Chapter XV: Epilogue: On Prohibition (2)

On the other hand, the reverence paid to the written law, founded upon the Declaration and the Constitution, has resulted in widespread error as to the nature of law itself. The majestic formulas of the Declaration, and the governmental framework set forth in the Constitution, changed in no way the manners and customs of Americans. Their power was derived from the response which they roused in the rooted instinct of men of European stock. The underlying spirit of Christendom breathed life into them. Unhappily the mass of Americans, cut off as they were from tradition—first by their Protestantism and secondly by the Atlantic—instead of recognizing the traditional source from which the strength of their national formula was derived, mistakenly believed that strength to be derived from the fact that these formulas had been made the basis of American statute law. Instead of recognizing in statute law merely the ratification of established custom resulting from the sum of human activities, they erroneously came to believe that human activities could be compelled to conform to statutes merely because these statutes were proclaimed to have the force of law, and irrespective of the fundamental laws of human nature and inexorable human limitations which underlay those activities. “Men do not make the laws. They do but discover them,”[45] says Vice-President Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts. And in so saying he indicts one of the great failures of American thought.

Having thus considered the real forces making for Prohibition, it remains for us merely to mention some of the more prevalent bits of claptrap which formed the stock-in-trade of Prohibition advocates. There were such statements as that the “wine” at the marriage in Cana of Galilee was unfermented! When the present writer was serving a term in the New York State Legislature, this was solemnly urged upon him by a Prohibition lobbyist. The imaginary picture of the ancient Jews, and of our Blessed Lord, fiddling about with benzoate of soda or some such stuff needs no comment. There was pseudo-scientific gibberish on the subject of “alcohol”; it was sought to show that it was a poison. The comforting thought was at once suggested that it must be a very slow poison, inasmuch as all our ancestors for countless generations had daily consumed fermented liquors containing appreciable amounts of it. The argument was on all fours with the vegetarian claims as to meat being poison. It was also sought to show that “alcohol” was incompatible with work; the same might have been said of sleep. There was a crop of wild statements having to do with the “working man,” considering him not as a fellow creature of like passions with ourselves but as a strange monster transmogrified by the middle-class imagination. It was alleged that “drink” caused the creature to beat his wife even upon occasions when she deserved nothing of the sort. It was claimed that when the “working man” was deprived of his chief recreation (which was admitted to be “drink”) the result would be increased prosperity and good temper in his family circle. The slightest acquaintance with Mohammedan countries would have been sufficient to disprove such stuff. These “working man” fantasies are eloquent testimony to the barrier built up between the classes of the community by centuries of Protestantism. Together with the rest of the Prohibition claptrap, they deserve to be recorded in triple brass in order to be the laughter, or the pity, of generations to come.

Our generation has made a fine art of anonymity and the use of “dummies” in finance. Therefore it is impossible at this time, and will probably remain impossible, to expose the true sources from which the twentieth century puritans got their propaganda fund. It is common knowledge that many, if not most, of the large employers of “labour” sympathized with the Puritan cause ... as in the sixteenth century. It is believed that the Rockefellers gave enormously, and the fact that they are the most prominent Baptist laymen in the country, if not in the world, makes the belief seem probable.

The passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has not ended the Prohibition movement in America. So far, the task of enforcement has proved impossible. Probably there has been some appreciable reduction in the amount of fermented and distilled liquors consumed. Certainly the price of liquor has increased and its quality has deteriorated. No man can foretell the future: prophets are the jesters of posterity. Given the extreme difficulty of repealing a constitutional amendment (repeal would require a majority of two-thirds in the United States Senate, and again in the Federal House of Representatives, and after that a favourable vote in both branches of the legislature in three-fourths of the States) it seems probable that the Eighteenth Amendment will remain upon the statute books at least for a considerable time. However, there is already one amendment, the fifteenth, intended to secure the franchise to the negroes of the South, which slumbers on the statute books. At present, the Prohibition Amendment is a farce throughout many populous States, and the burdened taxpayer is loaded with the salaries of enforcement officials. The position of these enforcement officials somewhat resembles that of the Viking pirates of the ninth century. They have an enormous territory which they can raid almost at will, and throughout which they can annoy the inhabitants. But they are so few that, even with the enormous powers of movement and communication at the disposal of a modern Government, they are unable to constrain the activities of the millions among whom they operate. Like the old pirates again, these officials can frequently be bribed into harmlessness. Meanwhile, it is still possible to believe, if anyone desires to do so, that the immemorial traditions of Christendom will yield to a written law backed up by a handful of officials.

