Studia Religiologica  51 (1) 2018, s.

47–65
doi:10.4467/20844077SR.18.004.9493
www.ejournals.eu/Studia-Religiologica

The Cathar Myth of the Fall: A Late Invention

of Independent Heretical Exegesis?

Piotr Czarnecki https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4155-4918

Institute for the Study of Religions, Faculty of Philosophy

Jagiellonian University
piotr.czarnecki@uj.edu.pl

Abstract

Some scholars, following a deconstructivist interpretation of Catharism (which denies the existence
of Catharism as dualistic heresy, or at least diminishes the significance of dualism as its distinctive
feature) propose a hypothesis which assumes that Cathar dualism was not an idea imported from the
East (from the earlier dualist traditions, especially from Bogomilism), but that it emerged indepen-
dently in the West, later than it is reported by the sources, as an effect of specific scriptural exegesis
developed in the dissidents’ schools. The main aim of this article is to verify, through the analysis of
Biblical exegesis, this hypothesis, on which the myth of the fall – crucial for the dualist doctrine – was
built. Based on various sources, both polemical and created by the Cathars themselves, it reconstructs
biblical foundations of this crucial myth in two main branches of Catharism: the moderate and the
radical (within the latter in two of its options: the angelic doctrine, and the doctrine of the two worlds),
comparing them to the analogical exegetical concepts developed earlier by the Bogomils.

Keywords: Catharism, medieval heresies, Biblical exegesis

Słowa kluczowe: kataryzm, herezje średniowieczne, egzegeza biblijna

A common feature of contemporary deconstructivist interpretations of Catharism is

a denial of the image of Catharism created by traditional historiography.1 The level of

1
 A radically deconstructivist interpretation was developed in the 1990s by scholars questioning the
conclusions of traditional historiography of heresy, under the leadership of Monique Zerner, see: Inventer
l’hérésie? Discours polémiques et pouvoirs avant l’Inquisition, M. Zerner (ed.), Nice 1998. Since that
time, many scholars have claimed that even the terms “Cathars” and “Catharism” should be abandoned,
as they deform our perception of dissidence, see: J.L. Théry, L’hérésie des bons hommes. Comment
nommer la dissidence religieuse non vaudoise ni béguine en Languedoc (XIIe–début XIVe siècle)?, “Her-
esis” 2002, no. 36–37, p. 107. Such a radical approach is nowadays criticized by C. Taylor, and P. Biller,
48

this denial differs – from total rejection of the existence of Catharism with its dualist
octrine and episcopal organization, as in the case of M.G. Pegg,2 to the assertion that
dualism actually appeared later than in the polemical sources, i.e. in the early thir-
teenth century, or even in the second half of that century.3 What is common, however,
for all these interpretations is the denial of any genetic connections of Catharism with
the earlier dualist tradition (especially with eastern Bogomilism) and the diminishing
of the role of dualism as its distinctive feature.4 According to the moderate interpreta-
tion promoted by Brenon, Jiménez-Sanchez and Biget, the dualist doctrine appeared
as the effect of independent biblical exegesis developed in Western heretical schools,
without any external influence.5 Unfortunately, such revolutionary statements are not
based on an analysis of Cathar exegesis, but rather on the questioning of sources

see C. Taylor, Looking for the ‘Good Men’ in the Languedoc: An Alternative to ‘Cathars’, [in:] Cathars
in Question, A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 242–256; P. Biller, Goodbye to Catharism?, [in:] Cathars in
Question, op. cit., pp. 275–277.
2
 M.G. Pegg, The Paradigm of Catharism; or, the Historians’ Illusions, [in:] Cathars in Question,
op. cit., pp. 21–52; idem, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245–1246, Princeton
2001; idem, On Cathars, Albigenses, and Good Men of Languedoc, “Journal of Medieval History” 2001,
no. 27, pp. 181–195; idem, Albigenses in the Antipodes: An Australian and the Cathars, “Journal of
Religious History” 2011, no. 35, pp. 577–600. A similar approach is presented by J. Théry-Astruc, The
Heretical Dissidence of the ‘Good Men’ in the Albigeois (1276–1329): Localism and Resistance to Ro-
man Clericalisms, [in:] Cathars in Question, op. cit., pp. 79–111. This radical interpretation is criticized
by J. Feuchter, J. Arnold and P. Biller, see: J. Feuchter, The ‘heretici’ of Languedoc: Local Holy Men
and Women or Organized Religious Group? New Evidence from Inquisitorial, Notarial and Historio-
graphical Sources, [in:] Cathars in Question, op. cit., pp. 113–130; J. Arnold, The Cathar Middle Ages as
a Methodological and Historiographical Problem, [in:] Cathars in Question, op. cit., pp. 56–57, 61–78;
P. Biller, Goodbye to Catharism?, op. cit., pp. 282–286.
3
 P. Jiménez-Sanchez, Les catharismes: modèles dissidents du christianisme médiéval, XIIe–XIIIe
siècles, Rennes 2008, pp. 207–210, 309–311, 366; R.I. Moore, The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in
Medieval Europe, London 2012, pp. 201–219, 255–257; see also: R.I. Moore, Principles at Stake: The
Debate of April 2013 in Retrospect, [in:] Cathars in Question, op. cit., pp. 257–273.
4
 R.I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society. Authority and Deviance in Western Europe,
950–1250, Malden 2007, pp. 11–26, 64–68, 111–116; J.L. Biget, Le Midi hérétique: construction d’une
image (vers 1140–1209), “Religions et histoire” 2012, 46, pp. 44–45; idem, Les bons hommes sont-ils les
fils des bogomiles? Examen critique d’une idée reçue, “Slavica Occitania” 2003, no. 16, p. 161; P. Jiménez-
-Sanchez, Le catharisme: une origine orientale à deux tendances?, “Slavica Occitania” 2003, no. 16, p. 225;
eadem, Les catharismes..., op. cit., pp. 42–48, 345–354; M. Zerner, Du court moment où on appela les héré-
tiques des «Bougres» et quelques déductions, “Cahiers de civilisation médiévale” 1989, no. 32, pp. 318–324.
Connections of Catharism with the Bogomill East are still defended by many scholars, see, e.g. B. Hamil-
ton, Cathar Links with the Balkans and Byzantium, [in:] Cathars in Question, op. cit., pp. 131–150; P. Biller,
op. cit., pp. 288–291; C. Taylor, Evidence for Dualism in Inquisitorial Registers of the 1240s. A Contribu-
tion to a Debate, “History” 2013, no. 98, pp. 319–345; T. Drakopoulos, L’unité de Bogomilo-Catharisme
d’après quatre textes latins analysés à la lumière des sources byzantines, Geneve 2010, http://archive-
ouverte.unige.ch/unige:12233 [access: 01.09.2018], pp. 6–39, 252–262.
5
 P. Jiménez-Sanchez, De la participation des cathares rhénans (1163) à la notion d’hérésie générale,
“Heresis” 2002, no. 36–37, pp. 204–217; eadem, Variations spatiales et temporelles dans l’organisation
et dans l’encadrement des communautés dites «cathares», “Heresis” 2003, no. 39, pp. 38, 58–60; eadem,
Les catharismes..., op. cit., pp. 354–376; J.L. Biget, Réflexions sur «l’hérésie» dans le Midi de la France
au Moyen Âge, “Heresis” 2001, no. 36–37, pp. 39–44, 46–51; A. Brenon, Le faux problème du dualisme
absolu, “Heresis” 1993, no. 21, pp. 61–74; E. Werner, L’evangelie de Jean et le dualisme medieval,
“Heresis” 1989, no. 12, pp. 15–24. See also: R. Poupin, La papauté, les Cathares et Thomas d’Aquin,
Portet-sur-Garonne 2000, pp. 122, 178–180.
 49

