[369] Lea, vol. i, pp. 433-4. ‘That a man against whom nothing substantial was proved should be punished merely because he was suspected of guilt may seem to modern eyes a scant measure of justice; but to the inquisitor it appeared a wrong to God and man that any one should escape against whose orthodoxy there rested a shadow of doubt. Like much else taught by the Inquisition, this found its way into general criminal laws, which it perverted for centuries.’ [370] Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 133-5. See Tanon, p. 334. [371] See Douais, _L’Inquisition_, Appendix, p. 276, Raymond of Peñaforte’s ruling. [372] See Mansi, vol. xxiii, p. 360. Council of Narbonne, 1235. ‘Quinam existimandi fautores haereticorum.’ A sin in the eyes of the Church; and, it should be added, highly improper and dangerous conduct probably in the eyes of the average man in those days. [373] Albertini in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, p. 82. [374] Ludovico à Paramo, _op. cit._, pp. 37, 45. [375] _Cf._ De Cauzons, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 203. [376] See Fournier, _op. cit._, pp. 235-7, 262-73. See also Esmein, _op. cit._, pp. 66-134 (_passim_), English version, pp. 8-16, 78-94. [377] _Practica_, p. 182. [378] Fournier, _op. cit._, p. 265; Tanon, pp. 272-6. [379] Fournier, pp. 266-7. [380] For forms of citation, see Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 3 _et seq._; Tanon, pp. 339 _et seq._ [381] Fournier, p. 273. The inquisitor, or his delegate. _Supra_, p. 180. [382] Bernard Gui, _Practica_, pp. 235 _et seq._; Eymeric, pp. 465 _et seq._ _Cautelae inquisitorum contra haereticorum cavillationes et fraudes._ [383] B. Hauréau, _Bernard Délicieux et l’inquisition albigeoise_ (Paris, 1877), p. 89. [384] _Cf._ Tanon, p. 357. [385] On the ‘shock’ of accusation, see Langlois, _op. cit._, p. 56. On methods of interrogatories generally, see Molinier, _op. cit._, pp. 328 _et seq._ [386] See Tanon, pp. 388-9. [387] _Ibid._, pp. 390 _et seq._; Limborch (Eng. tr.), vol. i, p. 179. [388] Bernard Gui’s _Practica_, pp. 189-90, 243. ‘Non ... expedit quod omnes interrogationes scribantur, sed tantum ille que magis tangunt substantiam vel naturam facti.’ _Cf._ Ludovico à Paramo, p. 523. [389] See Molinier, pp. 155, 327. [390] See Simancas in Zilettus, vol. xi, pt. ii, pp. 103-8, 121-2, 202; Lea, vol. i, pp. 441-2. [391] Eymeric, _Directorium_, p. 662. [392] _Ibid._, p. 663, Peña’s comment, No. 119. ‘Familiares & domesticos non admitti in hoc crimine ad defendendum reum, & ratio non inepta haec potest, nam quemadmodum nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit, eodem modo nemo putandus est consanguineos suos odio habere, tum etiam quia cum ex hoc crimine infamia in filios descendat, si filii ad testimonium dicendum pro parentibus admitterentur, facile ut infamiam vitarent, mentirentur.’