The spectacle is of absorbing interest to the student of history, who personifies the memory of the race. In his more sanguine moods he sees the gently sloping vineyards by Loire, he hears Rabelais roaring with laughter from his deep lungs, and he looks forward to a happy confounding of fools. Again he feels an antique paganism settle down upon him like a grey mist, and he remembers the vengeance of the Gods as Euripides has told it in the “Hippolytus” and, above all, in the “Bacchæ.” For the student of history knows that the forces of our human nature, which the ancients personified as Gods, are immortal. Man may persecute but cannot kill them, and under his persecution they become demons who turn and rend him, as Savonarola and the old English Puritans found. Even St. Francis’ death-bed was darkened a little by his memory of his own austerities. “I have sinned,” he said, “against my brother the ass.” And what were the voluntary sufferings of a monk or of all monks put together, as sins against “the Gods” of life, compared with the deliberate, forcible, attempt to teetotalize a whole nation?

As an assault upon human liberty, what was even the Inquisition compared to the American Anti-saloon League?

In closing, let us recapitulate the points of resemblance and of divergence between the Inquisition and the Prohibition movement. Both were religious in their essence; the Protestant denomination made the second, just as certainly as the thirteenth century Catholic Church made the first. Both movements, being religious, were based upon beliefs transcending the human reason. In the case of the Inquisition the belief in question was the Catholic Faith; in the case of Prohibition it is belief in the innate sinfulness of distilled and fermented drinks. Both movements had a secular as well as their dominant religious side. A thirteenth century man careless of The Faith, even an infidel in personal belief, might have cordially approved of severities against heretics, because of the social dispeace which the presence of avowed heretics tended to cause. The infidel emperor Frederic II, with his drastic Inquisitorial legislation, is a case in point. Just so, it is possible for a man to be a sincere Prohibitionist, on account of some idea of the harmfulness of “drink” to the generality of mankind, especially to the “workingman,” although he regards its use by himself as beneficent. Indeed the tiny minority of Prohibitionists who believe themselves to be well educated are usually of this sort. Finally, as the Inquisition appears to be contrary to the spirit of Our Lord’s teaching, so the Prohibition movement is certainly contrary to His practice, at the marriage of Cana, at the Last Supper, and generally throughout his life.

On the other hand, in spite of so much resemblance, there are important differences between the Inquisitor and the Prohibitionist. In the first place, there is a profound difference as to intellectual integrity and candor. Catholic faith and morals were, and are, definite. From the time when the Church emerges into the full light of abundant historical record, in the first years of the third century, she has regarded their definition as one of her chief functions. Her corporate tradition declares that such was the case from her beginning, and the documents which survive from the first two centuries cannot, to say the very least, be made to contradict this conclusion. Protestantism, on the other hand, was from the first a revolt against authoritative corporate definition. From the sixteenth century to the present time its theological and ethical vagueness has increased until a climax, it would seem, has been reached in the matter of Prohibition.

No clear statement of the Prohibitionist credo has ever been made and endorsed by even a majority of those engaged in the movement. An attempt has been made to say that “temperance” involves moderation in the use of that which is good and total abstinence from that which is harmful. But this attempt fails in two respects, inasmuch as it confuses temperance with the purely secular virtue of prudence which is nothing to a man’s salvation and therefore no possible part of the moral teaching of any Christian body, and inasmuch as it obviously conflicts with the corporate experience of mankind in calling the moderate use of fermented drinks “harmful.”

The contrast here is as great as that between civilization and barbarism itself. Certainly definition, like any other activity, can be carried to excess, as Pope Leo XIII recognized in his Encyclical on Scholasticism, wherein he mentions the “too great subtlety” of certain of the mediæval doctors. But, as certainly, it is the essential intellectual difference between civilized and barbarous man that the barbarian willingly accepts vagueness of mind, whereas the civilized man is continually striving to seize and formulate the laws which govern the universe about him in so far as his reason is in any way capable of comprehending them.

