politics, and he himself played no insignificant rôle. His protest
against Louis XIV.'s extended claim to regalian rights called forth the
famous Declaration of Gallican Liberties by a subservient French synod
under the lead of Bossuet (1682), which the pope met by refusing to
confirm Louis's clerical appointments. His determination to restrict the
ambassadorial right of asylum, which had been grossly abused, was
resented by Louis, who defied him in his own capital, seized the papal
territory of Avignon, and talked loudly of a schism, without, however,
shaking the pope in his resolution. The preponderance of France Innocent
regarded as a menace to Europe. He opposed Louis's candidate for the
electorate of Cologne (1688), approved the League of Augsburg,
acquiesced in the designs of the Protestant William of Orange, even in
his supplanting James II., whom, although a Roman Catholic, he
distrusted as a tool of Louis. The great object of Innocent's desire was
the repulse of the Turks, and his unwearying efforts to that end
entitled him to share in the glory of relieving Vienna (1683).
Innocent died on the 12th of August 1689, lamented by his subjects. His
character and life were such as to suggest the propriety of
canonization, but hostile influences have defeated every move in that
direction.
The life of Innocent has been frequently written. See Guarnacci,
_Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1751), i. 105 sqq.;
Palazzi, _Gesta Pontiff. Rom._ (Venice, 1690); also the lives by
Albrizzi (Rome, 1695); Buonamici (Rome, 1776); and Immich (Berlin,
1900). Particular phases of Innocent's activity have been treated by
Michaud, _Loius XIV. et Innoc. XI._ (Paris, 1882 sqq., 4 vols.);
Dubruel, _La Correspond.... du Card. Carlo Pio_, &c. (see _Rev. des
quest. hist._ lxxv. (1904) 602 sqq.); and Gerin, in _Rev. des quest.
hist._, 1876, 1878, 1886. For correspondence of Innocent see Colombo,
_Notizie biogr. e lettere di P. Innoc. XI._ (Turin, 1878); and
Berthier, _Innoc. PP. XI. Epp. ad Principes_ (Rome, 1890 sqq.). An
extended bibliography may be found in Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopädie_, s.v. "Innocenz XI." (T. F. C.)
INNOCENT XII. (Antonio Pignatelli), pope from 1691 to 1700 in succession
to Alexander VIII., was born in Naples on the 13th of March 1615, was
educated at the Jesuit College in Rome, entered upon his official career
at the age of twenty, and became vice-legate of Urbino, governor of
Perugia, and nuncio to Tuscany, to Poland and to Austria. He was made
cardinal and archbishop of Naples by Innocent XI., whose pontificate he
took as a model for his own, which began on the 12th of July 1691. Full
of reforming zeal, he issued ordinances against begging, extravagance
and gambling; forbade judges to accept presents from suitors; built new
courts of justice; prohibited the sale of offices, maintaining the
financial equilibrium by reducing expenses; and, an almost revolutionary
step, struck at the root of nepotism, in a bull of 1692 ordaining that
thenceforth no pope should grant estates, offices or revenues to any
relative. Innocent likewise put an end to the strained relations that
had existed between France and the Holy See for nearly fifty years. He
adjusted the difficulties over the regalia, and obtained from the French
bishops the virtual repudiation of the Declaration of Gallican
Liberties. He confirmed the bull of Alexander VIII. against Jansenism
(1696); and, in 1699, under pressure from Louis XIV., condemned certain
of Fénelon's doctrines which Bossuet had denounced as quietistic (see
FÉNELON). When the question of the Spanish succession was being agitated
he advised Charles II. to make his will in favour of the duke of Anjou.
Innocent died, on the eve of the great conflict, on the 27th of
September 1700. Moderate, benevolent, just, Innocent was one of the best
popes of the modern age.
See Guarnacci, _Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1751), i.
389 sqq.; Ranke, _Popes_ (Eng. trans., Austin), iii. 186 sqq.; v.
Reumont, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom._ iii. 2, p. 640 sqq.; and the
_Bullarium Innoc. XII._ (Rome, 1697). (T. F. C.)
INNOCENT XIII. (Michele Angelo Conti), pope from 1721 to 1724, was the
son of the duke of Poli, and a member of a family that had produced
several popes, among them Innocent III., was born in Rome on the 13th of
May 1655, served as nuncio in Switzerland, and, for a much longer time,
in Portugal, was made cardinal and bishop of Osimo and Viterbo by
Clement XI., whom he succeeded on the 8th of May 1721. One of his first
acts was to invest the emperor Charles VI. with Naples (1722); but
against the imperial investiture of Don Carlos with Parma and Piacenza
he protested, albeit in vain. He recognized the Pretender, "James III.,"
and promised him subsidies conditional upon the re-establishment of
Roman Catholicism in England. Moved by deep-seated distrust of the
Jesuits and by their continued practice of "Accommodation," despite
express papal prohibition (see CLEMENT XI.), Innocent forbade the Order
to receive new members in China, and was said to have meditated its
suppression. This encouraged the French Jansenist bishops to press for
the revocation of the bull _Unigenitus_; but the pope commanded its
unreserved acceptance. He weakly yielded to pressure and bestowed the
cardinal's hat upon the corrupt and debauched Dubois. Innocent died on
the 7th of March 1724, and was succeeded by Benedict XIII.
See Guarnacci, _Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome, 1751), ii.
137 sqq., 381 sqq.; Sandini, _Vitae Pontiff. Rom._ (Padua, 1739); M.
v. Mayer, _Die Papstwahl Innocenz XIII._ (Vienna, 1874); Michaud, "La
Fin du Clement XI. et le commencement du pontificat d'Innocent XIII."
in the _Internat. Theol. Zeitschr._ v. 42 sqq., 304 sqq. (T. F. C.)
INNOCENTS' DAY, or CHILDERMAS, a festival celebrated in the Latin church
on the 28th of December, and in the Greek church on the 29th (O.S.) in
memory of the massacre of the children by Herod. The Church early
regarded these little ones as the first martyrs. It is uncertain when
the day was first kept as a saint's day. At first it seems to have been
absorbed into the celebration of the Epiphany, but by the 5th century it
was kept as a separate festival. In Rome it was a day of fasting and
mourning. In the middle ages the festival was the occasion for much
indulgence to the children. The boy-bishop (q.v.), whose tenure of
office lasted till Childermas, had his last exercise of authority then,
the day being one of the series of days which were known as the Feast of
Fools. Parents temporarily abdicated authority, and in nunneries and
monasteries the youngest nun and monk were for the twenty-four hours
allowed to masquerade as abbess and abbot. These mockeries of religion
were condemned by the Council of Basel (1431); but though shorn of its
extravagances the day is still observed as a feast day and merry-making
for children in Catholic countries, and particularly as an occasion for
practical joking like an April Fool's Day. In Spanish-America when such
a joke has been played, the phrase equivalent to "You April fool!" is
_Que la inocencia le valga!_ May your innocence protect you! The society
of Lincoln's Inn specially celebrated Childermas, annually electing a
"king of the Cockneys." Innocents' Day was ever accounted unlucky.
Nothing was begun and no marriages took place then. Louis XI. prohibited
all state business. The coronation of Edward IV., fixed for a Sunday,
was postponed till the Monday when it was found the Sunday fell on the
28th of December. In rural England it was deemed unlucky to do
housework, put on new clothes or pare the nails. At various places in
Gloucestershire, Somerset and Worcestershire muffled peals were rung
(_Notes and Queries_, 1st series, vol. viii. p. 617). In Northampton the
festival was called "Dyzemas Day" (possibly from Gr. [Greek: dys-] "ill"
and "mass"), and there is a proverb "What is begun on Dyzemas will never
be finished." The Irish call the day _La Croasta na bliana_, "the cross
day of the year," or _Diar dasin darg_, "blood Thursday," and many
legends attach to it (_Notes and Queries_, 4th series, vol. xii. p.
185). In medieval England the children were reminded of the mournfulness
of the day by being whipped in bed on Innocents' morning. This custom
survived to the 17th century.
INNSBRUCK, the capital of the Austrian province of Tirol, and one of the
most beautifully situated towns in Europe. In 1900 the population was
26,866 (with a garrison of about 2000 men), mainly German-speaking and
Romanist. Built at a height of 1880 ft., in a wide plain formed by the
middle valley of the Inn and on the right bank of that river, it is
surrounded by lofty mountains that seem to overhang the town. It
occupies a strong military position (its commercial and industrial
importance is now but secondary) at the junction of the great highway
from Germany to Italy over the Brenner Pass, by which it is by rail 109½
m. from Munich and 174½ m. from Verona, with that from Bregenz in the
Vorarlberg, distant 122 m., by rail under the Arlberg Pass. It takes its
name from its position, close to the chief bridge over the Inn. It is
the seat of the supreme judicial court of the Tirol, the Diet of which
meets in the Landhaus. The streets are broad, there are several open
places and the houses are handsome, many of those in the old town dating
from the 17th and 18th centuries, and being adorned with frescoes, while
the arcades beneath are used as shops.
The principal monument is the Franciscan or Court church (1553-1563). In
it is the magnificent 16th-century cenotaph (his body is elsewhere) of
the emperor Maximilian (d. 1519), who, as count of the Tirol from 1490
onwards, was much beloved by his subjects. It represents the emperor
kneeling in prayer on a gigantic marble sarcophagus, surrounded by
twenty-eight colossal bronze statues of mourners, of which twenty-three
figure ancestors, relatives or contemporaries of Maximilian, while five
represent his favourite heroes of antiquity--among these five are the
two finest statues (both by Peter Vischer of Nuremberg), those of King
Arthur of Britain and of Theodoric, the Ostrogothic king. On the sides
of the sarcophagus are twenty-four marble reliefs, depicting the
principal events in the life of Maximilian, nearly all by Alexander
Colin of Malines, while the general design of the whole monument is
attributed to Gilg Sesselschreiber, the court painter. In one of the
aisles of the same church is the Silver Chapel, so called from a silver
Madonna and silver bas-reliefs on the altar; it contains the tombs of
Archduke Ferdinand, count of the Tirol (d. 1595) and his non-royal wife,
Philippine Welser of Augsburg (d. 1580), whose happy married life spent
close by is one of the most romantic episodes in Tirolese history. In
the other aisle are the tombs, with monuments, of the heroes of the War
of Independence of 1809, Hofer, Haspinger and Speckbacher. It was in
this church that Queen Christina of Sweden, daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus, abjured Protestantism, in 1655. There are also several other
churches and convents, among the latter the first founded (1593) in
Germany by the Capuchins.
