Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:44:13.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Pro Peccatis Patrum Puniri”: A Moral and Legal Problem of the Inquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Kenneth Pennington
Kenneth Pennington
Affiliation:
professor in the Department of History, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first letter in Pope Innocent III's register of his second year was Vergentis in senium, a letter which he sent to the city of Viterbo in March, 1199. The decretal reflected Innocent's growing concern with heresy in the papal states and established new and more stringent penalties for those who rejected or subverted the Christian faith. In Vergentis, perhaps following the Roman lawyer Placentinus, Innocent imposed the traditional spiritual punishment of excommunication on heretics, equated heresy with lese majesty, and applied to convicted heretics the sanctions for treason in Roman law: complete confiscation of goods, even disinheriting innocent children. The punishment was fitting, Innocent observed, because a heretic injured celestial majesty, a crime far more heinous than any offense committed against temporal authority. Since the heretics in Viterbo continued to demand his attention later in his pontificate, we do not know how effective Innocent's decree was, but Vergentis did establish a precedent for papal action throughout Christendom. In order to root out all vestiges of heresy, Innocent extended the provisions of the decretal from the heretics themselves to their “supporters, defenders, and harborers.” The decretal marked the first firm step of his increasingly grim policy to use all of the resources of the church to extirpate heresy from Christian lands. The step from Viterbo to the Albigensian crusade was a short one. And, since heresy was an ecclesiastical crime, both laymen and clerics who were accused of heresy had their cases heard in ecclesiastical courts, giving lawyers another item to add to the list of cases in which the pope could exercise jurisdiction in the secular world.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 137 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The major studies of Vergentis have been by Maisonneuve, Henri, Études sur les origines de l'inquisition, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1960), pp. 156–157; 281–284; 339–357.Google ScholarUllmann, W., “The Significance of Innocent III's Decretal Vergentis,” Études d'histoire du droit dediées à Gabriel Le Bras (Paris, 1965), 2.729–743.Google ScholarHageneder, O., “Studien zur Dekretale ‘Vergentis’ (X V.7.10). Ein Beitrag zur Häretikergesetzgebung Innocenz III.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. 49 (1963), pp. 138–173.Google Scholar Of the older studies, Lea, H. C., History of the Inquisition (New York, 1906) 1:501–503Google Scholar is detailed and informative.

2. A History of the Inquisition of Spain (New York, 1966) 3:173.Google Scholar For further information about the lawyers mentioned in this paper see von Schulte, J. F., Die Geschichte der Quellen and Literatur des canonischen Rechts (3 vols.; Stuttgart, 1875–1877).Google ScholarKuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234) (Città del Vaticano, 1937).Google Scholar

3. Hageneder, , “Vergentis,” pp. 149–150.Google Scholar On the “official” character of Compilatio tertia, see “The French Recension of Compilatio tertia,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 5 (1975):64–67.Google Scholar In another essay which will appear in The Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Salamanca, I argue that Innocent III did not order the compilation of 3 Comp., but instead authenticated or approved the collection.

4. 4th Lat. c.3[4 Comp. 5.5.2(X 5.7.13)]. For the text of Excommunicamus, see Conciliorum decumenicorum decreta, ed. Alberigo, J. et al. (3rd ed.Bologna, 1973), 233–235.Google Scholar In referring to legal texts, I shall use the following abbreviations: X = Decretals of Gregory IX; Comp. = Compilatio antiqua (prima—quinta). These works can be conveniently found in editions by E. Friedberg (Leipzig 1879) and (Leipzig 1882).

5. Johannes Galensis to 3 Comp. 5.4.1(X 5.7.10), v. credentibus confundatur: “Non, quod sepe punitur unus altero, ut ii. q.vii. Qualis, Sententia (C.2 q.7 c.9 and c. 12)” (Munich, Staatsbibl. 3879, fol. 250v).Google Scholar

6. Laurentius Hispanus to 3 Comp. 5.4.1 v. receptoribus: “Sine quibus heretici diu manere non possunt, et ideo merito puniuntur, arg. ff. de offit. presid. Congruit (Dig. 1.18.13) et ff. de recept. l.i. (Dig. 4.8.1) nisi forte proximos recipiant, puta agnatos (MS “agrares”), tunc enim non ita grauiter punientur, arg. ff. de recept. 1. finali (Dig. 4.8.52). Quod non concedo hoc (MS “hic”) casu, arg. supra xxvii q.i. De filia (C.27 q.1 c.26). Puniuntur autem (MS “an”) eadem pena receptatores (MS “receptationis”) et isti, arg. C. de his qui latron. occult. 1. i. (Cod. 9.39.1).” (Karlsruhe Aug. XL, fol. 215r). Hageneder, “Vergentis,” p. 145, fn. 24.

