Men and Women at Toulouse (Studies and Texts) [Illustrated] 9780888441010, 0888441010

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface (page ix)
Abbreviations (page x)
Maps (page xi)
1: Intentions and Sources (page 1)
A. Intentions and Historiography (page 1)
B. Monographs and Ideology (page 4)
C. Scribes and Archives (page 8)
D. Types of Documents (page 15)
E. Law Books (page 17)
F. Special Documents, Inquests and Trials (page 19)
2: Society (page 22)
A. Public Office and Law (page 22)
B. The Family (page 27)
C. Practical Equalities (page 36)
D. Religion (page 41)
3: Sex (page 47)
A. Divergences and Alternatives (page 47)
B. Women and Men: Lezat (page 51)
C. Sex and Love (page 63)
4: Relationships (page 66)
A. Prostitution (page 66)
B. Concubinage (page 69)
C. Marriage (page 79)
5: Matrimony (page 88)
A. Contracts (page 88)
B. Family (page 100)
C. Economics (page 105)
D. Widowhood (page 108)
6: Contexts (page 113)
A. Class and Family (page 113)
B. Equality? (page 116)
C. Violence (page 123)
Appendix 1. Charters Dealing with Women (page 131)
Appendix 2. Tables (page 163)
A. Charitable Bequests (page 163)
B. Tablesa about Matrimony (page 165)
Appendix 3. Families (page 173)
A. Astro (page 173)
B. Raina (page 183)
C. Sobaccus (page 185)
D. Tonenquis (page 190)
Appendix 4. Lezat and Moissac (page 195)
A. Peter De Dalbs and the Dalbs Family (page 195)
B. The Daurade and the Lezat versus Moissac (page 198)
C. Witnesses against Peter De Dalbs (page 201)
D. Women Mentioned in the Testimony (page 203)
Appendix 5. Visitation of Lezat (page 207)
A. Circumstances ca. 1265 (page 207)
B. Alphabetical List of the Monks (page 208)
C. Order of the Depositions (page 211)
Bibliography (page 213)
A. Archival Documents and Manuscript Texts (page 213)
B. Published Documents and Texts (page 219)
C. Secondary Studies (page 220)
Index (page 225)

Citation preview

| a oEEEEEEEEEEE——EE EE _______O__E EEE eee EE 7 ie oe OO Oo - —— I acsie

; ES a4 x ;

OE ea im ™ fo , & ae te ee a te ee ee er 7. é\ : haga oh Pad ad ‘pie :BERS .;.ae :aaeEa a24| , ., 205 7 ‘iiiae Po ae pete EA 2 |3ae SRSap aarae i eeoe eee as $5 eo 2 ee ; ae ee |iiigkbs ne i? con. RESET. gee Sa= Rood Bee: i. Re EN Ris AO& % fs vo Ae RES Fee A OR oa aS pee 28 a, Seer meee ee 4 i oe sf ||:*aeo ere Ly StraFj*wh ee ) :gisiacsbin [on 6—_— COC. ‘Fa Ns 4Bg enn a; nS oe 7 bo ee Seb e ores BE BB“ee RR

RAae: Fe, RE PE PhSs ER Res ge tay E ay ° +

& > “eee Onn craman wt & cy MURET Bee

\ *Monfsaut N »> s L + GbkS \ panone Oo yer e Auterive : Vw

© 0 5 ° 10 15 20 km

F \ I xX Castelnaudary

_—_——

Saverdun

Map |. THE REGION OF TOULOUSE

The inner dotted line around the town roughly delineates the “gardiage,” the area administered by the consuls, the board of magistrates elected in the town; the outer dotted line is the vicarage administered by the count’s (sometimes, if briefly, the consuls’) vicar.

XI MAPS

J ae ji te Yl RAN LA

NSICJN: WU, — - 4, ., yy 4, lV Pa ve a aN NN

Siey“SO 4% wo ay f| SS Zs AJ /CEGUA 2S ¢ as & ty QQ BS os an \

. \ 0! SB. hs Vd pe ye a Ne

OF Gr ae Tan. ce |

ek Y ¥ en This history will be treated in my forthcoming history of Toulousan society in this early age.

10 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES A change that accompanied this great mutation was the emergence of public scribes to record the testaments, contracts, etc. then appearing in quantities and varieties unheard of in earlier times. For Toulouse, this history has already been explored. The gradual genesis of a state-sponsored notariate began around 1100, a scribe named Vidal or Vitalis being active in the early

eleven-teens, and thereafter expanded until by 1200 between 30 and 40 public notaries instrumented in Toulouse. Subsequent years witnessed the spread of the system of the public notary into the rural communities of the Toulousain.'° A result of this was that, as was elsewhere the case, the ecclesiastical cartularies and rolls composed of acts transcribed by churchmen were replaced by original acts drawn by a public hand. Care had to be taken that the conveyance of property was accompanied either by a transfer of the original acts concerning it or, more usually, by copies of the originals authenticated by three notaries.'' For convenience, copies were sometimes assembled in cartularies or rolls. Most such rolls or books were small: in the collection of the hospice of Grandselve in the Bourg of Toulouse the average

“instrumentum” or parchment contained 1.4 “actiones” or acts.'* Some, however, were very large. The biggest family register or cartulary composed of authenticated copies is that of the Capdenier family which, copied from

October 1225 to July 1228, included 144 acts.’ These collections of originals and authenticated copies were placed in archives, either those of institutions or those of private families,'* and were usually kept in safe deposit, often in churches.“ What the expansion of this scribal system meant in the way of “paper” and

therefore of archival resources may also be exemplified by the Capdenier history. From 1161 to 1251, three generations — Bernard, his son Pons and ' See my Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 1100-1250, (New York, 1952) pp. 35-37 and 115-121 and, for the countryside, my “Village, Town and City in the Region of Toulouse” in Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J.A. Raftis (Toronto, 1981) pp. 162-163.

'' See notes 32-33 on p. 33 of the “Village, Town and City” cited above. '2 Grandselve “liasses” Nos. 3 to 5 inclusive, dated from circa 1140 to the mid 1220s. Owing to the unthinking naiveté of someone in the nineteenth century, this collection of charters was broken out of its old “liasses” organized by community or town quarter and distributed chronologically, thus making it very difficult to follow the history of individual pieces of property. The small compensatory advantage was that the whole set was arranged by date, and I have used that here. '3 For this family, see its history in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 155-156. '* See Malta 1 23 (February 1218) printed in my Liberty and Political Power, p. 333 n. 32, where a group of quite respectable persons entered the Hospitalers’ chapel and “frangerunt

hostium quod est in vestiario retro altari Sancti Remigii, et inde de illo vestiario pro vi traxerunt cartas de Poncio de Sancto Martino que erant in deposito scilicet in comanda ipsorum fratrum predicti hospitalis que erant in uno rostulo, bene inclause cum catenato et cum sigillo quid ibi erat sigillatum in eodem rostulo.”

SCRIBES AND ARCHIVES 11 the latter’s widow Aurimunda — accumulated a total of 306 extant acts, without counting duplicates. Of these, 273 were composed during the nearly 68 years from 1161 to 1229 of the active business life of Bernard and Pons, an average of four contracts being added yearly. And that number is minimal because 45 percent of the extant acts were final acquisitions of real property,

a type of action usually accompanied by others, mortgages, debts, for example, or records of payment.

To turn from a rich person to a rich institution, an inventory of the possessions of the monastery of Saint-Sernin was hastily compiled in 1246". The abbot determined to record the books and “instrumenta” housed in each outlying priory, church and farm, as well as in the basilica’s tithing in and immediately around town. His curious idea shows, one, that the adminis-

tration of Saint-Sernin was aware of the significance of its documentary collection, and two, that the collection was not yet so huge that such a request would have appeared ludicrously impossible to fulfill. Excluding two cartularies (one still extant whose last act is dated 1185), just under 3700

“instrumenta” were counted, of which about 1700 were housed in town. When the “instrumenta” are multiplied by 1.4 “actiones” or acts, it may be estimated at about 5180 acts overall and 2380 in town’®. More useful as reflections of ordinary business is the fact that the seven substantial farms wholly or partly owned by the monastery just outside of town and within the

vicarage averaged 175 “instrumenta” or 245 acts each. Often affected by marriage settlements and divisions among heirs, and more exposed to the vicissitudes of business or life, lay property — with the possible exception of military or seigniorial fiefs — was less stable than ecclesiastic. It may therefore

be assumed that a layman’s farm would have produced (although not preserved) considerably more documents than one owned by churchmen."’ Good though it was, this system was improved, sadly enough, in a way detrimental to historians. Into the early thirteenth century, original documents or authenticated copies were what counted in the legal life of the town. By that time, however, the awkwardness of having to transfer or copy acts tracing the titles or history of a piece of property from one party to another, for example, or the expense of engrossing originals or authenticated copies

to store in a family chest or archive cried out for simplification.'® The '> Published in Douais, Documents sur Languedoc, 2: 8-44 (September 1246). '° Note that the multiple 1.4 was derived from Grandselve’s collection in the paragraph above.

'’ Including tithes, ecclesiastical property generated less documents: Saint-Sernin’s priories average 55-odd “instrumenta” and the rural churches 60. '’ For the inconvenience, see not only the references cited in my book cited above, but also the end of Appendix 1, No. 14 below.

12 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES response to this need was built on the notion that a notary was a person authorized by public authority, and that his register of notes was a public document or archive. At Toulouse, as elsewhere, the register was legally recognized early in the thirteenth century, and the notary’s book gradually came to supplement and then to equal engrossed originals or authenticated copies as legal proof. A result was that the massive documentation of property in the twelfth and very early thirteenth centuries that left its traces in the archives came to an end because fewer acts were being engrossed for deposit in family or institutional archives. What made this improvement into a disaster is that all of the notarial registers written in the first century of their use have been lost.’ Why this is so — unless it is because the registers were largely made of paper and not parchment — is a mystery. It could not have

been bureaucratic inanition. Notaries were by law obliged to keep their registers available for public examination or duplication. The consuls often excerpted acts from the registers of dead notaries, and from those of living ones temporarily absent.”? For whatever reason, however, the documentation of Toulousan social history collapsed leaving a gap starting around the mid thirteenth century and lasting for nearly a hundred years.

To this reason for the loss of information may be added another one caused by the maturation of the economy around 1200. By maturation I mean that real property and the fixed charges placed on it had become more

valuable as the world became more crowded. In an earlier time, gifts to churches and orders often involved the transfer of tithes, permanent rents (“oblie”) and real property, all of which generated instruments to fill the archives. Later on, these grants were largely replaced by donations of money and of temporary “census” or “rente” charges, gifts that either did not require documentary proof to be kept in the archives of the receiving institution or, if they did, did so only for a time. A result is that fairly good documentation for the ecclesiastical institutions of twelfth-century foundation exists, but very little for the great mendicant houses, the several female ones and the many confraternities and hospitals created in the mid and late thirteenth century.”

And what is true of ecclesiastical institutions is true of the families of '7 On the notarial archives, see Philippe Wolff, Commerce et marchands de Toulouse vers 1350 - vers 1450 (Paris, 1954), pp. vii-ix.

0 See, for example, Dominicans 11 (December 1255 copied in May 1257), where the notary Arnold de Villalonga “receperat et scripserat materiam in papiro suo sed inde non fecerat instrumentum,” and, since he was “absens ... [et] pro suis negotiationibus in longinquis et remotis partibus existens,” the consuls were requested to assign the duty of engrossing the

act to another notary, which they did. 1 The situation is somewhat ameliorated by the preservation of an occasional contemporary history, such as Bernard Gui’s De fundatione et prioribus conventuum provinciarum Tolosanae et Provinciae ordinis praedicatorum.

SCRIBES AND ARCHIVES 13 Toulouse because, one or two exceptions apart, the information about the latter derives from the former. To economic maturation may be added a similar institutional development, one derived from what sometimes seems to be a general rule of social

history: when private night weakens, state authority grows. A striking example of mid thirteenth-century statist intervention in the economy was the attempt to impose taxes or fines on the alienation of property to the church, whose grasp was rigid because of the institution of mortmain.” The effect of such fines was surely to limit even further grants to the church of land and fixed rents and charges. The only exception here was the continued effort by ecclesiastics to “recuperate” tithes, a tax generally if grudgingly admitted to be a “rightful” possession of the church. Fortunately, it follows from the above that, if the archives of families and

the religious became mere shadows of their former selves, public ones improved somewhat. The collections of the consuls of Toulouse, those of the

counts and of their successors the kings of France are threadbare in the twelfth century, but reasonably thick in the thirteenth. Without, in fact, the increased wealth of these archives, the thirteenth century, a time of great

growth, would have seemed like an age of decline. Nevertheless, the weakening of the ecclesiastical archives cannot be made up because those of the government were insufficiently developed and have not been preserved. Although tax estimations were regularly made in Toulouse from about the mid-thirteenth century, for example, there are no “estimes” extant until the thirties of the fourteenth century.?’ Nor are there any parish registers extant, if, indeed, parish records were being put in books at this date.

To add to the institutional hazards, the collections of documents were damaged by fire and water and by neglect, war and revolution, beginning with

the burning of the Temple in 1216 to the fire that burned or caused water damage to the Hospital Archives during the Second World War. This means

that the information is spotty. Some places are well served; others are practically unknown.” In the City, the southern and larger section of the town, much is known about the “salvetat,” an area running roughly from the

Chateau Narbonnais to the Hospital of Saint-Remézy, because of the preservation of the archives of the Hospitalers to which was added the smaller and already partly destroyed collection of the Templars in the early

22 For this see Pascal Guébin’s “Les Amortissements d’Alfonse de Poitiers, 1247-1270,” Revue Mabillon (1925) 80-106, 133-144, 293-304, and (1926) 27-43. 3 Those of 1335 published by Philippe Wolff in his Les Estimes Toulousaines des XIVe et XVe siécles (Paris and Toulouse, 1956) are the first. 4 For these localities, see the sketch map of the town on p. xii above.

14 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES fourteenth century. The destruction of the archives of the monastery of Moissac and of its dependencies in the City, the monastery and church of the Daurade, that is, and the church of the Dalbade, means that the riverine section of the City to the north of the “salvetat” is little known. Owing to the loss of the archives of the cathedral of Saint-Etienne, the same is true of the wide eastern reaches of the City, triangulated by the Capitole, Saint-Etienne, and the church of Saint-Barthelemy. In regard to the smaller northern area of the town, the Bourg, there is much information about the quarters around

Saint-Sernin and the church of the Taur because of the strength of the collection of the canons-regular of that basilica. Englobed in yet another dependency of Moissac, the riverine area of the Garonne in the Bourg around the priory and church of Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines to the west of Saint-Sernin is very badly served, however, as is the area of Saint-Cyprien and the parish

of Saint-Nicholas across the river. In fine, of the five principal archival sections into which the town may be divided, passable information is available only about two, and mere fragmentary notes about the rest. The sources also suffer from the limitation imposed by the fact that the largest part of the documentation concerning the family derives from ecclesiastical archives. Whatever their personal bent, and not a few were clearly interested in their own lineages, the guardians of these repositories were not put there to spend their time documenting family history. As archivists or, really, as ecclesiastical clerks and lawyers, their business was to store and

catalogue documentary proof of the property of churches and religious orders. A result is that the preservation of parchments on which the history

of a property was recorded was inadvertent or, rather, depended on the scribal system that withered away when notarial registers were introduced.

The retention of documents also had much to do with the kind of gift recorded, most of those retained being gifts of real property. There was simply no point in keeping for long records that merely mentioned sums of

money, and hence very few were retained. Another result is that the well-to-do are more heavily represented in the available sample than are the

poor. That means exactly what it says, however, and no more. A reader consulting the Tables in Appendix Two will perceive that not a few very modest people appear in the statistics. It nevertheless follows that, since the sample is weighted upward in the social scale, a Lorenz curve or any other method of evaluating the distribution of wealth in a whole population is useless here. The chapters below will show another side of this problem, namely that

women are seriously underrepresented in extant documents. There is no doubt, moreover, that this condition reflects the relative poverty of this sex when compared to the males of this society. In spite of this, there are

TYPES OF DOCUMENTS 15 nevertheless many documents in which women are mentioned and not a few in which they were central actors. D. TyPES OF DOCUMENTS

The documents available for the study of social history and that of the relations of women and men at Toulouse can be utilized in several ways. One can build family histories. These are of great use and some 28 are available to the reader.”” Such family histories are the best possible source, but their principal weakness is that they are distressingly few, and, rare exceptions apart, lean toward the well-to-do. Specific types of acts are also valuable for this history, and have been assembled and calendared in Appendix One. Running from 1148 to 1297, a total of 190 charters are calendared in this appendix. Of these a third (63) are matrimonial contracts, involving approximately 68 unions. The largest single group of charters are testaments, just over 41% (80) of the total, in which about 41 marriages of daughters were endowed by the testators. One may add to that number two documents, one recording a verbal disposition by a man leaving for war and another a document issued by a husband about to go on a penitential pilgrimage to the Holy Land (Nos. 60 and 130). Partly similar to testaments, also, are five instruments containing settlements on widows by their husbands in view of oncoming death (Nos. 10, 69, 80, 126 and 160), a type of document that must have been common because there is One testament in which express mention was made of such a convention between husband and wife (No. 136). One exceptional document records a Separation agreement between a husband and wife (No.9). The remaining 39 are sales dealing with dotal property or settlements, lawsuits and petitions before the consuls of Toulouse, special family arrangements concerning marital portions, and entries containing references to inheritances shared by women and men. Additional material has been added to each individual > Only four family histories are published in this volume, Astro, Raina, Sobaccus and Tonenquis. They are placed in Appendix 3. Readers wanting more should consult the 22 histories of this kind (Baranonus, Barravus, Capitedenario, Caraborda, Castronovo, Corregerius, Cossano, Curtasolea, David, Descalquencs, Embrinus, Gamevilla, Guido, Maurandus, Montibus, Ponte, Roaxio, Tolosa, Trageto, Turre, Unde and Villanova) found in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 129-303, two others that have been published in articles, namely “The

Farm of Fontanas at Toulouse,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law nus. 11 (1981) 29-40 (Claustro) and “Urban Society and Culture: Toulouse and its Region,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, eds. R.L. Benson and Giles Constable with C.D. Lanham (Cambridge MA, 1932), p. 244 (one of the two Tolosa families) and a book like G.A. de Puybusque’s Contribution de l'histoire du vieux Toulouse: Généalogie de la famille Puybusque (Toulouse, 1902).

16 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES entry, and the only kind of document dealing with women that has been excluded are the innumerable sales and other business documents to which wives gave consent “nomine dotis” or sisters because of their right to dowries. Each of the other kinds of document has its advantages and disadvantages. Comparing testaments with marriage settlements, it is obvious that the latter are more useful for quantification. Occasional vaunting aside, what a family

settled on its daughters or what a man owed his wife expressed what the parties believed to be practicable. Naturally, individuals sometimes exaggerated, perhaps because they were thinking about what they wanted to do rather than what they were immediately involved in doing.”° Furthermore, since marriage settlements were also often settled by cash pledges or payments, they have the advantage of being quantifiable. At first sight, testaments might seem to have enjoyed similar advantages because they usually contained charitable bequests expressed in money. Into the twelve-teens, a few lack such gifts but they become invariable after the Council of Toulouse of 1229, when such oblations were made obligatory.”’ Seeing such bequests, one might believe that they provide statistics showing the different strata of Toulousan society. And so they do, but quite inaccurately. This is because the conditions and attitudes of the persons drawing testaments varied as greatly as did the numbers of their heirs. It is also to be remembered that charity was directed not only to the church both regular and secular, to hospitals, leproseries, hospices and pious places, such as bridges, but also to relations, friends, godchildren, etc. Lastly, not a few decedents had the special obligation of providing restitution for usury. Motives and Capacities for charity therefore varied enormously. Hence it is that two nearly equally rich Toulousan citizens such as Bernard de Miramonte and Pons de Capitedenario left quite different sums to charity, the former assigning 1000 shillings and the latter 10,000, ten times as much.”* Again, a well-to-do smith who bequeathed 1300 shillings in charity appears higher in the social scale than the Bernard de Miramonte whose 1000 shillings charity is not huge, but who also distributed the enormous sum of 25,000 shillings (1250 29 pounds of Toulouse, 2500 of Tours) to close relatives.” 6 An example is to be seen in Appendix 1, Nos. 93 (September 1221) and 132 (August 1237). There Bernard de Miramonte’s wife Ramunda’s dowry was valued at three or 4000 shillings and his daughter Francisqua’s at 3000, but the testator proposed that, if Francisqua

bore a daughter in her forthcoming union, the grandchild was to have a dowry of 5000 shillings.

27 Appendix 2, Table No. 1. 8 Appendix 1, Nos. 108 and 132. 9 Ibid., No. 132 and, for the will of the smith William Usclacanus, No. 162 (August 1253).

LAW BOOKS 17 Since the church was a prime object of testamentary charity, also, certain parts of the population are overrepresented in extant wills. Two-fifths of the wills of whose contents I have notes were drawn by celibates or persons living alone at time of death.*° The 76 testaments recording married pairs listed below show that nearly a third had no issue. Even the testators with children had small families. Just over two children is the average per family in the testaments, and it is therefore certain that small families or those in which some children had been emancipated and already apportioned bulk unnaturally large in the sample.*’ Weaknesses in terms of quantification aside, however, testaments are of value because they tell about family planning. A final word about these documents. With the exception of a few testa-

ments and marital arrangements in the latter decades of the 1200s, the documents indicate little change in the sums of money disposed in testamentary charity or in dowries and marriage gifts during this long period. This astonishing uniformity could have been caused by a retrograde traditionalism

in regard to the sums of money given in charity or those assigned to daughters in dowries, thus artificially reducing them below the growth of the

economy. It seems unlikely, however, that such was the case because the expanding economy of the time did not force the average family to concentrate all of its resources on financing the young males of the line to the detriment of its daughters and charities. The researcher gains, indeed, the impression that, in spite of the great Albigensian war from 1209 to 1229 and Toulouse’s rapid revival after that conflict, values or prices were relatively stable. It may be conjectured, confessedly on the basis of rather thin material,

that prices or values gradually rose through the 1230s, and thereafter Stabilized until the latter decades of the century. E. LAw Books

Law books are also useful for all the history discussed below, and, of these,

the most important is the Custom of Toulouse. Probably copied from a register compiled in 1275, the provisions of the Custom were published in

1286. Although there were also other motives, this effort and the long 0 Readers of this monograph will have to take my word for these figures because many of the just under 110 testaments in my collection have not been calendared in this study. 31 Appendix 1, Nos. 2, 5, 7-9, 13, 22, 26, 28, 30-31, 33, 39, 46, 50 (refers to a testament),

52, 57, 59-61 (reference to a testament), 71-74 (72 referred to a testament), 76-78, 82 (reference to a testament), 86, 89, 94-95, 102 (reference to a testament), 106, 108-111 (109

referred to a testament), 118, 120, 123-124, 128-129, 132, 136-137 (division of inheritance), 139-140 (division of inheritance), 149, 152, 155 (reference to a full family group), 156-158, 161, 165, 167-168, 170, 173-174, 178-179 (division of an inheritance) and 190.

18 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES negotiations which preceded it were part of the attempt of the town of Toulouse and the Toulousain and the crown to regularize their relationship. This was necessary, one remembers, because the area had only fallen under direct royal administration on the death of Alphonse of Poitiers in 1271.” Many of the practices recorded in this law seem not to have changed much in the century before its promulgation, and some of its provisions, although ostensibly rejected by the crown, seem to have continued in force.*? To this text may be added an invaluable Commentary of 1296 very possibly written by the jurist Arnold Arpadella, a member of what was fast becoming a celebrated faculty of law at the University of Toulouse.** Owing to the succinctness of the Custom itself, questions of social behavior are better illustrated from Arpadella’s Commentary. In addition, occasional illustrations are found in the principal manuscript. These are of two kinds, formal ones made at the time of the copy and informal ones placed at the base of the pages and having nothing to do with the text. The latter are by far the most

interesting because they concern the punishment of criminals and the publicity of the penalties visited on them.* A final legal text is the Responsa doctorum Tholosanorum. Compiled by

1317, the Responsa contains a collection of consultations or decisions rendered by members of the faculty of law at the university.*° Most of these date from before the end of the thirteenth century, and one refers directly to an event of the time of the last count of the native line, Raymond VII who died in 1249.°’ The decisions illuminate cases drawn from all over the Midi and also occasionally refer to the Custom of Toulouse mentioned above. The nature of this text informs one that Toulouse and its region were parts of a

larger world and its jurists were therefore busy discussing issues of a somewhat more general nature than those of that area. This may remind readers that there is much contemporary law, especially the school taught Roman law, that relates to the relationship of men and women. Rich though this information undoubtedly is, I beg the reader not to expect me to search for all possible analogies derivable from the law of other places far and near. Not everything can be done at once ... 2 Les coutumes de Toulouse (1286) et leur premier commentaire (1296), ed. Henri Gilles, published in 1969, hereafter cited as Gilles, Coutumes. For this history, see pp. 7-23.

3 See, for example, ibid., p. 255, n. 1. * Tbid., pp. 23-39. This is the altogether reasonable conjecture of the learned editor. *® In ibid., pp. 55-57, the editor discusses the two kinds of illumination, conjecturing that both were executed by the same artist, but my uninstructed eyes inspire me with the near conviction that the latter sketches were added later by someone else. © Responsa doctorum Tholosanorum, ed E.M. Meijers (Haarlem, 1938), hereafter Meijers, Responsa.

” Ibid., gq. 39, p. 85.

SPECIAL DOCUMENTS, INQUESTS AND TRIALS 19 F. SPECIAL DOCUMENTS, INQUESTS AND TRIALS

As the reader will shortly see, this study begins with an investigation of the social and economic power of the sexes. Material treating women as actors in economic life is very thin. Such as they are, however, the documents on this subject have long since been available. The most important of these are the guild statutes of around 1300 published by another of Austin Evans’ students, Sister Mary Ambrose Mulholland, pvm, who later supplemented these by an article publishing the earliest extant statute, one on clothmaking

dated 1227.* To this may be added a lengthy document containing the protests of Toulouse’s parishioners against what they claimed were the exactions of the parish clergy, a series of “gravamina” sent to the count of Toulouse, Alphonse of Poitiers, sometime after a date in June 1251 and sometime before June 1255.” Although not intending to, the protests clearly sketch the position of women and some of their economic activities. Intensely private, the varieties of sexual expression and feelings in Tou-

louse and its region are also difficult to uncover. Except in regard to concubinage and natural children, archival documents and legal texts are of modest use. Obviously everything depends on the sources, and there are lamentably few. Some information may be gleaned from literature, especially poetry, but there is relatively little and its pertinence is not always apparent. 8 Sister Mary Ambrose Mulholland, pvm, “Statutes on Clothmaking: Toulouse, 1227,” Essays in Medieval Life and Thought presented in Honor of Austin Patterson Evans, eds. John Hine Mundy, Richard Wilder Emery and Benjamin N. Nelson (New York, 1955, rpt 1965), pp. 167-180, and her Early Gild Records of Toulouse (New York, 1941).

8 Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, 5 vols. (Paris, 1863-1909), 2: 306ff., No. 2428. Alexandre Teulet, the editor of the document fully published there, PAN J 318 78, proposed a date in the mid 1230s. This is not so. The testimony could not have been collected until after Alphonse of Poitiers’ visit to this region, going from Toulouse through Moissac (where he apparently met Raymond of Falgar, bishop of Toulouse) to the north in May and June

1251, his only such visit. On this trip, see Pierre-Fr. Fournier and Pascal Guébin, eds., Enquéites administratives d Alphonse de Poitiers. Arréts de son parlement tenu a Toulouse et textes annexes (Paris, 1959), p. xix. This is known because, on p. 308b, the Layettes document states that, when a person was excommunicated because he refused to give “primicia de lino,

et ipse fuisset conquestus domino comiti apud Moysiacum de dicta excommunicatione, dominus comes posuit cum domino episcopo Tholosano quod dicta primicia non daretur de lino nec de aliis nisi sicut data erat usque ad mortem domini R. quondam comitis Tholosani [d. 1249].” Nor could the witnesses have testified after June 1255 because at that time a new comital law responded to the parishioners’ “gravamina” against the legislation on testaments

and intestacy issued by Alphonse’s predecessor Raymond vil amplifying the teaching of Cardinal Roman in the Council of Toulouse in 1229. See Fournier and Guebin, eds., Enquétes administratives d‘Alphonse de Poitiers, p. 77, No. 12, ca. June 1255: “Item super testamentis

condendis serventur jura et consuetudo Tholosana, qua a jure non discrepat hac parte, non obstante constitutione domini Romani cardinalis, legati condam in partibus Tholosanis, que erat quod non valerent testamenta condita sine presentia capellani parochialis.”

20 INTENTIONS AND SOURCES Testimony recorded by the inquisitors 1s more to the point, and has been less explored. Some of this is already published, notably the inquisition conducted by the celebrated Jacques Fournier, bishop of Pamiers, about heresy and much else in Pamiers, Montaillou and other neighboring villages from 1294 to 1324.*° The wealth of this material has been sketched by Le Roy Ladurie.*! Of less use, but still some, are the recently published depositions collected from the county of Foix in 1308-1309 by Geoffrey d’Ablis.” In addition, I have run through earlier records of the inquisitors to spot references to sexual

mores and the life of the affections. The most important of these is the testimony of the witnesses brought before the Inquisition in the area south and east of Toulouse, especially in the Lauragais, mostly in 1245-1246 but extending to 1258.*° Although obviously limited by what the inquisitors were looking for, these sources are the only ones in which women speak almost as openly as men. To this familiar material may be added information from the monastery of Leézat just under 40 km south of Toulouse. This evidence refers not only to events at Lezat and Muret (17 or so km south of Toulouse), but also at the monastery’s outlying priories stretching from high in the Pyrenees on the way to Seo de Urgel in Catalonia all the way down to its hospital and priory at

Saint-Antonin hard against the southern wall of the town of Toulouse. Besides, the target of this testimony was a Toulousan churchman named Peter de Dalbs. He had been prior of the Daurade monastery in town from about 1230 to early 1238, and thereafter, starting surely by May of 1241, abbot of Lezat. A papal letter dated June 1253 initiated an investigation and trial of this prelate. The consequent inquisition collected testimony against Peter in three sessions, a brief one at Toulouse in December 1253, a lengthy one at Lezat in April 1254, and the last presumably at Toulouse in May of the same year, the results being written up in a sentence of the same month. The pope had empowered William de Bessencs, abbot of Moissac, to investigate charges against his rebellious subordinate, the Peter mentioned above, an active man who had led the fight of both the Daurade and Leézat to become independent from the Benedictines of Moissac.“

* See the three volumes of Jean Duvernoy’s edition of Le registre dinquisition de Jacques Fournier, 3 vols. (Toulouse, 1965). *! Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou, ville occitan de 1294 a 1324 (Paris, 1929). *2 See Annette Pales-Gobilliard’s L inguisiteur Geoffroy d’Ablis et les Cathares du Comté de

Foix: (1308-1309) (Paris, 1984). ‘9 TBM, MS 609 where the depositions were copied on the orders of the inquisitors William Bernard and Reginald of Chartres between 1258 and 1263. “ Appendix 4 below for this history.

SPECIAL DOCUMENTS, INQUESTS AND TRIALS 21

Six types of offenses were alleged against Peter: perjury, simony, dilapidation of monastic property, illegal use of the monastery’s seal, incontinence or fornication, and breach of the monastic rule. Thirty-six witnesses testified against him, 16 religious, a parish priest, other clergy and laity, including oblates, and one woman.* Since, as shall soon be seen, there were at least 42 monks at Lezat, William de Bessencs had not won over a majority of the

religious, but had enough to condemn Peter in a sentence rendered at Toulouse in May 1254. It is obvious that, because of the nature of the trial in which the witnesses testified, little can be said about guilt or innocence, but much about male attitudes concerning women and sex. Still more information may be gleaned from this monastery. The battle between Lézat and Moissac was not stilled in 1254, and was not to be until Lezat won its freedom in 1274. A later stage in this continuing combat is signaled by two undated rolls containing fragments of testimony given by four monks (out of how many who once gave testimony?) of that house reporting on 42 monks resident there. The visitation that elicited this evidence followed the deaths of Peter de Dalbs and his successor, Master Gerald, who, to follow

the Gallia Christiana, was abbot until 1265. Just under half of the monks seen at that time appear in one way or another in the inquisition of 1253 and 1254. Eight monks were also defamed of conspiracy against Peter de Dalbs and his successor, Master Gerald, additional evidence of the fact that this testimony derives from a period close to the events described above. The

depositions against the monks by their brethren will be explored in the appropriate place later in this book.*° In fine, although exiguous, some material on the relations of women and men, sexual and other, is available. Its limitation is that, although inquisitorial records are almost unique in that women speak directly to the inquisitor and therefore to the reader, the investigation was not about what they could have said about their relationship with others of their sex or men. Women were the silent sex in this age of human history and, to find out about them, one has to peer through the eyes of men, themselves not always capable of seeing the truth. The Balzacian wonders of the trial of the abbot of Lezat will illustrate the limitations and usefulness of evidence given by males about women. ** The testimony from MADTG, G 722 bis is described in Appendix 4 below. There, since the document is a roll without pagination, the 36 witnesses have been numbered and will be referred to by their numbers in this book. © For this, see Appendix 5 below, where the witnessing monks have been alphabetized and numbered.

society A. PUBLIC OFFICE AND LAW

Women in Toulouse and its region busied themselves in almost every human activity. They alone bore the children. They shared in maintaining households and were active in farming, industry and commerce. In spite of this, women were commonly subordinated, being excluded from public office, save hereditary and occasionally religious office (as abbesses). They were also

reduced to a secondary place in law. This observation may be open to question. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, women of princely stature in the Spanish marches and maritime Languedoc undoubtedly pleaded their cases in court and, either with living spouses or without, served as judges at trials.! Given the similarity of so many institutions in these regions and the Toulousain, it is likely that things were similar there. Since so active a role was rarely (or never) accorded women in the later times treated in this study no matter what their social presidency, it is clear that even princesses were generally relegated to being passive litigants or, perhaps, to being somewhat decorative representatives of princely power. From the dawn of legal advocacy around 1200, women never acted in the courts unless under male direction or “patrocinium.””

With only one extant exception, also, women were never listed as witnesses to charters drawn by public notaries, once, that is, legal professionalism had become current’. This notable exception was the celebrated ' See HGL, 5: Nos. 171 (July 1013) a wife of the marquess of Narbonne in Béziers, 207 v (July 1036) a count, his wife and two sons hearing a case about the monastery of Grasse near Narbonne, and 419 (before 1105) the viscountess of Beziers and two assessors as judges, for example.

? For examples of women before the courts, see Appendix 1, Nos. 61 and 151. Note the phrase “allegari fecit” in the first and the role of Peter Sobaccus in the second. See also in Appendix 3, Sobaccus and Tonenquis, especially note 115 in the latter. 3 Older examples are not really the same. See HGL, 5: No. 315 (ca. March 1075) and Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Lézat, eds. Paul Ourliac and Anne-Marie Magnou, 2 vols. (Paris, 1984-1987), No. 619 (hereafter Ourliac and Magnou Cartulaire de Lézat), where a notable and his children gave a gift to the monastery of Lézat, completing the act by having inscribed after a “Signum” his name and those of his son and daughter “qui cartam istam scribere rogaverunt et manibus firmaverunt et firmare fecerunt.”

PUBLIC OFFICE AND LAW 23 Esclarmunda, sister of the count of Foix, widow of the lord of Isle-Jourdain, , who, when in residence in Pamiers, converted to divergent thought, either Cathar or Waldensian.* And even this exceptional woman, when intervening in a celebrated debate between the heretics and Catholics at Pamiers in 1207, was abruptly told by a monk to be quiet and look to her spinning.’ This sentiment derived, moreover, from what looked like good scriptural authority, Saint Paul.° The Custom of Toulouse limited women’s testimony in court

to cases involving crimes, injury, matrimony, majority and deflowering.’ Generally, however, their witness was not considered equal to that of males because, as the author of the commentary on the Custom of Toulouse put it using canon law, “a woman always gives varying and changeable testimony.”

In matters of injuries, their testimony was not as valuable as that of men, being admitted in value up to 10 shillings, whereas when a male voice was added to their witness, the settlement could go beyond that sum.’ The law may be exemplified by practice. It shall shortly be seen that, in the trial of Peter de Dalbs, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Lézat (about 40 km south of Toulouse), a witness against that prelate was a woman named Trioleta.'° The abbot had taken her at Saint-Ybars when she was a

* PBN, Doat 84, fol. 191v March 1198 records a settlement between the Cistercians of Boulbonne and Raymond Roger, count of Foix. Among the witnesses were the Archdeacon Mascaronus and Esclarmunda “soror comitis Fuxensis.”

> On this anecdote, see William of Puylaurens’ Chronica Magistri Guillelmi de Podio Laurentii, ed. Jean Duvernoy (Paris, 1976), p. 48: “Fuit et alia disputatio apud Apamiam, in qua soror Raymundi Rogerii comitis Fuxensis palam hereticos tuebatur; cui Frater Stephanus de Misericordia: ‘Ite, domina, filare colum vestram. Non interest vestra loqui in huiusmodi concione.’” The conjectures about the word “colum” hazarded by Duvernoy, the editor of this chronicle, seem unlikely to this reader and are designed to prove that she was a Cathar and not a Waldensian. Both Puylaurens and Peter de Vaux-de-Cernay’s Historia Albigensis, eds. Pascal Gueébin and Ernest Lyon, 3 vols. (Paris, 1926-1939) 1: 44 (Paragraph 48) mostly talk about Waldensians, saying that the count’s wife and one sister were Waldensians, but the latter source does say that one of his sisters “communes aliorum perfidorum hereses profitebatur.” Forty years later Berengar de Lavelanet in PBN, Doat 24, fols. 2-4 (April 1244 - published in

HGL, 8: 1150) reported that Esclarmunda hereticated into Catharism at Pamiers in a ceremony conducted by Guilabert de Castres in 1204 in the presence of her brother. On her see Jean-Marie Vidal’s article “Esclarmonde de Foix dans I’histoire et le roman,” Revue de Gascogne n.s. 11 (1911) 53-79.

° 1 Timothy 2 11-12: “Mulier in silentio discat cum omni subiectione. Docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum, sed esse in silentio.” ” Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 36.

® Ibid., p. 217. In the comment on Arts. Nos. 31-33, X. 5 40 10 is used if somewhat changed. The text reads: “Nam varium et mutabile testimonium semper femina producit.” This passage is alleged but quoted as “quia varium et mutabile cor femina producit.” > Tbid., Arts. Nos. 37 and 41.

10 MADIG, G 722 bis (October 1253 to May 1254). The evidence against the abbot is discussed in Appendix 4 below.

24 SOCIETY prisoner in his “tower,” and he had a relationship with her that took place at both Saint-Ybars and Leézat. Wholly unlike the often extended comments of male witnesses both clerical and lay, her testimony reads as follows: “A sworn witness, the woman Trioleta said that the said abbot had it with her

in the upper room at Saint-Ybars and elsewhere.”'' The judge and _ his assessors Clearly asked her to answer “yes” or “no,” allowing no further comments, and yet it would have helped the case against Peter had she been asked more. Truthfully or not, she might well have complained that she had been violently forced because, when imprisoned for an offence about which nothing is known, Abbot Peter, as lord of her community, profited from her unhappy state to ravish her.'* But who cared? For a woman of her class and history, “yes” or “no” were the only answers wanted. Perhaps the best evidence of women’s subordinate status in the law are the impediments it placed in the way of working women. Although Toulousan documents rarely give evidence of women working in crafts or trades and participating in business, legislation and law books state that they did. The first extant trade legislation is dated 1221 and mentions women as silk and leather workers, and as spinners.’* Six years later these magistrates issued general legislation on the cloth industries. Readers there learn that women were both entrepreneurs and also worked as dyers, spinners and weavers. '*

Later evidence in the trade and craft statutes running from 1270 to 1322 shows that women were busy as entrepreneurs, candle makers, dyers, finishers, spice merchants and mercers, spinners, wax merchants and weavers. The town Custom reinforces this picture, stating that women were mercers, tavern keepers, bakers and both workers and brokers in the leather and cloth industries.'’ It is nevertheless noticeable that the guardians elected by the guild members or by the consuls of the town to preside over these trade and craft organizations were always male, at least in terms of the gender of the Latin words describing them.'® In only one craft, that of the finishers in 1315. '' Tbid., Witness No. 28: “Trioleta mulier jurata testis dicit quod dictus abbas habuit rem cum ea in solario apud Sanctum Epercium et alibi.”

2 Ibid., No. 10. The witness, Raymond de Montealto, as will be seen below, was not impartial, having been fined heavily by the abbot because of his relationship with Trioleta. ‘3 Tam, AA 1, 90 (August 1221) where the consuls issued a “stabilimentum ut paratores nec sartores nec corraterii nec textores pannorum lini vel lane nec operarii nec operarie serici

nec filati ad operandum et ad tingendum aut ad torquendum sibi traditi, nec pelliarii nec pelliarie, qui supellectilia per villam deferunt ad vendendum, nec lavanderii nec filanderie lini vel lane pannos nec vestes nec sericum nec filata sibi tradita, non possint vendere vel pignori

rit Sister Mary Ambrose Mulholland, sv, “Statutes on Clothmaking: Toulouse, 1227,” pp. 167-180. The author publishes TAM, I] 63 (November 1227). 'S Gilles, Coutumes, Art No. 67. '© See Sister Mary Ambrose Mulholland, pvm, “Statutes on Clothmaking: Toulouse, 1227,”

PUBLIC OFFICE AND LAW 25 is a woman listed as a witness, not of the document itself, but of the terms of the contract within the craft.!’ The paragraph above noted in passing that women were also entrepreneurs. In the earliest statutes on the cloth industries, that of 1227, both men and women are so described. Those who provided the raw materials, etc., were called “domini vel domine,” and the artisans to whom they put out by means of a “collocatio” contract were to pick the wool etc. up at their houses and return it to weigh the product on the scales there.'* The same legislation provides that cloth manufacturers, male or female, “may keep weavers in their houses” under contract.'? Other evidence derives from that fruit of aggressive entrepreneurship, filthy lucre. It will be remembered that, during the thirteenth century, all testators were obligated by church law to restore usury. Usury was touched on when the parishioners’ “gravamina” were sent to the count of Toulouse, Alphonse of Poitiers, sometime in June 1251 to sometime before June 1255. The heirs of a woman named Bona complained that the parish priest of the Daurade had taken the 20 shillings “certa” restitution for usury she had promised and pocketed it.’? Of the 17 testaments known to me in which restitution was made, 15 were by men and two by women. The 15 males ranged all the way from country gentlemen - who offered restitution

for violence and not usury, but these “crimes” were not far apart in the countryside - and great patricians to far humbler persons, and, although the sample is very small, the two women showed a similar range.”

p. 179, Art. 25, and her Early Gild Records of Toulouse. as examples, see the statutes of the weavers, fullers and dyers (April 1279) p. 13, art. 35; wax merchants p. 107 (December 1277), art. 7; merchants and shopkeepers of ginger, pepper, cumin, etc. p. 109, art. 4; candle makers (October 1280) p. 120, art. 6. '7 Tbid., pp. 146-147 where, among the 14 “retonditores” there is a “Sibilia, uxor Poncii Retonditoris maioris dicti.”

'8 Mulholland, “Statutes on Clothmaking: Toulouse, 1227,” p. 136, Art. 13. ? Tbid., p. 175, Art. 12: “in domibus suis possint habere et tenere textores.” 0 Layettes du Trésor, p. 307b: “Item, cum quedam domina nomine Bona usuras resepiscet [!] de Arnaldo W. Botano et de Bernardo de Castellano et de W. Geraldo de Crivinerio usque ad summam .xx. solidorum et amplius, et Bernardus Vitalis pro ipsa domina Bona promisisset

et fidejussisset dictam usuram persolvere, et illud gratis postmodum vellet facere, dictus capellanus dictos denarios accepit et postea illos nec aliquid ex eis reddidit nec reddere voluit.”

21 The women are in Malta 9 150 (March 1232 copied in 1257), Willelma, wife of the modest Adam de Villa, and Grandselve i3 (July 1282), Marcibilia, sister of Matheva Sobacca, a woman probably married into the patrician Astro clan. See Appendix 3, Astro and Sobaccus.

The men are in Appendix I, Nos. 48 (wealthy minter), 63 (rural gentleman), 71, 89, 108, 123, 125 (all five patricians), 129 (rural baron’s reparation for violence), 132 (patrician), 159 (modest towndweller), 180 (craftsman), 187 (rich notary) and 188 (patrician) and also E 973 xi (April 1191 copied in 1204), testator’s social class not discernible, and MADTG, A 297, fol. 877v (May 1277), a patrician.

26 SOCIETY They were there then, but it is also easy to see that women in business and crafts were discriminated against by the Custom of Toulouse. The testimony

not only of one, but even of two women was not received in matters concerning debts, testaments, deposits and other contracts.” Such impediments meant that women were able to conduct business only by paying an emotional or monetary price to the men who assisted them. Further evidence of this discrimination is to be seen in the disposition of the acquisitions made by wife and man during a marriage. This did not affect the rich who often had paraphernal goods (those outside of marital unions),

but it meant everything to the humble. The Custom provided that such acquisitions escaped the wife, and went to the male or his heirs.*? Express provisions abrogating that rule, however, are found in the instruments. A weaver and his wife in 1190 bought a vineyard and a house in equal shares." In 1234 a leather worker (“pelliparius”) expressly remitted to his spouse half of their joint acquisitions.” In 1189 a woman sued her stepfather (a “joculator” or entertainer) for half of a property he and his deceased wife had acquired together. The matter was complex and the settlement is not pertinent here, but the suit shows that the consuls sometimes defended the right of a wife to bequeath property acquired

during marriage. A case about the inheritance of the intestate baker Raymond Bascol who died in battle when young proved again that the consuls admitted a widow's right to acquisitions made together with a husband. Although insufficiently, the record also gives an idea of the dimensions of such gains because the baker’s widow was awarded 230 shillings for her marital portion and 170 for her half of the profits, a sum that had been lessened by awards to other claimants amounting to at least 150 shillings.*’ What all this surely means is that a working wife would be wise to have a statement about her claim to the profits gained during marriage inserted into a notary’s public document. Looking at the arrangements that allowed or favored this divergence from the customary norm in regard to women, one notes that, as stated above, they were particularly apposite for the middling and lower ranges of society where woman’s labor was most

22 Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 33 and 39.

3 Ibid., Art No. 87 expressly states that “quicquid habet uxor vel acquirit constante matrimonio dicitur et intelligitur esse mariti ipsius uxoris, exceptis parafernalibus.”

4 See the act of November 1190 in Appendix 1, No. 57. > Tbid., No. 120. 76 Ibid., No. 16. They here followed Gilles, Coutumes, Art No. 92, a somewhat confused provision according a widower the right to hold his wife’s half of a house acquired together during her life for the duration of his life, after which the property was to revert to her heirs. 7 Appendix 1, No. 61.

THE FAMILY 27 valued and needed, and that it was “customary” on those social levels.”* In

the one separation of a wife and husband recorded in the documents calendared here, the wife was granted a share of the pair’s past acquisitions and also the right to keep all she may gain in the future.” These examples naturally do not mean that women were not protected by the law. They were. As elsewhere, citizenship at Toulouse was twofold, protective and active. Adult males had both, but women only the former. As in Italy at this time, Toulousan women kept their town citizenship even when they married foreigners, including rural lords.*° Here in the legal sphere and also, as shall be seen, in the marital one, the protections were not meaningless in spite of concubinage and other relationships. Women, for example, were protected against public insult. A case was entertained in the consul’s court in 1287 in which a young woman of the Bourg of Toulouse, Guillelma, wife of the merchant Raymond Guillelmus, sued an almost equally youthful

weaver named Bernard de Marcello for insulting her on the street.”! Guillelma was no lamb: she charged in court that her adversary “had thrown his wife out because he said she wanted to poison (or hex) him.”*” Nor was her company always elevated. Her enemy called her witness, a tavernkeeper, a habitual drunkard who would say anything for a penny.*? Whatever the truth, Willelma asserted that the defendant called her a “beggarly stinking liar

of no birth,” adding that “he was sorry he had not rolled her in muck.”* Whether or not she won her case, Guillelma was certainly given a hearing. B. THE FAMILY

A further sign of womens’ subordination to their men or their families are the names they were given or took. A wife usually adopted her husband’s

surname or, if he lacked such, his craft or trade title.°° Even apparent 8 Ibid., Nos. 9, 16, 30, 61 and 120. > Tbid., No. 9. 3° See the lists of the inheritances amnestied in 1279 in my Repression of Catharism where No. 185 is Mabriana, widow of the lord of Saint-Loup-Cammas in the gardiage of Toulouse, No. 216, Austorga de Resenquis, wife of an officer of the count, and No. 243, Assaut, the wife of a lord of Lanta. 3! tam, II 92 (November 1287) partly published in Henri Gilles “Une cause d’injure a la fin du X]IJe siecle,” Annales de la faculté de droit a Toulouse 17 (1969) 121-144. * Tbid., p. 143, No. III: “quia eam expulit de domo sua et denonciavit contra ipsam quod ipsa volebat faycilhare eum.” 3 Tbid., p. 144, No. V. ** Tbid., p. 143, No. ITI: “mendiga, pudenta, malvada, venguda de nore, et quod multum penitebat se quia non voludaverat eam in fangasio.” > Examples are legion, so much so that it seems likely that the Bernarda Cordonaria whose widower Bernard Faber is seen in E 538 (September 1212) was probably not a leather worker,

28 SOCIETY exceptions usually prove the rule advanced above. Mas-Saintes-Puelles (near

Castelnaudary 55 km south of Toulouse) boasted the house of a Willelma Companha, whose mother was named Aymengarda Companha. Another reference in the same inquisitorial register describes this concubine of Arnold Maiestre as “Willelma ... filia qaondam d’en Companh.”** An unmarried or husbandless woman, in short, could carry her mother’s married name, but the reader is invited to realize that that name is really her father’s. In fact, as was normal in Italy, women who used second names almost always carried

those of their male parents.*’ Wives of distinguished lines, for example, sometimes retained their family names, their fathers’ identifying surnames, that is.*® Sometimes the father’s name seemed so useful for identification that

even a modest widow preferred to use it instead of her husband’s.” The principle is, consequently, that of subordination to the family, the family of their husbands or fathers. So tightly identified were women with their families that they were often

addressed in documents only by first name. A glance at the documents calendared in the appendices of this book will show that men were usually designated by first and second names; wives or daughters by first name only. With notable exceptions, women of good family, for example, and especially striking women, the same is to be observed in the testimony rendered against Peter de Dalbs.“° As is to be anticipated, moreover, the family itself was something of a male

entity. If testators mentioned daughters and sons individually, the wills usually described the group of heirs, male and female, as “filii” or “fratres.”*! but instead a woman whose first husband had been a “cordonarius.” Another example of this

habit is in Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 143v (December !200) and fol. 153v (February 1205) where a widow named Petrona Vitalia and her sons William and Peter Vitalis, the sons being clearly named after their deceased father, paid a rent. 36 TBM, MS 609, fols. 2v and Sr (May and June 1245).

7 See, for example, the Petrona Taixona and her husband Pons Rubeus in Malta 15 86 (July 1181). 38 See Bernarda Barrava and her husband William Dominicus in Malta 7 56 ii (November 1207 copied in 1245). 39 Petrona de Tonenquis recorded in Appendix 3, Tonenquis below, and Petrona Barbadella widow of Arnold de Leuzino who acted together with her brother William Raymond Barbadellus in Saint-Sernin Canonesses 34 i (May 1251). A similar case is to be seen in the testimony taken at Lézat in 1254, in MaDTG, G 722 bis Nos. 6, 13 and 17 where one sees a Petrona de Caisaco, daughter of Michael de Caisaco and wife of William Johannes. “ Among the exceptions are Fabrissa de Turri in Appendix 4, Witnesses Nos. 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 26, and Sibilia de Falgar in No. 6. Also see Ricarda de Maornaco below.

‘! An example of this use is seen in Appendix 1, No. 189 where two male children and a female one are called “fratres.” This did not depend on social class. MADTG, A 297, fol. 79 Ir

(November 1283) describes a similar group, children of the wealthy Jordan de Castronovo as “filii,” Appendix 1, No. 52 calls the brother and sister who were heirs of the modest Pons

THE FAMILY 29 The same preference for males was also reflected when determining the status of the children issuing from marriages of free and servile parents. A male serf married to a freewomen produced serfs, and viceversa.*” Most significant is that, although brothers were gratified with real property in parental testaments, sisters were given money instead. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, this practice was not yet as universal as it was later to

be. Although he often resided in town, Jordan, lord of Isle-Jourdain in Gascony west of Toulouse, inserted several sentences in his testament of 1200 designed to limit the number of heirs to his seigniories and properties. With the express consent of his lord, Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, there present at the rendering of the will, and in the presence of other magnates including the count of Foix, the baron proposed that “if there is a legitimate male son, no woman or daughter will ever again have any portion of the said heredity, but instead the said daughters will be married with money.”” One wonders why this change came about. Two points of view about the

exclusion of women, those of Ms Hughes and Mr Goody, have been ventilated in Chapter One above, but another was not there considered. It

is this: the change may simply have reflected the growth of a money economy. In the past, wealthy princes in the Midi gave real property or things

other than cash to apportion their daughters.** Later on, money became increasingly normal.* A curious example may be seen in the mid-twelfth century will of Raymond Trencavel, viscount of Béziers. Imprisoned at Toulouse, this unhappy prince endowed a daughter for matrimony with 20,000 shillings of Melgueil, a toll at Montpellier “and a Jew and a man with

his tenement at Beziers.”** Whether brides were being advantaged or deprived, moreover, cannot be asserted because, given the fragmentary evidence extant, the relative value of money, real property and seigniorial right cannot be evaluated. Martinus “filii,” and No. 151 where a group of half-brothers and half-sisters are called “fratres uterini.”

* Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 154. 3 Appendix 1, No. 31. “ See HGL, 5: No. 207 vi (August 1036) concerning Bearn, No. 389 (June 1095) about

Raymond of Saint-Gilles of Toulouse and No. 422 ii (December 1105) involving the viscomital line of Beziers, for example, all transferring much real property. Equally indicative is No. 356 (dated 1083) where a count of Provence owed a viscount of Nmmes and Béziers

“5000 solidatae” for a dowry to be paid in five years, 40 percent in cash, 40 in horses and mules and 20 in cattle. ** Tbid., 5: No. 472 (dated 1120) where a lord of Montpellier married a daughter with a cash settlement. In No. 474 (dated 1121) the testament of this lord proposed a similar action.

46 Ibid., 5: No. 599 (April 1154). After the money (10,000 shillings of Toulouse), he assigned her: “et illam garnitam [trousseau] et ad Beders unum Judaeum et unum hominem cum sua tenentia ubi hospitetur et meam lezdam quam ego capio ad Montempessulanum.”

30 SOCIETY Whatever the case, once money was widely introduced, it was an obviously convenient way to handle the problem. If a young woman’s dowry was the equivalent of an inheritance given a youthful male heir by a family, parents not infrequently allocated money for this purpose rather than real property. This is especially to be seen in cases where daughters are known to have had other living siblings, especially male. The source of this money was sometimes specified as the debts owed a head of family.*’ Even when very rich women inherited not inconsiderable amounts of real property, one guesses that much of the parental inheritance must have gone elsewhere because of the quantity of “pignora” or mortgages in their “portfolios.”“® One testator provided that his son was to be his heir, but that, were his pregnant wife to

give birth to another child of the same sex, he was also to share the inheritance. Did she give birth to a girl, however, the latter was to receive an ample dowry of 1500 shillings but no share of the estate.”

These remarks should not be taken to mean, however, that women disposed of no real property in the period being discussed. Sometimes, indeed, a very rich woman brought much landed wealth to her marriage. An

example, one of several, is the dowry given by the lord of Verfeil to his daughter Sicarda in her two unions, one to a rural lord in 1197 and the other

to a Toulousan knightly notable and moneylender in 1211.°° On a more modest class level, however, a house or apartment, a half arpent or so of vineyard or arable, a small bit of rent helped round out a dowry, even one of very humble persons. The reasons why real property continued to bulk so

large in dowries are not hard to find, and two of these are especially significant. Many daughters lacked male siblings and were, in effect, at least partial heirs to parental property. Not a few marriages, as shall be seen, were second unions, and widows often brought a house or some other goods from their earlier liaisons. These and other reasons caused just under 60 percent of the marital contracts listed in Appendix 1 to contain some real property.”! In whatever form, money or property, the dowry was granted, the tradition that, once dowered, a woman was to be considered emancipated was neatly

expressed in the Custom of the town.” The difficulty was, of course, that, ‘7 See, for the endowment of daughters, Appendix 1, Nos. 2, 5, 31, 73 (a quarter arpent each to his daughters, but the bulk went to the sons), 78, 86, 89, 124, 174 (each daughter received a house, but the sons were the heirs) and 190. * Tbid., No. 15. ” Ibid., No. 124. °° Tbid., Nos. 24 and 56. 5! TIbid., Nos. 11, 21, 24, 27, 37-38, 41, 44-45, 49-50, 62, 64-65, 68, 79, 85, 87, 90, 92, 95-96, 98-101, 112, 125-127, 132, 135, 138, 153, 164, 166 and 183. 2 Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 122. “... filia dotata a patre habetur pro emancipata.” For ancient and medieval law on this point, see Paul Ourliac and J. de Malafosse, Histoire du droit

THE FAMILY 31 although the action embodied no desire to harm a daughter — it was “bona mente” as the lawyers said — a dowered woman was deprived of any further claim on family property (unless her father died intestate, at which time her right revived).°* The idea that a dowered woman had received her inheritance and had no further claim on a family’s estate is rarely seen expressed in the documents, but it was in everybody’s minds. The proposal by the lord of Isle-

Jourdain in 1200 that daughters were to be dowered, “bought out,” one might almost say, was applied with vigor. When his successor, Bernard Jordan of Isle-Jourdain, drew his testament in February 1237, he willed his town and seigniory to his brother Jordan, and “instituted [his only child Alpais] in her right of inheritance and apportionment” with a dowry of 2500 shillings of Toulouse. This had nothing to do with seigniory because all Toulousans used the same system. In 1297 a townsman of some means willed

his property to two sons. Earlier in the charter he had given two of his daughters their dowries and trousseaus, stating that they were the expression of their “right of hereditary institution and apportionment.”» As is usually the case, the same point was made in an even more forthright manner in a later “responsum” of the university’s professors: as long as a woman was dowered, she had no claim to a parental inheritance if her parent had stiplulated another heir.*° In brief, daughters who had male siblings were endowed for wedlock but were thereby “disinherited,” to use far too strong a word.”’

One may argue, however, that the same applied on occasion to males. Although the “disinheritance” of dowered daughters was very widely spread, reaching from Adriatic Italy to the Bordelais on the Atlantic, for example, married sons were also sometimes similarly treated, as is seen in the custom of Montpellier of 1204 and the related customal of Carcassonne.™ There is privé, 3 vols. (Paris, 1957-1968), 3: 165-166, 207-208 and 489. See also Laurent Mayali, Droit savant et coutumes. Lexclusion des filles dotées XIIeéme- XVeme siécles (Frankfurt am Main, 1982), especially pp. 22-32 and 55-62, including on p. 58 a quotation from the jurist Martinus (Gosia ?) stating “dos patrimonium filie est proprium.” *3 Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 127. See also Ourliac and Malafosse, Histoire du droit privé, 3: 326. ** Appendix 1, No. 129. > Tbid., No. 190. °® Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 19, p. 45: “Quidam miles, habens filium et filiam inpuberes, filie certam partem bonorum iure institutionis reliquit, filio autem universali heredi relicto, Titium fratrem dicti militis substituit: ‘si contingat filium meum mori sine liberis, substituto fratrem meum.’ ... Credo dicendum ... quod dictus substitutus iure pupillaris substitutionis petere valeat bona predicta, non obstante, quod soror dicti impuberis adhuc vivat.” *” For the general context, see Ourliac and Malafosse, Histoire du droit privé, 3: 223 and 489. *§ Jean Yver, Egalité entre héritiers et exclusion des enfants dotés: Essai de géographie coutumieére (Paris, 1966), pp. 25-26.

32 SOCIETY even a suspicion of this exclusion to be found in the Custom of Toulouse of

1283 where an article, refused by the crown, stated that an heir, male or female, may be dismissed with a parental gift of five shillings in lieu, to use

non-legal language, of a share in the inheritance. The text is unclear, however, because the formulators said that the five shilling exclusion could apply to “unemancipated sons and/or those given an inheritance for reason of marriage.”°’ Although then this may have also affected males, one imagi-

nes that, since the matter is directly stated in the charters only anent daughters, they were far more religiously excluded than were their brothers.”

To return again to women, however, proof of the effectiveness of this quasi-exclusion is that female children are underrepresented in the testaments

found in the archives.°’ This was surely because, as stated above, when dowered, a woman had no further claim on the parental estate. Although married daughters were often mentioned in their fathers’ testaments, they were sometimes expressly excluded. Married in 1221, Ramunda, the best endowed (ca. 3000 shillings for her “dos”) of the three daughters of Hugh Johannes, onetime vicar of Toulouse and son of a wealthy armorer, is not mentioned in her father’s will of 1235 at all. She was alive and flourishing at that time and needed no further endowment because she was married to Bernard de Miramonte, perhaps the town’s wealthiest burgher. So elevated

had her union been that she had brought a dowry in real property, the extensive property or farm of Cépet. Typically, however, in January 1238, soon after her husband’s testament of August 1237, she settled with her brothers, being paid off in cash and returning Cépet to them.” Unless daughters were the only children, then, the ideal was to keep real property or, in the case of artisans, etc., basic means of production and tools in the hands of the males who bore the family name.°? Although daughters *? Gilles, Coutumes, Art No. 123d: “Et hoc dicimus et intelleximus de filiis non emancipatis vel heredatis ratione matrimonii et de filiabus legitimis per patres non maritatis.” Yver, Egalité entre héritiers et exclusion des enfants dotés, p. 35, is sure that males were excluded, but Mayali, Droit savant et coutumes. L exclusion des filles dotées, p. 63, is equally sure they

are not. The latter argues that the law really refers to sons who married without parental consent. There is not enough evidence to decide between the positions. °° No assertion here is made pertinaciously. The thin juristic material available for this period fails to rule out the possibility that something like the Roman “collatio emancipati” applied: having subtracted the marital portion from his or her share, a potential heir could collect the balance of an inheritance. *! The children listed in the testaments contained in Appendix 1 are 55 females, 64 males and 7 pregnant children. Of the natural children mentioned in Nos. 128, 141, 165 and 188, three or perhaps four were males and one female. ® Tbid., Nos. 93, 123, 132 and 134. °? Examples of daughters who were only children designated as heirs are Ibid., Nos. 13, 23, 28, 94, 108, 109, 155, 157, 165, 173, 178 and in Malta 1 110 i (August 1214 copied in 1225). Several of these involved pairs of daughters.

THE FAMILY 33 without male siblings were usually heirs of their parents, also, they were not always treated as fully equal members of a family community. In one case, there was an apparently good reason for this, namely the need to bring up a minor. In a testament of 1242 a tradesman father assigned his only child, a minor daughter, to be raised not by her mother, but instead by an aunt and uncle until her majority. At that time, the child was to share her inheritance

with them.” In another, it seems that a father did not think his daughter altogether capable of standing on her own two feet. In 1234 a widower of middling wealth left his house to his only child, a daughter, and the rest of his means to her and her husband jointly.® Again, although widows were not infrequently heirs of their husbands, especially when the pair had had no children, they usually had to share the inheritance with the husband’s relatives or charities. In the theory and law of the late thirteenth century, the succession of a deceased male was, first, his children and family, and, second, his widow.°’ There is also little doubt that

the easy earlier law on this point was becoming more rigid in regard to women in the later thirteenth century. The reader will permit me, however,

to remand the discussion of the economic endowment of widows to an extended examination of economics and social controls in regard to marriage in Chapter Five below. A final and especially indicative example of the superiority of the family over anyone of its members, especially its women, was the disposition of the family house. It went to the males who bore the name. Women could live

there, of course, and testators often allowed their widows and widowed mothers residence rights until death.°® They even sometimes provided for the

maintenance of their widows by a male heir.” All the same, testators gave

preference to males when disposing their houses, and the exclusion of women was normal. In his will of 1237, Bernard de Miramonte allowed male nephews and cousins to live in his ample house in the Portaria until his only daughter had produced a male heir. At that point, the house became hers or,

rather, her son’s.’° To this may be added the grant by testators to mothers

*¢ Appendix 1, No. 139. °° [bid., No. 118. °° Childless widows sharing inheritances (unless otherwise specified) in ibid., Nos. 3, 19, 39, 58, 75 (excluded) 88 (sole heir), 107 (sole heir) 117, 156 (sole heir with two married daughters), 162, 180, 184 (partly in usufruct), 187 (as No. 184). °” Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 9, p. 19. 6 Examples are Appendix 1, Nos. 38, 73 (as long as she remains unmarried), 108, 141, 159 (for a non-wife), 161, 162, 188 and 190. °° Tbid., No. 33. ” Tbid., No. 132.

34 SOCIETY or wives of lifetime residence in the family house, proof that, however frequently, women were there by sufferance.”! A result of all this (although the reader will see significant mitigations in Chapter Five) was that women were poorer than men. Tax information from

the Bourg of Toulouse in 1335 states that widows and female heads of household had much less wealth than male ones.” This condition surely obtained in the period dealt with here. One forever stumbles over other evidence of the relative poverty of women. In his testament of 1235, the rich

and distinguished Hugh Johannes, onetime vicar of Toulouse, wanted to reduce the number of heirs to his estate. A son was therefore given 300 shillings to become a canon of Saint-Sernin and a daughter 200 to enter a nunnery, although 1000 was allowed her if his executors wanted to marry

her.’ Clinching evidence of the relative poverty of women is shown by the simple fact that there are extant many more testaments drawn by males than by women.”* This was not because women did not make these instruments or express their last wishes. Both sexes were obligated to draw testaments by both church and state. Ecclesiastical authority on this point applied with special vigor at Toulouse because, in a council celebrated in that town in 1229, the legate Roman issued a celebrated canon about testaments in which the conciliar fathers ordered that a parish priest or other ecclesiastic must to be present at the instrumenting or deposition.’’ This regulation was quickly reinforced by Count Raymond VII whose law was designed to certify the orthodoxy of testators and to check up on the rapid implementation of their generosity to pious causes.’° Although neither law expressly mentions their sex, women are known to have come under their provisions, just as men did. Several cases adduced by the citizenry of the town as proof of the tyranny of the parish priests from June 1251 to June 1255 concerned women. In these " Tbid., Nos. 108 and 188. Males were also sometimes given residence rights, but the only example in my collection is ibid., No. 73 where a business partner served as head of household

until the majority of the testator’s sons. 2 Wolff, Estimes, pp. 128ff publishes tax lists in which women were 8.7% of the heads of household, and their wealth was estimated at 6.3% of the total.

Appendix 1, No. 123. Of the 82 testaments and similar documents listed in Appendix | below, 76 emanated from males.

> Canon 16 published in Giovanni Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio ..., 53 vols. (Florence, Venice and Paris, 1759-1927), 23: 198. "© Guillaume Catel, Histoire des Comtes de Tolose, avec quelques traitez et chroniques anciennes, concernans la mesme histoire (Toulouse, 1623), pp. 352-353: “ut ... sacerdos ...

valeat de ipso testatore laudabile testimonium perhibere, et ne de ipso testatore aliqua infidelitatis suspicio possit haberi, et maxime ut ea quae in pias causas reliquerit, fidelius et citius solvantur sine fraude.”

THE FAMILY 35 protests, it is reported that a rector refused to bury an intestate woman until her friends gave a substantial sum to pious purposes, and then compounded

the offense by insisting that he handle the charity.” A second complaint refers to a husband of very modest means who had tried to prevent his wife from drawing a testament on the grounds that she had nothing to give. The rector or “capellanus,” as they said in Toulouse at that time, made him cough up five shillings for pious causes.’”* Parenthetically, it is worth noting that the complaints of the parishioners were directed against what seem to have been perfectly legal acts by the parish clergy or “capellani,” at least, according to the legislation and enforcement mechanisms provided by the count and the council in 1229. Nevertheless, the severity of the law and of the possible abuses by parish priests was soon mitigated by an enactment of Alphonse of Poitiers, count of Toulouse, in or around June 1255.”

What caused the underrepresentation of women in the testaments was simply the fact that more men gave real property to the church than did women and, consequently, given the nature of available documentation, more of their wills than those of their sisters or wives were housed in ecclesiastical archives. That wives were relatively poorer than their spouses is also to be

seen in the testaments. In a will of 1243, a butcher’s widow paid off her husband’s testamentary charities of 50 shillings and then went on to donate 15 for her own.*® Things were not always like this, but were usually so. An

exception is to be seen earlier, in a marital contract of 1202. There, the Spouses agreed that, if either predeceased the other, both would have the same amount for gifts, namely 30 shillings.®’ Perhaps love momentarily softened a male heart, but it seems more likely that this contract emanated from artisans, among which group, female labor and the sharing of joint acquisitions, as has been seen above, were significant. Along with poverty went lack of power. The royal amnesty of heretical inheritances in 1279 illustrates another side of this subordination. In these " Layettes du Trésor, 2: 309a: “Item cum Ramunda de Ulmo intestata decesserit, dictus capellanus W. de Tauro noluit ipsam sepelire donec amici dicte Ramunde mandaverunt dicto

capellano quod darent |. sol. Tol. pro anima ejus ptis locis. Quos .1. sol. dictus capellanus noluit quod darentur ab amicis, immo obstat; sed, quod pejus est, dictos amicos compellit ut ei illos dent et tradant tanquam suos.” 8 Tbid., 2: 309a: “... quod idem magister R{aimundus de Ferrariis] habuit et extorsit indebite et iniuste de R. W. Barba .v. sol. Morl. pro eo quod uxor sua Geralda decesserat intestata; et quia dictus R. W. noluit pro ea, ad instanciam dicti capellani, facere testamentum, licet ipse ostenderet quod ipsa nichil haberet unde posset facere testamentum, et dictus R. W. iterum vellet contrahere cum alia, noluit dictus capellanus illam dare ei quousque predictos .v. sol. ei tradidit et persolvit ratione instantie dicti testamenti.”

” See the discussion in Chapter 1, pp. 19, n. 39 above. ®° Appendix 1, No. 145. ®! Tbid., No. 38.

36 SOCIETY condemnations most of which predate 1240, women were just over a quarter of the whole sample. They were also listed there principally as wives, sisters, and mothers of males, and were often not even named. Of the 73 women,

about 20 percent were not named, but merely referred to in terms of their relationship to men; of the 205 men, only two were so treated. Parenthetically, the same is sometimes true in private documents. A charter dated 1174 wherein a son was given his inheritance by a living father records the consent of his brother and that of his three sisters. Although the brother was named, the sisters were not.®” To return to the amnesty of 1279, its composition also shows that the inquisitors had gone after the men first, clearly convinced that they were bigger game in spite of the fact that the women were on average of better social class.®? C. PRACTICAL EQUALITIES?

Women’s subordination to men, however, should not be overstated. A point that was not mentioned when talking about names in the previous section of this chapter is that not a few men were named after women, a fact that speaks volumes about the importance of mothers to their sons. A few cases may

illustrate the custom. In 1234 and 1237 the two brothers Bernard and Raymond de Podio appear. They were both once called “de Podio de Boysazo” and one of the brothers was also named Raymond de Boissazone.** Such names easily evolved into a family surnames. Thus in 1196, a “Ramundus Willelmus de Laura” was earlier described in 1178 as a son of Laura, and there is one modestly prominent family graced by several public notaries and lawyers named “de Rayna,” “Raina” or “naRayna.”® Evidence from the countryside indicates that there may be another side to this. Not a few servile persons were designated by their mothers’ names - an

echo perhaps of onetime uterine succession or origin. In 1230, a group at Colomiers (a few km to the west of Toulouse) has no less than three of seven serfs so identified.®° Can one therefore conclude that such names exuded an 82 Ibid., No. 8. 83 This material abbreviates and repeats the discussion in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 53 and 83-86. 8* Appendix 1, No. 119. 85 Grandselve 3 i (August 1196) Raymond William de Laura as a witness, also in ibid., ii (February 1178) as the son of Laura. See also Grandselve 9 (September 1255) for Sanche de naProvincia. For the Rayna or Raina, see Appendix 3, Raina. Another possible instance

is the Arnold de naRica seen in the Guido family history published in my Repression of Catharism, p. 226, whose other name may have been Arnold Guido. 86 tam, II (January 1230), all using the apheresis “na” for “domina,” as in Vital de naDepertz.

