CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The story of mediæval heresy is but a chapter in a much larger subject,

that of the slow and painful development of religious tolerance and

freedom of thought. Heresy—essentially free choice in the sphere

of religious belief in contradistinction to implicit obedience to

doctrinal authority—was a serious problem to the Church in the early

centuries of the Christian era. During the long, distracted and

desolate epoch of the barbarian invasions it ceased to be a potent

factor in history. But when Europe recovered from the malady, the

lethargy of the Dark Ages, and the human mind was again awake, it

became once more a problem. The rationalistic speculations of Eriugena,

Roscellinus and Berengar; the disordered ravings of Tanchelm; the

aggressive anti-sacerdotalism of the Cathari or Paulicians, and of

the vagrant Waldenses, present us with the three outstanding types of

mediæval heresy. By far the most influential, those which the Church

recognized as the most hurtful and dangerous, were the last. In the

case of the Cathari there was a clear and a very remarkable revival of

a heresy that had much afflicted the early Church, Manichæism. Their

dualist theology was hopelessly pessimistic; their practical teachings

a mere gospel of despair. The crude dualism and perverted antinomianism

of the sect contained little indeed that either merited respect or

promised lasting influence. Only in the hint of a genuine hatred of the

gross and the cruel was there aught to respect; only in its Donatist

doctrine and its denunciation of the Catholic clergy was there the

likelihood of lasting influence. In their hostility to the claims, and

their diatribes against the abuses, of the clergy, Paulicianism and

Waldensianism stood united. These two heresies gave a popular currency

in the lands where they secured a foothold to anti-sacerdotalism,

which involved not only the condemnation of all backsliding on the

part of the clergy from the strictest and most rigid interpretation of

the Christ-like life, but also—as the result of this—the rejection of

the doctrinal basis of the peculiar privileges of the clergy, namely

the conception of the mediatorial character of the priesthood. The

Arnoldist ‘Poor Men’; the Petrobrusians, insisting on the sole efficacy

of the individual’s own faith, unaided by churches and sacraments; the

Henricians in their ascetic denunciation of clerical worldliness and

rejection of the sacraments; the Poor Men of Lyons, adopting the rule

of absolute poverty, preaching in streets and countryside because,

although illiterate, they were conscious of an inward vocation, and so

being led on to undertake other priestly functions though unordained;

the Cathari asserting that the Catholic Church was lost in materialism

and worldliness and that _they_ were the true church of Christ—all

these were inherently the aggressive enemies of the priesthood. There

was a similar note in much of the popular poetry in those southern

lands in which these heresies took firmest root. It is a note scornful,

defiant, often ribald and profane, that comes into the songs of the

goliards and troubadours. With a robust and crude Rabelaisianism they

burlesque, not only clerical manners, but the holiest ceremonies and

the most sacred doctrines. Even in miracles and mystery plays the note

is sometimes heard; in the poems of Rutebeuf, the ‘Roman de la Rose’

and ‘Reynard the Fox,’ it is most resonant. In the popular poetry there

is undoubtedly something of the unconsecrated paganism of the average

man—his innate secularism rebelling against clerical privilege, when

it is not fortified by personal worthiness. Yet between the Provençal

troubadour and the Paulician heretic there was something akin; and

with the nobleman of Languedoc, only too willing to take the excuse

for despoiling the clergy, they were alike popular. We may regret

the total extinction of the exotic, semi-Moorish culture of southern

France, which the Albigensian crusades involved; we need not regret

the virtual extinction, with it, of the heresies.[477] If there was

something worthy of esteem in their demand for spiritual reality and

personal holiness, this was confused with other elements, which were

perverted and absurd, sometimes even repulsive and abominable. On their

constructive side the heresies of Waldenses and Albigenses had nothing

of genuine value to offer. In so far as they have significance, it is

because of their anti-clerical elements, which are in part a cause, but

more a symptom, of a trend of popular sentiment.

The second type of mediæval heresy is that represented by Tanchelm,

Eon de l’Etoile, Segarelli, Dolcino, the Flagellants. It belongs

to the province, not of the theologian but of the psychologist,

specially interested in the study of depraved emotion and diseased

imagination. Its foundation is that perverted sexuality which is so

strangely connected, as a matter of psychological fact, with intensity

of religious enthusiasm. The cases of Tanchelm and Eon are no doubt

cases of simple religious mania. None of the heresies of this type

had, or from their character was at all likely to have, any but the

most fleeting results. They have, nevertheless, their interest, as

symptoms of the powerful emotionalism which seemed equally liable to

produce a fierce animalism or an intense religious asceticism. The

same raw material of unregenerate sense and passion gave to the Church

saints and heresiarchs. Ever in the Middle Ages there was a tendency

to excess, excess of self-abnegation, excess of self-indulgence, a

tendency to push ideas both of doctrine and conduct to extremes. Thus

did the Spiritual Franciscans tend to see in their founder a superman,

to make the cult of poverty an obsession, to believe themselves a new

order destined to inaugurate the era of the Holy Ghost.

The third type of mediæval heresy is of an altogether different nature.

It is intellectual, philosophic. In all the other heresies there is a

taint of rottenness, disease. Here, on the other hand, there is the

health and sanity of honest thinking—and though the thought be crude,

obscure or exaggerated, there is at least the possibility of lasting

results. In the re-discovery and re-absorption of the intellectual

heritage of classical and patristic times there was always the danger

of heresy. The process of adapting knowledge, pagan in source, coming

sometimes through infidel channels, was certainly perilous. It has

to be remembered that it was the Church that initiated and carried

through this process; that to the Church the world is indebted for the

Renaissance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But the process

inevitably presented serious problems. In the first place, it yielded

a copious mass of new comment and interpretation upon the original

body of Christian dogma, viewed from a philosophic standpoint. Apply

the logical methods of scholasticism and envisage dogma in the light

of the metaphysical problem of the relations between the universal

and the particular, and you have to decide whether the realist, the

nominalist or the conceptualist is the true interpreter of the creeds.

The difficulty was increased with the advent of Aristotelianism in the

thirteenth century. One exposition of Aristotle was definitely declared

to be heresy—that of the Averrhoïsts. But the Augustinian opponents

of St. Thomas Aquinas endeavoured to confound him in the charge of

heresy: and it was for a time doubtful whether Aristotelianism in any

shape or form could be accepted as orthodox. Not only Alberto-Thomists

in their attack upon the Averrhoïsts, but secular clergy warring with

regulars, Franciscans inveighing against Dominicans, all glibly brought

the convenient accusation of heresy against their opponents. It was for

lawful authority to determine categorically what was orthodox, what

heretical. But no authority was, as a matter of fact, impartial or

certain to be final. Authority, whether papal, conciliar or academic,

was itself wedded to one school of thought or another, swayed by the

predominant philosophy of its own passing day.

It was not only a question of new ways of regarding, new

interpretations of, existing dogma. There was also the problem

presented by new dogmas, such as those of the Beatific Vision and

the Immaculate Conception. Such tenets were not in themselves either

inherently orthodox or heretical. When a creed is stabilized,

completely rigid, it is easy to be exactly faithful to it; but when

it is fluid, even for the most orthodox of intent, safety can only be

found in caution.

But the chief potential source of trouble in the intellectual ferment

of scholasticism lay in the fact that it inevitably placed side

by side two different authorities, the objective authority of the

Church as enshrined in Scripture, tradition, papal and other lawful

ecclesiastical _dicta_, and, on the other hand, the subjective

authority of the human reason. All discussion, all argument is

necessarily an appeal largely to this second authority. While the

great majority of the scholastics only used reason in order to justify

revealed truth and never questioned the superiority of the infallible,

the divine authority of the Church over the fallible authority of

man’s intellect, there were others, such as Eriugena and Abelard, who

placed reason first. Finally, there came a scholastic in Wycliffe,

whose realism led him into dangerous errors, not only subversive of the

cardinal doctrine of transubstantiation, but also threatening the whole

status and mediatorial character of the priesthood.

It is most important to remember that the scholastic philosophers were

in all cases clerics, representative of, and not antagonistic to,

Catholic theology; that even the Averrhoïsts were also clerics, having

no desire to break with the Church. On the other hand, the freedom of

thought which the universities stood for and dialectic fostered, and

which the Church not only did not repress, but even encouraged, had

a tendency to produce heresy. Realism evolved pantheism; nominalism

unitarianism. The intellectual influences of university life brought

forth Gerson, D’Ailly and the other whole-hearted reformers who made

the great effort at revival of the Church from within which failed

at Constance and Basel; but it also brought forth Wycliffe and Hus,

whom those Councils condemned. It was never absolutely clear where

the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy would rest. However

much they might be reconciled or confused, the ideals and methods of

theology and philosophy cannot be the same. The postulates of the one

are not those of the other; and the more the scientific spirit is

developed, the fewer the postulates of any sort that it is ready to

accept. The Averrhoïsts at least saw this, only saving their position

by the equivocation of the double truth.

Which was really the more dangerous to Catholic doctrine—the organized

heresies, as a rule ignorant, perverted, having the seeds of their

own destruction in their very rottenness, which the Church did

systematically persecute; or the philosophical speculations of the

universities, with their temptations to rationalism which the Church in

the main tolerated?[478] Each produced a force not wholly transient—a

force operative in the breaking up of the mediæval system. The first

was anti-sacerdotalism; the second a habit of independent thought and

criticism. It is true that the anti-sacerdotalism of Luther and the

secular spirit of Renaissance humanism, with its entire indifference

to religion, were the decisive factors in breaking up the fabric of

mediævalism, and the movements of Lutheranism and humanism were largely

new creations. Yet Luther owed much to Hus, and Hus everything to

Wycliffe, the scholastic, and the detached attitude of the Italian

humanist was only one step in advance of that of the Latin Averrhoïst.

Neither the wandering sectaries, in part suggesting, in part merely

articulating, an antisacerdotal sentiment, nor the philosophers with

their speculations concerning universals and the ultimate cause of

being, were without influence in bringing about the collapse of the

mediæval structure.

It is of no use studying the question of the attitude of the mediæval

Church towards heresy unless one is prepared to use imagination enough

to envisage heresy from the mediæval point of view. Men’s mental

outlook is governed by the intellectual conditions of their own day.