7. Hageneder, , “Vergentis,” p. 149.Google Scholar The seventeenth-century lawyer, Emanuel Gonzalez Tellez of the University of Salamanca, noted in his commentary to Vergentis that Raymond had changed the wording of Innocent's decree. With the change, confiscation did not apply to the supporter and defenders of heretics. He hypothesized that since neither Innocent's decretal in the Fourth Lateran Council, Excommunicamus, nor Frederick II's legislation of 1220 demanded confiscation, “forsan… haec poena confiscationis bonorum usu recepta non fuit.” Commentaria perpetua (Lyon, 1715), 2.179.Google Scholar

8. Cod. 1.5.19 (Cognovimus). Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, pp. 29–32.Google Scholar On the general problem of punishing the innocent, see Piergiovanni, V., La punibilità degli innocenti nel diritto canonico dell' eta classica, 2 vols. (Milan, 1971–1974).Google Scholar

9. The Emperors Honorius and Arcadius promulgated Quisquis (Cod. 9.8.5) in 397.

10. Alanus Anglicus, in a gloss to his own collection (W. and A. 5.6.1): “Potius quam uerbis quam pro sententia est hoc capitulum insertum quoniam contulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci” (Vercelli 89, fol. 116v). This was Alanus' only gloss to the decretal. On the Vercelli MS see Kuttner, S. “The Collection of Alanus: A Concordance of its Two Recensions,” Rivista di storia del diritto, 26 (1953): 37–53.Google Scholar

11. The images and scriptural passages used to describe heresy were well established by the early thirteenth century, and similarities of style or of images in Innocent's writings would not prove that he drafted Vergentis. I note only that the beginning sentences of Vergentis and two of his sermons contain exactly the same images. See Sermon 12, (Migne, J. P., Patrologia … Series Latina [PL] 217:647)Google Scholar and Sermon, 2,PL 217. 655.Google Scholar

12. Johannes Galensis to 3 Comp. 5.4.1 v. consilia ciuitatum: “Nota papa quantum ad forum ciuile posse infamiam infligere, sed cur non absoluere infamatum, ut supra ii. q.iii. Hinc colligitur? (C.2 q.3 d.p.c.7). Solutio. Immo potest et quod ibi dicit Gratianus non est uerum.” v. precipimus fieri: “Quod facere potest papa obtentu peccati, supra de iud. Nouit, lib. eodem” (Munich, Staatsbibl. 3879, fol. 250v).Google Scholar

13. Laurentius Hispanus to 3 Comp. 5.4.1 v. exheredatio filiorum: “Videntur ergo ex hoc recipere correctionem iura que dicunt bona hereticorum deuoluenda ad filios fideles, ut C. eodem titulo Manycheos, uel si non habent filios fideles, ad cognatos uel angnatos fideles, ut C. eodem titulo Cognouimus (Cod. 1.5.19) et authentico ibi posito Idem de Nestorianis (Nov. 115.3.14)” Karlsruhe Aug. XL, fol. 215v).

14. Johannes Teutonicus to 3 Comp. 5.4.1 v.filiorum: “Sic patet quod secundum canones bona hereticorum confiscantur, siue habeant filios Siue non, et in hoc corrigitur lex que dicit quod bona eorum ad cognatos uel agnatos deferuntur.… Nota quod in tribus criminibus filii excludentur, scilicet in crimine heresis et symonie, ut hic et vi. q.I § Verum (C.6 q.1 d.p.c.21), et in interfectore clericorum” (Admont 22, fol. 23 lv). Not Johannes Galensis: Maisonneuve,L'inquisition, p.281.

