[318] Procès, I. 165-72.
[319] Procès, I. 173, 201-4, 259-64.
[320] Fisquet, La France Pontificale, Sens, p. 68.—Procès, I. 274-5, 281.—Contin. Chron. G. de Fracheto (Bouquet, XXI. 33).—Chron. Anon. (Bouquet, XXI. 140).—Amalr. Auger. Hist. Pontif. (Eccard II. 1810).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Bern. Guidon. Flor. Chron. (Bouquet, XXI. 719).—Joann. de S. Victor (Bouquet, XXI. 654-55).—Contin. Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1310.—Grandes Chroniques, V. 187.—Chron. Cornel. Zantfliet ann. 1310 (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 158).—Bessin, Concil. Rotomagens. p. iii.—Raynouard, pp. 118-20.
It was not all bishops who were ready to accept the inquisitorial doctrine that revocation of confession was equivalent to relapse. The question was discussed in the Council of Narbonne and decided in the negative.—Raynouard, p. 106.
The number of those who refused to confess was not insignificant. Some papers respecting the expenses of detention of Templars at Senlis describe sixty-five as not reconciled, who therefore cannot have confessed.—Ib. p. 107.
[321] Procès, I. 275-83.
[322] Harduin. VII. 1334.—Procès, I. 286-7; II. 3-4, 269-73.—Raynouard, pp. 254-6.—A notarial attestation describes the voluminous record as consisting of 219 folios with forty lines to the page, equivalent to 17,520 lines.
How close a watch was kept on the witnesses is seen in the case of three, Martin de Mont Richard, Jean Durand, and Jean de Ruans, who, on March 22, asserted that they knew of no evil in the Order. Two days later they are brought back to say that they had lied through folly. When before their bishops they had confessed to renouncing and spitting, and it was true. What persuasions were applied to them during the interval no one can tell.—Procès, II. 88-96, 107-9.
[323] Rymer, Fœdera, III. 18, 34-7, 43-6.
[324] Regest. Clement. PP. V. T. III. pp. 316, 477.—Rymer, Fœd. III. 168-9, 173, 179-80, 182, 195, 203-4, 244.