A few individuals may be, as the phrase goes, ‘in advance of their

time’; but at the best they form only a small minority. To consider

abstractly the rights and wrongs, the advantages and disadvantages of

institutions and systems is the function of the philosopher. But the

historian, while not ignoring the abstract question, has specifically

the function of ascertaining what, in point of fact, people’s opinions

have been and why they formed them. Much that has been written on the

subject of religious toleration is of only limited validity because it

simply denounces, and does not attempt to explain or to appreciate, the

psychology of intolerance.[479] Thus, for example, Locke’s ‘Letters

on Toleration’ have little _argumentative_ value, because they are

based on a complete _ignoratio elenchi_. Religious toleration is a

great principle, but many modern dithyrambs on the inalienable right

of liberty of thought and conscience fall rather wide of the mark,

can convince only the already converted. It is not very profitable to

bring forward the theory of the indefeasible right of free thought

in condemnation of mediæval society—to the whole of which, and by no

means to its clerical elements only, the conception of such a right

was entirely foreign. After all, even to-day the belief in an absolute

toleration is held by only a very few, and even these anarchists will

usually be found to hold it with certain reservations.[480] Organized

society cannot tolerate the forces which are subversive of it. It does

not tolerate the criminal. ‘A universal and absolute toleration of

everything and everybody would lead to a general chaos as certainly

as a universal and absolute intolerance.’[481] It is undoubtedly true

that a certain measure of ‘intolerance is essential to all that is,

or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the

organism amounts to suicide.’[482] The individual possesses rights

in so far as they are not prejudicial to the welfare of his fellows

and the interests of the entire community. And the recognition that

the maintenance of social order was perfectly compatible with the

acknowledgment of the right of individual opinion and the permission

of diversity of views, this in the Middle Ages ‘was a discovery to be

made, not a truth to be proved.’[483]

For the Middle Ages religion was not divorced from the secular life.

The _Respublica Christiana_ was an unity and a potent reality. The

common faith was the panoply of the State. Devotion to it was an

integral part of patriotism, and the counterpart of loyalty to the

secular prince and of obedience to his laws. The man, therefore, who

assailed the faith assailed society; in cutting himself off from the

Church he outlawed himself from the State. Acknowledgment of the sacred

truths of Christianity was the foundation of all morality. The mediæval

mind could not conceive of morality apart from religion. Hence respect

for the divine law, as revealed in the Scripture and the Church, was

regarded as the sole guarantee for the security of ordered society.

Heresy was considered as essentially anti-social, anarchic; was

conceived of as analogous to false coining or treason. Only to falsify

truth was more heinous than to falsify the coin and treason against

God than treason against man. The exposition of the nature of heresy in

Ludovico à Paramo is most logical. The character of a state depends on

its religion; the faith is the foundation of the state.[484] Heretics

cannot dwell in harmony with Catholics: for if difference of language

severs, how much more difference of belief?[485] Heresy is productive

of all manner of vice and immorality, which are antagonistic to order

and government.[486]

To the Church all this was self-evident. How could she stand neutral

as between truth and falsehood, and treat them as if on an equality?

She found all the strong walls and bastions, defences of the theocratic

city, of which she was the appointed warden, being attacked by an

insidious enemy within the gates. She had the power to defend; how

could she be justified if she held her hand? The heretic questioned

her credentials, turned her claims to ridicule, threatened to bring

down the whole structure of the Christian polity to the ground.

Both in self-defence and in common loyalty to her mission she must

strike. All the intensity of religious conviction inspired to

persecution. Tolerance, argues de Maistre, only indicates religious

indifference.[487] Moreover, the mediæval churchman was inevitably

much influenced by the injunctions of the Old Testament. The Church

succeeded to the heritage of the synagogue.[488]

But it was not the Church only that was persuaded of the essentially

dangerous and anti-social character of heresy. Partly, no doubt, as

the result of the Church’s teaching through many generations, but

certainly of their own accord and not as the result of any direct

instruction, both secular rulers and the ordinary laity were equally

convinced.[489] They all lived in a thoroughly theocratic atmosphere.

The prince sincerely saw in the heretic an enemy of all authority, and

therefore of his own.[490] Secular legislation was just as unequivocal

in its treatment of heresy as was Canon law. To the ordinary layman the

heretic appeared as a thoroughly cross-grained, cantankerous, dangerous

person, certainly of some immoral propensities and perhaps sexually

perverted.[491]

Such was the mediæval point of view; and, once granted the necessary

premises, it is extremely logical and exceedingly hard to combat.

Now-a-days we do not accept those premises; but in the Middle Ages

we should probably not have dreamed of questioning them. On the

extraordinarily interesting and important question of the causes of

this change of attitude authorities do, and are likely to, differ,

though many students will agree in combining their conclusions. To

those who, like John Stuart Mill and Lecky for instance, attribute

religious persecution almost entirely to the doctrine of exclusive

salvation, the causes of the growth of tolerance will appear to

be the extension of the sceptical spirit and the process of the

secularization of politics.[492] Others, such as Bishop Creighton (who

will not agree that persecution is to be explained by the doctrine

of exclusive salvation at all),[493] or as Sir F. Pollock (who

classifies different types of intolerance—tribal, political, social),

insist strongly upon the simple factor of experience. ‘It is not the

demonstration of abstract rights, but the experience of inutility,

that has made governments leave off persecuting.’[494] After all, the

great justification of liberty of thought lies not in the attempted

demonstration of a natural right, but in the records of the painful

process whereby toleration has been achieved.[495] It would have saved

an infinity of bloodshed and misery, would have freed the palimpsest

of history of some of its most terrible blots, could the principle

of toleration have been established without that awful struggle. But

none of the great triumphs of mankind have been achieved save after

centuries of effort, loss and failure.

To the moral judgment of our own day no instrument of persecution

seems more odious than the Inquisition. Protestants have persecuted

just as whole-heartedly as Catholics, and with far less excuse; but

the Inquisition stands by itself, as a regular specialized tribunal

for persecution, immensely efficient, with an existence of centuries

to its record.[496] We have seen the way in which the Inquisition came

into being. Both the circumstances of its origin and the intentions of

its various founders gave the tribunal a character only semi-judicial.

Indeed, if we object that the Inquisition was a bad court of justice,

its originators could retort with truth that it was not intended to be

a simple court of justice. The Inquisition was created to deal with

erring children, not criminals; not merely to pronounce a verdict, but

to produce reconciliation and amendment; not to punish, but to penance.

The Church, through the Inquisition, was dealing in the spirit of a

parent with her own children, over whom she had all a parent’s rights

of discipline and chastisement, but also evincing a parent’s deep

desire for something more than justice and punishment, for the ending

of estrangement and the restoration of loving union in the family.

Such was the pure theory of the Inquisition, a much more benignant

conception than that of the ordinary law-court. In the latter, the

mere fact of repentance would not avail; in the former, if it were

sincere, it availed everything. So de Maistre, defending the Spanish

Inquisition, declared it to be the most lenient, the most merciful

tribunal in the world.

But we have to consider the point of view, not only of the judge, but

of the defendant. Whatever the real nature of the tribunal, the man

brought before it was on his trial. The tribunal _did_ pronounce a

verdict, and upon that verdict his reputation, perhaps his freedom or

his life, depended. He wanted justice, not mercy: and the Inquisition

might be lenient, but it was not fair. It was radically unfair. It gave

no facilities whatever for the plea of Not Guilty. It cared nought for

the reputation of the accused. He had already lost his reputation by

being before the court at all. The very fact of defamation, of being

‘suspect’ inferred guilt. To leave the court of the Inquisition without

a stain upon one’s character was virtually impossible. In all manner of

ways the accused was at a disadvantage—in the suppression of the names

of witnesses and of evidence, in the refusal of legal assistance, in

the use of torture, and above all in the fact that the judge was also

the prosecutor, who regarded it as perfectly legitimate to browbeat

and confuse the defendant, if he was so misguided and unfilial as to

endeavour to defend himself. Inquisitorial procedure was a miserable

travesty of justice; and its mercifulness was forthcoming only on its

own terms. To all save the meekly submissive the Inquisition typified

not mercy and love, but remorselessness and cruelty.

While in studying the origins of the Inquisition we are bound to

examine, and to seek to understand, the point of view of those who were

responsible for its inception, in estimating its character and results

we need not, nay we _ought_ not, to judge by any other criterion than

that dictated by the highest conceptions of right and justice. The

common, the accepted, standard of to-day both as regards justice and

humanity is, happily, greatly higher than that of the Middle Ages.

Much that has been written of the Inquisition has been vitiated by an

attempt to read into the mind and conduct of men of mediæval times a

humanitarianism which is the peculiar product of the modern world, and

which they could not even have understood. Even more vitiated would

be any thesis which, not satisfied with justifying the originators of

the Inquisition, sought to justify the institution itself. Certainly

the motive for such an attempt could not be impartiality. Only moral

obliquity can be blind to the transparent abominations of inquisitorial

procedure.

If its character as a tribunal was essentially evil, evil also were

some of the Inquisition’s results. Secular princes discerned its

remarkable potential utility to themselves and regarded it with envy

and admiration. Its methods had a satisfactory efficiency found in no

other court. By such methods conviction could be practically assured.

The charge of heresy could therefore be preferred against political

enemies with the happiest prospects of advantage. The destruction for

purely political ends was achieved by the use of inquisitorial methods

of the Templars, Jeanne d’Arc, Savonarola.[497]

Those are the most notorious, but there are other instances of this

abuse of the sacred tribunal for purely secular, and sometimes base and

immoral, purposes.

Worse still—and possibly this is the worst aspect of the whole story

of the Inquisition—its pernicious methods of procedure were borrowed

by the admiring secular princes for their courts, which did not

pretend to have the double nature which was the explanation, if not

the excuse, for the Inquisition’s adoption of its system. Thus civil

courts in Europe came to be tarnished by the system of _inquisitio_,

the secret enquiry, the heaping up of disabilities for the defence,

the application of torture—all these abuses having the august sanction

of ecclesiastical use. The lay authority could triumphantly vindicate

such innovations, whereby justice became an unequal contest between

authority, combining the two characters of prosecutor and judge, and

the unhappy prisoner, by pointing to the example of the Church, the

repository of the sublime truths of divine justice and Christian

charity. To the fortunate fact that the Inquisition never secured a

footing in the British Islands is largely due their maintenance, in

contradistinction to Continental states, of the open trial and of the

great maxim that no one is presumed to be guilty, that the onus of

proof lies with the prosecution. It was not the fault of the Church

that the secular power admired and imitated the methods of the Holy

Office; but it is surely a calamity that it should have been able to

find in an ecclesiastical tribunal a system which must seem to every

fair-minded man to-day so abhorrent to the whole spirit and tenor of

the Christian gospel.

