[255] De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 235.
[256] See Havet, p. 135.
[257] See De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 233-4.
[258] Frédéricq, Corpus, vol. i, pp. 6-7, No. 3, gives Wazon’s letter. See also Frédéricq in Revue historique, already cited, p. 320; also Maillet, op. cit., p. 34. On the strength of this instance he declares: ‘Nous voyons assez souvent les évêques s’opposer aux exécutions’; whereas this episcopal protest is unique.
[259] Havet, op. cit., p. 133. See Maillet on the whole subject in op. cit., chapter ii. He argues that Theoduin had no particular punishment in view and that, therefore, one cannot say he approved the execution of heretics. But as the Bishop must have known very well the sort of punishment customarily inflicted by the State at this time, the argument is not very sound.
[260] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 260.
[261] J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio (Paris, 1901-13), vol. xxi, p. 718, and Frédéricq, Corpus, vol. i, No. 31.
[262] See De Cauzons, vol. ii, pp. 271-2; Tanon, p. 454.
[263] Frédéricq, Corpus, vol. i, No. 34; Maillet, p. 55; Frédéricq, in criticism of Maillet in Revue historique, p. 321.
[264] Frédéricq, Corpus, vol. i, No. 39; Mansi, vol. xxi, p. 1177; Havet, pp. 151-2.