as a black and white matter, and more in terms of a graduated scale.5 In this chapter, I challenge the top-down model and the
emphasis it places on the importance of aristocratic support for Catharism, by looking at dependency in the inquisition records as representative of a spectrum of roles,
relationships and expectations and, consequently, as a potential facilitator of the spread of Cathar ideas and beliefs in a variety of different ways.
The depositions occasionally refer to dependent relationships using language such as ‘his/her lord’, ‘the lord of the same witness’, ‘his man’, ‘his peasant’. Far more commonly, however, they refer to various forms of household or ‘service’-based dependency – and it is important to note here that I do not mean ‘service’ in the feudal sense of a lord-vassal relationship, but in the sense of contractual employment of an individual by a lord, with the understanding of some role being carried out in service of that lord. This included the household servants, also known as familia. It could include long-term, (often) live-in dependents, such as maids and some baiuli and servientes;
4 H. Débax, La féodalité languedocienne: XIe-XIIe siècles; serments, hommages et fiefs dans le
Languedoc des Trencavel (Toulouse, 2003), pp. 187-89.
5 G. Fourquin, Le paysan d’occident au moyen âge (Paris, 1972), p. 71; L. M. Paterson, The World of the
Troubadours: Medieval Occitan Society c.1100 -c.1300 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 134-37; F. L. Cheyette, Ermengarda of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours (London, 2001), pp. 127, 165.
dependents who themselves belonged to the aristocracy, such as domicelli, domicellae, and sometimes scutiferi; temporarily hired dependents, such as some nuncii, baiuli and
servientes, and dependents who acted as official representatives of their lord, such as baiuli. However, even using the inquisition records to analyse the participation in
Catharism of this group can be problematic. Though many dependents were referred to in the depositions, they were rarely the deponents.
Table 3.1: Dependents as deponents in the inquisition records. Type of
dependent No. deposed
Record of deposition Word
count Total no. identified Maids (ancillae/ pedissecae)
3 Anglesia wife of P. Rateri, 609.91r 197 55 Raymunda, wife of Arnold of
Bonnac, 609.200r-v
349
Willelma, 609.134v 162
Baiuli 3 John Gandil, baiulus of En Mainier of Belflou, knight, 23.217v-219v
469 62
Oth of Barèges, 22.44r-46r 475
W. Faure, 609.85v 173
Scutiferi 3 Peter of Corneilhan of Montgey, 24.19r-23v
1007 30
Bernard Mir, 609.30r-v 364 Stephen Massa, 23.292r-304r 2612
Domicelli 6 Arnold of Corbarieu, 22.71r-v 140 20
Jordan of Quiriès, 609.17v-18r 421 Peter of Puy, 609.181v 69
R. Adémar, 22.69r-70v 332
Sicard of Belfort, 609.231v 72 Vilarius of Villar, 23.102r-105v 827
Domicellae 1 Pelegrina, wife of William Gasc, 22.29v-31r
201 11
Nuncii 5 Arnold Martin, 609.252r 202 31
Guillelm of Saint Cogot, 609.181v 55 Pons Sicre of Ilhat, 22.232v-237r 967 Raymond Biat, 609.249r 121 Raymond Boer, 23.143r-149r 1252
Servientes 2 Peter Vignol of Balaguier, 22.249v- 258v 1736 32 Raymond of Avignonet, 609.103v- 104 125 Nutrices 0 7
Compared with the total numbers identified, the figures show that domicelli – the highest status dependents – were by far the most likely to be called before the inquisition, followed by the messengers (nuncii). Overall, male dependents were far likelier to appear before the inquisitor. Our survey counts only four female deponents, three of whom were maids, and the other a domicella who was mostly questioned with regard to Waldensianism.
In addition, the depositions of dependents sometimes suggest that they were questioned specifically about the heretical activity of their lords. For example, three men, including two baiuli of Peter of Mazerolles, confessed to having assisted Peter after he had been condemned for heresy, when he was living as a fugitive in the woods of Gaja-la-Selve from around 1244. William Faure, Peter of Mazerolle’s baiulus, said that he had often taken food and drink to Peter in the woods, and that he had seen Peter with his wife, Ermengarda, in the house of Adam Vitalis, another of Peter’s baiuli. Adam Vitalis, also Peter of Mazerolle’s baiulus, had already confessed that he had often had Peter of Mazerolles stay in his house after he had been condemned, and that once Peter’s wife, Ermengarda, had stayed as well. Lastly, Peter Cordis of Ferrus said that he had often carried food and drink to Peter of Mazerolles, but that he had done so on the order (mandato) of William Faure, baiulus of the same Peter of Mazerolles. 6 Both Adam and
Peter Cordis said that apart from these instances, they had never had any contact with the Cathars. However, at the very least, William Faure appears to have been more involved than he admitted, not only aiding his lord, but directing the aid of others. A William Faure was also identified by a number of other deponents. According to W. of Cailhavel, ‘William Faure’ not only hosted two good women, Bruna and Rixen, in his house around 1238, he also was himself ‘later a heretic’.7 Unfortunately, ‘William