No attempt has been made in these pages to present the heresies of

the Middle Ages in any heroic light, to slur over the pernicious

crudities of many of them. As between the spiritual and intellectual

ideals represented by the mediæval Church and those represented by

the majority of the sectaries the choice is self-evident. Wycliffites

and Husites stand obviously on a far higher plane, but Petrobrusians,

Cathari, Dolcinists, Flagellants and many others had no fertile ideas

to bequeath to a later day and were, at best perhaps, a nuisance in

their own. Yet it has to be remembered that not only noble-minded men

like Hus and Jerome of Prague, whose creed, whether true or not, was in

any case sane and pure and exalted, but also innumerable others, whom

we know only as names in inquisitorial records, who whatever the faith

they professed stood constant through physical and mental anguish,

to perish perhaps at the last at the stake in a world barren of pity

with no friendly faces to encourage them—these suffered for a great

ideal, that of fidelity to the spirit of truthfulness, of intellectual

integrity. All who have died rather than be false to themselves and

their vision of truth, thus demonstrating to the world their conviction

that belief is worth dying for—whether Catholics or Protestants or

the most erring of mediæval heretics—have done service to the cause

of human progress. For, if it be true that only through the tragic

experience of centuries of religious persecution could mankind attain

to the establishment of the principle of liberty of thought and

conscience, then every one of us to-day who enjoys the benefits of

such liberty owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women who for

conscience’ sake braved obloquy, torture-chamber and fire.

NOTE ON AUTHORITIES

A full bibliography of the subject of Heresy and its Repression in the

Middle Ages would be exceedingly lengthy. All that is attempted here is

to give a select list of a few of the most useful, important and most

easily accessible works. The most thorough bibliography for the subject

available is that in T. de Cauzons, _Histoire de l’Inquisition en

France_ (_q.v._), the list of books covering forty pages and including

850 works. This is for the history of the tribunal in France alone.

It has to be borne in mind that by far the greater part of our

contemporary evidence for the history of mediæval heresies is hostile

evidence, consisting of denunciations of them by orthodox theologians,

the treatises of inquisitors who condemned their adherents, notes

made of evidence given by defendants. Only those heretics who were

themselves philosophers or theologians—and these, such as Siger of

Brabant, Wycliffe and Hus, are relatively very few—have left their own

records behind them. Due allowance, therefore, has to be made in using

most contemporary authorities for considerable bias.

I

INQUISITORIAL TREATISES

These are, on the whole, the most generally valuable of contemporary

sources. The two most important for the period dealt with in this book

are:

Nicholas Eymeric, _Directorium Inquisitorum cum commentariis F.

Pegnae_ (Rome, 1585; also Venice, 1607).

Bernard Gui, _Practica Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis_ (ed. C.

Douais, Paris, 1886).

Eymeric was inquisitor in Aragon in the latter half of the fourteenth

century. His compendious work is probably the most authoritative of all

inquisitorial treatises, being a complete exposition of the principles

of the tribunal and the doctrines of the different sects with which it

had to deal, and giving the minutest details of its procedure. Bernard

Gui, appointed inquisitor at Toulouse in 1306, was the most vigorous

and remarkable of those who helped to stamp out Catharism in Languedoc

after the Albigensian crusades.

The following treatises are not contemporary, but they are valuable as

expositions of the permanent principles and methods of the tribunal.

They are also useful for the occasional comments made by these later

experts on the work of their predecessors:

J. Simancas, _De Catholicis Institutionibus_.

A. Bzovius, _Historiae Ecclesiasticae_.

J. à Royas, _De Haereticis_.

Bernard of Como, _Lucerna Inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis_.

Arnaldo Albertini, _Tractatus de agnoscendis assertionibus

Catholicis et haereticis_.

Zanchino Ugolini, _De Haereticis_.

All these, among other similar tracts, are included in Zilettus,

_Tractatus Universi Juris_ (Venice, 1633), vol. xi, pt. ii.

See also Ludovico à Paramo, _De origine et progressu officii

Sanctae Inquisitionis_ (Madrid, 1598).

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

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

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

II

COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

There are records of the proceedings and sentences pronounced in

the Inquisitions in the South of France in _Liber sententiarum

Inquisitionis Tholosanae_, 1307-13, printed as an appendix to Philippe

à Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_ (Amsterdam, 1692). Note that this

_Liber sententiarum_ is not included in Chandler’s English translation

of Limborch. These are the sentences pronounced by Bernard Gui. The

proceedings of the Inquisition of Carcassonne, notably the sentences of

Bernard de Caux, are contained in _Documents pour servir à l’histoire

de l’Inquisition dans le Languedoc_ (ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1900).

There are exceedingly useful extracts from original documents of

various sorts relating to mediæval heresies in the following:

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

vol. ii.

P. Frédéricq, _Corpus documentorum Inquisitionis haereticae

pravitatis Nederlandicae_ (Ghent, 1889-1906), vols., i-iii.

For the edicts of ecclesiastical Councils the best collection is:

P. Labbe, G. D. Mansi, etc., _Sacrorum conciliorum nova et

amplissima collectio_ (Paris, 1901-13), esp. vol. xxii, 1166-1225;

vol. xxiii, 1225-1268; vol. xxiv, 1269-1299; vol. xxv, 1300-1344;

vol. xxvi, 1344-1409._

For papal bulls between 1198 and 1304 see A. Potthast, _Regesta

Pontificum Romanorum_ (Berlin, 1874 _et seq._).

Important documents relating to the Dominican order are in Ripoll et

Brémond, _Bullarium ordinis S. Dominici_ (8 vols., Rome, 1737 _et

seq._).

The Constitutions of the Emperor Frederick II are in J. L. A.

Huillard-Bréholles, _Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi_ (Paris,

1852-61).

III

HISTORIES OF THE INQUISITION

There are two useful histories of comparatively early date:

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

P. à Limborch, _Historia Inquisitionis_ (Amsterdam, 1692). The

English version is _History of the Inquisition_ (tr. S. Chandler,

London, 1731). The latter is used in this book except when the

_Liber sententiarum_, only printed in the original, is referred

to. Limborch’s, although avowedly a propaganda work, is still of

value, because it was based on the treatises of inquisitors, making

particularly full use of Eymeric, and it is easy to make proper

allowance for the avowed bias.

In 1817 appeared the first version (a French translation) of the great

work on the Spanish Inquisition by J. A. Llorente under the title,

_Histoire critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne_. The original Spanish

text was not published till 1822. Only the introduction and first four

chapters are relevant to the mediæval Inquisition.

English writers have been mainly interested in the Spanish Inquisition,

as founded by Ferdinand and Isabella, and in the Inquisition in

Portugal. English seamen and traders suffered at their hands, either

in the Peninsula or its dependencies, in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries. See, for example, _English Merchants and the Spanish

Inquisition in the Canaries_ (Royal Historical Society, ed. L. de

Alberti, A. B. Wallis Chapman, 1912); R. Dugdale’s _A Narrative of

popish cruelties; or a new account of the Spanish Inquisition_ (1680)

in _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. vii, p. 105; J. Stevens, _The Ancient

and Present State of Portugal ... containing ... A curious Account of

the Inquisition_ (London, 1705). Later English writers show a similar

strongly Protestant bias, _e.g._ F. B. Wright, _A History of Religious

Persecution from the Apostolic to the Present Time; and of the

Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal and Goa_ (1816); W. H. Rule, _History

of the Inquisition_ (London, 1868). Only the first nine chapters of the

last-named book are concerned with the Middle Ages.

All previous works were superseded by the monumental labours of the

American historian, H. C. Lea, in his

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

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

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

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

_Chapters in the Religious History of Spain connected with the

Inquisition_ (Philadelphia, 1893).

Together, these volumes represent an immense fund of learning and the

most painstaking research. For this reason it will be long indeed

before they are superseded. They have been adversely criticized, as

being marred by strong anti-Catholic prejudice. Colour is undoubtedly

lent to the charge by the rather unfortunate fact that the _History

of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ opens with an account of the

abuses of the mediæval Church and that the whole argument of the book

appears as though largely based upon these initial contentions. Lea

is also inclined to be biased in favour of all heretics as against

their persecutors. But while in detail he may be open to criticism

and his attitude is quite clearly Protestant, the great bulk of his

work remains unshaken. The Romanist point of view with regard to it

should, however, be studied. It is summarized, for example, in P. M.

Baumgarten, _H. C. Lea’s Historical Writings: a critical inquiry_ (New

York, 1909), and will be found incidentally in the works of recent

Catholic historians of the Inquisition (_q.v. infra_). There are

admirable _critiques_ of Lea’s work in:

Lord Acton’s _The History of Freedom of Thought and other Essays_

(London, 1909);

P. Frédéricq’s Introduction to the French translation of Lea’s

_History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages_ (tr. S. Reinach,

Paris, 1900, pp. i-xxviii);

and in articles by S. Reinach on his _Spanish Inquisition_ in _Revue

Critique_, No. 18, May 1906, p. 300; No. 42, Oct. 1907, p. 301; No. 5,

Feb. 1908, p. 86.

Recent works from the Romanist standpoint have been:

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

1906).

H. Maillet, _L’Église et la répression sanglante de l’hérésie_

(Liège, 1909).

E. Vacandard, _The Inquisition, a Critical and Historical Study of

the Coercive Powers of the Church_ (tr. B. L. Conway, 1908).

C. Moeller, _Les Bûchers et les Autos-da-fé de l’Inquisition depuis

le Moyen Age in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain, 1913,

vol. xiv, pp. 720-51).

Mgr. Douais has done much able and learned work on the history of the

mediæval Inquisition, and the Abbé Vacandard’s book is most moderate

and fair-minded. The most considerable work of scholarship written on

the subject of recent years has, however, been T. de Cauzons, _Histoire

de l’Inquisition en France_ (2 vols., Paris, 1909, 1913, unfinished).

There is a critical survey of some of the most recent work done on

the Inquisition by P. Frédéricq, _Les récents historiens Catholiques

de l’Inquisition en France in Revue historique_, vol. cix, 1912, pp.

307-34. Mainly critical is C. V. Langlois, _L’Inquisition après des

travaux récents_ (Paris, 1902).

IV

LEGAL ASPECT OF THE INQUISITION

On this important subject there is not a great deal, but the following

are excellent and most valuable:

L. Tanon, _Histoire des Tribunaux de l’Inquisition en France_

(Paris, 1893).

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

A. Esmein, _Histoire de la Procédure Criminelle en France, et

spécialement de la procédure inquisitoire_ (Paris, 1882).

