INQUISIZIONE

INQUISITION. – A special ecclesiastical tribunal for combating and suppressing heresy.

SUMMARY:

I. Medieval I

II. Spanish I.

I. MEDIEVAL I.

I. ORIGIN

The essential mission of the episcopate is not only to teach the truths of the faith but also to defend them against those who attack them. Yet it proved powerless to repress the disturbing advances made in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, especially by the Cathars (called in Italy Patarines, in Languedoc Albigensians, from the name of the region where they proliferated) and by the Waldensians. The papacy therefore, to avert the grave danger threatening Christendom, created a special tribunal: the I. But it proceeded in stages. First, Lucius III, at Verona in 1184, establishing the principle of a more expeditious procedure than that of public accusation inherited from Roman law, obliged bishops to visit once or twice a year, personally or through substitutes, the parishes contaminated by heresy in order to hear, under oath, the testimony of trustworthy persons. It was also incumbent upon them to investigate (*inquisitio*) the guilty parties ex officio, to reconcile them with the Church or to punish them if they refused to cleanse themselves by oath of the accusation of heresy or became recidivists. The episcopate also had jurisdiction over exempt persons, since it proceeded as delegate of the Holy See (9, X, V, 7). Various constitutions issued by Innocent III in the years 1205, 1206 and 1212 and canon 3 of the Ecumenical Council of Lateran (1215) completed the prescriptions of Lucius III (17-19, 21, X, V, 5; 13, X, V, 7).

Since the episcopate was still not equal to this task, the Holy See entrusted temporary powers to delegates, the most active of whom were in France: Peter of Castelnau, assassinated on 15 January 1208, and Romano, cardinal of S. Angelo; in Italy: Cardinal Ugolino. After the crusade that brought down the power of the Albigensians in Languedoc, Raymond VII, count of Toulouse, King Louis IX and the Roman legate signed the Treaty of Paris on 12 April 1229, which secured for the Church the cooperation of the State (text reproduced in J. Guiraud, *Histoire de l'Inquisition au moyen âge*, II, Paris 1938, p. 8).

For its part, the emperor Frederick II promulgated constitutions against heretics in 1220, 1224 and 1231 (J.-L.-A. Huillard-Bréholles, *Historia diplomatica Frederici II* [Paris 1852], p. 4, 421 and 19, X, V, 7). It was then that Gregory IX established for Europe, from 1231 to 1234, tribunals of the I., dispensing with permanent inquisitors, who exercised their powers over determined districts. To this end he chose Franciscans and Dominicans, designated for this office by their hierarchical superiors (L. Auvray, *Registres de Grégoire IX* [ibid. 1890], pp. 539-41 and l’h. Ripoll, *Bullarium Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum*, I [Rome 1729], p. 47) or later by the Holy See itself.

THE INQUISITORS. – Dominicans and Franciscans displayed ardent zeal against heretics. In Italy they clashed with local authorities who protected them and with the Ghibellines who had made common cause with them. Peter of Verona paid with his life for exercising his functions as inquisitor in the Milanese and at Florence (29 April 1252). But despite the resistance, Cathar heresy was declining towards the end of the 13th century and at the beginning of the 14th. As for the Waldensians, persecuted everywhere, they emigrated to the Alps of the Dauphiné, then, driven from their refuges, passed into Piedmont, where they still exist today. In the 14th and 15th centuries the inquisitors pursued the pseudo-apostles, disciples of Fra Dolcino (q.v.), and the degenerate lovers of Franciscan poverty, known under the names of Beghards, Spirituals and Fraticelli. Before them also appeared converted Jews who apostatized, blasphemers, the excommunicated after a year of contumacy, those guilty of witchcraft, divination, sorcery, spells, invocation of the demon, crimes against nature, adultery, incest, concubinage, usury and, finally, violators of Sunday rest.

