The Project Gutenberg eBook of Mediæval Heresy and the Inquisition, by A. S. Turberville.

[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 lxx^a 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.’

[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.