FOOTNOTES:

Previous
Henry Charles Lea

1 Legg. VillÆ de Arkes § xxviii. (D’Achery Spicileg. III. 608).

2 See Pictet, Origines Indo-EuropÉennes (Paris, 1878, T. II. pp. 372-6; T. III. pp. 5-8), for the philological evidence of the development of society from the family in all the Aryan nations.

3 Vendidad, Farg. IV. 24-35 (Bleeck’s Translation, Hertford, 1864, pp. 30-1).

4 Manava Dharma Sastra, VIII. 295 sqq. Comp. Maine’s Ancient Law, pp. 260 sqq.

5 Yajnavalkya, II. 272 (Stenzler’s Translation).

6 Even among the remnants of the pre-Aryan races of India the same customs are traceable. Early in the present century Lieutenant Shaw described the hill-tribes of Rajmahal, to the north of Bengal, as recognizing the responsibility of the injurer to the injured; compensation was assessed at the pleasure of the complainant, and the kindred of the offender were compelled to contribute to it, exactly as among the barbarians who occupied Europe (Asiatic Researches, Vol. IV.).

7 DicÆarchi Frag. (Didot, Frag. Hist. GrÆcor.).—Apollodor. Biblioth. II. vi. 2-3.—Diodor. Siculi IV. 31.—Plut. QuÆst. GrÆc. 46.—Maine’s Ancient Law, p. 127.

8 Tit. Liv. I. 26; V. 32.—Appiani de Bell. Hannibal. xxviii.—Dion. Halicar. II. 10; XIII. 5.

9 Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, I. 172 sqq.

10 Jo. Herburti de Fulstin Statut. Reg. Polon. tit. Homicid. (Samoscii, 1597, pp. 200 sqq.). In cases, however, of homicide committed by a kmetho, or serf, upon another, a portion of the wer-gild was paid to the magistrate.

11 See an abstract of Bojisic’s work on the customs of the southern Slavs, in the “Penn Monthly” Magazine, Phi’a, Jan. 1878, pp. 15 sqq.

12 Gradually, however, a portion of the composition money was attributed, under the name of fredum, to the king or the magistrate, as a compensation for readmitting the criminal to the public peace.

13 Ll. Edwardi C. xii. (Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, I. 467).

14 Gwentian Code, Bk. II. chap. vii. §8. (Aneurin Owen’s Ancient Laws, etc. of Wales, I. 701.)

15 Senchus Mor, I. 259 (Hancock’s ed. Dublin, 1865).

16 GrÁgÁs, Sect. IV. cap. cxiv.

17 Ibid. Sect. VIII. cap. lv.

18 Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxix.—Cf. Legg. Gulathingenses, Mannhelgi, cap. xii.

19 Constit. Eric. Ann. 1269 § vii. (Ludewig, Reliq. MSS. T. XII. p. 204).

20 Dimetian Code, Bk. II. ch. i. §§ 17-31.—Bk. III. ch. iii. §4.—Anomalous Laws, Bk. IV. ch. iii. § 11.

21 Dimetian Code, Bk. II. chap. xxiv. § 12.

22 Roisin, Franchises, etc. de la ville de Lille, pp. 106-7.

23 Charta Balduini Hannoniens. (Martene, Collect. Ampliss. I. 964.)

24 Capitul. Lib. IV. cap. 15.

25 Concil. Tribur. an. 895, can. iv.

26 Dimetian Code, Bk. II. chap. i. § 32.

27 Venedotian Code, Bk. III. chap. i. § 21.

28 The oath may be regarded as the foundation of Roman legal procedure—“Dato jurejurando non aliud quÆritur, quam an juratum sit; remissa quÆstione an debeatur; quasi satis probatum sit jurejurando”—L. 5, § 2, D. XII. ii. The jusjurandum necessarium could always be administered by the judge in cases of deficient evidence, and the jusjurandum in jure proffered by the plaintiff to the defendant was conclusive: “ManifestÆ turpitudinis et confessionis est nolle nec jurare nec jusjurandum referre”—Ibid. l. 38.

29 Ll. Wisigoth. Lib. II. Tit. ii. c.5.

30 Concil. Valentin. ann. 855, c. xi.

31 Ll. Ripuar. Tit. XII. § 1; ix. 17.—Capit. Ludov. Pii. ann. 819 add. ad L. Salicam, c. 15.—Capitul. L. IV. c. 29.—Ivonis Decr. XVI. 239.

32 De presbytero vero, si quilibet sacerdos a populo fuerit accusatus, si certi non fuerint testes qui criminis illati approbent veritatem, jusjurandum erit in medio, et illum testem proferat de innocentiÆ suÆ puritate cui nuda et aperta sunt omnia; sicque maneat in proprio gradu.—Gregor. PP. II. Epist. XIV. ad Bonifacium. Cf. Hincmari Remens. Epist. XXII.

33 Thus Alfonso the Wise endeavored to introduce into Spain the mutual challenging of the parties involved in the Roman jusjurandum in jure, by his jura de juicio (Las Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xi. l.2. Cf. EspÉculo, Lib. V. Tit. xi. ley 2). Oddly enough, the same procedure is found incorporated in the municipal law of Rheims in the fourteenth century, probably introduced by some over-zealous civilian; “Si alicui deferatur jusjurandum, necesse habet jurare vel referre jusjurandum, et hoc super quovis debito, vel inter quasvis personas”—Lib. Pract. de Consuetud. Remens. § 15 (Archives LÉgislat. de Reims, P.I. p. 37). By this time, however, the oaths of parties had assumed great importance. In the legislation of St. Louis, they occupy a position which was a direct incentive to perjury. Thus he provides for the hanging of the owner of a beast which had killed a man, if he was foolish enough not to swear that he was ignorant of its being vicious. “Et si il estoit si fox que il deist que il seust la teche de la beste, il en seroit pendus pour la recoignoissance”—Établissements, Liv. I. chap. cxxi.

A charter granted to the commune of Lorris, in 1155, by Louis le Jeune, gives to burghers the privilege of rebutting by oath, without conjurators, an accusation unsupported by testimony—Chart. Ludovic. junior. ann. 1155, cap. xxxii. (Isambert, Anciennes Lois FranÇaises I. 157.) And, in comparatively modern times, in Germany, the same rule was followed. “Juramento rei, quod purgationis vocatur, sÆpe etiam innocentia, utpote quÆ in anima constitit, probatur et indicia diluuntur;” and this oath was administered when the evidence was insufficient to justify torture. (Zangeri Tract. de QuÆstionibus, cap. iii. No. 46.) In 1592, Zanger wrote an elaborate essay to prove the evils of the custom.

It is a noteworthy fact, however, that of all the medieval codes the one least affected by the influence of the Roman law was the Saxon, and in this the purgatorial power of the oath was admitted to a degree unknown elsewhere. The accused was allowed in certain cases to clear himself, however notorious were the facts, and no evidence was admitted to disprove his position, unless it were a question of theft, and the stolen articles were found in his possession, or he had suffered a previous conviction. (Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. Art. 15, 18, 39; Lib. II. Art. 4, 72.) Even this was an improvement on the previous custom, if we may believe Cardinal Henry of Susa, who denounces the practice in Saxony and Dacia, where a man can clear himself, even if he holds the stolen article in his hand and the loser has ample witnesses present (Hostiensis AureÆ SummÆ Lib. V. De Purg. canon. § 3). This irrational abuse was long in vogue, and was denounced by the council of BÂle in the fifteenth century (Schilter. Thesaur. II. 291). It only prevailed in the north of Germany; the Jus Provin. Alaman. (cap. ccclxxxi. § 3), which regulated Southern Germany, alludes to it as one of the distinguishing features of the Saxon code.

So, also, at the same period a special privilege was claimed by the inhabitants of Franconia, in virtue of which a murderer was allowed to rebut with his single oath all testimony as to his guilt, unless he chanced to be caught with the red hand—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cvi. § 7.

34 “Ego solus jurare volo, tu, si audes, nega sacramentum meum et armis mecum contende.”—Ll. Ripuar. Tit. IX. § 3.

35 Laws of WihtrÆd, cap. 16-21. Comp. LI. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 8.

36 Anomalous Laws, Book IV. chap. i. § 11.

37 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cclxiv. 7, 8.

38 Fuero Viejo, III. ii.

39 Book VII. 109-13 (after Delongchamps’ translation).

The corresponding passage in the Institutes of Vishnu (VIII. 20-3) renders this somewhat more intelligible. When the judge swears the witness—

“A Brahmana he must address thus, ‘Declare.’

“A Kshatriya he must address thus, ‘Declare the truth.’

“A Vaisya he must address thus, ‘Thy kine, grain, and gold (shall yield thee no fruit if thou wert to give false evidence).’

“A Sudra he must address thus, ‘Thou shalt have to atone for all (possible) heavy crimes (if thou wert to give false evidence).’”

40 Institutes of Vishnu, IX. (Jolly’s Translation).

41 Iliad. XV. 36-40.—Luciani Philopseud. 5; Cataplus 11.

42 LI. 3, 4, D. XII. ii.

43 Volundarkvida 31 (Thorpe’s SÆmund’s Edda). A curious remnant of this is seen in the burgher law of Northern Germany in the thirteenth century, by which a man reclaiming a stolen horse was bound to kick its left foot with his right foot, while with his left hand he took hold of the animal’s ear and swore by its head that it was his.—Sachsisches Weichbild, art. 135.

44 Deuteron. xxi. 4-8.

45 Pausan. III. xx. 9.

46 Islands Landnamabok IV. 7; II. 9 (Ed. 1774, pp. 299, 83).

47 Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Translation, p. 238.

48 Gen. xv. 9-17.—Jer. xxxiv. 18-19.—I. Kings, viii. 31-2.—Chrysost. Orat. adv. Jud. I. 3.

49 Anastas. Biblioth. No. LXII.

50 Ecgberti Dialog. IV. (Haddan and Stubbs’s Councils of Great Britain, III. 405).

51 Gregor. Turon. Hist. Lib. V. cap. xlix. Gregory complains that this was contrary to the canons, of which more hereafter.

52 Dooms of Alfred, cap. 33.

53 Dimetian Code, Bk. II. chap. vi. § 17 (Owen, I. 431).

54 Fleta, Lib. II. cap. lxiii. § 12. The Moslem jurisprudence has a somewhat similar provision for accusatorial oaths in the Iesameh by which a murderer can be convicted, in the absence of testimony or confession, by fifty oaths sworn by relatives of the victim. Of these there must be at least two, and the fifty oaths are divided between them in proportion to their respective legal shares in the Deeyeh, or blood-money for the murder.—Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 269.—Seignette, Code Mussulman, Constantine, 1878, p. lvi.

55 Fredegarii Chron. cap. xcvii.

56 Excerpt. de Libro Davidis No. xvi. (Haddan and Stubbs, I. 120).

57 Si in manu episcopi ... aut in cruce consecrata perjurat III. annos poeniteat. Si vero in cruce non consecrata perjurat, I. annum poeniteat; si autem in manu hominis laici juraverit nihil est.—Theodori Cantuar. Poenit. cap. xxiv. § 2. (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, vol. II. p. 29.) Cf. Haddan and Stubbs, III. 423; Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, pp. 190, 226.

58 Poenitent. Pseudo-Gregor. III. vii. (Wasserschleben, p. 539).

59 Poenitent. Cummeani cap. V. § 3 (Wasserschleben, p. 477).—Gratiani Decr. c.2. Caus. XXII. Q.v. In the fourteenth century this was repeated in the penitential canons of Astesanus (§ 23), which continued until the Reformation to be a recognized authority in the confessional. Astesanus, however, explains that the obligation is equal to God, but unequal as regards the church, whence the difference in the penance.—Astesani Summa de Casibus ConscientiÆ, P.I. Lib. I. Tit. xviii.

60 Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. v. § 3; chap. xxxviii. § 1 (Owen, II. 233, 303). The definition of relics, however, was somewhat vague—“There are three relics to swear by: the staff of a priest; the name of God; and hand to hand with the one sworn to.” Bk. XIII. ch. ii. § 219 (Ibid. II. 557).

61 Regino de Eccles. Discip. Lib. I. cap. ccc. See also Jur. Provin. Saxon, Lib. III. c. 41. Notwithstanding the laxity of these doctrines, it is not to be supposed that the true theory of the oath was altogether lost. St. Isidor of Seville, who was but little anterior to Theodore of Canterbury, well expresses it (Sententt. Lib. II. cap. xxxi. § 8): “Quacunque arte verborum quisque juret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiÆ testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui juratur intelligit,” and this, being adopted in successive collections of canons, coexisted with the above as a maxim of ecclesiastical law (Ivon. Decret. P. XII. c. 36.—Gratian. c. 13, Caus. XXII. Q. ii.).

62 Helgaldi Vit. Roberti Regis.

63 Augustin. Epist. 78, §§ 2, 3 (Ed. Benedict.).

64 Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Martyr. cap. 58, 103.

65 Suppression of Monasteries, p. 186 (Camden Soc. Pub.). The Priory of Cardigan was dependent upon the Abbey of Chertsey, and the sum named was apparently the abbot’s share of the annual “alms.”

Perhaps the most suggestive illustration of the reverence for relics is a passage in the ancient Welsh laws limiting the protection legally afforded by them—“If a person have relics upon him and does an illegal act under the relics, he is not to have protection or defence through those relics, for he has not deserved it.”—Venedotian Code, Bk. I. chap. x. § 7.

66 EspÉculo, Lib. V. Tit. xi. leyes 14, 15. The oaths required of Jews and Moors were much more elaborate (Ibid. 16, 17).

67 Patetta, Le Ordalie, Torino, 1890, p. 130.

68 Yet compurgators appear in the Spanish laws of the twelfth century. See Fuero de BalbÁs, ann. 1135 (Coleccion de Privilegios, etc. Madrid, 1833, T. VI. p. 85).

69 The primitive Scottish procedure appears to have been based on compurgation.—Neilson’s Trial by Combat, London, 1890, p. 78.

70 First Text of Pardessus, Tit. xxxix. § 2, and Tit. xlii. § 5 (Loi Salique, Paris, 1843, pp. 21, 23). It is somewhat singular that in the subsequent recensions of the code the provision is omitted in these passages.

71 Eginhard. Annal. ann. 800.—The monkish chroniclers have endeavored to conceal the fact that Leo underwent the form of trial like a common criminal, but the evidence is indubitable. Charlemagne alludes to it in the Capitularium Aquisgranense ann. 803, in a manner which admits of no dispute.

The monk of St. Gall (De Gestis B. Carol. Mag. Lib. i. cap. 28), whose work is rather legendary in its character, describes the Pope as swearing to his innocence by his share at the day of judgment in the promises of the gospels, which he had placed upon his head.

72 Capit. Aquisgran. ann. 803, cap. vii.

73 Bonifacii Epist. cxxvi.

The subject of the oaths of priests was one of considerable perplexity during the dark ages. Among the numerous privileges assumed by the sacerdotal body was exemption from the necessity of swearing, an exemption which had the justification of the ancient Roman custom; “Sacerdotem, Vestalem, et Flaminem Dialem in omni mea jurisdictione jurare non cogam” (Edict. Perpet. ap. Aul. Gell. x. 15). The effort to obtain the reversion of this privilege dates from an early period, and was sometimes allowed and sometimes rejected by the secular authorities, both as respects promissory, judicial, and exculpatory oaths. The struggle between church and state on this subject is well exemplified in a case which occurred in 1269. The Archbishop of Reims sued a burgher of Chaudardre. When each party had to take the oath, the prelate demanded that his should be taken by his attorney. The defendant demurred to this, alleging that the archbishop had in person presented the complaint. Appeal was made to the Parlement of Paris, which decided that the defendant’s logic was correct, and that the personal oath of the prelate was requisite (Olim, I. 765).

In Spain, a bishop appearing in a secular court, either as plaintiff or defendant, was not exempt from the oath, but had the singular privilege of not being compelled to touch the gospels on which he swore.—Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xl. l. 24.

74 Gratian. c. 19, Caus. II. Q. V.

75 Eginhard. Annal. ann. 823.

76 Atton. de Pressuris Ecclesiast. P.1.

77 Buchardus, Ivo, Gratianus, passim.—Ivon. Epist. 74.

78 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. xxi. § 9; Tit. lv. § 12.—L. Burgund. Tit. vii.—Laws of Ethelred, Tit. ix. §§ 23, 24.—L. Henrici I. cap. lxxiv. § 1. Feudor. Lib. V. Tit. ii.

This point illustrates the essential distinction between witnesses and compurgators. The Roman law exercised great discrimination in admitting the evidence of a relative to either party in an action (Pauli Sentent. Lib. V. Tit. xv.—Ll. 4, 5, 6, 9. Dig. XXII. v.). The Wisigoths not only adopted this principle, but carried it so far as to exclude the evidence of a kinsman in a cause between his relative and a stranger (L. Wisigoth. Lib. II. Tit. iv. c. 12), which was adopted into the Carlovingian legislation (Benedict. Levit. Capitul. Lib. VI. c. 348) under the strong Romanizing influence which then prevailed. The rule, once established, retained its place through the vicissitudes of the feudal and customary law (Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. xxxix. § 38.—Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. vii. art. 161, 162). In the ancient Brahmanic legislation the evidence of both friends and enemies was excluded (Institutes of Vishnu, viii. 3).

79 Anomalous Laws, Bk. IX. chap. ii. § 4; chap. v. § 2 (Owen, II. 225, 233). This collection of laws is posterior to the year 1430.

80 Anomalous Laws, Bk. V. chap. ii. § 117 (Ibid. II. p. 85).

81 Ibid. § 144 (p. 95).

82 Aimoini Lib. III. c. 29.

83 Greg. Turon. Lib. VIII. c.9.

84 Herman. Contract. ann. 899.

85 Spelman. Concil. I. 335.

86 Venedotian Code, Book III. chap. i. §§ 1-10.—Dimetian and Gwentian Codes, Book II. chap. i. §§ 10-12 (Owen I. 219-21, 407, 689).—There is very great confusion in these laws as to the numbers requisite for many crimes, but with respect to the accessories of galanas, or homicide, the rule appears to have been absolute.—Cf. Spelman, Glossary s.v. Assath.

87 Venedotian Code, Book III. chap. i. § 18. Anomalous Laws, Book IV. chap. iii. §§ 12, 13 (Ibid. I. 231, II. 23).

88 Ibid. § 17 (p. 231); cf. Book II. chap. viii. § 4 (p. 137).

89 Gwentian Code, Book II. chap. iii. § 11 (Ibid. I. 691).

90 Leg. Cimbric. Lib. II. c.9.—Constit. Woldemari Regis §§ 9, 52, 56, 86. Throughout Germany a minor son could be cleared, even in capital accusations, by the single purgatorial oath of his father, if it was the first time that they had been defendants in court.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxix. § 1; Sachsische Weichbild, art. 76.

91 BÖhlau, Nove constitutiones Dom. Alberti, pp. 2, 6, 12, 38 (Weimar, 1858). “Cum duobus viris bone opinionis et integri status, sinodalibus hominibus.” The expression is doubtless derived from the testes synodales—men of standing and reputation selected in episcopal synods to act as a kind of grand jury and report the sins of their neighbors.

92 This has been denied by those who assume that the frithborgs of Edward the Confessor are the earliest instance of such institutions, but traces of communal societies are to be found in the most ancient text of the Salic law (First text of Pardessus, Tit. XLV.), and both Childebert and Clotair II., in edicts promulgated near the close of the sixth century, hold the hundreds or townships responsible for robberies committed within their limits (Decret. Childeberti ann. 595, c. 10; Decret. Chlotarii II. c. 1).

It is not improbable that, as among all the barbarian races, the family was liable for the misdeeds of its members, so the tribe or clan of the offender was held responsible when the offence was committed upon a member of another tribe, and such edicts as those of Childebert and Clotair were merely adaptations of the rule to the existing condition of society. The most perfect early code that has reached us, that of the ancient Irish, expresses in detail the responsibility of each sept for the actions not only of its members, but of those also who were in any way connected with it. “And because the four nearest tribes bear the crime of each kinsman of their stock.... And because there are four who have an interest in every one who sues and is sued: the tribe of the father, the chief, the church, the tribe of the mother or foster-father.... Every tribe is liable after the absconding of a member of it, after notice, after warning, and after lawful waiting.”—Senchus Mor, I. 263-5.

93 See Mr. Pike’s very interesting “History of Crime in England,” Vol. I. pp. 61-2. London, 1873.

94 First text of Pardessus, Tit. XLII. § 5.

95 Marculf. App. xxxii.; xxix.

96 Pact. pro Tenore Pacis cap. vi.

97 L. Alaman. Tit. lxxvi.

98 Capit. Car. Mag. IV. ann. 803, cap. x.

99 Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 231.

100 Hartzheim Concil. German. II. 600.

101 LagrÈze, Hist. du Droit dans les PyrÉnÉes, p. 47, Paris, 1867.

102 Pike, op. cit. I. 451.

[103]

Pontificem parium manus expurgat duodena.
Sexta sacerdotem, levitam tertia purgat.
Maior maiori, minor est adhibenda minori.
Quem plebs infamat purgabitur in manifesto.

Hostiensis AureÆ SummÆ Lib. V. Tit. De Purgat. canon. § 4.

104 Ibid. § 5.

105 Quoniam Attachiamenta cap. xxiv. §§ 1, 4; cap. lxxv. §§ 1, 4. In another subsequent code, in simple cases of theft, when the accuser had no testimony to substantiate his claim, thirty conjurators were necessary, of whom three must be nobles (Regiam Majestatem Lib. IV. c. 21). For the disputed date of the Regiam see Neilson, Trial by Combat, ch. 30.

106 Leg. Burgorum cap. xxiv. §§ 1, 3.

107 Anomalous Laws, Book XIII. chap. ii. § 94 (Owen II. 521).

108 Gwentian Code, Bk. II. chap. vii. § 10 (Ibid. I. 701).

109 Anomalous Laws, Bk. IX. chap. ii. § 4; chap. xx. § 12; chap. xxi. § 3.—Book XIV. chap. xxxviii. § 16.—Book V. chap. ii. § 112 (Ibid. II. 225, 261, 709, 83).

Under the primitive Venedotian Code (Book III. chap. i. §§ 13, 19) only twelve men were required, one-half to be nod-men, two-thirds of paternal, and one-third of maternal kin; while in the Gwentian Code (Book II. chap. ii. § 10) and in the Dimetian Code (Book II. chap. iii. § 10, Book III. chap. i. § 24), fifty are prescribed.

The nod men, as will be seen hereafter, were conjurators who took a special form of oath.

110 Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xxxviii. § 16; Book IX. chap. xx. § 12; chap. xxi. § 1.

111 Leges Wallice, Lib. II. cap. xxiii. § 17 (Owen II. 848). It is worthy of remark that one of the few instructions for legal procedures contained in the KorÁn relates to cases of this kind. Chapter xxiv. 6-9 directs that a husband accusing his wife of infidelity, and having no witnesses to prove it, shall substantiate his assertion by swearing five times to the truth of the charge, invoking upon himself the malediction of God; while the wife was able to rebut the accusation by the same process. As this chapter, however, was revealed to the Prophet after he had writhed for a month under a charge brought against his favorite wife Ayesha, which he could not disregard and did not wish to entertain, the law is rather to be looked upon as ex post facto than as indicating any peculiar tendency of the age or race.

112 Anomalous Laws, Book XI. chap. v. §§ 40, 41 (Ibid. II. 445).

113 Wealreaf, i. e., mortuum refere, est opus nithingi; si quis hoc negare velit, faciat hoc cum xlviii. taynis plene nobilibus.—Leg. Æthelstani, de Ordalio.

114 Sacramentum liberalis hominis, quem quidem vocant twelfhendeman, debet stare et valere juramentum septem villanorum (Cnuti Secular. cap. 127). The twelfhendeman meant a thane (Twelfhindus est homo plene nobilis i. Thainus.—Leg. Henrici I. Tit. lxxvi. § 4), whose price was 1200 solidi. So thoroughly did the structure of jurisprudence depend upon the system of wer-gild or composition, that the various classes of society were named according to the value of their heads. Thus the villein or cherleman was also called twyhindus or twyhindeman, his wer-gild being 200 solidi; the radcnicht (road-knight, or mounted follower) was a sexhendeman; and the comparative judicial weight of their oaths followed a similar scale of valuation, which was in force even subsequently to the Conquest (Leg. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 2).

115 L. Frision. Tit. I.

116 Hincmari Epist. xxxiv. So also in his Capit. Synod. ann. 852, II. xxv.

117 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 5.

118 Ibid. Tit. xxi. § 9.

119 Proost, RÉcherches sur la LÉgislation des Jugements de Dieu, Bruxelles, 1868, p. 96.

120 Nominentur ei XIV., et adquirat XI., et ipse sit duodecimus.—L. Cnuti c. lxvi. Horne, who probably lived in the reign of Edward II., attributes to Glanville the introduction of the jury-trial.—“Car, pur les grandes malices que lon soloit procurer en testmonage et les grands delaies qui se fierent en les examinements, exceptions et attestations, ordeina Randulph de Glanvile celle certeine Assise ou recognitions et jurÉes se feissent per XII jurors, les procheins vicines, et issint est cest establissement appelÉ assise.”—Myrror of Justice, cap. II. sect. xxv. For a minute examination into the origin of the jury-trial, see a series of articles by Prof. J.B. Thayer in the Harvard Law-Review for 1892.

121 Laws of Ethelred, Tit. III. c. xiii.

122 L. Henrici I. Tit. xxxi. § 8; Tit. lxvi. § 10.

123 Constit. Woldemari Regis §§ lii. lxxii.

124 Fuero de BalbÁs (Coleccion de Privilegios, etc. Madrid, 1833, T. VI. p. 85).

125 Prof. J.B. Thayer, in Harvard Law Review, Vol. V.p. 58.

126 L. ScaniÆ Lib. vii. c.8.—Chart. Woldemari Regis, ann. 1163 (Du Cange s.v. Juramentum).

127 Jarnsida, Thiofa-Balkr, cap. ix. X.

128 Leges Gulathingenses, Thiofa-Bolkr, c. xiii. (Ed. HavniÆ 1817, p. 547).

129 L. Longobard. I. xxxiii. 1, 3.

130 L. Burgund. Tit. viii.

131 Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 789 c. lxii.

132 Ibid.

133 Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 829 Tit. III. § vi.

134 For. de Morlaas, Rubr. xli. art. 146-7.

135 Que sien boos et loyaus, et que no sien enemicxs.—Fors de BÉarn, Rubr. xxx.

136 Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, Philadelphia, 1892, p. 100.

137 KÖnigswarter, Études Historiques. p. 167.

138 Nam nulli liceat, postquam manifestaverit, postea per sacramentum negare, quod non sit culpabilis, postquam ille se culpabilem assignavit. Quia multos cognovimus in regno nostro tales pravas opponentes intentiones, et hÆc moverunt nos prÆsentem corrigere legem, et ad meliorem statum revocare.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 8.

139 Si quis hominem ingenuo plagiaverit et probatio certa non fuit, sicut pro occiso juratore donet. Si juratores non potuerit invenire, VIII M dinarios, qui faciunt solidos CC, culpabilis judicetur (Tit. xxxix. § 2). A similar provision—“si tamen probatio certa non fuerit”—occurs in Tit. xlii. § 5.

140 Si quis hominem occiderit et negare voluerit, cum duodecim nominatis juret.—L. Alaman. Tit. LXXXIX.

141 L. Alaman. Tit. XLII.

142 Islands Landnamabok II. ix. (p. 83).

143 For instance, in the Baioarian law—“Nec facile ad sacramenta veniatur.... In his vero causis sacramenta prÆstentur in quibus nullam probationem discussio judicantis invenerit” (L. Baioar. Tit. VIII. c. 16). In a Capitulary of Louis le DÉbonnaire—“Si hujus facti testes non habuerit cum duodecim conjuratoribus legitimis per sacramentum adfirmet” (Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, § 1). In one of the Emperor Lothair—“Si testes habere non poterit, concedimus ut cum XII. juratoribus juret” (L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. IX. § 37). So Louis II., in 854, ordered that a man accused of harboring robbers, if taken in the act, was to be immediately punished; but if merely cited on popular rumor, he was at liberty to clear himself with twelve compurgators (Recess. Ticinen. Tit. II. cap. 3).

It was the same in subsequent periods. The Scottish law of the thirteenth century alludes to the absence of testimony as a necessary preliminary, but when an acquittal was once obtained in this manner the accused seems to have been free from all subsequent proceedings, when inconvenient witnesses might perhaps turn up—“Et si hoc modo purgatus fuerit, absolvetur a petitione Regis in posterum” (Regiam Majestatem, Lib. IV. c. 21). So, in the laws of Nieuport, granted by Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders, in 1163 “Et si hoc scabini vel opidani non cognoverint, conquerens cum juramento querelam suam sequetur, et alter se excusabit juramento quinque hominum” (Leg. secundÆ Noviportus). See also the Consuetud. Tornacens. ann. 1187, §§ ii. iii. xvi., where two conjurators release a defendant from a claim of debt unsupported by evidence. In case of assault, “si constans non fuerit,” two conjurators clear the accused; in case of wounding, six are required if the affair occurred by daylight; if at night, the cold water ordeal is prescribed (D’Achery, Spicileg. III. 551-2). The legislation of Norway and Iceland in the next century is even more positive “Iis tantum concessis quÆ legum codices sanciunt, juramenta nempe purgatoria et accusatoria, ubi legitimi defuerint testes” (Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxxvii.).

On the other hand, an exception to this general principle is apparently found in a constitution of the Emperor Henry III., issued about the middle of the eleventh century “Si quem ex his dominus suus accusaverit de quacunque re, licet illi juramento se cum suis coÆqualibus absolvere, exceptis tribus: hoc est si in vitam domini sui, aut in cameram ejus consilium habuisse arguitur, aut in munitiones ejus. CÆteris vero hominibus de quacunque objectione, absque advocato, cum suis coÆqualibus juramento se poterit absolvere” (Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 231).

In a constitution of Frederic II. in 1235, the oaths of six compurgators clear a man accused of having commenced hostilities without awaiting the three days term prescribed after defiance, no evidence being alluded to on either side—“et nisi violator productus super hoc vel septena manu sinodalium hominum purgaverit innocentiam suam quod non commiserat contra hoc statutum perpetuo pene subiaceat quod dicitur erenlos und rehtlos”—Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 12 (Weimar, 1858).

144 S. Raymondi SummÆ Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. § v. ad calcem.

145 Gwentian Code, Book II. chap. xxxix. § 40 (Owen I. 787). So, in disowning a child, if the reputed father were dead, the oaths of the chief of the kindred, with seven of the kinsmen, were decisive, or, in default of the chief, the oaths of fifty kinsmen (Ibid. § 41).

146 Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. ii. § 9 (Ibid. II. 227).

147 Ibid. Book VIII. chap. xi. § 31 (Ibid. II. 209).

148 Ibid. Book IX. chap. ii. § 6 (Ibid. II. 227).

149 Dooms of Ine, cap. liii.

150 Leg. Wallice, Lib. II. cap. xix. § 2 (Owen II. 842).

151 Ea autem debita de quibus non constat, super mortuum probari debent, septima manu.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. vii. § 2. (Ed. Schilter.)—Sachsische Weichbild art. 67.

152 Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 38.

153 “Quod in sacramentis supradictorum testium veritas absque ullo dolo versata est.”—Leon. PP. IV. Epist. 5 (Migne, CXV. 664).

154 LÜnig Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 1955.

155 Maitland, Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, pp. 7, 10, 18, 32, 36, 37, 47, 83, 137, 140, 141, 142, 144, 151, 157, 173.

156 Si burgensis calumniatus prÆteriit Ætatem pugnandi, et hoc essoniaverit in sua responsione, non pugnabit. Sed juramento duodecim talium qualis ipse fuerit, se purgabit.—L. Burgorum cap. 24, §§ 1, 2.

157 Concil. Remens. ann. 1119 (Harduin. VI. 1986).

158 On Þone Drihten se aÐ is clÆne and unmÆne Þe N. swor.—Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, I. 180-1.

