[88] The nomenclature of the heresy is quite extensive. The sectaries called themselves Cathari, or the pure. The origin of the term Patarin has been the subject of considerable dispute, but there would seem to be no doubt that it arose in Milan about the middle of the eleventh century, during the civil wars resulting from the papal efforts to enforce celibacy on the Milanese married clergy. In the Romance dialects pates signifies old linen; rag-pickers in Lombardy were called Patari, and the quarter inhabited by them in Milan was known, even up to the last century, as Pattaria, or Contrada de’ Pattari. Even to-day there are in Italian cities quarters or streets of that name (Schmidt, II. 279). In the eleventh-century quarrels the papalists held secret meetings in the Pattaria, and were contemptuously designated by their antagonists as Patarins—a name which was finally recognized and accepted by them (Arnulf. Mediolanens. Lib. III. cap. 11; Lib. IV. c. 6, 11.—Landulf. Jun. c. 1.—Willelmi Clusiens. vita Benedicti Abbat. Clusiens. c. 33.—Benzon. Comm. de Reb. Henrici IV. Lib. VII. c. 2). As the papal condemnation of clerical marriage was stigmatized as Manichæan, and as the papalists were supported by the secret heretics, followers of Gherardo di Monforte, the name was not unnaturally transferred to the Cathari in Lombardy, when they became publicly known, and it spread from there throughout Europe. In Italy the word Cathari, vulgarized into Gazzari, was also commonly used, and came gradually to designate all heretics; the officials of the Inquisition were nicknamed Cazzagazzari (Cathari hunters), and even accepted the designation (Muratori Antiq. Diss, lx. Tom. XII. pp. 510, 516), and the word is still seen in the German Ketzer. The Cathari, from their Bulgarian origin, were also known as Bulgari, Bugari, Bulgri, Bugres (Matt. Paris, ann. 1238)—a word which has been retained with an infamous signification in the English, French, and Italian vernaculars. We have seen above that from the number of weavers among them they were also known in France as Texerant, or Textores (cf. Doat, XXIII. 209-10). The term Speronistæ was derived from Robert de Sperone, bishop of the French Cathari in Italy (Schmidt, II. 282). The Crusaders who met the Paulicians (Παυλικανοι) in the East brought home the word and called them Publicani, or Popelicans. More local designations were Piphili or Pifres (Ecbert. Schonaug. Serm. I. c. 1), Telonarii or Deonarii (D’Achery, II. 560), and Boni Homines, or Bonshommes. The term Albigenses, from the district of Albi, where they were numerous, was first employed by Geoffroy of Vigeois, in 1181 (Gaufridi Vosens. Chron. ann. 1181), and became generally used during the crusades against Raymond of Toulouse.

The various sects into which the Cathari were divided were further known by special names, as Albanenses, Concorrezenses, Bajolenses, etc. (Rainerii Saccon. Summa. Cf. Muratori Dissert. LX.).

In the official language of the Inquisition of the thirteenth century, “heretic” always means Catharan, while the Vaudois are specifically designated as such. The accused was interrogated “Super facto hæresis vel Valdesiæ.”

[89] Schmidt, I. 63-5.—Muratori Antiq. Dissert. lx. (p. 462-3).—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1199 No. 23-5; ann. 1205 No. 67; 1207 No. 3.—Lami, Antichità Toscane, p. 491.—Innocent. PP. III. Regest. I. 298; II. 1, 50; v. 33; VII. 37; VIII. 85, 105; IX. 7, 8, 18, 19, 166-9, 204, 213, 258; X. 54, 105, 130; XV. 189; Gesta cxxiii.

[90] Schmidt I. 38.—Chron. Episc. Albigens. (D’Achery III. 572).—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. II. 303.—Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1119 c. 3.—Concil. Lateran. II. ann. 1139 c. 23.—Concil. Remens. ann. 1148 c. 18.

