CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The story of mediæval heresy is but a chapter in a much larger subject, that of the slow and painful development of religious tolerance and freedom of thought. Heresy—essentially free choice in the sphere of religious belief in contradistinction to implicit obedience to doctrinal authority—was a serious problem to the Church in the early centuries of the Christian era. During the long, distracted and desolate epoch of the barbarian invasions it ceased to be a potent factor in history. But when Europe recovered from the malady, the lethargy of the Dark Ages, and the human mind was again awake, it became once more a problem. The rationalistic speculations of Eriugena, Roscellinus and Berengar; the disordered ravings of Tanchelm; the aggressive anti-sacerdotalism of the Cathari or Paulicians, and of the vagrant Waldenses, present us with the three outstanding types of mediæval heresy. By far the most influential, those which the Church recognized as the most hurtful and dangerous, were the last. In the case of the Cathari there was a clear and a very remarkable revival of a heresy that had much afflicted the early Church, Manichæism. Their dualist theology was hopelessly pessimistic; their practical teachings a mere gospel of despair. The crude dualism and perverted antinomianism of the sect contained little indeed that either merited respect or promised lasting influence. Only in the hint of a genuine hatred of the gross and the cruel was there aught to respect; only in its Donatist doctrine and its denunciation of the Catholic clergy was there the likelihood of lasting influence. In their hostility to the claims, and their diatribes against the abuses, of the clergy, Paulicianism and Waldensianism stood united. These two heresies gave a popular currency in the lands where they secured a foothold to anti-sacerdotalism, which involved not only the condemnation of all backsliding on the part of the clergy from the strictest and most rigid interpretation of the Christ-like life, but also—as the result of this—the rejection of the doctrinal basis of the peculiar privileges of the clergy, namely the conception of the mediatorial character of the priesthood. The Arnoldist ‘Poor Men’; the Petrobrusians, insisting on the sole efficacy of the individual’s own faith, unaided by churches and sacraments; the Henricians in their ascetic denunciation of clerical worldliness and rejection of the sacraments; the Poor Men of Lyons, adopting the rule of absolute poverty, preaching in streets and countryside because, although illiterate, they were conscious of an inward vocation, and so being led on to undertake other priestly functions though unordained; the Cathari asserting that the Catholic Church was lost in materialism and worldliness and that _they_ were the true church of Christ—all these were inherently the aggressive enemies of the priesthood. There was a similar note in much of the popular poetry in those southern lands in which these heresies took firmest root. It is a note scornful, defiant, often ribald and profane, that comes into the songs of the goliards and troubadours. With a robust and crude Rabelaisianism they burlesque, not only clerical manners, but the holiest ceremonies and the most sacred doctrines. Even in miracles and mystery plays the note is sometimes heard; in the poems of Rutebeuf, the ‘Roman de la Rose’ and ‘Reynard the Fox,’ it is most resonant. In the popular poetry there is undoubtedly something of the unconsecrated paganism of the average man—his innate secularism rebelling against clerical privilege, when it is not fortified by personal worthiness. Yet between the Provençal troubadour and the Paulician heretic there was something akin; and with the nobleman of Languedoc, only too willing to take the excuse for despoiling the clergy, they were alike popular. We may regret the total extinction of the exotic, semi-Moorish culture of southern France, which the Albigensian crusades involved; we need not regret the virtual extinction, with it, of the heresies.[477] If there was something worthy of esteem in their demand for spiritual reality and personal holiness, this was confused with other elements, which were perverted and absurd, sometimes even repulsive and abominable. On their constructive side the heresies of Waldenses and Albigenses had nothing of genuine value to offer. In so far as they have significance, it is because of their anti-clerical elements, which are in part a cause, but more a symptom, of a trend of popular sentiment.

The second type of mediæval heresy is that represented by Tanchelm, Eon de l’Etoile, Segarelli, Dolcino, the Flagellants. It belongs to the province, not of the theologian but of the psychologist, specially interested in the study of depraved emotion and diseased imagination. Its foundation is that perverted sexuality which is so strangely connected, as a matter of psychological fact, with intensity of religious enthusiasm. The cases of Tanchelm and Eon are no doubt cases of simple religious mania. None of the heresies of this type had, or from their character was at all likely to have, any but the most fleeting results. They have, nevertheless, their interest, as symptoms of the powerful emotionalism which seemed equally liable to produce a fierce animalism or an intense religious asceticism. The same raw material of unregenerate sense and passion gave to the Church saints and heresiarchs. Ever in the Middle Ages there was a tendency to excess, excess of self-abnegation, excess of self-indulgence, a tendency to push ideas both of doctrine and conduct to extremes. Thus did the Spiritual Franciscans tend to see in their founder a superman, to make the cult of poverty an obsession, to believe themselves a new order destined to inaugurate the era of the Holy Ghost.

The third type of mediæval heresy is of an altogether different nature. It is intellectual, philosophic. In all the other heresies there is a taint of rottenness, disease. Here, on the other hand, there is the health and sanity of honest thinking—and though the thought be crude, obscure or exaggerated, there is at least the possibility of lasting results. In the re-discovery and re-absorption of the intellectual heritage of classical and patristic times there was always the danger of heresy. The process of adapting knowledge, pagan in source, coming sometimes through infidel channels, was certainly perilous. It has to be remembered that it was the Church that initiated and carried through this process; that to the Church the world is indebted for the Renaissance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But the process inevitably presented serious problems. In the first place, it yielded a copious mass of new comment and interpretation upon the original body of Christian dogma, viewed from a philosophic standpoint. Apply the logical methods of scholasticism and envisage dogma in the light of the metaphysical problem of the relations between the universal and the particular, and you have to decide whether the realist, the nominalist or the conceptualist is the true interpreter of the creeds. The difficulty was increased with the advent of Aristotelianism in the thirteenth century. One exposition of Aristotle was definitely declared to be heresy—that of the Averrhoïsts. But the Augustinian opponents of St. Thomas Aquinas endeavoured to confound him in the charge of heresy: and it was for a time doubtful whether Aristotelianism in any shape or form could be accepted as orthodox. Not only Alberto-Thomists in their attack upon the Averrhoïsts, but secular clergy warring with regulars, Franciscans inveighing against Dominicans, all glibly brought the convenient accusation of heresy against their opponents. It was for lawful authority to determine categorically what was orthodox, what heretical. But no authority was, as a matter of fact, impartial or certain to be final. Authority, whether papal, conciliar or academic, was itself wedded to one school of thought or another, swayed by the predominant philosophy of its own passing day.

It was not only a question of new ways of regarding, new interpretations of, existing dogma. There was also the problem presented by new dogmas, such as those of the Beatific Vision and the Immaculate Conception. Such tenets were not in themselves either inherently orthodox or heretical. When a creed is stabilized, completely rigid, it is easy to be exactly faithful to it; but when it is fluid, even for the most orthodox of intent, safety can only be found in caution.

But the chief potential source of trouble in the intellectual ferment of scholasticism lay in the fact that it inevitably placed side by side two different authorities, the objective authority of the Church as enshrined in Scripture, tradition, papal and other lawful ecclesiastical _dicta_, and, on the other hand, the subjective authority of the human reason. All discussion, all argument is necessarily an appeal largely to this second authority. While the great majority of the scholastics only used reason in order to justify revealed truth and never questioned the superiority of the infallible, the divine authority of the Church over the fallible authority of man’s intellect, there were others, such as Eriugena and Abelard, who placed reason first. Finally, there came a scholastic in Wycliffe, whose realism led him into dangerous errors, not only subversive of the cardinal doctrine of transubstantiation, but also threatening the whole status and mediatorial character of the priesthood.

It is most important to remember that the scholastic philosophers were in all cases clerics, representative of, and not antagonistic to, Catholic theology; that even the Averrhoïsts were also clerics, having no desire to break with the Church. On the other hand, the freedom of thought which the universities stood for and dialectic fostered, and which the Church not only did not repress, but even encouraged, had a tendency to produce heresy. Realism evolved pantheism; nominalism unitarianism. The intellectual influences of university life brought forth Gerson, D’Ailly and the other whole-hearted reformers who made the great effort at revival of the Church from within which failed at Constance and Basel; but it also brought forth Wycliffe and Hus, whom those Councils condemned. It was never absolutely clear where the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy would rest. However much they might be reconciled or confused, the ideals and methods of theology and philosophy cannot be the same. The postulates of the one are not those of the other; and the more the scientific spirit is developed, the fewer the postulates of any sort that it is ready to accept. The Averrhoïsts at least saw this, only saving their position by the equivocation of the double truth.

Which was really the more dangerous to Catholic doctrine—the organized heresies, as a rule ignorant, perverted, having the seeds of their own destruction in their very rottenness, which the Church did systematically persecute; or the philosophical speculations of the universities, with their temptations to rationalism which the Church in the main tolerated?[478] Each produced a force not wholly transient—a force operative in the breaking up of the mediæval system. The first was anti-sacerdotalism; the second a habit of independent thought and criticism. It is true that the anti-sacerdotalism of Luther and the secular spirit of Renaissance humanism, with its entire indifference to religion, were the decisive factors in breaking up the fabric of mediævalism, and the movements of Lutheranism and humanism were largely new creations. Yet Luther owed much to Hus, and Hus everything to Wycliffe, the scholastic, and the detached attitude of the Italian humanist was only one step in advance of that of the Latin Averrhoïst. Neither the wandering sectaries, in part suggesting, in part merely articulating, an antisacerdotal sentiment, nor the philosophers with their speculations concerning universals and the ultimate cause of being, were without influence in bringing about the collapse of the mediæval structure.

It is of no use studying the question of the attitude of the mediæval Church towards heresy unless one is prepared to use imagination enough to envisage heresy from the mediæval point of view. Men’s mental outlook is governed by the intellectual conditions of their own day. A few individuals may be, as the phrase goes, ‘in advance of their time’; but at the best they form only a small minority. To consider abstractly the rights and wrongs, the advantages and disadvantages of institutions and systems is the function of the philosopher. But the historian, while not ignoring the abstract question, has specifically the function of ascertaining what, in point of fact, people’s opinions have been and why they formed them. Much that has been written on the subject of religious toleration is of only limited validity because it simply denounces, and does not attempt to explain or to appreciate, the psychology of intolerance.[479] Thus, for example, Locke’s ‘Letters on Toleration’ have little _argumentative_ value, because they are based on a complete _ignoratio elenchi_. Religious toleration is a great principle, but many modern dithyrambs on the inalienable right of liberty of thought and conscience fall rather wide of the mark, can convince only the already converted. It is not very profitable to bring forward the theory of the indefeasible right of free thought in condemnation of mediæval society—to the whole of which, and by no means to its clerical elements only, the conception of such a right was entirely foreign. After all, even to-day the belief in an absolute toleration is held by only a very few, and even these anarchists will usually be found to hold it with certain reservations.[480] Organized society cannot tolerate the forces which are subversive of it. It does not tolerate the criminal. ‘A universal and absolute toleration of everything and everybody would lead to a general chaos as certainly as a universal and absolute intolerance.’[481] It is undoubtedly true that a certain measure of ‘intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide.’[482] The individual possesses rights in so far as they are not prejudicial to the welfare of his fellows and the interests of the entire community. And the recognition that the maintenance of social order was perfectly compatible with the acknowledgment of the right of individual opinion and the permission of diversity of views, this in the Middle Ages ‘was a discovery to be made, not a truth to be proved.’[483]

For the Middle Ages religion was not divorced from the secular life. The _Respublica Christiana_ was an unity and a potent reality. The common faith was the panoply of the State. Devotion to it was an integral part of patriotism, and the counterpart of loyalty to the secular prince and of obedience to his laws. The man, therefore, who assailed the faith assailed society; in cutting himself off from the Church he outlawed himself from the State. Acknowledgment of the sacred truths of Christianity was the foundation of all morality. The mediæval mind could not conceive of morality apart from religion. Hence respect for the divine law, as revealed in the Scripture and the Church, was regarded as the sole guarantee for the security of ordered society. Heresy was considered as essentially anti-social, anarchic; was conceived of as analogous to false coining or treason. Only to falsify truth was more heinous than to falsify the coin and treason against God than treason against man. The exposition of the nature of heresy in Ludovico à Paramo is most logical. The character of a state depends on its religion; the faith is the foundation of the state.[484] Heretics cannot dwell in harmony with Catholics: for if difference of language severs, how much more difference of belief?[485] Heresy is productive of all manner of vice and immorality, which are antagonistic to order and government.[486]

To the Church all this was self-evident. How could she stand neutral as between truth and falsehood, and treat them as if on an equality? She found all the strong walls and bastions, defences of the theocratic city, of which she was the appointed warden, being attacked by an insidious enemy within the gates. She had the power to defend; how could she be justified if she held her hand? The heretic questioned her credentials, turned her claims to ridicule, threatened to bring down the whole structure of the Christian polity to the ground. Both in self-defence and in common loyalty to her mission she must strike. All the intensity of religious conviction inspired to persecution. Tolerance, argues de Maistre, only indicates religious indifference.[487] Moreover, the mediæval churchman was inevitably much influenced by the injunctions of the Old Testament. The Church succeeded to the heritage of the synagogue.[488]

But it was not the Church only that was persuaded of the essentially dangerous and anti-social character of heresy. Partly, no doubt, as the result of the Church’s teaching through many generations, but certainly of their own accord and not as the result of any direct instruction, both secular rulers and the ordinary laity were equally convinced.[489] They all lived in a thoroughly theocratic atmosphere. The prince sincerely saw in the heretic an enemy of all authority, and therefore of his own.[490] Secular legislation was just as unequivocal in its treatment of heresy as was Canon law. To the ordinary layman the heretic appeared as a thoroughly cross-grained, cantankerous, dangerous person, certainly of some immoral propensities and perhaps sexually perverted.[491]

Such was the mediæval point of view; and, once granted the necessary premises, it is extremely logical and exceedingly hard to combat. Now-a-days we do not accept those premises; but in the Middle Ages we should probably not have dreamed of questioning them. On the extraordinarily interesting and important question of the causes of this change of attitude authorities do, and are likely to, differ, though many students will agree in combining their conclusions. To those who, like John Stuart Mill and Lecky for instance, attribute religious persecution almost entirely to the doctrine of exclusive salvation, the causes of the growth of tolerance will appear to be the extension of the sceptical spirit and the process of the secularization of politics.[492] Others, such as Bishop Creighton (who will not agree that persecution is to be explained by the doctrine of exclusive salvation at all),[493] or as Sir F. Pollock (who classifies different types of intolerance—tribal, political, social), insist strongly upon the simple factor of experience. ‘It is not the demonstration of abstract rights, but the experience of inutility, that has made governments leave off persecuting.’[494] After all, the great justification of liberty of thought lies not in the attempted demonstration of a natural right, but in the records of the painful process whereby toleration has been achieved.[495] It would have saved an infinity of bloodshed and misery, would have freed the palimpsest of history of some of its most terrible blots, could the principle of toleration have been established without that awful struggle. But none of the great triumphs of mankind have been achieved save after centuries of effort, loss and failure.

To the moral judgment of our own day no instrument of persecution seems more odious than the Inquisition. Protestants have persecuted just as whole-heartedly as Catholics, and with far less excuse; but the Inquisition stands by itself, as a regular specialized tribunal for persecution, immensely efficient, with an existence of centuries to its record.[496] We have seen the way in which the Inquisition came into being. Both the circumstances of its origin and the intentions of its various founders gave the tribunal a character only semi-judicial. Indeed, if we object that the Inquisition was a bad court of justice, its originators could retort with truth that it was not intended to be a simple court of justice. The Inquisition was created to deal with erring children, not criminals; not merely to pronounce a verdict, but to produce reconciliation and amendment; not to punish, but to penance. The Church, through the Inquisition, was dealing in the spirit of a parent with her own children, over whom she had all a parent’s rights of discipline and chastisement, but also evincing a parent’s deep desire for something more than justice and punishment, for the ending of estrangement and the restoration of loving union in the family. Such was the pure theory of the Inquisition, a much more benignant conception than that of the ordinary law-court. In the latter, the mere fact of repentance would not avail; in the former, if it were sincere, it availed everything. So de Maistre, defending the Spanish Inquisition, declared it to be the most lenient, the most merciful tribunal in the world.

But we have to consider the point of view, not only of the judge, but of the defendant. Whatever the real nature of the tribunal, the man brought before it was on his trial. The tribunal _did_ pronounce a verdict, and upon that verdict his reputation, perhaps his freedom or his life, depended. He wanted justice, not mercy: and the Inquisition might be lenient, but it was not fair. It was radically unfair. It gave no facilities whatever for the plea of Not Guilty. It cared nought for the reputation of the accused. He had already lost his reputation by being before the court at all. The very fact of defamation, of being ‘suspect’ inferred guilt. To leave the court of the Inquisition without a stain upon one’s character was virtually impossible. In all manner of ways the accused was at a disadvantage—in the suppression of the names of witnesses and of evidence, in the refusal of legal assistance, in the use of torture, and above all in the fact that the judge was also the prosecutor, who regarded it as perfectly legitimate to browbeat and confuse the defendant, if he was so misguided and unfilial as to endeavour to defend himself. Inquisitorial procedure was a miserable travesty of justice; and its mercifulness was forthcoming only on its own terms. To all save the meekly submissive the Inquisition typified not mercy and love, but remorselessness and cruelty.

While in studying the origins of the Inquisition we are bound to examine, and to seek to understand, the point of view of those who were responsible for its inception, in estimating its character and results we need not, nay we _ought_ not, to judge by any other criterion than that dictated by the highest conceptions of right and justice. The common, the accepted, standard of to-day both as regards justice and humanity is, happily, greatly higher than that of the Middle Ages. Much that has been written of the Inquisition has been vitiated by an attempt to read into the mind and conduct of men of mediæval times a humanitarianism which is the peculiar product of the modern world, and which they could not even have understood. Even more vitiated would be any thesis which, not satisfied with justifying the originators of the Inquisition, sought to justify the institution itself. Certainly the motive for such an attempt could not be impartiality. Only moral obliquity can be blind to the transparent abominations of inquisitorial procedure.

If its character as a tribunal was essentially evil, evil also were some of the Inquisition’s results. Secular princes discerned its remarkable potential utility to themselves and regarded it with envy and admiration. Its methods had a satisfactory efficiency found in no other court. By such methods conviction could be practically assured. The charge of heresy could therefore be preferred against political enemies with the happiest prospects of advantage. The destruction for purely political ends was achieved by the use of inquisitorial methods of the Templars, Jeanne d’Arc, Savonarola.[497]

Those are the most notorious, but there are other instances of this abuse of the sacred tribunal for purely secular, and sometimes base and immoral, purposes.

Worse still—and possibly this is the worst aspect of the whole story of the Inquisition—its pernicious methods of procedure were borrowed by the admiring secular princes for their courts, which did not pretend to have the double nature which was the explanation, if not the excuse, for the Inquisition’s adoption of its system. Thus civil courts in Europe came to be tarnished by the system of _inquisitio_, the secret enquiry, the heaping up of disabilities for the defence, the application of torture—all these abuses having the august sanction of ecclesiastical use. The lay authority could triumphantly vindicate such innovations, whereby justice became an unequal contest between authority, combining the two characters of prosecutor and judge, and the unhappy prisoner, by pointing to the example of the Church, the repository of the sublime truths of divine justice and Christian charity. To the fortunate fact that the Inquisition never secured a footing in the British Islands is largely due their maintenance, in contradistinction to Continental states, of the open trial and of the great maxim that no one is presumed to be guilty, that the onus of proof lies with the prosecution. It was not the fault of the Church that the secular power admired and imitated the methods of the Holy Office; but it is surely a calamity that it should have been able to find in an ecclesiastical tribunal a system which must seem to every fair-minded man to-day so abhorrent to the whole spirit and tenor of the Christian gospel.