which confirm Cathar connections with the East.6 That is why in this article I am go-
ing to focus on the issue of Cathar exegesis, which was the foundation of the myth of
the fall – the core of dualist doctrine – to verify if such revolutionary statements are
probable in the light of available source materials.
As Catharism was not a doctrinal monolith, this exegesis should be analysed sepa-
rately in each of its branches. In the case of moderate Catharism, earlier (twelfth
century) French and German sources focus mainly on ethics and religious practice.
Their authors do not give precise information concerning the doctrine and biblical
exegesis, often comparing the heretics to the ancient Manichaeans.7 The myth of the
fall is already well described by later Italian sources from the end of the twelfth and
thirteenth century, such as: Manifestatio heresis catharorum quam fecit Bonacur-
sus (1176), De heresi catharorum in Lombardia (1200–1210), the summa of Peter
of Verona (1235), of Jacob de Capellis (1240–1260), Moneta of Cremona (1240),
Rainer Sacchoni (1250) and Tractatus de hereticis written probably by the inquisitor
Anzelm of Alessandria (1270).8 These sources show clearly that all the elements of
the myth of the fall, explaining the origins of evil, professed by the moderate Cathars
corresponded to those present in the Bogomil apocrypha Interrogatio Iohannis, but
what’s more important here – a similar situation also occurred with the fragments of
the Holy Scriptures on which this myth was built. First of all, moderate Cathars, in
exactly the same way as Bogomils, explained the origins of the fall of Satan based on
a passage from the Book of Isaiah (Is 14,13–14), showing that originally he had been
6
 P. Biller criticizes the deconstructivist approach, especially that of Pegg and Moore, who form their
conclusions based only on selected sources that are favourable to their theory, P. Biller, op. cit., pp. 274–
304. Similar accusations were also levelled by M. Roquebert, Le ‘déconstructionnisme’ et les études
cathares, [in:] M. Aurell (ed.), Les Cathares devant l’Histoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean Duvernoy, Cahors
2005, pp. 127–133.
7
 In the case of these early sources, it is usually impossible to determine whether they deal with
moderate or radical dualists, see: J. Duvernoy, Le catharisme II. L’histoire des cathares, Toulouse
1979, pp. 107–149.
8
 Vita Haereticorum quam fecit Bonacursus, J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina (PL), vol. 204, Pa-
risiis 1855; col. 775–792, more about this source, see: G. Rottenwöhrer, Der Katharismus, vol. 1 (1),
Quellen zum Katharismus, Bad Honnef 1982, pp. 48–50; De Heresi Catharorum in Lombardia, A. Don-
daine (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum“ 1949, no. 19, pp. 306–312; more about the source, see:
A. Dondaine, La hiérachie cathare en Italie I, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1949, no. 19, pp. 298–
304; S. Petrus Martyr, Summa contra haereticos, T. Kaepelli (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum”
1947, no. 17, pp. 320–335; more on this partly-edited source, see: T. Kaepelli, Une Somme contre les
hérétiques de S. Pierre Martyr, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1947, no. 17, pp. 295–320; Jacobus
de Capellis, Disputationes nonnulae adversus haereticos, D. Bazzocchi (ed.), [in:] L’eresia catara. Ap-
pendice, Bologna 1920; see also: W.L. Wakefield, Notes on Some Antiheretical Writings of the Thirteenth
Century, “Franciscan Studies” 1967, no. 27, pp. 301–304, 309–315; G. Rottenwöhrer, op. cit., pp. 57–59;
Moneta de Cremona, Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque, T.A. Ricchini (ed.), Roma 1743; see
also: G. Rottenwöhrer, op. cit., pp. 59–62; A. Dondaine, Le manuel de l’inquisiteur, “Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum” 1947, no. 17, pp. 179–180; Summa Fratris Raineri de ordine fratrum praedicatorum, de
Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno, A. Dondaine (ed.), [in:] A. Dondaine, Un Traité Neo-Manicheen du
13 siècle, le Liber de duobus principiis suivi d’un fragment de Rituel Cathare, Roma 1939, pp. 64–78;
see also: F. Šanjek, Raynerius Sacconi O.P. Summa de catharis, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum“
1974, no. 44, pp. 31–41; Tractatus de Hereticis, A. Dondaine (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum”
1950, no. 20, pp. 308–324; see also: A. Dondaine, La hiérarchie cathare en Italie II, “Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum” 1950, no. 20, pp. 235–239.
50

a good angel, but later rebelled against God, led by pride.9 Of course, this analogy
cannot constitute proof of the dependence of the Cathar conception on the Bogomil
one, because the idea that pride was the sin which caused the fall of Satan is com-
mon in Christianity. The situation is similar in the case of the identification of Satan
with the apocalyptic dragon (Rev 12,4), which is present in moderate Catharism,
Bogomilism and Catholicism.10 It is, however, much more difficult to find such all-
embracing analogies in the case of the identification of Satan with the unjust steward
from the Gospel of St. Luke (Lk 16,1–8), which was mentioned by Peter of Verona
when reporting the myth of the moderate Cathars.11 Here the only analogy can be
found in the Bogomil Interrogatio Iohannis, where Satan, after he had decided to
rebel against God, started to tempt the angels with the words of the unjust stew-
ard.12 In Interrogatio we can find another characteristic theme, reported by Italian
sources – the identification of Satan with the Unmerciful Servant, from the Gospel
of St. Mathew (Mt 18,23–35).13 According to Interrogatio – Satan, after he had been
expelled from heaven, asked God for mercy through the words of the unmerciful
servant: “Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything.”14 In the Bogomil sa-
cred book we can also find the sources of the most distinctive element of the Cathar
myth of the fall – the identification of human spirits with angels – which is present
both in the moderate and the radical version. As we read in this source – Satan, after
he had formed the first human bodies, ordered the angel from the second heaven to
enter the body of Adam, and the angel from the first heaven to enter the body of Eve.15

9
 IR 44: Et cogitavit volens ponere tronum suum super nubes et esse similis altissimo. The fall of
Lucifer, caused by pride in the Italian sources, see: PV 325, MC 110.
10
 Interrogatio Iohannis, E. Bozoky (ed.), [in:] eadem, Le livre secret des cathares. Interrogatio Io-
hannis. Edition critique, traduction commentaire, Paris 2009, p. 52: Precepit pater meus et transfiguravit
se propter elationem suam et abstulit lumen glorie sue ei, et facies eius sicut ferrum fuit fervens ab igne
et tota species faciei eius fuit sicut hominis, et habuit VII caudas trahentes tertiam partem angelorum dei.
For an analogical theme in moderate Catharism, see: S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., p. 325.
11
 S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., p. 325: ...alii vero, qui negant duo esse principia [...] simul opponuntur
quod deus preposuerit eum aliis angelis in prelatum, sed quia male se habuit in illa prepositura volebat
eum eicere deus et ille petit a deo misericordiam, sed eo postea se non corrigente per prelium magnum
eiectus est a deo cum omnibus angelis qui eum diligere videbantur.
12
 Interrogatio Iohannis, p. 50: Quantum debe domino tuo? Et primus respondit: C chados olei. Et
dixit ei: Accipe cautionem et sede et scribe L. Et alii dicit :Tu vero quantum debes domino tuo? Qui ait:
C choros tritici. Et ait illi: Tolle cautionem tuam et sede et scribe cito octuaginta’. Et ascendebat ad alios
celos ita dicens adscenditque usque ad quintum celum seducens angelos invisibilis patris.
13
 Tractatus de Hereticis, p. 312: Intelligit autem potencialiter vel quia diabolus habuit potentiam
quam habuit naturaliter a prima condicione a Deo, vel quando diabolus secundum eos dixit Deo: “Pa-
cientiam habe in me etc” tunc Deus dedit diabolo potentiam formandi omnia. See also: S. Petrus Martyr,
op. cit., p. 325; Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 110.
14
 All the Biblical citations in English are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic
Edition (NRSVCE). Interrogatio Iohannis, p. 54: Et descendens de celo Sathanas in firmamentum hic
nullam requiem poterat facere neque hii qui cum eo erant. Rogavitque patrem dicens: Peccavi, patien-
tiam habe in me; omnia reddam tibi. Pater misertus est eius et dedit ei requiem facere quod vult usque
ad diem septimum.
15
 Interrogatio Iohannis, p. 58: Et cogitavit facere hominem in servitio sibi et tulit limum de terra
et fecit hominem similem sibi. Et precepit angelo secundi celi introire in corpus luti et tulit de eo et fecit
alium corpus in forma mulieris precepitque angelo primi celi introire in ilium.
 51