Secondly, there is another vast difference in the urgency of the social and political considerations making for the two movements. As we saw in the first chapter, mediæval man had built up a society in which all men had definite functions, and in which destructive competition between classes and individuals was reduced to a minimum. Despite insufficient checks upon cruelty and brutality, and despite the scantiness of its knowledge of history and of natural science, the time had produced a general level of craftsmanship as unknown since the sixteenth century as it was unequalled before the twelfth (the short best period of Greece only excepted). In promoting the happiness of mankind as a whole, mediæval society seems never to have been equalled. Certainly the cheerfulness of the memorials which the thirteenth century has left us is unique. And in this society the Church was central and indispensable. To the educated mediæval man (who, while inferior to his modern colleagues in range of information, at the same time surpassed us in clarity and rationality)—to the educated mediæval man, I say, it was evident that to shatter the Church by attacking her Faith and Morals would be to shatter his balanced society altogether, and set men preying wolfishly upon one another. The common man, by a sort of instinct, was equally determined upon the point. And what is more, their fear was justified, as the last three centuries have abundantly proved, although the age of expansion has postponed to our own day the fulness of the evil of strife between man and man. Therefore the men of the Middle Ages were correct in resisting attacks upon the Church as attacks upon all they valued in civil society as well as in religion.

The secular case for Prohibition is not nearly so strong as the secular case for the Inquisition. It might be argued that industrialism is central and fundamental in our society, and that Prohibition, which is said to aim at “greater industrial efficiency,” therefore resembles the Inquisition in being the servant of the fundamental thing in the life of the community in which it has arisen. But even if the truth of this idea, so far as it goes, be conceded, still obstinate facts remain. Industrialism flourished before Prohibition. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the attempt to abolish one of the chief pleasures of mankind will result to the advantage even of the industrial system. It is at least equally probable if the industrial labourer were to be really deprived of his liquor that his energy would decline because of a slackening in the zest for life characteristic of Christendom. Certainly the history and present condition of the Prohibitionist Mohammedans indicate energy far inferior to that of Christian men, merry with their beer, their cider and their wine. Even if an increasing energy on the part of the industrial labourer under Prohibition be assumed, still there is no assurance that he will concentrate that energy on his work. In such a case, it is at least equally probable that he will find the dulness and monotony of his life, already devastatingly dull and monotonous, so increased under Prohibition that he will decide to expend a large part of his vigour in industrial strife or in revolutionary movements. For the ordinary modern man does not love industrialism as mediæval man loved the world which he had made. The thirteenth century guildsman would cheerfully fight for his guild and his customs, the modern man sacrifices himself to the life of the factory as heavily as the heathen Semites sacrificed men to Moloch. The Inquisition was a measure of defence. Its fires burnt in behalf of things which the mass of mankind saw and felt to be good. The Prohibition movement is an act of aggression, of questionable value even for its own ugly purpose. The one Prohibition counterpart of the twelfth century spontaneous popular lynchings of heretics was the bar-smashing activities of the virago Carrie Nation.

Last of all, there is, at the very least, a difference in the degree of contradiction to the teaching and example of Our Lord (as recorded in the Canonical Gospels), between the Inquisition and the Prohibition movement. So as to meet possible opposition half way, let us abandon the conclusions of the Rev. A. Vermeersch, S.J., who seems to hold that there was no contradiction between the Inquisition on the one hand and the doctrine and example of Our Lord on the other. The present writer must confess that the learned Jesuit’s forceful work is somewhat weakened by traces of a curious obliquity of mind, as when he defines “religious liberty” as “the liberty of the true religion!” For the sake of the arguments against the Prohibitionists, let us rest our case upon the conclusions of Vacandard, whose book is entrenched behind an array of “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” from Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority equal in impressiveness to that displayed by Vermeersch. Vacandard calls the Inquisitorial forms of procedure “despotic and barbarous,” and flatly says that “severe penalties, like the stake and confiscation ... were alien to the spirit of the Gospel.” Nevertheless, the contradiction between Inquisitorial severity and the “spirit of the Gospel” must to some extent be qualified. The logical conclusion is irresistible that if (as all Christians must) we assume Our Lord’s doctrine and example to be of inestimable value to mankind, we must admit that any attempt to pervert that doctrine and example so as to make Our Blessed Lord say and do as he did not is a more serious matter than any crime recognized by law. Furthermore, this argument from reason is, in a measure, supported by authority in the person of Our Lord himself because of the extreme bitterness with which he denounced the Pharisees for perverting religion.