159 Hoc quod appellatus juravit, verum juravit. Sic Deus, etc.—Formul. Vet. in L. Longobard (Georgisch, 1275).

160 Per aquetz santz ver dits.—Fors de BÉarn, Rubr. LI. art. 165.

161 Du serment que Guillaume a jurÉ, sauf serment a jurÉ, ainsi m’aist Dieu et ses Sainctz.—Ancienne Cout. de Normandie, chap. lxxxv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 54).

162 Nobis adhÆc Deo coram periculosum esse videtur, ejus, cujus interest, jusjurandum purgatorium edendo prÆeunte, omnes (ab eo productos testes) iisdem ac ille conceptis verbis jurare, incerti quamvis fuerint, vera ne an falsa jurent. Nos legibus illatum volumus ut ille, cujus interest, jusjurandum conceptis verbis solum prÆstet, cÆteri vero ejus firment juramentum adjicientes se nequid verius, Deo coram, scire, quam jurassent.—Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxxvii.—The passage is curious, as showing how little confidence was really felt in the purgation, notwithstanding the weight attached to it by law.

163 Leges Gulathingenses, Thiofa-Bolkr, c. xiii.

164 Credo Norigaudum istum Eduensem episcopum vera jurasse, sicut me Deus adjuvet.—Hugo. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

165 Anomalous Laws, Book VII. chap. i. § 18 (Owen, II. 135).

166 L. Alaman. Tit. vi.

167 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 28.

168 Anomalous Laws, Book IX. chap. vi. § 4; chap. xvii. § 5.—cf. Book VI. chap. i. § 50 (Owen. II. 235, 255, 113).

169 Marculf. Lib. I. Formul. xxxviii.

170 L. Frisionum Tit. xiv.

171 Dooms of King Edward, cap. iii.

172 Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Transl. p. 246.

173 Quantum in conspectu hominum purgari poterat.—Ivon. Epist. liv.

174 Hugo Flaviniac. Lib. II.

175 Gratian. c. 17, Caus. II. Q.v.

176 L. Baioar. Tit. XIV. cap. i. § 2.

177 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 37.

178 Institutions Judiciaires, I. 308.

179 Ut propter suam nequitiam alii qui volunt. Dei esse non se perjurent, nec propter culpam alienam semetipsos perdant.—L. Alaman. Tit. xlii. § 1.

180 Quod pro anima sua timendo, non prÆsumat sacramentalis esse.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 14.

181 Othlon. Vit. S. Bonif. Lib. II. c. xxi.—“Vos soli juratis, si vultis; nolo ut omnes hos congregatos perdatis.”—Boniface, however, did not weakly abandon the cause of the church. He freely invoked curses on the greedy brethren, which being fulfilled on the elder, the terror-stricken survivor gladly relinquished the dangerous inheritance.

182 L. Salic. Tit. I. §§ 3, 4.

183 L. Frisionum Tit. X.

184 Capit. Pippini ann. 793 § 15.—Capit. Car. Mag. incert. anni c.x. (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 7).

185 Celest. PP. III. ad Brugnam Episc. (Baluz. et Mansi, III. 382).

186 Cod. Vatican. No. 3845, Gloss, ad L. 2 Lombard. II. 51, apud Savigny, Geschichte d. Rom. Recht. B. iv.—I owe this reference to the kindness of my friend J.G. Rosengarten, Esq.

187 Capit. Car. Mag. ann. 794 § 7.

188 Hugo, Flaviniac. Lib. II. ann. 1100. Norgaud, however, was reinstated next year by quietly procuring, as we have already seen, two brother prelates to take the oath with him, in the absence of his antagonists.

189 Et si quis de quinque juvantibus defecerit, accusatus debit tres libras, et percusso decem solidos.—Leg. Secund. Noviportus (Oudegherst).

190 Hostiensis AureÆ SummÆ Lib. v. De Purg. Canon, § 7.—“Sicut puniretur de crimine de quo impetebatur si convinceretur considerato modo agendi, sic punietur si in purgatione deficiat.”

191 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 34.—Qua ex re mos detestabilis in Italia, improbusque non imitandus inolevit, ut sub legum specie jurejurando acquireret, qui Deum non timendo minime formidaret perjurare.

192 L. Henrici I. cap. lxiv. § 1. “Malorum autem infestacionibus et perjurancium conspiracione, depositum est frangens juramentum, ut magis Dei judicium ab accusatis eligatur; et unde accusatus cum una decima se purgaret per eleccionem et sortem, si ad judicium ferri calidi vadat.” This cannot be considered, however, as having abrogated it even temporarily in England, since it is contradicted by many other laws in the same code, which prescribe the use of compurgators, and we shall see hereafter how persistently its use was maintained.

193 Romances Antiguos EspaÑoles. Londres, 1825, T.I. pp. 246-7. Cf. Dozy, Recherches sur l’Histoire, etc. de l’Espagne, Leipzig, 1881, II. 108.

194 Le Roux de Lincy, Chants Historiques FranÇais, I. 15.

195 Glanville, Lib. I. cap. ix. Also, Lib. I. c. xvi., Lib. IX. c.i., Lib. X. c. v.

196 “In aliis enim curiis si quis aliquid dixerit unde eum poenituerit, poterit id negare contra totam curiam tertia manu cum sacramento, id se non dixisse affirmando” (Ibid. Lib. VIII. c. ix.).—In some other systems of jurisprudence, this unsophisticated mode of beclouding justice was obtained by insisting on the employment of lawyers, whose assertions would not be binding on their clients. Thus, in the Assises de Jerusalem (Baisse Court, cap. 133): “Et por ce il deit estre lavantparlier, car se lavantparlier dit parole quil ne doie dire por celuy cui il parole, celui por qui il parle et son conceau y pueent bien amender ains que le iugement soit dit. Mais se celuy de cui est li plais diseit parole qui li deust torner a damage, il ne la peut torner arieres puis quil la dite.” The same caution is recommended in the German procedure of the fourteenth century—“verbis procuratoris non eris adstrictus, et sic vitabis damnum” (Richstich Landrecht, cap. II. Cf. Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 60; Lib. II. art. 14). The same abuse existed in France, but was restricted by St. Louis, who made the assertion of the advocate binding on the principal, unless contradicted on the spot (Établissements, Liv. II. chap. xiv.).

197 Roger de Hoveden ann. 1194.

198 Tunc vadiabit defendens legem se duodecima manu.—Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. iii. cap. 37, § 1.—Et si ad diem legis faciendÆ; defuerit aliquis de XII. vel si contra prÆdictos excipi possit quod non sunt idonei ad legem faciendam, eo quod villani sunt vel alias idonei minus, tunc dominus incidet in misericordiam.—Ibid. § 3. So also in Lib. V. Tract. V. cap. xiii. § 3.

199 Pike, History of Crime in England, I. 285.

200 Gratian, c. 17, C. 11. Q.v.—“Deinde vero purgatores super sancta Dei evangelia jurabunt quod sicut ipsi credunt verum juravit.” Cf. c. 5 Extra, V. xxxiv.

201 SummÆ Stephani Tornacensis caus. II. Q. 5 (Schulte, 1891, p. 171).

202 C. 7, Extra, V. xxxiv.

203 Illi qui ad purgandam alicujus infamiam inducuntur, ad solum tenentur juramento firmare quod veritatem credunt eum dicere qui purgatur.—C. 13, Extra, V. xxxiv. Innocent also endeavored to put an end to the abuse by which ecclesiastics, notoriously guilty, were able to escape the penalty due their crimes, by this easy mode of purgation.—C. 15, eod. loc.

The formula as given about 1240 by St. Ramon de PeÑafort is “Nos credimus quod ipse juravit verum, vel, verum esse quod juravit.”—Raymondi SummÆ Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. § 5.

204 The rapidity with which the study of the civil law diffused itself throughout the schools and the eagerness with which it was welcomed were the subject of indignant comment by the ecclesiastics of the day. As early as 1149 we find St. Bernard regretting that the laws of Justinian were already overshadowing those of God—“Et quidem quotidie perstrepent in palatio leges, sed Justiniani, non Domini” (De Consideratione, Lib. I. cap. iv.). Even more bitter were the complaints of Giraldus Cambrensis towards the end of the century. The highest of high churchmen, in deploring the decline of learning among the prelates and clergy of his age, he attributes it to the exclusive attention bestowed on the jurisprudence of Justinian, which already offered the surest prizes to cupidity and ambition, and he quotes in support of his opinion the dictum of his teacher Mainier, a professor in the University of Paris: “Episcopus autem ille, de quo nunc ultimo locuti sumus, inter superficiales numerari potuit, cujusmodi hodie multos novimus propter leges Justinianas, quÆ literaturam, urgente cupiditatis et ambitionis incommodo, adeo in multis jam suffocarunt, quod magistrum Mainerium in auditorio scholÆ suÆ Parisius dicentem et damna sui temporis plangentem, audivi, vaticinium illud SibillÆ vere nostris diebus esse completum, hoc scilicet ‘Venient dies, et vÆ illis, quibus leges obliterabunt scientiam literarum’” (Gemm. Ecclesiast. Dist. II. cap. xxxvii.). This, like all other branches of learning, was as yet to a great extent in the hands of the clergy, though already were arising the precursors of those subtle and daring civil lawyers who were destined to do such yeoman’s service in abating the pretensions of the church.

It is somewhat singular to observe that at a period when the highest offices of the law were frequently appropriated by ecclesiastics, they were not allowed to perform the functions of advocates or counsel. See Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. II. sect. 5. There was good reason for prohibiting them from serving as judges, as Frederic II. did in 1235—“Idem erit laicus propter sententias sanguinum quas clerico scribere non liceat, et prÆterea ut si dilinquid in officio suo pena debita puniatur” (Nove Constitutiones Dom. Alberti, p. 46).

205 Actor quod adseverat, probare se non posse profitendo, reum necessitate monstrandi contrarium non adstringit: cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit (Const. xxiii. C. de Probat. IV. 19).—Cum inter eum, qui factum adseverans, onis subiit probationis, et negantem numerationem, cujus naturali ratione probatio nulla est ... magna sit differentia (Const. x.C. de non numerat. IV. 30). It is a little curious to see how completely this was opposed to the principle of the early Common Law of England, by which in actions for debt “semper incumbit probatio neganti” (Fleta, Lib. II. cap. lxiii. § 11).

206 La cosa que non es non se puede probar nin mostrar segunt natura.—Las Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xiv. l.1.

207 Though absent from the general laws of Spain, yet compurgation had been introduced as an occasional custom. We have seen it above (p. 49) in the Fuero de BalbÁs in 1135. The Fuero of Madrid in 1202 provides that a man suspected of homicide and other crimes, in the absence of testimony, can clear himself with six or twelve conjurators, according to the grade of the offence (Mem. de la Real. Acad. de la Historia, 1852). We shall see hereafter that it appears in the Fuero Viejo of Castile in 1356. The passage from the Romancero del Cid, quoted above, shows the hold it had on the popular imagination.

208 Olim, II. 153, 237.

209 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. p. cccvii. (Paris, 1863).

210 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. p. 382.

211 Statuunt ... se manu centesima nobilium se purgare, et ad huic benedicto juveni bis septem librarum milia pro sui rancoris satisfactione prÆsentare.—Wilelmi Egmond. Chron.

212 Is qui reus putatur tertia manu se purgabit, inter quos sint duo qui dicentur denominati.—Du Cange s.v. Juramentum.

213 Et li deffendans, sour qui on a clamet se doit deffendre par lui tierche main, se chou est hom II. hommes et lui, se chou est fame II. femmes et li À tierche.... “Tel sierment que Jehans chi jura boin sierment y jura au mien ensiant. Si m’ait Dius et chist Saint.”—Roisin, Franchises, etc. de la Ville de Lille, pp. 30, 35.

214 Ibid. p. 51. The system was abrogated by a municipal ordinance of September, 1351, in accordance with a special ordonnance to that effect issued by King John of France in March, 1350.

The royal ordonnance declares that the oath was “en langage estraigne et de mos divers et non de legier a retenir ou prononchier,” and yet that if either party “par quelconques maniere faloit en fourme ou en langage ou que par fragilite de langhe, huirans eu, se parolle faulsist ou oubvliast, ou eslevast se main plus que li dite maniere acoustumee en requeroit ou quelle ne tenist fermement sen poch en se paulme ou ne wardast et maintenist pluiseurs autres frivoles et vaines chozes et manieres appartenans au dit sierment, selonc le loy de la dite ville, tant em parole comme en fait, il avoit du tout sa cause perdue, ne depuis nestoit rechus sur che li demanderes a claim ou complainte, ne li deffenderes a deffensce.”—Ibid. p. 390.

215 Anc. Coutume de Normandie, chap. lxxxv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 53-4).

216 Recherches de la France, Liv. IV. chap. iii. Concerning the date of this, see La Croix du Maine, s.v. Estienne Pasquier.

217 Fors et Cost. de BÉarn, Rubr. de Juramentz (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 1082).

218 Lo jurament deu seguidor se fÉ Juran per aquetz sanctz bertat ditz exi que io crey.

219 E si gelo negare e non gelo quisier probar, devel’ facer salvo con once Fijosdalgo e Èl doceno, que non lo fiÇo (Fuero Viejo de Castiella, Lib. I. Tit. v.1. 12). It will be observed that this is an unqualified recognition of the system of negative proofs.

220 Du Cange, s.v. Juramentum.

221 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xxiv.; cccix. § 4; cccxxix. §§ 2, 3; cccxxxix. § 3 (Edit. Schilteri).

222 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I.c. 63.

223 Sachsische Weichbild, art. 71, 72, 86, 40, 88.

224 Goldast. Constitt. Imp. III. 446.

225 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, V. 221.

226 Sique accusatus tanta ac tam gravi suspitione laboraret ut aliorum quoque purgatione necesse esset, in arbitratu stet judicis, si illi eam velit injungere, nec ne, qui nimirum compurgatores jurabunt, se credere quod ille illive qui se per juramentum excusarunt, recte vereque juraverint.—Constit. de Pace Publica cap. xv. § 1 (Goldast. Constitt. Imp. I. 541).

227 Damhouder, Rerum Criminalium Praxis cap. xliv. No. 6 (Antwerp, 1601).

228 Statut. Davidis II. cap. i. § 6.

229 Jarnsida, Mannhelge & Thiofa-Balkr passim; Erfthatal cap. xxiv.; Landabrigtha-Balkr cap. xxviii.; Kaupa-Balkr cap. v., ix., etc.

230 See Sporon & Finsen, Dissert. de Usu Juramenti juxta Leges DaniÆ Antiquas, Havniae, 1815-17, P.I. pp. 160-1, P. II. pp. 206-8.

231 Christiani V. Jur. Danic. Lib. i.c. xiv. § 8.

232 Poteritque se tunc purgare cui crimen imponitur juramento XVIII. virorum.—Raguald. Ingermund. Leg. Suecorum Lib. i.c. xvi.

233 Legg. Civil. Gustavi Adolphi Tit. X.

234 Caroli XI. Judicum RegulÆ, cap. xxxii.

235 Ludewig. Reliq. MSS. T. VII. p. 401.

236 Herb. de Fulstin Statut. Reg. PoloniÆ, Samoscii, 1597, pp. 186-88, 465.

By the customs of Iglau, about the middle of the thirteenth century, a man could rebut with two conjurators a charge of assault with serious mutilation, and was subject to a fine of fourteen marks if he failed; accusations of complicity required only the oath of the accused.—Statuta PrimÆva MoraviÆ, BrunÆ, 1781, pp. 103-4.

237 Bassani de Sacchi Jura Regni CroatiÆ, DalmatiÆ et SclavoniÆ. ZagrabiÆ, 1862, Pt. I.p. 182.

238 Et sic major prÆsumptio vincit minorem. Si autem querens probationem habuerit, sicut instrumenta et chartas sigillatas, contra hujusmodi probationes non erit defensio per legem. Sed si instrumento contradicatur, fides instrumenti probabitur per patriam et per testes. Bracton, Lib. IV. Tract. vi. cap. 18, § 6.

The word “secta” is a troublesome one to legal antiquarians from its diverse significations. As used in the above text it means the supporters of the plaintiff’s case. Elsewhere we find it denoting the hue and cry, which all men were bound to follow; see Stubb’s Select Charters, pp. 256, 366, etc. “Facere sectam” also seems to have the sense of holding court (Ib. p. 303), whence it also derives a secondary meaning of jurisdiction (Baildon, Select Civil Pleas, I. 42).

239 Fleta, Lib. II. c. lxiii. § 10. Sed si sectam [actor] produxerit, hoc est testimonium hominum legalium qui contractui inter eos habito interfuerint prÆesentes, qui a judice examinati si concordes inveniantur, tunc poterit [reus] vadiare legem suam contra petentem et contra sectam suam prolatam; ut si duos vel tres testes produxerit [actor] ad probandum, oportet quod defensio fiat per quatuor vel per sex; ita quod pro quolibet teste duos producat jurat [ores] usque ad xii.

240 38 Edw. III. St. I. cap. v. (Statutes at Large I. 319. Ed. 1769).

241 27 Eliz. cap. xix. § I.

242 Jacob’s Review of the Statutes, 2d Ed. London, 1715, p. 532.

243 I owe a portion of these references to a paper in the London “Jurist” for March, 1827, the writer of which instances the wager of law as an evidence of “that jealous affection and filial reverence which have converted our code into a species of museum of antiques and legal curiosities.”

244 Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 2d ed., p. 758.

245 I owe a transcript of these records to the kindness of the late General J. H. Lefroy, then Governor of Bermuda. The quaintness of the proceedings may justify the printing of the sentences.

Nov. Assizes, 1638.—“Arthur Thorne being presented by the minister and church wardens of Pembroke tribe [parish] upon suspition of incontinency with Elizabeth Jenour the wyfe of Mr. Anthony Jenour, was censured [sentenced] in case he could not purge himself to doe open penaunce in two churches.” He probably failed in his purgation, for Mrs. Jenour confessed her sin in open court and was referred to her minister for penance.

June Assizes, 1639. “The minister, church wardens, and sydesmen of Sandy’s Tribe doe present Mary Eldrington, the wyfe of Roger Eldrington, upon suspition of incontinency grounded on comon fame: upon which presentment she was censured to doe open penaunce in the church in case she could not purge herselfe by the oath of 3 women of credit in the Tribe.”

“Edward Bowly, presented upon suspition of incontinency with Anne, a negro woman, supposed to be the father of her bastard child, was put to his compurgators, and did thereupon purge himself, and the negro woman censured to receave 21 lashes at the whipping-post, which was executed upon her.”

“Edward Wolsey and Dorathie Penniston were presented upon common fame for suspition of incontinencie by the grand inquest, and also presented by the minister and churchwardens of Pembroke Tribe upon the like suspition, whereupon they were sentenced to doe penaunce in the church, standing in a whyte sheete during divine service, making confession of that their suspitious walking in case they could not purge themselves by their owne oathes and two sufficient compurgators.”

246 Cooper’s Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Columbia, 1837, II. 403.

247 Kilty’s Report on English Statutes, Annapolis, 1811, p. 140.

248 Ego talis juro ... me firmiter credere quod talis non fuit Insabbatus, Valdensis, vel pauperum de Lugduno ... et credo firmiter eum in hoc jurasse verum.—Doctrina de modo procedendi contra HÆreticos (Martene, Thesaur. T.V. p. 1801).—This is the same as the form prescribed by the Council of Tarragona in 1242, where we learn, moreover, that the number of compurgators was prescribed by the inquisitor in each case (Aguirre, Concil. Hispan. IV. 193).

249 Conc. Lateran. IV. can. iii.—Decret. Gregor. P.P. IX. (Harduin. VII. 163).

250 Hartzheim Conc. Germ. III. 542-50.—Alberic. Trium Font. ann. 1233-4.—Gest. Treviror. c. 175.

251 Jacob. SimancÆ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. lvi. No. 3, 4 (RomÆ, 1575).

252 SimancÆ, loc. cit. No. 31.—Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo, p. 318 b (Madrid, 1600).—Both of these authorities stigmatize it as “fragilis et periculosa, cÆca et fallax.”

253 SimancÆ, loc. cit. No. 12.

254 SimancÆ, loc. cit. No 17.

255 Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, I. 87.

256 Reformator. Constant. Decretal. Lib. V. Tit. ii. cap. 1, 3 (Von der Hardt, Tom. I.P. XII. pp. 739, 742).

257 Angeli de Clavasio Summa angelica, s.v. Purgatio.

258 BaptistÆ de Saulis Summa rosella, s.v. Purgatio.

259 Institut. Jur. Canon. Lib. IV. Tit. ii. § 2.—Cf. Concil. Tarraconens. ann. 1591, Lib. IV. Tit. xiv. (Aguirre, VI. 322).

260 P. Grillandi Tract. de Sortileg. Qu. 6, No. 14; Qu. 3, No. 36.—Decret. II. caus. xxx. q. 1, can. 2.—C. 7 Extra, Lib. IV. Tit. xv.

261 Du Cange, loc. cit.

262 Burnet, Reformation, Vol. II. p. 199 (Ed. 1681).

263 Tit. LXXIV. of Herold’s text; Cap. Extravagant. No. XVIII. of Pardessus.

264 L. Baioar. Tit. XVI. cap. i. § 2.

265 Pactus pro Tenore Pacis, § 2, cf. § 5 (Baluze).

266 Decreti Childeberti c. vii. (Baluze). This provision was not merely temporary. It is preserved in the Capitularies (Lib. VII. c. 257), whence it was carried into the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres in the twelfth century (Decr. P. xiii. c. 6; P. xvi. c. 358).

267 Capit. Car. Mag. VI. ann. 806, c. xxiii. (Concil. Roman. Silvestri PP. I.).

268 E li apelur jurra sur lui par VII. humes numez, sei siste main, que pur haur nel fait ne pur auter chose, si pur sun dreit nun purchacer.—Ll. Guillel. I. cap. xiv.

269 Omnis tihla tractetur antejuramento plano vel observato.—Ll. Henrici I. Tit. lxiv. § 1. Anlejuramentum a compellante habeatur, et alter se sexto decime sue purgetur; sicut accusator precesserit.—Ibid. Tit. lxvi. § 8.

270 Prof. J.B. Thayer in Harvard Law Review, Vol. V. pp. 47-51.

271 C. Tribur. ann. 895 c. xxii.

272 For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxxviii. art. 63.

273 Bracton. Lib. IV. Tract. vi. cap. 18, § 6.

274 Statuta Susatensia, No. 10 (HÆberlin, Analecta Medii Ævi, p. 509).—The same provision is preserved in a later recension of the laws of Soest, dating apparently from the middle of the thirteenth century (Op. cit. p. 520).

275 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cccix. § 4 (Ed. Schilter).—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. art. 88.—Sachsische Weichb. art. 115.

276 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cccxcviii. §§ 19, 20.

277 Du Cange sub voce.

278 Legg. Scan. Provin. Lib. V. c. 57 (Ed. Thorsen, p. 140).

279 Ideo manus libro imponimus sacro, quod audivimus (crimen rumore sparsum), at nobis ignotum est verum sit nec ne.—Jarnsida, Mannhelge, cap. xxiv.

280 Rabanis, Revue Hist. de Droit, 1861, p. 511.

281 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, II. 595.

282 Freher. de Secret. Judic. cap. xvii, § 26.

283 Anc. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. VIII. art. 168.

284 Thus, as late as the thirteenth century, the municipal law of Southern Germany, in prescribing the duel for cases destitute of testimony, says with a naÏve impiety: “Hoc ideo statutum est, quod causa hÆc nemini cognita est quam Deo, cujus est eandem juste decidere.” Early in the sixteenth century the pious Aventinus regretfully looks back upon the time when princes and priests, assembled to witness the combat, “divinam opem implorabant, beneficia memoriter commemorabant quÆ in simili negotio Deus immortalis Christus servator noster ipsis pro sua benignitate atque clementia contulisset ... comprecabantur ut summa potestas in re prÆsenti, pollicita re, hactenus semper factitasset, comprobaret” (Aventini Annal. Baior. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. n. 28). Even as late as 1617, August Viescher, in an elaborate treatise on the judicial duel, expressed the same reliance on the divine interposition: “Dei enim hoc judicium dicitur, soli Deo causa terminanda committitur, Deo igitur authore singulare hoc certamen suscipiendum, ut justo judicio adjutor sit, omnisque spes ad solam summÆ providentiam Trinitatis referenda est” (Viescher Tract. Juris Duellici Universi, p. 109). This work is a most curious anachronism. Viescher was a learned jurisconsult who endeavored to revive the judicial duel in the seventeenth century by writing a treatise of 700 pages on its principles and practice. He exhibits the wide range of his studies by citations from no less than six hundred and seventy-one authors, and manages to convey an incredibly small amount of information on the subject. Ephraim Gerhardt, moreover, taxes him with wholesale plagiarism from Michael Beuther’s Disputatio de duello (Strassburg, 1609) and with false citations of authorities.—Eph. Gerhardi Tract. de Judicio Duellico, prÆfat.

285 L. Baioar. Tit. XIV. c.i. § 2.

286 Rymer, Foedera, V. 198-200.

287 Ayeen Akbery, II. 324.

288 The early edicts directed against the duel proper (Ordonn. Charles IX., an. 1566; Henri IV., an. 1602—in Fontanon I. 665) refer exclusively to the noblesse, and to those entitled to bear arms, as addicted to the practice, while the judicial combat, as we shall see, was open to all ranks, and was enforced indiscriminately upon all.

289 Chron. Domin. de Arkel (MatthÆi Analect. VIII. 296). In 1336 a judicial duel was fought in Bavaria to decide a similar question—the right of two nobles to a coat of arms.—WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge zur Geschichte des Kampfrechtes in Bayern, MÜnchen, 1877, p. 14.

290 Rymer, Foedera, II. 226-9, 230-4, 239-40, 242-3.—LÜnig. Cod. Ital. Diplom. II. 986.

291 Ramon Muntaner, cap. lxxi. See also Pedro’s own brief account of the matter in a letter of June 20, 1283, to his nephew, the Infante Juan of Castile.—Memorial HistÓrico EspaÑol, 1851, T. II. p. 99.

292 “Sub speculatoris supremi judicio terminatum.”—Rymer, Foed. VII. 407.

293 Du Bellay, MÉmoires, Liv. III.—The letters are given by Juan de ValdÉs in the DiÁlogo de Mercurio i Caron (Dos DiÁlogos, pp. 243, 247, 287.—Reformistas antiguos EspaÑoles).

294 An outlying fragment of the same belief is to be seen in the ancient Japanese practice of deciding knotty questions by the judicial duel (Griffis’s Mikado’s Empire, New York, 1876, p. 92). Even the most savage of existing races, the aborigines of Australia, have a kind of duel under certain rules by which private controversies are settled, and among the Melanesians the custom prevails, champions even being sometimes employed (Patetta, Le Ordalie, Torino, 1890, pp. 55, 60).

295 Iliad. III. 277-323.

296 Nicholaus Damascenus (Didot Frag. Hist. GrÆcor. III. 457).

297 Liv. XXVII. 21.

298 Senchus Mor, I. 251.

299 Synod. S. Patricii ann. 456, c.8.

300 Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xiii. § 4 (Owen II. 623).

301 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 156.

302 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 224; Patetta, pp. 158 sqq.; Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic. Duellico, c. ii. § 12.

303 Saxon. Grammat. Hist. Dan. Lib. V.

304 Islands Landnamabok, III. vii.; V. xii. xiii. See also II. vi. and xiii.

305 Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Translation, p. 245-7.

306 Tacit. de Mor. Germ. X. Du Cange refers to a passage of Paterculus as proving the existence of the judicial duel among the Germans (Lib. II. cap. 118), but it seems to me only to refer to the law of the strongest.

307 Si tamen non potuerit adprobare ... et postea, si ausus fuerit, pugnet.—Leyden MS.—Capit. Extravagant. No. xxviii. of Pardessus.

308 Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. VII. c. xiv.; Lib. X. c.x.—Aimoini Lib. IV. c. ii.

309 Aimoini Lib. IV. cap. X.

310 Quia absurdum et impossible videtur esse ut tam grandis causa sub uno scuto per pugnam dirimatur.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. §§ 1, 2, 3.

311 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. xxxv. §§ 4, 5.

312 Gravis causa nobis esse comparuit, ut sub uno scuto, per unam pugnam, omnem suam substantiam homo amittat.... Quia incerti sumus de judicio Dei, et multos audivimus per pugnam sine justitia causam suam perdere. Sed propter consuetudinem gentis nostrÆ Longobardorum legem impiam vetare non possumus (L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 23). Muratori states that the older MSS. read “legem istam,” in place of “impiam,” as given in the printed texts, which would somewhat weaken the force of Liutprand’s condemnation.

313 L. Anglior. et Werinor. Tit. I. cap. 3; Tit. XV.—L. Saxon. Tit. XV.—L. Frision. Tit. V. c.i.; Tit. XI. c.3.

314 In Horne’s Myrror of Justice (cap. II. sect. 13), a work which is supposed to date from the reign of Edward II., there is a form of appeal of treachery “qui fuit trovÉ en vielx rosles del temps du Roy Alfred,” in which the appellant offers to prove the truth of his charge with his body; but no confidence can be placed in the accuracy of the old lawyer. Some antiquarians have been inclined to assume that the duel was practised among the Anglo-Saxons, but the statement in the text is confirmed by the authority of Mr. Pike (Hist. of Crime in England, I. 448), whose exhaustive researches into the original sources of English jurisprudence render his decision virtually final.

In the Saga of Olaf Tryggvesson it is related that he was chosen by an English queen named Gyda for her husband, to the great displeasure of Alfin a previous pretender to her hand, who challenged him thereupon, because “It was then the custom in England, if two strove for anything, to settle the matter by single combat” (Laing’s Heimskringla, I. 400). Snorro Sturleson, however, can hardly be regarded as of much authority on a point like this; and as Gyda is represented as daughter of a king of Dublin, the incident, if it occurred at all, may have taken place in Ireland.

315 A charter issued by William, which appears to date early in his reign, gives the widest latitude to the duel both for his French and Saxon subjects (L. Guillelmi Conquest. II. §§ 1, 2, 3. Thorpe, I. 488). Another law, however, enabled a Norman defendant to decline the combat when a Saxon was appellant. “Si Francigena appellaverit Anglum ... Anglus se defendat per quod melius voluerit, aut judicio ferri, aut duello.... Si autem Anglus Francigenam appellaverit et probare voluerit, judicio aut duello, volo tunc Francigenam purgare se sacramento non fracto” (Ibid. III. § 12. Thorpe, I. 493). Such immunity seems a singular privilege for the generous Norman blood.

316 Cassiodor. Variar. Lib. III. Epist. xxiii., xxiv.

317 An Epistle from Theodoric to the Gaulish provinces, which he had just added to his empire, congratulates them on their return to Roman laws and usages, which he orders them to adopt without delay. Its whole tenor shows his thorough appreciation of the superiority of the Imperial codes to the customs of the barbarians, and his anxiety for settled principles of jurisprudence (Cassiodor. Variar. Lib. III. Epist. xvii.).

318 Ermold. Nigell. de Reb. Gest. Ludov. Pii Lib. III.—Astron. Vit. Ludov. Pii cap. xxxiii.—Marca Hispanica, Lib. III. c. 21.

319 Even as late as the middle of the thirteenth century St. Ramon de PeÑafort thus defines it—“Duellum est singularis pugna inter aliquos ad probationem veritatis, ita videlicet ut qui vicerit probasse intelligitur; et dicitur duellum quasi duorum bellum. Dicitur etiam vulgo in pluribus partibus judicium, eo quod ibi Dei judicium expectatur.”—S. Raymondi SummÆ Lib. II. Tit. iii.

320 L. Burgund. Tit. xlv.—The remedy, however, would seem to have proved insufficient, for a subsequent enactment provides an enormous fine (300 solidi) to be levied on the witnesses of a losing party, by way of making them share in the punishment, “Quo facilius in posterum ne quis audeat propria pravitate mentire.”—L. Burgund. Tit. lxxx. § 2. The position of a witness in those unceremonious days was indeed an unenviable one.

321 Capit. Car. Mag. ex Lege Longobard. c. xxxiv. (Baluze).

322 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. iv. $ 34.

323 Lib. adversus Legem Gundobadi cap. x.

324 L. Frision. Tit. xiv. § 4.

325 Goldast. Antiq. Alaman. chart. lxxxv.

326 L. Baioar. Tit. XVI. cap. i. § 2.

327 Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, cap. xv.