In their capacity as judges delegated by the Holy See, the inquisitors enjoyed exceptional powers, making them independent of the Ordinary, at least as regards the exercise of their office. Some committed abuses, but the fault was more often that of their subordinates, such as, for example, the notaries. The Holy See punished the guilty without pity, for example, Robert le Bougre, who incurred perpetual imprisonment. To put an end to any arbitrariness, Clement V decreed that the use of torture, the promulgation of definitive sentences and the supervision of prisons should be the joint competence of bishops and inquisitors (1, 2, V, 3 in Clem.). Subsequently, John XXIII obliged the judges of the

I. to communicate the procedures to the Ordinaries (J

M. Vidal, *Bullariae de l'Inquisition française au XIVe siècle*, Paris 1913, nos. 40, 55, 56).

III. THE PROCEDURE

The inquisitorial procedure is known in its minutest details thanks to the manuals drawn up by Nicholas Eymeric, Bernard Gui and others. Suspicions, denunciations, accusations, even public rumor, were sufficient for the inquisitor to summon before him compromised persons or have them arrested, either by civil authorities or by his own subordinates (sergeants, messengers, notaries, jailers). The interrogation had to take place in the presence of two witnesses. A notary – in his absence two suitable persons – wrote down the minutes of the depositions or at least the substance of them.

Exempt from every jurisdiction, the inquisitor, except in exceptional cases, dispensed himself from observing the procedure of common law in order to follow at his pleasure that honored by Clement V and called summary, passing over every privilege, dilatory procedures, appeal and the application of canon 37 of the Fourth Lateran Council which prohibited citations more than two days’ journey (*dieta*) from the domicile of the accused. The inquisitor therefore had discretionary power.

Guilt was established either by the confession of the interested parties or by testimonial evidence. Witnesses could even include heretics and infamous persons, provided their depositions were subjected to serious examination. Mortal enemies of the interested party were excluded. Two testimonies from trustworthy persons were sufficient to establish guilt; the depositions of the witnesses were communicated to the accused, but their names were kept secret for fear of reprisals. For this, however, after Boniface VIII, the danger had to be judged very grave (20, V, 2 in 6°).

There were various means of forcing the accused to confess: the regime of strict imprisonment, which involved fasting, deprivation of sleep, imprisonment in dungeons, fetters on the feet and chains on the wrists, and even more cruel torments. If he resisted, the detainee was subjected to torture, that is, the rack, the strappado, burning coals, or the boot. Nevertheless, mutilation and danger of death always had to be avoided.

In virtue of the decretal *Si adversus* (II, X, V, 7), the advocate or notary who lent the assistance of their office to a heretic or an abettor of heresy exposed themselves to the loss of their office and incurred infamy. Consequently, the accused remained undefended. At most, the advocate was permitted to advise the guilty party to confess. Once proof of the crime of heresy had been obtained, the inquisitor convened a jury composed of religious, secular clergy, grave persons, and jurists, numbering as many as forty. Having heard their opinion, he pronounced the sentence either publicly and solemnly in the so-called “general sermon” or outside of II. If the heretic persisted in refusing to retract their errors or relapsed after having abjured them (in which case they were judged a relapsed heretic), the inquisitor abandoned them—deliberately not using the verb *tradimus*—to the secular arm, requesting that the guilty party be spared mutilation and death. In practice, however, this recommendation had no effect; it merely preserved the judge from the irregularity into which they would have fallen by participating in a capital sentence. If the lay court of justice had not burned the impenitent or the relapsed, it would have been liable to excommunication, since it favored heresy (C. Douais, *Practica Inquisitionis heretice pravitatis, auctore Bernardo Guidonis*, Paris 1886, pp. 88 and 127).

When conducted to the place of execution, if the condemned declared repentance and renounced their errors, the tribunal returned them to the inquisitor, who subjected them to a very rigorous interrogation to prevent any deceit. The penitent was required to denounce their accomplices, presumably without any physical coercion, and to abjure their heresies one by one. As punishment, they were condemned to perpetual imprisonment. If their last-minute conversion appeared feigned, the original sentence resumed its effect. The relapsed heretic who converted at the last hour obtained only the grace of receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist before dying at the stake: the crime of heresy was comparable to a case of divine lèse-majesté.