[91] Concil. Turon. ann. 1163 c. 4.—Concil. Lombariense ann. 1165 (Harduin. VI. II. 1643-52).—Roger de Hoveden. ann. 1176.—D. Vaissette, Hist. Gén. de Languedoc, III. 4—Löwenfeld, Epistt. Pont. Roman. inedd. No. 247 (Lipsiæ, 1885).

[92] D. Bouquet, XIV. 448-50.—D. Vaissette, III. 4. 537.

[93] Roger. Hoveden. Annal. ann. 1178.—D. Vaissette, III. 46-7.

[94] Benedict. Petroburg. Vit. Henrici. II. ann. 1178.—Alexander. PP. III. Epist. 395 (D. Bouquet, XV. 950-960).

[95] Roger. Hovedens. Annal. ann. 1178.—Schmidt, I. 78.—Martene Thesaur. I. 992.—Rob. de Monte Chron. ann. 1178.—Benedict. Petroburg. Vit. Henrici II. ann. 1178.

Roger Trencavel of Béziers was no heretic (see Vaissette, III. 49) and his treatment of the Bishop of Albi and disregard of the missionary bishops shows the complete contempt into which the Church had fallen, even among the faithful.

[96] Concil. Lateran. III. ann. 1179 c. 27.

[97] Gaufridi Vosiens. Chron. ann. 1181.—Roberti Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1181.—Alberic. Trium Font. Chron. ann. 1181.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1181.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1181.—D. Vaissette, III. 57.—Guillel. de Pod.-Laurent. c. 2.

[98] Stephani Tornacens. Epist. 92.—Gaufridi Vosiens. Chron. ann. 1183.—Gualt. Mapes de Nugis Curialium Dist. I. c. xxix.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1183.—Rigord. de Gest. Phil. Aug. ann. 1183.—Guillel. Brito de Gest. Phil. Aug. ann. 1183.—Ejusd. Philippidos Lib. I. 726-45.—Grandes Chroniques, ann. 1183.—Du Cange s. vv. Cotarellus, Palearii.

[99] Lucii PP. III. Epist. 171.—Concil. Monspeliens. ann. 1195.

[100] Innocent. PP. III. Serm. de Tempore XII.—Guillem. de Tudela, c. ii.—Gualt. Mapes de Nugis Curialium Dist. I. c. xxx.—Guillel. de Pod.-Laurent. Proœm.; cf. cap. 3, 4.—Cæsar. Heisterbac. Dist. v. c. 21.—Stephani Tornacens. Epist. 92.—Anon. Passaviens. (Bib. Mag. Pat. XIII. 299).—Schmidt, I. 200.

[101] Innocent. PP. III. Serm. de Diversis III.

[102] Innocent. PP. III. Serm. de Diversis VI.; Regest. VII. 165, X. 54.—Honor. PP. III. Epist. ad Archiep. Bituricens. (Martene Ampl. Collect. I. 1149-51).

In 1250 Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, told Innocent IV. at Lyons that the corruption of the priesthood was the cause of the heresies which afflicted the Church (Fascic. Rer. Expetend. et Fugiend. II. 251. Ed. 1690).

[103] Roberti Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1198-1201.—Hist. Episcopp. Autissiodor. (D. Bouquet, XVIII. 725-6, 729).—Petri Sarnens. Hist. Albigens. c. 3.—Innoc. PP. III. Regest. II. 63, 99; v. 36; VI. 63, 239; IX. 110; X. 206.—Potthast, No. 9152.—Alberic. Trium Font. Chron. ann. 1200.—Chron. Canon. Laudunens. ann. 1204 (D. Bouquet, XVIII. 713).

[104] Regest. II. 141, 142, 235.—Gesta Treviror. c. 104.

[105] Villani Cronica, Lib. v. c. 90.—Diez, Leben und Werke der Troubadours, 424.—Guill. Pod. Laur. cap. 47.—Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VIII. 558.—Petri Sarnensis Hist. Albigens, c. 1.—Vaissette, Éd. 1730, III. 101.

[106] Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1207.—Vaissette, III. 128, 132.—Guillel. Pod. Laurent. c. 6, 7.—Regest. VIII. 115-6.—For the condition of other sees—Carcassonne, Vence, Agde, Ausch, Narbonne, Bordeaux—see Regest. I. 194; III. 24; VI. 216; VII. 84; VIII. 76; XVI. 5.