6 William Faure, 609.85v; Adam Vitalis, 609.85r; Peter Cordis of Ferrus, 609.85r. 7 W. of Cailhavel, 609.71v.
Faure’ (or ‘Fabri) is too common a name for us to be sure that he was talking about William Faure the baiulus.
The fact that all three of these deponents only spoke of heresy in the context of their lord’s involvement seems to be significant, but it could be interpreted in different ways. The men may have been uninterested in heresy, and thus portrayed their actions in the strict context of providing service to their lord. Alternatively, they may have seen Peter of Mazerolles – notorious Cathar supporter, already wanted by the inquisition – as a convenient figure to hide behind. It is unlikely, given their positions as baiuli in Peter’s household, that William Faure and Adam Vitalis, in particular, had no further contact with heretics than this, but it is not for us to prove their culpability or innocence one way or the other. Rather, the point here is that the prioritisation by the inquisitors of records relating to the aristocracy has the potential to both minimise the involvement of dependents, and make the involvement of dependents appear firmly entrenched in the context of lordship. This is clearly demonstrated in the depositions by the fact that so many heretical encounters or actions of dependents are recorded as having taken place in the presence of their lords, as we will see below.
Despite these limitations, the records contain a great deal of information on the ways in which different household or ‘service’-based dependents adopted Cathar belief systems and engaged with the Cathars, that has not yet been paid due attention in the
historiography. This appears in the form of both the depositions of dependents, and in references to dependents in other depositions.
Household dependents
By ‘household dependents’, I refer to long-term, and often but not always live-in dependents, who would have been included within the group of household servants sometimes in Latin called the familia, but perhaps in English best known as
‘domestics’.8 However, there are problems with even this slightly laboured definition.
Some groups of servants, such as the ancillae or pedissecae – both translated as ‘maids’, or ‘maidservants’ – fit quite clearly into this group. Others resist such simple
8 In the inquisition records, familia can refer to a broader group of individuals tied by dependency. For
example, Peter Vignol of Balaguier, 22.255v-58r, referred to Peter Roger leaving Montségur to instigate the attack on Avignonet with his familia. ‘Domestics’ is used in J. H. Mundy, Society and Government at Toulouse in the Age of the Cathars (Toronto, 1997), p. 76.
classification. For example, serviens, had two very distinct meanings. It could have the menial or even servile connotations associated with the traditional role of ‘servant’, but it could also refer to a military rank below that of knight – the ‘sergeant’. The
translation is entirely dependent on context.9
To an extent, the roles of baiuli and nuncii (bailiffs and messengers) could overlap with those of the household servant. The records show that individuals identified in these ways could be interchangeably sent on errands or used as guides, as well as providing general household services, such as serving drinks, and thus being present in the house of their lord when various good men and good women and their believers were visiting. However, baiuli could also act as official representatives of their lord at the level of the
castrum, and both nuncii and servientes could also be hired on a temporary basis, and in
such cases cannot really be considered members of the household – although they may have appeared so to visitors. To a lesser extent, squires could also be used in similar capacities to household servants – more so scutiferi, than the (typically) socially superior domicelli – as well as to carry out a more military function. Some may even have shared a house with their lord. However, others were important lords in their own right and ran households of their own. For these reasons, it is often difficult to draw clear distinctions between groups of servants based on the identifications made in the depositions.10
Though they were not permanent members of the household, we are on safer grounds with domicellae (‘damsels’ or ‘ladies-in-waiting’) and nutrices (‘nurses’ or ‘wet
nurses’) who would definitely have been included as part of the familia for the period of their employment. Again, there was often a degree of overlap in some of the roles that these women carried out, and also with those of the maids, who were respectively identified more often as ancillae in the Toulouse register, MS 609, and more often as
pedissecae in Doat 22-24. A nutrix was employed in the first instance to care for
infants, but often stayed on with the family to care for successive children. Like maids, they were often given bequests in the wills of their respective employers, signifying the close relationship shared with them.11 Domicellae were typically from socially superior
9 Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources: A-L (London, 2012), p. 3051. Serviens : one
engaged in military service, esp. in fulfilment of feudal obligations, but not including knights.