The university of Innsbruck was formally founded in 1677, and refounded
(after two periods of suspension, 1782-1792 and 1810-1826) in 1826. It
is attended by about 1000 students and has a large staff of professors,
the theological faculty being controlled by the Jesuits. It has a
library of 176,000 books, and 1049 MSS. The University or Jesuit church
dates from the early 17th century. The Ferdinandeum is the provincial
museum (founded in 1823, though the present building is later). The
house known as the Goldne Dachl has its roof covered with gilded copper
tiles; it was built about 1425, by Frederick, count of the Tirol,
nicknamed "with the empty pockets," but the balcony and gilded roof were
added in 1500 by the emperor Maximilian. Among the other monuments of
Innsbruck may be mentioned the Pillar of St Anne, erected in 1706 to
commemorate the repulse of the French and the Bavarians in 1703; the
Triumphal Arch, built in 1765, on the occasion of the marriage of the
future emperor Leopold II. with the Infanta Maria Louisa of Spain; and a
fountain, with a bronze statue of Archduke Leopold V., set up in
1863-1877, in memory of the five-hundredth anniversary of the union of
the Tirol with Austria.
The Roman station of Veldidena was succeeded by the Premonstratensian
abbey of Wilten, both serving to guard the important strategical bridge
over the Inn. In 1180 the count of Andechs (the local lord) moved the
market-place over to the right bank of the river (where is the convent),
and in 1187 we first hear of the town by its present name. Between 1233
and 1235 it was fortified, and a castle built for the lord. But it was
only about 1420 that Archduke Frederick IV. ("with the empty pockets")
built himself a new castle in Innsbruck, which then replaced Meran as
the capital of Tirol. The county of Tirol was generally held by a cadet
line of the Austrian house, the count being almost an independent ruler.
But the last princeling of this kind died in 1665, since which date
Innsbruck and Tirol have been governed from Vienna. In 1552 Maurice of
Saxony surprised and nearly took Innsbruck, almost capturing the emperor
Charles V. himself, who escaped owing to a mutiny among Maurice's
troops. In the patriotic war of 1809, Innsbruck played a great part and
suffered much, while in 1848, at the time of the revolution in Vienna,
it joyfully received the emperor Ferdinand. (W. A. B. C.)
INNS OF COURT. The Inns of Court and Chancery are voluntary
non-corporate legal societies seated in London, having their origin
about the end of the 13th and the commencement of the 14th century.
Dugdale (_Origines Juridiciales_) states that the learned in English law
were anciently persons in holy orders, the justices of the king's court
being bishops, abbots and the like. But in 1207 the clergy were
prohibited by canon from acting in the temporal courts. The result
proving prejudicial to the interests of the community, a commission of
inquiry was issued by Edward I. (1290), and this was followed up (1292)
by a second commission, which among other things directed that students
"apt and eager" should be brought from the provinces and placed in
proximity to the courts of law now fixed by Magna Carta at Westminster
(see INN). These students were accordingly located in what became known
as the Inns of Court and Chancery, the latter designated by Fortescue
(_De Laudibus_) as "the earliest settled places for students of the
law," the germ of what Sir Edward Coke subsequently spoke of as our
English juridical university. In these Inns of Court and Chancery, thus
constituted, and corresponding to the ordinary college, the students,
according to Fortescue, not only studied the laws and divinity, but
further learned to dance, sing and play instrumental music, "so that
these hostels, being nurseries or seminaries of the court, were
therefore called Inns of Court."
Stow in his _Survey_ (1598) says: "There is in and about this city a
whole university, as it were, of students, practisers or pleaders and
judges of the laws of this realm"; and he goes on to enumerate the
several societies, fourteen in number, then existing, corresponding
nearly with those recognized in the present day, of which the Inns of
Court, properly so-called, are and always have been four, namely
_Lincoln's Inn_, the _Inner Temple_, the _Middle Temple_ and _Gray's
Inn_. To these were originally attached as subordinate Inns of Chancery,
Furnival's Inn, Thavie's Inn (to Lincoln's Inn), Clifford's Inn,
Clement's Inn (to the Inner Temple), New Inn (to the Middle Temple),
Staple's Inn, Barnard's Inn (to Gray's Inn), but they were cut adrift by
the older Inns and by the middle of the 18th century had ceased to have
any legal character (_vide infra_). In addition to these may be
specified _Serjeant's Inn_, a society composed solely of
serjeants-at-law, which ceased to exist in 1877. Besides the Inns of
Chancery above enumerated, there were others, such as Lyon's Inn, which
was pulled down in 1868, and Scrope's Inn and Chester or Strand Inn,
spoken of by Stow, which have long been removed, and the societies to
which they belonged have disappeared. The four Inns of Court stand on a
footing of complete equality, no priority being conceded to or claimed
by one inn over another. Their jurisdictions and privileges are equal,
and upon affairs of common interest the benchers of the four inns meet
in conference. From the earliest times there has been an interchange of
fellowship between the four houses; nevertheless the Middle Temple and
Lincoln's Inn, and the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn, have maintained a
closer alliance.
The members of an Inn of Court consist of benchers, barristers and
students. The benchers are the senior members of the society, who are
invested with the government of the body to which they belong. They are
more formally designated "masters of the bench," are self-elected and
unrestricted as to numbers. Usually a member of an inn, on attaining the
rank of king's counsel, is invited to the bench. Other members of long
standing are also occasionally chosen, but no member by becoming a
king's counsel or by seniority of standing acquires the right of being
nominated a bencher. The benchers vary in number from twenty in Gray's
Inn to seventy and upwards in Lincoln's Inn and the Inner Temple. The
powers of the benchers are practically without limit within their
respective societies; their duties, however, are restricted to the
superintendence and management of the concerns of the inn, the admission
of candidates as students, the calling of them to the bar and the
exercise of discipline generally over the members. The meetings of the
benchers are variously denominated a "parliament" in the Inner and
Middle Temples, a "pension" in Gray's Inn and a "council" in Lincoln's
Inn. The judges of the superior courts are the visitors of the inns, and
to them alone can an appeal be had when either of the societies refuses
to call a member to the bar, or to reinstate in his privileges a
barrister who has been disbarred for misconduct. The presiding or chief
officer is the treasurer, one of the benchers, who is elected annually
to that dignity. Other benchers fulfil the duties of master of the
library, master of the walks or gardens, dean of the chapel and so
forth, while others are readers, whose functions are referred to below.
The usages of the different inns varied somewhat formerly in regard both
to the term of probationary studentship enforced and to the procedure
involved in a "call" to the bar by which the student is converted into
the barrister. In the present day the entrance examination, the course
of study and the examinations to be passed on the completion of the
curriculum are identical and common to all the inns (see ENGLISH LAW).
When once called to the bar, no hindrance beyond professional etiquette
limits a barrister's freedom of action; so also members may on
application to the benchers, and on payment of arrears of dues (if any),
leave the society to which they belong, and thus cease altogether to be
members of the bar likewise. A member of an Inn of Court retains his
name on the lists of his inn for life by means of a small annual payment
varying from £1 to £5, which at one or two of the inns is compounded for
by a fixed sum taken at the call to the bar.
The ceremony of the "call" varies in detail at the different inns. It
takes place after dinner (before dinner at the Middle Temple, which is
the only inn at which students are called in their wigs and gowns), in
the "parliament," "pension" or "council" chamber of the benchers. The
benchers sit at a table round which are ranged the students to be
called. Each candidate being provided with a glass of wine, the
treasurer or senior bencher addresses them and the senior student
briefly replies. "Call Parties" are also generally held by the new
barristers; at the Middle Temple they are allowed in hall.
During the reign of Edward III. the Inns of Court and Chancery, based on
the collegiate principle, prospered under the supervision and protection
of the crown. In 1381 Wat Tyler invaded the Temple, and in the
succeeding century (1450) Jack Cade meditated pulling down the Inns of
Court and killing the lawyers. It would appear, moreover, that the
inmates of the inns were themselves at times disorderly and in conflict
with the citizens. Fortescue (c. 1464) describing these societies thus
speaks of them: "There belong to the law ten lesser inns, which are
called the Inns of Chancery, in each of which there are one hundred
students at least, and in some a far greater number, though not
constantly residing. After the students have made some progress here
they are admitted to the Inns of Court. Of these there are four, in the
least frequented of which there are about two hundred students. The
discipline is excellent, and the mode of study well adapted for
proficiency." This system had probably existed for two centuries before
Fortescue wrote, and continued to be enforced down to the time of Sir
Thomas More (1498), of Chief Justice Dyer (1537) and of Sir Edward Coke
(1571). By the time of Sir Matthew Hale (1629) the custom for law
students to be first entered to an Inn of Chancery before being admitted
to an Inn of Court had become obsolete, and thenceforth the Inns of
Chancery have been abandoned to the attorneys. Stow in his _Survey_
succinctly points out the course of reading enforced at the end of the
16th century. He says that the Inns of Court were replenished partly by
students coming from the Inns of Chancery, who went thither from the
universities and sometimes immediately from grammar schools; and, having
spent some time in studying the first elements of the law, and having
performed the exercises called "bolts," "moots" and "putting of cases,"
they proceeded to be admitted to, and become students in, one of the
Inns of Court. Here continuing for the space of seven years or
thereabouts, they frequented readings and other learned exercises,
whereby, growing ripe in the knowledge of the laws, they were, by the
general consent either of the benchers or of the readers, called to the
degree of barrister, and so enabled to practise in chambers and at the
bar. This ample provision for legal study continued with more or less
vigour down to nearly the commencement of the 18th century. A languor
similar to that which affected the church and the universities then
gradually supervened, until the fulfilment of the merest forms sufficed
to confer the dignity of advocate and pleader. This was maintained until
about 1845, when steps were taken for reviving and extending the ancient
discipline and course of study, bringing them into harmony with modern
ideas and requirements.
The fees payable vary slightly at the different inns, but average about
£150. This sum covers all expenses from admission to an inn to the call
at the bar, but the addition of tutorial and other expenses may augment
the cost of a barrister's legal education to £400 or £500. The period of
study prior to call must not be less than twelve terms, equivalent to
about three years. Solicitors, however, may be called without keeping
any terms if they have been in practice for not fewer than five
consecutive years.
It has been seen that the studies pursued in ancient times were
conducted by means of "readings," "moots" and "bolts." The _readings_
were deemed of vital importance, and were delivered in the halls with
much ceremony; they were frequently regarded as authorities and cited as
such at Westminster in argument. Some statute or section of a statute
was selected for analysis and explanation, and its relation to the
common law pointed out. Many of these readings, dating back to Edward
I., are extant, and well illustrate the importance of the subjects and
the exhaustive and learned manner in which they were treated. The
function of "reader" involved the holder in very weighty expenses,
chiefly by reason of the profuse hospitality dispensed--a constant and
splendid table being kept during the three weeks and three days over
which the readings extended, to which were invited the nobility, judges,
bishops, the officers of state and sometimes the king himself. In 1688
the readers were paid £200 for their reading, but by that time the
office had become a sinecure. In the present day the readership is
purely honorary and without duties. The privilege formerly assumed by
the reader of calling to the bar was taken away in 1664 by an order of
the lord chancellor and the judges. _Moots_ were exercises of the nature
of formal arguments on points of law raised by the students and
conducted under the supervision of a bencher and two barristers sitting
as judges in the halls of the inns. _Bolts_ were of an analogous
character, though deemed inferior to moots.
