The village of Montaillou in the South of France was the target of an Inquisitorial investigation in the early 14th century by Bishop Fournier, later Pope Benedict XII. Fournier was an obsessive note-taker, which was bad news for his victims, but great for posterity. Because of his records we have a detailed account of everyday life in this medieval village in the words of those who lived there. Note that these folk, peasants, farmers and shepherds, were, for the most part, illiterate. In normal circumstances, they would never have been able to leave a record or any other proof of their existence. This poses a conundrum, a sort of ethical puzzle: Fournier came in with his Inquisition to disrupt the life of these people; his inquisitorial investigation was concerned not only with rooting out Catharism but also with money, as the peasants were reluctant to pay tithes to the Church. Yet it is precisely this disruption that gave a voice to individuals whose names we would not even know if it weren’t for the action of Bishop Fournier.
Because of him, we are shown the structures of thought and action that sustained life in this village. From marriage to religion, from sex to work (or lack thereof; turns out medieval peasants took a lot of naps) the peasant rhythm of life was different from the life of a town artisan or a burgess in a busy city. The main concern was subsistence, which was not very difficult to achieve. Surplus was rare and not particularly sought after. This, Ladurie argues, prevented capitalism from seeping in. This was a rudimentary economy, with little coin available, still largely based on bartering. Most of the village inhabitants were poor, but relatively well-fed and not destitute by any means.
Relations between sexes were segregated on one hand, but much freer on the other. Sex outside marriage, “concubinage”, and separations (though not divorce) were common at this level of society. I suspect that a lot of ideas people have about the medieval age apply almost exclusively to the ways of the aristocracy and the rich bourgeoisie. Religion is another example: our ideas of medieval and even early modern religiosity are based on the experiences of the educated nobility rather than the lives of the vast majority of the people. In Montaillou there was an immense concern for religion, especially for what Ladurie calls “the salvation of the soul”, that is, what happens to us after death - a pressing concern in an age where people died young. Most in the village subscribed to Catharism and disliked the Roman Church. Yet people didn’t go to Mass often. Many of them didn’t bother with communion. Some openly blasphemed and tended towards materialism. There was a real hatred of priests, who were associated with wealth and laziness.
The absence of historical thought was another inconceivable difference between these 14th century peasants and modernity. This also distinguishes them from the educated elites on the cusp of the Renaissance who knew about the Greeks, the Romans, and the History of the Church and several European Kingdoms. Peasants in Montaillou lived in the present and for the future of their souls after death. They knew Jesus, Mary, the apostles and some other biblical figures of note existed in the past, but they had no conception of how long ago that was. They obviously had no knowledge of different past cultures. Today, we are hostages of our past. It’s overwhelmingly everywhere: in every street name, in every monument, in the foundation of every state. This isn’t to say that the past wasn’t present in the lives of the Montaillou peasants. Their lives were organized according to old customs, highly influenced by a shared heritage which Ladurie classifies as Western Mediterranean culture, encompassing the South of France, the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa. But History as we understand it, a specific set of events in certain years producing a causal effect, was something they didn’t integrate in their worldview. This perfectly showcases how different their worldview was from ours.
At the same time, despite these key differences, much connects us to these humans of the past. They loved their children, they respected their mothers, and they had a healthy distrust of authority. They enjoyed sunbathing and sitting around the fire, talking into the night. It was a highly patriarchal society and violence against women was common (plus ça change…). Like poor people in the Iberian Peninsula just a few decades ago, their lives were ruled by the idea that a man can’t escape his fate.
Ladurie makes too much of the connections between Occitan Catharism and Protestantism, which would be particularly strong in the region a century and a half later. I am not convinced. Yes, these peasants didn’t like religious authorities and they emphasized salvation by faith, but they still gave alms to the poor in order to guarantee their salvation and they needed mediators between God and themselves. Ladurie also attempts to argue that Occitanie was colonized by the Kingdom of France - once again, I am not particularly convinced as to the use of the concept of colonization in this context, which seems to oversimplify the process of state building. If Occitanie was colonized, so was basically every other region of France with the exception of Paris. He also displays a somewhat cavalier attitude towards violence against women, which was a bit disturbing at times.
Overall, this is the stuff great history studies are made of. Ambitious in scope, yet highly readable and entertaining, it didn’t seem particularly difficult to get into, although I was already familiar with the period. I also wish we had more information about Jacques Fournier and his reactions to what he was being told, but I understand that shifting the focus to him would have defeated the purpose of the book.