On the other hand, the contradiction between Prohibition and the Gospels is complete and absolute. According to the Gospels, Our Lord spent most of his time in the society of men and women. Especially he hallowed, by his continual use of it, the adornment of social life by wine, so much so that his enemies called him “a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber.”[46] We find him working a miracle so that a wedding party, including himself, might be abundantly supplied with wine ... as if any wedding party since the creation would have cared whether or not they were indefinitely supplied with grape-juice. He did even more—he made wine a part of the Sacrament—the one ceremonial act which he prescribed. Bacchus-Dionysus also, so the pagan Greeks taught, had made wine a sacrament of fellowship, human and divine. In contrast with the dull and repulsive fanaticism taught in so-called Christian Protestant churches in the United States to-day, the traditional Christian, like the heathen worshipper of Bacchus, seeks and has ever sought communion with his God in the drinking of wine.

FOOTNOTES:

[37] Isaiah, chap. v, verse 2.

[38] “This and That and the Other,” Hilaire Belloc, pp. 18, 19.

[39] Chesterton on Shaw, p. 43.

[40] “Thought and Expression in the Sixteenth Century,” by Henry Osborn Taylor, published by Macmillan Co., New York. 1920. Chapter on Calvin.

[41] From Chapter I of the “History of the United States,” by Cecil Chesterton, p. 31.

[42] Chesterton on Shaw, pp. 48, 49, 50.

[43] “The Education of Henry Adams, an Autobiography.” “Vis Inertiæ,” p. 445. Houghton, Mifflin Co., New York, 1918. Chapter XXX.

[44] “The New Politics, and Other Essays,” by William Garrott Brown, publ. Houghton, Mifflin, New York. 1913. Pp. 157-158.

[45] “Have Faith in Massachusetts,” Calvin Coolidge, p. 4.

[46] St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch. xi, v. 19.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The subject of the Inquisition has been worked over so often that it is doubtful whether renewed searching of the original authorities would yield great profit. The law of diminishing returns comes in.

The sources quoted in this bibliography are unequal in value. As interpreter of the Mediæval spirit Henry Adams comes first and after him Taylor. For Albigensianism and St. Dominic, Guiraud is best; and Vacandard for the mechanism and spirit of the thirteenth century Inquisition. On mediæval warfare in general there is almost nothing of value. Delpech is the best, supplemented by Dieulafoy as to Muret.

The one author who has gone over the whole subject, including the entire course of the Albigensian War, is Lea, whose vast learning and exactitude in matters of fact would have made him a great historian had he possessed a grain of imagination or the least spark of sympathy with the Middle Ages. In this respect Luchaire gains through citizenship in a Catholic country, but his book ends with Innocent’s death.

I have included a number of books used to illustrate particular points, and also a handful of old-fashioned Protestant historians whom the reader will value more for what their works will tell them about themselves than about their subject. Limborch is not so bad; his learning has evidently fought (and lost) a real battle against his partisanship.

“Life of St. Dominic and a Sketch of the Dominican Order.”
Introduction by Most Rev. J. S. Alemany. P. O’Shea: New York.

“The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography.” Houghton, Mifflin
and Co.: New York and Boston. Riverside Press: Cambridge.

“Mont Saint-Michel and Chartres,” Introduction by Ralph Adams,
Cram Henry Adams. Houghton, Mifflin and Co.: New York and Boston.
Riverside Press: Cambridge, 1913.

“The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma,” Henry Adams. Houghton,
Mifflin and Co.: New York and Boston. Riverside Press: Cambridge,
1913.

“In St. Dominic’s Country” (Preface by Rev. T. M. Schwetner, O.P.,
S.T.L.), C. M. Antony. Longmans, Green and Co.: London and New York.

“The Emancipation of Massachusetts,” Brooks Adams. Houghton,
Mifflin and Co.: New York and Boston, 1919.

“La Bataille de Muret” (Pamphlet), Joseph Anglade. Edouard
Champion: Paris, 1913. Edouard Privat: Toulouse, 1913.

“La Conquête de la Vicomté de Carcassonne” (Pamphlet), J. Astruc.
Published August, 1912.

