Historians often use case-studies of particular locales to draw conclusions about a broader region or populace. Thus, in Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s work, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error, the author conducts an in-depth examination of the town of Montaillou. He subsequently uses this study to extrapolate information on medieval life in the Pays d’Aillon region. Ladurie employs information garnered during the Inquisition’s investigation into Montaillou’s Cathar beliefs to discuss the area’s architecture, economy, and social relationships.
Historical Sources
Ladurie’s main source is the Inquisition Register written by Jacques Fournier. Fournier was Bishop of Pamiers from 1318 to 1325. As such, he explored allegations of heresy in Montaillou. During this investigation, Fournier recorded interviews and other relevant information in the Register. The bishop scripted this document himself without aide from a scribe or secretary. Thus, Ladurie’s principal source is wholly reliant on the observations of one man.
When introducing the Register, Ladurie notes that Fournier was “immune to both supplication and bribe” (xiii). However, the author fails to support this assertion with any evidence. Thus, the accuracy and credibility of Fournier’s observations remains uncertain. The reliability the Register is further challenged by the loss of two of its volumes. Ladurie’s text relies solely on the third volume, which was not completed until years after the events in Montaillou occurred. Thus, Ladurie is dependent on a source whose validity is questionable.
In addition to relying on a potentially inaccurate source, Ladurie fails to substantiate many of his conclusions with relevant data. For instance, virtually all of the author’s assertions about shepherds are garnered from the register’s account of one man’s life. Thus, this individual, Pierre Maury, the sole basis for Ladurie’s broad conclusions about life as a Pyrenees shepherds.
The author’s use of supplementary sources to the Register is minimal. Although Ladurie provides a selective bibliography, his use of in-text citations is severely limited. Therefore, many of his claims appear unsubstantiated. Lastly, the author himself acknowledges the shortage of archaeological evidence from Montaillou. The lack of such evidence, combined with the above flaws, makes it difficult to consider Ladurie’s work a valid historical resource.
Author's Style
Ladurie writes in a fairly colloquial manor. In some instances, he asks inappropriate rhetorical questions of the reader. For example, when referring to the alleged heresy of Montaillou’s priest, Ladurie asks, “did he not have in his possession the Cathar calendar?” (58). Rather than ask such a question, it is the author’s job to explain the available evidence in a coherent manner. Additionally, Ladurie’s references to Montaillou’s inhabitants are inconsistent. The author repeatedly switches between citing such persons by their first names or by their last names. This becomes quite confusing for the reader since the work discusses a region with extended families and common given names.
Overall, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error leaves the reader with several unanswered questions. Most notably, the author neglects to provide any substantial discussion of the village’s alleged heresy. Such an oversight damages Ladurie’s credibility. In a work predominantly reliant on a text composed in response to heresy, it is disappointing to find so little discussion of the religious atmosphere. This, in conjunction with poorly cited works, an informal style, and a lack of supporting information, makes Ladurie’s work questionable as a scholarly resource for the study of history.
 |
