The merit of celibacy is a very old religious idea in Hindostan. The

Todas have a celibate priesthood.[476] "It is one of the inconsistencies

of the Hindu religion that it enjoins the duty of marriage on all, yet

honors celibacy as a condition of great sanctity, and a means of

acquiring extraordinary religious merit and influence."[477] "All the

ascetic sects of the Saivas are celibates."[478] Lamas at Shang (98° E.

36° N.) are allowed to marry, but not in Tibet.[479] The Christian

notion of the third century was that clerics ought to come up to the

higher standard. This was the purest and highest reason for celibacy. It

had been a standard of perfection in the Christian church for six

hundred years before Hildebrand. Whatever motives of policy or

ecclesiastical ambition may have been mixed with it in the eleventh

century, it had the merit of bringing doctrine and practice into accord.

+227. The masses wanted clerical celibacy.+ It is to be noticed that

clerical celibacy was a demand of the masses amongst church members, and

that the demand came directly out of Christian mores. In the fourth

century this doctrine was derived from sacramentarianism. The notion

became fixed that there was an inherent and necessary incongruity

between marriage and the celebration of the sacrament of the mass. "In

the course of the fourth century it was a recognized principle that

clerical marriages were criminal. They were celebrated, however,

habitually, and usually with the greatest openness."[480] That means

that they were in antagonism with church opinion and its tendency at

that time. Sacerdotalism triumphed in the fifth century. "Throughout the

struggle the papacy had a most efficient ally in the people." Preachers

exhorted the people to holiness, and the people required this of the

clergy, and enforced it by riots and mob violence. Cases are cited which

"bring before us the popular tendencies and modes of thought, and show

us how powerful an instrument the passions of the people became, when

skilfully aroused and directed by those in authority."[481] The

fundamental notion which underlies all asceticism was here at work,

viz., that virtue has stages, that a man can be more than good, or worse

than bad. The council of Constantinople, in 680, made new rules against

the marriage of the clergy, because the old ones were neglected and

forgotten. The motive stated was the welfare of the people, who regarded

such marriages as scandalous. The excess in temper and doctrine was a

mark of the period. The learned would have held the doctrine as a

metaphysical truth only, but the masses turned it into a practical rule.

The share of the masses in the establishment of the rule is a very

important fact. Lea thinks that they were manipulated by the

ecclesiastics.[482] In the religious revival of the eleventh century the

marriage of the clergy was "popularly regarded as a heresy and a

scandal." There was no defense of it.[483] It was an undisputed fact

that celibacy was not scriptural or primitive.[484] At that time "all

orders, from bishops down, without shame or concealment, were publicly

married and lived with their wives as laymen, leaving their children

fully provided for in their wills.... This laxity prevailed throughout

the whole of Latin Christendom, sacerdotal marriage being everywhere so

common that it was no longer punished as unlawful and scarcely even

reprehended."[485] "Not a thought of the worldly advantages consequent

on the reform appears to have crossed the mind of Damiani. To him it was

simply a matter of conscience that the ministers of Christ should be

adorned with the austere purity through which alone lay the path to

salvation. Accordingly, the arguments which he employs in his endless

disputations carefully avoid the practical reasons which were the

principal motive for enforcing celibacy. His main reliance was on the

assumption that, as Christ was born of a virgin, so he should be served

and the eucharist be handled only by virgins."[486] This took up again

the fifth-century doctrine in its popular form, but it evidently led

directly up to the heresy that the validity or benefit of the sacrament

depended on the purity of the priest. In his zeal for celibacy

Hildebrand fell into this heresy, although a man was burned for it at

Cambrai in 1077.[487] Hildebrand also gave civil authorities power over

ecclesiastics in order to carry out his reform.[488] In the middle of

the twelfth century the "reform" was directed against the women (wives),

for fear of the resistance of the men. In Rome the women were enslaved

and given to the church of the Lateran. All bishops were ordered to

seize the women for the benefit of their churches.[489] In 1095 the

sacrament of marriage was declared by the lateran council less potent

than the religious vow, although the contrary had been the church

doctrine.[490] Thus what came out of the popular mores underwent the

growth of formulated dogma and deduction. In the thirteenth century

marriage of the clergy ceased, but concubinage continued, concubines

being a legitimate but inferior order of wives, whose existence was

tolerated on payment of a fee known as _cullagium_.[491] "Scarcely had

the efforts of Nicholas and Gregory put an end to sacerdotal marriage at

Rome when the morals of the Roman clergy became a disgrace to

Christendom."[492] "Those women [clerical concubines] came to be

invested with a quasi-ecclesiastical character, and to enjoy the dearly

prized immunities attached to that position."[493] Gerson (1363-1429)

paid admiration to virginity and celibacy, but he "saw and appreciated

its practical evils, and had no scruple in recommending concubinage as a

preventive, which, though scandalous in itself, might serve to prevent

greater scandals." In districts it became customary to require a new

parish priest to take a concubine.[494] "This was the inversion which

the popular opinion had undergone in four centuries."[495] "The

principles of the church led irrevocably to the conclusion, paradoxical

as it may seem, that he who was guilty of immorality, knowing it to be

wrong, was far less criminal than he who married, believing it to be

right."[496] At Avignon, when it was the seat of the papacy, sex license

and vice became proverbial. A speech of the most shameless cynicism is

attributed to Cardinal Hugo, in which he described the effect, in 1251,

of the residence of the papal court there for eight years. In the

fourteenth century that city became the most wicked, and especially the

most licentious, in Christendom.[497] The first case of the presence of

women at a feast in the Vatican is said to have been at the marriage of

Teodorina, daughter of Innocent VIII, in 1488. Comedies were played

before the mixed company.[498]

+228. Abelard.+ A cleric who married flinched from the standard of his

calling, in the view of the church. Hildebrand's decrees were like the

other crowning acts of great men,--they came at the culmination of a

great movement in the mores. They accorded with the will and wish of

the masses. In all ages acts are due to mixed motives, but in the Middle

Ages the good motives were kept for show and the bad ones controlled.

Clerics did not cease to have concubines until after the Council of

Trent, and the difference between law and practice (bridged over by

pecuniary penalties) called for special ethics and casuistry. The case

of Abelard (1079-1142) shows what tragedies were caused. He claimed to

be, and to some extent he was, a champion of reason and common sense,

and he was a skeptic as to the current philosophy. He was vain, weak,

and ambitious. He selected the loveliest woman he knew, and won her

love, which he used to persuade her to be his concubine, that she might

not hinder him in his career.[499] The treatment accorded to Heloise

shows that a woman could be a concubine of an ecclesiastic, but not his

wife, without condemnation. That was the allowance for human despair

under the ecclesiastical rules.[500] Thus the church first suggested

views of life and dogmas of religion, with which the masses combined

their mores and returned them to the church as a gift of societal power.

The church then formulated the mores and created disciplinary systems to

use the power and make it institutional and perpetual. Then the mores

revolted against the authority and the religion, and the ethics which it

taught. A Roman Catholic writer says that a study of the Middle Ages

will produce this result: "We shall have recognized in the church the

professional peacemaker between states and factions, as well as between

man and man, the equitable mediator between rulers and their subjects,

the consistent champion of constitutional liberty, the alleviator of the

inequalities of birth, the uninterested and industrious disseminator of

letters, the refiner of habits and manners, the well-meaning guardian of

the national wealth, health, and intellect, and the fearless censor of

public and private morality."[501] These are, indeed, the functions

which the church ought to have fulfilled, and about which ecclesiastics

said something from time to time. Also, the church did do something for

these interests when no great interest of the church was at stake on

the other side. No unbiased student of the Middle Ages has been

convinced that, in truth and justice, the work of the mediæval church

could be thus summed up. The one consistent effort of the church was to

establish papal authority. Its greatest crime was obscurantism, which

was war on knowledge and civilization. This nothing can palliate or

offset.

+229. The English church and the mores.+ The church, however, from 1000

A.D. on was a machine of societal selection, and it pursued its work,

suggesting and administering a work of that kind, grand results of which

have come down to us in the civilization we have inherited. Our work

largely consists in rational efforts to eliminate the elements which the

church introduced. In some respects the history of clerical celibacy in

England best illustrates the mores. In the sixteenth century the rule

and usage of the church had inculcated, as a deep popular prejudice, the

notion that a priest could not be married. Cranmer, in ordering a

visitation, directed investigation "whether any do contemn married

priests, and for that they be married will not receive the communion or

other sacrament at their hands."[502] This prejudice very slowly died

out, but it did die out and the popular judgment favored and required

clerical marriage. In the nineteenth century popular judgment rose in

condemnation of fox-hunting parsons, and also of pluralists, and it has

caused reforms and the disappearance of those classes.

+230. The selection of sacerdotal celibacy.+ If it had not been for

sacerdotal celibacy, there would have been ecclesiastical feudalization

and the ecclesiastical benefices would have become hereditary. The

children of priests inherited benefices and intermarried so long as the

marriage of priests was allowed. There would have been a priestly

caste.[503] The church as an institution would have been greatly

modified. The consequences we cannot imagine. If Hildebrand and the

other eleventh-century leaders foresaw the effect, it was statesmanship

on their part to establish the celibacy of the clergy. That institution

has molded the priesthood and the mores of all who have adhered to the

mediæval church. The Latin people of southern Europe are now horrified

at the notion of a married priest. The concubine of a priest is a wicked

woman, but she is not a social abomination. All protest and resistance

seems to have passed away and, since the sixteenth century, sacerdotal

celibacy has been accepted as a feature of the Romish Church, which all

its members are expected to accept. It is a grand triumph of social

selection.