No attempt has been made in these pages to present the heresies of the Middle Ages in any heroic light, to slur over the pernicious crudities of many of them. As between the spiritual and intellectual ideals represented by the mediæval Church and those represented by the majority of the sectaries the choice is self-evident. Wycliffites and Husites stand obviously on a far higher plane, but Petrobrusians, Cathari, Dolcinists, Flagellants and many others had no fertile ideas to bequeath to a later day and were, at best perhaps, a nuisance in their own. Yet it has to be remembered that not only noble-minded men like Hus and Jerome of Prague, whose creed, whether true or not, was in any case sane and pure and exalted, but also innumerable others, whom we know only as names in inquisitorial records, who whatever the faith they professed stood constant through physical and mental anguish, to perish perhaps at the last at the stake in a world barren of pity with no friendly faces to encourage them—these suffered for a great ideal, that of fidelity to the spirit of truthfulness, of intellectual integrity. All who have died rather than be false to themselves and their vision of truth, thus demonstrating to the world their conviction that belief is worth dying for—whether Catholics or Protestants or the most erring of mediæval heretics—have done service to the cause of human progress. For, if it be true that only through the tragic experience of centuries of religious persecution could mankind attain to the establishment of the principle of liberty of thought and conscience, then every one of us to-day who enjoys the benefits of such liberty owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women who for conscience’ sake braved obloquy, torture-chamber and fire.

NOTE ON AUTHORITIES

A full bibliography of the subject of Heresy and its Repression in the Middle Ages would be exceedingly lengthy. All that is attempted here is to give a select list of a few of the most useful, important and most easily accessible works. The most thorough bibliography for the subject available is that in T. de Cauzons, _Histoire de l’Inquisition en France_ (_q.v._), the list of books covering forty pages and including 850 works. This is for the history of the tribunal in France alone.

It has to be borne in mind that by far the greater part of our contemporary evidence for the history of mediæval heresies is hostile evidence, consisting of denunciations of them by orthodox theologians, the treatises of inquisitors who condemned their adherents, notes made of evidence given by defendants. Only those heretics who were themselves philosophers or theologians—and these, such as Siger of Brabant, Wycliffe and Hus, are relatively very few—have left their own records behind them. Due allowance, therefore, has to be made in using most contemporary authorities for considerable bias.

I

INQUISITORIAL TREATISES

These are, on the whole, the most generally valuable of contemporary sources. The two most important for the period dealt with in this book are:

Nicholas Eymeric, _Directorium Inquisitorum cum commentariis F. Pegnae_ (Rome, 1585; also Venice, 1607).

Bernard Gui, _Practica Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis_ (ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1886).

Eymeric was inquisitor in Aragon in the latter half of the fourteenth century. His compendious work is probably the most authoritative of all inquisitorial treatises, being a complete exposition of the principles of the tribunal and the doctrines of the different sects with which it had to deal, and giving the minutest details of its procedure. Bernard Gui, appointed inquisitor at Toulouse in 1306, was the most vigorous and remarkable of those who helped to stamp out Catharism in Languedoc after the Albigensian crusades.

The following treatises are not contemporary, but they are valuable as expositions of the permanent principles and methods of the tribunal. They are also useful for the occasional comments made by these later experts on the work of their predecessors:

J. Simancas, _De Catholicis Institutionibus_.

A. Bzovius, _Historiae Ecclesiasticae_.

J. à Royas, _De Haereticis_.

Bernard of Como, _Lucerna Inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis_.

Arnaldo Albertini, _Tractatus de agnoscendis assertionibus Catholicis et haereticis_.

Zanchino Ugolini, _De Haereticis_.

All these, among other similar tracts, are included in Zilettus, _Tractatus Universi Juris_ (Venice, 1633), vol. xi, pt. ii.

See also Ludovico à Paramo, _De origine et progressu officii Sanctae Inquisitionis_ (Madrid, 1598).

Umberto Locati, _Opus judiciale inquisitorum_ (Rome, 1572).

F. Peña, _Inquirendorum haereticorum lucerna_ (Madrid, 1598).

Carena, _Tractatus de officio Sanctae Inquisitionis_ (Lyons, 1669).

II

COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

There are records of the proceedings and sentences pronounced in the Inquisitions in the South of France in _Liber sententiarum Inquisitionis Tholosanae_, 1307-13, printed as an appendix to Philippe à Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_ (Amsterdam, 1692). Note that this _Liber sententiarum_ is not included in Chandler’s English translation of Limborch. These are the sentences pronounced by Bernard Gui. The proceedings of the Inquisition of Carcassonne, notably the sentences of Bernard de Caux, are contained in _Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Inquisition dans le Languedoc_ (ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1900).

There are exceedingly useful extracts from original documents of various sorts relating to mediæval heresies in the following:

J. J. Döllinger, _Beiträge zur Sektensgeschichte_ (Munich, 1890), vol. ii.

P. Frédéricq, _Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Nederlandicae_ (Ghent, 1889-1906), vols., i-iii.

For the edicts of ecclesiastical Councils the best collection is:

P. Labbe, G. D. Mansi, etc., _Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio_ (Paris, 1901-13), esp. vol. xxii, 1166-1225; vol. xxiii, 1225-1268; vol. xxiv, 1269-1299; vol. xxv, 1300-1344; vol. xxvi, 1344-1409._

For papal bulls between 1198 and 1304 see A. Potthast, _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_ (Berlin, 1874 _et seq._).

Important documents relating to the Dominican order are in Ripoll et Brémond, _Bullarium ordinis S. Dominici_ (8 vols., Rome, 1737 _et seq._).

The Constitutions of the Emperor Frederick II are in J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, _Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi_ (Paris, 1852-61).

III

HISTORIES OF THE INQUISITION

There are two useful histories of comparatively early date:

J. Marsollier, _Histoire de l’Inquisition_ (Cologne, 1693).

P. à Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_ (Amsterdam, 1692). The English version is _History of the Inquisition_ (tr. S. Chandler, London, 1731). The latter is used in this book except when the _Liber sententiarum_, only printed in the original, is referred to. Limborch’s, although avowedly a propaganda work, is still of value, because it was based on the treatises of inquisitors, making particularly full use of Eymeric, and it is easy to make proper allowance for the avowed bias.

In 1817 appeared the first version (a French translation) of the great work on the Spanish Inquisition by J. A. Llorente under the title, _Histoire critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne_. The original Spanish text was not published till 1822. Only the introduction and first four chapters are relevant to the mediæval Inquisition.

English writers have been mainly interested in the Spanish Inquisition, as founded by Ferdinand and Isabella, and in the Inquisition in Portugal. English seamen and traders suffered at their hands, either in the Peninsula or its dependencies, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. See, for example, _English Merchants and the Spanish Inquisition in the Canaries_ (Royal Historical Society, ed. L. de Alberti, A. B. Wallis Chapman, 1912); R. Dugdale’s _A Narrative of popish cruelties; or a new account of the Spanish Inquisition_ (1680) in _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. vii, p. 105; J. Stevens, _The Ancient and Present State of Portugal ... containing ... A curious Account of the Inquisition_ (London, 1705). Later English writers show a similar strongly Protestant bias, _e.g._ F. B. Wright, _A History of Religious Persecution from the Apostolic to the Present Time; and of the Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal and Goa_ (1816); W. H. Rule, _History of the Inquisition_ (London, 1868). Only the first nine chapters of the last-named book are concerned with the Middle Ages.

All previous works were superseded by the monumental labours of the American historian, H. C. Lea, in his

_Superstition and Force_ (Philadelphia, 1866; 4th ed., 1892).

_A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ (New York, 1887).

_A History of the Inquisition of Spain_ (New York, 1906-7).

_The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies_ (New York, 1908).

_Chapters in the Religious History of Spain connected with the Inquisition_ (Philadelphia, 1893).

Together, these volumes represent an immense fund of learning and the most painstaking research. For this reason it will be long indeed before they are superseded. They have been adversely criticized, as being marred by strong anti-Catholic prejudice. Colour is undoubtedly lent to the charge by the rather unfortunate fact that the _History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ opens with an account of the abuses of the mediæval Church and that the whole argument of the book appears as though largely based upon these initial contentions. Lea is also inclined to be biased in favour of all heretics as against their persecutors. But while in detail he may be open to criticism and his attitude is quite clearly Protestant, the great bulk of his work remains unshaken. The Romanist point of view with regard to it should, however, be studied. It is summarized, for example, in P. M. Baumgarten, _H. C. Lea’s Historical Writings: a critical inquiry_ (New York, 1909), and will be found incidentally in the works of recent Catholic historians of the Inquisition (_q.v. infra_). There are admirable _critiques_ of Lea’s work in:

Lord Acton’s _The History of Freedom of Thought and other Essays_ (London, 1909);

P. Frédéricq’s Introduction to the French translation of Lea’s _History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ (tr. S. Reinach, Paris, 1900, pp. i-xxviii);

and in articles by S. Reinach on his _Spanish Inquisition_ in _Revue Critique_, No. 18, May 1906, p. 300; No. 42, Oct. 1907, p. 301; No. 5, Feb. 1908, p. 86.

Recent works from the Romanist standpoint have been:

C. Douais, _L’Inquisition; ses Origines, sa Procédure_ (Paris, 1906).

H. Maillet, _L’Église et la répression sanglante de l’hérésie_ (Liège, 1909).

E. Vacandard, _The Inquisition, a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Powers of the Church_ (tr. B. L. Conway, 1908).

C. Moeller, _Les Bûchers et les Autos-da-fé de l’Inquisition depuis le Moyen Age in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain, 1913, vol. xiv, pp. 720-51).

Mgr. Douais has done much able and learned work on the history of the mediæval Inquisition, and the Abbé Vacandard’s book is most moderate and fair-minded. The most considerable work of scholarship written on the subject of recent years has, however, been T. de Cauzons, _Histoire de l’Inquisition en France_ (2 vols., Paris, 1909, 1913, unfinished).

There is a critical survey of some of the most recent work done on the Inquisition by P. Frédéricq, _Les récents historiens Catholiques de l’Inquisition en France in Revue historique_, vol. cix, 1912, pp. 307-34. Mainly critical is C. V. Langlois, _L’Inquisition après des travaux récents_ (Paris, 1902).

IV

LEGAL ASPECT OF THE INQUISITION

On this important subject there is not a great deal, but the following are excellent and most valuable:

L. Tanon, _Histoire des Tribunaux de l’Inquisition en France_ (Paris, 1893).

P. Fournier, _Les Officialités au Moyen Age_ (Paris, 1889).

A. Esmein, _Histoire de la Procédure Criminelle en France, et spécialement de la procédure inquisitoire_ (Paris, 1882).

Esmein’s book forms the substantial foundation of a more comprehensive work in the American _Continental Legal History_ series, viz. _A History of Continental Criminal Procedure_ (Boston, 1913).

See on this subject note on p. 205 _supra_.

V

WORKS DEALING SPECIALLY WITH THE ALBIGENSES AND THE ORIGINS OF THE INQUISITION

J. J. Vaissete and C. Devic, _Histoire Générale de Languedoc_ (Toulouse, 1872-1904).

Moneta, _Adversus Catharos et Waldenses_ (Rome, 1743).

P. Melia, _The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the Waldenses, from Documents_ (London, 1870).

C. Schmidt, _Histoire et Doctrine de la Secte des Cathares ou Albigeois_ (Paris, 1848).

A. Monastier, _Histoire de l’Église Vaudoise depuis son origine_ (Paris, 1847).

B. Hauréau, _Bernard Délicieux et l’Inquisition Albigeoise_ (Paris, 1877).

C. Douais, _Les Hérétiques du midi au XIIIe siècle_ (Paris, 1891); _L’Albigéisme et les Frères prêcheurs à Narbonne au XIIIe siècle_ (Paris, 1894); _Les Albigeois, leur origine_ (Paris, 1879).

J. Ficker, _Die Gesetzliche Einführung der Todesstrafe für Ketzerei_ in _Mittheilungen des Instituts für oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung_ (1880), pp. 177-226.

J. Havet, _L’Hérésie et le Bras séculier au Moyen Age jusqu’au treizième siècle_ in _Œuvres_ (Paris, 1896), vol. ii, pp. 117-81.

C. Henner, _Beiträge zur Organisation und Competenz der päpstlichen Ketzesgerichte_ (Leipzig, 1890).

A. Luchaire, _Innocent III_, vol. ii, _La Croisade des Albigeois_ (Paris, 1905).

VI

WORKS DEALING WITH JOACHIM OF FLORA AND THE ‘EVERLASTING GOSPEL’

Joachim of Flora, _Concordia novi et veteris Testamenti_ (Venice, 1579); _Expositio in Apocalypsin_ (Venice, 1527); _Psalterium decent Cordarum_ (Venice, 1527).

_Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis_ (Parma, 1857); also in _Monumenta Germ. Hist._, vol. xxxii (1905-13), ed. O. Holder-Egger.

E. Renan, _Joachim de Flore et l’Evangile éternel_ in _Nouvelles Études d’Histoire Religieuse_ (Paris, 1884).

E. Gebhart, _L’Italie Mystique; la Renaissance religieuse au Moyen Age_ (6th ed., 1908); _Recherches nouvelles sur l’histoire du Joachitism_ in _Revue historique_, vol. xxxi (1886).

S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes et Religions_ (Paris, 1905), vol. i, pp. 173-83.

J. J. Döllinger, _Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era_ (ed. A. Plummer, 1873).

E. G. Gardner, _Joachim of Flora and the Everlasting Gospel in Franciscan Essays_ (1912).

VII

ON SORCERY AND WITCHCRAFT

The principal authorities are:

Sprenger’s _Malleus Maleficarum_ and F. Bartholomew de Spina’s _De Strigibus_.

Both are included in _Malleorum quorundam Maleficarum tam veterum quam recentiorum authorum tomi duo_ (Frankfort, 1582). In Zilettus (_q.v. supra_) there is Bernard of Como’s _De Strigibus_.

See also W. E. H. Lecky’s _History of Rationalism in Europe_ and authorities there cited.

VIII

FOR WYCLIFFE, HUS AND THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE

The principal works of Wycliffe are published by the Wyclif Society. See especially _De Dominio Divino_ (ed. R. L. Poole, 1890); _Tract. de Civili dominio liber primus_ (ed. R. L. Poole, 1885); _De Eucharistia_ (1892); _De Potestate Pape_ (ed. J. Loserth, 1907). See also _Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif_ (Rolls series, ed. W. W. Shirley, 1858). See also the _Chronicon Angliae_ (ed. Maunde Thompson, 1874); _Chronicon_ of Henry Knighton (ed. Lumby, 1895), vol. ii; D. Wilkins, _Concilia M. Britanniae et Hiberniae_ (1737), vol. iii.

The _Letters of Hus_ are edited by H. B. Workman and R. M. Pope (1904). Invaluable is F. Palacky’s _Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus_ (Prague, 1869).

For the works of Gerson and D’Ailly see J. Gerson, _Opera_ (Antwerp, 1706). Works of D’Ailly are included in this volume.

See also Theodoric de Niem, _De Schismate_ (Leipzig, 1890).

The works of Marsiglio of Padua and of William of Ockham are in Melchior Goldast, _Monarchia S. Romani Imperii_ (Hanover, Frankfort, 1611-14), vol. ii. They are summarized in S. Riezler, _Die literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers_ (1874).

See also the following relating to Bohemia or the Council of Constance:

Aeneas Sylvius, _Historia Bohemica_ (1453).

Etienne Baluze, _Vitae Paparum Avenionensium_ (Paris, 1693).

H. v. der Hardt, _Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium_ (Frankfort, 1697-1742).

E. Martène and V. Durand, _Veterum Scriptorum et monumentorum amplissima collectio_ (Paris, 1724-33), vol. vii, pp. 425-1078.

The following also are useful:

N. Valois, _La France et le Grand Schisme d’occident_ (Paris, 1896-1902).

J. B. Schwab, _J. Gerson_ (Würzburg, 1858).

B. Labanca, _Marsiglio da Padova_ (Padua, 1882).

H. B. Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation: the Age of Wyclif_ (1901); _The Dawn of the Reformation: the Age of Hus_ (1902).

J. Lewis, _History of the Life and Sufferings of John Wicliffe_ (1720).

J. Loserth, _Wyclif and Hus_ (tr. W. J. Evans, 1884).

G. M. Trevelyan, _England in the Age of Wycliffe_ (1904).

G. V. Lechler, _Wyclif and his English Precursors_ (tr. P. Lorimer, 1878).

R. L. Poole, _Wyclif and Movements for Reform_ (1889); _Illustrations of the History of Mediæval Thought_ (1884).

H. Rashdall, Article on Wycliffe in _Dictionary of National Biography_ (1900), vol. lxiii.

A. H. Wratislaw, _Native Literature of Bohemia in the Fourteenth Century_ (1878).

Count Lützow, _The Life and Times of Master John Hus_ (1909).

H. Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_ (1895), vol. ii.

Also of course M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_ (1903-9), Introd. and Books I and II.

IX

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES AND WORKS ON HERESIES

C. H. Hahn, _Geschichte der Ketzer_ (Stuttgart, 1845-50).

J. J. v. Mosheim, _Institutes of Ecclesiastical History_ (Eng. tr., 2nd ed., 1850).

J. C. L. Gieseler, _Ecclesiastical History_ (Eng. tr. 1853), esp. vol. iii, which contains extracts from documents.

F. Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_ (4th ed. 1883), esp. vols. v and vi.

J. J. Döllinger, _Beiträge zur Sektensgeschichte_ (Munich, 1890).

A. Harnack, _History of Dogma_ (tr. W. Gilchrist, 1894-9).

See also on special subjects the following:

F. Gregorovius, _History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_ (tr. A. Hamilton, 1894-1902), vols. v and vi.

J. H. Reusch, _Der Index der verbotenen Bücher_ (Bonn, 1883).

J. Guiraud, _Saint Dominic_ (Eng. tr., 1901).

P. Sabatier, _Life of Saint Francis of Assisi_ (tr. L. S. Houghton, 1904).

H. O. Taylor, _The Mediæval Mind_ (1911).

E. Renan, _Averroës et l’Averroïsme_ (Paris, 1861).

P. F. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme latin au XIIIe siècle_ (Fribourg, 1899), with invaluable appendix containing Siger’s _Works_.

M. de Wulf, _History of Mediæval Philosophy_ (Eng. tr., 1909).

B. Hauréau, _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique_ (Paris, 1880).

C. Douais, _Essai sur l’organisation des études dans l’ordre des Frères-Prêcheurs_ (Paris, 1884).

_Registrum epistolarum fratris Joannis Peckham_ (Rolls Series, ed. C. T. Martin, 1884).

Rutebeuf, _Œuvres Complètes_ (1874-5), vol. i, _passim_.

_De Tribus Impostoribus_ (ed. Philomneste Junior, _i.e._ P. Gustave Brunet, Paris, 1861).

J. Owen, _Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance_ (1893).

X

ON THE GENERAL QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND THE THEORY OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

Representative works, among many:

J. Locke, _Letters concerning Toleration_.

J. S. Mill, _On Liberty_.

W. E. H. Lecky, _History of Rationalism in Europe_, ch. iv.

Sir F. Pollock, _The Theory of Persecution_ in _Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics_ (1882).

M. Creighton, _Persecution and Tolerance_ (1895).

D. G. Ritchie, _Natural Rights_ (1903); _The Principles of State Interference_ (1902).

E. S. P. Haines, _Religious Persecution_ (1904).

Joseph de Maistre, _Lettres à un gentilhomme russe sur l’Inquisition espagnole_ (Brussels, 1844).

Lessing’s _Nathan der Weise_.

Sir J. Stephen, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ (2nd ed., 1874).