In the early history of the inns discrimination was exercised in regard
to the social status of candidates for admission to them. Sir John
Ferne, a writer of the 16th century, referred to by Dugdale, states that
none were admitted into the houses of court except they were gentlemen
of blood. So also Pliny, writing in the 1st century of the Christian era
(_Letters_, ii. 14), says that before his day young men even of the
highest families of Rome were not admitted to practice except upon the
introduction of some man of consular rank. But he goes on to add that
all barriers were then broken down, everything being open to
everybody--a remark applicable to the bar of England and elsewhere in
the present day. It may here be noted that no dignity or title confers
any rank at the bar. A privy councillor, a peer's son, a baronet, the
speaker of the House of Commons or a knight--all rank at the bar merely
according to their legal precedence. Formerly orders were frequently
issued both by the benchers and by the crown on the subject of the
dress, manners, morals and religious observances of students and
members. Although some semblance of a collegiate discipline is still
maintained, this is restricted to the dining in hall, where many ancient
usages survive, and to the closing of the gates of the inns at night.
Each inn maintains a chapel, with the accompaniment of preachers and
other clergy, the services being those of the Church of England. The
Inner and the Middle Temple have joint use of the Temple church. The
office of preacher is usually filled by an ecclesiastic chosen by the
benchers. The principal ecclesiastic of the Temple church is, however,
constituted by letters patent by the crown without episcopal institution
or induction, enjoying, nevertheless, no authority independently of the
benchers. He bears the title of Master of the Temple.
It has already been stated, on the authority of Fortescue, that the
students of the Inns of Court learned to dance, sing and play
instrumental music; and those accomplishments found expression in the
"masques" and "revels" for which the societies formerly distinguished
themselves, especially the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn. These
entertainments were of great antiquity and much magnificence, involving
very considerable expense. Evelyn (_Diary_) speaks of the revels at the
Middle Temple as an old and riotous custom, having relation neither to
virtue nor to policy. The last revel appears to have been held at the
Inner Temple in 1734, to mark the occasion of the elevation of Lord
Chancellor Talbot to the woolsack. The plays and masques performed were
sometimes repeated elsewhere than in the hall of the inn, especially
before the sovereign at court. A master of the revels was appointed,
commonly designated Lord of Misrule. There is abundant information as to
the scope and nature of these entertainments: one of the festivals is
minutely described by Gerard Leigh in his _Accedence of Armorie_, 1612;
and a tradition ascribes the first performance of Shakespeare's _Twelfth
Night_ to a revel held in the Middle Temple hall in February 1601. The
hospitality of the inns now finds expression mainly in the "Grand Day,"
held once in each of the four terms, when it is customary for the judges
and other distinguished visitors to dine with the benchers (who sit
apart from the barristers and students on a daïs in some state), and
"Readers' Feast," on both which occasions extra commons and wine are
served to the members attending. But the old customs also found some
renewal in the shape of balls, concerts, garden-parties and other
entertainments. In 1887 there was a revival (the first since the 17th
century) of the Masque of Flowers at both the Inner Temple and Gray's
Inn. The Royal Horticultural Society's annual exhibition of flowers and
fruit is held in May in the Temple Gardens. Plays are also occasionally
performed in the Temple, Robert Browning's _Sordello_ being acted in
1902 by a company of amateurs, most of whom were either members of the
bar or connected with the legal profession.
The _Inner_ and the _Middle Temple_, so far as their history can be
traced, have always been separate societies. Fortescue, writing
between 1461 and 1470, makes no allusion to a previous junction of the
two inns. Dugdale (1671) speaks of the Temple as having been one
society, and states that the students so increased in number that at
length they divided, becoming the Inner and Middle Temple
respectively. He does not, however, give any authority for this
statement, or furnish the date of the division. The first trustworthy
mention of the Temple as an inn of court is found in the _Paston
Letters_, where, under date November 1440, the Inner Temple is spoken
of as a college, as is also subsequently the Middle Temple. The Temple
had been the seat in England of the Knights Templars, on whose
suppression in 1312 it passed with other of their possessions to the
crown, and after an interval of some years to the Knights Hospitallers
of St John of Jerusalem, who in the reign of Edward III. demised the
mansion and its surroundings to certain professors of the common law
who came from Thavie's Inn. Notwithstanding the destruction of the
muniments of the Temple by fire or by popular commotion, sufficient
testimony is attainable to show that in the reigns of Edward III. and
Richard II. the Temple had become the residence of the legal
communities which have since maintained there a permanent footing. The
two societies continued as tenants to the Knights Hospitallers of St
John until the dissolution of the order in 1539; they then became the
lessees of the crown, and so remained until 1609, when James I. made a
grant by letters patent of the premises in perpetuity to the benchers
of the respective societies on a yearly payment by each of £10, a
payment bought up in the reign of Charles II. In this grant the two
inns are described as "the Inner and the Middle Temple or New Temple,"
and as "being two out of those four colleges the most famous of all
Europe" for the study of the law. Excepting the church, nothing
remains of the edifices belonging to the Knights Templars, the present
buildings having been almost wholly erected since the reign of Queen
Elizabeth or since the Great Fire, in which the major part of the
Inner Temple perished. The church has been in the joint occupation of
the Inner and Middle Temple from time immemorial--the former taking
the southern and the latter the northern half. The round portion of
the church was consecrated in 1185, the nave or choir in 1240. It is
the largest and most complete of the four remaining round churches in
England, and is built on the plan of the church of the Holy Sepulchre
at Jerusalem. Narrowly escaping the ravages of the fire of 1666, this
beautiful building is one of the most perfect specimens of early
Gothic architecture in England. In former times the lawyers awaited
their clients for consultation in the Round Church, as similarly the
serjeants-at-Law were accustomed to resort to St Paul's Cathedral,
where each serjeant had a pillar assigned him.
The _Inner Temple_, comprehending a hall, parliament chamber, library
and other buildings, occupies the site of the ancient mansion of the
Knights Templars, built about the year 1240, and has from time to time
been more or less rebuilt and extended, the present handsome range of
buildings, including a new dining hall, being completed in 1870. The
library owes its existence to William Petyt, keeper of the Tower
Records in the time of Queen Anne, who was also a benefactor to the
library of the Middle Temple. The greatest addition by gift was made
by the Baron F. Maseres in 1825. The number of volumes now in the
library is 37,000. Of the Inns of Chancery belonging to the Inner
Temple _Clifford's Inn_ was anciently the town residence of the Barons
Clifford, and was demised in 1345 to a body of students of the law. It
was the most important of the Inns of Chancery, and numbered among its
members Coke and Selden. At its dinners a table was specially set
aside for the "Kentish Mess," though it is not clear what connexion
there was between the Inn and the county of Kent. It was governed by a
principal and twelve rulers. _Clement's Inn_ was an Inn of Chancery
before the reign of Edward IV., taking its name from the parish church
of St Clement Danes, to which it had formerly belonged. Clement's Inn
was the inn of Shakespeare's Master Shallow, and was the Shepherd's
Inn of Thackeray's _Pendennis_. The buildings of Clifford's Inn
survive (1910), but of Clement's Inn there are left but a few
fragments.
The _Middle Temple_ possesses in its hall one of the most stately of
existing Elizabethan buildings. Commenced in 1562, under the auspices
of Edmund Plowden, then treasurer, it was not completed until 1572,
the richly carved screen at the east end in the style of the
Renaissance being put up in 1575. The belief that the screen was
constructed of timber taken from ships of the Spanish Armada (1588) is
baseless. The hall, which has been preserved unaltered, has been the
scene of numerous historic incidents, notably the entertainments given
within its walls to regal and other personages from Queen Elizabeth
downwards. The library, which contains about 28,000 volumes, dates
from 1641, when Robert Ashley, a member of the society, bequeathed his
collection of books in all classes of literature to the inn, together
with a large sum of money; other benefactors were Ashmole (the
antiquary), William Petyt (a benefactor of the Inner Temple) and Lord
Stowell. From 1711 to 1826 the library was greatly neglected; and many
of the most scarce and valuable books were lost. The present handsome
library building, which stands apart from the hall, was completed in
1861, the prince of Wales (afterwards Edward VII.) attending the
inauguration ceremony on October 31st of that year, and becoming a
member and bencher of the society on the occasion. He afterwards held
the office of treasurer (1882). The MSS. in the collection are few and
of no special value. In civil, canon and international law, as also in
divinity and ecclesiastical history, the library is very rich; it
contains also some curious works on witchcraft and demonology. There
was but one Inn of Chancery connected with the Middle Temple, that of
_New Inn_, which, according to Dugdale, was formed by a society of
students previously settled at St George's Inn, situated near St
Sepulchre's Church without Newgate; but the date of this transfer is
not known. The buildings have now been pulled down.
_Lincoln's Inn_ stands on the site partly of an episcopal palace
erected in the time of Henry III. by Ralph Nevill, bishop of
Chichester and chancellor of England, and partly of a religious house,
called Black Friars House, in Holborn. In the reign of Edward II.,
Henry Lacy, earl of Lincoln, possessed the place, which from him
acquired the name of Lincoln's Inn, probably becoming an Inn of Court
soon after his death (in 1310), though of its existence as a place of
legal study there is little authentic record until the time of Henry
VI. (1424), to which date the existing muniments reach back. The fee
simple of the inn would appear to have remained vested in the see of
Chichester; and it was not until 1580 that the society which for
centuries had occupied the inn as tenants acquired the absolute
ownership of it. The old hall, built about 1506, still remains, but
has given place to a modern structure designed by Philip Hardwick,
R.A., which, along with the buildings containing the library, was
completed in 1845, Queen Victoria attending the inauguration ceremony
(October 13). The chapel, built after the designs of Inigo Jones, was
consecrated in 1623. The library--as a collection of law books the
most complete in the country--owes its foundation to a bequest of John
Nethersale, a member of the society, in 1497, and is the oldest of the
existing libraries in London. Various entries in the records of the
inn relate to the library, and notably in 1608, when an effort was
made to extend the collection, and the first appointment of a master
of the library (an office now held in annual rotation by each bencher)
was made. The library has been much enriched by donations and by the
acquisition by purchase of collections of books on special subjects.
It includes also an extensive and valuable series of MSS., the whole
comprehending 50,000 volumes. The prince of Wales (George V.), a
bencher of the society, filled the office of treasurer in 1904. The
Inns of Chancery affiliated to Lincoln's Inn were Thavie's Inn and
Furnival's Inn. _Thavie's Inn_ was a residence of students of the law
in the time of Edward III., and is mentioned by Fortescue as having
been one of the lesser houses of Lincoln's Inn for some centuries. It
thus continued down to 1769, when the inn was sold by the benchers,
and thenceforth it ceased to have any character as a place of legal
education. _Furnival's Inn_ became the resort of students about the
year 1406, and was purchased by the society of Lincoln's Inn in 1547.
It was governed by a principal and twelve antients. In 1817 the Inn
was rebuilt, but from that date it ceased to exist as a legal
community and is now demolished.