+231. How the church operated selection.+ The church was a great

hierarchical organization for social power and control, which inherited

part of the intense integration of the Roman empire. Fra Paolo Sarpi

said of it, in the seventeenth century: "The interests of Rome demand

that there shall be no change by which the power of the pontiff would be

diminished, or by which the curia would lose any of the profits which it

wins from the states, but the novelties by which the profits of the

curia would be increased, or by which the authority of the states would

be diminished and that of the curia increased, are not abhorred, but are

favored. This we see every day."[504] The church decided all recognition

and promotion, and disposed of all rewards of ambition. The monarchical

and autocratic tendency in it was the correct process for attaining the

purposes by which it was animated. Its legitimacy as an organization for

realizing faiths and desires which prevailed in society is beyond

question. It drew towards itself all the talent of the age except what

was military. It crushed all dissenters and silenced all critics for

centuries. Its enginery was all planned for selection. It disposed of

the greatest prizes and the most dreadful penalties. All its methods

were positive and realistic, and whatever can be accomplished by

authority, tyranny, penalty, and repression it accomplished. In modern

times political parties offer the nearest parallels. They are

organizations for societal control, which distribute rewards and

penalties and coerce dissenters. The history of the papacy in the

fifteenth century reminds one of the history of Tammany Hall in the

nineteenth century. The strength of Tammany is due to the fact that it

fits the tastes and needs of a great modern city under democracy. When

Tammany won an election it was said that the people had put the city in

their hands and that they ought to profit by it. When Leo X was elected

pope he said, "God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it."[505]

+232. Mores and morals; social code.+ For every one the mores give the

notion of what ought to be. This includes the notion of what ought to be

done, for all should coöperate to bring to pass, in the order of life,

what ought to be. All notions of propriety, decency, chastity,

politeness, order, duty, right, rights, discipline, respect, reverence,

coöperation, and fellowship, especially all things in regard to which

good and ill depend entirely on the point at which the line is drawn,

are in the mores. The mores can make things seem right and good to one

group or one age which to another seem antagonistic to every instinct of

human nature. The thirteenth century bred in every heart such a

sentiment in regard to heretics that inquisitors had no more misgivings

in their proceedings than men would have now if they should attempt to

exterminate rattlesnakes. The sixteenth century gave to all such notions

about witches that witch persecutors thought they were waging war on

enemies of God and man. Of course the inquisitors and witch persecutors

constantly developed the notions of heretics and witches. They

exaggerated the notions and then gave them back again to the mores, in

their expanded form, to inflame the hearts of men with terror and hate

and to become, in the next stage, so much more fantastic and ferocious

motives. Such is the reaction between the mores and the acts of the

living generation. The world philosophy of the age is never anything but

the reflection on the mental horizon, which is formed out of the mores,

of the ruling ideas which are in the mores themselves. It is from a

failure to recognize the to and fro in this reaction that the current

notion arises that mores are produced by doctrines. The "morals" of an

age are never anything but the consonance between what is done and what

the mores of the age require. The whole revolves on itself, in the

relation of the specific to the general, within the horizon formed by

the mores. Every attempt to win an outside standpoint from which to

reduce the whole to an absolute philosophy of truth and right, based on

an unalterable principle, is a delusion. New elements are brought in

only by new conquests of nature through science and art. The new

conquests change the conditions of life and the interests of the members

of the society. Then the mores change by adaptation to new conditions

and interests. The philosophy and ethics then follow to account for and

justify the changes in the mores; often, also, to claim that they have

caused the changes. They never do anything but draw new lines of bearing

between the parts of the mores and the horizon of thought within which

they are inclosed, and which is a deduction from the mores. The horizon

is widened by more knowledge, but for one age it is just as much a

generalization from the mores as for another. It is always unreal. It is

only a product of thought. The ethical philosophers select points on

this horizon from which to take their bearings, and they think that they

have won some authority for their systems when they travel back again

from the generalization to the specific custom out of which it was

deduced. The cases of the inquisitors and witch persecutors who toiled

arduously and continually for their chosen ends, for little or no

reward, show us the relation between mores on the one side and

philosophy, ethics, and religion on the other. (See Chapters IX, XIV,

and XV.)

+233. Orthodoxy in the mores.+ +Treatment of dissent.+ +Selection by

torture.+ It has been observed above (sec. 100) that the masses always

enforce conformity to the mores. Primitive taboos are absolute. There is

no right of private judgment. Renegades, apostates, deserters, rebels,

traitors, and heretics are but varieties of dissenters who are all

subject to disapproval, hatred, banishment, and death. In higher stages

of civilization this popular temper becomes a societal force which

combines with civil arrangements, religious observances, literature,

education, and philosophy. Toleration is no sentiment of the masses for

anything which they care about. What they believe they believe, and they

want it accepted and respected. Illustrations are furnished by zeal for

political parties and for accepted political philosophy. The first

punishment for dissent less than death is extrusion from the society.

Next come bodily pains and penalties, that is, torture. Torture is also

applied in connection with the death penalty, or modes of death are

devised which are as painful as they can be made. The motive is to deter

any one from the class of acts which is especially abominated. In the

cases above cited (sec. 211), under criminal law, it will be observed

that death by burning was applied in the case of incest, or other very

abominable crime, in the laws of Hammurabi and other ancient codes (sec.

234). Such extreme penalties are first devised to satisfy public temper.

The ruler is sure of popularity if he shows rigor and ferocity. His act

will be regarded as just. It is now the popular temper, when any one

commits a crime which is regarded as very horrible, to think and say

what frightful punishment he deserves. It is a primary outpouring of

savage vengeance. When precedents have been established for frightful

punishments, the rulers apply the same in cases of disobedience against

themselves or their authority. Now torture and ferocious penalties have

reached another stage. They were invented by the masses, or in order to

appeal to the masses. They have now become the means of authority and

discipline. The history of torture is a long development of knowledge of

pain, and of devices to cause it. Then it becomes a means which is at

the disposal of those who have the power. The Dominican Izarn, in a

chant of triumph over the Albigenses, represents himself as arguing with

one of them to whom he says, "Believe as we do or thou shalt be

burned."[506] This is the voice of a victorious party. It is the

enforcement of uniformity against dissent. Systematic and legal torture

then becomes an engine of uniformity and it acts selectively as it

crushes out originality and independent suggestion. It is at the

disposal of any party in power. Like every other system of policy it

loses its effect on the imagination by familiarity, and that effect can

be regained only by intensifying it. Therefore where torture has been

long applied we find that it is developed to grades of incredible

horror.

+234. Execution by burning.+ In the ancient world execution by burning

was applied only when some religious abomination was included in the

crime, or when it seemed politically outrageous. In the laws of

Hammurabi an hierodule who opened a dramshop or entered one to get a

drink was to be burned.[507] One who committed incest with his mother

was to meet the same punishment,[508] also one who married a mother and

her daughter at the same time.[509] In Levit. xx. 14 if a man marries a

mother and her daughter together, all are to be burned, and in Levit.

xxi. 9 the daughter of a priest, if she becomes a harlot, is to be

burned. At the end of the seventh century b.c. some priestly families

connected with the temple of Amon at Napata, Egypt, by way of reform,

introduced the custom of eating the meat of sacrifices uncooked. They

were burned for heresy.[510] In the year 5 B.C., upon a rumor of the

death of Herod I, some Jews tore down the Roman eagle from the gate of

the temple. Herod caused forty-two of them to be burned.[511] Caligula

caused an atellan composer to be burned in the arena for a sarcasm on

the emperor.[512] Constantine ordered that if a free woman had

intercourse with a slave man, the man should be burned.[513] In all the

ancient and classical period, burning was reserved as a most painful

form of death for the most abominable criminals and the most extravagant

and rare crimes. By another law of Constantine it was ordered that if

Jews and heaven worshipers should stone those who were converted from

their sects to the Catholic faith, they should be burned.[514] In the

Theodosian Code, also, any slave who accused his master of any crime

except high treason was to be burned alive without investigation.[515]

Thus burning became the penalty for criminals of a despised class or

race.

+235. Burning in North American colonies.+ In the colonial laws of

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia it was

provided that negroes should be executed by burning. Here we have a

recrudescence of the idea that great penalties are deterrent. Modern

penologists do not believe that that is true. It is, however, the belief

of the masses, which they have recently shown in methods of lynching. It

might have been believed ten years ago that it would be impossible to

get a crowd of Americans to burn a man at the stake, but there have

been many cases of it.[516]

+236. Solidarity of group in penalty incurred by one.+ In primitive

society any one who departed from the ways of ancestors was supposed to

offend their ghosts; furthermore, he was supposed to bring down their

avenging wrath on the whole group of which he was a member. This idea

has prevailed until modern times. It aroused the sentiment of vengeance

against the dissenter, and united all the rest in a common interest

against him. Especially, if any misfortune befell the group, they turned

against any one who had broken the taboos. Thus goblinism was united to

the other reasons for disliking dissenters and gave it definite

direction and motive. At Rome, "in the days of the republic, every

famine, pestilence, or drought was followed by a searching investigation

of the sacred rites, to ascertain what irregularity or neglect had

caused the divine anger, and two instances are recorded in which vestal

virgins were put to death because their unchastity was believed to have

provoked a national calamity."[517] In the Roman law is found a

proposition which was often quoted in the Middle Ages: "That which is

done against divine religion is done to the harm of all."[518] Hale[519]

explains the tortures inflicted by the Iroquois, by their desire to mark

some kinds of Indian warfare as very abominable, and so to drive them

out of use. Torture always flatters vanity. He who inflicts it has

power. To reduce, plunder, and torment an enemy is a great luxury. The

lust of blood is a frightful demon when once it is aroused. A Hungarian

woman of noble birth, at the beginning of the seventeenth century,

tortured to death thirty or forty of her maidservants. She began by

inflicting severe punishments and developed a fiendish passion for the

sight of suffering and blood.[520] It is the combinations of the other

elements, religion, ambition, sex, vanity, and the lust of blood, with

the dislike of dissenters, which has caused the most frightful

developments of torture and persecution. This brings us to the case of

the mediæval inquisition. It is not to be expected that a phenomenon of

high civilization will be simple and uniform. So the motives of

Christian persecution to enforce conformity are numerous and mixed. It

was directly against some of the leading principles of Christianity, but

there are texts in the New Testament which were used to justify it.[521]

