Introduction

          This will be a review of two books that on the surface appear to have a similar purpose and content, in that both of the books seem to be studies of persecution of religious minorities within their respective cultures.  Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's book Montaillou concerns the Cathars, a gnostic group of Christians in southern France during the early 14th century, and the persecution they faced from the Catholic Church's inquisition conducted by Jacques Fournier, Bishop of Pamiers.  The other book by Philip A. Kuhn, entitled Soulstealers, studies the sorcery investigations of the local and provincial officials of the Manchu Ch'ing dynasty in China during the late 18th century.  It is interesting to note that although each book examines the religious issues of their time, in neither case is the religious element of the book the primary focus of the text.  In the case of Montaillou, the heresy of Catharism is actually of secondary importance for the author.  It is clear from what he writes that he admires the spirit of the Cathars, but he is not really interested in their religious views; instead, he wants to reconstruct the every day life of the peasants of the period by using the documents of the Catholic Inquisition.  In the case of the sorcery investigations in the Soulstealers, it is the Manchu emperor who is actually being studied, the author does investigate the beliefs of the Chinese peasants of the time, but he is more interested in understanding the mindset of the emperor, and the politics of the time.

Part 1:  Montaillou

          The author of the first book we read this semester was attempting to reconstruct the life of the peasants of 14th century France, and to do this he used ecclesiastical documents from the inquisition directed by the Bishop of Pamiers.  In other words, Le Roy Ladurie's primary source material for his book was a document which is composed of interviews of peasants by the Church's inquisitor, in which the questions were meant to discover whether or not a person was a member of the Cathar heresy.  The reliability of the documentary sources is thus questionable for two reasons.  Firstly, the Bishop was not trying to find out how people lived their daily lives and so his questions were not designed for that purpose.  This is obviously a weakness as far as the author's purpose is concerned.  Secondly, the person being questioned is in some sense under duress, they are not free to say anything they want, they must be careful not to incriminate themselves in the Cathar movement.

          All of this of course, along with the biased nature of the Bishop as inquisitor, throws into question the value of the documents as a source of information for reconstructing daily life of the peasants of Montaillou.  Le Roy Ladurie basically sees the Cathar movement as a form of individualism and self-reliance, and sees in the shepherd's an ideal existence, an existence threatened by the increasing power of the King of France and the intrusion of the Catholic Church in the lives of the people of the town.  The central issues Le Roy Ladurie investigates in the book center on the domus (i.e., the household) and its importance for the individual.  He shows that the Cathar movement affects entire households and that religion at that time was not an individual affair, but was determined by ones family.  As Le Roy Ladurie states, "Once heresy was implanted, the domus acted as a kind of conservatory, a barricade limiting compromising contacts with houses which were not heretical [Le Roy Ladurie, p. 27].  So, each domus was in a sense a cell of either the Catholic Church or of the Cathar movement.  He also discusses the level of economic development in the area at that time and explains that it was basically a primitive barter system.

          The area that in some ways receives a disproportionate amount of attention in the book concerns the sexual ethics of the two groups.  Although they officially differed in their views of marriage and sexuality, the behavior of the two groups was not all that different.  Le Roy Ladurie's book shows that there was a general laxity concerning sexual matters on the part of all, irrespective of their religious affiliation.  In fact the parish priest, Pierre Clergue, who is described as a major womanizer.  The priest is not only morally loose, but he is also a Cathar sympathizer.  It should be pointed out that officially the Catholic and Cathar views on sexuality were quite different.  The Catholic Church then and now requires all people to refrain from sexual activity outside of marriage, but the Cathars officially had a much more lenient view, except of course in the case of those they called the 'Perfect.'

Part 2:  Soulstealers

          In Soulstealers the author examines the Chinese governments investigations of the  sorcery scare of 1768.  Although he examines Chinese beliefs concerning the relationship of body to soul, and the idea that the soul itself is divided into the hun (the spiritual soul) and the p'o (the bodily soul); these beliefs are not the author’s main interest [see Kuhn, p. 96-101].  Nor is he primarily interested in any other folk beliefs that supported the idea that someone could steal another person’s soul.  He uses specific cases as examples, and then follows up by analyzing the materials.  In the opening of the book he recounts "the Hsiao-shan affair" in which four Buddhist monks were accused of sorcery.  The author uses this story, as he uses all of the various stories in the book, in order to illustrate the general mentality active in China at the time.  The fear and suspicion of strangers by the peasant class, and how this fear could be worked up into a panic.  The fact that the citizenry could become panicked by rumors of sorcery alarmed government officials, most especially the emperor.