PRACTICAL EQUALITIES ? 37 air of servility? Perhaps, but the Raina family mentioned above shows that, although he might suspect it, a contemporary could not count on it. One is better advised to believe that strong matriarchs sometimes gave their names to families they “founded.” Still, names of this kind were very rare, those based on a female name being far rarer than those on a male one.®’ Another reflection of a measure of equality is that women were often addressed as “domina” or “na” (the apheresis) so-and-so. In the suit against Abbot Peter de Dalbs and the later investigation of the behaviour of the 42 monks of Lezat, most women were referred to by the witnesses simply by their names, especially first names. Others, however, were carefully called “domina,” once in the case of a noblewoman and once for a reason that escapes me.** Documents were rather more formal. Excepting women listed in testaments, individuals sufficiently identified as “uxor mea,” etc., a woman of any social level acting in a charter was normally described as “domina,” “domina Matheva,” for example, or “naMatheuz.”®’ Such was not the case with men. With the exception of prelates, choirmonks, princes, knights and occasional other weighty persons, a man was not introduced as “dominus.” The documents leave the impression, moreover, that “na,” the apheresis of “domina,” must have been customarily prefixed to the name of an adult or married women even in ordinary speech.” Although, like respectfully doffing one’s hat in order to take women under one’s wing, this usage also surely reflects masculine recognition of the attraction of young women, of a woman’s role in creating and nurturing the family, and the weight of a long-lived older woman directing a family during her widowhood. In 1228 Bernard Jordan, baron of Isle-Jourdain, made his pregnant widow an executor of his estate and put her in charge of the two

sons she had already borne him, stipulating that she was to be head of household and estate (“domina et potens”) until their majority.’! In the more modest testaments from Toulouse, the same practice was current. About half

®’ Direct naming of persons after male heads of family constituted only a trifle over two percent of the 1042 persons in a list in PAN, J 305 29 (February 1243): 21 with the particule “de” before the father’s name and four with the genitive. The only family name in the whole list that can be shown to derive from a woman is Raina. 8 Note in MADTG, G 722 bis Nos. 7 and 15 “domina Ricarda de Maornaco,” a noble, at Lezat and “domina Gausia” at Saverdun. For this evidence, see Appendices 4 and 5 below. ®° To show the social range of this habit, see this title attributed to Mabelia, the widow of

a weaver, in Appendix 1, No. 57 and, in No. 95, to Curva, a sister of the baron of Lanta. 0 MADTG, G 722 4 and 5 not only have a “domina” Ricarda de Lesato and “domina” Urssa,

but also a naMaura, naMilhas and naMonda. >! Appendix 1, No. 106: the children and all property are to be looked after by the “domina et potens,” namely his widow Endia, who has all “in eius sponderatico ... posse et bailia et tutela.”

38 SOCIETY of the widows left with children were designated by their husbands’ testaments to be “domine et potentes” until their children’s majorities, and were also appointed executors (“spondarie”) of their husband’s wills.** And the same is true of an occasional mother of a decedent.?? Like sons, daughters were also pressed into service.”* One daughter, Bordolesia, called Petrona, wife of William de Nempze, was left in charge of his minor sons by her father Raymond de Podiobuscano in his testament of 1258, although a widow was

also mentioned in the will.” This picture is perhaps too strongly drawn. The normal practice described above aside, wives were sometimes not placed in charge of minor children by dying husbands, thus showing that a mother’s role in the family could be controlled by a father after his death.”° Another example is more nuanced. In 1216 the patrician William Pons Astro placed his children in the “bailia” of his widow and of William de Turre, a man who was probably her brother.

These two were to render accounts of their charge yearly to the other executors.’ Such reckonings were, however, ordinary business procedure. Earlier, in 1206, a much humbler person placed his son’s 1000 shillings in

a business “societas,” whose active partners were also to give a yearly accounting.” Like so much else, it seems, the learned law of the later thirteenth century reinforced these attitudes. The jurisconsults of the university debated a case

about whether daughters were to be educated by a mother or by a tutor appointed in the husband’s testament.” There were opinions favoring the widow, one based on her “natural” right (especially, one guesses, in regard to daughters) and another on the fact that a mother was better for children at least up to the age of three.’”’ Other than the sacredness of a man’s last wishes, what made the lawyers favor the father was that he probably had good *2 Women serving as “domina et potens, having ”posse,“ “bailia“ or tutorial rights over children are in ibid., Nos. 22, 52, 71, 74, 76, 89, 106, 124, 130, 136, 168, 175, 190, etc.; those serving as “sponderii“ in Nos. 13 (and tutor), 39, 58, 59 (and tutor), 94 (and tutor), 106 (and tutor), 108, 120, 126, 142, 157, 171, 172 and 186. One also notes that widows were requested to remain with the issue until majority in instruments that otherwise mention no specific grant of authority, as in Nos. 73 and 86. 3 Thid., No. 105. 4 Tbid., No. 86 above is a son in conjunction with his mother. > Tbid., Nos. 170 and 190. © Ibid., No. 22, the guardians being three male ’sponderii.“ 7 Tbid., No. 71 and Appendix 3, Astro. *% Tbid., No. 46.

*° Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 27, pp. 60-62: ”An filiae sint educandae apud tutorem quem pater assignaverit in testamento, sive apud matrem?“

1 Tbid.: "Item filii maiores triennio sunt educandi apud patrem, minores triennio apud matrem“ and "quod mater ... omnino preferenda in educatione filiorum ipsi tutori.“

PRACTICAL EQUALITIES ? 39 reason for his disposition and, unless the contrary was proved, his will should stand because “no love conquers paternal love.”!°! Even if they did not serve in arms, however, women were something more

than men. They represented society’s aspirations in a way men did not, possibly because they bore its children in circumstances quite as dangerous as battle. Exceptions apart and excluding nicknames (something women never bore in the charters), male first names were traditional in families, so much so, indeed, that similar first names monotonously repeated generation after generation make it difficult to trace genealogies.” Among the approximately 205 couples seen in the calendar of documents published in Appendix 1, the males bore about 35 first names. This limited vocabulary was made

more varied by employing two ordinary first names preceding the family name in 23 cases, but the only true interest was sparked by the occasional use of a rare name (Deusaiuda, for example), a family name (Maurandus) or a craft name (Faber) as whole names or first names.'°? Although there are also family names and double names among them (Castellana, for example, and Brus Martina), the wives bore no less than 89 different forenames.'™ ') Tbid., stating he had ’causa iusta et iustissima presumitur, nisi probetur contrarium, cum nullus amor vincat paternum.“ '2 It may be that some female names were nicknames or worse, but this is unlikely. Take the name Babylonia. In March 1176 or 1177, one of this name abandoned her husband, as will be seen in Chapter 6, pp. 126-127 below. Her name may have symbolized her act, but note another Babilonia, apparently a perfectly normal widow in Appendix 1, No. 7 (January 1172). "Twould be lovely if the two were one and the same.

'3 Appendix 1 gives the following male names: Ademar, Aimeric, Arnold, Bernard, Bertrand, Bruno, Deusaiuda or Deide, Dohaz, Faber, Gerald, Gilbert, Grimaldus, Guy (Guido), Hugh, Isarn, Jacob, John, Jordan, Martin, Maurandus, Odo, Paul, Pelfort, Peter, Pictavinus, Pons, Raterius, Raymond, Roger, Stephen, Terrenus, Tolosanus, Vital and William. As to double first names, note that, generation after generation, for example, there was a William Pons Astro or a Bernard Raymond de Tolosa, for which see Appendix 3, Astro, and the Tolosa family history in my Repression of Catharism, p. 268ff. In rough count, of the 35 male first names, two are mentioned five to nine times (Bertrand and John), one (Pons) 10 to 14 times, two (Arnold and William - in two spellings Guillelmus and Willelmus) 15 to

19 times, and three (Bernard, Peter and Raymond) 20 and more. '* In Appendix | the names are: Aimengarda, Aimereit, Aimersenda, Aladaicia (Alasacia), Alamanda, Aljcaya, Aldiarda, Alpais, Arnalda, Arsenda, Aurimunda, Babilonia, Bernarda, Bona, Bonafos, Bordolesia, Bosencontre, Bruna (Brus), Brunissenda, Castellana, Clara,

Comptors, Constancia, Curva, Domina, Englesia, Ermengarda, Ermesenda, Escarona, Esclarmunda, Fabrissa, Flos, Francisqua, Galarda, Garsenda, Gauda, Genser, Geralda, Gracia, Grauzida, India (Endia), Imperia (Ymperia), Jacma, Jensana, Johanna, Jordana, Lombarda (Lumbarda), Mabelia, Maria, Marita, Marquesia, Mascarosa, Mathelda, Matheva,

Obica, Pagesia, Paris, Petrona, Pictavina, Poncia, Prima, Ramunda, Ricarda (Ricardia), Ricsenda (Ricsendis), Riqua (Rica), Salamandra (Scalamandria), Saptalina, Saurimunda, Saussia, Sibilia (Sebilia), Sicarda, Simunda (Symunda), Stephana, Thoma, Titburga, Tolosana, Valeria, Veziata, Vierna, Vitalia, Vivas and Willelma (Guillelma). The frequency count shows that none are repeated 20 or more times. Five are seen from five to nine times (Esclarmunda,

40 SOCIETY Women’s names, moreover, were far more colorful than those of men so much so that one wonders whether they were, in fact, chosen by the fathers or the mothers. They include faraway places: Babilonia, Francisqua, India, Lumbarda, Paris; station and wealth: Castellana, Comtors, Marquesia, Riqua; personal qualities: Aimereit, Aurimunda, Bona, Constancia; and pleasant things: Bosencontres, Flos, Genser, Vierna.'” Sad to say, this honor was shared with other living beings. In 1235 a dairy farmer’s will listed the names of his milchcows, three Cirguas, and one Nacoia, Mansa, Formica, Borguesia, and Amorosa.!” Although such names are enticing, to call a Villanova heiress Salamandra or Scalamandria is to treat women as playthings. Such “dolls,” however, were hard to replace. Sex had its toys, both the whole woman and whole man and specific parts of their bodies serving as playthings. Pretended battles between the seemingly weak and seemingly strong, furthermore, between the small and the large, seem to have been characteristic of the sexual relationships of the different sexes and similar ones. This playfulness was probably one of the lighter crosses women were called on to bear. As stated above, however, women often transcended the roles life or men

assigned them. An example is Bardolesia, a married woman already seen above, whose victory lay in the zone of duty well done. A daughter of Raymond de Podiobuscano, her father placed her in charge of his minor children in his will of 1258. Nearly 40 years later she is again seen in the testament of one of the sons she had raised, another Raymond de Podiobuscano. In that instrument Bordolesia’s name was carried not only by one of Raymond’s daughters but also by a street, the “carraria vocata domine Bardolesie.”!”’

Women’s subordination to men was sometimes obliterated and often alleviated by love. Still, however obsessional love’s actuality was and however rhapsodically this equalizing experience was written about, what contemporary poets knew had not escaped the notice of lawyers: age made a difference. In the usual course of events, women were especially desirable when young.

Since men controlled the bulk of the property and power in the world, however, the same was not true of them. If not positively detestable, an older man had attractiveness lent him by his accumulation of wealth or position. Although of immense importance in real social life, the equality or even

Maria, Petrona, Sibilia and Stephana), one from 10 to 14 (Bernarda) and two from 15 to 19 times (Ramunda and Willelma).

' Ibid., passim. 1 Tbid., No. 128 below. '07 Tbid., Nos. 170 and 190. The spelling of her name varies.

RELIGION 41 superiority of young women was therefore transitory, and, indeed, women actually lost value as they aged. This will be seen when the remarriage of widows is rehearsed in Chapter Five below. Besides, this counterpart of the loss of “Wergeld” known in primitive times is exemplified by a rather curious discussion in the Commentary on the Custom of Toulouse. Learned but not

always gallant, the Commentator asks whether a man who sleeps with a married woman of 60 or more years of age is to be considered adulterous. One answer is “no!” because, “the cause having ceased, the effect ceases,” that is to say: a woman of that age cannot give birth to a child.'" D. RELIGION

Religious teaching must surely have added to this conviction of the equality

of men and women. Save for some testimony long since exploited by scholarship, there is no information specifically from Toulouse or its region.'”’ It is nevertheless known that, unlike other religions such as Judaism and Islam, both Catholicism and Catharism emphasized the spiritual equality of women and men. It might be argued, furthermore, that the latter religion

offered hope to women, who, although aware of spiritual equality, felt themselves oppressed and hence sought a faith other than that taught by members of the dominant sex. Besides, Catharism may have had another advantage. In 1247, a countrymen told the inquisitors what they already knew, namely

that the Cathars taught “matrimony is prostitution” - “matrimonium est lupanar.”'' Could this “rigoristic” teaching inspire “moral” indifference about sexual practices? After all, if the conventionally virtuous is really vicious, why be dismayed by actions conventionally vicious? To add to this, one may conjecture with Le Roy Ladurie that Catharism’s single deathbed “consolamentum” contrasts with Catholicism’s increasing penitential police and yearly confession to make that divergent religion, if hard on its “clergy,” the “perfecte” and “perfecti,” easy on its believers. So Catharism, one may say, was easier on the free spirits who wanted to live as they chose. But there are very few of those. Like most men, most women wanted to live by convention, and even an active Cathar believer like Mateuz, wife of a knight and the daughter of another, could not help but be

'S Gilles, Coutumes, p. 256 and see the discussion in Chapter 6 below. '? See Paul Alphandéry’s inventive Les idées morales chez les hétérodoxes latins au début du XITle siécle (Paris, 1903). ''° TBM, MS 609, fol. 40r.

42 SOCIETY discountenanced by the teaching seen above.’'! Although the learned, Cathar or Catholic, would have made fun of her, she sensed that Cathar detestation of the flesh stole the gift of paradise from her. The Cathars, she thought,

taught that “having made love to his wife, a man could not be saved.”!” Hylarda, another spouse of a knight, had converted because her husband’s family was strongly Cathar and her father-in-law was working on her.'!? She lasted only two days in the faith because the great Cathar preacher Raymond Gros then told her that she had better burn the candle she was making for

the Blessed Virgin at home rather than take it to the feast at the church. Families-in-law are fine, she may have thought, but you don’t put all your pennies in their piggybanks.'’* In spite of the fact that the Cathars gave women a more active role in preaching and teaching than the Catholics did, there was no female principle in their religion. The genius of Catharism’s moral rigor with which its adepts tore aside the veils of convention to disclose hidden deceits and crimes offended more than rural gentlewomen. Aimersenda, a farming woman at Cambiac, not far from Lanta (under 20 km southeast of Toulouse), where practically every inhabi-

tant including its lords were Cathars, refused to convert to this religion. When young and pregnant, she had been taken by an aunt to a gentleman’s house to meet two “perfecte.” One of these devout women made the mistake of saying, “in front of all the people there, that, because she was a pregnant

maiden, she was carrying a devil in her belly, and the others began to laugh.”''° Later on, although berated or beaten by her husband, she refused to become a Cathar because of that incident.''® One of the lords of Cambiac ''l TBM, MS 609, fol. 130r (May 1246). Mateuz was the daughter of William de Varanha of Avignonet, and knew the celebrated Toulousan Alaman de Roaxio, for whom see my Repression of Catharism, p. 251ff and No. 130. '!2 TBM, MS 609, fol. 130r: ”... quod homo non poterat salvari cum uxore sua habendo rem

cum ea.“ The "cum uxore sua“ and "cum ea“ is probably an obtrusion of the pleonasm of ordinary speech as the notary translated the woman's testimony from the vulgar tongue. Mateuz had heard and misunderstood the teaching some 18 years previously. '13 TBM, MS 609, fol 140r, February 1246. "Domina* Hylarda was the wife of William de Vilela, a lord at Montesquieu in the Lauragais.

4 Tbid.: ”... sed non fuit in illa credulitate nisi per duos dies, quia tunc audivit dici a Ramundo Gros heretico, de quadam candela quam ipsa testis fecerat quam volebat portare ad vigilandum ad ecclesiam Beate Marie de Rocovilla, cujus festum fuit illa die, quod melius esset ei si cremaret eam in domo. Et propter hoc ulterius noluit credere hereticis.“ This occurred 15 or so years previously. 'S Tbid., fols. 237v-240r (December 1245 and July 1246), the event occurring about 1223: "coram omnibus, quia erat adulescentula pregnans, quod demonium portabat in ventre, et alii ceperunt ridere inde.“ "6 Ibid.: ”... vir suus monuit ipsam testem multociens quod diligeret hereticos, sicut ipse faciebat et alii de villa, sed ipsa testis noluit diligere postquam dixerunt sibi quod pregnans erat de demonio. Et idcirco vir suus supradictus verberavit ipsam testem, et dixit multa convicia.“

RELIGION 43 angrily rounded on Aimersenda’s son when he tried to stop the villagers, including her husband, from imprisoning her, “Boy! Are you going to help this old woman who wants to destroy us all?”''’ And destroy them she did. In brief, Catharism had little or nothing to do with sexuality. What it unintentionally gave with one hand, it unintentionally took away with the other. Testifying to the terrifyingly inquisitive Jacques Fournier, bishop of Pamiers, the shepherd Peter Maury repeated a commonplace saying that the Cathars told him “that the souls of men and women are the same and do not differ. The whole difference between man and woman is in their bodies which Satan made.”''® But bodies are what love is made with.!!° For obvious reasons, the evidence cited above does not of itself prove a

lack of female interest in Catharism, and it may well be that, as historians have argued, women were especially drawn to divergent religious thought. I have briefly rehearsed this matter earlier, but will do so again in very much the same words. Modern historians have even asserted that Catharism was mainly propagated by the women of the upper classes.'*° Other than male fantasies about female “hysteria,” the root of this assertion is perhaps the somewhat reasonable supposition that women were more inclined than were men to question the values of the world in which they lived because the orb was ruled by the latter sex. To this is joined a “class” conception, namely a conviction that women, “exploited” like the poor, were a naturally rebellious or even revolutionary element in society.’*' These ideas may be true. There is evidence that heretics offered women a

more elevated role in their religions than did the orthodox. That they had 7 Tbid.: "Garcifer, vultis vos iuvare vetulam istam qui vult nos destruere omnes?“ She and her boy were thrust ”in quadam tonellam“ overnight and released on paying a fine next day. '18 See Duvernoy’s edition of Le registre d'inquisition de Jacques Fournier, 3: 201 and 223,

the latter reading:”Respondit quod a dictis haereticis audivit ... quod anime hominum et mulierum erant eedem et nullam differenciam inter se habebant, sed tota differencia inter hominem et mulierem erat in eorum carne quam Sathanas fecit. Et sic, quando anime hominum et mulierum carnem deposuerant, nullam differenciam inter se habebant.“ This text is cited in Alphandeéry, Les idées morales, p. 71 from Johann H.I. von Dullinger’s Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters 2 vols. (Munich, 1890; rpt. New York, 1960), 2: 219. '19 Motivated by a desire to show that Catharism was a puritan faith, but using some of the same arguments seen above, the uselessness of Catharism as a vehicle of sexual freedom or

libertinism and the mildly hostile views of its teachers to sexuality are expressed, partly following Nelli, by Jean Duvernoy in his Le Catharisme: la religion des Cathares (Toulouse,

1976), pp. 264-265 and 278-279. 120 A view reiterated by Malcolm Lambert in his Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from

the Bogomils to Hus (New York, 1976) and propounded by excellent earlier historians such as Douais and Guiraud. '21 See, for example, Gottfried Koch’s Frauenfrage und Ketzertum im Mittelalter: Die Frauenbewegung im Rahmen des Katharismus und des Waldensertums und ihre sozialen Wurzeln (Berlin, 1962).

44 SOCIETY a leading role among the Cathars, however, is doubtful. A recent study shows

that, although somewhat more so than the Catholic religious, Cathar “perfecte” were not as active as were their male counterparts.'”* In addition,

women were not included in the Cathar hierarchy above the grade of “perfecta,” save perhaps for a rare deaconess. There were certainly no “filii” or bishops. In short, if women were looking for institutional equality, some of the Waldensian sects would have come far closer to fulfilling their ideal. It is probable that women, who were a substantial part of the “poor in spirit,” acted in much the same way as did the poor in material goods. Although active in heresy, both groups constituted strong popular constituencies for the new movements of Catholic devotion and especially charitable work in the thirteenth century. The reader is also asked to consider the proposition that there may have been disadvantages inherent in the relative equality gained by women through heresy. Given the circumstances (especially the lack of meaningful birth control), one wonders if the achievement of a religious equality between men and women, especially between wives and husbands, would have made up for the loss of the protection afforded women against their men by the orthodox church, that of the majority. Although, like men, churchmen used or “exploited” women, they also protected them by insisting on the equality of husband and wife, a fictional equality in terms of the realities of power and property in this period. It is also possible that this fiction was maintained in place in part because of the sacerdotal presidency over the laity the heretics were so bent on destroying. Faced by the laity, “divide et impera” was a good rule for churchmen, and, faced by men, for women also. The relationship of divergent religion to women may also be examined from another perspective. Women had always been important in the Toulou-

san church and their participation had been early shown in the twelfth century by the foundations of Lespinasse and Longages, sister houses of the

order of Fontevrault, itself closely connected to Toulouse by Countess Philippa, the presumably unhappy wife of William IX of Aquitaine.'” Evidence from these convents seems to show that in those institutions closely

connected with the “aristocratic” organization of society in the twelfth century, women enjoyed much independence.'* One wonders if this freedom 122 Richard Abels and Ellen Harrison ”The Participation of Women in Languedocian Catharism,“ Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979) 215-251. ‘* On Philippa and her connection with Robert d’Abrissel, see my Liberty and Political Power, p. 17, and Etienne Delaruelle "Idéal de pauvreté a Toulouse au xiie siécle,“ Cahiers de Fanjeaux 2 (1967) 64ff. 124 Anent Longages, E 973 i (April 1243 copied in 1244, 1247, 1260 and 1274) has the

prioress Sibilia de Marcafabba, the claustral prioress Maria de Noerio, the subprioress,

RELIGION 45 continued. Later evidence from Lespinasse implies that the sisters were loosing control of the business of their house to male clergy.'*> Here again, women were perhaps looking for a better role than the one they found in orthodoxy and its older religious institutions. Not a few modern authors have

claimed that one of the reasons women turned to heresy was the lack of orthodox outlets. If so, they were slow in going about it. The same impulse that affected Toulousan men and inspired them to support the settlement and growth of

the mendicants in the early thirteenth century was expressed by female devotion and the foundation of the house of the Clares. Founded by 1242, these sisters seem successful although no evidence about the size of their nunnery exists.'”° But the Clares were the only example, and, when compared

to what is usually said to have been happening in other towns of western Europe, Toulouse’s “Frauenbewegung” was weak indeed. Direct female participation only begins to flourish around 1275 long after Catharism had all but wholly vanished. A house of Beguines near the Franciscans then appears, and another near the Dominicans.'?’ Thereafter the sisters of Saint sacristain, and 13 "moniales,“ together with Raymond de Falgars prior, the "capellanus* and a simple "frater,“ appointed William de Dalbs to handle the property of the house in Toulouse.

5 | have listed here the religious etc. who intervened in the “actiones“ as spokesmen for the whole house. Lespinasse 24 and AADML, Register fol. 2r (June 1177): Lumbarda "priorissa,” acting alone; ibid., fol. 2r-v (January 1190): Escarona priorissa“ and Arsenda ”celleraria”; ibid., fol. Sv (July 1216): Margareta prioress and Peter Ramundus prior and the ”fratres“

Benedict, Peter ”capellanus“ and Peter Bartellus; Lespinasse 28 (June 1230): Margareta prioress, Bernarda de Roquis “celleraria“, and 4 fratres including a “capellanus* and 2 "clerici“; AADML, Register fols. 5r-6r (February 1237): Philippa prioress and P R prior; Lespinasse 3 (June 1244): Dominic de Lube prior and Esclarmunda de Castronovo prioress;

AADML, Register, fol. Ir-v (April 1263): Vital de Scalar prior and Ramunda de Nadioli prioress; ibid., fols. 10r-1 1r (May 1269): the same persons; and ibid., fol. 4r-v (August 1294): Bernard de Aspa "frater“ and ”’grangerius“ acting with consent of Bernard de Monteberterio

prior et ’sindicus” of house. '26 Malta 17 65 (December 1242) gratified the ”sorores minores.“ Clares 3 6 contains a letter of Innocent IV dated May 1246 stating that the consuls of Toulouse had given them a

place "in quo divinis vacare possint obsequiis.“ Their first installation was outside the Villeneuve Gate, between that place and the Matabiau Gate. For which see Clares 3 21 (July 1253) and Guillaume Catel, Mémoires de l'histoire du Languedoc curieusement et fidelément recueillis de divers autheurs grecs, latins, francais et espagnols, et de plusieurs titres et chartes

tires des archifs des villes et communautez de la mesme province et autres circonvoisines (Toulouse, 1633), p. 209. Initially called the ’sorores“ or "conventus minoretarum,“ they were later usually termed "sorores Sancti Damiani Tholose“ and "sorores Sancti Damiani qui alias vocantur minorete Tholose“ as is seen in Malta 16 8 ii (March 1257 copied in October

1264), ibid. 10 26 ii (May 1259 copied in September 1259), ibid. 2 163 (March 1270), MADTG, G 712 (January 1265) and Clares 3 26, two acts of November 1325 and May 1326. 127 See Celestin Douais, "Des fortunes commerciales a Toulouse et de la topographie des eglises et maisons religieuses de Toulouse d’apreés deux testaments (xi*-xv‘ siécle),“ Mémoires de la société archéologique du Midi 15 (1894) 43, dated October 1275.

46 SOCIETY Augustine, the repentant sisters of Mary Magdalen, the Daurade sisters (also

of Mary Magdalen) at the Hospital of Saint-Jacques and, lastly, those associated with the basilica and possibly the hospital of Saint-Sernin make their appearance.'*® What is striking about these late groups is that they are

not independent devotions, but instead service institutions, the Daurade sisters managing the hospital of Saint-Jacques, for example, and those of Mary Magdalene housing the occasional repentant “fallen women” and, one

almost hopes, the invalided workers of the public brothels. In short, the history of the participation of women in the regular orders at Toulouse hardly supports the traditional arguments of the proponents of the “Frauenbewe-

gung” and probably indicates that women were no more behind the late twelfth century growth of the Cathar faith than were their men. To conclude, around Toulouse at this time, women were not considered to be similar to men or to have the same rights or duties. The two sexes were divided and, of the two, women were in second place, decidedly behind men, except, one conjectures or knows, when rich or young and desirable. Still, in the world of love, surely a very real world, they were truly equal. 128 See Saint-Bernard 52n (May 1294) for the first two of these institutions and Clares 3

26 (November 1325) for all four. The Daurade sisters and the hospital are also seen in Daurade 68 (January 1304, copied in 1328) and ibid. 68 (September 1326).

3

Sex

A. DIVERGENCES AND ALTERNATIVES

To turn now to sexual life, it is assuredly true that the differences in the bodies of women and men excite curiosity, offer facilities for and impose obstacles on attaining harmony and, only too naturally, produce love’s fruits, miniatures of the two lovers. A result of this mixture of delight and difficulty

is that most people direct much of their sexual energy and most of their sexual fantasies toward the other sex. Still, tastes differ either partially or wholly, and there are other ways of behaving. In extant materials from Toulouse and its region these other sexual experiences are, as it were, seriously “underrepresented.” Known and discussed elsewhere in this period, neither masturbation nor the use of animals surface in the documents used here. The same is true about a much more significant variation: love between women. It may be that such expressions were so ill-considered that they were simply suppressed or not mentioned.’ Love among males, however, is ventilated in the sources. Around 1300, during the inquisitorial investigation of Jacques Fournier, bishop of Pamiers, a “defrocked” Franciscan and hanger-on at the newly founded “studium” of

Pamiers, Arnold de Verniolles, was discovered to be gay as were his companions, the junior scholars with whom he had relations. According to the testimony against him, he also pimped for a canon of Saint-Sernin, the famed basilica at Toulouse. Prior of Lavelanet and possessor of an income of no less than 40 pounds, this dignitary used the services of assistants or book porters who, however, were expected to meet other more intimate ' That such practices were known is obvious, and see James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago and London, 1987), pp. 399, 425, 434-435, Danielle Jacquart and Claude Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical au moyen-dge (Paris, 1985), pp. 219-220, where the authors cite Jean-Louis Flandrin, Le sexe et |'‘Occident (Paris,

1981), pp. 114-115, which author lists reserved cases about sexuality in the diocese of Cambrai in 1300-1310, and John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 223-232 for his views on

: Cathar sexuality.

48 SEX needs from time to time. Bearing the prestigious Toulousan knightly and patrician name of Maurand, the canon was also reported to have sometimes used female prostitutes.’

These depositions show what could have been guessed anyway, that homosexuals in the Toulousain gravitated toward towns and educational institutions. This was surely not because homoeroticism was essentially urban

or especially characteristic of the educated elements of the population, but rather because the adepts of minority divergences are obliged to congregate, hence come to town, if they want reasonably frequent experiences.’ It is also likely that a leaning toward this practice was enhanced by the clerical quality of learning, something reinforced at this time by the measure of ecclesiastical celibacy achieved in the church. According to the same testimony, however, there was a “gay” cobbler in the small town of Pamiers and a squire of the same persuasion in the neighboring countryside.* In short, homosexuality seems to have attracted members of all classes in both country and town. To go beyond this sparse evidence is difficult. Ordinary laymen who lived together without women, sharing the ownership of domiciles, are seen in the charters. A testament dated 1235 recorded the last wishes of a cobbler in the Taur parish.’ The testator made his partner, also a cobbler, an heir, willing him half of the house they both owned. The dying man was also, however, close to the women of his family, making his sister’s son the other heir to his small estate, and gratifying a niece with a substantial (given her class) sum

in order to enter either an order or marriage. What, in short, can be done with this celibate uncle, the shoemaker of Toulouse? And what does a reference in the documents to men who “lived with” other men really mean?

Nothing, I fear. The instruments stating that a “capellanus” “lived with” another priest or a medical doctor with the bishop were surely intended to mean no more than they said.°

2 See the various references to this Maurandus in Duvernoy’s edition of Le registre d'inquisition de Jacques Fournier, 3: 16, 40 and 44, fols. 226c, 231b and 232a. 3 But see Le Roy Ladurie’s excellent Montaillou, ville occitan de 1294 a 1324 where he argues that homosexuality is urban, and John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago, 1980) where the word “urban” is, so to speak, converted into

nthe testimony is in Duvernoy’s Registre de Jacques Fournier, 3: 14-50. > Appendix 1, No. 122. 6 See Saint-Etienne 230 (27 2 nn.) (October 1213 copied in 1231 and 1236) about Dalbs, “capellanus” of the Daurade “et Ramundus capellanus qui cum eo manet,” and PBN, MS lat. 9994, fol. 175v (July 1188) mentioning a “Gausbertus medicus qui tunc cum prefato domino episcopo [of Toulouse] manebat.”

DIVERGENCES AND ALTERNATIVES 49 None of this tells how widespread homophilia was. To get a sense of this, one might look at Lezat, where there was a monastic population in which a rather high level of homosexuality or something close to it might perhaps be expected. The later depositions from the undated visitation of Lézat’s 42 monks give their reader an idea of what were thought to be the sexual and other deviations of the religious.

In addition to the 12 monks defamed of conspiring against their own abbots at Lezat, the abbot of Moissac and the bishop of Toulouse, four were

said to have committed simony, either in order to enter the house or to acquire the post of prior. Upwards of 10 were charged with minor infractions, eating meat, using mattresses, breaches of the rule of silence, etc., but more important was the charge of indiscipline levied against three. No less than 14 were thought to have retained property, moveable or real, one of whom

actually worked his brother’s fields like a farmer or “rusticus.” Sexual divergences are of more interest here, however. Three were merely defamed of having had relationships with one or more women, three were said to have favored female religious from Longages, and specific women were named in the cases of no less than 14. Eleven monks were said to have had issue, five being charged in general terms, and six with having had specific children from specific women. Two were described as given over to sodomy. In short, almost half of the inmates were suspected of being, or known to have been, sexually active. The only real question is when these monks had been active: to have had a child, for example, does not mean that the father continued to be intimate with the mother.’ The record is astonishingly frank, a quality not really visible in the famous and much longer account of the visitations of Odo Rigaldi (Eudes Rigaud), archbishop of Rouen, from 1248 to 1269. Had one not read about Lézat, this northern prelate would seem to have been cutting close to the quick. But Odo was especially interested in discipline, hierarchy and administrative prerogative, and, although other personal “sins” surface, garrulousness, meat eating and the use of comfortable bedclothes and mattresses were the major faults he saw in the monks of his province.® Things at Lezat were quite different, in fact, one suspects, rather more real. The archibishop apparently noted, however, that parish clerks were more invol-

ved with women, about 12 percent of them having been denounced for offenses.’

An oddity of the testimony from Lézat is the modest representation of homophilia there, so modest, indeed, that it is hard to know what it means. ’ The testifying monks and those they deposed against are described in Appendix 5 below. * Odo was certainly more penetrating when dealing with the secular clergy. > According to Gabriel LeBras in his /nstitutions ecclésiastiques de la Chrétienté médiévale, Histoire de l’église depuis les origines jusqu’a nos jours vol. 12 (Paris, 1959), p. 168 n. 6.

50 SEX It is obvious that, even admitting the pleasure of delating on some of their brethren, homosexual denizens of monasteries, monks and others, or those tolerating that practice, would have been loathe to uncover their views to

prying outsiders. It may therefore be that the reality was not quite so heterosexual as the text reports. Since a similar lack of candor may have afflicted those on the heterosexual side, especially those with issue or long

term relationships with women, however, one is left with a tentative conclusion that the principal “vice” of these religious was the “love” of women, not that of men. Other, if fragmentary, bits of evidence reinforce this argument. In the early 1240s, the inquisitors in the Lauragais stumbled over a gentlemanly — I speak only in class terms — monk of the Benedictine house of Soreze with property and a natural child at Cassers. One almost suspects that he took his vacations with the family!!° Besides, men were not exclusi-

vely one or the other. One of the two “gay” monks was A. Ri., prior of Peyrissas. Although described as such by two testifying brethren, one also stated that he was defamed of several women.!! More weighty than the lack of direct evidence is the clear implication that

to say that a man was homosexual was to describe him as especially reprobate. No less a witness than Hugh, claustral prior of Lézat, testified that his abbot, Peter de Dalbs, was given over to the “sodomite vice,” a fact, he said, that a named witness and others knew.’ True, a compulsive person and such Peter was - will seek any port in a storm, but this evidence is unique. Whatever Hugh’s truthfulness, the repeated charges of “womanizing” levied against the abbot were surely more significant.

Other evidence of hostility toward homophilia may be seen in the later investigation of the monks of Lézat already alluded to. There a prior was defamed of the “sin of sodomy” by two of the four witnesses, and one monk who testified against him remarked that he had heard about it from the nephew of a brother monk at whom the prior had made a pass.'? Another 10 TBM, MS 609, fols. 223v and 227r. '! MADTG,G 722 5, the witnessing monk named B. stating “ipsum fore diffamatum publice

de incontinentia de pluribus mulieribus quarum....” - the rest of the evidence being lost. Note also that the canon Maurand mentioned above was defamed of both kinds of sexual contact. 2 MADTG, G 722 bis, witness No. 5: the abbot was culpable “de vicio sodomitico et uritur eo vicio et hec scit .Ar. Garsie et quidam alii.” Arnold appeared as a witness in testimony given

by witness No. 4, but there are no particulars about him. The witnesses are numbered in Appendix 4, pp. 000, and hereafter all numbers following that rubric refer to the witnesses there listed. If the text of the depositions is used in these notes, the reader is referred to the roll MADTG, G 722 bis, cited above in this note. 13 A.R., prior of Peyrissas, was considered “sodomitichus” by many in G 722 5; In G 722

4 the monk William Atho de Villanova tells that he was given over to “peccatum sodomiticum,” the story coming from Ademar, nephew of the monk Pons de Maornaco [spelled here Mornacho and Maornacho].

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT 5] “gay” person was Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe, a monk who may well have been Lézat’s claustral prior mentioned above earlier on. One conjectures this to be the case because, although Hugh gave testimony against Peter de Dalbs,

he had been deeply implicated in the simoniacal traffic attributed to that prelate. If such is the case, it makes the charge against Peter even less likely because Hugh would have had an interest in asserting that almost everyone

was of the persuasion of which he was himself defamed.'* This case, in addition, offers clear evidence that the charge of homosexuality was a weapon in this society. The testifying brother remarked somewhat disingenuously that the charge that Hugh “was a sodomite was repeated secretly among persons whose names he [the witness] did not know, and was said out of envy and a desire to harm him.”!° In fine, homophilia was clearly frowned on, but one wonders if it was more

censured than that. The sole reference to Peter as “gay,” cited above, is naturally not found under the rubric “incontinentia,” where his fornications are catalogued, but instead under “transgressio ordinis” where it found its place beside his reported neglect of the older religious, indifference to pigs, other animals or gambling in the cloister, hunger for meat, his reluctance to perform private sacraments, etc. Homophilia was clearly considered a nasty offense or crime, something to be held over a person’s head, but it may not have been thought dangerous. '® Lastly, although the evidence, as can be seen,

is exiguous, it does not seem that this sexual speciality was especially widespread. Whatever the true frequency of homosexual contact, it seems likely that the Toulousans of this age, whether Cathar or Catholic, were mainly drawn to women in spite of the grave disadvantage of the members of that sex, namely that they gave birth to children. B. WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT

Extant records about the relationships of men and women are often untruthful, alternately beguiling readers with love’s dream clothed in silk and lace or boring them with graphs and statistical tables about the comings and

goings of men and women who hardly seem to touch each other. Still, everybody knows that there were real people there. Whatever their other 4 G 722 4 records him as “diffamatus de peccato sodomitico.” 'S G 722 5 “quod dictum fuit secrete inter quosdam quorum nomina ignorat quod [Hugh]

erat sodomita tamen credit quod pro invidia et malo ipsius dicebatur.” On Hugh, see Appendix 5 below. '6 These remarks are not intended to transcribe the tirades of the moralists or the severity of formal law, for which see Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, pp. 122, 212-213, 313, 399 and 534-535.

52 SEX differences, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Father Leonard Boyle of the Order of Preachers will surely agree that, when the bishop of Pamiers turned over those stones at his town, at Montaillou and elsewhere, he found persons, both clerk and lay, who teach what everyone knows but invariably forgets, that men and women live by tumultuous impulsions that transcend the rule book.'’ Nor, to judge by Peter Clergue, “plebanus” of Montaillou, were the clergy always what the regulations required. To this well known material may be added a few other sources. This other evidence derives from the monastery of Lézat, already men-

tioned above. Here there is not only the record of the visitation of the monastery in the mid-thirteenth century rehearsed above, but also the history of Peter de Dalbs, abbot of Lezat. From this is seen not only a history of an ecclesiastical Don Juan, but also the socio-sexual opinions and even fantasies of the witnesses who testified against him, all males but one, some religious and others secular. According to the inquest conducted by his enemy the abbot of Moissac, Peter’s passion for women was great. It appears in the testimony of 33 of the 36 witnesses who spoke before the court in 1254, and the three who did not know of specific examples had heard of the abbot’s reputation.'® About half of the witnesses had themselves seen the abbot in action in his sadly public private life.’

There are weaknesses in this record. Although a surprising amount is direct or immediately second hand, much of the evidence is hearsay. Several of the witnesses waved their hands wildly, asserting, for example, that the abbot deflowered five women at Lezat or that he “had IT with” upwards of a thousand women.” The “ma in Espana” of these medieval Leporellos should not make one reject this evidence because much is both realistic and verifiable. As significant is the fact that the officers taking testimony headed by William de Bessencs, abbot of Moissac and papal inquisitor, began by looking for breaches of discipline. Held at Toulouse, the questioning of the first two witnesses placed the abbot’s crimes of incontinence last and next to last in priority among the offenses. When the inquisitorial session resumed,

'’ Leonard E. Boyle, OP, “Montaillou Revisited: Mentalité et Methodology,” in Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J.A. Raftis (Toronto, 1981), pp. 119-140. '8 In MADTG, G 722 bis, the three were witnesses Nos. 24, 32 and 34, persons chosen to testify about the Daurade at Toulouse and not about Lézat or other places removed from that town.

'9 Tbid., Nos. 1-3, 5-8, 12, 14-15, 17, 25, 28-29 and 31. 20 Ibid., No. 1: five women; No. 9: “habuit rem cum .c. mulieribus”; and No. 10: “Item credit ex multis presumptionibus quod habuit rem cum .m. mulieribus,” with about 100 at Lezat alone.

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT $3 this time down at Lezat, however, incontinence moved to the head of the list, where it was to remain until the very end in spite of the fact that several of the last witnesses knew next to nothing about the abbot’s women.”! When the abbot of Moissac issued his “sententia diffinitiva” in May 1254,

he condemned Peter for simony, dilapidation of the monastery’s wealth, breaches of order, etc., and naturally referred to his incontinence. He or his lawyers confessed that fornication was a hard crime to prove, but asserted

that the notoriety of the abbot’s involvement in it was attested by the existence of his children.”* Peter’s scandalous involvements with women related to him by matrimony and by blood, furthermore, made his condemnation necessary lest, as the lord said by the mouth of the prophet Malachy, “I will curse your blessings.”~° The witnesses in the roll tell that 45 women, including young girls, crossed the abbot’s path at one time or another during the dozen or so years he was abbot of Lezat. Of these, three or four had no relationship with him, and, in

addition, not a few are questionable either because the information about them is thin or because different witnesses mentioned persons in different contexts, thus confusing them for later readers.** When duplications are subtracted, however, the evidence not only clearly shows that Abbot Peter was thought to be or was a Don Juan in a cassock, but also that he may have had relations with about 35 women in his 12 years as abbot of Lézat.”° But what do the escapades of this prelate tell about sexual attitudes and the battle between women and men at this time? Peter was a religious person whose actions may have been looked on as far more scandalous than those of a similarly inclined layman. Besides, this abbot was in a position to commit offenses a layman could not. At Muret, for example, he slept with a woman in the night of Palm Sunday and said mass the next morning, an event mentioned by two witnesses.2° Other *! Although the document neglects to say it, the last witnesses may have been heard at Toulouse. * MADTG, G 722 bis, the condemnation dated May 1254: “Item de incontinentia est adeo notorium contra ipsum quod non est locus inficiationis quia filiis parvulis convincitur longam

sui corporis contraentiam non habere.” ** Ibid.: “Licet autem de facto incontinentie non esset ita de facili presumandum, tamen quia probetur esse notorium quod turpiter huius vices se involuit contra fedus regule affines suas et consanguineas carnaliter cognoscendo, ne benedictio eius in maledictionem conver-

tatur et oratio in penitentionem, testante domino per prophetam, ‘maledicam,’ inquid, ‘benedictionibus vestris.’” The citation is Malachi 2:2.

* See the discussion in Appendix 4, pp. 203-206 below. ;

> Because I have a friend who, ina busy if somewhat disordered life, has done far “better or “worse,” I am not impressed by the mere quantity of the abbot’s relationships. © Tbid., Nos. 8 and 15, the latter reading “in nocte ramis palmarum.” I state these events

as if they actually happened, but the reader surely understands that that cannot really be known.

54 SEX “crimes” would have been “bad” in any Catholic of the time, laity included. It was reported that Peter had cohabited at Lezat with Munda, Comdor and an unnamed woman during Holy Week, on Wednesday, said one, on Good Friday, another opined.”’ Lastly he was said to have propositioned a widow in front of the altar in Saint-Antonin at Toulouse.”? One witness, a clerk, oblate and notary, recounted savouringly all three of these incidents and others of a similar kind, something that proves that what shocked contemporaries also turned them on.” Peter’s clerical character made secrecy difficult, far more than would have been true of a lay Don Juan. A brother monk was supposed to sleep in the abbot’s chamber or adjacent to it. One knowledgeable witness, the prior of Peyrissas, reported that he discussed the abbot’s behavior with his concubine Munda. He was, he deposed, there in the same room and had divined that they were there together, presumably in the covered bed.*° Almost wonderingly, an old monk remarked that he had seen Peter “all alone in bed with the woman Melior, nude, he said, with a nude woman.”*! The same elderly monk reported that at Bordas about four years ago, he and Ademar de Birnos were sleeping together in the inn run by the innkeeper “who had only one hand.” Because their bed was adjacent to that of the abbot, they heard the “concussiones” of the abbot and a woman named Benedicta.*? A monk once walked in on the abbot busy with the “ancilla” of the prior of Muret, causing him to leap up and dart into the latrine, leaving her in the four-poster.*? Mere pratfalls, perhaps, but they were hardly fun for Peter or the women. A man who procured for him at Muret mocked him, at Bordas, Benedicta who gave into him was derided, and Ramunda was laughingly called “abbatissa” by the 2” Tbid., Nos. 1 and 6 Munda, the latter naming Good Friday; 2 and 15 Comdor, with the latter witness naming Wednesday; and 5 the unnamed woman who was probably one of the above.

8 Ibid., No. 15 says Fabrissa told him that the abbot “post mortem viri sui sollicitaverat eam coram altare Sancti Antonii.”

> Ibid., No. 15 Peter de Monteredono. *® Tbid., No. 7 recorded the history of Munda, “hoc addito quod cum ipse iaceret in camera

dicti abbatis de nocte secrevit ibi quandam personam esse in camera cum abbate et in crastinum interrogavit dictam Mundam utrum ipse esset et dixit quod sic”. Munda kept few secrets.

* Tbid., No. 3: “Item apud Sanctum Epercium vidit eum cum Meliore muliere solus cum sola in lectum, nudum cum nuda, et exivit cameram suam.” 2 Tbid., No. 3: “Item apud Bordas cognovit carnaliter Benedictam mulierem, et ipse qui loquitur audivit concussiones de lecto proprio quia lectus suus erat contiguus lecto abbatis, et

hoc similiter audivit .Az. de Bisnos [!] qui iacebat cum illo teste qui loquitur ... in domo cuiusdam hospitis qui non habebat nisi unam manum.” A prior, Birnos, witness No. 6, confirmed this observation.

3 Tbid., No. 8 at Muret “... et ipse subito surrexit a lecto et intravit latrinam, ea dimissa in lecto cohoperto.”

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT 55 inhabitants at Saint-Ybars.”* It is not surprising then, that, however vain the |

effort, he tried to keep his affairs secret. Willelma, sister of his longtime | mistress Munda, reported that she had sometimes guarded their assigna-

tiions. 35

More serious were the occasions when Peter was threatened with arrest or was actually arrested. On a trip over the Pyrenees (to be described at greater

length below), he was seized at Puigcerda, released only on paying 100 shillings of Melgueil (50 of Toulouse or Morlaas).*° More risky perhaps was the time he held Ricsenda captive, presumably as a prisoner of his seigniorial

jurisdiction, and proceeded to know her carnally in Saint-Antonin at Toulouse. To judge from the witnesses who tell divergent stories about the incident, Ricsenda’s husband protested to the count or his vicar. This officer hastened to the priory to arrest Peter.*’ Lucky this time, the abbot escaped by a postern and only the woman was seized.** Less immediately threatening but ruinous in the long run were births of children from the abbot’s liaisons. The prior of Peyrissas, himself later defamed of conspiracy against the abbot as well as incontinence with a specific woman, offered the abbot’s longtime friend Munda his own house to have a child in secret, but Peter vetoed the ] 39 plan. It seems likely, however, that, although his ecclesiastical status sometimes

made it difficult for Peter, his prelatry was generally an advantage. The witnesses against him did not doubt that he used his power and wealth to get

his way. As a jurisdictional lord with police authority, he “leaned on” women. The case of Rixenda has been noted above, and there were several more at Lezat and Saint-Ybars, places where the abbot exercised jurisdiction over whole communities. One “victim” was a married woman at Lézat named ** Tbid., No. 8 about the procurer and also Benedicta “ita quod ipsa mulier derridebatur ratione illius facti;” and No. 3 “Item cum Ramunda concubina .S. de Paterno habuit rem frequenter carnaliter et ex hoc vocatur abbatissa apud Sanctum Epercium.” *° Tbid., No. 5: “... et faciebat ei gardam aliquando usque ad recessum et tunc mittebat eam ad eum per quadam foramen sepis.” * Tbid., No. 6: “Item apud Podium Cerda fuit captus cum quadam muliere et redemit se .c. SOl. Melg., et hoc audivit a fratre Andrea.” *” Tbid., No. 14, a “laicus et donatus” reported that “ipse qui loquitur vidit eam ibi de die et de nocte in cellario domus ubi iacebat abbas et audivit a viro ipsius mulieris qui querebat eam quando erat absconsa cum abbate quod ipse abbas auferebat sibi uxorem et super hoc fecit querimoniam vicario et etiam duxit vicarium ad domum sancti Antonii.”

8 Tbid., No. 5: “quod comes voluit ipsum capere cum ea, sed aufugit per posticum prioratus.” No. 6 reports about Ricsenda that “comes Tholose fecit eam capi propter hoc et tenuit per .iij. dies captam, et ipse vidit eam ibi morantem et audivit a G. Galaubo et Petro Rossello quod carnaliter cognoscebat eam.” Rossellus was one of the abbot’s nephews. * Ibid., No. 7: “Et cum esset tunc pregnans de ipso abbate tractavit cum eo qui loquitur ut posset parere occulte et ipse testis obtulit ea quod in domo sua si abbas vellet, set abbas consultus hoc negavit.” The evidence about the prior is in MADTG, G 722 5 and 10.

56 SEX Petrona de Caissaco, apparently a one shot affair.“° Far more consequential was Trioleta with whom he was said to have had a longer relationship both at Saint-Ybars and Leézat.*’ She was also persuaded to bear witness against him, perhaps, one conjectures, because Peter, moved by jealousy, fined her

lover (?) Raymond de Montealto the relatively enormous sum of 200 shillings of Morlaas (400 shillings Melgueil). Raymond was a clerk and oblate of Lezat, so it was “adultery” within the family, so to speak.” Peter also sometimes had to pay substantial sums for his scrapes with women, and the witnesses occasionally seem happy to record the times when he was caught out. He travelled with much cash, and was said to have gotten a “Catalan woman” at Puigcerda off his back by paying her 100 shillings Morlaas (200 of Melgueil).*? Mostly, however, the Peter they described used his credit, a credit derived from the power of his office, giving pensions and other favors to those who gratified him or blackmailed him. His relationship with the wife of an innkeeper at “Ultra Portus” led to the appearance of her son at Lézat, obviously looking for a pay-off.** The “mediator” who provided Peter with his own sister at Ax-les-Thermes during a trip over the Pyrenees

was directly stated to have become an oblate or pensionary of the monastery.” When his longtime relationship with Munda was breaking up, he several times tried to marry her off. According to a witness, one possible candidate was offered an oblate’s pension or corrody, another who refused

the union was stripped of the same, and the “successful” candidate was created public notary and given a pension of bread and wine. *© According to ibid., No. 12 she “erat capta et de nocte fecit ipsam educi de turri ut rem secum haberet et mane solvit eam.” Her name and that of her spouse is in No. 6. *! Tbid., No. 2 where the abbot “fecit eam abstrahi a turre et fecit eam adduci ad cameram suam et iacuit illa nocte cum illa.” *? In ibid. she is witness No. 28 and Raymond No. 10. No. 6 “et inde punivit Ramundum de Montealto propter zelotipiam in .cc. sol. Morl. quia similiter cognoverat eam.” * Tbid., No. 2. “ Ibid., No. 3 who was told by the prior of Sainte-Sophie that “hospes cepit dominum abbatem cum uxore sua,” and the witness states that he subsequently saw the innkeeper’s son at Lézat. ** Ibid., No. 13: “Item dicit ipsum diffamatum apud Ax, sicut ipse audivit ibidem et etiam hoc audivit per confessionem mulieris quod cognoverat eam et a sorore mulieris etiam hoc audivit. Item apud Ax recepit in donatum illum qui exposuerat ei sororem suam dictam mulierem.” The word “mediator” is in the record of witness No. 15. *© Ibid., No. 2: “Item dixit quod ipse abbas rogavit personaliter dicto .A. [the text is garbled here. Could this be the monk Augerius who is the witness?]. teste. nomine .Ber. [?] quod ipse cariore sui ipsam Mundam duceret in uxorem et ipse faceret ei magnum bonum et faceret ipsum donatum. Item .G. Petri dixit teste qui loquitur [monk Augerius] quod abbas dedit sibi

panem et vinum et fecit ipsum notarium quod contraheret cum dicta Munda. Item .R. de Baiona fuit rogatus per eundem abbatem quod contraheret cum ea et quia noluit, abstulit ei panem et vinum quem habebat in monasterio Lesatensi.”

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT $7 But too few women had either fallen foul of the law or were willing to be bought to satisfy the abbot of the witnesses’ imagination or his reality. He was ever searching for - as one witness put it - “an amenable woman.”” Laymen

and religious were dragooned into service or, with gold-glinting eyes, hastened to seek out suitable candidates.** At Saint-Ybars, for example, he

is said to have enjoyed both Melior, the wife of Arnold de Salies, and Ramunda, the concubine of Sancius de Paterno. The relationship to the latter was Close, so close that Sancius procured for him. There was a scandalous but festal scene where the abbot feasted on meat during an obligatory fast together with Sancius and Ramunda.”? When the abbot was going strong, things really livened up. No less than ten witnesses mentioned a trip the abbot took with the count of Foix to Seo de Urgel in Catalonia. What impressed them was his return from the Seo through Puigcerda, “Ultra Portus” (either modern Porta or Porté-Puymo-

rens), to Ax-les-Thermes, a distance of about 105 km. In those four communities on either side of the pass of Puymorens, he was reported to have had relations with four or five women: two unnamed innkeepers (“hospite”), a Catalan woman, the wife of an innkeeper, Ramunda, wife of Raymond Socardi, and, somewhere along the way, the unnamed “meretrix” who turned him down.” With the possible exception of Socardi’s wife Ramunda, none of these persons could be described as of the middle or upper classes.

The abbot’s tastes were catholic. He pursued noblewomen, the solid middle classes and prostitutes, an indifference that is good proof that, in the opinion of the witnesses, a Don Juan was a man who chased anything in a skirt. Nobles are represented by Comdor, of whom more anon, and possibly

by Sibilia de Falgar (Le Fauga) at Muret. Brought to him there by B. (Bernard or Bertrand) Sabata, who himself gave testimony about the relationship, Sibilia may have been married to the knight Thomas de Falgar or his brother, nephews of the bishop of Toulouse, Raymond of Falgar.*' The *’ Tbid., No. 25 reported that Sancius de Paterno, about whom see the next reference, told him “quod ipse duxerat ad eum convenientem mulierem.” *8 See the previous note and also witness No. 5 for a monk who procured for him. ® Ibid., No. 3: “Item vidit quod in ieuniis .iiiior. temporum comedit carnes apud Sanctum Epercium in domo sua presente .S. de Paterno et Ramunda muliere.” °° See Appendix 4, p. 203 below, where possible overlaps are discussed. *! In ibid. B. Sabata is witness No. 31 and reports that he brought her to the abbot often “et vidit quod ipse osculabatur eam et erant ambo in una camera privata solus cum sola.” No. 6 says that her name was Sibilia de Falgar, and No. 2 states “Item audivit dici quod ibidem [Muret] cognovit uxorem Thomas de Falgar vel fratris sui,” as he heard from those close to the prior there. On Thomas and his father, see PAN, J 308 71 (December 1249) and Tam II 10

(October 1278 or 1281).

58 SEX middle range of the population may be represented by two persons. One is the sister of a public notary at Muret, a “Magister” Arnold.” The other is a more telling case. So brash was Peter that he asked Garsia Faber of Lézat, a smith and “burgensis” of that community, to let him have his daughter, a privilege that worthy declined.*’ Strange to report, it was a woman uncharita-

bly described as a “whore” who turned him down up there in the snowy Pyrenees. But then he had only given her four shillings to retain her services — a derisory sum for this prelate.”

Old and young were all at risk. At Saverdun, one hears, Peter solicited both a mother and daughter.”’ There is also the case of a “puella” mistakenly brought by a mother named Nomais to the prior of Saint-Béat in Toulouse,

thinking him to be the abbot. Perhaps nothing came of it, but it will be examined again later on.*° Yet another example, again at Saverdun, will be noted below. Nor, according to the informants, were women of his own family exempt from his passions. One would expect that they would not be, in fact, because they were more available than most and surely among those who hoped to

profit from their successful relative. At Muret, he is said to have known carnally one of his cousins, the sister of the public notary “Magister” Arnold,

and, at Toulouse, the same experience was enjoyed or undergone by his niece, the sister of William Galaubi.’’ See also the case of Galharda below.

The testimony also pictures the abbot as a man given to violence. Raymond de Montealto reported that Trioleta said that he had ravished her.”®

Raymond’s testimony cannot be trusted, however. This clerk and oblate of Lezat was an unreliable witness because, as has been seen earlier in these pages, the abbot had fined him heavily for his relationship with Trioleta.

There is, however, other evidence of this side of Peter’s character. In a *? Tbid., No. 2, but see the description of this case below. *3 Tbid., Nos. 10, 13 and especially 22 where Garsia’s son .G. Garsie reported that the abbot “patrem suum rogavit quod exponeret sibi filiam suam, sororem illius qui loquitur.” ** Ibid., No. 3: “Item in eodem itinere dedit .iiiior. sol. cuidam meretrici ut permitteret se ab eo carnaliter cognosci, et postmodum dicta meretrix noluit venire ad ipsum et hoc scit .G. Garsie et .P. de Quinta.”

> Tbid., No. 2: “sollicitatio matris et filie, Gausine et Exclarmunde.” The case will be further discussed below. *® Tbid., No. 6, for which testimony, see note 72 below.

*” Tbid., No. 2: “Item dicit quod apud Murellum cognovit carnaliter quandam suam consanguineam que est soror .Ai. puplici tabellionis et audivit hoc dici ab consanguineo illius qui loquitur quod ipse frequenter adduxit eam ad ipsum et ab ancilla prioris de Murello.” No. 6: “Item audivit a pluribus quod cognovit carnaliter sororem .G. Galaubi neptam suam ... Item de sorore Magistri .Ai.”

8 Tbid., No. 10: the abbot “habuit rem cum Trioleta muliere apud Sanctum Epercium in solario suo et ut ipsa dixit ei etiam per violentiam.”

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT 59 possibly successful attempt to possess a cousin named Galharda from Saverdun to the south of Lézat, he attacked her, biting off a piece of her lip.°° Other evidence of the abbot’s violent bent involved his concubine Munda.

Five witnesses stated that this longtime mistress was aborted of her third child, and all, without exception, imply that Peter had her aborted.” Two witnesses went further to assert that the abbot did this by throwing her down

a staircase.°' A final witness gave an account that makes the abbot’s purported action more understandable, given the fact that, as will later be seen, Peter cared for his first two children by Munda. According to this witness, Peter did throw her down the stairs, but did it because he thought the child was not his. In short, a violent “family fight” caused a fall that aborted the woman.” It is also probably true that, in the late and failing stage of their relationship, violence best expressed their feelings toward each other. Munda ranted against and battled his new mistresses, fighting Comdor, of whom more below, and also Martina, the latter several times.© One of the battles with Martina took place in the public market of Lézat and involved not only the two principals but also Martina’s mother who was struck by the cellerar of the monastery when he tried to stop the fight.” As described by those deposing against him, Peter de Dalbs loved the flesh, but there may have been more to it than that. It was already noted that the abbot was said to have gone after Gausia or Gausina and her daughter

* Tbid., No. 5, the claustral prior of Lézat reported that he had heard from Galharda that “dictus abbas voluit violenter ipsam cognoscere carnaliter et osculatus fuit eam ita quod momordit eam in hore et retinuit a labro suo quedam frustum pellis, et ipse vidit dictam morsionem primus.” No. 6 asserts that she was the abbot’s cousin, as does No. 7, but both omit the bite, stating only that the abbot had had her. No. 8 has it all. °° Tbid., Nos. 8, 10, 11, 15 and 23. The usual phrase is seen in No. 10: “et de tercio fecit aborsum.” *! Tbid., No. 8: “et de tercio [child or fetus] fecit aborsum ut ipse auditum dici, quia ipse

abbas progescit eam [Munda] per quandam scalam.” No. 10: “et de tercio fecit aborsum et hoc est notorium ... et ipsa etiam dicit hoc indistincte et ipse credit firmiter esse verum et scit eam [the story? - "fabula“] quia audivit ab ea.” *? Tbid., No. 15, a clerk, oblate and public notary of Saverdun, records: “Item est fama quod

non sit [Munda] pregnans ab eodem [Peter]. Item audivit a quibusdam personis fidedignis quod abbas progesserat eam per quandam scalam et propter id fecit aborsum.” * Ibid., No. 1 remarked that “vidit frequenter quod mulieres {Martina and Munda] inde erant zelotipe et inde publice contendebant.” This witness states that, just outside the abbot’s “camera,” Munda furiously told him that Peter was there with Martina. As stated elsewhere,

these may have been the same women, but they are here treated separately. . * Ibid., No. 6: “Item est apud Lesatum publice diffamatus quod cognovit carnaliter Martinam mulierem et super hoc propter zelotipiam fuit contentio publice apud Lesatum inter Mundam concubinam abbatis et dictam Martinam” and the cellerar “scilicet .B. de Gimerio divisit rixam et percussit matrem dicte Martine.” The location of the battle as being “publice

in foro Lesatensi” is given by witness No. 7.

60 SEX Exclarmunda at Saverdun.®? Luckily enough, as several deponents put it, there were other women there when the abbot beat the charge, and he was driven off.®° The prior of Sainte-Colombe in Saverdun not only reported the said “violence” but also the fact that he had elicited the story from the women who were present.°’ A clerk and notary gave a circumstantial account of this event. Peter had asked “domina” Gausia to come, and she did with two women. When the “infirmarius” let her into the chamber, she discovered the abbot in bed, he grabbed her, she screamed, her two friends rushed in, and Peter asked them if they wanted to see what he wanted to do. One of the women then stripped the bedclothes off him and all saw his “pudibunda.”®

The final witness of this incident, a monk named Raymond de Arnesp, offered the most developed of all the versions. He remarks that the women came because they wanted to see the abbot, and that, when he had pulled Gausia to him, one of them stripped the covers from him and even held his virile member in her hand. The “infirmarius” told Raymond that he and several others were there right outside the door of the room. They had, he said, “heard the tumult the women made with the abbot.”” The abbot of Moissac’s witnesses are also known to have scraped the pot to paint Peter black. The prior of Montredon opined that, when the abbot slept with his, the prior’s, “ancilla,” he healed himself of his quartan fever but

® Tbid., No. 2.

6 Ibid., No. 4: Peter “voluit vim inferre Gausiane ut ipsam cognosceat carnaliter et ostendebat sibi pudibunda set tamen mulier non permisit se cognosci et erant cum ipsa ii. alie mulieres, .R. de Arnesp existente ibidem.”

*’ Ibid., No. 9: “Item apud Savardunum in prioratu illius qui loquitur [he is prior of Sainte-Colombe] ut audivit dici a quibusdam, habuit in camera sua nudus existens in lecto Gausiam mulierem quam tradebat violenter ut cognosceat eam, set .ii. erant ibi mulieres que resticerunt et quibus ipse dixit quod essent [blank space]. Hoc quesivit ipse a dictis mulieribus, nec negaverunt et fuit etiam publicatum in castro Savarduni a dictis mulieribus.” 8 Ibid., No. 15: “Item dicit quod apud Savardunum misit pro domina Gausiam et ipsa venit ad eum cum .ii. mulieribus, scilicet Huga et Navarra, et Jo. infirmarius introduxit eam in camera prioris Sancte Columbe ubi iacebat abbas nudus in lecto suo et traxit violenter dictam Gausianam et quando clamavit dicta mulier alie .ii. intraverunt et ipse rogavit eas ne viderent quod facere volebat, et tunc altera illarum discohoperuit ipsum totum et viderunt pudibunda sua et hoc audivit dici a pluribus et est fama apud Savardunum.” Tbid., No. 8: “Item ipse qui loquitur et .Jo. infirmarius fuerunt cum tribus mulieribus que volebant videre abbatem usque ad cameram ipsius [abbatis] immediate post comestionem de die et viderunt dictum abbatem nudum iacentem in lecto suo et cum magna indecentia traheret [?] unam de dictis mulieribus et altera de mulieribus discohoperuit ipsum omnino et tunc ipse aprehensa manu mulieris posuit ei virgam porrectam in manu, videntibus altis .11. mulieribus

que erant cum ea, que omnes postmodum revelaverunt ipsi testi, et ipse et dictus Jo. audiverunt tumultum et quidam alii, quem faciebant dicte mulieres cum ipso abbate, et de hoc est publice diffamatus apud Savardunum.” Curiously, this account does not mention the names of the women.

WOMEN AND MEN: LEZAT 61 passed it on to her. Tis impossible.” If one looks twice, furthermore, at the tale concerning Gausia, Huga and Navarra described in the paragraph above, it seems that the women came to see the abbot, and that he was not pursuing them. More, it is reported that he had contact with one of them again, and that she came to him with her daughter. In front of three persons and the witness, Peter drew the girl to him, put her hand into his trousers and then gave her sixpence.’’ This does not look like violence so much as a “Casanova-like” educational turn on, as it were, performed by a person at once touchable and taboo or sacred. A further example may well be seen in the story of the “puella” brought, as the woman named Nomais thought, to the abbot at Saint-Antonin at Toulouse, but mistakenly presented to the prior of Saint-Beat. On coming to the one she thought was the abbot, Nomais simply said: “you have made her wait too long.” Testifying, the prior of Saint-Béat also conjectured that the girl was eventually brought to Peter.” One is therefore tempted to reexamine the abbot’s affair with Sibilia de Falgar. When this incident was described above, it was seen that a B. Sabata several times brought this presumably noble woman to Peter, and the natural prejudice of a reader is to think that he was merely pimping for the abbot. Perhaps, but the accent placed by the witnesses on this man’s heroic potency must also be remembered. Not only did the Leporellos say that he had lain with upwards of a thousand women, he was also reported to have remained abed with Munda for no less than three days, another witness saying the whole of Holy Week, and to have deflowered - symbol of sexual prowess not a few, including both Comdor and Munda.” A final example of what might be characterized as a cult built around Peter’s potency is the account by ten witnesses of his passage through the Pyrenean passes that has been examined above. The abbot was, then, likened to a Casanova, but, typically medieval, an ecclesiastical one. One of the more intriguing cases of this kind is the history of a noblewoman named Comdor. It seems likely that this “domicella” was the wife of ” Tbid., No. 16 reported that he had heard from the abbot’s “socius” William de Montels “quod ipse [the abbot] cognovit quandam ancillam illius qui loquitur, et erat quartanarius, et postquam cognovit carnaliter ipse liberatus fuit et mulier habuit febrem quartanam.” " Tbid., No. 8: “Item alia vice vidit apud Montemtrosonem ... cum filia predicte mulieris quam sollicitabat ut supra, et trahebat dictam filiam ad se et ponebat manum dicte mulieris

in braccis suis vidente ipso teste et .ii. personis que venerunt cum dicta muliere, quarum nomina ignorat, et habuit ab ipso .vi. den., ipso testis vidente.” I translate the word “mulieris” as if it were “muliercule.”

” Tbid., No. 6: “Item Nomais mulier venit ad ecclesiam Sancti Antonii Tolose et duxit secum quandam puellam et allocutus est illum qui loquitur credens esse abbatem quod nimis faciebat morari dictam puellam et postmodum ut credit fuit ducta ad abbatem.” *. Tbid., No. 4 on Munda, and see Nos. 1, 8, 13 and 17, the latter two referring to Munda and Comdor, and No. | to five women in Lézat.

62 SEX Raymond de Montels.’* One witness stated that the abbot “deflowered” her,

a possible conjecture because she may not have yet been living with her husband Raymond, a well known personage in the family of the monastery. As will be seen in the next chapter, quite young women were sometimes married to husbands for a time before they lived with them. Whatever her

relations with her husband, Comdor was the daughter of a noblewoman, Ricarda de Maornaco.”° Presumably a widow, Ricarda helped finance herself

and her son by giving her daughter to the abbot in return for oblates’ pensions and, as a small additional bonus, a rouncy for her noble son.” Comdor was one of those with whom the abbot was supposed to have had relations in Holy Week.” This relationship was stormy because it bitterly offended Munda, the abbot’s longtime mistress, not long, presumably, before he married her off. So tactless were the new lovers that Comdor publicly wore in the streets of Lezat a hat or hood that Munda had once given the abbot, an event that touched off a widely witnessed fight between the two women.” Inadvertently, however, the subject has become concubinage.

™ Ibid., No. 2 reports that the unnamed wife of Raymond “iacuit [with the abbot] in septimanam sanctam.” No. 6 or the scribe who copied the testimony has the woman’s name wrong but is right about the rest of the history: “Item audivit a pluribus quod cognovit

carnaliter uxorem .Ri. de Montels. Item cum Ricarda de Maornaco fecit pactum quod reciperet eam ut donatam ecclesie Lesatensis et filium si traderet ei filiam suam Comitissam {Comdor] ut carnaliter cognosceret eam et ita factum fuit, et hoc ita credit et scit quia audivit a dicta Ricarda quod filiam suam cognoverat.” Although clearly based on hearsay, No. 9 offers proof that Comdor was the wife of Raymond by stating: “Item audivit dici quod uxor .Ri. de Montels cognovit [the abbot] quam adduxit sibi Ricarda donata ecclesie Lesatensis, de istis mulieribus audivit ipsum diffamatum apud bonos et graves et credit esse verum.”

” Ibid., No. 7 with “domina” Ricarda and No. 8 with Comdor “domicella.” © Ibid., No. 17: “Item defloravit .Com. filiam Ricarde de Maornaco nobilis et ut mater exponeret ipsam sibi recepit ipsam et filium suum in donatos monasterii Lesatensis et illi filio dedit quendam roncinum.” As to Raymond, note that a man of his name witnessed Peter’s appeal from the tribunal of William of Bessencs, abbot of Moissac, to the pope in October 1253, a document recorded near the start of the same roll of testimony, that is, in MADTG, G 722 bis. " Tbid., No. 15 reports “quod Ricarda de Maornaco, nobilis donata Lesati duxit ad eum uxorem Ramundi de Montelz et feria .iiiia. septimane sancte de nocte et habuit rem cum ea illa nocte.” ”® See above ibid., No. 2. To No. 7 Munda reported that she and Comdor “propter zelotipiam adinvicem conrixare fuerunt.” No. 6 is perhaps the best account, the witness stating that he heard from Munda “quod eam {[Comdor] invenerat in lecto abbatis. Item cohopertorium capitis quod Munda dederat abbati, dedit abbas filie dicte Ricarde, et deferebat publice super caput apud Lesatum.” Munda reported to No. 8 that she had found the abbot in bed with the “domicella” and “propter zelotipiam rixate fuerunt adinvicem et dicta Munda abstulit dicta Comdor cohopertorium capitis sui quod dicebat se dedisse dicto abbati.” No. 12 records the fight and Comdor’s attempted abortion, for which see p. 122 below.