“Relation de l’Inquisition de Goa,” Dellon Aver. Etienne Roger:
Amsterdam, 1919.

“The New Politics and other Papers,” William Garrott Brown.
Houghton, Mifflin and Co.: New York and Boston.

“The Dominican Order and Convocation,” Ernest Barker, M.A.
Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1913.

“Les Dominicains dans l’Université de Paris,” Abbé Eugène Bernard.
E. de Soye et Fils: Paris, 1883.

“Etude sur la Condition des Populations Rurales du Roussillon au
Moyen Age,” Jean Auguste Brutails. Alphonse Picard: Paris, 1891.

“Etude sur l’Esclavage en Roussillon,” Jean Auguste Brutails (In
“Nouvelle Revue Historique,” July-August, 1886).

“George Bernard Shaw,” Gilbert K. Chesterton. John Lane and Co.:
New York and London.

“History of the United States,” Cecil Chesterton. George H. Doran
and Co.: New York, 1919.

“Les Fortifications Romaines et du Moyen Age, dans le Quartier St.
Michel, Toulouse,” M. J. Chalande. Imprimerie et Librairie Edouard
Privat: Toulouse, 1914, (Pamphlet).

“Les Fortifications Romaines et du Moyen Age” (Pamphlet). Entre
la Porte St. Michel et la Porte Montgaillard. M. J. Chalande
(Pamphlet).

“St. Thomas Aquinas—A Biographical Study of the Angelic Doctor,”
Fr. Placid Conway, O.P. Longmans, Green and Co.: New York and
London.

“The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army,” F. L. Cheesman, M.A.
Clarendon Press: London, 1914.

“Life of St. Dominic,” Augusta Theodosia Drane. Burns and Oates:
London. Benziger Bros.: New York.

“The Spirit of the Dominican Order,” Augusta Theodosia Drane. R. J.
Washbourne: London, 1910. Benziger Bros.: New York.

“Dominican Biographies.” Catholic Truth Society: London, 1912.

“Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas” (translation). 12 vols.
Benziger Bros.: New York.

“Life of St. Dominic and Sketch of the Dominican Order.” P. O’Shea:
New York, 1892.

“Les Institutions de Tauler, Religieux de l’Ordre de St.
Dominique.” A. Tralin: Paris, 1909.

“La Tactique au XIII Siècle,” Henri Delpech. Alphonse Picard:
Paris, 1886.

“La Bataille de Muret,” Marcel Dieulafoy. Imprimerie Nationale:
Paris, 1899.

“Le Royaume d’Arles et de Vienne (1138-1378),” Paul Fournier.
Alphonse Picard: Paris, 1891.

“Mystères de l’Inquisition et autres Sociétés Secrètes d’Espagne.”
M. V. De Fereal.

“The Making of Western Europe,” C. R. Fletcher. E. P. Dutton and
Co.: New York, 1912.

“Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Prouille,” Jean Guiraud (Preface by).
2 vols.

“St. Dominic” (translation), Jean Guiraud. R. and T. Washbourne:
London. Benziger Bros.: New York, 1913.

“Les Bienheureux Dominicains (1190-1577),” M. C. de Ganaz. Perrin
et Cie: Paris, 1913.

“Lacordaire” (translation), Count d’Haussonville. Herbert and
Daniel: London, 1913.

“Francis and Dominic and the Mendicant Orders,” John Herkless, D.D.
Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1901.

“Philip Augustus,” William Holden Hutton, Ph.D. The Macmillan
Company: New York and London, 1896.

“The Meaning of History and other Historical Pieces,” Frederic
Harrison. The Macmillan Company: New York and London, 1902.

“A Century of Persecution under Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns” (from
Contemporary Records), Rev. St. George Kiernan Hyland, D.D., Ph.D.
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., Ltd.: London, 1920. E. P.
Dutton and Co.: New York.

“The Dark Ages,” W. P. Ker. Scribner’s: N.Y., 1904. Introd., pp.
6-8.

“Genius Loci, Notes on Places,” Vernon Lee. John Lane and Co.: New
York.

“Renaissance Fancies and Studies,” Vernon Lee. John Lane and Co.:
New York.

“A History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church,” Henry
C. Lea, LL.D. 2 vols. Williams and Norgate: London, 1907.