328 L. Baioar. Tit. XVI. c.5.

329 Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxi. § 58.—In the contemporary Italian law, however, there was some limitation on the facility of challenging witnesses—“Ita demum inter contrarios testes fit pugna, si ipsi inter se imponant nam pars testibus non potest pugnam imponere nisi velint.”—Odofredi Summa de Pugna, c.i. (Patetta, p. 483).

330 Lib. Pract. de Consuetud. Remens. §§ 14, 40 (Archives LÉgislat. de Reims, Pt. I. pp. 37, 40).

331 Bracton de Legibus Angl. Lib. III. Tract. II. cap. xxxvii. § 5.—Fleta, Lib. I. cap. xxii.

332 Thus in a case in 1220 involving a stolen mare, the accused gave a warrantor, and on the accuser challenging him to battle he gave a second warrantor. On investigation he was found to have received five marks for the service with a promise of five more, and he was mercifully treated by being condemned only to the loss of a foot—“Sciendum quod misericorditer agitur cum eo per consilium domini regis cum majorem poenam de jure demeruisset.”—Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown, I. 127.

333 Beaumanoir, chap. vi. § 16.

334 Beaumanoir, ch. xxxix. §§ 30, 31, 66.—Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 169. A somewhat similar principle is in force in the modern jurisprudence of China. Women, persons over eighty or under ten years of age, and cripples who have lost an eye or a limb are entitled to buy themselves off from punishment, except in a few cases of aggravated crime. They are, therefore, not allowed to appear as accusers, because they are enabled by this privilege to escape the penalties of false witness.—Staunton, Penal Code of China, Sects. 20-22, and 339. In the ancient Brahmanic law also there is a long enumeration of persons who are not receivable as witnesses, including women, children, and men over eighty years of age. In this, however, the exclusion of women would appear to be because they were presumably under tutelage.—Institutes of Vishnu, VIII. 2.

The exclusion of women as witnesses during the mediÆval period was also one of the numerous disabilities by which the Church expressed its contempt for the sex which had tempted Adam to his fall. As early as the fourth century Hilary the Deacon, in a tract which long passed current under the name of St. Augustin, says: “Nec docere enim potest, nec testis esse, neque fidem dicere, neque judicare” (Hilari Diac. QuÆstt. ex Vet. Testamento, c. xlv.—Migne, T. XXX. p. 2244). And this was carried through Ivo of Chartres (Decreti, P. VIII. c. 85) into the body of the canon law (Gratiani Decr. Caus. XXXIII. Q.v. cap. 17).

335 The earliest of these charters is a grant from Louis le Gros in 1109 to the serfs of the church of Paris, confirmed by Pope Pascal II. in 1113 (Baluz. et Mansi III. 12, 62). D’Achery (Spicileg. III. 481) gives another from the same monarch in 1128 to the church of Chartres.

336 Beaumanoir, chap. lxi. § 59.

337 Ibid. chap. lxi. § 57.

338 Ibid. chap. xl. § 21.

339 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. lxviii. § 6.

340 “Curia ... tenetur tamen judicium suum tueri per duellum.... Sed utrum curia ipsa teneatur per aliquem de curia se defendere, vel per alium extraneum hoc fieri possit, quero” (De Leg. AngliÆ Lib. VIII. cap. ix.). The result of a reversal of judgment must probably have been a heavy fine and deprivation of the judicial function, such being the penalty provided for injustice in the laws of Henry I.—“Qui injuste judicabit, cxx sol. reus sit et dignitatem judicandi perdat” (L. Henrici I. Tit. xiii. § 4)—which accords nearly with the French practice in the time of Beaumanoir.

341 Cited by Marnier in his edition of Pierre de Fontaines.

342 Car poi profiteroient les costumes el paÏs, s’il s’en covenoit combatre; ne dÉpecier ne les puet-om par bataille.—Édition Marnier, chap. XXII. Tit. xxxii.

343 Chap. XXII. Tit. i. vi. viii. x. xxvii. xxxi.—“Et certes en fausement ne gist ne vie ne menbre de cels qui sont fausÉ, en quelconques point que li fausemenz soit faiz, et quele que la querele soit” (Ibid. Tit. xix.). If the judge was accused of bribery, however, and was defeated, he was liable to confiscation and banishment (Tit. xxvi.). The increasing severity meted out to careless, ignorant, or corrupt judges manifests the powerful influence of the Roman law, which, aided by the active efforts of legists, was infiltrating the customary jurisprudence and altering its character everywhere. Thus de Fontaines quotes with approbation the Code, De poena judicis (Lib. VII. Tit. xlix. l. 1) as a thing more to be desired than expected, while in Beaumanoir we already find its provisions rather exceeded than otherwise.

344 De Fontaines, chap. XXII. Tit. iii.

345 Ibid. chap. XXII. Tit. xxiii.—Et ce fu li premiers dont je oÏsse onques parler qui fust rapelez en Vermendois sanz bataille.

346 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxi. §§ 36, 45, 47, 50, 62.—It should be borne in mind, however, that Beaumanoir was a royal bailli, and the difference between the “assise de bailli” and the “assises de chevaliers” is well pointed out by Beugnot (Les Olim, T. II. pp. xxx. xxxi.). Beaumanoir in many cases evidently describes the law as he would wish it to be.

347 Et pour ce ne l’en puËt fausser, car l’en ne trouveroit mie qui droit en feist car li rois ne tient de nului fors de Dieu et de luy.—Établissements, Liv. I. chap. lxxviii.

348 Conseil, ch. XXII. tit. xxi.

349 Si contingat ut de justitia sententiÆ pugnandum sit, illa pugna debet institui coram rege (Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xcix. § 5—Ed. Schilt.). In a French version of this code, made probably towards the close of the fourteenth century, the purport of this passage is entirely changed. “De chascun iugemant ne puet lan trover leaul ne certain consoil si bien come per le consoil de sages de la cort le roi.”—Miroir de Souabe, P.I. c. cxiii. (Ed. Matile, Neufchatel, 1843). We may hence conclude that by this period the custom of armed appeal was disused, and the extension of the royal jurisdiction was established.

350 Jur. Provin. Saxon. I. 18; II. 12.—This has been questioned by modern critics, but there seems to be no good reason for doubting its authority. The whole formula for the proceeding is given in the Richstich Landrecht (cap. 41), a manual of procedure of the fourteenth century, adapted to the Saxon code.

351 Richstich Lehnrecht, cap. xxvii.

352 Carol. Mag. Chart. Divisionis ann. 806 cap. xiv.

353 Liutprandi Antapodos, Lib. III. cap. 46.

354 De Pressuris Eccles. Pt. II. This was written about 945.

355 Dithmari Chron. Lib. II. ann. 950.

356 Widukind. Rer. Saxon. Lib. II. cap. x.—The honest chronicler considers that it would have been discourteous to the nobility to treat questions relating to them in a plebeian manner. “Rex autem meliori consilio usus, noluit viros nobiles ac senes populi inhoneste tractari, sed magis rem inter gladiatores discerni jussit.” In both these cases Otho may be said to have had ancient custom in his favor. See L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. xii. § 2.—L. Alamann. cap. LVI., LXXXIV.; Addit. cap. XXII.

357 Liutprandi Hist. Otton. cap. vii.

358 Liutprandi Legat. cap. vi.

359 Benedict. Abbat. Gesta Henrici II. p. 139 (M. R. Series).

360 Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1056.

361 Conquest. Ludov. in Synod. Ingilheim. ann. 948.

362 S. Mathild. Regin. Vit. c. I.

363 Wipponis vit. Chunradi Salici.

364 “Nos belli dono ditat rex maximus Otto.”

365 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 38.

366 Ibid. § 34.

367 Si non audeat, res suÆ infiscentur.—Convent. Papiens. ann. 971.

368 Qui vero infra treugam, post datum osculum pacis, alium hominem interfecerit, et negare voluerit, pugnam pro se faciat.—L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit ix. § 38.

369 Roderici Toletani de Reb. Hispan. VI. xxvi. This story has been called in question by orthodox writers for the reason that Archbishop Roderic, who flourished in the middle of the thirteenth century, is the only authority for it, but there is nothing in the manners of the age to render it incredible, and he mentions that the champion of the Mozarabic rite came from Matanza near the Pisuerga, and that his family still existed.

In 1121, when the Queen-regent Urraca was at Compostella, one of her courtiers informed a gentleman of the Archbishop Diego Gelmirez, that she was plotting to seize him, whereupon he surrounded himself with a guard. This attracted attention and led to discussion in which the archbishop’s retainer gave the name of his informant. The latter denied the statement and Urraca, as a matter of course, ordered the duel between them, in which her courtier was defeated and was punished with blinding.—Historia Compostellana, Lib. II. c. xxix. (Florez, EspaÑa Sagrada, T. XX. p. 312).

370 Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1070, 1073, 1074.—Conrad. Ursperg. ann. 1071.—Bruno de Bello Saxonico.

371 Conrad. Ursperg. ann. 1175.

372 Dithmari Chron. Lib. V.

373 From the time of Henry I., the office of king’s champion was one of honor and dignity. See Spelman’s Glossary.

374 Constit. Frid. II. ann. 1245 cap. 9 (Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 303).

375 For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxvi.

376 Dithmari Chron. Lib. VII. c. 36, 37.—“Ibi tunc multi latrones a gladiatoribus in singulari certamine devicti suspendio perierunt.”

377 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 37, § 5.

378 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 33, § 2; 34, § 2.

379 Dreyer, Anmerckung von den ehemaligen Quellgesetzen, p. 156.

380 Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita sua, Lib. III. cap. xvi.—Hermann. de Mirac. S. MariÆ Laudun. Lib. III. cap. 28.—Forsitan, ut multi putarunt, pro fidei violatÆ reatu, qua promiserat fidem Anselmo, quod eum non detegeret.

381 Und diser vor Got schuldig, und vor den luten nit (Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccxix. § 8). This is a provision for cases in which a thief accuses a receiver of having suggested and assisted in the crime. The parties are made to fight, when, if the receiver is worsted, both are hanged; if the thief, he alone, and the receiver escapes though criminal. The French version enlarges somewhat on the principle involved: “Se il puet vancre lautre il est quites et li autre sera panduz, et sera an colpe anver lo munde et anver dex andui: ce avient a assez de genz, que aucons sunt an colpe anver dex et ne mie anver le seigle” (Miroir de Souabe, P. II. c. vi.).

382 Innoc. PP. III. Regest. VI. 26 (c. 2 Extra, V. 35)—“Duellum in quo aliis peccatis suis prÆpedientibus, ceciderunt.”

383 Chron. Jocelini de Brakelonda (Ed. Camden Soc. pp. 50-2).

384 Isdem quoque Milo ... monomachi certaturus pugna, attribuit sancto Petro terram quam habebat in Luco, prope atrium ecclesiÆ, quo sibi adjutor in disposito bello existerit.—Chron. Besuense, Chart. de Luco.

385 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. III. c. xviii.

386 Ibid. Dist. IX. c. xlviii.

387 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 152.

388 Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, p. 487).—The oath prescribed in the Ordonnance of Philippe le Bel in 1306 is very elaborate—“Par les seremens que j’ay fais je n’entens pourter sur moy ne sur mon cheval paroles, pierres, herbes, charmes, charroiz, ne conjurations, invocations d’ennemis [demons] ne nulle autre chose ou j’aye esperance d’avoir ayde ne À luy nuire. Ne n’ay recours fors que À Dieu et À mon bon droit, par mon corps, par mon cheval et par mes armes. Et sur ce je baise ceste vraye croix et les saincts evangiles, et me tais.”—Isambert, Anc. Lois FranÇaises, II. 843.

389 Stow’s Annals, ann. 1571 (Ed. 1615, p. 669).

390 Ll. Frision. Tit. IX. § 3.

391 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxi. § 2; chap. xliii. § 6.

392 Ibid. chap. lxi. § 2; chap. xxxix. § 12.

393 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxiii. §§ 1, 2, 10.

394 Twenty-one years is the age mentioned by St. Louis as that at which a man was liable to be called upon to fight.—Établissements, Liv. I. chap. lxxiii., cxlii.

395 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxiii. §§ 11, 13, 18. The denier was the twelfth part of the solidus or sou.

396 Établissements, Liv. I. chap. clxvii.

397 In contemporary Italy the great jurist Roffredo gives a long enumeration of the cases in which the duel is admitted covering nearly the whole of the more serious criminal actions and a number of civil suits.—Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, pp. 480-4).

398 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxvi. §§ 13, 27; cap. clxxvii. (Ed. Schilt.).—Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. I. clxviii.

399 This rule was strictly laid down as early as the time of Frederic Barbarossa.—Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxvii. § 3.

400 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccclxxxvi. § 2 (Ed. Schilteri).—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. lxiii.—Sachsische Weichbild, xxxv. 6.

401 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccxcii. § 2.—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. c. xxvi. xxxiii.

402 Sed scias si de perpetrato homicidio agitur, probationem sine duello non procedere.—Richstich Landrecht, cap. xlix.

403 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccclxxxvi. §§ 28, 29 (Ed. Schilteri).—Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 64.—Sachsische Weichbild, art. lxxxvii. lxxxviii.

404 Sachsische Weichbild, lxxxi. If he accused more than the number of his wounds, they could defend themselves with six compurgators.

405 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxxii. § 20 (Ed Senckenberg).

406 Hinc pervenit dispositio de duello. Quod enim homines non vident Deo nihilominus notum est optime, unde in Deo confidere possumus, eum duellum secundum jus diremturum.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxviii. § 19 (Ed. Senckenberg).

In a formula of application for the duel, given by Hermann de Bare (De Formandis Libellis, 1535), there is no allusion to defect of evidence; it is a simple assertion of the guilt of the other side with a demand for the duel in case it is desired.—“Domine Judex, etc. Ego Petrus, etc. Quod Martinus hic prÆsens est falsus et proditor, qui perditionaliter rapuit mihi quendam equum pili mauri, stellatum in fronte, quod si ipse confiteatur peto ipsum condemnari super prÆdicta rapina ut raptorem. Si autem hoc neget ego per pugnam armis paribus sumtis a me et ab eo faciam eum confiteri palam per os suum in campo nobis per vos assignando, vel reddam eum victum vel mortuum in dicto campo. Et super dicta pugna pignus meum vel chyrothecas meas hic in medio in prÆsentia vestra offero et reddo, et promitto me juraturum in introitu campi per vos nobis ad certamen seu ad dictam pugnam assignandi quod ego non habeo herbas nec breves conjuratorias vel alia quÆ maleficia vel fascinationes pariant vel parturiant quoquo modo. Et quod tunc Martinus juret similiter illud. Item et peto per vos Dominum judicem si Martinus prÆdictam rapinam neget declarari et judicari pugnam posse et debere esse et fieri ex prÆdicta causa inter me et eum et ipsum sententialiter condemnari ad subeundam pugnam mecum ex prÆdicta causa ut super prÆdicta rapina possit per pugnam veritas inveniri.”—Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judicio duellico, cap. I, § 5 (Francof. 1735).

407 Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour, ch. ix. xi. xii; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi. vii. (Venise, 1876). This code, of which the existence has long been suspected, has recently been discovered in an Armenian version made by Sempad, the Constable of Armenia Minor, in 1265, for the use of his fellow countrymen. It has been published, with a French translation, by the Mehkitarist Society of St. Lazarus, and gives us the customary law of the Crusaders in an earlier form than the current texts of the Assises de Jerusalem.

408 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 18.—Fleta Lib. I. cap. xxxi. §§ 2, 3.

409 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 23, § 1.

410 Si autem uterque defaltam fecerit, et testatum sit quod concordati fuerunt, uterque capiatur, et ipsi et plegii sui in misericordia.—Ibid.

The custom with regard to this varied greatly according to local usage. Thus, a charter of the Count of Forez in 1270 concedes the right of avoiding battle, even at the last moment, by satisfying the adversary, and paying a fine of sixty sols.—Chart. Raynaldi Com. Forens. c. 4 (Bernard, Hist. du Forez, T.I. Preuves, p. 35). According to the customs of Lorris, in 1155, if a composition was effected after battle had been gaged and before security was given, each party paid a fine of two sous and a half. If after security was pledged, the fine was increased to seven sous and a half.—Chart. Ludov. Junior. ann. 1155, cap. xiv. (Isambert, Anciennes Lois FranÇaises, I. 155).

411 Fleta Lib. II. cap. xxi. § 2.

412 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 24 § 4.—“Hujusmodi vero dentes multum adjuvant ad devincendum.”—Olivier de la Marche tells us (TraitÉs sur le Duel, communicated to me by George Neilson, Esq.) that if the defendant had lost an eye the appellant must have one correspondingly bandaged. This device can scarce have been known in England, else it would have deprived Sir William Dalzell of the £200 forfeit adjudged to him by Richard II. when Sir Piers Courtenay refused to submit to the loss of an eye, to counterbalance that which Sir William had lost at Otterburn (Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 237).

413 Glanvil. Lib. XIV. cap. i.—Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 3 § 1.

414 Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxxix.

415 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 128.

416 For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxxviii. xxxix.

417 Marca, Hist. de BÉarn. p. 293 (Mazure et Hatoulet).

418 For de Morlaas, Rubr. iv.

419 De LagrÈze, Hist. du Droit dans les PyrÉnÉes, Paris, 1867, p. 68.

420 Libell. Catalan. MS. (Du Cange).

421 Meo arbitrio determinabo duellum, vel judicium judicabo.—Lib. Juris Civil. VeronÆ, cap. 78 (p. 63).

422 Statut. Montispess. ann. 1204 (Du Cange).

423 Établissements de Normandie, passim (Édition Marnier).

424 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 19 § 6, cf. cap. 23 § 2.

425 Ibid. cap. 20 § 5. Cf. Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown, Vol. i.p. 43.

426 Maitland, p. 48—“Utrum verum sit appellum vel athia” (hate).

427 WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge zur Geschichte des Kampfrechtes in Bayern, p.7.

428 L. Anglior. et. Werinor. Tit. XV. The variations in the coinage are so numerous and uncertain, that to express the values of the solidus or sou, at the different periods and among the different races enumerated, is virtually impossible. In general terms, it may be remarked that the Carlovingian solidus was the twentieth part of a pound of silver, and according to the researches of GuÉrard was equivalent in purchasing power to about thirty-six francs of modern money. The marc was half a pound of silver.

429 L. Baioar. Tit. VIII. cap. ii. § 5; cap. iii.

430 L. Longobard, Lib. ii. cap. lv. § 37.

431 L. Henrici I. cap. 59.

432 Isambert, Anciennes Lois FranÇaises, I. 162. This occurs in an edict abolishing sundry vicious customs of the town of Orleans. It was probably merely a local regulation, though it has been frequently cited as a general law.

433 Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. xvii. § 3, Tit. xxii. § 4, Tit. xxxviii. § 3. See also a coutumier of Anjou of the same period (Anciens Usages d’Anjou, § 32—Marnier, Paris, 1853).

The “Livre de Jostice et de Plet” was the production of an OrlÉannais, which may account for his affixing the limit prescribed by the edict of Louis le Jeune. The matter was evidently regulated by local custom, since, as we have already seen, his contemporary, Beaumanoir (cap. lxiii. § 11), names twelve deniers, or one sou, as the minimum.

434 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. cap. xxi. § 7 (Ludewig, Reliq. MSS. VII. 307). The judgment of God was frequently styled Lex apparens or paribilis.

435 Anc. Coutum. de Normandie, cap. 87 (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 55).

436 Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 149.—Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour. ch. ix.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi.

437 Laws of Huescar, by Don Jayme I. (Du Cange, s.v. Torna).

438 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. XXV. § 49.

439 Ibid. Lib. I. Tit. IX. § 38.

440 L. Frision. Tit. XI. cap. iii.

441 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. lxiii. § 1.—The consent of the master was necessary to authorize the risk of loss which he incurred by his serf venturing to engage in the duel. Thus, in a curious case which occurred in 1293, “idem Droetus corpus suum ad duellum in quo perire posset obligare non poterat sine nostra licentia speciali.”—Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 446.

442 Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. 13.—Tabul. Vindocinens. cap. 159 (Du Cange, s.v. adramire).

443 Assises de l’Echiquier de Normandie, p. 174 (Marnier).

444 LauriÈre, Table Chron. des Ordonnances, p. 105.

445 Beaumanoir, op. cit. cap. lxi. §§ 9, 10.—Établissements de S. Louis, Liv. I. chap. lxxxii.

446 Beaumanoir, cap. lxiv. § 3.

447 Conseil, ch. XXI. Tit. xiv.

448 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. No. 2269 A.p. 217.

449 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I.c. 50, 62. Lib. III. c. 29, 65.—Sachsische Weichbild xxxiii. xxxv. Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxv. §§ 14, 15 (Ed. Schilteri). According to some MSS. of the latter, however, this privilege of declining the challenge of an inferior was not allowed in cases of homicide.—“Ibi enim corpus corpori opponitur”—cap. liii. § 4 (Ed. Senckenberg). On the other hand, a constitution of Frederic Barbarossa, issued in 1168 and quoted above, forbids the duel in capital cases unless the adversaries are of equal birth.

TallhÖfer’s Kamp-recht lays down the rule unconditionally—“Item ist das ain man kempflich angesprochen wirt von ainem der nit als gut is als er, dem mag er mit recht ussgan ob er wil ... sprict aber der edler den mindern an zu kempfen so mag der der minder nich absyn.”—Dreyer, op. cit. p. 166.

450 Jur. Prov. Alamann. cap. cclviii. § 20. (Ed. Schilter.)—We have already seen that the converse of this rule was introduced in England, as regards questions between Frenchmen and Englishmen, by William the Conqueror.

451 Quia surien et greci in omnibus suis causis, prÆter quam in criminalibus excusantur a duello.—Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. 269.

452 Laws of Huescar, ann. 1247 (Du Cange s.v. Torna).

453 Las Siete Partidas, P. VII. Tit. iii. l.3.

454 Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xiv. § 1 (Owen II. 625).

455 Galberti Vit. Caroli Boni, cap. 2, n. 12.

456 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 48.

457 Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 266, 267.

458 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. lx. § 5.

459 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 42, 43.

460 Belitz de Duellis Germanorum, p. 9 (VitembergÆ, 1717).

461 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccxxix. § 2. This chapter is omitted in the French version of the Speculum Suevicum.

462 Ephr. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic. Duellico, cap. iii. § 7, et Mantissa.—Dreyer, Anmerckung von den Quellgesetzen, p. 160.—Meyer, Der Gerichtliche Zweikampf, 1873. Gerhardt gives from a MS. of the fifteenth century in the Grand-ducal Library of Saxe-Gotha a rude representation of the first stage of one of these combats, which is here reduced in facsimile. A MS. at WolfenbÜttel has a miniature virtually the same. In another representation of these combats, the antagonists are furnished with curved knives (WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge, p. 18).

Two men fighting

In many places, however, crimes which a man was forced to disprove by combat were subject to the ordeal of hot iron or water when the accused was a woman. Thus, by the Spanish law of the thirteenth century, “Muger ... salvese por fierro caliente; e si varon fuere legador ... salvese por lid”—Fuero de BaeÇa (Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo fol. 317a).

463 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 159.

464 Capit. Ludov. Pii I. ann. 819, cap. X.

465 Ughelli, T. II. p. 122 (Du Cange).

466 Addunt insuper, quoniam si aliquis militum sacerdotes Dei in crimine pulsaverit per pugnam sive singulari certamine esse decernendum.—De Pressuris Eccles.

467 Muratori Script. Rer. Ital. II. II. 499, 505.

468 Clericus ... si duellum sine episcopi licentia susceperit ... aut assultum fecerit, episcopis per pecuniam emendetur.—Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c.5.

469 Goffrid. Vindocinens. Lib. III. Epist. 39.

470 Du Cange.

471 Ut clerici non pugnent in duello, nec pro se pugiles introducent.—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig.—C. 1. Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xiv.

472 C.1. Extra, Lib. I. Tit. xx.

473 C.2. Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xiv.

474 Council. Lateran. IV. can. 18.

475 C. 22. Decret. caus. II. q.v.—Nicolai PP. I Epist. 148.

476 Atton. Vercell. De Pressuris Eccles. Pt. I.

477 Chart. S. Stephani (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. T.I. p. 384).

478 Chron. Piscariens. Lib. II. (D’Achery, II. 951).

479 Cartulaire de l’Église de Paris, I. 378.

480 The charter recording the suit and its results is given by Baluze and Mansi, Miscell. III. 59.

481 Ibid. p. 134.

482 C. 1 Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xxxv.

483 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, II. 187.

484 Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1176 (Ed. 1644, p. 92).

485 Neilson, Trial by Combat, pp. 122-7.

486 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. p. cccvii.

487 Contraria consuetudine non obstante.—Cart. de l’Église de Paris, II. 393-4.

488 Archives Administratives de Reims, T.I. p. 733.

489 Berger, Registres d’Innocent IV. n. 6184 (T. III. p. 148).

490 Harduin. Concil. VII. 384.

491 Compilat. V. Lib. V. Tit. vii. (Ed. Friedberg, p. 184). “Rem hactenus inauditam et tam juri scripto quam Æquitati contrariam.”

492 Fit pugna si ecclesia contra ecclesiam habet controversiam vel contra privatum et instrumentum dicatur falsum.—Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, p. 483).

493 Joh. Friburgens. SummÆ Confessorum Lib. II. Tit. iii. Q. 3, 5, 6.—Cf. Baptist. de Saulis Summam Rosellam s.v. Dispensatio, § 7.

494 Proost, LÉgislation des Jugements de Dieu, p. 19.

495 It is not easy to understand the remark of Olivier de la Marche, in the latter half of the fifteenth century (TraitÉs du Duel Judiciaire, p. 44, communicated to me by George Neilson, Esq.), warning judges that they cannot condemn clerks to the duel except in cases of lÈse majestÉ and those affecting the faith. At that time the faith was exclusively in the hands of the Inquisition, and the canons admit of no exception to clerical immunity in cases of treason. In both matters torture had long before proved itself vastly more efficient than the clumsy and doubtful ordeals.

496 Du Cange, s.v. Bellum.

497 Muratori, Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 39.—Among various other examples given by the same author is one of the year 1010, in which the court of the bishop of Aretino grants the combat to decide a case between a monastery and a layman.

498 Neilson, Trial by Combat, pp. 76, 81.

499 Ivon. Epist. cxlviii.

500 Ivon. Epist. ccxlvii.

501 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii.

502 Migne’s Patrologia, T. 188, p. 1287.

503 Baildon, Select Civil Pleas, I. 43.

504 Lib. Pract. de Consuetud. Remens, passim (Archives LÉgislatives de Reims).

505 Archives Adminst. de Reims, T.I. p. 822.

506 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. p. cccvii.

507 Cartulaire de l’Église de Paris, III. 433. After the first blows the parties could be separated on payment of a fine to the court, from the recipient of which the name is evidently derived. Apparently the good canons drew a distinction between awarding the duel and engaging in it, for we have already seen (p. 159) that twenty-four years before they had obtained from Innocent IV. a special privilege exempting them from the necessity of maintaining their rights by battle.

508 Cartulaire de l’Église de Paris, I. 234.

509 Ibid. I. 79-80.

510 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 437.

511 Les Olim, I. 24.

512 Actes du Parl. de Paris, T.I. No. 2122, C.p. 197.

513 Actes du Parl. de Paris, T.I. p. 446.

514 Du Cange, s.v. Arramiatio.

515 Les Olim, III. 679.

516 Voirs est que tuit li cas oÙ il pot avoir gages de bataille ou peril de perdre vie ou membre, doivent estre justiciÉ par le laie justice; ne ne s’en doit sainte Église meller.—Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. xi. art. 30.

517 See the Registre Criminel de la Justice de St. Martin-des-Champs (Paris, 1877).

518 Joh. Friburgens. SummÆ Confessorum Lib. II. Tit. iii. Q.5.

519 En la cort de la mer na point de bataille por prueve ne por demande de celuy veage.—Assises de Jerusalem, cap. xliii.

520 Pardessus, Us et Coutumes de la Mer.

521 Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. VII. Tit. iv. § 2.

522 According to Bracton, the appellant in criminal cases appears always obliged to swear to his own personal knowledge, visu ac auditu, of the crime alleged. This, however, was not the case elsewhere. Among the glossators on the Lombard law there were warm disputes as to the propriety, in certain cases, of forcing one of the contestants to commit perjury. The matter will be found treated at some length in Savigny’s Geschichte d. Rom. Recht. B. IV. pp. 159 sqq. Cf. Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, pp. 485-7).

The formula of the oath as given in the Fleta is as follows: The parties take each other by the hand and first the appellee swears, “Hoc audis, homo quem per manum teneo, qui A. te facis appellari per nomen baptismi tui, quod ego C. fratrem tuum, vel alium parentem vel dominum non occidi, vel plagam ei feci ullo genere armorum per quod remotior esse debuit a vita et morti propinquior; sic me Deus adjuvet et hÆc Sancta, etc.” Then the appellant responds: “Hoc audis homo quem per manum teneo, qui te R. facis appellari per nomen baptismi tui, quod tu es perjurus et ideo perjurus quia tali anno, tali die, tali hora et tali loco nequiter et in felonia occidisti C. fratrum meum tali genere armorum, unde obiit infra triduum; sic me Deus, etc.”—Lib. I. cap. xxxii. §§ 28, 29.—Bracton, Lib. III. Tract ii. c. 21, § 2.

In the German law the oath was simpler, but quite as absolute.—Jur. Prov. Saxon, Lib I. cap. lxii.—Sachsische Weichbild, xxxv. 8.

By the ordonnance of Philippe le Bel in 1306 each party was obliged to take three solemn oaths on relics before a priest, asserting his good cause in the most positive manner and his reliance on the judgment of God.—Isambert, Anc. Lois FranÇaises, II. 840.

523 Cod. Leg. Normann. P. I. c. lxiv. (Ludewig. Reliq. MSS. T. VII. p. 270).—Anc. Cout. de Normandie (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 29).

524 Leg. Alamann. Tit. 84.

525 Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, cap. x. A somewhat similar provision occurs in the L. Burgund. Tit. xlv. et lxxx.

526 L. Guillelmi Conquest. III. xii. (Thorpe, I. 493).—A previous law, however, had assessed a Norman appellant sixty sous when defeated (Ibid. II. ii.).

527 L. Henrici I. cap. lix. § 15.

528 Glanvil. de Leg. Angl. Lib. II. cap. iii.

529 Pipe Roll Society, I. 21; II. 31, 46, 59; III. 10.

530 Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown, I. 108.

531 Solement ceux vainqus sont quittes ou lour clients pur eux rendre aux combattants vanquishours 40 sous en nosme de recreantise et ruaille peur la bourse a mettre eins ses deniers oustre le jugement sur le principall.—Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. iii. sect. 23.

532 Formul. Vetus in L. Longobard. (Georgisch, p. 1276).

533 For d’Oloron, Art. 21.

534 Bracton, Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 18, § 4. In another passage, Bracton gives a reason for this clemency—“Si autem victus sit in campo ... quamvis ad gaolam mittendus sit, tamen sit ei aliquando gratia de misericordia, quia pugnat pro pace” (Ibid. cap. 21, § 7). See also the Fleta, Lib. I. cap. xxxii. § 32.

535 Étab. de Normandie, Tit. “De prandre fame À force” (Marnier).

536 Lib. Juris Civilis VeronÆ, cap. 78 (p. 63).

537 Odofredi Summa de Pugna c. xii. (Patetta, p. 491-2).

538 Qui calumniam illatam non probat, poenam debet incurrere quam si probasset reus utique sustineret.—C. 2 Decret. Caus. v.q. vi.

[539]

... ad poenas exigat Æquas,
Victus ut appellans sive appellatus, eadem
Lege ligaretur mutilari aut perdere vitam.
Moris enim extiterit apud illos hactenus, ut si
Appellans victus in causa sanguinis esset,
Sex solidos decies cum nummo solveret uno
Et sic impunis, amissa lege, maneret:
Quod si appellatum vinci contigeret, omni
Re privaretur et turpi morte periret.

Guillielmi Brito. Phillippidos Lib. VIII.

It will be observed that the pre-existing Norman custom here described is precisely that indicated above by Glanville.

540 E. g. Établissements Lib. I. cap. 27 and 91.—“Cil qui seroit vaincus seroit pendus” (cap. 82).

541 Beaumanoir, chap. lxiv. § 10.

542 Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour, ch. xi.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi. vii. See also Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 317.