SEX AND LOVE 63 C. SEX AND LOVE

Before turning to that institution, I want to summarize what Peter de Dalbs’ trial says about the intimate relations of men and women in this period. The reader can see how awful but how exciting it was to the testifying laymen and religious when Peter mixed religious duty and sex in the way they said he did. The sanctity of Holy Week, for example, what was permissible to a priest before mass, or the prohibition of eating meat “ad libita,” all of these express

the single greatest institutional difference between the middle ages and modern times, namely the prepotency of the church. If institutional matters are put aside, however, the relationships of men and women seem remarkably modern. Whether or not they gave themselves over to fantasy, and whether they were laymen or ecclesiastics, the witnesses centered their attention on the male. The abbot was active, forceful, potent, dominant and brutal. Except in relationships with others of their own sex, with whom they quarreled and fought, most of the women were presented as largely passive, slaves, one almost says, to the role attributed to their sex. Several were said to have come to the abbot bringing daughters, as to a teacher, for the recipe of his sexual magic. The lay and clerical witnesses may have done Peter in, but, since all

but one was a man, and she was, as has been seen, ill-considered, they enjoyed doing it, patting themselves on their backs for being male. In spite of the truth of the above, a reader cannot help but see that the witnesses really knew that women were not quite so passive. Some of the Pyrenean mountain women, for example, may have obliged the abbot, but they also took him to the cleaners. And what is one to make of the three women at Saverdun? The best male witnesses believed that they came of their own volition. For what reason? Fun? Magic? The attitudes about women described in this testimony, however, were

only part of the picture. The other part is its obverse: the free and unexploiting love between equals, a quality not directly seen in the abbot’s history. As everyone knows, love between the sexes not only existed in this period,

but had also been elevated into a positive “religion,” its essence being the

obsessional attachment of a woman to a man and viceversa. This was especially expressed in literature and affected everything, including marriage,

because, although giving birth often had nothing to do with love, love had much to do with giving birth. What made love so astonishing was that the scales were balanced: the woman’s risk of death in giving life balanced the man’s in taking it in war. The heroines and heroes of medieval romance were women and men who achieved equality by risking themselves. This vision may seem to reflect only the “mores” of the martial aristocracy because, save for an occasional youth or maiden framed in a romantic rustic

64 SEX setting, the heroes and heroines of the literary imagination were almost invariably of that class. One does not need to reread Andrew the Chaplain’s De amore to understand why: what author wanted his romantic hero to be a quiet and steady artisan, a medieval equivalent of a public accountant? All

the same, not only gentlefolk worshiped at the altar of these “heroic” persons; so also did ordinary people. Although the poetry that commemorated the equality of lovers is commonly called “courtly,” all classes sang or wrote it in this epoch. Eight Toulousan troubadours were honored with late thirteenth century “vidas,” texts that, although given to exaggeration anent the poets, clearly show their modest class origins. One was a woman named naLonbarda of indeterminate social origins. Others were a son of a cloth merchant, a “cabalarius” or poor knight, a son of a burgher not of great “race,” a knight (?) married to a local burgher woman and a gentleman (7) who entered the Spanish Order of the Sword at Santiago. The other two were the most famous Toulousan poets: Guillems Figueras, barfly, tailor and the son of a tailor, and Peire Vidal, son of a furrier.’”” Nor had working people missed the doctrines of love’s equality. A Dominican friar named Guy culled excerpts from John of Freiburg’s widely read Summa confessorum of about 1290 concerning the crime of usury.” He called his epitome “The Rule of Merchants,” a work which, he said, “I wish you to read or at least hear instead of the useless stories and romances usually read in workshops and stores and listened to by those working there.”

If love was worshipped, sex was not. It was not proscribed, however, because, aS some divines said, it peopled heaven with saints. If a legally joined couple appeared to desire children, the clergy were obliged to bless carnal love. An example of this side of orthodoxy is the blessing of the nuptial pair in bed by the parish priest, an event following the church service and subsequent marital feast at which this worthy was also a participant. That such services, banquets and benedictions were habitual at Toulouse is known from the document on Toulouse’s parishes compiled between June 1251 and June 1255.*' Parishioners there claimed that their rectors, if unable to attend

feasts because of more than one marriage ceremony in a day, insisted on monetary compensation. If not forthcoming, the protesters asserted, they ” The documentation for this information is cited in my “Urban Society and Culture: Toulouse and Its Region” in Benson and Constable’s Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth

Century, pp. 229-247. For naLonbarda, see Chapter 6 in this book, p. 118. 8° Oxford, Lincoln College, Ms Latin 81 fol. 34 and Cambridge, Gonville and Gaius College, Ms Add. B. 65 fol. 1. 8! See the dating of PAN, J 318 78, published in Layettes du Trésor, 2: No. 2428, in Chapter 1, p. 19.

SEX AND LOVE 65 refused the traditional nighttime benediction for which they anyway expected a small fee.*” Beds were not only for loving and birthing, however, but also for dying and offering penitence. Banquets commemorated not only weddings, but also the

death of sinners. Hence beds were often willed to hospitals or religious houses.*’ And this tradition could be brought home. A well-to-do smith in 1253 instructed his widow to have a bed “well equipped with bedclothes [in his house] in which a poor man may lie in remission of my sins.” He also ordered that whoever occupied his childless home should there offer a yearly banquet to the rector of the Taur parish, his assistant and eleven poor persons “of bread, wine and meat plentifully provided in good faith on the day of my death.”**

In short, if all classes loved love, it’s cult suffered from mixed feelings

about sex, and not just those found in clerical minds. As shown in the paragraphs immediately preceding these concluding remarks, a basic reason for this may have been intrinsic, something in the nature or circumstances of contemporary women and men, who were both drawn to both love and sex and, at the same time, repelled. Additional impediments were also imposed on love by something else. Love’s religion was sometimes undermi-

ned by the current distribution of nature’s goods, social status, degrees of wealth and poverty, in a word, by property, something without which, however, it could not have existed at all. It is to the many sides of this problem that the next chapters are largely devoted.

® Ibid., p. 306a, says that “quando plures una die in eadem parrochia celebrantur nuptie sub uno capellano, quia capellanus comestioni uniuscujusque contrahentis nuptias non potest interesse, exigit et extorquet pecuniam ab illis nuptis quorum convivio non potest personaliter interesse; et alias non volunt venire benedicere eos in lecto.” Ibid., p. 307a, complained about

the chaplain of the Daurade: “Item, quando Petrus Geraldus accepit in uxorem filiam quondam Petri Jacobi, predictus capellanus noluit ire de nocte ad benedicendum eos in lecto, quousque .ii. solidos Morlanenses pro dicta benedicione fuerit sibi soluti.”

°° See my “Charity and Social Work in Toulouse, 1100-1250,” Traditio 22 (1966) 208-210, anent the text below and this tradition. There are also obvious practical reasons for bequests of beds to institutions.

** Appendix 1, No. 162 (August 1253), the testament of Willelmus Usclacanus. For another example, see the testament of Pons de Capitedenario in ibid., No. 108 (March 1229).

Relationships

A. PROSTITUTION

It must first be remarked that this chapter concerns only the relationships of women with men. This is because there is no evidence in the charters or law books concerning institutionalized male prostitution or about concubinage

or “marriage” between males. Nor is there information about “lesbian” relationships. Information about female prostitution in Toulouse and the region around

it exists, but is sparse during the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. It leaves the impression that prostitutes were to be found and that they were regarded with hostility. Discussed most recently by Ms Otis, they first appear in a petition of the inhabitants of the street called Comminges (today’s rue des Moulins) near the waterfront in the south of the City recommending that the loose women who infested it be banned from within the town’s walls.

They alleged that there was an earlier law to this effect, and the consuls confirmed their opinion in a judicial sitting of 1201 wherein public solicitation within the walls of the town, both in the City and the Bourg, was forbidden.' Much later on in 1271, the subject was broached again by inhabitants of the waterfront area near the bridges from the town on the right

bank of the Garonne river to Saint-Cyprien, but this time the vicar of Toulouse seized the initiative to prohibit the women plying their trade in that area.” | TAM, AA | 27 (August 1201) ed. Raymond Limouzin-Lamothe, La commune de Toulouse et les sources de son histoire 1120-1249 (Paris and Toulouse, 1932), pp. 316-317 and also Vienna Staatsbibliothek Ms Palatinus 2210*, fols. 39-40 and PAN, JJ 21, fols. 59v-6lv. The worthies requested confirmation of an earlier “constitutio,” a term implying a formal law on this point, not just a custom. Although no less than four copies of the laws of the town contain this term, it is likely that the original word of the suit was “consuetudo” and was replaced by “constitutio” owing to an early scribal error. On customs and laws of this kind, see Leah L. Otis, Prostitution in Medieval Society. The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc (Chicago, 1985), p. 17.

? The act is published by Georges Boyer in his “Remarques sur |’administration de Toulouse au temps d’Alphonse de Poitiers,” in Mélanges I: Mélanges dhistoire du droit

PROSTITUTION 67 In spite of the paucity of these references, it is sure that prostitutes were there in sufficient numbers to elicit the attention of powerful persons. In 1213, during the Albigensian wars, Dominic, the Castilian canon of Osma and founder of the order bearing his name, was granted the hospital at the Arnaud-Bernard Gate in the Bourg. This onetime urban or town installation was given him by Fulk of Marseille, the bishop of Toulouse. How the bishop acquired this facility is not known, but, in 1213, the pope “confirmed” this state of affairs.’ Not long afterwards in 1217, the pontiff wrote the consuls of Toulouse, and noted that the hospital had been made into a priory of the Dominican order. He also stated that it was to be employed to recuperate maidens who had fallen into prostitution. The specific kind of prostitution is not specified, but it is to be presumed that it was not Cathar “whoredom” but rather street walking.’ Whatever the real function of this installation, it is likely that, during the thirteenth century, the church at Toulouse, just as it was elsewhere in Europe, was beginning to busy itself “recovering” prostitutes. Admittedly the “domus sororum repentidarum” first appears in a testament of 1294, but the mention in the document of their house shows that these sisters were not new to the town.” True, the only link of the “sorores repentide” to prostitution is the fact that their feast day was that of Mary Magdalen, but it stands to reason that,

since there is no other cause of repentance in the 1290s so general as to produce and maintain a small institution, some of the women housed there were onetime prostitutes. A further conjecture is based on the notion that, if a town has homes to which prostitutes may flee or retire from their profession, it is likely to have occidental (Paris, 1962), pp. 198-209. A copy of the original document is in TAM, 11 77 (April 1271, copied in February 1299). Boyer was especially interested in the constitutional problem posed by the action of the vicar, but Otis, Prostitution, pp. 21-22 was looking at the women. > Monumenta historica Sancti Patris Nostri Dominici: Historia diplomatica S. Dominici, ed. Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent, Monumenta Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica v. 15, fasc. 1 (Paris, 1933), 1: No. 74 (December 1213) where Honorius confirmed the gift by the bishop

to Dominic of the “hospitale Tolosanum quod dicitur Arnaldi Bernardi.” .

* Tbid., No. 78 (January 1217) where the pontiff wrote the consuls, omitting the prioress’ name in the usual manner: “Cum igitur, sicut accepimus, dilecte in Christo filie . . priorissa et sorores domus hospitalis Tolosani quid dicitur Arnahii [!] que ad religionis observantiam de secula venientes ut retribuant misere filie Babillonis secundum retributionem quam retribuit illa ipsis, valida paupertate graventur; ne quod absit, necessitate compulse ad delitias Egipti suspirent, ubi possent esse sibi et aliis in laqueum et ruinem, universitatem vestram rogamus,

devotionem vestram attentius et monemus, per apostolica vobis scripta mandantes et in remissionem peccaminum iniungentes, quatenus, fenerantes Domino, misereamini pauperum predictarum, grata eis caritatis subsidia porrigendo, certi quod vobis thesaurizatis in celis quicquid in earum necessitatibus erogatis.” This point has also been noted by Wolff in his Nouvelle Histoire de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1974), p. 120. * Saint-Bernard 52n (May 1294) and a later reference in Clares 3 26 (November 1325).

68 RELATIONSHIPS public lupanars. Basing oneself on the material cited in the paragraph above, it may perhaps be argued that the hostility to public prostitution characteristic of the mid-thirteenth century was weakening. It has recently been remarked

that Louis ix and his brother Alphonse of Poitiers were hard on this profession, and it is known that clerical investigatory officers of the latter prince even rescinded the traditional right of the count’s provost in the town of Poitiers to protect prostitutes in return for a fee.° But this hostility may have merely been another expression of the tendency of the sainted Louis, his brothers and his government not only to “out-pope” the pope in regard to matters like the Inquisition but also, in “moral” matters, to outdo the church. Although, for the reason advanced at the start of this paragraph, it is likely

that what went on in Poitiers also transpired in Toulouse, there is little evidence of a house existing in this period. M. Chalande, the noted local historian of the geography of the town, conjectured that the sale of a house

and garden just outside the eastern wall of the City near the church of Saint-Aubin in 1309 to a Peter Trobat, “magister conventus,” was evidence of such a facility. His argument is based on two considerations derived from later evidence. The first is that, not long afterward when there is firm evidence of state supported prostitution, the houses or facilities were called convents or abbeys. Physically, it seems, they were rather like the groups of individual

houses that made up Carthusian establishments. In the second place, the eastern side of the City was the location of such an installation, and an important one, in the fifteenth century.’ The evidence is not compelling, therefore, but also not without interest. That women of this kind were not all relegated to live in houses or pursue their profession outside of the walls of town, however, is shown by a passage of the Commentary on the Custom of Toulouse composed by 1296.° One sees there that a woman named “domina” Cagarafes plied the trade in her house on the street named after Bertrand David, a location hard against the Place

de La Pierre and the grain market in the City. In short, prostitution — perhaps of a more elegant kind than that discussed above — took place in town and, as can be seen, in its very center. Quite as important, the passage states in black and white that men, even married ones, were permitted to © Otis, Prostitution, pp. 163-164 n. 44, citing text dated 1259 from Fournier and Guebin, Enquites administratives, No. 17 p. 84b and note and p. 117b: the provost took 360 pounds of Tours “sicut consuetum erat ab antiquo, ut eas [the women] deffenderet et gariret.” ” Jules Chalande, “La maison publique municipale aux xvéeme et xvieme siécle a Toulouse,” Mémoires de Académie des Sciences, Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de Toulouse \0th Series | 1

(1911) 69. Trobat’s house was on Grandselve street, now the rue de !’Etoile. ® The case is discussed by Otis, Prostitution, p. 28.

CONCUBINAGE 69 employ the services of such women without risking their marriages by a charge of adultery.’ However liberal the permission given to women to busy themselves in this occupation was, it is obvious that they were not well considered. Although one can sympathize with the householders on the rue des Moulins and the waterfront not wishing to have their streets made noisy and troubled, it is likely that the town fathers felt that such women, to use the words applied

to their sisters at Poitiers, were nothing more than “stupid women or whores.” B. CONCUBINAGE

In a brief aside, Ms Otis remarks that, although occasionally forbidden, concubinage was usually legally permitted in medieval communities, remarking that, in spite of his attacks on prostitution, Louis LX said nothing about

this practice.'' Often foolish, the king was certainly wise in this regard because a law attacking concubinage was hardly likely to be efficacious. At any rate, there was plenty of it in Toulouse and the surrounding countryside. Why did men and women enter relations not made legally durable by a marital contract? The answer, one hopes, is love. Canon law, it appears, not only talked about love in this regard, but also diminished the gap between marriage and concubinage, thus, it is said, lending some station to the lovers engaged in this kind of relationship.'’ Documents also seem to show that the wall between concubinage and wedlock was not high. A Cathar believer named Peter Faber (Faure) “cotelher” lived in the Lauragais well south of Toulouse at Laurac (about 10 km southwest of Castelnaudary, itself about 55 km southeast of Toulouse). One witness said that Peter was married to a > Gilles, Coutumes, pp. 255-256: “Item queritur si conjugatus accedat ad solutam an committat adulterium. Respondeo non per legem [C. 9 9 1 and 18] et ita vidi observari in causa Armaldi Ramundi qui fuit absolutus per sentenciam, qui erat conjugatus et fuerat inventus

cum soluta. Item queritur si conjugatus accedat ad domum ubi communiter reperiuntur mulieres pro peccunia ut puta in domo de Nag.Cagarafes in carreria Bertrandi David, credens habere rem cum soluta et erat uxorata, an committat adulterium. Respondeo non, quia locus

ipsum excusat argumento legis [C. 9 9 28 (29)] et [C. 4 56 3].” '0 Fournier and Guébin, Enquites administratives, No. 17 pp. 84b and note and | 17b: the provost was held to have taken his protection money “a stultis mulieribus seu meretricibus.

'' Prostitution, pp. 106-107 and the appropriate notes. . .

'2 Attempts to estimate the numbers of persons in relationships of concubinage run into obvious difficulties. Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou, p. 169 declares about 10% of couples at Montaillou were in concubinage, but the references used by Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, pp. 445-446, are much less quantitative.

3 Brundage “Concubinage and Marriage in Medieval Canon Law,” Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975) 1-17.

70 RELATIONSHIPS Willelma, another that a Willelma was his concubine.'* Perhaps there were two Willelmas, one a wife and the other a mistress, something useful to the cutler in intimate moments, but this seems unlikely. It is certain that, as did Willelma Companha from Mas-Saintes-Puelles far to the south of Toulouse, an occasional “amasia” or “concubina” legitimatized her relationship by calling her man a “concubinarius.”'’ Whatever protections canon law may have provided for the woman involved, however, concubines were often ill-considered. A longtime friend of the familiar abbot of Lezat was Fabrissa de Turri, and, although, by length of service, she was clearly a concubine, at least one uncharitable monk described her as a whore.’° In fine, a “concubina” was not as well off as an “uxor.” What then impeded the purported “lovers” from building the contractual link of marriage? Prior

matrimony, perhaps, in an age when divorce was all but impossible, is one

very good reason. Again, although my materials do not touch on it, the restriction imposed by canon law on the union of those within prohibited degrees of relationship probably took more time and money to remove than some had available. Most weighty of all perhaps, the rich did not habitually marry the poor, but the two were sometimes drawn to each other. Persons with means had attractions far beyond their beauty or wit, and the powerless invited both protection and exploitation. A host of reasons could in fact be adduced, but the texts I have been able to find are succinct.

There are relationships that smack of true love. A sick woman named Bernarda lived in the leprosery of Laurac, together with Raymond Bartha, a healthy young gentleman, whose concubine she was. The leper who reported this further testified that the “said Raymond was then an outlaw, lived daily in the said leperhouse and dissipated its property regardless of its inmates’ wishes.”’’ Bernarda soon died, her lover having summoned Cathars “who hereticated the sick woman, although she had first received the Body of Our Lord,” either to ward off the inquisitorial police or because she wished to cover all bets.'* There were other pairs whose members seem more or less independent economically, and some who seem to be socially rather humble. '4 TBM, MS 609, fols. 147r and 149r (December 12457), one testifying in Casalrenoux and the other in nearby Vitbran near Laurac. 'S Tbid., fols. lr, 2v and 5r (May and June 1245) and 28 v (February 1246). The testimony

referred to the death of the “concubinarius” Arnold Maiestre as a Cathar 12 or 14 years previously.

'6 Appendix 4, Witness No. 2: Augerius says that the abbot “tenuit Fabrissam de Turri sicut suam meretricem.”

'7 TBM, MS 609, fol. 75v (July 1245): “... erat tunc faiditus et tunc manebat in predicta leprosaria cotidie et dissipabat omnia bona dicte domus malo velle eorum qui erant ibi.” '8 Tbid., “... qui hereticaverunt dictam infirmam, licet primo recepisset corpus domini,” about three years previously.

CONCUBINAGE 71 , At Mas-Saintes-Puelles, naBarona rented a house from her lover, at Auriac, an “amasia” named Roja had a wetnurse for her child, at Fanjeaux a barber had a concubine named Ramunda — but enough, these are mere snapshots of those long lost to sight leaving no photo albums.'® In affairs blessed with some documentation, however, the superior social position and wealth of the man seems to have been decisive or instrumental.

At Cambiac, where, as has been seen above, a woman turned in all the villagers to the Inquisition, the farming folk, especially the “homines proprii”

or serfs, were subject to the petty monarchy, sometimes tyranny, of the gentlefolk. An example of how nuanced this was, however, may be seen in this almost wholly Cathar village. When the inquisitors began to grill them, the “rustici” testified that they had been afraid of their lords, Jordan Sais

(Saissius) and his son William.”” Perhaps so, but two of the serfs were “perfecti,” and had, in fact, been “adored” by one of their lords ten to a dozen years before.”' And, just as the already looming Inquisition was about to arrive, the worst that happened to the delator, the wife of a serf, who they all knew was going to ruin them, was to be imprisoned overnight and fined three shillings sixpence. One may therefore guess that coercion was not as important as was wealth and the consequent greater attractiveness of the rich than the poor. Cambiac’s lords, both father and son, had concubines recruited among “their” villagers.” Around the time her elderly lover, the old lord, after his shameful — as it must have seemed to his son — collapse during interrogation, was

condemned by the Inquisition in 1246, his mistress Willelma Torneria, possibly the wife or the daughter of a turner, had been packed off to, or took

off for, Toulouse.?? As to the young lord William, his wife Orbria was, according to one of her mother’s servants, so passionate about Catharism that she would have left her husband to become a “perfecta.”** Although William was a firm Cathar believer who had already suffered imprisonment for his faith, he had built a relationship with Valencia, the wife of the villager Peter Valencii. TIbid., fols. 6v (July 1245), 92v (July 1246) and 159v (May 1245). ® Ibid., fols. 237v-240r, the testimony being given in two sessions in December 1245 and July 1246 principally by Aimersenda, the women who turned them in. The men of the village speak on folios 238v-239r. *! Tbid., fol. 238v, where Jordan Sais “dixit etiam quod vidit Petrum Gausbert et Amaldum Faure, hereticos, homines suos, in domibus ipsorum hereticorum apud Cambiac, et ipse testis

... adoravit ipsos hereticos.” ,

2 Tbid., fol. 283v (December 1245) where the old lord Jordan lists his own concubine and his son’s. These women were friends and were seen helping the Cathars around 1242. > Tbid., fol. 240r.

* Tbid., fol. 200v (February 1245): “quod [Austorga de Resengas’ daughter Orbria] propter monitionem hereticorum dimiserat maritum suum et voluit fieri heretica.

72 RELATIONSHIPS Nor were things different in town, as is shown by the case of the patrician Berengar Astro. Before his death by 1225, Berengar not only had a wife and two legitimate children, but also lived openly with a woman named Saussia. He eventually married this woman off to a man of modest social station by whom by 1245 she had had two legitimate daughters. Before that, somewhat

late in life, Berengar had a child by Saussia named John. In spite of the publicity of this whole affair or perhaps because of it, Berengar’s spouse and legitimate children were not wildly enthusiastic about the liaison. They sold Berengar’s house hard on his death, and the legitimate son did not give John his father’s bequest of 500 shillings until he himself lay dying.?° Saussia was obviously both of lower social status and younger than her male companion. A reasonable guess why young women like Saussia took up with their older lovers is that some persons were better able to acquire dowries with which to marry from this kind of relationship than from labor or their professions. Although one is limited to guessing about Saussia, a frank appraisal of the

advantages there were for a woman in such arrangements concerns Abbot Peter de Dalbs’ longtime mistress Munda. Hugh, the claustral prior, reported that Munda’s sister Willelma told him that, not only had she herself helped to implement her sister’s affair, but also that it had been good for Munda. Munda, she said, “had been a poor woman and was enriched by the abbot, going about in really lovely sumptuous clothing, herself preparing private dinners for him.”*° Many of the witnesses record gifts of food and provisions, and, in fact, she was surely given as much or more than an ordinary monastic

oblate or pensionary, there in her house near the great gate of the monastery.”’ Her lover also looked after their two sons as well. One may perhaps propose then that, not only did the man profit from the woman, but also the woman from the man. Munda had many problems with her strange “concubinarius,” the Abbot Peter, but there was fondness there. She prepared dinner for him — “entre nous deux,” as she said, once gave him a hat and shampooed his hair.*® Fondness aside, like prostitutes, concubines were largely of lower class than their “lovers,” and were looking for more than love from their relationships.

If there were advantages for women, so were there for their men. The principal one was not an advantage so much as it was the gratification of an 25 Appendix 3, Astro and Sobaccus below. 7° Appendix 4, Witness No. 5: “Item cum esset pauper mulier ditata est per abbatem et vadit in habitu valde pulcro et sumptuoso et parat abbati comestiones suas privatas.” 27 See, for example, ibid., Nos. 2, 20 and 25. The latter reports that “quando erat cellerarius mittebat ei panem et vinum.”

8 See the hat or headdress above p. 62 and the material in the appropriate note. Ibid., Witness No. 25: “Item scit quod ipsa faciebat lexivam [lessive = lye shampoo] ad abluendum capud abbatis. Item hoc scit per confessionem dicte muleris.”

CONCUBINAGE 73 : older male’s desire to “have” younger women. Evidence of this is shown | rather curiously by the author of the Commentary on the Custom of Toulouse when he went out of his way to mention his own quondam mistress, even going to the length of naming her in his book.” What this shows, since the

relationship of Miliscenda and her quondam husband was anything but one of happy fidelity, is not only that men were happy to talk about past “conquests,” but also that, all things being equal, such cases elicited little social censure and some praise.’ In addition to this obvious advantage, concubinage was favored by men because of the informality of the relationship. Unlike marriage, dowries and marital gifts were not needed, and, although it was surely not always easy, the separation of concubines from their lovers did not entail the near impossibility of divorce. Naturally enough, for reasons of peace and prudence, older males sought to endow or sometimes pay or buy concubines off. Settlements between female and male companions are hard to find out about because, although concubinage was common enough, mistresses were naturally not called such in private legal documents. Two Toulousan women, however, were said to “live with” testators.*’ Similar phrases being applied to male companions, the words themselves prove nothing. Celibate men or widowers, moreover, were

solicitous about rewarding female domestics or housekeepers, especially wetnurses who had replaced their wives in regard to their children, even becoming, as it were, “mothers” of the family.*’ Still, it is unlikely that Petrona and Ricarda, the two women mentioned above, were mere servants. Either nurses for older men or mistresses, both were given more than even favored domestics, and one got half the property of the man with whom she lived.

Not everyone was up to dying in order to outfit his or her companion, and,

besides, although some such pairs must have lasted for a long time as partners, even to death, one may guess that many, especially older men and younger women, would split up somewhere along the way. Either his “amica”

*? Otis, Prostitution, p. 107 noticed this case. .

© Gilles, Coutumes, p. 213: Miliscenda claimed that her husband had given her “materia adulterandi,” and the Commentator described her as “uxor ejus, concubina nostra quondam.” See also pp. 127-128 below.

*! See Petrona in Appendix 1, No. 35 and Ricarda in No. 159. . * Tbid., Nos. 20 (a celibate who owed his “ancilla” 40 shillings), 48 (a childless man gift to his “pedisecca”), 108 (a wealthy man endowed “ancille” for his wife and daughter and also a “scutifer” for his son-in-law), 124 (a married man to “nutrix” of his son) and 190 (to the testator’s own “nutrix” and those of his two sons). See also E 2 (September 1194) where a widower gratifies a “nutrix”; Daurade 117 (March 1238, copied in 1235) a gift of a childless man to an “ancilla”; and Maprc, A 297, fol. 877v (May 1277) where a notable not only gives benefactions to ordinary domestics but also to one called “nutrix et mater.”

74 RELATIONSHIPS Saussia or Berengar Astro, for example, determined to end their relationship sometime before he died, and she was married to another man, a person of

her class. The inconstant Abbot Peter seems to have had few durable relationships. One of these was with Fabrissa de Turri at both Toulouse and Leézat, an affair that one witness said lasted three years.**? Fabrissa had no children by the abbot, but Munda did, and she was first in his affections for seven or more years.** Perhaps, then, a normal way of endowing concubines was, if they were still young enough, to set them up in marriage with a dowry. Fabrissa de Turri had been married off to Abbot Peter’s cousin german Pons de Siuraco.*° It is also known that Fabrissa was still attractive after her husband Pons died because Peter propositioned the young widow before the altar in his priory of Saint-Antonin in Toulouse.” The best example, however, is the familiar Munda. Her “marriage” to her ecclesiastical lover lasted around seven years, long enough to produce two sons and a final pregnancy. Perhaps because of that pregnancy, perhaps because of Peter’s pursuits of Martina or the noble Comdor, perhaps because the affair was too widely known, in short, for some

reason impossible to know, it finally collapsed, falling apart amid wild recrimination and scenes of violence. Munda, as seen above, tried to stop the break-up. She publicly fought her rivals, telling everyone “indiscriminately,” as one witness put it, about their affairs with her man and revealing the secret of her abortion.”’ As the relationship deteriorated, the abbot searched out a husband for his tiresome mistress. Two lay witnesses against him testified that he asked them to marry her, promising “a thousand favors” to one and setting the other up

with her on a trip to Rocamadour, the famed pilgrimage nearly 180 km to the north of Lézat.** Bitterly hostile to Peter, the monk Auger reported that 33, Appendix 4, Witness No. 3.

* Tbid., Nos. 6 and 7. No. 6 says it was widely reported “apud Lesatum apud clericum et populum et tenuit per .vii. annos et amplius apud Lesatum in hostio monasterii concubinam suam nomine Munda et habuit inde .iii. filios et citra .ii. annos .ii. filios parvulos,” the latter part of the phrase being confused. > Tbid., Witnesses Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 15. Nos. 5, 13, 17, 19 and 26 knew about the cousin german but not his name.

© Tbid., No. 15: Fabrissa told the witness that “post mortem viri sui sollicitaverat eam coram altare Sancti Antonii.”

7 Tbid., No. 10: On Munda and her two sons, “et de tercio fecit aborsum et hoc est notorium ... et ipsa etiam dicit hoc indistincte et ipse credit firmiter esse verum et scit eam quia audivit ab ea.” 8 Tbid., No. 31: “Item dicit quod dictus abbas rogabat eum ut duceret Mundam mulierem in uxore et ipse faceret sibi millia bona et de eadem facta quendam alium rogaverat qui sibi etiam revelavit.” The witness, .B. Sabata appears elsewhere in the testimony (No. 6) as bringing Sibilia de Falgar to the abbot at Muret. Confused or garbled is the testimony of No.

CONCUBINAGE 75 the abbot promised to make one candidate an oblate and stripped another | of his oblature because he refused to marry her. Although the above may be , wholly tendentious, this monk also mentioned Munda’s eventual husband, a , public notary of Lezat, William Petri, a successful person who — wonder of , wonders! — was among those attesting the copy of all the testimony against , Peter made in March 1255.” All in all, if this is true, Munda had not done ,

too badly. |

One of the inhibitions nature clamped on such commerce was that of illegitimate children. The sources show that efforts were made to abort unwanted children. As has already been stated, Munda told everybody that she lost her third child because of the abbot’s violence. A less murderous case has a knight and oblate named William de Biraco reporting to the inquest that

the abbot had impregnated the young noblewoman Comdor, and that “her mother gave her herbs to drink in order to abort her.””’ As will be explored briefly in the final chapter to this book, herbal brews, charms etc. were surely without predictable result. The witnesses at Lézat seem to have shared this opinion because they not only asserted that Peter de Dalbs had engendered two sons and an aborted child on Munda, but also a daughter variously at Toulouse and at Muret, thus certifying the common opinion that a sexually active man would have issue.*' This evidence also indicates that the tale about the abortifacient was essentially used both to damn the abbot’s memory and to express a conviction that he was sexually remarkably potent. To return to the fruits of “love,” a measure of a concubine’s condition may also be derived from the treatment of her children. Like most tongues, Latin — the language of the documents used here — had not a few terms to describe illegitimate issue.*” The inquisitors used the word “spurius” to define such a

25 which reads: “Item ivit cum ea [Munda] apud Rupem Amatoris et abbas dixit ei si placebat

sibi illa cum fuerat Rupem Amatoriam et rogavit eum quod eam duceret in uxorem ... Item rogavit eum ut reciperet dictam Mundam in uxorem, set non exprimebat rationem.” . *% Ibid., No. 2: “Item dixit quod ipse abbas rogavit personaliter dictum A{ugerium] t[estem] nomine .B. [garbled text] quod ipse cariore sui ipsam Mundam duceret in uxorem et ipse faceret ei magnum bonum et faceret ipsum donatum. Item .G. Petri dixit teste qui

loquitur [Auger] quod abbas dedit sibi panem et vinum et fecit ipsum notanum quod contraheret cum dicta Munda. Item .R. de Baiona fuit rogatus per eundem abbatem quod contraheret cum ea et quia noluit abstulit ei panem et vinum quem habebat in monasterio Lesatensi ....” For William Petri as public notary of Lézat, see the final subscriptions to the

role of testimony in this manuscript. or * Ibid., No. 1: “impregnavit eam et dixit quod est fama ibi quod mater sua dedit ei herbas

ad bibendum ut faceret aborsum.” . ‘| Ibid., No. 2: “Item dicitur publice quod apud Tholosam habet filiam parvulam.” No. 14:

the child at Muret was purportedly born to Lumbarda.

® The word “nothus” seems pejorative, rather like “bastard,” and cannot be found in the sources I am citing here.

76 RELATIONSHIPS child, but it is noticeable that the jurists and even the relatively unlearned lay consuls of Toulouse, preferred “filius naturalis” in court.*? Testaments at Toulouse also never employed the word “spurius,” a fact allowing the guess that, although having a place in law, the term was pejorative.** Other than

the occasions when testators simply mention that so-and-so is their child, they also preferred to define the child as a “filia” or “filius naturalis.”* Not many illegitimate children were listed in the testaments, four or five against 133 legitimate ones.*° This may perhaps be because there were relatively few. This is doubtful, however. As shall be seen, there were better reasons for omitting illegitimates from testaments. Although obviously fragmentary, the evidence seems to show that, where fathers were of modest class, the natural child was gravely disadvantaged. Even though such a child transmitted some claim to a male parent’s inheritance, illegitimacy was a diriment impediment to being an heir to a father’s property and rights.*’ But such issue was often even more discriminated against than is implied by that objective, if harsh, rule. A dairy farmer gave a natural son, a person whose mother, not the wife of the testator, was named in the document, only 10 shillings, substantially less than his gifts to nieces and nephews, equal only to those of his godchildren.*® His heir was an as yet

unborn child. A somewhat richer butcher made his sons his heir, gave a married daughter 150 shillings, dowered another with 300 shillings and trousseau, and fobbed off his natural son with 75.” The picture improves as one moves upward in society to those elevated grades where, as is often the case, concubinage was more satisfactory for its adepts because there was more money to go around. Strangely niggardly was the rich Vital Galterius

whose large inheritance went either to his nephews or the church and education. Having no legitimate children, he left to a natural son, William Pons, the son of Saurimonda, property about equal to that of a solid artisan. This testator appears to have had another illegitimate child, Berengar, to whom his brother (half-brother, perhaps, because his mother’s name was not ** The “spurii” are seen in the notes below, and the term “naturalis” in a court case concerning the inheritance of John Astro in 1246 in Appendix 1, No. 151, for the context of which see Appendix 3, Astro and Sobaccus family histories below. “* Heumans Handlexikon zu den Quellen des rémischen Rechtes s. v. “spurius”: a text of Gaius where he quotes the Greek term showing that illegitimates were “concepti vel quasi sine

Pa Appendix 1, No. 165 refers to a “filius naturalis,” and No. 188 to a “filia naturalis.” “6 See the notes below. *” See the curious case of John Astro mentioned below in Chapter 5 and also Appendix 3, Astro and Sobaccus.

*® Appendix 1, No. 128. | ” Ibid., No. 165.

CONCUBINAGE 77 mentioned) was to give only 50 shillings, and to whom, if the first named child were to die before his majority, his property was to be assigned.’ More generously treated was the rich burgher Ademar Maurand’s natural daughter Petrona. Married and therefore already dowered, she got a substantial bequest of 1000 shillings.’ Note, however, that Petrona was an only child, Ademar having no other issue, legitimate or illegitimate. His heirs were his nephews and grandnephews. When one stops to think that a document designed for family archives was not the best place to look after concubines or their issue, it is probable that

the natural fathers were not quite so ungenerous as they appear. Here, however, everything depended on wealth or class. Abbot Peter’s Munda, as noted above, was probably married off to a modest public notary in the little town of Lézat. Still, the father of her two natural sons tried to look after his

boys. One was baptized at Gameville hardly more than 10 km south of Toulouse, and the other at Lézat later on.°’ At Gameville, one of the abbot’s nephews, Pons Rossellus, was the child’s godfather, and elsewhere the abbot

had entrusted him with 100 shillings Morlaas to hold in safekeeping for Munda.*> Doubtless Peter would have done more had not his career been ruined, but what he could derive from his position — and a very awkward one

it was for this kind of relationship — must have been small in comparison with what a really free rich person could do. The patrician Berengar Astro has already been seen in these pages, and his concubine Saussia gave birth to a natural child named John. Separated from his own wife and legitimate

children, Berengar housed John and his mother (at least, until she was married off) in his big town house. John lived openly there, proudly inscribed the family name Astro in legal documents and married very well in 1238 or 1239. His bride, a widow named Matheva Sobacca who will shortly be seen,

brought a big dowry of 1000 shillings. True, as noted above, Berengar’s widow and legitimate children were probably not happy, but their illegitimate

half brother would have done well had he not died within ten years of his marital union. To reach up to the very pinnacle of society, one is tempted to say that, up there in that rarefied atmosphere, illegitimacy did not preclude a good life. India, natural daughter of Count Raymond VI, first married a soon-to-die viscount of Lautrec and then the lord of Isle-Jourdain. Although °° Tbid., No. 141. *! Tbid., No. 188. *2 Appendix 4, No. 22 where the layman .G. Garsie tells of Munda’s sons. He was present at the baptism at Gameville by the “capellanus” or parish priest “et fuit patrinus Poncius Rossellus nepos abbatis.” In 1253, he says, the other son was baptized at Lezat. 53 Ibid., No. 2: “et habet filios parvulos a dicta Munda et dedit ei .c. sol. Morl. et .B. Jo. tradidit eos Poncio Rossello qui tenet eos nomine dicte Munde.”

78 RELATIONSHIPS it had slipped in value from the heights of the first, her marriage portion in the second union was the enormous sum of 10,000 shillings of Toulouse, truly a fortune.” The histories of India and John Astro remind readers that rich illegitimates

had it better than poor ones, and social habits seem to confirm this understandable fact. In the mid-thirteenth century evidence assembled by the inquisitors in the Lauragais, one sees relatively few “spurii” from the lower classes. They are there, working the fields, etc., but the ones who stand out are those of the upper classes.°”> Gentlemen’s natural children are to be seen in Cathar conventicles mixed together with others of their class, even with their fathers’ wives or widows.”°

This may be true, but it is necessary to remember that, just as much as those of humbler classes, natural sons were excluded from the succession in the ranks of the seigniorial aristocracy. Jordan Iv, the son of the lord of Isle-Jourdain and the count’s natural child India adverted to above, appeared before the vicar of Toulouse on Christmas Eve 1259. Against the claims of his cousin german, Isarn Jordan, he asserted that the latter should have no share in the family inheritance because he was really his aunt’s illegitimate son by a subdeacon and canon in the cathedral of Toulouse who had become prior and archdeacon.”’ He claimed that his grandfather’s will had expressly excluded illegitimates from the baronial inheritance. Although the noble lord overstated his case a trifle, this exclusion was certainly what his grandfather Jordan il anticipated would be the case in his will of 1200.°° Typical of these explosively combative Gascons, the litigants proposed to fight a judicial duel

involving the two principals and three or more “good men and true,” one that, equally typically, never came off.”

*4 Appendix 1, Nos. 43, 47 and 106. > TBM, MS 609, fol. 121v (November 1245) where the witness speaks of a “spurius” he had employed “excutere bladum suum quod habebat in area ipsius testis.” © Tbid., fol. 34v (June 1246) at Saint-Martin-de-la-Lande, Bernard Arrezat, child of

Bernard Mir Arrezat; fol. 102v (May 1246) about an assembly headed by the lord of Montesquieu, his illegitimate son Arnold, a domestic, etc.; and fol. 202r (May 1245) a group at the house of Na Assauda, widow of Raymond Unaud, a lord of Lanta, her mother, her daughters, a “domicella,” one of her husband’s “spurii,” Austorga, wife of Peter de Resengas, and quite a number of others. *” ppn, MS lat. new acq. 2406, p. 1: “quia vos estis illegitimus et non legitimus heres de baronia, nam vos fuistis filius de subdiacono qui etiam erat prior et canonicus et archidiaconus

in ecclesia Tolosa. Quare dico quod ea que tenetis de dicta baronia tenetis minus iure, quia avus noster in testamento suo prohibuit ne aliquis nisi esset heres legitimus dictam baroniam teneret vel possideret.”

8 Appendix 1, No. 31.

* See my “Village, Town and City,” pp. 149-152. |

MARRIAGE 719 There may have been another factor. The two most richly endowed natural children were both women, Petrona Mauranda and the count’s India. What perhaps explains these lucky women is that female children are more likely

to be the playthings of their male parents than boys. Because, as has been seen, women rarely inherited unless men were lacking, female children may have embodied male notions of what was loveable better than young males who represented property, power and responsibility. Evidence of distrust between legitimate and illegitimate male siblings was often seen. The one member of the Raymondine dynasty of Toulouse who joined the crusaders in the war against Languedoc was Baldwin, the natural brother of Count Raymond VI. He was captured and hanged for “treason,” one of the nastier incidents in that nasty war.”° For a moment, then, one thinks of women as advantaged. Perhaps, but this

was the distaff side of life where “dolls,” sometimes beautiful and deadly ones, worked and played. Even there, however, women were not remembered as were men. A fair amount is known about the egregious Abbot Peter’s

purported sons, for example, but next to nothing about his purported daughters. Prosecuting him, the court could have used the additional evidence, but nobody seems to have been interested.

To conclude, concubines sometimes got something from their men, sometimes something worthwhile. So, quite obviously, did the richer and often also older “concubinarii.” Did they gain as much as their partners? Yes and more, if lucky, but the luck depended partly on their balance of wealth and age, not to speak of the kind of woman luck had chosen for them. Was what was true of concubinage true also of marriage? C. MARRIAGE

Tradition had it that marriage was a sacrament performed by two consenting

parties, a woman and a man. In theory and partly in practice (something examined in the next chapter), marriages were voluntary commitments made by two persons in order to live together, presumably to share life’s pleasures and risks and raise children. Consent was expressed by a woman accepting or taking a man — “I Matheva take or accept [‘accipere’ or ‘ducere’] you Peter as my husband [‘in virum’]” — and a man taking a woman — “I Peter take you Matheva as my wife” — joining them “with a ring and a kiss.”*' The

® February 1214 at Montcuq. ‘| For examples, see Appendix 1, Nos. 23, 24, 37, 38, 47 and 119. No. 166 has the phrase

| “cum anulo et osculo.”

80 RELATIONSHIPS act of will by the woman and man shows the intrinsic equality of the pair in the theory of the time.” No more than today, however, was the frontier between marriage and other sexual relationships secure or firmly defined. Women could be leaned on. A rural gentleman’s will emancipated a servile farming woman if, and

only if, she “accepts” a specific man as a husband. They could also be “seduced” or violated. The law professors of the university of Toulouse tell the story of a fictional Berta, older than 12 and younger than 14 years, who was enticed to a party and then invited by Titius and some young married friends to play the game “of man and wife.” Initially reluctant, Berta was finally persuaded by inebriation and coercion to say the words of marriage and play the game.” Since she had afterwards married, the lawyers asked the question: “had Berta married Titius?”® “No!” Titius, all agreed, should derive no profit from his “execrable intention.” And again “No!” However perfect the phrases uttered may have been, Berta, being drunk, cannot be said to have

given her consent. ® For a brief introduction concerning matrimony, see Gabriel Lebras, “Le mariage dans la theologie et le droit de l’eglise du xle au xille siécle,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 11 (1968) 191-202. Hereafter “Le mariage.” For a contemporary text about the equality of man and wife, see pp. 122-123 below. °3 Appendix 1, No. 63. Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 55, pp. 133-134: The somewhat garbled story is printed as follows: “Quaedam puella minor xiiii annis, maior xii, nomine Berta, fuit per quandam vetulam procurante Titio instigata, ut in quadam domo cum puellis aliis se crosaret. Ibique fuit totiens

crosata et revoluta, quod vix sensum habebat et etiam nectar sibi pro potu cum vino albo dabatur, ut inebriaretur. Demum ea inebriata, quidam, qui erant ibi cum dicto Titio et quadam data opera dixerunt, quod facerent ad ludum, qui dicitur ‘dominorum et dominarum’. Et tres ex illis cum uxoribus propriis in illo ludo verba aperta de presenti pro matrimonio protulerunt. Demum ei dixerunt, quod eadem verba cum dicto Titio ipsa proferret et fecerunt, quod dictus Titius vestes muliebres recepit, ut alii tres fecerunt in ludo proxime facto. Tandem unus de illis interrogavit dictum Titium, si volebat in uxorem dictam Bertam, qui respondit, quod sic. Post interrogavit ipsam Bertam, si volebat dictum Titium in maritum, que dixit quod non responde-

ret. Dixit interrogans: ”"Responde.* Dixit ipsa: "Non faciam“ et voluit recedere, set sibi hostium fuit clausum. Et durante ludo interrogans et quidam alii dixerunt Berte, quod causa ludi fiebat et sine timore periculo poterat respondere sic. Que respondit sic. Queritur an valeat tale matrimonium, presertim si cum alio contraxerit et copulatio carnalis fuerit insequta?” °° Tbid.: the heading reads: “An per verba de praesenti, in ludo pro matrimonio prolata,

matrimonium contrahatur, praesertim si mulier postea cum alio contraxerit et copulatio carnalis fuerit consecuta.” The phrase “per verba de praesenti” implies matrimony and perhaps immediate carnal copulation. See note 76 below.

°° Tbid.: “Utriusque namque iuris statuerunt auctores, ut in contrahendo matrimonio consensus necessario requiratur ad eo, prout Nicholaus Papa testatur, quod, si consensus deffuerit, etcetera, licet rite celebrata, frustrantur, C. 27, q. 2, 2, c. sufficiat ... talis mulier, que valde est ebria et per tales revolutiones in tali vapla seu crossa habitas in cerebro nimis turbata,

non potest dici consensum habere, presertim cum est parva et debilis, que potest facilius propter talia affici et turbari, ut potest probari per iura superius allegata.”

MARRIAGE 8] Although usually solemnized in church, wedlock was not always easy to

prove, both clandestinity and lack of records posing problems.°’ A case discussed by the doctors of the university is pertinent here. Wishing to enter holy orders, a son was initially defeated by his father declaring him to be illegitimate. The father had had issue, including the son in question, by his

first wife, and then, after her death, remarried and again had children. Although this parent eventually withdrew the obstruction to his son’s ambitions, the professors worked the question over.” Since Titius and Berta, his wife and the mother of the son discreetly named “M.”, had lived together alone and had children, their families and neighbors believed them to have been married.” Especially because Roman law approved this opinion, such “a semi-full proof was sufficient in the case of matrimony.””° Again, if a father

mentioned a child without the adjective “natural” in a public document (as probably happened in this case), he or she was to be presumed legitimate.” Anent the son’s oath attesting legitimacy when requesting holy orders, the law presumed innocence until someone proved guilt.”” In short, the proof of marriage was often presumptive. Although it surely helped, even a charter containing a marital contract between a man and woman could not prove the existence of marriage. Since such documents concern property, however, | shall treat them in the next chapter. Differences aside, and all of them have to do with property, there were similarities between concubinage and matrimony. What was true of that loose

relationship was also true of the sobrieties of legal marriage. Not only obviously on average smaller, the brides seem to have been younger than the bridegrooms. One hastens to confess, however, that information about the

age of marriage at Toulouse is pitifully sparse. Confirmed in 1286, the Custom of Toulouse stated that the age of majority was 14 for males and 12 for females, and set the age of emancipation at 25 for both sexes.”? Similar to today’s practice, the numbers 12, 14 and 25 refer to the completion of

67 See LeBras, “Le mariage,” p. 198, and, on local rites, Chapter 3, pp. 64-65 above. 68 Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 2, pp. 2-5: the father Titius “asseruit ipsum M. [the son] non fuisse ipsius filium legitimum sed naturalem tantum.”

Ibid.: “Titius multo tempore coabitavit cum Berta, quam unicam habuit et in domo ex eadem filios suscepit. Multo tempore dictus Titius asseruit se afidasse sive asegurasse Bertam et ipsam ut uxorem tenuisse. Hoc eadem Berta predicta coram pluribus confessa est.”

0 Tbid.: “... fama semiplene probat in matrimonio.” “Item quia ius civile presumit, ubi longua talium, scilicet Titii et Berte, fuit cohabitatio, rite inter eos matrimonium adfuisse.” | Tbid.: the “declaratio iuris quia, ubi constat aliquem esse naturalem tantum, pater cum publico instrumento vocet eum filium non adiecto ‘naturalem,’ legitimus declaratur.” 2 Ibid.: his oath, after all, was “sub anime sue periculo.” 73 Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 7-8, 31 and 100 and p. 217 for the Commentary of 1296.

a

82 RELATIONSHIPS these years.’ Since the age of emancipation concerns property and not wedlock, it will not be treated here. To add to the law, the documents assert

that the ages at which girls were married were sometimes quite low. A daughter of the baron of Lanta whose father died before her birth was married by age thirteen or fourteen.” In line with canon law — a law known at Toulouse in this regard — that permitted union for girls at age seven “per verba de futuro,” there was a difference between being married to a husband but not living with him and living with him with “carnalis copulatio.”’”° An example is a gentlewoman from Laurac in the Lauragais who reported that

her first husband had hereticated on his deathbed, but that she had not witnessed this action because “she was young and did not yet live with him.””’ Nor was early marriage a matter of class. In a testament of 1261 drawn in town, a widow of the laboring classes named Flos made her daughter her heir, stating that the child was both a minor and already married to an “ortolanus” or gardener.’* More normal, perhaps, is a woman who left home in Laurac in the Lauragais to be married at age eighteen.”

To repeat, wives were smaller and younger at marriage than their husbands, though how much smaller and younger only reason and later evidence

™ For males, the phrasing in ibid., Art. No. 7 is “maior xiiii annis.” Phrases such as “ad complementum etatis viginti quinque annorum” in E 502 (January 1289) were sometimes used. All of this fits canon law nicely as is seen in LeBras, “Le mariage,” p. 195. > Appendix 1, No. 95 (November 1222), in which instrument the child named Marquesia was not yet born. She married Aimeric de Rocaforte in March 1236. ’® G. Laribiére “Le mariage a Toulouse aux XIV et XV siécles” Annales du Midi 79 (1967) 343, hereafter Laribiére “Mariage a Toulouse.” In this study of documents from the notarial archives beginning in 1353, 98% of the 551 contracts are “per verba de presenti.” On the use of these conceptions at Toulouse slightly after this time, see Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 58, p. 142, where it states “quod dicta Berta contraxerit cum dicto Titio per verba de futuro seu per verba de presenti sub conditione tamen, si matri placeret, et sic consensus non est de presenti, licet per verba de presenti exprimatur ... quod est ponibile et possibile, vir autem vendicat eam acsi contraxisset pure et per verba de presenti.” On the general history of this matter, see LeBras, “Le mariage,” p. 197, who remarks that the system was codified by Peter Lombard and generalized by Alexander mm, and a recent and fuller discussion in Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, pp. 237, 264-270. The author there distinguishes between the Italian (Gratian) and French (Peter Lombard) traditions, but one does not know which obtained at Toulouse in the period treated here. " BM, MS 609, fol. 191r (July 1246), Pictavina wife of the knight Isarn de Alborenz and widow of William Peter de Morval. The translated passage reads: “quia iuvenis erat et nondum moratur cum ipso marito.” "8 Appendix 1, Nos. 168 and 173. This evidence is weak because, by the time of this will in 1261, the legal age of majority was sometimes confused with that of emancipation, namely 25 years of age. ? TBM, MS 609, fol. 108v (June 1246) Blancha, widow of denCompanh de Montesquieu, knight, daughter of the deceased denCambel de Lauraco.

MARRIAGE 8 3 make guesses possible.*° Because of the differences, also, young wives were

often treated as children, small beings who could be struck if “need be.” Although no Toulousan literary or legal text treats this problem, one recalls that the northern French governor Philip of Rémi, lord of Beaumanoir, remarked that, if greatly provoked, husbands were not to be punished for beating their wives; in fact, they were encouraged to do so.*! True, if blameless, a beaten wife could leave her husband, but all the same!® There is, nevertheless, another side to this, one again not visible in the exiguous materials provided by Toulouse. Preachers sometimes understood the patterns typical of marital mistreatment. Jacques de Vitry rounded on men who neglected their impoverished spouses while living it up in the taverns. Returning home drunk, he says, they beat them up, sometimes making wives so desperate that they leave their mates and strike up relationships with others.®’ At least one preacher, moreover, the Franciscan Guibert de Tournai (d. 1270), believed that, since husband and wife were equal, a

woman could correct her man just as he did her.* A compensatory advantage possessed by wives was that, in spite of death in childbirth, they outlived their husbands. Aldiarda de Caneto’s husband died in 1200 leaving her with four children. Twenty-seven years later, her eldest son died. Childless himself, he left his brother Peter and his mother instructions to raise his nephew for ten years, and then to divide his modest estate equally.” In 1234 Brunissenda, daughter of Saptalina, dowered and

*° Laribiére, “Mariage a Toulouse,” p. 350 conjectures that women usually married around

15 or 16 in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. *! Philippe de Beaumanoir, Coutumes de Beauvaisis, ed. Am. Salmon, 2 vols. (Paris, 1899-1900), Ivii, No. 1631: the seignior may “loit bien a ’ homme a batre sa fame sans mort et sans mehaing, quant ele le mesfet, si comme quant ele est en voie de fere folie de son cors,

ou quant ele desment son mari ou maudit, ou quant ele ne veut obeir a ses resnables commandemens que preudefame doit fere: en teus cas et en semblables est il bien mestiers que li maris soit chastieres de sa fame resnablement.” ®? Ibid., Ivii, No. 1628: “ou ele s’en parti pour ce qu'il la bati pour aucun mesfet qu’ele fist ou pour aucune folie qu’ele dist, nepourquant il n’estoit pas coustumiers de li batre.” 83 A sermon “ad conjugatos” in PBN, MS lat 17509, fol. 135va cited in d’Avray and Tausche, “Marriage Sermons in ‘ad status’ collections of the Central Middle Ages,” Archives d histoire

doctrinale et littéraire du moyen Gge 47 (1980) 106: “et insuper, dum ebrii redeunt, uxores sine causa verberant, et male tractant; unde quandoque ex tristitia et desperatione maritos

relinqunt et alienis viris commiscentur, et licet non excusentur a peccato, maritus qui occasionem prebuit non reputabitur immunis.” Hereafter “Marriage Sermons.” ** Quoted by Avray and Tausche, “Marriage Sermons,” pp. 114-115, from PBN, Ms. lat. 15943, fol. 145rb: “Sit etiam liberalitas correctionis ut libere possit vir uxorem arguere, et ex

dilectione illa recipiat, et e converso.” It may be noted, however, that Gilbert states the proposition in reverse. For this northern preacher’s doctrine of equality, see Chapter 6, pp. 122-123 below.

*> Appendix 1, Nos. 30 and 105.

a

84 RELATIONSHIPS married off one daughter, and, with the consent of her other daughter, her granddaughter as well. Save for the two bridegrooms, who happened to be brothers, no men appeared in the charter.®® See also Willelma de Furno, widow of Arnold Pairolerius (coppersmith) in 1226, who married Pons Umbertus “magister” in 1231, and who was widowed and remarried in 1235 to Peter Rixendis.®’

The last case reminds one to look at the statistics available. In the testaments calendared in this book, nearly 95 percent of the males left female relicts when they died; among the women only one predeceased her husband, the five others were widows.® Of the 17 couples, furthermore, one of whose

members had two spouses, only four men are to be seen as against 13 women.” Although such unions hardly fitted the poets’ ideal, some young women probably gained by marrying older men. Often at the peak of their wealth and social power, such husbands’ lack of physical force may have seemed advantageous to younger women little attuned to deriving sexual pleasure from their spouses. Evidence of early male death and the early age of marriage does not permit

the assertion that all women were very young at marriage. Not a few instruments refer to women marrying after their teens, to widows’ second unions and to unions of substantial duration. Petrona de Tonenquis was the second wife of a baker in the Dalbade parish whom she married in 1210. Three years later her spouse died intestate of wounds received when the French crushed the Toulousan militia at Muret. Over 17 years later, Petrona remarried, surely, then, a woman in her thirties, if not older.”’ Obviously young, Matheva Rossella married the successful businessman Peter Sobaccus

in 1219. Eighteen years, three sons and one daughter later, Peter was dispatched on penance to the Holy Land for reason of Catharism, and thereafter disappeared. In 1238 or 1239, Matheva married John Astro, an illegitimate son of a good family into which her own sister had already married, and had a child by him.”’ Surely, again, a woman at least in her thirties. Somewhat loose quantitative estimates support these individual

°° Ibid., No. 119. 8” Tbid., No. 112. ** | have removed from consideration two of the 82 testaments in ibid., namely Nos. 105 and 122, because there is no mention of a spouse. One of these decedents left a mother. More

dubiously, perhaps, I have included among the men leaving “wives” two persons whose testaments gratified women with whom they “lived,” Nos. 35 and 159.

Tbid., Nos. 4, 12, 21, 24, 36, 43, 48, 51, 55, 68, 80, 83, 87, 99, 102, 141, 152 and the other documents referred to in these entries. © Appendix 3, Tonenquis below. *! Appendix 3, Sobaccus below.

MARRIAGE 85 histories. The rough average of the time between first and second marriages in seven cases is just about nine years, a figure that shows that these women were hardly still in the first flush of youth.” Some evidence about the longevity of marriage may be drawn from eight cases in which both the marital and death dates of the husband are known. These average 11 and a third years.”’ These figures are surely low. Much of the evidence comes from wartime when Toulouse was defeated in the field, her militia being massacred, and twice seriously besieged. One of the brief

unions was of a husband killed in battle.** A group of five cases giving minimal figures for the duration of marriages average no less that 29 and a half years.” The longest marriage lasted over 37 years, and it was a second union for the wife.”° It may finally be remembered that the society dealt with here was one in which divorce, a practice that makes possible what may be described as serial polygyny on the part of wealthy males, was all but unknown.” Separations,

however, are seen, and some are like desertions. The documents of this period tell nothing about husbands leaving wives, but something about the obverse of that coin. A farmer from well outside of Toulouse near Fanjeaux claimed that his spouse had abandoned him in his sickness, forcing him to look elsewhere for help.”® Think also of the Babilonia mentioned above whose husband was reduced to praying the magistrates of Toulouse in 1176 to give him his wife’s dowry and erase her claims because she had run off with

a Brabantese soldier after cleaning him out.” Separations by mutual agree-

2 Appendix 1, No. 6 — 10 years after first marriage; Nos. 21 and 41 — 7 years; Nos. 24 and 56 — 14 years; Nos. 43 and 47 — 3 years and 4 months; Nos. 51 and 90 — 12 years and 2 months; Nos. 55 and 104 — 13 years and 3 months; and 68, 76 and 85 — 2 years | month. 3 Ibid., No. 12 — 1 year and 2 months; Nos. 25 and 89 — 22 years; Nos. 47 and 106 — 21 years; No. 55 — 3 years; No. 56 — either 11 years 6 months or 13 years 2 months; Nos.

68 and 76 — 2 years and one month; Nos. 87 and 130 — 17 years and 5 months; and 150 and 168 — 11 years and 9 months. 4 Tbid., No. 55. 5 Ibid., Nos. 4 and 33 — 27 years 1 month; No. 9 — 29 years 3 months; Nos. 42 and 113 — 28 years; No. 49 — 22 years 3 months; and No. 172 — 31 years 1 month. © Tbid., Nos. 4 and 33. 7 Following Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, pp. 243 and 288, marriage could be dissolved on grounds of impotence, entry into religion, long absence, intractable illness, serious crime, rape, fornication or subsequent consummated marriage with another. For obvious reasons, such cases do not alter the reality expressed in the sentence above. 8 In Célestin Douais, ed., Travaux pratiques d'une conference de paléographie (Toulouse, 1900), No. 10 (September 1193), Pons Roger de Burcafoliis gave himself into the hands of a family stating that “Sit notum omnibus hominibus quia hoc donum facio quoniam uxor mea defecit michi in necessariis.” > See Chapter 6, pp. 126-127 below.

86 RELATIONSHIPS ment of the parties are also seen.’ Raymond de Lissaco and his wife acquired property together in 1145. Thirty-odd years and three children later,

the two contracted to part, the husband retaining enough to retire into the home of one of his sons for care, and the wife sufficient to go about her business.'°’ This arrangement was presumably similar to those made by persons who entered religion or enlisted as oblates in a religious house.'”’ In such cases, also, a wife or even a female companion, and children had to be provided for after the departure of the male.'” Separation was possible then, but divorce not, and, as will be seen when looking at the marriage arrangements, the latter prohibition protected women, although it also accentuated their dependency on the family. As remarked above, nothing is known about the desertion of women by men at this time or of households headed by women, save for widows. Philippe Wolff statistics for the Bourg of Toulouse in 1335, however, show that women other than widows frequently headed households. Some 8.7 percent of the 955 hearths listed there had women at their heads. Of these, about 38.5 percent were widows and 7.2 percent unmarried heiresses. Slightly over half are described simply as women, some 15.6 percent as wives

whose husbands were not present and 38.5 percent as women without qualification. What the men of the wives whose husbands were absent were doing is impossible to say, but women heads of household were evidently

significant in town society at this time.’ One naturally wonders how independent such women were. Perhaps the independence of some was only

fiscal, that is, in the view of the tax authorities. Nor can it be specified whether or not domiciles were shared with the women’s families. As in all

other matters, however, it is certain that the measure of independence granted women was limited by their families, if such existed. To conclude on a different note, the view of women seen in this chapter appears biased or truncated. This is because the prostitutes, concubines and wives have been examined with the aid of documents that mainly convey male attitudes. As expressed in legal instruments, the motives that led women to '° Ourliac and Malafosse, Histoire du droit privé, 3: 198-199, state that the “separatio quoad torum et mensam” was both rare and generally discountenanced. ‘0! Appendix 1, No. 9 (September 1174).

'2 Such entries required the consent of the heirs. See, for example, Malta 182 29 (September 1186) where an ex- vicar of Toulouse entered the Hospital with the consent of his five sons or Malta | 80 (February 1187) for a humbler person who acted with the consent of two daughters, one son and a grandson. Another son had not been consulted. '03 See the case of a wife and daughters in Bruno Trenca’s testament and Deusajuda’s companion Ricarda in Appendix 1, Nos. 5 and 159, and the craftsman Petronetus’ provision for his son in Malta 2 138 (May 1242 copied in 1275). \ A tabulation made from the tax estimation register published in Wolff's Estimes.

MARRIAGE 87 strike up or permit relations with men were primarily economic. It is nevertheless sure that women also found men to be sexually or otherwise desirable, and actively sought them out. This has already been seen — or may

have — in the relationships between some of the women with the abbot of Lezat in Chapter Three above, but there is better evidence than that.

Take Beatrice de Lagleize (Planissoles), Le Roy Ladurie’s recently discovered heroine of free sexuality. Famed for two marriages to gentlemen, her rape and especially the affair with the rector of Montaillou, Peter Clergue, Beatrice’s last known liaison was with a cleric named Bartholomew Amilhac. The case is particularly pertinent because Beatrice and Bartholomew, up there

in the latter's home town of Lladros, high in the mountains of Pallares and the diocese of Urgel, took the curse off their concubinage for a time by undergoing a “traditional” priestly marriage “secundum abusum dicte terre,” as the inquisitorial record sourly stated.'” Perhaps this Catalan village priest chose Beatrice not only because she was openhanded but also because she was an upperclass woman; she surely chose him partly because he was as young or younger than was she. Another example is that of a well-to-do townswoman, Matheva, the widow of Peter Sobaccus, already seen above. When she married Peter in 1219, her

dowry was the third share of an inheritance encumbered by debts. Her husband, a successful businessman or usurer, helped pay the liens off, and then, when he was forced to depart for the Holy Land never to return on a penitential pilgrimage in 1237, left her as “domina et potens” of his estate to bring up their children. A year or so later, Matheva married John Astro,

the natural child of the patrician Berengar Astro also seen above. She provided her new husband with an ample dowry of 1000 shillings and forewent any “dotalicium” at all. In brief, even though, to judge by the number of their children, the relationship with the unhappy Peter was productive, Matheva had been “bought” the first time around, but, in the second, she probably “bought” her own man, who was also probably younger

than his bride.'% ’ For a reliable discussion of their affair, see Boyle, “Montaillou Revisited,” pp. 126 and 128-130, where this Dominican cites the Latin given above from the inquisitorial register. ‘06 Appendix 3, Sobaccus.

5|

Matrimony

A. CONTRACTS

As everybody knows, marriages at this time involved money and were expressed in the form of contracts. Theoretically, as seen in the previous chapter, the contract was “voluntary” in both Roman and canon law, and no money or other economic good was necessary for its fulfillment.' Still, love

without bread cannot be long sustained, and hence lawyers used marital instruments as the very model of the idea of contract.’ It has been remarked in Chapter One of this book that the contract of marriage underwent change before the time here treated, becoming increasingly aligned with something

roughly describable as Roman practice. Before the system changed, the essence or the bulk of the wealth involved was expressed by a “dotalicium”

or a “donatio propter nuptias” — as they called it in Languedoc and Catalonia — paid by the family of the groom to the bride. This was supplemented with a very modest contribution from the latter or her family. By the time treated here, the bridegroom’s “dotalicitum” had diminished in size, and the basic endowment of a bride had became the dowry or “dos” she brought from her family to the marriage. In short, whereas in the past, the principal endowment of a bride came from the bridegroom’s family, later on, it came from hers. Since this change also coincided with a loss to a daughter endowed with a dowry of a claim on the inheritance of her family, the dowry

and the contribution from her husband or from his family was far more important to a woman than it had been in the past. It was all she was sure to get from her marriage and her parents and siblings. Naturally, until quantitative information is available, there is no way of knowing which was better for women, the old way or the new.

' See C. 5, 17, 11, dated 533: “Non enim dotibus, sed affectu matrimonia contrahuntur.” 2 Jean Gaudemet, Le mariage en Occident: Les moeurs et le droit (Paris, 1987), p. 192, notes that the famous Exceptiones Petri of around 1100 used marriage and sale contracts antonomastically.

CONTRACTS 89 This change is not only exemplified by the documents from Toulouse and its region, but also in those from eleventh century Catalonia where a system of dowry and marriage gift similar to that later seen in Toulouse was already in place.’ The same was true in Italy at about the same time.‘ Although one cannot be certain because charters often do not spell out the totality of the arrangements, the old style persisted among the greater families of maritime

Languedoc and nearby regions of the Midi until around 1100.° The last marriage charter mentioning only a bride’s “donatio propter nuptias” or “sponsalitium” involved William vi of Montpellier around 1129. Practice had already changed, however, because William v of the same principality had married a daughter to a count of Melgueil with a substantial dowry in 1120.°

Anent this change of custom, two or three of the instruments from Toulouse also seem somewhat unusual. A marriage contract of modest people dated 1148 mentioned only the “sponsalicium.” That may mean something, but it may also be supposed that a dowry was mentioned in another instrument.’ Even later in the early 1200s, two other marriages, both unions of members of the seigniorial aristocracy and town patriciate, raise questions. In 1202 a rural notable married a rich patrician or noble widow

promising her a “prima dos” — in earlier times, the word “dos” was sometimes the equivalent of “dotalictum” — and then an additional smaller sum “in matrimonium.”® In a marriage contract of the new type, the lord of Isle-Jourdain promised his bride, India, a natural daughter of the count of Toulouse, a “dotalicium” that fully equalled the “dos” she brought with her.’ Although other reasons such as wealth, power, beauty, etc. come to mind and, indeed, seem more likely, these unusual distributions of money may reflect a memory of past contractual traditions. Once the new system had become conventional, it was reflected in the harangues with which marital contracts often began. “It is the order of law and is to be obeyed from eternal law that marriage proceeds from a dowry

3 See Pierre Bonnassie La Catalogne du milieu du Xe a la fin du Xle siécle: Croissance et mutations d'une société (Toulouse, 1975-1976), 1: 259-260. * Hughes, “From Brideprice to Dowry,” p. 276. 5 The marriage of a king of Aragon and a princess of Foix in HGL, 5: No. 207 vi (August 1036) tells that he gave his bride a castle, etc. as “sponsalia pro dote et arram.” A similar arrangement is seen in ibid., No. 389 (June 1095) where a son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse, promised his bride much including an episcopate “in tuo sponsalitio et donatione.” © Tbid., No. 502 (ca. 1129) and No. 472 (dated 1120).

” Appendix 1, No. 1. ® Ibid., No. 36 (July 1202). > Tbid., No. 47 (February 1207).

90 MATRIMONY and a gift, and that a dowry without a marriage gift has no effect,” whereupon a cutler named Raymond Faber married a woman named Maria.'° Would that Toulousans of later times had expressed themselves in their charters as had a king of Aragon in 1036 when he married a daughter of the count of Foix. He gave her his gifts, the scribe made him say, “because of her honor, love

and beauty.”'' But, as marriage customs had changed, so had those of sentiment: love’s expression was best left to specialists, the troubadour singers and poets. Practice and the Custom stated that a “dos” was to be given by the bride or her family, and a “dotalicium,” “donatio” or “donatio propter nuptias” by the bridegroom or his family.'* These two endowments composed the marital

portion or total marriage settlement, but terms were many and use was flexible. Mostly used to describe the whole institution, the word “matrimonium” could also mean the “dotalicium” only.'? Again, the word “dos” was sometimes extended to mean both “dos” and “dotalicium.”’* Another use was to contrast the “prima dos” or dowry with the gift “in matrimonio” or “dotalicium.”! There is a problem about the “dotalicium.” The later professors of law at the University of Toulouse were of the opinion that there was a difference between it and the “augmentum dotis.” Discussing a testamentary disposition wherein a husband granted his widow an augmentation, the question of the disposition of the “dotalicium” arose: was it to go to the widow because the will had referred to it as the “augmentum,” or was it to go to the issue of the pair, as was often the case with “dotalicia.” The learned doctors then flatly

declared that an augmentation was not to be confused with a “donatio propter nuptias.”’® All the same, the same jurists seem to have contradicted '° Ibid., No. 12. Other examples are to be seen in Nos. 18, 24, 38, 87 and 96, and the absence of such phrases is exemplified in No. 119. '! HGL, 5: No. 207 vi (August 1036): Ramiro, son of King Sanche of Navarre: “propter honorem, amorem pulchritudinemque suam.” '2 The instructions on marriage are in Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 84-85 and especially the third part of the Custom called “de dotibus” with Arts. Nos. 113-117. Although common elsewhere, the phrase “donatio propter nuptias” did not become current at Toulouse until the late thirteenth century. '3 For the use of this term, see Appendix |, Nos. 6 (“carta mei matrimonii”), 12 (“dos sine matrimonio”), 20 (“carta illius matrimonii”), 36 (a sum “in matrimonium”), 38 (“dos sine matrimonio”), 58 (“matrimonium” meaning the whole as elsewhere simple numbers are given

in this note), 66, 70, 81, 91 (“etas matrimonium”), 106 (“nomine dotis vel matrimonii”), 108, 116, 120, 132, 146 and 167. '4 See, for example, ibid., Nos. 36 (both part and whole of marriage settlement), 142 (“dos et debitum”), 143, 145 and 164. 'S Tbid., No. 36. '6 Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 21, states that the two cannot be confused “nam, cum fiat

CONTRACTS 9] their opinion elsewhere in the same compilation of “responsa.” In one “quaestio,” they clearly used the word “agenciamentum” to mean “dotalicium” or “donatio propter nuptias.”!’ The puzzled voices of the doctors of the late thirteenth century may not have reflected earlier habits.'* The testament of a modest rural gentleman in 1217 returned his wife's dowry, added an augmentation and gave her an additional testamentary gift, and it seems sure that the “adienciamentum” was not a gift but instead the “dotalicium.”’? The bulk of the charter evidence seems to show that, although the word “dotalicium” was often used, words and phrases such as “agenciamentum,” “dotis augmentum,” a sum “ultra dotem” or a gift “in sponsaliciis” are more frequent.”° A further problem is that other words or phrases were used to describe either the whole marital portion of a woman or, more probably, the “dotalicium” or addition provided by the husband or his family. This sum was sometimes called “the debt” owed to a woman, or was said to be given to her “as a consolation” or as “a worthy charity” at the time of her husband’s death.” In addition to the “dos” and “dotalicium,” the bride usually brought a trousseau, clothing, bed and bedclothes, and sometimes household equipment, most of which, together with additional gifts from her husband, were returned to her on his death as part of her total marital settlement. Although mentio de dote et aucmento, intelligitur de aucmento dotis et non de donatione propter nuptias.” '’ Compare the provisions in Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 113 and 144 and the discussion of these articles in Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 53, pp. 128-131. It is possible that the doctors were confused by the fact that the bridegroom’s “donatio” had evolved from being a bride price to the “dotalicium” seen above. See André Lemaire, “Origine de la régle “‘Nullum sine dote fiat conjugium’,” in Mélanges Paul Fournier (Paris, 1929), pp. 418-422 where the final stage of the change is seen in the Visigothic “Ne sine dote conjugatus fiat,” but, being uninstructed,

I leave this up to the lawyers. '§ None of the documents calendared in Appendix 1, have “ultra” or “augmentum” phrases used in that way. Perhaps their Roman law texts and medieval commentaries confused the professors about the difference between the “incrementum dotis” (as Cujas later called the “dotalicium” given or promised at marriage) and the “augmentum dotis” (augmentation to the

dowry made during the course of the marriage). This subject is touched on by Victor Fons in his “Mémoire de M. Fons sur les Coutumes non écrites, relatives aux gains de survie dans les pays qui forment le ressort actuel de la Cour de Toulouse,” Recueil de |Académie de législation de Toulouse 6 (1857) 116-146.

'? Appendix 1, No. 75. ; .