“Superstition and Force,” Henry C. Lea, LL.D. Lea, Bros, and Co.:
Philadelphia, 1892.

“The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies,” Henry C. Lea, LL.D.
The Macmillan Company: New York and London, 1908.

“History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,” Henry C. Lea,
LL.D. The Macmillan Company: New York and London, 1908.

“An Historical Sketch of the Order of St. Dominic,” Father
Lacordaire. P. O’Shea: New York, 1869.

“Vie de Saint Dominique,” Father Lacordaire. Librairie Poussielque:
Paris, 1912.

“Letters to Young Men,” Father Lacordaire. London, 1903. “Cassock
and Sword,” Charles Lenz, Ph.D.

“Innocent III,” Achille Luchaire. La Croisade des Albigeois, Rome
et l’Italie. Librairie Hachette, 1907.

“Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus” (translation),
Achille Luchaire. John Murray: London, 1912.

“History of the Inquisition” (translation). Philip A. Limborch:
London, 1731.

“A History of the Holy Catholic Inquisition,” Introduction by Rev.
Cyrus Mason. Henry Perkins: Philadelphia. Corey and Fairbank:
Cincinnati, 1835.

“Histoire des Maîtres Généraux de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs,” R.
P. Mortier. Alphonse Picard: Paris, 1909.

“A Short History of the Crusades,” J. L. Mombert, D.D. News
Printing Co.: New York, 1894.

“The Bloody Tribunal,” John Marchant, Gent. Golden Key, London,
1756.

“John Lackland,” Kate Norgate. The Macmillan Company: New York and
London, 1902.

“A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages from the Fourth to
the Fourteenth Century,” Charles Oman, M.A., F.S.A. Methuen and
Co.: London, 1898. G. P. Putnam’s Sons: New York.

“The Dominicans,” edited by Very Rev. Father John Proctor, S.T.M.
R. and T. Washbourne, Ltd.: London. Benziger Bros.: New York, 1909.

“The Spirit of Romance,” Ezra Pound, M.A. J. M. Dent and Sons:
London.

“Scholasticism,” Joseph Rickaby, S.J. Dodge Publishing Co.: New
York, 1908.

“Brand of Dominic,” Rev. William H. Rule. Carlton and Phillips: New
York, 1853.

“History of the Inquisition,” Rev. William H. Rule. Hamilton Adams
and Co.: London, 1874.

“Averroes et l’Averroisme,” Ernest Renan. Calmann Lévy: Paris.

“What is Modern Romanism?” George Franklin Seymour, D.D., LL.D.
Young Churchman Co.: Milwaukee, 1888.

“Mediæval Civilization” (translation), Dana Carleton Munro and
George Clarke Sellery. Century Company: New York, 1904.

“Renaissance in Italy,” John Addington Symonds. 7 vols. Smith,
Elder and Co.: London, 1904.

“Sketches and Studies in Italy and Greece,” John Addington Symonds.
3 vols. Smith, Elder and Co.: London, 1907.

“Wine, Women and Song,” John Addington Symonds. Doubleday, Page and
Co.: New York, 1907. G. P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, 1907.

“Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional
History from the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward I,” William
Stubbs, M.A. 2 vols. Clarendon Press: London, 1875.

“Constitutional History of England—in its Origin and Development,”
William Stubbs, M.A. Clarendon Press: London, 1875.

“Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition,” Rafael Sabatini.
Brentano: New York, 1913.

“Summa Theologia of St. Thomas Aquinas” (translation). Benziger
Bros.: New York, 1914.

“History of the Inquisitions, including the Secret Transactions of
those Horrific Tribunals.” J. J. Stockdale: London, 1810.

“Thought and Expression in the Sixteenth Century,” Henry Osborn
Taylor. 2 vols. The Macmillan Company: New York, 1920.

“The Mediæval Mind,” Henry Osborn Taylor. Macmillan and Co.:
London, 1914.

“Ancient Ideals,” Henry Osborn Taylor. The Macmillan Company: New
York, 1913.

“The Empire and the Papacy,” T. F. Tout, M.A. Rivington’s: London,
1909.

“Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquin,” Archbishop Vaughan,
O.S.B. Burns and Oates: London. Catholic Publication Society of New
York, 1890.

“The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive
Power of the Church” (translation), E. Vacandard. Longmans, Green
and Co.: London and New York.