For the biography of Foulques, or Folquet, of Marseilles, who, after being favored by Raymond V., became the most bitter enemy of Raymond VI., see Paul Meyer ap. Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VII. 444. Dante places him in the heaven of Venus, together with Cunizza, the lascivious sister of Ezzelin da Romano (Paradiso, IX.). It is related of him that once when preaching against the heretics he compared them to wolves and the faithful to sheep. A heretic whose eyes had been torn out and his nose and lips cut off by Simon de Montfort, arose and said, “Did you ever see sheep bite a wolf thus?” to which Foulques rejoined that de Montfort was a good dog who had thus bitten the wolf. A more pleasing trait is seen in the story that he gave alms to a poor heretic beggar-woman, saying that he gave it to poverty and not to heresy.—Chabaneau (Vaissette, Éd. Privat, X. 292).

[107] Regest. I. 92, 93, 94, 165, 395; II. 122, 123, 298; III. 24; v. 96; VII. 17, 75; VIII. 75, 106; IX. 66; X. 68; XIII. 88; XIV. 32; XVI. 5.—Vaissette, III. 117.

[108] Petri Sarnens. c. 1, 17.—Vaissette, III. 129, 134-5; Preuves, 197.—Regest. VI. 242-3.

[109] Pet. Sarnens. c. 3.—Vaissette, III. 133, 135—Guillem de Tudela iv. My references to the poem which passes under the name of Guillem de Tudela are to Fauriel’s edition (1837). A metrical version by Mary-Lafon appeared in 1868, since when M. Paul Meyer has issued a critical edition with abundant apparatus.

[110] Regest. VII. 76, 77, 79, 165.

[111] Regest. VII. 210, 212; VIII. 94, 97; IX. 103.—Havet, L’Hérésie et le bras seculier (Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 1880, 582).

[112] Guillel. de Pod. Laurent, c. 8.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 1.

[113] Pet. Sarnens. c. 3.

[114] Pet. Sarnens. c. 3, 5.—Rob. Autissiodor. ann. 1207.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1207.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent, c. 8.—Concil. Narbonn. ann. 1208.—Regest. IX. 185.

[115] Pet. Sarnens. c. 3, 4.

[116] Regest. X. 69.

[117] Pet. Sarnens. c. 3, 6, 7.—Regest. X. 149, 176; XI. 11.

[118] Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VIII. 557.—Hist. du Comte de Toulouse (Vaissette, III. Pr. 3, 4).—Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 9.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 9.—Rob. Autissiodor. ann. 1209.—Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1208.—Regest. XI. 26; XII. 106.—Guillem de Tudela, v.

[119] Regest. XI. 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.—Archives Nationales de France J, 430, No. 2.—Hist. du C. de Toul. (Vaissette, III. Pr. 4).

[120] Alberti Stadens. Chron. ann. 1212.—Chronik des Jacob v. Königshofen (Chron. der deutschen Städte IX. 649).—Regest. xi. 234; xv. 199.

[121] Guillel. Briton. Philippidos VIII. 490-529.—Regest. XI. 156, 157, 158, 159, 180, 181, 182, 231, 234.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 4, 96.—Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VIII. 559, 563.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 10, 14.—Guill. de Tudela viii., lvi., cliv.—Alberti Stadens. Chron. ann. 1210.—Cæsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. c. 21.—Reineri Monach. Leodiens. Chron. ann. 1210, 1213.—Chron. Engelhusii (Leibnitz Script. Rer. Brunsv. II. 1113).

[122] Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 13.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 4, 5.—Regest. XI. 232.

[123] Pet. Sarnens. c. 11, 12.—Regest. xii. post Epistt. 85, 107.

[124] Regest. ubi sup; xii. 89, 90, 106, 107.

[125] Regest. xi. 230; xii. 97, 98, 99.—Guillem de Tudela, xiii.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 10.