0 Tbid., Nos. 44 (“ultra”), 48 (“ultra”), 50 (“augmentum”), 79 ( augmentum ), 95 (“ultra”), 100 (“dotis augmentum”), 104 (“agensamentum”), 110 (“ultra”), 124 ( ultra ), 138 (“augmentum”), 139 (“ultra”), 148 (“dos sine augmento”), 153 (“aucmentum ), 165 (“ultra”), 167 (“ultra”), 169 (“ultra”), 177 (“agenciamentum”) and 182 ( augmentum ). 1 Thid., Nos. 85 (“pro consollamento”), 119 (“per conssolamentum et in nomuine conssolamenti”), 142 (“dos et debitum”) and 180 (“helemosina”).

92 MATRIMONY her portion was all a widow could count on getting, husbands usually increased the trousseaux returned to them, listing new garments, jewelry, household and industrial equipment, etc. and sometimes special sums for clothing.’” One quite modest artisan offered his widow “a good new dress of green or brown at your choice [trimmed] with squirrel furs.””? Rich or poor, noble or commoner, also, widows were given gifts by their husbands, both kind or money, mainly the latter and rarely real property.” Later commentators on the Custom of Toulouse opined that the “dotalicium” brought by the husband equalled half the value of the “dos,” that is, then, a third of the widow’s marital portion.” The charters, however, show wide variation and even a different average value. In the 18 cases wherein the two are clearly distinguished, the value of the “dotalicium” relative to the “dos” ranged all the way from 100 percent to nothing at all, with the average and median at about a quarter of the whole portion, notably lower than that required by later custom.”° During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the value of the “dotalicium” varied between a quarter to a half of the value of the woman’s portion.”’ Marriage charters provided that, if the husband predeceased her, both the “dos” and the “dotalicium” fell wholly into the wife’s hands, the portion or jointure being, as they said, “restored” to her at that time.”® For a woman who

outlived her spouse, this was not only her inheritance, it was also her pension. A pertinent question here is what was the eventual disposition of a jointure if a wife predeceased her husband? The answer of the Custom of Toulouse was simple and straightforward: the widower acquired both parts of his wife’s

2 Tbid., Nos. 31, 32, 34, 35, 125, 129, 141, 161, 175, ete. 3 Tbid., No. 133. 4 Tbid., Nos. 12, 35, 75, 125, 129, 165, 182 and 188. 25 Nothing is said about this matter in the Custom of Toulouse nor in the Commentary of 1296. The eighteenth century commentator Jean-Antoine Soulatges in his Coutumes de la ville,

gardiage et viguerie de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1770), pp. 313 and 361-363, cites earlier commentators back to 1522 to prove that the augmentation at Toulouse “est toujours de la moitie de la dot, sans distinction, si la dot consiste en meubles ou en immeubles ... a moins d’une conventione contraire.” Soulatjes’ opinion is adopted by Fons in his “Gains de survie,” pp. 116-146, not only for Toulouse but also for quite a region around that town.

6 The cases are Appendix 1, Nos. 23, 25, 36, 47, 48, 51, 55, 75, 84, 93, 99, 104, 133, 146, 148, 163, 177 and 183. 7 Laribiére, “Mariage a Toulouse,” pp. 335-361. According to Hughes, “From Brideprice to Dowry,” pp. 282-283, a similar variation is seen in the different communities of northern Italy. The tables found in Appendix 2 have been based on the more generous figure. 8 Saint-Sernin Canonesses 34 (November 1260) where a son gave his widowed mother a “posse ... persolvendi legata seu relicta” which she used to sell a property “pro restitutione dotis sue.”

CONTRACTS 93 portion.”” Any customary provision, however, could be altered by the marital contract. Iwo wives in the 63 marriage charters in Appendix One, expressly contracted to have free disposition of their “dotes” if they predeceased their husbands.” Five stipulated that, if such happened, they were to be given sums for charitable disposition.*' Interestingly, persons who so contracted were of middle or lower class; the rich were indifferent to such rights or obligations.

Exceptions aside, the assignment of a specific sum for a wife’s charitable donations probably implies that her portion was to obey the Custom and go to her husband or their issue. The same was surely true when husbands asked the same privilege.*” Another question is what happened to a portion if there were no children

from the marriage? In the old days when marriages were based on a large “dotalictum” coming from the bridegroom’s side and a small “dos” from the bride’s, it is understandable that the family that provided the main part of the portion should get it back.*’ The same principle was sometimes applied later on when the bride’s dowry was the major contribution. An example are the successive marriages in 1197 and 1211 of the daughter of the lord of Verfeil. Sicarda brought her two very rich and knightly husbands much land but her father requested the return of the dowry “to [his] near relatives” if the unions were without issue.** True, perhaps, on the level of the baronial aristocracy, this kind of provision is not to be found among the knights, patricians and ordinary folk in Toulouse. A final question is what happened to a widow’s portion on her demise. Custom applicable elsewhere appears to have restricted to usufructuary the widow’s right to the “dotalicitum” and the widower’s to the “dos,” the final destination of these parts being the children, or, if there was no issue, the

families that had constituted them in the first place. Examples of such arrangements are to be seen in the alliances between great houses in the Midi long before the time treated in this study.*°

> Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 113-15. © Appendix 1, Nos. 64 and 138. 31 Ibid., Nos. 21, 27, 38, 41 and 65. The testaments contain much evidence of this practice also. See, for example, Nos. 2 and 158.

2 Ibid., Nos. 21 and 27. 3 HGL, 5: No. 211 (September 1037), marriage of Count Pons of Toulouse, for example, and No. 422 ii (December 1105), the daughter of a viscount of Beziers.

* Appendix 1, Nos. 24 and 56. 35 HGL, 5: No. 162 (ca. 1002), a countess of Carcassonne, for example, and No. 502 (ca. 1129), the widow of a lord of Montpellier who is also accorded 1000 shillings of Melgueil for life. These contracts concerned the old fashioned marriage based on the “sponsalitium” discussed above. Ibid., No 614 (February 1157) where William, lord of Montpellier, married a Burgundian giving her “in sponsalicium seu donationem propter nuptias” a castle, etc.

94 MATRIMONY In these ancient times, however, custom was not applied rigidly and everything was negotiable. There are cases where brides were gratified at the expense of family interests.*° A similar flexibility is to be found at Toulouse in the period discussed in

this book, and it can also, moreover, be shown to have extended to many more classes, including the lower ones. The Custom of Toulouse provided that a woman could bequeath her property as she saw fit and was not obliged to institute heirs or indeed leave anything to her children.*’ In addition, the Custom permitted wives to keep their portions if they were in the position to make their husbands agree.** These laws derived from the recognition that, since, as has been seen above in Chapter Two, a dowry was equivalent to an inheritance, a dowered woman was considered emancipated.*’ Besides, as shall be seen below, widows frequently remarried and therefore needed to recover their marriage portions in order to build new dowries.”” On balance, however, it is sure that most widows’ rights were usufructuary, unless otherwise specified in marital contracts.*' Typical is a charter of 1148, for example, where a bridegroom expressly stipulated that the “dotalicium” or gift he gave his spouse at marriage was eventually to go to his children, if he had them.*? Sometimes, indeed, moved by the notion that a widow’s

right was merely usufructuary, husbands overstated their powers. In a testament of 1166, a husband threatened his widow that, if she obstructed his donations to the Cistercians of Grandselve, she was to hold what he gave

Guaranteed by many, she was promised if she outlived her spouse: “fruaris more sponsalicii in vita tua tantum.” © Tbid., No. 389 (June 1095) where a son of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse, married a Burgundian princess, promising her that, if they had no issue and she outlived him, she could have the rich “sponsalitium” he gave her (it included a diocese) “et post obitum tuum habeant illi quibus tu dare aut dimittere volueris omnique tempore teneant.” Ibid., No. 472 (dated 1120) records an alliance between the houses of Montpellier and Melgueil, the widow being promised 3000 shillings of her 7000 after her husband’s death and the child the rest. If no child has been born to the pair, she is to have it all.

7 See Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 123a and 123b: 123a provides“quod mulier non tenetur in testamento suo ... filios suos vel filias vel aliquem eorundem hereditare seu heredes instituere nec etiam ipsis aut alicut illorum aliquid legare, nisi voluerit ipsa mulier.” 123a deals with the testaments of “mulieres vero matres” on this point. * As in ibid., Art. No. 88 about what happens to the “dos” if the wife predeceases her man, the text adds “nisi aliter actum fuerit inter ipsos,” an oft-repeated phrase. 9 See the full passage of the text in ibid., Art. No. 122: “... filia dotata a patre habetur pro

emancipata et, mortuo marito suo, de dote sua potest facere omnes suas voluntates, scilicet dare alio marito vel testari et facere testamentum vivente patre vel non.” “ Appendix 1, Nos. 4, 12, 36, 80 and 99 as well as remarriages for which there are two charters, namely Nos. 24-56, 51-90 and 55-104. ‘| On this and other points, see Fons, “Gains de survie,” pp. 116-146. 2 Appendix 1, No. 1.

CONTRACTS 95 “in dote” for life only, which would thereafter go to the monks.”? One wonders whether this threat would have been upheld by a court because the design of the whole system was to reinforce the family by providing for its issue.

Significantly, the law was changing in the direction of restricting the freedom of wives, perhaps by conforming Toulousan usage to that generally obtaining in southern France. In 1283, at the confirmation of the Custom, the crown, for example, expressly rejected the two customary provisions that most strongly stated the right of a wife or mother to cut their children out of their wills.** Assuredly, also, the jurists of that later time were hostile to

the license accorded both widows and widowers in the town Custom, maintaining that its provisions allowing them to do what they wanted with the “dos” and “dotalicium” of their deceased spouses regardless of the interest of their issue were “against good mores.”* This is the best evidence yet seen for Toulouse that the learned law of the late thirteenth century viewed individual right, whether that of man or woman, as subordinate to collective or family right. This was good for children, perhaps, but hard on adult individual choice. Derived from their parents or their own work, wives often had property that escaped the normal pattern of marital control.“© The school taught Roman law called such goods “parapherna” by the late thirteenth century.”” Women sometimes deliberately kept property or money out of the marriage settlement.*® Given 100 shillings to dispense in charity by her husband, a wife

dying in 1251 disposed of her real property in great detail, not to her husband, who was appointed an executor, but instead to her children.” Although the word “parapherna” was not used, a baron of Lanta added a gift to the dowry of his sister, expressly stating that it was hers to dispose of.°” * Tbid., No. 5. “ Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 123a and 123b. For the texts, see note 37 above. ** Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 53, pp. 128-131. Directed against Arts. Nos. 113 and 114, the professors stated that the articles were “contra bonos mores et male eo, quod privant filios a bonis maternis, scilicet a dote et donatione propter nuptias,” and then concluded “quod fli primi matrimonii agere possunt et exigere dotem, non obstantibus dictis consuetudinibus.

Art. No. 113, for example, stated that a widow “lucrantur et debet recuperare de bonis ipsorum maritorum dotes et donationes propter nuptias seu agenciamento” unless proved adulterous. Art. No. 114 gave the same privilege to widowers “nisi aliter actum fuerit inter Ipsos.”

“© Appendix 1, Nos. 108 and 187, for example. ;

‘7 Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 87 and 115 specifically mentions “parafernales.” The learned editor opines that this term came from the civilians and was inserted by the royal review of the Custom. Which civilians? Italy’s, Toulouse’s or France’s?

* Ibid., Nos. 90 and 104. * Ibid., No. 158. °° Tbid., No. 95.

96 MATRIMONY That women often had such means is shown by many charters. A woman could abrogate, for example, her right to her own property. Lombarda de Camarada married an active public notary named Bernard de Samatano in 1214. In 1218 she arranged to bequeath him all her goods did she predecease him.”' A similar and earlier contract is seen in the case of a humbler pair.” It is also known that a husband sometimes enjoyed the management of his wife’s paraphernal property, although there were other cases in which marriage was nearly a partnership between two equals.*’ In 1234 an artisan willed his daughter, presumably an only child, a house and half the rest of his estate. Her husband was given the other half (but not of the house), the dying parent stipulating that the halves were to be managed jointly.’ It took time to pay dowries. This was partly because they were costly and possibly partly because of social motives for delays, ones not specified or even hinted at in the charters. The dowry given a daughter or sister was a family property, and it may well have been best for both the family and the bride herself to wait to see how the marriage was going before paying it all out. At any rate, it is known that, later on, delays for the payment of dowries were

formally scheduled.” This practice was already customary at this time because the familiar Matheva Sobacca learned to her cost that failure to meet

schedules resulted in fines.°° One imagines, however, that the payment schedules were either not always rigidly set or adhered to by families of the brides. The baron William Unaldus of Lanta completed the dotal payments owed the husbands of his two married sisters in his testament of 1222, and plainly states that the payment of the dowry of his sister Curva was to be scheduled by agreement between the parties.°’ And the lords of Isle-Jourdain were sometimes debtors for their daughters, presumably for dowry payments.°® Delays were also common on a humbler level, and do not always

seem to have caused bad blood. Jacob’s testament of 1195 tells that this

*! Thid., No. 62. *2 Grandselve 2 (March 1188 or 1189) where Philippa gave William David, her husband, a “domus” next another given by her sister Seguina to her husband Bernard David, a quarter and half of another quarter of a mill in the Bazacle, half of a “malolis,” and a half of a piece

of arable on the condition that she predecease him. 53, Appendix 1, Nos. 108 and 187 where widows were given the administration of money earlier donated by fathers, etc. 4 Tbid., No. 118. °> Laribiére, “Mariage a Toulouse,” pp. 345-346 notes that, in the fourteenth century, the times were standardized, one-half the first year, etc.

© See the fines paid by Matheva to the heirs of her second husband John Astro in Appendix 3, Sobaccus below. *’ Appendix 1, No. 95. * Tbid., No. 31.

CONTRACTS 97 craftsman’s father-in-law still owed him 78 shillings on his wife’s dowry. There were no hard feelings, however, because he gave this parent first option

on a property and willed him his armor.” A different case is that of the community of Bessieres which, together with its inhabitants, was the dower of a bride when she married the Toulousan William de Gamevilla in 1223. The bridegroom promptly turned over that community’s key to the bride’s brother, who held it until after the end of the Albigensian war. Delay also characterized the payment of widow’s portions. Widows were given a claim or “poderagium” to a residence right and maintenance at the cost of an estate until paid off.°' The usual term stipulated in the documents was two months, six months, a year or even two years.” The actual duration of such “poderagia” was extended because of delays in paying widows’ portions. These may be illustrated by the promise of an Astro wife not to call for her settlement until the marriage of a daughter, thus causing a delay of nearly four years.°? Another example is that of Pagesia, the second wife of the minter Pons David. Dying after April 1210, Pons made the Hospital of Jerusalem his principal heir. The Hospital paid 1400 shillings, the bulk of Pagesia’s substantial settlement, in 1213, but another installment was not paid until 1226.™ Such delays were not, however, extraordinary. A testator, for example, empowered his mother to collect her portion, which she did following an action by the consuls.®° Delays of payment were common in every kind of relationship. A widow paid out her husband’s charities in her own testament and a well-to-do notary those of his mother and step-father in his will.°° Estates were probably even slower to move than individuals. The Hospitallers paid Pons David’s bequest to the church of Saint-Barthelemy only in 1240, upwards of 40 years after the date of the testator’s will.°’ Major investments, wives’ and widows’ settlements were especially protected by the law. Widows were the privileged first creditors of their husband’s

Tbid., No. 97. .

9 Ibid., No. 20.

§! Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 116-120, and the Commentary p. 252 described “victus” aS meaning “omnia necessaria ... videlicet alimenta et calciamenta et omnia alia sine quibus

homo vivere non posset,” citing D. 50 16 43. 2 Appendix 1, Nos. 21, 25, 41 and 165.

Tbid., Nos. 89 and 103. 4 Ibid., No. 48. °° Saint-Sernin Canonesses 34 (November 1260).

6° Appendix 1, Nos. 145 and 187. |

®7 Tbid., No. 48 and especially the David family history in my Repression of Catharism, pp.

206-207.

98 MATRIMONY estates. Exceptions were imposed by circumstance. One was obvious, namely that a serf who wanted to pledge his wife money for her dowry and marriage gift at widowhood had to gain the consent of his lord.” Another

and more general problem was that a wife could lose her primacy if she formally agreed to the sale of her dotal property and her husband used the price gained to acquire other properties that he subsequently pledged for debts.’ Town custom confessed that a debt contracted by a husband with the consent of his wife was not as protected against creditors as was one when

the woman had not assented. Even had she done so, however, a widow's husband’s creditors ranked after her recovery of her marriage portion.”! Typically, in 1217, Petrona de Tonenquis, whose husband, as already stated, died at Muret, was sued because of a debt owed by her spouse to a merchant. Arguing before the court that the estate first owed her 300 shillings for her “dos” and “dotalicium,” she won the case.” Although a husband had the right to administer his wife’s property, her “dos” and “dotalicium” were protected from dissipation by him. A wife had

to give express consent “nomine dotis” if her husband wished to alienate property that threatened the wife’s portion.’”? The clauses expressing such consent are invariably present in late twelfth and thirteenth-century instruments concerning property.” A union in 1196 illustrates the customary grounds permitting alienation of dotal property. The bride agreed that her husband could act in case of “famine, sickness, or capture in war,” if he did so with her agreement.” In 1185 a smith expressly claimed the right of investing his wife’s portion, but only on the “advice of two of my friends and two of yours.”’° The “amici” were almost always “parentes.” This protection of a wife was limited, however. Town custom allowed a husband to alienate all moveables and debts without consent unless his spouse had an expressed or assigned right to them.”’ Lastly, it seems sure — from the evidence seen °° Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 109-111. ° Tbid., Art. No. 153. ” Tbid., Art. No. 109. ™ Tbid., Art. No. 71. The right to collect the debt was real “quamvis illi creditores quibus mulier est obligata sint ultimi.” ” Appendix 3, Tonenquis below. ” Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 103 and 109, the former stating that a couple may alienate property involving the marriage if “dicti coniuges vel alter eorum de consilio ... alterius” so determine. Spousal assent was implied in a law about the alienation of real property in ibid., Art. No. 129. ™ Apart from the multitude of examples that can be cited, see the role of the wives in Appendix 1, No. 14.

Tbid., No. 21. © Ibid., No. 11. ™ Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 96.

CONTRACTS 99 above and in the following paragraph — that husbands usually handled a pair's wealth. In 1164 a modest widow was given a dowry for a second marriage by the brother of her first husband, thus returning the marital portion owed her from the first union.”®

Embodying some of the practices described above, late Roman law’s “exceptiones” provided a convenient package of married women’s rights. Fully developed, they prohibited a man from alienating dotal property without his spouse’s assent, denied a wife the right to assume a liability for her husband, and gave her the first assignment on all family property in order to recuperate her settlement.” Although specific references to “exceptiones” and their renunciation are rare until the late thirteenth century, they were in the minds of Toulousan lawyers and notaries as early as 1218.°° In that year, Lombarda de Camarada gave her husband, the notary Bernard de Samatano seen above, all her property were she to predecease him, but went on to say

that “she made no other renunciation and did not renounce any other exception. ”®!

Good though the law was, there were problems facing the married couple. The principal evidence of the “exceptiones” seen in the charters consists of

their renunciation. How valid such renunciations were is not known with certainty, but their invariable appearance means that their use was wide.” Some of these were probably not received in classical form in Toulouse. The Custom obligated a woman to pay her spouse’s debts, and allowed her, from

the moment of her majority, not only to contract debts herself but also to stand as a guarantor of the debts of others, including those of her husband.”

"’ Appendix 1, No. 4. ” Following Edouard Meynial’s “Renonciations au moyen-age et dans notre ancien droit,” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 25 (1901) 260ff., the pertinent “exceptiones” are the “Lex Iulia de fundo dotali” (D. 23 5 and C. 5 23) prohibiting a husband from alienating dotal property without his wife’s consent; the “Senatusconsultum Velleianum”

(D. 16 1 and C. 4 29) prohibiting a wife from assuming a liability for her husband, and her general “ius hypothecarum” or right of assignment on the entire property of her spouse in order to recuperate her dowry (Nov. Just. 61). Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 118 and the passage

in the Commentary on p. 254. .

*° The later form is seen in Grandselve 14 (September 1281) where Belotus Piscator and his wife Petrona sold a property, reiterating the “usus et consuetudo Tholose quod si aliqua

mulier donaverit marito ... honores ... [et] ... feudos nomine dotis vel matrimonii, dicti coniuges vel alter eorum de consilio alterius ... possunt” sell, etc. Petrona expressly renounced the “exceptiones” derived from the Lex Iulia, the Velleian SC, and the “ius ypothecarum.

5! Appendix 1, No. 62. .

*? See Peter N. Riesenberg, “Roman Law, Renunciations and Business in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries” in Essays in Medieval Life and Thought, eds. Mundy, Emery and Nelson

(New York, 1955), pp. 207-226, especially 222-225. . a

®> Gilles, Coutumes, Arts. Nos. 68, 69 and 74, the latter being especially explicit: “quando

100 MATRIMONY One presumes, of course, that these obligations were assumed by a wife only after consultation with her friends or relatives, as seen above. The location

of these passages in the Custom also permits the conjecture that these provisions especially concerned working women. The article immediately preceding them states that a spouse of a woman exercising a craft or trade with his knowledge was liable for her debts.* In fine, the protections for wives were well devised and were increasing in complexity in the regulatory atmosphere generated by later thirteenth-century law. Earlier on, however, and perhaps even later on, nothing save wealth or physical size could help a woman married to a bully, scoundrel, or an unlucky

man. One is not surprised to hear of poor widows, an example being the Willelma who sold a rent and a vineyard to her son “willingly,” as she said, “and in great bodily need.”®> What could happen is seen again when a widow

appeared before the consuls in 1230, stating that her intestate husband’s estate owed her the substantial marital settlement of 1050 shillings. Her daughters were unable to help, because one was still a minor and the other, not wanting to be liable for his debts, “did not wish to be her father’s heir.” The consuls authorized the sale of part of the property, which realized 500 shillings. The widow had probably lost over half of her equity for old age or remarriage.*° B. FAMILY

It has been seen above in Chapter Two that, once dowered, a woman was emancipated and at the same time deprived of a further share in the parental inheritance. This deprivation — “bona mente,” of course — imposed a firm obligation on all members to marry off the females of the family (or instead

put them into religion).°’ In 1222 the lordly William Unaldus of Lanta bequeathed sums to pay up a sister’s dowry, round out that of another and contribute to a niece’s dowry.® In 1256 an artisan married his sister off,

aliqua mulier mandat aliquod debitum una cum marito suo et se obligat ad persolvendum, intelligitur fidejussor et tenetur cum effectu sicut alius fidejussor.” ** Tbid., Art. No. 67. ®° Malta 3 140 ii (November 1218): “... bona voluntate et maxima necessitate sui corporis.”

8° Appendix 1, No. 109. 87 Statements about this obligation are found everywhere. An elegant passage by Cinus of Pistoia (d. 1344) is cited in Mayali, Droit savant et coutumes. L exclusion des filles dotées, p. 47: “per totam quasi Italiam sunt consuetudines et statuta terrarum quibus dicatur quod sorores cum fratribus non succedunt; ipsas tamen dotare patres vel fratres pro ipsorum dignitate et facultatibus teneantur.” 88 Appendix 1, No. 95.

FAMILY 101 dowering her with a small property.” The baker’s wife Petrona de Tonenquis was especially well supported by her siblings. One of five brothers and two sisters, she was given away and dowered by one brother at her first union in 1210, and her second 1227 was made possible by another brother clearing her bakery of an outstanding debt.” In the testaments, dying parents insisted that the family’s unmarried maidens be suitably married. They sometimes spoke bluntly. In 1220 Stephen Astro gave a daughter 100 shillings “of the

best debts owed me in order to get a husband with the agreement of her mother.””’ These bequests were observed by the heirs. In 1219 an armorer made his two sons his heirs, instructing them to marry his two daughters.” In 1224 one of these young women married with a marital portion of over

300 shillings, and, in 1235, the husband of the other died, leaving her a settlement of 400 shillings.”° Comparing dowries or marital portions with the size of the estates from which they were raised may disclose women’s share of family wealth. When William Rossellus died, he burdened his son of the same name with the duty of marrying off his two sisters, one of whom was Matheva, the wife of Peter Sobaccus seen so often above. Although “young” William may have received advantages not mentioned in the documents, the estate was a “fratrisca” (a family estate held in brotherhood) shared by the three siblings. The sisters did well. With her third, Matheva got the ambitious Peter, and, with hers, her sister Marisibilia found a legitimate member of the wealthy Astro family.”

What this story shows is that the dowry of a young woman of the middle classes could be a “fair” share of a family inheritance. Further evidence favoring this interpretation is that unmarried women or those who had not yet received their dowries were not uncommonly members of the family economic community, a “fratrisca,” for example, or just a group of siblings who acted together.” Normal though this system was, it had to be supplemented for the humbler classes of the population. There, although one hesitates to claim a greater measure of economic equality for them, it seems that, in order to fulfill the obligation stated above, daughters were often or sometimes constituted heirs

of their fathers, and sometimes even given preference over sons in the ®° Ibid., No. 166. © Appendix 3, Tonenquis and Appendix 1, Nos. 55 and 104. *1 Appendix 1, No. 89, and see Appendix 3, Astro. 2 Appendix 1, No. 86. 3 Tbid., Nos. 98 and 126. *4 Appendix 3, Astro and Sobaccus below. 5 Appendix 1, Nos. 17, 26, 67 and 87, and, stating the principle of sharing, Nos. 179 and 189.

102 MATRIMONY testaments. A modest artisan divided his estate in 1209 equally between his wife, son and daughter, additionally assigning the latter an “an[te]cabada” or first call for 40 shillings.”° Presumably for her dowry, this advantage may have

been for a service for the family about which the instrument is silent. It nevertheless seems probable that the lower classes differed from their betters in this regard. Sisters, for example, were coheirs with their brothers in only five testaments, but these cases are significant because neither the marriage portions nor the charitable donations in the pertinent testaments exceed 100 shillings.”’

Because the obligation of marrying one’s daughters and sisters was so pressing, families actively participated in drawing up marriage contracts. Although the agreement of the partners was the essence of marriage, many women were given away by relatives, especially their parents.”* This is sometimes stated as if a bride had nothing to do with choosing her mate. In 1205 a father declared “I give you, Raymond Pelerius [furrier], my daughter Ramunda for your wife” together with a dowry.” Similar and even stronger expressions were also seen on the baronial level,

where, as may well be imagined, dynastic and political considerations reinforced the economic interests manifested by other classes. A good example of this long precedes the time treated in this study and comes from an adjacent region in the Midi. In 1121 the testament of William V, lord of Montpellier, assigned two unmarried daughters dowries of 3000 shillings of Melgueil, but stipulated that they were to marry only with “the consent of my

heir [their brother] who holds Montpellier and that of my notables of Montpellier.” In 1221 the lords of Isle-Jourdain and Marestaing in Gascony, acting with the assent of their wives, arranged that, when of an age to marry, one of the daughters of the latter lord would be married to a specific

son of the former one, the heir, in fact, of the barony. Tit for tat, IsleJourdain’s daughter Mascarosa was to be joined to the baron of Marestaing’s

© Tbid., No. 52.

” Ibid., Nos. 30, 52, 82 (7), 110 and 168. Appendix 2, Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. *§ The theory of canon law naturally stressed the freedom of the pair. For a brief survey, see Michael Sheehan, “Choice of Marriage Partner in the Middle Ages. Development and Mode of Application of a Theory of Marriage,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History

n. s. 1 (1978) 9-12. * Appendix 1, No. 45. No. 49 has a weaver and wife giving away their daughter and No. 163 a countryman doing the same. 10° HGL, 5: No. 474: “prohibeo ne aliqua [daughter] ... habeat licitum accipiendi maritum absque consilio illius mei haeredis qui Montempessulanum habebit et absque consilio nobilium meorum Montispessulani.” See also ibid., No. 599 (April 1154) where a similar clause is seen in the will of Raymond Trencavel, viscount of Beziers.

FAMILY 103 son when he came of age.""' Characteristic of Gascony was the proposal that the principal who refused to honor this curious contract was to be called a “traitor who ought not defend himself in law ... but instead should himself

fight alone with two knights.”"’ Dying in 1222 a lord of Lanta told his executor to marry off his widow and dower his daughter.' Some of these marriages involved such weighty persons that the fathers of both parties appear in the contracts.!™

Formulas were not usually so blunt, but it goes without Saying that, if a bride or bridegroom wanted a “dos” or “dotalicium,” submission to the

family was required. Over half of the marriage contracts have clauses expressing either action or consent in the following order of frequency: fathers, widowed mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles, executors of estates, a first husband’s brother and various combinations of these parties.!° Although brides were particularly subject to such domination, the gift to a

bridegroom of the necessary “dotalicium” required parental or sibling consent, and parents sometimes guaranteed the marriage settlement to the bride." Later law, that recorded in the Responsa of the law faculty of the university, insisted on the right of a relative appointed by a deceased father to control the marriage of an only daughter.'” Some of the resulting servitudes of the young to the old or older are obvious. With her dowry of 3000 shillings, Bernard de Miramonte’s daughter

'! Appendix 1, No. 91. This rather primitive contract is similar to one of a count of Foix with a lord of Marquefave in HGL, 5: No. 648 (December 1162). '? Ibid. Less curious was the gift of a niece (or granddaughter) and her dower by the lord of Isle-Jourdain in No. 146. '3 Tbid., No. 95. '* Tbid., Nos. 24 and 43, the first being that of the daughter of the lord of Verfeil to a lord of Montaut, and the second the union of India, natural daughter of the count of Toulouse, and a viscount of Lautrec. ‘°° Including the cases listed in the rest of the paragraph, the list in Appendix 1 is: fathers: Nos. 24, 43, 45, 54, 91, 101 and 132; fathers with mothers: Nos. 51 and 84; fathers, mothers

and brothers: Nos. 84, 93 and 97; fathers and brothers: Nos. 18, 44 and 113; widowed mothers: Nos. 50, 68, 89, 98 and 119; a widowed grandmother: No. 119; widowed mothers and brothers: Nos. 5 and 11; brothers: Nos. 55, 95 and 166; a brother, sister and uncle: No. 87; uncles: Nos. 79 and 146 (possibly grandfather); executors and a brother of a first husband:

Nos. 4, 95 and 153. '® Tbid., Nos. 18, 93, 127 and 146 for a father’s intervention, and No. 40 for a brother. '"7 Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 65, p. 169: where the testator “filiam unicam habens, eam heredem instituit universalem et ei precepit, ut cum consilio et voluntate Gaii, qui erat de parentela ipsius testatoris, contraheret matrimonium et aliter non; quod si aliter contraheret, sibi de hereditate certam quantitatem adhibuerit, quem voluit applicari fratribus predicatoribus et minoribus pro duabus capellis faciendis in domo eorum in certo loco. Queritur, si illa nupsit sine consilio et voluntate Gaii, etiam requisitis consilio et voluntate sed non sequtis, an valeat ademptio, ut fratres predicti possint dictam petere quantitatem?” The answer is “yes.

104 MATRIMONY Francisqua did not surprise her father’s ghostly shade and marry the handsome “joculator” who lived around the corner, but instead the worthy designated in her parent’s will.'"° Immediate profits are sometimes also

visible. In 1244 a weaver married his daughter to a younger weaver, contracting for a marriage portion of about 80 shillings. But there was more than marriage here, and it was all work. A lifetime partnership was created between the father and the bridegroom. Profits were to be divided equally, withdrawal by the parties on notice was permitted, and, if one predeceased the other, 60 shillings was allotted the father’s charities and 20 his son-inlaw’s.'° Earlier on in 1203, a modest person is seen equipping his brother and bride for marriage, but reserving for himself food and clothing for life and

200 shillings to bequeath freely at death.'!° In the case of women, also, parental power persisted after widowhood. In 1214, using the “posse” accorded her in her husband’s testament, Esclarmunda sold a “malolis” with

the consent of her father, mother and two of her brothers.''! And this was typical because parents and siblings assented to the actions of their daughters or siblings in not a few charters. !!” Evidence similar to the above has encouraged the view that the free choice

promised brides and bridgrooms in the law was largely fictional. It may,

however, also be recalled that the inhibition placed on young people concerned property only and not their right to get married, and that, in spite of burdensome conditions, there were advantages in the system. Instead of remanding the endowment of young adults until the death of parents, youths who, by that time, might themselves have become grey haired, the design of

this system was to build early in two lives new family cells to produce children and be otherwise productive. Besides, impediments could be circumvented. The widow Matheva has been seen many times in these pages,

and the reader is by now aware that, her husband Peter having left on pilgrimage, she soon remarried, choosing John Astro, an illegitimate scion of good family. When her husband departed in 1237, he had appointed his wife, soon-to-be widow, mistress of his estate and children but had been careful to add that she was to act on the “advice and according to the will” of three persons, her brother William Rossellus and two Sobacci brothers, obviously close relatives of her erstwhile spouse. John, it has been argued

108 Appendix 1, No. 132. 109 Tbid., No. 101. 11° Tbid., No. 40.

''! E 510 (April 1214), the child of Peter Vitalis “macellarius.” 112 Appendix 1, Nos. 14, 48, 67 and 94 for fathers, and Nos. 4, 95, 130 and 134 for brothers.

ECONOMICS 105 above, was probably younger than Matheva, and one wonders what her brother and the Sobacci relatives said about that.!!3 C. ECONOMICS

If the rough figures compiled in the appendices are examined, it can be seen that there are 136 more or less quantifiable entries.''* This-list is naturally heavily weighted toward the rich, containing, as it does, 20 or 22 patrician families (and, in addition, one Jewish one and two well-to-do minters) and about 17 noble ones ranging from rather humble knights to baronial lines like

those of Isle-Jourdain and Lanta.''’ Listed in percentages based on the shilling of Toulouse, these marital portions give the following tabulation:

2000 to 10000 12.5

1000 to 1999 16.9

600 to 999 18.3 400 to 599 18.3 300 to 399 13.9 100 to 299 21.9

30 to 99 16.1

These sums naturally do not show how high marriage settlements could go, especially when princely unions are included. The highest seen here is 10,000 shillings for the natural daughter of the count of Toulouse and the baron of Isle-Jourdain, but a marriage portion of a princess of Foix was

estimated in 1224 at 17,500 shillings.’ A second consideration is that, although limited, these figures say something about the means of the different social elements. The bulk of the patricians and nobles to appear in the table

enjoyed a minimum estimated marital portion of 1000 shillings.''’ By that point the crafts and tradesfolk had already made their appearance in the 13 Tbid., No. 130. ''4 Appendix 2, especialy Table 5, a composite of the material in Tables 2-4. ''S Appendix 2, Table 4 below.

''S HGL, 8: No. 237, recording the obligation of the son of the count of Comminges, Bernard Convenarum, to pay his wife, the sister of the count of Foix, this sum. This interpretation is not certain because the phrase containing the bridegroom’s promise reads “dono in dote Sezelie uxori mee,” which could mean that this sum was merely a “dotalicium.” That seems unlikely because the bride’s marriage portion would then amount to over 52,000 shillings.

''” There are three exceptions, two being nobles in the range of 750 and 800 shillings, and one a patrician with only 200, though the widow was there gratified with 350 shillings and some property. Being the wife of Pons de Capitedenario, she may merely represent a case of social rise to wealth and status. See the Capitedenario history in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 155 fff.

106 MATRIMONY Statistic, a butcher’s wife with a portion of 900 shillings being seen, a baker’s with 744, a nailmaker’s with 600, etc. It is certain, however, that all brides promised 1000 shillings and over were more than well taken care of for their widowhood, a proposition proved by the fact that all persons listed with such portions were either town patricians or nobles, putting aside the Jew and the two rich minters previously mentioned who were really of the same class.

One problem is to find out what could have been the annual increment gained on such sums. There are many difficulties here, and a testament illustrates one of them. A testator named William Raymond de Insula arranged to invest 1000 shillings in a business partnership half of whose profits were to support the education and nurture of a minor son for a period of seven years. Estimating the annual return at ten percent, this sum could be expected to provide the decedent’s son with an income of 50 shillings a year, or 25 at five percent.''® William Raymond, however, also left another bequest of 600 shillings to an as yet unborn child, a sum that, by the same calculation, would give an income of 30 to 60 shillings. Owing to the facts that the testator did not know that the child was to be a boy and also treated the sum assigned him very casually, it is obvious that the first son had a hidden advantage, namely that, at majority, he was expected to be a partner in a going business. In short, the simple figures do not tell all. Owing to a lack of tax records or of price lists for this period, moreover, it is hard to tell what these values meant in real life. The charters, however, do give some hints. One might run through them starting with the richest endowments or investments. In his testament of 1237, Bernard de Miramonte, the very rich burgher several times mentioned above, bequeathed his mother an annual income of 200 shillings or more. His family’s dowries were at the top of the Toulousan heap in the range of 3000 to 4000 shillings, right up there with landed barons, and, given free rent, 200 shillings was a great deal of money, implying an investment (again, as always, at from five to ten percent) of anywhere from two to four thousand shillings.'’’ This rich widow was assuredly better off than an ordinary priest. Dying in 1208, the rich and usurious minter Pons David bequeathed 1000 shillings to endow such a clerk to sing a daily mass in the chapel of the Hospitalers of Toulouse, say, then, an income of from 50 to 100 shillings.'?? This evidence is in harmony with the pension of 50 shillings annually assigned a companion who had lived with the assassinated “officialis” of Toulouse, Raymond Scriptor, to be paid 8 Appendix 1, No. 46 (November 1206). 9 Tbid., No. 132. 120 See the David family history in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 203-208 and Appendix 1, No. 48.

ECONOMICS 107 by the Cathar believer Alaman de Roaxio in 1248 as part of his penance. '2! These figures even seem to be in line with those seen in the tax estimates of

1335 published by Philippe Wolff, where one learns that an estate was burdened with a 30 shilling charge to be paid annually to a “capellanus,” and another 50 for the “lifetime of a certain woman.”!2 Middle class boys entrusted to relatives for education and nurture during

their minorities were assigned not dissimilar sums. A testator in 1194 allocated 30 shillings annually to each of his two sons until they attained majority.'”> Later on, the tutors (one of whom was a mercer) appointed by another decedent (whose brother was a shoemaker) reported to the consuls in 1257 that they had expended nearly 45 shillings a year for each of his

minor sons.’

Lower figures are seen in the case of adult women. In 1256 a testament granted the widow of a butcher two years residence and keep in the family house or, if she so wished, 50 shillings, annually, then, 25 shillings.” In the lawsuit between Petrona de Tonenquis, the oft-mentioned baker’s widow, and her step-daughter Bona, the consuls assigned the latter “for her needs in food and clothing while in residence in the bakery and house” 16 shillings yearly. Add rent, and one may estimate that Bona lived on under or around 20 shillings a year.’”° Servants received even less. The Pons David mentioned above also willed a favored domestic (“pedisecca”) either 100 shillings and

a bed or keep in the Hospital at the order’s expense. At 10 percent, this meant an annual income of 10 shillings. But what may be assumed is that the

mention of the bed assured the retired domestic of residence in the decedent’s house, presumably rent-free. Five to 10 shillings annually, then, was surely marginal but possible if an individual received free rent or was associated with an institution. '2! Célestin Douais, Documents pour servir a Uhistoire de l'inquisition dans le Languedoc 2

vols. (Paris, 1900), 2: 72 (January 1248). '22 Estimes, p. 258: “vita cuiusdam domine.” 23 E 2 (September 1194): the children were minors, and were placed “in posse” of his sister and brother-in-law, one for six years and the other for 11, being paid 30 shillings yearly for each child “pro illo nutrimento et pro illis missionibus ... in victu et vestitu et per eorum tenere ad custodiendum et regendum.” 4 TAM, It 79 (February 1257). The contract was complex. The tutors had sold property for 447 s. 6 d. which they “miserant ad proficuum et bonum ipsorum infancium” except for 90 shillings which they reserved for the time the children reached majority and another 90 shillings given their mother and her new husband, the pair that was to raise the two boys for three years. If one puts aside the 90 shillings given the mother as a reward for her care, each child therefore cost about 44 s. 6 d. annually. One also notes that each child would get 45 shillings at majority in addition. 125 Appendix 1, No. 165. 126 Appendix 3, Tonenquis below.

108 MATRIMONY One may perhaps conclude that the well-to-do could live modestly on 50 shillings yearly, a member in the middle ranges of the population on 20 to 30 and that, with outside aid of some kind, a domestic or humble person could eke out a year on 5 to 10. If this is so, it is likely that, on an annual increment of five percent, a capital of 400 to 600 shillings was probably required for a decent life, or, at 10 percent, 200 or 300. However unrepresentative of the poor the information collected here is, it can also be seen that over half of the widow’s portions in this study’s collection were under 300 shillings, and just under a quarter were 100 or below, going down, indeed, to 30. Great though marriage was, then, this examination of the sums given widows and promised brides shows that most women could not afford to rest on their laurels once successfully joined. Anywhere from a third to a half of the widows in the instruments would have been well advised either to work or make special arrangements with persons or institutions after their husbands’ deaths. And in real life, where the poor were really to be seen, the percentage must have been much higher. D. WIDOWHOOD

What widows did to fulfill their lives after their men’s death depended partly

on their age. As did older men, older women often contracted with their families to continue service or sharing. In 1222 a weaver’s widow surrendered her property to her daughter and son-in-law in return for her bed.’ Earlier, in 1185, a lacemaker gave her property to her nephew in return for keep and 20 shillings for charity. Her deathbed gifts were not paid until the nephew wrote his testament in 1195.'78 Similar to acquiring a corrody (a residential or non-residential pension, that is, at a religious house) was the arrangement made by a beltmaker’s widow in 1215. With the consent of her three daughters, she promised her three sons her estate on death, reserving usufruct and the right to leave the home with 300 shillings and trousseau, or, if she remained there, to bequeath 100 shillings in charity at death.!” Younger widows may have preferred remarriage, as did some men. Sixteen second unions are recorded, twelve widows and four widowers.'”° Although '27 E 461 viii (February 1222 copied in 1235) the woman gave her daughter and son-in-law all property “excepto tamen .i. lecto pannorum munito bona fide quam sibi domina Mabelia retinuit.”

mi Saint-Sernin 678 (20 49 7) iii (October 1190) and iv (October 1195 copied in 1225 and 1228). 123 Appendix 1, No. 72.

199 Ibid., Nos. 21-41, 24-56, 43-47, 51-90, 55-104, 68-85, and 87-148 for remarrying women whose unions boast two charters; Nos. 4, 12, 36, 80 and 99 for widow’s second unions; and Nos. 48, 83, 141 and 152 for records of widower’s unions.

WIDOWHOOD 109 Petrona de Tonenquis waited as long as 14 years, the “turn around” time, although never less than the year prescribed by custom, could be brief, a year and nine months or so in the case of Matheva Sobacca.!2! second marriage was not, however, altogether easy.'? Dying husbands

often discouraged the practice, perhaps especially in the case of older women. A wealthy smith lavished gifts on his childless wife, but strictly on condition that she not remarry.'*’ A humbler and equally childless man made his wife his heir, but provided that, if she remarried, half of the inheritance was to go to charity.'’* A curious instance is that of Pons de Capitedenario,

a man who donated 10,000 shillings to charity and who was the Original “patronus” of the Dominican order created by Dominic, canon of Osma, at Toulouse during his lifetime. The wife of this “nouveau riche” was gratified with keep and a personal servant in his towered house with its private chapel and stone hall, but, were she to leave this recently acquired domicile, she could take with her only her original very modest portion of 200 shillings and some paraphernal gifts.!*°

What this provision shows, however, is that, although widows were permitted and sometimes encouraged to remarry, they were also obliged to surrender their children to the family of the father in order to do so. Here again is evidence that the family was a “male thing.” More shocking, perhaps, given today’s sentiments, was that legal minds placed the institution above all its members, especially female ones. This may be understandable in the government of a monarchy where, however well a dying husband may have endowed her, a princess undoubtedly lost her princely quality when she remarried.'*° But in the smaller republics called families this exclusion seems less functional and more discriminatory.

Later thirteenth-century law, moreover, seems to have reinforced the reservations men often expressed about the marriage of their widows. The Responsa of the learned doctors of Toulouse adduced an argument in favor ''! Appendix 3, Sobaccus and Tonenquis. ' There was a mild prejudice against it among the Latins according to Gaudemet, Le mariage en Occident, pp. 264-265. Early examples of this attitude in Languedoc are in HGL,

5: No. 115 (August 966) in a will of a viscount of Narbonne, No. 474 (in 1121) in one of a lord of Montpellier, etc. '? Appendix 1, No. 162 (August 1253) in which William Usclacanus left his wife Johanna her unspecified “dos” and “dotalicium,” and also the use of most of his town property for life.

'4 Appendix 1, No. 53. 5 Tbid., No. 108. °° HGL, 5: No. 599 (April 1154). Raymond Trencavel, viscount of Béziers, said that his wife, as long as she remained a widow, “sit domina et segnioresse, et si volebat discedere ullo

modo [remarriage or entry into an order] habeat suum sponsalitium” or 200 silver marks, Clothing etc. with which to go away.

110 MATRIMONY of a widow's right to raise her children: some, they said, considered her superior to a tutor appointed by her deceased spouse if she had not “flown off to get remarried nor was otherwise suspect.” In spite of that opinion, the doctors eventually found for the tutor.'?’ Another “responsum” concerned a

widow who was given as a bequest the usufruct of a serf if she did not remarry. Did she do so, however, the serf was to be freed because — of all things! — “freedom is mightier than a legacy.”'”® The gravest impediment to remarriage was probably age, and the consequent drop of a woman’s value. Although the worth of at least one woman may have gone up on her second round, the four cases for which sure figures exist show that all the women lost in terms of their marital portions, and one very greatly.'°? On the other hand, two of these cases had hidden gains. One is the second marriage in 1227 of Petrona de Tonenquis, the familiar baker’s widow. After a stormy period when she was burdened not only by a daughter born of her first union, but also by litigation with her husband’s creditors and

her step-daughter Bona, to whom she temporarily lost the bakery, Petrona came out on top. A brother helped her get the bakery back, and she acquired a baker, her new husband Pons. She and Pons managed the bakery until they sold it to the landlord, the Hospitalers, in 1243, by then, a property perhaps worth as much as 1000 shillings. Here was a marriage together with a labor contract.’ The other case is the equally familiar Matheva, the widow of Peter Sobaccus, whose history was described at such length in the previous chapter. What she gained from her second marriage was a husband, presumably one younger or as young as herself.

Whether to live alone or obtain a decent second marriage, widows (as widowers) had to tally their resources. Other than their marriage portions, these were varied. Among the rich and the reasonably well-to-do paraphernal goods and properties — described above — were meaningful. As has again been seen above, humbler social elements had a different resource: the profits

'37 Meijers, Responsa, quaestio 27, p. 61: “Item videtur ex eo, quod mater non convolat ad secundas nuptias nec alias est suspecta, omnino preferenda in educatione filiorum ipsi tutori.” The case is discussed in Chapter 2, pp. 38-39 above. 138 Tbid., quaestio 65, p. 171: “Item pro hoc facit bene lex que dicit: pone, legavi mulieri usumfructum servi et, si nuberet, legavi libertatem dicto servo; mulier illa nupsit; queritur, an ille servus habeat libertatem? Et mulier non habebit usumfructum quia potior est legato libertas

C. 12 21).” | '9 The oman whose value augmented was Willelma Restoleria in Appendix 1, Nos. 21-41; in Nos. 51-90, the value of the widow’s portion sank from 200 to 180 shillings; Nos. 68-85 where the “dotalicium” sank from 60 to 20 shillings; for the other cases, see below. I have not used the marriages of India to the viscount of Lautrec and the lord of Isle-Jourdain because baronial families were so special.

1 Appendix 3, Tonenquis.

WIDOWHOOD 111 of property gained during a marriage. Although the town Custom provided that such acquisitions escaped the wife, phrases in marriage contracts and other notarial documents prove that working class wives customarily laid claim to this resource. The other great resource of widowed women was to have themselves made

heirs of either part or the whole of their husbands’ estates. Although this happened largely where there were no children or other likely heirs, it is noticeable that it was not uncommon. In 1245 Flos married a working man, her promised portion being 60 shillings. Her man died 12 years later, leaving two children and Flos’ marital portion. He proposed that, if she “wished to leave the children and take a husband,” half of the estate was to be hers, the other half going to the children.'*' On this humble level, a widow’s settlement

sometimes weighed so much that it all but obliterated the “hereditas.” In 1243 a widow gave her two sons 50 shillings of the 100 left by her spouse for her portion, explaining that she did so “because of their poverty and because they cannot be honorably sustained by what their father left.”!42 As seen above in the case of dowries provided by families, it was among the humble that widows were most likely to be heirs. Some 11 of the 30 or so widows left with children in the instruments calendared below were heirs or

coheirs, and at no time did the gifts for charity and the estimated final settlements exceed 100 shillings.’ The rule seems to be, in fine, that, the lower the economic class, the more likely were widows (just like daughters) to be heirs. This fact reminds one that there was still a further hazard. Unless nullified by express act, the succession of property was masculine or passed to the

male line.'“* Conventions between the marital pair could set this custom aside, but, if a man died intestate, the fat was in the fire. The baker’s wife Petrona had first claim on the estate of her intestate husband for her marriage

‘41 Appendix 1, Nos. 150, 168 and 173. '2 Ibid., No. 144. ‘3 Tbid., Nos. 13, 28, 30, 32, 52, 53, 76, 77 (male heir disinherited and, in effect, replaced by the widowed mother), 149, 156 and 171. ‘4 Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 124, and, for the Commentary, pp. 262-64. The article reads: “,.. $1 aliquis homo vel femina non habens patrem decedit ab intestato, quod omnia bona ...

et jura ... illus persone defuncte remanent et devolvuntur propinquiori seu propinquioribus illius persone defuncte in gradu parentele ex parte patris.” And if this person had a father at time of death, the father succeeds. The pertinent passage of the Commentary reads “Succedunt cognati primo descendentes, postmodum ascendentes, deinde collaterales ut in [Nov. 1 18 pr.|. Hiis autem omnibus deficientibus, succedit vir uxori et uxor viro [C. 10 10 1]. Ultimo succedit fiscus {C. 10 10 1].” It also discusses this article in terms of a natural child, such as that in the lawsuit of 1246 explored below, and also contrasts the common (or Roman) law

, tradition with that of the Custom of Toulouse.

112 MATRIMONY portion, but her life was burdened for 17 years by the legitimate claims of her step-daughter Bona. The latter was the heir of the male line to the tune of 50 shillings, with an equal sum owed her on her dowry.!®

Being richer, Matheva Sobacca was not so badly off, but there were difficulties enough of another sort. Not long after the union, her second husband John Astro died intestate. His heir, the daughter he and Matheva had had, died within her seventh year. Regardless of the fact that John Astro was a natural child, this final disaster alerted the heirs of the male line, the successors of John’s father Berengar Astro. The consuls received and decided this celebrated case in 1246, declaring the Matheva had no claim to John’s inheritance. The heirs were those of the male line: the widower of John’s paternal sister of the legitimate line, and John’s uterine sisters, products of

the union arranged for Berengar’s mistress Saussia by her long deceased lover. To rub salt in the wound, a further decision of 1251 forced Matheva to pay the successful litigants “per diem” fines for the delays in the payment to the deceased John of her “dos,” to surrender all household goods derived

from him, and to pay back 150 shillings for clothing he had bought her. Although Matheva recuperated her dowry, the end of her second marriage could scarcely have evoked happy memories.’ If a husband died intestate, then, a widow was out of luck. Contemporary lawyers would have replied that such loss should be put in perspective, because she still had her “dos” and “dotalictum” which was what the system

was all about. True, but one wonders. In 1214 another baker named Raymond Bascol had also died intestate on the battlefield of Muret. In a lawsuit, his widow lost Raymond's estate to his “cognatio et parentela,” his cousins german, that is, his sister's daughter and his mother’s two sons, presumably the baker’s half-brothers. The heirs of the male line received 150 shillings, and the widow got 230 shillings for her marital settlement and 70 for a property she and her husband had acquired together.'*’ The widow was assuredly not ruined, but a third of the estate had been lost to the “male principle.” 'S Appendix 3, Tonenquis. 46 Appendix 3, Sobaccus. ‘47 Appendix 1, No. 61.

6

Contexts

A. CLASS AND FAMILY

The circumstance described at the end of Chapter Five does not show that

the upper classes prized women less than the lower. Wealthy patrician widows were often assigned to be tutors of their children or “domine et potentes” of the estate until the issue was married or reached majority. They

were also appointed by their husbands to be executors of their estates.! Although occasionally true, similar empowerment was not so common above that social level, perhaps because, it may be imagined, the sheer wealth and possession of noble status made such reinforcement unnecessary. There was, of course, a compensatory servitude borne by gentlewomen. A rich young woman was too valuable to be left as unprotected as were humbler women. Although brides of every social level were given away by their parents, it is noticeable that many of the charters wherein the family’s consent is explicit are those recording unions of the well-to-do.’

Just as in the case of prostitution and concubinage, what this kind of evidence shows was that class and social grade played a vital role in Toulousan marital relationships. Although normative throughout society, the

custom of matrimony in Toulouse reflected the needs of the middle and upper ranges of the population more fully than it did those of the middle and lower. The testaments and marriage contracts tell their readers that, although well-to-do widows and daughters could be contented with their “dotes” and “dotalicia” (and other gifts and advantages), middle and lower class women

were obliged or wise to supplement their smaller portions. They gained access to the profits made by themselves and their husbands during their life

together and also sometimes won the right to be heirs or coheirs of the estates left by their husbands. This reflects the fact that, on a humble social

' See the evidence cited in Chapter 2, pp. 37-39 above. 2 In the marriage contracts listed in Appendix 1 below, no document with a marital portion

valued at 1000 shillings or more lacked the express consent of one or more parents.

114 CONTEXTS level, a woman’s labor in craft or trade equalled or outweighed her value as a housekeeper, mother and companion. The cost of a dowry, moreover, just as that of final care and burial for both women and men, demanded a greater part of the substance of the poor than of the rich. The capacity to be an heir like everyone else no matter what one’s sex seems to be a triumph. Much later on, in nineteenth century Europe, an age of gradual social democratization, the expansion of women’s inheritance rights coincided with the decline of the dowry system. Such was not yet the case in Toulouse and its region. There, the actual cases show that, if a woman had a hope of getting a portion of the inheritance, it was a “high hope for a low heaven.”° As is true of almost all institutions, moreover, marriage and the family were themselves insufficient. The law expressly stated that matrimony was a

free partnership between two equals, but the endowment of a new pair required family help that brought a measure of domination. Marriage was grand perhaps and the marital portion was designed to protect women in widowhood, but a third to a half of the relicts seen in this essay had to work or make special arrangements with their children or institutions to eke out their declining years. And it may be remembered that the sample seen in this book was relatively well off. In Toulouse around 1250, they would probably have said about this condition “you have the poor with you always.”* Although the fragility of the system was clearly displayed in regard to the poor, the depth of human desire to make the system of dowries and marital portions work had not yet been exhausted. This is shown by a bequest to charity first seen in my collection of Toulousan wills in the years around 1280. To the traditional gifts to monastic orders, churches, public bridges, hospitals and leproseries and the usual handouts of food and clothing to the poor, testators, both female and male, added sums to dower poor young women.’ Such special benefactions were to increase in the later middle ages, and showed a hope of regulating society by strengthening its norms. Seen in the references given in the chapters above to Roman Law, the Custom of Toulouse, the Commentary of 1296 and the Responsa doctorum

Tholosanorum, the growing attempt to reinforce social norms led to a regulation of the individual that marked late thirteenth century society. Final proof of this proposition will await my forthcoming study of social orders and

classes in Toulouse and its region. Anent this change, a question arises in 3 Love’s Labour's Lost Act 1, Scene 1, line 196. 4 Matt. 26: 11. > Appendix 1, No. 187 (October 1278) and Grandselve 13 (July 1282) where a women gratifies the town’s “pauperes puelle.”

CLASS AND FAMILY 115 regard to the position of women: were they especially depressed by this imposition of social controls? The general objective of the social planners, if such terms may be used to describe these jurists and administrators, was clearly to reinforce the family. The best example of this may be found in Chapter Five where the right of both a widow and a widower over the marriage portion was limited in favor of their childrens’ rights. It nevertheless seems that this later law viewed women as less important to the continuity of the family than men. Examples may be seen in Chapter Two wherein the lawyers applauded the right of a testator, as long as he gave

his daughter her dowry, to pass the family inheritance to his brother. Elsewhere in the texts treated in that chapter, children were favored over widows in regard to family property. Lastly, although all the “exceptiones” provided in Roman Law for the protection of wives were introduced in Toulouse during the thirteenth century, the purportedly or presumably voluntary renunciation of these benefits by brides and wives had become a standard feature of marital and property law. In short, even though the objective of reinforcing the family was designed to protect social solidarity, women paid a higher price for this protection than men. Women were generally thought at this time to be within a protective family, but the disparity in their condition with that of their men may have meant that they were not always happy in that cocoon. The relation of women

to divergent belief may illustrate this. That the need for security inspired husband, wife and children to cleave together in heresy is obvious, and there are many examples of families whose members stuck together to the bitter end. Mabelia, wife of Maurandus “vetus,” a condemned “perfectus,” was a Cossano woman derived from a family none of whose males are known to have been Cathar believers. She went with her husband’s belief, however,

suffered life immurement for it and all her male children were Cathar “credentes” for a time.° She was, one may perhaps say, a “loyal” wife. Other

wives and husbands, on the other hand, did not stand together. When her knightly husband, Peter de Resengas, was seriously ill, sick to death, in fact,

his wife Austorga, a Toulousan citizen, had the “perfecti” brought to the bedside to “console” or hereticate him. Out of fear or a genuine wish not to participate, he angrily said that he wanted none of that, and had them driven

away.’ Sometime later, in 1308-1309, evidence from the inquest at Foix * See the Cossano and Maurandus family histories in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 193ff. and 229ff.

" Called Resenquis, Austorga is No. 216 in the royal amnesty of 1279, for which see pp. 107-108 of my work cited in the note above where I confused her with one of her daughters.

Austorga’s husband Peter was a onetime officer in the service of the count. This event is recorded in TBM, MS 609, fol. 238r (November 1245) in testimony taken about events two

116 CONTEXTS records a similar division in a family. A witness records that the wife of a gentleman at Rabat warned the Cathars to stay out of her husband’s sight lest he turn them in.® She may have loved them, but she knew he did not. Disagreement and hostility between the sexes undoubtedly existed, therefore, and this fact inspires one to wonder about the essential nature of their relationship. Most women and men seem to have been happy to live together, founding families, producing children and serving each other in their small family units that I shall later examine in another monograph. Their companionship and division of labor made mutually profitable use the true contract

of man with woman (and man, for that matter) and the main promoter of the solidarity of families and social groups. But can the distribution of rewards and tasks between the partners be best defined in the language of mutuality and equality? B. EQUALITY?

Many modern intellectuals, including utopian and Marxian moralists, not to speak of ancient philosophers and medieval theologians, have expressed the conviction that the powerful have invariably exploited the weak. The exploitation took every form: the domination of the pacific by the warlike, of the poor by the rich and of women by men. Others from exactly the same backgrounds have instead conjectured that societies based on such violences were bound to lack sufficient solidarity to combat enemies and create friends. They have therefore favored an opposing viewpoint, arguing that, instead of abuse, the use of one by the other to their mutual profit is society’s cement. Both points of view probably represented realities in the relationship of the sexes, of individuals to each other and of one group to another. What this study was designed to do was to discover, insofar as its exiguous documentary base allowed, the balance of exploitation or abuse as against mutually profitable use of men by women and vice-versa. The attempt is clearly problematical because nature or the deity seems to have set in motion a pendulum between the two poles, and, since it circles as it swings, a viewer can never be quite sure where it is in its trajectory. Outside of some obvious physical differences, the difference of the sexes, like those between all similar

years previous: “et tunc ... Petrus ... respondit iratus quod nolebat eos [the heretics].” This Toulousan woman’s daughter was married to a lord of Cambiac near Caraman in the Lauragais, for whom, see above p. 71. ® See Pales-Gobilliard’s L inguisiteur Geoffroy d Ablis et les Cathares du Comté de Foix, p. 326.

EQUALITY ? 117 grand polarities, is hard indeed to discern. Yet it is from the point of the intersection between them that the pendulum hangs and swings. Unlikely, then, though it is that this monograph will find the answers, the balance described above is what it is all about. It would be pleasant to find that equality was the only yardstick used in measuring past human social behavior, but, although there is little explicit to be found in the sources from Toulouse and the Toulousain on this subject, one may well guess that men preferred women to be subordinate. They also seem to have exercised sufficient power to make this measure of servitude real. What impeded women may perhaps be described as follows. In comparison with men, women were probably hobbled by illiteracy, an incapacity that seriously lessened their weight in society. Before talking about women, however, one must first look at literacy generally in this period, and no direct evidence on the subject is to be found in Toulouse and its region. All that may be said is that, early in the twelfth century, a public notariate

was introduced in the town and, as described earlier in this book, soon became an immense generator of documentation.’ During the latter years of the 1100s and especially the first half of the 1200s, a similar institution partly modeled on that of the town spread into the countryside. The language used by all these notaries was Latin, rough at first but improving in the course of time. Paralleling this expansion during the thirteenth century was an increase in education, taking place in parish schools on the lower level and in the university at Toulouse, an installation to become famous for the study of the “tus Commune” or school-taught Roman law. Great though Latin was, the most adventurous language of the 1100s was the vernacular, a tongue sung by the troubadours and public entertainers. At

that time, also, vernacular dialects were employed for documents in the countryside, a practice that continued in some rural areas until modern times. In town, the vernacular finally forced its way into the marketplace during the early fourteenth century, a movement that, as in Germany and other coun-

tries, expressed the ascension of guildsmen to a measure of political and economic power. Although very little is certain, it seems likely that the vernacular was reasonably widely read by the well-to-do or the amanuenses in their “familiae.” An advanced literacy was surely the possession of the greater musicians and poets, most of whom in Toulouse were persons of modest social class." Because of the proverbially powerful memory of poets in relatively nonliterate cultures, little can be said about the literacy of ordinary entertainers > See Chapter 1, pp. 10-15. '° See the discussion in Chapter 3, pp. 60-61 above.

118 CONTEXTS or “joculatores.” The Latin used by the many notaries of the town was surely

also read by many of the recipients of its documents. Indeed, no active businessman or landlord not possessed of sufficient wealth to have a notary or two serving as secretaries could conduct business without a capacity to read. Later on, around 1300, with the penetration of the vernacular into town notarial instruments, not a few artisans and tradesmen probably read enough of the documents drawn for them to know where they stood economically. Was the situation similar among women? There were literate women,

especially upperclass ones, as has been seen in Chapter Two where a seignior’s widow named Esclarmunda of Foix served as a witness. As conjectured above, also, one imagines that most poets and songsters had letters, and a naLonbarda was among the Toulousans honored with a “vida” in the late thirteenth century encyclopedia of troubadours.'' And it is surely probable that occasional women of all classes were lettered. It is nevertheless

unlikely that as many women as men were educated. This unlikelihood derives partly from reading back from the later history of Europe, say, the first half of the nineteenth century when statistics are available. More significantly, women, save occasional religious ones (far fewer in numbers than monks), were all but wholly excluded from the literate professions, those of the clergy, law (judges, lawyers and notaries) and medicine other than midwifery. They were also generally refused admission to schools, certainly from the parish ones and the university known of in charters from Toulouse. One wonders why. Perhaps housekeeping, cooking and child raising were sO immensely time consuming in these early days—as, indeed, they seem to

have been until yesterday—that not only adult women but even young girls were better employed at home than at school, not to speak of using their labor on the farm or in the shop. However functional this deprivation was for the humble classes in medieval society, the rich could surely have afforded more instruction. In spite of this, their women were rarely taught, and the same was true of the female religious who were everywhere less literate (in Latin, at least) than male ones. Unless the oft-repeated castigations of women

by moralizing preachers, such as the great Dominican Humbert of Romans—Eve had taught but once and turned the whole world upside down, etc.—be taken as real motives, it seems unfunctional for family efficiency and teaching the faith to permit widespread female illiteracy. Lacking a normal motive derived from social function, then, it may then be that the reason was a desire to subordinate women to men. But why? '' See my “Urban Society and Culture,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century,

p. 245. She was one of 13 troubadours and “joculatores” from the town.

EQUALITY ? 119 A possible reason was that women were almost wholly excluded from serving in arms in wartime, and men may have looked on their duty to protect them as hugely burdensome. Protection led to dependency, making women into men’s charges, their relative lack of bellicosity being another reason why they were treated as a second and lesser sex. Their corresponding advantage,

of course, was that, although assuredly sometimes abused and slain by warriors or soldiers, women did not themselves have to risk their lives in siege or battlefield. This great privilege was one they shared with the sacred order of the clergy, a right that gave the two groups a further basis for their

alliance against laymen, and one that may have gilded women with a quasi-sacred quality borrowed from the religious. To a lesser degree (because all men could be called up for the “defensio patriae”), they shared the same exemption with another group, the largely servile rustic population. “Free” men were those who mostly bore the appalling burden of having to take arms

in order to protect both themselves and others, or to aggress against the others. Perhaps prompted by fear, such men may well have estimated

their admittedly risky duty or function so highly that, although they often worshipped them, they also likened their dependent women to their serfs.

Such being the case, it is no surprise that the capacity to be a warrior or soldier was clearly the ideal layman’s role. Even though they occasionally chose a peasant and certainly applauded wealth, the poets never elected businessmen, lawyers, professional people etc. to be their heroes. Although they towered over the laity in the “spiritual” sphere, churchmen were ranked behind as lovers. In spite of literacy, gentle manners and the odd clerical lover found in literature, as in Flamenca, clerks were prevented by their status from giving their beloved honest gifts, and were even pejoratively described

as being dressed in female costume. In texts playing on social themes, Andrew the Chaplain’s De amore, for example, the ideal lover is a noble and the noble a man of the sword. To avoid exaggeration, however, readers might remind themselves that women naturally played many roles in wartime: seeing or sending their men off, for example, lamenting their loss or keeping the home fires burning. A

great lady, like Alice, wife of Simon de Montfort, preached in northern France to support the crusade led by her husband. What he did on the battlefield, she did in spreading the “good word,” aiding the propaganda of the clergy. Besides, women were known to be as courageous as men: Cathar

“nerfectae” died as steadfastly as Cathar “perfecti.” And, Cathar or not, women could fight. The Canso reports that Simon de Montfort was slain in June 1218 at the siege of Toulouse by an artillery piece manned by women,

120 CONTEXTS unmarried and married.’? Although conventional because women were preserving their homes and hearths, this tale could easily have been true, or largely so. Later on, for example, a noblewoman told the Inquisitors about the defense of Montréal in the Lauragais in the campaign of 1240. As the French mounted their assault on the walls, Ermengarda and “other noblewomen” carried stones for the defenders’ artillery. A great clamor suddenly arose that the place had fallen and the French were even then pouring in.

Terrified, the women dashed into a house to take refuge, but, just as Ermengarda was sitting down, she heard a shout outside that her brother had been wounded. She straightway rushed out to find him and did not stop until she had.'? That some women were brave, everybody knew, brave in war and

brave in childbirth, but, courage, labor and nursing aside, they were not believed to equal men in deathdealing combat. Ermengarda was brave, not in order to deal out death, but instead life. The giving of life was the province where women possessed leadership. Ermengarda’s desire to find and look after her wounded brother reminds one of the function of nursing and of mothering, surely the parts of life almost entirely given over to women. Another was the birth of children, both for the mothers who gave birth and the midwives who delivered them. Awesome and dangerous though it was, however, giving birth did not enable mothers to take over the family. The fact of motherhood did not of itself entitle a woman to raise her children. A passage in Chapter Five of this book shows that, at least in the opinion of the lawyers of the university in the late thirteenth century, a widow could be deprived of the right to raise her issue, not only sons, but even daughters, if the male progenitor had assigned that parental

right to a tutor. As has been argued, this was because of the property or functions around which the family was built. Curiously, although among their most glorious functions and a source of their greatest advantages, the capacity to give birth and the ability to nourish

12 Eugéne Martin-Chabot’s Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise: Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen-age, 3 vols. (Paris, 1931-1973), 3: 205, Chapter 205 verse 124, where it is said that the piece had been brought to the Montolieu Gate from Saint-Sernin, “E tiravan conas © tozas e molhers.” The editor’s notes to pp. 205-206 contain other texts concerning ‘> TBM, MS 609, fols. 183r-v, testimony given in May 1246 at Villesiscle by this widow of a knight from Puylaurens: “... et quaadam die dum dicti Francigene expugnarent fortiter dictum castrum sive dictam villam, ipsa testis et alie domine de castro apportabant lapides hominibus deffendentibus. Et surrexit maximus clamor quod dicti Francigene ceperant villam et intrabant

jam. Et tunc ipsa testis et NN et Domina Sebelia, mater ipsius testis, nimis perterrite, intraverunt casualiter domum d’en Bress ... Et, quamcito ipsa testis inceperit sedere, audivit dici et clamari per plateas foras quod Hysarnus ... frater ipsius testis, erat vulneratus. Et statim ipsa testis exivit de domo et quesivit tantum fratrem suum quous[que eum] invenit.”

EQUALITY ? 121 the young of the species may have been a principal reason women were dependent on men, a dependency that made them subordinate to their male partners. It is therefore not surprising that the prevention of unwanted births was a matter of absorbing interest. Then a young widow about to engage in an affair, Beatrice de Lagleize (Planissoles) asked her lover: “What will I do if you impregnate me? I’ll be lost!”'* Peter Clergue, the rector of Montaillou, cajoled and deceived his mistress and perhaps himself with a magic herb wrapped in a linen cloth on a cord around her neck, placed on her navel or vulva prior to making love.'? When she asked him what it was, the rector, gentlemanly as always, refused to disclose the nature of the herb, telling her that, if he did, she’d use it with other men'®. Parenthetically, it is curious to note that Beatrice looked to nature for her “cure” of pregnancy, but her priest looked to magic.'’ Although desire or need assuredly meant something, it was not enough. The herbal brews and other primitive mechanisms available were Clearly insufficient to prevent unwanted births as the story of Munda earlier rehearsed in this book strongly indicates." Another method of preventing birth was the utilization of heterosexual sexual acts other than the “ordinary” one that often results in impregnation. A variety of sexual “birth control” practices (and not just “coitus interruptus”) were obviously available and presumably widespread.’° If only because a prime motive for controlling births was economic, the fact that material

'4 Duvernoy, Le registre d inquisition de Jacques Fournier, 1: 243-244: “‘Et quid ego faciam Si inpregner a vobis? Ero confusa et perdita’.”

'S Tbid., where he said that he had “quamdam erbam quam si homo defferret quando comiscebatur cum muliere, vir generare non posset nec mulier concipere.” Beatrice described

it as “quadam res involuta et ligata panno lineo, grossitudinis et longitudinis uncie, vel iniuncture primi digitis minoris manus ipsius que loquitur,” adding that it was on a long cord placed around her neck and “inter mamillas eius, et stabat in orificio stomachis ipsius que loquitur.” The problem is how to translate “orificium stomachis.” '© Tbid.: “ne cum alio homine commisceretur.” '7 Tbid.: when the rector said he had a herb, Beatrice asked “Et cuiusmodi erba est illa? Estne illa quam vaquerii ponunt super ollam lactis in quo lacte posuerunt coagulam, que herba

non permittit quod lac coaguletur, quamdiu stat super ollam lactis?” The word “coagula” [ classical: “coagulum”] means “rennet.” Used to make junket, a product that keeps sweet for a reasonable time, rennet came either from cattle stomachs or a plant known as “galium aparine” or “rennet wort.” Something is wrong with the text because rennet makes milk coagulate even though it prevents it from going sour. Perhaps the scribe slipped and put the word “coagulare” in Beatrix’ mouth instead of “coacescere.” '8 On the inefficacy of contemporary contraceptive techniques, see chapter 7 in Noonan, Contraception, pp. 243-267. On how little can be done with Beatrice’s case, see Jacquart and

Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical, p. 126. .

'7 The legal and theological literature on these practices is summarized in Noonan,

Contraception, pp. 224-225 and 273-277, and, more recently, in Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical, pp. 133-142, 193-228 and 240-241.