The exact date of _Gray's Inn_ becoming the residence of lawyers is
not known, though it was so occupied before the year 1370. The inn
stands upon the site of the manor of Portpoole, belonging in ancient
times to the dean and chapter of St Paul's, but subsequently the
property of the family of Grey de Wilton and eventually of the crown,
from which a grant of the manor or inn was obtained, many years since
discharged from any rent or payment. The hall of the inn is of
handsome design, similar to the Middle Temple hall in its general
character and arrangements, and was completed about the year 1560. The
chapel, of much earlier date than the hall, has, notwithstanding its
antiquity, little to recommend it to notice, being small and
insignificant, and lacking architectural features of any kind. The
library, including about 13,000 volumes, contains a small but
important collection of MSS. and missals, and also some valuable works
on divinity. Little is known of the origin or early history of the
library, though mention is incidentally made of it in the society's
records in the 16th and 17th centuries. The gardens, laid out about
1597, it is believed under the auspices of the lord chancellor Bacon,
at that time treasurer of the society, continue to this day as then
planned, though with some curtailment owing to the erection of
additional buildings. Among many curious customs maintained in this
inn is that of drinking a toast on grand days "to the glorious, pious
and immortal memory of Queen Elizabeth." Of the special circumstances
originating this display of loyalty there is no record. The Inns of
Chancery connected with Gray's Inn are Staple and Barnard's Inns.
_Staple Inn_ was an Inn of Chancery in the reign of Henry V., and is
probably of yet earlier date. Readings and moots were observed here
with regularity. Sir Simonds d'Ewes mentions attending a moot in
February 1624. The Inn, with its picturesque Elizabethan front, faces
Holborn. It was sold by the antients in 1884 lor £68,000. It is in a
very good state of preservation, and it is the intention of the
purchasers, the Prudential Assurance Company, to preserve it as a
memorial of vanishing London. _Barnard's Inn_, anciently designated
Mackworth Inn, was an Inn of Chancery in the reign of Henry VI. It was
bequeathed by him to the dean and chapter of Lincoln. It is now the
property of the Mercer's Company and is used as a school.
The _King's Inns, Dublin_, the legal school in Ireland, corresponds
closely to the English Inns of Court, and is in many respects in
unison with them in its regulations with regard to the admission of
students into the society, and to the degree of barrister-at-law, as
also in the scope of the examinations enforced. Formerly it was
necessary to keep a number of terms at one of the Inns in London--the
stipulation dating as far back as 1542 (33 Henry VIII. c. 3). Down to
1866 the course of education pursued at the King's Inns differed from
the English Inns of Court in that candidates for admission to the
legal profession as attorneys and solicitors carried on their studies
with those studying for the higher grade of the bar in the same
building under a professor specially appointed for this
purpose,--herein following the usage anciently prevailing in the Inns
of Chancery in London. This arrangement was put an end to by the
Attorneys and Solicitors Act (Ireland) 1866. The origin of the King's
Inns may be traced to the reign of Edward I., when a legal society
designated Collett's Inn was established without the walls of the
city; it was destroyed by an insurrectionary band. In the reign of
Edward III. Sir Robert Preston, chief baron of the exchequer, gave up
his residence within the city to the legal body, which then took the
name of Preston's Inn. In 1542 the land and buildings known as
Preston's Inn were restored to the family of the original donor, and
in the same year Henry VIII. granted the monastery of Friars Preachers
for the use of the professors of the law in Ireland. The legal body
removed to the new site, and thenceforward were known by the name of
the King's Inns. Possession of this property having been resumed by
the government in 1742, and the present Four Courts erected thereon, a
plot of ground at the top of Henrietta Street was purchased by the
society, and the existing hall built in the year 1800. The library,
numbering over 50,000 volumes, with a few MSS., is housed in buildings
specially provided in the year 1831, and is open, not only to the
members of the society, but also to strangers. The collection
comprises all kinds of literature. It is based principally upon a
purchase made in 1787 of the large and valuable library of Mr Justice
Robinson, and is maintained chiefly by an annual payment made from the
Consolidated Fund to the society in lieu of the right to receive
copyright works which was conferred by an Act of 1801, but abrogated
in 1836.
In discipline and professional etiquette the members of the bar in
Ireland differ little from their English brethren. The same style of
costume is enforced, the same gradations of rank--attorney-general,
solicitor-general, king's counsel and ordinary barristers--being
found. There are also serjeants-at-law limited, however, to three in
number, and designated 1st, 2nd and 3rd Serjeant. The King's Inns do
not provide chambers for business purposes; there is consequently no
aggregation of counsel in certain localities, as is the case in London
in the Inns of Court and their immediate vicinity.
The corporation known as the _Faculty of Advocates_ in Edinburgh
corresponds with the Inns of Court in London and the King's Inns in
Dublin (see ADVOCATES, FACULTY OF).
AUTHORITIES.--Fortescue, _De laudibus legum Angliae_, by A. Amos
(1825); Dugdale, _Origines juridicales_ (2nd ed., 1671); _History and
Antiquities of the Four Inns of Court_, &c. (1780, 2nd ed.); Foss,
_Judges of England_ (1848-1864, 9 vols.); Herbert, _Antiquities of the
Inns of Court_ (1804); Pearce, _History of the Inns of Court_ (1848);
_Report_ of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Inns of
Court and Chancery, 1855; Ball, _Student's Guide to the Bar_ (1878);
Stow, _Survey of London and Westminster_, by Strype (1754-1755);
Nichols, _Progresses of Elizabeth and James I._; Lane, _Student's
Guide through Lincoln's Inn_ (2nd ed., 1805); Spilsbury, _Lincoln's
Inn, with an Account of the Library_ (2nd ed., 1873); Douthwaite,
_Notes illustrative of the History and Antiquities of Gray's Inn_
(1876), and _Gray's Inn, its History and Associations_ (1886); _Paston
Letters_ (1872); _Law Magazine_, 1859-1860; _Quarterly Review_,
October, 1871; Cowel, _Law Dictionary_ (1727); Duhigg, _History of the
King's Inns in Ireland_ (1806); Mackay, _Practice of the Court of
Session_ (1879); Bellot, _The Inner and Middle Temple_ (1902);
Inderwick, _The King's Peace_ (1895); Fletcher, _The Pension Book of
Gray's Inn_ (1901); Loftie, _The Inns of Court_ (1895); Hope,
_Chronicles of an Old Inn_ (Gray's Inn) (1887); _A Calendar of the
Inner Temple Records_ (ed. F. A. Inderwick, 3 vols.). (J. C. W.)
INNUENDO (Latin for "by nodding," from _innuere_, to indicate by
nodding), an insinuation, suggestion, in prima facie innocent words, of
something defamatory or disparaging of a person. The word appears in
legal documents in Medieval Latin, to explain, in parenthesis, that to
which a preceding word refers; thus, "he, _innuendo_, the plaintiff, is
a thief." The word is still found in pleadings in actions for libel and
slander. The innuendo, in the plaintiff's statement of claim, is an
averment that words written or spoken by the defendant, though prima
facie not actionable, have, in fact, a defamatory meaning, which is
specifically set out (see LIBEL AND SLANDER).
INOUYE, KAORU, MARQUESS (1835- ), Japanese statesman, was born in 1835,
a _samurai_ of the Choshu fief. He was a bosom friend of his
fellow-clansman Prince Ito, and the two youths visited England in 1863,
serving as common sailors during the voyage. At that time all travel
abroad was forbidden on pain of death, but the veto did not prove
deterrent in the face of a rapidly growing conviction that, as a matter
of self-protection, Japan must assimilate the essentials of Western
civilization. Shortly after the departure of Inouye and Ito, the Choshu
fief, having fired upon foreign vessels passing the strait of
Shimonoseki, was menaced by war with the Yedo government or with the
insulted powers, and Inouye and Ito, on receipt of this news, hastened
home hoping to avert the catastrophe. They repaired to the British
legation in Yedo and begged that the allied squadron, then about to sail
for Shimonoseki to call Choshu to account, should be delayed that they
might have an opportunity of advising the fief to make timely
submission. Not only was this request complied with, but a British
frigate was detailed to carry the two men to Shimonoseki, and, pending
her departure, the British legation assisted them to lie _perdu_. Their
mission proved futile, however, and Inouye was subsequently waylaid by a
party of conservative _samurai_, who left him covered with wounds. This
experience did not modify his liberal views, and, by the time of the
Restoration in 1867, he had earned a high reputation as a leader of
progress and an able statesman. Finance and foreign affairs were
supposed to be the spheres specially suited to his genius, but his name
is not associated with any signal practical success in either, though
his counsels were always highly valued by his sovereign and his country
alike. As minister of foreign affairs he conducted the long and abortive
negotiations for treaty revision between 1883 and 1886, and in 1885 he
was raised to the peerage with the title of count, being one of the
first group of _Meiji_ statesmen whose services were thus rewarded.
Prior to his permanent retirement from office in 1898, he held the
portfolios of foreign affairs, finance, home affairs, and agriculture
and commerce, and throughout the war with Russia he attended all
important state councils, by order of the emperor, being also specially
designated adviser to the minister of finance. In 1907 he was raised to
the rank of marquess. His name will go down in his country's history as
one of the five _Meiji_ statesmen, namely, Princes Ito and Yamagata,
Marquesses Inouye and Matsukata and Count Okuma.
INOWRAZLAW, the Polish form of the German _Jung-Breslau_, by which the
place was formerly known, a town in the Prussian province of Posen,
situated on an eminence in the most fertile part of the province, 21 m.
S.W. of Thorn. Pop. (1900) 26,141. Iron-founding, the manufacture of
machinery and chemicals, and an active trade in cattle and country
produce are carried on. In the vicinity are important salt works and a
sulphur mine, and since 1876 a brine bath has been within the town.
Inowrazlaw is mentioned as early as 1185, and in 1772 it passed to
Prussia.
INQUEST (O. Fr. _enqueste_, modern _enquête_, from Lat. _inquisitum_,
_inquirere_, to inquire), an inquiry, particularly a formal legal
inquiry into facts. The word is now chiefly confined to the inquiry held
by a coroner and jury into the causes of certain deaths, in matters of
treasure trove, and, in the city of London, in cases of fires (see
CORONER). Formerly the term was applied to many formal and official
inquiries for fixing prices, &c.
INQUISITION, THE (Lat. _inquisitio_, an inquiry),
Punishment of heresy in the Roman Empire.
Opinions of the Fathers.
In the early Middle Ages.
Conflicting views as to the punishment of heresy.
The Church Councils.
Influence of the Canon Law.
The Council of Tours, 1163.
Definition of the procedure under Lucius III. and the Emperor Frederick
I.
The death penalty.