J. M. Robertson, _A Short History of Free Thought, Ancient and Modern_ (1906).

_The Catholic Encyclopædia_ (1907-14), articles on Heresy and Inquisition.

J. B. Bury, _A History of Freedom of Thought_ (Home University Library).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See O. Gierke, _Political Theories of the Middle Ages_ (trans., with introd. by. F. W. Maitland, 1900), p. 10.

[2] F. W. Bourdillon’s translation.

[3] See _Compendium of Ecclesiastical History_, by G. C. E. Gieseler (English ed., Edinburgh, 1853), vol. iii, p. 388.

[4] See H. C. Lea, _History of Auricular Confession_ (1896), vol. i, pp. 380 _et seq._; _History of Sacerdotal Celibacy_ (3rd ed., 1907), vol. ii, chapter on ‘Solicitation,’ pp. 251-96.

[5] On the subject-matter of this chapter see H. O. Taylor, _The Mediæval Mind_ (2 vols., 1911), especially on the influence of the Latin Fathers and the transmission into the Middle Ages of patristic thought, vol. i, pp. 61-109; on the effects of Christianity on the character of mediæval emotion, pp. 330-52; and on the scholastic philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 283 _et seq._

[6] For Tanchelm see the following: P Frédéricq, _Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae_ (Ghent, 1889-96), vol. i, pp. 22-9, nos. 14-29; J. J. Döllinger, _Beiträge zur Sektensgeschichte_ (Munich, 1890), vol. i, pp. 105-9; H. C. Lea, _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ (New York, 1887), vol. i, pp. 64-5.

[7] For Eon de l’Etoile see Döllinger, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 98-103; C. Schmidt, _Histoire et Doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois_ (Paris, 1848), vol. i, pp. 48-9.

[8] See T. de Cauzons, _Histoire de l’Inquisition en France_ (Paris, 1909, 1913), vol. i, p. 259. ‘On voit donc la lutte fortement engagée entre l’Église et l’esprit révolutionnaire.’

[9] See Gieseler, vol. iii, pp. 390-1, n.; Döllinger, vol. ii, p. 29. ‘Quod Deus passus est ibi mortem et nunquam dedecus, et ponebant exemplum, si aliquis homo suspendebatur in aliquo arbore, semper illa arbor amicis suspensi et parentibus esset odiosa et eam vituperarent, et nunquam illam arborem videre vellent, a simili locum in quo Deus, quem diligere debemus, suspensus fuit, odio habere debeamus et nunquam deberemus ejus presenciam affectare.’

[10] See Lea, vol. i, p. 72.

[11] Pius Melia, _The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the Waldenses, from Documents_ (London, 1870), p. 1. Other origins of the term Waldenses have been suggested: (1) Vaux or valleys of Piedmont, where the sect came to flourish most, (2) Peter of Vaux, a predecessor of Waldo.

[12] Melia, quoting _Venerabilis Patris Monetae Cremonensis Ordinis Praedicatorum adversus Catharos et Waldenses, Libri quinque_ (1244), p. 6.

[13] See Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 306-11, for list of eighty-nine errors alleged against the Waldenses.

[14] Bernard Gui, _Practica Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis_ (ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1886), p. 134. ‘Item, circa sacramentum vere penitentie et clavis ecclesie perniciosius aberrantes, tenent et docent se habere potestatem a Deo, sicut sancti apostoli habuerunt, audiendi confessiones peccatorum sibi volentium confiteri, et absolvendi, et penitentias injungendi; confessiones talium audiant et injungant sibi confitentibus penitentias pro peccatis, quamvis non sunt clerici, nec sacerdotales per aliquem episcopum Romane ecclesie ordinati, nec sunt layci simpliciter; talemque potestatem nec confitentur se habere a Romana ecclesia, sed pocius diffitentur, et revera nec a Deo nec ab ejus ecclesia ipsam habent, cum sint extra ecclesiam et ab ipsa ecclesia jam precisi, extra quam non est vera penitentia neque salus.’ Cf. _ibid._, pp. 244 _et seq._

[15] Quoted in Lea, vol. i, p. 85.

[16] Peter de Pilichdorff, quoted in Melia, p. 25.

[17] Quoted in Lea, vol. i, p. 85.

[18] See Schmidt, vol. i, pp. 7-24.

[19] The Paulicians had originally, in the seventh century, in Armenia, been anti-Manichæan. They became definitely Manichæan in the ninth. The French _bougre_-heretic means Bulgar. For Catharan doctrines and manners of life generally, see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 235 _et seq._; for its theology see Döllinger, vol. i, pp. 34-50; vol. ii (_Documents_), pp. 282-96. The errors of the Cathari are summarised in Nicolas Eymeric, _Directorium Inquisitorum_ (Rome, 1585), part ii, question xiii, pp. 290-2.

[20] See Schmidt, vol. ii, pp. 9, 11, 16.

[21] _Ibid._, pp. 21-2; also C. Douais, _Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’Inquisition dans le Languedoc_ (Paris, 1900), vol. ii, pp. 95-6. Examination of a Catharan, Pierre Garcia. Garcia said, ‘quod erat unus Deus benignus qui creavit incorruptibilia et permansura, et alius Deus erat malignus qui creavit corruptibilia et transitoria.’

[22] _Ibid._, p. 91. ‘Lex Moysi non erat nisi umbra et vanitas.’ _Cf._ Döllinger, vol. i, p. 40.

[23] Schmidt, vol. ii, pp. 37-68.

[24] _Ibid._, p. 73.

[25] _Ibid._, p. 36.

[26] Schmidt, vol. ii, pp. 38-9.

[27] _Ibid._, p. 40, and Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 40; Döllinger, vol. ii, p. 155.

[28] Schmidt, vol. ii, pp. 39-40; Döllinger, vol. ii, p. 34.

[29] Schmidt, _ibid._, pp. 44-8.

[30] S. Matt., x. 37.

[31] See Schmidt, vol. ii, p. 82.

[32] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 3, 83-4.

[33] _Ibid._, p. 4; Schmidt, vol. ii, p. 84.

[34] Schmidt, _ibid._

[35] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 30-4, 56. This was a survival of the Marcionite heresy. The continuity of the same fundamental types of heresy which had vexed the early Church into the Middle Ages is remarkable.

[36] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 30 _et seq._, 56; mainly from _Acta inquisitionis Carcassonensis contra Albigenses_, 1308-9.

[37] _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 33. See also E. Vacandard, _The Inquisition, a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Powers of the Church_ (trans. by B. L. Conway, 1908), pp. 90-4.

[38] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 25, 44. Catholic churches were the dwellings of evil spirits. Satan’s first home on earth had been the temple of Jerusalem, _ibid._, p. 45. Whenever one of their children by some chance was baptized in a Catholic church, they washed off the taint with dirty water.

[39] See Vacandard, pp. 73-6. Also Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 94. ‘Audivit dictum Petrum Garcia(m) dicentem quod non erat missa celebrata in ecclesia usque ad tempus beati Sylvestri; nec ecclesia habuerat possessiones usque ad illud tempus; et quod ecclesia deficiet citra xx annos; et quod missa nostra nihil valet; et quod omnes praedicatores crucis sunt homicide; et quod crux quam illi praedicatores dant nihil aliud est nisi parum de pella super humerum; idem cordula cum qua ligantur capilli.’

[40] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 250-1, 263, 291, where the ceremony is described in confessions before inquisitors.

[41] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 100. ‘Dixit etiam idem Petrus quod si teneret illum Deum qui de mille hominibus ab eo factis unum salvaret et omnes alios damnaret, ipsum dirumperet et dilaceraret unguibus et dentibus tanquam perfidum et reputaret ipsum esse falsum et perfidum, et spueret in faciem ejus, addens “de gutta cadet ipse.”’ Such language, which is typical of many Catharan utterances, is simply that of a _saeva indignatio_, aroused by the ascription to the Deity of the cruelty and injustice which conscience reprobates in human beings.

[42] Eymeric, _Directorium_, part ii, question xiv, p. 196. ‘Quod melius est satisfieri libidini, quocunque actu turpi, quam carnis stimulis fatigari: sed est (ut dicunt, & ipsi faciunt) in tenebris licitum, quemlibet cum qualibet indistincte carnaliter commisceri, quandocunque & quotiescunque carnalibus desideriis stimulentur.’ _Cf._ Schmidt, p. 151 n., on the Cathari of Orleans in 1012.

[43] Vacandard, p. 80.

[44] Lea, vol. iii, p. 10.

[45] _Paradiso_, xii, 139-41.

[46] On Joachim’s writings, the problem of _The Everlasting Gospel_ and Joachitism generally, see J. J. Döllinger, _Prophecy and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era_ (tr. A. Plummer, 1873), ch. vii; E. Renan, _Nouvelles Études d’histoire religieuse_ (Paris, 1884; English ed., 1886); the Essay on Joachim in _Franciscan Essays_ (1912), by E. G. Gardner, pp. 50-70; also E. Gebhart, _L’Italie mystique; la renaissance religieuse au moyen âge_ (1908), esp. pp. 49-84, 183-253. The whole story of the Spiritual Franciscans, so far as it affected Italy, is told in this admirable work.

[47] J. à Royas, _De Haereticis, eorum que impia intentione et credulitate, cum quinquaginta analyticis assertionibus, quibus universae fidei causae facile definiri valeant_, in F. Zilettus, _Tractatus Universi Juris_ (Venice, 1633), vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 211. The fact of the submission of his works in 1200 is disputed, _Franciscan Essays_, p. 56.

[48] See Renan, _op. cit._, p. 248; Lea, vol. iii, pp. 22-3 and notes; F. H. Reusch, _Index der verbotenen Bücher_ (Bonn, 1883). _Bücherverbote im Mittelalter_, pp. 18-21; Chronicle of Salimbene in _Monumenta Historica ad provincias Parmensem et Placentiam pertinentia_ (Parma, 1857), pp. 235-6. See _Directorium_, part ii, question ix, pp. 269-72, on the heresies of John of Parma. ‘It is ... the substitution of the idea of the Everlasting Gospel as a written book to supersede the Gospel of Christ, for the original one of the Everlasting Gospel as an unwritten spiritual interpretation based upon that Gospel—that separates Gherardo of Borgo San Donnino and the Joachists from the authentic creed of Joachim himself.’—_Franciscan Essays_, p. 63. The prophecies of Joachim himself were esteemed by the Church; it was the subsequent gloss upon them that was suspect. See Döllinger, _Prophecy and the Prophetic Spirit_ (London, 1873), pp. 121 _et seq._

[49] Rev. xiv, 6.

[50] See Lea, vol. iii, pp. 18-19. ‘Unless the universe were a failure, and the promises of God were lies, there must be a term to human wickedness; and as the Gospel of Christ and the Rule of Francis had not accomplished the salvation of mankind, a new gospel was indispensable. Besides, Joachim had predicted that there would arise a new religious Order which would rule the world and the Church in the halcyon age of the Holy Ghost. They could not doubt that this referred to the Franciscans as represented by the Spiritual group, which was striving to uphold in all its strictness the Rule of the venerated founder.’ Salimbene was not a very spiritually-minded Franciscan. That most entertaining chronicler took a not entirely holy delight in the bright and frivolous things of life, and even the gross. But he was very much impressed by the prophecies of the Abbot Joachim. All prophecies appealed to his curious and inquisitive mind, those of Merlin as well as Joachim; but he was genuinely interested in their spiritual significance also, and for a time a professed Joachite. See his Chronicle, especially relating to the testimony of one, Brother Hugo of Montpellier, concerning Joachim, _op. cit._, pp. 97 _et seq._ There is a summary in Taylor, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 494-517. The place of poverty in the Franciscan Rule is discussed in _St. Francis and Poverty_—_Franciscan Essays_, pp. 18-30.

[51] For the persecution of the Spirituals generally see Lea, vol. iii, pp. 23-89, 129-80; also Döllinger, _Beiträge_, vol. ii, pp. 417-526, a _Chronicle of the Persecution of the Brothers Minor_, also p. 606. See also _Directorium_, on Arnaldo da Villanova, p. 282, Fraticelli, pp. 313-22.

[52] The formula of abjuration from the heresy defined by John XXII’s bulls was: ‘I swear that I believe in my heart and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles while in the mortal life held in common the things which Scripture declares them to have had, and that they had the right of giving, selling and alienating them,’—Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 486.

[53] For Guglielma see Lea, vol. iii, pp. 90-100.

[54] See Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 340 _et seq._; also Salimbene, _op. cit._, pp. 112 _et seq._; _Directorium_, pp. 286-8.

[55] For Dolcino see _ibid._ and _Practica_, pp. 340-55.

[56] _Inferno_, Canto xxviii.

[57] _Practica_, p. 340.

[58] Inquisitors found difficulty in proceeding against Dolcinists, _ibid._, p. 343. ‘Est autem valde difficile ipsos examinare et veritatem contra eos invenire pro eo maxime quod, quantuscumque juraverint in juditio se veritatem dicturos, nolunt tamen manifeste suam detegere falsitatem, nec suos errores publice confiteri, nec directe respondere ad interrogata, set palliate et per astucias et tergiversationes multas deviant et mendaciis se juvant, et se ipsos contegunt, et ideo multum est ars necessaria contra ipsos et industria inquirentis.’

[59] See Lea, vol. ii, pp. 351-2, 355.

[60] Lea, vol. ii, p. 320. E. Renan, _Averroës et l’Averroïsme_ (Paris, 1861, 2nd ed.), p. 222.

[61] See Lea, vol. i, p. 360; vol. ii, p. 359. For views ascribed to Beghards see Döllinger, _Beiträge_, vol. ii, pp. 378-401 (_passim_). ‘... se esse vel aliquos ex istis perfectos et sic unitos Deo, quod sint realiter et veraciter ipse Deus, quia dicunt se esse illud idem et unum esse quod est ipse Deus absque distinctione.’ See also _Directorium_, pt. ii, question xv, pp. 299-308.

[62] For proceedings against Beguines, modes of interrogation and sentences, etc., see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 141-4, 277 _et seq._

[63] Frédéricq, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 93. ‘Verum quia in multis mundi partibus sunt plurime mulieres similiter Beghine vulge vocate, quarum alique in propriis, alique in conductis, alique in communibus sibi domibus habitantes vitam ducunt honestam’ ... proceeds to rule that these must on no account be molested.

[64] Lea, vol. ii, pp. 413-14.

[65] For example,

[Sidenote: ? cessiez.]

‘En commencant no pénitence Soit la Vierge et la Trinité, Et, tout en parfaicte puissance, Des cieulx, le hault divin secret, ? cessiez. Sire Dieu, croissiez vo venjeance, Les fruits des ventres respitez, Car esté a en grant balance, Longtemps toute crestienté.

‘Or, avant, entre nous tait frère, Batons nos charoinges bien fort, En remembrant la grant misère Du Dieu et sa piteuse mort, Qui fut prins de la gent amère Et vendus et trahis à tort, Et battu sa char vierge et clère; En nom de ce, batons plus fort.’

See Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. iii, No. 25, pp. 23-4.

[66] _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 101. See also No. 61.

[67] _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 100-1.

[68] _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 35. See also p. 31: ‘ ... yperbolice loquendo, qua locutione solet frequenter uti scriptura ad exprimendum eius magnam quantitatem seu multitudinem, congrue dici possit per omnes christianitatis provincias jam esse diffusa.’ From a sermon preached before Clement VI, descanting upon the seriousness and extent of the attraction of the Flagellant mania for the ignorant crowd.

[69] These acrobatic performances were of course of a convulsive nature and were by contemporaries ascribed to demoniac possession. But the idea of dancing and leaping as a form of religious devotion suggests the very charming story, _Our Lady’s Tumbler_, which has been rewritten by Anatole France and is included in _Aucassin et Nicolette and other Mediæval Romances_ in _Everyman’s Library_.

[70] On the Scholastic Philosophy generally, see Taylor, _The Mediæval Mind_, vol. ii, book vii, _passim_; M. de Wulf, _History of Mediæval Philosophy_ (tr. P. Coffey, London, 1909), pp. 240-410 (_passim_); B. Hauréau, _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique_ (Paris, 1880).

[71] Taylor, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 358-64.

[72] P. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme latin au XIIIe Siècle_ (Fribourg, 1899), pp. xxiii-xxvi; C. Douais, _Essai sur l’organisation des études dans l’ordre des Frères-Prêcheurs_ (Paris, 1884), pp. 62 _et seq._

[73] For Arabian Philosophy see the following: T. J. De Boer, _History of Philosophy in Islam_ (tr. E. R. Jones, 1903); De Wulf, _op. cit._, pp. 225-39; Hauréau, _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique_, vol. ii, pp. 15-53; Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_ (Paris, 1900), _Gazali_ (Paris, 1902); S. Munk, _Mélanges de la philosophie juive et arabe_ (Paris, 1859), pt. iii, especially pp. 352-83, 418-58.

[74] Alfarabi’s work belonged to the first half of the tenth century.

[75] Avicenna, 980-1036.

[76] Ghazali, 1059-1111.

[77] Ibn Roschd, or Averrhoës, was born in 1126 at Cordova; was entrusted by the Caliph, Abu Jacub Jusuf, with the task of making an analysis of Aristotle; in 1182 became physician at the court; but in 1195 was deprived of his office by the succeeding Caliph, Jacub Almansur, presumably owing to a fit of orthodoxy on the Caliph’s part, and banished from Cordova. He died in Morocco in 1198.

[78] See Renan, _Averroës et l’Averroïsme_, pp. 107 _et seq._

[79] See Renan, _op. cit._, pp. 133-53 (_passim_); J. Owen, _Skeptics of the Italian Renaissance_ (1893), pp. 67-72.

[80] Renan, _op. cit._, pp. 209 _et seq._, p. 291; De Wulf, _op. cit._, p. 248.

[81] By the middle of the thirteenth century the University of Paris was in possession of practically all the Commentaries of Averrhoës, _ibid._ See also Renan, pp. 201-2, ‘Un des phénomènes les plus singuliers de l’histoire littéraire du moyen âge, c’est l’activité du commerce intellectuel et la rapidité avec laquelle les livres se repandaient d’un bout à l’autre de l’Europe.’

[82] Mandonnet, pp. lxix _et seq._

[83] ‘Nec libri Aristotelis de naturali philosophia nec commenta legantur Parisiis publice et secreto, et hoc sub pena excommunicationis inhibemus.’ This, and the subsequent prohibition of 1215 referred of course only to Paris. See _Directorium_ on the errors of Aristotle and his Arabian commentators, pt. ii, question iv, pp. 253-5. See Hauréau, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 83-107. On action of Gregory IX, _ibid._, pp. 108-19.

[84] The tract was written against Averrhoës, not the Averrhoïsts. When, however, it was incorporated in his _Summa Theologica_, Albertus Magnus made mention of the fact that Averrhoïsm had made considerable progress and boasted a number of advocates. Mandonnet, p. lxxiii.

[85] _Ibid._, pp. xcvii-ix.

[86] See _Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quaedam hactenus inedita_ (ed. J. S. Brewer, 1859), p. 429. There are several contemporary poems on the troubles in the University of Paris, especially on the part played by William de Saint-Amour, in Rutebeuf, _Œuvres Complètes_ (Paris, 1874), vol. i, pp. 178-213.

[87] See Mandonnet, p. cx.

[88] Salimbene, _op. cit._, p. 108. ‘Isti boni homines semper de scientia gloriantur, et dicunt quod in ordine eorum fons sapientiae invenitur.’

[89] _Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham_ (Rolls series, ed. C. T. Martin, London, 1882-5), vol. iii, p. 842. See also A. Little, _The Grey Friars in Oxford_ (1892), pp. 72-5.

[90] See _Alberti Magni De Quindecim Problematicis_ in appendix to Mandonnet, pp. 13-36.

[91] See Mandonnet, p. cxxvi.

