he has rebuffed the temptress, and they draw distinctions between yielding on the spot and postponing the final act.1 An authoritative decision was postponed until 1661, when the Roman Inquisition decided that the confessor was to be denounced, under the papal decrees, when the solicitation was mutual, and also when he yielded through fear, and nothing was said about the woman. Subsequently to this Cardinal Cozza asserts that she is not liable to denunciation; she is not alluded to in the papal decrees, and the case, although equally an insult to the sacrament, is so rare in comparison with the converse that the Popes have not deemed it worthy of special animadversion. From this we may assume that the space devoted to the matter by the commentators, and their assertions of its frequency, may reasonably be attributed to their desire to minimise the guilt of confessors and exaggerate that of their penitents. Still, such cases did sometimes occur, and I have met with two or three in which the woman was denounced to the Spanish Inquisition.*

Classed with solicitation was a somewhat kindred abuse of the confessional known to the Inquisition as flagellation. This was prescribing the discipline as penance, and either administering it personally or causing its self-infliction in presence of the confessor, the penitent being stripped as far as necessary. As the lash could be ordered for any peccant portion of the body, this gave opportunity for the vilest indecency, and it was fully exploited by those of brutish instincts. In fact, it was not confined to the penitent, for confessors sometimes found gratification in

1 Paramo de Orig. Officii S. Inquis., p. 886.-Rod. a Cunha, Q. ix. xi.-Ant. de Sousa, Tract. i. cap. 6, 7, 17.-Alberghini Man. Qualificatorum, cap. xxxi. § i. n. 10, 11, 17.-Trimarchi, pp. 193-212.-Bibl. Nacional de Espana, Seccion de MSS. V. 377, cap. xx. §§ 5, 10.

2 Berardi de Sollicitatione, p. 5.

3 Cozza, Dubia Selecta, Dub. 9.

4 Archivo histórico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 376.—Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1006, fol. 25; Registro de Solicitantes, A. 7, fol. 2.

making the women discipline them, like Fray Francisco Calvo, who in 1730 denounced himself to the Inquisition of Madrid for having caused himself to be flagellated.1 At first there was considerable doubt as to whether such cases came under the papal decrees, but it was finally decided to be a form of solicitation, and after this conclusion had been reached the Inquisition had no hesitation in prosecuting flagelantes. Culprits were not treated with deserved severity, for the records show to what an extent the abuse was sometimes carried; cases are not infrequent, and continue until the suppression of the Holy Office.3

It remains for us to see what was the practical application of the papal decrees directed against the abuse of the sacred relation established between the confessor and his spiritual daughters. As France and Germany had refused to receive the bull of Gregory XV., the matter remained as before in the hands of the bishops, who for the most part were indifferent, and, as we have seen, no effective measures were taken, beyond the occasional comminatory proceedings of synods, which serve rather to prove the existence of the evil than to promise its suppression, though occasionally, it is true, a prelate like Fénelon might instruct mission priests, to whom women should confess to have been solicited, to refuse absolution unless the penitent would authorise denunciation to be made to him. As he felt it necessary, moreover, to promise protection both to the woman and the mission priest, it indicates the risk to which were exposed all those who sought to obey the papal commands.

4

From such desultory and local attempts no remedy

1 Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 1006, fol. 25.

2 Ibid., Inquisicion de Logroño, Procesas de fe, Legajo 1.-De Sousa, Aphorismi Inquisitionis, Lib. I. cap. xxxiv. n. 40.—Alberghini, op. cit. cap. xxxi. § i. n. 19. 3 Archivo histórico nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 100.-Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 890.

♦ Fénelon, Avis aux Confesseurs (Œuvres, Ed. 1838, II, 349),

could be expected of an evil so inveterate and widespread. In Italy and in Spain, however, the crime was subjected to the respective Inquisitions, which were armed with power and organisation sufficient for its suppression, if that were practicable under the conditions of human nature and the temptations and opportunities offered by the confessional to a celibate priesthood.