Although this element of the doctrine was crucial for the majority of Cathar groups,
it had very weak biblical foundations.16 According to the De heresi and Moneta of
Cremona, moderate Cathars from Concorezzo quoted the abovementioned parable
of the unmerciful servant, identified with Satan. His debtor, whom he had begun to
choke, saying “Pay back what you owe me” was the angel, imprisoned in the body
of Adam.17 Manifestatio of Bonacursus and Moneta also mention that the Cathars
related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10,30) to this specific anthropological
conception. In their allegorical interpretation, the man going down from Jerusalem
to Jericho was the angel going down from the heavenly Jerusalem; the robbers who
attacked him were the demons who deprived him of heavenly glory and imprisoned
him in this world, and the good Samaritan was Jesus, who came to save him.18 As we
can see, these fragments of the Holy Scripture are not especially convincing founda-
tions for the revolutionary idea of the preexistence of spirits in heaven, and it seems
more probable that the source for this doctrine was another apocrypha used by the
Bogomils – the Vision of Isaiah.19
As we can see, all the crucial elements of the myth of the fall professed by the
moderate Cathars (and their biblical foundations) were borrowed from the Bogomil
Interrogatio Iohannis, which is unsurprising, because we know that this apocrypha
was brought to Italy around 1190 by the heretic bishop, Nazarius of Concorezzo, and
later was also known in southern France.20 A similar situation occurred in relation to
the Vision of Isaiah.21 This complete dependence of the exegesis of moderate Cathars
on Bogomil models is a strong argument against the assumption that the Cathar doc-
trine was the effect of independent exegesis, developed in the heretical schools.
The situation looks a bit different in the case of the radically dualistic doctrine.
First of all, within this option we had two sub-doctrines, with significantly different
versions of the myth of the fall – the first (and earlier), identifying human spirits with
the angels that had fallen from heaven (which can be called angelic) and the second,
according to which the spirits preexisted in heaven in the kingdom of the Good God
16
 Only the adherents of the doctrine of the two worlds, described below, did not identify human
spirits with the angels.
17
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 310: Et dicunt, quod lucifer ille formavit de limo terre formam ade et in
illa forma suffocavit illum bonum angelum secundum quod dicitur in evangelio: „Tenens suffocabat illum
dicens: Redde quod debes”; Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 110; see also: Tractatus de Hereticis, p. 312;
S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., 325.
18
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 110–111; Vita Haereticorum quam fecit Bonacursus, p. 775.
19
 Vision of Isaiah presents the journey of the prophet through the seven heavens to the throne of
God. It expresses the idea of the preexistence of souls in heaven, mentioning crowns, thrones and robes
of the righteous, left in the seventh heaven, which will be regained after their death.
20
 On the issue of the use of this apocrypha among the Cathars, see: E. Bozoky, Le livre secret des
cathares. Interrogatio Iohannis. Edition critique, traduction commentaire, Paris 2009; pp. 26–32, 176–
197; eadem, “Livre secret” des cathares: un lien entre l’Orient et l’Occident, “Slavica Occitania” 2003,
no. 16, pp. 203–205. One copy of this book survived in the archives of the inquisition in Carcassone with
the inquisitor’s inscription: Hoc est secretum hereticorum de Concorezo portatum de Bulgaria, plenam
erroribus et etiam falsis latinis.
21
 According to the sources, the Cathars knew the Vision of Isaiah very well: see: A. Acerbi, La Vi-
sione di Isaia nelle vicende dottrinali del catarismo lombardo e provenzale, “Christianesimo nella storia”
1980, no. 1, pp. 75–122.
52

(which can be called the doctrine of the two worlds). The angelic version was report-
ed for the first time in 1163 by Eckbert of Schönau in Germany, and later at the end
of the twelfth Century in France by the theologian Alan of Lille (1178–1202), and the
Waldensian Durand of Huesca (Durandus de Huesca, 1179–1207) in his Liber anti-
heresis.22 Far more detailed accounts of this myth can be found in Italian sources: De
heresi, Peter of Verona, Moneta of Cremona, Rainer Sacchoni, Jacob de Capellis and
also in the Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum (1240–1250).23 The
common elements for all these accounts are: the existence of two, eternal and equally
powerful gods – a good and an evil one – and the identification of human spirits with
the angels that had fallen from heaven. According to the most detailed description
of De heresi, Lucifer, the son of the evil god, had entered heaven, led by envy, and
there – transformed into the angel of light – became popular among the good angels,
and was appointed as a steward of the heavenly hosts. After he had revealed his evil
intentions and seduced the angels, he changed his shape and in the form of the apoca-
lyptic dragon fought with Michael the Archangel, but was defeated and eventually
cast down from heaven with the angels who followed him. After the expulsion, here
on Earth, he had these angels imprisoned in material bodies.24
As we can see, all the crucial elements of the Cathar radical myth are exactly
the same as in the moderate one, and in the Bogomil myth presented in the Inter-
rogatio Iohannis. In the case of the biblical foundations on which it was built, it is
very similar. As we learn from De heresi and Moneta, the radical Cathars quoted Is
14,13 to prove that the reason for Lucifer’s ascension to heaven was pride, and cited
lines from the Revelation of St. John (Rev 12,4; Rev 12,7) as the best references to
the battle which took place in heaven.25 What’s more important, however, is that the
justification for the conception of Lucifer as a steward of the heavenly hosts was
found in the parable of the unjust steward from the Gospel of St. Luke (Lk 16,1–8),

22
 Eckbertus Abbas Schonaugensis, Sermones contra catharos, J.P. Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 195, Pa-
risiis 1855, col. 13–103; for more on this source, see: G. Rottenwöhrer, op. cit., pp. 90–91; Alanus de
Insulis, De fide catholica contra Haereticos sui temporis, J.P. Migne (ed.), PL, vol. 210, col. 307–428;
see also: C. Vassoli, l contra-haereticos di Alano di Lilla, “Bullettino dell’Istituto storico” 1963, no.
75, pp. 123–172; W.L. Wakefield, op. cit., p. 287; Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, K.V. Selge
(ed.), [in:] idem, Die ersten Waldenser. Mit Edition des Liber Antiheresis des Durandus von Osca, vol. 2,
Berlin 1967, pp. 3–248; K.V. Selge, Die ersten Waldenser. Mit Edition des Liber Antiheresis des Du-
randus von Osca, vol. 2, Berlin 1967, pp. ii, IX, XVIII; Ch. Thouzellier, Le Liber anti-heresis de Du-
rand de Huesca et le Contra hereticos d’Ermengaud de Béziers, “Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique” 1960,
no. 55, pp. 130–141; A. Dondaine, Durand de Huesca et la polémique anti-cathare, “Archivum Fratrum
Praedicatorum” 1959, no. 29, pp. 228–248.
23
 Eckbertus Abbas Schonaugensis, op. cit., col. 16–17; Alanus de Insulis, op. cit., col. 316, 319;
Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 236; see also: De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309; Disputatio
inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum, I. Da Milano (ed.), “Aevum” 1940, no. 14, pp. 130–133, (For
more on this source, see: A. Dondaine, Le manuel..., op. cit., p. 177); Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 71; Mo-
neta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 4; Jacobus de Capellis, op. cit., p. VII–X; S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., p. 325.
24
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309.
25
 Ibidem; Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 4, 39–40; Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit.,
p. 124; see also: Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 71; S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., p. 325.
 53

which is a strong argument for its dependence on Interrogatio Iohannis.26 The radical
Cathars did not find very many new biblical foundations for their myth of the fall. De
heresi mentions only that they related the line from Psalm (Ps 79,1): “God, nations
have invaded your land to desecrate your holy Temple, to destroy Jerusalem” to the
battle in heaven, and according to Moneta, the line from the Book of Obadiah 1,4 as
well: “Though you soar high like the eagle and make your nest among the stars I will
bring you down even from there, declares the Lord.”27
The radical Cathars paid much more attention to the biblical foundations of the
crucial element of their myth – the identification of human spirits with the angels,
thus fulfilling the glaring lack of it in the Interrogatio. Already at the beginning of the
thirteenth century, De heresi says that to justify this theme they quoted the words of
Christ from the gospel of St. Matthew (Mt 15,24): “I was sent only to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel,” and (Mt 18,11): “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.”28
These fragments, and especially the first one, became the main arguments of the
radical Cathars in their disputes with their Catholic opponents, as we can conclude
from the testimony of various sources in which they appear.29 But these fragments
were not the only biblical foundations of this specific doctrine. According to Jacob
de Capellis, Cathars also quoted the parable of the Lost Sheep (Mt 18,12–14) and of
the Lost Coin (Mt 15,8–10), relating them to the minority of the angels who were
seduced by Lucifer, and for whose salvation Jesus came into this world.30 Disputatio,
as the only source, adds that the Cathars also based their doctrine on a fragment of the
Book of Sirah (Sir 18,1): “Qui vivet in aeternum creavit omnia simul,” proving that
all the spirits were created by God at the same time; it was also indirect proof for the
identification of the spirits with the angels, who existed in heaven.31 Followers of the
angelic doctrine also found biblical foundations for the theme of crowns and thrones
of angels, abandoned in heaven, which was also present in the moderate myth and
in Interrogatio, but in these latter accounts, the theme was not corroborated by any

