Two Inquisitors

我打算看看两位调查员，一位是世纪早期在埃涅多克工作的伯纳德·桂，另一位是14世纪90年代在德语区工作的彼得·茨威克。他们都在他们的工作是成功的-桂是一个团体，摧毁了主要的异端教派的法国南部（Catharism），而Zwicker几乎消除了主要教派的北方和中欧（瓦勒丹主义）。关于这两个人的证据都不少。有很多从他们的调查-从桂的工作有幸存的一本书包含摘录的记录的问题和答案（证词），而仍然存在的是两个手稿包含存款本身，由约200人，他质疑。他们还写了其他的东西--桂民海写了很多历史，也是关于如何进行宗教裁判的论文，而茨威克写了一篇很长的神学论文，指出为什么异教徒是错误的，还留下了一本宗教裁判所用的形式选集。这里有一些简单的新研究。在这两种情况下，都没有任何学者系统地阅读宗教裁判所的记录和文学作品。有无数的联系，每个人都将通过这项工作得到更好的了解。其次，我想通过有控制的、系统的比较，更接近这些人的个人现实。什么是共同的，什么是不同的是理想的这样一个演习。反过来，对这两个人--两个最活跃、最重要的中世纪调查官--的深刻而多维度的描述，使我们不仅能够更微妙、更细致地考察调查官做了什么，而且能够更细致地考察他们是如何看待事物的。我们非常依赖于神职人员，特别是宗教裁判官，因为我们对那些被贴上“邪教”标签的宗教运动的看法。宗教裁判官和辩论神学家对这些教派的描述过去常常被打上完全误导的烙印，因为偏见，关于异教徒邪恶的陈词滥调，以及在审判中使用引导性问题（与酷刑有关），在宗教裁判所记录中产生完全不可靠的材料。这条线可以被过度使用。对桂民海和茨威克的研究表明，有些调查官是相当优秀的警察，他们的记录是通常的警察问题（警察的词汇、谎言和逃避）、问题清单的使用、他们自己的个性（桂民海学究式的历史学家观点、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，还有一个大问题，一个教派（瓦尔登派）一直预先占领历史学家。从意大利南部到波罗的海，“瓦勒度派”遍布欧洲各地，而“瓦勒度派”是一个在中世纪之后仍然存在的教派--那些在世纪早期在皮埃蒙特幸存下来的教派成为了一个新教教会。然而，在欧洲不同地区被质疑的“瓦尔登人”真的是一回事吗？桂民海询问了许多来自勃艮第的讲法语的“瓦勒度人”，而茨威克则询问了许多讲德语的人，特别是奥地利和北方德国的人。对这两个调查者进行有控制的比较，将为一个微妙的调查提供最有效的可能背景，可以说他们是或不是同一个群体。

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.