543 Recta fides et Æquitas et jus armorum volunt ut appellans eandem incurrat poenam quam defendens, si is victus fuerit et subactus.—Formula Duelli, apud Spelman. Glossar. s.v. Campus.

544 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 63.—Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxvi. §§ 19, 20 (Ed. Schilter.).

545 Sachsische Weichbild, 82.—Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. clxviii. § 20; clxxii. § 18 (Ed. Senckenberg.).

546 Ibid. cap. ccxix. § 6 (Ed. Schilter.).

547 Chron. Cornel. Zantfliet ann. 1369 (Mart. Ampl. Coll. V. 293-4).

548 Chron. Augustan. (Pistor. III. 684, Ed. 1726).

549 Assis. Hierosol. Alta Corte cap. cv. (Canciani, V. 208).

550 WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge zur Geschichte des Kampfrechtes in Bayern, p.8.

551 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 63, 65.—Sachsische Weichbild, xxxv.—Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxvi. § 31 (Ed. Schilter.); cap. clxxviii. §§ 7, 8 (Ed. Senckenb.). See WÜrdinger, p. 11, for the solemn sentence placing the defaulter under the ban.

552 Proost, LÉgislation des Jugements de Dieu, pp. 18, 21.

553 For de Morlaas, Rubr. IV. art. 5.

554 Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. iv. sect. 13.—Pipe Roll Society, I. 65.

555 Schlegel Comment. ad GrÁgÁs § 31.—GrÁgÁs sect. VIII. cap. 105. A fanciful etymologist might trace to this custom the modern phrase of “posting a coward.”

556 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 128.

557 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxvi. § 32 (Ed. Schilter.); cap. clxxiii. § 13 (Ed. Senckenberg.).

558 Un Miracle de Notre-Dame d’Amis et d’Amille (MonmerquÉ et Michel, ThÉat. FranÇais au Moyen-Age, p. 238).

Another passage in the same play signifies the equality of punishment for appellant and defendant in cases of defeat:—

—Mais quant il seront
En champ, jamais n’en ysteront
Sans combatre, soiez-en fis,
Tant que l’un en soit desconfis;
Et celui qui vaincu sera,
Je vous promet, pendu sera:
N’en doubte nulz.

559 Jur. Provin. Saxon, I. 63.

560 Venables, Lincolnshire Notes and Queries, Vol. I.p. 195 (1889). So an entry in the Pipe Roll for 1158-9 “Et in conductu Rad. Shirloc. 6s. 8d. Et pro apparatu ejusdem Rad. et socii ejus ad duellum 16s. 4d.”—Pipe Roll Society, I, 2.

561 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 42.

562 E. g. Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxvii. § 1. This was also the case in Bohemia (Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 159).

563 LauriÈre, Table des Ordonn. p. 10.

564 See facsimile of a record of a duel between Walter Blowberme and Hamo le Stare, where in the background the latter unlucky defendant is represented as hanging on a gallows (Maitland’s Select Pleas of the Crown, Vol. I.). It had already been engraved in Bysshe’s notes to Upton’s De Studio Militari, p. 37.

565 Revue Historique de Droit, 1861, p. 514.

566 Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxvii. § 4.

567 This, moreover, was not permitted by Frederic (Ubi sup.).

568 Jur. Provin. Saxon. I. 63.

569 WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge, p. 22.

570 De Militari Officio Lib. II. cap. viii.

571 Book of Cynog, chap. xi. § 34 (Owen, II. 211).

572 Du Boys, op. cit. I. 611.

573 D’Achery Spicilegium, T. III. p. 376.

574 Odofredi Summa de Pugna, vii. xi. (Patetta, pp. 490, 491).

575 Galfridi Vit. Caroli Boni, cap. xiii. n. 94.

Similar persistence was exhibited in a combat before Richard II. in 1380. Katrington, the defeated defendant died the next day in delirium caused by exhaustion.—Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 172.

576 It is perhaps worthy of remark that in India, where the judicial duel was unknown, in the other ordeals one of the ancient lawgivers, Katyayana, allows, and in some cases prescribes, the use of champions.—Patella, Le Ordalie, p. 110.

577 L. Alamann. Add. cap. xxi.

578 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. iii. § 6, and Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 12.

579 L. Anglior. et Werinor. Tit. XIV.

580 Licet unicuique pro se campionem mercede conducere si eum invenire potuerit.—Ll. Frision. Tit. XIV. c. iv.

581 Greg. Turon. Hist. Lib. X. cap. x. In this case, both combatants perished, when the accused was promptly put to death, showing that such a result was regarded as proving the truth of the offence alleged.

582 Horum enim causa accidit ut non solum valentes viribus, sed etiam infirmi et senes lacessantur ad certamen et pugnam etiam pro vilissimis rebus (Lib. adv. Legem Gundobadi cap. vii.). Mitte unum de tuis, qui congrediatur mecum singulari certamine, ut probat me reum tibi esse, si occiderit (Lib. contra Judicium Dei cap i.).

583 Liceat ei per campionem, id est per pugnam, crimen ipsum de super se si potuerit ejicere.—L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. i. § 8.

584 Proost, LÉgislation des Jugements de Dieu, p. 82.

585 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 39, 48.—Sachsische Weichbild, art. xxxv. 2. 4; art. lxxxii. 2.

586 Patetta, Le Ordalie, pp. 427-9. Roffredo, after carefully enumerating six cases in which champions were allowed by the law, adds: “Hodie tamen de consuetudine permittitur cuilibet campionem dare.”—Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, p. 485).

587 Glanvil. de Leg. Angl. Lib. II. iii. Thus in a suit over a knight’s fee in 1201, the plaintiffs offer a champion, Walter Wider, “qui idem optulit ut de visu suo et auditu.”—Baildon, Select Civil Pleas, I. 33.

588 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. cap. lxiv. (Ludewig Reliq. MSS. VII. 416).

589 Étab. de Normandie, p. 21 (Marnier).

590 Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour, ch. ix. xi. xii.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi. vii.

591 Assis. Hierosol. Bassa Corte, cap. ccxxxviii. (Canciani, II. 534).—Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxvii. § 2.

592 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, pp. 88, 90-1.

593 Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. iii. § 23.

594 Myrror of Justice, cap. iv. § 11.

595 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. cap. lxiv. § 18 (Ludewig VII 417).

596 Among the crimes entailing infamy is enumerated that of “ceux qui combatent mortelment pur loyer qui sont vanquish en combate joynÉ per jugement.”—Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. iv. sect. 13.

597 Et campioni qui victus fuerit, propter perjuriam quod ante pugnam commisit, dextra manus amputetur (Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, § x.).—Victus vero in duello centum solidos et obolum reddere tenebitur. Pugil vero conductitius, si victus fuerit, pugno vel pede privabitur (Charta ann. 1203—Du Cange).—Also Beaumanoir, Cout. du Beauv., cap. lxvii. § 10 (Du Cange seems to me to have misinterpreted this passage).—See also Monteil’s admirable “Histoire des FranÇais des divers États,” XVe SiÈcle, Hist. XIII.

598 Assis. Hierosol. Bassa Corte, cap. ccxxxviii. Alta Corte, cap. cv. (Canciani II. 534; V. 208).

599 Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour, ch. xi.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi. vii.

600 Et li campions vaincus a le poing copÉ; car se n’estoit por le mehaing qu’il emporte, aucuns, par barat, se porroit faindre par loier et se clameroit vaincus, par quoi ses mestres emporteroit le damace et le vilonie, et cil emporteroit l’argent; et por ce est bons li jugemens du mehaing (Cout. du Beauv., cap. lxi. § 14).

601 Isambert, Anciennes Lois FranÇaises V. 387.

602 Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxvii. § 3.

603 Et post illam inquisitionem, tradat manum ipse camphio in manu parentis aut conliberti sui ante judicem.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 11.

604 Thus the oath administered by the papal legate to William of Holland, on his receiving knighthood previous to his coronation as King of the Romans in 1247, contains the clause “pro liberatione cujuslibet innocentis duellum inire.”—Goldast. Constit. Imp. T. III. p. 400.

605 Anomalous Laws, Book x. chap. ii. § 9 (Owen, II. 315). The position thus acquired was that of brother or nephew in sharing and paying wer-gild.

606 Ut nemo furem camphium mancipiis aut de qualibet causa recipere prÆsumat, sicut sÆpius dominus imperator commendavit.—Capit. Carol. Mag. ex L. Longobard. cap. xxxv. (Baluze).

607 Novel. CXV. cap. iii. § 10—more fully set forth in Lib. III. Cod. Tit. xxvii. l. 11.

608 Conseil. chap. xxxiii. tit. 32.

609 Ibid. chap. xv. tit. 87, which is a translation of Lib. IV. Dig. Tit. ii. l. 23, § 2.

610 Percutiat si quis hominem infamem, hoc est lusorem vel pugilem, aut mulierem publicam, etc.—Sachsische Weichbild, Art. cxxix. “Plusieurs larrons, ravisseurs de femmes, violleurs d’Églises, batteurs À loyer,” etc.—Ordonn. de Charles VII. ann. 1447, also Anciennes Coutumes de Bretagne (Monteil, ubi sup.).

611 Johen de Beaumont dit que chanpions loiez, provÉ de tel chose, ne puet home apelier Á gage de bataille an nul quas, si n’est por chanpion loiez por sa deffansse; car la poine de sa mauvese vie le doit bien en ce punir.—Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. ii. § 4.

612 Campiones et eorum liberi (ita nati) et omnes qui illegitime nati sunt, et omnes qui furti aut pleni latrocinii nomine satisfecere, aut fustigationem sustinuere, hi omnes juris beneficiis carent.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xxxvi. § 2 (Ed. Schilter.).—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. c. xlv.

613 Campionibus et ipsorum liberis emendÆ loco datur fulgur ex clypeo nitido, qui soli obvertitur, ortum; hoc is qui eis satisfactionem debet loco emendÆ prÆstare tenetur (Jur. Prov. Alaman. cap. cccv. § 15.—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. art. xlv.). In the French version of the Speculum Suevicum, these emblematic measures of damage are followed by the remark “cestes emandes furent establies an la vieillie loy per les roys” (P. II. c. lxxxvi.), which would appear to show that they were disused in the territories for which the translation was made.

614 Richstich Landrecht, Lib. II. cap. xxv.

615 Odofredi Summa de Pugna c.v. (Patetta, p. 489).

616 Lib. Juris Civilis Veron. cap. 125, 126 (VeronÆ, 1728, p. 95).

617 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. §§ 38, 40.

618 Muratori, Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 39.

619 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 37; Tit. x. § 4.

620 Vix enim aut nunquam duo pugiles inveniri poterunt sic Æquales, etc.—Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxiii.

621 Ibid. Lib. I. Tit. xxxiii.

622 Ibi tunc multi latrones a gladiatoribus singulari certamine devicti, suspendio perierunt.—Dithmari. Chron. Lib. VII.

623 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xxxvi. § 2; cap. lx. § 1.

624 Sachsische Weichbild, c. lxxxii. § 3.

625 Concil. Eccles. Rotomag. p. 128 (Du Cange).

626 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. c. lxiv. § 19 (Ludewig. VII. 416).

627 De Leg. AngliÆ Lib. II. cap. iii.

628 Bracton, Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 32 § 7.

629 Ibid. c. 18 § 4.

630 See a case in which Ralph Rusdike, a witness, offers battle against Elias of Dumbleton—“et Elias defendit totum versus eum ut versus campionem conductitium et villanus.” Then Ralph shows that he has an interest in the matter which warrants his acting as appellor and battle is gaged.—Maitland’s Select Pleas of the Crown, Vol. I.p. 80. Also another case in 1220 in which the appellant offers a silver mark to the king for opportunity to prove that an adverse witness is a hired champion.—Ib. p. 124. Another case in 1220 (p. 137) shows how customary it was to impugn an adverse witness as a hired champion.

631 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 49.

632 This charter, which has recently been found among the records of Durham Cathedral, is printed in the London AthenÆum of November 10th, 1866. It is not dated, but the names of the subscribing witnesses show that it must have been executed about the year 1260.

I owe to James Clephan, Esq., of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the interesting fact that the Sherburn Hospital, Durham, is still in possession of the vill of century by Ralph, son of Paulinus of York, who had obtained it as the result of a judicial combat between his champion and that of the opposing claimants.

633 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 51.

634 Lord Eldon, in his speech advocating the abolition of trial by battle, in 1819, stated, “In these the parties were not suffered to fight in propria persona—they were compelled to confide their interests to champions, on the principle that if one of the parties were slain, the suit would abate.”—Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, VII. 279.

635 Pur felony ne poit nul combattre pur autre; en personal actions nequidant venials, list aux actors de faire les battailes per lour corps ou per loyal tesmoigne come en droit reals sont les combats.—Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. iii. sect. 23.

636 Bracton, Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 21, §§ 11, 12.—Ibid. cap. 24.

637 Regiam Majestatem, Lib. IV. cap. iii.

638 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 115. By the Burgher laws of Scotland, a man who was incapacitated by reason of age from appearing in the field, was allowed to defend himself with twelve conjurators.—L. Burgor. cap. xxiv. §§ 1, 2.

639 Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. 145, 146.—Beaumanoir, cap. lxi. § 6; cap. lxii. § 4.

640 Beaumanoir, cap. lxi. § 14.

641 Conseil, chap. XXII. Tit. xiii.

642 Grandes Chroniques T. IV. p. 427.

643 Il est usage que se aucun demende la cort de bataille qui est juege par champions loÉes, il la tendra le jor maimes, et si ele est par le cors des querelÉors il metra jor avenant À la tenir autre que celui.—Coutumes d’Anjou, XIII.e SiÈcle, § 74.

644 Kar haute persone doit bien metre por lui, À deffendre soi, home, honeste persone, se l’an l’apele, ou s’il apele autre.—Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. II. Tit. xviii.

645 Lib. Pract. de Consuet. Remens. § 40 (Archives LÉgisl. de Reims, Pt. 1.p. 40).

646 Ibid. § 14, p. 37.

647 For de Morlaas, Rubr. liii. art. 188.

648 Quando pugna debet fieri per campionem debet fieri eorum equa distributio ... et etiam jure longobardo cavetur quod pugna debet fieri per similes campiones.—Odofredi Summa de Pugna c. iv. (Patetta, p. 488).

649 L. Jur. Civilis VeronÆ cap. 125, 126 (p. 95).

650 Patetta, Le Ordalie, pp. 427-9.

651 Pugiles in Bigorra non nisi indigenÆ recipiantur (LagrÈze, Hist. du Droit dans les PyrÉnÉes, p. 251). By the same code, the tariff of payment to the champion was 20 sous, with 12 for his shield and 6 for training—“pro prÆparatione.”

652 Las Siete Partidas, Pt. VII. Tit. iv. l.3.

653 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 611-13.

654 Campagnola, Lib. Juris Civ. VeronÆ (VeronÆ, 1728, p. xviii).

655 Polyptichum Irminonis, App. No. 33 (Paris, 1836, p. 372).

656 Une malvese coustume souloit courre anciemment, si comme nos avons entendu des seigneurs de lois.—Cout. du Beauvoisis, cap. xxxviii. § 15.

657 Hist. des FranÇais, XVe SiÈcle, Hist. xiii.—The tariff of rewards paid to Blondel, and Beaumanoir’s argument in favor of mutilating a defeated champion, offer a strong practical commentary on the fundamental principles upon which the whole system of appeals to the judgment of God was based—that success was an evidence of right.

658 Bysshe’s notes to Upton’s De Studio Militari, p. 36.

659 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 150.

660 Hist. Monast. Figeacens. (Baluz. et Mansi IV. p. 1).

661 Abbonis Floriac. Collect. Canon. can. ii.—Histor. Trevirens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 223).—Gerohi Reichersperg. de Ædificio Dei cap. VI.

662 Schlegel Comment. ad GrÁgÁs, p. xxii.—Dasent, in his Icelandic Chronology (Burnt Njal, I. cciii.), places this in 1006, and Keyser (Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Trans. p. 258) in 1000.

663 The kind of Christianity introduced may be estimated by the character of the Apostle of Iceland. Deacon Thangbrand was the son of Willibald Count of Saxony, and even after he had taken orders continued to ply his old vocation of viking or sea robbing. To get rid of him and to punish him, King Olaf Tryggvesson of Norway imposed upon him the task of converting Iceland, which he accomplished with the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other.—See Dasent, Burnt Njal, II. 361.—Olaf Tryggvesson’s Saga c. lxxx. (Laing’s Heimskringla, I. 441).

664 Keyser, op. cit. p. 258.

665 Saxon. Grammat. Hist. Dan. Lib. x.

666 Ibid. Lib. xi.

667 LÜnig Cod. Diplom. Ital. I. 2455.—The liberal terms of this charter show the enlightenment of the Emperor, and explain the fidelity manifested for him by the imperial cities in his desperate struggles with his rebellious nobles and an implacable papacy.

668 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, pp. 33, 65, 97.

669 Chart. Commun. Ambianens. c. 44 (Migne’s Patrolog. T. 162, p. 750).

670 The charter is given by Proost, op. cit. p. 96.

671 Ferrum, cacavum, pugnam, aquam, vobis non judicabit vel judicari faciet (Muratori, Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 38).

672 PrivilÉges de Lourdes, cap. ii. (LagrÈze, op. cit. p. 482).

673 Ibid., cap. xiii. (LagrÈze p. 484). These privileges were confirmed at various epochs, until 1407.

674 Statuta Susatensia, No. 41 (HÆberlin Analect. Med. Ævi. p. 513). This is retained in the subsequent recension of the law, in the thirteenth century (Op. cit. p. 526).

675 Consuetud. Tornacens. ann. 1187, §§ ii. iii. xxi (D’Achery Spicileg. III. 552).

676 Oudegherst, Annales de Flandre ed. Lesbroussart. T.I. pp. 426 sqq.; T. II. not. ad. fin.

677 Coleccion de CÉdulas, etc., Madrid, 1830, Tom. VI. p. 142.—Memorial HistÓrico EspaÑol, Madrid, 1850, T.I. p. 47.

678 Statuta Commun. apud Crispiacum (D’Achery Spicileg. III. 595).

679 Legg. VillÆ de Arkes § xxxi. (Ibid. p. 608).

680 Libertates VillÆ Ricomag. § 6 (Ibid. p. 671).

681 E sobre ayso que dam e autreyam als borges de la vielle de Maubourguet que totz los embars pusquen provar sens batalhe, etc.—Coutumes de Maubourguet, cap. v. That this, however, was not expected to do away entirely with the battle trial is shown by the regulation prescribed in cap. xxxvii. (LagrÈze, op. cit. pp. 470, 474).

682 L. Burgorum, c. 14, 15 (Skene).

683 WarnkÖnig, Hist. de la Flandre, IV. 129.

684 In omni mercato FlandriÆ si quis clamorem adversus eos suscitaverit, judicium scabinorum de omni clamore sine duello subeant; ab duello vero ulterius liberi sint.—WarnkÖnig. Hist. de la Flandre, II. 411.

685 Nemo mercatorem de Flandria duello provocabit (Ibid. II. 426).

686 TraitÉ de 1228, art. 3 (Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, II. 272).

687 Belitz de Duellis Germanorum, p.9. VitembergÆ, 1717.

688 Constit. Frid II. de Jur. Norimb. § 4 (Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 291).

689 Sachsische Weichbild, Art. xxxv. lxxii. lxxxi.-lxxxiv. lxxxix. xc. xcii. cxiv.

690 Henke, Gesch. des Deut. Peinlichen Rechts I. 192 (Du Boys, op. cit. II. 590).

691 Goldast. op. cit. I. 314.

692 Jur. CÆsar. P. IV. cap. i. (Senckenberg Corp. Jur. German. I. 118). This portion of the Kayser-Recht is probably therefore posterior to the rise of the Hapsburg dynasty.

693 Belitz de Duel. German. p. 11.

694 Jura PrimÆva MoraviÆ, BrunÆ, 1781, pp. 33, 102.

695 “Liber adversus Legem Gundobadi” and “Liber contra Judicium Dei” (Agobardi Opp. Ed. Baluz I. 107, 301). Both of these works display marked ability, and a spirit of enlightened piety, mingled with frequent absurdities which show that Agobard could not in all things rise superior to his age. One of his favorite arguments is that the battle ordeal was approved by the Arian heretic Gundobald, whom he stigmatizes as “quidam superbus ac stultus hÆreticus Gundobadus Burgundionum rex.”

696 Concil. Valentin. ann. 855 can. 12.

697 C. 22 Decreti caus. II. q.v.

698 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbrev. cap. LXXVIII.

699 C. 1 Extra Lib. V. Tit. xiv.

700 C. 2 Ibid.

701 Innocent. PP. III. Regest. XI. 64—Verum quoniam hujusmodi duellorum judicia juxta pravam quarundam consuetudinem regionum non solum a laicis seu clericis in minoribus ordinibus constitutis, sed etiam a majoribus ecclesiarum prÆlatis consueverunt, prout multorum assertione didicimus, exerceri.

702 Concil. Lateranens. IV. can. 18.

703 Consuetud. S. Montisfortis (Contre le Franc-Alleu sans Tiltre, p. 229).

704 Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1212, P. IV. c. xv. (Harduin. vi. ii. 2017).

705 S. Raymundi SummÆ Lib. II. Tit. iii.—Cardinal Henry of Susa is equally uncompromising—Hostiensis AureÆ SummÆ Lib. V. Tit. De Cler. pugnant.

706 Alexandri de Ales SummÆ P. III. Q. xlvi. Membr. 3.

707 Sec. Sec. Q. 95 art. 8.

708 Wilhelmi Egmond. Chron. (MatthÆi Analect. IV. 231). Proost (LÉgislation des Jugements de Dieu, p. 16) gives this story, with some variations, as occurring at Mons, and states that the duel was authorized by no less a personage than Pope John XXII. Cornelius Zantfliet in his Chronicle (Martene Ampl. Collect. V. 182) locates it at Cambron in Hainault, and states that the Jew was a favorite of William Count of Hainault. Mr. Neilson informs me that Olivier de la Marche likewise adopts Cambron as the scene of the occurrence. The tale apparently was one which obtained wide currency.

709 In 1374 Gregory XI. when condemning the Sachsenspiegel laid especial stress on the passages in which the judicial duel was prescribed (Sachsenspiegel, ed. Ludovici, 1720, p. 619). As late as 1492, the Synod of Schwerin promulgated a canon prohibiting Christian burial to those who fell in the duel or in tournaments.—Synod. Swerin. ann. 1492, Can. xxiv. (Hartzheim Concil. German. V. 647).

710 “Et si Deus adest nonne nefas est habendo justitiam succumbere posse?... Et si justitia in duello succumbere nequit, nonne de jure acquiritur quod per duellum acquiritur?... stultum enim est valde vires quas Deo comfortat inferiores in pugile suspicari.”—De Monarchia II. 10 (Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 415).

711 Joh. Friburgens. SummÆ Confessorum Lib. II. Tit. iii. Q. 3-5.

712 Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. xxxii. xxxiii.—“Non tam vera probatio quam quÆdam divinatio ... quÆ naturÆ non consonans, a jure communi deviat, Æquitatis rationibus non consentit.” Cf. Lib. I. Tit. xxi. cap. 2.

713 Cum viderit innocentes in duello succubuisse, et sontes contra in sua iniustitia nihilominus victoriam obtinuisse. Et ideo in jura imperii scriptum est, ubi duo ex more in duellum procedunt, hoc non pertinet ad imperium.—Jur. CÆsar. P. II. c. 70 (Senckenberg I. 54).

714 Quilibet sciat imperatorem jussisse ut nemo alterum ad duellum provocet.... Nemo enim unquam fortiores provocari vidit, sed semper debiliores, et fortiores semper triumpharunt.—Ibid. P. IV. cap. 19.

715 Rudolphi I. Privileg. (Ludewig. Reliq. MSS. T. IV. p. 260).

716 Goldast. Constitt. Imp. III. 446.

717 Malleus Maleficar. Francof. 1580, pp. 527-9.

718 Villanueva, Viage Literario, XXII. 288.

719 Los sabios antiguos que ficieron las leyes non lo tovieron por derecha prueba; ed esto por dos razones; la una porque muchas vegadas acaesce que en tales lides pierde la verdat e vence la mentira; la otra porque aquel que ha voluntad de se adventurar Á esta prueba semeja que quiere tentar Á Dios nuestro seÑor.—Partidas, P. III. Tit. xiv. l.8.

720 Ibid. P. VII. Tit. iii. l. 2, 3. According to Montalvo’s edition of the Partidas (Sevilla, 1491), these laws were still in force under Ferdinand and Isabella.

721 Tres dias dÉbese acordar al reptado para escoger una de las tres maneras que desuso dixiemos, qual mas quisiere porque se libre el pleyto. ... ca el re nin su corte non han de mandar lidiar por riepto.—Ibid. P. VII. Tit. iii. l.4. Some changes were introduced in these details by subsequent ordinances.

722 Muera quito del riepto; ca razon es que sea quito quien defendiendo la verdad recibiÓ muerte.—Ibid. P. VII. Tit. iv. l.4.

723 CrÓnica de Alfonso el Onceno, cap. CCLXII.

724 Ordenamiento de AlcalÁ, Tit. XXXII. ll. vii.-xi. See also the Ordenanzas Reales of 1480, Lib. IV. Tit. ix.

725 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, I. 337.

726 Nous deffendons À tous les batailles par tout nostre demengne, mÉs nous n’ostons mie les clains, les respons, les convenants, etc.... fors que nous ostons les batailles, et en lieu des batailles nous meton prueves de tesmoins, et si n’oston pas les autres bones prueves et loyaux, qui ont estÉ en court laye siques À ore.—Isambert, I. 284.

LauriÈre (Tabl. des Ordonn. p. 17) alludes to an edict to the same purport, under date of 1240, of which I can nowhere else find a trace. There is no reference to it in the Tables des Ordonnances of Pardessus (Paris, 1847).

It is a curious illustration of the fluctuating policy of the contest that in his struggle to enforce the supremacy of the royal jurisdiction as against the prelates of the province of Reims, one of the complaints of the bishops at the Council of Saint-Quentin in 1235 is that he forced ecclesiastics in his court to prove by the duel their rights over their serfs—“Item, supplicat concilium quod dominus rex non compellat personas ecclesiasticas probare per duellum in curia sua homines quos dicunt suos esse de corpore suo” (Harduin. VII. 259).

727 Se ce est hors l’obeissance le Roy, gage de bataille (Étab. de St. Louis, Liv. II. chap. xi. xxix. xxxviii.). Beaumanoir repeats it, a quarter of a century later, in the most precise terms, “Car tout cil qui ont justice en le contÉ poent maintenir lor cort, s’il lor plest, selonc l’ancienne coustume; et s’il lor plest il le poent tenir selonc l’establissement le Roy” (Cout. du Beauv. cap xxxix. § 21). And again, “Car quant li rois LoÏs les osta de sa cort il ne les osta pas des cours À ses barons” (Cap. LXI. § 15).

728 Liv. I. chap. xxvii. xci. cxiii. etc. This is so entirely at variance with the general belief, and militates so strongly with the opening assertion of the Établissements (Ordonn. of 1260) that I should observe that in the chapters referred to the direction for the combat is absolute; no alternative is provided, and there is no allusion to any difference of practice prevailing in the royal courts and in those of the barons, such as may be seen in other passages (Liv. I. chap. xxxviii. lxxxi. cxi. etc.). Yet in a charter of 1263, Louis alludes to his having interdicted the duel in the domains of the crown in the most absolute manner.—“Sed quia duellum perpetuo de nostris domaniis duximus amovendum” (Actes du Parlement de Paris No. 818 A. T. I.p. 75, Paris, 1863).

729 Établissements Liv. I. chap. clxvii.

730 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. CLXXI. §§ 10, 11, 12.

731 Pilori, Échelle, carquant, et peintures de champions combattans sont marques de haute justice.—Instit. Coutum. Liv. II. Tit. ii. RÈgle 47.

732 Beaumanoir, op. cit. chap. LXI. §§ 11, 12, 13.

In Normandy, these advantages were enjoyed by all seigneurs justiciers. “Tuit chevalier et tuit sergent ont en leurs terres leur justice de bataille en cause citeaine; et quant li champions sera vaincuz, il auront LX sols et I denier de la rÉcrÉandise.”—Etab. de Normandie (Ed. Marnier, p. 30). These minutely subdivided and parcelled out jurisdictions were one of the most prolific causes of debate during the middle ages, not only on account of the power and influence, but also from the profits derived from them. That the privilege of decreeing duels was not the least remunerative of these rights is well manifested by the decision of an inquest held during the reign of Philip Augustus to determine the conflicting jurisdictions of the ducal court of Normandy and of the seigneurs of Vernon. It will be found quoted in full by Beugnot in his notes on the Olim, T.I. p. 969. See also Coutumes d’Auzon (Chassaing, Spicilegium Brivatense, p. 95).

733 See Coutume de Saint-Bonnet, cap. 13 (Meyer, Recueil d’Anciens Textes, Paris, 1874, I. 175).

734 Les Olim, I. 491. It is perhaps needless to add that Mathieu’s suit was fruitless. There are many cases recorded in the Olim showing the questions which arose and perplexed the lawyers, and the strenuous efforts made by the petty seigneurs to preserve their privileges.

735 Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 407.

736 Recueil de Chants Historiques FranÇais, I. 218. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that these lines may have been occasioned by the celebrated trial of Enguerrand de Coucy in 1256. On the plea of baronage, he demanded trial by the Court of Peers, and claimed to defend himself by the wager of battle. St. Louis proved that the lands held by Enguerrand were not baronial, and resisted with the utmost firmness the pressure of the nobles who made common cause with the culprit. On the condemnation of de Coucy, the Count of Britanny bitterly reproached the king with the degradation inflicted on his order by subjecting its members to inquest.—Beugnot, Olim I. 954.—Grandes Chroniques ann. 1256.

737 Et se li uns et li autres est si enreuÉs, qu’il n’en demandent nul amesurement entrer pueent par folie en pÉrill de gages (Conseil, chap. XV. Tit. xxvii.). Car bataille n’a mie leu ou justise a mesure (Ibid. Tit. xxviii.). Mult a de perix en plet qui est de gages de bataille, et mult es grans mestiers c’on voist sagement avant en tel cas (Cout. du Beauv. chap. lxiv. § 1). Car ce n’est pas coze selonc Diu de soufrir gages en petite querele de meubles ou d’eritages; mais coustume les suefre Ès vilains cas de crieme (Ibid. chap. vi. § 31).

738 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T.I. No. 2269 A.p. 217.

739 Beaumanoir, op. cit. chap. lxi. § 63.

740 Grandes Chroniques, T. IV. p. 104.

741 Isambert, II. 702, 806.

742 I have not been able to find this Ordonnance. LauriÈre alludes to it (Tabl. dÉs Ordonn. p. 59), but the passage of Du Cange which he cites refers only to prohibition of tournaments. The catalogue of Pardessus and the collection of Isambert contain nothing of the kind, but that some legislation of this nature actually occurred is evident from the preamble to the Ordonnance of 1306—“Savoir faisons que comme Ça en arriÈre, pour le commun prouffit de nostre royaume, nous eussions defendu gÉnÉraument À tous noz subgez toutes manieres de guerres et tous gaiges de batailles, etc.” It is worthy of note that these ordonnances of Philippe were no longer confined to the domain of the crown, but purported to regulate the customs of the whole kingdom.

743 Willelmi Egmond. Chron. (MatthÆi Analect. IV. 135-7).

744 Dont pluseurs malfaicteurs se sont avancez par la force de leurs corps et faulx engins À faire homicides, traysons et tous autres malÉfices, griefz et excez, pource que quant ilz les avoient fais couvertement et en repost, ilz ne povoient estre convaincuz par aucuns tesmoings dont par ainsi le malÉfice se tenoit.—Ordonnance de 1306 (Éd. Crapelet, p. 2).