[126] Pet. Sarnens. c. 15.—Guillem de Tudela, xi., xiv.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 7.

[127] Regest. XII. 108.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 16.—Vaissette, III. 168; Pr. 10, 11.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 13.—Guillem de Tudela xvi.-xxiii., xxv.—Roberti Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1209.—Cæsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. v. 21.

[128] Guillem de Tudela, xiii., xiv.—Vaissette, III. 169, 170; Pr. 9, 10.

[129] Regest. XII. 108; XV. 212.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 17.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 11-18.—Guillem de Tudela, xxiv.-xxxiii., xl.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1209.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 14.—A. Molinier, ap. Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VI. 296.

Dom Vaissette (III. 172) cites Cæsarius of Heisterbach as authority for the statement that four hundred and fifty of the inhabitants of Carcassonne refused to abjure heresy, of whom four hundred were burned and the rest hanged. The silence of better-informed contemporaries may well render this doubtful, especially as Cæsarius assigns the incident to a city which he terms Pulchravallis (Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. c. 21).

[130] Regest. VII. 229; XV. 212; XVI. 87.—Fran. Tarafæ de Reg. Hisp.—Löwenfeld, Epistt. Pontif. ined. p. 63.—Lafuente, Hist. de Esp. V. 492-5.—Mariana, Hist. de Esp. XII. 2.—L. Marinæi Siculi de Reb. Hisp. Lib. X.—Diez, Leben und Werke der Troubadours, 424.—Vaissette, III. 124.—Gest. Com. Barcenon. c. 24.

[131] Pet. Sarnens. c. 16-18.—Joann. Iperii. Chron. ann. 1201.—Geoff. de Villehardouin, c. 55.—Alberic. Trium Font. ann. 1202.—Guillem de Tudela, xxxv.

[132] Pet. Sarnens. c. 17bis.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 19.—Regest, XII. 108.—Pierre de Vaux-Cernay asserts that de Montfort was able to retain but thirty knights, but this is manifestly an exaggeration.

[133] Concil. Avenion. ann. 1209.—D’Achery Spicileg I. 706.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 20-26, 34.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 20.—Guillem de Tudela, xxxvi.—Regest. XII. 108, 109, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132, 136, 137; XIII. 86.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 340, No. 899.

By a very curious exegetical effort, the Dominicans succeed in convincing themselves that Innocent’s letter confirming Albi to de Montfort (XIII. 86) is an approbation of the Dominican Order and a proof that de Montfort was a member of it (Ripoll Bullar. Ord. FF. Prædicat. T. VII. p. 1).

[134] Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 17, 18.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1210.—Rob. Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1211.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 29, 35.—Guillem de Tudela, xlix., lxviii.—lxxi., lxxxiv.—Regest. XVI. 41.—Chron. Turon. ann. 1210.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 37, 52, 53.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 371, No. 968.

[135] Vaissette, III. Pr. 20, 23, 232-3.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 33, 34.—Guillem de Tudela, xl., xlii., xliii.—Regest. XII. 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 368, No. 968.

[136] Vaissette, III. Pr. 24-5, 234.—Guillem de Tudela, xliv.—Teulet, loc. cit.

[137] Pet. Sarnens. c. 39.—Regest. XIII. 188, 189; XVI. 39.—Guillem de Tudela, lviii.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 360, No. 948.

[138] The sole authority for this extraordinary document is Guillem de Tudela (lix., lx., lxi.), followed by the Historien du Comte de Toulouse (Vaissette, III. Pr. 30. Cf. Text p. 204 and notes p. 561, also Hardouin VI. II. 1998). Though generally accepted by historians, I cannot regard it as genuine, and its only explanation seems to me that it was manufactured by Raymond to arouse the indignation of his people.

[139] Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 16, 17.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 43, 47, 49, 53, 54, 55.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 234.

[140] Vaissette, III. Pr. 38-40, 234-5.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 18.—Guillem de Tudela, lxxx.-lxxxiii.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 370, No. 968; 372, No. 975.

[141] Pet. Sarnens. c. 75.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 23.

