During the early 1300s, Bishop Jacques Fournier, a “zealous churchman” (vii) who would eventually become Pope Benedict XII, was responsible for organizing a campaign to remove sacrilege from his diocese in southern France. Through his efforts, Fournier discovered a small village located in the Pyrenees, “close to the frontier between France and Spain” (vii). This village, Montaillou, was the home of hundreds of peasants who had not yet been converted to Catholicism. Because they were not practicing Catholics, Fournier had many inhabitants of Montaillou brought before him for questioning. Unlike other Inquisitors, Fournier took care to record every detail from his appointments with the peasants, hoping to develop a greater understanding of their culture and reasons for maintaining a society which, from his perspective, was founded upon heresy. Through his efforts, Fournier compiled a massive amount of information describing the Montaillou way of life. This information was later used by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie in his novel which reintroduced Montaillou to modern people. These records reveal that Montaillou was a society with many unique customs and beliefs, but our understanding of the village is, and will always be, incomplete. This stems from the facts that the peasants were not able to personally provide their history, due to a lack of literacy, and that Fournier was not entirely objective in his records. Montaillou was subject to investigation by Fournier because the village was one of the last strongholds of Catharism, a form of Christianity deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Fournier, working as an Inquisitor, captured many peasants and subjected them to interrogation, hoping to convert them to Catholicism but willing to punish any who refused. Catharism was controversial because “supporters considered and proclaimed themselves ‘true Christians’ [and] ‘good Christians’” (viii), although the religion “stood at some distance from traditional Christian doctrine” (viii). Rather than the monotheistic ideology popularized by the Catholic Church, absolute dualism was celebrated by the Cathars. Cathars believed in the “existence of two opposite principles…one of good and the other of evil” (viii). God and Satan were seen to be of equal strength, with the former having constructed the spiritual world and the latter having created the physical. The Cathar version of baptism, referred to as consolamentum, also differed from the Catholic version, as the consolamentum did not require a person to be submerged in water. Because Catharism was incredibly controversial to a society which increasingly supported Catholicism, Fournier adopted the extermination of the religion as his personal quest.
With regards to its prosperity and technology, Montaillou was not an advanced society. Although the peasants were not completely devoid of technological advances, a member of modernized French society such as Fournier would have considered the Montaillou society as backward and inferior. The village was always afflicted with a “chronic shortage of money” (5), as evidenced by Raymonde Vital admitting that her shoemaker husband would be unable to receive income until long after he had served a customer. Montaillou was viewed as “underdeveloped as far as the crafts were concerned, compared with the lowland villages” (6). The inhabitants of Montaillou had not yet developed machinery that would drastically improve quality of life, with “the absence of carts” (6) being the most notable nonexistence. None of the citizens of Montaillou were trained to be smiths, so “tools made of iron were rare” (7). Even the simple oven was unavailable to all in Montaillou, and it was classified as a “sign of wealth” (8). From the perspective of a bishop such as Fournier, Montaillou seemed to be imprisoned in a life of hardship, stemming from their lack of exposure to modern technology and inability to take advantage of natural resources. The most important institution to the peasants and community of Montaillou was the domus, a combination of the physical household and all who resided within it. Although the domus was not a permanent establishment, it was considered a “unifying concept in social, family, and cultural life” (25). Each domus “acted as a conservatory” (27), in which households could develop personal lifestyles reflecting their beliefs without fear of being accused of sacrilege. Because many in Montaillou maintained a devotion to Catharism, the domus was a necessary instrument for practicing religion without being imprisoned or killed. The domus was also classified as the most important indication of status within Montaillou, as opposed to lineage. It was “at the centre of a whole network of links of varying importance…alliance through marriage, family relationship, friendship…” (49). Because of its role in preserving a family’s set of beliefs and establishing social structure, the domus was the most integral aspect of Montaillou society.