15. On which see Nörr, K., “Der Apparat des Laurentius zur Compilatio III.” Traditio 17 (1961): 542–543.Google Scholar

16. 3 Comp. 5.4.1 v. orthodoxorum: “Econtra C. de heret. et man. 1. Cognouimus (Cod. 1.5.19), authen. Idem de Nestorianis (Nov. 115. 3.14), set dic quod ecclesia possit, quia magis ab eis leditur, magis eos prosequitur. Set nonne papa in hoc casu est iudex suus ubi aduersarios suos auctoritate sua punit, simile supra de translat. epis. Inter corporalia (3 Comp. 1.5.2 = X 1.7.2) et ii. q.vii Si quis erga (C.2. q.7. c.16)” (Bamberg Can. 19, fol. 208v). This gloss is garbled in Paris Bibliotheque Nationale 3932, fol. 188r.

17. Tancred to 3 Comp. 5.4.1, v. exheradatio filiorum: “Expresse dicitur hic quod bona hereticorum confiscantur siue filios habeant siue non, nec catholicis filiis hereticorum est aliquid relinquedum, sed contra dicunt leges, C. de heret.Manicheos (Cod. 1.5.4) et I. Cognouimus (Cod. 1.5.19) et authen. Idem est de Nestorianis, (Nov. 115.3.14) ubi dicitur quod bona hereticorum deuoluuntur ad filios orthodoxos; si habent, deuoluuntur ad cognatos uel catholicos. Ad hoc dixerunt la. et jo. quod hec decretalis corrigit leges illas, et ius illud antiquum traitur ad istud nouum, arg. ff. de legibus et constit. Non est nouum (Dig. 1.3.26) et supra de cognat. spirit. c.i. lib. i. (1 Comp. 4.11.1 = X 4.11.1) Ego dico hanc decretalem preualere legibus supradictis in terris illis dumtaxat que subsunt temporali iurisdictioni domini pape, sicut ex littera precedenti probatur. In aliis autem terris preualent leges predicte que maiori equitate nituntur. Hec decretalis de seueritate loquitur ut ex littera patet. Equitas enim iuri stricto preferenda est, ut C. de iudic. Placuit (Cod. 3.1.8), nam cum hec Sit pena molienda est et non exasperanda, ut supra de pen. di.i. § Pene (De pen. D. 1. c.18). t.” (Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 264v).

18. For just one example of this aspect of canonistic thought which they often cheerfully ignored, see the Ordinary Gloss to X. 2.26.14, v.centum annorum. Innocent III had decreed that only a one-hundred year prescription was valid against the Roman church. Johannes Teutonicus had found this absurd, for he did not think a one-hundred year prescription could be proven. Therefore, he used the test of “what reaches beyond the memory of man” to prove such a prescription. Bernardus Parmensis quoted gloss, but concluded: “Sed non recedendum est a uerbis istis … et sufficit quod ita placuit legislatri.”

19. See Brundage's, J. interesting remarks in “The Creative Canonist: His role in Church Reform,” The Jurist 31 (1971): 301–318Google Scholar. Brundage discusses several cases in which the canonists either changed, altered or limited papal legislation.

20. For a specific example, see Pennington, , “The Canonists and Pluralism in the Thirteenth Century,” Speculum 51 (1976): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Zoen to 5 Comp. 5.4.1 (X ---), v. non possint: “Estenim unus casus in quo filius caret successione paterna per delictum patris; alius in crimine lese maiestatis, ut C. ad leg. Iul. mai. Quisquis (Cod. 9.8.5), quam legem habes vi. q.i § Vestrum (rede Verum), uer. Si quis cum mulieri (recte militibus) (C.6 1.1 d.p. c.21)” (Tours, Bibl. mun. 565, fol. 37r). Johannes' Jacobus to 5 Comp. 5.4.1 (X ---) v. filii ad successionem: “Siue fuerint heretici siue ortodoxi ut supra eodem Vergentis, circa finem, et ita per hanc legem et per illam decretalem, Vergentis (3 Comp. 5.4.1 = X 5.7.10), corriguntur antiqua iura bona hereticorum reseruabunt filiis ortodoxis, ut C. eodem Manicheos, Cognouimus (Cod. 1.5.4 and 1.5.19), et authen. Idem de Nestorianis (Nov. 115.3. 14) et i. q.iii.Iudei (C.1 q.4 c.7), reprobata opinione t. quam recitauit super illa decretali, Vergentis, in fine. jac.” (Cordoba, Bibliotheca del Cabildo 10, fol. 335r). Since he included Frederick's legislation in 5 Comp., Tancred may have changed his mind about Vergentis in the time since he had written his commentary to 3 Comp.

