Altogether the dice were heavily loaded against the accused. Dismayed to begin with very likely by the simple shock of finding himself accused of the terrible crime of heresy,[385] confronted by a formidable examiner, who was clearly bent upon securing a confession if at all possible, he had also to face the great obstacle presented by the close secrecy of all the proceedings. There was none of the security that comes from the open trial, none of the encouragement to make a good fight for freedom, for honour, for life that comes from publicity. Again, the chances of acquittal were very small when the agreement of only two of the witnesses against him was sufficient for the condemnation of the accused, whether he confessed or not: especially as the delicate question of what constituted sufficient agreement was left to the discretion of the judge. It was laid down that agreement in substance was sufficient; and even when there was discord in the evidence of the two witnesses, this was not sufficient to secure acquittal. Moreover, evidence, not good enough to procure conviction, would be good enough to serve as the basis of a prolonged, searching and perplexing examination, in which the accused was more likely to incriminate than to clear himself.[386] A further heavy obstacle to the making of a defence was insufficiency of information. While the résumé or _capitula_ of the charges preferred against him was communicated to the defendant, on the other hand, the names of the witnesses were withheld from him, and he was not allowed to read their evidence _in extenso_. This practice of secrecy commenced early in the thirteenth century in Languedoc, and the rule soon came to apply in most other countries. Occasionally the names were given, though in an incomplete or confusing fashion[387]; but the inquisitors themselves were in favour of not disclosing names at all.[388] This was owing to the circumstances in which the Inquisition had originated, amid an unfriendly populace.[389] There had been cases of the assassination of witnesses by the friends of the accused; and undoubtedly there was always a certain element of risk in giving evidence against a heretic in a country where heresy flourished and was popular. In those early days the inquisitor was very likely endangering his life in the prosecution of his labours: in such circumstances, if the indispensable evidence was to be collected, some sort of safeguard for voluntary witnesses was reasonable.