745 Car entre tous les pÉrilz qui sont, est celui que on doit plus craindre et doubter, dont maint noble s’est trouvÉ dÉceu ayant bon droit ou non, par trop confier en leurs engins et en leurs forces ou par leurs ires oultrecuidÉes (Ibid. p. 34). A few lines further on, however, the Ordonnance makes a concession to the popular superstition of the time in expressing a conviction that those who address themselves to the combat simply to obtain justice may expect a special interposition of Providence in their favor—“Et se l’intÉressÉ, sans orgueil ne maltalent, pour son bon droit seulement, requiert bataille, ne doit doubter engin ne force, car le vray juge sera pour lui.”

746 Ordonnance de 1306, cap. i.

747 Isambert, II. 850.

748 See Les Olim, passim.

749 Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 446.

750 Les Olim, III. 381-7.—Vaissette, Hist. GÉn. de Languedoc, T. IV., Preuves, 140-44.

751 Wadding. Annal. Minor. ann. 1312 No. 2.

752 Isambert, III. 40.

753 Chronique MÉtrique, I. 6375.

754 Et quant au gage de bataille, nous voullons que il en usent, si comme l’en fesoit anciennement.—Ordonn. Avril 1315, cap. I (Isambert, III. 62).

755 Nous voullons et octroions que en cas de murtre, de larrecin, de rapte, de trahison et de roberie, gage de bataille soit ouvert, se les cas ne pouvoient estre prouvez par tesmoings—Ordonn. 15 Mai 1315 (Isambert, III. 74).

756 Ancien Coutumier inÉdit de Picardie, p. 48 (Marnier, Paris, 1840).

757 Ordonn. Mai 1315, P. I. chap. 13 (Isambert, III. 90).

758 Ibid. P. II. chap. 8 (Isambert, III. 95).

759 Isambert, III. 196-221.

760 Ordonn. 9 Mai 1330 (Isambert, IV. 369).

761 Neron, RÉcueil d’Édits, I. 16.

762 Dissertations sur la Mythologie FranÇaise.

763 Bofarull y MascarÓ, Coleccion de Documentas ineditos, VI. 355-59.

764 De LauriÈre, note on Loysel, Instit. Coutum. Lib. VI. Tit. i. RÈgle 22.

765 Froissart, Liv. III. chap. xlix. (Éd. Buchon, 1846).

766 Hist. de Charles VI. ann. 1386.

767 Hist. de Charles VI. Liv. VI. chap. ix.

768 Buchon, notes to Froissart, II. 537.

769 Registre du ChÂtelet de Paris, I. 350 (Paris, 1861).

770 Que jamais nuls ne fussent receus au royaume de France À faire gages de bataille ou faict d’armes, sinon qu’il y eust gage jugÉ par le roy, ou la cour de parlement.—Juvenal des Ursins, ann. 1409.

771 Monstrelet, Liv. I. chap. lv.

772 Nic. Uptoni de Militari Officio Lib. II. cap. iii. iv. (pp. 72-73).

773 TrÈs Ancienne Cout. de Bretagne, chap. 99, 129-135 (Bourdot de Richebourg).

774 Ancienne Cout. de Normandie, chap. 53, 68, 70, 71, 73, etc. (Bourdot de Richebourg).

775 Fors et Cost. de BÉarn, Rubr. de Batalha (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 1093).

776 Mathieu de Coussy, chap. cxii.—Ol. de la Marche, ch. xxii. Such a case as this justifies the opinion quoted by Olivier de la Marche, “que le gaige de bataille fut trouvÉ par le diable pour gagner et avoir les Âmes de tous les deux, tant du demandeur que du deffendeur” (TraitÉ du Duel Judiciaire, p. 4, communicated to me by George Neilson, Esq.).

777 D. Calmet, Hist. de Lorraine.

778 Jehan Masselin, Journal des États de Tours, p. 320.

779 Archives de Pau, apud Mazure et Hatoulet, Fors de BÉarn, p. 130. There may have been something exceptional in this case, since the punishment was so much more severe than the legal fine of 16 sous quoted above (Fors de Morlaas, Rubr. IV.).

780 D. Calmet, Hist. de Lorraine.

781 BrantÔme, Discours sur les Duels. An account of this duel, published at Sedan, in 1620, represents it as resulting even less honorably to Fendilles. He is there asserted to have formally submitted, and to have been contemptuously tossed out of the lists like a sack of corn, Des Guerres marching off triumphantly, escorted with trumpets.

782 Fontanon, I. 665.

783 Statuta Criminalia Mediolani e tenebris in lucem edita, Bergomi, 1594.—Statuta et Decreta antiqua Civitatis PlacentiÆ, PlacentiÆ, 1560.

784 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 449.

785 Julii PP. II. Bull. Regis pacifici § 2, 1509 (Mag. Bull. Rom. I. 499).

786 Leon. PP. X. Bull. Quam Deo, 23 Julii, 1519 (Ib. p. 596).

787 Patetla, op. cit. pp. 438-46.

788 Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic Duellico c. ii. § II.

789 Quia in duellorum dimicatione plurimÆ hinc inde fraudes committi possunt; raro enim illi inter quos illud fit judicium per se decertant, sed pugiles conducunt, qui nonnunquam dono, favore, et promissis corrumpuntur.—L. Uladis. II. c. ix. (Batthyani, I. 531).

790 Reperio tamen indubie vulgarem purgationem sive duellum in casu sine scrupulo admittendum quum publicÆ salutis caussa fiat: et istud est admodum laudabile.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xlii. No. 12 (Antverp. 1601).

791 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. De Reform, cap. xix. Detestabilis duellorum usus fabricante diabolo introductus.

792 Anne is usus relinquendus sit arbitrio principis? Videtur quod sic, et respiciendum esse principi quid discernat.—Le Plat, Monument. Concil. Trident. VII. 19.

793 Le Plat, VII. 75.

794 WÜrdinger, BeitrÄge, pp. 17, 19.

795 Belitz de Duellis German. p. 15.

796 For these details I am indebted to Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 611-17, 650. See also Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 161. The Sachsenspiegel was extensively in use in Poland, and under it duels continued to be lawful until its abrogation early in the sixteenth century by Alexander I. (Ib. p. 162).

797 Statut. Roberti III. cap. iii. The genuineness of this statute has been questioned, but it undoubtedly reflects the practice of the period. For the evidence, see Neilson (Trial by Combat, p. 256), who further notes the identity of these provisions with those of Philippe le Bel’s ordonnance of 1306.

798 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 292.

799 Knox’s Hist. of Reformation in Scotland, pp. 322, 446-7.

800 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, pp. 307, 310.

801 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 35. See also a very interesting essay on the origin and growth of the jury by Prof. J.B. Thayer in the Harvard Law Review, Jan.-March, 1892.

802 Maitland’s Select Pleas of the Crown, p. xxiv. Whatever may have been the desire of the royal judges, King John himself was not averse to it, for there is a record of two duels between common malefactors ordered to be fought before the king “quia ea vult videre” (Ib. p. 40).

803 Spelman (Gloss. s.v. Campus) gives a Latin translation of this interesting document from a MS. of the period.

Mr. Neilson draws (pp. 167, 168) a distinction, which is evidently correct, between what he calls the chivalric duel, conducted by marshals and constables, and the ordinary combat adjudged by the courts of law. The former makes it appearance in the latter half of the fourteenth century, when the common law duel was falling into desuetude. As we have seen above, a somewhat similar development, though not so formally differentiated, is traceable in France and Italy.

804 3 Henr. VII. cap. I.

805 John Myrc’s Instructions for Parish Priests, p. 26 (Early English Text Society, 1868).

806 Stow’s Annals, ann. 1492.

807 Spelman, Gloss, p. 103.—Stow’s Annals, ann. 1571.

808 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 205.

809 Maitland’s Select Pleas of the Crown, I. 92. See Neilson, p. 154, for an account of a savage combat in 1456 with an approver who had already caused the hanging of several innocent men. In this case the judge laid down the law that if the approver was vanquished the defendant must be hanged for homicide. This strange ruling is not in accordance with earlier practice. In 1220 an approver accuses seven persons, but is defeated in the first combat and hanged, whereupon the accused are discharged on bail (Maitland, Select Pleas, I. 123). See two other cases in the same year (Ibid. p. 133).

810 Hale, Pleas of the Crown, II. chap. xxix. According to Pike (Hist. of Crime in England, I. 286 sq.), the record shows that approvers almost invariably either died in prison or were hanged in consequence of the acquittal of the party whom they accused. It was very rare that a combat ensued.

811 Rushworth’s Collections, Vol. I.P. I. pp. 788-90, P. III. p. 356. The gloves presented by the champions in such trials had a penny in each finger; the principals were directed to take their champions to two several churches and offer the pennies in honor of the five wounds of Christ that God might give the victory to the right (Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 149).

812 Hale, loc. cit.

813 Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors of England, VI. 112.

814 I. Barnewall & Alderson, 457.—In April, 1867, the journals record the death at Birmingham of William Ashford the appellant in this suit. Thornton emigrated to America, and disappeared from sight.

815 Campbell, Chief Justices, III. 169.

816 I. Harris and McHenry’s Md. Reps. 227.

817 Cooper’s Statutes at Large of S.C. II. 403, 715.

818 Kilty’s Report on English Statutes, Annapolis, 1811, p. 141.

819 Capit. Lib. VII. cap. 259.

820 Vita Patrum Lib. III. c. 41 (Migne’s Patrologia, T. LXXIII. p. 764).

821 Shu-King, Pt. IV. ch. 4, 27 § 21 (after Goubil’s translation).

822 Staunton, Penal Code of China, p. 364.

823 Livre des RÉcompenses et des Peines, trad. par Stan. Julien, Paris, 1835, p. 220.

824 W.T. Stronach in “Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,” New Series, No. 2, Dec. 1865, p. 176.

825 Griffis’s “Mikado’s Empire,” New York, 1876, p. 92.

826 Hutchinson’s Impressions of Western Africa, London, 1858.

827 Examination of the Toxicological Effects of Sassy-Bark, by Mitchell and Hammond (Proc. Biological Dep. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1859).—T. Lauder Brunton’s Gulstonian Lectures, 1877 (Brit. Med. Journ., March 26, 1877).

This would seem to support the theory of Dr. Patetta (Ordalie, p. 13) that the original form of the poison ordeals was the drinking of water in which a fetish had been washed, the spirit of which was thus conveyed into the person of the accused. On the other hand, there is the fact that in some of the poison ordeals sickness was a proof of innocence.

828 London AthenÆum, May 29, 1875, p. 713.

829 Schweinfurth’s Heart of Africa, New York, 1874, Vol. II. pp. 32-36.

830 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 70.

831 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, March 7, 1871.—Ellis’s Three Visits to Madagascar, chap. I. VI.

832 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 61.

833 Ellis’s Polynesian Researches, Vol. I. ch. 14.

834 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 202.—E. B. Tylor, in Macmillan’s Magazine, July, 1876.

835 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 61.

836 Macpherson’s Memorials of Service in India, London, 1865, p. 83.—See also p. 364 for modes of divination somewhat akin to these.

837 Lieut. Shaw, in Asiatic Researches, IV. 67, 84.

838 Patetta, Le Ordalie, pp. 57, 67.

839 Herod. II. 174.

840 Oppert et MÉnant, Documents Jurid. de l’Assyrie, Paris, 1877, pp. 93, 106, 122, 136, 191, 197, 209, 238, 242, 246, 250, 253.

It is interesting to compare with these primitive formulas the terrible imprecations which became customary in mediÆval charters against those who should seek to impair their observance.

841 Numb. xxvi. 55-6; xxxiii. 54.—Joshua xviii. 8-11; xix. 1, 10, 17, 24, 51.—I. Chron. xviii. 5-18, 31.—Nehem. x. 34; xi. 1.

842 Josh. vii. 14-26.—I. Sam. xiv. 37-45. Cf. Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 304.—Ewald’s Antiq. of Israel, Solly’s Translation, pp. 294-6.—Kuenen’s Religion of Israel, May’s Translation, I. 98.

843 Mishna, Sota ix. 9; Wagenseilii Comment. op. cit. vi. 4 (Ed. Surenhus. III. 257, 291). The curious who desire further information on the subject can find it in Wagenseil’s edition of the Tract Sota, with the Gemara of the Ain Jacob and his own copious and learned notes, Altdorf, 1674.

844 Mishcat ul-Masabih, Matthews’s Translation, Calcutta, 1810, vol. II. pp. 221-31.

845 Loniceri Chron. Turcic. Lib. II. cap. xvii.

846 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 203.

847 Collin de Plancy, Dictionnaire Infernal, s.v. CÉromancie.

848 The Dinkard, translated by Peshotun Dustoor Behramjee Sunjana, vol. II, p. 65, Bombay, 1876.

849 Vendidad, Farg. IV. 156-8. If Prof. Oppert is correct in his rendering of the Medic Behistun inscription, the Zend version of the Avesta is not the original, but a translation made by order of Darius Hystaspes from the ancient Bactrian, which would greatly increase the antiquity attributable to this record of primÆval Aryan thought. See “Records of the Past,” VII. 109.

850 Firdusi, Shah-Nameh, XII. 4 (Mohl’s Translation, II. 188). Kai Kaoos was the grandfather and immediate predecessor of Cyrus.

851 The Dabistan, Shea and Troyer’s translation, I. 219.

852 Quoted from the Dinkard by Dr. Haug in Arda-Viraf, p. 145.

853 Hyde Hist. vet. Persar. Relig. p. 280 (Ed. 1760). See also, Dabistan, I. 305-6.

854 Bk. VII. st. 108.

855 Atharva Veda II. 12 (Grill, Hundert Lieder des Atharva Veda, TÜbingen, 1879, p. 16).—Khandogya-Upanishad. VI. 16 (Max MÜller’s Translation, p. 108). In this latter passage there is a philosophical explanation attempted why a man who covers himself with truth is not burnt by the hot iron.

856 Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, 2d ed. p. 360.

857 Man. Dharm. Sast. VIII. 114-16, 190.

858 Institutes of Vishnu, IX.

859 Institutes of Gautama, XIII. 1, 3, 23 (BÜhler’s Translation).

So the Vasishtha Dharmasastra is equally ignorant of ordeals and even more immoral in its teaching—“Men may speak an untruth when their lives are in danger or the loss of their whole property is imminent”—Vasishtha XVI. 10, 35 (BÜhler’s Translation).

860 See Halhed’s Gentoo Code, chap. iii. §§ 5, 6, 9, 10; chap. xviii. (E. I. Company, London, 1776).—Ayeen Akbery, or Institutes of Akbar (Gladwin’s Translation, London, 1800), vol. II. pp. 496, sqq. Also a paper by Ali Ibrahim Khan, chief magistrate of Benares, communicated by Warren Hastings to the Asiatic Society in 1784 (Asiatic Researches, I. 389).

861 Duclos, MÉm. sur les Épreuves.

862 Smith’s Dict. of Antiq. s.v. Marlyria.

863 Pausan. VII. xxv. 8.

864 Festus s.v. Lapidem.—Liv. I. 24; XXI. 45.—Polyb. III. xxv. 6-9.—Aul. Gell. I. 21.

865 Liv. XXII. 53. Cf. Fest. s.v. PrÆjurationes. See an example of a similar oath taken by a whole army, Liv. ii. 45.

866 Val. Maxim. I. i. 7; VIII. i.5.—Ovid. Fastor. IV. 305 sqq.

867 A scholiast on Horace, dating probably from the fifth century of our era, describes an ordeal equivalent to the judicium offÆ. When slaves, he says, were suspected of theft they were taken before a priest who administered to each a piece of bread over which certain conjurations had been uttered and he who was unable to swallow it was adjudged guilty (Patetta, I.e Ordalie, p. 140). Not only the date of this deprives it of value as evidence of Roman custom, but also the fact that Romans might well employ such means of influencing the imagination of Barbarian or ignorant slaves.

868 Senchus Mor. I. 25, 195. Comp. Gloss, p. 199.

869 Anthol. IX. 125.—Cf. Julian. Imp. Epist. XVI.—Claud. in Rufinum II. 110.—Pliny describes (Nat. Hist. VII. ii.) a somewhat similar custom ascribed to the Pselli, an African tribe who exhaled an odor which put serpents to sleep. Each new-born child was exposed to a poisonous snake, when if it were legitimate the reptile would not touch it, while if adulterine it was bitten. Another version of the same story is given by Ælian (De Nat. Animal. I. lvii.).

870 Keyser’s Religion of the Northmen, Pennock’s Translation, p. 259. The extreme simplicity of the skirsla finds its counterpart in modern times in the ordeal of the staff, as used in the Ardennes and described hereafter.

871 First Test of Pardessus, Tit. liii. lvi.

872 Decret. Tassilon. Tit. ii. § 7.

873 Grimm, ap. Pictet, Origines Indo-EuropÉennes, III. 117.

874 Annal. Saxo ann. 1039.—Ruskaia Prawda, art. 28 (Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, I. 181).

875 L. Wisigoth. VI. i.3.

876 Lib. adv. Leg. Gundobadi iv. vi.

877 Senatus Consult. de Monticolis WaliÆ c. ii.

878 A great variety of these Ordines will be found in the collections of Baluze, MartÈne, Pez, Muratori, Spelman, and others. From these we derive most of our knowledge as to the details of the various processes.

879 Batthyani Leg. Eccles. Hung T.I. pp. 439, 454.

880 Anon. Chron. Slavic. cap. xxv. (S. R. German. Septent. Lindenbrog. p. 215).

881 Hincmar. de Divort. Lothar. Interrog. VI.

882 Dooms of King Æthelstan, iv. cap. 7.

883 Adjuratio ferri vel aquÆ ferventis (Baluz. II. 655).

884 De Gloria Martyrum Lib. I. cap. 81.—Injecta manu, protinus usque ad ipsa ossium internodia caro liquefacta defluxit.

885 Institutes of Vishnu, IX. 33 (Jolly’s Translation).

886 FormulÆ Exorcismorum, Baluz. II. 639 sqq.

887 Doom concerning hot iron and water (Laws of Æthelstan, Thorpe, I. 226); Baluze, II. 644.

888 Martene de Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus, Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo. 19.

889 Florez, EspaÑa Sagrada, XIX. 377-8.

890 “Quia in aqua ignita coquuntur culpabiles et innoxii liberantur incocti, quia de igne Sodomitico Lot justus evasit inustus, et futurus ignis qui prÆibit terribilem judicem, Sanctis erit innocuus et scelestos aduret, ut olim Babylonica fornax, quÆ pueros omnino non contigit.”—Interrog. vi.

891 Vit. S. Æthelwoldi c.x. (Chron. Abingd. II. 259. M.R. Series).

892 First text of Pardessus, Tit. liii. lvi.; MS. Guelferbyt. Tit. xiv. xvi.; L. Emend. Tit. lv. lix.

893 L. Frision. Tlt. iii.; L. Æthelredi iv. § 6; L. Lombard. Lib. I. Tit. xxxiii. § 1.

894 GrÁgÁs, Sect. VI. cap. 55.

895 Ruskaia Prawda, Art. 28.

896 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 39; Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. xxxvii. §§ 15. 16.

897 Du Cange.

898 Defens. ProbÆ AquÆ; Frigid, §§ 167, 169, etc.

899 J.H. BÖhmer, Jus. Eccles. Protestantium T.V. p. 597.

900 Ayeen Akbery, II. 498. This work was written about the year 1600 by Abulfazel, vizier of the Emperor Akbar. Gladwin’s Translation was published under the auspices of the East India Company in 1800. See also Ali Ibrahim Khan, in Asiatic Researches, I. 398.

901 Ali Ibrahim Khan, loc. cit.

902 D’Achery, Not. 119 ad Opp. Guibert. Noviogent.

903 Vit. S. Bertrandi Convenar. No. 15 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VI. 1029-30).

904 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbrev. Not. in cap. lxxviii. (Migne’s Patrol. T. CCV. p. 471).

905 Natur. Histor. L. VII. c.2.

906 “Si titubaverit, si singulos vomeres pleno pede non presserit, si quantulumcunque lÆsa fuerit, sententia proferatur.”—Annal. Winton. Eccles. (Du Cange, s.v. Vomeres). Six is the number of ploughshares specified in the celebrated trial of St. Cunigunda, wife of the emperor St. Henry II. (Mag. Chron. Belgic.). Twelve ploughshares are prescribed by the Swedish law (Legg. Scan. Provin. Lib. VII. c. 99. Ed. Thorsen. p. 170).

907 Legg. Æthelstan. iv. § 6; Ætheldred. iii. § 7; Cnut. Secular, § 58; Henrici I. lxvi. 9.

908 Legg. Scan. Provin. Lib. VII. c. 99 (Ed. Thorsen, pp. 170-2).

909 Fuero de BaeÇa, ap. Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo, fol. 317a.

910 Du Cange, s.v. Ferrum candens.

911 Laws of Ethelstan, iv. § 7.—Adjuratio ferri vel aquÆ ferventis (Baluz. II. 656).—Fuero de BaeÇa (ubi sup.).

912 For instance, see various forms of exorcism given by Baluze, II. 651-654. Also Dom Gerbert (PatrologiÆ CXXXVIII. 1127); Goldast. Alamann. Antiquitat. T. II. p. 150 (Ed. Senckenberg).

913 Petri Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii. (Patrol. CCV. 233).

914 Weber’s Hist. of Indian Literature, Mann & Zachariae’s Translation, p. 73.

915 Travels of Hiouen Thsang (Wheeler, Hist. of India, III. 262).

916 Institutes of Vishnu, XI.—Yajnavalkya II. 103-6 (Stenzler’s Translation, p. 61).

It is easy to understand the prescription of Vishnu that the fire ordeal is not to be administered to blacksmiths or to invalids, but not so easy that it was forbidden during summer and autumn (Ib. X. 25-6). Yajnavalkya, moreover, says that the ordeals of fire, water, and poison are for Sudras (II. 98).

917 Ayeen Akbery, II. 497.—Patella, Le Ordalie, p. 106.

918 Asiatic Researches, I. 395.

919 Lieut. Shaw, in Asiatic Researches, IV. 69.

920 Capit. Carol. Mag. II. ann. 803, cap. 5.

921 Concil. Risbach. can. ix. (Hartzheim Concil. German. II. 692).

922 L. Anglior. et Werinor. Tit. xiv.

923 Si presbyterum occidit ... si liber est cum XII. juret; si autem servus per xii. vomeres ignitos se purget.—C. Mogunt, ann. 848 c. xxiv.

924 Concil. Triburiens. ann. 895 c. 22 (Harduin. Concil. VI. I. 446).

925 Laws of Ethelred, iv. § 6.

926 The Jus Provin. Alaman. (cap. xxxvii. §§ 15, 16; cap. clxxxvi. §§ 4, 6, 7; cap. ccclxxiv.) allows thieves and other malefactors to select the ordeal they prefer. The Jus Provin. Saxon. (Lib. I. art. 39) affords them in addition the privilege of the duel.

927 AprÈs les serements des parties soloit lon garder la partie, et luy porter a la maine une piece de fer flambant sil fuit frank home, ou de mettre le main ou la piÉ en eaw boillant s’il ne fuit frank.—Myrror of Justice, cap. III. sect. 23.—Cf. Glanville, Lib. XIV. c. I.

928 Baisse Court, cap. 132, 261, 279, 280, etc.

929 Lesbroussart’s Oudegherst, II. 707.

930 Radevic. de Reb. Frid. Lib. I. cap. xxvi.

931 RouskaÏa Prawda, Art. 28.

932 GrÁgÁs, Sect. VI. c. lv.

933 Maitland, Pleas, etc., I.5. Again in another case in 1207 (p. 55), while in yet another a man and woman, accomplices in the same crime, are both sent to the hot iron (p. 77). In 1203 a case occurs in which the court offers the accused the choice between red-hot iron and water, and he selects the former.—Ib. p. 30.

934 O’Curry, ap. Pictet, Origines Indo-EuropÉennes, III. 179.

935 Regino. ann. 886.—Annales Metenses.

936 Vit. S. KunegundÆ cap. 2 (Ludewig Script. Rer. German. I. 346-7).

937 Gotfridi Viterbiensis Pars XVII., “De Tertio Othone Imperatore.” Siffridi Epit. Lib. I. ann. 998. Ricobaldi Hist. Impp. sub Ottone III.—The story is not mentioned by any contemporary authorities, and Muratori has well exposed its improbability (Annali d’Italia, ann. 996); although he had on a previous occasion argued in favor of its authenticity (Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 38). In convicting the empress of calumny, the Countess of Modena appeared as an accuser, making good the charge by the ordeal; but if we look upon her as simply vindicating her husband’s character, the case enters into the ordinary course of such affairs. Indeed, among the Anglo-Saxons, there was a special provision by which the friends of an executed criminal might clear his reputation by undergoing the triple ordeal, after depositing pledges, to be forfeited in cases of defeat (Ethelred, iii. § 6), just as in the burgher law of Northern Germany a relative of a dead man might claim the duel to absolve him from an accusation (Sachsische Weichbild, art. lxxxvii.). This was not mere sentiment, as in crimes involving confiscation the estate of the dead man was at stake.

938 Giles states (note to William of Malmesbury, ann. 1043) that Richard of Devizes is the earliest authority for this story.

939 Dudon. S. Quintini Lib. iv.

940 Order. Vitalis Lib. X. cap. 13.

941 GrÁgÁs, Sect. VI. cap. 45. Andreas of Lunden early in the 13th century speaks of it as formerly in vogue for these cases, but disused in his time (Legg. Scan. Provin. Ed. P.G. Thorsen, Kjobenhavn, 1853, p. 110).

942 “E si alguna dixiere que preÑada es dalguno, y el varon no la creyere, prenda fierro caliente; e si quemada fuere, non sea creyda, mas si sana escapare del fierro, de el fijo al padre, e criel assi como fuero es.”—Fuero de BaeÇa (Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo, fol. 317a).

943 Roger of Wendover, ann. 1085.

944 Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. II. (Migne, CLIX. 412).

945 Gudeni Cod. Diplom. Mogunt. T.I. No. liii.

946 Mazure et Hatoulet, Fors de BÉarn, p. xxxviii.

947 Hyde Relig. Vet. Persar. cap. xxiv. (Ed. 1760, pp. 320-1).

948 Widukindi Lib. III. cap. 65.—Sigebert. Gemblac. Ann. 966.—Dithmari Chron. Lib. II. cap. viii.—Saxo. Grammat. Hist. Danic. Lib. X. The annalists of TrÈves claim the merit of this for their archbishop Poppo, whose pontificate lasted from 1016 to 1047. According to their legend, Poppo not only drew on an iron gauntlet heated to redness, but entered a fiery furnace clad only in a linen garment soaked in wax, which was consumed by the flames without injury to him.—Gest. Trevir. Archiep. cap. xvi. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 161).

949 Guibert. Noviogent. de Incarnat. contra JudÆos Lib. III. cap. xi. Guibert states that he had this from a Jew, who was an eye-witness of the fact.

Somewhat similar was a volunteer ordeal related by Gregory of Tours, when a Catholic disputing with an Arian threw his gold ring into the fire and when heated to redness placed it in his palm with an adjuration to God that if his faith was true it should not hurt him, which of course proved to be the case.—Greg. Turon. de Gloria Confess, c. xiv.

950 Legend, de S. Olavo (Langebek II. 548).

951 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. III. c. xvi. xvii.

952 Raine’s Church of York (English Historical Review, No. 9, p. 159).

953 Legg. Scan. Provin. Lib. v.c. 57 (Ed. Thorsen, pp. 139-40).

954 This text is given by Kausler, Stuttgard, 1839, together with an older one compiled for the lower court of Nicosia.

955 Pardessus, Us et Coutumes de la Mer, I. 268 sqq.

956 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 475.

957 Du Cange, s.v. Ferrum Candens.

958 Pachymeri Hist. Mich. PalÆol. Lib. I. cap. xii.

959 Raynouard, Monuments relatifs À la Condamn. des Chev. du Temple, p. 269.

960 Bonif. de Morano Chron. Mutinense. (Muratori Antiq. Ital. Diss. 38).

961 Malleus Maleficar. Francof. 1580, pp. 523-31.

962 P. Burgmeister, who relates this in his thesis for the Doctorate (De Probat. per aquam, &c. UlmÆ, 1680), vigorously maintains the truth of the miracle against the assaults of a Catholic controversialist who impugned its authenticity. The affair seems to have attracted considerable attention at the time, as a religious question between the old Church and the Lutherans.

963 CÆsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. X. c. xxxvi.

964 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. v. § 19.

965 Annalista Saxo ann. 993.

966 Thus Rabelais, “en mon aduiz elle est pucelle, toutesfoys ie nen vouldroys mettre mon doigt on feu” (Pantagruel, Liv. II. chap. xv.); and the Epist. Obscur. Virorum (P. II. Epist. 1) “Quamvis M. Bernhardus diceret, quod vellet disputare ad ignem quod hÆc est opinio vestra.”

967 Ali Ibrahim Khan (Asiatic Researches, I. 390).

968 Wheeler’s Hist. of India, III. 262.

969 Targum of Palestine, Gen. xi. (Etheridge’s Translation, I. 191-2).—Shalshelet Hakkabala fol. 8a. (Wagenseilii Sota p. 192-3).

970 Daniel, iii. 19-28.

971 Rufini Historia Monachorum cap. ix.

972 Theodori Lector. H.E. Lib. II.

973 Greg. Turon. Hist. Francor. II. 1.—Ejusd. de Gloria Confess. 76.—S. Hildefonsi Toletani Lib. de Viris Illustribus c. iii.

974 Quodsi servus in ignem manum miserit, et lÆsam tulerit, etc.—Tit. XXX. cap. i.; also Tit. XXXI.

975 Vit. S. Johannis Gualberti c. lx.-lxiv.—Berthold. Constantiens. Annal. ann. 1078.

976 Landulph. Jun. Hist. Mediol. cap. ix. x. xi. (Rer Ital. Script. T.V.).—Muratori, Annal. Ann. 1103, 1105.

977 CÆsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. x.c. xxxiv.—The same incident is related of St. Francis of Assisi (Vita et Admiranda Historia Seraphici S. P. Francisci, Augsburg, 1694, xxiii).

978 Fulcher. Carnot. cap. x.; Radulf. Cadomensis cap. c. ci. cii. cviii.; Raimond. de Agiles (Bongars, I. 150-168). The latter was chaplain of the Count of Toulouse, and a firm asserter of the authenticity of the lance. He relates with pride, that on its discovery he threw himself into the trench and kissed it while the point only had as yet been uncovered. He officiated likewise in the ordeal, and delivered the adjuration as Peter entered the flames: “Si Deus omnipotens huic homini loquutus est facie ad faciem, et beatus Andreas Lanceam Dominicam ostendit ei, cum ipse vigilaret, transeat iste illÆsus per ignem. Sin autem aliter est, et mendacium est, comburatur iste cum lancea quam portabit in manibus suis.” Raoul de Caen, on the other hand, in 1107 became secretary to the chivalrous Tancred, and thus obtained his information from the opposite party. He is very decided in his animadversions on the discoverers. Foulcher de Chartres was chaplain to Baldwin I. of Jerusalem, and seems impartial, though sceptical.

The impression made by the incident on the popular mind is manifested in the fact that the NÜrnberg Chronicle (fol. cxcv.) gives a veritable representation of the lance-head.

979 Raynaldi Annal. Eccles. ann. 1219, c. 56.

980 Martyrol. Roman. 19 Jun.—Petri Damian. Vit. S. Romualdi c. 27.

981 Petri Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii. (Patrol. CCV. 229).

982 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. III. c. xv.

983 Luca Landucci, Diario Fiorentino, pp. 166-9.—Burlamacchi, Vita di Savonarola (Baluz. et Mansi I. 559-63).—Processo Autentico (Baluz. et Mansi I. 535-42.—Villari, Storia di Gir. Savonarola, II. App. lxxi. lxxv. lxxx. lxxxiii. xc.-xciii.—Diarium Burchardi ann. 1498.—Guicciardini, III. vi.

984 Roderici Toletani de Reb. Hispan. VI. xxvi. (see ante p. 132).

985 Pet. Val. Cernaii Hist. Albigens. cap. III.

986 Niceph. Gregor. Lib. VI.

987 Chron. Samaritan. c. xlv. (Ed. Juynboll, Lug. Bat. 1848, p. 183).

988 Dathavansa, chap. III. 11-13 (Sir M. Coomara Swamy’s Translation, London, 1874).

989 Plinii Hist. Natur. L. VII. c. ii.

990 Gospel of the Infancy, III.

991 Concil. CÆsar-August. II. ann. 592 c.2.

992 Martene de Antiquis EcclesiÆ Ritibus Lib. III. c. viii. § 2.

993 Chron. Casinensis Lib. II. c. xxxiv.

994 Matthew of Westminster, ann. 1065.

995 Olaf Haraldss. Saga, ch. 258 (Laing’s Heimskringla, II. 349).

996 Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita sua Lib. III. cap. xxi.