If the guilty party was a cleric or had received Holy Orders, the ecclesiastical authority proceeded to degrade them before abandoning them to the civil power.

On the basis of apostolic constitutions, the *Liber Sextus* (18, V, 2, in 6°), and imperial legislation, some authors have imagined that appeal was permitted only in the case of an interlocutory sentence, but excluded for definitive sentences, particularly those condemning the guilty to the secular arm. Papal registers have demonstrated, at least for the fourteenth century, the falsity of such claims (

V. J

M. Vidal, *Bullaire de l'Inquisition française*, pp. LXXI-LXXX). Among the penalties inflicted upon heretics who abjured their errors, imprisonment appears to have been the most widely used by inquisitors. The penitentiary regime varied according to circumstances and places: the “loose imprisonment” excluded irons and dungeons, penalties reserved for those condemned to “strict imprisonment” or “most strict imprisonment.”

In any case, however, the prisoners received nothing but “the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction.”

IV. THE PENITENTS

At times, prisoners obtained provisional or definitive freedom. They were, however, required to wear on their garments signs of infamy: pieces of yellow or red cloth, of various shapes, which exposed them to all manner of vexations, affronts, and inconveniences, rendering life difficult for them. Indeed, good Christians refused to associate with them; to give their children in marriage to the penitents’ sons and daughters; insults and persecutions were not spared.

Calumniators and false witnesses were severely punished: for two consecutive days, from sunrise to nightfall, and on the following four Sundays, they were hoisted on a ladder, with hands bound and heads uncovered, dressed in a tunic without a belt, before the doors of churches, so that the crowd might heap abuse upon them.

At other times, the inquisitors imposed on the penitents pilgrimages of greater or lesser distance. The major pilgrimages were to Santiago de Compostela, Rome, Canterbury (St. Thomas), and Cologne (the Three Magi). Upon their return, the pilgrims presented certificates attesting to the journey undertaken and the obligatory visits to shrines. Pilgrimages and signs of infamy were ordinarily accompanied by public flogging. On certain feast days or Sundays, the penitent attended parish Mass, presenting themselves to the celebrant with a rope in one hand and rods in the other, and received the lashing. The ceremony might also take place during processions. The flogged person announced to the assembled people that they had merited their fate because they had committed offenses against the inquisitors and the tribunal of the Inquisition. The penitents were further burdened with other duties, such as attending sermons and sung Masses, abstaining from servile works on forbidden days, receiving the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist on appointed dates, fasting, and so forth. The penalties inflicted by the Church were regarded, more than as punishments, as penances beneficial to the salvation of penitents restored to the true Christian faith. Thus, on the first Sunday of the month, the parish priest explained the penitential letters in the possession of a penitent and reminded them of the obligations to which they were bound.

V. FINANCING

The search for and capture of heretics or those who favored them entailed considerable expenses. To compensate for these, the inquisitors imposed fines, either as a principal penalty or as compensation for severe penalties commuted to lighter ones. The remainder of the proceeds was devoted to pious works, such as the construction or maintenance of churches, bridges, and fountains, and the purchase of sacred vestments and vessels for places of worship.

Total confiscation fell upon the goods of obstinate heretics and relapsed heretics, even if penitent, who had been remitted to the secular arm, as well as upon the goods of those condemned to perpetual imprisonment. In France, a royal official known as the *receveur des encours* collected the proceeds of confiscations, which enabled him to cover the expenses of the tribunal of the Inquisition, which fell to the king. In Italy, the revenues of the tribunal of the Inquisition were divided into three parts, among the cities, the lay officials, and the tribunal itself.

VI. CONSEQUENCES OF CONDEMNATIONS

The stain of heresy did not cease with death: according to the provisions of the Decretals (12, X, III, 28 and 8, X, V, 7), the presence of the body of a heretic profaned the cemetery where they were buried, and the inquisitor ordered that the bones be exhumed and burned on the pyre.

