A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages; volume I

by Henry Charles Lea

[261] Potthast Regest. No. 8326, 9172, 11299.—Martene Thesaur. V. 1816, 1820.

[262] S. Francis. Collat. Monast. Collat. XXI., XXV.—Ejusd. Prophet. XIV., XV.—Ejusd. Epist. 6, 7.—Pet. Rodulphii Hist. Seraph. Relig. Lib. I. fol. 177-8.—Th. de Eccleston de Adv. Minorum Collat. XII.—Waddingi Annal. ann. 1253, No. 30.—S. Bonavent. Opp. Ed. 1584, T.I. pp. 485-6.—Matt. Paris. ann. 1243 (p. 414).—S. Brigittæ Revelat. Lib. IV. c. 33.

[263] Bonavent. Vit. S. Francis, c. 9.—Lacordaire, Vie de S. Dominique, pp. 182-3.—Potthast Regest. No. 7429, 7490, 7537, 7550, 9130, 9139, 9141, 10350, 10383, 10421, 11297.—Raynald. ann. 1233, No. 22, 23; ann. 1237, No. 88.—Hist. Ordin. Prædicat. c. 8 (Martene Ampliss. Coll. VI. 338).—Chron. Magist. Ordin. Prædicat. c. 3 (Ibid. 350-1).—Waddingi Annal. ann. 1258, No. 1; ann. 1278, No. 10, 11, 12; ann. 1284, No. 2; ann. 1288, No. 3, 36; ann. 1289, No. 1; ann. 1294, No. 10-12; ann. 1492, No. 2; ann. 1493, No. 2-8.—Rodulphii Hist. Seraph. Relig. Lib. I. fol. 120.—Paramo de Orig. Offic. S. Inquisit. p. 238.

In 1246 Innocent IV. received a very civil letter from Melik el-Mansur Nassir, the ruler of Edessa, expressing his regret that mutual ignorance of each others’ language prevented his engaging in theological disputation with the Dominicans sent for his conversion.—Berger, Registres d’Innoc. IV. No. 3031.

[264] Campana, Vita di San Piero Martire, p. 257.—Juan de Mata, Santoral de San Domingo y San Francisco, fol. 13.—Zurita, Añales de Aragon, Lib. II. c. 63.—Ricchinii Proœm. ad. Monetam, Dissert. I. p. xxxi.—Paramo de Orig. Off. S. Inquis. Lib. II. Tit. ii. c. 1.—Pegnæ Comment. in Eymeric. p. 461.—Chron. Magist. Ord. Prædic. c. 2 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 348).—Monteiro, Historia da Santo Inquisição P. I. Liv. I. c. xxv., xlviii.

It is an interesting illustration of the softened temper of the nineteenth century to see, in 1842, the learned and zealous Dominican, Lacordaire, writing his “Vie de S. Dominique” to prove the impossibility of Dominic’s participation in the cruelty of the Inquisition exactly one hundred years after an equally learned and zealous Dominican, Ricchini, had claimed the Inquisition as the glorious work of the saint. Yet since the time of Lacordaire there has been a reaction, and M. l’Abbé Douais does not hesitate to state, on the authority of Sixtus V., that “Saint Dominique aurait ainsi reçu une délégation pontificale pour l’Inquisition après l’année 1209” (Sources de l’Histoire de l’Inquisition, Revue des Questions Historiques, 1 Oct. 1881, p. 400).

[265] Gregor. PP. IX. Bull. Ille humani generis. Ap. 22, 1233.—Potthast Regesta, No. 9143, 9152, 9153, 9155, 9386, 9388, 9995, 10362.—Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Inter alia, 20 Oct. 1248 (Baluze et Mansi I. 208).—Archives de l’Inq. de Carcassonne (Coll. Doat, XXXI. fol. 21).—Archives de l’Évêché d’Albi (Ib. XXXI. 255).

[266] Concil. Narbonn. ann. 1235.—Concil. Biterrens, ann. 1233; ann. 1246.—Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 17, 18.—Martene Thesaur. V. 1806, 1808-10, 1817, 1819-20.—Ripoll I. 38.—Aguirre Concil. Hispan. VI. 155-6.—Raynald. Annal. ann. 1233, No. 40, 59 sqq.—Waddingi Annal. ann. 1246, No. 2; ann. 1254, No. 7, 8; ann. 1257, No. 17; ann. 1259, No. 3; ann. 1277, No. 10; ann. 1286, No. 4; ann. 1288, No. 14-16.—Rodulphii Hist. Seraph. Relig. Lib. I. fol. 126b.—Potthast Regesta, No. 9386, 9388, 9762, 9766, 9993, 10052, 11245, 15304, 15330, 15069.

[267] MSS. Bib. Nat. Coll. Doat, XXI. 143; XXXII. 15.—Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1243 (p. 414).—Guill. Pod. Laur. c. 43.—Raynald. ann. 1238, No. 51.—Harduin. Concil. VII. 1319.—Paramo de Orig. Inq. p. 244.—Wadding Annal. ann. 1238, No. 6, 7; ann. 1266, No. 8; ann. 1277, No. 10; ann. 1291, No. 14.—Potthast No. 16132.—Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Sacri Prædicatorum, 26 Jul. 1479.—Martene Thesaur. II. 346, 353, 359, 451.—Ripoll II. 82, 164, 617, 695.

The disturbances at Marseilles show the favoritism always manifested towards the Mendicants. Two clerks, whom the Dominicans had procured to depose falsely against the inquisitor, were punished with perpetual prison, degradation, and inability to hold benefices; the bishop who had listened to them was suspended from his office and jurisdiction, while the friars who had suborned the perjury and caused the whole trouble were let off with rendering humiliating apologies and transferred to another province. (Martene ubi sup.)