10 See Mundy, Society and Government, p. 77 on the different roles played by servientes and nuncii. 11 Mundy, Society and Government, p. 76.
(even aristocratic) backgrounds, hence the common English translation, ‘ladies-in- waiting’, whereas maids and nutrices were typically of lower social status.
Nevertheless, the depositions tell us that it could be difficult even for contemporaries to correctly identify the roles of female household dependents. For example, a woman called Finas, who lived in the house of Austorga of Rouzégas, was identified by Raymunda, an ancilla of the house, as a domicella, but she was identified by
Raymunda’s husband, Arnold of Bonnac, as another ancilla.12 This suggests that there
must have been at least some conceptual overlap between maids and domicellae. Table 3.2: Locations of encounters of female household dependents with the Cathars.
Maid Domicella Nutrix
Total number of references 85 14 12
Number of encounters in presence of their lord 63 12 8
Encounters in house of lord 66 4 7
Encounters ‘elsewhere’13 in presence of their lord 5 4 1
Encounters outside company of their lord 22 2 4 Encounters ‘elsewhere’ outside company of their lord 8 2 2
Table 3.2, above, shows the numbers of maids, domicellae and nutrices who were seen or who confessed to encountering Cathars in the presence of their lord or lady, or elsewhere. Overall, they correspond with what we would expect for this group. The encounters of more than three quarters of these women occurred in the presence of their lords, and the vast majority (69.3%) took place in the home of that same lord.
The statistics for the domicellae are particularly consistent. Out of fourteen domicellae, twelve were identified alongside their lord or, as was more often the case, their lady. It is worth noting, in addition, that of the exceptions to this, the lord of one was not
recorded and therefore may have been present. The other, a domicella called Calva, was taking food to the good women, Brunissende and her companion, in the house of Na Ava in 1241, as she had been instructed to do by her lady, Veziada, the wife of Isarn Bernard.14
12 Raymunda, wife of Arnold of Bonnac, 609.200r-v; Arnold of Bonnac, 609.200r. 13 Either in someone else’s house, in transit, or in some public location.
Encounters with the Cathars that took place in the presence of the dependent’s lord, and in that lord’s house, typically arose as a result of the line of duty, which is to say that the requirements and the circumstances of the service owed to the lord by their dependent produced encounters with the Cathars and their believers. They were not actively pursued by the dependents themselves.
On the face of it, this evidence would appear to support the ‘top-down’ model, because it shows lords exposing their dependents to Cathar connections and ideas. However, these figures also show that a significant number of household dependents encountered Cathars ‘elsewhere’ – either in somebody else’s house, or in some public space, such as the woods or on the road – outside the presence of their lords. One third of the
references to nurses and more than a quarter of the references to maids describe encounters of this type, although it should be noted that these figures include two individuals who, like Calva, were following the orders of their lord.15 Nevertheless,
these initial figures strongly suggesting that dependents also actively sought encounters with the Cathars.
These cases of dependents actively seeking encounters with the Cathars independently of their lords appears to have increased over time. Table 3.3 shows the dates at which those interrogated in the 1240s recalled encounters between dependents and the Cathars. These figures show that, prior to 1220, it was unusual for female household dependents to be recalled (or asked after) in the depositions at all. This seems to have changed after 1220, when we see a marked increase in the numbers identified. In the 1220s, the vast majority of these (83.3%) were identified in the presence of a lord, with similarly high numbers (77.8%) identified in the home of their lord. After 1230, there is actually a slight increase in the proportion identified with their lord (to 86.4%), but a significant drop (to 70.5%) in the proportion identified in their lord’s home. This drop is amplified in the 1240s. Not only do numbers identified in the house of their lord fall to 55.8%, overall numbers identified in the presence of their lord fall to 69.8%. The corresponding increase in numbers identified encountering Cathars outside the presence of their lord, and away from their lord’s home, from just one in the 1230s to ten in the 1240s, is striking.
15 These cases are discussed further below.
Table 3.3: The dates of encounters of female household dependents with the Cathars.
According to table 3.3, female household dependents were becoming more independent in terms of seeking to actively engage with Catharism. This change needs to be
considered as it took place within the context of increasing persecution. The activity of the inquisitorial tribunals that are the focus of this study peaked between 1244 and 1246. In general, Languedoc in the 1240s was a much less stable environment for Cathar believers and for the mobility of the Cathars than it had been forty, or even twenty, years previously. Long-term and especially relapsed Cathar supporters were targeted by inquisitors. Members of the regional aristocracy – many of whom ended up seeking refuge in Montségur – were under particular scrutiny. It was becoming rarer for these families to host large gatherings of believers, or to provide the necessary
floorspace for preaching. One result of this was that household dependents had to seek