Two Inquisitors

我建议看看两位审讯官，14世纪初在朗格多克工作的Bernard Gui和13世纪90年代在德语地区工作的Peter Zwicker。他们都在自己的工作中取得了成功--Gui是摧毁法国南部主要异端教派(天主教)的组织之一，而茨威克实际上消灭了北欧和中欧的主要教派(瓦尔登斯主义)。关于这两个人的许多证据都幸存了下来。从他们的调查中有很多东西-从桂敏海的工作中幸存了一本书，其中包含从问答记录(证词)中摘录的内容，而仍然存在的两份手稿包含了他询问的大约200人制作的存款本身。还有他们写的其他东西-桂敏海写了很多历史，也是关于如何进行宗教裁判所的论文，而茨威克写了一篇长篇神学论文，指出为什么异端是错误的，还留下了一本用于宗教裁判所的形式选集。这里有一些直截了当的新研究。在这两种情况下，都没有任何学者系统地同时阅读宗教裁判所记录和文学作品。有无数的联系，通过这项工作，每个人都会更好地被了解。其次，我想通过有控制的、系统的比较来更接近这些人的个体现实。对于这样的练习来说，共同点和不同点都是理想的。反过来，这两个人-中世纪最活跃和最重要的两个人-的深刻和多维的图景使我们能够更微妙和更微妙地审视审判员的所作所为，以及他们是如何看待事物的。我们非常依赖教士，尤其是审判者，因为我们对那些被贴上异端标签的宗教运动的看法。审判官和争辩神学家对这些教派的描述曾经被贴上完全误导的标签，因为偏见，关于异端邪恶的司空见惯，以及在审判中使用引导性问题(与酷刑结盟)在调查记录中产生完全不可靠的材料。这条线可能会走得太远。对桂敏海和茨威克的研究将表明，一些审讯官是相当好的警察，他们的记录是常见警察问题(警察的词汇、谎言和回避)、问题清单的使用、他们自己的个性(桂敏海学究的历史学家的观点，前校长茨威克对智商水平的关注)和现实的微妙混合。除此之外，一个一直占据着历史学家的教派(瓦尔登斯主义)也有一个大问题。从意大利南部到波罗的海，“瓦尔登斯人”遍布整个欧洲，而“瓦尔登斯人”构成了一个延续至中世纪的教派--那些在16世纪早期幸存于皮埃蒙特的人成为了新教教会。然而，在欧洲不同地区受到质疑的“瓦尔登斯人”真的是同一件事吗？桂敏海询问了许多来自勃艮第的讲法语的瓦尔登人，而茨威克询问了许多讲德语的人，特别是在奥地利和德国北部。对这两名审讯员进行受控比较，将为对这两名审讯员是否属于同一组进行细致调查提供最有效的可能背景。

I propose to look at two inquisitors, Bernard Gui, who worked in Languedoc in the early 14th century, and Peter Zwicker, who worked in German-speaking areas in the 1390s. They were both successful at their job - Gui was one of a group that destroyed the major heretical sect of southern France (Catharism), while Zwicker virtually eliminated the major sect of northern and central Europe (Waldensianism). Quite a lot of evidence survives about both men. There is a lot from their inquisitions - from Gui's work there survives a book containing extracts made from the records of question and answer (depositions), while still extant are two manuscripts containing the depositoions themselves, made by about 200 people he questioned. And there are other things they wrote - Gui wrote a lot of histories, as also a treatise on how to carry out inquisition, while Zwicker wrote a long theological treatise pointing out why heretics were wrong, and also left an anthology of forms to be used in inquisition. There is some straightforward new research here. In neither case has any scholar systematically read in conjunction the inquisition records and the literary output. There are myriads of connections, and each man will be known better through this work. Secondly, I want to get closer to the individual realities of these men through controlled and systematic comparison. What is in common and what is different is ideal for such an exercise. In turn, a deep and multi-dimensional picture of thesre two men - two of the most active and significant of all medieval inquisitors - enables us to examine more subtly and deloicately not only what inquisitors did but also how they saw things. We are very dependent on churchmen, especially inquisitors, for our view of those religious movements that were branded 'heretical sects'. Inquisitors' and polemical theologians' accounts of these sects used to be branded as utterly misleading, because of prejudice, commonplaces about the wickedness of heretics, and the use of leading questions in trials (allied to torture) producing utterly unreliable material in inquisition records. This line can be taken to excess. Study of Gui and Zwicker will show that some inquisitors were pretty good policemen, and that their records were a subtle mixture of the usual police problem (policeman's vocabulary, lies and evasions), the use of lists of questions, their own personalities (Gui's pedantical historian's outlook, the former schoolmaster Zwicker's preoccupation with levels of IQ), and 'reality'. Beyond this, there is a big problem with one sect (Waldensianism) which has been pre-occuping historians. 'Waldensians' were found all over Europe, from southern Italy to the Baltic, and 'Waldensians' constituted the one sect that outlived the middle ages - those surviving in Piedmont in the early 16th century became a Protestant Churchs. However, were the 'Waldensians' questioned in different parts of Europe really the same thing? Gui questioned many French-speaking 'Waldensians' from Burgundy, while Zwicker questioned many German-speaking ones, especially in Austria and northern Germany. Controlled comparison of these two inquisitors will supply the most effective possible context for a delicate investigation of what can be said about whether these were or were not the same group.