Some apostolic constitutions and an edict of Frederick II prescribed the total destruction of the houses in which Cathars, known as “perfects” or “perfectae,” had been arrested, or had hidden, or had preached or administered the *consolamentum*, a sort of sacrament that replaced those of the Church. In reality, the inquisitors applied such decrees only to houses in which persons who had received the *consolamentum* at the point of death, with the knowledge of the owner, had died, or in which persons had been elevated to the rank of “perfects.”

Finally, certain civil and ecclesiastical disabilities ipso

Inquisitors often granted remissions and commutations of penalties, but these were always revocable.

VII. THE NUMBER

What was the number of heretics and recidivists who suffered the penalty of fire? Insufficient documentation prevents an exact determination. Only precise indications exist regarding the activity, in the 14th century, of the tribunal of Pamiers, where, out of 64 persons condemned, 5 were handed over to the secular arm, and regarding that of Inquisitor Bernard Gui in the Toulouse region, where, out of 930 persons, 42 perished at the stake (cf. J.-M. Vidal, *Le tribunal d'Inquisition de Pamiers*, Toulouse 1906, p. 329; C. Douais, *Documents pour servir à l'histoire de l'Inquisition dans le Languedoc*, I, Paris 1900, p. ccv).

Modern writers have judged severely the institution of the Inquisition and have claimed that it was contrary to freedom of conscience. But they forget that in the past this freedom was unknown and that heresy inspired horror in right-thinking people, who certainly constituted the great majority even in countries most infected by heresy. Nor should it be forgotten that in some countries the tribunal of the Inquisition lasted only a short time and had very little importance: thus in southern Italy, in the Spanish kingdoms during the 13th and 14th centuries, and in Germany. Even at Rome it soon disappeared: the trial of Luther in 1518 was conducted by the Auditor General of the Apostolic Chamber. As for the tribunal of the Roman Inquisition from the 16th century onwards, see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS: II, I, S. Congr. of the Holy Office.

Emmerich in the *Directorium Inquisitorum*. He contributed only minor clarifications and occasional directives.

In Aragon the Inquisition encountered strong opposition. The *consejos* of Saragossa organized a plot against the two inquisitors Pedro Arbués de Epila and Yuglar. On the night of 14 September 1485, Pedro was killed by a sword blow. His death (17 September) provoked in Saragossa a popular revolt against the *conversos*. The repression was severe, and all the conspirators perished at the stake.

In 1492 all Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were forced to leave Spain, on account of the disorders and conspiracies they were fomenting; from then on, trials were only occasional, although those Christians of Jewish descent who were suspected or despised were closely watched. What had happened to the *marranos* also befell the Moors remaining in Spain after the conquest of Granada (1492), to whom in 1498 was imposed the choice of converting or leaving. Thus arose a class of converts (*moriscos*) who were only superficially Christian, and against them the activity of the Inquisition was directed. The errors of the *alumbrados* (q.v.) in the 16th and 17th centuries also occupied the Inquisition, to which, moreover, were subjected crimes of common law that had little to do with heresy; this was done with a view to the better functioning of its procedure compared to other tribunals, its secrecy, and the greater integrity of its judges. It did not abandon the medieval tradition of leading culprits to penance in order to save them above all from being handed over to the secular arm and its consequences; yet it did not escape the prejudices of the times in the application of corporal punishments and in the solemn apparatus of the *auto da fé* (q.v.). It is certain that with the expansion of the powers of the Inquisition in Spain, the episcopal tribunals lost almost all coercive power. Indeed, it was the intention of the *Suprema* to subject the bishops themselves to its authority (see CARRANZA); but Rome would not consent to this. Moreover, there were numerous conflicts with the papal authority, which intervened to moderate the zeal of the inquisitors, prevent excesses, and yet was not always able to correct the harsh spirit of independence and the inflexible and severe conduct of the Inquisition. Well known are the attempts of King Philip II to introduce the Inquisition into his domains of Naples and Milan and into the Netherlands, encounters with the resolute resistance of the inhabitants. In Spain the Inquisition, suppressed for the first time by the French in 1809, was re-established in 1814 and finally suppressed in 1821.