“History of Languedoc,” Jean Joseph Vaissete. 16 vols E. Privat:
Toulouse, 1872.

“Bullaire du Bienheureux Pierre de Castelnau.” At Villemagne.
Librairie M. Valat: Montpellier, 1917.

“Dante and Aquinas: Being the Substance of the Jowett Lectures of
1911,” Philip H. Wicksteed. J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd.: London and
Toronto. E. P. Dutton and Co.: New York.

“The Traditions of the European Literature,” Barrett Wendell.
Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1920.

John Bale Sons & Danielsson, Ltd., 83-91, Great Titchfield Street, London, W.

1ST PHASE: DE MONTFORT’S SORTIE AND SURPRISE OF FOIX]

2ND PHASE: THE DECISION]

3RD PHASE: DE MONTFORT, RETURNING FROM PURSUIT, ROUTS THE TOULOUSAN
MILITIA INFANTRY ATTACKING THE TOWN
]

(MODERN STREETS IN DOTTED LINES)]

Transcriber’s Notes

pg i Added period after: Toulouse in 1217-1218 to illustrate its
siege by De Montfort

pg ii Changed: Father Astruc, Curé of St. Vincent’s Church,
Carcassone
to: Father Astruc, Curé of St. Vincent’s Church,
Carcassonne

pg xii Removed unnecessary ) from: Flanders in the early eighteenth
century).

pg 27 Changed: which has usually been called Albigenseanism
to: which has usually been called Albigensianism

pg 29 Changed: draining the country between the Cevennes
to: draining the country between the Cévennes

pg 46 Added quote after: general toleration of Valentinian, in the
fourth century.

pg 67 Changed: these people gave to extreme ascetism,
to: these people gave to extreme asceticism,

pg 60 Added period after: Plon-Nourrit Paris, 1913. Pp. 362-3,
author’s trans

pg 63 Changed: went against the heretics, no action whatsover
to: went against the heretics, no action whatsoever

pg 63 Changed: The other great chronic political controvery,
to: The other great chronic political controversy,

pg 83 Changed: had been “hereticated” on their deathbed
to: had been “hereticated” on their death-bed

pg 95 Changed: chronicler Peter de Vaux-Cernaiy Raymond
to: chronicler Peter de Vaux-Cernay Raymond

pg 117 Changed: account of aid given by certain near-by
to: account of aid given by certain nearby

pg 120 Changed: Mediterranean end of the Pyrenées
to: Mediterranean end of the Pyrenees

pg 129 Changed: Pamiers, Foix, and the upper Ariège.
to: Pamiers, Foix, and the upper Ariege.

pg 144 Changed: De Montford sent a knight
to: De Montfort sent a knight

pg 150 Changed: The Garonne flows northeast
to: The Garonne flows north-east

pg 153 Changed: Toulousains were out of easy bow-shot
to: Toulousains were out of easy bowshot

pg 156 Changed: William d’Encontre and William des Barras
to: William d’Encontre and William des Barres

pg 158 Changed: his chivalric enthusiasm by exchangnig
to: his chivalric enthusiasm by exchanging

pg 164 Changed: Courcon had persuaded to to take the field
to: Courcon had persuaded to take the field

pg 167 Changed comma to period after: “French” that it seemed wise
to make it defenceless

pg 171 Changed: swearing homage to his proper over-lord
to: swearing homage to his proper overlord

pg 173 Changed: After this exchange of compliments at Narbonne, de
Montford
to: After this exchange of compliments at Narbonne, de
Montfort

pg 176 Removed repeated word from: Guy and and his men ended by

pg 185 Changed: Louis promply went to work
to: Louis promptly went to work

pg 185 Removed extra period from: service from certain nobles not
keen for the expedition..

pg 192 Changed: North Frenchmen who came to sieze
to: North Frenchmen who came to seize

pg 215 Changed: come down to us concerning Waldenses, Arnaldists
to: come down to us concerning Waldenses, Arnoldists

pg 254 Added period after: Riverside Press: Cambridge, 1913

pg 256 Added period after: John Lane and Co

pg 257 Changed: “Averroes et l’Averroisme,” Ernest Renan. Calmann Levy
to: “Averroes et l’Averroisme,” Ernest Renan. Calmann Lévy