26
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309: Et dicunt, quod hic Lucifer ex hoc suo regno ascendit superius in
celum, pro eo, quod dicitur in Ysaia propheta: ‘Conscendam in celum’ etc. Et tunc transfiguravit se in
angelum lucis. Angelis vero admirantibus propter formam euis et intercedentibus pro eo ad Dominum,
susceptus est in celo, et ibi villicus angelorum effectus est. Unde in Evangelio Luce dicitur: ‘Homo
quidam erat dives qui habebat villicum’. Et in tali villicatione seduxit angelos. See also: Disputatio...,
op. cit., p. 130; Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 4, 42–43; Jacobus de Capellis, op. cit., p. VII.
27
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309; Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 40.
28
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309: Later, it is also mentioned by Jacobus de Capellis, op. cit., p. IX: Dicit
Christus in evangelio Mathei: non sum missus nisi ad oves que perierant domus Israel, domus Israel
intelligent regnum celeste, oves quae perierunt angelos qui ceciderunt esse credunt.
29
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 124; Jacobus de Capellis, op. cit., p. IX; Moneta
de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 44–45.
30
 Jacobus de Capellis, op. cit., pp. IX–X. 
31
 Where the English translation does not reflect precisely the Latin original, I use quotations from:
Biblia Sacra Vulgata, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=II%20Timotheum+4&version=
VULGATE [access: 10.06.2018]. Disputatio..., op. cit., p. 135; Non ne dicitur in libro vestro Ihesu filii
Syrac: Qui vivit in eternum creavit omnia simul. Ergo omnes anime insimul sunt create, ergo non de novo
creantur sed spiritus celestes fuerunt.
54

biblical passage.32 According to De heresi, radical dualists found biblical support

for this conception in The Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy (2Tm 4,8): “In reli-
quo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die, justus
judex.”33
As we can see, based on the testimonies of the sources, radical Cathars, especially
those from Italy, during the thirteenth century developed biblical exegesis justifying
the most important elements of their myth of the fall. However, the small number of
these biblical passages, and the fact that the mythological themes fully correspond
with those present in the Interrogatio lead to the conclusion that biblical exegesis
was not the foundation of the myth, but rather the myth was the foundation of the
exegesis, and its main aim was to confirm the doctrine of the Bogomil sacred book.
Nevertheless, the attitude of radical Cathars towards Bogomil models was not totally
uncritical, and as we can conclude from the accounts of Peter of Verona and Rain-
er Sacchoni, at least some of them abandoned the problematic theme of the unjust
steward from the Gospel of St. Luke, identified with Satan, and, following strong
criticism by the Catholics, they (the Cathars) based their doctrine only on much less
controversial fragments taken from St. John’s Revelation.34 This rejection of the cru-
cial theme of the unjust steward shows that under the influence of Catholic criticism,
radical Cathars dared to modify the biblical exegesis on which their myth of the fall
was built, thus drifting away from the Bogomil concepts.
In the case of the angelic version, we can talk about the gradual evolution and
slow abandoning of the Bogomil models, but in the case of the doctrine of the two
worlds we have a real revolution both in the form of the myth and in the biblical ex-
egesis on which it was built. The doctrine of two worlds appeared for the first time in
France, at the end of the twelfth century, in the Liber antiheresis of the Waldensian,
Durand of Huesca (1179–1207), and later a specific folk version was described by
two sources at the beginning of the thirteenth century (ca. 1200–1213): Manifesta-
tio heresis albigensium et lugdunensium and De erroribus manichaeorum, and in
the 1220’s, it appeared again in the so-called Manichaean Treatise (written by an
anonymous Cathar author) and in another manuscript by Durand – The Liber contra
manichaeos, in which the Cathar treatise was included.35 This doctrine arrived much

32
 Interrogatio Iohannis, p. 52: Tunc pater precepit angelis suis: Deponite stolas et tronos et coronas
ab omnibus angelis audientes eum. Et tulerunt angeli vestimenta et tronos et coronas omnibus angelis
audientes eum.
33
 De Heresi..., op. cit., p. 309; Et dicunt quod adhuc sunt vestes et corone in celo et sedes quas
amiserunt, et iterum debent eas accipere. De quo apostolus: De reliquo reposita est...
34
 The identification of Satan with the unjust steward was widely criticized by Moneta of Cremona,
who argues that the God who made his supreme enemy the steward of his angels is either deprived of
omniscience or simply evil, see: Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 43. The new version, based only on the
Revelation of St. John, is described by Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 71: ...diabolus cum suis angelis ascen-
dit in coelum et facto ibi proelio cum Michaele archangel et angelis boni dei extraxit inde tertiam partem
creaturarrum dei... and S. Petrus Martyr, op. cit., p. 325.
35
 More on Liber antiheresis and Durand of Huesca, see: note 22; Manifestatio haeresis albigensium
et lugdunensium, A. Cazenave (ed.), [in:] Die Mächte des Guten und Bösen: Vorstellungen im XII. u. XIII.
Jahrhundert über ihr Wirken in der Heilsgeschichte, A. Zimmermann (ed.), Berlin 1977, pp. 384–397;
De erroribus manicheorum, J.N. Garvin, J.A. Corbett (eds.), [in:] J.N. Garvin, J.A. Corbett, The Summa
 55

later in Italy, and here it was professed by a schismatic group of Cathars from Desen-
zano, led by John of Lugio, from the 1230s onwards. It is described in the polemics
of Moneta and Rainer Sacchoni and also in the Cathar theological treatise – Liber de
duobus principiis.36
The myth of the fall in the doctrine of two worlds differs significantly from the
angelic version. It does not talk about angels in heaven, but about the people of God,
or the people of Israel, living in a perfect world called the Land of the Living. This
land was similar to our world in every aspect, because – according to Durand of
Huesca – the Cathars believed that Satan created his own material world in its image.
The crucial difference between these worlds was the material of which they were
formed – the Land of the Living was created from the perfect, incorruptible elements
of the good God, which cannot be perceived with the material eye, while the world
of Satan was made of imperfect and transient material elements.37 In the Land of the
Living there was a court of the good God and heavenly Jerusalem, a sun and a moon,
and people lived there in a similar way to how we live in our world.38 According to
the most vivid description of Manifestatio, in the world of the good God there are
rivers, castles, animals, and gold and silver; people live there, eat and sleep, and eve-
ryone has a wife and some even have mistresses.39 What’s more important, however,
is that all the events described in the Old Testament took place for the first time in the
Land of the Living. There, the people of Israel sinned and were expelled by God to
Babylon, i.e. to the material world, which was also identified with the only existing
contra haereticos Ascribed to Praepositus of Cremona, Notre-Dame 1958, p. 292; for more on these
sources, see: A. Dondaine, Durandus de Huesca..., op. cit., pp. 261–262; A. Cazenave, Bien et mal dans
un mythe cathare languedocien, [in:] Die Mächte des Guten und Bösen..., op. cit., pp. 352–354.
36
 On the issue of the schism of John of Lugio, see: Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 71; on his doctrine:
ibidem, pp. 72–76. Most of Moneta’s polemics are directed against the adherents of the doctrine of two
worlds, as we can conclude from his words, see: Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 44–57, 61–71. Sur-
viving fragments of Liber de duobus principiis present only some aspects of this doctrine, see: Liber de
duobus principiis, A. Dondaine (ed.), [in:] idem, Un traité neo-manichéen du XIIIe siècle,lLe Liber de
duobus principiis, suivi d’un fragment de rituel cathare, Roma 1939, pp. 99–109, 110–115, 116–131.
37
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 160: Si adhuc obiciunt hoc:“Omnia dupplicia
sunt, unum contra unum”, – non sic debet intelligi, ut sint et alia quatuor invisibilia elementa, ad quorum
similitudinem hec visibilia sunt create. For more on the description of the Land of the Living, see: ibidem:
149, 156; Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, Ch. Thouzellier (ed.), [in:] eadem, Une somme
anti-cathare: le Liber contra Manicheos de Durand de Huesca, Louvain 1964, pp. 82, 98, 100–103,
107–109, 147–152, 188, 193, 202, 217–218, 225–231, 214, see also: Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 73.
38
 Tractatus manicheorum, Ch. Thouzellier (ed.), [in:] eadem, Un traité cathare inédit du début du
XIIIe siècle d’après le Liber contra Manicheos de Durand de Huesca, Louvain 1961, pp. 94–95: In illo
[inquiunt] seculo credimus esse celum novum et terram novam, de quibus Dominus populo suo ait in
Ysaia [...] Illic est curia Patris sancta et angelica, de qua Danihel ait [...] De operibus vero et creaturis
que sunt ibi, Apostolus ait: Quod nec occulis vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, que pre-
paravit Deus hiis qui diligunt eum. (For more on this source, see: Ch. Thouzellier, Un traité cathare inédit
du début du XIIIe siècle d’après le Liber contra Manicheos de Durand de Huesca, Louvain 1961, pp. 25–
84); Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, pp. 148, 158; Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 73.
39
 Manifestatio haeresis..., op. cit., pp. 385, 385: In illam terram, scilicet viventium, credunt esse
civitates et castella suburbana, et villas et nemora, prata, viridarios, aquas dulces et salsas, bestias
silvestres et domesticas, canes et aves ad venandum, aurum et argentum, et diversi generis vasa et supel-
lectilia. Dicunt etiam quod unusquisque habebit illic uxorem et quandoque amasiam; comedent et bibent,
ludent ac dormient...
56

