On Thu, 16 May 1996, JH Arnold wrote:
> dear jessalyn
> thankyou for your reply on usury and heresy. I have made intermittent
> use of Mansi etc for my research on the development of inquisition vs.
> heretics in southern France, and had briefly noted the usury canons;
> I'm also aware of a long historiographical discussion of the relationship
> between usury and Catharism [used to be argued that there was a
> particular link, because of Cathar theology, but is now often argued
> the other way; empirically, one does find several mentions of Cathars
> lending out money - but no suggestion in the depositional sources that
> this was for interest, or caused rancor; it seems to have been more of
> an economic "pastoral" service]
>
> Two further queries, leading on from your interesting comments. One is
> on the subject of episcopal inquisition vs. usury - are there any records
> extant for the interrogations? These would be a fascinating source of
> comparison for inquisitio heretice pravitatis. Second thing: the worst
> punishments [destruction of houses, exhumation, etc] are awarded to
> those who were *unrepentant* heretics [or died unrepentant]; how did the
> cura animarum treat usurers? how were they allowed back into the flock,
> and did they inevitably incur these punishments even if they "repented"?
> Can you, in fact, "repent" usury?
>
> cheers
> john arnold
> centre for medieval studies, york, england
>
Dear John,
Again, sorry for the delay. I'm not sure if there are any extant
records. Mundy's work on Toulouse draws largely from wills and
charters--I didn't notice that he cited any court records. As far as I
can tell, the sources for the actual destruction of houses, etc., were
from William of Puy-laurens on the White confraternity, who basically
sent lynch-mobs around who burned usurer's homes. (Here the homes seemed
to be burned because the usurer committed his sin--his business--there,
even as heresy was seen to be fostered within the heretics' homes).
There is also a will of one usurer mentioned by Mundy who was also
accused of heresy. He was exiled to the Holy Land for three years and
his home was demolished (because of the usury or the heresy? it would be
interesting to know).
Usurers could indeed repent. Robert of Courson, who writes at length on
usury in his Summa, suggests that if the usurer repents, he is in the
forum of confession rather than the forum of law. He should go to his
priest and sort out which of his possessions were legitimate and which
derived from usury. He then should make as thorough restitution as
possible through an intermediary (his bishop, or if he were corrupt, an
upright man). Only then could he give alms as penance, and then only
from clean money. (ideally speaking). Proper categories for these alms
are suggested by Robert and include pauperes, people with many children,
and crusaders. In the case of a usurer not immediately being able to
make restitution from his clean possessions to the despoiled, he
recommends that so that the usurer's family wouldn't be turned out on the
streets to beg, they should live frugally from his just possessions and
pay restitution in a sort of yearly installment plan. For those who only
possessed money from usury, although Robert says that some suggest the
same practice as above, he thinks they should rather beg than live from
the fruits of robbery (usury).
Usurers could definitely repent and be reincluded into the community.
One exemplum from James of Vitry recounts how usurers who were too
ashamed to admit that they were usurers later repented and from sons of
the devil, became children of Christ. Usurers could also potentially go on
crusade,
as is seen by an exemplum from Caesarius of Heisterbach, where one wily
usurer, under social pressure, takes the crusade vow, but redeems it
(lying and saying that he is poor) rather than going.
Hope this helps. I'm again writing from the computer room, but if you
would like specific references, let me know.
Jessalynn Bird
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|