Innocent III.
the name given to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction dealing both in the
middle ages and in modern times with the detection and punishment of
heretics and all persons guilty of any offence against Catholic
orthodoxy. It is incorrect to say that the Inquisition made its
appearance in the 13th century complete in all its principles and
organs. It was the result of, or rather one step in, a process of
evolution, the beginnings of which are to be traced back to the origins
of Christianity. St Paul (1 Tim. i. 20) "delivered unto Satan"
Hymenaeus and Alexander, "that they might learn not to blaspheme." The
penalty of death by stoning inflicted by the book of Deuteronomy upon
those who deserted the true faith (Deut. xiii. 6-9, xvii. 1-6) is thus
reduced to a purely spiritual excommunication. During the first three
centuries of the Church there is no trace of any persecution, and the
earlier Fathers, especially Origen and Lactantius, reject the idea of
it. Constantine, by the edict of Milan (313), inaugurated an era of
official tolerance, but from the time of Valentinian I. and Theodosius
I. onwards, laws against heretics began to appear, and increased with
astonishing regularity and rapidity. We can count sixty-eight
distributed over fifty-two years; heretics are subjected to exile or
confiscation, disqualified from inheriting property, and even, in the
case of a few groups of Manichaeans and Donatists, condemned to death;
but it should be noticed that these penalties apply only to the outward
manifestations of heresy, and not, as in the middle ages, to crimes of
conscience. Within the Church, St Optatus alone (_De schismate
Donatistarum_, _lib._ iii. cap. iii.) approved of this violent
repression of the Donatist heresy; St Augustine only admitted a
_temperata severitas_, such as scourging, fines or exile, and at the end
of the 4th century the condemnation of the Spanish heretic Priscillian,
who was put to death in 385 by order of the emperor Maximus, gave rise
to a keen controversy. St Martin of Tours, St Ambrose and St Leo
vigorously attacked the Spanish bishops who had obtained the
condemnation of Priscillian. St John Chrysostom considered that a
heretic should be deprived of the liberty of speech and that assemblies
organized by heretics should be dissolved, but declared that "to put a
heretic to death would be to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime."
From the 6th to the 9th century the heterodox, with the exception of the
Manichaean sects in certain places, were hardly subjected to
persecution. They were, moreover, rare and generally isolated, for
groups of sectaries only began to appear to any extent at the time of
the earliest appearances of Catharism. However, at the end of the 10th
century, the disciples of Vilgard, a heretic of Ravenna, were destroyed
in Italy and Sardinia, according to Glaber, _ferro et incendio_,
probably by assimilation to the Manichaeans. Perhaps this was the
precedent for the punishment of the thirteen Cathari who were burnt at
Orleans in 1022 by order of King Robert, a sentence which has been
commonly quoted as the first action of the "secular arm" (or lay power)
against heresy in the West during the middle ages. However that may be,
after 1022 there were numerous cases of the execution of heretics,
either by burning or strangling, in France, Italy, the Empire and
England. Up till about 1200 it is not quite easy to determine what part
was taken by the Church and its bishops and doctors in this series of
executions. At Orleans the people, supported by the Crown, were
responsible for the death of the heretics; the historians give only the
faintest indications of any direct intervention of the clergy, except
perhaps for the examination of doctrine. At Goslar (1051-1052) the
proceedings were the same. At Asti (1034) the bishop's name appears side
by side with those of the other lords who attacked the Cathari, but it
seems clear that it was not he who had the chief voice in their
execution; at Milan, it was again the civil magistrates, and this time
against the wish of the archbishop--who gave the heretics the choice
between the adoration of the cross and death. At Soissons (1114) the
mob, distrusting the weakness of the clergy, took advantage of their
bishop's absence to burn heretics at the stake. It was also the mob who,
infuriated at seeing him destroy and burn crosses, burnt the heresiarch
Peter of Bruis (c. 1140). At Liége (1144) the bishop saved from the
flames certain persons whom the faithful were attempting to burn. At
Cologne (1163) the archbishop was less successful, and the mob put the
heretics to death without even a trial. The condemnation of Arnold of
Brescia was entirely political, though he was denounced as a heretic to
the secular arm by Bernard of Clairvaux, and his execution was the act
of the prefect of Rome (1155). At Vézelay, on the contrary (1167), the
heretics were burnt after ecclesiastical judgment had been pronounced
by the abbot and several bishops. From 1183 to 1206 Hugh, bishop of
Auxerre, took upon himself the discretionary power of exiling,
dispossessing or burning heretics, while about the same time William of
the White Hands, archbishop of Reims, in concert with Philip, count of
Flanders, stamped out heresy from his diocese by fire. There was a
similar unanimity between the lay and ecclesiastical authorities in the
famous condemnation of the disciples of Amalric of Bena, who were burnt
at Paris in 1209 by order of Philip Augustus after an ecclesiastical
inquiry and judgment. The theory in these matters was at first as
uncertain as the practice; in the 11th century one bishop only, Theodwin
of Liége (d. 1075), affirms the necessity for the punishment of heretics
by the secular arm (1050). His predecessor, Wazo, bishop of Liége from
1041 to 1044, had expressly condemned any capital punishment and advised
the bishop of Chalons to resort to peaceful conversion. In the 12th
century Peter the Cantor[1] protested against the death penalty,
admitting at the most imprisonment. It was imprisonment again, or exile,
but not death, which the German abbot Gerhoh of Reichersperg (1093-1169)
demanded in the case of Arnold of Brescia, and in dealing with the
heretics of Cologne, St Bernard, who cannot be accused of leniency where
heterodoxy was concerned, recommended pacific refutation, followed by
excommunication or prison, but never the death penalty (see BERNARD, ST,
of Clairvaux). In the councils, too, it is clear that the appeal to the
secular arm was equally guarded: at Reims (1049) excommunication alone
is decreed against heretics; and when, as at Toulouse (1119) and the
Lateran council (1139), it is laid down that heretics, in addition to
excommunication, should be dealt with _per potestates exteras_, or when,
as at the council of Reims (1148), the secular princes are forbidden to
support or harbour heretics, there is never any suggestion of capital
punishment. But it must be noticed that from the opening years of the
12th century date the beginnings of a decided evolution in the canon
law, continuing up to the time of Innocent III., which substituted for
arbitrary decisions according to circumstances an organized and
particularized legislation, in which judgment was given _secundum
canonicas et legitimas sanctiones_. Anselm of Lucca and the _Panormia_
attributed to Ivo of Chartres reproduced word for word under the rubric
_De edicto imperatorum in dampnationem hoereticorum_, law 5 of the title
_De hereticis_ of Justinian's code, which pronounces the sentence of
death against the Manichaeans; and we should remember that the Cathari,
and in general all heretics in the West in the 11th and 12th centuries
were considered by contemporary theologians as Manichaeans. Gratian in
the _Decretum_ proclaims the views of St Augustine (exile and fines).
Certain of his commentators (_2^a pars Caus._ xxiii.), and notably
Rufinus Johannes Teutonicus, and the anonymous glossator (in Uguccio's
Great Summa of the _Decretum_) declare that impenitent heretics may, or
even should, be punished by death. As early as 1163, the council of
Tours suggested to the ecclesiastical authorities definite penalties to
be inflicted on heretics, namely, imprisonment and loss of all their
property. Pope Alexander III., who had attended the council of Tours of
1163, renewed at the Lateran council (1179) the decisions which had
already been made with regard to the heterodox in the south of France,
and at Verona in 1184 Pope Lucius III., in concert with the emperor
Frederick Barbarossa, took still more severe measures: obstinate
heretics were to be excommunicated, and then handed over to the secular
arm, which would inflict a suitable penalty. The emperor, on his side,
laid them under the imperial ban (exile, confiscation, demolition of
their houses, _infamia_, loss of civil rights, disqualification from
public offices, &c.). The usage, then, was already quite clear; but the
death penalty had not as yet been demanded or inflicted. Possibly it was
Count Raymond V. of Toulouse, in whose territories heretics abounded,
who in 1194 enacted a law threatening them with the penalty of death;
but the authenticity of this act has been questioned. It was more
probably Peter II. of Aragon who was the first to decree, in 1197, the
punishment of death by burning against the heretics who should not have
left his kingdom within a given time. But it was Innocent III. who gave
the most powerful impetus to the anti-heretical movement in the secular
world by his frequent exhortations (beginning in 1198) to the secular
princes (letters of March 25th, 1199, and September 22nd, 1207). As a
jurist he henceforward assimilated the crime of high treason against God
to that of high treason against temporal rulers, and admitted all the
terrible consequences of this assimilation.
Albigensian Crusade. No regular Inquisition.
The Emperor Frederick II.
Gregory IX. creates the monastic Inquisition.
The Dominicans.
It is therefore incorrect to believe that the Inquisition arose out of,
and at the time of, the crusade against the Albigenses. These executions
_en masse_ certainly created a definitive precedent for violent
repression, but there was still no regular organization: the council of
Toulouse, held in November 1229 by the Roman legate after the treaty of
peace, attempted to organize one, and constituted itself the tribunal.
But the procedure was still uncertain; in the north, from 1200 to 1222,
at Paris (execution of the disciples of Amalric of Bena), at Strassburg,
Cambrai, Troyes and Besançon executions took place, after trials in
which the bishops were the judges, the exercise of the secular power
being based on vague phrases in the decrees of Louis VIII. (that
heretics be punished _animadversione debita_), or in those of Louis IX.,
ordering his _baillis_ or barons to do to them _quod debebunt_. The
emperor Frederick II. defined his jurisprudence more clearly: from 1220
to 1239, supported by Pope Honorius III., and above all by Gregory IX.,
he established against the heretics of the Empire in general a
legislation in which the penalties of death, banishment and confiscation
of property were formulated so clearly as to be henceforth
incontestable. Gregory IX. felt his influence, and also that of the
Dominican Guala, bishop of Brescia, who had subjected his episcopal town
to the full rigour of the imperial laws. The pope no longer hesitated as
to the principle or the degree of repression; but introduced new methods
of inquiry and judgment: he created out of the material furnished him by
the mendicant orders, and especially the Dominicans, who were more
disciplined than the rest and better theologians, the monastic
inquisition, which was more elastic, more constant in its activities and
more numerous than the inquisition by legate, and better disciplined
than the episcopal inquisition. In November 1232 the Dominican Alberic
went round Lombardy with the title of _Inquisitor haereticae
pravitatis_. In 1231 a similar commission was given to the Dominicans of
Friesach and to the terrible Conrad of Marburg, whose zeal in Germany
even exceeded the pope's wishes. In 1233 Gregory IX. addressed a letter
to the bishops in the south of France, in which he announced his
intention of employing the preaching friars in future for the discovery
and repression of heresy.
Beginnings of the Inquisition.
Inquisitorial districts.
The Inquisitors and their auxiliaries.
The inquisition was now regularly instituted, but its jurisprudence was
elaborated by successive additions or limitations, by the force of
custom and the detailed prescriptions added by the papal constitutions.
