INQUISITION
29
INQUISITION
the twelfth century, however, heresy in the form of
Catharism spread in truly alarming fashion, and
not only menaced the Church's existence, Init under-
mined the very foundations of Christian society. In
opposition to this propaganda there grew up a kind
of prescriptive law — at least throughout Germany,
France, and Spain — which visited heresy with death
by the flames. England on the whole remained un-
tainted by heresy. When, in 1166, about thirty sec-
taries made their way thither, Henry II ordered that
they be burnt on their foreheads with red-hot iron,
be beaten with rods in a public square, and then
driven off. Moreover, he forbade anyone to give
them shelter or otherwise assist them, so that they
died partly from hunger and partly from the cold of
winter. Duke Pliilip of Flanders, aided by William
of the White Hand, Archbishop of Reims, was par-
ticularly severe towards heretics. They caused
many citizens in their domains, nobles and com-
moners, clerics, knights, peasants, spinsters, widows,
and married women, to be burnt alive, confiscated
their property, and divided it between them. This
happened in 1183. Between 1183 and 1206 Bishop
Hugo of Auxerre acted similarly towards the neo-
Manichaeans. Some he despoiled; the others he
either exiled or sent to the stake. King Philip
Augustus of France had eight Catharists burnt at
Troyes in 1200, one at Nevers in 1201, several at
Braisne-sur-Vesle in 1204, and many at Paris —
"priests, clerics, laymen, and women belonging to
the sect". Raymund V of Toulouse (1148-94) pro-
mulgated a law which punished with death the fol-
lowers of the sect and their favourers. Simon de
Montfort's men-at-arms believed in 1211 that they
were carrying out this law when they boasted how
they had burned alive many, and would continue to
do so (unde multos combussimus et adhuc cum in-
venimus idem facers non cessamus). In 1197 Peter
II, King of Aragon and Count of Barcelona, issued
an edict in obedience to which the Waldensians and
all other schismatics were expelled from the land;
whoever of this sect was still found in his kingdom
or his county after Palm Simday of the next year
was to suffer death by fire, also confiscation of goods.
Ecclesiastical legislation was far from this severity.
Alexander III at the Lateran Council of 1179 renewed
the decisions already made as to schismatics in South-
ern France, and requested secular sovereigns to silence
those disturbers of public order if necessary by force,
to achieve which object they were at liberty to im-
prison the guilty {servituti subicere, subdere) and to ap-
propriate their possessions. According to the agreement
made by Lucius III and Emperior Frederick Barba-
rossa at Verona (1148), the heretics of every commu-
nity were to be sought out, brought before the episcopal
court, excommunicated, and given up to the civil
power to be suitably punished {debita animadversione
puniendus). The suitable punishment (debita animad-
versio, ultio) did not, however, as yet mean capital
punishment, but the proscriptive ban, though even
this, it is true, entailed exile, expropriation, destruc-
tion of the culprit's dwelling, infamy, debarment from
public office, and the like (J. Ficker, " Die Einfuhrung
der Todesstrafe fur Ketzerei" in " Mitteilungen des
Instituts fur osterr. Geschichtsforsch.", I, 1880, p.
187 sq., 194 sq.). The "Continuatio Zwellensis al-
tera, ad ann. 1184" (Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., IX, 542)
accurately describes the condition of heretics at this
time when it says that the pope excommunicated
them, and the emperor put them under the civil ban,
while he confiscated their goods (papa eos excom-
municavit, imperator vero tarn res quam personas
ipsorum imperiaU banno subiecit). Under Innocent
III nothing was done to intensify or add to the extant
statutes against heresy, though this pope gave them a
wider range by the action of his legates and through
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). But this act was
indeed a relative service to the heretics, for the regular
canonical procedure thus introduced did much to
abrogate the arbitrariness, passion, and injustice of
the civil courts in Spain, France, and Germany. In
so tar as, and so long as, his prescriptions remained in
force, no summary condemnations or executions en
masse occurred, neither stake nor rack were set up;
and, if, on one occasion during the first year of his
pontificate, to justify confiscation, he appealed to the
Roman Law and its penalties for crimes against the
sovereign power, yet he did not draw the extreme con-
clusion that heretics deserved to be burnt. His reign
affords many examples showing how much of the
vigour he took away in practice from the existing
penal code.
II. The Suppression of Heresy by the Institu- tion KNOWN AS THE INQUISITION. — (A) The Inquisi- tion of the Middle Ages. — (1) Origin. — During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as an institution, did not exist. But eventually Chris- tian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism (see Cathari) had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Chris- tian society had been long recognized by the Byzan- tine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. More- over, these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacra- ments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude to- wards oaths, which they declared under no circum- stances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race, and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see Cath.^ki). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teach- ings.
In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his dele- gate, should receive "meet punishment" {debita ani- madversio) . In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty {de ipsis faciant quod debebant). A decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229) makes it appear probable that in France death at the stake was alreatly comprehended as in keeping with the aforesaid debita animadversio. To seek to trace in these measures the influence of im- perial or papal ordinances is vain, since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescrip- tive. It is said in the " Etablissements de St Louis et coutumes de Beauvaisis", ch. cxxiii (Ordonnances des Roys de France, I, 211) : " Quand le juge [ecclesi- astique] I'aurait examine [le suspect] se il trouvait, qu'il feust bougres, si ledevraitfaireenvoier^ la justice laie, et la justice laie le doit fere ardoir." The "Cou- tumes de Beauvaisis" correspond to the German "Sachsenspiegel", or "Mirror of Saxon Laws", com- piled about 12.35, which also embodies as a law sanc- tioned by custom the execution of unbelievers at the stake {sal man ufdcr hurt burnen). In Italy Emperor Frederick II, as early as 22 November, 1220 (Mon. Germ., II, 243), issued a rescript against heretics, conceived, however, quite in the spirit of Innocent III, and Honorius III commissioned his legates to see to the enforcement in Italian cities of both the canonical decrees of 1215 and the imperial legislation of 1220. From the foregoing it cannot be doubted that up to