997 Chron. Andrensis Monast. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 782).

998 Villanueva, Viage Literario, T. XIX. p. 42.

999 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 34.

1000 Hincmar. de Divort. Lothar. Interrog. vi. It may readily be supposed that a skilful management of the rope might easily produce the appearance of floating, when a conviction was desired by the priestly operators.

1001 L. Æthelstani I. cap. xxiii.

1002 Martene de Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 8.

1003 Petri Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii. (Patrol. CCV. 233).

1004 De Divort. Lothar. Interrog. vi.

1005 Ordo S. Dunstani Dorobern. (Baluze II. 650).

1006 Institutes of Vishnu IX. 29-30, XII.--Yajnavalkya II. 98, 108-9.—Ayeen Akbery, II. 497.—Some unimportant variations in details are given by Ali Ibrahim Khan (As. Researches, I. 390). Hiouen Thsang describes a variant of this ordeal in which the accused was fastened into one sack and a stone in another; the sacks were then tied together and cast into a river, when if the man sank and the stone rose he was convicted, while if he rose and the stone sank he was acquitted (Wheeler’s Hist. of India, III. 262).

1007 Canciani Legg. Barbar. T.I. pp. 282-3.—Martene de Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus Lib. III. c. vii. Ord. 9, 16.

1008 Baluze II. 646.—Mabillon Analect. pp. 161-2 (ap. Cangium).—Muratori Antiq. Ital. Diss. 38.—Jureti Observat. ad Ivon. Epist. 74. An Ordo printed by Dr. Patetta from an early tenth century MS. (Archivio Giuridico, Vol. XLV.) mixes up Popes Eugenius and Leo, the Emperor Leo and Charlemagne in a manner to show how exceedingly vague were the notions concerning the introduction of the ordeal, “Incipit juditium aqua frigida. Quod dominus eugenius et leo imperator et episcopi vel abbati sive com ti fecerunt.... Similiter fecit domnus carolus imperator pro domnus leo papa, etc.”

1009 Lib. adv. L. Gundobadi cap. ix.—Lib. contra Judic. Dei. c.i.

1010 Arguments for its earlier use in Europe have been drawn from certain miracles related by Gregory of Tours (Mirac. Lib. I.c. 69-70), but these relate to innocent persons unjustly condemned to drowning, who were preserved, and therefore these cases have no bearing on the matter. The Epistle attributed by Gratian to Gregory I. (c. 7 § 1 Caus. II. q.v.), in which the cold-water ordeal is alluded to, has long since been restored to its true author, Alexander II. (Epist. 122).

1011 Capit. Wormat. ann. 829, Tit. II. cap. 12.—L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 31.

1012 De Divort. Lothar. Interrog. vi.

1013 Assisa facta apud Clarendune §§ 1, 2.—Assisa apud Northamtoniam (Gesta Henrici II. T. II. p. cxlix.; T.I. p. 108.—M. R. Series).

1014 Opusc. adv. Hincmar. Laudun. cap. xliii.

1015 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. ix. § 39.

1016 Recess. Convent. Alsat. anno 1051, § 6 (Goldast. Constit. Imp. II. 48).

1017 De Legg. AngliÆ Lib. XIV. cap. i.

We have seen above (p. 292), however, that this rule was by no means invariable. In addition to the cases there adduced another may be cited when in 1177 a citizen of London who is qualified as “nobilissimus et ditissimus,” accused of robbery, was tried by the water ordeal, and on being found guilty offered Henry II. five hundred marks for a pardon. The dazzling bribe was refused, and he was duly hanged.—Gesta Henrici II. T.I. p. 156.

1018 Regiam Majestatem Lib. IV. cap. iii. § 4.

1019 Text. Herold. Tit. LXXVI.

1020 Mazure et Hatoulet, Fors de BÉarn, p. xxxi.

1021 Conrad. Ursperg. sub. Lothar. Saxon.

1022 Quidam illustris vir.—Othlon. de Mirac. quod nuper accidit etc. (Migne’s Patrol. T. CXL. p. 242).

1023 Concil. Ausonens. ann. 1068 can. vii. (Aguirre, IV. 433).

1024 Juris Feud. Alaman. cap. lxxvii. § 2.—Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. III. c. 21.

1025 MS. Brit. Mus. quoted by Pertz in Hugo. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

1026 Hermann. de Mirac. S. MariÆ Laudun. Lib. III. cap. 28.

1027 Lodharius ... Gerbergam, more maleficorum, in Arari mergi prÆcepit.—Nithardi Hist. Lib. I. ann. 834.

1028 Plinii Natur. Histor. L. VII. c. ii.

1029 Ameilhon, de l’Épreuve de l’Eau Froide.

1030 In earlier times, various other modes of proof were habitually resorted to. Among the Lombards, King Rotharis prescribed the judicial combat (L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. xvi. § 2). The Anglo-Saxons (Æthelstan. cap. VI.) direct the triple ordeal, which was either red-hot iron or boiling water.

1031 Regest. Ludovici Hutini (ap. Cangium).

1032 Mall. Maleficarum.

1033 Wieri de PrÆstigiis DÆmonum pp. 589, 581.

1034 Scribonii Epist. de Exam. Sagarum. Newald Exegesis Purgat. Sagarum. These tracts, together with Rickius’s “Defensio ProbÆ AquÆ FrigidÆ,” were reprinted in 1686 at Leipsic, in 1 vol. 4to.

1035 De Magor. DÆmonomania, Basil. 1581, pp. 372, 385.

1036 Binsfeldi Tract. de Confess. Malefic. pp. 287-94 (Ed. 1623). He argues that, as the proceeding was unlawful, confessions obtained by means of it were of no legal weight.

1037 Wieri op. cit. p. 589.

1038 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. v. §§ 30, 35.

1039 P. Burgmeister Dissert. de Probat. per aquam, etc. UlmÆ, 1680, § 44. Burgmeister adopts the explanation of Binsfeld to account for the cases in which witches floated.

1040 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 176.—Bochelli Decr. Eccles. GallicanÆ, Paris, 1609, p. 1211.

1041 “Porro, nostra memoria, paucis abhinc annis, solebant judices reos maleficii accusatos mergere, pro certo habentes incertum crimen hac ratione patefieri.”—NotÆ ad Legem Salicam.

1042 Tanquam aqua suum in sinum eos non admitteret, qui excussa baptismi aqua se omni illius sacramenti beneficio ultro orbarunt.—DÆmonologiÆ Lib. III. cap. vi.

1043 Rogers’ Scotland, Social and Domestic, p. 266 (Grampian Club, 1869).

1044 Dissert. Inaug. de Torturis Th. XVIII. § xi. Basil. 1661.

1045 N. Brandt de Legitima Maleficos et Sagas investigandi et convincendi ratione, Giessen, 1662.

1046 P. Burgmeister Dissert. de Probat. per aquam ferventem et frigidam, §§ 29, 39-41, UlmÆ, 1680.

1047 Le Brun, Histoire critique des Pratiques Superstitieuses, pp. 526-36 (Rouen, 1702).

1048 F.M. Brahm de Fallacibus Indiciis MagiÆ, HalÆ Magdeburg. 1709.

1049 J.C. Nehring de Indiciis, JenÆ, 1714.

1050 J.H. BÖhmer, Jur. Eccles. Protestant. T.V. p. 608.

1051 Per aquam, tum frigidam ut hodiernum passim in sagarum inquisitionibus.—Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic. Duellico, cap. i. § 4 (Francof. 1735).

1052 Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 38.

1053 Qui ex levi suspicione, in tali crimine delatas, nec confessas, nec convictas, ad torturas, supernatationem aquarum, et alia eruendÆ veritatis media, tandem ad ipsam mortem condemnare ... non verentur, exempla proh dolor! plurima testantur.—Synod. Culmens. et Pomesan. ann. 1745, c. v. (Hartzheim Concil. German. X. 510).

1054 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, I. 321.

1055 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 177.

1056 Spottiswoode Miscellany, Edinburgh, 1845, II. 41.

1057 V. Bogisic, in MÉlusine, T. II. pp. 6-7.

1058 Hartausen, Études sur la Russie (Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 256).

1059 Institutes of Vishnu, X.—In the code of Yajnavalkya (II. 100-102) there are some differences in the process, but the statement in the text is virtually the same as that in the Ayeen Akbery (II. 486) as in force in the seventeenth century.

1060 Rickii Defens. ProbÆ Aq. FrigidÆ, § 41.

1061 Collin de Plancy, Diet. Infernal, s.v. Bibliomancie.

1062 Koenigswarter, op. cit. p. 186.

1063 J.H. BÖhmer, Jur. Eccles. Protestant. T.V. p. 608.

1064 E.B. Tylor in Macmillan’s Magazine, July, 1876.

1065 FormulÆ BignonianÆ, No. xii.

1066 Vit. S. Lamberti (Canisii et Basnage, II. 140).—Pseudo BedÆ Lib. de Remed. Peccator. Prologus (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, Halle, 1851, p. 248).

1067 Capit. Pippini ann. 752, § xvii.

1068 Chart. Division, cap. xiv. Capit. ann. 779, § x.; Capit. IV. ann. 803, §§ iii. vi.; in L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. xxviii. § 3; Tit. lv. § 25, etc.

1069 Ughelli Italia Sacra T.V. p. 610 (Ed. 1653).

1070 Capit. Car. Mag. incerti anni c.x. (Hartzheim. Concil. German. I. 426).

1071 Capit. Lud. Pii ann. 816, § 1 (Eccardi L. Francorum, pp. 183, 184).

1072 Rudolph. Fuldens. VitÆ S. LiobÆ cap. xv. (Du Cange, s.v. Crucis Judicium).

1073 Concil. Aquisgran. cap. xvii.

1074 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 32.

1075 Not. ad Libb. Capit. Lib. I. cap. 103. This derives additional probability from the text cited immediately above, relative to the substitution of this ordeal for the duel, which is given by Eckhardt from an apparently contemporary manuscript, and which, as we have seen, is attributed to Louis le DÉbonnaire in the very year of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle. It is not a simple Capitulary, but an addition to the Salic Law, which invests it with much greater importance. Lindenbruck (Cod. Legum Antiq. p. 355) gives a different text, purporting likewise to be a supplement to the Law, made in 816, which prescribes the duel in doubtful cases between laymen, and orders the ordeal of the cross for ecclesiastical causes—“in Ecclesiasticis autem negotiis, crucis judicio rei veritas inquiratur”—and allows the same privilege to the “imbecillibus aut infirmis qui pugnare non valent.” Baluze’s collection contains nothing of the kind as enacted in 816, but under date of 819 there is a much longer supplement to the Salic law, in which cap. x. presents the same general regulations, almost verbatim, except that in ecclesiastical affairs the testimony of witnesses only is alluded to, and the judicium crucis is altogether omitted. The whole manifestly shows great confusion of legislation.

1076 Chart. Divisionis ann. 837, cap. 10.

1077 Meyer, Recueil d’Anciens Textes, Paris, 1874, p. 12.

1078 Sir John Shore, in Asiatic Researches, IV. 362.

1079 Half an ounce, according to a formula in a MS. of the ninth century, printed by Dom Gerbert (Migne’s Patrolog. CXXXVIII. 1142).

1080 Baluze II. 655.

1081 Muratori, Antiq. Ital. Dissert. 38.—For three other formulas see Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum, Ed. 1690, II. 910.

1082 Martene de Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 15.

1083 Decam. Giorn. VIII. Nov. 6.

1084 This account, with unimportant variations, is given by Roger of Wendover, ann. 1054, Matthew of Westminster, ann. 1054, the Chronicles of Croyland, ann. 1053, Henry of Huntington, ann. 1053, and William of Malmesbury, Lib. II. cap. 13, which shows that the legend was widely spread and generally believed, although the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1052, and Roger de Hoveden, ann. 1053, in mentioning Godwin’s death, make no allusion to its being caused in this manner. A similar reticence is observable in an anonymous Life of Edward (Harleian MSS. 526, p. 408 of the collection in M.R. Series), and although this is perhaps the best authority we have for the events of his reign, still the author’s partiality for the family of Godwin renders him not altogether beyond suspicion.

No great effort of scepticism is requisite to suggest that Edward, tired of the tutelage in which he was held, may have made way with Godwin by poison, and then circulated among a credulous generation the story related by the annalists.

1085 Lives of Edward the Confessor, p. 119 (M. R. Series).

1086 Dooms of Ethelred, IX. § 22; Cnut. Eccles. Tit. v.

1087 Alium examinis modum, nostro etiamnunc sÆculo, sÆpe malo modo usitatum.—Cod. Legum Antiq. p. 1418.

1088 De Mirac. S. Benedicti. Lib. I. c.v.

1089 Gesta Treverorum, continuat. I. (Migne’s Patrol. CLIV. 1205-6).

1090 Ayeen Akbery, II. 498.

1091 Ali Ibrahim Khan (Asiatic Researches, I. 391-2).

1092 Lieut. Shaw in As. Researches, IV. 80.

1093 Institutes of Vishnu, XIV.—Yajnavalkya, II. 112-13.

1094 Vitodurani Chron. ann. 1336.

1095 Roger of Wendover, ann. 1051.

1096 CÆsar. Heisterbacens. Dial. Mirac. Dist. II. c.v.

1097 Ibid. Dist. IX. c. xxxviii.

1098 Baluz. et Mansi Miscell. II. 575.

1099 Rod. Glabri Hist. Lib. V. cap. i.

1100 Greg. Turon. Hist. Lib. X. cap. 8.

1101 Dooms of Ethelred, X. § 20; Cnut. Eccles. Tit. v.

1102 C. 23, 26 Caus. II. q.v.

1103 Reginonis Continuat. ann. 941.

1104 Dithmari Chron. Lib. II.

1105 Hist. Archiep. Bremens. ann. 1051.—Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1050.—Hartzheim. Concil. German. III. 112.

1106 Regino ann. 869.—Annal. Bertiniani.

1107 Helgaldi Epitome VitÆ Roberti Regis.

1108 Duclos, MÉmoire sur les Épreuves.

1109 Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1077.

1110 This anecdote rests on good authority. Peter Damiani states that he had it from Hildebrand himself (Opusc. XIX. cap. vi.), and Calixtus II. was in the habit of relating it (Pauli Bernried. Vit. Greg. VII. No. 11).

1111 Bernald. Constant. Chron. ann. 1077.

1112 Hugon. Flaviniac. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1080.—Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1076.

1113 Ciruelo, Reprovacion de las Supersticiones, P. II. cap. vii. Barcelona, 1628. The first edition appeared in 1539 at Salamanca.

1114 Del Rio Disquis. Magic. L. IV. c. iv. q.3.—P. Kluntz Dissert, de Probat. per S. Eucharist. UlmÆ, 1677.

1115 Ayeen Akbery, II. 498. This form of ordeal is allowed for all the four castes.

1116 Ali Ibrahim Khan (As. Researches I. 392).

1117 “Sors enim non aliquid mali est, sed res est in dubitatione humana divinam indicans voluntatem.”—S. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. XXX. Serm. ii. §13.—Gratian. c. I. Caus. XXVI. q. ii.—Gratian, however, gives an ample array of other authorities condemning it.

1118 Ad ignem seu ad sortem se excusare studeat.—Tit. XXXI. § 5.

1119 Pact. Childeberti et Chlotarii, ann. 593, § 5: “Et si dubietas est, ad sortem ponatur.” Also § 8: “Si litus de quo inculpatur ad sortem ambulaverit.” As in § 4 of the same document the Æneum or hot-water ordeal is provided for freemen, it is possible that the lot was reserved for slaves. This, however, is not observed in the Decret. Chlotarii, ann. 595, § 6, where the expression, “Si de suspicione inculpatur, ad sortem veniat,” is general in its application, without reservation as to station.

1120 Ecgberti Excerpt. cap. lxxxiv. (Thorpe, II. 108).

1121 Conc. Calchuth. can. 19 (Spelman. Concil. Brit. I. 300).

1122 Leon. PP. IV. Epist. VIII. c. 4 (Gratian, c.7. Caus. XXVI. q.v.).

1123 L. Frision. Tit. XIV. §§ 1, 2. This may not improbably be derived from the mode of divination practised among the ancient Germans, as described by Tacitus, De Moribus German, cap. x.

1124 Sullivan, ap. Pictet, Origines Indo-EuropÉennes, III. 179.

1125 When used for purposes of divining into the future, these practices were forbidden. Thus, as early as 465, the Council of Vannes denounced those who “sub nomine fictÆ religionis quas sanctorum sortes vocant divinationis scientiam profitentur, aut quarumcumque scripturarum inspectione futura promittant,” and all ecclesiastics privy to such proceedings were to be expelled from the church (Concil. Venet. can. xvi.). This canon is repeated in the Council of Agde in 506, where the practice is denounced as one “quod maxime fidem catholicÆ religionis infestat” (Conc. Agathens. can. xlii.); and a penitential of about the year 800 prescribes three years’ penitence for such acts.—Ghaerbaldi Judicia Sacerdotalia c. 29 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 33).

1126 Baldric. Lib. I. Chron. Camerac. cap. 21 (Du Cange, s.v. Sors).

1127 Decret. Caus. XXVI. q. ii.

1128 Concil. Barcinon. II. ann. 599 c.3.

1129 Goll, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II. 99-105.

1130 Hist. Monast. de Abingdon. Lib. I. (M. R. Series I. 89).

1131 Grimm’s Teutonic Mythology, Stallybrass’s Translation, p. 1109.

1132 E.B. Tylor on Ordeals and Oaths (Macmillan’s Mag. July, 1876).

1133 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 216.

1134 Grimm’s Teutonic Mythology, pp. 1108-9. Grimm quotes Theocritus and Lucian to show that similar forms of divination with a sieve were familiar in classical antiquity.

1135 Inderwick, Side-lights on the Stuarts, p. 152.

1136 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 158.

1137 Carena, Tractatus de Officio Sanctiss. Inquisit. P. II. Tit. xii. § xxii. In Carena’s first edition (Cremona, 1636) there is no allusion to the subject. His attention apparently was attracted to it by a case occurring at Cremona in 1636, where he was acting as criminal judge. In this, Gonsalvo de Cremona, the clerical governor of Cremona, applied to the Council of Milan in February for instructions and received an unsatisfactory reply. He returned to the charge in June and was effectually snubbed by the following:—

“Philippus IV. Hispaniarum Rex et Mediolani Dux.

“Dilectiss. Noster: satis fuit responsum litteris quas die 28 Febr. proxime prÆteriti scripsistis ad magnificum Senatus nostri prÆsidem de nece JuliÆ BellisellÆ et Jo. Baptisti Vicecomitis, cujus ex vulneribus sanguis exivit in conspectu Vespasiani Schitii, non autem Gasparis Picenardi, pariter suspectorum eius facinoris. Igitur novissimis litteris quibus petiistis vobis dici quid de ea re sentiamus nihil est quod prÆterea respondeamus nisi ut meliora quÆratis indicia et juxta ea procedatis ad expeditionem causÆ, referendo referenda.

“Mediolani 3 Julii, 1636.”

1138 Marsilii Ficini de Immortal. AnimÆ Lib. XVI. c.5.—Del Rio, Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. I. cap. iii. Q. 4, ¶ 6.—C. C. Oelsner de Jure Feretri cap. I. § 6 (JenÆ, 1711).

The passage relied on has usually a much less decent significance ascribed to it—

“Idque petit corpus mens, unde ’st saucia amore:
Namque omnes plerumque cadunt in volnus et illam
Emicat in partem sanguis unde icimur ictu,
Et si cominus est hostem ruber occupat humor.”
De Rer. Nat. IV. 1041-44.

1139 Gamal. ben Pedazhur’s Book of Jewish Ceremonies, London, 1738, p. 11.

1140 Roger de Hoveden, ann. 1186; Roger of Wendover; Benedicti Abbatis Gesta Henricii II. ann. 1189.

1141 Scott’s Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border.

1142 Nam ut in homicidio occulto sanguis e cadavere, tangente homicida, erumpit, quasi coelitus poscens ultionem.—DemonologiÆ Lib. III. c. vi.

1143 Scott’s notes to the ballad of Earl Richard.

1144 Cobbett’s State Trials, XI. 1371.

1145 Spottiswoode Miscellanies, II. 69.

1146 Alphonsi de Spina Fortalicium Fidei Lib. III. consid. vii.

1147 Vitodurani Chron. ann. 1331.

1148 Swartii Chron. Ottbergensis § xlvii. (Paullini Antiq. Germ. Syntagma).

1149 Val. Anshelm, Berner-Chronik, ann. 1503 (Bern, 1886, II. 393).

1150 Oelsner de Jure Feretri c. iii. § 8. This little thesis was written in 1680. It seems to have met with approval, for it was reprinted in 1711 and 1735.

1151 Oelsner op. cit. cap. iii. § 7. A variant of this story is told by Scott in his notes to the “Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border.” In this the bone chances to be fished up from a river, where it had lain for fifty years, and the murderer, then an old man, happens to touch it, when it streams with blood. He confesses the crime and is duly condemned.

1152 Carena, op. cit. P. II. Tit. xii. § 22.

1153 Oelsner, cap. iii. § 6. Joh. Christ. Nehring de Indiciis, JenÆ, 1714, p. 19.—KÖnigswarter (op. cit. p. 183) tells us that this custom was observed also in the Netherlands and throughout the North.

1154 Unde forte contingit ut occisi hominis vulnus etiam jacente cadavere, in eum qui vulneraverat, si modo ille comminus instet, vulnus ipsum inspiciens, sanguinem rursus ejiciat, quod quidem evenire nonnunquam Lucretius affirmavit et judices observarunt.—De Immortalitate AnimÆ Lib. XVI. c.5.

1155 Marsil. Pract. Criminal. (ap. Binsfeld, de Confess. Maleficar. pp. 111-12).

1156 Carena, loc. cit.

1157 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 34.

1158 Cujus rei rationem petunt e causis naturalibus et reddere conatur Petrus Apponensis; quÆ qualescunque tandem hÆ sint, constat evenisse sÆpe, et magnis autoribus tradita exempla.—B. d’AgentrÉ Comment, in Consuet. Britann. p. 145 (Ed. Antverp. 1644).

1159 Carena, loc. cit.—Oelsner, op. cit. c. iv. § 2.

1160 Carena, loc. cit. A similar dramatic exhibition by a corpse is recorded in a case occurring in Germany in 1607.—Oelsner, c. iii. § 5.

1161 I owe this account to the kindness of L.S. Joynes, M.D., of Richmond, who informs me that he found it while examining the Accomac County records.

1162 Annual Register for 1767, pp. 144-5.

1163 Dunglison’s Human Physiology, 8th Edition, II. 657.

1164 Phila. Bulletin, April 19, 1860.—N. Y. World, June 5, 1868.—Phila. North American, March 29, 1869.

1165 Oelsner, op. cit. cap. i. § 10; c. iii. § 8.

1166 Malleus Maleficarum, Francof. 1580, pp. 21, 32.

1167 Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. I. cap. iii. Q. 4, ¶ 6.

1168 Tract. de Officio Sanctiss. Inquisit. P. II. Tit. xii. § 22.—“Sed utcunque sit certum est in judiciis passim fuisse practicatum indicium istud sanguinis emissi sufficere ad torturam si doctoribus nostris credendum est.”

1169 De Jure Feretri, cap. ii.

1170 Oelsner, op. cit. c. iv. §§ 2, 3. Cf. Zangeri Tract. de QuÆstionibus cap. ii. n. 160.—It is perhaps worthy of remark that the earlier jurists made no allusion to it. Angelus Aretinus, Albertus de Gandavo, and Bonifacius de Vitellinis, in discussing the proofs requisite to justify torture, do not mention it.

1171 As late as 1678, an anonymous Praxis Criminalis, printed at Altenburg, speaks of it as a recognized process, gives instructions as to the cautions requisite, and says the record must be sent to the magistrate (Ib. c.i. § 11).—In 1714, Nehring (De Indiciis, JenÆ, 1714, pp. 42-3) still quotes authorities in favor of its justifying torture, and feels obliged to argue at some length to demonstrate its inadequacy.

1172 Martene de antiq. EcclesiÆ Ritibus, Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 8, 16.

1173 Hesiodi Theogonia, v. 794-806.

1174 August. Epist. lxxviii. §§ 2, 3 (Ed. Benedict.).—“Ut quod homines invenire non possunt de quolibet eorum divino judicio propaletur.”

1175 Decreti c. 6, Caus. II. q.v.—Gregor. PP. I. Homil XXXII. in Evangel. cap. 6.

Dr. Patetta (Ordalie, p. 15) informs us that in some parts of Piedmont it is still believed that a perjurer will die within the year.

1176 Munionis Histor. Compostellan. Lib. I. cap. 2, § 2.

1177 Gregor. Turon. De Gloria Martyrum cap. 58, 103.

1178 Sancta enim adeo est, ut nullus, juramento super eam prÆstito, impune et sine periculo vitÆ suÆ possit affirmare mendacium.—Hist. Monast. Abing. Lib. I. c. xii. (M. R. Series).

1179 Radulph. Tortarii Mirac. S. Benedicti cap. xxii. (Migne’s Patrol. T. CLX. p. 1210).

1180 Gregor. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. xxix.

1181 Chambers’s Book of Days, I. 384.

1182 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 34. In Tonga and Samoa false oaths taken on certain sacred articles are likewise believed to be followed by speedy death (Ib. p. 63).

1183 Vit. S. Bertrandi Convenar. No. 26 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VI. 1035).

1184 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. IV. c. lviii.

1185 Institutes of Vishnu XIII.—Yajnavalkya, II. 110-111. Yajnavalkya classes it among the ordeals reserved for the Sudra caste (Ib. II. 98).

1186 Ayeen Akbery, II. 497.

1187 Ali Ibrahim Khan (As. Researches, I. 391).

1188 Wheeler’s India, III. 262.

1189 Ali Ibrahim Khan, ubi sup.

1190 Fratricidas autem et parricidas sive sacerdotum interfectores ... per manum et ventrem ferratos de regno ejiciat ut instar Cain jugi et profugi circueant terram.—Leg. Bracilai BoÆmor (Annal. Saxo ann. 1039). So also a century earlier for the murder of a chief.—Concil. Spalatens. ann. 927, can. 7 (Batthyani, I. 331).

1191 De Successoribus S. Hidulfi cap. xviii. (Patrolog. CXXXVIII. p. 218). A similar case attested the sanctity of St. Mansuetus (Vit. S. Mansueti Lib. II. c. 17.—Martene et Durand. Thesaur. III. 1025).

1192 Folcardi Mirac. S. Bertin. Lib. I. c.4.

1193 Batthyani, Legg. Eccles. Hung. T.I. p. 413. See also Mirac. S. Swithuni c. ii. § 32.—Mirac. S. Yvonis c. 21 (Patrol. CLV. 76, 91). Various other instances may be found in Muratori, Antiq. Med. Ævi, Diss. 23. Charlemagne seems to have considered it a deception to be restrained by law.—Car. Mag. cap. I. ann. 789, § lxxvii.

1194 Martene de antiquis EcclesiÆ Ritibus Lib. I. cap. vi. art. 4 n. 12.

1195 CÆsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. XI. c. xxvii. xxix.

1196 Greg. Turonens. VitÆ Patrum, Cap. viii. n. 10.

1197 Bernald. Vit. S. Gerald. cap. xv. (Baluz et Mansi I. 134).

1198 Socratis Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. c. 25.

1199 Theodori Lector. H.E. Lib. II. When, about the year 500, St. Avitus bishop of Vienne was disputing with the Arians before King Gundobald, he offered to leave the decision as to the rival faiths to Heaven by both parties going to the tomb of St. Justus and appealing to him, but the Arians prudently refused to imitate Saul and practise necromantic arts.—Collatio Episcoporum coram R. Gundebaldo (Migne’s Patrologia, LIX. 391).

1200 Remberti Vit. St. Anscharii c. xvi. (Langebek I. 458-9).

1201 Gesta Consul. Andegavens. c. iii. § 16 (D’Achery III. 241).

1202 CÆsar. Heisterbach Dial. Mirac. Dist. VIII. c. lxxiii.

1203 LegendÆ de S. Olavo (Langebek II. 551-2).

1204 Pet. Damian. Opusc. LVII. Diss. ii. c. 3, 4.

1205 Conc. Roman. ann. 904 (898) c. 1 (Harduin. VI. I. 487).—Liutprand. Antapodos. Lib. I. c. 30, 31.

1206 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 218.

1207 Wieri de PrÆstigiis DÆmonum, pp. 589-90.

1208 That this was a settled practice is shown by its existence in the earliest text of the law (Tit. LVI.) as well as in the latest (L. Emend. Tit. LIX.).

1209 Si aufugerit et ordalium vitaverit, solvat plegius compellanti captale suum et regi weram suum.—L. Cnuti SÆc. cap. xxx.—See also cap. xli.

1210 Et eligat accusatus alterutrum quod velit, sive simplex ordalium, sive jusjurandum unius libre in tribus hundredis super xxx. den.—L. Henrici I. cap. LXV. § 3. By the municipal codes of Germany, a choice between the various forms of ordeal was sometimes allowed to the accused who was sentenced to undergo it.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. xxxvii. §§ 15, 16. Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. Art. 39.

1211 Dooms of Ethelstan, I. cap. 21.

1212 First Text, Tit. LIII. and L. Emend. Tit. LV.

1213 Jura primÆva MoraviÆ, BrunÆ, 1781, p. 27.

1214 Yajnavalkya, II. 96.

1215 Institutes of Vishnu, IX. 18-19.

1216 Yajnavalkya, II. 22.

1217 Leg. Frision. Tit. III. c. 8, 9.

1218 Guthrunarkvida Thridja, 9, 10 (Thorpe’s Elder Edda, pp. 106-7).

1219 Roberti Pulli Sententt. Lib. VI. cap. liv. (Migne’s Patrologia, T. CLXXXVI. p. 905).

1220 Si certa probatio non fuerit.—L. Sal. Tit. XIV. XVI. (MS. Guelferbyt). The same is found in the Pact. Childeberti et Chlotarii § 5.—Decret. Chlotarii II. ann. 595, § 6.—Capit. Carol. Calvi, ann. 873, cap. 3, 7.—Cnuti Constit. de Foresta § 11: “Sed purgatio ignis nullatenus admittatur nisi ubi nuda veritas nequit aliter investigari.”—In the customs of Tournay in 1187, when a man has been wounded and has no witnesses the accused can clear himself with six conjurators if the affair occurred in the daytime, but if at night he is forced to the cold-water ordeal (Consuet. Tornacens. § ii. ap. D’Achery, Spicileg. III. 551). Horne’s Myrror of Justice, cap. III. Sect. 23: “En case ou battaille ne se poit joindre ne nul tesmognage n’avoit lieu ... e le actor n’ad point de testmoignes a prover sa action, adonque estoit en le volunt del deffendant a purger sa fame per le miracle de Dieu.” Yet in an English case of murder early in the thirteenth century, the accused was found with the murdered man’s cap and the knife with which he had been slain, and the whole vicinage testified to it, yet he was allowed to purge himself with the water ordeal.—Maitland, Pleas, etc., p. 80.

1221 Ruskaia Prawda, art. 28. Even the evidence of a slave was sufficient to condemn the accused to the red-hot iron. If he escaped, the accuser paid him a small fine, which was not required if the witnesses had been freemen. In all cases of acquittal, however, there were fines payable to the sovereign and to the ministers of justice.

1222 Et omnis accusator vel qui alium impetit, habeat optionem quid velit, sive judicium aque vel ferri ... et si fugiet (accusatus) ab ordalio, reddat eum plegius wera sua.—Ethelr. Tit. III. c. vi. (Thorpe II. 516).