The pope's commissioners "in the matter of heresy" at first travelled
from place to place. On arriving in a district they addressed its
inhabitants, called upon them to confess, if they were heretics, or to
denounce those whom they knew to be heretics: a "time of grace" was
opened, during which those who freely confessed were dispensed from all
penalties, or only given a secret and very light penance; while those
whose heresy had been openly manifested were exempted from the penalties
of death and perpetual imprisonment. But this time could not exceed one
month. After that began the inquisition. As soon as their mission was at
an end, and heresy was considered to be stamped out, the inquisitors
left the country. Later, inquisitorial districts were formed. The seat
of the Inquisition in each district was the monastery of the order
(Dominican or Franciscan) to which the inquisitors for that part
belonged. There was never any special court or prison: the _murus_
(prison) was lent to the Inquisition by the ecclesiastical or secular
authorities. The maintenance of the prisoners and the duty of providing
the prison fell in principle upon the bishops (council of Toulouse,
1229), but they tried to evade it. The kings of France, and in
particular Louis VIII., granted subsidies to the inquisitors. For each
district the inquisitors were chosen by the provincials of their order,
approved or rejected by the pope, and removable by him only. Their
discretionary powers were absolute. They conducted their interrogations
before two persons (laymen or ecclesiastics) and only pronounced their
sentence after consultation with leading men in the district
(_communicato bonorum virorum consilio_). This was the only protection
for the accused. It was in vain that the civil lawyers tried to prove
that the secular authorities had a right to see the documents bearing on
the case; the Inquisition always succeeded in setting aside these
claims. The share taken in the proceedings by the bishops, the accused
or their representatives, though admitted in principle, was as a rule
merely illusory. The Inquisition had in addition to these _boni viri_
certain other lay assistant officials, its sworn notaries, messengers
and familiars, all of whom were closely bound to it.
Procedure of the Inquisition.
Use of torture.
Punishments.
"Handing over to the secular arm."
Bernard Guy (Bernardus Guidonis),[2] one of the earliest and most
complete exponents of the theory of the Inquisition, admits distinctly
that in its procedure _multa sunt specialia_. The procedure was secret
and in the highest degree arbitrary, proceeding _sine strepitu et figura
judicii_, its object being to ascertain not so much particular offences
as tendencies: the murderers of the inquisitor Peter Martyr[3] were
tried, not as assassins, but as guilty of heresy and adversaries of the
Inquisition; and on the other hand, external acts of piety and verbal
professions of faith were held of no value. Moreover the Inquisition was
not bound by the ordinary rules of procedure in its inquiries: the
accused was surprised by a sudden summons, and as a rule imprisoned on
suspicion. All the accused were presumed to be guilty, the judge being
at the same time the accuser. Absence was naturally considered as
contumacy, and only increased the presumption of guilt by seeming to
admit it. The accused had the right to demand a written account of the
offences attributed to him (_capitula accusationis_), but the names of
the witnesses were withheld from him (Innocent IV.; bulls Cum negocium
and _Licet sicut accepimus_), he did not know who had denounced him, nor
what weight was attached by the judges to the denunciations made against
him. The utmost that was allowed him was the unsatisfactory privilege of
the _recusationes divinatrices_, i.e. at his first examination he was
asked for the names of any enemies of whom he knew, and the causes of
their enmity. Heretics or persons deprived of civil rights (_infames_)
were admitted as witnesses in cases of heresy. Women, children or slaves
could be witnesses for the prosecution, but not for the defence, and
cases are even to be found in which the witnesses were only ten years of
age. Langhino Ugolini states that a witness who should retract his
hostile evidence should be punished for false witness, but that his
evidence should be retained, and have its full effect on the sentence.
No witness might refuse to give evidence, under pain of being considered
guilty of heresy. The prosecution went on in the utmost secrecy. The
accused swore that he would tell the whole truth, and was bound to
denounce all those who were partners of his heresy, or whom he knew or
suspected to be heretics. If he confessed, and denounced his
accomplices, relatives or friends, he was "reconciled" with the Church,
and had to suffer only the humiliating penalties prescribed by the canon
law. If further examination proved necessary, it was continued by
various methods. Bernardus Guidonis enumerates many ways of obtaining
confessions, sometimes by means of moral subterfuges, but sometimes also
by a process of weakening the physical strength. And as a last expedient
torture was resorted to. The Church was originally opposed to torture,
and the canon law did not admit confessions extorted by that means; but
by the bull _Ad extirpanda_ (1252) Innocent IV. approved its use for the
discovery of heresy, and Urban IV. confirmed this usage, which had its
origin in secular legislation (cf. the Veronese Code of 1228, and
Sicilian Constitution of Frederick II. in 1231). In 1312 excessive
cruelty had to be suppressed by the council of Vienna. Canonically the
torture could only be applied once, but it might be "continued." The
next step was the torture of witnesses, a practice which was left to the
discretion of the inquisitors. Moreover, all confessions or depositions
extorted in the torture-chamber had subsequently to be "freely"
confirmed. The confession was always considered as voluntary. The
procedure was of course not litigious; any lawyer defending the accused
would have been held guilty of heresy. The inquiry might last a long
time, for it was interrupted or resumed according to the discretion of
the judges, who disposed matters so as to obtain as many confessions or
denunciations as possible. After the different phases of the
examination, the accused were divided into two categories: (1) those who
had confessed and abjured, (2) those who had not confessed and were
consequently convicted of heresy. There was a third class, by no means
the least numerous, namely, those who having previously confessed and
abjured had relapsed into error. Next came the moment of the sentence:
"there was never any case of an acquittal pure and simple" (H. C. Lea).
The formula for full and complete acquittal given by Bernardus Guidonis
in his _Practica_, should, he says, never or very rarely be employed.
The sentences were solemnly pronounced on a Sunday, in a church or
public place, in the presence of the inquisitors, their auxiliaries, the
bishops, the secular magistrates and the people. This was the _sermo
generalis_ (see AUTO DA FÉ). The accused who had confessed were
reconciled, and the penalties were then pronounced; these were, in order
of severity, penances, fasting, prayers, pilgrimages (Palestine, St
James of Compostella, Canterbury, &c.), public scourging, the compulsory
wearing on the breast or back of crosses of yellow felt sewn on to the
clothes or sometimes of tongues of red, letters, &c. These were the
_poenae confusibiles_ (humiliating). The inquisitors eventually acquired
the right of inflicting fines at discretion. In 1244 and 1251 Innocent
IV. reproved them for their exactions. All these minor penalties could
be commuted for payments in money in the same way as absolution from the
crusader's vow, and the council of Vienna tried to put an end to these
extortions. Beyond these minor penalties came the severer ones of
imprisonment for a period of time, perpetual imprisonment and
imprisonment of various degrees of severity (_murus largus_, _murus
strictus vel strictissimus_). The _murus strictus_ consisted in the
deepest dungeon, with single or double fetters, and "the bread and water
of affliction"; but the severity of the prison régime varied very much.
The _murus largus_, especially for a rich prisoner, amounted to a fairly
mild imprisonment, but the mortality among those confined in the _murus
strictus_ became so high that Clement V. ordered an inquiry to be made
into the prison régime in Languedoc, in spite of Bernard Guy's protest
against the investigation as likely to diminish the prestige of the
inquisitors. After the sentences had been pronounced, the obstinate
heretics and renegades were for the last time called upon to submit and
to confess and abjure. If they consented, they were received as
penitents, and condemned on the spot to perpetual imprisonment; if they
did not consent, they were handed over to the secular arm. When the
heretic was handed over to the secular arm, the agents of the secular
power were recommended to punish him _debita animadversione_, and the
form of recommending him to mercy was gone through. But, as M. Vacandard
says, "If the secular judges had thought fit to take this formula
literally, they would soon have been brought back to a recognition of
the true state of affairs by excommunication." In effect, handing over
to the secular arm was equivalent to a sentence of death, and of death
by fire. The Dominican Jacob Sprenger, provincial of his order in
Germany (1494) and inquisitor, does not hesitate to speak of the victims
_quas incinerari fecimus_ ("whom we [the inquisitors] caused to be burnt
to ashes"). But we must accept the conclusions of H. C. Lea and
Vacandard that comparatively few people suffered at the stake in the
medieval Inquisition. Between 1308 and 1323, Bernard Guy, who cannot be
accused of inactivity, only handed over to the secular arm 42 persons,
out of 930 who were convicted of heresy.
Punishment by confiscation of goods.
Abuse of the system.
Economic and political importance of the system.
From the point of view of jurisprudence of the Inquisition, the
confiscation of the condemned man's property by the ecclesiastical and
secular powers is only the accompaniment to the more severe penalties of
perpetual imprisonment or death; but from the point of view of its
economic history the importance of the confiscation is supreme. The
practice originated in the Roman law, and all secular princes had
already, in their own interest, recognized it as lawful (Frederick
Barbarossa, Decree of Verona; Louis VIII., ordinances of 1226, 1229;
Louis IX., ordinance of 1234; Raymond VII. of Toulouse, &c.). In the
kingdom of France there was a special official, the _procureur des
encours_ (confiscation in the matter of heresy), whose duty it was to
collect the personal property of the heretics, and to incorporate their
landed estates in the royal domain; in Languedoc crying abuses arose,
especially under the reign of Alphonse of Poitiers. Soon the papacy
managed to gain a share of the spoils, even outside the states of the
Church, as is shown by the bulls _ad extirpanda_ of Innocent IV. and
Alexander IV., and henceforward the inquisitors had, in varying
proportions, a direct interest in these spoliations. In Spain this
division only applied to the property of the clergy and vassals of the
Church, but in France, Italy and Germany, the property of all those
convicted of heresy was shared between the lay and ecclesiastical
authorities. Venice alone decided that all the receipts of the Holy
Office should be handed over in full to the state. Clement V., in his
attempted reform and regularization of inquisitorial procedure,
endeavoured to reduce the confiscations to a fairly reasonable minimum,
and in 1337-1338 a series of papal inquiries was held into this
financial aspect of the matter. The Assize of Clarendon, the
Constitutions of Frederick II. (1232) and of Count Raymond of Toulouse
(1234) had also come to a joint decision with the councils on this
question. King Charles V. of France prevailed upon the papacy to abolish
this regulation (1378). Confiscation was, indeed, most profitable to the
secular princes, and there is no doubt that the hope of considerable
gain was what induced many princes to uphold the inquisitorial
administration, especially in the days of the decay of faith. The
resistance of the south of France to the Capetian monarchs was to a
large extent broken owing to the decimation of the bourgeoisie by the
Inquisition and their impoverishment by the extortions of the _encours_.
The same was the case in certain of the Italian republics; while in
districts such as the north of France, where heretics were both poor and
few and far between, the Inquisition did not easily take root, nor did
it prove very profitable. These confiscations, the importance of which
in the political and economic history of the middle ages was first shown
fully by H. C. Lea, were a constant source of uncertainty in
transactions of all kinds; there was, for instance, always a risk in
entering into a contract in a place where the existence of heretics was
suspected, since any contract entered into with a heretic was void in
itself. Nor was there any more security in the transmission of
inheritances for posthumous trials were frequent; the _Liber
sententiarum inquisitionis_ of Bernardus Guidonis (1307-1323) records
sentences pronounced after death against 89 persons during a period of
15 years. But not only was their property confiscated and their heirs
disinherited; they were subject to still further penalties. Frederick
II. extended to heresy the application of the Roman law disqualifying
from holding office, and even included under its operation the children
and grandchildren of the guilty man. Alexander IV. and Boniface VIII.
lightened the severity of this law, and removed certain
disqualifications, notably in the case of ecclesiastical offices and
property.