[92] In appendix to Mandonnet, pp. 69-83, 83-115 respectively.

[93] In his tract _Contra praecipuos viros in philosophia Albertum et Thomam_. On Siger and St. Thomas, see Hauréau, vol. iii, pp. 131-7.

[94] See, _passim_, De Wulf, _op. cit._, pp. 379-85; Mandonnet, pp. cxxviii-ccvi.

[95] De Wulf, p. 384; Mandonnet, p. ccxxi.

[96] The tractate, _De Erroribus Philosophorum_, is attributed to him. It is printed in appendix to Mandonnet, pp. 2-11.

[97] _Ibid._, p. clxxvii.

[98] Mandonnet, p. ccvi.

[99] _Ibid._, p. ccxxvi.

[100] _Ibid._, pp. ccxxviii _et seq._

[101] _Ibid._, pp. cclxiv _et seq._

[102] Mandonnet, pp. cclxx _et seq._ Mandonnet sees a reference to Siger and Boëthius in the words of Peckham: ‘Nam eam (opinionem) credimus non a religiosis personis, sed saecularibus quibusdam duxisse originem, cuius duo praecipui defensores vel forsitan inventores miserabiliter dicuntur conclusisse dies suos in partibus transalpinis, cum tamen non essent de illis partibus oriundi.’—_Registrum_, vol. iii, p. 842.

[103] For the former view, see Baeumker, _Die Impossibilia d. Siger von Brabant_ (Münster, 1898), pp. 97 _et seq._; for latter, see Mandonnet, pp. ccxciii-cccxx.

[104] De Wulf, pp. 441-4.

[105] Lea, vol. iii, pp. 440-1.

[106] See De Wulf, pp. 470-3; Owen, _op. cit._, pp. 57-151, esp. 132-51.

[107] Renan, _op. cit._, pp. 255-9; Lea, vol. iii, pp. 578-89.

[108] De Wulf, pp. 403-6.

[109] Lea, vol. iii, pp. 585-6; _Directorium_, pp. 272-8, 331-2. The text of the bull is given in the latter pages.

[110] Renan, pp. 328 _et seq._; Owen, pp. 115-21; Petrarch, _Liber sine Titulo_, Epist. xviii.

[111] Renan, pp. 301-5.

[112] Lea, vol. iii, p. 565.

[113] _De Tribus Impostoribus_ (ed. Philomneste Junior, _i.e._ G. Brunet, Paris, 1861).

[114] Renan, pp. 295 _et seq._

[115] _Decameron_, Day I, Novel 3.

[116] Renan traced Averrhoïst influence in the Pantheism of the Spiritual Franciscans and the Illuminism of such German mystics as Ortlieb and Eckhart, _op. cit._, pp. 259 _et seq._; whereas the truth is that there was never the slightest sympathy between the Franciscans and Averrhoïsm, and German Illuminism had quite other origins.

[117] J. Bryce, _The Holy Roman Empire_ (1903), p. 109.

[118] See H. B. Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation_ (1901, 1902), vol. i; _The Age of Wyclif_, p. 71: ‘Some seventy thousand documents in the papal archives bear witness to his world-wide labours. Few subjects escaped his notice—from the habit of the French King of talking in church, the misrule of Edward II of England, or the devices of sorcerers, to the weightier matters of theology and law.’

[119] R. L. Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Mediæval Thought_ (1884), p. 247.

[120] _Ibid._, pp. 256 _et seq._

[121] M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_ (1903), vol. i, p. 32.

[122] For Avignon, see E. Baluze, _Vitae Paparum Avenionensium_ (1693). See works cited in Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation_, vol. i, Append. A., p. 291; also Pierre D’Ailly, _De Necessitate Reformationis Ecclesiae_, in _Joannis Gersonii Opera Omnia_ (Antwerp. 1706), vol. ii, pp. 885-902, esp. p. 889. Poole, _op. cit._, p. 248, ‘The universal authority of Rome became confined within the narrow territory of Avignon: the means by which it was exerted became more and more secular, diplomatic, mercantile....’

[123] The extent of the feeling aroused by the schism in Christendom can be illustrated by the fact that contemporary miracle-plays represented Pope and anti-Pope burning in hell (see Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation_, vol. ii, _The Age of Hus_, p. 41), and by the life-work of a simple uneducated girl, St. Catherine of Siena.

[124] Melchior Goldast, _Monarchia S. Romani Imp._ (Hanover and Frankfort, 1611-14), vol. iii, p. 1360.

[125] Goldast, _op. cit._, vol. ii, _Opera Omnia de Potestate Ecclesiastica & Politica, G. Ockham_, esp. _Dialogus_, pp. 822-30. The chief conclusions of Ockham are summarized on pp. 396-7; also in S. Riezler, _Die literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers_ (1874), pp. 258-71. But see generally pp. 241-77.

[126] See Poole, _op. cit._, p. 277, note.

[127] _Defensor Pacis_, Lib. I, cap. xviii; in Goldast, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 86-9.

[128] _Ibid._, Lib. II, cap. viii, p. 212.

[129] _Defensor Pacis_, Lib. II, cap. ix, p. 213.

[130] _Ibid._, cap. x, pp. 216-19, esp. p. 217. ‘Nemo quantumcunque peccans contra disciplinas speculativas aut operativas quascunque punitur vel arcetur in hoc seculo praecise inquantum-hujusmodi, sed inquantum peccat contra praeceptum humanae legis.’

[131] _Ibid._, Lib. I, cap. xii, pp. 169-71.

[132] Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i. ‘Wyclif has been called the Morning Star of the Reformation, but the author of the _Defensor Pacis_ might more justly claim the title.’ _Cf._, on modernity of Marsiglio’s thought, B. Labanca, _Marsilio da Padova_ (Padua, 1882), pp. 219 _et seq._

[133] Fitzralph’s treatise, _De Pauperie Salvatoris_, is printed as an appendix to Wycliffe’s _De Dominio Divino_ (Wyclif Society, 1890), pp. 259-476.

[134] For this whole subject, see Lea, vol. iii, pp. 590-4.

[135] _Ibid._, pp. 596-9.

[136] See _supra_, pp. 68, 75.

[137] _De Dominio Divino_ (Wyclif Society, 1890), p. 33. ‘Ideo Deus non mediate per regimen vasallorum subserviencium, ut reges ceteri, dominatur, cum immediate et per se facit, sustentat, et gubernat omne quod possidet, juvatque ad perficiendum opera secundum usus alios quos requirit.’

[138] See Poole, _op. cit._, p. 293.

[139] See Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 173-8.

[140] See _Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif_ (Rolls series, ed. W. W. Shirley, 1858), pp. 280-1.

[141] Wycliffe’s _De Potestate Pape_ (Wyclif Society, ed. J. Loserth, 1907), p. 84.

[142] _De Civili Dominio_ (Wyclif Society, ed. R. L. Poole, 1885), vol. i, pp. 335-42; also pp. 265-74, ch. xxxvii. See also _Select English Works_ (ed. T. Arnold, 1869-71), vol. iii, pp. 216-17.

[143] See _De Potestate Pape_, pp. 84, 238 _et seq._, 378-9.

[144] _Ibid._, pp. 145-6, 154-5. This idea is either explicitly or implicitly in all Wycliffe’s later teachings.

[145] _Ibid._, pp. 120 _et seq._, 148, 212, 266 _et seq._ The whole book is indeed on this theme. Wycliffe does not scruple to call a bad pope ‘_horribilius monstrum_.’ Cf. _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

[146] _De Potestate Pape_, p. 272.

[147] _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

[148] _Ibid._, p. 279; D. Wilkins, _Concilia M. Britanniae et Hiberniae_ (1737). vol. iii, p. 157.

[149] _Works of Thomas Cranmer_ (ed. J. E. Cox, Parker Society), vol. ii, _Misc. Writings_, p. 119.

[150] See Wilkins, vol. iii, p. 350; _Chronicon H. Knighton_ (Rolls series, ed. J. R. Lumby, 1889-95), vol. ii, p. 152.

[151] _Ibid._

[152] See _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278, from _Epistola Willelmi Cantuariensis super condemnatione haeresum Wycclyff in synodo_. See also extract from a sermon by Wycliffe on this subject, _ibid._, introd., pp. lxiv-lxv.

[153] There was a tendency to Pantheism in Wycliffe. See Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 137 n.

[154] _De Eucharistia_ (Wyclif Society, 1892), p. 109, cap. iv.

[155] _Ibid._, pp. 189-232, cap. viii.

[156] _Ibid._, cap. i, pp. 15-16. ‘Nichil enim horribilius quam quod quilibet sacerdos celebrans facit vel consecrat cotidie corpus Christi.’

[157] _Ibid._, cap. iv, p. 109.

[158] _Ibid._, Introd., p. liii; cap. iv, pp. 110-11.

[159] _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

[160] See Foxe’s _Acts and Monuments_, iv and v.

[161] Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 229. ‘Of the scholastic Lollards it may be written that logic makes no martyrs.’ _Cf._ pp. 213-90.

[162] See popular ballads in J. S. Brewer, _Monumenta Franciscana_ (1858), pp. 591-608.

[163] Knighton, _op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 184-7.

[164] _De Haeretico Comburendo_ being frequently enforced from 1401.

[165] See Count Lützow, _The Life and Times of Master John Hus_ (1909), pp. 17-62; J. Loserth, _Wyclif and Hus_ (trans. M. J. Evans, 1884); A. H. Wratislaw, _Native Literature of Bohemia in the Fourteenth Century_ (1878), esp. book ii, pp. 181-291.

[166] See Lützow, _op. cit._, pp. 47-62.

[167] _Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus_ (ed. F. Palacky, Prague, 1869), pp. 347-9, 355-63. See Lützow, _op. cit._, pp. 106-9. Wenzel’s reasoned answer to the objections made by the Germans may have been Hus’s work. For the contest at the University, see also H. Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. ii, pp. 212-32.

[168] Lützow, _op. cit._, pp. 130-3, 159-60; Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 464-6; _The Letters of John Hus_ (ed. Workman and Pope, 1904), pp. 422-5.

[169] Due to the marriage of Wenzel’s sister, Anne, to Richard II.

[170] Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 289, 292.

[171] _Ibid._, p. 293.

[172] _Ibid._, p. 287; _Letters of Hus_, p. 217. Hus does not seem to have regarded the Utraquist question as of great consequence. See Creighton, _Papacy_, vol. ii, p. 86.

[173] See J. B. Schwab, _J. Gerson_ (Würzburg, 1858), pp. 482-9; also Creighton, vol. i, appendix 2, pp. 365-8.

[174] D’Ailly in Gerson’s _Works_, vol. ii, pp. 949 _et seq._

[175] Gerson, _ibid._, p. 72.

[176] _Ibid._, p. 178. See also, generally, Gerson’s ‘De Unitate Ecclesiastica,’ _Works_, vol. ii, pp. 113-14; Niem, Theodoricus de, _De Schismate_ (1890). For full list of tracts, see _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. iii, pp. 867-8.

[177] See Creighton’s _Papacy_, vol. i, p. 143.

[178] F. Gregorovius, _Hist. of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_ (trans. A. Hamilton, 1894-1902), vol. vi, p. 606; J. N. Figgis, _From Gerson to Grotius_ (1907), p. 35.

[179] See Gerson’s exhortation to the Archbishop of Prague to extirpate the heresy in Bohemia, Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 523-6.

[180] _Letters of Hus_, pp. 146-9, 149-51. These are letters written by Hus at the time of his setting out for Constance. One of them, he instructs, is only to be opened in the event of his death.

[181] See Gerson, _Works_, vol. ii, p. 572; H. v. der Hardt, _Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense concilium_ (Frankfort, 1697-1742), vol. iv, p. 521; Palacky, _Documenta_, p. 284; Lea, vol. ii, pp. 467-8. ‘The explanation of the controversy over the violation of the safe-conduct is perfectly simple. Germany, and especially Bohemia, knew so little about the Inquisition and the systematic persecution of heresy that surprise and indignation were excited by the application to the case of Hus of the recognized principles of the canon law. The Council could not have done otherwise than it did without surrendering those principles.’

[182] _Letters of Hus_, p. 216.

[183] Lützow, p. 249.

[184] Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 308, 310. Like Wycliffe before and Luther after him, Hus would acknowledge no other authority than Scripture. The Council wanted him to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of itself as the Church’s representative.

[185] _Letters of Hus_, p. 226.

[186] _Ibid._, p. 217.

[187] _Ibid._, p. 224.

[188] _Letters of Hus_, p. 239. See also his letter addressed to all the people of Bohemia, pp. 230-3; also pp. 275-6, and Palacky, _Documenta_, p. 323. See Creighton, _Papacy_, vol. ii, p. 51: ‘ ... It is the glory of Hus that he first deliberately asserted the right of the individual conscience against ecclesiastical authority, and sealed his assertion by his own life-blood.’

[189] See, however, J. Mackinnon, _A History of Modern Liberty_ (1906), vol. i, p. 162: ‘The defiance of the Council was the prelude of the modern Reformation. It was a distinct intimation not merely of a solitary reformer like Wiclif or Hus, but of a body of men who claimed to speak in the name of a whole people, that they would not submit to traditional authority _per se_. It was a plea for fair discussion of matters of controversy, and a protest against the principle of stifling inquiry and dissent by such authority. Otherwise the reason and intelligence of the inquirer will revolt in the name of conscience, justice and religion.’

[190] J. Glanvill, _A Blow at Sadducism_ (1688), p. 5. _Cf._ pp. 32-3: ‘But to reserve all the clear circumstances of Fact, which we find in well attested and confirmed Relations of this kind into the power of deceivable imagination, is to make fancy the greater Prodigy; and to suppose, that it can do stranger feats than are believed of any other kind of function. And to think that Pins and Nails, for instance, can by the power of imagination be conveyed within the skin; or that imagination should deceive so many as have been witnesses in objects of sense, in all the circumstances of discovery; this, I say, is to be infinitely more credulous than the assertors of sorcery and Demoniack Contracts. And by the same reason it may be believed that all the Battels and strange events of the world, which our selves have not seen, are but dreams and fond imaginations.’

[191] W. E. H. Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_ (1904), vol. i, p. 18.

[192] See W. E. H. Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_ (1904), vol. i, pp. 34-5.

[193] See Lea, vol. iii, pp. 422-9.

[194] See _ibid._, p. 434.

[195] Sprenger, _Malleus Maleficarum_ (Frankfort ed., 1582), vol. i, pp. 488-9: ‘Et eodem modo de adorantibus Daemonē & sacrificantibus ei quia si hoc faciunt, credentes Divinitatem esse in Daemonibus, vel credentes quod cultus latriae sit ei exhibendus, vel quod omnino ex exhibitione talis cultus, assequantur quod requirunt a Diabolo, non obstāte Dei prohibitione, seu etiam permissione, tales essent haeretici. Sed si ista faciunt non ita sentientes de Daemone; sed ut aliquo pacto cum Daemone facilius per ista exequantur ab ipso quod intendunt, tales non sunt haeretici natura rei, licet gravissime peccent.’

[196] A. Albertini, _De Agnoscendis assertionibus Catholicis_ in Zilettus, _Tractatus Universi Juris_, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 65-6. _Cf._ J. Simancas, _De Catholicis Institutionibus_ in Zilettus, _ibid._, p. 144 (Tit. xxi).

[197] Lea, vol. iii, p. 454: ‘Inquisitors ... began to insert a clause renouncing sorcery in all abjurations administered to repentant heretics, so that in case they should become addicted to it they could be promptly burned for relapse.’

[198] For Peter of Abano, see _supra_, pp. 69, 70, and Lea, vol. iii, p. 440; for Gilles de Rais, _ibid._, pp. 468-89.

[199] Ordinarily inquisitorial trials were secret. Another abnormal feature in this case was the presence of a prosecutor; the third was that the court was really a joint one, being in part the bishop and inquisitors sitting together as a tribunal of the Holy Office to hear the charge of heresy, in part the bishop sitting as president of the ordinary episcopal court, the inquisitors not included, to hear the charge of unnatural lust with which the Inquisition was not competent to deal.

[200] _Cf._ Lea, vol. iii, p. 486: ‘The morning saw the extraordinary spectacle of the clergy, followed by the whole population of Nantes, who had been clamouring for his death, marching through the streets and singing and praying for his salvation.’

[201] Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_, vol. i, pp. 47-53.

[202] See _Bart. Spin. in Ponzinibium de lamiis Apologia prima_ in _Malleorum quorundam Maleficarum tam veterum quam recentiorum authorum tomi duo_ (Frankfort, 1582), vol. ii, pp. 623 _et seq._

[203] _Ibid._, vol. i, pp. 1-8 in Sprenger’s _Malleus Maleficarum_.

[204] For a critique of Sprenger’s work, see J. Michelet, _La Sorcière_ in _Œuvres Complètes_ (Paris, 1893-9), pp. 481-96.

[205] Sprenger, vol. i, p. 94; also Michelet, _op. cit._, p. 321.

[206] Albertini, _op. cit._, in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 85; also Sprenger, etc., vol. ii, pp. 262-4, and, generally, pp. 250 _et seq._, _De modo quo localiter transferuntur de loco ad locum_.

[207] Frédéricq, _Documents_, vol. i, p. 371. ‘Et illecq leur remontra comment ils avoient esté en ladite vaulderie, et fait tout ce que dessus ai dit, et mesme que aulcunes d’icelles, qui estoient la presentes, avoient esté cognues carnellement du diable d’enfer, l’une en forme de lièvre, l’autre en forme de renard, l’autre en forme de thor, l’aultre en forme d’homme et autant en forme de quelques bestes’—from _Mémoires de Jacques du Clercq_.

[208] Sprenger, pp. 40 _et seq._, p. 773. See also in vol. ii. of _Malleorum ... tomi duo, Tractatus utilis et necessarius per viam Dialogi, de Pythonicis mulieribus_, pp. 56-7.

[209] Sprenger, etc., pp. 458-9 in Bartholomew de Spina’s _De Strigibus_.

[210] _Ibid._, pp. 459-60.

[211] Sprenger, p. 546.

[212] de Spina, pp. 544-5.

[213] Sprenger, pp. 103-25, 267 _et seq._; also in vol. ii of _Malleorum ... tomi duo, De Pythonicis mulieribus_, pp. 42-3.

[214] Sprenger, pp. 152 _et seq._ and 354.

[215] _Ibid._, pp. 152 _et seq._, 341 _et seq._; de Spina, in vol. ii, p. 502.

[216] Sprenger, pp. 141 _et seq._, 296-301, 360 _et seq._; _De Pythonicis mulieribus_, in vol. ii, pp. 65 _et seq._

[217] Sprenger, p. 310; _De Pythonicis mulieribus_, in vol. ii, p. 75.

[218] See Sprenger, p. 581. _Cf._ Lea, vol. iii, p. 508.

[219] A very effective play based upon this idea is that of H. Wiers-Jenssen, of which the English version is _The Witch_, by John Masefield.

[220] It was so decided by Gregory XI, when the right of the French inquisition in the matter was challenged. Papal commissions issued to inquisitors early in the fifteenth century specifically enumerate sorcery and witchcraft among offences with which they are to deal.

[221] See Sprenger, pp. 492-3. Innocent VIII gave a great impetus to persecution of witches in 1485 by his bull, _Summis desiderantes_, in which all the malignant powers of the witch were enumerated. It was this bull that gave authority to Jacob Sprenger, the author of _Malleus Maleficarum_. It was supplemented by others of a similar character issued by Julius II and Alexander VI.

[222] Sprenger, pp. 172-82.

[223] See Lecky, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 3; Michelet, _op. cit._, p. 10.

[224] _Malleorum—tomi duo_, vol. ii, p. 520.