122 CONTEXTS from Toulouse never mentions such practices means nothing more than that the documentary base for this region is narrow.” Women also wanted to abort unwanted children.”' The testimony against the abbot of Lezat ventilated above recorded that a noblewoman gave her young daughter Comdor an abortive herbal drink.”” Although no materials for Toulouse and its region are extant, canon law, synodal legislation and secular jurisprudence all show that attempts were made to abort fetus and that

they were forbidden.” Since abortion was dangerous and chancy and birth control inefficacious, the female sex was trapped in its role of creating life, a role at once liberating and enslaving. In fine, in and around Toulouse at this time, women were not considered to be similar to men or to have the same rights or duties. The two sexes were divided and, of the two, women were in second place, decidedly behind men. To put it simply, they were not equal. It may be objected that it is anachronistic to use the term “equality.” There are two reasons for doing so, however, and, just as in the case of exploitation as against love in the relationships of men and women ventilated a few paragraphs above, one of them transcends historical immediacies. Because equality is the capacity to chose to do what you want as easily or with the same freedom as the person with whom you are dealing, it is self-evident that there is no anachronism here and that equality is what is being talked about. There is also evidence that medieval women and men thought in this way. The Franciscan Guibert de Tournai recommended that a woman and man should not marry for profit, beauty or libidinousness, because these enticements destroyed the necessary equality of husband and wife.** He summed

70 P.P.A. Billar, “Birth Control in the Medieval West,” Past and Present 94 (1982), 25, cites Pierre de Palude’s commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, where the theologian describes the use of controls by a Parisian to prevent the birth of children “quos nutrire non possit,” a passage signaled also in Noonan, Contraception, p. 268, along with much else. 71 Is the word “unwanted”? Surely not always. That women were frequently forced to abort in primitive societies is shown in George Devereux, A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies (New York, 1976), passim. Needy or angry, Latin Europeans surely did the same. 22 A herb known to have been used for this purpose was ergot, rye and claviceps, but there is no indication in this text as to what the one used at Lezat was. Modern medicine considers ergot only marginally efficacious. ?3 Other than Noonan’s study cited in the paragraphs above, see Jacques Zancarol, L ’Evolu-

tion des idées sur lavortement provoque: Etude morale et juridique (Paris, 1934), pp. 74-79 and 90-99. 4 In his sermon “de matrimonio” in PBN, MS. lat. 15943, fols. 143va-b cited in d’Avray and

Tausche, “Marriage sermons,” pp. 114-115: “Ista autem dilectio formanda ut sit in ea puritas intentionis, ut non diligant se coniuges nec matrimonialiter coniungantur propter emolimentum aliquod temporale vel pulcritudinem forme vel impletionem voluptatis libidinose, sed ut vivant simul iocunde et honeste, ut deus honoretur et fructus ad serviendum deo inde gignatur.

VIOLENCE 123 up his idea of matrimony as a kind of “social love in which the pair love each

other, because they are associates and equals.” C. VIOLENCE

Women were certainly equal to men from time to time. Some of these times occurred during the marriage of husband and wife and some after a husband’s

death, when a widow lived with her children. Generally speaking, also, women and men were truly equal when young and desirable, when they were,

in short, inhabitants of the bewitching but real world of love. Before concluding this book on this mildly happy note, however, one must remember that town and rural society in the Toulousain was, in comparison with most of western Europe today, unusually sharply divided between two Opposing extremes. On one hand, as has been seen, the quality of life was rich, shot through with warm and passionate expressions of fondness and love, giving clear evidence of feelings of loyalty between persons. On the other, the attempts of women and men to join together were conducted in a turbulent world, whose inhabitants were inured to violence, so much so that life was incomplete without it. To a degree all but unimaginable today, the violent tenor of life enhanced the honor accorded the male duty of protecting women with their swords. By violence, I do not mean that Toulouse and the Toulousain was always rent with wars, small or large. Before 1209 this town and western Languedoc generally had enjoyed a lengthy period of peace interrupted only by a few brief and inconsequential raids by the Angevins in 1159 and the Aragonese in 1181, and the town itself had thereafter invaded the surrounding countryside, subjugating its small towns in 1202 to 1204. This relatively peaceful region had subsequently suffered a great war, the Albigensian Crusade, from 1209 to 1229. Although a few remnant skirmishes had marred the peace in the early 1240s, they had only flicked the countryside of the Lauragais and had not touched Toulouse at all. War, in short, was a recent memory in the mid-thirteenth century, but neither present nor a lowering threat.

By that time, it was not war but instead civil society in which the documents record violence. Part of this was caused by the attempt to enforce religio-cultural unity, that is, the repression of Catharism. Here again parts of this organized violence were already memories. As shown in my earlier

... Quando enim pares sunt, tunc in pace vivunt, sed quando propter dotem vel aliquod temporale nupserunt, semper litigant. Unde si vis nubere, nube pari.” > Tbid.: “Est etiam dilectio socialis, qua debent se coniuges diligere, quia pares sunt et socii.”

124 CONTEXTS study of that repression, the citizens of the town of Toulouse had been bloodied from 1229 to a little before 1240, and were thereafter only occasionally nicked by the Inquisitors’ whips.”° After that time, these policemen turned their frightening attentions to the population of the countryside and its smaller towns. Although probably inferior to the initial great repression beginning in 1229, these rural campaigns severely damaged local society.”’ Besides, the clergy and citizenry of Toulouse, the capital of

the province, were intimately involved in the repression out there in the villages. Because the trials were often held in town, Toulousan public notaries wrote the Inquisitors’ records and townsmen witnessed condemnations and executions. Although secondary in pursuing the adherents of this divergent belief, the town’s clergy busied themselves with the executions of those who

had been brought up in the Inquisitors’ nets, the unlucky Cathars and their believers. Besides, the prisons for the incarcerated were in Toulouse, and, although one had been converted into a college to house poor students at the University of Toulouse in 1250, the maintenance of other facilities continued to preoccupy the bishop and town clergy.”* A few examples taken from the Inquisitors’ records of the mid-thirteenth century will suffice to show the effect such police actions had on the people of the time. Most believers condemned for Catharism were not slain or given life imprisonment, merely a penitence, sometimes severe, of publicly wearing or bearing crosses with which they went on pilgrimage, crusade, etc.”’ But indelible ink is better than ordinary Waterman’s. Faure Raseire reported to

the Inquisitors in 1245 that, at Toulouse in his earlier condemnation, “his crosses had been marked on his brow with a branding iron.”*’ And what *® Occasional observations on other matters and groups aside, my Repression of Catharism only concerns the citizenry of that town. 2” Following Yves Dossat, Les crises de l'inquisition Toulousaine au XIIle siécle (Bordeaux, 1959), p. 267, the second major attack on the Lauragais southeast of Toulouse (the first being

in the mid-1240s) netted about 306 persons (just under 44 yearly) in the seven years 1249-1257. Subtracting those condemned when dead, about 7% were burned, 2% were “relapsi” and hence killed or imprisoned with loss of property, 10% fled before being caught

and 80% were immured, theoretically for life.

8 Ibid., pp. 194-195 and 262, n. 49, about the bishop’s prison at Saint-Etienne, the count’s in the Chateau Narbonnais, etc. The college may be read about in my “The Origins of the College of Saint-Raymond at the University of Toulouse,” Philosophy and Humanism. Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. Edward P. Mahoney (Leiden, 1976), pp. 454-461. 2) The figures from Dossat cited above do not show the numbers given lesser penalties, but see his Les crises de l'inquisition Toulousaine, pp. 266-267. He there lists the condemnations of 207 penitents in May and July 1246, of which 11% were immured. Also, ibid., p. 263 states that about 10% of those sentenced to immuration either fled before being locked up or escaped from imprisonment. 30 BM, MS 609, fol. 97v (March 1245): “Item dixit quod ipse testis fuit captus apud

VIOLENCE 125 about the emotions experienced by Ramunda, daughter of Raymond Joclar of Saint-Martin-de-la-Lande? According to her understandably confused

testimony, her father threw her out because “of heresy and because he thought she was a whore.”*! She was taken in by a married couple and other neighbors, and found her way into the hands of the Cathars. Perhaps she was a bit slow or even “loose” as her father thought; anyhow, the Cathars did not

really want her in their clergy.” She remained close to them, however, because, along with other persons of this faith, including some “perfecti” or “perfecte,” she was eventually captured, and, presumably after a trial, was condemned at Toulouse. The notary at this later session of the Inquisition recorded Ramunda’s testimony: “the said heretics were burned at Toulouse,” she said, “and she herself, brought to the flames, converted to the Catholic faith in fear of the fire.”*° Of even greater significance were the punishments inflicted by the secular law of this period. These reflected a vehement sense of community solidarity in which the members or citizens were invited to witness and even take part in the punishment of those who deviated from its norms. A result was that the publicity attendant on the repression of “crime” required men and women to witness violent scenes in daily life. One manuscript containing the Custom and its Commentary boasted a series of sketches appended at the bottom of individual folios. These had nothing to do with the text itself, but merely illustrated some of the punishments normally seen by the people of the time. Scenes such as the degradation of a clerk and a knight, parades of criminals in tumbrels, running of adulterers nude through the town, the pillory with the

normal mistreatment of the “criminal” by bystanders and ostensions of cadavers are sketched in a primitive hand. More awful punishments are also

illustrated: branding, excision of hands, castration, hanging, beheading, boiling in oil and burning.** A statement made by a witness to the Inquisitors, but having nothing to do with religion, orthodox or divergent, shows that the cartoonist of the Custom was not exhaustive. One day in Fanjeaux (about 75 Tholosam, et stetit in castro Narbonensi captus per tres septimanas pro heresi, et fuit crucesignatus in fronto cum ferro calidi” some four years before the date of his testimony. *! Tbid., fols. 40v-41r (December 1246): “... quod cum dictus pater suus expulisset ipsam testem de domo sua propter heresim quia credebat ipsam testem esse meretricem.” * Tbid.: “Sed dicti heretici noluerunt ipsam testem hereticare donec bene esset instructa secundum mores hereticorum et fecisset primo tres quadragenas.” This was some three years before she testified. The heretics went off to Montségur “et noluerunt ipsam testem secum ducere, quia ipsa testis non erat bene instructa nec bene firma in secta hereticorum.” 3 Tbid.: “... et dicte heretice fuerunt combuste apud Tholosam et ipsa testis, ducta usque ad ignem, timore ignis convertit ad fidem catholicam.” ** See Gilles, Coutumes, pp. 54-57. According to the editor, the manuscript was written in 1296, but the date of the illustrations described above is uncertain.

126 CONTEXTS km southeast of Toulouse), a young man sneaked a look into a house and there witnessed an heretication, a fact he later reported to the Inquisitors. The

person who had become a Cathar in the chamber of that house was a condemned murderer. The murderer had presumably wanted this combination of baptism and shriving wherein, according to tradition, he forgave those

who had harmed him and himself was made “pure” (a “perfectus”). And why? Because he was about to be buried alive.* Although the above observations are certainly true, it must be kept in mind that appallingly violent repression of “crime” remained a mark of European jurisprudence until at least the end of the seventeenth century. Few events in the middle ages, for example, could have surpassed the public violence to their bodies and display of their dismembered parts visited on the rebels captured and executed with the Duke of Monmouth in 1685. This is said here, however, not to catalogue the violence of men’s actions but rather to show that contemporaries viewed women and men not only as semi-sacrosanct objects but also as entities subject to destruction or mutilation in quite extraordinary ways. But how did the characteristics of this criminal law affect the relationships of the sexes? A partial answer to this question may be seen in the law on adultery. Adultery seems relatively unimportant today, largely because of

birth control, but in earlier times it was of great significance. Literary historians have noted that adulterous love was an essential aspect of the medieval “religion” of love. Idealized adultery expressed a risky passion that affronted both material and social reality, accentuating a “spiritual” transcendence somewhat analogous to the Savior’s unmotivated love for a recalcitrant

and foolish humanity. But the law made it into an especially punishable offense. The only element smacking of tolerance is that, following canon law and a few town customs influenced by it, male adulterers were sometimes considered as guilty of this “crime” as female ones.*° Toulousan documents, however, do not address this issue directly. At Toulouse, an early case involving a woman — indeed, the first example of the town magistrates deciding a case close to criminal law — was that of

a wife with the appropriate, but not uncommon, name of Babilonia. By running off with a Brabantese soldier, she reduced her husband to praying

*S TBM, MS 609, fol. 165v (March 1246): “dum quidam homicida, qui debebat sepeliri vivus,

hereticabatur ibi.”

© See Jean-Marie Carbasse “Currant nudi; La répression de |’adultére dans le Midi medieval (xiI°-xv siécles),” in Droit, histoire et sexualité, eds. Jacques Poumaréde and Jean-Pierre Royer (Lille, 1987), pp. 84-85 (hereafter “Currant nudi”). Known in Montpellier, for example, the egalitarian tradition was rarer than the opposing one.

VIOLENCE 127 the magistrates of Toulouse in 1176 to give him his wife’s dowry. Pursuing love, this provident woman had cleaned her mate out, taking all his money, household linens, clothing and his best “lorica.” The magistrates forthwith found for the husband and also erased all her claims to both her own and her husband’s property.*’ The loss of the marital portion by the bride was the standard punishment for this offense.”8

The reason why a wife’s adultery was not countenanced seems to be simple. Women who made love, all confessed, were likely to give birth to children, those very expensive putative heirs of family properties and rights. The Commentary on the Custom several times cited the appropriate passage in Roman law asserting this obvious fact.’ A final case illustrates the matter in a rather grisly way. As seen in Chapter 2 above, the Commentator asks whether a man who sleeps with a married woman of 60 or more years of age is to be considered adulterous. On one hand, the answer is “no!” because the

conception of a child was unlikely. On the other, the jurist adds that such behavior dishonors the matrimonial bed and marital virtue.” The matter was anything but simple, however. The law on adultery made a Toulousan’s house his castle, and the Commentator therefore asked whether a married woman known to have been adulterous in the house of one other than her husband may lose her dowry. He says “yes!” because she may

bear a child, but others had said “no!”*' The matter was also not wholly one-sided. Husbands were also considered to have responsibility in the matter. A celebrated case elicited a papal letter that found a place in canon law. There, in spite of having borne a child to another man, a wife sued her husband for having given her reason for adultery. The Commentator remarks that he had himself seen a case of that kind at Toulouse, thereby recalling a tradition in canon law that influenced some customals in the Midi in which

” See TAM, AA | 33 (March 1175 or 1176) in Limouzin- Lamothe, La commune de Toulouse, No. 33. The beneficiary of the theft was “quidam Braimansonus,” and the wife “occulte recesserat ab eo [her man] et fugerat cum illo garsifero in exercitu Braimansonum et dels Ties.” 8 Gilles, Coutumes Arts. Nos. 113 and 119. % Tbid., pp. 154-155. The standard phrase is something like “propter partus conceptionem,” and the legal allegation is D. 48 5 6 (1). * Ibid., p. 256: “... an comittatur adulterium et videtur quod non. Cessante causa, cessat effectus. Item honestas, quare dico quia propter thori violationem et propter inhonestatem sui corporis quia non servavit honestatem, licet non timeatur de conceptione partus, quod tenetur de adulterio et hoc potissime inspecta virtute matrimonii.” *! Tbid., p. 155: “... ego quero si uxor alicujus commiserit adulterium cum Jacobo Burrelli in domo in qua dictus Jacobus inhabitat, an perdat dotem et videtur quod non.” Even if the lovers may not be arrested “set nichilominus mulier conjugata debet amittere dotem propter adulterium commissum. Nam ita bene potest concipere partum.”

128 CONTEXTS the guilt and punishment of adultery was shared by both the man and woman.” What is lacking in Toulouse, however, is evidence about what physical harm a husband could wreak on discovering a wife’s adultery. It may well be but is certainly not sure that it was similar to that known elsewhere at the time where the explosions of force and rage common in the relations of the larger male and smaller female throughout history were positively encouraged. In

the opinion of the northern French governor Philip of Rémi, lord of Beaumanoir, a husband, angered by his wife’s act, could slay her and not be killed by the law, whereas his spouse could only leave him. True, a husband had to witness the action himself and then straightway raise the public hue

and cry, but all the same...!*? What this does not say is that a man was probably restrained by the threat of ridicule and the vengeance of a wife’s lover.

Love’s worshipers therefore sometimes confronted a law on sexual matters

that was anything but gentle. Evidence of this is to be found in the Commentary on the Custom where, when discussing the penalty to be imposed on adulterers, the author notes that in Roman law a man should be beheaded

and a woman put in a monastery after being shaved and whipped.” Here, however, a characteristic of medieval law may be recalled, namely that, if punishments were horrible, they were rarely applied. The Commentator, for example, hastens to add that the rigor of this law was not followed in Toulouse, stating that he has seen the offense punished in quite different ways. Probably reflecting the difference between the rich and the poor, one adulterer was fined 50 pounds of Tours (25 of Toulouse) and nothing else,

and another was whipped through the town and fined 40 shillings of Toulouse (4 pounds of Tours). The author remarks that he has several times seen adulterers run through the town and losing their property.” ” Ibid., p. 213 a discussion about the restoration of property wrongfully taken. In X. 4 19 4, the woman sought reinstatement (presumably to her dowry) because she had been unjustly thrown out and her husband had given her “materia adulterandi.” “Quam questionem vidi de

facto inter Ramundum Pargamenarium et Miliscendam uxorem ejus, concubinam nostram quondam.” “3 Beaumanoir, Coutumes de Beauvaisis, vii, Nos. 1629 and 1637. According to Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, p. 307, the canonists, with the exception of the author of the Summa Parisiensis, militated against such draconic measures. “ See Gilles, Coutumes, p. 256. The author cites the “jus commune,” a law described below as the “ius scriptum,” Roman law, that is, and the section on women reads: “Mulier vero debet mitti in monasterium et debet tondi et verberari et de hac materia consuevit legi [C. 9 9 30].” The fate reception of Roman law on this point into local custom is argued by Carbasse, “Currant nudi,” pp. 88-89, but see below. * Tbid., pp. 256-257. The Commentary reads: “Nam pluries vidi quod currebant villam nudus cum nuda et erant judicati per sentenciam ad perdendum bona.”

VIOLENCE 129 In the opinion of the Commentator, Roman law was obeyed in only one case: when a servant slept with his master’s wife.“* Even there, although the consuls were known to have imposed the classical penalty, the fates sometimes decided otherwise. The Commentator of 1296 says that the consuls were unable to apply this sentence in the case of a William Barravi of Foix because he had been tried without parental consent when a minor. Not that the apprentice baker got off easily. Not only was he imprisoned until tried and condemned, but the consuls eventually sentenced him to run through the

town and stand in the pillory.*’ The editor of this text notes that a condemned person ran from the northernmost point of the town at the Arnaud-Bernard Gate to the southernmost, the gate at the Chateau Narbonnais, and that pillories or stocks were to be found in the squares in front of the churches of the Daurade, Saint-Etienne and Saint-Georges, before the town hall, in the Bazacle, La Pierre and Salin near the Chateau. What went on in these places may be seen in the manuscript illustration where a passerby is throwing eggs at a person in a pillory as well as a scene of a nude man and woman running.”

All this is bad enough, and, given the frequency of “infidelity” in the relationships of men and women, almost conjures up a picture of Toulouse’s

main street (the “carraria maior”) being given over to this curious kind of

marathon. For good reason, however, adulterers were hard to catch. Knowing the propensity of human beings to harm themselves and others, the jurists wisely considered that confession alone was insufficient to prove the offense.” Furthermore, the reluctance of the town’s magistrates to permit the prince to profit from the confiscation of property entailed in the punishment

of adultery made it well nigh impossible for the police to discover perpetrators, to use the favorite word of the New York City police. According to *© Ibid., p. 257: “In servientibus vero servatur jus scriptum. Nam si serviens committat adultertum cum uxore domini sui, consules condempnent ipsum ad perdendum capud ad litteram et hoc propter proditionem quam comisit et inducant pro se consules illam legem cum

suis concordancii [D. 49 16 7].” *” Ibid., pp. 187-188. The “juvenis de Fuxo habens patrem stabat cum quodam pancusserio” and “fuit inventus per custodes nocturnos cum uxore dicti pancusserii cum quod morabatur.” The vicar of Toulouse was the officer who overrode the death penalty imposed by the consuls. “Verumptamen dictus juvenis defendit se et fuit judicatus per dictos consules Tholose ad currendum villam et ad standum in costellis tantum.” 8 Tbid.: the sketch of adulterers running is in PBN, MS lat. 9187, folio 30v. As others have noted, its picture of a woman with a cord tied to the genitals of her “lover” is presumably exaggerated. As others have noted, at Toulouse, as the consuls determined in 1284, as recorded in Gilles, Coutumes, p. 256, n. 2, they ran “nudi in braccis.” Different modes of running in the Midi are described in Carbasse, “Currant nudi,” pp. 90-91. —_ ” Gilles, Coutumes, p. 256: “Nam confitentes adulteria non puniuntur nisi simul inve| nientur et capientur et confiteantur et probentur.”

|

130 CONTEXTS Alphonse of Poitiers’ “outraged” spokesman in 1255, so meticulous was the consuls’ interpretation of proof that a pair discovered nude together in bed

could not thereby be considered adulterous.°° The actual phrase of the Custom was not quite that strong, but was anyway expunged by the crown. Town law had said that the vicar or any other officer was prohibited from arresting any married person “for reason of adultery, fornication or coitus” in any store or house he or she rented, owned or maintained residence.”! A final and wonderful note is that when the Commentator wrote around 1296, this article of the Custom still had currency in spite of the fact that it had been rejected by the crown a decade or more before. A case cited a few paragraphs above referred to a married woman who committed adultery with a Jacob Burelli, and, although the Commentator asserted that she should surely lose her dowry, he was equally insistent on the fact that Jacob’s house

could not be invaded by the king, his seneschal and vicar, or indeed by anyone.” Nor was he talking about castles or the homes of the rich: any rental property benefited from the same protection.” It is therefore true that to protect property was also sometimes to defend freedom. To conclude, the law was hard and its execution terrible, but, as has been seen, its application was in fact mitigated by social restraints of a powerful kind. It is nevertheless certain that, in the minds of the people of the time, law and its punishments were both terrifying and frighteningly public. Love is in the mind, but, among the young and spirited, the agent of its action is the body. And the body can be tormented, maimed or destroyed by “justice.” *° HGL, 8: No. 455: “De adultero non capiendo cum adultera in domo hominis, licet nudi in eodem lecto inveniantur.” A similar passage is found in ibid., No. 552, a document of the same year and same source. *! Gilles, Coutumes, Art. No. 156a: “... ratione vel nomine adulterii vel fornicationis seu coitus.”

2 Ibid.: “Vos breviter dicatis quod, ad penam evitandam, qui inveniuntur in domo viri in qua inhabitat non possunt capi nec debent per consuetudinem preallegatam.” 3 Tbid., Art. No. 156a: “domus, videlicet operatorium vel honor, in quod vel quibus ipse homo [the adulterer] habitat, captenium tenendo vel residentiam faciendo.”

Appendix | Charters Dealing with Women

1. June 1148: Grandselve 52 Roll t! recto i. Arnold de Colomber “dedit in sponsaliciis sue uxori Garsende” a “casal” adjacent to one owned by his bride. This gift was given “tali pacto quod simul teneamus dum vivimus, et, si infans de nobis duobus apparet, illi remaneat, et, si infans de nobis duobus non apparet et Garsenda ... Vivit super me Arnaldum, predictum sponsalicium sit de Garsenda uxore mea et in sua morte et in sua vita ad faciendam totam suam voluntatem.”

2. August 1150: Saint-Etienne 227 (26 DA 2 91). Prima, widow of Raterius and mother of four sons and one daughter, bequeathed 141 s. 3 d. for her daughter Rica’s marriage, the money deriving from a “pignus” she held. Rica and her brothers were to share certain properties “communiter per frairescam.” In this early will there were no “sponderii” or executors and the only charity was a weekly mass.

3. January 1164: Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, Appendix No. 47 in SaintSernin 600 (10 36 8). In the testament of Gerald de Castilone, his wife Arsenda received her dowry of 200 shillings and half of all his arable land, and all oxen,

sheep, and pigs, and one mare at Capdenier, as well as bedclothes, a “vasa de . Podiobonione,” three “arce” he had in Toulouse, and other household equipment. Perhaps a miller, the testator gave Saint-Sernin a mill on the Giron river. 4. May 1164: E 501 ii (copied in 1207). Peter de Villanova, brother of the deceased John de Villanova, sold half a “casal” and house to Peter de Rocovilla. The price was 100 shillings which sum was given to Alamanda “que fuit uxor Johannis de Villanova secundum dispositionem Johannis de Villanova.” Thus dowered with her widow’s portion by her first husband’s brother, Alamanda had already married her second husband. For her later life, see No. 33 (July 1201) below.

5. May 1166: Grandselve 58 Roll 1 recto vii. Bruno Trenca gave his widow Lumbarda 500 shillings and a new vineyard, if she permitted a bequest to Grandselve. Later in the charter, the testator added circa 125 shillings more. His daughter Bernarda, either already married or in religion, received 100 shillings. His daughters Esclarmunda and Petrona were each given 150 shillings in order to enter religion. Were Esclarmunda’s mother and brothers to marry her, however, she was to have 200 shillings. The two brothers were the heirs, and Bruno was wealthy enough to

give a substantial donation to Grandselve and to restore his usuries. This final information derives from ibid. vi and vii (September and December 1166), a series of what a more learned and later law would have called codicils.

132 APPENDIX 1 6. 1166: Grandselve 2 i and ii, both written in October 1176, the first document recording the matrimony that took place ten years earlier, and both copied in 1206. Raymond Laurentius promised Vierna 600 shillings “ex quibus facias omnem tuam voluntatem si me supervixeris,” based on a house and “solarium.” In 1176, she gave this sum “sicut in carta mei matrimonii et Raimundi Laurentii mariti mei continetur” to her son William.

7. January 1172: Grandselve 2. “Postquam Pictavinus vir eius fecit suum testamentum,” Babilonia sold her sons all her husband left her in his will, namely five

arpents of new vineyard (the translation of “malolis,” although the reader is reminded that what was once a new vineyard was still called a “malol” even when it had become old), one arpent of vineyard, and rents totalling 7 s less 3 d, at the price of 200 shillings Morlas.

8. April 1174: Grandselve 3 iti (copied in 1196). “Per computum atque per ordinationem” Bernard Grillus “hereditavit suum filium” Peter Bernard Grrillus, assigning him by “istud computum neque ereditatio ista” specific properties in which neither his brother William Raymond Grillus “neque sue sorores non habeat ibi aliquid.” The sisters were not named, although it is known that one was called Laura because her son Raymond William bore witness to the charter and was named after her.

9. September 1174: Malta 1 129 1 (May 1145), ii (September 1174), and iti (September 1174, copied in 1232). Married as early as 1145, Ricsenda and her husband Raymond de Lisag (Lissaco) had three children, but separated in 1174. The separation records that Ricsenda surrendered to Raymond all the “donum” he had promised her in return for ten shillings, half of the household moveables he and she “insimul gadanaverant,” and all her present property and future acquisitions.

Two days later, their son Peter received his father to be in his charge and maintenance for the rest of his life.

10. December 1180: Malta 27 6. A marriage settlement presumably in view of oncoming death has Raymond de Sancto Remedio give his wife Ramunda 40 shillings if she outlives him.

11. February 1185: Douais, Conference de Paléographie, No. 8. Esclarmonda brought her husband Isarn Faber one and a half arpents of vineyard and was promised 300 shillings. The charter states that Isarn could “inde facere totam meam voluntatem cum istis predictis .ccc. sol. Tol. quos mitterem tibi in terra vel in honore unde tu Esclarmonda ... aberes eos pro omni tua voluntate inde facienda si supra me vixeris, et hoc quod facerem [faciam] consilio de duobus meis amicis et de duobus tuis.” The bride’s mother and three brothers, sons of the deceased Peter de Luganno, consented to this contract. 12. February 1188: Malta 3 147 ii (copied in 1204). Following the initial protocol:

“Legalis est ordo et eterna de iure tenetur ut coniugium cum dote et donatione procedat, et dos sine matrimonio nullum effectum habeat,” the instrument says that Raymond Faber “coltellarius” married Maria promising her 150 shillings. In iii (May 1189), Raymond, then simply called “coltellarius” or cutler, actually gave her 200

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 133 shillings in his testament, together with “unam cultram de pluma et aliam cultram de bola et unum lechitum et unam flassadam variam et unas [!] cortinas et unum scrineum et suam vestem et suos pannos.” Raymond’s heir was not his wife but instead his brother William Coltellarius. After this profitable, if brief, union, Mary married a Jordan Joculator (“jongleur” or public entertainer), and the two sold the house she had taken from her first husband’s estate in lieu of cash in iv (July 1192).

13. March 1189: Malta 58 3 (copied in 1241). Bernard Ortolanus appointed his wife Riqua and three men “spondarii” and “tutores.” After a few small gifts, including a “lorica,” well below 100 shillings in value, the property was to be sold with a fourth going to charity, a fourth to his wife, and a half to his two daughters, both minors, in equal division. 14. April 1180: Malta 1 100. Bernard David, his wife Rica, his son Bertrand, Bertrand’s wife Brus Martina, and Bonafos with her husband Raymond Ispaniolus agree that Bernard’s son Pons David should retain certain substantial properties including rights in the mint of Toulouse. Acting with the consent of his wife Bruna, herself counselled by her father Toset de Tolosa, Pons David responded by surrende-

ring all claims on his father’s and brothers’ many holdings. The instrument was simplicity itself, noting only that the father “venit ad finem et concordiam” with his son, and his son with him. The father further ordered “quod omnes cartas predicti honoris Poncii David reddiderat ei et quod amplius non habebat, et dixit Bernardus David amplius quod, si ille Bernardus David traheret amodo cartas predicti honoris Poncii David vel aliquis homo per eum que carte essent contra Poncio David, non crederentur nec ullum dampnum facerent Poncio David.” 15. March 1187: Malta 4 191 i (copied in 1203). Titburgis and Guillelma, daughters

of Peter de Tolosa and granddaughters of William de Tolosa, along with their spouses Peter de Monbru and Raymond de Recalt, “venit ad divisionem de hereditate quam habebant predicte domine.” The properties were huge and included tithes, farms and a fortified “forcia.” Between them they had 21 “pignora,” involving about 32 servile families, rents of 3520 shillings and payments in kind.

16. May 1189: PAN, JJ 21, fols. 86r-87v, published in HGL, 8: No. 65. Tolosan Joculator litigated with Sclarmunda “sua privigna” (step-daughter) in the court of the vicar of Toulouse assisted by a “curia jurata” of four judges. Sclarmunda asserted that

her mother Petrona and her stepfather Tolosan had acquired a “casal” from Raymond Tolosanus, the latter’s brother. She therefore claimed half of the said property “successione ... matris sue.” Tolosanus replied “quia ipse sua voluntate Petronam in illa adquisitione miserat, sive quod Petrona aliquid ibi de suo proprio non dederat.” He also said that Sclarmunda had a brother who should be here to speak up, and lastly insisted on his right to have the “casal” for life. On seeing the pertinent instrument of acquisition etc., the court awarded the “casal” to Tolosanus for life, giving half of it to him for eventual disposition but reserving the other half for Petrona’s heirs. 17. January 1191: Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 24r. One of several charters of the same

date referring to the brothers Pons and Peter Raymond Grillus and their sister

134 APPENDIX 1 Englesia who obviously hold property in “fratrisca,” although the term does not appear.

18. January 1193: Grandselve 7 vii (copied in 1198 and 1236). “Legalis est ordo et antiqua consuetudo et de iure tenetur secundum institutiones antiquorum patrum ut coniugium cum dote vel donatione fiat, idcirco ego Poncius Cabirollus ... dono Ricarda uxori mee .d. sol. Tol. ... ex quibus faciat totam suam voluntatem Ricarda

mea uxor si supervixerit mihi Poncio Cabirollo marito suo. Preterea Petrus Cabirollus pater predicti Poncii et Ramundus Cabirollus frater eius intraverunt fide et debitores Ricarde predicte de predictis .d. sol. Tol.” 19. January 1193: Malta 1 87. A modest townsman Peter de Murello willed half his

estate (a house, a half arpent “malol” and household equipment) to his widow Petrona, and the other half to the Hospitalers. 20. October 1195: Saint-Sernin 678 (20 49 7) iv (copied in 1225 and 1228). Two of his “spondarii ac testamentarii” being “lavanderii” (washers or launderers of what?), Jacob left 23 shillings to the church, 190 to friends and to his sister and clothing and linens to an “ancilla,” to whom he also owed 40 shillings. Childless, Jacob was outlived by his wife Maria and his father-in-law William Peter de Claromonte who still owed him 70 shillings on his wife’s dowry, but to whom the testator gave his “gonio.” The unspecified “peccunia sicut in carta illius matrimonii continetur” and all “panni et vestes” save the above 70 shillings was to be paid to Maria. This testament donated some masses for a John Textor and 20 shillings for the charities of his “matrina” Ricsenda, elsewhere called “saveneria” (veilmaker?). Jacob was probably the godchild and nephew of John Textor or of his wife Ricsenda according to the following documents: In ibid. i (January of either 1158 or possibly 1162) John and Ricsenda are already seen married; by 11 (January 1195) Ricsenda

Saveneria was a widow; in iii (October 1190) Ricsenda “conversa saveneria” arranged to live with Jacob “nepos suus.” In this will, also, Jacob’s sister was named Ricsenda.

21. 1196 (the month is blotted out): Malta 9 59 iv (copied in 1214). Willelma gave her husband Pons Restolerius (thatcher ?) a piece of land and all her belongings save ten shillings which she retained to dispose of in charity and gifts if she predeceased him. In return, Pons promised to give her all his and her real property and money save ten shillings for his charities. The marriage portion was to be paid the widow within two months of the spouse’s demise. During the union, however, Pons retained the right to alienate the property with his wife’s consent in the event of “fames vel

infirmitas vel captio.” Sometime thereafter this craftsman died and Willelma remarried, for which see below No. 41 (July 1203). 22. June 1196: Daurade 118 ii (copied in 1197 and 1204). Terrenus Martinus gave much to a nephew although his heirs were his two sons in equal portions. Although the testator left a widow Ricsenda who was given an unspecified portion, the two children were placed “in tutela et in bailia” of the testator’s three male “sponderii.” 23. April 1197: Grandselve 41 ii (April 1197), iti (January 1206), and v (November 1247, copied in 1258 and 1264). Bernard de Najaco “accipio te Pictavinam pro

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 135 uxore et ego Pictavina accipio te Bernardum pro viro.” The bride gave 300 shillings, which was all she was to receive at the end. Her husband was alive in 1206, and Pictavina drew her testament as a widow in November 1247 in ibid. v naming as heir her daughter Willelma. See No. 155 below.

24. September 1197: Malta 165 4. “Donationis propter nuptias auctoritas ab antiquis veniens temporibus tam ex iure scripto quam ex consuetudine probata est, ob hoc ergo ego Isarnus de Viridifolio in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi dono

tibi Oddone de Montald meam filiam Sicardam per uxorem, et ego Oddo de , Montald in nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi duco te Sicardam per uxorem, et dono ego Isarnus tibi Oddone de Montald cum mea filia predicta” much property owned by this lord of Verfeil between the Hers river and the Garonne and to the west of the Garonne to Isle-Jourdain. Some of this was not to pass to the couple until after Isarn’s death, none could be sold, but only pledged, and the husband and wife’s tenure was merely usufructuary unless they had issue. Without children, the property was to be restored to “propinquiis parentibus ipsius Isarni.” For Sicarda’s second marriage, see No. 56 April 1211 below.

25. March 1198: Grandselve 3 (copied in 1227). Daughter of Raymond Willelmus, Valeria married Stephen Astro, bringing 1000 shillings, a bed, etc., and he promised 1400 shillings, a bed, etc. within a half year of death. See the settlement in Stephen’s testament, No. 89 March 1220 below, a marriage then of 22 years. 26. May 1198: Grandselve 3 iv. The six sons of the well- to-do Raymond Baranonus acted for themselves and their two married sisters as a “fratrisca.”

27. May 1198: Malta 15 130 iii (copied in February 1239). Ymperia gave her husband Peter de Bosco a “domus” and all other property, retaining only 5 shillings for charity if she predeceases him. Peter promises to return it all if he predeceases her, retaining the same sum for charity. The house had been acquired by Ymperia

in ibid. ii (June 1197) on the same parchment, and is sold in ibid. iv (September 1207) by a Raymond de Bosco, surely a relative or child of the Peter mentioned above.

28. April 1199: E 505. In a will without charities or executors Raymond de Villata bequeathed two parts of a “malol” to his widow Johanna, giving the third part to his daughter Martina. An arpent of new vineyard was divided between Martina and a nephew, the latter being a minor.

29. January 1200: Saint-Etienne 227 (26 DA 2 57) (copied in 1258). With the assent of their mother Esclarmunda, widow of Arnold de Roaxio, two major and three minor sons took action about property. 30. June 1200: Saint-Bernard 36 ii (copied in 1231). Leaving no charities, an artisan (an executor was a “savenerius” and a witness a “tegularius”) named William de Caneto bequeathed half a house and “solarium,” a third of another house, and a third of a piece of arable to his widow Aldiarda. On payment of debts and burial, the rest was to go to his children Peter, Arnold, Guillelma, Bernarda and his wife Aldiarda in equal portions. A much damaged passage mentioned 100 shillings for his widow, presumably her portion were she to leave the children, although it may also have

136 APPENDIX | been her share of their joint acquisitions. His son drew his will in August 1227, for which see No. 105 below. 31. August and September 1200: MapTcG, A 297, fols. 21v-23r and 158r-160r and HGL, 8: No. 102 iv, (copied April 1231). The testament of Jordan 11, the wealthy lord of Isle-Jourdain, granted his wife Esclarmunda 2000 shillings Morlaas on the castle of Tilh and, “ex alia parte,” stated that he owed her 1500 shillings as well as nine silver cups. The seignior then confessed that he owed 9000 shillings Melgueil

(4500 Morlaas) to his daughter Escarona and her husband Raterius and 6000 shillings of the same currency to another daughter named Obica and her consort Pelfort. It seems probable that these were dowry payments, but that is not expressly stated. The lord’s three sons were his heirs, and he assigned to the eldest, Bernard Jordan ul, lord of Isle-Jourdain, his daughter Philippa “tali pacto, quod ipse det ei

maritum ut melius poterit secundum consilium aliorum fratrum et amicorum suorum, et det ei quinque milia sol. de Melg.” or 100 marks of silver. The testator then added the following general provisions about the succession of his lordship: “Preterea volo et statuo et dispono imperpetuum cum autoritate et voluntate domini mei Raimundi comitis Tolosani, quod numquam de cetero aliqua mulier et filia habeat aliquam portionem in omni prescripta hereditate, sed filie cum pecunia maritentur. Item dico et statuo et dispono cum auctoritate et voluntate domini predicti quod nunquam villa de Insula cum suis tenenciis et dominationibus nec alii

honores prescripti dividantur sed semper primogenitus habeat hereditatem ut Superius dictum est, scilicet legitimus.” The last sentence is not in the version published in the HGL. This testament was witnessed by the counts of Toulouse and

Foix and not a few other important personages. A further son was the prior of Saint-Martin of Isle-Jourdain and was therefore not an heir.

32. March 1202: Malta 15 104 ii (copied in 1202). Recording no charities or children, a baker Raymond Furnarius bequeathed his wife Willelma 100 shillings and an “escrin et omnes panni,” granting her in addition “mansio” in his house until the return of her matrimonial portion. This transaction was quickly done because, with her consent “nomine dotis vel donationis vel conventionis vel ullo alio modo,” her husband’s house and oven was sold by his brother in the latter part of May 1202. The date elements state that the testament was written on a Tuesday in March 1201 (old style) and was copied on 27 May 1202.

33. July 1201: E S501 v (copied in 1207). In a will without charities or executors,

Peter de Rocovilla left his widow Alamanda (previously married to John de Villanova, as is seen in No. 4 [May 1164] above) and his son Peter a house and a half arpent of vineyard at Bonagazanha. Peter was given another half arpent “malol” in addition, and Alamanda a bed, linens and clothing. Peter was also to look after his mother “secundum suum locum et posse ... quaamdiu Alamanda vixerit,” and she was promised 100 shillings if she chose to leave the house and 100 more to dispose of at the end. Peter’s other son Bernard Peter de Rocovilla was given 20 shillings “sine plure.” In ibid. vi and vii (August 1206), the provisions of this will were

overthrown when Peter, for reasons unknown, gave his mother his half of the

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 137 property and his additional vineyard and all grain, clothes and “vasa,” and gave his brother his half of the family house. 34, March 1202: Malta 15 104 ii (copied in 1202). The will of the baker, Raymond Furnarius assigned 130 shillings to charity. Raymond’s wife Willelma was to receive 100 shillings, a chest and the linens, and his brother Peter 50 shillings. The bakery was to be sold to meet these obligations, and Peter was in charge of the settlement. 35. June 1202: E 510 ii (copied in 1203). A modest person mentioning no charities, Peter Karolus rendered his testament before four witnesses, including a notary. He

gave an “arca, vaxellum,” and “scortina,” together with a quarter of grain and “linteolis” to Petrona “qui manet mecum.” His house went to his nephews. 36. July 1202: J 322 52 i (November 1214) and ii (March 1236). William Peter de Caramanno, a rural worthy, married Costancia, the widow of the rich Raymond Galterius, promising her “in dotem” 2000 shillings if she outlived him. In November 1214, he added 500 shillings “in matrimonium.” Her son from her first marriage, Vital Galterius, bought both of these claims from her newly widowed self in March 1236, calling the 2000 shillings the “prima dos.”

37. December 1202: Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1352. After a suitable harangue, the document states that “ego Johannes hospitalarius [of the Hospital of Saint-Antonin] ... duco te Sebeliam in uxorem, et ego Sebelia duco te Johannem pro viro, et dono ego Sebelia et concedo domino Deo omnipotenti et beate Sainte-Marie et predicto hospitali corpus meum ad serviendum Deo et pauperibus presentibus et futuris ibi permanentibus.” The bride then gave the institution two half arpent “maloles” and 200 shillings. The current head of the hospital named Raymond Calvetus then “recepit predictam Sebeliam per sororem et per participem predicti hospitalis et omnium bonorum mobilium et inmobilium ... predicti hospitalis.”

38. December 1202: Malta 15 70 ii (copied in March 1211). “Legalis est ordo et etiam de ture tenetur secundum institutiones antiquorum patrum ut coniungium cum

dote vel donatione semper fiat et dos sine matrimonio nullum effectum habeat, idcirco in dei nomine ego Willelma duco te Deide pro viro, et ego Deide duco te Willelmam in uxorem.” Willelma gave her husband a “domus” with equipment and also 80 shillings. If he outlives her, this is to be given to him save for 30 shillings reserved for her final disposition. If Deide predeceases, he is to have 30 shillings for his charities, and she is promised “victum et vestitum et omnia que necessaria ...

fuerit secundum meum locum et posse ad bonam fidem,” and, if not, she may alienate her dowry. In ibid. i on the same parchment (June 1205), Deide and his wife (here called Guillelma Guidona, hence daughter of Guido or Guidona) acquired a half arpent “malolis.” This property was sold by the former to the Hospital in iii and iv (March 1211), showing that he was a widower by that date. 39. June 1203: Dominicans 11 ii (copied in 1225). Raymond de Devesa ordered his executors, his wife Peitavina and his son-in-law, to sell his house to pay funeral expenses and some debts. What remained was his wife’s.

138 APPENDIX | 40. July 1203: Grandselve 5 (copied in February 1215). “Bruno de Frezaleto duxit in uxorem dominam Ermesendam filiam Raimundi Willelmi.” Bruno’s brother Raymond de Frezaleto gave all his property, present and future, to his brother’s children (“filii”) and wife. If one of the children should die before majority, the others are to inherit. Raymond retained “suum victum et vestitum honorifice et .cc. sol. Tol. ad obitum suum de quibus faciat totam suam voluntatem.”

41. July 1203: Malta 9 59 v (copied in 1214). The second union of Willelma Restoleria (for the first see No. 21 [without month 1196] above). She here brought her husband Raymond Dovezinus a house and a half arpent new vineyard, and was promised 190 shillings two months after his death. If she predeceases him, she has the right to give 30 shillings and her “melior vestis” in charity. 42. October 1203: J 320 21, and the other acts cited below. One of the lords of Lavaur, William Saissetus, married Mathelda, daughter of Raymond Ricaud (de

Recalto), seneschal of the Toulousain for the count of Toulouse, and his wife Willelma de Tolosa, promising a widow’s jointure of 3500 shillings. Something went

wrong and, in J 320 28 (November 1208), William confessed that he had not supported his wife, and hence assigned her the castle and community of SaintAgnan near Lavaur. Although several refused, about 165 inhabitants of the seigniory

swore alliegance to their new lord. Lastly, J 320 44 (November 1231) states that Matelda, now described as the mother of Raymond Saissetus and the wife of her husband William who had survived his active participation in resisting the crusaders,

was again assured her rights to the 3500 shillings “ratione dotis.” For the later history of these marital arrangements, see No. 113 November 1231 below. 43. October 1203: HGL, 8: No. 119 i. Peter Ermengavus de Lautrico married his son Gilbert de Lautrico (Lautrec, a viscounty) to India, natural sister of the count of Toulouse, and promised a “dotalicium” of 2600 shillings on the castle of Fiac (Tarn). This marriage was quickly over because India was married again in under four years for which see No. 47 February 1207 below. 44. February 1205: E 420. In an act written at Toulouse, Castilhonus, with the consent of his sons Peter and William, gave his daughter Guillelma to Raymond Claverius together with the fifth part of the “forcia” or fortified farm “de la Bastida”

and other properties. Claverius promised the bride to restore this “et ultra” 200 shillings.

45. April 1205: E 286 ii (copied in 1229 and 1266). William Cabiblancus “dono tibi Raimundo Pelerio Ramundam filiam meam per uxorem” and a half arpent new vineyard at Feletra, etc. The bridegroom promises her “si me supervixeris” 400 shillings guaranteed by the half arpent “ad capud medii anni post meum decessum.” I have again repeated the standard phrases to remind the reader of their employment, but will not hereafter.

46. November 1206: Malta 1 14 and also 1 105. William Raymond de Insula’s widow Bernarda received “illud sponsalicium quod debet habere,” a bed, and was also granted “pannum ad opus mantelli et tunice de panno virido vel de bruneta vel de rosseta.” The testator gave over 300 shillings in charity and an endowment for

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 139 a priest in the Hospital. His principal heir was his son Bernard who was to receive

1000 shillings. This sum was placed in a partnership or “societas” with two individuals for seven years until the young Bernard reached majority, half the profit

going to the child. This “societas” was to give a yearly account of itself to the testator’s executors. A child with whom his wife was pregnant was allotted 600 shillings and nothing more. 500 of that sum derived from a “spondarius” named Bernard Raymond Garnerius “de baratis minudas de quibus non est carta,” a man who was to raise the child. The vernacular word “minuda” presumably means a note

or minute, but not a legal document. As is seen in Malta | 128 (June 1232) and other charters, this child was a son. 47. February 1207: HGL, 8: No. 119 ii. Union of the lord of Isle-Jourdain, Bernard Jordan II de Insula, to India, widow of Gilbert de Lautrico (for which see No. 43 October 1203 above): “[ego] ... duco te Indiam in uxorem et ego India in Dei nomine accipio te Bernardo Jordano per virum.” The “dos” was 5000 shillings and the “dotalicitum” 5000 more. On the Lautrec dowry, see also No. 54 March 1210 below. As is seen from her husband’s testament in No. 106 below (March 1228), India’s second marriage lasted 21 years.

48. January 1208: Malta | 17 (copied in 1239) and E 505 (July 1213). In his will of 1208, the childless Pons David left his second wife Pagesia, daughter of Hugh Surdus, her unspecified dowry and 500 shillings “ultra dotem.” In 1213 she and her father acquitted Pons’ principal heir, the Hospital of Jerusalem, of her widow’s portion of 1400 shillings. Because the Hospitalers were so well gratified, Pons felt free to assign lifetime pensions in this institution. An example is Audiarda, his “pedisseca,” who received either 100 shillings and a bed “vel sua necessaria victus et vestitus infra domum Hospitalis [herusalem ... ad election ipsius Audiarde,” and whose son Raymond was given 100 shillings. His brother Bertrand was promised either “necessaria victus et vestitus” in the Hospital “sicut uni dominis” or annually

“pro stipendia .ii. cartones frumenti et .i. modium vini et .xx. sol. Tol. pro indumenta.” Two of his executors were given pensions similar to what the “domini et fratres” of the order received, and a woman got 100 shillings “si ipsa Petrona fecerit se monacham.” A rich minter, Pons disposed of nearly 6200 shillings in cash, including 2000 to repay claimants against him for usury. 49. September 1208: E 461 vi (copied in 1235). Bernard de Luganno “textor” and his wife Mabelia “dederunt eorum filiam Garsendam in uxorem Willelmo Martino” and also a half of a house and half all their other property (a “mezalata malolis”). If she outlives him, the husband promises to return this and “omnes suas vestes quas tunc habuerit.” If the William Martinus here mentioned is the same as the husband of Garsenda named William Raditor (barber) in ibid. vii (February 1222), this pair was still alive in ibid. ix (January 1231). See also the testament of the bride’s father in ibid. vii (September 1211). 50. November 1208: Malta 7 83 ii (copied in 1243). With the consent of her mother (who was a widow and coheir with her daughter in the same parchment i December 1195), Stephana married Bernard Raymond de Vetera Tolosa, bringing property in

140 APPENDIX 1 the region of Pouvourville and Ramonville, including a half of one arpent malol, half

of two arpents arable, a third part of three and a half arpents malol, half of 2 s. 8 d. “oblie” or rent, her share of the tithing of Valgairald, and 150 shillings, together with her mother’s eventual succession. The husband promised to give this back together with 100 shillings “de augmento.” Although Vieille-Toulouse and the bride’s belongings lay on the edge of the town’s “dex” or “salvetat,” she surely came from town, her witnesses being Pons Puer or Macip, Arnold Pons de Puteoclauso (Puits-Clos), etc.

51. December 1208: E 420. With the consent of her parents Peter Geraldus and Vitalia, Vivas married a Bernard Potus giving 150 shillings etc. He promised 200 shillings at death. In Vivas’ second marriage (see No. 90 [March 1221] below), she was called “merceria,” thus showing that Bernard was either a mercer or that his surname was Mercerius. 52. April 1209: E 507. Pons Martinus’ testament mentions a widow Sibilia, a son and a daughter as coheirs, the latter of which, Ermesindis, was to receive 40 shillings in “ancabada” obviously in order to marry. Described as “filii,” the children were to be in the “custodia et tutela” of their mother for six years, disputes to be settled by the “spondarii,” a group including the testator’s brother but not his wife. Pons gave 76 shillings of charity.

53. May 1209: Malta 9 96 ii (copied in 1230 and 1232). On paying his debts, William Vasco instructed his executors to give his property to his wife Poncia except for about 30 shillings, of which a little over a third went to private persons, including

a nephew, and the rest to the church and charity, five shillings being specifically allocated for burial. Were his wife to remarry, however, half of his estate was to be assigned to charities favored by his “sponderii.”

54. March 1210: HGL, 8: No. 119 ii. Castellana, daughter of Aimeric de Castronovo “maior,” was married to Hugh, second son of Peter Ermengave de Lautrico, the viscount of Lautrec. Apparently acquired by her father, Castellana’s “dos” was the “dotalicium” that India, the natural daughter of the count of Toulouse and widow of Gilbert de Lautrico, could claim in Fiac, namely 2500 shillings, for which see No. 47 (February 1207) above.

55. September to November 1210: Malta 7 56 iii (written in October 1213, copied in 1248). Daughter of the deceased William de Tonenquis, Petrona married Bernard Furnerius (the baker of the bakery of Saint-Remézy), a widower. The bride’s brother dowered her with 200 shillings, and her husband promised to return her 300. The charter in which this act was recorded is dated October 1213, therefore after the death of the baker on the battlefield of Muret in September 1213, and refers to a union that actually took place between Saint Michael’s (29 September) and All Saints (November |) in 1210. Petrona’s second marriage is No. 104 (June 1227) below.

56. April 1211: MADTG, A 297, fol. 840v (copied in 1219, 1242 and 1271). The matrimony of Sicarda, daughter of Isarn Jordan, lord of Verfeil, to William de Turre

(Turribus) “bestiacius.” This was her second union and she brought the same

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 141 endowment to it as to her first (for her first see above No. 24 [September 1197]). William promised Sicarda 1300 shillings if he predeceased her, a relatively modest jointure given the size of the dowry. William was alive in MADTG, A 297, fol. 829r (October 1222) and was acted for by his widow and sons in ibid., fol. 831v (July 1224), the marriage having lasted just under 13 years. 57. September 1211: E 461 vii (copied in 1235). Bernard [de Luganno] “textor” willed his wife Mabelia a tiny vineyard and half of their “domus,” and she was to give three shillings for charity and his burial. In ibid. vi (September 1208), the other half of this property had been given away when Bernard and his wife gave their daughter Garsenda in marriage to William Martinus in September 1208, for which see No. 49 above. Bernard and Mabelia had been married by ibid. iii (November 1190) when they bought a vineyard, thus recording that they had been married at

least 21 years. In ibid. viii (February 1222) Mabelia gave her daughter and son-in-law (a “raditor” or barber) all belongings left her by her spouse “excepto tamen .i. lecto pannorum munito bona fide quam sibi domina Mabelia retinuit.” 58. June 1212: E 501 i (copied in 1228). Raymond Peter Regerannus bequeathed his widow Guillelma 850 shillings and the usual clothing and linens “nomine matrimonii” and added 150 shillings to that sum. She was among the executors of his will, but the rest of his wealth, about 75 shillings, went to charity.

59. July 1212: Saint-Sernin Canonesses 6 iii (copied in 1240). Arnold Furnarius (baker) appointed eight “sponderii” including his wife and an emancipated son and assigned about 200 shillings to charity. He also requested his widow Marita to raise their three sons and heirs for three years, but provided that, if she wished “accipere maritum, habeat licentiam” and 300 shillings. In that case, the children were to be raised by the testator’s sister and her husband, a person who was also a “spondarius” and had general “bailia” of the estate. One son was offered 100 shillings and “vestes” to enter the monastic life.

60. September 1213: Malta 3 152 i (copied in 1225). Bernard Ganterius “volens ire ad exercitum apud Murellum” appointed three executors, including another glover and a notary, who, together with his wife Bernarda, were to give charities and

gifts of 100 shillings. Bernarda was also charged with raising their two minor daughters, Anglica and Bona, until majority, and was stuck with the testator’s mother Rica who “habeat omnia sua necessaria dum ipse Bernarda vixerit.”

61. March 1214: E 501 published in V. Fons “Chartes inédites relatives au jugement des affaires concernant la succession des Toulousains tués a la bataille de Muret,” Recueil de l’Académie de Législation de Toulouse 20 (1871) 18-22. The court appointed by the consuls to settle cases concerning those who fell in the battle of Muret heard arguments over the inheritance of Raymond Bascol who had there died

intestate. The claimants for this inheritance were Ermesendis, “consanguinea germana,” being the daughter of Raymond’s sister, who “allegari fecit pro se” that she was “propinquior in gradibus parentele” and hence the rightful “heres.” The other was Raymond’s widow Willelma who “allegari fecit pro se” that she should be awarded half of a property she and her husband had acquired while living together

142 APPENDIX | and also claimed 230 shillings “pro sua dote,” producing the instruments of acquisition and matrimony. Reviewing the evidence, the court decided that Ermesendis was the heir “ratione cognationis et parentele,” but likewise recognized that this award was “salvo jure et ratione dotis et adquisitionis dicte Willelme, et salvo jure ... Dominici et Raimundi Lerida qui dicebant se esse consanguineos germanos dicti RB, et salva ratione omnibus hominibus et feminis quibus res dicti RB pro debitis aut aliter tenerentur.” The court then asked the parties what they had gained from the estate because of a “concordia” made between themselves prior to the litigation. Ermesendis confessed to having received 70 shillings and Willelma 400, and the judges ordered them to produce “fideiussores” to guarantee the estate against claimants up to the sum of 470 shillings for two years starting on Easter. One took oath for Ermersendis and two, one a shoemaker and the other a “capillarius” for Willelma, but the litigants were themselves obligated to answer claims after that term. In E 509 May 1214, having received 80 shillings from Willelma, the “consanguineus” Dominic confessed himself quit of his claim “per parentelam consanguinitatis germani ex parte matris” of Raymond Bascol, thus showing that the latter was the uterine brother of the Lerida boys. In Malta 15 104 i (May 1202), Bascol was a baker near the Dalbade church. 62. July 1214: E 509 i and ii (copied in 1218). Lombarda promised her bridegroom Bernard de Samatano two houses and “omnia illa debita que mihi debentur, et omnia

mea vaxella et pannos et blatum et vinum et aptamenta domus” and all other property in exchange for the jointure of 500 shillings etc. “ad capud medii anni.”

In 1 (August 1218), Lumbarda de Camarada promised her husband all her belongings if he outlived her, “set aliam renunciationem nec exceptionem Lombarda ... ibi non fecit nec renunciavit.” Bernard de Samatano was possibly the public notary of the same name.

63. September 1214: Saint-Etienne 221 (22 3 7bis) (copied in 1259). The rural gentleman Raymond de Montelauro (Montlaur near Montgiscard in the Lauragais) rendered his will in Toulouse. His nephew was his principal heir. He gave various serfs and their holdings away to this nephew and to Mascaron, provost of SaintEtienne. Fabrissa, the daughter of a serf named William Gozinus, however, was to be “franca de omnibus amparatoribus ex parte dominationis” if she married a man named Arnold de Fronte, but, “si ipsa Fabrissa non accipiet Arnaldum de Fronte

per virum uti predictum est, ipsa Fabrissa sit et remaneat domino proposito predicto.” A man who both profited (he made restitution) and suffered from usury, this farmer was well-to-do and well connected at Toulouse, and gave a minimum of 200 shillings in charity.

64. October 1214: E 420. Poncia brought her husband Faber an arpent of new vineyard and bed, and, if he predeceased her, he promised to restore these goods and 20 shillings. Were she to predecease him, however, she was to dispose of what she had brought to the marriage as she saw fit. 65. February 1215: E 501 i (copied in 1230). Vitalia married Raymond de Lambes giving him a house, a new vineyard, another 1/2 arpent new vineyard, etc., in return

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 143 for which Raymond promised 220 shillings. If she predeceased him, she could bequeath 30 shillings in her will.

66. April 1215: 1 70. In a lawsuit concerning a marriage settlement owed by a deceased father named Raymond Aton de Portaria, it states that his daughter Aladaicia had been promised 1000 shillings “pro matrimonio.”

67. April 1215: Grandselve 6 iv (copied in 1211 and 1227). With the consent of his wife Bernarda and his son Peter, Arnold de Tolosa and his nephew Peter Raymond de Tolosa, having attained his majority, acting with the agreement of the latter’s sister Arnalda, ended a “fratrisca,” or community of family property.

68. August 1215: Malta 4 206 ii (copied in 1243). With the consent of her presumbly widowed mother Ramunda, Esclarmunda married William Niger, bringing a half arpent arable, 100 shillings, etc., and was promised in return the same

plus 60 shillings and “vestes.” William’s death is recorded in No. 76 below (September 1217), thus giving the two a marriage of just over two years. This was Esclarmunda’s first known union; her second is in April 1219, for which see No. 85 below.

69. October 1215: E 509 (copied in 1218). William Pons Astro promised his wife Eymengarda 1500 shillings at his death. This is a rendering of accounts because it is dated shortly before his testament of May 1216, for which see No. 71 below. 70. April 1216: Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 162v. Thoma sold property to recoup 1000 shillings left her by her husband Guy (Guido) “nomine matrimonii.”

71. May 1216: Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1452. The record of the will of the patrician William Pons Astro who, with many executors including the abbot of Saint-Sernin and his wife Ermengarda and William de Turre as counsellors, had set aside 1000 shillings for charity, of which some went in restitution for usury. His heir was his son Pons William (later called William Pons) who was in the charge (“bailia”) of his mother and William de Turre for the next three years. The widow and William were told “quod interim reddant computum [to the other ’sponderii* | semel in anno de predicta bailia.” 72. August 1216: Grandselve 5. With the accord of her three daughters, Domina, widow of Peter Corregerius, gave her three sons all her property, while retaining usufruct until death. Were she to leave the family home, she was to be given 300 shillings, linens “et non amplius,” but, were she to die there, she was to get 100 shillings to disburse in charity. 73. October 1216: PAN, J 330 12 ii. Bernard Stephanus gave 20 shillings charity, a half arpent “malol” and bed to his wife Sibilia and a quarter arpent “malol” to each of his daughters, Guillelma and Sibilia. His heirs were his sons William and Peter, both minors, to whom he gave his “domus.” Although in debt, the dying man had

rights in the mills of the Chateau Narbonnais and he arranged that a Stephen Medicus would have half of these rights if he “maneat cum suis filiis predictis et faciat captinium [a partnership] cum eis donec omnia ista predicta debita persolvantur, et

quod faciant Sibilie uxori Bernardi Stephani suum opus victus et vestitus tantum

144 APPENDIX 1 quantum sine viro manere voluerit, et quod ipsa mitat in captinio explectam sui malolis predicti. [tem hoc totum uti superius dictum est fuit factum consilio et voluntate Stephani Medici predicti qui hoc totum voluit et concessit ita fieri. Preterea ipse Bernardus Stephanus dedit Stephano Medico mansionem in ista domo predicta cum omnibus suis rebus in sua vita.”

74, October 1216: J 330 12 ii. In a will rendered at Toulouse, Arnold Raymond de Pibraco (Pibrac to the west of the town) gave the Hospital a rent and small property, but all the rest of his property was to go to his wife Paris and daughter Ramunda in equal parts. Ramunda was to be “in tutela” of his wife, but, as compensation for looking after the child, the latter was to have “antecabada” or first claim on specified property at Cornebarrieu. 75. July 1217: J 326 6. Composing his testament, a rural gentleman of the Unaud family, William de Busqueto of Lanta, records that he owed his widow Salamandra

500 shillings from the time of their union, “adienciaverat suam dotem” by 300 shillings and added a gift of 100 shillings. Childless, his heirs were relatives. His charities totalled about 830 shillings. 76. September 1217: Malta 4 206 (copied in 1243). A modest craftsman, William Niger requested that the marriage portion first be restored to his wife Esclarmunda, and then that 40 shillings be dispensed to charity. Undescribed, the rest of the estate was to be given to the child with whom his wife was then pregnant. Were the child to die, 25 shillings were to go to his widow and the other 25 to his sisters Willelma and Aimengarda, the latter of whom, being a minor, was to be in the “bailia” of his widow Esclarmunda. William and Esclarmunda had been married in August 1215 for which see No. 68 above. Esclarmunda remarried in April 1219 as recorded in No. 85 below.

77. August 1218: E 501 (copied in 1223). Pons Furnerius gave 100 shillings to charity, a sum which curiously included his bequest to his son Vital. Vital was to receive five shillings “pro hereditate quos mei predicti sponderii ei donent de meis bonis sine plure.” Not named as heir, his wife Sibilia was to get his house, vineyard, etc.

78. September 1218: Malta 1 117 (copied in 1219). Among the widower Stephen Regannus’ executors was a cobbler. Apart from debts and a small property out of town given to the Hospital, his daughter Fabrissa was to collect all her father’s debts, and his son Peter was the general heir for unspecified properties.

79. September 1218: E 420 (copied in 1223). Willelma, a niece of the notable Aimeric de Castronovo “maior” who provided the dowry, gave property to her husband Peter de Pictavina. Peter was to give this back with an augmentation of 300 shillings.

80. September 1218: Malta 9 81 ii (copied in 1225). Presumably at time of death, Arnold Lavavaisel (Lavavaxellos, a dishwasher?!) settled on his wife Aimereit a house and an arpent of new vineyard. As is seen in ibid. i, Arnold had acquired the vineyard in January 1204, and the same was sold by his widow and her new husband William de Altarippa in ibid. iii (December 1224).

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 145 81. September 1218: Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 97r. A consular sale of property to recuperate 100 shillings owed Arnalda widow of Bernard Aton “nomine matrimonit.”

82. September 1218: E 575 (copied in 1281). With the consent of the widow Bona, the “sponderii” of Bernard de Tabula sold property for his daughters, Ricarda, wife of Bernard Bastonus, and Ramunda, wife of Peter de Devesia, and for his absent son William de Tabula. The three were probably heirs, but the daughters were perhaps listed for their dowries. 83. December 1218: E 510 ii. Jensana, widow of the public notary Peter Donatus, had 250 shillings “pro dote sua.” She was Peter’s second wife because act i of the same date on the same parchment records the sale of half of a half arpent of new vineyard by Saquils, Peter’s daughter, to her “novercha” Jensana at a cost of 50 shillings.

84. January 1219: E 509. With the consent of her father, mother, and brother, Willelma married Bertrand Amicus giving 200 shillings and equipment. He promised to return 300 shillings and the same. Pons de Capitedenario and his partner Arnold Aiscius were witnesses.

85. April 1219: Malta 4 206 v (copied in 1243). Esclarmunda, widow of William

Niger (see No. 68 [August 1215] and 76 [September 1217] above), married Bernard de Altarippa bringing a house, a half arpent of new vineyard, and a half arpent of arable. Bernard promised restoration of the property and 20 shillings “pro consollamento.”

86. August 1219: Malta 17 14 ii (copied in 1244) and ibid. 21 89 ii (copied in 1244). A metal worker Grimald Capellarius gave 20 shillings to charity. Survived by his wife Geralda and his children Peter Vitalis, Bartholomew, Ramunda and Gracia, the two boys were heirs in equal portions. The daughters were to be dowered

and married (for the unions, see No. 98 [January 1224] and No. 126 [August 1235]), and his widow and son Peter Vital, who also served in lieu of “sponderii,” were instructed that “starent insimul cum omnibus eorum infantibus .v. annos post suum decessum,” for which service Peter was to receive 50 shillings and “maioria et antecabada.”

87. September 1219: E 472 and E 509, two original charters. “Dotis et donationis propter nuptias auctoritas ab antiquis veniens temporibus tam ex iure scripto quam ex consuetudine probata est, idcirco ego Matheva cum consilio et voluntate mei fratris Willelmi Rosselli et mee sororis Marissibilie et mei avunculi Johannis Rosselli ... dono tibi Petro Sobacco marito meo” a third of a house, etc “cum consilio et

voluntate suorum parentum, scilicet domine Brune sue matertere et eius filie Bermunde et virorum earum Arnaldi Petri Beloti et Willelmi Johannis Guaitapodii.” For Matheva’s husband’s death or departure, see No. 130 (March 1237) below, and, for her future history, Nos. 148 December 1244 and 151 (November 1246) together with the Sobaccus family history in Appendix 3 below.

146 APPENDIX 1 88. November 1219: Malta 9 92 ii (copied in 1230). Aimeric “qui stabat in carraria de scola Iudeorum” willed 12 shillings to charity. His wife Guillelma was given a house and a half arpent “malol.” 89. March 1220: Grandselve 5 (copied in 1228). Offering 100 shillings of charity especially as restitution for his usuries, the rich patrician Stephen Astro named his two sons as heirs. 1000 shillings “de meis melioribus baratis ad capiendum virum cognitione sue matris” went to his daughter Bernarda. His daughter Ticburga was given five arpents of arable that “efficiatur sanctimonialis in domo Spinachie” and provided the requisite “fornimentum in vestibus et in convivio et in toto hoc quod ei necesse erit in ingressu domus et in recipiendo habitum religionis.” The children and their property were put “in custodia et in balia” of their mother Valeria who was to be “domina et prepotens” until the boys were of age, Bernarda married, and Ticburga safely in the monastery. Valeria agreed to remand recuperating her widow’s portion until after the payment of Bernarda’s dowry, and the executors were to give her advice “pie et prudenter ... sine omni dolo.” Her wedding is No. 25 (March 1198) above and Bernarda’s is No. 103 (May 1225) below.

90. March 1221]: E 420. Vivas “merceria” gave the property left her by her first husband Bernard Potus (see No. 51 [December 1208] above) to her second mate, Bernard Raymond Ripparie. In return, Bernard Raymond promised 180 shillings and “vestes” at the end. Vivas also clearly retained goods outside the marriage. 91. June 1221, but contract dated 9 or more years before, hence no later than 1212: MADTG, A 297, fol. 293v and HGL, 8: No. 215 1. Bernard de Marestagno (obviously

the lord of Marestaing) and “domina” Alasaicia his wife “convenerunt dare unam

de filiabus eorum in uxorem” to Bernard Jordan 11, son of the second lord of Isle-Jourdain of that name, “ad commonitionem quam idem Bernardus Jordanus et amici ejus faciant ... scilicet filiam quam dictus Bernardus Jordanus magis voluerit que tunc fuerit sine viro” and promised as dowry all they have in Isle-Jourdain, Endouvielle, Levignac and Aussonne, Le Cluzel, Beauzelle near Cornebarrieu, Colomiers, and a “cena de .x. militibus” owed by Pons Carabordas in Toulouse. His father having promised that this young man would be the lord of Isle-Jourdain, the young lord engaged to marry one of Marestaing’s daughters “quando ille fuerit etate uxorem ducendi.” Isle-Jourdain also pledged his daughter Mascarosa would marry Bernard de Marestagno, son of the said Bernard “quando fuerit etate matrimonii” and, with her, a dowry of 1000 shillings Morlaas on Clermont-Saves and Leéguevin. A typically Gascon passage proposed that, if either party renegued, “debet remanere proditor et non debet se defendere in curia ... et ille talis debet se solus pugnare cum duobus militibus.”

92. August 1221: E 420. Daughter of the consenting Bernard Fortis and Galarda, Willelma de Sarramezano married Raymond Esbauditus (oy!) bringing a new vineyard. Raymond promised 300 shillings “in dotem” at the end. 93. September 1221: PAN, J 330 24 i and ii (copied in 1248). With the agreement of her parents Hugh Johannes and Francisqua and her brothers, Ramunda was dowered with the farm or fief of Cépet. With the express consent of his father Peter

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 147 de Miramonte, Bernard de Miramonte, the wealthy bridegroom, promised a “dotalicium” of 1000 shillings and to give back Cepet and a bed with silk linen at the end. As may be seen in his testament of August 1237 (see No. 132 below), Bernard de Miramonte assigned Ceépet or 3000 shillings to dower his daughter Francisqua so

it is known that Ramunda’s dowry was of the same order. For Hugh Johannes’ testament and Ramunda’s sister Aimengarda, see No. 123 (May 1235) below. 94. August 1222: E 509 (copied in 1225). Raymond Martinus instituted his wife Stephana and his father-in-law “tutores et spondarii.” They were to assign 20 shillings to charity and marry his daughters Bermunda and Stephana. The latter were his heirs, but, were they to die, his wife succeeded.

95. November 1222: J 323 70. In his will William Unaldus, premier lord of Lanta, bequeathed sums to fill out the dowries of his sisters Esclarmunda and Curva. The “dos” of each was 3000 shillings, of which two-thirds appears to have been paid prior to this testament. Esclarmunda’s gift was “ultra [the 2000 shillings] quos ibi ei laudaverat [William] quando ipsam maritavit”, thus showing that the brother stood “in loco parentis.” Anent the similar gift to Curva, the testator “disposuit domine Curve sorori sue .m. sol. Tol. ultra illos .mm. sol. Tol. quos dare convenerat

marito suo Raimundo de Perela quando ipsam duxit in uxorem pro omnia sua voluntate inde facienda, scilicet ipsius domine Curve, et mandavit quod ... Sicardus { his executor and brother-in- law] persolverit incontinenti .c. sol. Tol. domine Curve et ... marito suo, et residium [read “residuum”]} de illis .mmm. sol. Tol. persolvat eisdem Sicardus iamdictus per terminos cognitione amicorum utriusque partis.” His widow Gauda’s unspecified portion was property and 1000 shillings “ultra,” and the testator placed her “in posse et custodia et protectione dicti Sicardi de Montealto et iussit quod ipse Sicardus maritet eam cum rebus et iuribus ipsius domine Gaude.” The child with whom Gauda was pregnant was likewise placed in charge of Montaut who “disposuit illi infanti de quo domina Gauda uxor sua erat pregnans ... donec sit etatis.” In J 328 (March 1236) one sees that the child was named Marquesia (called so after Unaud’s mother, a woman present at the rendering of the testament described above) and that she was married to Aimeric de Rocaforte, being at that time a young woman of about 14 years of age. The decedent also gave money to a niece. Although the lord’s son Raymond was the heir, he is not mentioned in this instrument, which was entirely devoted to women. His charities were also rather modest, a little over 280 shillings, but others may have taken place before this instrument was confected.

96. January 1223: E 509. “Legalis est ordo et antiqua consuetudo et etiam de iure tenetur secundum institutiones antiquorum patrum ut coniugium cum dote vel donatione semper fiat, idcirco” Stephana married Amold Barbaordeus bringing a half arpent new vineyard, “vestes” and “panni,” and received the promise of the same, a well appointed bed, her “vestes” and 20 shillings. 97. April 1223: J 325 1. Her father Peter Bernard de Paolaco, his wife Jordana and her brother Gerald Bernard gave Clara and the “villa” of Béssieres to William de Gamevilla. 73 inhabitants swore alliegance, and four refused. No “dotalicium” was

148 APPENDIX | mentioned in the charter, but Gamevilla “commendavit clavem iamdicte ville” to Gerald Bernard “in deposito,” thus leaving the “dos” in the hands of the bride’s family for a time.

