Medieval panorama : the English scene from conquest to Reformation / by G.G. Coulton.

  • George Gordon Coulton
Date:
1947
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Medieval panorama : the English scene from conquest to Reformation / by G.G. Coulton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    780/842 (page 746)
    CHAPTER XXXV (pp. 457-476) continued And the pilgrimages [enjoined] were remitted him by reason of his debility and old age. (2) Tholosana, wife of Bernard Hugues of Roche-VidaHJ*. The minor pilgrimages contained in the Inquisitor’s letters, and visitations of Toulouse as above. The Inquisitors reserve the power of increasing, diminishing and augmenting the aforesaid penance, and of bringing back the aforesaid persons to prison, without fresh cause [sine nova causa] if they judge it expedient.” This is the regular form: the last batch of all (pp. 337-8) differs only in being slightly more explicit. We may trace some of these accused from stage to stage. In March one Raymonde, wife of Jacques Geraud, was condemned, on a confession extorted from her in prison and retracted afterwards (p. 119). In Sept. 1319 she was let out of prison on oath, to wear “ two crosses of felt, of saffron colour, on all her garments except her shift; and let one arm be of the length of two palms, and the other cross-piece one palm and a half, and each arm of three fingers’ breadth; one on the breast in front and the other between her shoulders at the back; let her never go, whether within or without her house, without displaying these; let her repair or renew them if they are torn or worn out with age ”. She must also perform a series of penances and pilgrimages and compulsory attendance at Church, and take an oath “ to prosecute [persequantur] heretics, by whatever name they may be called, and those who believe or abet or harbour or defend them, and all who have fled for heresy’s sake”. There is the usual reservation for return to prison at the Inquisitor’s pleasure sine nova causa (p. 214). Either Raymonde gave just cause or the Inquisitor was pleased to exercise his powers afresh; for in Sept. 1322 she was let out again, with a batch which had been “many years in prison” under the same grievous penalties and on the same cat-and-mouse conditions as before (p. 338). This, then, is a specimen of the 137 cases which Professor Guiraud and Mr Hollis describe as complete acquittals, evidently never having even glanced at this document on the strength of which they flatly con¬ tradict such learned and accurate writers as Lea and Tanon! (27) Vacandard, l.c. 241 ff. (28) Ibid. 159. (29) Lea’s monumental work has been so unscrupulously handled by popular controversialists on the Roman Catholic side, that I seize this opportunity of rectifying one of the most important misstatements. Far fuller evidence will be found in my booklet on Sectarian History (post-free for 2s. 6d. from 72 Kimberley Road, Cambridge), but the following episode deserves to be far more widely known. Professor E. P. Cheyney, in 1911, read a paper on Lea and his writings. He there described how Lord Acton, originator of The Cambridge Modern History, invited Lea “to write a chapter in the first volume to be called ‘ The Eve of the Reformation *. In his letter Lord Acton uses the following expressions: ‘This is the most important and most critical and cardinal chapter, which I am anxious to be allowed to place in your hands. It is clear that you are the one indicated and predestined writer, there is no one else_I know of none whom I could go to, if you refuse_After some other intervening letters, the correspondence was resumed in March and April, 1898, when Mr Lea sent the manuscript of the chapter, which was acknowledged by Lord Acton with renewed thanks, and eventually printed exactly as written. Eight years later, after Lord Acton’s death, during a controversy that arose concerning his Catholic orthodoxy, a correspondent in the Tablet, a London Catholic journal, denied that Lord Acton had asked Mr Lea to write this famous chapter. In answer to this Mr Lea prepared a communication to the same paper giving an outline of the correspondence which I have just described. Before sending this letter, however, he saw an article in the London Times of Oct. 30, 1906, by the present Lord Acton, upholding his father’s orthodoxy. In a spirit of kindliness, and fearing to make this filial task more difficult, Mr Lea decided not to send the correction he had prepared, laid it away among his papers, and the facts are now made public for the first time” (Proceedings of the American