          The monks involved in "the Hsiao-shan affair" were if course new to the area, and they were beggars, two things that bred suspicion.  Two of them, Chu-ch'eng and Ching-hsin were temporarily detained and questioned, simply because they had asked the boys name.  In many cultures knowing someone's name gives you a power over them and in China it was believed that a person could steal another persons soul if they knew the other persons name.  This simple question of the monk caused a crowd to form, after which the men were taken into custody.  The two monks were released only to discover that their friends had also been detained and tortured.  The story is important for several reasons:  firstly, it shows the fear prevalent at the time among the peasant class; secondly, it also illustrates the corruption of the government, in that the officials planted evidence in order to get money out of the monks; and finally, it shows the fear that government officials had of possible public disorder and sedition on the part of the masses.  The fact that personal items were used in incantations, including hair, was important.  The government had mandated that all men were to wear the Manchu queue hairstyle, since in some of these sorcery cases the queue had been clipped, the government was afraid that instead of this being simply an act of sorcery, it may really be an act of sedition, of rebellion.  Kuhn points out that officials was involved in these cases than ". . . mere robbery . . . [instead] the sorcerer's ultimate intent might be sedition, perhaps aided by public disorder" [Kuhn, p. 80].

          Kuhn has an advantage over Le Roy Ladurie, because he has a greater number of primary and secondary source materials at his disposal.  He has the official Chinese government materials; bureaucratic information, local gazetteers (book containing information on the history, geography, and population of a region), the Ch'ing Code, and detailed statistical information.  This gives greater breadth and depth to his book and it also gives greater credibility to his conclusions.  Using his sources he shows that China had been in a period of economic prosperity, that it had experienced a population explosion, this had good effects, but it also had detrimental effects.

       In the book Kuhn shows clearly that the whole persecution occurred because of the paranoia of the emperor.  The fact that the Manchus were a minority of the population ruling the majority Han Chinese fed into this irrational fear on that part of the emperor.  Factors contributing to what transpired included:  the inefficiency of the bureaucracy, the interrogation of prisoners by means torture, and the desire on the part of officials to protect themselves and their honored positions.  All of this fed into the emperors fears of the queue-clippers and the possibility of sedition was the motive behind what was happening.  Kuhn states quite clearly that, "There can be no doubt that the chief prosecutor, from first to last, was the monarch himself" [Kuhn, p. 173].  Hungli is responsible for all that happened, it was his fear of possible rebellion, and his fear that his officials were keeping information from him, that worked to create the situation of persecution.  As the confessions began to unravel, the emperor finally became convinced that he must end the prosecutions, but even while ending them, he still called on local officials to be vigilant.  Two days after returning to the capital, Hungli finally ". . .  called off the soulstealing prosecution" [Kuhn, p. 178].  The whole situation was of the emperors making, and his paranoia caused the torture and deaths of many people.

Conclusion

          The two books are very different in style.  Montaillou is a difficult book to read, because it is poorly organized.  This may be due to the fact that it is a translation from the original French language edition, but the author's style does appear to be a part of the problem. The book seems disjointed, and it is difficult to tell when Le Roy Ladurie is talking about something that is objectively present in his source materials and when he is just giving his subjective opinion.  He also exhibits a misogynist perspective that grates on the nerves after a while.  Part of the problem with this book is that the authors purpose for writing it is not made clear till the last third of the text, when he finally says, "In this rural concentration the Albigensian heresy provides an opportunity for the study not of Catharism itself – that is not my subject – but of the mental outlook of the country people" [Le Roy Ladurie, p. 231].  Had this thesis been made clear earlier in the book it would have been helpful.  Le Roy Ladurie is part of the Annales School, and what he tried to do in Montaillou, was to reconstruct ". . . southern French village life in the Middle Ages" [Le Roy Ladurie, p. 59].  The problems with the book are centered in the sources used.  He used the inquisitorial records in order to try to reconstruct daily life, but these records are not objective and they no doubt present the biases of the Bishop who conducted the inquisition.  This is the major weakness in his book.

          Kuhn's book Soulstealers is on a more solid foundation.  Not only does Kuhn have a larger number of sources to draw upon, but he also structures his book better and gives more detailed analysis of the information.  Early on in the book one can tell that the main subject being investigated is of a political nature, and that Kuhn is focusing on the emperor and his fears, which he shows are the real cause of the sorcery scare.  Kuhn coordinates his materials in such a way that the reader easily sees the connection between the anecdotes and the analysis of the information.  One is not left in the dark as to the author's intent in writing this book. 

          Although Montaillou is both interesting and informative, its structural defects make it difficult to read and enjoy.  Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's analyses of his materials suffers from an overly idealistic view of the Cathars, and his overly romantic view of their life.  While Philip A. Kuhn's Soulstealers, does not suffer from these defects.  Additionally, his book is structured in such a way that it flows naturally as he develops the topic, and he also analyses his materials clearly so that one can easily see the connection between his conclusions and the materials he utilizes.  Both are interesting books, but Soulstealers is more informative and easier to read.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.  Montaillou:  The Promised Land of Error.  (New York:  Vintage Books, 1979)

Philip A. Kuhn.  Soulstealers:  The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768.  (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1990).

Two Books Reviewed:  Montaillou and Soulstealers

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

History 644:  Proseminar in World History

Dr. Mary Felstiner

7 November 2001

Copyright © 2001-2024 Steven Todd Kaster