+237. Torture in ancient states.+ The Egyptians used torture in all

ordinary investigations to find out the facts.[522] The Greeks had used

torture. It was common in the Periclean age in the courts of Athens. The

accused gave his slaves to be tortured "to challenge evidence against

himself."[523] Plutarch[524] tells of a barber who heard of the defeat

of Nicias in Sicily and ran to tell the magistrates. They tortured him

as a maker of trouble by disseminating false news, until the story was

confirmed. Philotas was charged with planning to kill Alexander. He was

tortured and the desired proof was obtained.[525] Eusebius,[526]

describing the persecution under Nerva, says that Simeon, Bishop of

Jerusalem, being one hundred and twenty years old, was tortured for

several days and then crucified. Torture underwent a special development

in the Euphrates valley. The Assyrian stones show frightful tortures

which kings sometimes inflicted with their own hands. Maiming, flaying,

impaling, blinding, and smothering in hot ashes became usual forms in

Persia. They passed to the Turks, and the stories of torture and death

inflicted in southeastern Europe, or in modern Persia, show knowledge

and inventive skill far beyond what the same peoples have otherwise

shown. The motives have been religious contempt, hereditary animosity,

and vengeance, as well as political and warlike antagonism.

+238. Torture in the Roman empire.+ The Roman emperors lived in a great

fear of supernatural attack. There was a very great interest for many

people in the question: When will the emperor die? Many, no doubt, made

use of any apparatus of astrology or sorcery to find out. To the emperor

and his adherents this seemed to prove a desire that he should die, and

was interpreted as treasonable. The Christians helped to develop

demonism. They regarded all the heathen gods as demons. As they gained

power in society this notion spread, and there was a great revival of

popular demonism. By the _lex Julia de Majestate_ torture might be

applied to persons charged with treason, and the definition of treason

was greatly enlarged. Torture was used to great excess under Tiberius

and Nero. In the fourth century, after the emperors became Christians,

it was feared that persons who hated them would work them ill by sorcery

with the aid of the demons, formerly heathen gods. Sorcery and treason

were combined and strengthened by a great tide of superstition which

overspread the Roman world.[527] The first capital punishment for heresy

in the Christian church seems to have been the torture and burning of

Priscillian, a Manichæan, at Treves, in 385, with six of his adherents,

by the Emperor Maximus. This act caused a sensation of truly Christian

horror. Of the two bishops who were responsible, one was expelled from

his see; the other resigned.[528] In 579 King Chilperic caused

ecclesiastics to be tortured for disloyal behavior. About 580 the same

king, having married a servant maid, an act which caused family and

political trouble, upon the death of two of her children, caused a woman

to be tortured who was charged with murdering the children in the

interest of their stepbrother. She confessed, revoked her confession,

and was burned. Three years later another child of the queen died, and

several women were tortured and burned or broken on the wheel for

causing the death by sorcery.[529] Pope Nicholas I, in 866, opposed the

use of torture as barbaric, and the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals take the

same position in regard to it. Indeed, that was the orthodox Christian

view in the dark ages.

+239.+ Such was the course of descent by which torture came to the

Middle Ages. It was in connection with the revival of the eleventh

century that the Roman law of treason was made to apply to heresy by

construing it as treason to God.[530] It is, however, of the first

importance to notice that it was the masses which first applied death by

burning to heretics. The mob lynched heretics long before the church

began to persecute.[531] (See, further, sec. 253.)

+240. Jewish and Christian universality. Who persecutes whom?+ The Jews

held that their God was the only real God. The gods of other nations

were "vanity," that is, nullity. They held that their religion was the

only true one. When about the time of the birth of Christ they stepped

before the Greco-Roman world with this claim, it cost them great hatred

and abuse. In the history of religion it counts as a great fact of

advance in religious conceptions. Christianity inherited the idea and

applied it to itself. It has always claimed to be absolutely and alone

true as a religious system. Every other religion is an invader of its

domain. It was this attitude which gave a definition to heresy. Under

paganism "speculation was untrammeled. The notion of there being any

necessary guilt in erroneous opinion was unknown."[532] When once this

notion found acceptance it produced a great number of deductions and

corollaries and gave form to a great number of customs, such as they had

never had before. The effect on the selection of articles of faith out

of the doctrines of warring sects and philosophies is obvious, also the

effect on methods of controversy. The effects are important in the

fourth and fifth centuries, and the notion became one of the postulates

of all thinking. This is the ultimate reason for the wickedness of

heresy and for the abomination of all heretics. Certainly Christianity

did not, in this matter, improve on the philosophy of paganism. It was

this attitude of Christianity and its neglect of the existing political

authority which drew upon it the contempt, derision, and hatred of the

heathen. The persecution of Christians was popular. It expressed the

popular feeling, which was more constantly expressed in the popular

comedy and the improvised popular play.[533] The persecution in Nerva's

time was more popular than political.[534] In the following century the

Christians denounced heathenism as a worship of demons. "It is not

surprising that the populace should have been firmly convinced that

every great catastrophe that occurred was due to the presence of the

enemies of the gods."[535] "The history of the period of the Antonines

continually manifests the desire of the populace to persecute,

restrained by the humanity of the rulers."[536] In the third century the

Decian persecution was largely due to the "popular fanaticism caused by

great calamities, which were ascribed to the anger of the gods at the

neglect of their worship."[537] "The most horrible recorded instances of

torture were usually inflicted, either by the populace, or in their

presence, in the arena."[538] Frightful tortures were inflicted in the

attempt to make Christians sacrifice to the heathen gods. This effort

was due to the popular apprehension of solidarity in responsibility for

the neglect by the Christians of the state gods, to the decline of all

social welfare and the implied insult to the state. In the fourth

century Christianity became the religion of the state and took up the

task of persecuting the heathen. "The only question is: In whose hands

is the power to persecute?" That question alone determines who shall

persecute whom. Literature was produced which uttered savage hatred

against all who were not fully orthodox, and the sects practiced

violence and cruelty against each other to the full extent for which

they found opportunity. "Never, perhaps, was the infliction of

mutilation, and prolonged and agonizing forms of death, more common"

than in the seventh and eighth centuries.[539] "Great numbers were

deprived of their ears and noses, tortured through several days, and at

last burned alive or broken slowly on the wheel."[540] At Byzantium, in

the ninth century, a prefect of the palace was burned in the circus for

appropriating the property of a widow. It became the custom that capital

punishments were executed in the circus.[541] All this course of things

was due to popular tastes and desires, and it was a course of popular

education of the masses in cruelty, love of bloodshed, and gratification

of low hatred and other base passions. All the laws, the exhortations of

the clergy, and the public acts of torture and execution held out the

suggestion that heresy was a thing deserving the extremest horror and

abomination. What was heresy? No one knew unless he was an educated

theologian, and such were rare. The vagueness of heresy made it more

terrible. "The long-continued teaching of the church, that persistent

heresy was the one crime for which there could be no pardon or excuse,

seemed to deprive even the wisest and purest of all power of reasoning

where it was concerned."[542]

+241. The ordeal.+ The doctrines and sentiments of this early age were

seed planted to produce an immeasurable crop in the eleventh and twelfth

centuries, when they were brought forth again and quoted with the

authority of the church fathers. The ordeal is a question addressed to

the superior powers in order to learn the truth. The question is always

categorical: Is this man guilty or not? The irrationality is that there

is a third possibility which cannot be tested; the superior powers may

not answer at all. In the early Middle Ages the ordeal was in common use

in all civil and ecclesiastical trials. Experience proved the fallacy of

it. We are led to believe that the people of the dark ages, not yet

being locked in dogmatism, although stupid and ignorant, were better

able to learn from experience than those of later times. Innocent III,

in 1212, forbade the use of the ordeal, the occasion being its use by

the Bishop of Strasburg against heretics.[543] The Lateran Council of

1215 forbade ecclesiastics to take any part in ordeals. It is perhaps

true that torture was introduced from the Roman law after the ordeal was

ruled out.[544]

+242. Irrationality of torture.+ Torture was far more irrational than

the ordeal. The Roman authorities had recorded warnings of its

fallacy.[545] Torture destroys nerve power, will, and consciousness.

There comes a point at which the victim will assent to anything to

escape pain, or to get a quick and easy death. Therefore "confessions"

under torture are of no value. Ulpian said of it, "_Res est fragilis et

periculosa et quae veritatem fallat_."[546] One of the templars said

that if he was tortured further he would confess that he had murdered

the Saviour. Another said that he would confess anything if he was

tortured further, although he was ready to suffer any death for the

Order of Templars. He would confess that he had killed the mother of

God.[547] A heretic under torture cried out that Christ, if so treated,

would be proved a heretic.[548] Bernard Delicieux declared before King

Philip that Peter and Paul could be convicted of heresy by the methods

of the inquisitors.[549] Count Frederick von Spee, a Jesuit who opposed

the witch persecutions, is quoted as saying, in 1631, "Treat the heads

of the church, the judges, or me, as you treat those unhappy ones

[accused of witchcraft], subject any of us to the same tortures, and you

will discover that we are all sorcerers."[550] He quoted an inquisitor

who boasted that if he could get the pope on the rack he would prove him

a sorcerer.[551] In the thirteenth century "judges were well convinced

of the failure of the procedure with its secret and subjective elements,

but they could not in any other way cope with crime."[552]

This means, of course, that by long and manifold suggestion certain

selected forms of crime had been stigmatized until the masses regarded

them with horror. Then the apparatus of the administration of justice

was brought to bear to exterminate all who could be charged with them,

and when the process was objected to as horrible, it was defended on

grounds of necessity to meet the horrible crime. By this action and

reaction a great body of interests was enveloped in a special

atmosphere, within which any excess of savagery was possible. The

societal selection was prosecuted by murder of all dissenters.