Condemnation of books.
Among other accessory penalties, we must notice the condemnation of
books. There were many precedents for this: Constantine had had the
Arian writings burnt, Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. those of the
Nestorians and Manichaeans, Justinian the Talmud. In 1210 were burnt the
books of David of Dinant and the Periphyseon of Aristotle. In 1255 the
_De periculis novissimorum temporum_ of William of St Amour[4] was burnt
by order of Pope Alexander IV., and from 1248 to 1319 was pronounced a
series of condemnations of the Talmud. Nicholas Eymerich (c. 1320-1399),
the Spanish inquisitor, demanded from Pope Gregory XI. the condemnation
of Raymond Lully's books, and in 1376 obtained it, but before long the
Lullists returned into favour with the pope and Eymerich was banished.
This rebuff suffered by an inquisitor shows how uncertain the censure of
books still was, even in a country where in less than two centuries'
time it was to become one of the chief spheres of inquisitorial
activity.
Sorcery and magic.
The definite object of the Inquisition was the prosecution of heresy;
but its sphere of action was gradually extended by the theologians and
casuists until sorcery and magic ranked with dogmatic heresy. The
council of Valence (1248) dealt with sorcerers as well as sacrilegious
persons, but did not treat them as heretics. Alexander IV. went further,
declaring that divination and sorcery should only come within the
competence of the inquisitor when they directly affected the unity or
faith of the Church (9th December 1257; cf. bull _Quod super nonnullis_,
10th January 1260). Cases of simple sorcery were left to be dealt with
by the ordinary judges. The distinction was very subtle, but it was not
tampered with until 1451, at which date Nicholas V. gave the inquisitor
Hugues Lenoir the cognizance of cases of divination, even when the crime
did not savour of heresy. In dealing with such a subtle question, great
variations had naturally arisen in practice, and the repression of
sorcery was carried on jointly by the inquisitors, the bishops and the
secular courts. John XXII., in consequence of a perfect epidemic of
sorcery about 1320, handed over to the inquisitors for a time
(1320-1333) all cases of crimes involving magic; but this measure was
temporary and exceptional and only confirms the rule. There were various
occasions during the middle ages when men's minds became infatuated, and
it seemed as if the scourge of magic were likely entirely to destroy the
Catholic faith; and during such times, morbidly infected with fear and
the spirit of persecution, the ecclesiastical judges regained all their
prestige. One of these crises culminated in the affair of the
"Vauderie"[5] of Arras (1459), in which twelve unfortunates perished at
the stake; and there were similar occurrences at the same period in
Dauphiné and Gascony; of this nature again was the violent persecution
in the Germanic countries begun by the bull _Summis desiderantes_ of
Innocent VIII. (5th December 1484), in the course of which the two
authors of the _Malleus maleficorum_, the inquisitors Sprenger and
Institoris (Heinrich Krämer), distinguished themselves as much by their
knowledge of theoretical demonology as by their zeal as persecutors. In
France the secular authority was not long in claiming and obtaining
jurisdiction over sorcerers (parlement of Paris, 1374), and as early as
1378 the university of Paris gave judgment in a case of demonology.
Those unfortunates who were charged with sorcery gained, however,
nothing by this change of jurisdiction, for they were invariably put to
death.
The Inquisition and the Jews.
The inquisitors could not take proceedings against Jews as such. They
might profess their religion and observe its rites without being in a
state of heresy; they were only heretic when they attacked the Christian
faith or community, made proselytes, or returned to Judaism after being
converted. Further, those who practised usury were "suspected of not
holding very orthodox doctrine as to theft" (Vacandard), and on this
account the Inquisition gained a hold on them. Pope Martin V. (6th
November 1419) authorized inquisitors to take proceedings against
usurers.
Treatment of heresy in the various countries.
England.
Scotland.
Ireland.
But these are merely extensions of competence resulting from the works
of the casuists; the Inquisition was primarily the instrument for the
repression of all kinds of breaches of orthodoxy. Its work in this
capacity we will now describe in outline for each of the great countries
of medieval Christendom. England, whether before or after the
establishment of the Inquisition, had but few trials for heresy and,
particularist in this as in all her religious activity, judged them
according to her own discipline, without asking Rome for laws or special
judges. In 1166, a few heretics having been apprehended, Henry II.
called a council at Oxford and summoned them to appear before it; they
all confessed, and were condemned to be scourged, branded on the face
with the mark of a key, and expelled from the country, and by the 21st
article of the Assize of Clarendon the king forbade any one to harbour
on their lands or in the house any "of that sect of renegades who had
been excommunicated at Oxford." Any one offending against this law was
to be "at the king's mercy" and his house was to be "carried outside the
town and burnt." The sheriffs were obliged to swear observance of this
law and to require a similar oath from all barons' stewards, knights and
free tenants. This was the first civil law against heresy since the end
of the Roman empire, and preceded the famous rescripts of Frederick II.
against sectaries in the 13th century. It should, however, be noted that
the political acts of Henry II. and Frederick II. drew down the most
explicit condemnation of the church. Orthodoxy remained almost
unimpaired in England up till the time of Wycliffe. Apparently neither
the Catharist, Waldensian nor Pantheistic heresies gained any footing in
Great Britain. The affair of the Templars in France, which was quite
political, was repeated in England: Clement V. having ordered their
arrest, Edward II., after much hesitation, gave orders to the sheriffs
to execute it and then decided that the _ecclesiastical law_ should be
applied. The papal inquisitors sent to England met with a bad reception,
and the pope was obliged to forbid them to use torture, which was
contrary to the laws of the kingdom. It was found impossible to
establish the Templars' guilt and only canonical penalties were
inflicted on them. The rising of the Lollards having alarmed both the
church and the state, the article _De haeretico comburendo_ was
established by statute in 1401, and gained a melancholy notoriety during
the religious struggles of the 16th century; it seems to have been not
so much a measure for the safeguarding of dogma as a violent assertion
of the secular absolutism. It was not till 1676 that Charles II. caused
it to be abrogated, and obtained a decision that in cases of atheism,
blasphemy, heresy, schism and other religious offences, the
ecclesiastical courts should be confined to the penalties of
excommunication, removal from office, degradation and other
ecclesiastical means of censure, to the exclusion of the death penalty.
Scotland was much later than England in giving up persecution and
bloodshed; and so late as 1696 a student of medicine aged eighteen and
named Aikenhead was accused of heresy and hanged at Edinburgh. In
Ireland Richard de Lederede or Ledred, a Franciscan and bishop of
Ossory, in 1324 prosecuted on suspicion of heresy and for sorcery a
certain Dame Alice Kettle or Kyteler and her accomplices, Petronilla of
Meath and her daughter Bassilla, who were accused of holding "nightly
conference with a spirit called Robert Artisson, to whom she sacrificed
in the high way nine red cocks and nine peacocks' eyes." The lady had
powerful connexions, and her brother-in-law, Arnold le Powre, seneschal
of Kilkenny, even went so far as to imprison the bishop. But in spite of
the refusal of the secular authorities to co-operate with him, the
bishop was strong enough to force them in 1325 to burn some of the
accused. Dame Kettle herself, however, who had been cited to appear at
Dublin before the dean of St Patrick's, escaped with the assistance of
some of the nobles to England. Meanwhile the bishop, who had attempted
to involve Arnold le Powre in the same charge, became involved in a
quarrel with the administrators of the English government in Ireland;
counter charges were brought against him, he was excommunicated by his
metropolitan, Alexander de Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin; and in
defiance of the king's commands, after publishing counter charges
against the archbishop, he appealed to Rome and left the country. In
1335 Benedict XII. wrote to Edward III. deploring the absence of any
inquisition in the king's dominions, and exhorting him to lend the aid
of the secular arm in repressing heresy. Archbishop Alexander, who in
1347 was denounced as an abettor of heresy, died in 1349, and his
successor was ordered to chastise those heretics who had taken refuge in
the diocese from Richard de Lederede's violence, and whom his
predecessor had protected. Finally, in 1354, Richard de Lederede himself
was allowed to return to his diocese, where his zeal for persecution
does not, however, seem to have found much further scope. He died in
1360.
France.
The scene of the activities of the monastic Inquisition in France lay
chiefly in the south. The repression of the Albigensian heresy (see
ALBIGENSES) went on even when its importance had quite disappeared. The
chronicle of the inquisitor Guilhem Pelhisso (d. 1268) shows us the most
tragic episodes of the reign of terror which wasted Languedoc for a
century. Guillaume Arnaud, Peter Cella, Bernard of Caux, Jean de St
Pierre, Nicholas of Abbeville, Foulques de St Georges, were the chief of
the inquisitors who played the part of absolute dictators, burning at
the stake, attacking both the living and the dead, confiscating their
property and land, and enclosing the inhabitants both of the towns and
the country in a network of suspicion and denunciation. The secular
authorities were of the utmost assistance to them in this task; owing to
the confiscations, the crown had too direct an interest in the success
of the inquisitorial trials not to connive at all their abuses. Under
the regency of Alphonse of Poitiers Languedoc was regularly laid under
contribution by the _procureur des encours_. There were frequent
attempts at retaliation, directed for the most part against the
inquisitors, and isolated attacks were made on Dominicans. In 1234-1235
there were regular risings of the people at Albi and Narbonne, which
forced the inquisitors to retreat. In 1235 the inquisitors were driven
out of Toulouse. These risings were followed by terrible measures of
repression, which, in turn, led to violent outbreaks on the part of the
relatives, friends or compatriots of the sufferers. During the night of
the 28th or 29th of May 1242 the inquisitors and their agents were
massacred at the castle of Avignonet. This massacre led to a persecution
which went on without opposition and almost without a lull for nearly
fifty years. At the beginning of the 14th century the terrified people
found a defender in the heroic Franciscan Bernard Délicieux. For a
moment King Philip the Fair and Pope Clement V. seemed to interest
themselves in the misfortunes of Languedoc, and the king of France sent
down reformers; but they had no effect, their activity being restrained
by the king himself, who was alarmed at a separatist movement which was
arising in Languedoc. The work of repression which followed this moment
of hope was carried out, between 1308 and 1323, by the inquisitor
Bernard Guy, and completed the destruction of the Catharist heresy, the
appearances of which after the middle of the 14th century became less
and less frequent. Other heretics, for a time at least, took their
place, namely the Spirituals, who had developed out of a branch of the
Franciscans, and were remotely disciples of Joachim, abbot of Floris
(q.v.), and whom their rigid rule of absolute poverty led, by a reaction
against the cupidity of the ordinary ecclesiastics, to repudiate any
hierarchy and to uphold the doctrines of Peter John de Oliva against the
word of the pope. On the 17th of February 1317 John XXII. condemned all
these irregular followers of St Francis, "_fraticelli, fratres de
paupere vita, bizochi_ or _beghini_," and the Inquisition of Languedoc
was at once set in motion against them. Four _spirituales_ were burnt at
Marseilles in 1318, and soon the persecution was extended to the
Franciscan _beguins_ or _tertiarii_, many people being burnt about 1320
at Narbonne, Lunel, Béziers, Carcassonne, &c. The persecution stopped
for lack of an object, for the small groups of beguins were soon
destroyed, and those of the _Spirituales_ who were not sent to the stake
or to prison were compelled by the papacy to enter other orders than the
Franciscan. The Waldenses (q.v.) were more difficult to destroy:
originally less dangerous to the church than the Cathari, they resisted
longer, and their dispersal in scattered communities aided their long
resistance.