Esmein’s book forms the substantial foundation of a more comprehensive

work in the American _Continental Legal History_ series, viz. _A

History of Continental Criminal Procedure_ (Boston, 1913).

See on this subject note on p. 205 _supra_.

V

WORKS DEALING SPECIALLY WITH THE ALBIGENSES AND THE ORIGINS OF THE

INQUISITION

J. J. Vaissete and C. Devic, _Histoire Générale de Languedoc_

(Toulouse, 1872-1904).

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

P. Melia, _The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the Waldenses,

from Documents_ (London, 1870).

C. Schmidt, _Histoire et Doctrine de la Secte des Cathares ou

Albigeois_ (Paris, 1848).

A. Monastier, _Histoire de l’Église Vaudoise depuis son origine_

(Paris, 1847).

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

1877).

C. Douais, _Les Hérétiques du midi au XIIIe siècle_ (Paris, 1891);

_L’Albigéisme et les Frères prêcheurs à Narbonne au XIIIe siècle_

(Paris, 1894); _Les Albigeois, leur origine_ (Paris, 1879).

J. Ficker, _Die Gesetzliche Einführung der Todesstrafe für

Ketzerei_ in _Mittheilungen des Instituts für oesterreichische

Geschichtsforschung_ (1880), pp. 177-226.

J. Havet, _L’Hérésie et le Bras séculier au Moyen Age jusqu’au

treizième siècle_ in _Œuvres_ (Paris, 1896), vol. ii, pp. 117-81.

C. Henner, _Beiträge zur Organisation und Competenz der päpstlichen

Ketzesgerichte_ (Leipzig, 1890).

A. Luchaire, _Innocent III_, vol. ii, _La Croisade des Albigeois_

(Paris, 1905).

VI

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

Joachim of Flora, _Concordia novi et veteris Testamenti_ (Venice,

1579); _Expositio in Apocalypsin_ (Venice, 1527); _Psalterium

decent Cordarum_ (Venice, 1527).

_Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis_ (Parma, 1857); also in

_Monumenta Germ. Hist._, vol. xxxii (1905-13), ed. O. Holder-Egger.

E. Renan, _Joachim de Flore et l’Evangile éternel_ in _Nouvelles

Études d’Histoire Religieuse_ (Paris, 1884).

E. Gebhart, _L’Italie Mystique; la Renaissance religieuse au Moyen

Age_ (6th ed., 1908); _Recherches nouvelles sur l’histoire du

Joachitism_ in _Revue historique_, vol. xxxi (1886).

S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes et Religions_ (Paris, 1905), vol. i,

pp. 173-83.

J. J. Döllinger, _Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the

Christian Era_ (ed. A. Plummer, 1873).

E. G. Gardner, _Joachim of Flora and the Everlasting Gospel in

Franciscan Essays_ (1912).

VII

ON SORCERY AND WITCHCRAFT

The principal authorities are:

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

Strigibus_.

Both are included in _Malleorum quorundam Maleficarum tam veterum quam

recentiorum authorum tomi duo_ (Frankfort, 1582). In Zilettus (_q.v.

supra_) there is Bernard of Como’s _De Strigibus_.

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

authorities there cited.

VIII

FOR WYCLIFFE, HUS AND THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE

The principal works of Wycliffe are published by the Wyclif Society.

See especially _De Dominio Divino_ (ed. R. L. Poole, 1890); _Tract. de

Civili dominio liber primus_ (ed. R. L. Poole, 1885); _De Eucharistia_

(1892); _De Potestate Pape_ (ed. J. Loserth, 1907). See also _Fasciculi

Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif_ (Rolls series, ed. W. W. Shirley,

1858). See also the _Chronicon Angliae_ (ed. Maunde Thompson, 1874);

_Chronicon_ of Henry Knighton (ed. Lumby, 1895), vol. ii; D. Wilkins,

_Concilia M. Britanniae et Hiberniae_ (1737), vol. iii.

The _Letters of Hus_ are edited by H. B. Workman and R. M. Pope (1904).

Invaluable is F. Palacky’s _Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus_ (Prague, 1869).

For the works of Gerson and D’Ailly see J. Gerson, _Opera_ (Antwerp,

1706). Works of D’Ailly are included in this volume.

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

The works of Marsiglio of Padua and of William of Ockham are in

Melchior Goldast, _Monarchia S. Romani Imperii_ (Hanover, Frankfort,

1611-14), vol. ii. They are summarized in S. Riezler, _Die

literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers_ (1874).

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

Aeneas Sylvius, _Historia Bohemica_ (1453).

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

H. v. der Hardt, _Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium_

(Frankfort, 1697-1742).

E. Martène and V. Durand, _Veterum Scriptorum et monumentorum

amplissima collectio_ (Paris, 1724-33), vol. vii, pp. 425-1078.

The following also are useful:

N. Valois, _La France et le Grand Schisme d’occident_ (Paris,

1896-1902).

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

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

H. B. Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation: the Age of Wyclif_

(1901); _The Dawn of the Reformation: the Age of Hus_ (1902).

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

(1720).

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

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

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

1878).

R. L. Poole, _Wyclif and Movements for Reform_ (1889);

_Illustrations of the History of Mediæval Thought_ (1884).

H. Rashdall, Article on Wycliffe in _Dictionary of National

Biography_ (1900), vol. lxiii.

A. H. Wratislaw, _Native Literature of Bohemia in the Fourteenth

Century_ (1878).

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

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

vol. ii.

Also of course M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_ (1903-9),

Introd. and Books I and II.

IX

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES AND WORKS ON HERESIES

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

J. J. v. Mosheim, _Institutes of Ecclesiastical History_ (Eng. tr.,

2nd ed., 1850).

J. C. L. Gieseler, _Ecclesiastical History_ (Eng. tr. 1853), esp.

vol. iii, which contains extracts from documents.

F. Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_ (4th ed. 1883), esp.

vols. v and vi.

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

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

See also on special subjects the following:

F. Gregorovius, _History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_

(tr. A. Hamilton, 1894-1902), vols. v and vi.

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

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

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

1904).

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

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

P. F. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme latin au XIIIe

siècle_ (Fribourg, 1899), with invaluable appendix containing

Siger’s _Works_.

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

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

C. Douais, _Essai sur l’organisation des études dans l’ordre des

Frères-Prêcheurs_ (Paris, 1884).

_Registrum epistolarum fratris Joannis Peckham_ (Rolls Series, ed.

C. T. Martin, 1884).

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

_De Tribus Impostoribus_ (ed. Philomneste Junior, _i.e._ P. Gustave

Brunet, Paris, 1861).

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

X

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

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

Representative works, among many:

J. Locke, _Letters concerning Toleration_.

J. S. Mill, _On Liberty_.

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

Sir F. Pollock, _The Theory of Persecution_ in _Essays in

Jurisprudence and Ethics_ (1882).

M. Creighton, _Persecution and Tolerance_ (1895).

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

Interference_ (1902).

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

Joseph de Maistre, _Lettres à un gentilhomme russe sur

l’Inquisition espagnole_ (Brussels, 1844).

Lessing’s _Nathan der Weise_.

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

J. M. Robertson, _A Short History of Free Thought, Ancient and

Modern_ (1906).

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

Inquisition.

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

Library).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See O. Gierke, _Political Theories of the Middle Ages_ (trans.,

with introd. by. F. W. Maitland, 1900), p. 10.

[2] F. W. Bourdillon’s translation.

[3] See _Compendium of Ecclesiastical History_, by G. C. E. Gieseler

(English ed., Edinburgh, 1853), vol. iii, p. 388.

[4] See H. C. Lea, _History of Auricular Confession_ (1896), vol. i,

pp. 380 _et seq._; _History of Sacerdotal Celibacy_ (3rd ed., 1907),

vol. ii, chapter on ‘Solicitation,’ pp. 251-96.

[5] On the subject-matter of this chapter see H. O. Taylor, _The

Mediæval Mind_ (2 vols., 1911), especially on the influence of the

Latin Fathers and the transmission into the Middle Ages of patristic

thought, vol. i, pp. 61-109; on the effects of Christianity on the

character of mediæval emotion, pp. 330-52; and on the scholastic

philosophy, vol. ii, pp. 283 _et seq._

[6] For Tanchelm see the following: P Frédéricq, _Corpus documentorum

Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae_ (Ghent, 1889-96),

vol. i, pp. 22-9, nos. 14-29; J. J. Döllinger, _Beiträge zur

Sektensgeschichte_ (Munich, 1890), vol. i, pp. 105-9; H. C. Lea, _A

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

i, pp. 64-5.

[7] For Eon de l’Etoile see Döllinger, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp.

98-103; C. Schmidt, _Histoire et Doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou

Albigeois_ (Paris, 1848), vol. i, pp. 48-9.

[8] See T. de Cauzons, _Histoire de l’Inquisition en France_ (Paris,

1909, 1913), vol. i, p. 259. ‘On voit donc la lutte fortement engagée

entre l’Église et l’esprit révolutionnaire.’

[9] See Gieseler, vol. iii, pp. 390-1, n.; Döllinger, vol. ii, p.

29. ‘Quod Deus passus est ibi mortem et nunquam dedecus, et ponebant

exemplum, si aliquis homo suspendebatur in aliquo arbore, semper illa

arbor amicis suspensi et parentibus esset odiosa et eam vituperarent,

et nunquam illam arborem videre vellent, a simili locum in quo Deus,

quem diligere debemus, suspensus fuit, odio habere debeamus et nunquam

deberemus ejus presenciam affectare.’

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

[11] Pius Melia, _The Origin, Persecutions and Doctrines of the

Waldenses, from Documents_ (London, 1870), p. 1. Other origins of the

term Waldenses have been suggested: (1) Vaux or valleys of Piedmont,

where the sect came to flourish most, (2) Peter of Vaux, a predecessor

of Waldo.

[12] Melia, quoting _Venerabilis Patris Monetae Cremonensis Ordinis

Praedicatorum adversus Catharos et Waldenses, Libri quinque_ (1244), p.

6.

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

alleged against the Waldenses.