[142] Pet. Sarnens. c. 60.—Vaissette, III. 271-2.—Rod. Tolet. de Reb. Hispan. VIII. 2, 6, 11—Rod. Santii Hist. Hispan. III. 35.

[143] Pet. Sarnens. c. 59-64.—Regest. XV. 102, 103, 167-76.

[144] Pet. Sarnens. c. 66.—Regest. XVI. 39.

[145] Pet. Sarnens. c. 65.—Regest. XV. 212.—A. Molinier (Vaissette, Éd Privat, VI. 407).

[146] Regest. XV. 212; XVI. 42, 47.

[147] Regest. XVI. 39, 42, 43.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 66.

[148] Regest. XVI. 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.

[149] Pet. Sarnens. c. 66, 70.—Regest. XVI. 48.

[150] Pet. Sarnens. c. 66-8.—Regest. XVI. 87.—Raynouard, Lexique Roman, I. 512-3.

[151] Pet. Sarnens. c. 69, 70.—Vaissette, III. Note XVII.—A. Molinier (Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VII. 256).

[152] Pet. Sarnens. c. 70-3.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent. c. 21-22.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1213.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 52-4.—Guillem de Tudela, cxxv.-cxl.—Zurita, Añales de Aragon, Lib. II. c. 63.—De Gestis Com. Barcenon. ann. 1213.—Bernard d’Esclot, Cronica del Rey en Pere, c. 6.—Campana, Storia di San Piero Martire p. 44.—Tamburini, Ist. dell’ Inquisizione, I. 351-2.—Comentarios del Rey en Jacme c. 8 (Mariana, IV. 267-8).

Don Jayme himself, then a child in his sixth year, was still in the hands of de Montfort as a hostage, and if the Catalan chroniclers speak truth, it was with difficulty that the young king was recovered, even after Innocent III. had ordered his release.—L. Marinæi Siculi de Reb. Hispan. Lib. X.—Regest. XVI. 171.

[153] Pet. Sarnens. c. 74-8.—Regest. XVI. 167, 170, 171, 172.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 24, 25.—Vaissette, III. 260-2; Pr. 239-42.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 399-402, No. 1068-9, 1073.

[154] Pet. Sarnens. c. 80, 81, 82.—Harduin. Concil. VII. II. 2052.—Innocent. PP. III. Rubricella.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 410-16, Nos. 1099, 1113-16.—Guill. de Pod Laurent, c. 24, 25.

[155] Pet. Sarnens. c. 82.—Vaissette, III. 269; Pr. 56.

[156] Radulph. Coggeshall ann. 1213.

[157] Chron. Fossæ Novæ: ann. 1215.

[158] Guillem de Tudela, cxlii.-clii.—Vaissette, III. 280-1; Pr. 57-63.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 420, No. 1132.—Pet Sarnens. c. 83.—D’Achery I. 707.—Molinier, L’Ensevelissement du Comte de Toulouse, Angers, 1885, p. 6.

[159] Pet. Sarnens. c. 83.

[160] Guillem de Tudela, cliii.-viii.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 27-8.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 64-66.—Pet. Sarnens. c. 83.

[161] Pet. Sarnens. c. 83-6.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 28-30.—Vaissette, III. 271-2; Pr. 66-93.—Guillem de Tudela, clviii.-ccv.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1217 No. 52, 55-62; ann. 1218 No. 55.—Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 1129.—Annal. Waverliens. ann. 1218.—Bernardi Iterii Chron. ann. 1218.—Chron. Lemovicens. ann. 1218.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1218.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1218.—Roberti Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1218.—Chron. S. Taurin. Ebroicens. ann. 1218.—Chron. Joan Iperii ann. 1218.—Chron. Laudunens. ann. 1218.—Chron. S. Petri Vivi Senonens. Append. ann. 1218.—Alberici Trium Font. Chron. ann. 1218.