In the north of France the workings of the Inquisition were very
intermittent; for there were fewer heretics there than in the south, and
as they were poorer, there was less zeal on the part of the secular arm
to persecute them. At its outset, however, the Inquisition in the north
of France was marked by a series of melancholy events: the inquisitor
Robert le Bougre, formerly a Catharist, spent six years (1233-1239) in
going through the Nivernais, Burgundy, Flanders and Champagne, burning
at the stake in every place unfortunates whom he condemned without a
judgment, supported as he was by the ecclesiastical authorities and by
princes such as Theobald of Champagne. The pope was forced to put a
check on his zeal, and, after an inquiry, condemned him to imprisonment
for life. We know that there were inquisitors settled in Île de France,
Orléanais, Touraine, Lorraine and Burgundy during the 12th century, but
we know next to nothing of what they did. In the 14th century, the
Flemish and German heresies of the Free Spirit made their appearance in
France; in 1310 a heretic named Marguerite Porette was burnt at Paris,
and in 1373 another named Jeanne Daubenton, both of whom seem to have
professed a kind of rudimentary pantheism, the latter being the head of
a sect called the Turlupins. The Turlupins reappeared in 1421 at Arras
and Douai and were persecuted in a similar way. But in the 15th century,
with the exception of a few condemnations aimed against the Hussites,
the Inquisition acted but feebly against heresy, which, as in the famous
case of the "Vauderie" of Arras, was often nothing but fairly ordinary
sorcery.
From the middle of the 14th century onward, the parlement had taken upon
itself the right of hearing appeals from persons sentenced by the
Inquisition. And the University again, by its faculty of theology,
escaped the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. It was these two great
bodies which at the time of the Reformation took the place of the
Inquisition in dealing with heresy.
Italy.
In Italy heresy not infrequently took on a social or political
character; it was sometimes almost indistinguishable from the opposition
of the Ghibellines or the communalist spirit of independence. Lombardy,
besides a number of Cathari, contained a certain number of
vaguely-defined sects against whom the efforts of the Apostolic Visitors
sent by Innocent III. were not of much effect. From the very earliest
days of the Inquisition, John of Vicenza, Roland of Cremona and Rassiero
Sacchoni directed their persecutions against Lombardy, and especially
against Milan. St Peter Martyr, who was conspicuous for his bigoted
violence, was assassinated in 1252. On the 20th of March 1256 Alexander
IV. ordered the provincial of the friar preachers of Lombardy to
increase the number of inquisitors in that province from four to eight.
At Florence both heresy and Ghibellinism were alike crushed by the
terrible severities of Fra Ruggieri, and indulgences were promised to
all who should aid in the extinction of heresy in Tuscany. Certain
districts revolted against this violence, which threatened to devastate
Italy as it had devastated Provence; in 1277 Fra Corrado Pagano was
killed on an expedition against the heretics of the Vattelline, and two
years after the people of Parma rose against the inquisitors. Besides,
this reign of terror only raised to a furious pitch the passionate and
independent piety of the Italian peoples. The body of a heretic, Armanno
Ponzilupo, who was killed at Ferrara in 1269, was venerated by the
people, and his mediation was even invoked, until the Inquisition had to
suppress this cult. But it had a harder struggle against the successes
of Gerard Legarelli, and especially Dolcino (see APOSTOLICI), which only
came to an end after a long and difficult trial of the adepts of the
Messianist sect of Guglielma, some of whom belonged to the noble
families of Lombardy. Up till the beginning of the 14th century,
however, the power of the Inquisition steadily increased, and at this
period Zanghino Ugolini appeared as the most skilful exponent of its
theory and procedure. About the same time Charles of Anjou introduced
the Inquisition into the Two Sicilies, but it could rarely effect
anything there; the religious cohesion of the country was weak, and
refugees were sure of safe hiding, both Waldenses and Fraticelli being
frequently harboured there. When Sicily passed into the hands of Peter
III. of Aragon, moreover, it came into a position of open hostility to
the Holy See and became a refuge for heretics.
Venice always preserved its autonomy as regards the repression of
heresy; she was perfectly orthodox, but remained entirely independent of
Rome; Innocent IV. sent inquisitors there, but the heretics continued
actually to be subject to the secular tribunals. In 1288 a compromise
was arrived at, and the papal Inquisition was admitted into the
republic, but only on condition that it should remain under the control
of the secular power; thus there was established a mixed régime which
survived till the last days of the Venetian state. In Savoy the
Inquisition constantly carried on severe measures against the Waldenses
of the Alps. During the 14th and 15th centuries there was an
uninterrupted succession of trials.
States of the Church.
As regards the papal states, "it was in the nature of things that, by a
confusion of the two personages, the pope should consider all opposition
to him _qua_ Italian prince as resistance offered to the head of the
church, i.e. to the church" (Ch. V. Langlois). The Colonna had a
personal animosity against the Gaetani; therefore Boniface VIII., a
Gaetano, declared the Colonna to be heretics. Rienzi was accused of
heresy for having questioned the temporal sovereignty of the pope at
Rome. The Venetians, who in 1309 opposed the annexation of Ferrara by
Clement V. to the detriment of the house of Este, were proclaimed
heretics and placed under the ban of Christendom. Savonarola was
attacked because he interfered with the policy of Alexander VI. at
Florence. It was this same desire for the hegemony of Italy which
inspired the attitude of the popes throughout the middle ages, causing
them to excommunicate, apparently without reason so far as doctrine was
concerned, the Visconti of Milan, the Della Scala of Verona, the
Maffredi of Faenza, &c., and prompting them to lay under an interdict or
preach a crusade against certain rebellious great towns (Clement V.
against Venice, John XXII. against Milan). Further, in each of the great
cities of Lombardy and Tuscany, the papal party directed the local
inquisition, and this power was rarely abused.
Germany.
In Germany heresies, especially of a mystical character, were numerous
in the middle ages; some of them affected the mass of the people, and
led to religious and social movements of no little importance. The
repression of heresy went on by fits and starts, and the Inquisition was
never exercised so regularly in the Germanic as in certain of the Latin
countries. At the outset of the 13th century persecutions of the
Waldenses and Ortlibarii (followers of Ortlieb of Strassburg, c. 1200)
took place at Strassburg; measures were taken locally until, in 1231,
Gregory IX. issued definite instructions to the German prelates with a
view to a regular repression of heresy, and gave full powers to execute
them to Conrad of Marburg. Certain nobles having offered him
resistance, he preached a crusade against them, but died by the hand of
an assassin. The council of Mainz (April 1234) dealt gently with
Conrad's murderers, but severely with the false witnesses whom he had
employed. Shortly before (February 1234), the diet of Frankfort had
decided, in spite of the pope's injunctions, that the destruction of
heresy should be entrusted to the ordinary magistrates. And besides,
thanks to the struggle between the Empire and the papacy, the German
prelates always limited the prerogatives of the papal Inquisition.
Again, by the municipal laws of the north (_Sachsenspiegel_) the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the matter of heresy was very much
limited, while the _Schwabenspiegel_ (municipal laws for southern
Germany) does not seem to be aware of the existence of any inquisitional
jurisdiction or procedure. When in the 14th century communities of
Beghards developed with extraordinary rapidity, it was the episcopal
authority, both at Cologne and Strassburg, which undertook to deal with
these groups of sectaries, and at the very height of the conflict
between the Empire and the papacy. Marsilius of Padua, the theoretical
exponent of the imperial rights, attributes to the secular judge the
right and obligation to punish heresy, the priest's rôle being merely
advisory. In 1353 Innocent VI. tried to implant the papal Inquisition in
Germany once for all; its success was but short, and Urban V.'s attempt
in 1362 succeeded little better, in spite of the fact that Charles IV.
(edicts of Lucca, June 1369) gave him the support of the secular power.
Towards 1372, however, Gregory XI. succeeded in regularizing the
exercise of the powers of the papal inquisitors on German soil; and the
latter, notably Kerlinger, Hetstede, &c. set to work to destroy the
communities of the Beghards, to burn their books, to close those
_beguinages_ which were under suspicion, and to check by more or less
violent means mystical epidemics such as those of the "flagellants,"
"dancers," &c. But these measures provoked angry protests from the
people, the secular magistrates and even the bishops, so that Gregory
XI., perceiving that he was face to face with the popular party, invited
the bishops to control the inquiries of his own envoys. At the end of
the 15th century the two inquisitions were acting concurrently.
Bohemia.
In Bohemia and the provinces subject to it the Waldenses had found their
chosen country, and by the middle of the 13th century their propaganda
was very flourishing. In 1245 Innocent IV. ordered the bishops to
prosecute them with the aid of the secular arm, and in 1257, at the
request of King Premysl Ottokar II., Alexander IV. introduced the
Inquisition into Bohemia. But from this date till 1335 inquisitorial
missions succeeded one another without effecting any sensible diminution
in the material and moral strength of the heresy. The Waldenses had been
joined by other sectaries, the Luciferani, and especially the Brethren
of the Free Spirit. It was in vain that the bishops of Bohemia and
Silesia carried on during the second half of the 14th century an active
campaign against heresy; the spirit of criticism which had arisen with
regard to the morals, and even to the dogmas of the church, was already
preparing the way for Hussitism.
The Balkan States.
In the regions east of the Adriatic, Catharism, the first communities of
which had very probably settled here, was supreme in the time of
Innocent III. and Honorius III. The first Dominicans who established
themselves in these parts had much to suffer from the aggression of
those very heretics whom they had come to convert. Gregory XI.,
implacable in his persecution of Catharism, preached a crusade against
them in 1234, and Bosnia was laid waste by fire and sword. But in spite
of these violent measures Catharism only gained strength in the churches
of Bulgaria, Rumania, Slavonia and Dalmatia. In 1298 Boniface VIII.
tried to organize the Inquisition there, but the project remained
fruitless. The attempt was revived in 1323 by John XXII. with doubtful
success. The persecutions undertaken in the 14th and 15th centuries
merely resulted in binding the Cathari to the invading Turks, with whom
they found more tolerance than with the Slav princes converted to Roman
orthodoxy.
Spain.