[14] Bernard Gui, _Practica Inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis_

(ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1886), p. 134. ‘Item, circa sacramentum vere

penitentie et clavis ecclesie perniciosius aberrantes, tenent et docent

se habere potestatem a Deo, sicut sancti apostoli habuerunt, audiendi

confessiones peccatorum sibi volentium confiteri, et absolvendi, et

penitentias injungendi; confessiones talium audiant et injungant sibi

confitentibus penitentias pro peccatis, quamvis non sunt clerici,

nec sacerdotales per aliquem episcopum Romane ecclesie ordinati, nec

sunt layci simpliciter; talemque potestatem nec confitentur se habere

a Romana ecclesia, sed pocius diffitentur, et revera nec a Deo nec

ab ejus ecclesia ipsam habent, cum sint extra ecclesiam et ab ipsa

ecclesia jam precisi, extra quam non est vera penitentia neque salus.’

Cf. _ibid._, pp. 244 _et seq._

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

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

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

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

[19] The Paulicians had originally, in the seventh century, in Armenia,

been anti-Manichæan. They became definitely Manichæan in the ninth.

The French _bougre_-heretic means Bulgar. For Catharan doctrines and

manners of life generally, see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 235 _et

seq._; for its theology see Döllinger, vol. i, pp. 34-50; vol. ii

(_Documents_), pp. 282-96. The errors of the Cathari are summarised

in Nicolas Eymeric, _Directorium Inquisitorum_ (Rome, 1585), part ii,

question xiii, pp. 290-2.

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

[21] _Ibid._, pp. 21-2; also C. Douais, _Documents pour servir à

l’histoire de l’Inquisition dans le Languedoc_ (Paris, 1900), vol. ii,

pp. 95-6. Examination of a Catharan, Pierre Garcia. Garcia said, ‘quod

erat unus Deus benignus qui creavit incorruptibilia et permansura, et

alius Deus erat malignus qui creavit corruptibilia et transitoria.’

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

Döllinger, vol. i, p. 40.

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

[24] _Ibid._, p. 73.

[25] _Ibid._, p. 36.

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

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

Döllinger, vol. ii, p. 155.

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

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

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

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

[32] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 3, 83-4.

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

[34] Schmidt, _ibid._

[35] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 30-4, 56. This was a survival of the

Marcionite heresy. The continuity of the same fundamental types of

heresy which had vexed the early Church into the Middle Ages is

remarkable.

[36] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 30 _et seq._, 56; mainly from _Acta

inquisitionis Carcassonensis contra Albigenses_, 1308-9.

[37] _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 33. See also E. Vacandard, _The Inquisition,

a Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Powers of the Church_

(trans. by B. L. Conway, 1908), pp. 90-4.

[38] Döllinger, vol. ii, pp. 25, 44. Catholic churches were the

dwellings of evil spirits. Satan’s first home on earth had been the

temple of Jerusalem, _ibid._, p. 45. Whenever one of their children

by some chance was baptized in a Catholic church, they washed off the

taint with dirty water.

[39] See Vacandard, pp. 73-6. Also Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 94.

‘Audivit dictum Petrum Garcia(m) dicentem quod non erat missa celebrata

in ecclesia usque ad tempus beati Sylvestri; nec ecclesia habuerat

possessiones usque ad illud tempus; et quod ecclesia deficiet citra xx

annos; et quod missa nostra nihil valet; et quod omnes praedicatores

crucis sunt homicide; et quod crux quam illi praedicatores dant nihil

aliud est nisi parum de pella super humerum; idem cordula cum qua

ligantur capilli.’

[40] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, pp. 250-1, 263, 291, where the

ceremony is described in confessions before inquisitors.

[41] Douais, _Documents_, vol. ii, p. 100. ‘Dixit etiam idem Petrus

quod si teneret illum Deum qui de mille hominibus ab eo factis unum

salvaret et omnes alios damnaret, ipsum dirumperet et dilaceraret

unguibus et dentibus tanquam perfidum et reputaret ipsum esse falsum

et perfidum, et spueret in faciem ejus, addens “de gutta cadet ipse.”’

Such language, which is typical of many Catharan utterances, is simply

that of a _saeva indignatio_, aroused by the ascription to the Deity of

the cruelty and injustice which conscience reprobates in human beings.

[42] Eymeric, _Directorium_, part ii, question xiv, p. 196. ‘Quod

melius est satisfieri libidini, quocunque actu turpi, quam carnis

stimulis fatigari: sed est (ut dicunt, & ipsi faciunt) in tenebris

licitum, quemlibet cum qualibet indistincte carnaliter commisceri,

quandocunque & quotiescunque carnalibus desideriis stimulentur.’ _Cf._

Schmidt, p. 151 n., on the Cathari of Orleans in 1012.

[43] Vacandard, p. 80.

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

[45] _Paradiso_, xii, 139-41.

[46] On Joachim’s writings, the problem of _The Everlasting Gospel_ and

Joachitism generally, see J. J. Döllinger, _Prophecy and the Prophetic

Spirit in the Christian Era_ (tr. A. Plummer, 1873), ch. vii; E. Renan,

_Nouvelles Études d’histoire religieuse_ (Paris, 1884; English ed.,

1886); the Essay on Joachim in _Franciscan Essays_ (1912), by E. G.

Gardner, pp. 50-70; also E. Gebhart, _L’Italie mystique; la renaissance

religieuse au moyen âge_ (1908), esp. pp. 49-84, 183-253. The whole

story of the Spiritual Franciscans, so far as it affected Italy, is

told in this admirable work.

[47] J. à Royas, _De Haereticis, eorum que impia intentione et

credulitate, cum quinquaginta analyticis assertionibus, quibus

universae fidei causae facile definiri valeant_, in F. Zilettus,

_Tractatus Universi Juris_ (Venice, 1633), vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 211. The

fact of the submission of his works in 1200 is disputed, _Franciscan

Essays_, p. 56.

[48] See Renan, _op. cit._, p. 248; Lea, vol. iii, pp. 22-3 and

notes; F. H. Reusch, _Index der verbotenen Bücher_ (Bonn, 1883).

_Bücherverbote im Mittelalter_, pp. 18-21; Chronicle of Salimbene in

_Monumenta Historica ad provincias Parmensem et Placentiam pertinentia_

(Parma, 1857), pp. 235-6. See _Directorium_, part ii, question ix, pp.

269-72, on the heresies of John of Parma. ‘It is ... the substitution

of the idea of the Everlasting Gospel as a written book to supersede

the Gospel of Christ, for the original one of the Everlasting Gospel

as an unwritten spiritual interpretation based upon that Gospel—that

separates Gherardo of Borgo San Donnino and the Joachists from the

authentic creed of Joachim himself.’—_Franciscan Essays_, p. 63. The

prophecies of Joachim himself were esteemed by the Church; it was the

subsequent gloss upon them that was suspect. See Döllinger, _Prophecy

and the Prophetic Spirit_ (London, 1873), pp. 121 _et seq._

[49] Rev. xiv, 6.

[50] See Lea, vol. iii, pp. 18-19. ‘Unless the universe were a

failure, and the promises of God were lies, there must be a term to

human wickedness; and as the Gospel of Christ and the Rule of Francis

had not accomplished the salvation of mankind, a new gospel was

indispensable. Besides, Joachim had predicted that there would arise a

new religious Order which would rule the world and the Church in the

halcyon age of the Holy Ghost. They could not doubt that this referred

to the Franciscans as represented by the Spiritual group, which was

striving to uphold in all its strictness the Rule of the venerated

founder.’ Salimbene was not a very spiritually-minded Franciscan.

That most entertaining chronicler took a not entirely holy delight

in the bright and frivolous things of life, and even the gross. But

he was very much impressed by the prophecies of the Abbot Joachim.

All prophecies appealed to his curious and inquisitive mind, those of

Merlin as well as Joachim; but he was genuinely interested in their

spiritual significance also, and for a time a professed Joachite. See

his Chronicle, especially relating to the testimony of one, Brother

Hugo of Montpellier, concerning Joachim, _op. cit._, pp. 97 _et seq._

There is a summary in Taylor, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 494-517. The

place of poverty in the Franciscan Rule is discussed in _St. Francis

and Poverty_—_Franciscan Essays_, pp. 18-30.

[51] For the persecution of the Spirituals generally see Lea, vol. iii,

pp. 23-89, 129-80; also Döllinger, _Beiträge_, vol. ii, pp. 417-526, a

_Chronicle of the Persecution of the Brothers Minor_, also p. 606. See

also _Directorium_, on Arnaldo da Villanova, p. 282, Fraticelli, pp.

313-22.

[52] The formula of abjuration from the heresy defined by John XXII’s

bulls was: ‘I swear that I believe in my heart and profess that our

Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles while in the mortal life held in

common the things which Scripture declares them to have had, and that

they had the right of giving, selling and alienating them,’—Eymeric,

_Directorium_, p. 486.

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

[54] See Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 340 _et seq._; also Salimbene,

_op. cit._, pp. 112 _et seq._; _Directorium_, pp. 286-8.

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

[56] _Inferno_, Canto xxviii.

[57] _Practica_, p. 340.

[58] Inquisitors found difficulty in proceeding against Dolcinists,

_ibid._, p. 343. ‘Est autem valde difficile ipsos examinare et

veritatem contra eos invenire pro eo maxime quod, quantuscumque

juraverint in juditio se veritatem dicturos, nolunt tamen manifeste

suam detegere falsitatem, nec suos errores publice confiteri, nec

directe respondere ad interrogata, set palliate et per astucias et

tergiversationes multas deviant et mendaciis se juvant, et se ipsos

contegunt, et ideo multum est ars necessaria contra ipsos et industria

inquirentis.’

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

[60] Lea, vol. ii, p. 320. E. Renan, _Averroës et l’Averroïsme_ (Paris,

1861, 2nd ed.), p. 222.

[61] See Lea, vol. i, p. 360; vol. ii, p. 359. For views ascribed to

Beghards see Döllinger, _Beiträge_, vol. ii, pp. 378-401 (_passim_).

‘... se esse vel aliquos ex istis perfectos et sic unitos Deo, quod sint

realiter et veraciter ipse Deus, quia dicunt se esse illud idem et unum

esse quod est ipse Deus absque distinctione.’ See also _Directorium_,

pt. ii, question xv, pp. 299-308.

[62] For proceedings against Beguines, modes of interrogation and

sentences, etc., see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 141-4, 277 _et seq._

[63] Frédéricq, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 93. ‘Verum quia in multis mundi

partibus sunt plurime mulieres similiter Beghine vulge vocate, quarum

alique in propriis, alique in conductis, alique in communibus sibi

domibus habitantes vitam ducunt honestam’ ... proceeds to rule that

these must on no account be molested.

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

[65] For example,

[Sidenote: ? cessiez.]