98. January 1224: Malta 17 14 iii (copied in 1244). With the consent of her widowed mother, Ramunda, the daughter of Grimaldus Capellarius, brought to her husband Pons Stephen de Veteravinea one arpent of arable, 150 shillings, and a bed, and he promised 200 shillings and the arable at the end. For the union of her sister

Gracia see No. 126 (August 1235) below, and, for the testament of her father Grimald Capellarius, No. 86 (August 1219). 99. February 1224: E 273. The widow Aldiarda gave her new husband Raymond Rainaldus, a baker, 300 shillings raised on the sale of a house given her by her first

spouse, Arnold Willelmota, and 190 shillings as the value of an arpent of new vineyard she “sold” her new husband. At death, he is to return the new vineyard and 400 shillings, all guaranteed on his house and “furnum.”

100. September 1224: MaptG, A 297, fol. 860r. With the consent of their sons, Raymond Guilabertus and his wife Englesia give their daughter Willelma to William

Gitbertus, son of the butcher of the same name, together with substantial real property and water rights on the Garonne river, including 100 eels annually. William will give this back and add 300 shillings “dotis de augmento.”

101. November 1224: Malta 17 48 i and ii. In an elaborate contract establishing a partnership (“societas”) between the bride’s father, the widower Raymond de Murello, and the bridegroom, Saptalina married Bernard Dasca “textor” (weaver) bringing a bed and a half arpent of arable. She was promised 20 shillings in addition by her husband at his death. The two partners were to divide the profits equally in this lifetime “societas,” one which, however, could be dissolved by either participant at will. If the father predeceased his son-in-law, he was to withdraw half the gain (“medietas lucri”) and 60 shillings “ultra ancabadam” to dispose freely, and the son-in-law was given the same privilege, but with only 20 shillings “ultra ancabadam.”

102. April 1225: Grandselve 6 i. A document states that the deceased Arnold Furnerius had given his widow Geralda the right to alienate half of the “furnum” or

bakery on the street “de Buzetis” to get the 200 shillings he had given her “in dotem.” Geralda sold this half with the consent of William Bonetus her second husband and her adult son Raymond, and promised to have the transaction confirmed by her children Arnold and Bona. 103. May 1225: Grandselve 6. Following her husband’s instructions, Valeria, widow of Stephen Astro, dowered her daughter Bernarda with 1000 shillings to marry her to Bertrand de Cossano. Dated March 1220, Stephen’s will is No. 89 above.

104. June 1227: Malta 4 207 iv (copied in 1247). Widow of Bernard Furnerius of the bakery near Saint-Remézy slain at Muret (see No. 55 [from September to November 1210 and October 1213] above), Petrona de Tonenquis married Pons Furnerius, providing him with 260 shillings of the 300 left her by her husband. The

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 149 miller promised her 30 shillings “pro agensamento.” See the Tonenquis family history in Appendix 3 below. 105. August 1227: Saint-Bernard 36 i (copied in 1231). Peter de Canedo (see No. 30 [June 1200] above for his father William’s testament) appointed his mother Aldiarda and brother as exectors. Peter assigned 40 shillings to charity, 20 to a goddaughter “quando virum acceperit” and 150 shillings or a “domus” to his niece Proba. Lastly, his mother and brother were to raise a nephew for ten years, after which the three were to share the estate in equal portions. 106. March 1228: MADTG, A 297, fols. 12v-14r and HGL, 8: No. 215 iii. Bernard Jordan 1, lord of Isle-Jourdain, rendered his testament in the presence of his wife “domina” Endia and others. India or Endia was there returned the 10,000 shillings Morlaas or Toulouse she had been promised “nomine dotis vel matrimonii quando eam duxi in uxorem.” His two sons, Bernard Jordan III and Jordan IV, were his principal heirs. His wife being pregnant at the time, her husband provided that, if the issue was male, he was to be made a canon of Saint-Etienne of Toulouse, which is what happened. If the child was female, she was to be given 300 shillings and placed in the convent of Lespinasse. No provision was made for her marriage. All the children being minors, they were placed “in posse et bailia et sub tutela et procuratione domine Endie uxoris mee et in ejus spondaratico” just as long as she did not remarry. See above No. 47 (February 1207) for the wedding of India and Bernard Jordan.

107. November 1228: Grandselve 6. With male “spondarii,” Dohaz put everything in his wife Petrona’s hands, allocating to charity half a “malol” and 50 shillings. The widow was general heir for a house, half a new vineyard, and other unspecified goods. 108. March 1229: pan, Doat 40, fol. 216v and Saint-Bernard 21. The very rich Pons

de Capitedenario bequeathed 200 shillings “nomine matrimonii” to his wife Aurimunda, daughter of the deceased Peter Surdus. Along with her son-in-law Roger Barravus, Aurimunda was an executor of Pons’ will and had free residence in his palatial house for herself and her servants (“ancille”) for life as long as she did not

remarry. She also gained the administration of 100 shillings and two arpents of arable that were paraphernal gifts but that had been handled by her husband. In addition, her husband gave her 250 shillings and half of a herd of sheep of which she owed the other half. Pons’ daughter Stephana was the heir. Pons left charity the enormous sum of 10,000 shillings, some of which went for restitution of usury. He also proposed that a pauper was to be endowed to live in his house, and also gave linens etc. for a “lectus predicti pauperis qui in mea predicta domo debet manere.”

109. August 1230: Saint-Sernin 680 (20 72 nn) i (copied in 1234 and 1252). A consular judgment allowed Petrona, widow of Peter Benedictus, to sell property valued at 500 shillings in order to recover her “vestes,” bed and 1050 shillings “in dotem” owed her by the estate. The 500 shillings was the sum of 350 shillings for a house “inter furnum hospitalis Mainaderie” and the wall of the Bourg, 100 shillings

for an “obolata” of vineyard and 50 shillings for some arable. The pair had two

150 APPENDIX 1 daughters, Bona a minor and Arnalda who “nolebat heres esse nec pro eo [her father] respondere.”

110. October 1230: Malta 15 133 1 (copied in 1243). Pons Rufatus bequeathed 30 shillings to charity. His children, Peter and Arnalda, were heirs in equal portions, and his widow Willelma was given 10 shillings “ultra sua dote.” Were the children to die, Willelma was to receive 10 shillings more for deathbed distribution. In ibid. iv (January 1243), Peter Martinus was declared to be a major of 14 years.

111. December 1230: TAM, II 71 ti (copied in 1280). With several “pelliparii” among his executors, William Probus (Pros) assigned 21 shillings to charity, a house etc. to his wife Ramunda, and three “tonelli” to his daughters Willelma and Septa.

112. January 1231: E 509 ii (copied in 1232 and 1256). Willelma de Furno, widow of William Pairolerius (coppersmith), married the craftsman Pons Umbertus “magister,” giving him unspecified property. Pons was to restore this plus 100 shillings. In this parchment, No. i (March 1227) tells that she was married to the coppersmith, No. iii (October 1235) that she was widowed and the wife of Peter Rixendis, and No. iv (November 1250) that her daughter Aladaicia by Pons Umbertus “magister” surrendered her claim on her father’s estate to her uncle.

113. November 1231: J 320 44. The seignior William Saissetus and his son Raymond, after having guaranteed 2500 shillings etc. “ratione dotis” for Genser, wife of the above Raymond, on half the castle of Saint-Agnan, shifted the obligation to pay 3500 shillings to Mateudz, wife of the above William, from Saint-Agnan to

the castle of Belcastel and a nearby mill. On Mathelda and William, see No. 42 (October 1203) above. 114. May 1232: Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1417. Daughter of the deceased Raymond de Ventenaco called Raymond de Murello, Saptalina and her husband Bernard de Asola sold a half arpent new vineyard to pay 220 shillings owed

to Ramunda, widow of Raymond de Murello, which sum Ramunda “habebat in dote.”

115. November 1233: Saint-Sernin 599 (10 35 7). Peter de Tolosa, husband of Galharda, daughter of Maurand “vetus,” sold the eighth part of the farm of Valségur that had been given as her dowry. He received 1000 shillings, but, since the farm

had been sold on the block by the consuls for 15,500 shillings, the dowry must initially have been over 1900 shillings. See the Maurandi family history in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 235, 237-239 and 280-281. 116. November 1233: Saint-Sernin 599 (10 35 11). To help her husband Maurand “vetus” avoid financial ruin, Mabelia gave up her claim on 3000 shillings “nomine matrimonii.” See the family history reference given in the preceding entry.

117. December 1233: E 125. The glover Ademar Ganterius ordered 100 shillings to be spent for charity. His wife Constancia received a house and a half arpent “malol,” and to Dulcia and Bernard Amelius, respectively children of his two deceased brothers, a “casal” and a house were given.

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 1S] 118. January 1234: E 579. Arnold Nona’s “spondarii” included his son-in-law Bernard de Sancto Martino. 100 shillings were assigned by this widower to charity. His daughter Arnalda received a “domus,” and all the rest of his property went to her and to her husband in equal shares.

119. January 1234: Malta 4 203 iv (copied in 1241). A curious act in which a mother endows and marries both her daughter and her granddaughter. Males are remarkably absent from these transactions. In the earliest charter on the parchment i (December 1220), Brunissenda is simply described as the daughter of the deceased Saptalina. The marriage instrument begins: “In nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi, ego Brunissenda filia quondam domine Saptaline qui fuit dono tibi Bernardo de Podio de Boysazo filiam meam Bernardam in uxorem, et ego Bernarda accipio te Bernardum de Podio in virum, et ego Bernardus de Podio duco te Bernardam in uxorem. Item ego Brunissenda predicta dono tibi Raimundo de Podio de Boysazo fratri dicti Bernardi Veziatam neptam meam filiam Saptaline filie mee in uxorem, et ego Veziada concilio et voluntate dicte domine Brunissende avie mee et domine Saptaline matris mee accipio te Raimundum de Podio in virum, et ego Raimundus de Podio duco te Veziadam in uxorem. Item ego Brunissenda antedicta dono vobis fratribus cum dictis uxoribus vestris vestroque ordinio per conssolamentum et in nomine conssolamenti post meum decessum omnia bona et iura” to enjoy in equal shares after her death. She retained, however, 15 d 1 “medellata” in annual rent and 200 shillings and her bed for her free disposition. The latter sum was presumably her widow’s portion or its equivalent. One hopes that the disparity in the age of the brothers was not far from that of the brides, and note that the couples divided their house and stores in iii June 1237, but not yet the other property. A Raymond de Podio “sutor” (cobbler) is seen in Grandselve 7 (April 1235). In Malta 4 203 iti (June 1237), Bernard and Raymond de Podio, here called Bernard de Podio and Raymond de Boissazone, and their wives “venerunt ad divisionem et ad portionem ... de illis domibus et casalibus” they held jointly.

120. September 1234: E 501 i (copied in 1241). Hugh Willelmus “pelliparius” assigned 300 shillings to charity. The executors were to see to it that his wife Maria (one among nine executors) received all she had been promised “pro matrimonio” and also half of whatever she and her husband had acquired together. His two sons Peter Aton and Hugh Willelmus were to divide the inheritance in half.

121. Before March 1235: Malta 9 97 ii (February 12.., copied in 1236). Peter de Auzilho promised his wife Johanna 90 shillings, a bed and clothing “in dothe.” In iii and iv of the same parchment March 1236, Johanna sold property as a widow to recoup her portion. An acquisition by Peter de Auzilho that does not mention his wife is ibid. i (from September to December 1233). 122. April 1235: Grandselve 7. Peter de Estanca “sutor” (cobbler) bequeathed 245 shillings to charity, including 70 shillings to his niece Ricarda, daughter of a finisher, “cum quibus maritetur vel mittatur in ordine.” The cobbler’s principal heirs were the

son of his sister Ramunda and his partner Raymond de Podio who received their store, etc.

152 APPENDIX | 123. May 1235: J 330 25. Hugh Johannes, onetime vicar of Toulouse, assigned 500 shillings to charity, including restitution for usury. His wife being dead, one son was to be a canon at Saint-Sernin at the cost of 300 shillings “sine plure,” his daughter

Aimengarda a “monacha” at the cost of 200 “sine plure,” but, if the counsellors favored wedlock, 1000 shillings for her dowry. A daughter Gensers, presumably married or in an order, was given a gift of 200 shillings. His two other sons were heirs in equal shares of all his goods. Hugh’s other daughter Ramunda had married Bernard de Miramonte in September 1221 (see No. 93 above) and, although she was alive when her father died, she was not mentioned in this will. 124. June 1235: Malta Garidech | (1 2) (copied in 1238). The testament of Vital Rotbertus assigned 1000 shillings for charity, and his heirs were his sons. The instrument records the fact that his pregnant wife Willelma may remain in his properties to raise one son and the unborn child, but also that, if she wishes not to be “domina et potens dum ipsa remanserit sine viro,” his executors are to give her her “dos” and “ultra suam dotem” 400 shillings. If her forthcoming child turns out to be a daughter, the girl is to have 1500 shillings “pro dote sine plure.” Among other beneficiaries were the “nutrix” of his son, and Flos, the daughter of his wife Willelma by a earlier marriage, who received 200 shillings owed to the testator.

125. June 1235: Saint-Sernin 145 (copied in 1286). The wealthy and childless patrician Peter de Turre de Portaria returned to his wife Bernarda 2400 shillings, various silver objects and a new vineyard she had given him at marriage, all “ratione sue dotis.” He further gratified his widow with a gift of more property, 150 shillings, a gold ring with an emerald, etc. There was probably restitution of usury in this will.

126. August 1235: Malta 17 18 iti (copied in 1242). A settlement in view of oncoming death records that William Castanherius “faber” had married Gracia, daughter of the deceased Grimaldus “capellerius.” Gracia brought a house, a new vineyard, two vats or barrels (“tonelli”) etc. to the union and was promised 400 shillings etc. Ibid. iv on the same parchment contains William’s testament dated August 1235, where one sees that this artisan appointed his wife to be an executor and left 200 shillings in charity. For the wedding of his widow’s sister Ramunda, see No. 98 January 1224 above, and, for the testament of her father Grimald Capellarius, see No. 86 (August 1219).

127. October 1235: Malta 10 125 iii (copied in 1278). Symunda gives Arnold Calvetus 50 shillings, bed and clothing, and a half arpent new vineyard. With the consent of his homonym father Arnold Calvetus, Arnold is to give it all back plus 100 shillings “infra capud anni” if he predeceases her. 128. December 1235: E 501, published in my “Village, Town and City in the Region of Toulouse,” in Pathways to Medieval Peasants, pp. 188-190. The executors of the testament of William Peter de Bolhaco “vaquerius” (dairyman or herder) included a minter and a merchant. 82 shillings were given to ecclesiastical institutions and layfolk, including his son Arnold by Guillelma de Vesceriis, probably a natural child, although not designated as such. This “suus filius ... filius Guillelme de Vescertis” received a mere 10 shillings, a sum equalled by the testator’s gifts to several of his

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 153 godchildren. The testator gave three milchcows to his wife Ramunda. His heir was to be the infant with whom his widow was pregnant. 129. February 1237: MaDTG, A 297, fols. 19v-21v and also 23v-24v. The will of Bernard Jordan 11, lord of Isle-Jourdain, named his brother Jordan Iv as heir to Isle-Jourdain and the seigniory. His widow, “domina” Englesia, was given 500 shillings Morlaas “preter suam dotem” and 100 shillings further “pro suis vestimentis.” His daughter Nalpais received 100 marks of silver (2500 shillings of Toulouse) “iure institutionis et hereditatis et apparciamenti.” Restitution was given to those who had suffered imprisonment at his hands. 130. March 1237: E 505. “Dicens se velle exire ab hac villa Tolose et ire ultra mare causa penitencie sibi injuncte” by the legate Cardinal Roman, Peter Sobaccus “posuit

et statuit et reliquid dominam Mathevam uxorem suam dominam et potentem omnium bonorum suorum,” according her the right to perform any action for the family with the “consilium et voluntas” of “domina” Matheva’s brother William Rossellus and that of the brothers William and Raymond Sobaqui. For this history, see also Nos. 87, 148 and 151 in this calendar.

131. June 1237: Malta 4 203 iti. Bernard and Raymond de Podio, here called Bernard de Podio and Raymond de Boissazone, and their wives “venerunt ad divisionem et ad portionem ... de illis domibus et casalibus” they held jointly, the property being given at their union, for which see above No. 119. 132. August 1237: J 328 24 (copied in 1248). In his will, the very rich Bernard de Miramonte de Portaria proposed distributing no less than 25,000 shillings and a large amount of real property, beginning with an unspecified amount for restitution

of usury. His charities were a conventional 1000 shillings. Bernard’s widow Ramunda, daughter of Hugh Johannes (see No. 93 September 1221 above), was to

receive 5000 shillings, two beds, etc. if she surrendered Cépet which she had brought in her dowry of September 1221. Did she wish to retain this place, she was to do so, but also to lose all that her husband had added “ad corpus Cepeti,” and to give her daughter Francisqua 4000 shillings to be invested in real estate. Were she to refuse even this option (one that shows the value of the “bovaria” of Ceépet in the testator’s mind), she was to lose it all, a provision that surely would not have stood the test of law. 3000 shillings on the farm of Cépet was allotted “nomine matrimonii” for the nuptials of his daughter Francisqua with Stephen de Castronovo, the

bridegroom named by the dying father. Bernard also hedged his bets about his daughter. Were Francisqua to have male issue, the boys were to be the true heirs of the estate, but, until their majority, various nephews and cousins could live together

with the married couple in his house. More significantly, the relatives were to manage Francisqua’s estate until that time. Were the issue of the union with Castronovo a girl, the nameless child was to receive a dowry of 5000 shillings, a princely if somewhat imaginary sum, and the rest of the inheritance was to go to the aforesaid cousins and nephews. The decedent’s mother Bernarda was assigned an annual allowance of 200 shillings or more if necessary. For the eventual disposition of these properties, see PAN, J 330 14 (June 1238) where the children of Hugh

154 APPENDIX | Johannes, namely Ramunda, widow of Bernard de Miramonte, and her brothers Arnold and Raymond Johannes, settle the matter of Ramunda’s dowry, paying her off and returning the real property to the family. For the fate of his daughter Francisqua, see TAM, II 39 (March 1254, copied in 1286) containing the division of the extensive properties derived from Bernard de Miramonte via his daughter Francisca, deceased wife of Stephen de Castronovo, son of Stephen Curtasolea. 133. April 1238: Malta 17 39 (copied in 1245). Saurimunda married Raymond Robianus “magister,” bringing 50 shillings. He promised to return 60 shillings guaranteed on a half arpent new vineyard, together with “unam vestam bonam novam de viridi vel de bruna ad tuam electionem cum pellibus cirogrillorum [squirrel]” and a bed. 134. June 1238: PAN, J 330 14. The children of Hugh Johannes, namely Ramunda, widow of Bernard de Miramonte de Portaria, and her two brothers settle the matter of Ramunda’s dowry, paying her off and restoring the farm or seigniory of Céepet to the family. See No. 132 above.

135. January 1239: Saint-Sernin 598 (10 34 9) ii (copied in 1264 and 1265). Pons de Petra of Castelginest and his daughter Ramunda gave her husband Pons de Johanne six pieces of property “nomine dotis.” The father’s wife Aimersenda agreed to this transaction. Pons promised to return the same with the addition of 100 shillings.

136. August 1240: Malta 17 64 iv (copied in 1253). Bernard Garinus “austaderius”

(poultryman?) gave 20 shillings for charity. 15 shillings went to his daughter Willelma and her son William. The testator’s son Bernard had “ancabada” with 60 shillings before his two other sons, who were all jointly heirs in equal portions. Their inheritance was to be paid, “persoluta tamen prius dote sue uxoris Ramunde quam ei concesserat eadem die, sicut in carta sue dotis quam Bernardus de Samatano inde scripsit continetur.” The amount of Ramunda’s portion was undisclosed. She was also to be “domina et potens” over the estate until her sons reached majority.

137. March 1241: Malta 17 55 ii (copied in 1244). A division of Bernard Vitalis’ estate gave his homynym son, a “bursellarius,” several small vineyards and his widow, Ramunda, the family “domus.” 138. April 1242: Grandselve 7. Willelma married Arnold Vitalis (surely a craft- or tradesman, the witnesses being a “macellarius” or butcher and a “peleganterius” or sheep skin preparer), bringing a house, 60 shillings, etc., and being promised “in augmento” 50 shillings, clothing and a bed. The unusual provision was that, if she

predeceased her husband, “totum [she brought] ad tuam finem possis dare et disponere amore dei et salute anime tue ... totum ad tuam voluntatem.” 139. December 1242: Malta 17 65. Arnold Austaderius (a poulterer?) appointed his

brother and his sister’s husband “sponderii” to supervise the distribution of 50 shillings charity. His widow Bruna was to receive her “dos” and 10 shillings “ultra,” and his mother 30 shillings. His daughter Willelma was to be raised until majority by her aunt and uncle, at which time she and they were to divide the estate equally.

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 155 140. March 1243: Grandselve 8 i and ii. Advised by their mother Ricardia, widow of Peter William de Orto, and their “procuratores,” three sons together with their sister Alamanda, wife of Arnold Puer, sold a substantial urban property.

141. March 1243: J 305 29. The very rich patrician Vital Galterius provided that Comptors, his second wife (the first, Bertranda, was deceased) was to receive 1200 shillings, silver, jewels, clothing etc. In addition, Comptors was given keep at home for life. Vital also had one or possibly two natural sons. The passage is: “dono ... meo filio dicto Willelmo Poncio filio Saurimonde et eius ordinia ... [a piece of land and a vineyard at Comba Salomon] ... sub pacto et conditione quod ipse W. P. filius meus dictus persolvat Berengario meo filio dicto .J. sol. Tol. quos incontinenti e1 relinquo et dispono.” His principal heirs were nephews, a male cousin and his two sisters, but the church and education received very large properties. 142. April 1243: Malta 15 132 iv. Fabrissa widow and co-executor of her husband Arnold de Manso “macellarius” confesses that the three other “spondarii” (two of whom are Mansos) paid her all her “dos et debitum” as in her marriage charter, that is, 500 shillings.

143. May 1243: Malta 15 151 (copied in 1277). A sale by the executors “frater” Bernard de Manso, monk of Calers, Jacob de Manso “macellarius” and Peter Raymond de Auriaco “macellarius” of the deceased Raymond Arnold de Manso “macellarius,” brother of the said monk sell to the brothers Gitbert, Raymond and Peter de Manso a house, in order to pay the decedent’s wife Esclarmunda a sum toward her “dos” of 600 shillings. 144. October 1243: E 509. Willelma, widow of Bernard de Auxio, gave her sons Bernard and William de Auxio, 50 shillings of those 100 left her for her matrimonial jointure. This was done “propter paupertatem quam ipsi habebant et quia a patre suo non remanserant ea de quibus possent honorifice sustentari.” 145. December 1243: Malta 1 28. Tolosana, widow of John Macellarius, bequeathed

to her heir, the Hospitalers, property and especially her “dos” of 550 shillings restored to her by her husband. She also paid her husband’s charities of 50 shillings, and offered 15 of her own.

146. May 1244: Maptc, A 294, fol. 1373v. Jordan IV, lord of Isle-Jourdain, gave 2000 shillings Morlaas and “domina Alpais neptis sua ... in matrimonio domino Geraldo de Foresio”. If he predeceases, Gerald will return the 2000 shillings “et pro adiacenciamento alios duos mille sol. bonorum Morl. pro sua dote,” namely 4000 shillings. Odo de Perdelhano, father of the bridegroom, was among the witnesses of this charter written at Isle-Jourdain. 147. July 1244: J 324 19 published in Saige, Les Juifs du Languedoc, No. 36. The Jew Astrug recognizes he owes his mother Gauzios, widow of Abraham, 1550 shillings as was recorded “in carta sue dotis.” 148. December 1244: E 342 (copied in 1247). The final payment of the dowry for the second marriage of Matheva Sobacca listed a “dos” of 1026 shillings to be given

back by her husband “sine augmento.” The husband was John Astro, who died

156 APPENDIX | within ten years of the date of the wedding, for which see Sobaccus family history in Appendix 3, and for her first marriage, see No. 87 (September 1219) above, for her first husband’s departure No. 130 (March 1237) and for the lawsuit after the death of her second husband John No. 151 (November 1246).

149. April 1245: Malta 118 346 ii (copied in 1246). A modest person, Peter Ovelherius de Villanova gave 10 shillings to charity and divided the rest of his undisclosed property, half to his two sons, Peter and Arnold, and half to his wife Grauzida.

150. April 1245: Malta 10 8 iii (copied in 1264). Bernard Radulphus (an “ortolanus” or gardener) married Flos, promising her 60 shillings and bed and clothing if she predeceased him. Bernard’s testament is March 1257 and Flos’ August 1261, for which see Nos. 168 and 173 below. A miller witnessed Bernard’s will.

151. November 1246: PAN, JJ 21, fol. 79v, published in HGL, 8: No. 395 and Giraud, Essai sur l histoire du droit francais au Moyen-age, 1: 113-17. A suit was brought before the consuls by Bernard Raymond de Tholosa, acting for his son Thoset and “domina” Alcaya his deceased wife, legitimate daughter of the deceased Berengar Astro, and Ramunda and Causida, daughters of the deceased Raymond Peter Nigretus and Saussia his wife, who were uterine sisters of John Astro, Berengar Astro’s deceased “filius naturalis” by the said Saussia, the latter three persons being described in the court record as “fratres uterini.” The defendants were “domina” Matheva, widow of the deceased John Astro, and her son Peter Sobaccus, notary, acting for his mother and for himself because of a gift made to him by her. See the Sobaccus family history in Appendix 3 below and Nos. 87, 130 and 148 above. 152. February 1247: Malta 17 98 ii (copied in 1247). Peter Nepos, whose executors included a butcher, weaver, brick or tile maker, etc., gave ten shillings in charity. His

son German was heir if he attained majority, otherwise his wife Aladaycia. The testator had had a daughter named Ramunda by his first wife Ramunda. Ramunda and Peter had been married when Peter and his brother divided their goods in ibid. i (October 1231). Ramunda’s daughter Ramunda does not appear in this testamentary instrument, but is seen in ibid. iii (March 1264) with German and his mother. At that time she, as heir of “Ramunde alie uxoris” of Peter Nepos, approved the sale of a property.

153. April 1247: Malta 17 74. The executors of Arnold Revelli “textor” dowered his daughter Arnaida with a quarter arpent new vineyard, a bed and “una vestis.” Her husband, Raymond de Escossa, promised to return these goods and 30 shillings “de aucmento.”

154. November 1247: Malta 17 60. Bernarda Guisona gave benefactions to the church, the poor and her nephews. Her daughter Estevena (Stephana), wife of Peter Vitalis “ganterius,” received a tiny “malol.” The name Guisona indicates that Bernarda was either the widow or the daughter of a Guido.

155. November 1247: Grandselve 41 v (copied in 1258 and 1264). Pictavina, widow of Bernard Amalvinus de Najaco, gave a little over six shillings and some

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 157 linens to the Hospital of Saint-Raymond, 30 shillings and a chest went to the son and two daughters of her general heir, her own daughter Willelma. Ibid. vi (January

1248) states that these bequests had been honored, and vii (April 1252) that Willelma was still alive and that her sister Sibilia had married the deceased Bernard Lumbardus whose son, bearing the same name, gave a portion of a “domus” to his

aunt. Ibid. ti (April 1197), for which see No. 23 above, records the marriage of Pictavina and Bernard de Najaco so the widow could not have been less than 62 years of age in 1247. 156. March 1249: Malta 9 120. One executor being a “sabaterius,” William Gasco de Sancto Christallo gave 20 shillings in charity. Two daughters were each given 50 shillings to marry, a married daughter was given a large “vaxellum,” and yet another married daughter was forgiven a debt of ten shillings and given ten more in addition. William’s wife Bona was his general heir.

157. February 1251: E 501 iii (copied in 1251). Among Peter de Galhaco’s “sponderii” was his wife Lumbarda. 20 shillings went for charity. Peter’s heir was his daughter Ramunda, wife of Martin de Sancto Caprario. 158. June 1251: Malta 2 147 i (copied in 1253). Bernard John de Trageto gave his wife Bonafos 100 shillings to distribute to charity and served as an executor of her will. Bonafos left three minor children to whom she gave property, either para-

phernal (the word is not used) or derived either from marital portion or her acquisitions made during the union (the fact is not mentioned). Her daughter Geralda received an arpent of vineyard, and her sons Arnold and Bernard a house. As is seen in ibid. ii, the house was sold within the year.

159. December 1251: Malta 1 131. Deusajuda left the bulk of his goods to the Hospitalers on the condition that he “teneat et explectet omnes predictas domos omnibus diebus vite sue,” the Hospitalers being obligated to pay him a yearly pension of four quarters (“cartones” ) of grain, two measures (“modii” ) of unwatered wine, and, in his final days, 300 shillings for his debts, etc. After his death, Ricarda “qui tunc manebat cum eo” was to occupy the house where he lived among the ones

he rented (“collocare”), and receive from the Hospital half of the allotment mentioned above. Were the Hospital unwilling to do this, Ricarda was to collect the rents from the other houses. On the testator’s death, the Hospitalers were to pay his charities and restitution for his usuries. 160. August 1252: Malta 17 68 i (copied in 1264). Assignment in view of oncoming death by Raymond Sancius of 60 shillings “pro dote” to his wife Bernarda. A witness was a cobbler.

161. August 1252: MapTG, A 297, fol. 880r. The will of the rich Bertrand Descalquenquis allocated 200 shillings to charity, and his widow Aymengarda received an unspecified marriage portion, a silver bowl, and free keep at home for life. The testator’s four sons were constituted general heirs in equal shares. See the Descalquencs family history in my Repression of Catharism, p. 209ff.

162. August 1253: Malta 123 16 (copied in 1280). William Usclacanus, a smith in

the Taur parish, “sanus et ylaris et cum suo bono sense et perfecta memoria

158 APPENDIX | testamentum suum condidit.” The decedent appointed three executors, one of whom was a “cambiator” and another his “discipulus” Peter Vitalis. Childless, William left his wife Johanna her unspecified “dos” and “dotalicium,” and the use of much of his property for life as long as she did not remarry. Although some went to godchildren and friends, the principal benefactions were to ecclesiastical institutions, especially the Cistercians of Grandselve, who received his half of the “bovaria” at Estacabiau near Saint-Génies, a farm worth 20,000 shillings in 1226. The smith’s gifts were given in both property and kind, and his cash donations were above 1400 shillings. Outside of Grandselve, 19 other houses in Toulouse and its region were gratified.

The successor in his properties “det et teneatur dare ad comedendum in eisdem domibus et honore quoque anno videlicet capellano ecclesie de Tauro et uni subcapellano eiusdem ecclesie et .xi. pauperibus panem et vinum et carnes bene et plenarie bona fide in remissione meorum peccaminum in tali die, scilicet quo me mors contigerit.” He also ordered “ut ipsa domina Johanna teneat in illis domibus meis unum lectum de pannis bona fide munitum in quo unus pauper jaceat in remissione meorum peccaminum.”

163. February 1254: E 509. Pons Raymond de Castaneto (Castanet just south of Toulouse) gave his daughter Ricsenda to Pons Vivas with clothing, bits of land and 60 shillings, which are to be given back at the death of the husband with the addition of 20 shillings. 164. March 1254: Saint-Etienne 240 (30 4 nn). Bernarda, daughter of the deceased William Martinus de Cruce (probably a smith because two of his four executors were

so designated), gave a house, 100 shillings, etc., and her husband, Raymond de Recalto, “misit in dotem” 850 shillings were he to predecease her. He also promised her a “lectum pannis melioribus sue domus preter pannum ciricum munitum bona fide.”

165. February 1256: MADTG, G 712 iii (copied in 1269). In his will, Arnold Willelmus “macellarius” gave 400 shillings to charity. There were two further lists

of benefactions, thus causing the distribution of money to equal 1150 shillings. Arnold’s wife Bernarda was to receive her “dos” and 50 shillings “ultra dotem suam,” and either 50 more or the right to live in his house for two years, expenses paid. She was further gratified by a pure gift of 100 shillings. His daughter Guillelma was to have 300 shillings, a bed and “vestes nuptiales.” She was coheir of his estate together with her sister Riqua, wife of Arnold William Sabaterius (cobbler). Other family members received gifts of 150 and 210 shillings. Lastly, the butcher’s natural son William (“filius meus naturalis”) was dropped with 75 shillings.

166. April 1256: Malta 21 52 i. Arnold Godus de Vadigia (Baziége) “desponsavit cum anulo et osculo” Marquesia, daughter of the deceased Garcias Vasco. Her brother Vital Vasco “magister” gave a half arpent arable and the husband promised to return that plus 20 shillings and a bed.

167. August 1256: MADTG, A 297, fols. 202-204v and HGL, 8: No. 464 i. In the will of the knight Raymond Jordan de Insula, son of the quondam Odo de Terrida, half of his sheep and goats were sold to endow the mendicants of Toulouse with 150

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 159 shillings Morlaas, and the other half to give to his wife Guillelma. He also recognized that he owed the notable Raymond de Alfario 3000 shillings Morlaas or

Toulouse. Raymond having died, the testator thought that he might be able to reassign the 3000 shillings to his widow “ultra 1000 sol. ... quod de ipsa habuerat ratione matrimonii....” His nephew was given the castle of Thil and the town of Bretx, the major part of his inheritance, but a son named Bertrand received a property and some houses in Saint-Cyprien at Toulouse and he returned the lands and honors his mother Helia had given him. 168. March 1257: Malta 10 8 ii (copied in 1264). A cobbler, a brewer and others testified that Bernard Radulfus left ten shillings for charity. His wife Flos was made “domina et potens” to look after their children, Sancius and Bruna, both minors. If, however, Flos “dictos infantes volebat dimittere et volebat ducere virum,” she is to be given half of the estate and the children the other half. For Flos’ testament, see No. 173 (August 1261), and note that the contract between Bernard and Flos was

No. 150 (April 1245). 169. May 1257: Malta 10 21 (copied in 1257). Arnold Guilabertus “ferraterius” (farrier or blacksmith) bequeathed 180 shillings to charity. Childless, his wife Ramunda received her “dos” and “ultra” 50 shillings. The remainder of his small estate went to the poor. 170. November 1258: Puybusque, Généalogie Puybusque, pp. 48-53. Raymond de Podiobuscano disposed of charities of 500 shillings to be distributed by his executors and his daughter Bordolesia. Raymond’s widow Saptalina was given an unspecified marital settlement. The decedent’s major heirs were his two sons and his daughter Bordolesia, called Petrona, wife of William de Nempze, who was given a first claim for her dowry. Bordolesia was placed in charge of his sons and their estates until they attained majority.

171. May 1259: Malta 10 26 ii (copied in 1259). John de Campanha allocated 10 shillings to charity. His wife Johanna served as “sponderia” but was to act on the advice of clergy. Small benefactions went to monasteries, etc. and the widow inherited half the remaining estate, and his three sons the rest.

172. April 1260: Malta 13 24 ii. Willing 40 shillings to charity and apparently childless, Stephen de Goza “ortolanus” made his wife Saptalina, one of his three “sponderii,” his heir. Ibid. i states that this pair was already married in March 1229. 173. August 1261: Malta 10 8 iv (copied in 1264). Widow of Bernard Radulfus to whom she was married in April 1245 (see No. 150) and who died in March 1257 (No. 168 above), “domina” Flos appointed as “sponderii” her own godfather and

her son-in-law Bernard Columbus “ortolanus.” She gave under 32 shillings to charity. Her son had died or disappeared since 1257, and her daughter Bruna was the heir. Though still a minor (under age 25?), she was, as seen above, already married.

174. November 1263: Malta 17 68 iii (copied in 1264). William John Mota appointed a son William Mota and Bernard de Podio, a son-in-law, “sponderii” to distribute 20 shillings to charity and an unspecified “dos” and “dotalicium” to his

160 APPENDIX 1 wife Maria. Both majors, his daughters Petrona and Englesia were given a house. The rest of his estate was to go to his three sons (two being minors) and a child as yet unborn.

175. February 1263: E 573. In a charter witnessed by a “mazelerius” (butcher) and a “textor,” Sibilia, widow of Bernard Adevus, informed the consuls that she had “super bona [of the said Bernard] dotem suam [100 shillings] et lectum et eciam vestes suas.” She also told them that her husband “ipsam dominam et potentem in suo testamento constituit ... nulla mentione facta de sponderiis vel consiliatoribus.” She therefore begged them to appoint two “tutores vel consiliatores” to help her out, which they did.

176. July 1263: E 509 i and ii. Arnalda, widow of Arnold Amelius, was owed 120 shillings and “vestes” by her husband’s estate. To recoup this, she sold four arpents of arable at the price of 120 shillings of Morlas to the notary Pons Basterius in a charter witnessed by William Magister, son of the quondam Pons Magister, and Arnold Mercerius “argentarius.”

177. July 1264: E 509. Daughter of quondam Bernard Karolus “iuvenis,” Maria married Vital Gasco with 250 shillings and bed. The same is to be given back plus 50 shillings “de agenciamento” and “vestes ... ad capud unius anni.” A merchant witnessed the charter. 178. January 1265: MADTG, G 712. Peter de Corneilhano “arquerius” included among his “sponderii” his son John, a monk at Moissac. His charities equalled 64 shillings. His daughter Thomasia received 400 shillings and a “lectum de panis honorifice munitum et unam vestem nupsialem ... in quibus ipsam sibi heredem instituit.” The monk, his son, received no personal gift. 179. February 1265: E 502. Bernarda, wife of John de Torrindo, daughter of Bernard Boerius of the Bastide-Saint-Sernin, gave her share of the parental inheritance to her sisters Dyas and Gracia. She surrendered all she had “jure institutionis vel hereditatis vel pro fratrisca, dono legato, mandamentis vel convenienciis vel ullo quolibet alio modo.” 180. May 1265: Malta 17 69 ii. A childless craftsman (related to a “frenerius”) named Arnold de Podio left 35 shillings to charity. “In digna helemosina” his widow

Bruna was to receive 80 shillings, bed etc. The testator had some small debts equaling 23 s 6 d and promised restitution for usury. 181. February 1269: Saint-Sernin 599 (10 35 22) ii. Riqua, widow of Bertrand de Turre, confessed that her husband’s executors had paid her 1000 shillings of those 2300 owed her “ratione dotis et donationis.” 182. March 1269: Malta 15 77. With the consent of a son named Bernard Petrus, “heres [of the testator] in tercio parte pro indiviso,” counselled by his grandfather and uncle who had been assigned to be his “consiliatores et rectores” by the consuls, the executors of Bernard Petrus “de carraria Sancti Remigii” sold property worth 50 shillings to go toward his widow’s jointure of 350 shillings “nomine dotis” plus an augmentation of another 50. The relict, “domina Jacma,” also had the consent of her present husband Peter Dozillus.

CHARTERS DEALING WITH WOMEN 161 183. November 1270: Grandselve 11. Bernard Columbus confessed that his wife Ramunda, daughter of the quondam William Petrus “ganterius” (glover), brought him 200 shillings “de dote,” a new vineyard described as “dotalis,” a bed etc. The property and 300 shillings are to be returned to her after his death. 184. April 1272: Malta 2 166. Childless, the boatman Peter Paganus left 60 shillings for charity. All remaining belongings went to his wife Ramunda but, on her death, his house was to go to the Hospital where he had been looked after at the end.

185. November 1273: J 324 6 xi. William de Brugariis, minor son of the deceased “domicellus” of the same name, prepared to give his mother Brunissenda 3000 shillings owed her for her jointure. 186. January 1275: 11 98 (copied in 1275). The executors of Bernard Sagnator (slaughterman) sold property to give his widow Bernarda part of the 400 shillings promised “nomine dotis.” The widow is described as “cospondaria eorum [who] ad secundas nuptias convolavit.”

187. October 1278: Malta 2 171. His son Paul having predeceased him, the notary Paulus promised restitution for usury and left the large sum of 3400 shillings for charity as well as a yearly rent roll of 2 s 3 d. Among these were 500 shillings for the marriage of poor young women, 150 shillings to pay the charity promised in his mother Petrona’s and step-father Raymond Estultus’ wills, and 50 shillings to the “nutrix” of his dead son Paul. The notary’s wife Ramunda was to get her “dos” and “donatio propter nupcias,” not described, 100 shillings her father had given her, and the usufruct of his remaining properties, themselves eventually to go to the Hospital.

188. January 1283: Saint-Sernin 696 (22 74 2) (copied in 1285). Bosencontres, widow of the rich Ademar Maurandus, received her unspecified “dos” and “dotalicium” together with a gift of 500 shillings and residence for herself and her “familia” in the family “hospitium” for life. The heirs of this patrician were nephews. 1000 shillings were given to Petrona, his “filia naturalis,” a woman married to Peter Agassa. Restitution for usury was provided. 189. November 1284: Malta 123 19 fourth of several membranes tied together. A sale by Arnold Bernard de Sancto Genesio (Saint-Genies) performed with the consent of his wife Rixendis, of Ramunda, widow of the quondam Bernard de Turre, and of Bertrand de Turre, Bernard de Turre and Mauranda de Turre, “fratres ipsius venditoris.” The sale was of rights they had “nomine dotis,” “pro fratrisca successionis,” etc. The three last named “fratres” also stated that they were “minores .xxv. annis, majores tamen .xiv.,” and therefore would confirm the sale when they had reached majority.

190. June 1297: Puybusque, Généalogie Puybusque, pp. 61-69. Raymond de Podiobuscano’s testament gave his daughters Bordalesia and Mascarosa, “filie ejusdem testatoris legitime et naturales,” 1000 shillings each for their dowries, together with an “arnesium cum quibus maritentur et ad eas maritandas” in “jus hereditorie institutionis et apparciamenti.” The remaining sister, Ramunda, was assigned 500 shillings deriving from the estate of the testator’s deceased mother

162 APPENDIX | Saptalina to enter “pro dei servicio religio seu ordo.” The settlement with his wife Englesia about her marital portion must have been made before the will, but she was here given housing and keep, being made “domina et potens dum tamen sine marito permanserit” over the children, only some of whom, it appears, were hers. Two sons were the heirs. A third son was to receive 500 shillings but could remain at home until he collected that sum. Three small bequests were given to his own “nutrix” and the two “nutrices” of his sons. Possibly because of his numerous children, this man gave only 200 shillings in charity.

Appendix 2 Tables

A. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS

The checklist given below contains the following pieces of information: 1. the sum assigned to charity in shillings of Toulouse, a shilling worth two shillings of Tours and two of Melgueil; 2. the number of the document as recorded above in Appendix 1; 3. a rough evaluation of profession or social class, and 4. a note as to whether or not the testator had to provide for children. Only quantifiable bequests are listed below, and the identification by “class” is based either on direct knowledge or the surname of the individual. As is known, surnames do not mean that the individual was practicing the stated trade or craft, but, however remotely, they do indicate origins. What is known about these persons may be seen by consulting the appropriate number in Appendix 1. In this as in the other tables given below the symbol “-?-” tells the reader that there is no information in the charters on the requisite point. TABLE 1: CHARITABLE BEQUESTS

Amount Number Class Issue

10000 108notary/jurist patrician yes 3400 103 no 1000 71 patrician yes 1000 124 patrician yes 1000 132 patrician yes

830 75 noble no 500 169 123 patrician? patrician yes 500 yes 400 164 butcher yes 300 120 furrier yes 250 63 noble no 245 122 cobbler no no 210 20 artisan 200 yes 200161 59patrician baker yes

ce 164 APPENDIX 2 Amount Number Class Issue

200 126 helmetmaker? no 200 189 patrician? yes

180 168 farrier no 130 34 baker no

100 72 broker’s widow yes 100 158 wife yes

100 4 wife yes 100 33 widow yes

100 77 baker yes 100 60patrician glover yes 100 89 yes 100 no 100117 118glove -)- yes

76 52 -yes 64 archer/carder? yes 60177 183 boatman no 82 128 dairyman yes

50 50 139 145poulterer butcher yes no

40 716 -)yes 40 105 -)no 40 171harnessmaker gardener no 35 179 no 32 172 widow yes 30 38 wife no 30 38 -)- no

21 111 furrier yes 20 86 helmetmaker yes

20 156 artisan? yes 20 136 poulterer yes 20 157 farmer? yes 20 173 -)- yes

12 88 -)no 10 110 wife yes 10 149 shepherd yes

1S 145 butcher’s widow no

10 152 -)yes 10 170widow -)- yes 10 167 yes

63 155 widow yes yes 57 weaver

TABLES 165 B. TABLES ABOUT MATRIMONY

As the reader perusing the calendar in Appendix 1 may easily see, the documents sometimes record the value of both the “dos” and the “dotalicium,” and sometimes

only the former or the latter. Three tables (Nos. 2, 3 and 4) will spell out the specifics, the first being devoted to the full portions or settlements, the second to the dowries or “dotes,” and the third the marriage gifts or “dotalicia.” The first entry is the sum of money in Toulousan shillings promised the wife or widow, the second the number of the document and the third an identification of the class of the families mentioned in the documents. TABLE 2: MARRIAGE PORTIONS

Amount Number Class Notes 10000 47 noble 4500 31 noble 3000 + 1500 4000 146 noble

3500 42 noble

3000 116 patrician

3000 184 noble 2500 113 noble

2500 36 noble

2400 125 patrician 2300 180 patrician

1550 147 Jew

1500 69 patrician 1400 25 patrician 1400 48 minter 1300 56 patrician 1200 141 patrician

1050 109 -).

1000 70 -?.

1000 89 patrician

1000 91 noble

1000 148 patrician 850 58 -)+ 850 163 craftname

150 Gift

800 75 noble

600 6 -?600 143 butcher 590 99 baker

550 145 butcher

500 5 -)+ 125 Gift 500 18 -?. 500 62 notary

166 APPENDIX 2 Amount Number Class Notes 500 142 butcher 400 45 furrier 400 126 smith

400 185 -?. 350 174 -). 300 1] smith 300 23 -?. 300 55 baker 300 59 baker

300 72 broker

300 92 84 -)-). 300 300 176 --

300 182 glover 290 104 baker

250 83 notary 230 61 baker

220 114 65 -). 220 -. 200 3 miller?

200 7 -?. 200 12 cutler 150 + 50

200 51 mercer 200 98 helmetmaker +Arpent of Arable 200 102 baker 200 108 patrician + 350 & Property

190 4] thatcher? 180 90 mercer 120 175 mercer

100 4 -?.

100 30 artisan 100 32 baker 100 33 -?100 34 baker

100 8 1 -). 100 174 butcher 90 121 -)80 179 -?100 144 -)-

60 133 craftsman 60 150 gardener 60 160 craftsman

40 10 -)-

a

TABLES 167

TABLE 3: DOWRIES (“DOTES”)

Amount Number Class

5000 47 noble

5000 132 patrician 3000 93 & 132 patrician 3000 132 patrician

2500 54 noble 2000 36 patrician 2000 95 noble 2000 95 noble

1500 124 patrician

1000 25 patrician 1000 66 patrician 1000 89 patrician

1000 103 patrician 1000 123 patrician 1000 125 patrician? 1000 148 patrician? 1000 166 noble 1000 189 patrician

500 75 noble 490 99 baker 400 177 archer/carder? 350 181 -)-

300 23 -)300 164 butcher 260 104 baker

250 176 -)230 61 baker

200 3 -)200 5 -)200 55 baker

200 84 -)200 182 glover

150 51 mercer

141 2 -?70 122 cobbler

60 162 -)50 133 craftsman 50 156 -)50 156 -?50 181 -)-

40 $2 -)-

168 APPENDIX 2 TABLE 4: MARRIAGE GIFTS (“DOTALICIA”)

Amount Number Class

5000 47 noble 2600 43 noble 1000 93 patrician 1000 95 noble 600 129 noble 500 36 patrician/noble 500 48 minter 400 124 patrician

300 75 noble

300 719 noble

300 100 butcher 200 44 nailmaker 180 90 mercer 150 164 butcher

100 50 -?.

100 112 coppersmith 100 135 countryman

100 127 ~?-

60 68 ~). 50 138 butcher 50 168 farrier 50 176 -?. 30 104 baker 30 153 weaver

20 64 smith

20 85 -?20 96 -)20 101 weaver

20 162 countryman 20 165 craftsman

10 110 -)-

10 139 poulterer

TABLES 169 TABLE 5: ESTIMATED MARRIAGE PORTIONS

The figures listed below are very rough and ready. They are based on the later town tradition wherein the proportion of the whole marital portion conveyed by the “dos” was stated to be two-thirds and that by the “dotalicium” one-third. As may be seen in Chapter Five above, such figures cannot be authenticated for the time treated in this monograph and, furthermore, the actual settlements were surely far more varied than those simple percentages indicate. Still, such a rough statistic may give an idea of the range of marriage portions in this area, although, as is several times stated in the body of this study, the well-to-do are heavily overrepresented in the available

charters. The letters “xx” after the appropriate entry tell the reader that the calculation of the marriage portion was based on the figure given for a “dos,” and “nn” for a “dotalicium.”

Amount Number Class Notes 10000 47 noble

7800 43 noble nn 7500 132 patrician XX

4500 93 & 132 patrician

4000 146 noble

3750 54 noble XX 3500 42 noble

3500 31 noble 2000 + 1500

3000 36 patrician XX

3000 95 noble nn 3000 116 patrician

3000 184 noble 2500 36 noble 2500 113 noble

2400 125 patrician 2300 180 patrician

2250 124 patrician XX

1800 129 noble nn 1550 147 Jew 1500 36 patrician nn 1500 48 minter nn 1500 66 patrician XX 1500 69 patrician

1500 89 patrician XX

1500 103 patrician XX 1500 123 patrician XX 1500 125 patrician? XX 1500 148 patrician? XX

1500 166 noble XX

170 APPENDIX 2 Amount Number Class Notes

1500 189 patrician XX 1400 25 patrician 1400 48 minter 1300 56 patrician

1200 124 patrician nn 1200 141 patrician

1050 109 -?-

1000 70 -?.

1000 89 patrician

1000 91 noble

1000 148 patrician

900 75 noble

900 79 noble nn 900 100 butcher nn

850 58 -). + 150 Gift 850 163 craftname 800 75 noble 750 75 noble 744 99 baker

600 6 -. 600 44 nailmaker nn 600 143 butcher 600 177 archer/carder XX 590 99 baker 550 145 butcher

540 90 mercer nn 525 181 -?XX 500 5 -). 500 18 -?. + 125 Gift 500 62 notary

500 142 butcher

450 23 -). XX 450 164 butcher XX 400 4$ furrier 400 126 smith

400 185 -?-

390 XX 375104 176baker -- XX 350 174 -).

345 61 baker XX 300 3 -)- XX

300 5 -?. XX

TABLES 171 Amount Number = Class Notes

300 11 smith

300 -?3002350

-?. nn 300 55 baker 300 59 baker 300 72 broker

300 84 -?300 92 -?-

300 112 coppersmith nn 300 135 countryman nn

300 127 -‘). nn 300 176 -?-

300 182 glover 290 104 baker

250 83 notary 230 61 baker

225 XX 220 51 65 mercer -. 220 114 -?200 3 miller?

210 2 -?- XX

200 7 -)200 {2 cutler 150 + 50

200 51 mercer 200 98 helmetmaker +Arpent of Arable 200 102 baker

200 108 patrician + 350 & Property

190 4] thatcher?

180 90 mercer

160 68 -?nn 150 138 butcher nn 150 168 farrier nn 150 176 -)- nn 120 175 mercer

105 cobbler XX 100122 4 -?. 100 30 artisan 100 32 baker 100 33 -?100 34 baker

100 8 1 -?100 144 ~-

172 APPENDIX 2 Amount Number Class Notes 100 174 butcher

90 104-?.baker nn 90 121

90 162 -?XX 90 153 weaver nn 80 179 -?-

75 133 craftsman 75 156 trades or crafts XX 75 156 trades or crafts XX

75 181 -?XX 60 52 -). XX 60 nn 606485smith -- nn

60 96 -?. nn 60 101 weaver nn 60 133 craftsman XX 60 150 gardener 60 160 craftsman

60 162 countryman nn

60 craftsman nn 40 165 10 -?.

30 110 -?. nn 30 139 poulterer nn

Appendix 3 Family Histories

There are four family histories recorded in this brief appendix. One of them, the first, that of the Astro family, is an account similar to the many histories contained in my

earlier history of the repression of Catharism. Two of them, however, those of Sobaccus and Tonencs, are really histories of two women, Matheva Sobacca and Petrona de Tonencs. The history of the latter could easily be called “A Baker’s Wife,”

but I had no idea what to call Matheva’s. Had I thought of a title to use anent her wonderful life, I would certainly have done so. In Appendix 4, there is also a quasi-family history, that of the group bearing the name Dalbs. The persistent or dogged reader (pray chose the adjective you want!) will see for herself or himself if the Dalbs do or do not constitute a family. A. ASTRO

A Pons Astro with a brother simply named Astro appears about 1081.' Thereafter one hears of a William Pons Astro who, among other things, returned or gave tithes at Grisolles to the monastery of Saint-Sernin in 1126.” The name, so typical of this clan, appears again in 1122 through 1143 when the three brothers, William Pons, Bernard Pons, and Peter were giving Saint-Sernin properties and tithes at Grisolles, Saint-Sauveur, and Montmazalguer (near Saint-Caprais) north of the Bourg.’ Of these brothers, the first two were dead in 1154, each leaving a son named Pons, and it is known that Peter had a daughter named Sibilia, married to Pons Abela.* The Peter recorded above may have been the Peter Astro who had property at Castelginest, La Devéze near Launac, Castillon, etc. in 1135.° Parallel in time was a group related to Gerald Dezmer[ius] or Decimarius. Seen as early as 1121, Gerald was clearly a major tithe collector for the monastery of Saint-Sernin.® In 1145 the monastery gave William de Aura and “heredibus suis,” ' Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, No. 546. ? Tbid., No. 266, as well as a reasonable number of undated acts, for which see the index in Douais. > A series of acts in ibid., Nos. 22, 60, 65, 98, 128, 255, 270, and 577 dated from ca. 1122 to 1143, with the name often given as Astre. * All are mentioned in Malta 123 1 ii (December 1154, copied in 1235). > Saint-Sernin 603 (10 36 5) (November 1135). ° Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, No. 77 (May 1121).

174 APPENDIX 3 namely Gerald Decimarius and John, the son of Gualarda, a cousin of William and Gerald, lifetime tenure of the tithes of the closes of Belsoleil and Buguet on the route

from Toulouse to Montaudran.’ The tenure of these tithes lasted longer than William’s life because in the late 1160s, Pons Astre, son of Gerald Dezmer, and his sister Sobirana sold their rights in the tithes of the closes of Belsoleil and Redon to Saint-Sernin.® Early in the 1170s, a similar sale was effected by Bona, daughter of the dead Gerald Desmerius, and Raymond Sancius and his wife Sobirana, Bona’s niece.”

In the 1150s and 1160s, a Pons Astre de Brunone or de Bruno, hence a Pons, son of Bruno, gave or returned the tithes of Lascrosses to Saint-Sernin.’® In 1156, two brothers, Calvet and Bernard Astre briefly appear, holding property at Traversum, a place perhaps in the neighborhood of Montaudran.'! For the moment, the direct posterity of none of these Astros can be traced. It is obvious, however, that this family was closely bound up to the basilica and monastery of Saint-Sernin, and that its members were tithe collectors for that great house. Saint-Sernin’s tithes may have formed the basis of the later patrician status of this clan, but it is noteworthy that its members were “returning” by means of sales and gifts the tithes to that institution in the mid- and late twelfth century, perhaps to contract for their collection on a less permanent or non-hereditary basis. The family line that can be followed derived from a Pons, presumably one of the Pons mentioned in the paragraph above, perhaps the one who owned a house hard

on the close of Saint-Sernin in the Bourg.’ First heard of in 1179 when already dead, Pons’ succession was William Pons, Calvet, Raymond Arnold and unnamed other siblings who, in that year, gave tithes at Motte-Saint-Hilaire outside SaintCyprien and at Malamorte to the canons of Saint-Sernin.'? The later detailed testament of 1216 of the above William Pons Astro tells that among the missing siblings of 1179 were a daughter named Brunissenda and a son Stephen. The cast of characters in this important instrument also includes a Pons Astro who served as an executor (“sponderius”), William Pons’ wife Ermengarda, Johanna, his niece and

the daughter of Calvet Astro, Bernarda, another niece and daughter of Stephen Astro, the unnamed oldest daughter of a Bernard Raymond Astro, a grand-niece, that is, of the testator, and William Pons’ own children, his daughter Dias and her past and present husbands, and his own son Pons William Astro.'* Lastly, it is probable, although not sure, that another missing sibling of 1179 was Berengar Astro. A charter of 1206 mentions an action taken by a Calvet Astro and his brother

” Ibid., No. 154 (September 1145). ® Ibid., No. 54 (March 1166 or 1157). > Ibid., No. 55 (March 1171 or 1172). 10 Ibid., Nos. 86, 150, and 581 dated from 1155 to 1165.

E 510 (January 1156). '2 Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, App. No. 55 (May 1171). 3 Tbid., No. 52 (June 1179), sons of a deceased Pons Astro. '4 Appendix 1, No. 71 (May 1216).

FAMILIES 175 Berengar.'* It is, in short, possible that the family of the Pons Astro who was dead by 1179 consisted of five sons, and one daughter who remained unmarried. To trace the family members seriatim, little is known about Calvet, save that he had a daughter named Johanna, and even less about his siblings Brunissenda and Raymond Arnold.’° It seems sure, however, that one of the two brothers mentioned in the previous sentence (or possibly one further unnamed sibling) had two sons, Bernard Raymond and Raymond Peter, whose history shall be described below." The “success” of the family in this generation was William Pons Astro. Heard of from 1175, he had a distinguished political career, serving as a chapterman for the count in 1177 or 1180, as consul in 1189-1190, the consulate that bested the count and introduced the quasi-republican age of Toulousan history. He was a consul again in 1193-1194, in 1207-1208 after the victory of the popular party, and during the war in 1212-1213. He was acquiring property at Estacabiau near Saint-Génies north

of town, and had holdings in the Close of Urset de Limoges on the “caminus franciscus” or “francigene” south of town.'® He was trusted to serve as a tutor of a

worthy’s son, served as a trustee for the recently founded hospital called the Mainaderie, and the abbot of Saint-Sernin was one of the executors of his will in 1216. He died sometime between October 1215 when he settled his wife’s portion on her and May 1216 when his will was described after his demise.’”

'S Grandselve 2 iii (January 1206, copied in 1206). '6 Calvet is seen only in E 474 (July 1187) except for the reference to him and his daughter in William Pons’ will of 1216, for which see Appendix 1, No. 71. Brunissenda is seen only in that document, and Raymond Arnold appears only as a witness to a transaction of William Pons in E 538 (March 1207). '’ E 579 and 896 (June 1213) where Bernard Raymond is described as the nephew of William Pons. Called brothers, the two were also “consulatores” for the will of Stephen Astro of March 1220 in Appendix 1, No. 89. 18 Malta 123 19 (February 1192, copied in 1260), Saint-Geénies—on which act, see note 27 below; Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1454 (August 1181). '? For these latter dates, see Appendix 1, Nos. 69 (October 1215) and No. 71 (May 1216).

Prior to these events, William Pons (other than his political offices) is seen in E 575 (September 1175) where he and unnamed brothers owed rent; June 1179 in note 13 above; Catel, Mémoires de l'histoire du Languedoc, pp. 215-216, an eighteenth-century copy of the foundation of the Mainaderie being in Chartreux 193, fols. 4v-Sr (between 1179 and 1164, copied in 1184)—a document shown me by Pierre Gérard, archivist of the Haute-Garonne; March 1207 in note 16; and E 505 (June 1207) where he served as tutor of John de Portali, son of the deceased Vital de Portal.

176 APPENDIX 3 Map 3: ASTRO”

¢Grisolles

\ Saint-Sauveur

Fenouillet on

“ \ . Esta fue biou f ¢ Saint-Cap rais

: "4 \ : i Colomiers \ l/ 4 Mea,

*, Me ' r :

fv 0 5 10 15 20 km 20 The map shows only the family properties that were outside the “gardiage,” either in the “vicarage” or the Toulousain generally.

FAMILIES 177 TABLE 6: ASTRO MAIN LINE

Pons?!

db 1179

William Pons Calvet Raymond Arnold Stephen Brunissenda

1175 1179 1179 1198 1216

d. 1216 1187 1207 d. 1220

(Ermengarda) db 1216 (Valeria) Issue of these Siblings

Dias Pons William

1216 & reverse

1216 (Stephen 1216

Carabordas 1230

& Vasco de Turre) 1243?

Raymond Arnold William Pons Bernarda _ Titburga

1220 1220 1216 1224 1243? 1220

db 1248? (Bertrand de Cossano) Unnamed Issue of a William Pons’ 1248

| 1286

William Pons

Possibly a child of the Turre family of the Bourg, William Pons’ widow Ermengarda was a well-to-do woman with a dotal settlement of 1500 shillings promised by her husband (as stated above) in 1215 while he was still alive. In 1217 she sold 20 shillings worth of annual rents (some seemingly in the Close of Urset south of town, and others on the “carraria de sesqueriis” — the modern “rue Maltache” near the Carmelites in the City) to make up her marriage settlement with the consent of the “sponderii” and the promise of her son’s adhesion, the latter minor being simply called Pons. About the Turre family, note that a William de Turre acted as a principal 21 As stated below, a Berengar was possibly a son of the elder Pons. See Table 7 below.

178 APPENDIX 3 councillor for her husband’s will of May 1216, and that, in the act of 1217, the same person appeared together with her. He was therefore probably a parent or sibling of Ermengarda.””? She and her husband had at least two children. William Pons’

testament of 1216 records that their daughter Dias was the widow of Stephen Carabordas and the wife of Vasco de Turre, by both of whom she apparently had issue.”’ Simply called Pons when a minor in 1217, the son is described in his father’s will as Pons William Astro, but later began to style himself William Pons.” Owing

to the fact that his uncle Stephen had a son named William Pons, one cannot say which William Pons is the one being referred to in documents echeloned from 1222 to 1286, or the consular term of 1247-1248.”° One William Pons was dead in 1248 leaving unnamed issue, and, therefore, the various William Pons of the later years, the consul of 1286-1286, for example, may have been fathered by either one of these persons or even someone else.”° One of these William Pons Astros or one of their heirs bearing the same name was a creditor, a member of the confraternity of Saint-

Sernin, and another rounded out his holdings in the farm of Estacabiau near Saint-Génies, a property in which, as seen above, the earlier William Pons Astro had long since invested.”’

The brother named Stephen is next in order. Involving a marital settlement of 1400 shillings, Stephen married Valeria in 1198.78 His testament is dated 1220, and in it he left his four children in charge of their mother, proposing that one daughter was to marry with a dowry of 1000 shillings and that the other be dowered with four

arpents of arable land to enter the monastery of Lespinasse.”’ In 1224, a charter

” For October 1214, see Appendix 1, No. 69. Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1451 (March 1217). For the Turre family history, see my Repression of Catharism, p. 28 Sf.

> See the document of May 1216 in Appendix 1, No. 71 and, on the Caraborda family, my Repression of Catharism, pp. 169-170. 4 For March 1217, see note 22; for May 1216, Appendix 1, No. 71; for March 1222, see the following note; and E 504 (January 1230) where Bernard Raymond Astro and his wife Brunissenda acquit William Pons Astro for the 50 shillings given their elder daughter in the will of May 1216.

> Three Astro were among the councillors of the consuls in aa 1 75 (March 1222): Berengar, Bernard Raymond, and William Pons. The Astro mentioned in the oath of obedience to the Peace of Paris in PAN, J 305 29 (February 1243) are Aimeric, Pons, John and William Pons.

6 For March 1222 and February 1243, see the note above; and E 896 (September 1248) records an action by John de Turre and Bertrand de Cosseanis, tutors of the unnamed children of a dead William Pons Astro.

7 E 502 (January 1263) William Pons as a creditor; Saint-Sernin 625 (14 43 13 and 15) (respectively dated March 1270 and May 1271), the confraternity; and Malta 123 19, three acts tied to the membrane of February 1192 dated respectively November 1284, November 1285, and June 1286, anent Estacabiau. 28 Appendix 1, No. 25 (March 1198, copied in 1227). 9 Ibid., No. 89 (March 1220, copied in 1228), a document also mentioning Bernard Raymond Astro and his brother Raymond Peter, and William Raymond, son of the deceased Raymond William.

FAMILIES 179 mentions his sons Raymond Arnold and William Pons, the latter still a minor, and his daughter Titburga, and records that Valeria (true to her promise to her husband) had married her daughter Bernarda to Bertrand de Cossano, the son of a notable burgher named Bernard Peter de Cossano.*° Thereafter, unless the William Pons seen above in 1224 was responsible for some of the actions mentioned at the bottom of the previous paragraph, this line disappears from extant documents. TABLE 7: POSSIBLE BROTHER BERENGAR

Calvet Berengar

1206 1194 1206

db 1225

(Bernarda) (Saussia) Raymond Peter Nigretus

Berengar Alchaia John

db 1244 db 1246 (Matheva (Bernard Raymond _Sobacca)

de Tolosa) d. 1244/6

Ramunda Cauzida

1246 1246

Marcibilia

db 1246

Possibly so identified in a document of 1206, as has been seen above, is the remaining brother Berengar.*! An active man, Berengar is seen dealing with his properties at Colomiers and as a creditor from 1194 until 1225, by which time he was deceased.” By his wife Bernarda, Berengar had had two children, another Berengar who was dead by 1244 and a daughter Alchaia, who married the patrician © Ibid., No. 103 (May 1225) and Saint-Bernard 138, fols. 98r-100v (November 1225) recording a large sale to Pons de Capitedenario. For the family histories of the Cossano and Capitedenario, see my Repression of Catharism, pp. 155ff. and 193ff. 5! See note 15 for January 1206 above. 2 Grandselve 3 (December 1194); E 2 (December 1201, copied in 1211); E 538 (April 1203); Saint-Sernin 598 (10 34 4) (October 1204), Colomiers; E 579 (October 1211); and

E 575 (March 1222), creditor.

180 APPENDIX 3 Bernard Raymond de Tolosa, but whose husband was a widower by 1246.’ Before his death, however, the father Berengar had complicated the inheritance by living openly with a woman named Saussia “pro concubina” by whom he had a natural son

named John. Sometime before his death, Berengar had ended the liaison with Saussia by marrying her off to a Raymond Peter Nigretus, by whom she was to have two daughters. John was raised in his father’s big house next door to that acquired

by Pons de Capitedenario in 1225 on the “carraria maior” and the “carraria de Banquis” in the Bourg, was well treated and bore the family name, but, being illegitimate, could not be an heir and was only modestly endowed with 500 shillings by his father at the end.** The legitimate line, if that is the way to describe it, does not seem to have been happy about this circumstance. Not only did his widow and heirs sell parts of Berengar’s house soon after his death, but also John did not get his 500 shillings until the death of his half-brother Berengar.*’ These heirs were also

to have their vengeance in a celebrated lawsuit of 1246, one described in the Sobaccus family history to be found below as well as here.*® The occasion for the litigation was that Berengar’s natural son John had married a well-to-do widow named Matheva Sobacca in 1238 or 1239, but died suddenly and intestate between then and 1246. The fruit of this union, a daughter named Marcibilia also died within seven years of birth presumably after her father, and certainly before November 1246.>’

Several paragraphs above, the brothers Bernard Raymond and Raymond Peter Astro were mentioned. They were nephews of William Pons Astro and of his brother Stephen, and hence the sons of either Calvet or Raymond Arnold Astro.*® Bernard Raymond was almost as active a man as his uncle, being a consul in 1205-1206,

1211-1212, 1214-1215, and 1217-1218 during the great siege. He is seen in the charters until 1230, was married to a Marina, and had several daughters, one named Ramunda.”? In 1218 he was among those who broke into the safe behind the altar of the Hospitalers to get the papers of Pons de Sancto Martino, an action perhaps showing that he had married a woman of that family or that a Sancto Martino had 33 For the details of this family history, see the document of May 1226 in note 35 below, and that of November 1246 in Appendix 1, No. 151. 4 Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 91r (October 1225), the house. 35 Saint-Bernard 138, fols. 93r-94v (May 1226), a sale to Pons de Capitedenario. © See Appendix 1, No. 151 (November 1246). 37 The final payment on the dowry by the bride in ibid., No. 148 is dated December 1244, but, since their child Marcibilia died “infra septennium” before the lawsuit of November 1246 cited in the note above and the husband was alive in 1244, the dating given above seems altogether reasonable. 38 See note 17 above. 9 Other than the references in the consular lists, Bernard Raymond is seen in June 1213 in note 17 and May 1216 in Appendix 1, No. 71; see also Stephen Astro’s testament of March 1220 in Appendix 1, No. 89, where he and his brother Raymond Peter both appear; in March 1222 in note 25 above; Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 160v (July 1226), recording a sale by his brother Peter Raymond; Grandselve 6 i and ii (both dated May 1229), a sale by Ramunda, with the consent of Bernard Raymond’s wife Marina and that of his brother; and in January 1230 in note 24 above.

FAMILIES 181 married an Astro.*° His brother Raymond Peter is interesting principally because he was as frequently called Peter Raymond as Raymond Peter, an inversion of Christian names not uncommon at this time in this family.*’ A document of 1227 also states that he was married to one of the Rossellus daughters, Marcibilia (also Marsibilia, Marisibilia, etc.), a sister of the Matheva, whose first husband was Peter Sobaccus,

the heretical usurer, and whose second was John Astro, the natural son of the Berengar Astro mentioned above. The document recorded a division of property between Peter Raymond and Peter Sobaccus at Fontmarsan, Campdol, and near Fontanas, north of the Bourg.” TABLE 8: ISSUE OF EITHER CALVET OR RAYMOND ARNOLD AND THE LINE OF PONS

Calvet Raymond Arnold

1179 1179 1187 1207

? \, Pons 1216

Johanna =§ Bernard Raymond —_ Raymond Peter 1222

1216 1205 & reverse 1222 (Marina) 1230 12271220 1243? | (Marcibilia)

Ramunda Unnamed

1216 daughter

1229 1216

Peter Raymond Pons

1243 1243

Although his link to the rest of the family cannot be established, the relationship of another Astro named Pons to the main line is clearly demonstrated by the fact that he served as executor to the will of the distinguished William Pons in 1216 and © Malta 1 23 (February 1218). *! As Peter Raymond, brother of Bernard Raymond, in the document of July 1226 in note 39 above, and as the same in Grandselve 6 (November 1227), concerning the inheritance of his wife Marcibilia and her sister Matheva. * For November 1227, see the note immediately above, and, for the rest of the history, pp. 179-180 above.

182 APPENDIX 3 to that of the latter’s brother Stephen in 1220.*° This Pons was an important personage, serving as consul in 1207-1208 and 1221-1222, and it may have been he or a son (because a Pons Astro is known to have had sons named Pons and Peter Raymond) who appeared in 1243 and as consul in 1246-1247." As noted above, a William Raymond Astro, the son of a deceased Raymond William, served as an advisor for Stephen Astro’s will in 1220.“ One cannot know what his relationship to Stephen and his brothers was, but his role makes it clear that it was close. A last possibly related line used the Christian name Peter once earlier employed by the mid-twelfth century Astros. In 1208 one sees a Peter Astro “qui vocabatur Monsacutus” who lived, as did the main Astro line, in the Bourg. In that year, Ramunda, Peter’s widow, gave her sons Bernard de Monteacuto and Aimeric Astro their inheritance, thus implying that they had both recently reached majority.“° An Aimeric took the oath in 1243, was a consul in 1247-1248, and is reported to have been married to a Willelma Roberta, of the distinguished family of that name.*’ It subsequently appears that he, deceased by 1269, had two sons, one named Bernard Aimeric and the other Bernard Raymond Astro, the latter bearing a combination of Christian names that has been seen before in the main lines described above. The reference to these brothers shows them as creditors of the monastery of Lespinasse, the same house that Stephen Astro’s younger daughter was dowered to join.” Bernard Aimeric may have been the Astro of this name charged with usury by a

widow before a consular court in 1258, and who is seen as a “baiulus” of the confraternity of Saint-Sernin in 1270 and 1271.” 3 See Appendix 1, No. 71 (May 1216) and No. 89 (March 1220). * For March 1222 and February 1243 see above. Malta Garidech 1 (1 3) (copied in 1281) and ibid., 30 (1 13) (both dated March 1233) list Peter Raymond, son of Pons, and Peter Raymond, brother of Pons. ** See Appendix 1, No. 89. * E 501 (November 1208, copied in 1214). *’ For February 1243, see note 25 above; and Grandselve 9 (June 1253) mentions the spouse. Ms AADML, Lespinasse No. 17, fol. 10r (May 1269) records that Aimeric was deceased, and

is also the last mention of Bernard Raymond.

