Page:A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, volume 3.djvu/289

 THE TEMPLARS. 273 in a room used for the manufacture of shoes.* As a rule the pre- ceptor was represented as enforcing it, but in many cases the duty was confided to one or more serving brethren, and in one instance the person officiating had his head hidden in a cowl.f Almost universally it formed part of the ceremonies of reception, some- times even before the vows were administered or the mantle be- stowed, but generally at the conclusion, after the neophyte was fully committed, but there were occasional instances in which it was postponed until a later hour, or to the next day, or to longer intervals, extending, in one or two cases, to months and years.:): Some witnesses declared that it formed part of all receptions; others that it had been enforced in their case, but they had never seen it or heard of it in other receptions at which they had been present. In general they swore that they were told it was a rule of the Order, but some said that it was explained to them as a joke, and others that they were told to do it with the mouth and not with the heart. One, indeed, deposed that he had been offered the choice between renouncing Christ, spitting on the cross, and the indecent kiss, and he selected the spitting.§ In fact, the evidence as to the enforcement of the sacrilege is hopelessly contradictory. In many cases the neophyte was excused after a slight resistance ; in others he was thrust into a dark dungeon until he yielded. Egidio, Preceptor of San Gemignano of Florence, stated that he had known two recalcitrant neophytes carried in chains to Eome, where they perished in prison, and Niccold Kegino, Preceptor of Grosseto, said that recusants were slain, or sent to distant parts, like Sardinia, where they ended their days. Geoffroi de Charney, Preceptor of Normandy, swore that he enforced it upon the first neophyte whom he received, but that he never did so afterwards, and Gui Dauphin, one of the high officers of the Order, said virtu- ally the same thing ; Gaucher de Liancourt, Preceptor of Keims, on the other hand, testified that he had required it in all cases, for 280, 362, 546, 579.— Schottmuller, II. 413. t Proems, I. 386, 536, 539, 565, 572, 592. X Proces, I. 413, 434, 444, 469, 504, 559, 562; II. 75, 99, 113, 123, 205.— Ray- nouard, p. 280.— Schottmuller, op. cit. II. 132, 410. § Proces, I. 407, 418, 435, 462, 572, 588 ; II. 27, 38, 67, 174, 185, 214. III.— 18
 * Proems, I. 530, 533, 536, 539, 544, 549, 565, 572, 622 ; II. 24, 27, 29, 31, 120,