Analysis regarding the social customs of inhabitants of Montaillou reveals that in many aspects, the peasants behaved in a manner similar to modern people. They responded to both joy and misfortune with tears, especially when confronted by “the death of someone near to them” (139) and “threats foreshadowing arrest by the Inquisitors” (139). Upon meeting an individual of higher stature, a Montaillou peasant would honor the individual by standing or saluting. Those in Montaillou even attached some significance to their attire, reserving effort to change and wash clothing. Despite being separated by nearly seven hundred years, it is apparent that members of Montaillou and members of modern society shared certain social attributes. Both groups openly expressed their emotions, honored their superiors, and invested time in developing a positive exterior image. While Montaillou peasants shared social customs and practices with 21st century people, a number of their behaviors stand out in stark contrast. Although the exterior image was valued to some degree in Montaillou, bodily cleanliness was generally not observed. Peasants “did not shave, or even wash, often” (141), nor did they “bathe or swim” (142). The only form of hygiene that existed was the act of delousing, which was spurred more by the desire to eliminate pests, as opposed to developing a clean external appearance. Grime and dirt was unsightly, but peasants were not concerned with such a superficial matter. If the filth was irritating, as was the case with lice, then peasants would be willing to be groomed. Interestingly, delousing was not viewed as a task for slaves, but a service performed by those related by “kinship or alliance, even if it was illegitimate” (141). Delousing was an tool for strengthening relationships, and was restricted to those with whom an individual was close. Today, people do not typically consider rituals of cleanliness to require a strong emotional component. Most in modern society would be willing to receive a haircut from any barber, regardless of the existence of prior friendship. Generally, peasants of Montaillou were less frequent with their personal sanitization, and whenever they allowed for grooming, it was constrained within a small social circle. Many in Montaillou society, particularly the licentious Clergue family, possessed morally liberal views on sexuality and love. Fornication was not considered to be sinful, “provided both parties took pleasure in it and…provided the man paid a fair price” (170). Concubinage was rampant, and contraceptives were in high demand, as extramarital pregnancy created the “fear of giving birth to an illegitimate child” (174). Providing for children was costly, particularly in a wealth-deficient society such as Montaillou. As a result, successful methods of birth control were celebrated. Marriage was viewed in a much less positive light than in modern society. In the institution of medieval marriage, a woman would be “regarded as an object” (189) and subject to “a fair amount of beating” (192). Although marriage for love was possible, it was uncommon that Montaillou women would “use the word love in a romantic sense when speaking of their feelings toward a man” (189). It was inconceivable to consider romantic love “in relation to marriage or an affair designed to end in marriage” (189). These attitudes regarding sexual intercourse and marriage contribute to the notion that Montaillou adopted a “culture of promiscuity” (142), in which the peasants favored instant carnal gratification over marriage and development of a family. Some may argue that modern society has transitioned into an era in which sexual freedom is celebrated as liberating, but there remains a large group of people who still frown upon lustful behavior. In contrast, Montaillou was virtually apathetic to this “shame”. The Montaillou perspective on death, as well as the public response to death, was also unique. Those on the verge of death were expected to take part in an endura, or suicidal fast, so that resources would not be wasted preserving the life of someone who was not expected to survive much longer. When someone passed away, certain customs and rituals were mandatory. Female members from the deceased person’s domus were required to participate in “ritual laments” (223), which could be genuine and accompanied by tears, or merely for show. Similar to the Catholics, Montaillou Cathars believed in the existence of an afterlife, but differed in their understanding of how souls achieved salvation. After the death of the body, the soul would travel the Earth as a spirit, “rushing from place to place” (348). This movement was intended to be a form of penance, so that spirits could achieve peace before reaching Heaven. The souls of those who died young were considered to be bitter over their premature death, motivating them to abuse elderly spirits. This interpretation, greatly different from the Christian notion of judgment immediately after death, further emphasizes the distinctiveness of Montaillou ideology. Le Roy Ladurie’s use of Inquisitorial records as a source holds both advantages and disadvantages. Most, if not all, of Montaillou peasants were illiterate and incapable of recording the events of daily life. As a result, it would have been impossible to glean useful information regarding social history from any artifacts that managed to survive. Because Fournier devoted such a vast amount of effort in collecting information from peasants, he proves to be the only individual with enough data to be credible enough. Despite his supply of knowledge on the peasants, however, Fournier is not the most reliable of sources. As he was not directly associated with the village, Fournier does not have complete access to the finer details of Montaillou society. His information is gathered from interrogation, a method which does not guarantee total accuracy. Being a member of the Catholic Church who detested heretical Cathar beliefs, Fournier would also be prejudiced against the peasants of Montaillou. This bias taints his records with predispositions, diminishing the positive attributes of the society. Ultimately, Le Roy Ladurie is able to introduce the Montaillou peasants to modern society. Although some of the practices popularized by the peasants are considered strange and unusual to modern eyes, Montaillou possessed unique attributes which distinguish it from other societies. The controversial religious beliefs and stress on the importance of the household transform Montaillou into the epitome of how the Middle Ages culture clashed with a culture that would foreshadow the Renaissance. Despite the quantity of information available to Ladurie, he is hindered by a lack of objectivity. Because Jacques Fournier, the individual responsible for gathering Ladurie’s information, was not witness to the ordinary aspects of life in Montaillou, he is incapable of providing readers with a complete understanding of the village. His store of information, although extensive, is incomplete and impersonal. Unfortunately, due to uncontrollable circumstances, most notably the inability of Montaillou peasants to record events in written form, it is impossible to locate a more enlightening source that Fournier’s Inquisitorial records. Therefore, Le Roy Ladurie is successful in presenting to us the strongest possible description of peasant life in Montaillou. Works Cited
1. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Montaillou: The World-Famous Portrait of Life in a Medieval
Village. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1978. Print.