‘En commencant no pénitence

Soit la Vierge et la Trinité,

Et, tout en parfaicte puissance,

Des cieulx, le hault divin secret,

? cessiez. Sire Dieu, croissiez vo venjeance,

Les fruits des ventres respitez,

Car esté a en grant balance,

Longtemps toute crestienté.

‘Or, avant, entre nous tait frère,

Batons nos charoinges bien fort,

En remembrant la grant misère

Du Dieu et sa piteuse mort,

Qui fut prins de la gent amère

Et vendus et trahis à tort,

Et battu sa char vierge et clère;

En nom de ce, batons plus fort.’

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

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

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

[68] _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 35. See also p. 31: ‘ ... yperbolice

loquendo, qua locutione solet frequenter uti scriptura ad exprimendum

eius magnam quantitatem seu multitudinem, congrue dici possit per omnes

christianitatis provincias jam esse diffusa.’ From a sermon preached

before Clement VI, descanting upon the seriousness and extent of the

attraction of the Flagellant mania for the ignorant crowd.

[69] These acrobatic performances were of course of a convulsive nature

and were by contemporaries ascribed to demoniac possession. But the

idea of dancing and leaping as a form of religious devotion suggests

the very charming story, _Our Lady’s Tumbler_, which has been rewritten

by Anatole France and is included in _Aucassin et Nicolette and other

Mediæval Romances_ in _Everyman’s Library_.

[70] On the Scholastic Philosophy generally, see Taylor, _The Mediæval

Mind_, vol. ii, book vii, _passim_; M. de Wulf, _History of Mediæval

Philosophy_ (tr. P. Coffey, London, 1909), pp. 240-410 (_passim_); B.

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

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

[72] P. Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme latin au XIIIe

Siècle_ (Fribourg, 1899), pp. xxiii-xxvi; C. Douais, _Essai sur

l’organisation des études dans l’ordre des Frères-Prêcheurs_ (Paris,

1884), pp. 62 _et seq._

[73] For Arabian Philosophy see the following: T. J. De Boer, _History

of Philosophy in Islam_ (tr. E. R. Jones, 1903); De Wulf, _op. cit._,

pp. 225-39; Hauréau, _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique_, vol. ii,

pp. 15-53; Carra de Vaux, _Avicenne_ (Paris, 1900), _Gazali_ (Paris,

1902); S. Munk, _Mélanges de la philosophie juive et arabe_ (Paris,

1859), pt. iii, especially pp. 352-83, 418-58.

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

[75] Avicenna, 980-1036.

[76] Ghazali, 1059-1111.

[77] Ibn Roschd, or Averrhoës, was born in 1126 at Cordova; was

entrusted by the Caliph, Abu Jacub Jusuf, with the task of making an

analysis of Aristotle; in 1182 became physician at the court; but

in 1195 was deprived of his office by the succeeding Caliph, Jacub

Almansur, presumably owing to a fit of orthodoxy on the Caliph’s part,

and banished from Cordova. He died in Morocco in 1198.

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

[79] See Renan, _op. cit._, pp. 133-53 (_passim_); J. Owen, _Skeptics

of the Italian Renaissance_ (1893), pp. 67-72.

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

p. 248.

[81] By the middle of the thirteenth century the University of Paris

was in possession of practically all the Commentaries of Averrhoës,

_ibid._ See also Renan, pp. 201-2, ‘Un des phénomènes les plus

singuliers de l’histoire littéraire du moyen âge, c’est l’activité

du commerce intellectuel et la rapidité avec laquelle les livres se

repandaient d’un bout à l’autre de l’Europe.’

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

[83] ‘Nec libri Aristotelis de naturali philosophia nec commenta

legantur Parisiis publice et secreto, et hoc sub pena excommunicationis

inhibemus.’ This, and the subsequent prohibition of 1215 referred of

course only to Paris. See _Directorium_ on the errors of Aristotle and

his Arabian commentators, pt. ii, question iv, pp. 253-5. See Hauréau,

_op. cit._, vol. ii, pp. 83-107. On action of Gregory IX, _ibid._, pp.

108-19.

[84] The tract was written against Averrhoës, not the Averrhoïsts.

When, however, it was incorporated in his _Summa Theologica_, Albertus

Magnus made mention of the fact that Averrhoïsm had made considerable

progress and boasted a number of advocates. Mandonnet, p. lxxiii.

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

[86] See _Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quaedam hactenus inedita_ (ed. J. S.

Brewer, 1859), p. 429. There are several contemporary poems on the

troubles in the University of Paris, especially on the part played by

William de Saint-Amour, in Rutebeuf, _Œuvres Complètes_ (Paris,

1874), vol. i, pp. 178-213.

[87] See Mandonnet, p. cx.

[88] Salimbene, _op. cit._, p. 108. ‘Isti boni homines semper de

scientia gloriantur, et dicunt quod in ordine eorum fons sapientiae

invenitur.’

[89] _Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham_ (Rolls series,

ed. C. T. Martin, London, 1882-5), vol. iii, p. 842. See also A.

Little, _The Grey Friars in Oxford_ (1892), pp. 72-5.

[90] See _Alberti Magni De Quindecim Problematicis_ in appendix to

Mandonnet, pp. 13-36.

[91] See Mandonnet, p. cxxvi.

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

[93] In his tract _Contra praecipuos viros in philosophia Albertum et

Thomam_. On Siger and St. Thomas, see Hauréau, vol. iii, pp. 131-7.

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

cxxviii-ccvi.

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

[96] The tractate, _De Erroribus Philosophorum_, is attributed to him.

It is printed in appendix to Mandonnet, pp. 2-11.

[97] _Ibid._, p. clxxvii.

[98] Mandonnet, p. ccvi.

[99] _Ibid._, p. ccxxvi.

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

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

[102] Mandonnet, pp. cclxx _et seq._ Mandonnet sees a reference to

Siger and Boëthius in the words of Peckham: ‘Nam eam (opinionem)

credimus non a religiosis personis, sed saecularibus quibusdam duxisse

originem, cuius duo praecipui defensores vel forsitan inventores

miserabiliter dicuntur conclusisse dies suos in partibus transalpinis,

cum tamen non essent de illis partibus oriundi.’—_Registrum_, vol. iii,

p. 842.

[103] For the former view, see Baeumker, _Die Impossibilia d. Siger von

Brabant_ (Münster, 1898), pp. 97 _et seq._; for latter, see Mandonnet,

pp. ccxciii-cccxx.

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

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

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

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

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

[109] Lea, vol. iii, pp. 585-6; _Directorium_, pp. 272-8, 331-2. The

text of the bull is given in the latter pages.

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

Titulo_, Epist. xviii.

[111] Renan, pp. 301-5.

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

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

Brunet, Paris, 1861).

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

[115] _Decameron_, Day I, Novel 3.

[116] Renan traced Averrhoïst influence in the Pantheism of the

Spiritual Franciscans and the Illuminism of such German mystics as

Ortlieb and Eckhart, _op. cit._, pp. 259 _et seq._; whereas the truth

is that there was never the slightest sympathy between the Franciscans

and Averrhoïsm, and German Illuminism had quite other origins.

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

[118] See H. B. Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation_ (1901, 1902),

vol. i; _The Age of Wyclif_, p. 71: ‘Some seventy thousand documents

in the papal archives bear witness to his world-wide labours. Few

subjects escaped his notice—from the habit of the French King of

talking in church, the misrule of Edward II of England, or the devices

of sorcerers, to the weightier matters of theology and law.’

[119] R. L. Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Mediæval Thought_

(1884), p. 247.

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

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

[122] For Avignon, see E. Baluze, _Vitae Paparum Avenionensium_ (1693).

See works cited in Workman, _The Dawn of the Reformation_, vol. i,

Append. A., p. 291; also Pierre D’Ailly, _De Necessitate Reformationis

Ecclesiae_, in _Joannis Gersonii Opera Omnia_ (Antwerp. 1706), vol. ii,

pp. 885-902, esp. p. 889. Poole, _op. cit._, p. 248, ‘The universal

authority of Rome became confined within the narrow territory of

Avignon: the means by which it was exerted became more and more

secular, diplomatic, mercantile....’

[123] The extent of the feeling aroused by the schism in Christendom

can be illustrated by the fact that contemporary miracle-plays

represented Pope and anti-Pope burning in hell (see Workman, _The Dawn

of the Reformation_, vol. ii, _The Age of Hus_, p. 41), and by the

life-work of a simple uneducated girl, St. Catherine of Siena.

[124] Melchior Goldast, _Monarchia S. Romani Imp._ (Hanover and

Frankfort, 1611-14), vol. iii, p. 1360.

[125] Goldast, _op. cit._, vol. ii, _Opera Omnia de Potestate

Ecclesiastica & Politica, G. Ockham_, esp. _Dialogus_, pp. 822-30. The

chief conclusions of Ockham are summarized on pp. 396-7; also in S.

Riezler, _Die literarischen Widersacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwig des

Baiers_ (1874), pp. 258-71. But see generally pp. 241-77.

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

[127] _Defensor Pacis_, Lib. I, cap. xviii; in Goldast, _op. cit._,

vol. ii, pp. 86-9.

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

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

[130] _Ibid._, cap. x, pp. 216-19, esp. p. 217. ‘Nemo quantumcunque

peccans contra disciplinas speculativas aut operativas quascunque

punitur vel arcetur in hoc seculo praecise inquantum-hujusmodi, sed

inquantum peccat contra praeceptum humanae legis.’

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

[132] Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i. ‘Wyclif has been called the Morning

Star of the Reformation, but the author of the _Defensor Pacis_ might

more justly claim the title.’ _Cf._, on modernity of Marsiglio’s

thought, B. Labanca, _Marsilio da Padova_ (Padua, 1882), pp. 219 _et

seq._

[133] Fitzralph’s treatise, _De Pauperie Salvatoris_, is printed as an

appendix to Wycliffe’s _De Dominio Divino_ (Wyclif Society, 1890), pp.

259-476.

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

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

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

[137] _De Dominio Divino_ (Wyclif Society, 1890), p. 33. ‘Ideo Deus

non mediate per regimen vasallorum subserviencium, ut reges ceteri,

dominatur, cum immediate et per se facit, sustentat, et gubernat omne

quod possidet, juvatque ad perficiendum opera secundum usus alios quos

requirit.’

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

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

[140] See _Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif_ (Rolls

series, ed. W. W. Shirley, 1858), pp. 280-1.

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

1907), p. 84.