1223 Thus, in the Icelandic code—“Quodsi reus ferrum candens se gerere velle obtulerit, hoc minime rejiciatur.”—GrÁgÁs, Sect. VI. c. 33. So in the laws of Bruges in 1190 (§ 31), we find the accused allowed to choose between the red-hot iron and a regular inquest—“Qui de palingis inpetitur, si ad judicium ardentis ferri venire noluerit, veritatem comitis qualem melius super hoc inveniri poterit, accipiet” (WarnkÖnig, Hist. de la Fland. IV. 372)—showing that it was considered the most absolute of testimony. And in a constitution of Frederic Barbarossa “Si miles rusticum de violata pace pulsaverit ... de duobus unum rusticus eligat, an divino aut humano judicio innocentiam suam ostendat.”—Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxvii. § 3.

1224 Thus an anonymous ecclesiastic, in an epistle quoted by Juretus (Observat. in Ivon. Carnot. Epist. 74)—“Simoniaci non admittuntur ad judicium, si probabiles personÆ, etiam laicorum, vel feminarum, pretium se ab eis recipisse testantur; nec aliud est pro manifestis venire ad judicium nisi tentare Dominum.”

1225 Duellum vel judicium candentis ferri, vel aquÆ ferventis, vel alia canonibus vel legibus improbata, nullomodo in curia Montispessulani rati sunt, nisi utraque pars convenerit.—Statut. Montispess. ann. 1204 (Du Cange).

1226 Si accolis de neutrius jure constat, adeoque hac in re testimonium dicere non queant, tum judicio aquÆ res decidatur.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. cclxxviii. § 5.—Poterit enim alteruter eorum petere probationem per aquam (wasser urteyll) nec Dominus nec adversarius detrectare possit; sed non, nisi quum per testes probatio fieri nequit.—Jur. Feud. Alaman. cap. lxxvii. § 2.

“Aut veritas reperiatur de hoc per aquaticum Dei judicium. Tamen judicium Dei non est licitum adhiberi per ullam causam, nisi cujus veritas per justitiam non potest aliter reperiri, hoc terminabitur judicio Dei.”—Jur. Feud. Saxon. § 100 (Senckenberg. Corp. Jur. Feud. German. p. 249).—So, also, in a later text, “judicium Domini fervida aqua vel ferro non licet in causa aliqua experiri, nisi in qua modis aliis non poterit veritas indagari.”—Cap. xxiv. § 19 (Ibid. p. 337).

1227 Établissements de Normandie, Tit. de Prison (Éd. Marnier). Precisely similar to this was a regulation in the early Bohemian laws.—Bracilai Leges. (Patrol. CLI., 1258-9). And an almost identical provision is found in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.—L. Cnuti SÆc. cap. xxxv.—L. Henric. I. cap. lxi. § 5.—See, also, Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cclix.

1228 Batthyany, Legg. Eccles. Hung. II. 105.

1229 Et qui inveniatur per sacramentum prÆdictorum rettatus vel publicatus quod fuerit robator vel murdrator vel latro vel receptor eorum, postquam dominus rex fuit rex, capiatur et eat ad juisiam aquÆ.—Assisa de Clarenduna § 2 (Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 137). For examples, see Maitland, Pleas, pp. 3, 4, 5, etc.

1230 Maitland, Pleas, etc., I.1. P. 75 is a case of a youth detained in prison and sent to the ordeal apparently without a trial.

1231 Ruskaia Prawda, Art. 28.

1232 Maitland, Pleas, etc., I. 10.

1233 Hincmari Capit. Synod. ann. 852, II. xxi.

1234 Hincmari Epist. xxxiv.

1235 Capit. Car. Mag. ann. 794, § 7.

1236 Se juratores non potuerit invenire, aut ad ineum ambulat aut, etc.—MS. Guelferbyt. Tit. XIV.

1237 Quod si ... juratores invenire non potuerit, ad ignem seu ad sortem se excusare studeat.—L. Ripuar. Tit. xxxi. § 5.

1238 Dooms of Edward the Elder, cap. iii. So also in the laws of William the Conqueror, Tit. I. cap. xiv.—“Si sen escundira sei duzime main. E si il auer nes pot, si sen defende par juise.” The collection known by the name of Henry I. has a similar provision, cap. lxvi. § 3.

1239 Radevic. de Reb. Frid. Lib. I. cap. xxvi. This was an old feature of the Barbarian codes which continued till late in the Middle Ages. See ante, p. 22.

1240 Concil. Tribur. ann. 895, can. xxii.

1241 Yajnavalkya, II. 99.

1242 Chart. Commun. Laudun. (Baluz. et Mansi IV. p. 39).

1243 Consuetud. Tornacens. § iii. (D’Achery III. 551). See above, p. 54.

1244 Ut deinceps non sint digni juramento sed ordalio.—Legg. Edwardi cap. iii.; Æthelredi cap. i. § 1; Cnuti SÆcul cap. xxii. xxx.; Henrici I. cap. lxv. § 3.

1245 Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 809, cap. xxviii.—Capit Ludov. Pii. I. ann. 819.

1246 Burchardi Decret. Lib. XVI. cap. 19.

1247 Keure de la ChÂtellenie de Bruges, § 28 (WarnkÖnig, Hist. de la Fland. IV. 371).

1248 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxxxvi. §§ 4, 6, 7; cap. ccclxxiv.—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. Art. 39.—Sachsische Weichbild, Art. xcii. § 2.—Richstich Landrecht, cap. lii.

1249 Si non fuere provada por mala, que aya yazido con cinco omes.—Fuero de BaeÇa (Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo, fol. 317 a).

1250 Capit. Car. Mag. III. ann. 813, cap. 46.

1251 Concil. Mogunt. ann. 847, can. xxiv.—Burchardi Decret. Lib. XVI. cap. 19.—Keure de Gand, §§ 7, 8, 12 (WarnkÖnig, II. 228).

The law of William the Conqueror (Tit. II. c.3.—Thorpe, I. 488) by which the duel was reserved for the Norman, and the vulgar ordeal for the Saxon, might be supposed to arise from a similar distinction. In reality, however, it was only preserving the ancestral customs of the races, giving to the defendant the privilege of his own law. The duel was unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, who habitually employed the ordeal, while the Normans, previous to the Conquest, according to Houard, who is good authority (Anc. Loix Franc. I. 221-222), only appealed to the sword.

1252 Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus Lib. III. c. vii. Ord. 6. For the beliefs connected with mortuary masses see Concil. Toletan XVII. ann. 694 c. 5; D’ArgentrÉ Collect. Judic. de novis Error. I. II. 344; Angeli de Clavasio Summa Angelica s.v. Interrogationes; Diaz de Luco, Practica Criminalis Canonica cap. xxxv.; Grillandi de Sortilegiis q. xiv.

1253 The severity of the ordeal, when the sufferer had no friends among the operators to save him, may be deduced from the description of a hand when released from its three days’ tying up after its plunge in hot water: “inflatam admodum et excoriatam sanieque jam carne putrida effluentem dexteram invitus ostendit” (Du Cange, s.v. AquÆ Ferv. Judicium). In this case, the sufferer was the adversary of an abbey, the monks of which perhaps had the boiling of the caldron.

1254 L. Wisig. L. VI. Tit. i. § 3.

1255 Ivon. Carnot. Epist. 74; Ejusd. Decr. X. 27.—C. 20 Decr. Caus. II. q.v.

This epistle is generally attributed to Stephen V., but two MSS. of Ivo of Chartres ascribe it to Sylvester II. (Migne’s Patrologia CLXII. 96).

1256 Concil. Basol. cap. xi. Rainer, private secretary of Arnoul, offered to prove his statement by giving up a slave to walk the burning ploughshares in evidence of his truth (Ibid. cap. xxx.).

1257 Yajnavalkya, II. 99.

1258 Wharton and StillÉ’s Med. Jurisp., 2d Edit. 1860.

1259 Michelet, Origines du Droit, p. 349.—Proost, Jugements de Dieu, p. 80. This seems to be derived from the skirsla of the Norsemen described above.

1260 London AthenÆum, Aug. 20, 1881, p. 247.

1261 Polyptichum Irminonis, App. No. 34 (Paris, 1836, p. 373).

1262 Martene, De Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus Lib. III. cap. vii. Ordo 5.

1263 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 192.

1264 Hincmari Remens. Epist. XXII. (Migne’s Patrol. CXXVI. 136).

1265 Quod si accusatus contendere voluerit de ipso perjurio stent ad crucem.... Hoc vero de minoribus rebus. De majoribus vero, aut de statu ingenuitatis, secundum legem custodiant.—Capit. Car. Mag. ann. 779, § 10. That this was respected as law in force, nearly a hundred years later, is shown by its being included in the collection of Capitularies by Benedict the Levite (Lib. V. cap. 196).

1266 Ut omnes judicio Dei credant absque dubitatione.—Capit. Car. Mag. I. ann. 809, § 20.

1267 Aimoini Chron. Continuat. Lib. V. c. 34.

1268 Assisa facta apud Clarendune §§ 12, 13, 14 (Gesta Henrici II. T. II. p. clii.—M. R. Series). A case in accordance with this occurs in 1212 (Maitland, Pleas, I. 63).

1269 Gesta Henrici II. T.I. p. 108.—Cf. Bracton. Lib. III. Tract, ii. cap. 16 § 3.

1270 Simili modo, cauterium militis nullum tibi certum prÆbet argumentum, cum per examinationem ferri candentis occulto Dei judicio multos videamus nocentes liberatos, multos innocentes sÆpe damnatos.—Ivon. Carnot. Epist. cccv.

1271 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. c. lxxviii.

1272 Vit. Carol. Comit. Flandren. cap. xx.

1273 Collin de Plancy, op. cit. S. V. Fer Chaud.

1274 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. X. c. xxxv.

1275 Ciruelo, Reprovacion de las Supersticiones, P. II. c. vii.

1276 Othlon. Narrat. de Mirac. quod nuper accidit, &c. (Migne’s Patrol. CXLVI. 243-4).

1277 Polyptichum Irminonis, App. No. 20 (Paris, 1836, p. 354).

1278 Olaf Haraldssons Saga, cxlv. (Laing’s Heimskringla, II. 210).

1279 Enimvero mirum fuit ultra modum, quod fautores arsuram et inflationem conspiciebant; criminatores ita sanam ejus videbant palmam, quasi penitus fulvum non tetigisset ferrum.—Mirac. S. Swithuni c. ii. § 37. In this case the patient was a slave, whose master had vowed to give him to the Church in case he escaped.

1280 Ad utramque partem sint ternas personas electas, ne conludius fieri possit.—Decret. Chlotharii II. cap. VII.

1281 Ethelred, III. § 4.

1282 Synod. Zaboles can. 27 (Batthyani, Legg. Eccles. Hung. T.I. p. 439).

1283 Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 1.

1284 Statut. Wilhelmi Regis cap. 7 § 3 (Skene II. 4).

1285 Ibid. cap. 16.

1286 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown, I. 75.

1287 Nam criminosos eodem chrismate unctos aut potatos nequaquam ullo examine deprehendi posse a multis putatur.—C. Turonens. III. ann. 813 c. 20 (Harduin. IV. 1026).

1288 Capit. Car. Mag. II. ann. 809.—Capitul. Lib. III. c. 55.—Reginon. de Discip. EcclesiÆ I. 73.

1289 Reginon. op. cit. I. 72.—Burchardi Decret. IV. 80.—Ivon. Carnot. Decret. I. 274.

1290 Martene de Antiq. Ritibus EcclesiÆ Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 8. So in a ninth century exorcism of the hot water—“et si culpabilis de hac causa est et aliqua maleficia aut per herbas peccatum suum tegere voluerit tua dextera evacuare dignetur.”—Patetta, Archivio Giuridico, Vol. XLV.

1291 Martene, loc. cit. Ord. 10, 18.

1292 Du Cange, s.v. Ferrum candens.

1293 Experimentum mirabile quod facit homines ire in ignem sine lÆsione, vel portare ignem vel ferrum ignitum sine lÆsione in manu. Recipe succum bismalvÆ et albumen ovi et semen psilli et calcem et pulveriza et confice; cum illo albumine ovi succum raphani commisce et ex hac confectione illinas corpus tuum et manum et dimitte siccari; et postea iterum illinas et post hoc poteris audacter sustinere ignem sine nocumento.—Alb. Mag. de Miraculis Mundi (Binterim, DenkwÜrdigkeiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, Bd. V. Th. iii. p. 70).

1294 The “Liber adversus Legem Gundobadi” and “Liber contra Judicium Dei.”

1295 Concil. Salisburg. I. can. ix. (Dalham Concil. Salisburg. p. 35).

1296 Ahytonis Capitular, cap. xxi. (D’Achery I. 585).

1297 Capit. Carol. Calvi Tit. XI. c. iii. (Baluze).

1298 Concil. Turon. ann. 925 (Martene et Durand Thes. T. IV. pp. 72-3).

1299 Annalist. Saxo. ann. 1028.

1300 HÖfler, Concilia Pragensia, p. xiv. Prag. 1862.

1301 Burchardi Decret. Lib. XIX. c. 5 (Migne’s Patrologia CXL. p. 973).—Corrector Burchardi cap. 155 (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen der abenlÄndischen Kirche, p. 660).

1302 Batthyani, Legg. Eccles. Hung. II. 126.

1303 Examinati judicio aquÆ mendaces inventi sunt ... aqua eos non suscipiente.—In Cantica, Sermon. 66 cap. 12.

1304 De Vita Sua Lib. III. cap. 18.

1305 Concil. Remens. ann. 1157, can. 1 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 75).

1306 Hist. Vizeliacens. Lib. IV. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 560).

1307 Godefridi S. Pantaleon. Annal. ann. 1172 (Freher et Struv. Rer. German. Scriptt. I. 340).

1308 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii. (Patrol. CCV. 230).

1309 CÆsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. III. c. xvi. xvii.

1310 DÖllinger, BeitrÄge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, MÜnchen, 1890, II. 621, 622.

1311 Theodericus Abbas Vice-Comitem adiit paratus aut calidi ferri judicio secundum legem monachorum per suum hominem probare, aut scuto et baculo secundum legem secularium deffendere.—Annal. Benedict. L. 57, No. 74, ann. 1036 (ap. Houard, Loix Anc. FranÇ. I. 267).

1312 Judicium ferri igniti et aquÆ ferventis Abrincis portaretur, si clerici lapsi in culpam degradationis forte invenirentur.—Chart. Joan. Abrinc. (Patrolog. CXLVII. 266).

1313 Ivon. Carnot. Epist. ccxxxii. ccxlix. cclii.

1314 C. Remens. ann. 1119 (Harduin. VI. 1986).—Hildeberti Cenomanens. Epist. (D’Achery Spicileg. III. 456).

1315 Gemma AnimÆ, Lib. 1 cap. 181. At least this is the only reading which will make the passage intelligible—“Horum officium est ... vel nuptias vel arma, vel peras, vel baculos vel judicia ferre et aquas vel candelas ... benedicere,” where “ferre et aquas” is evidently corrupt for “ferri et aquÆ.”

1316 Hoc autem utrum ad omnia genera purgationis, an ad hÆc duo tantum, quÆ hic prohibita esse videntur, pertineat, non immerito dubitatur propter sacrificium zelotypiÆ, et illud Gregorii.—C. 20, caus. II. q.v.

1317 Ordo ad Frigidam Aquam, etc. (Pez, Thesaur. Anecd. T. II. P. II. p. 635).

1318 Ivon. Decret. X. 15.

1319 Dialog. Ecbert. Ebor. Interrog. III. (Thorpe, II. 88).

1320 Abbon. Floriac. Epist. viii.

1321 Ivon. Carnotens. Epist. lxxiv.

1322 I have treated this matter in some detail in “Studies in Church History,” pp. 69-74, 190 sqq.

1323 Du Cange, s.v. Adramire.

1324 Revue Hist. de Droit, 1861, p. 478.

1325 Decret. Coloman. c. 11 (Batthyani T.I. p. 454).

1326 LagrÈze, Hist. du Droit dans les PyrÉnÉes, p. 246.

1327 “Presbyter de ferro duas pensas et de aqua unam pensam accipiat.” Synod. Zabolcs. ann. 1092 can. 27 (Batthyani I. 439). Another reading makes the fee equal for both (Ib. II. 101).

1328 Jura PrimÆva MoraviÆ, BrunÆ, 1781, p. 26.

1329 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. xxiv.

1330 Orderic. Vital. Lib. V. cap. v.

1331 Leg. Scanicar. Lib. VII. cap. 99 (Ed. Thorsen, p. 171). There is another provision that in certain cases of murder the accused could not be compelled to undergo the ordeal of the red-hot ploughshares unless the accuser was supported by twelve conjurators, when, if the accused was successful each of the twelve was obliged to pay him three marks, and the same sum to the priest.—Ib. L. V. c. 58 (p. 140). It was scarcely intelligible why these ordeals were not allowed to be performed in any week in which there was a church-feast (Ibid. p. 170-1).

1332 Post. Concil. Lateran. P. II. cap. 3, 11.

1333 Holophernicos.... Presbyteros, qui animas hominum carissime appreciatas vendant; foeminas nudatas aquis immergi impudicis oculis curiose perspiciant, aut grandi se pretio redimere cogant.—De Casibus S. Galli cap. xiv.

1334 Alex. PP. III. Epist. 74.

1335 Alex. PP. III. Epist. (Harduin. VI. II. 1439).

1336 Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lxxviii.

1337 Hermanni Opusc. de sua Conversione c. 5 (Migne, CLXX. 814).

1338 Anon. Libell, adversus Errores Alberonis (Martene Ampl. Coll. IX. 1265).

1339 C. 8 Extra V. xxxiv.

1340 Can. 10 Extra V. 31.

1341 Innoc. PP. III. Regest. XIV. 138.—Yet abundant miracles in Strassburg testified to the divine favor in these trials.—CÆsar. Hiesterbac. Dist. III. c. 16, 17.

1342 Nec ... quisquam purgationi aquÆ ferventis vel frigidÆ, seu ferri candentis ritum cujuslibet benedictionis seu consecrationis impendat.—Concil Lateran. can. 18. In 1227, the Council of TrÈves repeated the prohibition, but only applied it to the red-hot iron ordeal. “Item. nullus sacerdos candens ferrum benedicat.”—Concil. Trevirens. ann. 1227, cap. ix.

1343 Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1215.

1344 Vulgaris purgatio est quÆ a vulgo est inventa, ut ferri candentis, aquÆ ferventis vel frigidÆ, panis vel casei, monomachiÆ id est duelli et ceterÆ hujusmodi: sed ista hodie in totum reprobata est et maledicta, tum quia inventa est a diabolo fabricante.—S. Raymundi SummÆ Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. § 1.

1345 Ergo hujusmodi judicia sunt penitus reprobanda et purgatio per talia.—Alex. de Ales SummÆ P. III. Q. xlvi. Membr. 3.

1346 Hostiensis AureÆ; SummÆ Lib. V. De Purg. Vulg. § 3.

1347 Joh. Friburgens. SummÆ Confessorum Lib. III. Tit. xxxi. Q. 2, 3.

1348 Astesani de Ast SummÆ de Casibus ConscientiÆ, P.I. Lib. I. Tit. xiv.

1349 Sachsenspiegel, ed. Ludovici, 1720, p. 619.

1350 Fontanon, IV. 942.

1351 Rymer, Foed. I. 228.

1352 Prohibitum est judicium quod fieri consuevit per ignem et per aquam.—Mat. Westmon. ann. 1250.

1353 De cetero non fiat judicium per aquam vel ferrum, ut consuetum fuit antiquis temporibus.—Statut. Alex. II. cap. 7 § 3. There is some obscurity about this provision owing to variants in the MSS., but Mr. Neilson holds (Trial by Combat, p. 113;) that there can be little doubt that it abolished the ordeal wholly.

1354 Leges quÆ a quibusdam simplicibus sunt dictÆ paribiles ... prÆsentis nostri nominis sanctionis edicto in perpetuum inhibentes omnibus regni nostri judicibus, ut nullus ipsas leges paribiles, quÆ absconsÆ a veritate deberent potius nuncupari, aliquibus fidelibus nostris indicet.... Eorum etinim sensum non tam corrigendum duximus quam ridendum, qui naturalem candentis ferri calorem tepescere, imo (quod est stultius) frigescere, nulla justa causa superveniente, confidunt; aut qui reum criminis constitutum, ob conscientiam lÆsam tantum asserunt ab aquÆ frigidÆ elemento non recipi, quem submergi potius aeris competentis retentio non permittit.—Constit. Sicular. Lib. II. Tit. 31. This last clause would seem to allude to some artifice of the operators by which the accused was prevented from sinking in the cold-water ordeal when a conviction was desired.

This common sense view of the miracles so generally believed is the more significant as coming from Frederic, who, a few years previously, was ferociously vindicating with fire and sword the sanctity of the Holy Seamless Coat against the aspersions of unbelieving heretics. See his Constitutions of 1221 in Goldastus, Const. Imp. I. 293-4.

1355 Statut. MSS. Caroli I. cap. xxii. (Du Cange, s.v. Lex Parib.).

1356 KÖnigswarter, op. cit. p. 176.

1357 Emon. Chron. ann. 1219 (MatthÆi Analect. III. 72).

1358 Issued in 1323.

1359 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. c. X. §§ 2, 3 (Ludewig, Reliq. Mictorum. VII. 292). It is a little singular that the same phrase is retained in the authentic copy of the Coutumier, in force until the close of the sixteenth century.—Anc. Cout. de Normandie, c. 77 (Bourdot de Richebourg. IV. 32).

1360 C. iii. Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xxxv.—As embodied in the Decretals of Gregory IX. this canon omits a clause indicating how great was the detestation of the people for the ordeal thus imposed on them—“quare conversis et convertendis scandalum incutiunt et terrorem.”—Quint. Compilat. Honorii III. Lib. IV. Tit. xiv.

1361 Batthyani, Legg. Eccles. Hung. T. II. p. 436.—Hartzheim, IV. 27.

1362 Rogeri Bacon Epist. de Secretis Operibus Artis c. ii. (M. R. Series I. 526).

1363 Richstich Landrecht, cap. LII. The same provisions are to be found in a French version of the Speculum Suevicum, probably made towards the close of the fourteenth century for the use of the western provinces of the Empire.—Miroir de Souabe, P. I. c. xlviii. (Éd. Matile, Neufchatel, 1843).

1364 Villaneuva, Viage Literario, XXII. 288.—Du Cange, s. vv. Ferrum candens, Batalia.

1365 Coleccion de CÉdulas, etc., Madrid, 1830, Tom. V.p. 142.

1366 Memorial HistÓrico EspaÑol, Madrid, 1850, Tom. I.p. 47.

1367 Concil. Palentin. ann. 1322, can. xxvi.

1368 Non es tenuda la parte de probar lo que niega porque non lo podrie facer.—Las Siete Partidas, P. III. Tit. xiv. l.1.

1369 S. Antonini Confessionale.

1370 Angeli de Clavasio Summa Angelica s.v. Interrogationes. The contemporary Baptista de Saulis speaks of ordeals in the present tense when saying that all concerned in them are guilty of mortal sin.—Summa Rosella, s. v. Purgatio.

1371 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 450.

1372 Plees del Corone, chap. xv. (quoted in 1 Barnewall & Alderson, 433).

1373 Ciruelo, Reprovacion de las Supersticiones. P. II. cap. vii. Salamanca, 1539.

1374 Aventini Annal. Boior. Lib. IV. c. xiv. n. 31.

1375 When, in 1692, Jacques Aymar attracted public attention to the miracles of the diving-rod, he was called to Lyons to assist the police in discovering the perpetrators of a mysterious murder, which had completely baffled the agents of justice. Aided by his rod, he traced the criminals, by land and water, from Lyons to Beaucaire, where he found in prison a man whom he declared to be a participant, and who finally confessed the crime. In 1703 Marshal Montrevel and the intendant Baville made use of Aymar to discover Calvinists, of whom numbers were condemned on the strength of his revelations (Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 33). Aymar was at length proved to be merely a clever charlatan, but the mania to which he gave rise lasted through the eighteenth century, and nearly at its close his wonders were rivalled by a brother sharper, Campetti. The belief in the powers of the divining-rod has not yet died out, and it is frequently used to discover oil wells, springs, mines, etc.

A good account of Aymar’s career and the discussion to which it gave rise may be found in Prof. Rubio y Diaz’s “Estudios sobre la Evocacion de los Espiritus,” Cadiz, 1860, pp. 116-28.

1376 Diod. Sicul. 1. lxxv.—Sir Gardiner Wilkinson (Ancient Egyptians, Vol. II.) figures several of these little images.

1377 See the translation of the Amherst Papyrus by Chabas, MÉlanges Égyptologiques, III.e Serie, T. II. p. 17 (Sept. 1873). The interpretation of the groups relating to the hands and feet is conjectural, but they unquestionably signify some kind of violence. M. Chabas qualifies this passage as highly important, being the first evidence that has reached us of the judicial use of torture in Egypt. The question has been a debated one, but the previous evidence adduced was altogether inconclusive.

1378 Lenormant, Man. de l’Hist. Ancienne de l’Orient, II. 141.

1379 Herod. I. 116.

1380 Behistun Inscription, col. II. 25-6 (Records of the Past, VII. 98-99). It is worthy of remark that this Medic version of the Inscription is more circumstantial as to these inflictions than the Persian text translated by Rawlinson (Records I. 118-19).

1381 Manu, Bk. VIII.—Institutes of Vishnu, VI. 23, VIII. IX.—Ayeen Akbery, Tit. Beyhar, Vol. II. p. 494—Halhed’s Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. xviii.

1382 Albany Law Journal, 1879.

1383 Lib. III. cap. iii.

1384 Aristophanes (RanÆ, 617) recapitulates most of the processes in vogue.

Aiachos. ?a? p?? asa?????
Xanthias.p??ta t??p??, ?? ???a??
d?sa?, ??e?sa?, ?st????d? ast????, d????,
>st?e???, ?t? d’e?? t?? ???a? ???? ??????,
p??????? ?p?t??e??, pa?ta t???a.

The best summary I have met with of the Athenian laws of torture is in Eschbach’s “Introduction À l’Étude du Droit,” § 268.

1385 Sueton. August. xxii.

1386 Sueton. Tiberii lxii.

1387 Ibid. Caii xxxii.—Claud. xxxiv.

1388 Ibid. Tiber. lviii.

1389 Tacit. Annal. XV. xliv.

1390 Lactant. de Mortib. Persecut. cap. xiii.

1391 Tormentorum genera inaudita excogitabantur (Ibid. cap. xv.).—When the Christians were accused of an attempt to burn the imperial palace, Diocletian “ira inflammatus, excarnificari omnes suos protinus prÆcipit. Sedebat ipse atque innocentes igne torrebat” (Ibid. cap. xiv.).—Lactantius, or whoever was the real author of the tract, addresses the priest Donatus to whom it is inscribed: “Novies etiam tormentis cruciatibusque variis subjectus, novies adversarium gloriosa confessione vicisti.... Nihil adversus te verbera, nihil ungulÆ, nihil ignis, nihil ferrum, nihil varia tormentorum genera valuerunt” (Ibid. cap. xvi.). Ample details may be found in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. c. 1, VI. 39, 41, VIII. passim, Lib. Martyrum; and in Cyprian, Epist. X. (Ed. Oxon. 1682).

1392 Tacit. Annal. XV. lvi. lvii.

1393 L. 10 § 6, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1394 L. 12, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Ulpian.).

1395 Const. 8 Cod. IX. xli. (Dioclet. et Maxim.).

1396 Const. 11 Cod. IX. xli.

1397 Ibid. § 1.

1398 Const. 16 Cod. IX. xli.

1399 Const. 8 Cod. I. 3.

1400 Const. 4 Cod. IX. viii.

1401 Dion. Cass. Roman. Hist. Lib. LX. (Ed. 1592, p. 776).

1402 Sueton. Domit. cap. viii. To Domitian the historian also ascribes the invention of a new and infamously indecent kind of torture (Ibid. cap. x.).

1403 Const. 3 Cod. IX. xli.

1404 Const. 31 Cod. IX. ix.

1405 Const. 7 Cod. IX. viii.

1406 Novell. CXVII. cap. xv. § 1.

1407 Hieron. Epist. I. ad Innocent.

1408 Const. 17 Cod. IX. ii.—Const. 10 Cod. IX. xlvi.

1409 Const. 3 Cod. IX. viii.

1410 Acts, XXII. 24 sqq.

1411 L. 21 § 2, Dig. XXII. v.

1412 Novell. XC. cap. i. § 1.

1413 QuÆstiones neque semper in omni causa et persona desiderari debere arbitror; et cum capitalia et atrociora maleficia non aliter explorari et investigari possunt, quam per servorum quÆstiones, efficacissimas esse ad requirendam veritatem existimo et habendas censeo.—L. 8, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Paulus).

1414 L. 9, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Marcianus).

1415 L. 9 § 1, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.—L. 1 § 16, Dig. XLVIII. xvii. (Severus)—L. 1 § 18, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Ulpian.).

1416 Pauli Lib. v. Sentt. Tit. xvi. § 7.—The same principle is involved in a rescript of the Antonines.—L. 1 § 14, Dig. XLVIII. xvii. (Severus).

1417 L. 1 § 7, Dig. XLVIII. xvii. The expression “in caput domini” applies as well to civil as to criminal cases.—Pauli Lib. V. Sentt. Tit. xvi. § 5.

1418 L. 3, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.—Const. 13 Cod. IX. xli.

1419 L. 10 § 2, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.—Const. 2 Cod. IX. xli. (Sever. et Antonin. ann. 205).

1420 L. 1 § 11, Dig. XLVIII. xvii.

1421 L. 1 § 9, Dig. XLVIII. xvii.

1422 L. 1 § 13. XLVIII. xvii.—Pauli Lib. V. Sentt. Tit. xvi. § 9.

1423 Const. 10 Cod. IX. xli. (Dioclet. et Maxim.).

1424 Tacit. Annal. II. 30. See also III. 67. Somewhat similar in spirit was his characteristic device for eluding the law which prohibited the execution of virgins (Sueton. Tiber. lxi.).

1425 This principle is embodied in innumerable laws. It is sufficient to refer to Constt. 6 § 2, 7 § 1, 8 § 1, Cod. IX. viii.

1426 L. 18 § 6, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Paulus).

1427 L. 1 § 19, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Ulpian.).

1428 Const. 1 Cod. IX. xli. (Sever et Antonin.).

1429 Constt. 3, 32 Cod. IX. ix.—L. 17, XLVIII. xviii. (Papin.).

1430 L. 5 Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Marcian.).

1431 Fl. Vopisc. Tacit. cap. IX.

1432 Du Boys, Hist. du Droit Crim. des Peup. Anciens. pp. 297, 331, 332.

1433 Const. 7 Cod. IX. xli. (Dioclet. et Maxim.).

1434 Pauli Lib. v. Sentt. Tit. xvi. § 3.—See also Ll. 6, 13 Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1435 Const. 6 Cod. IX. xlvi. This provision of the L. Julia appears to have been revived by Diocletian.

1436 Lib. IX. Cod. Theod. i. 14.

1437 L. 16 § 1, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Modestin.).

1438 L. 10 Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Arcad.).

1439 L. 3 Dig. XLVIII. xix. (Ulpian.).

1440 L. 10 § 3, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1441 L. 22 Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1442 L. 21 Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1443 L. 1 § 1, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Ulpian.).

1444 Const. 8 Cod. IX. xli. (Dioclet. et Maxim.).

1445 L. 7, Dig. XX. v.

1446 L. 1 § 4, Dig. XLVIII. xviii. (Ulpian.).

1447 L. 1 § 23, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.—Res est fragilis et periculosa et quÆ veritatem fallat.

1448 Altera sÆpe etiam causam falsa dicendi, quod aliis patientia facile mendacium faciat, aliis infirmitas necessarium.—M. F. Quintil. Inst. Orat. V. iv.

1449 Val. Maximi Lib. VIII. c. iv.

1450 Philostrati vit. Apollon. VII. xxiv.

1451 Valer. Maxim. Lib. VIII. c. iv.

1452 Hieron. Epist. I. ad Innocentium.

1453 Q. Curt. Ruf. Hist. VI. xi. Anceps conjectura est quoniam et vera confessis et falsa dicentibus idem doloris finis ostenditur.

1454 Pauli Lib. V. Sentt. Tit. xiv. § 2.—L. 18 Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1455 Aurel. Prudent. de Vincent. Hymn. v.

1456 Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. II. c. xxvii.

