A History of The Inquisition of The Middle Ages Volume II Part 33

1373, No. 17; ann. 1382, No. 2.--Raynald. ann. 1368, No. 18; ann. 1372, No. 32.--Pet. Ranzani Epit. Rer. Hung. XIX. (Schwandtner Rer. Hung.

Scriptt, p. 377).

In 1367 we find the people of Cattaro appealing to Urban V. for aid against the schismatics of Albania, and the heretics of Bosnia who were endeavoring to convert them by force (Theiner, op. cit. I. 259), which probably refers to some enterprise of the restless Sandalj Hranic. Yet when, in 1383, we hear of a Bishop of Bosnia, recently dead, who had lent 12,000 florins to Louis of Hungary, and had then bequeathed the debt to the Holy See (Ib. p. 337), we can only conclude that the orthodox Bosnian Church continued to exist and was not wholly penniless.

[341] Klaic, pp. 275, 287-8, 291, 297-8, 304-5, 312-13, 324.

[342] Klaic, p. 416.

[343] Ibid. pp. 335-8, 344-6, 351-3.

[344] Wadding, ann. 1433, No. 12-13; ann. 1435, No. 1-7, 9; ann. 1476, No. 39-40; ann. 1498. No. 2.--aegid. Carlerii Lib. de Legationibus (Monument. Concil. General. Saec. XV. T. I. p. 676).

[345] Theiner Monument. Slavor. Merid. I. 375, 376.--Klaic, pp. 354-6, 364-5, 369.

[346] Klaic, pp. 366-7, 369-70, 372-3.--Wadding, ann. 1437, No. 2-3; ann. 1444, No. 42-3.--Ripoll III. 91.--Raynald. ann. 1444, No. 2; ann.

1445, No. 23: ann. 1447, No. 21.--Theiner, op. cit. I. 388, 389, 395.

[347] Klaic, pp. 373-4.--Raynald. ann. 1449, No. 9.

[348] Klaic, pp. 376-77, 379.--Raynald. ann. 1449, No. 9; ann. 1450, No.

13; ann. 1461, No. 136.--Wadding. ann. 1451, No. 47, 52-3.--Ripoll III.

286.

[349] Theiner, op. cit. I. 408.--Klaic, pp. 380-2.

[350] Klaic, pp. 398, 408-9, 412, 414-15.--Theiner, I. 432.

[351] Klaic, pp. 424-6.

[352] Klaic, pp. 427-8, 432-6.--Wadding. ann. 1462, No. 82.

[353] Klaic, pp. 437-9, 443.--Wadding. ann. 1478, No. 67; ann. 1498, No.

2-3; ann. 1500, No. 44.

There was at least one humorous incident connected with the conquest of Bosnia. On the occupation by the Turks of the capital, Jaicza, the Franciscans fled to Venice, carrying with them the body of St. Luke, which had been translated thither from Constantinople. The possession of so important a relic brought them great consideration, but involved them in a troublesome contest. For three hundred years the Benedictine house of St. Justina at Padua had rejoiced in owning the body of St. Luke, which was the source of much profit. The Benedictines objected to the intrusion of the doppelganger; and as no trustworthy tradition a.s.signed two bodies to the saint, there was no chance of compromise. They appealed to Pius II., who referred the case with full powers of decision to his legate at Venice, Cardinal Bessarion. A trial in all legal form was held, lasting for three months and resulting in the victory of the Franciscans. The Paduan Luke, as an impostor, was forbidden to enjoy in future the devotion of the faithful, but no provision was made to compensate those who for three centuries had wasted on him their prayers and offerings, in the belief that they were securing the suffrages of the genuine Evangelist. The Paduans for years vainly endeavored to get Bessarion's decision set aside, and they were finally obliged to submit.

Their strongest argument was that, about the year 580, the Emperor Tiberius II. had given to St. Gregory, then apocrisarius of Pelagius II.

in Constantinople, the head of St. Luke, which was still exhibited and venerated in the Basilica of the Vatican. Now the Benedictine St. Luke was a headless trunk, while the Franciscan one was perfect, and they argued with reason that it was highly improbable that St. Luke had possessed two heads. This logic was more cogent than successful, though the Vatican clergy did not feel called upon to discredit their own valuable relic, which they continued to exhibit as genuine. The question was still further complicated by a superfluous arm of the Evangelist which was preserved in the Basilica of S. Maria ad Praesepe (Wadding.

ann. 1463, No. 13-23).

[354] Kaltner, Konrad von Marburg, Prag, 1882, pp. 41-5.--Frag. Hist.

(Urstisii Scriptt. P. II. p. 89).--Chronik des Jacob v. Konigshofen (Chroniken der deutchen Stadte, IX. 649).--Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann.

1215.--H. Mutii Chron. Lib. XIX. ann. 1212.--Innoc. PP. III. Regest.

XIV. 138.--Caesar. Heisterb. Dist. III. cap. 16, 17.

On the authority of Daniel Specklin, a Stra.s.sburg annalist who died in 1589, Bishop Henry is said to have met St. Dominic in Rome, to have promised him and Innocent III. to introduce the Dominican Order in Stra.s.sburg, and to have taken some members home with him, who speedily multiplied to about a hundred, and distinguished themselves by the persecution related in the text (Kaltner, loc. cit.; cf. Hoffman.