[225] Sprenger, p. 214. _Inquisitoribus Maleficae non possunt nocere._ ‘In oppido nempe Ravenspurg, cum a consulibus Maleficae incinerandae interrogarentur, cur nobis inquisitoribus aliqua maleficia, sicut aliis hominibus, non intulissent, Responderunt: Licet pluries hoc facere attentassent, non tamen potuerunt. Et de causa inquirentibus, respondebant se nescire, nisi quod a Daemonibus informatae fuissent.’ Nevertheless, _ibid._, p. 559, inquisitors should be careful not to allow themselves to be touched by wizards and witches.

[226] Sprenger, p. 549.

[227] _Ibid._, pp. 552-3.

[228] _Ibid._, p. 557. The adjuration was by the bitter tears of Christ shed on the Cross for the sins of the world, by the tears shed by the glorious Virgin Mary, by those shed by all the saints and elect of God on earth.

[229] Such enmity had to be really mortal and well authenticated; for the inquisitorial point of view was that of necessity a witch always would excite a great deal of enmity. Allegations of enmity must, therefore, always be carefully sifted. See Sprenger, pp. 542 _et seq._

[230] For the whole remarkable story, see Lea, vol. iii, pp. 519-34.

[231] James, i, 3.

[232] 2 Peter, ii, 1.

[233] 2 Corinth., xi, 13.

[234] Galat., i, 8. See also _ibid._, iii, 1, 3.

[235] 2 Thessal., iii, 15. _Cf._ Galat., iii, 1, 3.

[236] Polycarp, _Epist._ § 7, in _The Apostolic Fathers_ (ed. J. B. Lightfoot, 1891), pp. 171, 179.

[237] ‘Ad officium haereticos compelli, non illici dignum est. Duritia vincenda, non suadenda.’ Tertullian, _Opera omnia_ (ed. Migne, _Patrologia latina_), vol. ii, col. 125.

[238] Lactantius, _Divin. Instit._, lib. v, cap. 20 (ed. Migne), vol. i, p. 615.

[239] Tertullian, _Opera omnia_, vol. i, col. 699. _Liber ad Scapulam_, cap. 2.

[240] See De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 150.

[241] _Ibid._, p. 154.

[242] See Philippe à Limborch, _History of the Inquisition_ (trans. S. Chandler, London, 1731), vol. i, p. 8; L. Tanon, _Histoire des Tribunaux de l’Inquisition en France_ (Paris, 1893), pp. 127-33; De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 163-8; _Cod. Theod._, i, xvi, leges 3, 8, 12, 30, 33, 34, 35; C. Moeller in _Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain, 1913), vol. xiv, pp. 728-9, _Les bûchers et les autos-da-fé depuis le moyen âge_.

[243] _The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom_ (Oxford ed., Pusey), Homily xlvi, on Matt. xiii, pp. 630 _et seq._

[244] Letter 82 to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_ (ed. P. Schaff), 2nd series, vol. vi, pp. 170 _et seq._ See Limborch (Chandler’s ed.), pp. 29-30. It has been averred that St. Jerome was in favour of the death penalty, on the score of _Epist. 109 ad Ripar_. See Lea, vol. i, pp. 214-15, and rejoinder of H. Maillet, _L’Église et la répression sanglante de l’hérésie_ (1909), p. 15.

[245] 48th Epistle to Vincentius.

[246] 50th Epistle to Boniface.

[247] Epistle 185, n. 26. Also Epistle 93, n. 10.

[248] See Lea, vol. i, p. 213; Maillet, p. 17, and De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 186-8.

[249] See Lea, vol. i, p. 215; Maillet, pp. 17 _et seq._; Vacandard, pp. 27-30. ‘Nor were they [the bishops] content with merely accepting it [the aid of the secular arm]. They declared that the State had not only the right to help the Church in suppressing heresy, but that she was in duty bound to do so.’ See also De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 189 n., and P. Frédéricq, _Les récents historiens catholiques de l’inquisition en France_, in _Revue historique_ (vol. cix, Jan.-April, 1912), p. 314.

[250] This suggestion is made by J. Havet in his _L’Hérésie et le Bras séculier au Moyen Age_ in _Œuvres_ (Paris, 1896), vol. ii, p. 131.

[251] See _ibid._, p. 138.

[252] Vacandard, _op. cit._, p. 33.

[253] Havet, pp. 129-34.

[254] _I.e._ in the _langue d’oïl_ of France, in Flanders, Germany, Burgundy.

[255] De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 235.

[256] See Havet, p. 135.

[257] See De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 233-4.

[258] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, pp. 6-7, No. 3, gives Wazon’s letter. See also Frédéricq in _Revue historique_, already cited, p. 320; also Maillet, _op. cit._, p. 34. On the strength of this instance he declares: ‘Nous voyons assez souvent les évêques s’opposer aux exécutions’; whereas this episcopal protest is unique.

[259] Havet, _op. cit._, p. 133. See Maillet on the whole subject in _op. cit._, chapter ii. He argues that Theoduin had no particular punishment in view and that, therefore, one cannot say he approved the execution of heretics. But as the Bishop must have known very well the sort of punishment customarily inflicted by the State at this time, the argument is not very sound.

[260] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 260.

[261] J. D. Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio_ (Paris, 1901-13), vol. xxi, p. 718, and Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 31.

[262] See De Cauzons, vol. ii, pp. 271-2; Tanon, p. 454.

[263] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 34; Maillet, p. 55; Frédéricq, in criticism of Maillet in _Revue historique_, p. 321.

[264] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 39; Mansi, vol. xxi, p. 1177; Havet, pp. 151-2.

[265] Mansi, vol. xxii, p. 231; Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 47.

[266] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 269.

[267] Stubbs, _Select Charters of English Constitutional History_ (Oxford, 1890), pp. 145-6, § 21 of the Assize.

[268] See De Cauzons, vol. 1, p. 277.

[269] J. A. Llorente, _Histoire critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne_ (Fr. trans. from the Spanish, Paris, 1818), vol. i, p. 30; Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 298.

[270] Ludovico à Paramo, _De Origine et Progressu Officii Sanctae Inquisitionis eiusque dignitate et utilitate_ (Madrid, 1598), p. 90; Havet, p. 167; De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 283. This is the first secular law of the Middle Ages prescribing the penalty of the stake. But it only refers to Waldenses in a particular country, and the stake is only to be had recourse to in the event of banishment (the penalty primarily enjoined) being incomplete. The legislation of general significance is that of the Emperor Frederick II, between 1220 and 1239.

[271] For particulars of a rather interesting case see Lea, vol. i, pp. 111-12. The charge of heresy was mainly based on the obduracy of a young girl in repelling the licentious advances of a young canon of Rheims.

[272] Mansi, vol. xx, p. 476; Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 56.

[273] See Havet, p. 154.

[274] Vacandard, p. 56.

[275] This is the argument of Maillet, _op. cit._, p. 49.

[276] See Frédéricq, _Revue historique_, p. 320.

[277] A. Luchaire, _Innocent III; la croisade des Albigeois_ (Paris, 1905), pp. 58-9.

[278] _Ibid._, pp. 17, 27.

[279] _Ibid._, pp. 7-8; Tanon, p. 21.

[280] Luchaire, _op. cit._, p. 103.

[281] J. C. L. Sismondi, _History of the Crusades against the Albigenses_ (Eng. trans.), p. 53.

[282] Lea, vol. i, p. 154. See, however, Lord Acton in his review of Lea’s work in _The History of Freedom of Thought and other Essays_ (1909), p. 567. The chronicler, Caesarius Heisterbach, does not relate a fact, but tells a story, which may or may not be fact.

[283] The _potestas inquirendi_ handed down from Christ to St. Peter has been annexed to the episcopal dignity. See Ludovico à Paramo, _op. cit._, book ii, p. 89.

[284] C. Douais, _L’Inquisition; ses origines, sa procédure_ (Paris, 1906), pp. 45-6.

[285] Sometimes a new heresy was not at once recognized as one at all. Gregory VII was indulgent to Berengar of Tours and Alexander III congratulated Peter Waldo. See Luchaire, _op. cit._, p. 38.

[286] See De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 333.

[287] Simancas, _op. cit._, Tit. xxv, p. 150, ‘De Episcopis.’

[288] See Lea, vol. i, p. 310; De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 378-80. See also A. Esmein, _Histoire de la Procédure Criminelle en France, et spécialement de la Procédure inquisitoire_ (Paris, 1882), pp. 66-78; in English version, _A History of Continental Criminal Procedure_, Continental Legal History Series, vol. v (Boston, 1913), pp. 3-11, 78-94.

[289] Mansi, _op. cit._, vol. xxii, pp. 476-8.

[290] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 393.

[291] At first sight it may appear as though the completeness of the success of the Albigensian Crusade rendered further action unnecessary. This would appear to be the implication in Douais’ _L’Inquisition_, pp. 45-6. As a matter of fact it was rather a case of following up an initial advantage.

[292] Mansi, vol. xxii, p. 785.

[293] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii, p. 24, § xiv. ‘_Ut sint in omnibus parochiis, qui de haeresi & manifestis criminibus inquirant._’

[294] _Ibid._ p. 194, § i.

[295] Mansi, vol. xxii, pp. 989-90.

[296] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 395; P. Fournier, _Les Officialités au Moyen Age_ (Paris, 1880), pp. 266-9.

[297] Ludovico à Paramo, pp. 27, 31, 49.

[298] Luchaire, _op. cit._, p. 71. ‘En 1204, il enleva aux évêques, pour la donner aux légats, la juridiction ordinaire en matière d’hérésie, première esquisse du procédé d’où sortira l’Inquisition.’ To which M. Douais rightly retorts: ‘Il n’est pas exact de dire que le Pape enleva aux évêques la juridiction ordinaire en matière d’hérésie. Il ne leur enleva rien.’ _L’Inquisition_, p. 67. See, however, De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 414. ‘Sans enlever donc aux évêques le droit de juger les hérétiques, les rescrits romains constituaient, à côté de leur tribunal, un pouvoir, pouvant juger lui aussi, avec des juges d’une juridiction plus étendue que le leur, ayant le droit d’exiger des chefs des diocèses l’obéissance à leur autorité. Il suffisait d’assurer à ce tribunal nouveau les moyens d’exécuter ses sentences et de le rendre permanent, pour avoir l’Inquisition.’

[299] For claim that Dominic was the first inquisitor, see Ludovico à Paramo, pp. 95-6; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 25-6; De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 421 n. Dominic was certainly more than a missionary preacher; he examined and condemned heretics. See Acton, _op. cit._, p. 554.

[300] It has been said, truly, that it is neither the crime, nor the procedure, nor the penalty that makes the inquisitor in the strict sense; but his character as a permanent _judge-delegate_ for the cause of heresy. Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 37-8.

[301] For text of commission to Conrad, see Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, p. 71, No. 72. ‘ ... diligenter et vigilanter inquiras heretica pravitate infectos in partibus memoratis, ut per illos, ad quos pertinet, zizania valeat de agro Domini extirpari.’ Douais on this comments (_op. cit._, p. 53 n.), ‘Si Conrad eut été inquisiteur, c’est à lui que ce soin eût d’abord incombé comme juge.’ The argument is invalid. The appeal to the assistance of the secular arm is normal and certainly does not prove Conrad not to have been an inquisitor. See Lea, vol. ii, p. 319, ‘This was in effect an informal commission as inquisitor-general for Germany’; and De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 449.

[302] For text of the bull, _Ille humani generis_, see Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 74-5; Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 83, pp. 82-3. The Friars are urged to demolish the heretics who ‘sicut cancer serperent in occulto, & velut vulpes latentes niterentur vineam Domini Sabaoth demoliri.’

[303] Lea, vol. i, p. 328. _Cf._ Tanon, _op. cit._, p. 175, who considers that Lea does not attach sufficient importance to these bulls.

[304] The first bull delegating inquisitorial powers to the Brothers Minor in collective fashion is apparently one issued by Innocent IV, Jan. 13, 1246. See Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 122.

[305] See De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 446 n. ‘La transformation des Inquisitions épiscopaux en juges pontificaux, a été la vraie fondation de l’Inquisition; telle qu’elle est connue et louée par certains, abhorrée par d’autres. Or, cette transformation s’est faite progressivement, par tâtonnements autour des années 1230-1233, non par édit général, plutôt par rescrits spéciaux. Les dominicains ont été l’occasion d’un bon nombre de ces rescrits, mais non de tous.’

[306] See Lea, vol. i, p. 330.

[307] _Ibid._, p. 339.

[308] _Ibid._

[309] Tanon, _op. cit._, pp. 177-80.

[310] _Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi_, Huillard-Bréholles (Paris, 1852-61), vol. ii, pt. i, pp. 4-6; _Monumenta Germaniae historica_, G. A. Pertz (Hanover and Berlin), vol. iv, pp. 242-5; Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, pp. 70-1, No. 71.

[311] See Maillet, _op. cit._, ch. ii; Frédéricq in _Revue historique_, p. 310. This edict was drawn up five days before the coronation ceremony by the Curia and sent to receive the imperial signature, so that it might be published in the Emperor’s name in St. Peter’s. For Frederick’s promise to assist the Pope against heresy, see Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, p. 70, No. 70.

[312] Huillard-Bréholles, vol. ii, pp. 421-3; G. A. Pertz, vol. iv, p. 252. ‘Presenti edictuli constitutione nostra in tota Lombardia inviolabiliter de cetero valitura duximus sanciendum ut quicumque per civitatis antistitem vel diocesanum in qua degit post condignam examinationem fuerit de haeresi manifeste convictus et hereticus judicatus, per potestatem, consilium et catholicos viros civitatis et diocesis earumdem ad requisitionem antistitis illico capiatur, auctoritate nostra ignis judicio concremandus, ut vel ultricibus flammis pereat, aut si miserabili vite ad coercitionem aliorum degerint reservandum, eum lingue plectro deprivent, quo non est veritas contra ecclesiasticam fidem invehi et nomen Domini blasphemari.’

[313] Huillard-Bréholles, vol. i, pp. 5-8; Pertz, vol. ii, p. 242; Mansi, vol. xxiv. pp. 586-8.

[314] Havet, _op. cit._, pp. 169-70.

[315] For arguments ascribing the responsibility to Frederick, see Havet (_passim_) and J. Ficker, _Die Gesetzliche Einführung der Todesstrafe für Ketzerei_ in _Mittheilungen des Instituts für oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung_ (1880), pp. 177-226, 430-1. See also C. Moeller in _Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain, vol. xiv, 1913); _Les Bûchers et les Autos-da-fé de l’Inquisition depuis le Moyen Age_ (pp. 720-51), esp. pp. 725-6; Maillet, _op. cit._, p. 87, and De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 293-7: ‘La théorie qui met sur le dos de Frédéric II la responsabilité des mesures de répression sanglante, du bûcher en particulier, est née de tendances apologétiques mal comprises, car vouloir concilier l’Inquisition avec nos idées modernes est une chimère.’ Also Tanon, _op. cit._, p. 462. These laws ‘n’en sont pas moins eu une grande importance pour le temps où elles ont été rendues, en présence des difficultés que l’Église rencontrait, en Italie aussi bien qu’en France, de la part des autorités laïques, pour assurer la répression de l’hérésie, en donnant à cette répression la sanction nouvelle de l’autorité impériale elles devaient aider puissamment l’Église à vaincre ces résistances.’

[316] See Maillet, _op. cit._, in ch. ii; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, ch. 5, esp. pp. 141-2; also De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 296-7 n., and Moeller, _op. cit._, pp. 727-8.

[317] Lea, vol. i, pp. 227-8. ‘We can imagine the smile of amused surprise with which Gregory IX or Gregory XI would have listened to the dialectics with which the Comte Joseph de Maistre proves that it is an error to suppose, and much more to assert, that Catholic priests can in any manner be instrumental in compassing the death of a fellow creature.’

[318] Havet, p. 174; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, p. 122.

[319] Havet, p. 176; Acton, _op. cit._, p. 555.

[320] Acton, _op. cit._, p. 557. ‘The five years of his abode in Rome changed the face of the Church.... Very soon after Saint Raymond appeared at the Papal court, the use of the stake became law, and the inquisitorial machinery had been devised and the management given to the priors of the order. When he departed he left behind him instructions for the treatment of heresy, which the Pope adopted and sent out whenever they were wanted.... Until he came, in spite of much violence and many laws, the popes had imagined no permanent security against religious error, and were not formally committed to death by burning. Gregory himself, excelling all the priesthood in vigour and experience, had for four years laboured, vaguely and in vain, with the transmitted implements. Of a sudden, in these successive measures, he finds his way, and builds up the institution which is to last for centuries. That this mighty change in the conditions of religious thought and life, and in the functions of the order was supported by Dominicans, is probable. And it is reasonable to suppose that it was the work of the foremost Dominican then living, who at that very moment had risen to power and predominance at Rome.’

[321] See De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 301-3.

[322] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, pp. 78-80, No. 80, _Capitula Senatoris Annibaldi et populi Romani edicta contra Patarenos_. See Gregorovius, _City of Rome_, vol. vi, pt. 1, pp. 156-61. Heretics were at this time numerous in the States of the Church, Viterbo, Perugia and Orvieto; also in Lombardy. Some of these, the Arnoldists at any rate, were also Ghibellines. ‘The Inquisition now became another instrument in the hands of the Pope for the subjection of the people.’

[323] Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 586 _et seq._

[324] Council of Rheims, 1148, Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 31; Montpellier, 1162, _ibid._, No. 35; Lateran, 1179, _ibid._, No. 47.

[325] Verona, 1184, Frédéricq, _Corpus_, No. 56; Montpellier, 1195, _ibid._, No. 58; Fourth Lateran, 1215, _ibid._, No. 68. See also Mansi, vol. xxii, pp. 987-8; Eymeric, _Directorium_, pt. ii, question 46, p. 378.

[326] In Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 569 _et seq._

[327] § 1.

[328] §§ 3, 5, 12-15.

[329] §§ 24, 25, 31.

[330] § 37.

[331] _Summa_, 2, 2, qu. 11, arts. 3 and 4. ‘Multo enim gravius corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae vel alii malefactores statim per saeculares principes juste morti traduntur, multo magis haeretici statim ex quo de haeresi convincuntur, possunt non solum excommunicari, sed et juste occidi.’ Vacandard (p. 176) answers: ‘Such reasoning is not very convincing. Why should not the life-imprisonment of the heretic safeguard the faithful as well as his death? Will you answer that this penalty is too trivial to prevent the faithful from falling into heresy? If that be so, why not at once condemn all heretics to death, even when repentant? That would terrorize the wavering ones all the more. But St. Thomas evidently was not thinking of the logical consequences of his reasoning. His one aim was to defend the criminal code in vogue at the time. That is his only excuse. For we must admit that rarely has his reasoning been so faulty and so weak as in his thesis upon the coercive power of the Church and the punishment of heresy.’ St. Thomas’s logic is sounder than his apologist’s, if his humanity is less! It is not St. Thomas’s logic that is at fault, but the standpoint of mediæval Christianity, which it is vain to seek to harmonize with modern humanitarianism.

[332] St. John, xv, 6. Vacandard, p. 177. ‘To regard our Saviour as the precursor or rather the author of the criminal code of the Inquisition evidences, one must admit, a very peculiar temper of mind.’ So judged, again by modern humanitarianism.

[333] Tanon, pp. 52-3. To be carefully distinguished from Arnaud of Citeaux, Archbishop of Narbonne, the former papal legate in Languedoc.

[334] Vaissete & Devic, _op. cit._, vol. iv, p. 118. ‘Clamor validus et insinuatio luctuosa fidelium subditorum, processus suos inquisitionis negotio a captionibus, quaestionibus, et excogitatis tormentis incipiens personas quas pro libito asserit haeretica labe notatas, abnegare Christum ... vi vel motu tormentorum fateri compellit.’

[335] See Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 303-27, for particulars of this commission.