+243. Inquisitorial procedure from Roman law.+ The Roman criminal

procedure was, in part, inquisitorial.[553] In the later period of the

republic a private accuser, who must be an injured party, started and

conducted the prosecution, but the magistrates could proceed on their

own motion, upon denunciation, or by inquisitorial process. The last

method became the custom under the empire. Prosecutions for treason were

thus carried on, and by the end of the empire sorcerers and heretics, as

_hostes publici_, like traitors, were thus tried. All citizens were

bound to denounce such criminals. This procedure was taken up into the

canon law, so that the Christian church inherited a system of procedure

as well as the doctrines above stated.[554]

+244. Bishops as inquisitors.+ In the Carolingian period bishops were

instructed to seek out heretics and to secure their conversion, but they

rarely distinguished themselves by zeal in this matter. The procedure

was that of a grand jury set in motion by common report. Lucius III and

Barbarossa, acting together in 1184, prepared a decretal in which the

duty of bishops was reaffirmed and an attempt was made to give sharper

method to their proceedings. They were to seek out heretics, holders of

secret conventicles, or any who "in any way differed, in mode of life,

from the faithful in general." Those who refused to be disciplined and

to conform were to be abandoned to the secular arm for fitting

punishment. All civil officers were to swear to enforce laws against

heretics. Here we find the fundamental notions of the later Inquisition,

but zealous executioners were wanting. If the decretal had been "obeyed

strictly and energetically, it would have established an episcopal

instead of a papal Inquisition."

+245. Definition of heretic.+ The definition of a heretic just quoted

occurs often and is the only one which could be formulated. A person was

as liable to be charged with heresy if better than the crowd as if

worse. "In fact, amid the license of the Middle Ages ascetic virtue was

apt to be regarded as a sign of heresy. About 1220 a clerk of Spire,

whose austerity subsequently led him to join the Franciscans, was only

saved by the interposition of Conrad, afterwards Bishop of Hildesheim,

from being burned as a heretic, because his preaching led certain women

to lay aside their vanities of apparel and behave with humility.... I

have met with a case, in 1320, in which a poor old woman at Pamiers

submitted to the dreadful sentence for heresy simply because she would

not take an oath. She answered all interrogations on points of faith in

orthodox fashion, but though offered her life if she would swear on the

gospels, she refused to burden her soul with the sin, and for this she

was condemned as a heretic."[555] "Heretics who were admitted to be

patterns of virtue were ruthlessly exterminated in the name of Christ,

while in the same holy name the orthodox could purchase absolution for

the vilest of crimes for a few coins."[556] There could be no definition

of a heretic but one who differed in life and conversation from the

masses around him. This might mean strange language, dress, manners, or

greater restraint in conduct. Pallor of countenance was a mark of a

heretic from the fourth century to the twelfth.[557] In the thirteenth

century Franciscans were preëminently orthodox, but when John XXII

stigmatized as heretical the assertion that Christ and his Apostles

never had any property, they became criminals whom civil officers were

bound to send to the stake.[558] John was himself a heretic as to the

"beatific vision." He thought that the dead would not enter the presence

of God until the judgment day.[559] The Franciscans held that the blood

shed by Christ in the Passion lost its divinity, was separated from the

Logos, and remained on earth. This was heresy.[560] The Dominicans, with

Thomas Aquinas, were heretics as to the immaculate conception.[561] All

the disputants on all sides of these questions went into the dispute at

the risk of burning or being burned, as the tide should run.

+246. The Albigenses.+ For some reason which is not easy to understand,

the Manichæan doctrine took deep root in the Christian church from the

fourth century on. To us the doctrine seems ethically bad, but that only

shows how little religious dogmas make ethics. The enemies of the

Albigenses recognized their high purity of life.[562] They called

themselves kathari, or puritans. Popular fanaticism commenced

persecution against them in the eleventh century. They were in

antagonism to the hierarchy and the Catholic system, especially to papal

autocracy. "Even with those abhorred sectaries, the church was

wonderfully slow to proceed to extremities. It hesitated before the

unaccustomed task. It shrank from contradicting its teachings of

charity, and was driven forward by popular fanaticism. The persecution

of Orleans, in 1017, was the work of King Robert, the Pious. The burning

at Milan, soon after, was done by the people against the will of the

archbishop.... Even as late as 1144, the church of Liège congratulated

itself on having, by the mercy of God, saved the greater part of a

number of confessed and convicted kathari from the turbulent mob which

strove to burn them.... In 1145 the zealous populace seized the kathari

and burned them, despite the resistance of the ecclesiastical

authorities."[563] These cases of lynching are the first cases, in the

Middle Ages, of burning heretics. They show that the masses in the

Christian church thought that the proper treatment of enemies of God,

the church, and all men.

+247. Persecution popular.+ Innocent III began war on the Albigenses at

the beginning of the thirteenth century, as rebels and heretics. All

Catholics approved what he did, and thought that the Albigenses richly

deserved all the treatment they received. The age was not religious, but

it had intense religiosity, and the whole religiosity was heated to a

high pitch by the contest with the Albigenses. The pride, ambition, and

arrogance of the hierarchy and the basest greed and love of plunder of

the masses were enlisted against them. Lea's statement is therefore

fully justified that "the Inquisition was not an organization

arbitrarily devised and imposed upon the judicial system of Christendom

by the ambition or fanaticism of the church. It was rather a

natural--one may almost say an inevitable--evolution of the forces at

work in the thirteenth century, and no one can rightly appreciate the

process of its development and the results of its activity without a

somewhat minute consideration of the factors controlling the minds and

souls of men during the ages which laid the foundation of modern

civilization."[564] In the mind of the age "there was a universal

consensus of opinion that there was nothing to do with a heretic but to

burn him." This was one of those wide and popular notions upon which

mores grow, because the folkways are adjusted to it in all departments

of life as a rule of welfare. The courts of Toulouse at first, not

recognizing the forces against the Albigenses, tried to protect their

subjects, but "to the public law of the period [Raymond II of Toulouse]

was an outlaw, without even the right of self-defense against the

first-comer, for his very self-defense was rated among his crimes. In

the popular faith of the age he was an accursed thing, without hope,

here or hereafter. The only way of readmission into human fellowship,

the only hope of salvation, lay in reconciliation with the church

through the removal of the awful ban which had formed half of his

inheritance. To obtain this he had repeatedly offered to sacrifice his

honor and his subjects, and the offer had been contemptuously

spurned.... The battle of toleration against persecution had been fought

and lost; nor, with such a warning as the fate of the two Raymonds, was

there risk that other potentates would disregard the public opinion of

Christendom by ill-advised mercy to the heretic."[565]

+248.+ An annalist of Worms is quoted about Dorso's operations on the

upper Rhine in 1231. Dorso burned many persons of the peasant class. The

annalist adds, "The people, when they saw this, were favorable to the

inquisitors and helped them; and rightly, since those heretics deserved

death. Confident in the approval of the masses, they went on to make

arrests in towns and villages, as they pleased, and then they said to

the judges, without further evidence, 'These are heretics. We withdraw

our hands from them.' The judges were thus compelled to burn many. That

was not according to the sense of the Holy Scriptures, and the

ecclesiastics everywhere were greatly troubled. Since, however, the

people took sides with the unjust judges, their will was executed

everywhere." "The pitiless and incompetent judges later saw that they

could not maintain their conduct without the help of great men, whom

they won by saying that they would burn rich people, whose goods the

great men should have." "That pleased the great men, who helped them,

and called them to their cities and towns." "The people, when they saw

this, asked the reason, to which the persecutors answered, 'We would

burn a hundred innocent if there was one guilty amongst them.'"[566]

+249.+ It was also true of the persecutions of the philosophers in

Mohammedan Spain that they were popular. "The best educated princes

allowed themselves to be driven to persecute, in spite of their personal

preferences, as a means of winning popularity."[567]

+250. Theory of persecution.+ The public opinion of the ruling classes

of Europe demanded that heresy should be exterminated at whatever cost,

and yet with the suppression of open resistance the desired end seemed

as far off as ever.... Trained experts were needed, whose sole business

it should be to unearth the offenders and extort a confession of their

guilt.... Thus to the public of the thirteenth century the organization

of the Inquisition and its commitment to the children of Saint Dominic

and Saint Francis appeared a perfectly natural or rather inevitable

development arising from the admitted necessities of the time and the

instrumentalities at hand.[568]

+251. Duties laid on the civil authority.+ The secular authority

accepted the functions allotted to it out of the spirit of the age. To

fall into disfavor at Rome was, for a prince, to risk the loyalty of his

subjects, with whom it was a point of high importance to belong to a

"Christian" state, that is, one on good terms with the church. "We are

not to imagine, however, from these reduplicated commands that the

secular power, as a rule, showed itself in the slightest degree

disinclined to perform the duty. The teachings of the church had made

too profound an impression for any doubt in the premises to exist. As

has been seen above, the laws of all the states of Europe prescribed

concremation as the appropriate penalty for heresy, and even the free

commonwealths of Italy recognized the Inquisition as the judge whose

sentences were to be blindly executed."[569]

+252.+ "The practice of burning the heretic alive was thus not the

creature of positive law, but arose generally and spontaneously, and its

adoption by the legislator was only the recognition of a popular

custom."[570] "Confession of heresy became a matter of vital importance,

and no effort was deemed too great, no means too repulsive, to secure

it. This became the center of the inquisitorial process, and it is

deserving of detailed consideration, not only because it formed the

basis of procedure in the Holy Office, but also because of the vast and

deplorable influence which it exercised for five centuries on the whole

judicial system of continental Europe."[571] In the second half of the

twelfth century burning had become, by custom, the usual punishment for

heretics. The purpose was universally regarded as right and pious, and

the means was thought wise and correct. Therefore the whole procedure

went forward on a course of direct and consistent development.[572] It

was first decreed in positive law in the code of Pedro II, of Aragon, in

1197. In the laws of Frederick II, in 1224, the punishment was death by

burning or loss of the tongue. In 1231, in Sicily, burning was made

absolute. In 1238 the stake was made the law of the empire against

heresy. In 1270 Louis IX made it the law of France.[573] "Dominic and

Francis, Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas, Innocent III and St. Louis,

were types, in their several ways, of which humanity, in any age, might

well feel proud, and yet they were as unsparing of the heretic as

Ezzelino da Romano was of his enemies. With such men it was not hope of

gain or lust of blood or pride of opinion or wanton exercise of power,

but sense of duty, and they but represented public opinion from the

thirteenth to the seventeenth century."[574] That is to say, that the

virtues of the individuals were overruled by the vices of the mores of

the age.