[142] _De Civili Dominio_ (Wyclif Society, ed. R. L. Poole, 1885), vol.

i, pp. 335-42; also pp. 265-74, ch. xxxvii. See also _Select English

Works_ (ed. T. Arnold, 1869-71), vol. iii, pp. 216-17.

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

[144] _Ibid._, pp. 145-6, 154-5. This idea is either explicitly or

implicitly in all Wycliffe’s later teachings.

[145] _Ibid._, pp. 120 _et seq._, 148, 212, 266 _et seq._ The whole

book is indeed on this theme. Wycliffe does not scruple to call a bad

pope ‘_horribilius monstrum_.’ Cf. _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

[146] _De Potestate Pape_, p. 272.

[147] _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

[148] _Ibid._, p. 279; D. Wilkins, _Concilia M. Britanniae et

Hiberniae_ (1737). vol. iii, p. 157.

[149] _Works of Thomas Cranmer_ (ed. J. E. Cox, Parker Society), vol.

ii, _Misc. Writings_, p. 119.

[150] See Wilkins, vol. iii, p. 350; _Chronicon H. Knighton_ (Rolls

series, ed. J. R. Lumby, 1889-95), vol. ii, p. 152.

[151] _Ibid._

[152] See _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278, from _Epistola Willelmi

Cantuariensis super condemnatione haeresum Wycclyff in synodo_. See

also extract from a sermon by Wycliffe on this subject, _ibid._,

introd., pp. lxiv-lxv.

[153] There was a tendency to Pantheism in Wycliffe. See Workman, _op.

cit._, vol. i, p. 137 n.

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

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

[156] _Ibid._, cap. i, pp. 15-16. ‘Nichil enim horribilius quam quod

quilibet sacerdos celebrans facit vel consecrat cotidie corpus Christi.’

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

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

[159] _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 278.

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

[161] Workman, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 229. ‘Of the scholastic Lollards

it may be written that logic makes no martyrs.’ _Cf._ pp. 213-90.

[162] See popular ballads in J. S. Brewer, _Monumenta Franciscana_

(1858), pp. 591-608.

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

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

[165] See Count Lützow, _The Life and Times of Master John Hus_ (1909),

pp. 17-62; J. Loserth, _Wyclif and Hus_ (trans. M. J. Evans, 1884); A.

H. Wratislaw, _Native Literature of Bohemia in the Fourteenth Century_

(1878), esp. book ii, pp. 181-291.

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

[167] _Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus_ (ed. F. Palacky, Prague, 1869), pp.

347-9, 355-63. See Lützow, _op. cit._, pp. 106-9. Wenzel’s reasoned

answer to the objections made by the Germans may have been Hus’s work.

For the contest at the University, see also H. Rashdall, _Universities

of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. ii, pp. 212-32.

[168] Lützow, _op. cit._, pp. 130-3, 159-60; Palacky, _Documenta_, pp.

464-6; _The Letters of John Hus_ (ed. Workman and Pope, 1904), pp.

422-5.

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

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

[171] _Ibid._, p. 293.

[172] _Ibid._, p. 287; _Letters of Hus_, p. 217. Hus does not seem

to have regarded the Utraquist question as of great consequence. See

Creighton, _Papacy_, vol. ii, p. 86.

[173] See J. B. Schwab, _J. Gerson_ (Würzburg, 1858), pp. 482-9; also

Creighton, vol. i, appendix 2, pp. 365-8.

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

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

[176] _Ibid._, p. 178. See also, generally, Gerson’s ‘De Unitate

Ecclesiastica,’ _Works_, vol. ii, pp. 113-14; Niem, Theodoricus de,

_De Schismate_ (1890). For full list of tracts, see _Cambridge Modern

History_, vol. iii, pp. 867-8.

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

[178] F. Gregorovius, _Hist. of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_

(trans. A. Hamilton, 1894-1902), vol. vi, p. 606; J. N. Figgis, _From

Gerson to Grotius_ (1907), p. 35.

[179] See Gerson’s exhortation to the Archbishop of Prague to extirpate

the heresy in Bohemia, Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 523-6.

[180] _Letters of Hus_, pp. 146-9, 149-51. These are letters written

by Hus at the time of his setting out for Constance. One of them, he

instructs, is only to be opened in the event of his death.

[181] See Gerson, _Works_, vol. ii, p. 572; H. v. der Hardt, _Magnum

oecumenicum Constantiense concilium_ (Frankfort, 1697-1742), vol. iv,

p. 521; Palacky, _Documenta_, p. 284; Lea, vol. ii, pp. 467-8. ‘The

explanation of the controversy over the violation of the safe-conduct

is perfectly simple. Germany, and especially Bohemia, knew so little

about the Inquisition and the systematic persecution of heresy that

surprise and indignation were excited by the application to the case

of Hus of the recognized principles of the canon law. The Council

could not have done otherwise than it did without surrendering those

principles.’

[182] _Letters of Hus_, p. 216.

[183] Lützow, p. 249.

[184] Palacky, _Documenta_, pp. 308, 310. Like Wycliffe before and

Luther after him, Hus would acknowledge no other authority than

Scripture. The Council wanted him to acknowledge the authority of the

Church and of itself as the Church’s representative.

[185] _Letters of Hus_, p. 226.

[186] _Ibid._, p. 217.

[187] _Ibid._, p. 224.

[188] _Letters of Hus_, p. 239. See also his letter addressed to

all the people of Bohemia, pp. 230-3; also pp. 275-6, and Palacky,

_Documenta_, p. 323. See Creighton, _Papacy_, vol. ii, p. 51: ‘ ... It

is the glory of Hus that he first deliberately asserted the right of

the individual conscience against ecclesiastical authority, and sealed

his assertion by his own life-blood.’

[189] See, however, J. Mackinnon, _A History of Modern Liberty_ (1906),

vol. i, p. 162: ‘The defiance of the Council was the prelude of the

modern Reformation. It was a distinct intimation not merely of a

solitary reformer like Wiclif or Hus, but of a body of men who claimed

to speak in the name of a whole people, that they would not submit

to traditional authority _per se_. It was a plea for fair discussion

of matters of controversy, and a protest against the principle of

stifling inquiry and dissent by such authority. Otherwise the reason

and intelligence of the inquirer will revolt in the name of conscience,

justice and religion.’

[190] J. Glanvill, _A Blow at Sadducism_ (1688), p. 5. _Cf._ pp. 32-3:

‘But to reserve all the clear circumstances of Fact, which we find in

well attested and confirmed Relations of this kind into the power of

deceivable imagination, is to make fancy the greater Prodigy; and to

suppose, that it can do stranger feats than are believed of any other

kind of function. And to think that Pins and Nails, for instance,

can by the power of imagination be conveyed within the skin; or that

imagination should deceive so many as have been witnesses in objects

of sense, in all the circumstances of discovery; this, I say, is to be

infinitely more credulous than the assertors of sorcery and Demoniack

Contracts. And by the same reason it may be believed that all the

Battels and strange events of the world, which our selves have not

seen, are but dreams and fond imaginations.’

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

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

34-5.

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

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

[195] Sprenger, _Malleus Maleficarum_ (Frankfort ed., 1582), vol. i,

pp. 488-9: ‘Et eodem modo de adorantibus Daemonē & sacrificantibus

ei quia si hoc faciunt, credentes Divinitatem esse in Daemonibus,

vel credentes quod cultus latriae sit ei exhibendus, vel quod omnino

ex exhibitione talis cultus, assequantur quod requirunt a Diabolo,

non obstāte Dei prohibitione, seu etiam permissione, tales essent

haeretici. Sed si ista faciunt non ita sentientes de Daemone; sed ut

aliquo pacto cum Daemone facilius per ista exequantur ab ipso quod

intendunt, tales non sunt haeretici natura rei, licet gravissime

peccent.’

[196] A. Albertini, _De Agnoscendis assertionibus Catholicis_ in

Zilettus, _Tractatus Universi Juris_, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 65-6. _Cf._

J. Simancas, _De Catholicis Institutionibus_ in Zilettus, _ibid._, p.

144 (Tit. xxi).

[197] Lea, vol. iii, p. 454: ‘Inquisitors ... began to insert a clause

renouncing sorcery in all abjurations administered to repentant

heretics, so that in case they should become addicted to it they could

be promptly burned for relapse.’

[198] For Peter of Abano, see _supra_, pp. 69, 70, and Lea, vol. iii,

p. 440; for Gilles de Rais, _ibid._, pp. 468-89.

[199] Ordinarily inquisitorial trials were secret. Another abnormal

feature in this case was the presence of a prosecutor; the third was

that the court was really a joint one, being in part the bishop and

inquisitors sitting together as a tribunal of the Holy Office to hear

the charge of heresy, in part the bishop sitting as president of the

ordinary episcopal court, the inquisitors not included, to hear the

charge of unnatural lust with which the Inquisition was not competent

to deal.

[200] _Cf._ Lea, vol. iii, p. 486: ‘The morning saw the extraordinary

spectacle of the clergy, followed by the whole population of Nantes,

who had been clamouring for his death, marching through the streets and

singing and praying for his salvation.’

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

[202] See _Bart. Spin. in Ponzinibium de lamiis Apologia prima_ in

_Malleorum quorundam Maleficarum tam veterum quam recentiorum authorum

tomi duo_ (Frankfort, 1582), vol. ii, pp. 623 _et seq._

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

[204] For a critique of Sprenger’s work, see J. Michelet, _La Sorcière_

in _Œuvres Complètes_ (Paris, 1893-9), pp. 481-96.

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

[206] Albertini, _op. cit._, in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 85; also

Sprenger, etc., vol. ii, pp. 262-4, and, generally, pp. 250 _et seq._,

_De modo quo localiter transferuntur de loco ad locum_.

[207] Frédéricq, _Documents_, vol. i, p. 371. ‘Et illecq leur remontra

comment ils avoient esté en ladite vaulderie, et fait tout ce que

dessus ai dit, et mesme que aulcunes d’icelles, qui estoient la

presentes, avoient esté cognues carnellement du diable d’enfer, l’une

en forme de lièvre, l’autre en forme de renard, l’autre en forme

de thor, l’aultre en forme d’homme et autant en forme de quelques

bestes’—from _Mémoires de Jacques du Clercq_.

[208] Sprenger, pp. 40 _et seq._, p. 773. See also in vol. ii. of

_Malleorum ... tomi duo, Tractatus utilis et necessarius per viam

Dialogi, de Pythonicis mulieribus_, pp. 56-7.

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

Strigibus_.

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

[211] Sprenger, p. 546.