hell.40 On the issue of the character of this sin of Israel in heaven, the sources are not
unanimous. In the Liber antiheresis, Durand of Huesca says that the people of God
sinned in heaven, without giving any further details; in the Contra Manichaeos, how-
ever, he says that Satan entered heaven with his troops and spread terror in the Land
of the Living, forcing the people of God to sin.41 Rainer Sacchoni in his description
of the Italian version writes that the sons of God took the daughters of the evil God
for wives and from these sinful unions, Giants were born.42 Although the fundamen-
tal tenets (the preexistence of souls, sin committed in heaven, and the fall to Satan’s
material world) are the same as in the angelic version, the form of the myth of the
fall in the doctrine of the two worlds is completely different, and – what’s especially
noteworthy – it does not have analogies in any of the known Bogomil sources, so it
seems highly probable that the doctrine of the two worlds was a genuine invention of
the Cathars, specifically those from southern France.
Not only was the form of the myth revolutionary here, but, more importantly, the
biblical exegesis as well. In contrast to the Bogomils, moderate Cathars and adher-
ents of the angelic doctrine – who based their teachings mainly on the New Testa-
ment, rejecting the Old Testament as the work of the evil god (with the exception of
the Psalms and Prophets) – Cathars who professed the doctrine of the two worlds
accepted the whole Old Testament, using excerpts from it to confirm their teach-
ings. Based on an excerpt from the Book of Sirah (Sir 42,25): “Omnia duplicia, unum
contra unum” (which was fundamental for the whole doctrine of two worlds), they
argued that the Old Testament described both the events that took place in the mate-
rial world of Satan, and those from the Land of the Living.43 In this heavenly world,
there were equivalents of the earthly prophets, for example, good Moses and good
Abraham.44 Fragments of the Old Testament concerning God, interpreted literally,
were related to Satan, and in the allegorical interpretation to the good God.45 The
author of the Manichaean Treatise begins with a declaration of faith in the only God
who created everything (omnia), but then he explains that omnia never means the
whole being, but either everything good or everything evil.46

40
 On the issue of sin in heaven and the fall of the people of God, see: Durandus de Huesca, Liber
antiheresis, op. cit., pp. 121, 152, 156, 183, 197; Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 75; Moneta de Cremona,
op. cit., pp. 75–76.
41
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., pp. 121, 134, 138, 149, 152; idem, Liber contra
manicheos, p. 259: Item si princeps mundi, ut Manichei dogmatizant et fermentant suos heresiothas, et
Assur et Elam et alii quos propheta Ezechiel testatur dedisse terrorem in terra viventium, ingressi sunt
terram illam cum exercitibus suis et inde animas populi Dei captas in hoc seculum abduxerunt. See also:
ibidem, pp. 167, 138, 257–259, 283, 286–87, 303–306.
42
 Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 73: ...populous boni dei duxerunt contra praeceptum ipsius ibidem
filias alienigenas in uxores, id est filias alieni dei, sive malorum deorum et ex tali coitu inhonesto et
prohibito nati sunt gigantes et multi alii diversis temporibus.
43
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., pp. 149, 160; idem, Liber contra manicheos,
p. 214; Tractatus manicheorum, p. 102.
44
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 183.
45
 See: Liber de duobus principiis, pp. 110–117.
46
 Tractatus manicheorum, op. cit., p. 102: Sic itaque probatur, quod omnia quandoque in divinis
Scripturis eterna esse dicuntur, quandoque temporalia, et ideo hoc nomen omnia dupliciter accipitur,
 57

All the crucial elements of the myth of the fall in the doctrine of the two worlds
had strong biblical foundations, which were missing in the angelic version. Accord-
ing to the Liber antiheresis and Contra manichaeos by Durand of Huesca, the idea of
the two worlds was based on the above mentioned line from the Book of Sirah (Sir
42,25): “All things come in pairs, one opposite the other.”47 To prove the existence
of the Land of the Living, the Cathars quoted various passages from the Old and the
New Testament in which it was mentioned, e.g., Ps 27 (26), Ps 142 (141); Rev 21,1.48
Based on a dramatic description from the seventh chapter of the Book of Job (Job 7),
they argued that the world we live in is the only existing hell.49 The Cathar author of
the Manichaean treatise also adds passages from the Book of Isaiah (Is 65,17): “For
I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be
remembered or come to mind,” and from The Second Epistle of St. Peter (2P 3,13),
“[...] we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.”50
The author emphasises the fact that the material world in which we live was not cre-
ated by God, and is not under his Reign. To prove this, he quotes an excerpt from St.
James’s Epistle (Ja 4,4): “Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world
is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes
an enemy of God,” and the words of Christ from St. John’s Gospel (Jn 18,36): “My
kingdom is not from this world”; (Jn 17,16): “They do not belong to the world, just
as I do not belong to the world,” and many other passages from the New Testament
(1Cor 7,31; 1John 2,15–16; Jn 14,30; Jn 17,9; Jn 17,25; Jn 16,33; Jn 15,19).51 Based
on The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1Cor 15,50): “[...] flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God” and many other fragments both from the Old and
the New Testament (Dn 7,14; Lk 1,33; Ps 145,13), the author proves that the King-
dom of God is immaterial, eternal and incorruptible, contrasting these fragments with
quotations concerning this world, which will eventually pass (2P 3,10; Mt 15,13).52
Also, the description of the Land of the Living with heavenly Jerusalem and the
source of life was based on fragments taken from St. John’s Revelation (Rev 22,1–2;
Rev 2,7; Rev 21,1–2), St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Ga 4,26), and the Books of
Isaiah (Is 60,20) and Daniel (Dn 7,10).53

iuxta illud Sapientie: Omnia duplicia: unum contra unum. The same conception was later developed by
the author of Liber de duobus principiis, see: Liber de duobus principiis, op. cit., pp. 110–115.
47
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 160; idem, Liber contra manicheos, op. cit.,
p. 214; see also note 37.
48
 Idem, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., pp. 144, 149, 156, 213.
49
 Ibidem, p. 198; see also Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 57.
50
 Tractatus manicheorum, op. cit., pp. 89, 94.
51
 Ibidem, pp. 91–92: Si mundus positus est in maligno et si non est diligendus neque ea, que in eo
sunt, ergo non est credendum quod sint propria Christi quia non sunt ex Patre.
52
 Ibidem, pp. 92–93, 109–110, (2P 3,10: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the
heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and
everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Mt 15,13: Every plant that my heavenly Father has not
planted will be uprooted).
53
 Ibidem, pp. 94–95.
58