Geschichte der Inquisition II. 365-71). At this period, as we have seen in a former chapter, Dominic was laboring obscurely in Languedoc, and it was not until 1214 that the liberality of Pierre Cella suggested to him the idea of a.s.sembling around him in Toulouse half a dozen kindred spirits. It was not until 1224 that the Dominican convent in Stra.s.sburg was founded (Kaltner, p. 45).

[355] Kaltner, p. 45.--Hoffmann, II. 371-2.--Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug.

ann. 1215.

[356] Innoc. PP. III. Regest. II. 141, 142, 235.--Alberic. Trium Font.

ann. 1200.--Caesar. Heisterb. Dist. V. c. 20.

[357] Kaltner, op. cit. pp. 69-71.--I am rather inclined to believe that honest Daniel Specklin has drawn to some extent upon his own convictions for this list of errors. Among them he enumerates lay communion in both elements. As the cup at this time had not been withdrawn from the laity, its administration would not have been characterized as a heresy.

[358] Tocco, L'Heresia nel Medio Evo, p. 21.--D'Argentre, Collect.

Judic. I. I. 127.--Caesar. Heisterbac. v. 22.--Nich. Trivetti Chron. ann.

1215 (D'Achery Spicileg. III. 185.)--Rigord. de Gest. Phil. Aug. ann.

1210.--Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1210.--Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. P. II. Q.

vii.--Cf. Renan, Averroes et l'Averrosme, 3d Ed. pp. 220-4.

[359] Caesar. Heisterb. VI. 5.

[360] Rigordus de Gest. Phil. Aug. ann. 1210.--Chron. Canon Laudunens.

ann. 1212.--Chron. de Mailros ann. 1210.--Chron. Turonens. ann.

1210.--Caesar. Heisterb. V. 22.--Chron. Breve S. Dionys. ann.

1209.--Grandes Chroniques, IV. 139.--Guillel. Brito (Bouquet XVII. 82 sqq.).--D'Argentre, Coll. Judic. I. I. 128-33.--Harduin. Concil. VI. II.

1994.--Chron. Engelbusii (Leibnitz, S. Rer. Brunsv. II. 1113).

William the goldsmith, under the t.i.tle of Gulielmus Aurifex, retains his place in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to the present day (Migne, Dictionnaire des Heresies, II. 1056). Cf. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bucher. I. 17.

[361] Steph. de Borbone (D'Argentre I. I. 88).--Potthast No.

7348.--Pelayo, Heterodoxos Espanoles, I. 410,--Concil. Lateran. IV. c.

2.

For the connection between the speculations of Erigena and those of Amauri see Poole's "Ill.u.s.trations of the History of Medieval Thought,"

London, 1884, p. 77.

[362] Anon. Pa.s.saviens. c. 6 (Mag. Bib. Pat. XIII. 300-2).--Kaltner, pp.

64-5.--Haupt, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 1885, p. 507.

[363] Kaltner, pp. 90-5.--Hartzheim Concil. German. III.

515-16.--Potthast No. 7260.--Chron. Mont. Sereni ann. 1222 (Menken.

Scriptt. Rer. Germ. II. 265).--Chron. Sanpetrin. Erfurt, ann. 1222 (Ib.

III. 250).

[364] Conrad of Marburg was too shining a light not to be earnestly and persistently claimed by the Dominicans as an ornament of their Order.

Their legend relates that he was miraculously drawn into it in 1220 by St. Dominic himself, who earnestly desired him as a colleague, and who promptly sent him to Germany with a commission as inquisitor (Monteiro, Historia da Sacra Inquisico, P. I. Liv. i. c. 48.--Jac. de Voragine Legend. Aur. fol. 90_a_, Ed. 1480.--Paramo, pp. 248-9), and Ripoll a.s.sumes it as a matter of course, though he failed to furnish us with the promised dissertation to prove it (Bull. Domin. I. 20, 52). See also Kaltner, pp. 76-82. The claim is based upon his inquisitorial activity, his voluntary poverty, and the t.i.tle of _praedicator_, which he bore in virtue of a papal commission--arguments flimsy enough, but better than that of his latest champion, Hausrath, who cites an expression in a letter of Gregory IX. characterizing Conrad as the watch-dog of the Lord--"_Dominicus canis_" (Hoffman, Geschichte d. Inq,. II. 392). Of course a negative, such as the present, can only be proved by negatives, but these are sufficient. In numerous letters to him from Honorius III.

and Gregory IX. he is never addressed as "_Frater_," the term invariably used by the Mendicants. The superscription always is "_Magistro Conrado de Marburo praedicatori Verbi Dei_, or the equivalent--Conrad being presumably a master in theology (Epistt. Saec.

XIII. T. I. No. 51, 117, 118, 126, 361, 362, 484, 533, 537). Similarly in the chronicles of the time he is never spoken of as "_Frater_," but always as "_Magister Conradus_." Besides, Theodoric of Thuringia, himself a Dominican, and almost a contemporary, in his life of St.

Elizabeth describes Conrad in the moat exalted terms, without claiming him for his Order, which he could not have avoided doing had there been ground for it (Canisii Thesaur. IV. 116).

[365] Theod. Thuring, de S. Eliz. Lib. III. c. 10 (Canisii Thesaur. IV.

130).--Potthast No. 7930.--Epistt. Saec. XIII. T. I. No. 361.

[366] Kaltner, pp. 96, 121.--De Dictis IV. Ancillarum (Menken. Scriptt.

Rer. Germ. II. 2017, 2023, 2029)--Theodor. Vit. S. Eliz. (Ib.

2000-1).--Jundt, Les Amis de Dieu, p. 95