CommunalPiety and theMendicants 453
ish, slipped acedula,which Alberto di Bartolomeo de’ Lancei helped him
write, into the hands of Fra Simone di Bertolo Belondini. The two men
added that Oddo was known to blaspheme Christ and the Virgin Mary.^210
The inquest was on; seven other residents of the neighborhood were called
in to testify about Oddo.^211 He was known to hate both usurers and friars,
claiming that the friars were glad to bury usurers in consecrated ground,
provided they shared the ill-gotten gains in the moneylenders’ wills. The
friars had used their money for bribes to get Saint Peter of Verona made a
saint—an accusation that, if made on the inquisitor saint’s feast day of 29
April, suggests Oddo had been bad-mouthing the friars throughout the pe-
riod of the two Cathars’ trials.
Oddo’s hate for the friars was focused on their rapacity and lust. Seeing
friars pass through the city, he said, ‘‘Those there are lurking robbers; they
keep concubines and lovers, and there are few who don’t. They wander
about the city after women and fool them by saying, ‘If you have any money,
give it to us for your salvation,’ and the women are stupid and give it to
them.’’^212 Challenged for such talk by the wholesale merchant Giacomo
Mercadelli, Oddo insulted him: ‘‘Eatis vos, quod vobis naschatur vermus
canis.’’^213 When Oddo finally appeared before Fra Guido, on 19 June, he
candidly admitted everything except having defended Bompietro—that ac-
cusation was both false and unjust. Asked whether he was willing to name
any heretics, he said yes, one—Alberto di Bartolomeo de’ Lancei. Fra Guido
fined him £ 100 bon.
Such outspokenness toward the friars seems to have been the exception.
Rather, as Fra Guido’s agents (more and more, it was Fra Omobono or
some other subordinate, rather than the inquisitor, who did the processing)
took down the depositions, the expressions of quiet anger fell into set pat-
terns. Even discounting for the formulaic structure taken by the depositions
within days of Trintinelli’s citation, the overall pattern of complaint seems
clear and believable. Nearly all confessed to mere spoken remarks, not ac-
tions or even shouting. The remarks seem to have often been made in private
or at home. Grumbling focused on the injustice of Bompietro’s death. Of
the total 320 self-denunciations, 270 specifically condemned Bompietro’s sen-
tence or the inquisition or inquisitor for making it. Ten merely praised Bom-
pietro without attacking his persecutors, but that amounted to the same
thing. Some eighty-one explicitly mentioned his desire for repentance and
the denial of Communion. Biagia, the daughter of Don Bernardo from Santa
Maria della Mascarella, probably summed up the opinion of many about
- Ibid., no. 356 , 1 : 231.
- Ibid., nos. 354 – 62 , 364 , 1 : 231 – 34.
- Ibid., no. 359 (testimony of Bartolomeo de’ Lancei), 1 : 232 : ‘‘Iste sunt latrones cavati, et tenent
concubinas et amaxias et pauci sunt qui non teneant, et vadant per civitatem ad mulieres et decipiunt
eas et dicunt eis: ‘Si habetis pecuniam, date nobis in salvamento,’ et mulieres sunt symplices et dant sibi.’’ - Ibid., no. 361 , 1 : 233. This seems to have been a popular Bolognese curse; see page 446 above.