In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R 7 Toward the Stake The 11 April condemnation of extracts from Marguerite’s book had not materially altered the standing of the case against Marguerite in her person. Her status remained what it had been since 3 April, when the canon lawyers had judged her a contumacious heretic but left open at least the formal possibility that repentance could yet save her life. Just what the effect of sincere repentance at this point might have been is difficult to judge. It is possible that to this point William was purposely reserving to himself the option of a sentence short of death, or he may merely have wished to create this illusion as a way of pressuring Marguerite into testifying. But in either case, by early May her repentance was still not forthcoming. William thus had one more move left to make. What the inquisitor still wished to see confirmed was the final issue of whether, on the basis of her entire case (and not just her behavior since coming into his custody), Marguerite could and should be treated as one relapsed into heresy. In contrast to the open-ended suggestion of eventual repentance still envisioned in the 3 April opinion, a final finding of “relapse” would definitively bring the inquisition against Marguerite Porete to a close. 9 May: The Canonists Once More William therefore once again called on his original group of five masters of canon law, with Henry of Béthune now rejoining William called 145 “Brother,” Hugh of Besançon, John of Thélus, and Peter of Vaux. There is no indication of where these men met on this occasion, but presumably their deliberations took place on or shortly before 9 May, the Saturday on which they issued their judgment. The document as we now have it (AN J428 no. 19bis) is an unnotarized copy of the sealed original that the canonists produced. This document is the first that specifically indicates that the canon lawyers were told Marguerite’s whole history, a fact the masters themselves emphasized by stating that William had “newly” (nuper) made the results of his inquiries known to them.1 Perhaps William’s ongoing fact finding had been informally discussed before this point, but this wording suggests that Marguerite’s fuller history really did now arrive as new information to the canonists.2 In any case, the earlier opinions by the canonists and theologians (3 and 11 April) had been issued without any formal reference to this larger story. William must have purposely chosen to keep this information out of any of the earlier documents . Now at last he laid his cards on the table. Thus the canonists now received William’s report of how he had taken the “deposition of many witnesses” and his findings that Marguerite ’s book had been burned by Bishop Guido of Cambrai with the written warning that she not teach or write anything like what was in the book again; that she had nevertheless possessed the book again, admitting as much to the inquisitor of Lorraine and to Philip of Marigny; and that she had imparted the book to John, bishop of Châlons-surMarne , and other people. In the face of this damning testimony, the canonists , “assuming the truth of the preceding facts,” wasted few words. Their verdict was that “this same beguina . . . is to be judged relapsed and deservedly relinquished to the secular court.”3 Even as they received this longer history of Marguerite’s life, the canonists were still given only the bare information necessary to induce them to reach the desired conclusion. It is now apparent why the inquisitor ’s account reveals so little of Marguerite’s earlier life; any more detail at this point would only have muddied the legal waters. William was not about to bring forth the praises Marguerite’s book had received or to offer any extraneous information that might engender sympathy for her. He wished to present only the “facts” that would lead to the desired opinion on the specific issue at hand. His narrative is only con146 THE BEGUINE, THE ANGEL, AND THE INQUISITOR demnation, disobedience, and admission of that disobedience. Once again, given the information they had to work with, the verdict by the canonists could hardly have been in doubt. At the same time, it is striking that William limited his story here to Marguerite’s own actions. The document makes no mention of the 11 April finding by...

Share