+253. The shares of the church and the masses.+ The steps of the process

by which the Christian church was made an organization to enforce

uniformity of confession by bodily pain, that is, in fact, by murder,

demand careful attention. Back of all the popular demands for

persecution there was the teaching of the church in antecedent periods

and a crude popular logic of detestation and destruction. Then the

outbreak of persecution appears as a popular act with lynching

executions. At this point the church, by virtue of its teaching and

leading functions, ought to have repressed excessive zeal and guided the

popular frenzy. It did not do so. It took the lead of the popular

movement and encouraged it. This was its greatest crime, but it must be

fairly understood that it acted with public opinion and was fully

supported by the masses and by the culture classes. The Inquisition was

not unpopular and was not disapproved. It was thought to be the proper

and necessary means to deal with heresy, just as we now think police

courts necessary to deal with petty crimes (see sec. 247). The system of

persecution went on to extravagances. The masses disapproved. They could

not be held to any responsibility. They turned against the

ecclesiastical authorities and threw all the blame on them.

+254. The church uses the power for selfish aggrandizement.+ Things now

advanced, therefore, to the second stage. The church authorities

accepted the executive duty in respect to the defense of the church and

society against heresy. The popular idea was that heresy would bring

down the wrath of God on all Christendom, or on the whole of the small

group in which it occurred.[575] The church authorities formulated

doctrines, planned programmes, and appointed administrative officers. To

them the commission laid upon them meant more social power, and they

turned it into a measure of selfish aggrandizement. This alienated first

all competent judges, and at last the masses.

+255. The Inquisition took shape slowly.+ The Inquisition took shape

very gradually through the first half of the thirteenth century. "In the

proceedings of this period the rudimentary character of the Inquisition

is evident." The mendicant orders furnished the first agents. They were

admired and honored by the masses. Gregory IX, in his first bulls

(1233), making the Dominicans the official inquisitors, seemed to be

uncertain as to the probable attitude which the bishops would adopt to

this invasion of their jurisdiction, "while the character of his

instructions shows that he had no conception of what the innovation was

to lead to." "As yet there was no idea of superseding the episcopal

functions." In fact, the mendicant orders supplanted the military orders

as papal militia, just as they were later supplanted by the Jesuits, and

they very greatly assisted the reorganization of the church into an

absolute monarchy under the pope.[576] Frederick II died in 1250. He was

the first modern man on a throne. He had aimed to rule all Christendom

by despotic methods which he perhaps learned from the Mohammedans. He

would have made a monarchy if he had succeeded, which would have

anticipated that of Charles V or Philip II by three hundred years.[577]

It was the mores of the age which decided between him and the pope. His

court was a center of Arabic culture and of religious indifference.

There were eunuchs, a harem, astrologers from Bagdad, and Jews richly

pensioned by the emperor to translate Arabic works. "All these things

were transmuted, in popular belief, into relations with Ashtaroth and

Beelzebub."[578] The saying that there had been three great

impostors--Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed--was attributed to him, and it

appears that his contemporaries generally believed that he first used

the statement. The only thing which he left behind was the code of laws

which he had made, by way of concession and attempt to buy peace from

the popes, by which all civil authorities were made constables and

hangmen of the church, to which all dissenters were sacrificed.

+256. Formative legislation.+ In 1252 Innocent IV issued a bull "which

should establish machinery for systematic persecution as an integral

part of the social edifice in every city and every state." He authorized

the torture of witnesses. "These provisions are not the wild imaginings

of a nightmare, but sober, matter-of-fact legislation, shrewdly and

carefully devised to accomplish a settled policy, and it affords us a

valuable insight into the public opinion of the day to find that there

was no effective resistance to its acceptance." There is evidence,

twenty years later, that the Inquisition "had not been universally

accepted with alacrity, but the few instances which we find recorded of

refusal show how generally it was submitted to." The institution was in

full vigor in Italy, but not beyond the Alps, "yet this was scarce

necessary so long as public law and the conservative spirit of the

ruling class everywhere rendered it the highest duty of the citizen of

every degree to aid in every way the business of the inquisitor, and

pious monarchs hastened to enforce the obligations of their subjects."

"It was not the fault of the church if a bold monarch like Philip the

Fair occasionally ventured to incur divine vengeance by protecting his

subjects."[579]

+257. Dungeons.+ It is evident that the lust of blood was educated into

the mores by public executions with torture, by obscene adjuncts, by

inhuman sports, and by public shows. Cruelty and inhumanity in civil

cases were as great as under the Inquisition. A person apprehended on

any charge was imprisoned in a frightful dungeon, damp, infested by rats

and vermin, generally in chains, and he was often forced to lie in a

constrained position. This was a part of the policy which prevailed in

the administration of justice. It was intended to break the spirit and

courage of the accused. Confinement was solitary, and various

circumstances besides pain and hunger were brought to bear on the

imagination. It was the rule that every accused person must fast for

eight or ten hours before torture. The dungeons were often ingenious

means of torture. There was one in the Bastille at Paris, the floor of

which was conical, with the point downwards so that it was impossible to

sit, or lie, or stand in it. In another, in the Châtelet, the floor was

all the time covered by water, in which the prisoners must stand.[580]

+258. The yellow crosses.+ One of the penalties inflicted by the

Inquisition causes astonishment and at the same time shows how

thoroughly the mass of the population were on the side of the

Inquisition until the fifteenth century. Persons convicted of heresy,

but coerced to penitence, were forced to wear crosses of cloth,

generally yellow, three spans long and two wide, sewed on their

garments. Thus the symbol of Christian devotion was turned into a badge

of shame.[581] It pointed out the wearer as an outcast. However, it

depended on the mass of the population to say what it should mean. How

did they treat persons thus marked? They boycotted them. The wearers of

crosses could not find employment, or human intercourse, or husbands, or

wives. They were actually unable to get the relations with other men and

women which are essential to existence.[582] If the people had pitied

them, or sympathized with them, they would have shown it by kindness, in

spite of ecclesiastical orders. In fact, the cross was a badge of infamy

and was enforced as such by public action. "The unfortunate penitent was

exposed to the ridicule and derision of all whom he met, and was heavily

handicapped in every effort to earn a livelihood."[583] It is evident

that the way in which the general public treated the cross-wearers can

alone account for the weight which those under this penalty attached to

it. "It was always considered very shameful." At Augsburg, in 1393, for

seventy gold gulden, the wearing of crosses could be escaped.[584]

+259. Confiscation.+ Another penalty of frightful effect was

confiscation. As soon as a man was arrested for heresy, his property was

sequestrated and inventoried. His family was thrown on the street. It

was out of the Roman law that "pope and king drew the weapons which

rendered the pursuit of heresy attractive and profitable." "The church

cannot escape the responsibility of naturalizing this penalty in

European law as a punishment for spiritual transgressions."[585] "It

would be difficult to estimate the amount of human misery arising from

this source alone." "The threats of coercion which at first were

necessary to induce the temporal princes to confiscate the property of

their heretical subjects soon became superfluous, and history has few

displays of man's eagerness to profit by his fellow's misfortunes more

deplorable than that of the vultures which followed in the wake of the

Inquisition to batten on the ruin which it wrought." In Italy the

confiscated property was divided into three parts by the pope's order.

One part went to the Inquisition for its expenses, one part to the papal

camera, and one part to the civil authority. Later, the civil authority

generally got nothing. About 1335 a Franciscan bishop of Silva

"reproached those of his brethren who act as inquisitors with their

abuse of the funds accruing to the Holy Office.... The inquisitors

monopolized the whole, spent it on themselves, or enriched their kindred

at their pleasure." "Avarice joined hands with fanaticism, and between

them they supplied motive power for a hundred years of fierce,

unremitting, unrelenting persecution which, in the end, accomplished its

main purpose." The confiscations did not concern the populace. They

furnished the motive of the great to support the administration of the

Inquisition.[586] "Persecution, as a steady and continuous policy,

rested, after all, upon confiscation. It was this which supplied the

fuel to keep up the fires of zeal, and when it was lacking the business

of defending the faith languished lamentably. When katharism disappeared

under the brilliant aggressiveness of Bernard Gui, the culminating point

of the Inquisition was passed, and thenceforth it steadily declined,

although still there were occasional confiscated estates over which

king, prelate, and noble quarreled for some years to come."[587] "The

earnest endeavors of the inquisitors were directed much more to

obtaining conversions with confiscations and betrayal of friends than to

provoking martyrdoms.... The really effective weapons of the Holy

Office, the real curses with which it afflicted the people, can be

looked for in its dungeons and its confiscations, in the humiliating

penances of the saffron crosses, and in the invisible police with which

it benumbed the heart and soul of every man who had once fallen into its

hands."[588] It is evident that these means of tormenting and coercing

dissenters went much further to cause them to disappear than autos-de-fe

and other executions. The selection of those who submitted, or played

the hypocrite, was accomplished in the fifteenth century.