* taM, II 54 (November 1258), and Saint-Sernin 625 (14 43 14 and 15) (dated respectively March 1270 and May 1271).

FAMILIES 183 TABLE 9: PETER’S LINE

Peter d. 1208 (Ramunda) “vocabatur Monsacutus”

Bernard de Aimeric

Monteacuto 1208

1208 1253 (Willelma Roberta) d. 1269

1253 1269

Bernard Aimeric Bernard Raymond 1271

With its homes clustered in or around the Close of Saint-Sernin and on the north-eastern edge of the Bourg and its landed properties to the north of the town at Campdol, Fontanas, Fontmarsan, Monteégut, and Saint-Geénies, and to the south along the “camina Francigena,” this family was clearly patrician and well-to-do. Other than its lively participation in the collection of the tithes of the basilica of Saint-Sernin, what its members did to make money, other than invest in loans, land and rental property is not known. In spite of the many twelfth century “gifts” or “restorations” of tithes to Saint-Sernin, the family was noteworthy among the patricians of Toulouse because none of its members seem to have been involved in Catharism or any other heresy. At the same time, it may be noted that members came from and married into the Turre family of the Bourg, many of whose known figures were involved in Catharism.”° B. RAINA

Who Raina or Rayna was, the charters do not tell, but that she was a woman from

whom a family took its name is shown by the fact that, using the apheresis of “domina,” its members appear in the charters as Na Raina (Naraina) as well as simple Raina. The first Raina to appear in the charters is a William Arnold de NaRaina seen in 1190 and 1199. He was deceased by November 1202 and is known to have been lord for a quarter of the harvest of a small vineyard near the Hers river.” *° See the family history in my Repression of Catharism, pp. 285ff.

*' E 461 iii (November 1190), iv (December 1199 and v (November 1202): “mezalata malolis.”

184 APPENDIX 3 Thereafter, from 1222 to 1238, a notary named William de Rayna is seen instrumenting. It is noteworthy that he not only served the consuls but also that his clientele was generally pretty elevated.°? Things become confused in 1243 because, at the oath to uphold the Peace of Paris, two Williams de Rayna, one junior and the other senior, make their appearance.” After this, a William de Rayna continued to instrument, but which of the two of 1243 is impossible to say. This person wrote for the wealthy and the consuls from

1243 to 1248. In 1251 the notary William de Rayna was listed among the “Jurisperiti” called to help Alphonse de Poitiers revoke the will of his predecessor, Raymond VII, showing that he was highly placed in the bar of Toulouse.** One of these Williams instrumented for private parties or appeared as a witness until 1270.% Being called both Naraina and Raina in the document, this person served as the

syndic of the consuls in 1270 and 1271.°’ As Naraina, an aged William gave testimony around 1274 on the political system and life during the Albigensian war, but most of his evidence was clearly hearsay. That fact may perhaps allow one to conjecture that this was the “junior” of 1243, but there is no way of really knowing.” The last mention of a simple William de Narayna is in 1278 when he represented the mills of the Bazacle.* Writing in 1296, the Commentator of the Custom of Toulouse describes this William de Narraina as one of the four guardians of this code during his lifetime. Curiously enough, the same source records that William, “who had the law in his bosom,” committed a fraud to protect a client who was being sued by interpolating a Clause favoring his case into his copy of the Custom. This was the reason, he says, that a movement got under way to formally register this body of laws.°! *2 E 506 (May 1222) for private parties; HGL, 8: No. 3 (August 1226) a record of the homage of the Count of Foix; TAM, AA 1 73 (May 1227), a consular act; Mulholland, “Statutes

on Clothmaking,” p. 167 (November 1227), a gild statute; Saint-Sernin 680 (20 72 nn) i (August 1230 copied in 1234 and 1251) recording a decision of the consuls; TAM, AA 1 83 and 102 copies of February 1235 as a witness; Saint- Sernin in Cresty, Répertoire des titres et documents, fol. 47r where he was in 1237 the notary recording an arbitration between the bishop of Toulouse and the abbot of Saint- Sernin; Grandselve 7 (June 1238); and TAM, AA 1 101 and 103 (January 1248), both consular acts. > pan, J 305 29 (February 1243). * PAN, J 322 64 (March 1243), the testament of the rich Vital Galterius; ibid., JJ 21 79v (November 1246) a consular decision; and TAM, AA 101 and 103 (both dated January 1248).

> pan, J 311 69 and HGL, 8: No. 424 (May 1251). °° Malta 4 197 i (July 1260); Saint-Sernin 680 (20 72 nn) (March 1262), a reference to his property; Grandselve 10 (December 1262); E 502 (February 1264); Tam, 0 32 (September 1264); and ibid., AA 3 128 (June 1270). 7 Tbid., 1 9 (November 1270 and January 1271). 8 pan, J 305 32 (ca. 1274). °° An excellent note containing much of this information is found in Gilles, Coutumes, pp. 174-175, note 2. He also adds this reference: Bazacle, Liber Instrumentorum II, fols. 10-16v (June 1278). °° Gilles, Coutumes, p. 173: “... set et tempore meo quatuor erant principales qui vigilabant cotidie in consuetudinibus faciendis.” ®! Gilles, Coutumes, p. 247 where the commentary describes it as a “truffa quam fecit semel

FAMILIES 185 Around that time, another Raina or Naraina appears, William John, who lived near the Old Bridge in 1271 and who, seven years later, served as an arbiter speaking

the piece of the mills of the Chateau. Although the two Rainas were on opposite sides in this litigation, it seems not unlikely that William and William John were members of the same family. C. SOBACCUS

In its variant spellings, the name Sobaccus (Sobatges, Sobaquus, etc.) appears in the charters from the earliest days of the twelfth century.®? Not until the early thirteenth century, however, can a family filiation be established. Then are seen a William and Peter Sobaccus who are clearly related.°* Leaving a widow and a daughter of whom no more is known, William was possibly deceased by May 1218.° Peter, however, has left far more evidence in the charters, and it is also known that he had a brother named Raymond.” It will be remembered that the episcopal court under Bishop Fulk was actively pursuing usurers in the first decade of the thirteenth century.°’ Among the business-

men worried by this activity was Peter Sobaccus. In 1212 and 1213 documents specified that several of his debtors promised not to prosecute him for his usuries.°° In spite of this danger, Peter was doing well in this period, buying property on the right bank of the Garonne opposite Blagnac.” In September 1219, a happy event occurred: Peter married Matheva (Mateva, Matheuz, etc.). Three charters dated on the same day record this matrimony and the

Guillelmus de Narrayna qui cotidie portabat consuetudines in sinu.” William showed the court

the Custom’s provision No. 108 “cum quadam additione nova quam ipse fecerat .... et ipse dedit causam edicto ut omnes consuetudines registrentur et ponerentur in quodam libro ne aliquis possit addere vel detrahere ut ipse Guillelmus faciebat.” ®2 aM, II 77 (April 1271 copied in 1299) where he was described as “de platea pontis veteris”; for 1278, see the act cited in the previous note. °? Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, Nos. 262, 365, 386, and 348 (respectively dated 1146, May 1148, and April 1155), involving individuals named Peter, Raymond, and Vital. * E501 (June and July 1213), an acquisition of property at Pratlong by Peter, an act witnessed by William. ® Saint-Bernard 138, fols. I81v-188r, Sibilia and her daughter Johanna, the latter being the

child of Sibilia and Pons de Vimato, also deceased. °° See Appendix 1, No. 130 (March 1237). ®*’ See my Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, pp. 79-80. 8 Saint-Bernard 32 (September 1212), Peter alone, and Grandselve 5 (February 1213), where a woman Bernarda, acting for herself and her husband Pons de Saoil, stated that “de omnibus illis lucris et usuris quas Poncius de Murello qui fuit et Petrus Sobaccus de ea et de viro suo ... unquam habuerant, quod de toto evenerat cum ea Petrus Sobaccus ad transactio-

nem et ad concordiam, et quod pro ista transactione et pro hac concordia dederat ei peccuniam, de qua peccunia dicta Bernarda tenuit se pro bene paccata.”

See note 64 (June and July 1213) above. Furthermore, Peter was a witness in an act of E 508 (February 1212, copied in August 1212). He was seen again in E 538 (June 1215), Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 160v, and in E 575 (September 1218).

186 APPENDIX 3 business that went along with it. The first is the actual contract in which Matheva, with the consent of her brother William Rossellus and sister Marcibilia, her uncle John Rossellus, Bruna, the sister of her dead mother and Bruna’s daughter Bermunda, together with that of their husbands, Peter Bernard Beloti and William John Gaitapodium, gave her husband her share (a third part) of her family’s property at Fontmarsan (near Fontanas north of Toulouse), a house in Toulouse, a similar third of the household furnishings, and a bed. Her husband promised to return this dowry to her if she outlived him, but there is no mention here of the customary “dotalicium” or husband’s matrimonial gift.”” This transfer of property was confirmed by a “donatio inter vivos” at the same time, which also states that these properties had been held “ratione fratresche,” and that three outsiders had given their consent to

this alienation, Stephen Curtasolea, Azalbertus and Arnold Aiscius, surely the testamentary executors of Matheva’s dead father William Rossellus.’’ This action by

the presumed executors states that one or more of the children of the deceased William was still a minor, and it may also perhaps be assumed that, although Peter Sobaccus was clearly a mature man, Matheva was younger. The third charter tells that the Rossellus family was in debt to Peter because he there released them from paying 150 shillings of the 600 they owed him.” It may be useful here to turn back and review what is known about the history of the Rossellus family. A William Rossellus acquired a vineyard at Pratlong in 1147.” A William of the same name is seen in 1193, renting out a house in the close of Saint-Sernin.’’ In 1198, William appears again together with his wife Marcibilia and

his brother John Rossellus.’> As seen above, John was alive at the time when Matheva was married in 1219. It is also known that William and John had a sister named Bruna who appeared in the marriage settlement of 1219 suitably described as Matheva’s aunt. William Rossellus is seen once again in 1204 regarding property at Campdolent, but was clearly deceased by 1219.”

As seen in the matrimonial documents of 1219, William’s children were his namesake and his daughters Matheva and Marcibilia. Matheva’s brother William is seen with his sisters in 1222 and 1227, with Matheva alone in 1237, and last appears in the oath to uphold the Peace of Paris in 1243.”’ Thereafter the name of Rossellus 7 Appendix 1, No. 87 (September 1219). The relatives approving this match were titled “parentes,” and the household equipment was Matheva’s share “de omnibus tonellis et vaxellis et scamptiis et de aliis aptamentis domus ... et de omnibus pannis lanneis et lineis” along with

the bed. " There are two copies of this act of September 1219, one in E 472 and the other in E 509. ” E 505 (September 1219). "3 Saint-Bernard 36 i (November 1144, copied in 1227), an act wherein he also received eight charters concerning the property. ™ Saint-Bernard 36 (May 1193). "> Grandselve 2 (December 1198). ’® Saint-Bernard 36 (December 1204). ™ Grandselve 6 (December 1222), where William, his two sisters, and Peter Sobaccus are mentioned; Grandselve 6 and E 439 (May 1227), where William sells a property of which the lord is his brother-in-law; Grandselve 6 (November 1227), where he witnessed the

FAMILIES 187 disappears from the charters until much later on, but much more may be seen of Matheva and of her sister Marcibilia. During much of William’s life after 1219, Peter Sobaccus appears to have had a hand in managing the Rossellus properties in which, obviously, he had an interest because of his wife. In 1221, he paid Bernard de Roaxio a third of the 352 shillings owed him and his brother Arnold by Matheva’s deceased father.”® In 1222, Peter, his wife and her sister Marcibilia enfeoffed property, and the latter, together with her brother William, gave Peter and Matheva a rent worth five pence annually.’”? What Peter had acquired at Fontmarsan and the neighboring Campdol because of his wife is seen in 1227 when he and Peter Raymond Astro, obviously Marcibilia’s husband, divided their wives’ properties.*° After this, Peter is principally seen acting as a rentier, several times concerning property being sold by his brother-in-law.®! In the meantime, great events were transpiring. Peter was a consul in 1220-1221, a fact that marks him as a member of the war party. He was also in Toulouse during the two sieges.®” Sad to report, however, his progress upward came to a sudden halt. Peter had become a Cathar, and everything fell about his ears when he was one of the earliest such believers to be hit with a stiff penance by Cardinal Roman in 1229. Thereafter, he was merely finishing up. In 1233, a largely destroyed act shows him clearing his estate of a possible charge of usury.’ In March 1237, saying that he wished to go overseas because of the penance enjoined on him, Peter gave over all his property to Matheva, to be administered by her for his childrens’ benefit with the advice of her brother William and of Peter’s brother Raymond Sobaquus.** Peter then disappears from history, but the same was not true of his widow.

Matheva and Peter may have had three sons and a daughter. These children appear to have been minors at the time of the departure of their father on pilgrimage.

The name of the eldest son was Peter, their second son may have been named Raymond (although the reader will also recall that Peter’s brother was likewise named Raymond) and persons bearing these names all took the oath to uphold the Peace of Paris in 1243." Either this son or Peter’s brother Raymond was a consul in 1251-1252 and attended a general town assembly in 1269. In 1246, Peter acted division of the properties of his sisters by their husbands; E 510 (October 1230), property of William’s of which the lord is Peter Sobaccus; Appendix 1, No. 130 (March 1237); and J 305 29 (February 1243). 8 Grandselve 6 (June 1221). Note also that Peter had witnessed an act of the consuls in E 5379 (October 1220). ” For the act of December 1222, see note 77 above. 8° See Grandselve 6 (November 1227), in note 77 above. *! See the references in notes 78 and 79 above. * He appears as a witness in E 575 (September 1218, copied in January 1281); E 579 (October 1220), published in HGL, 8: 736-8; and E 510 (December 1222). ®> Grandselve 7 (August 1233), a sale to Pons and William de Carrone, in which the purchasers guaranteed that neither they nor their family would go after him “pro lucro nec pro usura.”

8* Appendix 1, No. 130 (March 1237). 85 pan, J 305 29 (February 1243). 8° pBN, Doat 73, fol. 64r.

188 APPENDIX 3 for his mother in a lawsuit to be discussed below, and appeared in the court as a public notary.®’ Thereafter Peter is fairly regularly seen until 1260, busy as a notary and once involved as a witness in a case of usury.®® Afterward, he may have entered the monastery of Grandselve, where a monk named Peter Sobaccus showed his legal training by serving as syndic for the house and is seen in the documents from 1265 until 1283.®° Later evidence around or after 1271 tells that the third brother’s name was probably William, and he may well have been alive in 1282 when a person with this name is described as an “argentarius” or silversmith.” After this date, no other individual demonstrably related to these Sobacci appears in the charters.” In the meantime, Matheva had been active. Presumably having been “bought” by

her first husband, she now turned about and “bought” herseif a replacement. Sometime shortly after Peter’s departure for the Holy Land and his presumed death, she married John Astro, perhaps in 1238 or 1239.” As shall be seen below, also, she was late in paying her husband the dowry she promised him. The first installment was paid in August 1244, and the last of the three installments “nomine matrimonii”

and “nomine dotis” of the considerable dowry of 1026 shillings was given in December of the same year. What makes this especially interesting is that, whereas Matheva paid a substantial dowry, her new husband did not promise the customary augmentation were he to predecease her.” John Astro was a member of a notable family of the Bourg into which Matheva’s own sister Marcibilia had already married, and, more important, he may well have been younger than, or as young as, Matheva herself. John’s father was Berengar Astro who had died sometime between March 1222 and October 1225.” In a way, given the history of her first husband, Matheva did well. No member of the Astro family was known to have been a Cathar or to

87 Appendix 1, No. 151 (November 1246). °8 Grandselve 41 v (November 1247), and vi (January 1248, copied in 1258 and 1264), the copy of December 1258 being done by Peter; Grandselve 8 i (April 1245, copied in

February 1248), with Peter witnessing; Grandselve 7 (April 1231, copied by Peter in December 1253); Grandselve 9 i (February 1255, copied by Peter February 1255); Alphonse Blanc, Le livre de comptes de Jacme Olivier, marchand narbonnais du XVe siécl (Paris, 1899), p. 334 (May 1255), where, as witness No. 6, the notary Peter gave testimony about a case of usury; Grandselve 9 (December 1258), as a witness; E 973 i (April 1243, several times copied, finally in 1274, and the copy of August 1260 witnessed by Peter); and Grandselve 9 (September 1260). 89 See the Peter Sobaccus monk and “syndicus” in Grandselve 10 (December 1265). The subsequent references are Grandselve 14 (respectively September and January 1281 and 1282

and March 1273), Grandselve 12 (March 1279), and Grandselve 14 (June 1283). » Grandselve 13 (July 1282). 1 E 493 (April 1265, copied in 1272), records a Raymond Peter Sobaccus at Verfeil. %2 Thus argued because Matheva’s new husband John was dead by November 1246 and her daughter by him was also dead “infra septennium” in Appendix 1, No. 151 (November 1246).

°3 Grandselve 8 (August 1244, copied in January 1247), where John receipted 600 shillings of the promised 1000 shillings dowry, stating that what remained was to be paid within the year and that the dowry was “sine augmentatione,” and Appendix 1, No. 148 (December 1244), where the same receipted 1026 shillings “sine augmento.” ** See the family history of the Astros above.

FAMILIES 189 have come to the attention of the inquisitors. In another way, however, all was not well. This was not because, as has been seen in the Astro family history, John was Berengar’s natural son. That could not have helped, but John was recognized by his father and proud of his origin, stating in legal documents, for example, that he was Berengar’s child. The size of the dowry settled on John by Matheva also shows that he must have lived in a style suitable to his paternity. What really must have made Matheva feel like a two-time loser was not John’s illegitimacy, but instead the fact that he had not long to live. He died within ten years of the wedding, and died

suddenly, being intestate at time of death. Moreover, the issue of this union, Marcibilia, named after Matheva’s mother and sister, died “infra septennium.” The death either of this child or her father precipitated the lawsuit of 1246.” The suit against Matheva was based on the principle that intestate successions devolve on the male line. John Astro’s heir was his deceased daughter Marcibilia. Both being dead, their heirs were the son and heir of the deceased Toset de Tolosa husband of the deceased Alcaia, John’s half sister in the legitimate line of his father’s family, and his half sisters, the daughters of his mother Saussia with her husband Raymond Peter Nigretus. These litigants won the case, but were nevertheless obliged to return to Matheva the dowry she had given her husband. This transaction was

recorded in a charter of 1247.°° Subsequently, in 1251, the same litigants sued Matheva before the consular court and won fines for the tardy payment of her dowry to her dead husband John.”’ These documents seem to show that Matheva’s second marriage was not as fortunate as her first. There is little doubt, however, that Matheva bounced back and that she and her sister lived long lives. Sometime after the succession of the county of Toulouse had devolved on the king of France in 1271, “domina” Matheva, described as the mother of William Sobaccus, and “domina” Marcibilia, her sister, informed the consuls that they had heid property near the close of Saint-Sernin, at Pratlong, and at Fontmarsan for forty or more years. If their rights were not recognized, they threatened to appeal from the consuls to the king or his vicar in Toulouse.”* The outcome of this litigation is not known. Later, in 1279, Peter Sobaqui was listed among the deceased heretics in the amnesty of that year, and “domina” Matheva, his widow, appeared among the

petitioners.” In 1282 Marcibilia, described as Matheva’s sister, rendered her

> See Appendix 1, No. 151 (November 1246). © Grandselve 8 (January 1247), where the patrician Bernard Raymond de Tolosa and John’s sisters Ramunda, wife of Raymond Catalanus, and Cauzida, widow of Bernardus Mabrus, paid her the three installments, one of 600 shillings, the next of 300 less 24, and the last of 150 shillings, she had originally paid her husband. 7 E 502 (January 1251), divided in this manner: 10 pence daily for the delay in paying the 600 shillings, 4 pence daily for the 300 less 24 shillings, and 1 pence for the 150. She was also to return 120 shillings for clothes her husband had bought her. *8 E 569 undated note, stating “ad dictum dominum vicarium vel ad dictum regem dominum Francie appellamus in scriptis.” Marcibilia is here spelled Marissibilia. 9 PAN, J 313 95 (March 1279), and TAM, 1! 63 (copied in 1290 or thereafter), and ibid., AA 34 3 (copied in 1313), both dated August 1279.

190 APPENDIX 3 testament. Her charities were directed especially to the chapel of the College of Saint-Bernard in the Bourg, and were to be supervised by the abbot of Grandselve and by “frater” Peter Sobaccus of that monastery, probably her sister’s oldest son. She also promised restitution for her usuries and a sum to marry poor girls. Although her principal heirs were from a family named Ruffus, the sons of her nephew (or grandnephew) William Rossellus were also gratified. A niece named Esquiva was given properties at Font Marciana and Pratlong, adjacent to those of the testator’s sister Matheva. Lastly, a witness to this testament was William Sobaccus “argentarius,” very likely Matheva’s third son.’ Although this is the last round-up of the clan, a reference dated 1289 to property at Campdolent owned by Matheva still recorded this durable woman.'°’ At that time, she was surely well into her eighties. D. TONENQUIS

In October 1175, the count of Toulouse granted the Hospitalers of Saint John the right to create a bakery and appoint a baker.'®? Several years later in 1181, Peter, the son of Peter Furnerius (the baker) “de Hospitale” and his aunt Bona returned the bakery to the Hospital.'°? The prior of the Hospital immediately granted it to a baker named Bernard and his wife Willelma in return for a rent of five shillings annually and free bread for the Hospital.’* In 1190, the Hospitalers sold a “casal” to a baker whose name has been lost but who was married to a woman named Ricsenda. The fact that this charter was written on a parchment containing other acts concerning the bakery of the Hospital shows that the baker involved was probably the Bernard Furnarius whose history shall be traced below.'™ Obviously referring to the same bakery, a charter dated 1201 remarks that a local family of some importance had acquired rights in the Hospital’s bakery. In that year a baker named Bernard bought the bakery from Bernarda Barrava, who acted with the consent of her mother Prima and her brother Barravus (de Hospitale), promising a rent of 5 shillings annually.'°° Subsequently, in 1210, Bernard Furnarius married Petrona whose brother Raymond de Tonenquis dowered her with 200 shillings. Were he to predecease her, the baker promised her a portion of 300 shillings. This contract was perfectly ordinary except for one thing. It was put into written form in '© Grandselve 13 (July 1282). '! Grandselve 14 (April 1289). '02 Malta 6 57 (October 1175, copied in 1223): “ut faciant furnum in qualicumque loco voluerint in honore hospitalis et coquant ibi suum panem.” ‘3 Malta 8 14 (February 1181), Peter and his “matertera.” '4 Malta 8 15 (February 1181), “et ultra [five shillings ’servicium“ and two shillings "rachat“] omnes predictos census et usus debet [the baker] coquere omnem panem predicte domus et habitatorum eiusdem loci et a domo illa trahere et reddere ibi coctum, et hoc sine omni precio et missione predicte domus.” 105 Malta 7 56 i (December 1190, copied in 1201 and 1246), for the successive acts on this parchment, see the notes below. '6 Ibid. ii (November 1201, copied in 1246). For the history of the Barravus family see my Repression of Catharism, p. 136ff.

FAMILIES 19] October 1213, sometime just after the death of the baker in the defeat of the Toulousan militia by Simon de Montfort at the battle of Muret in September of that year. The charter provides evidence that the marriage took place sometime between September 29 and November 1, 1210.'°’ Thereby hangs a tale. The family of the baker’s wife probably derived from Tonenx, to the south of

Toulouse near Fanjeaux, and was seen before these dates.'" A garbled charter mentions a William de Tonencs owning property on the street in the City of Toulouse named “de Sposterla” near the Garonne. William’s issue are to be seen in 1201 when property adjacent to the town wall and the Garonne was sold by his seven children. Those of William’s children who had attained their majority at this time were Raymond de Tonencs, his brothers Jordan, Peter Guido, and Peter Arnold, together with their sisters Petrona and Geralda, the wife of Peter Bernardus. A minor child, John, confirmed the sale with the consent of his father’s executors or “spondarii.” At the time of this sale, the Tonenquis family owed a debt of 320 shillings to their landlord (the Roaxio family), which they presumably paid off by the sale of the property.'” Later references to the Tonenquis family are to be seen in 1215, when property acquired from Raymond, once owned by his father William, is mentioned, and he again appears in 1227 and 1244 acting together with his sister Petrona. In the latter reference, the charter describes him as a “vaginarius” or scabbard-maker.''° Petrona’s brother named Peter Guido de Tonenquis was also an active member of the family, and helped his sister Petrona out in 1220 and 1227. A final reference to him appears in 1232.'"! There is no doubt that Petrona needed Peter Guido’s help. In 1214 it is disclosed that she had been the second wife of the deceased Bernard Furnarius and that the baker’s inheritance was shared with another. Bona, a daughter by Bernard’s first wife, agreed in that year with her step- mother that the latter was to have the 300 shillings provided as her matrimonial portion in the contract of 1210 described above. Within two years from the forthcoming Pentecost, also, Bona was to receive the sum of 100 shillings with maintenance until payment. Half of this sum was to be put toward, or to pay, the dowry Bona had been promised by her father and step-mother at the time of her marriage to Gerald Molinarius (miller) sometime between 1210 and 1213.'”” 107 Appendix 1, No. 55 (October 1213, copied in 1246), the act being in Malta 7 56 iii. 108 Less likely is Tonneins northwest of Toulouse near Agen on the Garonne river. 109 Malta 3 126 i (July 1201), and ii (September 1201). The executors were the brothers

Raymond and Arnold Gaitapodium, and an absent William Gaitapodium. The charter involving the “pignus” of 320 shillings owed on this property by the Tonenquis heirs is Malta 3 128 (September 1201). 110 Malta 4 206 ii (August 1215, copied in 1229, 1237 and 1243); and, for the references

to 1227 and 1244, see notes 122 and 124 below. 1! Ror 1220 see note 121 and for 1227 note 122 below; and for that of May 1232, see Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1447, where he was called Peter Guido de Tonencs. 12 Malta 1 22 (April 1214), and another copy in Malta 7 56 iv of the same date. The rector of the Dalbade church was a witness to this charter, as was a tailor. The date of Bona’s wedding

derives from a charter of 1219 referred to below in note 114 where it is stated that Bona’s dowry had been agreed on by the baker Bernard and by his wife Petrona.

192 APPENDIX 3 Three years later, one perceives that her succession was burdened in yet another way. The guardians of the children of the deceased merchant William Johannes sued her before the court appointed by Simon de Montfort, count of Toulouse, because of a debt of 33 shillings sixpence owed by her deceased husband. She pleaded that she was the first creditor because of her marriage portion, and the court awarded her first call on her husband’s estate. !!? In 1219, perhaps caused by the war, economic difficulties precipitated a battle among the baker’s heirs and successors. A suit was brought by Petrona de Tonenquis

against Gerald Molinarius and his wife Bona before a court appointed by the consuls.''* It there appears that Petrona had lost the house and bakery to her step-daughter. She contended that this property should be returned to her because of her marital portion.''’ Petrona’s step-daughter and her husband showed a charter to prove that Petrona had pledged the bakery to them for 100 shillings, of which half was for Bona’s dowry and half for her inheritance of her father’s intestate estate.!'® Bona further asserted that she had given the 50 shillings of her inheritance to Petrona the year before, and that Petrona had been obligated to pay for her keep until the sum was repaid.''’ She further showed a charter stating that Petrona had put them in possession of the bakery until she had paid the 50 shillings for Bona’s dowry, and added that Petrona still owed her for eleven months keep.'!® The judges then asked the parties to list the profits of the bakery. They were recorded as follows:

The first two years 32 shillings

The third year 10 shillings The fourth year 20 shillings

Total 62 shillings Of these profits, Petrona admitted that she had received 12 shillings during the first two years of operation, and both parties agreed that they had been paying a rent ''3 Malta 15 112 (April 1217), calling Petrona “de Tonensibus,” the record states that the two “procuratores et badlierii infantium et rerum” of the dead merchant brought suit “sub examine et arbitrio curie Tolosane quam dominus Symo Tolosanus comes constituerat ad controversias omnium urbis et suburbii terminandas,” claiming the debt against the baker who

had “obierat apud Murellum intestatus prelio quo plures sorte flebili ceciderunt.” "4 Malta 15 136 i (October 1219, copied in 1247), “sub audientia et examinatione (of two citizens) qui pro consulibus sub sacramento et de consensu parcium inde erant judices constituti.” "> Tbid.: Petrona “fecit pro se allegari” on the basis of the 300 shillings “pro sua dote.” She wanted the “domus et furnum ... cum omnibus palis et brujonibus et cum tabulis iamdicti furni.” ''® Tbid.: 50 shillings “de matrimonio” and 50 “de illo badlatico quod post mortem predicti

Bernardi Furnerii adiudicatum fuerat predicte Bone” on the rights of her father. '7 Thid.: “et pro suis necessariis victus et vestitus de quibus Petrona de Tonenquis tenebatur facere iamdicte Bone de mercedibus et proventum predicti furni firmo pacto ...,” a year before. 8 Tbid.: “in tenezone donec de mercedibus et redditibus illius furni et domus essent persoluti.” On keep: “suum opus victus et vestitus in predicto furno et domo pro .xi. mensibus iam transactis.”

FAMILIES 193 of five shillings yearly to the Hospital. The net income received by Bona and her husband was therefore 35 shillings. Petrona then showed the court a chirographed charter in which Bona and her husband gave her a receipt for 20 shillings, but the married pair asserted that this sum was the profit they derived from the first two year’s operation of the bakery. On the day assigned for hearing evidence, Bona and her husband brought one witness, and Petrona merely stood on her documents. The judges then opined that Bona and her husband could be said to have received 55 shillings, 35 from the bakery and 20 from Petrona recorded in the contested charter she had adduced. This sum of 55 shillings was to be diminished by 15 shillings less fourpence which Petrona

owed Bona for eleven months maintenance, and this loss was to be made up by Petrona paying Bona and her husband’s share of the rent of the bakery, the sum of 10 shillings less four pence.'’’ All in all, this made up the sum of 50 shillings, and it was therefore assigned to pay the 50 shillings for Bona’s dowry. This decision did not solve all of Petrona’s problems by any means. She still owed Bona 50 shillings for her inheritance, she was to pay the rent on the bakery when it came due on Saint Thomas’ day (December 21), and take an oath asserting the validity of the charter

she had produced. Penalties were also provided by the judges’ decision. Were Petrona, for example, to fail to pay the rent, the bakery was to be returned to her step-daughter and her husband for another year. Furthermore, the Hospital got wind of these proceedings, and immediately slapped a mutation charge on the hard pressed widow because of the “pignus” of 100 shillings she had made to Bona.'”° The subsequent history of this bakery and of the baker’s wife was not unhappy. In 1220, Bona and Gerald Molinarius gave over their rights in the bakery to Peter Guido, Petrona’s brother.'*' In 1227, Peter Guido gave Pons Furnerius and his sister Petrona what he had in the bakery, and, in June of that year, Petrona and Pons recorded their marital contract. Guaranteed on the bakery, Petrona gave her husband 260 shillings of the 300 her deceased husband had left her in his testament, and he

in return promised her an augmentation of 30 shillings.'?? This contract was witnessed by Petrona’s brother Raymond. Later, in 1241, Petrona and her first husband are also discovered to have had a daughter. In that year, Vitalia, daughter of the deceased Bernard Furnarius and wife of Pons Toloscius, gave her mother and

her husband Pons Furnarius what she had in the above bakery.'*? The final act concerning Petrona and her husband occurred in 1244 when they sold the bakery to the Hospital.'* ''9 Tbid., the rent being called “premium.” (20 Tbid., ii (November 1219, copied in 1247). 121 Malta 4 207 i (April 1220, copied in 1247), where the location of the house and bakery is given as “inter cimiterium fratrum” and two public thoroughfares. Compare the text seen in note 125 below. 22 Tbid., ii (April 1227), the charter recording the gift by Peter Guido, and iii (June 1227), the marriage charter with the 30 shillings “pro agensamento.” '3 Tbid., iv (June 1241) for which see Appendix 1, No. 104. '4 Tbid., v and vi (March 1244), charters of sale and receipt that, as was normal, do not

| mention the price of the transaction.

194 APPENDIX 3 Nothing more is to be seen of Petrona or her family, but what happened to the bakery is known. Just under a year before Petrona and Pons sold it to the Hospital, the Hospitalers had requested the vicar of Toulouse, as the agent of the count, to grant them a license to remove the house and bakery from its present location at the head of their cemetery on the street called Saint-Remézy to wherever they wished. !”° It is not known whether the Hospitalers actually changed the location of their bakery,

but the value of their bakery and house ten years later is stated in a document. In 1253, a Raymond Raynaldus de Dealbata, when dying, reported that he had sold for the price of 1000 shillings to the Hospital a bakery surrounded by that institutions’ property. Of this sum, he had given the order 100 shillings in charity.'?° To turn back to Petrona, her house and bakery may not have gone for 1000 shillings. There are two other sales of “domus” and “furni.” One was on the “carraria de Buzetis” in the northern and poorer end of the Bourg, and it sold for 400 shillings in 1225.'?” Another was in the neighborhood of the present Jacobins and went for 600 in 1246.'?® What all this meant for Petrona is that one imagines that she got at least 500 shillings for her bakery at the end. '25 Malta 7 95 (May 1243), the right “removendi illum eorum furnum qui est in illa eorum domo que est in cornu eorum cymenterii iuxta carrariam Sancti Remegii a domo supradicta.”

The vicar was Berengar de Promilhaco and among the witnesses was the count’s brother Bertrand.

'26 Malta 1 32 (February 1253): “in precio et pro precio (1000 solidos) quorum dederat et solverat eis pro helemosina .c. solidos.” '27 Grandselve 6 (April 1225). '28 Marie-Humbert Vicaire OP, Dominique et ses pricheurs (Paris-Fribourg 1977), p. 41. The full equipment is sometimes expressed as “domus et furnus et furnile” as in Saint-Bernard 138, fol. 108r (December 1181).

Appendix 4 Lezat and Moissac

The main document concerning the conflict between Peter de Dalbs, onetime prior of the Daurade, later abbot of Lézat, and his superior William de Bessencs, abbot of Moissac, is a roll of testimony found in MADTG, G 722 bis dated October 1253 to May 1254. An initial question comes to mind about this monumental if small (because written in a tiny hand) roll: is it a fake concocted later on? It seems not because strong and all but irrefutable evidence derived from the mention of persons seen also in other contemporary parchments as well as the form and style of several documents “vidimus-ed” or transcribed in the roll shows that it was assembled very close to the time it is dated. One guesses, indeed, that it records with reasonable accuracy what took place in the tribunal of the abbot of Moissac. A second question is whether or not it contains a mass of perjured and dishonest testimony trumped up by the Moissac party to defeat the abbot of Lezat? Perhaps, but, if so, that possible fact in no way harms the testimony’s value for the purpose of this study. What concerns this author is not so much what the abbot of Lezat actually did, but rather - what his contemporaries thought of what they said he did. The abbot’s guilt or

innocence (and whether or not such concepts are applicable) are surely to be decided only by the deity. To outline the context, I begin by examining Peter and his family. A. PETER DE DALBS AND THE DALBS FAMILY

Persons carrying the relatively rare name of Dalbs were closely associated with the monastery of Moissac, the Daurade, its priory in Toulouse, and Moissac’s dependent monasteries of Lezat (under 40 km south of Toulouse) and Mas-d’Azil not far from Pamiers (80 km south of Toulouse). Where the family name derived from is open to question and there are several possibilities. The learned editors of the cartulary of Lézat have shown that the surname Dalbs was known in the region of Muret south of Toulouse, reaching from there south and west into Comminges and over the Garonne river to the Léze river eastward toward the Lauragais.' This area boasts several family groups bearing this name but all are ' A document that aided the editors is in Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, No. 523, cited by them, that is, Ourliac and Magnou, in their Cartulaire de Lézat, 2: p. 686. This entry refers

196 APPENDIX 4 far too early, being of the end of the eleventh century and the start of the twelfth, and far too fragmentary to be tied by a modern scholar to the clerical Dalbs seen below. An example is a Bernard de Dalbs active in Muret and the region of the right bank of the Garonne from the 1120s to the 1160s.” Others from this region were donors to Saint-Antoine, Lezat’s priory at Toulouse, thus proving that some of this name from the region south and east of Muret had a connection with that town.’ This connection may have persisted because a monk of Saint-Antoine’s named Peter de Dalbs was Lezat’s prior of Saint-Michel-de-Montsabaoth (near Cazéres ca. 50 km southwest of Toulouse) in 1203.* There is another alternative, derived from a town or large village named Daux (17 or more km northwest of Toulouse, not far from Grenade) in the area of the lords of Isle-Jourdain. This community was also surely related to the Dalbs clergy seen below because one of them, Thomas de Dalbs, was “rector” of Saint-Salve of Dalbs in 1241.° Unfortunately, this exiguous evidence does not permit one to say that the individuals with the name Dalbs mentioned below were necessarily linked to either or both of the two alternatives, Dalbs near Muret or Daux near |’Isle-Jourdain and Grenade. Whatever their origin, at Toulouse, among the not very many persons named Dalbs were the brothers Peter and William de Dalbs who bought a Daurade tithe at Pouvourville just south of town in 1182. William’s son Raymond and daughter Gauzida subsequently alienated the same tithe to the Temple in 1225.° This family then vanishes, although the charter tells us that Gauzida was the wife of Bruno Baranonus, member of a family linked to the Daurade, and her uncle Peter is seen at the Daurade’s mills in 1186 and 1191.’ At about the same time, a Dalbs or Dalbis served as a public scribe from 1179 to 1204.° to a property between the tithings of Dalbs, Lavernose to the north and Longages to the south.

The place named Dalbs cannot be found on any map, but is several times mentioned in the Lézat cartulary, for which see ibid., Nos. 736 (between Sainte-Suzanne and the Léze) and 552 (north of Marquefave?). 2 Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1167 (dated 1130-1137), La Grace-Dieu; No. 1322 (December 1149), near Beaumont-sur-Léze and Auterive; No. 1588 (February 1161), near Saint-Germier at Muret; No. 1653 (January 1166), a witness in Muret and No. 1680 (August 1168), where Lézat pledged rights at Bajourville south of Muret (on Cassini’s eighteenth-century map). 3 Tbid., No. 552 (dated 1114-1126), a Raymond de Dalbs in the “villa de Dalbs”, and No. 1347 (July 1127), where a William de Dalbs witnessed a gift of the count of Toulouse to Saint-Antoine at Toulouse. * Tbid., No. 228 (March 1203): “monachus Sancti Antonii de Lesad.” This person could not have been the Abbot Peter seen below because that figure would have been upwards of seventy years old at the time of his purported sexual adventures. * Edmond Cabié, Chartes de coutumes inédites de la Gascogne Toulousaine (Paris and Auch, 1884), p. 87, where from MADTG, A 297, fol. 143vff., is published the customs of Daux granted in 1253, in which the town is called “villa Sancti Salvi de Dalbs.” For Thomas, see his career history outlined below. ° Malta 3 127 ii (August 1182), and iii (July 1225). ’ For the Baranoni, see my The Repression of Catharism, pp. 131-135. Peter at the mills is seen in Bazacle 3 1 (July 1186), and Daurade 157 (March 1191).

LEZAT AND MOISSAC 197 Possibly the same person (clerks were often scribes in this period), a Dalbs or Dalbis is seen as a “presbyter” associated with the Daurade in 1209 and as “capellanus” (parish rector) of the same parish in 1211.” He then appears in the charters almost every other year working in the parish.'° Dalbs thereafter retired into the Dominican order where he was too old to be moved in 1235. The source of this information, the Dominican Pelisson, also claimed that Dalbs had once been posted to the Dalbade as well, but it is not known when.!! Other ecclesiastics with this surname were also associated with Moissac and the Daurade. One was the Peter de Dalbs who is the center of this appendix. The outlines of his career may be sketched here. He was prior of the Daurade from about 1233 to 1240.'? He was thereafter elevated to the abbacy of Leézat, a post he held from 1241 to 1254. Condemned and presumably removed from his prelacy in that year (a matter to be discussed later), he was deceased by late 1255.'° In his career and its difficulties, Peter was aided by a brother and other close relatives. Peter’s brother was William Arnold de Dalbs. William Arnold began as a monk in Toulouse and served as “operarius” of the Daurade in the 1230s.'* Becoming abbot of Mas-d’Azil near Pamiers in 1237, he served there until 1246 at least, and

was deceased by 1253.”° |

8 He drew six acts and witnessed two copies starting with Grandselve 2 (December 1197) and ending with Dominicans | (December 1198, copied in 1204 and 1226), the copy dated February 1204 being witnessed by him. Anent the use of the name Dalbs as both a first and only name, note that the practice was common. For this see the Maurandus genealogy in my The Repression of Catharism, p. 230. > Daurade 145 (October 1209) and E 508 (February 1211). 10 Saint-Etienne 230 (27 2 nn) (October 1213, copied in 1231 and 1236), adding “et Raimundus capellanus qui cum eo manet”; Malta 8 58bis (December 1213); Douais, Travaux pratiques d'une conférence de paléographie (Toulouse, 1900), No. 16 (March 1214), where the sacristan Raymond de Salto is also listed; Daurade 145 (January 1221); ibid. 171 (February 1222); Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1410 (July 1225), where he is also titled “dominus”; Malta 133 21 (June 1228); Daurade 58 (December 1228); Daurade 184 i (March 1230, copied in 1236), where he acted in lieu of the prior, together with a sacristan named Gerald. '! Célestin Douais, ed., Chronique de Guilhem Pelisso (Paris, 1881), p. 107, describes him as “qui longo tempore fuerat capellanus in ecclesia beatae Mariae Deauratae et etiam Dealbatae.”

12 Daurade 184 iii (November 1233, copied in 1236); D. Cau-Durban, L abbaye de Mas-dAzil (Foix, 1896), No. 40, pp. 186-187 (August 1237); PBN, Doat 21, fol. 152v, about

his being prior of the Daurade in February 1238; also G 722 17 (June 1238); Daurade 226 (November 1238, copied in 1246); Daurade 117 (March 1239); and II 92 ii (March 1239 or 1240). '3 Gallia Christiana ... ab origine ecclesiarum ad nostra tempora deducitur, 16 vols. (Provinciae Tolosana et Trevirensis), ed. J. Théroux (Paris, 1715-1865), 13: 105-106 and 211, records his accession to the abbacy of Lezat by May 1241; Alexander tv’s register No. 272 (dated 1254), has him still alive, and Nos. 910 and 980 (December 1255), recommend obedience to his successor. 14 Daurade 184 iii (November 1233, copied in 1236), and Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 1432 (February 1235), both as monk and “operarius”. 'S- Gallia Christiana, 13: 202, dates his appointment as August 1237; Cau-Durban, L ab-

198 APPENDIX 4 Peter and his brother had a nephew named Thomas de Dalbs. Thomas had been received as a “conversus” in the Daurade, was termed deacon in 1237 and was at Rome witnessing the acquisition of relics by a subprior of the Daurade in early 1241, there described as “magister” and “rector” of Saint-Salve of Daux.'° His parish was presumably entrusted to a vicar because in late 1241 the “magister” was back in Toulouse, described as “clericus” at the Daurade.'’ Obviously trained in law, he was proctor for Lezat before the Official of Toulouse in 1244, proctor and witness for Bertrand Barravus in a case over the Daurade priory in 1247 and finally active in defending his uncle Peter in 1253 and 1254." Almost surely a relative of Abbot Peter, a William de Dalbs was first seen as proctor for the female monastery of Longages in Toulouse in 1243, then as monk in the Daurade in 1247 and finally as prior of Saint-Antoine near Toulouse, the dependent priory of Lezat. In this capacity, he helped or rather led the resistance of a party of the monks of Lézat to the charges against his relative the abbot Peter.'” Although this religious person is the last of the clerical Dalbs, another Thomas de Dalbs served as a public notary in Toulouse from 1263 to 1272.” B. THE DAURADE AND LEZAT VERSUS MOISSAC

There was a revolt of the dependencies of Moissac in Toulouse and also further south, just under 40 km south of Toulouse, at Lézat. The great Benedictine convent of Moissac (about 60 km north of Toulouse) not only ruled the monks of Leézat but baye de Mas-d Azil, No. 40, pp. 186-187 (August 1237), as abbot; Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 926 (April 1242), as abbot witnessing an act of his brother Peter; and ibid., Nos. 152 and 883 (both dated November 1244). Witness No. 30 in MADTG, G 722 bis says that he was dead by the time testimony was being taken in 1253. In the reference given above, the Benedictines

of the Gallia Christiana date his last action as abbot of Mas- d’Azil about 1246 and find a new abbot there in November 1254. '© MADTG, G 713, Red Register, fol. 35v, an oblate giving testimony in June to August 1247 reports that Thomas had been a “conversus” there; Cau-Durban, L abbaye de Mas- dAzil, No. 40, pp. 186-187 (August 1237), together with Peter de Dalbs, and Gallia Christiana, 13: No. 45 (April 1241). According to Léon Dutil, La Haute-Garonne et sa région, 2 vols. (Toulouse and Paris 1928-1929), 2: 406, two-thirds of the tithe of Daux belonged to the Daurade. That

Saint-Salve was the church at Daux is shown in Cabié, Chartes de coutumes inédites de la Gascogne Toulousaine, p. 87, where from MADTG, A 297, fol. 143vff., is published the customs

of Daux granted in 1253, in which the town is called “villa Sancti Salvi de Dalbs.” '7 mapTGc, G 713 (December 1241). '8 Ourliac and Magnou, Cartulaire de Lézat, No. 493 (August 1242); ibid., No. 679 (January 1244), as “clericus” served as proctor for Abbot Peter over the “capellania” of church of Larnhac near Carla-Bayle and Campagne-sur-Arize; MADTG, G 713, fol. lv (January 1247); ibid., G 713 List A, fol. 30v (September 1247) as a “magister” and witness; and ibid., G 722 bis (October 1253 to May 1254): “magister et clericus” of the Daurade. '? E 973 i (April 1243, copied in 1247, 1260 and 1274); Maptc, G 713, fol. 33r (June to August 1247), a register concerning the Daurade; and, as prior, ibid., G 722 bis (October 1253 to May 1254). 70 He copied E 573 (February 1263) in March 1263, and wrote Malta Garidech 1 (I 4) (July 1272), and several acts in between.

LEZAT AND MOISSAC 199 also possessed two priories in Toulouse, one being the celebrated monastery of the Daurade, and four of the town’s seven parishes.”’ From about 1230 until a papal decision of 1248, Moissac’s right to appoint the prior of the Daurade was contested,

and the principal actor in that struggle was Peter de Dalbs. Moissac’s right was briefly abrogated by a papal letter addressed to Peter, then prior of the Daurade, sometime before the death of Gregory [x in August 1241, but was shortly thereafter

restored by pressure from the abbot of Moissac and the one who, as early as November 1241, was the abbot’s candidate or, rather, appointee for the Daurade priory, Arnold de Aragone.”” Shortly before that time, by May 1241, Peter de Dalbs

became abbot of Lezat, and, among other things, appears to have set about sponsoring the election of a town patrician named Bernard Barravus to the office of

prior of the Daurade. Momentarily successful, Bernard “contrived,” as hostile tongues said, to be elected in July 1246, and, on the 11th of that month, refused entry to the abbot of Moissac’s appointee in a lively scene during which his family appeared in the streets girt with swords. The Daurade was subsequently entered by force by Arnold de Aragone and his party, and the defeated Bernard appealed to the pope.”? The pontiff assigned an auditor for whom the testimony of nearly 90 witnesses was collected during the summer of 1247.74 The papal judge, Brother Hugh, cardinal priest of Santa Sabina, decided in favor of Arnold de Aragone, Moissac’s candidate, in June 1248, and the auditor’s judgment was promptly confirmed by the pope.”° The roots of this war between the churches have yet to be investigated, but it seems clear that it was a persistent institutional struggle of which this was but one battle. A contributing aspect seems to have been a conflict between regions. Well represented by the brothers Dalbs and the Barravi family from Toulouse, the area of Toulouse and Isle-Jourdain and further south, seems to have fought the downstream interests. William of Bessencs (modern Bessens), abbot of Moissac, took his name from a community near the town of Castelsarrasin adjacent to the confluence of the Tarn and Garonne rivers, to the north of Toulouse, and was a member of a family with property near Saint-Nicolas-de-la-Grave. According to one hostile witness, Roger Barravus, a close relative of the Bernard Barravus who held the Daurade against Moissac’s appointee Arnold de Aragone for a time, Arnold himself came to 21 The parishes were those of the Daurade, the Dalbade, Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines and, in the suburb of Saint-Cyprien across the Garonne, Saint-Nicholas; the priories, the Daurade and Saint-Pierre. Saint-Antoine was a priory directly depending on Lezat. 22 See MADTG, G 713 (December 1241) recording the fact that the abbot of Moissac and

Arnold de Aragone, the abbot’s appointee as prior of the Daurade as of 3 or 4 November 1241, persuaded the monks there resident to reject the liberty won for them by Peter from Pope Gregory. 23 Witness No. 33, Bernard Barravus later recorded his appeal to Innocent rv in G 722 bis (October 1253 to May 1254 inclusive). 4 mapTGc, G 713 (June-August 1247). This evidence is contained in three rolls and a beautifully written volume housed in this “liasse.” 5 The cardinal’s decision is MADTG, G 713 (20 June 1248), and the papal letter No. 4112 in Innocent IV’s register dated July 1248.

200 APPENDIX 4 town to enter the convent with the aid of burghers from Castelsarrasin.”° Another reason may have been the importance of the Daurade and other Toulousan installations for the education of the monks of Moissac and all the parish clergy associated with this great monastic patron. Documents produced during this case tell about clergy studying at the newly founded university of Toulouse.”’ After the defeat of the Daurade, it was the turn of Lezat and its abbot Peter of Dalbs. Before his troubles, Peter was a decidedly active abbot who courted the Roman pontiff, successfully seeking favors from that source. Among other favors, Peter acquired the right to carry pontificals and, in 1250, won indulgence grants to help Lezat and several of its priories. He was also in debt to Florentine bankers to keep his proctor, possibly his nephew Thomas seen above, at the papal court.”® His activities and especially the great cartulary compiled during his administration have won praise from the Benedictines of the Gallia Christiana, who called him “strenuus, sagax, prudens et industrius.””” For reasons not yet discovered, however, Innocent IV gave Peter’s enemy William de Bessencs, a papal chaplain and abbot of Moissac, the right to try him in a letter of 1253.°° Peter was charged with multiple offenses under six rubrics: incontinence, perjury, simony, dilapidation of monastic property, the illegal use of the monastery’s seal (“crimen falsi”) and breach of the monastic state (“transgressio ordinis” or “observancie regularis.”). As could be expected given the judge, Peter was spared nothing. No less than 36 witnesses testified against him, including his old ally Bernard Barravus of the Daurade. Five of the priors of Lézat, including the claustral prior, and eleven monks were there, joined by the parish priest of Lézat, other clergy and laity, some of whom

76 In the testimony collected in June-August 1247 mentioned above. ” For example, MADTG, G 713 (December 1241) was participated in by ten monks and officers of the Daurade and also by four priors and monks of Moissac “in Tholosa studentes

et sequentes studium litterarum.” See also the case of Thomas de Dalbs mentioned in the previous section of this appendix. 8 In Innocent tv’s registers, see letters Nos. 2916, 4952-4955, 4958-4961, 5364, 7854 and 8048. 9 Gallia Christiana, 13: 211-212 and the history of the relations between the two houses in Paul Ourliac, “Lézat et Moissac,” Annales du Midi 77 (1965) 75-83. As readers of these pages can see, the cartulary has recently been published by Ourliac and Magnou. © See the history of the trial in F.-E. Martin, “L’affaire de Pierre de Dalbs Abbé de Saint-Pierre de Lezat (1253-1254),” Le Moyen-Age 13 (1900) 38-56. William styled himself “a domino papa judex unicus seu inquisitor constitutus” in his summons to Peter of October 29 for which see MADTG, G 722 bis. This small but tightly written roll of testimony begins with

William’s letter dated as above and also contains various “vidimus” including one of a papal

letter of June 1253 given at Assisi and a protest by Peter de Dalbs’ proctors of the same month. The material was initially compiled by a public notary of Toulouse, Arnold de Fumello, on or just after 26 May 1254, and was then copied on to the present role in March 1255 by Arnold Ramundi de Villanova, a notary public of Bérat “ex illis actis originalibus que Arnaldus de Fumello publicus Tholose notarius scripserat.” The notary Arnold was also present at the rendering of the testimony at Lézat and confirmed the veracity of the transcription by his colleague of Berat.

LEZAT AND MOISSAC 201 were oblates of the monastery, and one woman.*! Since, as shall shortly be seen, there were upwards of 42 monks at Lézat, not to speak of those in its priories, William de Bessencs had not won over a majority of the religious, but had enough in his pocket to condemn Peter in May 1254.* Even before the sentence, Peter’s relative William de Dalbs, prior of Saint-Antoine of Toulouse, claimed to speak for the majority of the convent and appealed to Rome.*’ Although both Innocent Iv and his successor Alexander Iv allowed Peter to raise money to prosecute his appeal, he was replaced at Lezat by Gerald de Villanova, prior of Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines in Toulouse in March 1255.** One later learns that Raymond, cardinal deacon of Sant’Angelo had been assigned as auditor, but that Peter himself had died. In December 1255, the monks were ordered to obey Gerald.” The battle between Lézat and Moissac was not yet stilled. A further stage in this continuing combat will be examined in Appendix 5 below. C. WITNESSES AGAINST PETER DE DALBS

This is a list of the witnesses against Peter de Dalbs found in G 722 bis dated 1253 and 1254 in the order of their appearance before the court. The names are given as

they appear in the document with the exception of the one or two periods that customarily accompany abbreviations, thus “A” or “Ar” instead of “.A.” of “.Ar.”

Obviously, the habit of using abbreviations in court records such as this one sometimes makes it difficult to know the real name of a witness or actor, for example, a “B” is either a Bertrand or a Bernard, etc.

No. 1: Vital de Ysaort monk and priest of Lezat (mentioned by No. 2) No. 2: Augerius monk (mentioned in Nos. 5 and 8 and, as No. 4, defamed of incontinence in the G 722 rolls) No. 3: G Capati monk, old priest of Lézat (mentioned in Nos. 6 and 10) No. 4: Ra operarius monk and priest (No. 19 as R Jordan, defamed in G 722 5 of incontinence and looking after his nieces; mentioned by Nos. 5-6, 17 and 23.) No. 5: dompnus Hugh prior of Lézat (mentioned by Nos. 1, 6, 8, 13 and 17 and also in preliminary materials. Is he the sodomite Hugh mentioned in G 722 as prior Sainte-Colombe?)

3! The testimony of the first two witnesses was collected in 21 December 1253 at the church

of the Taur in Toulouse, that of Nos. 3 to 28 inclusive at the monastery of Lézat on 25 April 1254, and the last batch, Nos. 29-36, on 7 May probably in Toulouse. 2 Ibid. (26 May 1254) an act witnessed by canons of Saint-Etienne and Saint-Sernin, the episcopal chancellor of Toulouse, the prior and monks of the Daurade, etc. 3 “Nos conventus seu maior pars conventus ...” in ibid. (22 May 1254). * In July 1254, Nos. 7854 and 8048 of Innocent 1v’s register allowed the abbot to raise 200 marks Sterling for his defense. Alexander Iv’s register No. 272 authorized him to collect 45 marks to prosecute the appeal. > Alexander’s register Nos. 910 and 980.

202 APPENDIX 4 No. 6: Ad [Az] de Bisnos [Birnos] prior of Saint-Béat and priest (mentioned by Nos. I, 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 27 and 30)

No. 7: B Jo prior of Peyrissas and priest (as No. 17 and no longer prior of Peyrissas defamed of conspiracy and incontinence with specific women in G 722, and, as prior, mentioned in the preliminary materials and by Nos. 2 and 9)

No. 8: R de Arnesp monk and priest (mentioned by 4 and 17 and is No. 2—as Arnesso—defamed of a nun at Longages) No. 9: Ar prior of Sainte-Colombe priest (mentioned in preliminary materials and by Nos. 6-7 and 15) No. 10: Raymond de Montealto clerk and oblate of Lézat (mentioned in No. 6 and also as No. 27 in G 722 as defamed of a woman) No. I1: Belotus, a monk (mentioned in 1, 6, 10 and 13) No. 12: G de Biraco knight and oblate of the church of Lezat (mentioned in No. 6 as once a monk, now an oblate, and No. 7) No. 13: B de Pradela clerk and oblate (mentioned in 5 and 6) No. 14: Michael de Caniaco layman and oblate No. 15: P de Monteredono clerk and oblate of church of Lézat, public notary of Saverdun and of the court of the bishop of Toulouse No. 16: S Prior de Monteredono priest (preliminary materials and mentioned in No. 6) No. 17: Arnold de Montedayto oblate No. 18: Peter Rossellus old monk and priest (mentioned by No. 6) No. 19: G de Monte Aragone, no other identification (oblate in Nos. 6-8, 12-13, 15, 17 and 27) No. 20: G Morrug not otherwise identified No. 21: G de Sancto Pastore oblate of the church (mentioned by No. 8) No. 22: G Garsie (mentioned by No. 3)

No. 23: Arnold de Bruno public notary (scriptor) and oblate of the church in spirituals and temporals (An A den Brunus, prior of Saint-Antonin, in list of monks in G 722 5 10, as No. 9) No. 24: P B capellanus Lezat No. 25: G de Paterno no identification No. 26: P Gontaud donatus et senex No. 27: Peter de Villanova oblate in spirituals and temporals (mentioned in 6, 7-8, 12-13, 17-19, 21 and 35. Also in the list of the monks later on as No. 39) No. 28: Trioleta, a woman (“mulier” ) No. 29: Vital Barrera monk and priest (mentioned 34 and 35) No. 30: Martin monk and priest of Lezat No. 31: B Sabata layman (mentioned in No. 6) No. 32: Andreas layman No. 33: Bernard Barravus monk and priest (mentioned in Nos. 6, 29 and 32) No. 34: Ar de Archana (Arohana?) No. 35: G de Bevila (mentioned in Nos. 14 and 33) No. 36: Raymond de Montepesato monk (mentioned by Nos. 33 and 34)

LEZAT AND MOISSAC 203 D. WOMEN MENTIONED IN THE TESTIMONY

The witnesses list 45 women, including girls, who crossed the abbot’s path during the 12 or so years he presided at Lézat. Of these, three or four appear to have no relationship with him.*° There are also not a few difficult cases, difficult either because the information about them is thin or because different witnesses mentioned persons in different contexts, thus confusing them for later readers. Domestics constitute one such category. Two unnamed “ancille” of the priories of Lézat are mentioned, one by two witnesses, and the other by one, although the latter witness actually saw the event. The third and fourth household servants are Blanca, the “pedisseca” of the prior of Muret, and Thoma, “ancilla” of the priory of

Saint-Germier of Muret, both relatively well attested. Quite apart from what happened between these women and the abbot, it is difficult to deny their independent existence.”’

Another group difficult of identification is that of the women in the Pyrenean towns whom Peter bumped into during a trip from Seo de Urgel to Ax-les-Thermes. There were two unnamed hostesses (“hospite”), one in Puigcerda, the other in Seo de Urgel, a Catalan woman at Puigcerda, the wife of an innkeeper at “Ultra portus,” a Ramunda, wife of Raymond Socardi, at Ax-les-Thermes, and lastly an unnamed “meretrix” somewhere on the route at whom the abbot made an aborted pass. The “hospita” of Seo de Urgel is mentioned by two witnesses including the unusually well informed Ademar de Birnos, prior of Saint-Béat. The hostess at Puigcerda appears only in the testimony of the same Ademar. Because both come from Puigcerda, one is tempted to assimilate the latter “hospita” to the anonymous but reasonably well attested Catalan woman.** Although he repeated hearsay, the prior of Saint-Béat referred to both, keeping them distinct, as being different persons.°? The woman at “Ultra Portus” is three times mentioned, but may well be confused with one of the

Ramundas to be seen later on. Although her name is not always registered, a Ramunda is described five times as being at Ax-les-Thermes, and is called the wife of Raymond Socardi. The so-called prostitute is attested by one witness, the same person who testified against the wife of the “hospes” of Ultra Porta, a woman with whom she may be confused. It therefore looks as though there were at least four women with whom the abbot was said to have had relations in four mountain towns on the route from Seo de Urgel to Ax-les-Thermes. The name of the woman from Ax-les-Thermes brings up the special problem of the Christian name Ramunda. Like the male name Raymond, it is the most frequent 6 See the cases of Galharda and Gausia, the latter’s daughter Exclarmunda and the daughter of Garcias Faber, a burgher of Saint-Ybars, all of whom are investigated in Chapter 3 above. 37 See the list below.

8 ‘Witnesses Nos. 2, 6 and 12. The woman is called Catalan only in No. 2, but Nos. 6 and

12 mentioned the distinguishing character of the case, namely that the abbot had been arrested-“captus.”

9 No. 6.

204 APPENDIX 4 of all Christian names in this area where the local princely dynasty was that of the

Raymonds of Toulouse and Saint-Gilles until the mid-thirteenth century. Not including the woman from Ax, the trial mentions five Ramundas, all but one of whom is signaled by one witness only. One simply bears the name and is otherwise unidentified; another is a Ramunda from “Monteroso,” wherever that may be. There are no less than three Ramundas from Saint-Ybars: Ramunda Grossa, Ramunda Julia and Ramunda, the concubine of Peter de Paterno. All three are recorded in the full testimony of Ademar de Birnos, and it is therefore likely that individuals with those names existed.” Still, with the exception of the concubine, all the Ramundas were attested only once each, and, since there are quite a number of them, it may be assumed that one or several have been confused. A final possible confusion is that between Comdor and Martina, both of whom are recorded as fighting yet another woman named Munda. Still, it is probable that Comdor and Martina were two different persons because Bernard Johannis, prior of Peyrissas, a knowledgeable if biased witness, mentioned both. To sum the matter up, it is likely that there are five or six overlaps, as it were, but more seem improbable. To summarize the evidence, 13 women are attested by only one witness.*’ Of these only two were direct or personal, mentioned, that is, by someone who was there, namely the “puella” of Nomais and the “ancilla” of the priory of Montredon. The “ancilla” of the priory of Bérat, the daughters of Lumbarda of Muret and of Raymond Jordanus, and the abbot’s niece, sister of “Magister” Arnold, a notary at Muret, were witnessed by two of the 36, as were the “hospite” of Puigcerda and of Seo de Urgel, Petrona de Brugal of Muret, and the abbot’s cousin, the sister of William Galaubi, making a total of eight. Seven women appear in three testimonies: Blanca, the “pedisseca” of the priory of Muret, the Catalan woman at Puigcerda, the daughter of Garsia Faber of Saint-Ybars, Martina, Sibilia de Falgar (Falgario = Le Fauga), Thoma “ancilla” at the priory of Muret and the wife of the “hospes” at “Ultra portus.” The abbot’s cousin Galharda and Melior, wife of

Arnold de Salias, were attested to by four witnesses each. Five guaranteed the existence of Huga and Navarra at Saverdun, Lumbarda at Muret and Ramunda, wife of Raymond Socardi, from Ax-les-Thermes. Gausia from Saverdun rated six as did Jordana, wife of Peter de Petra, and Petrona de Caisac, both from Lezat, Ramunda, the concubine of Sancius de Paterno in Saint-Ybars, and Ricsenda at Toulouse, while the record of Benedicta de Bordis boasts seven. Thereafter the numbers of testi-

monies begin to increase markedly. Comdor, daughter of the noble Ricarda de Maornaco and presumed wife of Raymond de Montels, is mentioned nine times and Fabrissa de Turri of Toulouse appears in a dozen testimonies. Herself a witness in the inquisition, Trioleta of Lezat and Saint-Ybars is seen in 14 entries. The most

* No. 6. ‘! The “ancilla” of Montredon; Duncressa; Exclarmunda the daughter of Gausia; a daughter of another woman with Gausia, possibly the Exclarmunda above; Flora; Fortuna; Hermengarda; Jordana, the cousin german of Jordana de Monte Athone; the “puella” of Nomais; a

Ramunda not otherwise described; Ramunda from Monteroso; Ramunda Grossa; and Ramunda Julia.

LEZAT AND MOISSAC 205 frequent record of all the women is that of Munda of Lezat, who appears in the accounts of 32 of the 36 witnesses, of which no less than 16 knew her or knew about her first hand. In fine, it may well be that the abbot had relations with about 35 women.

The list of these women is alphabetically arranged below and the attached numbers are those of the witnesses who mentioned them. 1. “ancilla” of prior at Bérat—Nos. 2 and 6 2. “ancilla” of prior at Montredon—No. 16 3. Benedicta de Bordis or Bordas—Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 17 4. Blanca “pedisseca” of the prior of Saint-Germier at Muret~Nos. 2, 6 and 8 5. Catalan woman at Puigcerda—Nos. 2, 6 and 12 6. Comdor, daughter of Ricarda de Maornaco and probable wife of Raymond de Montels—Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 17 7. daughter (not named) of Garsia Faber of Saint-Ybars—Nos. 10, 13 and 22 8. daughter (not named) of Lumbarda of Muret—Nos. 2 and 14 9. daughter (not named) of Raymond Jordanus—Nos. 6 and 12 10. daughter (not named) of either Gausia, Huga or Navarra at Saverdun, probably Exclarmunda, daughter of Gausia, for whom see below—No. 8 11. Duncressa—No. 17 12. Exclarmunda, daughter of Gausia at Saverdun—No. 2 {3. Fabrissa de Turri of Toulouse—Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 14. Flora—No. 17 15. Fortuna—No. 17 16. Galharda (Gualharda) of Saverdun and Monteroso, cousin of Abbot Peter—

Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 17. Gausia or Gausiana at Saverdun—Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 15 18. Hermengarda—No. 17 19. Huga at Saverdun—Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 15, but her name is mentioned only once 20. “hospita” (not named) of Puigcerda—Nos. 6 and 12 21. “hospita” (not named) of Seo de Urgel—Nos. 6 and 13 22. “hospita” (not named) wife of “hospes” in Ultra Portus—Nos. 3, 4 and 5 23. Jordana, a cousin german of the Jordana listed immediately below—No. 17 24. Jordana de Monte Athone of Lézat, wife of Peter de Petra—Nos. 6, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 22 25. Lumbarda or Lombarda at Muret and possibly Toulouse—Nos. 2, 6, 8, 14, and 17

26. Martina at Lezat—Nos. 1, 6 and 7 27. Melior, wife of Arnold de Salias, at Saint-Ybars—Nos. 3, 10, 15 and 17 28. “quidam meretrix” on the route from Seo de Urgel to Ax-les-Thermes—No. 3 29. Munda of Lézat—Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35 and 36 30. Navarra at Saverdun—Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 15, name mentioned only in No. 6 Nomais, see “puella”

206 APPENDIX 4 31. Petrona de Caissac (Caisac), wife of G. Johannes, daughter of Michael de Caissaco, at Lezat—Nos. 2, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 17 32. Petrona de Brugal of Muret—Nos. 2 and 6 33. “puella” (not named) brought by Nomais at Toulouse—No. 6 34. Ramunda with no further identification—No. 17 35. Ramunda from Monteroso—No. 8 36. Ramunda Grossa from Saint-Ybars—No. 6 37. Ramunda Julia from Saint-Ybars—No. 6 38. Ramunda, concubine of Sanche de Paterno, from Saint-Ybars—Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 1S and 25 39. Ramunda, wife of R Socardi, at Ax-les-Thermes—Nos. 6, 9, 13, 15 and 22 of which references four do not mention her name but instead the nature and place of the event. 40. Ricsenda at Toulouse—Nos. 5, 6, 8, 18, 29 and 32, not named in 5, 29 and 32 but the circumstances are the same 41. Sibilia de Falgario at Muret—Nos. 2, 6 and 31 42. sister (not named) of Magister Arnold, public notary at Muret, the abbot’s niece — Nos. 2 and 6 43. sister (not named) of William Galaubi of Toulouse, the abbot’s cousin—Nos. 2 and 6 44. Thoma “ancilla” of prior of Saint-Germier of Muret—Nos. 2, 8 and 16 45. Trioleta or Atrioleta at Saint-Ybars and Lézat—Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 25, 26 and 28

Appendix 5 Visitation of Lezat

A. CIRCUMSTANCES CA. 1265

The record of this visitation is contained in MADTG, G 722 4 and 5, two undated rolls. For reasons explained below on p. 214, the numbers 4 and 5 are tentative. Below are calendared fragments of testimony given by four monks (three actually

named) of the house of Lézat about the at least 42 monks resident there. The recording officers were clearly examining the whole house because, when taking the testimony of the four extant witnesses, they state that the religious gave evidence similar to that of 12 other monks, themselves all named in the testimony, who had spoken before. The visitation that elicited this testimony followed the deaths of Peter de Dalbs and his successor Master Gerald because they are both described as deceased. This poses problems because the history of this monastery in the Gallia Christiana states that Abbot Gerald de Villanova (for this is how they name the one called Master Gerald in our sources) succeeded Peter de Dalbs by sometime in October 1255 and remained in office until 1265. The Benedictines then assert that, sometime in that year, a Peter de Binhaco was named abbot, a post he filled only until sometime in 1266 when he was replaced.' This is indeed possible, but it cuts it very fine because Peter (de Binheco in our documents) is one of the monks about whom testimony was given in the visitation described below. If this source is correct, then, unless Peter de Binheco resigned the abbacy and returned to being a simple monk, the visitation must have taken place just before his election sometime in 1265. Whatever the case, it is clear that it could not have been too long after the battle over Peter de Dalbs because no less than eight monks listed below were defamed of conspiring against him. Furthermore, of the 42 monks, seven had actually given

testimony against the abbot in 1254 and a minimum of 13 others had been mentioned as being monks by the witnesses at that time.’ What this visitation shows is that the cause of the freedom of Lézat from Moissac was still being fought for. In fact, it was soon again to be in the ascendant, recent ' Gallia Christiana, 13: 211-212. ? Three additional cases were doubtful and 19 were surely not referred to. One other, No. 1 below, was a monk at that time, and there is no way of knowing about many others.

208 APPENDIX 5 research having found that it was subsequently to triumph.’ This is not surprising because, although Leézat was not the equal of Moissac, a monastery whose central cloister housed at least 42 religious and possessed at least eight priories was not to be sneezed at. The small variations in the spelling of the names given below reflects the variety of spellings found in the originals. An example is the use of genitive Athonis in the case of a second name in some entries and of the nominative Atho or Ato in others. Names were also sometimes given in the vernacular, as Brus for Brunus, and the particule “de” was sometimes used and sometimes omitted. The words “scriptor,” “scriba” and, in the genitive, “scribe” all refer to the same person. B. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MONKS

G 722 4 §5 are two rolls recording depositions about the monks of Lezat by four religious. The testimony in Roll 4 was given by William Atonis de Villanova and by an unknown monk; that in Roll 5 by monks named Jorius and a .B., hence either a Bernard or Bertrand. The list below records who testified in the various rolls and also whether or not the person was mentioned or testified in the investigation described in the previous appendix and contained in MADTG, G 722 bis, dated October 1253 to May 1254. —. B. (for Bernard or Bertrand) is not included in the count for the obvious reason

that he might be one of the monks listed below. 1. Peter de Albiaco: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. and Jorius 2. Raymond de Arnesp: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis as witness No. 8 and in testimony of Nos. 2, 4 and 17 3. Bertrand de Artilhaco: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.

4. Raymond Athonis: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B. 5. Augerius: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis as witness No. 2, in testimony of Nos. 5 and 8 and in act dated May 1254

6. Raymond Bigoti helemosinarius: Roll 4 described by Villanova 7. Peter de Binheco: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by Jorius; G 722 bis in testimony of No. 17 8. Raymond Bruneti cellarer: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by

B. 3 See Paul Ourliac, “Lezat et Moissac - Note additionelle,” Annales du Midi 77 (1965) 75-83, where one learns that the dispute between the two houses was settled by arbitration in 1274, Lézat being placed under guardianship of the bishop of Toulouse.

VISITATION OF LEZAT 209 9. .A. den Brus, prior of Saint-Antonin: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis as witness No. 23

10. Raymond de Casalibus: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 11. Peter de Castanhaco: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 6 and 17 12. Gerald Corbati: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.

13. Raymond (de) Durbano: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 13, 14 and 15 14. William Galaubi: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 2 and 6

15. Raymond Garaldi: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.

16. Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and

Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. | 17. Raymond de Iscocia (Descossa): Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. 18. Bernard or Bertrand Johannis; a Bernard in G 722 bis in testimony of No. 9 and act of October 1253 19. Peter Johannis: Roll 5 described by .B. — not included in the count: Raymond Jordani “operarius,” see Raymond Scriptor

(No. 37) below 20. Jorius: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. and Jorius where he gives evidence himself; G 722 bis in testimony of No. 17 21. Arnold de Lambres (Lambes), claustral prior: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by Jorius; G 722 bis in acts of October 1253 and February and June 1254

22. William de Lentilhaco: Roll 4 described by unknown monk 23. William de Lesato: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in act of May 1254 24. Bertrand de Marcafaba: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.