[162] Teulet, Layettes, I. 454, No. 1271; pp. 461-2, No. 1279-80; p. 466, No. 1301; p. 475, No. 1331; p. 511, No. 1435; p. 518, No. 1656.—Vaissette, III. 307, 316-17, 568; Pr. 98-102.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1218, No. 54-57; ann. 1221, No. 44, 45.—Archives Nationals de France J. 430, No. 15, 16.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent, c. 31-33.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1219-1220.—Bernardi Iterii Chron. ann. 1219.—Robert. Autissiodor. Chron. ann. 1219.—Chron. Laudunens. ann. 1219.—Chron. Andrens. ann. 1219.—Alberici Trium Font. Chron. ann. 1219.—Martene Thesaur. I 884.—Rymer, Fœdera, I. 229.

[163] Vaissette, III. 319; Pr. 275, 276.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1222, No. 44-47.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 47.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 546, No. 1537.

[164] Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 34.—Vaissette, III. 306, 321-4.—Molinier, L’Ensevelissement de Raimond VI.

[165] Vaissette, III. Pr. 276, 282.—Teulet, Layettes, I. 561, No. 1577.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1222, No. 48.—Matt. Paris ann. 1223, p. 219.

[166] Alberici Trium Font. Chron. arm. 1223.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent, c. 34.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 290.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1223, No. 41-45.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 24, No. 1631.

[167] Vaissette, III. Pr. 285, 291-3.—Gesta Ludovici VIII. ann. 1224.

[168] Rymer, Fœdera I. 271.—Vaissette, III. 339-40: Pr. 283.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1224, No. 40.—Gesta Ludovici VIII. ann. 1224.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1224.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1224.—Epistolæ Seculi XIII. Tom. I. No. 240 (Monument. Hist. German.).

[169] Vaissette, III. Pr. 284, 296.—Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VIII. 804.—Baluz. Concil. Narbonn. pp. 60-64.—Gesta Ludovici VIII. ann. 1224.—Concil. Montispessulan. ann. 1224 (Harduin. VII. 131-33).—Grandes Chroniques, ann. 1224.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1224.

[170] Vaissette, III. Pr. 284-5.—Schmidt I. 291.—Coll. Doat, XXIII. 269-70.—Rymer, Fœd. I. 273, 274, 281.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1225, No. 28-34.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 47, No. 1694.

[171] Chron. Turonens. ann. 1225.—Matt. Paris ann. 1225, pp. 227-9. A poetaster of the period, in describing the council, depicts Raymond’s discomfiture with emphasis:

“Et s’i vint li quens de St. Gille,
 Ki n’i fist vallant une tille
 De sa besougne, quant vint là,
 Qu’ escuméniies s’en r’ala,
 Ausi com il i fu venus,
 Voire plus, s’il pot estre plus.”
 —Chronique de Philippe Mousket, 25385-90.

[172] Chron. Turonens. ann. 1225.—Matt. Paris ann. 1225, pp. 227-8.—Possibly the chroniclers may be guilty of exaggeration, for the letters of Honorius only ask for a single prebend in each cathedral and collegiate church (Martene Thesaur. I. 929). In either case the encroachments of Rome were only postponed, for in 1385 Charles le Sage complained that nearly all the benefices of France were practically held by the cardinals, who carried the revenue to Italy, so that the churches were falling to ruin, the abbeys deserted, the orphanages and hospitals diverted from their purpose, divine service had ceased in many places, and the lands of the Church were uncultivated. To remedy this, he seized all such revenues and ordered them to be expended on the objects for which they had been given to the Church (Ibid. I. 1612).

[173] Matt. Paris ann. 1226, p. 229.—Vaissette, III. 349.—Rymer, Fœd. I. 281.—Martene Collect. Nova, p. 104; Thesaur. I. 931.

[174] Waddingi Annal. Minorum ann. 1225, No. 14.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 305, 318.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 75, No. 1758; p. 79, No. 1768; p. 90, No. 1794.

[175] Vaissette, III. Pr. 300, 308-14.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 68-9, No. 1742-3.—Matt. Paris ann. 1226, p. 229.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1225, 1226.

[176] Chron. Turonens. ann. 1226.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 72, No. 1751.