22. Vincentius to X.5.7.10, v.filiorum: “Ego Vincentius sto illi decretali et similibus, et qui precedentem glosam fecit, Lonbardus fuit. uinc.” (Paris, B.N. 3967, fol. 184v).Google Scholar Maisonneuve failed to notice this tag on the end of Tancred's gloss in Vincentius' commentary. Consequently, he thought Vincentius agreed with Tancred, but wondered which canonist formulated the opinion first.L'inquisition, pp. 281–283.

23. See Vincentius' comments on Alanus and Tancred quoted by von Schulte, J. F., Die Geschichte derQuellen, 1: 192.Google Scholar

24. Goffredus to X 5.7.10, v. seueritatis: “Vere seueritas est. Leges enim que dicunt puniendos filios ledentium imperialem maiestatem timuerunt ne filii talium essent imitatores paterne iniquitatis, ut vi. q.i. Verum. C. ad leg. Iul. mai. Quisquis, sed si ecclesia uideat per certa indicia fidem et deuotionem filiorum hereticorum, quomodo puniet eos cum pena suos debeat actores tenere, ut supra de hiis que fiunt a maiori par. cap. Quesiuit (2 Comp. 3.9.2= X 3.11.2), cum filius non debeat puniri pro patre, ut C. ne filius pro patre (Cod. 4.13), cum eccesia debeat omnes iuuare, omnes amare, ut viii. q.i. Clemens (C.8 q.l c.13), nulli claudere gremium, ut C. de sac. sanc. eccles I. ult. (Cod. 1.2.25(26)) Forte Innocentius sumpsit hanc seueritatem ex lege, C. eodem titulo 1. Manicheos (Cod. 1.5.4), et in pena filiorum considerauit penam parentum, ut ff. quod metus causa 1. Isti quidem (Dig. 4.2.8). Frequenter enim ecclesia punit temporaliter fihiurn pro delicto patris, ut xv. q.vi Cum multe (C.15 q.8 c.3), i. q.iiii. § Item peccato (C.1 q.4 d.p.c.11), i. q.i. Cito (C.1 q.1 c.16), supra de fil. presbyt. per totum. g.” (Paris, B.N. 15402, fol. 156v). He repeated this gloss in his Summa (Lyon, 1519), fol. 207v.

25. Bernardus Parmensis to X 5.7.10, v. exhaeredatio.

26. Hostiensis, Summa aurea (Venice 1574) 1536. “Veruntamen et prima sententia saluari potest, quia sententia Azonis et leges sue, idest pro eo inductae, intelligi possunt quando hereticus mortuus est ante accusationem et denunciationem, cum occultus esset, sententia uero Placentini locum habet post accusationem et publicationem, secundum ea que not. supra.… uel die quod etiarn post sententiam latam potest intelligi uera lex et sententia Azonis: sed intelligitur loqui de misericordia, non de rigore.” In his commentary to Vergentis, Hostiensis referred to the solution in his Summa aurea as being his final thoughts on the matter. Azo's and Placentinus' opinions are discussed by Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

27. de Baysio, Guido, Rosarium (Strassburg, 1473),Google Scholar unfoliated, to C.23 q.7: “Sed quicquid dicatur si bene ponderetur litera illius decretalis Vergentis § Nec huius, inuenitur quod illa litera loquitur tam in terris romane ecclesie quam aliorum, et hoc denotatur cum dicit huius seueritatis cum de omnibus illis terris ibi litera premittatur, et sic remanebit illa generalis et predicta decretalis Excommunicamus. et ita dictum Joannis et sequacium firmum erit ut hoc dicit.”

28. Ripoll, T., ed. Bullarium ordinis fratrum praedicatorum 1 (Rome 1729) pp. 125–128.Google Scholar On Frederick's legislation dealing with heresy, see de Vergottini, G., Studi sulla legislazione imperiale di Federico II in Italia: Le leggi del 1220 (Milan, 1952) pp. 1–60; 166–176; 265–280.Google Scholar On Frederick's legislation in general, see Dilcher, H., Die sizilische Gesetzgebung Kaiser Friedrichs II.: Quellen der Constitutionen von Melfi und ihrer Novellen (Köln, 1975).Google Scholar

29. Bullarium, p. 126. “si… latentem patrum perfldiam revelaverint … predicte punitioni non subjaceat innocentia filiorum.” See Vacandard, E., The Inquisition (New York, 1908), p. 246.Google Scholar

30. Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, p. 260.Google Scholar In Spain, the legislation of Alfonso the Wise (1255) refused to punish orthodox sons, see Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888), 2.183.Google Scholar

31. Constitutionum regni Siciliarum libri III cum commentariis ueterum jurisconsultorum (Naples, 1773), pp. 12–15Google Scholar contains the commentary of Marinus de Caramanico and Andreas de Isernia.