As regards Italy, the data are lacking to enable us to ascertain what use the Inquisition made of its faculties. The dread of scandal rendered secrecy the one essential matter. The culprit, if found guilty, was not sentenced and punished in public as an example, but in the chambers of the Holy Office, or in his convent if a member of a religious Order. No one was to know that the crime had been committed and expiated. Under such circumstances the inquirer can ask in vain for statistics or for instances to determine whether culpable leniency or wholesome severity was shown to offenders. We only know that nominally the prescribed regulations assume the crime to require stern repression. The suspicion of heresy implied in it was classed as vehement, and the culprit was obliged to abjure de vehementi, which assumed that he was to be burnt without ceremony in case of relapse. If he denied the accusation and the evidence was insufficient for conviction, he could be tortured, as was the practice of the Roman Inquisition in other crimes; or if he admitted the facts and denied evil purpose, he could similarly be tortured to discover his intention. If convicted, the bull of Gregory XV. prescribed a wide range of punishments, according to the degree of culpability, even to the culminating rigour of the stake. Although the latter extreme may be regarded as merely a deterrent threat, never intended to be executed, yet we are told that the punishment was five or seven years in the galleys, which was sufficient to inspire wholesome fear. In 1677, moreover,

the Roman Inquisition manifested a laudable desire to discover offenders by following Spanish example in an edict requiring all persons, under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ, to denounce within a month all cases coming within their knowledge.1

It is not stated, however, that this edict was ever repeated, as in Spain, and in practice there was much to soften the severity of the law. Obstacles to trial were interposed by a decree of the Inquisition, 17 July, 1627, providing that arrests were not to be made on the denunciation of a single penitent, but only a report was to be made to it. Two denunciations were required for arrest and imprisonment, and three, or according to some authorities, four, for conviction, the reason alleged being the untrustworthiness of female evidence and the difficulty otherwise of getting learned and conscientious men to confess women. Similarly, the punishment was much milder than the threat. For a single solicitation, duly proved, it sufficed to deprive the offender of his faculty to confess; if he had repeatedly solicited two women, deprivation of priestly functions was added; and if there had been scandal, a regular priest was to be perpetually secluded in a convent and a secular one in a hospital. If the penitent were the wife or daughter of a magnate, or if there had been many women concerned and much public scandal, then came degradation and the galleys. Considering the extreme difficulty of inducing women to denounce their confessors, it will be seen that the chances of escape were great and the danger of severe penalties small. It is true that in 1745 the Roman Inquisition decreed that soliciting confessors incurred perpetual disability for celebrating Mass, but there was always the prospect of obtaining dispensations from an indulgent

3

1 Trimarchi, pp. 288, 301, 302.-Berardi de Sollicitatione, p. 6.

2 Trimarchi, pp. 289-92, 304, 306.

3 Berardi, op. cit. p. 126.

Mother Church, and all this legislation seems virtually to have become a dead letter, for, as we shall see hereafter, when Leopold I. of Tuscany endeavoured, in 1774, to reform the nunneries in his dominions, they were found to be the scene of the worst disorders between the nuns and their spiritual directors, and the reformatory efforts of Leopold met their chief opposition in the Roman Curia itself.1

There was also always the resource, when a soliciting priest found himself in danger of denunciation, of denouncing himself, for those who spontaneously confessed were treated with exceptional leniency. According to rule, if he did this before denunciation, and had been guilty with only one woman, a severe reprimand sufficed, while, if two witnesses accused him, he was to be deprived of confessing. One or two cases, however, of which we chance to have the record, would seem to show that selfdenunciation conferred virtual immunity. The minim, Hilario Caone, of Besançon, was domiciled in Seville. He probably had intimation that he was about to be denounced, for he fled to Rome in 1653, and confessed to the Inquisition that in the church of San Francisco de Paula of Seville he had solicited some forty women, mostly with success. For this he was merely sentenced to abjure de vehementi, to visit the seven privileged altars of St. Peter's, and to recite the chapters of the Virgin weekly for three years. That this was the ordinary treatment of such cases may be inferred from that of Vincenzo Barzi, in the same year, who had a similar sentence on denouncing

himself.3

1 De Potter, Vie de Scipion de' Ricci, T. I. pp. 87 sqq. 258 sqq.

2 Trimarchi, p. 310.

3 MSS. of Trinity College, Dublin, Class II. vol. IV. pp. 63, 294.

It should be added that this leniency did not extend to cases in which there had been a prior denunciation. In 1695 Dr. Agustin Velda, rector of La Sallana, was accused of solicitation before the tribunal of Valencia. To avoid arrest he fled to ome, and presented himself before the Inquisition there, which ordered him to