Untitled - Shattering Denial

126 THE INQUISITION
in question. As early as the twelfth century, Gratian
had declared that the testimony of infamous and heret
ical witnesses might be accepted in trials for heresy. 1
The edicts of Frederic II declared that heretics could
not testify in the courts, but this disability was removed
when they were called upon to testify against other sus
pects. 2
In the beginning, the Inquisitors were loath to
accept such testimony. But in 1261 Alexander IV
assured them that it was lawful to do so. 3 Henceforth
the testimony of a heretic was considered valid, al
though it was always
left to the discretion of the In
quisition to reject it at will. This principle was finally
incorporated into the canon law, and was enforced by
constant practice. 4
All legal exceptions were henceforth
declared inoperative except that of moral enmity. 5
Witnesses for the defence rarely presented themselves.
Very seldom do we come across any
mention of them. 6
1 Pars ii, Causa ii, quaest. vii, cap. xxii; Causa vi, quaest. i, cap. xix.
2 Historic diplomatica Frederici II, vol. iv, pp. 299, 300. Frederic re-
enacted at Ravenna, February 22, 1232, the law of 1220 against heretics,
with the additional clause: "Adjicimus quod hasreticus convinci per hsereticum
possit."
3 Bull Consuluit, of January 23, 1261, in Eymeric, Directorium inquisitorum,
Appendix, p. 40.
4 Cap. v, In fidei favorem, Sexto v, 2; Eymeric, Directorium inquisitorum,
p. 105.
6 a
Eymeric, ibid., 3 pars, quaest. Ixvii, pp. 606, 607. Pegna, ibid., pp. 607,
609, declares that great cruelty or even insulting words v.g. to call a
man cornutus or a woman meretrix might come under the head of enmity,
and invalidate a man s testimony.
6 Cf. Lea, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 445, 447.