[336] The bull, _Multorum querela_, incorporated in the decrees of this Council. See Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 170.

[337] _Practica_, p. 188.

[338] Tanon, p. 116.

[339] See Tanon, p. 119. Also the case of the Sieur de Partenay, the most powerful noble of Poitou. Lea, vol. ii, p. 124.

[340] Lea, vol. ii, p. 130.

[341] Lea, vol. ii, pp. 130-2.

[342] _Ibid._, p. 140.

[343] Lea, vol. ii. p. 341.

[344] Lea, vol. ii, p. 221. For Peter Martyr, see Ludovico à Paramo, pp. 108-9.

[345] Lea, vol. ii, p. 236.

[346] Lea, vol. ii. p. 236. Notably Honorius III in 1286, who, in consideration of the fidelity of the people of Tuscany, relieved them of the penalties of heresy, save in the case of the relapsed, so that the children of heretics could enjoy the property confiscated from their parents.

[347] _Ibid._, p. 251.

[348] Ludovico à Paramo attributes the tranquillity of Spain to the beneficent influence of the Inquisition, _op. cit._, p. 290.

[349] Llorente, vol. i, pp. 66-97.

[350] Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 553-8.

[351] See eulogy of Eymeric in Ludovico à Paramo, p. 110.

[352] See Lea, vol. ii, pp. 290-315. For Bohemia, see pp. 427-505.

[353] _Practica_, pp. 232-3, ‘Diligens ac fervens zelo veritatis fidei et salubris animarum ad detestationem et extirpationem heretice pravitatis.... Inquisitor sit constans: persistat inter pericula et adversa usque ad mortem, pro justitia fidei agonizans, ut non temerarie praesumat per audaciam que periculose precipiat.’ _Cf._ Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 575, ‘Inquisitor debet esse conversatione honestus, prudentia circumspectus, constantia firmus, sacra doctrina fidei eminenter eruditus et virtutibus circumfultus.’ See also Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, Nos. 215, 243.

[354] _Ibid._, pp. 594, 602; Ludovico à Paramo, p. 106.

[355] Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_, p. 124, cap. ix; _Directorium_, pp. 631-2.

[356] See Lea, vol. i, p. 379.

[357] See Vacandard, _op. cit._, p. 139.

[358] Douais, _L’Inquisition_, p. 246; De Cauzons, vol. ii, p. 134.

[359] Vacandard, p. 142; Lea, vol. i, pp. 388-9.

[360] In sentences the name of the bishop preceded that of the inquisitor. Bernard Gui, _Practica_, p. 93.

[361] Arnaldo Albertini, _Tractatus de Agnoscendis Assertionibus Catholicis et haereticis_, in F. Zilettus, _op. cit._, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 52 _et seq._

[362] See Tanon, p. 218.

[363] Vacandard, p. 162.

[364] Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 96-7, 104, 122.

[365] Moeller, _op. cit._, p. 740. ‘The spirit of the inquisitors is another matter. There is room for distrust of their propensity to discover heresies everywhere. Their _amour propre_ was engaged to discover it under the most puzzling appearances.’

[366] See J. à Royas, _De Haereticis_, in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 212-24 (_passim_); Albertini, _op. cit._, p. 53; Ludovico à Paramo, p. 544. See both Royas and Albertini _passim_ on the general question of how to recognize a heretic, also Simancas in tit. xxxi.

[367] Simancas, p. 155.

[368] Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 343. ‘Haeretici affirmativi dicti sunt, qui habent eorum quae sunt fidei, errorem in mente, et verbo vel facto ostendunt, se modis praedictis habere pertinaciam in voluntate.’—‘Negativi vero haeretici dicti sunt, qui coram judice fidei per testes legitimos de aliqua haeresi, vel errore, quos nolunt vel non possunt repellere, rite sive juste convicti sunt, sed non confessi, immo in negativa constanter perseverant; verbo fidem catholicam profitentur et detestantur etiam verbo haereticam pravitatem.’ _Cf._ p. 561.

[369] Lea, vol. i, pp. 433-4. ‘That a man against whom nothing substantial was proved should be punished merely because he was suspected of guilt may seem to modern eyes a scant measure of justice; but to the inquisitor it appeared a wrong to God and man that any one should escape against whose orthodoxy there rested a shadow of doubt. Like much else taught by the Inquisition, this found its way into general criminal laws, which it perverted for centuries.’

[370] Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 133-5. See Tanon, p. 334.

[371] See Douais, _L’Inquisition_, Appendix, p. 276, Raymond of Peñaforte’s ruling.

[372] See Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 360. Council of Narbonne, 1235. ‘Quinam existimandi fautores haereticorum.’ A sin in the eyes of the Church; and, it should be added, highly improper and dangerous conduct probably in the eyes of the average man in those days.

[373] Albertini in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 82.

[374] Ludovico à Paramo, _op. cit._, pp. 37, 45.

[375] _Cf._ De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 203.

[376] See Fournier, _op. cit._, pp. 235-7, 262-73. See also Esmein, _op. cit._, pp. 66-134 (_passim_), English version, pp. 8-16, 78-94.

[377] _Practica_, p. 182.

[378] Fournier, _op. cit._, p. 265; Tanon, pp. 272-6.

[379] Fournier, pp. 266-7.

[380] For forms of citation, see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 3 _et seq._; Tanon, pp. 339 _et seq._

[381] Fournier, p. 273. The inquisitor, or his delegate. _Supra_, p. 180.

[382] Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 235 _et seq._; Eymeric, pp. 465 _et seq._ _Cautelae inquisitorum contra haereticorum cavillationes et fraudes._

[383] B. Hauréau, _Bernard Délicieux et l’inquisition albigeoise_ (Paris, 1877), p. 89.

[384] _Cf._ Tanon, p. 357.

[385] On the ‘shock’ of accusation, see Langlois, _op. cit._, p. 56. On methods of interrogatories generally, see Molinier, _op. cit._, pp. 328 _et seq._

[386] See Tanon, pp. 388-9.

[387] _Ibid._, pp. 390 _et seq._; Limborch (Eng. tr.), vol. i, p. 179.

[388] Bernard Gui’s _Practica_, pp. 189-90, 243. ‘Non ... expedit quod omnes interrogationes scribantur, sed tantum ille que magis tangunt substantiam vel naturam facti.’ _Cf._ Ludovico à Paramo, p. 523.

[389] See Molinier, pp. 155, 327.

[390] See Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 103-8, 121-2, 202; Lea, vol. i, pp. 441-2.

[391] Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 662.

[392] _Ibid._, p. 663, Peña’s comment, No. 119. ‘Familiares & domesticos non admitti in hoc crimine ad defendendum reum, & ratio non inepta haec potest, nam quemadmodum nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit, eodem modo nemo putandus est consanguineos suos odio habere, tum etiam quia cum ex hoc crimine infamia in filios descendat, si filii ad testimonium dicendum pro parentibus admitterentur, facile ut infamiam vitarent, mentirentur.’

[393] On the question of the confessional, see De Cauzons, vol. ii, pp. 214-7; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, p. 279, in treatise ascribed to Raymond of Peñaforte; Lea, vol. i, p. 437 and note. For decree of Council of Tarragona, see Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 555-6. See also E. Martène and U. Durand, _Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum_ (Paris, 1717), vol. v, p. 1802. _Doctrina de Modo Procedendi contra Haereticos_, the section _Qualiter sacerdos debet inquirere in confessione de facto haeresis._ ‘Item, injungitur sacerdotibus quod in poenitentiis diligenter inquirant de haereticis & Insabbatis, credentibus, & fautoribus eorumdem, & si quid invenerint, fideliter conscribant, & mox cum illo vel cum illis qui hoc confessi fuerint, episcopo, vel ejus vicario, quid super hoc invenerint manifestent. Si vero confessus noluerit consentire, ut quod dictum est reveletur episcopo vel ejus vicario, Ipse nihilominus sacerdos requirat consilium non specificando personam a peritis & Deum timentibus, qualiter sit ulterius procedendum.’

[394] _Directorium_, p. 480.

[395] See Tanon, p. 401.

[396] Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 838.

[397] De Cauzons, vol. ii, p. 188.

[398] See Ludovico à Paramo, p. 550; Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 138-40.

[399] See Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 136. ‘Arnaldus Pagesii, de Mossoleux, comparuit apud Carcassonam coram domino episcopo Carcassone; et requisitus si vult se deffendere de hiis qui in inquisitione inventa sunt contra eum, respondit quod nullus pro vero potest aliquid dicere de ipso. Requisitus si velit ea de scriptis recipere, dixit quod non; et aliter non vult se deffendere. _Item_, requisitus si habet inimicos, dixit quod sic, Ber. Gausbert et Martinum Montanerii, sed nullam legitimam causam inimicitiarum assignavit; et alios inimicos noluit nominare.’ Cf. _ibid._, p. 178. See also Lea, vol. i, pp. 578-9, appendix.

[400] Tanon, p. 402.

[401] _Ibid._, p. 362.

[402] Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 573, § 23. ‘Teneatur praeterea Potestas, seu rector, omnes haereticos quos captos habuerit, cogere, citra membri diminutionem & mortis periculum, tanquam vere latrones & homicidas animarum, & fures sacramentorum Dei & fidei Christianae, errores suos expresse fateri, & accusare alios haereticos quos sciunt, & bona eorum, & credentes & receptatores, & defensores eorum, sicut coguntur fures & latrones bonorum temporalium accusare suos complices, & fateri maleficia quae fecerunt.’ _Cf._ David of Augsburg, quoted by Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 171-2 note.

[403] By the time of the Spanish Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella torture had come to be accepted as a most praiseworthy and Christian institution. _Cf._ Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 204.

[404] Potthast, _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_ (Berlin, 1874 _et seq._), No. 18057.

[405] _Ibid._, No. 18390.

[406] Tanon, p. 379.

[407] See _supra_, p. 161.

[408] Lea, vol. i, pp. 423-4, with reference to the infrequent mention of torture in inquisitorial registers. ‘Apparently it was felt that to record its use would in some way invalidate the force of the testimony.’ _Cf._ Tanon, p. 377. ‘Cette particularité (silence) n’est pas spéciale aux registres de l’Inquisition. La plupart des registres criminels des juridictions laïques, pour les époques auxquelles la “question” était d’une application constante, la présentent pareillement. La question était un incident de procédure qui donnait lieu d’abord à un interlocutoire, puis à un procès-verbal spécial, dont la transcription dans les registres n’était nullement nécessaire. Le greffier qui rédigeait la sentence, lorsqu’il relatait les aveux de l’accusé, était beaucoup moins préoccupé de constater les moyens de contrainte à l’aide desquels ils avaient été obtenus que la réitération de ces mêmes aveux, réputés alors volontiers, hors de la chambre de torture.’

[409] Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 640; Peña’s comment, 110, p. 643.

[410] _Ibid._, comment 39, p. 520. ‘Cum reus fuit leviter et molliter tortus, repeti potest in tormentis, ita ut sufficienter torqueatur, ... et haec non tam dicitur repetitio torturae quam continuatio.’

[411] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 318.

[412] Eymeric, Peña’s comment, p. 521.

[413] _Ibid._, p. 519.

[414] _Ibid._, pp. 480, 592, 614.

[415] See Tanon, p. 433. Out of 200 cases before the Carcassonne tribunal there was only one acquittal.

[416] Ludovico à Paramo, p. 269.

[417] They were also, of course, a warning. ‘The punishment of one is the fear of many,’ remarks Simancas sententiously, Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 179. But the main object is repentance and conversion. _Ibid._, p. 181.

[418] Bernard Gui, _Practica_, p. 38.

[419] _Ibid._, pp. 94-8.

[420] See Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 181.

[421] Bernard Gui, _Practica_, p. 95; _Liber Sententiarum_ in Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_, pp. 218, 347. For an instance of this sort of sentence, see Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 116-17. ‘Injunctum fuit Ullixi in penitentia per inquisitores pro perjurio, quia non resumpsit cruces sicut juraverat, quod dominica post instantem dominicam in lxxͣ veniat Carcassonam visitaturus omnes ecclesias Burgi Carcassonensis nudis pedibus in camesis et braceis, cum virgis in manu, eundo de una ecclesia ad aliam; et idem faciet in prima dominica mensium singulorum quousque transeat ultra mare. Et hoc fuit ei injunctum in virtute praestiti juramenti.’

[422] Lea, vol. i, p. 464; De Cauzons, vol. ii, p. 303.

[423] Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 271, § iv. Bernard Gui’s sentences are full of the infliction of this penance. Cf. _Liber Sententiarum_, pp. 40-5, 100-17, 185-91, 218-28.

[424] Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 693. ‘Cum peccatores sint ad poenitentiam invitandi juxta Dominicam vocem, gaudere oportet si poenitentiam impositam libenter suscipiunt et supportant. Quocirca statuimus, & in virtute sancti Spiritus inhibemus, ne poenitentibus, quibus cruces pro crimine haeresis imponuntur, irrisio ulla fiat, nec a locis propriis seu communibus commerciis excludantur, ne retardetur conversio peccatorum, & ne conversi propter scandalum abjecta poenitentia relabantur. Et si moniti desistere noluerint, per censuram ecclesiasticam compellantur.’ _Cf._ Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 101-2.

[425] Eymeric, _Directorium_, pp. 702-4; Molinier, _op. cit._, pp. 23, 390.

[426] _Practica_, pp. 165, 169.

[427] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 213, 237.

[428] ‘Filios haereticorum, etiam natos ante crimen commissum, sub poenis, & prohibitionibus canonicis comprehendi.’ J. à Royas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 231.

[429] See Lea, vol. i, pp. 471-81.

[430] While in France the Inquisition took no official record of confiscation—it was automatically carried out by the State—in Italy the tribunal gave a formal declaratory sentence of confiscation. Zanchino, _Tractatus de Haereticis_, chs. xxiii, xxv, xxvi.

[431] See Lea, vol. i, pp. 520-1.

[432] Mansi, vol. xxiii, pp. 574-5.

[433] See Lea, vol. iii, p. 525. On whole question of confiscation, see also Tanon, _op. cit._, pp. 523-38.

[434] Lea, vol. i, p. 529. Lea was the first historian to go into the financial aspect of the Inquisition at all thoroughly. He devotes a whole chapter, book i, ch. xiii, to the subject of confiscation. ‘It was this,’ in his view, ‘which supplied the fuel which kept up the fires of zeal, and when it was lacking, the business of defending the faith languished lamentably.’

[435] _Cf._ Langlois, _op. cit._, p. 74.

[436] See De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 48-53. P. 53. ‘Ce n’est pas ambition ni cupidité: c’est instinct de préservation.’ But see Vacandard, _op. cit._, pp. 202-3. ‘But would the ecclesiastical and lay princes, who, in varying proportion, shared with the Holy Office in these confiscations, and who in some countries appropriated them all, have accorded to the Inquisition that continual good-will and help, which was the condition of its prosperity without what Lea calls “the stimulant of pillage”? We may well doubt it.’

[437] _Directorium_, pp. 709-22.

[438] See Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 6, 7, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 30, 34; Tanon, _op. cit._, p. 482; Vacandard, _op. cit._, p. 193. Eymeric imposed this penance on the _violently_ suspect, _Directorium_, pp. 530-1.

[439] See Lea, vol. i, p. 487.

[440] See _supra_, p. 161; Molinier, _op. cit._, p. 449.

[441] See Lea, vol. i, p. 492.

[442] See provisions of the decrees of the Council of Toulouse (1229), in Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 196; and of the Council of Albi (1244), _ibid._, p. 840.

[443] See Tanon, _op. cit._, p. 544.

[444] Tanon, p. 519; Simancas, _op. cit._, p. 133. For form of sentence, _Practica_, p. 59. ‘.... Dirui ac moliri funditus ita quod de cetero in loco seu solo ejus nulla humana habitatio seu reedificatio aut clausio ibi fiat, seu locus inhabitabilis et incultus et inclausus semper existat, et sicut fuit receptaculum perfidorum, sic deinceps ex nunc perpetuo sordium locus fiat.’

[445] _Ibid._

[446] Lea, vol. i, p. 483.

[447] Tanon, _op. cit._, pp. 404-7.

[448] Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 129, 144; _Liber Sententiarum_, pp. 93, 208; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 297, 298, 324.

[449] _Directorium_, pp. 514-16.

[450] _Practica_, pp. 124, 127. ‘Cum ecclesia ultra non habet quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco eundem relinquimus brachio et judicio curie secularis.’

[451] Lea, vol. i, pp. 544-6.

[452] The formula ran, ‘Eundem N. tanquam haereticum relinquimus brachio et judicio curie saecularis, eandem affectuose rogantes prout canonice sanctiones, quatenus citra mortem et membrorum ejus mutilationem circa judicium et suam sententiam moderetur.’ _Practica_, p. 127. Cf. _Directorium_, pp. 554, 559.

[453] Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 264-8; Maillet, _op. cit._, ch. iv.

[454] _Supra_, pp. 152-6.

[455] Admitted candidly by Peña. See _Directorium_, p. 131, comm. 20.

[456] See Simancas, p. 147. See Vacandard, _op. cit._, on the Church’s use of secular aid, pp. 27-8. ‘Nor were they content with merely accepting it. They declared that the State had not only the right to help the Church in suppressing heresy, but that she was in duty bound to do so.’

[457] ‘A legal fiction,’ is Vacandard’s way of putting it; a ‘hypocrisy,’ Lea’s. Langlois calls it ‘a miserable equivocation.’ See Vacandard, _op. cit._, pp. 178-9. ‘We regret to state, however, that the civil judges were not supposed to take these words literally. If they were at all inclined to do so, they would have been quickly called to a sense of their duty by being excommunicated. The clause inserted by the canonists was a mere legal fiction, which did not change matters a particle.’

[458] J. à Royas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 231.

[459] Simancas, _ibid._, p. 181.

[460] Ludovico à Paramo, bk. i, p. 47.

[461] For description of _Sermo generalis_, see _Directorium_, pp. 437-42, 548-59; _Practica_, pp. 83-6.

[462] In 897 Pope Stephen VII had dug up the body of his predecessor, Formosus, solemnly tried and condemned it, had it mutilated and thrown into the Tiber. There is a case in 1022 of the body of a Manichæan of Orleans, who had died three years before, being exhumed.

[463] See Lea, vol. i, pp. 231-2, 553; De Cauzons, vol. ii, pp. 354-61.

[464] For sentences against the dead, see _Practica_, pp. 58, 122-6; _Liber Sententiarum_, pp. 32-4, 162-7, 333.

[465] _Ibid._, pp. 43, 48.

[466] _Ibid._, p. 54.

[467] _Liber Sententiarum_, pp. 50, 53.

[468] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 128-36 (_passim_), 151-2.

[469] There is the case also of a man, condemned to life imprisonment, being permitted to stay with his invalid father as long as the latter survived. The father may have been seriously ill and his remaining days likely to be few. The case is, however, interesting. Douais, _L’Inquisition_, p. 232.

[470] In the bull, _Fraternitatem tuam_. See Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 57.

[471] _Directorium_, p. 491. See De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 397.

[472] Ludovico à Paramo, _op. cit._, p. 124. See Tanon, _op. cit._, p. 437.

[473] As for example the Sire de Parthenay, see Lea, vol. i, p. 451; and the towns of Albi and Carcassonne, see Tanon, pp. 439-40. It is worth noticing that the notary, who drew up the appeal of the latter city against Nicholas d’Abbeville, was prosecuted for heresy and imprisoned.

[474] See Douais, _Documents_, vol. i, p. ccv., where the sentences are classified.

[475] _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 1-87.

[476] Tanon, p. 479.

[477] Taylor, _op. cit._, pp. 283-4 n. ‘The philosophic ideas of such seem gathered from the flotsam and jetsam of the later antique world; their stock was not of the best, and bore little interesting fruit for later times.’