[177] Matt. Paris ann. 1226.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 71, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 648-9.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent. c. 35.—Vaissette, III. 354, 364.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1226.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1226.—Gesta Ludovici VIII. ann. 1226.

The city of Agen seems to have remained faithful to Raymond (Teulet, II. 82).

[178] Gesta Ludovici VIII. ann. 1226.—Matt. Paris ann. 1226.—Chron. Turonens. ann. 1226.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent. c. 36, 38.—Alberti Stadens. Chron. ann. 1226.—Vaissette, III. 363.

[179] Chron. Turonens. ann. 1226, 1227.—Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 1210-13.—Potthast Regesta, 7897, 7920.—Vaissette, III. Pr. 323-5.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1227.—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent. c. 38.—Matt. Paris ann. 1228.—Martene Thesaur. I. 940.—Concil. Narbonnens. ann. 1227 can. 13-17.—Vaissette, Éd. Privat, VIII. 265.

Letters of the Archbishop of Sens and Bishop of Chartres, in 1227, promising to pay to the king a subsidy for the crusade against the Albigenses are preserved in the Archives Nationales de France, J. 428, No. 8.

[180] Bernard. Guidon. Vit. Gregor. PP. IX. (Muratori, S.R.I. III. 570-1).—Guillel. de Pod. Laurent, c. 38, 39.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 144, No. 1980.—Potthast Regesta, 8150, 8216, 8267.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1228, No. 20-4.—Martene Thesaur. I. 943.—Vaissette, III. 377-8; Pr. 326-9, 335.

[181] Harduin. Concil. VII. 165-72.—Vaissette, III. 375; Pr. 329-35, 340-3.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 147-52, No. 1991-4; pp. 154-57, No. 1998-99, 2003-4.—Guill. de Pod. Laurent. c. 47.

[182] Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 1225.—Vaissette, III. 375, 412.—Teulet, Layettes, II. 155, No. 2000.—Raynald. ann. 1237, No. 31.—Rob. de Monte Chron. ann. 1238.—Potthast Regest. 10469, 10516-17, 10563, 10579, 10666, 10670, 10996.—Cf. Berger, Les Registres d’Innoc. IV. No. 2763-69.

For the sums raised in England in 1234 by selling releases of Crusaders’ vows see Matt. Paris ann. 1234, p. 276.

[183] Bern. Guidon. Vit. Gregor. PP. IX. (Muratori S.R.I. III. 572).

[184] Tertull. de Baptism, c. 15.—Concil. Chalced. Act. I.

[185] Augustin. Epist. 185 ad Bonifac. c. iii. § 12.—Cf. Cypriani de Unit. Eccles.—C. 3 Extra, v. 7.

[186] Tertull. Apologet. c. xxiv.; Lib. ad Scapulam ii.; adv. Gnosticos Scorpiaces ii, iii.—Cypriani Epist. 54 ad Maximum; de Unitate Ecclesia; Epist. 4 ad Pomponium c. 4, 5.—Firm. Lactant. Div. Instit. v. 20.

[187] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. v. II. 1, 2.—Sozomen H.E. I. 21; II. 20, 22, 30; III. 5.—Socrat. II. E. I. 9; IV. 16.—Ammian. Marcell. XXII. 5.

[188] Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacræ II. 47-51; Ejusd. Dial. III. 11-13.—Prosp. Aquitan. Chron. ann. 385-6.—St. Martin could hardly have anticipated that a time would come when a pope would cite the murder of Priscillian as an example to be followed in the case of Luther; and, in spite of Maximus’s excommunication by St. Ambrose, characterize him as one of the “veteres ac pii imperatores.” (Epist. Adriani PP. VI. Nov. 15, 1522 ap. Lutheri Opp. T. II. fol. 538 a.)

[189] Chrysostomi in Matthæum Homil. xlvi. c. 2. Cf. Homil. de Anathemate c. 4.—Augustini Epist. 100 ad Donatum c. 2; Epist. 139 ad Marcellinum; Epist. 105 c. 13; Enchirid. c. 72; Contra Litt. Petiliani Lib. II. c. 83.