Adherents of the doctrine of the two worlds found many more biblical founda-
tions justifying the preexistence of souls in heaven than their brothers professing the
angelic version. According to the Liber antiheresis of Durand of Huesca, and Mon-
eta, they also quoted the words of Jesus from St. Matthew’s gospel (Mt 15,24) – I was
sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel – and the parable of the Lost Sheep
(Lk 15,4–7) and the Lost Coin (Lk 15,8–10), showing that they related to the souls
that fell down from heaven.54 According to Moneta, they argued that Israel, etymo-
logically, means: “The man who sees God,” so consequently the people of Israel are
the people who saw God in the literal sense, which means that they lived in heaven.55
But these were not the only arguments for the preexistence of souls. The Italian Ca-
thars, described by Moneta, were especially active in this field. They developed Bib-
lical exegesis corroborating this doctrine, paying attention to each of its aspects. To
justify the tenet that the people of God lived in heaven at the beginning, they quoted
meaningful lines from the Gospel of St. John (Jn 3,13): “No one has ascended into
heaven except the one who descended from heaven,” St. Paul’s epistles: to the Phi-
lippians (Phil 3,20): “But our citizenship is in heaven” (“Nostra autem conversatio
in caelis est”) and Ephesians (Eph 1,3): “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heav-
enly places.”56 Based on The Epistle to the Galatians (Ga 6,16), which talks about the
“Israel of God”: “As for those who will follow this rule – peace be upon them, and
mercy, and upon the Israel of God,” they argued that – just as everything – Israel also
has a double meaning: firstly, the Jewish people living in this world, and secondly,
spirits created by the good God, who once inhabited the Land of the Living.57
According to Moneta, Italian Cathars also found many fragments in the Holy
Scripture to prove that the people of God were created before this material world.
Crucial for this issue were lines from the Book of Isaiah (Is 3,19): “Facti sumus quasi
in principio,” and an excerpt from The Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 1,4): “[...] he
chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.”58 Other arguments for the in-
numerable age of the Israel of God were also found in the book of Sirach (Sir 37,25):
“The days of a person’s life are numbered, but the days of Israel are without number,”
Jeremiah (Jer 2,32): “Yet my people have forgotten me, days without number,” and
Isaiah (Is 46,8–9): “Recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things
of old” (“Recordamini proris saeculi”).59 To prove that all the spirits were created in
heaven at one time (and so, consequently, that they are not created daily as the

54
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., pp. 44–45, 47. According to Moneta, the Cathars also quoted Lk
19:10: For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost. Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis,
op. cit., p. 236.
55
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 44: Volunt autem habere hoc, quia Israel interpretatur vir videns
Deum; Israelitae ergo dicuntur Deum videntes. Sed ubi Dominum viderunt? Constat quod non hic. Si
igitur viderunt eum, viderunt eum in caelo, ergo fuerunt in ipso.
56
 Ibidem, p. 48.
57
 Ibidem, p. 53: Ex hoc enim volunt, quod duplex sit Israel: unus Dei et alter non.
58
 Ibidem, pp. 48, 73.
59
 Ibidem, pp. 71–72, 76, 51.
 59

Catholics claimed), the Cathars quoted a line from the Book of Sirah (Sir 18,1): “Qui
vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul.”60
The adherents of the doctrine of two worlds also significantly researched the bib-
lical foundations for the crucial tenet of the myth of the fall – the sin of the People
of God in heaven – which did not have any scriptural corroboration in the angelic
version. As we read in Durand’s Contra Manichaeos, they quoted a fragment of the
book of Lamentations (Lam 2,1): “How the Lord in his anger has humiliated daughter
Zion! He has thrown down from heaven to earth the splendor of Israel” (“Proiecit de
celo in terram inclitam Israel”).61 The Cathars also related fragments of the Old Testa-
ment, concerning the abduction of the Israelites to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, to
the fall of the people of God from heaven, for example, Jer 29,1–2; Jer 39,1–10; and
Ez 36,24, identifying Nebuchadnezzar with Satan.62 We suspect that such an exegesis
of the biblical fragments concerning Babylonian Captivity appeared in the doctrine of
the two worlds much earlier, because Durand of Huesca in his Liber antiheresis says
that the heretics related the words of Psalm (Ps 137[136],1–4): “How could we sing
the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” to the spirits fallen from heaven.63 According to
Moneta, Italian Cathars quoted the same fragment of the Book of Lamentations (Lam
2,1) as their French brothers to corroborate the sin of the spirits in heaven, but the rest
of the quotations they used show that in biblical exegesis, they did not follow French
patterns passively.64 They related words from Isaiah to the sin of the spirits in heaven:
(Is 24,21–22): “On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and
on earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together like prisoners in a pit,
they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished,” argu-
ing, that the prison meant the material world, belonging to Satan. The same prison
for souls, who sinned in the world of the good God was mentioned, they believed, in
The First Epistle of St. Peter: (1P 3,19–20), which says that Christ “went and made
a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey.”65 It seems,
however, that the crucial biblical argument quoted by the Italian Cathars for the sin of
Israel in heaven was the parable of the Prodigal Son from the Gospel of St. Luke (Lk
15,11–32). Of course, at first glance, it may seem that the identification of the prodi-
gal son with the spirits who sinned in heaven is rather artificial – just as is the parable
relating the unjust steward to Satan – nevertheless, in this case, the Cathars found
a strong argument to justify their interpretation in the words said by the prodigal son

60
 Ibidem, p. 69.
61
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, op. cit., p. 303; see also: Moneta de Cremona,
op. cit., p. 51.
62
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, op. cit., p. 257; see also: Moneta de Cremona,
op. cit., p. 42.
63
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 137: Hac auctoritate se tutantur heretici dicen-
tes se esse de celo translatos in hanc terram, quam dicunt alienam.
64
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 51.
65
 Ibidem, pp. 51, 61.
60

to his father (Lk 15,21): “Peccavi in coelum et coram te,” which in their opinion were
ultimate proof of the fact that the sin was committed in heaven.66
Although all the adherents of the doctrine of two worlds claimed unanimously
that the people of God sinned in heaven, their opinions considering the reason for
and nature of this sin varied, as did the fragments of the Holy Scripture on which
they were based. As it was mentioned above, the French Cathars seemed to blame
Satan and his demons – who invaded heaven and established their Reign of terror
there – for this sin. The author of the Manichaean Treatise quotes the parable of
Weeds among the Wheat (Mt 13,24–30), explaining that the field on which the sower
sows the wheat signifies the world of the good God, and the wheat signifies his peo-
ple, while the enemy, who comes at night to sow weeds is Satan, who entered this
world introducing his servants there. Through this parable, the Cathar author wanted
to prove that the world of God was at first inhabited by his people, but later was set-
tled by the devil’s hosts.67 According to Durand’s Contra Manichaeos, this invasion
of heaven by Satan was presented as the conquest of the realm of the good God.
Based on the Revelation of St. John, they described the battle between the dragon and
Michael the Archangel (Rev 12,4), three foul spirits (Rev 16,13), and the great whore
drunk with the blood of the martyrs (Rev 19,2), who were introduced to heaven by
Satan.68 Devastation of the Land of the Living by the forces of Satan and the reign
of terror which they introduced there were corroborated by fragments of the Book of
Job (Job 28,5–6): “Terra de qua oriebatur panis, in loco suo igni subversa est,” and
of Ezekiel (Ez 32,22–25): from the chapter: Lament over Pharaoh (here identified
with the devil): “Their graves are set in the uttermost parts of the Pit. Its company is
all around its grave, all of them killed, fallen by the sword, who spread terror in the
land of the living. Elam is there, and all its hordes around its grave; all of them killed,
fallen by the sword, who went down uncircumcised into the world below, who spread
terror in the land of the living.”69
A totally different interpretation of the issue of sin in heaven was proposed by the
Cathars from Italy. According to Moneta, Satan’s invasion of heaven did not cause
the sin of the people of God, but inversely – the sin of the people of God caused pun-
ishment in the shape of Satan’s invasion, which was permitted by God. This concept
was confirmed, according to the Italians, by passages from the book of Jeremiah (Jer
25,8): “Because you have not obeyed my words, I am going to send for all the tribes
of the north, says the Lord, even for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant,
66
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 46: Per hunc autem filium adolescentiorem intelligent creaturas
iam dictas, vel aliquam illarum, quae dicit: peccavi in caelum et coram te. Et ita volunt quod aliquando
fuerit in caelo.
67
 Tractatus manicheorum, op. cit., p. 96: Sed falsi expositores hunc agrum mundum presentem as-
serunt, quem Dominus suum esse dixit: quod nobis falsum esse videtur. In mundo etenim, de quo Dominus
loquitur, boni prius fuerunt, postea vero mali.
68
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, op. cit., p. 154: Et quis esset tam vecors ut sentiret
in illo celo esse tres immundos spiritus in modum ranarum et drachonem cum Michaele archangelo pre-
liantem. [...] Item quis esset tam insipiens, mente captus, qui reretur in illo celo esse magnam meretricem
que corrumpit terram in prostitucione sua, que dicitur ebria esse de sanguine sanctorum et de sanguine
martytum Ihesu?
69
 Ibidem, pp. 257, 259.
 61