[478] Mandell Creighton, _Persecution and Tolerance_ (1895), p. 55. ‘Leo X was tolerant of the philosophic doubts of Pomponazzo concerning the immortality of the soul, because such speculations were not likely to affect the position of the Papacy; but could not allow Luther to discuss the dubious and complicated question of indulgences because it might have disastrous effects upon the system of papal finance.’

[479] See Acton, _History of Freedom of Thought_, pp. 569-71.

[480] E. S. P. Haynes, _Religious Persecution_ (1904), p. 40. ‘A Liberal has recently been defined as one who would never have taken the chance of imposing silence on the deceivers of mankind. If we hold by this definition, very few Liberals have ever existed, or do exist now.’

[481] D. G. Ritchie, _Natural Rights_ (1903), p. 160.

[482] _The Catholic Encyclopædia_ (1907-14), on Heresy, vol. vii, p. 261.

[483] Creighton, _Persecution and Tolerance_, pp. 9-10.

[484] Ludovico à Paramo, _op. cit._, pp. 281-2.

[485] _Ibid._, pp. 288-9.

[486] _Ibid._, pp. 333-4.

[487] Joseph de Maistre, _Considérations sur la France suivies ... des lettres à un gentilhomme russe sur l’inquisition espagnole_ (Brussels, 1844), pp. 281 _et seq._ Cf. _Catholic Encyclopædia_, vol. vii, p. 261. ‘Toleration came in when faith went out.’

[488] De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 9.

[489] Pollock, _Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics_ (1882), on _The Theory of Persecution_, pp. 144-5. ‘However eager the clergy might be to stimulate and direct the anger of the faithful against heretics, their efforts would have been in vain if the bulk of the laity had not been predisposed to persecute heretics when duly pointed out. So far from persecution being merely the creature of priestcraft, it would be as near the truth to say that priestcraft was invented in order to organize persecution.’

[490] Haynes, _op. cit._, pp. 52-9.

[491] _Ibid._, p. 3. ‘And the heretic—often lacking in tact and a sense of proportion—is as offensive to the believer as one who should rudely tell him that his doctor was a quack and his solicitor a swindler.’ _Cf._ p. 55.

[492] Mill, _On Liberty_; Lecky’s _Rationalism_, esp., chs. iv and v.

[493] _Op. cit._, pp. 5, 113-15.

[494] Pollock, _op. cit._, p. 175.

[495] J. B. Bury, _A History of Freedom of Thought_ (Home Univ. Lib.), p. 14. ‘A long time was needed to arrive at the conclusion that coercion of opinion is a mistake, and only a part of the world is yet convinced. That conclusion, so far as I can judge, is the most important ever reached by man. It was the issue of a continuous struggle between reason and authority....’

[496] _Cf._ Langlois, _op. cit._, pp. 21-47.

[497] For the trial of the Templars, see H. Finke, _Papstum und Untergang des Templerordens_ (Münster, 1907); M. Lavocat, _Procès des Frères et de l’ordre du Temple_ (Paris, 1888); _Collection de Documents inédits sur l’histoire de France—Procès des Templiers_, J. Michelet (Paris, 1841); Lea, vol. iii, pp. 238-334. Lea’s treatment of this complicated subject is masterly, and is conclusive against Philip IV and Clement V. For the trial of Jeanne d’Arc, see J. Quicherat, _Procès de Condamnation et de Réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc_ (Paris, 1841-9); H. S. Denifle and E. Chatelain, _Le procès de J. d’Arc et l’Université de Paris_ (Paris, 1897); A. France, _Vie de Jeanne d’Arc_ (Paris, 1908); A. Lang, _The Maid of France_ (1908); Lea, vol. iii, pp. 338-78, etc. For trial of Savonarola, see P. Villart, _Life and Times of Savonarola_ (Eng. trans.), 1899; Lea, vol. iii, pp. 209-37. For papal use of the Inquisition for political purposes, see Lea, vol. iii, ch. iv, generally.

INDEX

Abano, Peter of, as Averrhoïst, 69 as sorcerer, 109

Abelard, Peter, as rationalist, 7-8, 15, 57-8, 91, 233

Abubacer, Arabian philosopher, 60

_Accusatio_, system of, 141, 143-4

Achellini, Paduan Averrhoïst, 70

Advocates, use of, in Inquisition, 198-9, 240

Aegidius Romanus, vindicates Aristotle against Averrhoïsts, 67

_Affirmative_ heretics, 185

Albertus Magnus of Cologne, 39, 64-7, 75

Albi, Catharan stronghold, 136

Albigensian Crusade, 5, 77, 137-8, 159, 162, 231

Alexander III, Pope, 18, 132, 141, 211

Alexander IV, Pope, 41, 42, 64, 107, 109, 156, 167, 202, 218

Alexander VI, Pope, and witchcraft, 118 _n._

Alexander of Hales, 39, 56

Alfarabi, Arabian philosopher, 59

Alfonso II, King of Aragon, his edict against heretics, 132, 157, 172, 217

Amaury de Bène, his heresies condemned, 49, 53, 63, 165, 225

Amaury of Rheims, Rector of University of Paris, 67

Ambrose, Saint, on Priscillianism, 128

Anjou, Charles of, 168-9

Annibaldi, Senator in Rome, 154

Anselm of Bec, 7-8, 57

Antinomianism, Catharan, 31 of Amaury de Bène, 49

Antisacerdotalism in mediæval heresy, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 32-3, 53, 77, 80, 90, 136, 229-30, 234-5

Aphrodistias, Alexander of, 70

Apostolic Brethren, in Brittany, 15, 17 The followers of Segarelli, 47

Appeals from Inquisition, 226

Aquinas, St. Thomas, and Aristotelianism, 64 and Averrhoïsm, 64-5 and Realism, 91 on nature of heresy, 157-8, 183 otherwise mentioned, 39, 85, 223, 232

Aquitaine, Catharism in, 22 Spiritual Franciscans in, 43

Aragon, Inquisition in, 159, 172-3

Arc, Joan of, 109, 164, 241

Arianism, 125-6, 217

Aristotle and Arabian philosophy, 58-62, 232 and Scholasticism, 63, 66-7, 74

Arnaldo da Villanova, 41

Arnaud of Citeaux, Archbishop of Narbonne and papal legate, 137-8, 144, 146

Arnaud, Guillem, inquisitor, 159

Arnold of Brescia, 15, 18

Arnoldists, followers of Arnold of Brescia, 16, 230

Arras, witches of, 121, 203

Arzevedo, Diego de, Bishop of Osma, his work among Cathari, 137

Asceticism and profligacy, 3-5

Astrology, 108

Athanasius, Saint, on persecution, 126

Aubryot, _prévôt_ of Paris, 163

_Aucassin et Nicolette_, 5-7

Augustine, Saint, on persecution, 55, 96, 127

Augustinianism, in scholastic philosophy, 56, 66-7, 75, 232

_Auto-da-fé_, 163, 180, 223

Auxerre, Hugh, Bishop of, 133

Avempace, Arabian philosopher, 60

Averrhoës, or Ibn-Roschd, his career, 60 _n._ his philosophy, 58, 60-2 attitude to religion, 61-2 and _The Three Impostors_, 72 views of Gerson concerning, 72 views of Petrarch concerning, 71-2

Avicenna, Arabian philosopher, 59-60

Avignon, ‘Babylonish captivity’ of, 11, 71, 80, 86, 103

Bacon, Roger, 39, 53, 74, 107

Baghdad, Aristotelian philosophers in caliphate of, 59-60

Banishment, penalty for heresy, 217, 221

Basel, Council of, 12, 234

Beatific Vision, dogma of, 84-5, 233

Beghards or Beguines, 48, 50-1, 75, 165-6, 214

_Believers_, Catharan adherents, 29-31

Benedict XI, Pope, 162

Benedict XII, Pope, 175

Benedict XIV, Pope, 50-1

Berengar of Tours, 7, 57, 130, 140 _n._, 229

Bergamo, Dolcino’s crusade in, 47

Bernard de Caux, inquisitor in Languedoc, 148, 202, 215, 227

Bernard, Saint, and Abelard, 8, 57 and Henry of Lausanne, 17 otherwise mentioned, 3, 38, 85

Béziers, Spiritual Franciscans in, 43 fall of, in Albigensian Crusade, 138

Bishops, failure of their courts to deal with heresy, 141-5 their part in Inquisition, 182-3

Black Death, its influence on Flagellant mania, 51

Boccaccio, his tale of _The Three Rings_, 72-3

Boëthius of Dacia, Parisian Averrhoïst, 58, 66-9

Bogomiles, Manichæan sect, 22, 24, 26

Bohemia, Catharism in, 22 Flagellants in, 51 Husitism in, 94-8 (_passim_), 175 Inquisition in, 159, 174-5

Bois, Peter du, 78

Bologna, University of, 6, 70, 95

Bonaventura, Saint, 39, 41, 53, 56

Boniface VIII, Pope, 42, 77-80, 107, 160, 174

Boniface IX, 50

Bosnia, Catharism in, 174

Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction of, 103, 164

Brescia, Dolcino in, 47

‘Brethren of the Free Spirit,’ 49, 51, 165-6, 175

British Isles, their immunity from Inquisition, 176-7

Brittany, _see_ Apostolic Brethren

Bruno of Cologne, founder of Carthusian order, 38

Bruys, Pierre de, 17

Bulgaria, Catharism in, 23 _n._, 174

Bulls, papal: _Ad abolendam_ (Lucius III), 133 _Ad extirpanda_ (Innocent IV), 155-7, 167, 201, 213, 221 _Clericis laïcos_ (Boniface VIII), 77, 79 _Cum adversus haereticam pravitatem_ (Innocent IV), 154, 220 _Cum inter nonnullos_ (John XXII), 45 _Etsi de statu_ (Boniface VIII), 79 _Excommunicamus_ (Gregory IX), 153-4 _Exiit qui seminat_ (Nicholas III), 42, 44 _Licet Heli_ (Innocent III), 190 _Pastoralis Praeeminentiae_ (Clement V), 176 _Quod super nonnullis_ (Alexander IV), 107 _Quorundam_ (John XXII), 43-4 _Unam sanctam_ (Boniface VIII), 77

Burgundy, Inquisition in, 159 Robert le Bugre in, 163

Calabria, Joachim of Flora in, 34

Calomar, Duke of Croatia and Dalmatia, 174

Cambrai, burning of heretics at, _anno_ 1076, 129-30 Robert le Bugre in, 162

Canon law, and clerical abuses, 12 and witchcraft, 112-13 and torture, 177, 201 and death-penalty, 131, 134, 143, 193, 222, 238

Carcassonne, Catharism in, 148 Spiritual Franciscans in, 43

Castelnau, Pierre de, papal legate in Languedoc, 137, 144-6

Cathari, 12, 22-34, 38, 46, 77, 84, 95, 128-38, 151, 159, 160, 170, 211, 214-18, 229, 236, 242

Celestine III, Pope, 34

Cesena, Michael de, 79, 81, 85

Châlons, Apostolic Brethren in diocese of, 15

_Chambre ardente_ in _Parlement de Paris_, 165

Champagne, Catharism in, 22 Robert le Bugre in, 162

Charles IV, Emperor, 165

Chrysostom, Saint, on treatment of heretics, 113, 126-7

Citations, inquisitorial, 188, 192

Civil courts, influence of Inquisition on, 177, 205 _n._, 242

_Civitas Dei_, conception of, 1, 12, 32, 77

_Clarendon, Assize of_, 132, 177, 217-18

Clement V, Pope, 42, 44, 48, 156, 161-2, 176-7, 202

Clement VI, Pope, 52

Clement VII, Pope, 85

‘Clementines,’ the, decrees of Clement V, 161-2, 165

Cologne, mob and heretics in, _anno_ 1143, 180

Commutation of penalties in Inquisition, 225-6

_Compagnia della Fede_, in Milan, 167

Conciliar movement, 12-13, 96, 103

Confiscation of property, inquisitorial penalty, 211-14, 216-17, 227

Conrad of Marburg, 146, 147 _n._, 165

_Consolamentum_, Catharan rite, 28-31

Constance, Council of, 51, 98-102, 234

Constantine, Emperor, 125, 151

Contumacious heretics, treatment of, 219, 221, 227

Conventuals, _see_ Franciscans

Cordova, Aristotelian philosophers in caliphate of, 59

Council, General, principle of, 11-12, 81-3 views of Michael of Cesena concerning, 81 views of Ockham, 81 views of Marsiglio, 82 views of Gerson, D’Ailly, Niem, etc., 11, 96-7

Councils, decrees of ecclesiastical: Albi (1254), 199 Avignon (1209), 143 Béziers (1233), 209 Béziers (1246), 209-10, 215, 220 Lateran (1179), second, 132 Lateran (1215), fourth, 141-3, 155, 201, 222 Montpellier (1119), 136, 143 Narbonne (1227), 143, 208, 215 Rheims (1049), 131 Rheims (1157), 131, 141, 217 Tarragona (1242), 173, 197, 205, 220 Toulouse (1119), 131 Tours (1163), 131 Valence (1248), 148, 209 Verona (1184), 19, 133, 141-2, 155, 217 Vienne (1311-12), 43-4, 70, 161, 180, 183

Counsellors, inquisitorial, or _periti_, 182

Creighton, Bishop, on religious tolerance, 238

Cremona, Peter Martyr in, 167

_Crocesegnati_, the, 167

Crosses, wearing of, as inquisitorial penance, 208-9, 225, 227-8

Crusade, _see_ Albigensian

Crusades and Islamism, 62, 70-3

Czech nationalism and Husite movement, 95, 103

D’Ailly, Cardinal Peter, a moderate reformer, 11, 234 his defence of Conciliar movement, 86, 97 at Council of Constance, 98, 100, 102 and astrology, 108

Dalmatia, Inquisition in, 174

Damiani, Peter, 38

Dancing mania, the, 5, 53, 105, 166

Dante, and Joachim of Flora, 34 and Dolcino, 47 and Siger of Brabant, 69 his _De Monarchia_, 80-1

Defence, difficulties of, in Inquisition, 192-205 (_passim_), 240-2

_Defensor Pacis_, Marsiglio’s, 45, 82-3

Delation, inquisitorial encouragement of, 141-4, 180-1

Delays, inquisitorial, 200-1, 228

Delegates, inquisitors as papal, 144-9 (_passim_), 179 assistants to inquisitors, 180

Délicieux, Bernard, 160, 162, 194

_De aeternitate mundi_, work by Siger, 66

_De anima intellectiva_, work by Siger, 66

_De haeretico comburendo_, statute of, 94, 177

_De modis uniendi et reformandi ecclesiam_, tract attributed to Niem, 97

_De unitate intellectus contra Averroëm_, of Albertus Magnus, 64

_De unitate intellectus contra Averroïstas_, of Aquinas, 66

_Denuntiatio_, judicial system of, 141, 144

_Diffamatio_, judicial system of, 143, 190-3

Disabilities, civil, of heretics, 217

Dolcino, Fra, 12, 47-8, 214, 231

Dominic, Saint, 38-9, 137, 145, 208-9

Dominicans, in University of Paris, 56, 64 rivalry with Franciscans, 65, 232 use by Gregory IX against heretics, 140 areas allotted to, for prosecution of heresy, 159

Donatists, 14, 125, 127, 229

Duns Scotus, 91

Eccelin da Romano, 168

Eckhart, Master, 49, 53

Edward I and Boniface VIII, 79

Edward II and Templars, 176-7

Elias of Cortona, 39

Empire and Papacy, their relations, 1-3, 13, 42, 45, 72, 79, 84, 152

Endura, Catharan suicide, 27, 29

England and Inquisition, _see_ British Isles

Eon de l’Etoile, 12, 15, 17, 231

Episcopal Courts, _see_ Bishops

Erasmus, 72, 166

Eriugena, John Scotus, 57, 229, 233

Eugenius IV, Pope, 51, 103, 118

Evidence, rules of, in Inquisition, 195-8

Excommunication, of heretics, 217, 224 for secular rulers neglecting their duties against heretics, 156-7

Extortion, inquisitorial, 210-14

Eymeric, Nicholas, inquisitor of Aragon, on authorship of _The Everlasting Gospel_, 36 relations with Raymond Lully, 71 complaints of poverty of Aragonese Inquisition, 173 his ideals as inquisitor, 179 on use of advocates, 198-9 on use of torture, 203-4 on fines in Inquisition, 210, 214 on eleventh hour repentances, 219 his _Directorium Inquisitorum_, 244-5

Fabiano, inquisitor, 174

Fabri, citizen of Carcassonne, prosecuted posthumously, 160

Familiars, inquisitorial officials, 180-1

Fautors of heretics, treatment of, 187

Ferdinand the Catholic, of Aragon, 172

Ferrer, inquisitor in Languedoc, 159

Fines, exaction of, by Inquisition, 210-11

Fiore, _see_ Joachim of Flora

Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, on doctrine of poverty, 84

Flagellants, why considered heretics, 5, 231 spread of the mania, 51-3, 105, 166, 242

Flagellation, inquisitorial penance, 208-9

Flanders, Tanchelm in, 14 Catharism in, 22 Flagellants in, 51, 53 Robert le Bugre in, 162-3

Florence, Peter Martyr in, 167

France, northern, Inquisition in, 151, 159, 162-5

Francis of Assisi, Saint, 8, 38-48 (_passim_), 53

Franciscans, influence of their founder, 38 of Elias of Cortona, 39 the Conventuals, 39, 41, 43, 79 the Spirituals, 41-4, 48-53 (_passim_), 77-84 (_passim_), 231 rivalry with Dominicans, 56, 65, 146-8, 159, 232 used by Gregory IX against heretics, 146-8 areas allotted to them for prosecution of heresy, 159

Fraticelli, in Languedoc, 45, 214 in Germany, 48-9

Frederick I, Barbarossa, Emperor, relations of Church and State under, 2 his treatment of heretics, 133, 150, 157

Frederick II, Emperor, and Averrhoïsts, 62 and _The Three Impostors,_ 72 his _Constitutions_ against heresy, 149-56, 166, 169, 220 question of his responsibility for the stake, 151-2 orders destruction of heretics’ houses, 218

Gaunt, John of, 93

Geoffrey d’Ablis, inquisitor in Languedoc, 202

Gerard of Abbeville, opponent of Mendicants in University of Paris, 65

Germany, Catharism in, 22 Flagellants in, 51-3 Illuminism in, 47 Inquisition in, 50, 151, 157, 165-166, 218

Gerson, Jean, moderate reformer, 11, 234 on Averrhoës, 72 on General Councils, 96-8, 102

Ghazali, or Algazel, opponent of Arabian Aristotelianism, 60

Gherardo da Borgo San Donnino, reputed author of _The Everlasting Gospel_, 36

Ghibellines and heresy, 168

Goslar, execution of heretics at, 129

Grace, time of, in inquisitorial practice, 191

Gratian, on witchcraft, 112 on death penalty for heretics, 131 on torture, 201

Greece, infected by Catharism, 22

Gregory VII, Pope, and heretics of Cambrai, 130

Gregory IX, Pope, on teachings of Aristotle, 63 and Frederick II, 72 and the Mendicant orders, 39, 145-9 and Conrad of Marburg, 146 attitude of, to episcopal jurisdiction over heresy, 130, 148-9 question of his responsibility for the stake, 152-5, 220 otherwise mentioned, 162, 166, 169, 173

Gregory XI, Pope, 50, 109, 118 _n._, 166, 170

Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, 8, 9, 35, 63

Guala, Bishop of Brescia, 153

Guglielma, 46, 105

Gui, Bernard, inquisitor in Languedoc, 184, 202 his resentment against the _Clementines_, 161 on the ideal inquisitor, 179 classification of his sentences, 227 his _Practica_, 245 his _Sententiæ_, 245