32. Bullarium, pp. 125–128. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges (Hannover, 1896) 2:328–329.Google ScholarPatarenorum was also reissued by Padua in 1238 in its revised form. Also Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, pp. 313–314; 255–256.Google Scholar

33. de Vinea, Petrus, Epistolae (Ambergae, 1609), pp. 180–181.Google Scholar Marinus to L.A. 1.2 v. Si tamen aliquis: “Si tamen aliquis de credentibus. Nota rubricam; alias est de credentibus, fautoribus, etc. quae litera bona est; alias de filiis receptatorum vel fautorum, etc. et haec litera non est bona, nam sic supra 1. proxima, de poena filiorum loqueretur in filiis receptatorum et fautorum, quod esset summe iniquum, ut ad eorum filios poena transiret” (ed. cit. 14). Although the lawyers did not accept the penalty which Patarenorumspecified for the sons of supporters and although the law was revised subsequently, the manuscripts of the Liber Augustalis indicate that the law retained its pristine form. See the latest edition by Conrad, H., Lieck-Buyken, T. von der and Wagner, W., Die Konstitutionen Friedrichs II. von Hohenstaufen für sein Königreich Sizilien (Köln-Wien, 1973).Google Scholar Also Selge, K.V., “Die Ketzerpolitik Friedrich II.”, Probleme um Friedrich II., ed.Fleckenstein, J. (Sigmaringen, 1974), pp. 309–343.Google Scholar

34. Marinus to L.A. 1.2 v. Patarenorum fautores: “Sunt etiam isti tales excommunicati ipso iure, scilicet per sententiam latam a canone, ut extra de haeret. c. Sicut ait et cap. Excommunicamus … et postquam quilibet ipsorum receptatorum, credentium, defensorum, seu quocunque modo fautorum, denuntiatus est, et ex huiusmodi causa cxcommunicatus sit, satisfacere contempserit infra annum, ex tunc ipso iure infamis efflcitur … et tunc etiam credentes haereticorum inter haereticos computantur, et tanquam haereticijudicantur … nec innovantur predictae poenae per poenam huius constitutionis, immo haecpoena nihil praedictis derogans adiicitur” (ed. cit. p. 12).

35. Marinus to L.A. 1.2 v. ipsorum filii: “Scilicet Patarenorum” (ed. cit. p. 13).

36. Ibid.: “Et ideo tanquam imitatores paterni sceleris puniuntur, juxta illud divinum eloquium: Ego sum Deus zelotes vindicans peccata patrum in filios usque ad tertiam et quartam progeniem in his qui oderunt me.”

37. Ibid.: “Et e contrario, pater pro filio haeretico non punitur. Nusquam enim est reperire quod patres ex delicto filii puniantur. … et est ratio diversitatis huius, quia filius est tanquam res patris, cum pater in eo proprietatis jus habeat.”

38. Ibid.: “Ultimo sciendum est quod secundum allegata superius videtur poenam constitutionis huius inflictam filiis locum habere in filio in potestate patris constituto; secus forte in filio emancipato ante paternum errorem, sicut et in filio emancipato ante crimen majestatis excogitatum cavetur, ut C. ad leg. Jul. maj. 1. Quisquis.”

39. Besides those lawyers mentioned in the paragraphs which follow, Petrus de Ancharano, Antonius de Butrio, Zabarella, Johannes de Turrecremata, Panormitanus, Johannes Grassus (Prague MS VIII A 5c, fol. 246r), and Marinus Socinus rejected any amelioration of Vergentis' provisions.

40. Panormitanus to X 5.7.10: “Et mirandum de hac opinione Joannis nam raro habet opinionem saltem non probabilem” (Commentaria [Lyon, 1522], vol. 2, fol. 41 v).Google Scholar

41. Andreae, Johannes, Commentaria (Venice, 1581), vol. 5, fol. 49r:Google Scholar After citing Tancred, Goffredus and Hostiensis, Johannes concluded: “Sed aucten. Gazaros contradicere uidetur, quae concordat huic iuri canonico et uersiculo huius decretalis (Vergentis).”