and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants,” St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans (Rom 9,17): “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, «I have raised you up for the
very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in
all the earth»70 and (Rom 11,32): “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that
he may be merciful to all.”71 Of course, the assertion that good God allowed Satan to
act against his people in heaven to show his power cast a shadow on his goodness,
and led to the conclusion that he was at least partly responsible for the fall. Of course,
Italian Cathars were fully aware of it, especially John of Lugio, schismatic bishop of
the church of Desenzano, and probable author (or at least ideological father) of the
theological treatise Liber de duobus principiis.72 As we can conclude from this writ-
ing, and from the description of the inquisitor Rainer Sacchoni, he had introduced
an unconventional doctrine explaining all the actions of the good God that can be
considered evil. According to John of Lugio, the will of God is unambiguously good;
however, he is not able to fulfill it entirely, because it was made impossible by his
enemy – the evil principle, who acted in him eternally, inducing him to evil actions
against his creatures. Just as God was originally perfectly good, so too were his Peo-
ple; nevertheless, similarly to the Creator they were not able to realize their good
will, contained in their good nature, because the evil principle had eternally polluted
it with the inclination to evil (malitia). Although this doctrine looks rather artificial
and even absurd, it was also corroborated by passages found by John of Lugio in the
Holy Scripture, for example in the Book of Job (Job 2,3): “The Lord said to Satan
[...] you incited me against him [Job], to destroy him for no reason,” and in St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans (Rom 8,20): “[...] for the creation was subjected to futility, not
of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it...”73
As we can see, in the doctrine of the two worlds, all the elements of the myth of
the fall had their biblical foundations, and – what’s especially noteworthy – these
biblical foundations seem to have been found by the Cathars, because they do not
have analogies in Bogomilism. Does this mean, however, that this myth emerged as
the effect of independent scriptural exegesis, developed by the Cathars without any
external influence? When we take a look at French sources describing the doctrine of
the two worlds, we can come to the conclusion that the key to the Cathar exegesis was
ontological dualism, developed on the basis of a specific interpretation of the pro-
logue of St. John’s Gospel (Jn 1,1–3), assuming the existence of two totally separate
70
 Moneta de Cremona, op. cit., p. 42: Sunt ergo verba ista boni Dei ad Diabolum secundum te et
ipse dictus est Pharao, sicut credis.
71
 Ibidem, p. 52.
72
 A. Dondaine, Un Traité Neo-Manicheen du 13 siècle, le Liber de duobus principiis suivi d’un
fragment de Rituel Cathare, Roma 1939, pp. 14–19.
73
 Summa Fratris Raineri, p. 74: ...Ipse Iohannes dicit, videlicet, quod deus non est omnipotens. Dicit
tamen quod deus vult et potest omnia bona quantum in ipso est et in suis creaturis quae sibi necessario
obtemperant; sed impeditur haec dei voluntas et potential ab hoste suo. Item quod alteruter agit in
alterutrum ab eterno, et quod causa mala id est deus malus agit in deum verum et in eius filium atque
in cuncta eius opera ab eterno. [...] Unde concludit ex praemissis quod bonus deus non potuit perfectas
facere creaturas suas quamvis hoc voluerit, et hoc sibi et creaturis suis accidit propter resistentiam mali
dei qui actum suum sive quamdam malitiam ab aeterno inseruit in eas, ex qua malitia creature habuerunt
posse peccare. See also: Liber de duobus principiis, op. cit., pp. 88–92.
62

beings – a good one, whose essence was caritas, and an evil, material one – created
by Satan, whose essence was nihil. This interpretation emerged early, at the end of the
twelfth century, when it was mentioned by Alan of Lille and Durand of Huesca in his
Liber Antiheresis; later it was developed by the anonymous author of the Manichaean
Treatise, but – and this should be underlined – it also did not have direct analogies in
the Bogomil sources.74 So, at first glance it may seem that we have further evidence
for the interpretation according to which the Cathars were evangelical dissidents who
created their doctrine based on their own biblical exegesis, without Bogomil influ-
ences. Such an option, however, is not so probable when we consider the fact that this
original exegesis did not lead the Cathars to any innovative conclusions, because all
the crucial elements of the myth of the fall in the doctrine of the two worlds perfectly
corresponded to those from the angelic version, moderate Catharism and Bogomil
Interrogatio. Just as in the earlier versions, we can find here the preexistence of spir-
its, their sin in heaven and the fall to the material world, created by Satan. Of course,
we cannot deny that the adherents of the doctrine of two worlds managed to create
original scriptural exegesis, independent of the Bogomil models, in contrast to their
brothers professing an angelic or moderate version, but this exegesis was still a serv-
ant of the mythological themes borrowed from the Eastern dualists.

References

Sources
Alanus de Insulis, De fide catholica contra Haereticos sui temporis, J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia
Latina, vol. 210.
De erroribus manicheorum, J.N. Garvin, J.A. Corbett (eds.), [in:] J.N. Garvin, J.A. Corbett, The
Summa contra Haereticos Ascribed to Praepositus of Cremona, Notre-Dame 1958, p. 292.
De Heresi Catharorum in Lombardia, A. Dondaine (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum”
1949, no. 19, pp. 306–312.
Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum, I. Da Milano (ed.), “Aevum” 1940, no. 14,
pp. 125–140.
Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, K.V. Selge (ed.), [in:] K.V. Selge, Die ersten Waldenser. Mit
Edition des Liber Antiheresis des Durandus von Osca, vol. 2, Berlin 1967, pp. 3–258.
Durandus de Huesca, Liber contra manicheos, Ch. Thouzellier (ed.), [in:] Ch. Thouzellier, Une
somme anti-cathare: le Liber contra Manicheos de Durand de Huesca, Louvain 1964, pp. 66–
336.
Eckbertus Abbas Schonaugensis, Sermones contra catharos, J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina,
vol. 195, Parisiis 1855, pp. 13–103.
Interrogatio Iohannis, E. Bozoky (ed.), [in:] eadem, Le livre secret des cathares. Interrogatio Io-
hannis. Edition critique, traduction commentaire, Paris 2009.
Jacobus de Capellis, Disputationes nonnulae adversus haereticos, D. Bazzocchi (ed.), L’eresia
catara. Appendice, Bologna 1920.
Liber de duobus principiis, A. Dondaine (ed.), [in:] idem, Un traité neo-manichéen du XIIIe siècle,
Le Liber de duobus principiis, suivi d’un fragment de rituel cathare, Roma 1939, pp. 81–146.