Harding, Stephen, 38

Henry II of England, and Cathari, 132 and Assize of Clarendon, 132, 157

Henry III, Emperor, and Cathari, 129

Henry VI, Emperor, 132-3, 218

Henry of Lausanne, 17

Heretic, definition of, 123, 183-5 compared to coiner, 157-8 compared to traitor, 211, 214, 223

Hohenstaufen, fall of the house of, 77, 79, 168

Holland, Flagellants in, 51

Holy Ghost, predicted advent of, 37, 40 supposed incarnations of, 66, 232

Holy Roman Empire, conceptions of, 1-3, 78

Honorius III, Pope, 8, 35, 150, 169 _n._

Houses, destruction of heretics’, 218

Hugo of Saint Victor, 57

Hungary, Catharism in, 22 Flagellants in, 51 Inquisition in, 174

Hus, John, expounds doctrines of Wycliffe, 94-6 summoned to Bologna, 95 his doctrine of Predestination, 96 at Constance, 98-103 otherwise mentioned, 11, 12, 175, 234, 243, 244

Illuminism, 49, 51

Immaculate Conception, dogma of the, 86, 233

_Impenitent_ heretic, treatment of the, 219-21, 224

_Imperfect_ heretic, treatment of the, 185

_Impostors, The Three_, 72

Imprisonment, inquisitorial penance, 212, 214, 225, 227-8 perpetual, 131, 215-16, 220-1, 227

Innocent III, Pope, and Albigensian Crusade, 135-7 and system of _inquisitio_, 144-5 and demolition of heretics’ houses, 218

Innocent IV, Pope, his bull _Cum adversus haereticam pravitatem_, 154-5 his bull _Ad extirpanda_, 155, 167, 201, 213 his regulations regarding torture, 156, 201-2 on exaction of fines, 210 on demolition of heretics’ houses, 218 his attitude towards persecution, 220 otherwise mentioned, 9, 42, 146, 148

Innocent VIII and witchcraft, 118

_Inquisitio generalis_, 191-2

_Inquisitio specialis_, 191-2

_Inquisitio_, judicial system of, 177, 190, 242

Intellect, the active and passive, Averrhoïst doctrine of, 60-1, 66-7

Interrogatory, inquisitorial, 192-205 (_passim_)

Intolerance, religious, its causes, 235-6, 238

Italy, Manichæism in, 22 Arnaldo da Villanova in, 41 Spiritual Franciscans in, 43-5,47, 60 Flagellants in, 51 Siger of Brabant in, 69 Averrhoïsm in, 70 Inquisition in, 44, 151, 153, 157, 166-71, 213, 217

Isabella, Queen of Castile, 172

Islam, philosophy of, 59-61 Lully’s crusade against, 70-1

Ivo of Chartres, 112, 141, 225

Janow, Matthias of, 94

Jehovah, Catharan views concerning, 23

Jerome of Prague, at Council of Constance, 98, 102 Poggio and his death, 102 otherwise mentioned, 95, 126, 175, 243

Joachim of Flora, 34-8, 40-7

John the Baptist, Catharan views on, 25

John of Parma, _see_ Parma

John XXI, Pope, 68

John XXII, Pope, his attitude towards doctrine of poverty, 43-5, 77 relations with Lewis of Bavaria, 45, 79, 84 attacked by Michael of Cesena, Ockham, etc., 79, 81 attitude towards doctrine of Beatific Vision, 85 attitude towards sorcery, 109 otherwise mentioned, 162

Julian, Emperor, on persecution among Christians, 106, 125

Kerlinger, German inquisitor, 166

Koran, orthodox faith of, 59, 70

Kremsier, John Militz, 94

Lactantius, on persecution, 124

Landun, John of, Averrhoïst, 69, 70

Languedoc, Saracen influence in, 16, 62, 231 Henricians in, 17 Catharism in, 41, 138 Joachitism in, 41, 43 Averrhoïsm in, 62 Inquisition in, 159-62, 215-17, 218 otherwise mentioned, 136, 137, 139, 230

Lawyers in Inquisition, 182

Lecky, W. E. H., on religious persecution, 238

Leo I, Pope, 128

Leo X, Pope, as patron of Aristotelianism, 70

Leo the Isaurian, 22

Lessines, Gilles de, in correspondence with Albertus Magnus, 65-6

Lessing, his _Nathan der Weise_, 73

Lewis the Bavarian, his conflict with John XXII, 45, 79

Liège, mob and heretics in, _anno_ 1145, 130

Locke, on religious toleration, 235

Lollards, extent of their influence, 93-4, 103

Lombard, Peter, 57, 85

Lombardy, Dolcino in, 48 Inquisition in, 150, 153, 167-8

Lorraine, Inquisition in, 159

Louis the Great of Hungary, 174

Louis IX, King of France, 151, 163

Luciferans, _see_ Brethren of the Free Spirit

Lucius III, Pope, 133, 211-12, 226

Lully, Raymond, his crusade against Islam, 70 in conflict with Eymeric, 71

Luther, his indebtedness to Hus, 103, 234 otherwise mentioned, 89, 92, 106, 166

Lutheranism, soil prepared for, in Germany, 49, 51

Magdeburg, Albert, Archbishop of, 153

Maifreda, devotee of Guglielma, 46

Mainz, Pragmatic Sanction of, 103

Maistre, Joseph de, on tolerance, 237 defends Spanish Inquisition, 240

_Malleus Maleficarum_, by Sprenger, 113

Manichæism, revival of ancient, 22, 32 its different forms, 24, 27 in Roman empire, 126-7 otherwise, _see_ Catharism

Marca, Giacomo della, his crusade in Slavonia, 174

Marguerite la Porète, her execution, 163

Marriage, Catharan views concerning, 27 views of Conrad Schmidt concerning, 52-3

Marsh, Adam, 35

Marsiglio of Padua, arguments of his _Defensor Pacis_, 45, 53, 73, 82-4, 86-7, 97

Martin V, Pope, 103

Martin of Tours and Priscillian, 128

Martyr, Peter, as inquisitor in Italy, 167

Mary, the Virgin, Catharan views concerning, 14, 25 _See_ also Immaculate Conception

Maximus, Emperor, and Priscillian, 127-8

Melfi, Constitutions of, 150-1

Mendicant orders, _see_ under Dominicans, Franciscans

Metempsychosis, Catharan belief in, 26

Milan, Guglielmites in, 46 Dolcino in, 47 Peter Martyr in, 167

Mill, John Stuart, his views on religious toleration, 238

Minorites, _see_ Franciscans

Missionary character of inquisitors, 188-90, 219, 239-40

Mithraism, 123

Moneta, on Waldensianism, 19

Montfort, Simon de, in Albigensian Crusade, 138

Montségur, fall of, 160

Moors, _see_ Saracens

Moral offences, when triable by Inquisition, 187-8

Naples, Inquisition in, 168

Narbonne, Spiritual Franciscans in, 43 Arabian philosophy in, 62

Nationality, force of, in religious matters, 2-3, 78-80, 94-5, 103, 177

Navarre, Inquisition in, 159

_Negative_ heretic, treatment of, 185

Neoplatonism, 55-6, 59, 123

Nicaea, Council of, 125

Nicholas d’Abbeville, inquisitor in Languedoc, 160, 226 _n._

Nicholas III, Pope, 42, 44

Nicholas V, Pope, 164, 169

Niem, Dietrich, and Conciliar movement, 11, 97-8

Nifo, Augustino, Paduan Averrhoïst, 70

Nominalism, its tendencies towards Tritheism or Unitarianism, 7, 234 and doctrine of Transubstantiation, 91, 92, 95

Norbert, Saint, Archbishop of Magdeburg, 14, 38

Ockham, William of, in controversy against John XXII, 45, 53, 79 his arguments in favour of General Councils, 81-2, 97 otherwise mentioned, 91

Olivi, Pierre Jean, 41

Orcagna, his delineation of Averrhoës, 72

Ordeal, used for trial of heresy, 141

Ortlieb of Strassburg, 49

Orvieto, death of Siger of Brabant at, 69

Oxford, University of, 6

Padua, centre of Italian Averrhoïsm, 69-70

Pallavicino, Uberto da, 168

Pantheism, and Realism, 7, 91, 234 in Germany, 49

Paramo, Ludovico à, on origin of Inquisition, 188 on death penalty for heresy, 223 on nature of heresy, 237

Paris, University of, Averrhoïsm in, 56, 63 controversies in, 64, 69 its part in Conciliar movement, 96-7 otherwise mentioned, 6, 35, 50, 85, 164-5

Parlement de Paris, its jurisdiction over heresy, 164-5

Parma, Segarelli in, 47 Inquisition in, 168

Parma, John of, and Spiritual Franciscans, 36, 40-1, 53

Partenay, Sire de, 163 _n._

Paul, Saint, on ‘false prophets,’ 124 otherwise mentioned, 194

Paulicians, _see_ Cathari

Peckham, John, Archbishop, his controversy with the Dominicans, 56, 65

Pedro II, King of Aragon, his edict against heretics, 132, 134, 137, 157, 172, 217

Peñaforte, Raymond of, his influence on Gregory IX regarding heresy, 153 his activity in Aragon, 172-3 his definition of a heretic, 183

Penances, inquisitorial penalties regarded as, 188-90 their nature, 206-15, 219, 221, 227, 239

_Perfected_ heretic, treatment of, 185

_Perfected_, the, among Cathari, 28-31

Peter Lombard, _see_ Lombard

Peter Martyr, _see_ Martyr

Peter the Venerable, 17

Petrarch, his opinion of Averrhoïsts, 71-2

Petrobrusians, 17, 230

Philip Augustus, King of France, his treatment of heretics, 130 and Albigensian Crusade, 137-8

Philip IV, the fair, his quarrel with Boniface VIII, 78, 80, 160 and inquisitorial abuses in Languedoc, 160-1, 202 maintains supremacy of crown over Inquisition in France, 161-4 his attack on Templars, 164

Philosophy, _see_ Scholastic, _also_ Aristotle, Averrhoës, Siger, etc.

Picardy, Catharism in, 22

Piedmont, Waldensianism in, 170

Pilgrimages, inquisitorial penance of, 205-8, 211, 227

Pisa, Council of, 97

Pius II, Pope, 103

Pleadings, possible, for defence before Inquisition, 197-200

Poggio and Jerome of Prague, 102

Poland, Inquisition in, 174-5

Pollock, Sir F., on religious intolerance, 238-9

Polycarp, on heretics, 124

Pomponazzi, as Aristotelian, 70

Ponzinibio and witchcraft, 113

Poor Men of Lyons, _see_ Waldo

Portugal, Inquisition in, 172

Poverty, Franciscan doctrine of, 40-6, 79, 81, 230-1

_Praemunire_, statute of, 79

Prague, University of, 94, 105

Prato, Edict of, 218

Priscillian, Spanish heretic, 127

Prisons, inquisitorial, 215-16

Privileges of inquisitors, 179

Protestants and persecution, 239

Provence, _see_ Languedoc

_Provisors_, Statute of, 79

Pulci, his _Morgante Maggiore_, 73

_Purgatio Canonica_, system of, 142, 191-2

Rainerio Saccone, _see_ Saccone

Rais, Maréchal Gilles de, 109-11

Raymond V, Count of Toulouse, 136

Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, 136-7

Realism, philosophy of, its tendency to Pantheism, 7, 234 of Aquinas, 91 of Wycliffe, 91, 95, 233

Reformation, the Protestant, 1, 12, 94, 98, 103-4

Registers, inquisitorial, 181

_Relapsed_ heretic, treatment of, 181, 219-21, 224

Relaxation to secular arm, formula of, 220, 227-8 responsibility of Church for, 220 responsibility of State regarding, 149-50 (_passim_), 221-2, 237-8

Religion, Averrhoïst views regarding, 61, 67-9, 72-6

Renaissance, of twelfth century, 112, 232, 234 Italian, 1, 76, 103, 234

Reuchlin, 104, 166

Richard of Cluny, 19

Robert II, King of France, and Cathari, 128

Robert le Bugre, 162-3

Rome, Annibaldi in, 154

Roscellinus, his heresy, 7, 12, 57, 129, 229

Sabbat, the witches’, 110-16, 121

Saccone, Rainerio, of Vicenza, 167-8

Sachsenhausen, Protest of, 45

Sacraments, Donatist views concerning, 17 Petrobrusian views concerning, 17 Henrician rejection of, 17 Catharan attitude to, 28 Sacraments, Conrad Schmidt’s views concerning, 53 Flagellants’ views concerning, 5, 52

Saint-George, Fulk de, inquisitor in Languedoc, 160

Salimbene, and his Chronicle, 36

Salvation, Exclusive, influence of doctrine on religious intolerance, 238

Saracens, their influence in Languedoc, 16, 62 influence in Spain, 59, 73 on Frederick II, 62 otherwise mentioned, 132, 138

Satan, Catharan views regarding, 24 witches, supposed compact with, 105, 124 (_passim_)

Savonarola, 241

Savoy, Waldenses in, 170

Scandinavia, Inquisition in, 176

Scepticism and religious toleration, 238

Schism, the papal, 11, 12, 71, 80, 86, 96-8, 103, 164, 166, 171

Schmidt, Conrad, 52

Scholastic philosophy, 6-8, 54, 56, 62-76 (_passim_), 81-104, (_passim_), 232-5

Scot, Michael, 62

Secular arm, _see_ Relaxation

Segarelli, Gherardo, 46-7, 105, 231

Sens, Council of ecclesiastical province of, 63

_Sermo generalis_, see _auto-da-fé_.

Sicily, Inquisition in, 150, 167

Siger of Brabant, leader of Paris Averrhoïsts, 12, 66-9, 244

Sigismund, King of the Romans, at Council of Constance, 99, 101 otherwise mentioned, 174

_Socii_, their functions in Inquisition, 180

Sorcery, 105-11

Spain, Inquisition in, 44, 171-3 Arabian philosophy in, 59-62, 73

Spina, Bartholomew de, on witchcraft, 113, 115

Spiritual Franciscans, _see_ Franciscans

Sprenger, on witchcraft, 113-20 (_passim_)

Stake, the, death of Hus at, 102 of Jerome of Prague at, 102 of de Rais at, 111 of witches at, 118-19 of Cathari at, _anno_ 1022, 128 of heretics of Cambrai at, _anno_ 1076, 129 edict of Pedro II enjoining, 132-3 attitude of mob to, 129-35 (_passim_) attitude of Church to, 130, 149-58, 219-24 Constitutions of Frederick II relating to, 149-56 responsibility of Gregory IX for, 149-54, 220 justification of, by Aquinas, 157-8 penalty for impenitent and relapsed, 219-20 prescribed by _De Haeretico Comburendo_, 94, 177 ceremony of, at _autos_, 223 frequency of the penalty of, 227-8

Strassburg, mob and heretics at, _anno_ 1114, 130

_Suspects_ of heresy, treatment of, 185-7

Synodal witnesses, _see Testes Synodales_

Tanchelm, 14, 15, 229, 231

Tempier, Etienne, Bishop of Paris, 66-8

Templars, suppression of the, 164, 176-7, 241

Tertullian, on heretics, 124-5

_Testes synodales_, 143, 190-1

Theocracy, mediæval, 1-3, 238, 239-40

Theodosius II, his laws against heretics, 126

Theoduin, Bishop of Liège, his advice regarding treatment of heretics, 130

Toleration, principle of religious, 73, 83, 124-5, 222, 235-9

Tors, Conrad, 165

Torture, of reputed witches, 119-22 used by Constantine against Donatists, 125 in days of Julian, 125-6 used against Templars, 176-7 Edward II prevailed upon to sanction use of, in England, 176-7 of delay, 200-1, 228 as used in Inquisition, 201-5, 240, 242 rules of _Ad extirpanda_ concerning, 201 frequency of, 201-3 repetition or continuation of, 203-4 otherwise mentioned, 227

Transubstantiation, views of Berengar concerning, 7 views of Wycliffe concerning, 90-2, 233

Treason, analogy of heresy to, 211, 214, 223

Treviso, Inquisition in, 169

Trinity, tendencies of Realism and Nominalism regarding doctrine of, 7, 85, 100

Tritheism, of Roscellinus, 7

_Trivium_, the, 56

Troubadours, their antisacerdotalism, 136, 230

Tuscany, Honorius III and heretics in, 169 _n._

Uberto da Pallavicino, _see_ Pallavicino

Urban IV, Pope, 63, 202

Urban V, Pope, 165, 174

Valentinian II, his laws against heretics, 126

Val, Simon du, French inquisitor, 68

Vaudois, _see_ (i) Waldensianism, (ii) Witchcraft in Arras

Vegetarianism, Catharan, 26

Venice, legislation against sorcery in, 107 Inquisition in, 169-70

Vercelli, Dolcino in, 47

Vincent of Beauvais, 57

Waldensianism, 10, 12, 16, 19-22, 32, 75, 77, 95, 132, 165, 170-1, 175, 193, 229, 231

Waldhäuser, Conrad, 94

Waldo, Peter, 18-20, 140 _n._, 230

Wazon, Bishop of Liège, on toleration, 130

Wenzel, King of Bohemia, and University of Prague, 95

Wessel, Johann, 166

William of Auxerre, 63

William of Moerbeke, 64

William of Saint-Amour, 41, 65

Witchcraft, causes of the craze, 111 Canonist ruling regarding, 107, 112-13 circumstantial stories of, 114-16 psychology of, 117-18 trials before Inquisition, 118-22 in Arras, 121, 203

Witnesses, treatment of false, by Inquisition, 196, 209 withholding of names of, in Inquisition, 195-6, 200, 240

Wycliffe, John, on clerical abuses, 11, 86 his doctrine of Lordship, 86-90 his denial of Transubstantiation, 90-2 his translation of the Bible, 89, 92-3 otherwise mentioned, 12, 94, 95, 96, 98-100, 103, 233, 234, 244

Yolande, of Savoy, 170

Zabarella, Cardinal, 96

Zimara, Italian Averrhoïst, 70

Zimiskes, John, tolerates Manichæans in the Balkans, 22

* * * * *

_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_

THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN THE REIGN OF WILLIAM III

(_Oxford Historical and Literary Studies Volume III_)

‘We can sincerely recommend Mr. Turberville’s book to the consideration of students of constitutional history. It is a work of a very high order.’—_Westminster Gazette._

‘Mr. Turberville’s little book is an indispensable supplement to Hallam and Macaulay and their modern successors.’—_Athenæum._

THE MAKING OF BLAISE

‘A first novel of great distinction.’—_Spectator._

‘He has written and imagined well.’—_Times._

KENNETH DUGDALE

‘Mr. Turberville has produced a sincere piece of work, and the insight that he shows into the workings of so essentially fine a character as his hero gives the book a nobility that is rare even in much of the best modern work.’—_Everyman._

‘Every scene and episode and person pulsates with the red blood of actual and recent experience.’—_Times._

_UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME_

Demy 8vo Cloth 230 Pages With Etched Frontispiece 8s. 6d. net

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IN ENGLISH HISTORY

By PHILIP ANTHONY BROWN, M.A., New College, Oxford, with an Introduction by Professor GILBERT MURRAY.

‘Opening up a fresh branch of the study of the Revolution.’—_Times Literary Supplement._

‘A brilliant and learned study of the play of revolutionary forces and ideas in England a century ago.’—_Manchester Guardian._

‘Admirably fills a gap.’—_Morning Post._

Demy 8vo Cloth 300 Pages With Genealogical Tables and a Map illustrating the Period 7s. 6d. net

THE WARS OF THE ROSES 1377-1471. By R. B. MOWAT, M.A., Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

‘Mr. Mowat has provided a book which should appeal to the cultivated reader, and prove a mine of information to the student.’—_Standard._

LONDON CROSBY LOCKWOOD & SON 7 STATIONERS’ HALL COURT, E.C. 4