+260. Operation of the Inquisition.+ The Inquisition acted effectively.

It kept detailed records and pursued its victims to the third

generation.[589] It covered Europe with a network of reports which would

rival the most developed modern police systems, "putting the authorities

on the alert to search for every stranger who wore the air of one

differing in life and conversation from the ordinary run of the

faithful." "To human apprehension, the papal Inquisition was well-nigh

ubiquitous, omniscient, and omnipotent." Inquisitors were set free from

all rules which had been found necessary to save judges from judicial

error,[590] and the formularies to guide inquisitors inculcated chicane,

terrorism, deception, and brow-beating, and an art of entangling the

accused in casuistry and dialectics. A new crime was invented for the

cases in which confession could not be obtained: suspicion of heresy,

which had three degrees, "light," "vehement," and "violent." Even papal

decretals which restrained the effort to destroy the accused could be

set aside.[591] Thus the Inquisition coöperated with the criminal law.

It operated on the society of Christendom for ten or twelve generations

a selection of those who would submit and obey, and an elimination of

those who dissented.

+261. Success of the Inquisition.+ That the Inquisition succeeded in its

purpose is certain. It forced at least external conformity and silence,

especially of the masses. The heterodoxy of the Middle Ages "is

divisible into two currents, of which one, called the 'eternal gospel,'

includes the mystical and communistic sects which, starting from Joachim

de Florus, after having filled the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ...

was carried on, in the fourteenth, by the German mystics; the other,

summed up in the blasphemy that there had been three great impostors

[Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed], represents materialistic infidelity, due

to a study of the Arabs, and skulking under the name of Averroes."[592]

Of these two schools of heretics the former was the more popular and

tenacious. It is not to be understood that the masses ever recognized

their own handiwork in the Inquisition, or the popes of the fifteenth

century. On the contrary, the sequence goes on to the fourth stage in

which the masses, seeing the operation of ambition, venality, and

despotism in the officers of the institution created to meet a popular

demand, denounce it and turn against it to destroy it.

+262. Torture in civil and ecclesiastical trials.+ (See sec. 237

ff.) In the course of its work the Inquisition had introduced

torture into the administration of Christian justice and into the

mores. The jurists were all corrupted by it. They supposed that,

without torture, no crimes could be detected or punished, and

this opinion ruled the administration of justice on the continent

until the eighteenth century.[593] Lea finds the earliest

instances of legal torture in the Veronese Code of 1228, and in

the Sicilian Constitutions of 1231;--work of the rationalist

emperor, Frederick II, but it was "sparingly and hesitatingly

employed." Innocent IV adopted it in 1252, but only secular

authorities were to use it. This was to save the sanctity of

ecclesiastics. In 1256 Alexander IV, "with characteristic

indirection," authorized inquisitors and their associates to

absolve each other, and grant dispensations for irregularities.

This gave them absolute liberty, and they could inflict or

supervise torture.[594] There were other "poses," such as the

prohibition to shed blood, i.e. to break the skin, and the rule

to ask the civil power, when surrendering the victim to it, not

to proceed to extremes, although it was bound to burn the victim.

As the system continued in practice its methods were refined and

its experts were trained. Any one who was charged must be

convicted if possible. The torture produced permanent crippling

or maiming. It would not do to release any one so marked with the

investigation and then acquitted. Hence more and more frightful

measures became necessary. Nevertheless cases occurred in which

the accused held out beyond the power of the persecutors.[595] At

Bamberg, in 1614, a woman seventy-four years old endured torture

up to the third grade. After three quarters of an hour on the

"Bock" she fell dead. The verdict was that she had cleared

herself, by enduring the torture, of the "evidence" against her,

and would have been freed if she had lived. She was to have

Christian burial, and a document attesting this finding was to be

given to her husband and children. Some jurists of the sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries were led to doubt about torture, but

they almost all agreed that it was necessary "in some cases."

These were the reformers who were careful not to be extremists.

We are told that Peter of Ravenna, in 1511, urged the abolition

of torture, and that Louis Vivez, a Spaniard, took the same

position a little later. Neither won any attention.[596] In the

Carolina, Charles V's law book of 1532, which was in general

savage in its penalties, torture was to be applied only in cases

punishable by death or life imprisonment, and only on strong

prima facie evidence of guilt. Confession under torture was to

have no weight unless confirmed after an interval. These

restrictions were not observed in practice.[597] There are very

many cases on record in which it was afterwards proved that many

persons had suffered torture and cruel execution, upon

confession, who were innocent of all crime.[598]

+263. The selection accomplished.+ Thus the apparatus and devices for

putting down dissent and enforcing submission to such authority as the

great number were willing to recognize had attained a superficial

success. Opposition was silenced. Dissent was made so dangerous that no

one dared express it, except here and there a hero, and outward

conformity to church discipline was almost universal. The mores also

underwent influence from a societal power which was great and pervading.

The external and artificial character of the conformity was so well

known that a name was given to it,--_implicita fides_,--and this was

discussed as to its nature and value. The mores are gravely affected by

_implicita fides_ when it is held by a great number of persons.[599] The

selection which had destroyed honest thinkers and sincere churchmen had

cultivated a class of smooth hypocrites and submissive cowards. In the

fifteenth century the whole of Christendom had accepted the church

system with its concepts of welfare and its dictates of duty, and had

adopted the ritual means of holiness and salvation which it prescribed.

In fact, at no other time were men ever so busy as then with "good

works," or so fussy about church ritual. Everybody was anxious not to be

a heretic. At the same time the whole mediæeval system was falling to

pieces, and the inventions and discoveries were disproving all received

and approved ideas about the world and welfare in it. Gross sensuality

and carnal lust got possession of society, and the church system was an

independent system of balancing accounts with the other world. The

theater declined into obscenity and coarseness, and the popular pulpit

was hardly better.[600] The learned world was returning to classical

paganism. The popes had their children in the Vatican and publicly

married them there. Under Sextus IV the courtesans at Rome paid a tax

which produced 20,000 ducats per annum. Prelates owned brothels.

Innocent VIII tried to stop the scandal. In 1490 his vicar published an

edict against all concubinage, but the pope forced him to recall it

because all ecclesiastics had concubines. There were 6800 public

meretrices at Rome besides private ones and concubines. Concubinage was

really tolerated, subject to the payment of an amercement.[601] The

proceedings under Alexander VI were only the culmination of the license

taken by men who were irresponsible masters of the world, and who showed

the insanity of despotism just as the Roman emperors did.[602] The

church had broken down under the reaction of its own efforts to rule the

world. It had made moral hypocrisy and religious humbug characteristic

of Christians, for he who indulges in sensual vice and balances it off

by ritual devices is morally subject to the deepest corruption of

character. The church system had corrupted the mores by adding casuistry

and dialectic smartness to the devices for regulating conduct and

satisfying interests. The men of the Renaissance, especially in Italy,

acted always from passionate motives and went to great excess. Their

only system of conduct was success in what they wanted to do, and so

they were often heroes of crime. Yet they all conformed to church ritual

and discipline.

+264.+ A great undertaking like the suppression of dissent by force and

cruelty cannot be carried out in a great group of states without local

differentiation and variation. To close the story, it is worth while to

notice these variations in England, Spain, and Venice.

+265. Torture in England.+ The Inquisition cannot be said to have

existed in the British Islands or Scandinavia. The laws of

Frederick II had no authority there. In England, in 1400, the

death penalty for heresy was introduced by the statute _de

heretico comburendo_. In 1414 a mixed tribunal of ecclesiastics

and laymen was established to search out heretics and punish

them. It was employed to suppress Lollardry. Under Edward VI

these laws were repealed; under Mary they were renewed. In the

first Parliament of Elizabeth they were repealed again, except

the statute of 1400, which was repealed in 1676, when Charles II

wanted toleration for Roman Catholics. Then the ecclesiastical

courts were restricted to ecclesiastical penalties.[603] Torture

was never legal in England. The use of it was pushed to the

greatest extreme when Clement V and Philip the Fair were seeking

evidence against the templars. Then the pope wrote a fatherly

letter of expostulation to Edward of England, because of the lack

of this engine in his dominions.[604] Cases of torture no doubt

occurred. The star chamber had an inquisitorial process in which

the rack seems to have been used. Barbaro, a Venetian ambassador

in the sixteenth century, reported the non-use of torture as an

interesting fact in English mores. He says the English think that

it often forces untrue confession, that it "spoils the body and

an innocent life; thinking, moreover, that it is better to

release a criminal than to punish an innocent man."[605] From the

thirteenth century it was forbidden to keep a prisoner in chains.

In other countries this was the rule, and ingenuity was expended

to fasten the prisoner in a most uncomfortable position.[606] The

last case of the rack in the star chamber was that of Peacham, in

1614.[607] The last execution for heresy in the British Islands

was that of a medical student at Edinburgh, eighteen years of

age, named Aikenhead, in 1696.[608] The greatest cruelty in

England was "pressing" prisoners to compel them to plead because,

if they did not plead, the trial could not go on.

It follows that the repressive system of the mediæval church did

not produce effects on the mores in England.

+266. The Spanish Inquisition.+ The Spanish Inquisition is an

offshoot and development of that of the mediæval church. The

latter was started in Aragon and Navarre in 1238.[609] In the

latter half of the fourteenth century Eymerich (author of the

_Directorium Inquisitorum_) conducted an inquisition in Aragon

against Jews and Moors. In Castile, in 1400, an inquisition was

in activity.[610] None of these efforts produced a permanent

establishment. In the reign of Isabella, Cardinal Mendoza

organized the Inquisition as a state institution to establish the

throne.[611] The king named the inquisitors, who need not be

ecclesiastics. The confiscated property of "heretics" fell to the

state. Ecclesiastics were subject to the tribunal. The church

long withheld approval from this inquisition, because it was

political in origin and purpose, and was created outside the

church organization and without church authorization. The

populace also opposed it. This union of church and populace

forced the grandees to support it.[612] The punishments "implied

confiscation of property. Thus whole families were orphaned and

consigned to penury. Penitence in public carried with it social

infamy, loss of civil rights and honors, intolerable conditions

of ecclesiastical surveillance, and heavy pecuniary fines.