42. Antonius de Butrio, Petrus de Ancharano and Marinus Socinus also misinterpreted Johannes' gloss, as does Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, pp. 355–356.Google Scholar The seventeenth-century lawyer, Fagnani, Prospero, Commentaria (Venice 1742) p. 95,Google Scholar noticed that “licet revera Jo. Andr. videatur postea ab ea recessisse, quia paulo post subjungit obstare Auth. Gazaros. C. de haeret. et Manich., quam dixit concordare cum textu nostro.”

43. The original text is in MGH Leges 2.244. 5 Comp. 5.4.1 (X ---). Marinus to L.A. 1.1, ed. cit. p.9. Guilielmus' reference is quoted by Maisonneuve, , L'inquisition, p. 354.Google Scholar

44. Noted in the apparatus of the edition in MGH Leges 2.244.

45. Cynus, of Pistoia, , Commentaria in codicem (Frankfurt A/M, 1578),Google Scholar fol. 23v to Gazaros: “et hanc opinionem tenuit Goff. et Tancred. glossatores iuris canonici, sed earn non patitur ratio.… unde durum est contra stimulum calcitrare.” To Cod. 9.8.5, fol. 543v: “Sexto quaeritur iuxta hoc, nunquid sit idem in filiis haereticorurn etiam orthodoxis? Roffred. voluit dicere quod non, sed contrarium est veritas, ut supra de haeret. authen. Gazaros, et ibi dixi.… Ista sunt verba constitutionis eius [Frederick's, which he has just quoted] quam ecclesia Romana approbauit.” I have not had access to Roffredus' work.

46. Calderinus, Johannes, Consilia (Venice, 1582), fol. 93v-94r:Google Scholar “In contrarium facit 1. Emancipata, ff. de sena. curn materia sua. Item facit, quia filius ante natus ex supervenienti dignitate in persona patris non consequitur priuilegiurn uel honorem.… ergo nec poenam uel onus.… Et hic intellectus est magis fauorabilis et consont aequitati, maxime ubi de admittendo filium orthodoxum ante natum ad officia et honores agitur.… et potest etiam ratio diuersitatis quia qui nascuntur postea, nascuntur sanguine improbato, quod in filiis ante natis non est.”

47. Sandaeus, Felinus, Commentaria (Lyon, 1547),Google Scholar fol. 243v-244r, to X 5.7.10: “Sed fallit primo, nisi esset iudaeus conuersus, quia si demum relabitur hoc non nocet filiis. Fallit secundo in filiis et aliis descendentibus ex linea materna.… Fallit tertia nisi haereticus ante mortem reconcilietur, ut ibidem. Quarto, nisi filii post mortem patris haeretici qui putabatur christianus, tenuissent per xl. annos bona.”

48. de Castro, Alfonso, De iusta haereticorum punitione (Salamanca, 1547), p. 322.Google Scholar “Vidi enim ego multos in Flandria, cum illic ante annos decem versarer, qui licet iustum esse censebant haereticos puniri, male tamen illos habebat parentum haereticorum poenas ad filios eorum esse protensas.… Dicebant enim indignum esse, ut quis sine culpa puniatur [and for support they quote Augustine and Ezechiel” The canonists had noticed the contradiction between the two biblical texts almost immediately, but they were not bothered by the conflict. Innocent III discussed both texts when he dealt with the postulation of illegitimate clerics in Innotuit [3 Comp. 1.6.5 (X 1.6.20)]. While glossing Innotuit (v. non est filiis imputanda) Vincentius Hispanus observed that sons were freed only from guilt, but not from punishment, “quo ad culpam inputatur, tamen quo ad penam, infra de hereticis Vergentis. vi. q.i. §Verum” (St. Gall 697, fol. 20v), and perhaps his solution satisfied the canonists. Marinus de Caramanico was the only early lawyer who cited both biblical texts in his commentary (supra n. 36).

49. Ibid., pp. 301–302.

50. de Simancas, Diego, De catholicis institutionibus: Liber ad praecavendas et extirpandas haereses (Ferrariae, 1692), p. 63.Google Scholar “Sed propter heresim regis, non solum rex regno privatur, sed et eius filii a regni successione pelluntur, ut noster Lupus loculenter probat, ergo primogenita pari ratione confiscari possunt.”

