Scandalous Speech: Interrogatories from the 1540s

A decade after the trial, abjuration and exile of Jean Morand, Amiens was rife with dissenters. The crackdown against them came in two bursts : 1544 (July-September) and 1548-49.  In all, the Parlement of Paris, who were the guardians of Catholic orthodoxy in the period, received more than 60 cases on appeal from the bailliage court of Amiens against people accused on uttering "scandalous propositions," "heretical propositions" or "scandalous and heretical propositions". Most were eventually sentenced by the Parlement to public penance (known as "Amende honorable") at a church service in Amiens visibly manifesting their contrition. However at least four individuals were condemned to public execution for their utterances, others were condemned to lifelong detention in a monastery or convent, and a number of women and men after being scourged in public were banished for life from the territory of Amiens or from the French kingdom.  To be brought up to trial on these kinds of charges, you must clearly have been overheard by a neighbor, a fellow townsperson, or your priest, who then reported what you said to the authorities.  During your trial, the court, in this case the Parlement would question you about your alleged utterances.  The judges' questions and the responses of the accused were taken down verbatim in documents called plumatifs because written down rapidly with an ink feather pen in a small script often hard to read.  Here are three examples from the criminal archives of the Parlement of Paris concerning accused protestants (at that time called "lutherans") from Amiens.

Based on the answers, the judges whose names appear in the margins of the documents, pronounced their decisions and recommendations for penalties.

They could also order torture to be applied to the accused to help (they thought) determine guilt or innocence.  The punishment was actually more severe if you confessed to a statement than if you denied it under torture.

Here are the images of the interrogations of the Amiens apothecary Francois de Fenyn, the shoemaker (or perhaps weaver?) Pierre Guenard, and the goldsmith Jean Waroquier. I have provided English translations of these documents and others regarding the cases of the 1540s on the Translation page of the website.

Translations : Three Interrogations before the Parlement of Paris

Francois de Fenyn July 11, 1544

He’s from Amiens, father’s profession (blank), he is an apothecary;
he studied in Amiens.
he doesn’t know how to speak Latin or only a little.
He sometimes attended preachers’ meetings,
he never heard somebody named Morand preach;
he once heard the Augustinian friar who preached in Amiens.

Did he have books from those from Amiens? – yes.
Never heard any propositions from the pulpits.

Did he speak about purgatory and that there was no such thing?
-- he never spoke about it.

Did he speak about the provisions of the church and that they were made by popes and cardinals out of avarice?
-- he said that he didn’t say this himself but he once heard a Franciscan friar say it but that he himself believed they were well made.

Did he say that a man who had lively faith, in eating a morsel of bread, ate the body of our Lord?
-- he said he never said those words and said that the judge who handled his case at the local level seemed somewhat prejudiced.

Did he say that it was foolhardy and served no purpose to deck out the churches with chasubles and other things --- he said no.

Did he say there was no danger eating a morsel of ham on Easter whether before one attended Mass and took communion or after?

Did he say that the sole passion of our Lord had effaced and purged all of our sins? – he said no.

He was shown a book that he said he had annotated in several places.

rev 4/9/2024

Pierre Guenard, July 12 1544

In the Grand Chamber

Said he was from Amiens, a shoemaker (or a weaver?) and his father as well.
Learned his seven psalms, has no books other than his “Hours”
Did he say that priests were nothing but the devil? -- No.
Did he have it in for priests? – No
Did not say that there was no need to place candles before images of the saints but has always done his duty as a Christian.
Did not say that it was unnecessary to pray to God for the dead and that at the hour of bodily extinction the soul was either saved or damned.
Did he say that a person did not need to believe that after the priest had blessed the sacramental wafer it was anything more than dough or grain and not the body of Jesus Christ? – No.
Nor did he utter the words touching the crucifix.
Did he say that he did not believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was in the sacramental wafer after it had been consecrated? -- He did not say that.
On the contrary he believed it was just as much there as it was in the tree of the cross!

Jehan WAROCQUIER, September 26, 1544

[INTERROGATION]

Did he know Morand in Amiens? – said that he did.

Did he know Morand had been condemned as a heretic?

Did he say that the Truth would be known and that Morand had begun to open up the Truth?

He said that he had in his hands a book entitled “The Fountain of Life”

Why did he say those words that soon the Truth would be known?
-- said he didn’t recognize having said that.

Asked who is Fouache?-- said that he is a barber from Amiens.

What company does he keep with the said Fouache -- says he doesn’t keep any and knows nothing more about him.

Asked who is the man mentioned in the charges against him?
-- says thar he has no idea.

rev 9/14/2024