Penitents who had been reconciled returned to society in a far

more degraded condition than convicts released on ticket of

leave. The stigma attached in perpetuity to the posterity of the

condemned, whose names were conspicuously emblazoned upon church

walls as foemen to Christ and to the state."[613] When "the

Spanish viceroys tried to introduce the Spanish Inquisition at

Naples and Milan, the rebellious people received protection and

support from the papacy, and the Holy Office, as remodeled in

Rome, became a far less awful engine of oppression than that of

Seville."[614] The Spanish Inquisition went on to a new form,

free from papal and royal control and possessing a "specific

organization."[615] "Like the ancient councils of the time of the

Goths, the Inquisition is an arm which serves, in the hands of

the monarch, to finish the subjugation of the numerous

semi-feudal nobles created by the conquest, because before the

faith there are no privileged persons, and no one is sheltered

from the ire of the terrible tribunal. Its intervention is so

absolute, and its dedication to its function so extravagant,

that, rendering itself more Catholic than the pope, it usurps his

authority and revolts against the orders of the pontiff, giving

to the peninsular church the character of a national church, with

the king at the head as pontiff, and the inquisitor by his side

as chief prelate."[616] The peculiar character of the Spanish

Inquisition as a state institution and a civil engine should

never be forgotten. It was very different from the papal

Inquisition. The creature also ruled its creator, for it

controlled the state in the direction of its own institutional

character and purposes. The Spanish Inquisition, therefore,

offers us the extreme development of the movement which started

in the popular tastes, ideas, and wishes of the twelfth century,

when it was employed for the selfish purposes of rulers. It

presents the extreme case of a positive institution, born from

the mores and winning independent power and authority over all

interests. It very deeply affected Spanish mores. It had no great

effect of societal selection.

+267. Inquisition in Venice.+ The Inquisition in Venice took on a

form which was to some extent peculiar. The Venetian political

system was secret, suspicious, and despotic. It would not admit

any interference from outside. Venice always pretended to hold

off church authority. In fact, however, she could not maintain

this attitude. The Inquisition won control of many subjects

beyond heresy or only constructively heresy.[617] Fra Paolo

Sarpi[618] made a collection of Venetian laws which show the

jealousy of ecclesiastical interference, or which nullified the

ordinances made in Rome. "The position of the republic was

indefensible under the public law of the period. It was so

administering its own laws as to afford an asylum to a class

universally proscribed, and refusing to allow the church to apply

the only remedy deemed appropriate to this crying evil. It

therefore yielded to the inevitable, but in a manner to preserve

its own autonomy and independence."[619] "The truth is that, in

regard both to the Holy Office and the index, Venice was never

strong enough to maintain the independence which she voted."[620]

In 1573 Paolo Veronese was summoned by the Holy Office to explain

and justify his picture of the Supper, now in the Louvre. He had

put in a man at arms, a greyhound, and other figures which the

inquisitors thought irrelevant and unfit. He was ordered to

change the picture within three months. He put Magdalen in the

place of the greyhound.[621] It is impossible to make a definite

statement of the results of the Venetian effort to resist the

church system, but that such an effort was made in Italy is an

important historical fact.

+268. Use of the Inquisition for political and personal

purposes.+ In spite of the religiosity of the age there were

princes and factions which cared more for political power than

for theological questions. When the power of the Inquisition was

established many ecclesiastical and civil persons desired to

employ its agency for their personal or party ends. Boniface

VIII, in the bull _Unam Sanctam_, laid down in full force the

doctrine of papal supremacy and independence. Any one who

resisted the power lodged by God in the church resisted God,

unless, like the Manichæans, he believed in two principles, in

which case he was a heretic. If the pope errs, he can be judged

by God alone. There is no earthly appeal. "We say, declare,

define, and pronounce, that it is necessary to salvation that

every human creature be subjected to the Roman pontiff." "It was

soon perceived that an accusation of heresy was a peculiarly easy

and efficient method of attacking a political enemy."[622] John

XXII, in his quarrel with Visconti, trumped up charges of heresy

which won public opinion away from Visconti, disassociated his

friends, and ruined him. Heresy and damnation were used to and

fro, as interest dictated, and only for policy.[623] This is the

extreme development of the action against dissenters in its third

stage, the abuse of power for selfish purposes. "Heretic" became

an epithet of immense power in factional quarrels, and the

Inquisition was a weapon which any one could use who could seize

it. Hence effects on the mores were produced in an age when

factions were numerous and their quarrels constant. In these

cases, however, the selectional effect was only against the

personal enemies of the powerful, and was not a societal effect

at all.

+269.+ We have distinguished four stages in the story of the attempt to

establish religious uniformity under papal control in the Middle Ages.

I. The church taught doctrines and alleged facts about the wickedness of

aberrant opinions. II. The masses, accepting these teachings, built

deductions upon them, and drew inferences as to the proper treatment of

dissenters. They put the inferences in effect by lynching acts. III. The

leaders of society accepted the leadership of these popular movements,

and the church went on to teach hatred of dissenters and extreme abuse

of them. It elevated persecution to a theory of social welfare by the

extermination of dissenters, reduced the views and notions of the masses

to dogmas, and led in selection by murder. IV. These ideas and practices

were then vulgarized by the masses again. Trial by torture, bloody

executions, and finally witchcraft persecutions were the results in the

next stage. Witchcraft persecutions were not selective. They are well

worth study as the greatest illustration of the degree of aberration

which the mores may undergo, but they lie aside from the present topic.

In savage life alleged witchcraft is punished with great torture and a

painful death,[624] but nothing of the kind is found in any of the

great religions except Latin Christianity.

[373] Burckhardt, _Kulturgesch. Griechenlands_, I, 211.

[374] JAI, XI, 44.

[375] Ratzel, _Völkerkunde_, II, 163.

[376] _Britisch Guiana_, II, 428.

[377] Grupp, _Kulturgesch. der Röm. Kaiserzeit_, I, 32.

[378] Scherr, _Kulturgesch._, 109.

[379] Rudeck, _Oeffentl. Sittlichkeit_, 45.

[380] _Deutsches Leben_, 285, 297, 332.

[381] Lippert, _Kulturgesch._, I, 370.

[382] _Bur. Ethnol._, V, 488.

[383] Cary and Tuck, _Chin Hills_, I, 173.

[384] JAI, XVI, 87; cf. Fritsch, _Eingeb. Süd-Afr._, 170.

[385] _Bijdragen tot T.L. en V.-kunde_, XXXV, 67.

[386] JAI, XIII, 280.

[387] _Austral. Assoc. Adv. Sci._, 1892, 622.

[388] Hagen, _Unter den Papuas_, 241.

[389] _Ibid._, 213.

[390] Woodford, _Naturalist among Headhunters_, 178.

[391] Paulitschke, _Ethnog. N.O. Afrikas_, I, 93.

[392] _Anthropology_, 243.

[393] JAI, XVII, 235.

[394] Büttner, _Das Hinterland van Walfischbai_, 235.

[395] _South Africa_, I, 298.

[396] Schweinfurth, _Heart of Afr._, I, 153.

[397] JASB, III, 370.

[398] Finsch, _Samoafahrten_, 90.

[399] Schwaner, _Borneo_, I, 221.

[400] Ratzel, _Völkerkunde_, II, 570.

[401] Pommerol, _Une Femme chez les Sahariennes_, 243.

[402] _Smithson. Rep._, 1895, 594.

[403] _Umschau_, IV, 789.

[404] Yriarte, _La Vie d'un Patricien de Venise_, 58.

[405] _Ibid._, 53.

[406] Du Camp, _Paris_, VI, 388.

[407] Galton, _Human Faculty_, 6, 8.

[408] _Century Magazine_, XLII, 89.

[409] _Deutsche Frauenwelt_, II, 65.

[410] Patrick in _Psych. Rev._, VIII, 113.

[411] _Orat._, XXXVI.

[412] Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._, II, 29.

[413] Boissier, _Relig. Rom._, I, 211.

[414] Dill, _Last Century of the Western Empire_.

[415] Gregorovius, _Lucret. Borgia_, 99.

[416] De Maulde la Clavière, _Les Femmes de la Renaissance_, 457.

[417] Erasmus, _De Civil. Morum Pueril._, I, i, 1.

[418] De Maulde, 470.

[419] _Austr. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 1892, 62; JAI, XIII, 280.

[420] Pischon, _Einfluss d. Islam_, 1.

[421] _Das Freie Wort_, II, 312.

[422] Holtzmann, _Indische Sagen_, I, 247.

[423] Burckhardt, _Griech. Kulturgeschichte_, I, 171; II, 365.

[424] Becker-Hermann, _Charikles_, III, 318.

[425] Burckhardt, II, 365.

[426] Uhlhand, _Dichtung und Sage_, 232.

[427] Weinhold, _Deutsche Frauen_, I, 162.

[428] Michael, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, II, 209-214.

[429] Suetonius, _Tiberius_, 58.

[430] Manning, _Trans. of Xiphilin_, II, 83; _Xiphilin's

Epitome_, published in 1551.

[431] _Satires_, VIII, 146.

[432] _Nat. Quaest._, IV, 13; Ep., 78.

[433] _Hist. Nat._, XXXIII, 4.

[434] _N. Y. Times_, August 18, 1903. (Cf. sec. 483.)

[435] Achelis, _Die Ekstase_, 113.

[436] Regnard, _Sorcellerie_, 45.

[437] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, I, 391.

[438] Gibbon, Chap. XXI.