51. Budé, G., Annotationes in pandectas (Opera omnia, vol. 3; Basel, 1552), p. 308.Google Scholar “Qua lege [Sancimus] ego legem Quisquis abrogatam esse aliquando censui.… proprius mihi videtur, antiquiorem legem posteriore abrogari.” Budé was not, however, discussing heresy in this passage. I have not had access to Johannes Igneus' work, but I know of his opinion from Simancas' reference to it.

52. de Vignate, Ambrosius, De heresi [Tractatus universi iuris, vol. 11, pt. 2 = TUI (Venice, 1584)],Google Scholar fol. 17r. “Ergo aequa est lex civilis faciens pro Azone et sequacibus, ut filii haereticorum non puniantur. Et ideo dato quod d. c. Vergentis contradiceret ad litteram, equitas legum preallegatarum videtur preferenda.”

53. Commentaria, p. 93. “Atque ita Jo. Andr. agnovit hanc differentiam constitui non posse inter loca imperio vel ecclesiae subjecta.”

54. Ricciulus, Antonius. Tractatus de iure personarum extra ecclesiae gremium existentium (Rome, 1622), p. 474.Google Scholar “Ergo multo magis debent habere locum in natis ante delictum, quam in aliis cum major sit afflictio videre filium adultum, saepe etiam bonis ditatum, et in dignitate constitutum gradu deiici, quam filios infantes.”

55. Paolo Grillando, De hereticis, TUI, fol. 25v. “Sed in contrarium est veritas, quia ipsi filii effecti sunt a iure adeo inhabiles et incapaces paterne successionis, quod illi etiam in uno denario succedere non possunt, imo debent semper in miseria et egestate sordescere, sicut filii reorum criminis laesae maiestatis, adeo quod nihil aliud eis relinquendum est nisi sola vita, que ex misericordia elargitur. Et tales esse debent in hoc mundo, quibus vita supplicium et mors solatium.”

56. De catholicis institutionibus, p. 31.

57. Directorium inquisitorum (Venice, 1595). p. 99.Google Scholar “Inquisitores tamen pueris et puellis haereticorum damnatorum pauperibus relictis providebunt ex misericordia, ita ut rationem habeant sexus et aetatis, nam masculos iam corpore validos alicui arti mechanicae iubebunt addici; foeminas, aliquibus honestis eiusdem civitatis matronis assignabunt ut eis famulentur et ab eis in fide instruantur. Caeteris, quibus per aetatem aut incommodam valetudinem laborare non licet, tenuia alimenta ex paternis bonis ex sola misericordia subministrabunt, deprecantes interdum principes, tam ecclesiasticos quam saeculares, ut huiusmodi filios damnatorum, aliquam exerceant liberalitatem, quae res ad eos in primis spectat ad quos damnatorum bona ex confiscatione pervenerunt.” On Peña, see Peters, E., “Editing Inquisitors' Manuals in the Sixteenth Century: Francisco Penña and the Directorium inquisitorum of Nicholas Eymeric,” The Library Chronicle of the University of Pennsylvania, 40 (1974): 95–107.Google Scholar Penña discusses aspects of the problem on pp. 659–671.

58. Panormitanus, Antonius Diana, Omnes resolutiones morales (Lyon, 1568), vol. 5, p. 459,Google Scholar stated that five lawyers thought that the orthodox sons of heretics had a legal right to aid. However, he concurred with Peña that they had no right, but agreed that they could be ministered to ex misericordia.

59. Tractatus de iure personarum, p. 509. “Nec mirum quod aequitas restringatur ad dotes filiarum et alimenta filiorum impuberum, quia habita est ratio imbecellitatis sexus et etatis.… Quantitas autem dotis in hac specie non potest praetendi pro naturalium dignitate, sed simpliciter mediocrem.” They did not, however, have a right to a dowry or support.

60. Commentaria, 2.179. See n. 7.

61. Ibid., p. 184. “Successit tertium tempus nostri Innocentii qui presenti textu absolute constituit bona haereticorum esse confiscanda per sententiam, quamtumvis filios habeant catholicos.”

62. Ibid. “Ad filios tamen ante delictum genitos non protrahi praesentem textum [Vergentis] docuerunt plures, quos refert et sequitur Marinis, tom. 2 resol. cap. 95.” Tellez, p. 180, listed three seventeenth-century lawyers who denied that orthodox sons should be punished, but I have not had access to their works.