25. Martin, prior of Saint-Paul: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; a Martin in G 722 bis as Witness No. 30 and act of October 1254

26. Pons de Maornaco (Mornacho): Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5

210 APPENDIX 5 described by Jorius; G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 9 and 35, and in act of October 1253

27. William Athonis Matfredi: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.; a William Athonis in G 722 bis in testimony of Nos. 9 and 35, and act of May 1254

28. Sicard de Miromonte: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B. 29. Raymond de Montealto: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis as witness No. 10, in testimony of No. 6, and acts of February 1254 and March 1255

30. William de Montels: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.; G 722 bis in testimony of No. 16, and act of January 1254 31. Raymond de Murello: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B. 32. William de Noerio sacristain: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. and Jorius; as sacristain in G 722 bis in acts of October and December 1253

33. Stephen Presbiter: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. 34. Arnold Ramundi, prior of Peyrissas: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. 35. William de Reula: Roll 4 described ‘by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B.

36. Raymond Sarraceni: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.

37. Raymond Scriptor “operarius”: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B. and Jorius; a Raymond operarius in G 722 bis as witness No. 4, and in testimony of Noes. 5, 17 and 23; a Raymond Jordani in testimony of Nos. 6 and 12 38. Arnold de Sita “camerarius”: Roll 4 described by Villanova; Roll 5 described by .B.

39. Raymond Ugoleni (Hugolini): Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B. 40. Peter de Villa: Roll 4 described by unknown monk; Roll 5 described by .B. 41. Peter de Villanova: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova; G 722 bis as witness No. 27, in testimony of Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 35, and in acts dated February and May 1254

42. William Athonis de Villanova: Roll 4 described by unknown monk and Villanova himself as witness; Roll 5 described by .B.; a William de Villanova in G 722 bis in testimony of No. 3 and act of October 1253

VISITATION OF LEZAT 211 C. ORDER OF THE DEPOSITIONS BY THE FOUR MONKS

G 722 4: Testimony of an Unknown Monk

probably Peter of Villanova G de Reula Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe G de Montels G de Lesato, prior of Montlandier P de Castanhaco Ar den Brus, prior of Saint-Antonin P J

BJ P de Villa

R Ugoleni G Atho de Villanova Martin, prior of Saint-Paul G Atho Matfredi

Jorius Sicard de Miromonte P de Albiaco Guirald Corbati

Augerius R Atonis Stephen Presbyter Bt de Artilhaco

R de Montealto R Durban R Garaldi Bt de Marcafaba R de Casalibus R de Murello G Galaubi G de Lentilhaco G 722 4: Testimony of G Atho de Villanova

Arnold de Lambes, claustral prior A den Brunus

G de Noerio “sacrista” BJ P Brunetus cellerar R Ugolini

R Scriptor “hoperarius” Martin, prior of Saint-Paul B Bigotus “helemosinarius” Jorius

A de Sita “camerarius” P de Albiaco

R Sarraceni Augerius Pons de Mornhaco St Presbyter

P de Binheco R de Montealto A R, prior of Peyrissas R Garaldi R de Arnesp R de Casalibus P de Villanova W Galaubi Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe G de Reula G de Lesato G 722 5: Testimony of a Monk named .B.

unknown monk, probably A de Lambres Sicard de Miremonte

Martin monk Gerald Corbati

G de Noerio R de Arnesp

R Jordani “operarius” AR, prior of Peyrissas P de Albiaco Galaubi A den Brus G de Reula

212 APPENDIX 5

Jorius P de Villa Augerius P de Castanhaco Stephen A de Sita G Btde de Montlels Artillhaco Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe R Sarracenus R Hugolinus R Garaudi Atho PRJohannis

R de Montealto Bt de Marcafaba G Atho de Villanova R Durban G Atho Matfredi R de Murello

R de Iscocia G de Lesato R Bruneti BJ R de Casalibus

G 722 5: Testimony of Jorius

P de Binheco G de Noerio

Pons de Mornacho R Scriba “hoperario” Arnold de Lambes, claustral prior P de Albiacho Martin

Previous Witnesses cited in G 722 4 and 5

G 722 4 G 722 5 R Athonis P de Albiaco

Augerius P de Binheco P de Binheco A den Brus

Gerald Corbati R Scribe or Jordani

Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe eee R de Iscocia bees Jorius bees

Peter de Villanova sees

W Athonis de Villanova

Bibliography

A. ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS AND MANUSCRIPT TEXTS

The documents used in this monograph are found in cartularies or registers, rolls, or individual parchments. Individual acts in cartularies or registers are referred to by foliation (recto and verso). If the act or document is of modest size only the first folio is cited. If a document being cited is large or if a part well after its start must be signalled, additional folio numbers will be specified. Rolls are handled in the conventional manner, an attempt being made to number the documents. Two large rolls in the collection called TADHG Grandselve have, however, never been numbered, and I have proposed a system described below under that archive’s rubric. Individual documents are referred to by Archive Abbreviation (not used in the case of TADHG, the Archives départementales de la Haute-Garonne, the most extensively used of all the repositories in this list), Series Letter (in the case of archives other than TADHG), and Collection Name (for which, see below), followed by specific identifying materials. Materials common to all documents save those contained in cartularies or registers are shown by the following example: Collection [SaintBernard, for example] 36 2nd of four membranes tied together iii (August 1232,

copied in 1245 and 1256). After the Collection Name, this reference means container or folder (“boite” or “liasse”) no. 36, the 2nd of four membranes tied together, the 3rd document copied on the same membrane, written in August 1232, and copied in 1245 and 1256. All dates are modernized in this book. The style of

the beginning of the year at Toulouse was initially the Annunciation and then, starting roughly about 1190, the ist of April (presumably because of the date of the annual installation of the new town consulate), both employing the Florentine computation. During the thirteenth century, the inquisitors sometimes used Nativity

(common in maritime Languedoc), and the royal administration favored the northern French new year’s day of Easter, but, if and when needed, these variants will be signalled. In this listing of documentary resources, the national archives at Paris are followed by the local ones housed at Angers, Montauban, and Toulouse, and the same rule holds true of the libraries, themselves appended at the end of the list. PAN: Paris, Archives Nationales

J — Followed by a box number, a document number, and the date, this simple reference refers to the documents housed in the Archives Nationales and calendared and occasionally published in the Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, 5 vols. (Paris,

214 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1863-1909). When this collection is used without consulting the original parchment, the document will be cited by its number in the published series, the editors of the five volumes having had the prescience to number and date all the charters seriatim (with the exception of some “acta omissa”). The dates of the documents and their

numbers in each of the five volumes are the following: vol. 1: 755-1223, Nos. 1-1590; vol. 2: July 1223-1246, Nos. 1591-3573; vol. 3: 1247-1260, Nos.

3574-4663; vol. 4: 1260-1271, Nos. 4664-3744, and “acta omissa” Nos. 239bis-5763bis; vol. 5 - “series olim saccorum”: 632-1270; Nos. 1-903. JJ - Registers of the Tresor not described in the publication mentioned above. KK - A register of lawsuits of the early 1270s, referred to by folio number. This register is badly damaged and reference is made more difficult by the fact that it contains two sets of foliations. AADML: Angers, Archives départmentales de Maine-et-Loire

H - Lespinasse, a register of this affiliate of the order of Fontevrault, referred to by folios. Some Lespinasse documents are housed at Toulouse and are mentioned below.

MADTG: Montauban, Archives départmentales de Tarn-et-Garonne

A — A 297 is the enormous and celebrated cartulary of the Armagnac Collection. Dealing with the barony (later county, as of 1341) of I’Isle-en-Jourdain, it is often called the Saume de 1’Isle, and contains documents from the year 899 to 1555. Cited by folio. A complete photographic exemplar is housed in my files.

G — The collection of the famous Benedictine house of Moissac, used here because of its dependencies, the monasteries of the Daurade in Toulouse and of Lezat with its appendage of Saint-Antoine located outside the town’s walls. Individual parchments are cited in the manner described above. One of the documents is a register, and will be referred to by folio. There is a difficulty with this series, namely that the individual documents have attached numbers, as, for example, G 722 4 or G 722 5. A consultation with the archivist convinced me that, since every document has several numbers written in pen or pencil on the dorse, there is no way of really

knowing the sequence of documents in a “liasse” such as G 722. I have recorded what seem to be the most likely numbers, but the reader is urged to study what is said about the document or its date and go from there if a consultation of the original is wanted. TADHG: Toulouse, Archives départmentales de la Haute-Garonne

The documents from this archive are so frequently used that the specific reference to the archive itself (TADHG) shall be omitted in this monograph. Furthermore, the series letters and the numerical identifications designating the major segments of this

ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS AND MANUSCRIPT TEXTS 215 great collection by modern archivists are also omitted because they are not necessary in order to consult the appropriate collections. They are 7 D (educational establish-

ments, hence Saint-Bernard), 1 E (family history, which letter will, however, be retained because there is no other series identification), | and 4 G (respectively the archdiocese and the cathedral chapter of Saint Etienne), and H (all regular clergy - Saint-Sernin is 101 H, for example, the Daurade is 102 H, the Dominicans 112 H, etc.). One collection recently integrated into the archives, that of the Bazacle, has no identifying letter. It shall simply be called “Bazacle.” The collections are: Archdiocese — The archdiocese of Toulouse. Save for the “liasses” concerning Braqueville and one or two other places, most of the individual charters of this series have been lost, but there are some important registers, notably 347 (Cartulaire blanc). Bazacle — The mills of the Bazacle, whose archives had been in the possession of a private corporation until after the Second Word War. They have recently been integrated into the Archives départmentales.

Clares ~— The order of the Clares associated with the memory of Clara, the celebrated follower of Francis of Assisi.

Dalbade — a parish in Toulouse depending on the Bendictines of the Daurade. Only one document of this small collection is cited, a register numbered 91. Daurade — A parish church and a monastery depending on the Benedictines of Moissac. The monks of the Daurade provided the priest for the parish, and the abbot of Moissac provided the prior of the Daurade, at least, when the two institutions were not locked in combat. Dominicans — The order founded by Dominic, the canon of Osma, whose mother

church was in Toulouse, the town in which the saint (canonized 1234) had spent much of his career. Along with some documents contained in “liasses” which are

cited here in the ordinary way, there is a register numbered 111 containing fifteenth-century materials. Into this register, two paper sheets written in an eighteenth-century hand are bound. This insert is introduced as “Extrait d’un vieux manuscrit couvert de parchemin intitulé pardessus: ‘Quid ad inveniendum instrumenta conventus fratrum praedicatorum.’” These two sheets contain excerpts from earlier chronologies or chronicles. Events dated 770, 1164, 1195, 1233, 1239, 1242, 1253, 1254, 1257, 1258, 1281, 1297, 1298, 1302, 1303, 1308, 1362 and 1372 are referred to. E — A few documents from this collection utilized in my earlier book on Toulouse

and in this manuscript as well are now housed in the Malta collection. This was because, in 1946, I noted that some of the instruments used by G. Saige in his Les Juifs de Languedoc had derived from the Malta collection, but had been put into that of series E (whence others of his documents had derived) when they were returned to the archives after the death of Mme Saige, or so I was told. There was, of course, no intention of theft here. To take documents out of the archives was normal practice

216 BIBLIOGRAPHY in past times, and I was myself offered a register to take home in order to continue work during the Easter break. Unfortunately, the excellent M. Alibert who reintegrated the documents in the file forgot to send me the list, and I have never had quite enough time at Toulouse to collate them all myself. All documents that suffered this fate cited in this book and in my earlier one are found in photographic copies housed in my files. Grandselve — a Cistercian house northwest of Toulouse. The collection is cited in the normal manner, save for two rolls. These, at the time I published my first book on Toulouse, were in “liasse” 2 of the collection, and have now been put in “liasse”

58. Since the documents in these two rolls have not yet been numbered and catalogued, I have assigned them the following designations: Roll I recto i (Septem-

ber 1147)-xvii (January 1177); verso i (probably January 1177), tu (January 1169)-xix (August 1169), and xx (possibly 1171); Roll II recto i (June 1148)-ix (May 1179), and x (undated); verso i (December 1173)-vi (October 1131). Lespinasse — a house depending on the order of Fontevrault just north of Toulouse.

Malta — An abbreviated reference for Series H, Order of Malta, Grand Priory of Toulouse, Commandery of Toulouse, Houses of Toulouse, Estacabuou, and elsewhere in the Commandery. Since all the houses in the commandery are numbered sequentially in the archives, there is no need to mention the specific houses in the references. A typical reference will read Malta 1 12 followed by the date. The two

appended digits (“1”, meaning the House of Toulouse, and “12”, the twelfth document in its collection) derive from an anonymous eighteenth century catalogue in two volumes (of which a photographic copy is in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.). A manuscript concordance converts the old identifications to the modern ones. Several rolls from the Malta collection have been published in Charles Molinier “Ensevelissement de Raimond VI” (Malta | 24, the cartulary of Raymond VII), and Paul Ourliac, “Les sauvetés du Comminges” (the cartulary of Saint-Clar in Malta 360 1) for which titles, see the bibliography below. Malta Garidech — Grand Priory of Toulouse, and Commandery of Garidech. Ms 124 — This cartulary consists of two fragments of inquisitorial testimony, the

first collected by the inquisitors Raymond Resplandi and Arnold de Gouzens in 1254 and the second by John de Saint-Pierre and Reginald de Chartres in 1256. Modern foliation has been imposed, and is used here. Saint-Bernard — The College of Saint-Bernard derived from the Hospital or Hospice of Grandselve in Toulouse. The reference system is the same as that described at the head of this section, except for D Saint Bernard 138 (the Capdenier cartulary) where foliation is used. Saint-Pierre and Saint-Geraud — A priory of the cathedral located on the Place de la Pierre in the center of the City.

ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS AND MANUSCRIPT TEXTS 217 Saint-Etienne - The Cathedral Chapter of Saint-Etienne. The method of reference is more complicated than usual because there is a manuscript catalogue by Claude Cresty, Répertoire des titres et documents concernants les biens et droits du chapitre de Saint-Etienne, 2 vols. and another of tables (1734-1737). A typical reference will read: Saint-Etienne 227 (26 DA 2 47) (November 1230). The number “229” refers

to the modern “liasse,” and the material in the first set of parentheses refers to Cresty’s archival identification. Since Cresty’s “sacks” and other eighteenth century containers have long since been replaced by modern paper “liasses,” I forbear from

defining their parts. A photographic copy of Cresty’s inventory is found in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Saint-Sernin — the regular canons of the famous basilica. Cresty catalogued this collection also in his Répertoire des titres et documents concernants les donations ... et divers autres droits appartenants a l auguste chapitre de Saint-Sernin, 2 vols. and

another of tables (1728-1730). A typical reference will read: Saint-Sernin 132 (20 70 12) July 1222. The rules formulated for Saint-Etienne apply here also, and a photographic copy of Cresty’s inventory is likewise in the Library of Congress. The large cartulary contained in this collection was published by C. Douais, Cartulaire de Saint-Sernin, in 1887, for which see the bibliography below. Saint-Sernin Canonesses — A few thirteenth century documents are found in the “liasses” of this little order. TAM: Toulouse, Archives Municipales

AA — Acts of public authority referred to by the numbers assigned to them by Ernest Roschach, Jnventaire-sommaire des archives communales de la ville de Toulouse antérieures a 1790, vol. 1 (Toulouse, 1891). Cited, for example, as AA | 34 followed by date. AA 1 and 2 have been published in Limouzin-Lamothe, La commune de Toulouse, for which see the Bibliography below. BB 204 — The matricule of the notaries of Toulouse. Referred to by folio. DD — The archives of the mills of the Chateau Narbonnais.

ii — The onetime “Layettes,” catalogued by Odon de Saint-Blanquat in his Inventaire des archives de la ville de Toulouse antérieures a 1790, vol. 2 in 2 parts (Toulouse, 1976-1977). PBN: Paris, Bibliothéque nationale

Doat — Conventionally called “Collection Doat” after Jean de Doat, president of the Chambre de Comptes of Navarre (1665-1670), who supervised the preparation of authenticated copies of original documents to grace the library of Jean Baptiste Colbert. The part of this massive collection used in this book largely consists of materials taken from the archives of the Inquisition at Carcassonne and Toulouse. These are referred to by volume number and folio. Photographic exemplars of most

218 BIBLIOGRAPHY of the Doat volumes containing material about heresy are available in the Columbia University Library.

Ms lat. 6009 — A cartulary of Grandselve, the Cistercian house to the north of Toulouse, by which the College of Saint-Bernard in town was founded. MS lat. 9189 — The cartulary of Lézat, a Benedictine monastery to the south of Toulouse that had a priory with an attached hospital called Saint-Antoine in the southern suburb (Saint-Michel) of that town. Like the Daurade monastery in town, Lezat was a dependency of Moissac, but had its own abbot. Cited from the original manuscript in my last book, this cartulary is now available in the excellent recent

edition edited by Ourliac and Magnou, for which see the list of “Published Documents and Texts” below. Ms lat. 9994 — A cartulary of Grandselve.

MS nouv. acq. lat. 2406 — A partly truncated document bound in the form of a

book containing the pleas in a suit in the court of the vicar of Toulouse dated December 1259 and January-April 1260. The litigants were the paramount lord of l’Isle-Jourdain, Jordan de Insula, and his cousin Isarn Jordan. The bound parts of the dismembered roll have been numbered as pages, but since, in these pages, only the first two pages have been utilized, I refer to the manuscript alone. TBM: Toulouse, Bibliotheque municipale

Ms 609 — Once housed in the Bibliotheque municipale of Toulouse where Merriam Sherwood and I photographed it, the register has now been taken to the Institut de Recherche des Textes at Paris. A copy together with a nearly complete transcription done by Austin P. Evans’ students presently rests in my files. The depositions were copied into MS 609 on the orders of William Bernard and Reginald de Chartres, inquisitors at Toulouse, sometime between 1258 and 1263. Although the vast bulk of the depositions derive from 1245-1246, the last is dated October 1258. This collection of testimony about Catharism is cited by folio. Other Libraries

Cambridge, Gonville and Gaius College, ms Add. B. 65, fol. Iff. Regula mercatorum Tholosanorum.

Oxford, Lincoln College, Ms Latin 81, fol. 34ff. Regula mercatorum Tholosanorum.

Vienna Staatsbibliothek Ms Palatinus 2210*, fols. 1-96v, a copy of the cartulary of the town of Toulouse made from 1202 to 1208 by notaries described in my Liberty and Political Power, pp. 335-336, n. 42. Ibid., pp. 217-219 contains a concordance

with TAM, AAI and AA2, published in Limouzin-Lamothe’s La commune de Toulouse, as stated above.

PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS AND TEXTS 219 B. PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS AND TEXTS

Beaumanoir, Philippe de. Coutumes de Beauvaisis. Ed. Am. Salmon. 2 vols. Paris, 1899-1900.

[Benedictus xii, Pope.] Le registre dinquisition de Jacques Fournier, évéque de Pamiers (1318-1325. Ed. Jean Duvernoy. 3 vols. Toulouse, 1965. Corrections. Toulouse, 1972. Cabieé, Edmond. Chartes de coutumes inédites de la Gascogne Toulousaine. Paris and Auch, 1884.

Canso — Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise. Ed. Eugéne Martin-Chabot. Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen-age. 3 vols. Paris, 1931-1973. ——, Ed. Paul Meyer. 2 vols. Paris, 1875-1879. Dominic, St., canon of Osma. See Monumenta historica Sancti Patris Nostri Dominici.

Douais, Ceélestin, ed. Cartulaire de labbaye de Saint-Sernin de Toulouse. Paris and Toulouse, 1887. ——. Chronique de Guilhem Pelisso. Paris, 1881. ——. Documents pour servir a histoire de l'inquisition dans le Languedoc. 2 vols. Paris 1900. ——. Documents sur lancienne province de Languedoc. 2 vols. Toulouse and Paris, 1901-1904.

——. Travaux pratiques dune conférence de paléographie. Toulouse, 1900. Fournier, Jacques. See Benedictus xu, Pope. Fournier, Pierre-Fr., and Pascal Guébin, eds. Enquétes administratives d Alphonse de Poitiers. Arréts de son parlement tenu a Toulouse et textes annexes. Paris, 1959.

Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa in qua series et historia archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et abbatum regionum omnium quas vetus Gallia complectebatur, ab origine ecclesiarum ad nostra tempora deducitur. \6 vols. Paris, 1715-1865. Vol. 13 (Provinciae Tolosana et Trevirensis, ed. J. Thiroux ). Gilles, Henri, ed. Coutumes de Toulouse (1286) et leur premier commentaire (1296). Toulouse, 1969. Gui, Bernard. Bernardus Guidonis de fundatione et prioribus conventuum provincia-

rum Tolosanae et Provinciae ordinis praedicatorum. Ed. P. A. Amargier. Monumenta ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica, vol. 24. Rome, 1961. Heumans Handlexikon zu den Quellen des rémischen Rechtes. Ed. Ernst Seckel. 9th edition. Jena, 1907. Layettes du Trésor des Chartes. 5 vols. Paris, 1863-1909. Vol. 2 utilized here. Limouzin-Lamothe, Raymond. La commune de Toulouse et les sources de son histoire 1120-1249. Paris and Toulouse, 1932. Mansi, Giovanni Domenico. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio ....

53 vols. Florence, Venice and Paris, 1759-1927. Vol. 23 utilized here. Meijers, Eduard M., ed. Responsa doctorum Tholosanorum. Haarlem, 1938.

Molinier, Charles. “La question de l’ensevelissement du comte de Toulouse

220 BIBLIOGRAPHY Raimond Vi en terre sainte (1222-1247).” Annales de la faculté des lettres de Bordeaux, n.s. 2 (1885) 1-92. Monumenta historica Sancti Patris Nostri Dominici: Historia diplomatica S. Dominici. Ed. Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent. Monumenta Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica: vol. 15, fasc. 1. Paris, 1933. Ourliac, Paul and Magnou, Anne-Marie, eds. Cartulaire de labbaye de Lézat. 2 vols. Paris, 1984-1987. Pales-Gobilliard, Annette, ed. L ‘inquisiteur Geoffroy d Ablis et les Cathares du Comté de Foix (1308-1309). Paris, 1984. Puylaurens, William of. Chronica Magistri Guillelmi de Podio Laurentii. Ed. Jean Duvernoy. Paris, 1976. Soulatges, Jean-Antoine. Coutumes de la ville, gardiage et viguerie de Toulouse, en Latin et en Francais, avec des observations sur les changemens et interprétations, que ces coutumes ont recu, tant par les nouvelles ordonnances, que par la jurisprudence du Parlement de Toulouse, et le droit commun du royaume pour toutes les matieres qui y sont traitées. Toulouse, 1770. Vaux de Cernay, Pierre de. Historia Albigensis. Eds. Pascal Guébin and Ernest Lyon. 3 vols. Paris, 1926-1939. C. SECONDARY STUDIES

Abels, Richard and Harrison, Ellen. “The Participation of Women in Languedocian Catharism.” Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979) 215-251. Alphandery, Paul. Les idées morales chez les hétérodoxes latins au début du XIITe siécle. Paris, 1903. d’Avray, David L. and Tausche, M. “Marriage Sermons in ad status Collections of

the Central Middle Ages.” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen-age 47 (1980) 71-119. Billar, P.P.A. “Birth Control in the Medieval West.” Past and Present 94 (1982) 3-26. Blanc, Alphonse. Le livre de comptes de Jacme Olivier, marchand narbonnais du X Ve siécle. Volume 2, part 2, all published. Paris, 1899. Bonnassie, Pierre. La Catalogne du milieu du Xe a la fin du XI siécle: Croissance et mutations dune société. 2 vols. Toulouse, 1975-1976. Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago, 1980. Boyer, Georges. “Remarques sur |’administration de Toulouse au temps d’Alphonse de Poitiers.” Mélanges I: Mélanges d histoire du droit occidental. Paris, 1962. Boyle, Leonard E., op. “Montaillou Revisited: Mentalité and Methodology.” In Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J.A. Raftis, pp. 119-140. Toronto, 1981. Brundage, James A. “Concubinage and Marriage in Medieval Canon Law.” Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975) 1-17. ———. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago and London, 1987.

SECONDARY STUDIES 221 Carbasse, Jean-Marie. “La condition de la femme mariée en Languedoc (XIlle-xIve siécles).” Cahiers de Fanjeaux 23 (1988) 99-112. ——. “Currant nudi; \a repression de |’adultére dans le Midi médiéval.” In Droit,

histoire et sexualité. Eds. Jacques Poumaréde and Jean-Pierre Royer, pp. 83-102. Lille, 1987. Catel, Guillaume. Histoire des Comtes de Tolose, avec quelques traitez et chroniques anciennes, concernans la mesme histoire. Toulouse, 1623. ——, Mémoires de l’histoire du Languedoc, curieusement et fidelément recueillis de

divers autheurs grecs, latins, francais et espagnols, et de plusieurs titres et chartes tirés des archifs des villes et communautez de la mesme province et autres circonvoisines. Toulouse, 1633.

Cau-Durban, D. Labbaye de Mas-dAzil. Foix, 1896. Chalande, Jules. “La maison publique municipale aux XVéme et XVlIéme siécle 4 Toulouse.” Mémoires de | Académie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-lettres de

Toulouse 10th Series 11 (1911), 65-86.

Delaruelle, Etienne. “Idéal de pauvreté 4 Toulouse au xiie siécle.” Cahiers de Fanjeaux 2 (1967) 64-84. Devereux, George. A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies. New York, 1976. Devic, Claude, and Vaissete, Jean. Histoire générale de Languedoc. (Privat edition) 15 vols. Toulouse, 1872-1893. Dollinger, Johann H. I. von. Beitrdge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. 2 vols. Munich, 1890; rpt. New York, 1960. Dossat, Yves. Les crises de l’inquisition toulousaine au XIIle siécle. Bordeaux, 1959. Douais, Célestin. “Des fortunes commerciales 4 Toulouse et de la topographie des églises et maisons religieuses de Toulouse d’aprés deux testaments (Xxille-xve siécle).” Mémoires de la Société archéologique du Midi 15 (1894) 25-51. ——. “Les Hérétiques du comté de Toulouse dans la premiére moitie du xille siecle d’aprés l’enquéte de 1245.” Bulletin théologique, scientifique et littéraire de l'Institut catholique de Toulouse n.s. 2 (1892) 160-173 and 206-209.

Duby, Georges. The Chivalrous Society. Tr. Cynthia Postan. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977. Duby, Georges and LeGoff, Jacques. Famille et parenté dans | occident médiéval. Rome 1977. Dutil, Leon. La Haute-Garonne et sa région. 2 vols. Toulouse and Paris, 1928-1929. Duvernoy, Jean. Le Catharisme: la réligion des Cathares. Toulouse, 1976. Esmein, Adhemar. Le mariage en droit canonique. 2nd ed., 2 vols. Paris 1891. Flandrin, Jean-Louis. Le sexe et l’'Occident. Paris, 1981. Fons, Victor. “Mémoire de M. Fons sur les Coutumes non écrites, relatives aux

gains de survie dans les pays qui forment le ressort actuel de la Cour de Toulouse.” Recueil de l’Académie de Législation de Toulouse 6 (1857) 116-146.

Fransen, G. “La formation du lien matrimonial au moyen age.” In Le lien matrimonial, eds. R. Metz and J. Schlick, pp. 106-126. Strasbourg, 1970. Gaudemet, Jean. Le mariage en Occident. Les moeurs et le droit. Paris, 1987.

222 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gilles, Henri. “Une cause d’injure a Toulouse 4 la fin du xille siecle.” Annales de la faculté de droit de Toulouse 17 (1969) 121-144. ——. “Le statute de la femme en droit Toulousain.” Cahiers de Fanjeaux 23 (1988) 79-97, Goodich, Michael. The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period. Santa Barbara and Oxford, 1979. Goody, Jack. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge, 1983. Griffe, Elie. Les débuts de laventure cathare en Languedoc, 1140-1190. Paris, 1969. Guebin, Pascal. “Les Amortissements d’Alfonse de Poitiers, 1247-1270.” Revue Mabillon (1925) 80-106, 133-144, 293-304, and (1926) 27-43. Guiraud, Jean. Histoire de l'inquisition au moyen-age. 2 vols. Paris, 1935-1938. ——. L'Inquisition médiévale. Paris, 1928. Tr. E.C. Messenger as The Medieval Inquisition. London, 1929.

Herlihy, David. “Land, Family and Women in Continental Europe, 701-1200.” Traditio 18 (1962) 89-100. ——. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA., 1985.

——., Women in Medieval Society. The Smith History Lecture 1971. Houston, 1971.

Hughes, Diane O. “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe.” Journal of Family History 3 (1978) 262-296. Jacquart, Danielle and Thomasset, Claude. Sexualité et savoir médical au moyen age. Paris, 1985. Kirshner, Julius. “Wives’ Claims against Insolvent Husbands in Late Medieval Italy.”

In Women of the Medieval World, eds. Julius Kirshner and Suzanne F. Wemple, pp. 256-303. Oxford, New York, 1985. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Le complexe de Griselde. Dot et dons de mariage au Quattrocento.” Mélanges de I’Ecole francaise de Rome 94 (1982) 7-43. —. Women, Family and Ritual in Renaissance Italy. Chicago, 1985. Koch, Gottfried. Frauenfrage und Ketzertum im Mittelalter: Die Frauenbewegung im Rahmen des Katharismus und des Waldensertums und ihre sozialen Wurzelin. Berlin, 1962. Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Bogomils to Hus. New York, 1976. Laribiére, G. “Le mariage 4 Toulouse aux xiv et xv siécles.” Annales du Midi 79 (1967) 335-358. LeBras, Gabriel. /nstitutions ecclésiastiques de la Chrétienté médiévale. Vol. 12, Histoire de l'église depuis les origines jusqua nos jours. Paris, 1959-1964. ——. “Le mariage dans la théologie et le droit de l’église du xie au Xille siécle.” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 11 (1968) 191-202. Lemaire, André. “Origine de la régle “‘Nullum sine dote fiat conjugium’.” In Mélanges Paul Fournier, pp. 418-422. Paris, 1929. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Montaillou, ville occitan de 1294 a 1324. Paris, 1975. Lewis, Archibald R. The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society, 718-1050. Austin, Texas, 1947.

SECONDARY STUDIES 223 Loengard, Janet Senderowitz. “‘Of the Gift of her Husband’: English Dower and its Consequences in the year 1200.” In Women of the Medieval World, eds. Julius Kirshner and Suzanne F. Wemple, pp. 215-255. Oxford, New York, 1985.

Martin, F.-E. “L’affaire de Pierre de Dalbs Abbe de Saint-Pierre de Lézat (1253-1254).” Le Moyen-dge 13 (1900) 38-56. Mayali, Laurent. Droit savant et coutumes. L exclusion des filles dotées XIlémeXVeme siécles. Frankfurt am Main, 1982. McNamara, Jo Ann and Wemple, Suzanne. “The Power of Women through the Family in Medieval Europe, 500-1100.” In Women and Power in the Middle Ages, eds. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski, pp. 83-101. Meynial, Edouard. “Renonciations au moyen-age et dans notre ancien droit.” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 25 (1901) 260ff. Mulholland, Sister Mary Ambrose, BvM. Early Gild Records of Toulouse. New York, 1941. ——., “Statutes on Clothmaking: Toulouse, 1227.” In Essays in Medieval Life and

Thought presented in Honor of Austin Patterson Evans. Eds. John Hine Mundy, Richard Wilder Emery and Benjamin N. Nelson, pp. 167-180. New York, 1955. Mundy, John Hine. “Charity and Social Work in Toulouse, 1100-1250.” Traditio 22 (1966) 203-287.

——. “The Farm of Fontanas at Toulouse - Two Families, a Monastery and a Pope.” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Lawn.s. 11 (1981) 29-40. —. Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 1100-1230. New York, 1952. ——. “The Origins of the College of Saint-Raymond at the University of Toulouse.” In Philosophy and Humanism, ed. Edward P. Mahoney, pp. 454-461. Leiden, 1976.

—. The Repression of Catharism at Toulouse: The Royal Diploma of 1279. Toronto, 1985. ——. “Urban Society and Culture: Toulouse and its Region.” In Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Eds. R.L. Benson and Giles Constable with C.D. Lanham, pp. 229-247. Cambridge MA, 1982. —. “Village, Town and City in the Region of Toulouse.” In Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J.A. Raftis, pp. 142-190. Toronto, 1981. Nelli, René. L érotique des troubadours. Toulouse, 1963. ——. La Vie quotidienne des Cathares du Languedoc au XIIle siécle. Paris, 1969. Noonan, John T. Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge MA, 1965.

Otis, Leah Lydia. Prostitution in Medieval Society. The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc. Chicago, 1985. Ourliac, Paul. “Lezat et Moissac — Note Additionelle,” Annales du Midi 77 (1965) 75-83. ——, “Les sauvetes du Comminges: Etude et documents sur les villages fondés par

les Hospitaliers dans la région des cOteaux Commingeois.” In his Etudes d'histoire du droit médiéval, pp. 31-111. Paris, [1979].

224 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ourliac, Paul and J. de Malafosse. Histoire du droit privé. 3 vols. Paris, 1957-1968. Puybusque, G.A. de. Contribution de lhistoire du vieux Toulouse: Généalogie de la famille de Puybusque. Toulouse, 1902. Riesenberg, Peter N. “Roman Law, Renunciations and Business in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” In Essays in Medieval Life and Thought presented in Honor of Austin Patterson Evans, eds. John Hine Mundy, Richard Wilder Emery and Benjamin N. Nelson, pp. 207-226. New York, 1955.

Sheehan, Michael M., css. “Choice of Marriage Partner in the Middle Ages. Development and Mode of Application of a Theory of Marriage.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, new series, I (1978) 1-34. Vicaire, Marie-Humbert, op. Dominique et ses précheurs. Paris-Fribourg, 1977. Vidal, Jean-Marie. “Esclarmonde de Foix dans l’histoire et le roman.” Revue de Gascogne n.s. 11 (1911) 53-79. Wolff, Philippe. Commerce et marchands de Toulouse vers 1350 - vers 1450. Paris, 1954. ——. Les Estimes Toulousaines des XIVe et XVe siécles. Paris and Toulouse, 1956.

——. Nouvelle histoire de Toulouse. Toulouse, 1974. Yver, Jean. Egalité entre héritiers et exclusion des enfants dotés: Essai de géographie coutumiere. Paris, 1966. Zancarol, Jacques. L’Evolution des idées sur lavortement provoquée: Etude morale et juridique. Paris, 1934.

Index

Abela, Pons 173 Arnalda 143, 145, 150-151, 156, 160

Abraham 155 Arnaud-Bernard Gate xiii, 67, 129 “actio” 10-11 Arnesp, Raymond de 60, 202, 208

Adevus, Bernard 160 Amold, “Magister”, 58, 204 Agassa, Peter 161 Arnold Ramundi prior of Peyrissas 210 “agenciamentum” 91 Arpadella, Arnold 18 Aimengarda 144, 147, 152 Arsenda 131

Aimereit 144 Artilhaco, Bertand de 208 Aimersenda 42 Asolo, Bernard de 150 Aiscius, Arnold 145, 186 Astre (or Astro) 173

Aladaicia 143, 146, 150, 156 Astro “qui vocabatur Monsacutus”, Peter

Alamanda 131, 136, 155 182

Alasaicia, see Aladaicia Astro de Bruno, Pons 174

Albiaco, Peter de 208 Astro, Aimeric 182

Albigensian Crusade 123 Astro, Berengar 72, 74, 77, 87, 112, 156,

Albigeois xi 174, 179, 180, 188-189 Alcaya 156, 179, 189 Astro, Bernard Aimeric 182

Alchaia, see Alcaya Astro, Bernard Pons 173 Aldiarda 83, 135, 148 Astro, Bernard Raymond 174-175, 180, 182 Alexander of Roes 7 Astro, Calvet 174-175, 180 Alfario, Raymond de 159 Astro, John 72, 77, 84, 104, 112, 155-156,

Alice 119 180-181, 188-189 Alpais 31, 155 Astro, Peter 173

Alphonse de Poitiers, count of Toulouse | Astro, Peter Raymond 182, 187

18-19, 25, 35, 68, 130, 184 Astro, Peter Raymond, see Raymond Peter

Altarippa, Bernard de 145 Astro

Altarippa, William 144 Astro, Pons 173-175, 182 Amelius, Arnold 160 Astro, Pons William 143, 174, see also

Amelius, Bernard 150 William Pons Astro “amici” 98 Astro, Raymond Arnold 174, 179, 180 Amicus, Bertrand 145 Astro, Raymond Peter 175, 180-181 Amilhac, Bartholomew 87 Astro, Raymond William 182

Amnesty of 1279 35 Astro, Stephen 101, 135, 146, 174, 178,

“ancilla” 204 180, 182 “ancilla” of Montredon 205 Astro, William Pons 38, 143, 173-175, Andreas 202 179-181 Andrew the Chaplain 64, 119 Astro, William Raymond 182 Anglica 141 Astrug 155 “antecabada” 102 Aton, Bernard 145 apheresis “na” 37 Audiarda 139

Ar. prior of Sainte-Colombe 202 Augerius 74, 201, 208

Aragon 90 “augmentum” 9 1 Aragone, Arnold de 199 Aura, William de 173 Archana, Ar. de 202 Auriac 71

226 INDEX Auriaco, Peter Raymond de 155 Bernard Jordan III, lord of Isle-Jourdain 31,

Aurimunda 11, 149 146, 149, 153 Aussonne 146 Bernard, William 218

Austaderius, Arnold 154 Bernarda 70, 131, 135, 138, 141, 143, 146,

Auterive xi 179 Auxio, Bernard de 155 Bernarda Barrava 190

Austorga 115 148, 151-153, 157-158, 160-161, 174, Auxio, William de 155 Berta 80-81 Auzilho, Peter de 151 Bertranda 155 Avignonet xi Bessencs, William de, abbot of Moissac

Ax-les-Thermes 56-57, 203 20-21, 52, 195, 199-201

Aymengarda 157 Bessens 199 Aymengarda Companha 28 Bessiéres 97, 147 Azalbertus 186 Bevila, G. de 202

Bigoti, Raymond 208

B Johannis prior of Peyrissas 202, 209 Bihhaco, see Binheco

Babilonia 85, 126, 132 Billar, P. P. A. 5

“pailia” 38 Binheco, Peter de 207-208 VI 79 Birnos, Ademar de 54, 202-204

Baldwin, natural brother of Count Raymond _ Biraco, William de 75, 202

Baragnon Cross xiv Blagnac 185 Baranonus, Bruno 196 Blanca 203

Baranonus, Raymond 135 Blanca “pedisseca” 205 Barbaordeus, Arnold 147 Boerius, Bernard 160 Bardolesia, see Bordolesia Boissazone, Raymond de 153

Barona 71 Bolhaco, William Peter de 152

Barravi, William, of Foix 129 Bona 25, 107, 110, 112, 141, 145, 150, 157,

Barravus de Hospitale 190 174, 190-193

Barravus, Bernard 199, 200, 202 Bonafos 133, 157

Barravus, Bertrand 198 Bonetus, William 148 Barravus, Roger 149, 199 Bonnassie, Pierre 5

Barrera, Vital 202 Bordalesia, see Bordolosia Bartha, Raymond 70 Bordolesia 38, 40, 159, 161 Bascol, Raymond 26, 112, 141 Bosco, Peter de 135

Bastide-Saint-Sernin 160 Bosco, Raymond de 135 Bazacle Mills xiii, 129, 215 Bosencontres 161

Bazacle Bridge xiii Boswell, John 5

Beatrice de Lagleize (Planissoles) 87, 121 Bourguet-Nau xiii Beaumanoir, Philip de Rémi, lord of 83,128 | Boyle, Father Leonard 52

Beauzelle Boysazo 36 Beguines146 45 Bretx 159

Belcastel 150 Brugariis, William de 161

Beloti, Peter Bernard 186 Bruna 154, 159-160, 186

Belotus 202 Brundage, James A. 5, 6 Belotus, Arnold Peter 145 Bruneti, Raymond 208

Belsoleil 174 Brunissenda 83, 151, 161, 174-175

Benedicta 54 Bruno, Arnold de 202

Benedicta de Bordis 205 Brus Martina 133

Benedictus, Peter 149 Brus, A. den 209

Berengar 76 Buguet 174

Bermunda 147, 186 Burelli, Jacob 130 Bernard Jordan II, lord of Isle-Jourdain 37, | Busqueto, William de 144 136, 139, 149

INDEX 227 Cabiblancus, William 138 Catharism, see Cathars Cabirollus, Peter 134 Cathars 2-4, 23, 41-42, 44, 70, 78, 115-116,

Cabirollus, Pons 134 123-124, 182-183, 188

Cabirollus, Raymond 134 Causida 156 Cagarafes 68 Cazéres 196 Caissaco, Petrona de 56 Cépet 32, 146, 153

Calvetus, Arnold 152 Chalande, Jules 68

Calvetus, Raymond 137 Charitable bequests 163

Camarada, Lombarda de 142 Chartres, Reginald de 214, 218

Cambiac 42, 71 Chateau Narbonnais xiv, 13, 129, 143 “Caminus franciscus” or “francigene”, also Clara 147

“camina Francigena” 175, 183 Clares monastery of the sisters of Saint

Campanha, John de 159 Damian 45, 215

Campdol 181, 183, 187 Claromonte, William Peter de 134

Campdolent 190 Claverius, Raymond 138

Canedo, see Caneto Clergue, Peter 52, 87, 121 Caneto, Arnold de 135 Clermont-Savés 146

Caneto, Peter de 135, 149 Close of Saint-Sernin 174, 183, 186, 189 Caneto, William de 135, 149 Close of Urset de Limoges 175

Caniaco, Michael de 202 “cognatio et parentela” 112

“Canso” 119 “collocatio” 25

Capati, G. 201 Colomber, Arnold de 131 Capdenier 131 Colomiers 36, 146, 179 Capellarius, Grimald 145, 148, 152 Coltellarius, William 133

Capellerius, see Capellarius Columbus, Bernard 159, 161 Capitedenario, Bernard de 10 Comba Salomon 155 Capitedenario, Pons de 10, 16, 109, 145, Comdor 54, 57, 61-62, 74-75, 122, 205

149, 180 Commentary on the Custom of Toulouse 18, Capitole xiii, 14, 129 41, 68, 73, 113-114, 127-130, 184 Caraborda, Pons 146 Comminges xi, 195 Carabordas, Stephen 178 Comminges Bridge xiii

Caraman xi Comptors 155 Caramanno, William Peter de 137 “consolamentum” 91

Carbasse, Jean-Marie 1x Constancia 137, 150

Carmelites xiv Corbait, Gerald 209

Carmelites, monastery 177 Cornebarrieu 144, 146 Casalibus, Raymond de 209 Corneilhano, Peter de 160

Cassers 50 Corregerius, Peter 143

Castaneto, Pons Raymond de 158 Cossano, Bernard Peter de 179

Castanhaco, Peter de 209 Cossano, Bertransd de 148, 179 Castanherius, William 152 Costancia, see Constancia

Castelginest 154, 173 Cresty, Claude 215, 217

Castellana 140 Cruce, William Martinus de 158 Castelnau-d’Estretefons xi Curtasolea, Stephen 154, 186

Calstelnaudary xi, 28, 69 Curva 96, 147

Castelsarrasin xi, 199-200 Custom of Carcassonne 31

Castilhonus 138 Custom of Montpellier 31

Castillon 173 Custom of Toulouse 17, 23-24, 26-27, 30, Castilone, Gerald de 131 32, 81, 90, 92, 94-95, 98-99, 113-114, Castronovo “maior”, Aimeric de 140, 144 125, 130

Castronovo, Stephen de 154 Custom of Toulouse 17, 23-24, 26-27, 30, Catalan woman at Puigcerda 205 32, 81, 90, 92, 94-95, 98-99, 113-114,

Catalonia 89 125, 130

228 INDEX Dalbade parish church xiv, 14, 84, 197,214, | Duncressa 205

215 Durbano, Raymond [de] 209

Dalbis, see Dalbs Duvernoy, Jean 5 Dalbs 196-197

Dalbs, Bernard de 196 Endia, see India Dalbs, Peter de 20-21, 23, 37, 50-53, 62-63, | Endouvielle 146

72, 75, 195-197, 199-201, 207 Englesia 134, 148, 153, 160, 162

Dalbs, Raymond 196 Ermengarda 120, 143, 174, 177-178 Dalbs, Thomas de 196, 198, 200 Ermesenda, see Ermesendis

Dalbs, William Arnold de 197 Ermesendis 138, 140-141 Dalbs, William de 196, 198, 201 Esbauditus, Raymond 146

Dasca, Bernard 148 Escarona 136

Daughter of Garsia Faber 205 Esclarmonda, see Esclarmunda Daughter of Gausia, Huga or Navarra 205 Esclarmunda 23, 60, 104, 131, 132,

Daughter of Lumbarda 205 135-136, 143-145, 147, 155 Daughter of Raymond Jordanus 205 Esclarmunda of Foix 118 Daurade Bridge, see New or Daurade Bridge _—_ Escossa, Raymond de 156

Daurade monastery, priory and parish church Esmein, Adhémar 5 xiii, 14, 20, 25, 129, 195-197, 199-200, Estacabiau 158, 175, 178

214 Estanca, Peter de 151

Daurade, Sisters of 46 Estevena 156 Daux 196 “estime”, see Tax estimation of Toulouse David, Bernard 133 Estultus, Raymond 161 David, Bertrand 133, 139 Evans, Austin P. 1, 9 David, Pons 97, 106-107, 133, 139 “exceptiones” 99

Decimarius, Gerald 173-174 Exclarmunda, see Esclarmunda

Deide 137, 157 Exclarmunda daughter of Gausia 205 Descalquenquis, Bertrand 157 Eymengarda, see Ermengarda Descossa, see Iscocia

; Deusaiuda, see Deide Faber 142

Devesa, Raymond de 137 Faber, Garsia 58 Dezmer, see Decimarius Faber, Isarn 132

Dias 174, 178 Faber, Peter 69 Doat, Jean de 217 Faber, Raymond 90, 132 Dohaz 149 Fabrissa 142, 144, 155

Domina 143 Fabrissa de Turri 70, 74, 205

“domina”, “dominus” 36-37 Falgar, see Falgario “domina et potens” 37-38 Falgario, Raymond de, bishop of Toulouse

Dominic 142 19, 57

Dominic of Osma (Saint Dominic) 67, 109 —‘ Falgario, Thomas de 57

Dominicans xiii, 45, 158, 194, 197, 215 Fanjeaux 85, 125, 191

“donatio propter nuptias” 88-89 Fiac 140

“dos” 88-89, 92, see also Dowries or “dotes” Figueras, Guillems 64

and Marriage Portions “filia”, and “filtus naturalis” 76 “dotalicium” 87-88, 92, see also Marriage Flamenca 119

Gifts and Marriage Portions Flandrin, Jean-Louis 5

Douais, Celestin | Flora 205

Dovezinus, Raymond 138 Flos 82, 111, 182, 156, 159

Dowries or “dotes” 167 Foix xi, 20, 90, 105

Dozillus, Peter 160 Font Marciana 190

Duby, Georges 5, 7 Fontanas 181, 183, 186

Duke of Monmouth 126 Fontevrault, monastery and order 44

Dulcia 150 Fontmarsan 181, 183, 186-187, 189

INDEX 229 Foresio, Gerald de 155 Goodich, Michael 5

Fortis, Bernard 146 Goody, Jack 4, 6, 8, 29

Fortuna 205 Gouzens, Arnold de 214 Fournier, Jacques, bishop of Pamiers 20, Goza, Stephen de 159

42-43, 47 Gozinus, William 142

Francuscans xiii, 45, 158 Gracia 145, 148, 152 Francisqua 104, 146, 153 Grandselve xi, 10

“fratrisca” 101 Grandselve monastery 94, 131, 158, 188, “Frauenbewegung” 45-46 190, 216, 218 Frezelato, Bruno de 138 Grauzida 156 Frezelato, Raymond de 138 Grenade-sur-Garonne 196

Fronte, Arnold de 142 Griffe, Elie 1

Fulk of Marseille, bishop of Toulouse 67, Grillus, Bernard 132

185 Grillus, Peter Bernard 132

Furnarius, see Furnerius Grillus, Peter Raymond 133 Furerius, Arnold 141, 148 Grillus, Pons 133 Furnerius, Bernard 140, 190-191, 193 Grillus, William Raymond 132

Furnerius, Peter 190 Grisolles 173

Furnerius, Pons 110, 144, 148, 193 Gros, Raymond 42

Furnerius, Raymond 136-137 Gualarda, see Galharda Gui, Bernard 12

Gaitapodium, William John 145, 186 Guibert de Tournai 83, 122

Galarda, see Galharda Guido 143

Galaubi, William 58, 209 Guido, Peter 191 Galhaco, Peter de 157 Guilabertus, Arnold 159 Galharda 59, 146, 150, 174, 205 Guilabertus, Raymond 148

Galterius, Raymond 137 Guillelma 27, 133, 135, 138, 141, 143, 146,

Galterius, Vital 76, 137, 155 158-159

Gamevilla, William de 96-97, 147 Guillelma de Vesceriis 152

Gameville 77 Guillelma Guidona 137 Ganterius, Ademar 150 Guillelmus, Raymond 27

Ganterius, Bernard 141 Guiraud, Jean | “gardiage” of Toulouse xi Guy 64

Garaldi, Raymond 209 Guisona, Bernarda 156 Garinus, Bernard 154

Garnerius, Bernard Raymond 139 Helia 159

Garsenda 131, 139, 141 Herlihy, David 4, 6

Garsie, G. 202 Hermengarda 205

Gascony Xi “hospita” of Puigcerda 205 Gauda 147 “hospita” of Seo de Urgel 205 Gaudemet, Jean 5 “hospita” of Ultra Portus 205

Gausia (Gausina) 59-61, 205 Hospital of Jerusalem, see Hospitalers

Gauzida 196 Hospital of Saint-Raymond 157

Gauzios 155 Hospitalers xiv, 13, 97, 106, 134, 139, 144,

Genser (Gensers) 150, 152 155, 157, 161, 180, 190, 192-193, 216

Geoffrey d’Ablis 20 Huga 61, 205

Geralda 145, 148, 157, 191 Hugh, cardinal of Santa Sabina 199

Geraldus, Peter 140 Hugh, prior of Lezat 50, 72, 201 Gilles, Henri ix Hugh, prior of Sainte-Colombe 51, 209 Gitbertus, William 148 Hughes, Diane 5, 8, 29 Godus de Vadigia, Arnold 158 Humbert of Romans 118

Gontaud, P. 202 Hylarda 42

230 INDEX India 77-79, 89, 138-139, 149 Laurac 69-70, 82

Inquisition 123-124 Lauragais xi, 195

“instrumentum” 10-11 Laurentius, Raymond 132

Insula, Bernard de 139 Lautrec xi, 77

Insula, Raymond Jordan de 158 Lautrico, Gilbert de, viscount of Lautrec Insula, William Raymond de 106, 138 138-140 Isarn Jordan, lord of Verfeil 78, 140 Lautrico, Hugh de 140

Iscocia, Raymond de 209 Lautrico, Peter Ermengrave de, viscount of

Isle-de-Tounis xiii Lautrec 138, 140

Isle-en-Jourdain, see Isle-Jourdain Lavaur xi, 138

218 Le Cluzel 146 Ispaniolus, Raymond 133 Le Roi Ladurie, Emmanuel 3, 5, 20, 41, 52, Isle-Jourdain xi, 29, 77, 96, 102, 105, 214, | Lavavaisel, Arnold 144 87

Jacma 160 Leguevin 146 Jacob 96, 134 Lemay, Helen Rodnite ix

Jacobins, see Dominicans Lentilhaco, William de Lambres, see Lambes

Jacquart, Danielle 5 209

Jacques de Vitry 83 Lerida, Dominic 142 Jefferson, Thomas 7 Lerida, Raymond 142

Joclar, Raymond 125 Lesato, William de 209

Joculator, Jordan 133 Lespinasse monastery 44-45, 146, 149, 178,

Joculator, Tolosan 133 182, 216

Johanna 135, 151, 158-159, 174-175 Levignac 146

Johanne, Pons de 154 Lezat xi, 24, 77, 195, 200, 203

Johannes “hospitalarius” 137 Leézat monastery 20, 23, 49, 51, 197, 214,

Johannes, Arnold 154 218

Johannes, Hugh 32, 34, 146, 152-153 Lissaco, Peter de 132

Johannes, Raymond 154 Lissaco, Raymond de 86, 132

Johannes, William 192 Lladros 87 John of Freiburg 64 Loengard, Janet 5

Jordan III, lord of Isle-Jourdain 29, 136 Lomagne xi Jordan IV, lord of Isle-Jourdain 78, 149, Lombarda 118, 142, see also Lumbarda

153, 155 Lombarda de Camarada 96, 99

Jordana 147, 205 Lonbarda, see Lombarda

Jordana de Monte Athone 205 Longages monastery 44, 49, 198

Jordanus, Raymond 204 Lorenz curve 14

Jorius 209 Louis [X, king of France 68-69 Luganno, Bernard de 139, 141

Karolus, Peter 137 Luganno, Peter de 132

Kirshner, Julius ix, 5 Lumbarda 131, 157, 205 Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane 5 Lumbarda of Muret 204

Lumbardus, Bernard 157 La Devéze 173

La Pierre and its Square xiii, 68, 129 Mabelia 115, 139, 141, 150

Lambes, Arnold de 209 Macellarius, John 155

Lambes, Raymond de 142 MacNamara, Jo Ann ix, 5

Languedoc 89 Magister, Pons 160 Lanta xi, 42, 82, 95, 103, 105, 144 Magister, William 160 Laribiére, A. 5 Maiestre, Arnold 28

Lascrosses Gate xiii Mainaderie Hospital 149, 175

Launac 173 Malafosse, J. de 5 Laura, Raymond William de 36 Malamorte 174

INDEX 231 Malta, see Hospitalers Medicus, Stephen 143

Manso, Arnold de 155 Melgueil 89 Manso, Bernard 155 Melio 57 Manso, Gilbert de 155 Melior 54, 205 Manso, Jacob de 155 Mercerius, Arnold 160 Manso, Peter de 155 “meretrix” 205 Manso, Raymond Arnold de 155 Meynial, Edouard 5

Manso, Raymond de 155 Milescenda 73 Maornacho, see Maornaco Mills of the Chateau Narbonnais 185 Maornaco, Pons de 209 Milton, John 7 Maornaco, Ricarda 62 Miramonte, Bernard de 16, 32-33, 103, 104, Marcafaba, Bertrand de 209 106, 147, 153-154 Marcello, Bernard de 27 Miramonte, Peter de 146 Marcibilia 101, 145, 180-181, 186-189 Miromonte, Sicard de 210

Marestagno, Bernard 146 Moissac xi Marestaing 102 Moissac monastery xiii, 14, 20, 160, 195,

Maria 90, 132, 134, 151, 160 197, 199-200, 207, 214

Marina 180 Molinarius, Gerald 191, 192-193

Marisibilia, see Marcibilia Monbru, Peter de 133 Marissibilia, see Marcibilia Montaillou $2, 87, 121

Marita 141 Montald, Odon de 135 Marquesia 147, 158 Montardy Square xiii Marriage Gifts or “dotalicia” 168 Montauban xi

Marriage Portions 165, 169 Montaudran 174

Marsibilia, see Marcibilia Montaut xi

Martin prior of Saint-Paul 209 Montaygon Square xiii

Martina 59, 74, 135, 205 Monte Aragone, G. de 202

Martinus 202 Montecuto, Bernard de 182

Martinus, Pons 140 Montealto, Raymond de 56, 58, 202, 210 Martinus, Raymond 147 Montealto, Sicard de 147 Martinus, Terrenus 134 Montedayto, Arnold de 202 Martinus, William 139, 141 Montégut 183 Mary Magdalen, sisters of 46, 67 Montelauro, Raymond de 142 Mas-d’Azil monastery 195, 197 Montels, Raymond de 62

Mas-Sainte-Puelles 28, 70, 71 Montels, William de 210

Mascaron, provost of Saint-Etienne 142 Montepesato, Raymond de 202

Mascarosa 102, 146, 161 Monterodono, P. de 202 Matabiau Gate xiii Montesquieu, C. L. J. de Secondat de 7 Mateudz, see Matheva Montgaillard Gate xiv Mateuz, see Matheva 41, 150 Montgiscard 142

Mateva, see Matheva 185 Montiaur 142

Matfredi, William Aton 210 Montmazalguer 173

Mathelda 138 Montoulieu Gate xiv

Matheuz, see Matheva Montpellier, custom of 31 Matheva 41, 77, 84, 87, 96, 101, 104, Montréal 120 109-110, 112, 145, 150, 153, 155-156, | Montredon, priory 60

180, 185, 187-189 Morrug, G. 202 “matrimonium” 89 Mota, William 159

Mauranda de Turre 161 Mota, William John 159

Maurandus “vetus” 115, 150 Motte-Saint-Hilaire 174 Maurandus, Ademar 77, 161 Mulholland, Mary Ambrose 19

Maury, Peter 42-43 Munda 54-56, 59, 61-62, 72, 74-75, 77, 205

Mayali, Laurent 5 Murello, Peter de 134

232 INDEX Murello, Raymond de 148, 210 “patrocinium” 22 Murello, Raymond de, see Ventenaco, Ray- Paulus 161

mond de 150 Peitavina 137

Muret xi, 20, 53-54, 58, 75, 84, 98, 112, Pelerius, Raymond 102, 138

140, 191, 195-196, 203 Pelfort 136

Pelisson, William 197

Najaco, Bernard Amalvinus de 156 Pelliparius, Hugh Willelmus 151

Najaco, Bernard de 134 Perdelhano, Odo de 155

Nalpais 153 Perela, Raymond de 147 Naraina, see Raina Peter Johannis 209 naRayna, see Raina Petra, Pons de 154

Navarra 61, 205 Petri, William 75

Nelli, Raoul 5 Petrona 73, 77, 79, 131, 133-134, 137, 149, Nempze, William de 38, 159 160-161, 191

Nepos, German 156 Petrona de Brugal 206

Nepos, Peter 156 Petrona de Caissac 206

Neuve Gate xiv Petrona de Tonenquis 84, 98, 101, 107, 109, New Bridge (the modern one) xii 110-111, 140, 148, 190, 192, 194 New or Daurade Bridge xiii Petrona, alias Bordolesia 159

Niger, William 143-145 Petrus, Bernard 160

Nigretus, Raymond Peter 156, 180, 189 Peyrissas, priory 50, 55

Noerio, William de 210 Philippa 136

Nomais 58, 61, 204, 205 Philippa, countess of Toulouse 44

Nona, Arnold 151 Pibrac 144

Noonan, John T. 5 Pibraco, Arnold Raymond de 144 Pictavina 134, 156

Obica 136 Pictavina, Peter de 144 Odo Rigaldi (Eudes Rigaud), archbishop of _Pictavinus 132

Rouen 49 “pignora” 30

Official of Toulouse 198 Plan Saguet xii

Old Bridge xiii, 185 “poderagium” 97

Orbria 71 Podio de Boysazo, Bernard de 151 Orto, Peter William de 155 Podio de Boysazo, Raymond de 151

Ortolanus, Bernard 133 Podio, Arnold de 160

Otis, Leah Lydia 5, 66, 69 Podio, Bernard de 36, 153, 159

Ourliac, Paul 5 Podio, Raymond de 36, 151

Ovelherius de Villanova, Peter 156 Podiobuscano, Raymond de 38, 40, 159, 161

P. B. “capellanus” of Lezat 202 Poitiers 68-69

Paganus, Peter 161 Poncia 140, 142 Pagesia 97, 139 Portaria xiii, 33, 153

Pairolerius, Arnold 84 Portaria, Raymond Aton de 143 Pairolerius, William 150 Potus, Bernard 140, 146 Palatium, see Capitole and Chateau Narbon- _—Pousonville Gate xiii

nais Pouvourville 140, 196

Pamiers 23, 48, 195 Pradela, B. de 202

Paolaco, Gerlad Bernard 147 Pratlong 189-190 Paolaco, Peter Bernard de 147 Prima 131, 190

“parapherna” 26, 95 “prima dos” 89 Paris 144 Proba 148 Paterno, G. de 202 Probus, William 150 Paterno, Peter de 204 “puella” 206

Paterno, Sancius de 57 Puer, Arnold 155

INDEX 233 Puer, Pons 140 Ricsenda 55, 132, 134, 158, 190, 206 Puigcerda 55-56, 203 Riesenberg, Peter 5

Puteoclauso, Arnold Pons de 140 Ripparie, Bernard Raymond 146 Puybusque, see Podiobuscano 15 Riqua 133, 158, 160 Rixendis 161

Quercy xi Rixandis, Peter 84, 150 Roaix Square xiv

Ra. operarius 201 Roaxio, Alaman de 107

Rabastens xi Roaxio, Arnold de 135

Rabat 116 Roaxio, Bernard de 187

Radulfus, Bernard 156, 159 Robianus, Raymond 154 Radulphus, see Radulfus Rocaforte, Aimeric de 147

Raina 15, 36 Rocamadour 74

Raina, William Amold de 183 Rocovilla, Bernard Peter de 136

Raina, William de 184 Rocovilla, Peter de 131, 136 Raina, William John de 185 Roja 71

Rainaldus, Raymond 148 Roman, cardinal of Sant’Angelo 19, 34, 153,

Ramonville 140 187 Ramunda 32, 54, 57, 71, 102, 125, 132, Rossellus, John 145, 186 138, 143-146, 148, 150-154, 156-157, | Rossellus, Peter 202

159, 161, 180, 182, 203-204, 206 Rossellus, William 101, 104, 145, 153,

Ramunda from “Monteroso” 204 186-187, 190

Ramunda from Saint-Ybars 204 Rotbertus, Vital 152

Ramunda Grossa 204, 206 Rufatus, Peter 150

Ramunda Julia 204, 206 Rufatus, Pons 150 Ramunda of Monteroso 206 Raseire, Faure 124 S., prior of Montredon 202

Raterius 131, 136 Sabata, B. 57, 61, 202 Raymond 139, 154 Sagnator, Bernard 161

Raymond Athonis 208 Saint Augustine, sisters of 46 Raymond VI, count of Toulouse 29, 34,77 Saint-Agnan 138, 150 Raymond VII, count of Toulouse 18, 19, 184 Saint-Antoine, priory and hospital 20, 54-55,

Raymond, cardinal of Sant’Angelo 201 61, 74, 196, 198, 214

Rayna, see Raina Saint-Antonin, see Saint-Antoine Raynaldus de Dealbata, Raymond 194 Saint-Barthélemy xiv, 14, 97 Recalt, see Recalto Saint-Béat, priory 58, 61 Recalto, Raymond de 133, 138, 158 Saint-Bernard College 190, 216

Ricaud, see Recalto Saint-Caprais 173 Redon 174 Saint-Cyprien xii, 14, 66, 159, 174

Regannus, Peter 144 Saint-Etienne parish church and cathedral

Regannus, Stephen 144 xiv, 14, 129, 149, 217 Regerannus, Raymond Peter 141 Saint-Génies 158, 175, 183 renunciations 99 Saint-Georges church xiii, 129 Resengas, Peter de 115 Saint-Germier priory at Muret 203 Resplandi, Raymond 214 Saint-Gilles 204 Responsa doctorum Tholosanorum 18, 38,80 Saint-Jacques church xiv

81, 90, 103, 109, 113-114 Saint-Jacques hospital 46

Restolerius, Pons 134 Saint-Julien church xiii

Reula, William de 210 Saint-Martin-de-la-Lande 125

Revelli, Arnold 156 Saint-Michel xii, xiv

Rica 131, 133, 141 Saint-Michel-de-Montsabaoth priory 196

Ricarda 73, 134, 151, 155, 157 Saint-Nicholas parish church xiii, 14

Ricardia, see Ricarda Saint-Nicholas-de-la-Grave 199

234 INDEX Saint-Pierre, John de 214 Shilling of Melgueil 163 Saint-Pierre de Moissac, see Moissac monas- _ Shilling of Toulouse 163

tery Shilling of Tours 163

Saint-Pierre-des-Cuisines priory and parish Sibilia 137, 140, 143-144, 157, 160, 173

church xiii, 14 Sibilia de Falgario 57, 61, 206

Saint-Pierre-Saint-Géraud church xiii, 214, Sicarda 30, 93, 135, 140

216 Simon de Montfort, count of Toulouse 119,

Saint-Pierre-Saint-Martin church xiii 191-192

Saint-Quentin church xiii Sister of Magister Arnold 206 Saint-Remézy (sometimes Rémézy), hospital Sister of William Galaubi 206

and chapel, see Hospitalers Sita, Arnold de 210 Saint-Remy, see Saint-Remézy Siuraco, Pons de 74 Saint-Roman church xiii Sobaccus, Peter 84, 87, 104, 153, 156, 185, Saint-Salve parish church of Daux 196, 198 187-190

Saint-Sauveur 173 Sobaccus, Raymond 153, 185, 187 Saint-Sernin confraternity 178, 182 Sobaccus, William 153, 185, 188-189 Saint-Sernin monastery and parish church Sobaquus, see Sobaccus

xiii, 11, 34, 173-175, 215n 217 Sobatges, see Sobaccus

Saint-Sernin hospital 46 Dobirana 174 Saint-Victor church xiv Socardi, Raymond 57, 203 Saint-Ybars 23-24, 55, 57 “societas” 38 Sainte-Colombe, priory 60 Soréze monastery 50

Saissetus, Raymond 138, 150 “sponderia”, “sponderius” 38 Saissetus, William, lord of Lavaur 138, 150 “sponsalitium” 89

Saissius, Jordan 71 “spuria”, “spurius” 75-760 Saissius, William 71 Stephana 139, 147, 149 Salamandra 144 Stephanus, Bernard 143 Salies, Arnold de 57 Stephen “presbiter” 210

Salin 129 Street “de Banquis” 180

“Salvetat” 13 Street “de Buzetis” 148, 194

Samatano, Bernard de 96, 99, 142, 154 Street “de scola Judeorum” 146

Sancius, Raymond 157 Street “de Sesqueriis” (Rue Maltache) 177 Sancto Caprario, Martin de 157 Street “de Sposterla” 191 Sancto Christallo, William Gasc de 157 Street “maior” in the Bourg (rue du Taur)

Sancto Genesio, Arnold Bernard de 161 180 Sancto Martino, Bernard de 151 Street of Bertrand David 68 Sancto Martino, Pons de 180 Street of Comminges (rue des Moulins) 66

Sancto Pastore, G. de 202 Street of Joutx-Aigues xiv

Sancto Remedio, Raymond de 132 Street of Saint-Remeézy 194 Saptalina 83, 148, 150-151, 159, 162 Street “Sancti Remigii” 160

Saquils 145 Surdus, Peter 149 Saracen Wall xiii Surdus, Pons 139 Sarraceni, Raymond 210 Symunda 152

Saurimonda, see Saurimunda

Saurimunda 76, 154-155 Tabula, Bernard de 145 Saussia 72, 74, 77, 112, 156, 180, 189 Taur parish church xiii, 14, 48, 65, 157

Saverdun xi, 58-60, 63, 202 Tax estimation of Toulouse 13

Sclarmunda 133 Tellenbach, Gerd 7

Scriptor, Raymond 106, 210 Templars xiv, 13, 196, 214

Sebelia, see Sibilia Temple, see Templars Seo de Urgel 20, 57, 203 Terrida, Odo de 158

Septa 150 Teulet, Alexandre 19 Sherwood (Mantz), Merriam 9 Textor, John 134

INDEX 235 Thil 159 Vasco, William 140 Tholosa, see Tolosa Ventenaco, Raymond de 150 Thoma 143, 203 Verdun xi

Thoma “ancilla” 206 Verfeil xi, 30, 93

Thomasia 160 Verniolles, Arnold de 47

Thomasset, Claude 5 Vetera Tolosa, Bernard Raymond de 139 Ticburga, see Titburga Veteravinea, Pons Stephen de 148

Titburga 133, 146, 179 Veziata 151

Titburgis, see Titburga vicarage of Toulouse xi

Titius 80-81 Vidal, Peire 64

Tolosa, Arnold de 143 Vidal, see Vitalis Tolosa, Bernard Raymond de 180, 156 Vierna 132

Tolosa, Peter de 133, 143, 150 Villa, Peter de 210

Tolosa, Peter Raymond de 143 Villanova, Gerald de, abbot of Lézat 21, 201,

Tolosa, Toset de 133, 156, 189 207

Tolosa, William de 133 Villanova, John de 131, 136

Tolosana 155 Villanova, Peter de 131, 202, 210 Tolosanus, Raymond 133 Villanova, William Atho de 210

Toloscius, Pons 193 Villata, Raymond 135 Tonencs, see Tonenquis Villemur xi

Tonenquis, John de 191 Villeneuve Gate xiil Tonenquis, Jordan 191 Viridifolio, Isarn de 135 Tonenquis, Peter Guy de 191, 193 Vitalia 140, 142, 193 Tonenquis, Raymond de 190-191, 193 Vitalis 10 Tonenquis, William de 140, 191 Vitalis, Bernard 154

Tonenx 191 Vitalis, Peter 156, 158 Torrindo, John de 160 Vivas 140, 146

Trageto, Bernard John de 157 Vivas, Pons 158 Trenca, Bruno 131

Trencavel, Raymond, viscount of Béziers 29 Waldensians 3, 23, 44

Trioleta 23-24, 56, 58, 202, 206 Wemple, Suzanne 5

Trobat, Peter 68 Willelma 55, 70, 72, 100, 134, 135-137, Turre, Bernard de 161 141, 144-145, 148, 150, 152, 154-155, Turre, Bertrand de 160-161 157, 190 Turre, Peter de 152 Willelma Companha 28, 70 Turre, Vasco de 178 Willelma de Furno 84, 150 Turre, William de 38, 143, 177 Willelma de Sarramezano 146

Turribus, William de 140 Willelma de Tolosa 138

Willelma Restoleria 138

Ugoleni, Raymond 210 Willelma Roberta 182 Ultra portus (either Porta or Porte-Puymo- Willelma Torneria 71

rens) 56-57, 203 Willelmota, Arnold 148

Umbertus, Pons 84, 150 Willelmus, Arnold 158

Unald, William, lord of Lanta 96, 100, 147 Willelmus, Raymond 135, 138

Urgel 87 William IV, lord of Montpellier 89

Usclacanus, William 16, 157 William V, lord of Montpellier 88, 102 William IX of Aquitaine 44

Valencia 71 William Pons 76

Valencii, Peter 71 Wolff, Philippe 12, 86, 107 Valeria 135, 146, 148, 178-179

Valsegur 150 Ymperia 135 Vasco, Garcias 158 Ysaort, Vital de 201 Vasco, Vital 158 Yver, Jean 5

Other Books of Interest

John Hine Mundy . Jt John H. Pryor 3. 5 Business Contracts of Medieval Provence BEG

The Repression of Catharism at Toulouse: The Royal Diploma of 1279 3S Studies and Texts 74. 1985; xiv, 336 pp., maps, plates. ISBN 0-88844-074-X ni

Selected Notulae from the Cartulary of Giraud Amatric of Marsetlles, 1248 A e Studies and Texts 54. 1981; xiv, 311 pp., maps, plate. ISBN 0-88844—054-5 2 88 3 O5

Kathryn L. Rvyerson a. : 5 Business, Banking and Finar:ce in Medieval Montpellier Reo

Studies and Texts 75. 1985; xvi, 184 pp. ISBN 0-88844-075-8 7 8 ‘

5 £9

Monique Wernham BSB

La communauté juive de Salon-de-Provence d’apres les actes notariés 1391-1435 5 6 5.

Studies and Texts 82. 1988; xviii, 303 pp., maps. ISBN 0-88844-082-0 ? ow.

7wav. ee

Carl T. Berkhout and Jeffrey B. Russell Bag

Medieval Heresies: A Bibliography 1960-1979 oe J

Subsidia Mediaevalia 11. 1981; xvi, 201 pp. ISBN 0-88844-360-9 8 g

Noa 2

Aging and the Aged in Medieval Europe “ BS

Edited by Michael M. Sheehan aed

Papers in Mediaeval Studies 11. 1990; x, 228 pp. ISBN 0-88844-811-2 G8 3 O88 = BF

a 38

Write to us for our latest catalogue was ob S. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies ; Bo

Department of Crescent Publications 59 Queen’s Park East 8>F2sa

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 a aoa B8

ea yas =2 2 a GD

=8

ISBN 0-88644-101-0