[439] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 518

[440] Friedmann, _Wahnideen im Völkerleben_, 224.

[441] Kugler, _Kreuzzüge_, 7.

[442] Michael, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, II, 80.

[443] Michael, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, II, 255-258.

[444] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 381, 393.

[445] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 147.

[446] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 268.

[447] Lea, _Sacerd. Celib._, 377.

[448] _Nouv. Mem. de l'Acad. des Sciences, Lettres, et Beaux Arts

de Belgique_, XXIII, 30.

[449] Carmichael, _In Tuscany_, 224.

[450] See the _Fioretti de Francisco_.

[451] Michael, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, II, 97.

[452] Goetz, in _Hist. Vierteljahrschrift_, VI, 19.

[453] Lea, _Inquis._, III, 172, 179.

[454] Lea, _Inquis._, III, 33.

[455] _Ibid._, 51, 59.

[456] Hauréau, _Bernard Delicieux_, 142.

[457] Lea, _Inquis._, III, 34.

[458] _Ibid._, 29.

[459] Symonds, _Renaissance_, I, 394.

[460] Renan, _Averroes_, 259 ff.

[461] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, I, 414, 417.

[462] Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, etc., 227.

[463] _N. Y. Times_, January 9, 1898.

[464] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 373.

[465] Friedmann, _Wahnideen im Völkerleben_, 207.

[466] _Ibid._, 209.

[467] Gibbon, Chap. XXI.

[468] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, I, 391.

[469] _Antiq._, XVIII, 1.

[470] Regnard, _Sorcellerie_, etc.

[471] Harnack, _Dogmengesch._ (3rd ed.), I, 319.

[472] Jastrow and Winter, _Gesch. d. Hohenstaufen_, II, 241.

[473] Scherr, _Deutsche Kultur und Sittengesch._, 183.

[474] Mayer, _Oesterreich_, I, 156.

[475] Pietschmann, _Phoenizier_, 223 note.

[476] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, 537.

[477] Monier-Williams, _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, 55.

[478] Wilkins, _Modern Hinduism_, 90.

[479] Rockhill, _Through Mongolia and Tibet_, 135.

[480] Lecky, _Eur. Morals_, II, 329.

[481] Lea, _Sacerd. Celibacy_, 81.

[482] _Ibid._

[483] _Sac. Celib._, 250, 252.

[484] _Canon Law_, can. XIII, dist. lvi.; Aquinas, _Sum._, II, 2,

qu. 186, art. 4, sec. 3.

[485] Lea, _Sac. Celib._, 187.

[486] _Ibid._, 213. This is a good example of the change in

notions of good arguments (sec. 194).

[487] _Ibid._, 244, 249.

[488] _Ibid._, 235.

[489] _Ibid._, 198.

[490] _Ibid._, 326; _Canon Law_, Gratian's Com. on can. I, dist.

xxvii.

[491] Lea, _Sac. Celib._, 271.

[492] _Ibid._, 356.

[493] _Ibid._, 350.

[494] _Ibid._, 355.

[495] _Ibid._, 416.

[496] _Ibid._, 209.

[497] _Ibid._, 356 ff.

[498] D'Ancona, _Orig. del teatro Ital._, II, 73.

[499] Deutsch, _Abelard_, 44, 106, 111.

[500] Hausrath, _Abelard_, 28, 32.

[501] Hall, _Elizabethan Age_, 103.

[502] Lea, _Sac. Celib._, 488.

[503] _Ibid._, 150.

[504] _Della Inquisizione di Venezia_, Opere IV, 51.

[505] Symonds, _Renaissance_, I, 372.

[506] Lenient, _La satire au M. A._, 41.

[507] Winckler, _Gesetze Hammurabis_, 19.

[508] _Ibid._, 26.

[509] Müller, _Hammurabi_, 131.

[510] Maspero, _Peuples de l'Orient_, III, 666.

[511] _Jewish Encyc._, VI, s.v. "Herod I."

[512] Suetonius, _Caligula_, 27.

[513] _Cod. Theod._, IX, 9.

[514] _Cod. Justin._, I, 9.

[515] _Cod. Theod._, VI, 2.

[516] In 1899 a German officer was condemned to death by a court

martial for killing a half-breed subordinate with great torture.

The emperor reduced the punishment to fifteen years'

imprisonment, and in May, 1902, granted the prisoner a full

pardon.--_Assoc. Press_, December 24, 1899; _N. Y. Times_, May

24, 1903.

[517] Lecky, _Morals_, I, 407.

[518] _Cod. Justin._, I, 5, sec. 4.

[519] _Iroquois Book of Rites_, 97.

[520] Elsberg, _Elizabeth Bathory_.

[521] 1 Cor. v. 1; 1 Tim. i. 20; Gal. i. 8.

[522] Maspero, _Peuples de l'Orient_, II, 539.

[523] Mahaffy, _Soc. Life in Greece_, 226.

[524] Nicias, _ad fin._

[525] Quint. Curt. Rufus, _Alexander_, VI, 11.

[526] _Hist. Eccles._, III.

[527] Gibbon, Chap. XVII; Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, etc., 108.

[528] Heyer, _Priesterschaft und Inquis._, 16-18; Lea,

_Inquis._, I, Chap. V.

[529] Hansen, _Zauberwahn, Inquisition, und Hexenprocess im M.

A._, 110, 113.

[530] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 421.

[531] _Ibid._, 308.

[532] Lecky, _Morals_, II, 190.

[533] Reich, _Der Mimus_, I, 90-96.

[534] Lecky, _Morals_, I, 437.

[535] _Ibid._, 408.

[536] _Ibid._, 436.

[537] _Ibid._, 455.

[538] _Ibid._, 466.

[539] _Ibid._, II, 238.

[540] _Ibid._

[541] Reich, _Der Mimus_, I, 192.

[542] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 493.

[543] _Ibid._, I, 306.

[544] _Ibid._, 421.

[545] Digest, XLVII, 18, espec. sec. 23.

[546] Digest, XLVII, 18, espec. sec. 23.

[547] Schotmüller, _Untergang der Templer_, 141, 311, 352.

[548] Flade, _Inquisitionsverfahren in Deutschland_, 84.

[549] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 87.

[550] Scherr, _Kulturgesch._, 383.

[551] Janssen, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, VIII, 541.

[552] Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, 110.

[553] Mommsen, _Röm. Strafrecht_, 349.

[554] Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, etc., 100; Lea, _Inquis._,

I, 311.

[555] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 87.

[556] _Ibid._, III, 641.

[557] _Ibid._, I, 110, 371.

[558] _Ibid._, 541.

[559] _Ibid._, III, 454, 594.

[560] _Ibid._, II, 171.

[561] _Ibid._, III, 596.

[562] _Ibid._, I, 101.

[563] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 218.

[564] _Ibid._, iii.

[565] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 207.

[566] Michael, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, II, 326.

[567] Renan, _Averroes_, 35.

[568] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 537.

[569] _Ibid._, 537.

[570] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 222.

[571] _Ibid._, 410.

[572] Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, etc., 223.

[573] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 220; Hansen, _Zauberwahn_,

etc., 223.

[574] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 234.

[575] Lea disputes this as to the educated clergy, while

admitting it as to the masses, which is the essential point here

(Lea, _Inquis._, I, 237).

[576] Burckhardt, _Renaissance_, 3.

[577] Jastrow and Winter, _Hohenstaufen_, II, 298.

[578] Renan, _Averroes_, 288.

[579] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 224, 309-313, 322, 327-330, 337-342.

[580] Lacroix, _Middle Ages_, I, 407; Flade,

_Inquisitionsverfahren_, 86.

[581] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 467.

[582] _Ibid._, 470.

[583] _Ibid._, 464, 467-470.

[584] Flade, _Inquisitionsverfahren_, 111.

[585] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 501.

[586] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 511-513, 519-521, 533.

[587] _Ibid._, 529.

[588] _Ibid._, 551.

[589] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 366.

[590] _Ibid._, 405.

[591] _Ibid._, 364-366, 405, 433, 493; II, 96.

[592] Renan, _Averroes_, 292.

[593] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 560.

[594] _Ibid._, 421.

[595] Cases given by Janssen, _Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes_, VIII,

629.

[596] Janssen, VIII, 467.

[597] Scherr, _Kulturgesch. Deutschlands_, 624; Janssen, _Gesch.

d. Deutschen Volkes_, VIII, 467.

[598] Janssen, VIII, 467.

[599] Harnack, _Dogmengesch._, III, 453.

[600] Lenient, _La Satire en France_, 309, 315.

[601] Burchard, _Diarium_, II, 442.

[602] See Burchard, III, 167, 227.

[603] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 352.

[604] _Ibid._, III, 300; Schotmüller, _Untergang der Templer_, I,

388.

[605] _Venetian Ambass._, I, 11, 233.

[606] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 488.

[607] Inderwick, _The King's Peace_, 172.

[608] Lea, _Inquis._, I, 352.

[609] Hansen, _Zauberwahn_, etc., 338.

[610] _Ibid._, 338.

[611] Lea, _Inquis. in Spain_, 158.

[612] Heyer, _Priesterschaft und Inquis._, 42.

[613] Symonds, _Catholic Reaction_, I, 185.

[614] _Ibid._, 199.

[615] _Ibid._, 179.

[616] Oliveira Martins, _Civilisação Iberica_, 268.

[667] Symonds, _Catholic Reaction_, I, 205.

[618] Opere, IV, 7 ff.

[619] Lea, _Inquis._, II, 250.

[620] Symonds, _Catholic Reaction_, I, 207.

[621] Yriarte, _Patricien de Venise_, 162, 439.

[622] Lea, _Inquis._, III, 191-192, 238.

[623] _Ibid._, 198. Collected cases in Fra Paolo Sarpi, _Della

Inquis. de Venezia_, Opere, IV, 24.

[624] Fritsch, _Eingeb. Süd-Afr._, 99.