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

[213] Sprenger, pp. 103-25, 267 _et seq._; also in vol. ii of

_Malleorum ... tomi duo, De Pythonicis mulieribus_, pp. 42-3.

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

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

p. 502.

[216] Sprenger, pp. 141 _et seq._, 296-301, 360 _et seq._; _De

Pythonicis mulieribus_, in vol. ii, pp. 65 _et seq._

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

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

[219] A very effective play based upon this idea is that of H.

Wiers-Jenssen, of which the English version is _The Witch_, by John

Masefield.

[220] It was so decided by Gregory XI, when the right of the French

inquisition in the matter was challenged. Papal commissions issued

to inquisitors early in the fifteenth century specifically enumerate

sorcery and witchcraft among offences with which they are to deal.

[221] See Sprenger, pp. 492-3. Innocent VIII gave a great impetus to

persecution of witches in 1485 by his bull, _Summis desiderantes_, in

which all the malignant powers of the witch were enumerated. It was

this bull that gave authority to Jacob Sprenger, the author of _Malleus

Maleficarum_. It was supplemented by others of a similar character

issued by Julius II and Alexander VI.

[222] Sprenger, pp. 172-82.

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

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

[225] Sprenger, p. 214. _Inquisitoribus Maleficae non possunt nocere._

‘In oppido nempe Ravenspurg, cum a consulibus Maleficae incinerandae

interrogarentur, cur nobis inquisitoribus aliqua maleficia, sicut

aliis hominibus, non intulissent, Responderunt: Licet pluries hoc

facere attentassent, non tamen potuerunt. Et de causa inquirentibus,

respondebant se nescire, nisi quod a Daemonibus informatae fuissent.’

Nevertheless, _ibid._, p. 559, inquisitors should be careful not to

allow themselves to be touched by wizards and witches.

[226] Sprenger, p. 549.

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

[228] _Ibid._, p. 557. The adjuration was by the bitter tears of Christ

shed on the Cross for the sins of the world, by the tears shed by the

glorious Virgin Mary, by those shed by all the saints and elect of God

on earth.

[229] Such enmity had to be really mortal and well authenticated; for

the inquisitorial point of view was that of necessity a witch always

would excite a great deal of enmity. Allegations of enmity must,

therefore, always be carefully sifted. See Sprenger, pp. 542 _et seq._

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

[231] James, i, 3.

[232] 2 Peter, ii, 1.

[233] 2 Corinth., xi, 13.

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

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

[236] Polycarp, _Epist._ § 7, in _The Apostolic Fathers_ (ed. J. B.

Lightfoot, 1891), pp. 171, 179.

[237] ‘Ad officium haereticos compelli, non illici dignum est. Duritia

vincenda, non suadenda.’ Tertullian, _Opera omnia_ (ed. Migne,

_Patrologia latina_), vol. ii, col. 125.

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

i, p. 615.

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

cap. 2.

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

[241] _Ibid._, p. 154.

[242] See Philippe à Limborch, _History of the Inquisition_ (trans.

S. Chandler, London, 1731), vol. i, p. 8; L. Tanon, _Histoire des

Tribunaux de l’Inquisition en France_ (Paris, 1893), pp. 127-33; De

Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 163-8; _Cod. Theod._, i, xvi, leges 3, 8, 12, 30,

33, 34, 35; C. Moeller in _Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain,

1913), vol. xiv, pp. 728-9, _Les bûchers et les autos-da-fé depuis le

moyen âge_.

[243] _The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom_ (Oxford ed., Pusey), Homily

xlvi, on Matt. xiii, pp. 630 _et seq._

[244] Letter 82 to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in _Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers_ (ed. P. Schaff), 2nd series, vol. vi, pp. 170 _et

seq._ See Limborch (Chandler’s ed.), pp. 29-30. It has been averred

that St. Jerome was in favour of the death penalty, on the score of

_Epist. 109 ad Ripar_. See Lea, vol. i, pp. 214-15, and rejoinder of H.

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

15.

[245] 48th Epistle to Vincentius.

[246] 50th Epistle to Boniface.

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

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

pp. 186-8.

[249] See Lea, vol. i, p. 215; Maillet, pp. 17 _et seq._; Vacandard,

pp. 27-30. ‘Nor were they [the bishops] content with merely accepting

it [the aid of the secular arm]. They declared that the State had not

only the right to help the Church in suppressing heresy, but that she

was in duty bound to do so.’ See also De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 189 n.,

and P. Frédéricq, _Les récents historiens catholiques de l’inquisition

en France_, in _Revue historique_ (vol. cix, Jan.-April, 1912), p. 314.

[250] This suggestion is made by J. Havet in his _L’Hérésie et le Bras

séculier au Moyen Age_ in _Œuvres_ (Paris, 1896), vol. ii, p. 131.

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

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

[253] Havet, pp. 129-34.

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

Burgundy.

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

[256] See Havet, p. 135.

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

[258] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, pp. 6-7, No. 3, gives Wazon’s

letter. See also Frédéricq in _Revue historique_, already cited, p.

320; also Maillet, _op. cit._, p. 34. On the strength of this instance

he declares: ‘Nous voyons assez souvent les évêques s’opposer aux

exécutions’; whereas this episcopal protest is unique.

[259] Havet, _op. cit._, p. 133. See Maillet on the whole subject in

_op. cit._, chapter ii. He argues that Theoduin had no particular

punishment in view and that, therefore, one cannot say he approved the

execution of heretics. But as the Bishop must have known very well the

sort of punishment customarily inflicted by the State at this time, the

argument is not very sound.

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

[261] J. D. Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio_

(Paris, 1901-13), vol. xxi, p. 718, and Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i,

No. 31.

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

[263] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 34; Maillet, p. 55; Frédéricq,

in criticism of Maillet in _Revue historique_, p. 321.

[264] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 39; Mansi, vol. xxi, p. 1177;

Havet, pp. 151-2.

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

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

[267] Stubbs, _Select Charters of English Constitutional History_

(Oxford, 1890), pp. 145-6, § 21 of the Assize.

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

[269] J. A. Llorente, _Histoire critique de l’Inquisition d’Espagne_

(Fr. trans. from the Spanish, Paris, 1818), vol. i, p. 30; Eymeric,

_Directorium_, p. 298.

[270] Ludovico à Paramo, _De Origine et Progressu Officii Sanctae

Inquisitionis eiusque dignitate et utilitate_ (Madrid, 1598), p. 90;

Havet, p. 167; De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 283. This is the first secular

law of the Middle Ages prescribing the penalty of the stake. But it

only refers to Waldenses in a particular country, and the stake is only

to be had recourse to in the event of banishment (the penalty primarily

enjoined) being incomplete. The legislation of general significance is

that of the Emperor Frederick II, between 1220 and 1239.

[271] For particulars of a rather interesting case see Lea, vol. i,

pp. 111-12. The charge of heresy was mainly based on the obduracy of

a young girl in repelling the licentious advances of a young canon of

Rheims.

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

[273] See Havet, p. 154.

[274] Vacandard, p. 56.

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

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

[277] A. Luchaire, _Innocent III; la croisade des Albigeois_ (Paris,

1905), pp. 58-9.

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

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

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

[281] J. C. L. Sismondi, _History of the Crusades against the

Albigenses_ (Eng. trans.), p. 53.

[282] Lea, vol. i, p. 154. See, however, Lord Acton in his review of

Lea’s work in _The History of Freedom of Thought and other Essays_

(1909), p. 567. The chronicler, Caesarius Heisterbach, does not relate

a fact, but tells a story, which may or may not be fact.

[283] The _potestas inquirendi_ handed down from Christ to St. Peter

has been annexed to the episcopal dignity. See Ludovico à Paramo, _op.

cit._, book ii, p. 89.

[284] C. Douais, _L’Inquisition; ses origines, sa procédure_ (Paris,

1906), pp. 45-6.

[285] Sometimes a new heresy was not at once recognized as one at

all. Gregory VII was indulgent to Berengar of Tours and Alexander III

congratulated Peter Waldo. See Luchaire, _op. cit._, p. 38.

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

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

[288] See Lea, vol. i, p. 310; De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 378-80. See

also A. Esmein, _Histoire de la Procédure Criminelle en France, et

spécialement de la Procédure inquisitoire_ (Paris, 1882), pp. 66-78;

in English version, _A History of Continental Criminal Procedure_,

Continental Legal History Series, vol. v (Boston, 1913), pp. 3-11,

78-94.

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

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

[291] At first sight it may appear as though the completeness of the

success of the Albigensian Crusade rendered further action unnecessary.

This would appear to be the implication in Douais’ _L’Inquisition_,

pp. 45-6. As a matter of fact it was rather a case of following up an

initial advantage.

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

[293] _Ibid._, vol. xxiii, p. 24, § xiv. ‘_Ut sint in omnibus

parochiis, qui de haeresi & manifestis criminibus inquirant._’

[294] _Ibid._ p. 194, § i.

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

[296] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 395; P. Fournier, _Les Officialités au

Moyen Age_ (Paris, 1880), pp. 266-9.

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

[298] Luchaire, _op. cit._, p. 71. ‘En 1204, il enleva aux évêques,

pour la donner aux légats, la juridiction ordinaire en matière

d’hérésie, première esquisse du procédé d’où sortira l’Inquisition.’

To which M. Douais rightly retorts: ‘Il n’est pas exact de dire que le

Pape enleva aux évêques la juridiction ordinaire en matière d’hérésie.

Il ne leur enleva rien.’ _L’Inquisition_, p. 67. See, however, De

Cauzons, vol. i, p. 414. ‘Sans enlever donc aux évêques le droit de

juger les hérétiques, les rescrits romains constituaient, à côté de

leur tribunal, un pouvoir, pouvant juger lui aussi, avec des juges

d’une juridiction plus étendue que le leur, ayant le droit d’exiger des

chefs des diocèses l’obéissance à leur autorité. Il suffisait d’assurer

à ce tribunal nouveau les moyens d’exécuter ses sentences et de le

rendre permanent, pour avoir l’Inquisition.’

[299] For claim that Dominic was the first inquisitor, see Ludovico à

Paramo, pp. 95-6; Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 25-6; De Cauzons, vol.

i, p. 421 n. Dominic was certainly more than a missionary preacher; he

examined and condemned heretics. See Acton, _op. cit._, p. 554.

[300] It has been said, truly, that it is neither the crime, nor the

procedure, nor the penalty that makes the inquisitor in the strict

sense; but his character as a permanent _judge-delegate_ for the cause

of heresy. Douais, _L’Inquisition_, pp. 37-8.