74
 Durandus de Huesca, Liber antiheresis, op. cit., p. 209; Alanus de Insulis, op. cit., col. 312, Trac-
tatus manicheorum, op. cit., pp. 102–103 (chapter De hoc nomine nihil).
 63

Manifestatio haeresis albigensium et lugdunensium, A. Cazenave (ed.), [in:] A. Zimmermann (ed.),

Die Mächte des Guten und Bösen: Vorstellungen im XII. u. XIII. Jahrhundert über ihr Wirken
in der Heilsgeschichte, Berlin 1977, pp. 384–387.
Moneta de Cremona, Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque, T.A. Ricchini (ed.), Roma
1743.
S. Petrus Martyr, Summa contra haereticos, T. Kaepelli (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum”
1947, no. 17, pp. 320–335.
Summa Fratris Raineri de ordine fratrum praedicatorum, de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno,
A. Dondaine (ed.), [in:] A. Dondaine, Un Traité Neo-Manicheen du 13 siècle, le Liber de duo-
bus principiis suivi d’un fragment de Rituel Cathare, Roma 1939, pp. 64–78.
Tractatus de Hereticis, A. Dondaine (ed.), “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1950, no.
20, pp. 308–324.
Tractatus manicheorum, Ch. Thouzellier (ed.), [in:] eadem, Un traité cathare inédit du début du XI-
IIe siècle d’après le Liber contra Manicheos de Durand de Huesca, Louvain 1961, pp. 87–113.
Vita Haereticorum quam fecit Bonacursus, J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina, vol. 204, Parisiis
1855, pp. 775–792.

Literature
Acerbi A., La Visione di Isaia nelle vicende dottrinali del catarismo lombardo e provenzale, “Chris-
tianesimo nella storia” 1980, no. 1, pp. 75–122.
Arnold J., The Cathar Middle Ages as a Methodological and Historiographical Problem, [in:] Ca-
thars in Question, A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 53–78.
Biget J.L., Le Midi hérétique: construction d’une image (vers 1140–1209), “Religions et histoire”
2012, no. 46, pp. 40–45.
Biget J.L., Les bons hommes sont-ils les fils des bogomiles? Examen critique d’une idée reçue,
“Slavica Occitania” 2003, no. 16, pp. 133–188.
Biget J.L., Réflexions sur «l’hérésie» dans le Midi de la France au Moyen Âge, “Heresis” 2001,
no. 36–37, pp. 29–74.
Biller P., Goodbye to Catharism?, [in:] Cathars in Question, A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 274–
313.
Bozoky E., Le livre secret des cathares. Interrogatio Iohannis. Edition critique, traduction com-
mentaire, Paris 2009.
Bozoky E., “Livre secret” des cathares: un lien entre l’Orient et l’Occident, “Slavica Occitania”
2003, no. 16, pp. 199–206.
Brenon A., Le faux problème du dualisme absolu, “Heresis” 1993, no. 21, pp. 61–74.
Cazenave A., Bien et mal dans un mythe cathare languedocien, [in:] Die Mächte des Guten und
Bösen: Vorstellungen im XII. u. XIII. Jahrhundert über ihr Wirken in der Heilsgeschichte,
A. Zimmermann (ed.), Berlin 1977, pp. 344–387.
Dondaine A., Durand de Huesca et la polémique anti-cathare, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum”
1959, no. 29, pp. 228–267.
Dondaine A., La hiérachie cathare en Italie I, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1949, no.,
19, pp. 280–312.
Dondaine A., La hiérarchie cathare en Italie II, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum“ 1950, no.
20, pp. 234–324.
Dondaine A. Le manuel de l’inquisiteur, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1947, no. 17, pp. 85–
194.
Dondaine A., Un Traité Neo-Manicheen du 13 siècle, le Liber de duobus principiis suivi d’un frag-
ment de Rituel Cathare, Roma 1939.
64

Drakopoulos T., L’unité de Bogomilo-Catharisme d’après quatre textes latins analysés à la lumi-
ère des sources byzantines, Geneve 2010, http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:12233 [access:
01.09.2018].
Duvernoy J., Le catharisme II. L’histoire des cathares, Toulouse 1979.
Feuchter J., The ‘heretici’ of Languedoc: Local Holy Men and Women or Organized Religious
Group? New Evidence from Inquisitorial, Notarial and Historiographical Sources, [in:] Ca-
thars in Question, A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 112–130.
Hamilton B., Cathar Links with the Balkans and Byzantium, [in:] Cathars in Question, A. Sennis
(ed.), York 2016, pp. 131–150.
Inventer l’hérésie? Discours polémiques et pouvoirs avant l’Inquisition, M.  Zerner (ed.), Nice
1998.
Jiménez-Sanchez P., De la participation des cathares rhénans (1163) à la notion d’hérésie géné-
rale, “Heresis” 2002, no. 36–37, pp. 201–218.
Jiménez-Sanchez P., Le catharisme: une origine orientale à deux tendances?, “Slavica Occitania”
2003, no. 16, pp. 207–228.
Jiménez-Sanchez P., Les catharismes: modèles dissidents du christianisme médiéval, XIIe–XIIIe
siècles, Rennes 2008.
Jiménez-Sanchez P., Variations spatiales et temporelles dans l’organisation et dans l’encadrement
des communautés dites «cathares», “Heresis” 2003, no. 39, pp. 35–62.
Kaepelli T., Une Somme contre les hérétiques de S. Pierre Martyr, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicato-
rum” 1947, no. 17, pp. 295–335.
Moore R.I., Principles at Stake: The Debate of April 2013 in Retrospect, [in:] Cathars in Question,
A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 257–273.
Moore R.I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe,
950–1250, Malden 2007.
Moore R.I., The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe, London 2012.
Pegg M.G., Albigenses in the Antipodes: An Australian and the Cathars, “Journal of Religious His-
tory” 2011, no. 35, pp. 577–600.
Pegg M.G., On Cathars, Albigenses, and Good Men of Languedoc, “Journal of Medieval History”
2001, no. 27, pp. 181–195.
Pegg M.G., The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245–1246, Princeton 2001.
Pegg M.G., The Paradigm of Catharism; or, the Historians’ Illusions, [in:] Cathars in Question,
A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 21–52.
Poupin R., La papauté, les Cathares et Thomas d’Aquin, Portet-sur-Garonne 2000.
Roquebert M., Le ‘déconstructionnisme’ et les études cathares, [in:] Les Cathares devant l’Histoire.
Mélanges offerts à Jean Duvernoy, M. Aurell (ed.), Cahors 2005, pp. 127–133.
Rottenwöhrer G., Der Katharismus, vol. 1 (1), Quellen zum Katharismus, Bad Honnef 1982.
Šanjek F., Raynerius Sacconi O.P. Summa de catharis, “Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum” 1974,
no. 44, pp. 31–60.
Selge K.V., Die ersten Waldenser. Mit Edition des Liber Antiheresis des Durandus von Osca, vol. 2,
Berlin 1967.
Taylor C., Evidence for Dualism in Inquisitorial Registers of the 1240s: A Contribution to a Debate,
“History” 2013, no. 98, pp. 319–345.
Taylor C., Looking for the ‘Good Men’ in the Languedoc: An Alternative to ‘Cathars’, [in:] Cathars
in Question, A. Sennis (ed.), York 2016, pp. 242–256.
Théry J., L’hérésie des bons hommes. Comment nommer la dissidence religieuse non vaudoise ni
béguine en Languedoc (XIIe–début XIVe siècle)?, “Heresis” 2002, no. 36–37, pp. 75–117.
Théry-Astruc J., The Heretical Dissidence of the ‘Good Men’ in the Albigeois (1276–1329): Local-
ism and Resistance to Roman Clericalisms, [in:] Cathars in question, A. Sennis (ed.), York
2016, pp. 79–111.
 65

Thouzellier Ch., Le Liber anti-heresis de Durand de Huesca et le Contra hereticos d’Ermengaud

de Béziers, “Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique” 1960, no. 55, pp. 130–141.
Vassoli C., Il contra-haereticos di Alano di Lilla, “Bullettino dell’Istituto storico” 1963,
no. 75, pp. 123–172.
Wakefield W.L., Notes on Some Antiheretical Writings of the Thirteenth Century, “Franciscan Stud-
ies” 1967, no. 27, pp. 285–320.
Werner E., L’evangelie de Jean et le dualisme medieval, “Heresis” 1989, no. 12, pp. 13–26.
Zerner M., Du court moment où on appela les hérétiques des “Bougres” et quelques déductions,
“Cahiers de civilisation médiévale” 1989, no. 32, pp. 305–324.