1457 De Bell. Gall. VI. xix.

1458 These provisions are specified only in the Salic Law (First Text of Pardessus, Tit. XL. §§ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.—L. Emend. Tit. XLII. §§ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), but they were doubtless embodied in the practice of the other tribes.

1459 L. Burgund. Tit. VII.—The other allusions to torture in this code, Tit. XXXIX. §§ 1, 2, and Tit. LXXVII. §§ 1, 2, also refer only to slaves, coloni, and originarii. Persons suspected of being fugitive slaves were always tortured to ascertain the fact, which is in direct contradiction to the principles of the Roman law.

1460 L. Baioar. Tit. VIII. c. xviii. §§ 1, 2, 3.

1461 L. Salic. First Text, Tit. XL. §§ 1, 2, 3, 4.—L. Emend. Tit. XLII. §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.—In a treaty between Childebert and Clotair, about the year 593, there is, however, a clause which would appear to indicate that in doubtful cases slaves were subjected, not to torture, but to the ordeal of chance. “Si servus in furto fuerit inculpatus, requiratur a domino ut ad viginti noctes ipsum in mallum prÆsentet. Et si dubietas est, ad sortem ponatur” (Pact. pro Tenore pacis cap. v.—Baluz.). This was probably only a temporary international regulation to prevent frontier quarrels and reprisals. That it had no permanent force of law is evident from the retention of the procedures of torture in all the texts of the Salic law, including the revision by Charlemagne.

1462 First Text, Tit. XL. § 4.—MS. Monaster. Tit. XL. § 3.—L. Emend. Tit. XLII. § 6.

1463 Grimnismal, Thorpe’s SÆmund’s Edda, I. 20.

1464 Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. VII. c. xx.; Lib. VIII. cap. xxxi. Also, Lib. V. cap. xxxvii.—Aimoin. Lib. III. c. xxx. xlii. li. lxiv. lxvii.—Flodoard. Hist. Remens. Lib. ii. c. ii.—Greg. Turon. Miraculorum Lib. I. cap. 73.

1465 Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. V. c. xlix.

1466 Edict. Theodor. cap. c. ci. cii.

1467 Cassiodor. Variar. iv. xxii. xxiii.

1468 L. Wisigoth. Lib. VI. Tit. i.l. 5.

1469 Ibid.

1470 Ibid. II. iv. 4.

1471 Ibid. VI. i. 4; VII. vi. 1; VIII. iv. 10, 11.

1472 L. Wisigoth. VI. i.1.

1473 Ibid. VI. i.2.

1474 Concil. Toletan. XIII. ann. 683, can. ii.

1475 See the Fuero Juzgo, Lib. I. Tit. iii. l. 4; Tit. iv. l.4.—Lib. III. Tit. iv. ll. 10, 11.—Lib. VI. Tit. i. ll. 2, 4, 5.—Lib. VII. Tit. i.l. 1; Tit. vi. l. 1. The only points in which these vary from the ancient laws are that, in Lib. VI. Tit. i.l. 2, adultery is not included among the crimes for suspicion of which nobles can be tortured, and that the accuser is not directed to conduct the torture. In Lib. VII. Tit. i.l. 1, also, the informer who fails to convict is condemned only in a single fine, and not ninefold; he is, however, as in the original, declared infamous, as a ladro; if a slave, the penalty is the same as with the Wisigoths.

1476 Jacobi Regis constitutio adversus JudÆos, etc. c. xiii. (Marca Hispanica, p. 1416).

1477 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. i.l. 26.

1478 Ibid. P. VII. Tit. ix. l. 16.

1479 Ca por los tormentos saben los judgadores muchas veces la verdad de los malos fechos encubiertos, que non se podrian saber dotra guisa.—Ibid. P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.1.

1480 Por premia de tormentos Ó de feridas, Ó por miedo de muerte Ó de deshonra que quieren facer Á los homes, conoscen Á las vegadas algunas cosas que de su grado non las conoscerien: e por ende decimos que la conoscencia que fuere fecha en algunas destas maneras que non debe valer nin empesce al que la Face.—Ibid. P. III. Tit. xiii. l.5.

1481 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.4.—Porque la conoscencia que es fecha en el tormento, si non fuere confirmada despues sin premia, non es valedera.

1482 Alvari Pelagii de Planctu EcclesiÆ, Lib. II. Art. xli.

1483 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.2. Except the favor shown to the learned professions, “por honra de la esciencia,” which afterwards became general throughout Europe, these provisions may all be found in the Roman law—Const. 4 Cod. IX. viii.; L. 3, Dig. XLVIII. xix.; L. 10, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.; Const. 11 Cod. IX. xli.

1484 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.5.—Imitated from L. 18, Dig. XLVIII. xviii.

1485 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.7. Cf. Tacit. Annal. XIV. xliii.-xlv.

1486 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l. 16.

1487 Ibid. P. III. Tit. xvi. l. 43.—P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.8.

1488 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. i.l. 26, “Home mal enfamado.”—P. VII. Tit. xxx. l. 3, “Et si fuere home de mala fame Ò vil.”

1489 Ibid. P. VII. Tit. i.l. 26.

1490 Ibid. P. VII. Tit. xxx. l. 4; Tit. ix. l. 16.

1491 Ibid. P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.9.

1492 Ibid. P. III. Tit. xxiii. l. 13.

1493 Partidas, P. VII. Tit. xxx. l.1.

1494 Ordenamiento de AlcalÀ, Tit. xxviii. l.1.

1495 Simancas, however, states that a single repetition of the torture was allowable.—De Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 76.

1496 De Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 44-48. Cf. NovÍsima Recopilacion, Lib. VI. Tit, ii. leis 4 y 5 (Ed. 1775).

1497 Villadiego, Gloss, ad Fuero Juzgo, Lib. VI. Tit. i.l. 2, Gloss. c, d, e, f, g.

1498 NovÍsima Recopilacion, Lib. II. vii. leis 1 y 13.

1499 Villadiego, op. cit. Lib. VI. Tit. i.1. 5, Gloss. b, c.

1500 SimancÆ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 8.

1501 NovÍsima Recopilacion, Lib. II. Tit. vi. lei 6; Lib. VIII. Tit. i. lei 4. Aragon is said to have been an exception as regards the use of torture (Gomez Var. Resolut. T. III. c. 13—ap. Gerstlacher. de QuÆst. per Torment. p. 68). In Navarre there is no trace of the use of torture prior to the fifteenth century.—G. B. de LagrÈze, La Navarre FranÇaise, II. 342.

1502 Capit. Carol. Mag. II. ann. 805, § xxv. (Baluz.). No other interpretation can well be given of the direction “diligentissime examinatione constringantur si forte confiteantur malorum quÆ gesserunt. Sed tali moderatione fiat eadem districtio ne vitam perdant.”

1503 Capitul. Lib. VI. cap. cxxix.

1504 Non solum se tradunt sed ultro etiam non admoti quÆstionibus omnem technam hujus rebellionis detegunt.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 151.

1505 Non licet presbytero nec diacono ad trepalium ubi rei torquentur stare.—Concil. Autissiodor. ann. 578, can. xxxiii.

Ad locum examinationis reorum nullus clericorum accedat.—Concil. Matiscon. II. ann. 585, can. xix.

1506 Under Charlemagne and Louis le DÉbonnaire seems to have commenced the usage of holding the court under shelter. Thus Charlemagne, “Ut in locis ubi mallus publicus haberi solet, tectum tale constituatur quod in hiberno et in Æstate observandus esse possit” (Capit. Carol. Mag. II. ann. 809, § xiii.). See also Capit. I. eod. ann. § xxv. Louis le DÉbonnaire prohibits the holding of courts in churches, and adds, “Volumus utique ut domus a comite in locum ubi mallum teneri debet construatur ut propter calorem solis et pluviam publica utilitas non remaneat” (Capit. Ludov. Pii. I. ann. 819, § xiv.).

1507 In 769, we find Charlemagne commanding the presence of all freemen in the general judicial assembly held twice a year, “Ut ad mallum venire nemo tardet, unum circa Æstatem et alterum circa autumnum.” At others of less importance, they were only bound to attend when summoned, “Ad alia vero, si necessitas fuerit, vel denunciatio regis urgeat, vocatus venire nemo tardet” (Capit. Carol. Mag. ann. 769, § xii.).

In 809, he desired that none should be forced to attend unless he had business, “Ut nullus ad placitum venire cogatur, nisi qui caussam habet ad quÆrendam” (Capit. I. ann. 809, § xiii.).

In 819, Louis ordered, that the freemen should attend at least three courts a year, “et nullus eos amplius placita observare compellat, nisi forte quilibet aut accusatus fuerit, aut alium accusaverit, aut ad testimonium perhibendum vocatus fuerit” (Capit. Ludov. Pii. V. ann. 819, § xiv.).

1508 Placuit ut adversus absentes non judicetur. Quod si factus fuerit prolata sententia non valebit.—Capit. Lib. V. § cccxi.

1509 This right of appeal was not relished by the seigneurs, who apparently foresaw that it might eventually become the instrument of their destruction. It was long in establishing itself, and was resisted energetically. Thus the Kings of England who were Dukes of Aquitaine, sometimes discouraged the appeals of their French subjects to the courts of the King of France by hanging the notaries who undertook to draw up the requisite papers.—Meyer, Instit. Judiciaires, I. 461.

1510 Annalist. Saxo ann. 928.

1511 Dithmari Chron. Lib. VII. ad. fin.

1512 Multa dissimulatione renitebant, adeo ut nullis suppliciis possent cogi ad confessionem.—Synod. Atrebatens. ann. 1025 (Hartzheim III. 68).

1513 Hermannus de S. MariÆ Lauden. Mirac. Cf. Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita Sua. cap. xvi.

1514 “Cumque captum eduxissit Isaac, virgis et vinculis coactum et flagellatum constringit, et ita extorsit ab eo ut reos in comitis traditione proderet.”—Galberti Vit. Caroli Boni cap. ix. n. 66.

1515 Chron. Montis Sereni (Mencken. Script. Rer. Germ. II. 172).

1516 Radulf. de Coggeshale Chron. Anglic. ann. 1192.

1517 Hildebert. Cenoman. Epist. xxx.

1518 Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxvii. § 8.

1519 Fred. II. Lib. Rescript. II. §§ 1, 6. (Goldast. Constit. Imp. II. 54).

1520 Erphurdianus Variloquus, ann. 1125.

1521 Annal. Bosovienses, ann. 1129.

1522 Cod. Epist. Rudolphi I.p. 216-7 (LipsiÆ, 1806).

1523 CosmÆ Pragens. Lib. III. ann. 1108.

1524 Annalist. Saxo ann. 1123. See also, about the same date, the Chron. S. Trudon. Lib. XII. (D’Achery II. 704); and the Epist. Friderici Episc. Leodiens. in Martene, Ampliss. Collect. I. 654.

1525 Gerardi Hist. Compostellan. Lib. II. cap. 80.

1526 Anglo Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1137.

1527 Pike, History of Crime in England, I. 427.

1528 JaffÉ Regesta p. 884.

1529 Matt. Paris. Hist. Ang. ann. 1210.

1530 Synod. Roman. ann. 384, can. 10.

1531 Innocent PP. I. Epist. III. cap. iii.

1532 De Civ. Dei Lib. XIX. cap. vi.

1533 Gregor. PP. I. Lib. VIII. Epist. xxx.

1534 Nicolai PP. I. Epist. xcvii. § 86.

1535 Pseudo-Alexand. decret. “Omnibus orthodoxis.”

1536 Ministrorum confessio non sit extorta sed spontanea.—Ivon. Panorm. IV. cxvii.

1537 Quod vero confessio cruciatibus extorquenda non est.—C. I. Decreti Caus. XV. q. vi.

1538 CÆsarius of Heisterbach, writing in 1221, gives a story of an occurrence happening in 1184 which, if not embellished by some later transcriber, would seem to indicate that the judicial use of torture was known at an earlier period than is stated in the text. A young girl, in the disguise of a man, was despatched with letters to Lucius III. by the partisans of Wolmar in his struggle with Rudolph for the bishopric of TrÈves. Near Augsburg she was joined by a robber, who, hearing his pursuers approaching, gave her his bag to hold while he retired on some pretext to a thicket. Captured with the stolen property she was condemned, but she told her story to a priest in confession, the wood was surrounded and the robber captured. He was tortured until he confessed the crime. Then he retracted, and the question between the two was settled, at the suggestion of the priest, by the ordeal of hot iron, when the robber’s hand was burnt, and the girl’s uninjured. The tale is a long one, very romantic in its details, and may very probably have been ornamented by successive scribes.—CÆsar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. Dist. I. c. xl.

1539 Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. cclix.

1540 Lib. Juris Civilis VeronÆ cap. 75 (p. 61).

1541 Constit. Sicular. Lib. I. Tit. xxvii.

1542 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peup. Mod. II. 405.

1543 Monach. Paduan. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1252-3 (Urstisii Script. Rer. German. p. 594).—Quotidie diversis generibus tormentorum indifferenter tam majores quam minores a carnificibus necabuntur. Voces terribiles clamantum in tormentis die noctuque audiebantur de altis palatiis.... Quotidie sine labore, sine conscientiÆ remorsione magna tormenta et inexcogitata corporibus hominum infligebat, etc.

1544 Mevii Comment. in Jus Lubecense, Lib. IV. Tit. vi. Art. 4 (Francofurt. 1664).

1545 Concil. Lateran. IV. can. iii.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 293-5.—Harduin. Concil. VII. 164. See above, p. 89.

1546 Teneatur prÆterea potestas seu rector omnes hÆreticos quos captos habuerit, cogere citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum, tanquam vere latrones et homicidas animarum et fures sacramentorum Dei et fidei ChristianÆ, errores suos expresse fateri et accusare alios hÆreticos quos sciunt, et bona eorum, et credentes et receptatores et defensores eorum, sicut coguntur fures et latrones rerum temporalium accusare suos complices et fateri maleficia quÆ fecerunt.—Innocent IV. Bull. Ad extirpanda § 26.

1547 Alex. P.P. IV. Bull. Ut negotium, 7 Julii, 1256 (MSS. Doat, XXXI. 196).—Ripoll. Bullar. Ord. PrÆdic. I. 430.—Mag. Bullar. Roman. I. 132.

1548 Trac. de HÆres. Paup. de Lugd. (Martene Thesaur. V. 1787). In the tract, Frederic II., who died in 1250, is spoken of as “quondam imperator.”

1549 Clamor validus et insinuatio luctuosa fidelium subditorum ... processus suos in inquisitionis negotio a captionibus, quÆstionibus et excogitatis tormentis incipiens personas quas pro libito asserit hÆretica labe notatas, abnegasse Christum ... vi vel metu tormentorum fateri compellit.—Lit. Philip. Pulchri (Vaissette, Hist. GÉn. de Languedoc, T. IV. Preuves p. 118).

1550 The fearful details of torture collected by Raynouard (Mon. Hist. rel. À la Condamnation des Chev. du Temple) show that the Inquisition by this time was fully experienced in such work.

1551 SimancÆ de Christ. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 19.—To the Inquisition is likewise attributable another of the monstrous iniquities of criminal justice—the denial to the accused of the assistance of counsel. Under the customary law of the feudal courts, the avocat or “avantparlier” was freely admitted, but such privilege was incompatible with the arbitrary process of which the sole object was to condemn for a crime scarce susceptible of proof. The decretal against heretics issued in 1235 by Gregory IX. forbids all judges, advocates, and notaries from helping the suspected heretic under pain of perpetual deprivation of function—“Item, judices, advocati, et notarii nulli eorum officium suum impendant; alioquin eodem officio perpetuo sint privati” (Harduin. Concil. VII. 164); and the same rule was enjoined “ne Inquisitionis negotium per advocatorum strepitum retardetur” by the Council of Valence (can. xi.) in 1248 and that of Alby (can. xxiii.) in 1254 (Harduin. VII. 426, 461).

1552 Personas autem honestas vel bonÆ famÆ, etiam si sint pauperes, ad dictum testis unici, tormentis seu quÆstionibus inhibemus, ne ob metum falsum confiteri, vel suam vexationem redimere compellantur.—Fontanon, Edicts et Ordonn. I. 701.—A somewhat different reading is given by Isambert, Anciennes Loix FranÇaises I. 270.

1553 Cil qui est pris et mis en prison, soit por meffet ou por dete, tant comme il est en prison il n’est tenus À respondre À riens c’on li demande fors es cas tant solement por quoi il fu pris. Et s’on li fet respondre autre coze contre se volentÉ, et sor ce qu’il allige qu’il ne veut pas respondre tant comme il soit en prison; tout ce qui est fait contre li est de nule valeur, car il pot tout rapeler quand il est hors de prison.—Beaumanoir, cap. LII. § xix.

1554 Quant tel larrecin sunt fet, le justice doit penre toz les souspeÇonneus et fere moult de demandes, por savoir s’il porra fere cler ce qui est orbe. Et bien les doit en longe prison tenir et destroite, et toz cex qu’il ara souspechonneus par malvese renommÉe. El si’l ne pot en nule maniere savoir le veritÉ du fet, il les doit delivrer, se nus ne vient avant qui partie se voille fere d’aus acuser droitement du larrecin.—Ibid. cap. XXXI. § vi.

1555 Si li bons n’est connoissans de son mesfet, ou s’il l’a coneu et ce a estÉ par covent, s’en li fait jugement, apeler en puet.—Conseil, ch. xxii. art. 28 (Édition Marnier, Paris, 1846).

1556 Tanon, Registre Criminel de la justice de S. Martin-des-Champs, Introd. p. lxxxvi. (Paris, 1877); Vaissette, Ed. Privat, VIII. 1348.—L’Oiseleur (Les Crimes et les Peines, Paris, 1863, p. 113) says that it was enacted for the baillages of Beauvais and Cahors, but we have seen from Beaumanoir that torture was not used in the Beauvoisis.

1557 Baluz. Concil. Gall. Narbon. p. 75.

1558 Chassaing, Spicilegium Brivatense, p. 92.

1559 Conseil ch. xxi. art. 8.

1560 Fontaines, Conseil, art. 14. Et encor ne puisse li vileins fausser le jugement son seignor.

1561 Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 382 (Paris, 1863).

1562 Olim. T. II. p. 451.

1563 Olim. III. 49-50.

1564 Ibid. III. 185-6.

1565 Olim. III. 221-2.

1566 Ibid. III. 505-6.

1567 Ibid. III. 751-2.

1568 Ibid. III. 1299.

1569 Guill. de Nangis Continuat. ann. 1304.

1570 Ibid. ann. 1314.

1571 Ibid. ann. 1315.

1572 Grandes Chroniques, T.V. p. 221 (Ed. Paris, 1837).

1573 Isambert, Anciennes Loix FranÇaises, III. 131, 60, 65.

1574 Ordonnance, 1ier Avril, 1315, art. xix. (Ibid. III. 58).

1575 Cart. Norman I. Mar. 1315, cap. xi. Cart. II. Jul. 1315, cap. xv. (Ibid. 51, 109).

1576 Ordonn. Mai 1315, art. v. xiv. (Bourdot de Richebourg, III. 233-4).

1577 Ordonn. Mars 1315, art. ix. (Ibid. p. 235). This ordonnance is incorrectly dated. It was issued towards the end of May, subsequently to the above.

1578 Ordonn. Jul. 1319, art. xxii. (Isambert, III. 227).

1579 Tout Lieu de Saint Disier, cap. cclxxii. (Olim, T. II. Append, p. 856).

1580 Ibid. cap. cclxxiii.

1581 Roisin, Franchises, Lois et Coutumes de Lille, p. 119. Thus, “on puet et doit demander de veir et de oir,” but when this is impossible, “on doit et puet bien demander et enquerre de croire et cuidier. Et sour croire et sour cuidier avoec un veritet aparent de veir et d’oir, et avoec l’omechide aparant, on puet bien jugier, lonc l’usage anchyen, car d’oscure fait oscure veritet.”

1582 Rabanis, Revue. Hist, de Droit, 1861, p. 515.—No volgoren los savis antiquament qu’om pergossa sa franquessa ni sa libertat.

1583 Registre Criminel de la Justice de St. Martin-des-Champs, p. 50.

1584 Du Cange s.v. QuÆstionarius.

1585 Letters granting exemption from torture to the consuls of Villeneuve for any crimes committed by them were issued in 1371 (Isambert, V. 352). These favors generally excepted the case of high treason.

1586 He pleaded his rank as baron as an exemption from the torture, but was overruled. Dumoulin, however, admits that persons of noble blood are not to be as readily exposed to it as those of lower station.—Desmaze, Les PÉnalitÉs Anciennes, d’aprÈs des Textes inÉdits, p. 39 (Paris, 1866).

1587 Du Cange s.v. QuÆstio No. 3.

1588 Pour denier mettre À question et tourment.—Jean Desmarres, DÉcisions, Art. 295 (Du Boys, Droit Criminel II. 48).

1589 L. Tanon, Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs, Introd. p. lxxxv. (Paris, 1877).

1590 Registre Criminel du ChÂtelet de Paris. PubliÉ pour la premiÈre fois par la SociÉtÉ des Bibliophiles FranÇais. 2 tom. 8vo. Paris, 1864.

1591 Ibid. I. 9, 14.

1592 Ibid. I. 143. See also the similar case of Raoulin du PrÉ (p. 149), who recanted on the scaffold and protested his innocence “sur la mort qu’il attendoit À avoir et recevoir presentement,” but who nevertheless was executed. Also that of Perrin du Quesnoy (p. 164).

1593 See the case of Berthaut Lestalon (Ibid. p. 501) accused of sundry petty thefts and tortured unsuccessfully. The court decided that in view of the little value of the articles stolen and of their having been recovered by the owners, the prisoner should be tortured again, when, if he confessed, he should be hanged, and if he still denied, he should have his right ear cropped and be banished from Paris. This logical verdict was carried out. No confession was obtained, and he was punished accordingly. Somewhat similar was the case of Jehan de Warlus (Ibid. p. 157), who was punished after being tortured five times without confession; also that of Jaquet de Dun (Ibid. p. 494).

1594 In the Registre Criminel de St. Martin-des-Champs the cases are recorded with too much conciseness to give details as to the process, only the charge and the sentence being stated. It frequently happens, however, that a man convicted of some petty larceny is stated to have confessed more serious previous crimes, which necessarily implies their confession being extorted. See, for instance, the case of Jehannin Maci, arrested in 1338 for having in his possession two brass pots, the stealing of which he not only confessed but also “plusures murtres et larrecins avoir fais” for which he was duly drawn on a hurdle and hanged (op. cit. pp. 120-1). The case of Phelipote de Monine (p. 178) is also suggestive.

1595 Registre Criminel du ChÂtelet de Paris, I. 36.

1596 Ibid. I. 201-209.—Somewhat similar was the case of Marguerite de la Pinele (Ibid. p. 322), accused of stealing a ring, which she confessed under torture. As she did not, however, give a satisfactory account of some money found upon her, though her story was partially confirmed by other evidence, she was again twice tortured. This was apparently done to gratify the curiosity of her judges, for, though no further confession was extracted from her, she was duly buried alive.

Crimes for which a man was hanged or decapitated were punished in a woman by burying or burning. Jews were executed by being hanged by the heels between two large dogs suspended by the hind legs—a frightful death, the fear of which sometimes produced conversion and baptism on the gallows (Ibid. II. 43).

1597 Ibid. I. pp. 1, 268, 289; II. 66, etc.

1598 Ibid. I. 419-475.—The same result is evident in a very curious case in which an old sorceress and a young “fille de vie” were accused of bewitching a bride and groom, the latter of whom had been madly loved by the girl (Ibid. I.p. 327).

1599 Ibid. I. 516.

1600 Ibid. I. 151, 163, 164, 173-77, 211, 269, 285, 306, 350, etc.

1601 See, for instance, the case of Pierre Fournet (Ibid. I. 516).

1602 TrÈs Ancienne Cout. de Bretagne, cap. CI. (Bourdot de Richebourg IV. 224-5)—“Et s’il se peut passer sans faire confession en la gehenne, ou les jons, il se sauveroit, et il apparestroit bien que Dieu montreroit miracles pour luy.”

1603 Concil. Remens. ann. 1408, cap. 49 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VII. 420).

1604 Bull. Aur. cap. xxiv. § 9 (Goldast. I. 365).

1605 Chron. Cornel. Zantfleit, ann. 1376 (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 308-9).

1606 Statut. Criminali cap. xiv. (Gregorj, Statuti di Corsica, p. 101).

1607 Ibid. cap lx. (p. 163).

1608 Statuta Criminalia Mediolani e tenebris in lucem edita, cap. 3, 24-28 (Bergomi, 1694).

1609 Statuti della Terra del Comune della Mirandola, Modena, 1885, p. 91.

1610 Statuta et Decreta antiqua Civitatis PlacentiÆ, Lib. v. Rubr. 96 (PlacentiÆ, 1560, fol. 63b).

1611 Statuts de l’Inquisition d’Etat, 1e Supp. §§ 20, 21 (Daru).

1612 Li Statuti de Valtellina Riformati nella CitÀ di Coira nell’ anno del S. MDXLVIII. Stat. Crimin. cap. 8, 9, 10 (Poschiavo, 1549).

1613 Synod. Reg. ann. 1514, Prooem. (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. I. 574). According to some authorities, this was a general rule—“Judex quamvis viderit committi delictum non tamen potest sine aliis probationibus reum torquere, ut per Specul. etc.”—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. v. No. 13 (Francof. 1645).

1614 Du Boys, Droit Criminel, I. 650.

1615 Jo. Herb. de Fulstin. Statut. Reg. Polon. (Samoscii, 1597, p. 7).

1616 Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, III. 236.

1617 Pauli Jovii Moschovia.—This is a brief account of Russia, compiled about the year 1530, by Paulus Jovius, from his conversations with Dmitri, ambassador to Clement VII. from Vasili V., first Emperor of Russia. Olaus Magnus, in the pride of his Northern blood, looks upon the statement in the text as a slander on the rugged Russ—“hoc scilicet pro terribili tormento in ea durissima gente reputari, quÆ flammis et eculeis adhibitis, vix, ut acta revelet, tantillulum commovetur”—and he broadly hints that the wily ambassador amused himself by hoaxing the soft Italian: “Sed revera vel ludibriose bonus prÆsul a versuto Muscovitici principis nuntio Demetrio dicto, tempore Clementis VII. informatus est RomÆ” (Gent. Septent. Hist. Brev. Lib. XI. c. xxvi.). The worthy archbishop doubtless spoke of his own knowledge with respect to the use of the rack and fire in Russia, but the contempt he displays for the torture of a stream of water is ill-founded. In our prisons the punishment of the shower-bath is found to bring the most refractory characters to obedience in an incredibly short time, and its unjustifiable severity in a civilized age like this may be estimated from the fact that it has occasionally resulted in the death of the patient. Thus, at the New York State Prison at Auburn, in December, 1858, a strong, healthy man, named Samuel Moore, was kept in the shower-bath from a half to three-quarters of an hour, and died almost immediately after being taken out. A less inhumane mode of administering the punishment is to wrap the patient in a blanket, lay him on his back, and, from a height of about six feet, pour upon his forehead a stream from an ordinary watering-pot without the rose. According to experts, this will make the stoutest criminal beg for his life in a few seconds.

During the later period of our recent war, when the prevalence of exaggerated bounties for recruits led to an organized system of desertion, the magnitude of the evil seemed to justify the adoption of almost any means to arrest a practice which threatened rapidly to exhaust the resources of the country. Accordingly, the shower-bath was occasionally put into requisition by the military authorities to extort confession from suspected deserters, when legal evidence was not attainable, and it was found exceedingly efficacious.

1618 Du Boys, op. cit. I. 618.

1619 Quod iidem prÆlati et inquisitores de ipsis Templariis et eorum corporibus, quotiens voluerint, ordinent et faciant id quod eis, secundum legem ecclesiasticam, videbitur faciendum.—Rymer, Foedera, III. 203.

1620 C. 1 § 1 Clement, V. 3.—Bern. Guidonis Gravamina (MSS. Doat, XXX.).

1621 Haroldus, Lima limata Conciliis etc. RomÆ, 1672, pp. 75, 76.

1622 Statut. S. Ludov. ann. 1254, §§ 20, 21 (Isambert, I. 270).

1623 Thus Gratian, in the middle of the twelfth century—“Qui calumniam illatam non probat poenam debet incurrere quam si probasset reus utique sustineret.”—Decreti P. II. caus. v. quÆst. 6, c.2.

1624 Ordonnance, Mars 1498, §§ 110-116 (Isambert, XI. 365.—Fontanon, I. 710). It would seem that the only torture contemplated by this ordonnance was that of water, as the clerk is directed to record “la quantitÉ de l’eau qu’on aura baillÉe audit prisonnier.” This was administered by gagging the patient, and pouring water down his throat until he was enormously distended. It was sometimes diversified by making him eject the water violently, by forcible blows on the stomach (Fortescue de Laudibus Legg. AngliÆ, cap. xxii.). Sometimes a piece of cloth was used to conduct the water down his throat. To this, allusion is made in the “Appel de Villon”:—

“Se fusse des hoirs Hue Capel
Qui fut extraict de boucherie,
On ne m’eust, parmy ce drapel,
Faict boyre À celle escorcherie.”

1625 Ordonn. de Villers Cotterets, AoÛt 1539, §§ 162-164 (Isambert, XIII. 633-4). “Ostant et abolissant tous styles, usances ou coutumes par lesquels les accusÉs avoient accoutumÉs d’Être ouÏs en jugement pour sÇavoir s’ils devoient Être accusÉs, et À cette fin avoir communication des faits et articles concernant les crimes et dÉlits dont ils Étoient accusÉs.”

1626 Anc. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. I. art. xli.—D’ArgentrÉ’s labored commentary on this article is a lamentable exhibition of the utter confusion which existed as to the nature of preliminary proof justifying torture. Comment. pp. 139, sqq.

1627 Nemo igitur de proprio crimine confitentem super conscientia scrutetur aliena.—Const. 17 Cod. IX. ii. (Honor. 423).

1628 Nemini de se confesso credi potest super crimen alienum, quoniam ejus atque omnis rei professio periculosa est, et admitti adversus quemlibet non debet.—Pseudo-Julii Epist. II. cap. xviii.—Gratian. Decret. P. II. caus. v. quÆst. 3, can. 5.

1629 InhÆrendo decretis alias per felicis recordationis Paulum papam quartum Sanctissimus dominus noster Pius papa quintus decrevit omnes et quoscunque reos convictos et confessos de heresi pro ulteriori veritate habenda et super complicibus fore torquendos arbitrio dominorum judicum.—Locati Opus Judiciale Inquisitorum, RomÆ, 1570, p. 477.

1630 ChÉruel, Dict. Hist. des Institutions, etc. de la France, p. 1220 (Paris, 1855).

1631 Isambert, XIV. 88. Beccaria comments on the absurdity of such proceedings, as though a man who had accused himself would make any difficulty in accusing others.—“Quasi che l’uomo che accusa sÈ stesso, non accusi piÙ facilmente gli altri. E egli giusto il tormentare gli uomini per l’altrui delitto?”—Dei Delitte e delle Pene, § XII. A curious illustration of its useless cruelty when applied to prisoners of another stamp is afforded by the record of a trial which occurred at Rouen in 1647. A certain Jehan Lemarinier, condemned to death for murder, was subjected to the question dÉfinitive. Cords twisted around the fingers, scourging with rods, the strappado with fifty pounds attached to each foot, the thumbscrew were applied in succession and together, without eliciting anything but fervent protestations of innocence. The officials at last wearied out remanded the convict to prison, when he sent for them and quietly detailed all the particulars of his crime, committed by himself alone, requesting especially that they should record his confession as having been spontaneous, for the relief of his conscience, and not extorted by torment.—Desmaze, Les PÉnalitÉs Anciennes, p. 159, Paris, 1866.

1632 Ordonnance Criminel d’AoÛt 1670, Tit. xiv. xix. (Isambert, XIX. 398, 412).

1633 Nicolas, Dissertation Morale et Juridique sur la Torture, p. 111 (Amsterd. 1682).

1634 DÉclaration du 13 Avril 1703 (Ordonnances d’Alsace, I. 340).

1635 Coutumier de Picardie, Éd. Marnier, p. 88.

1636 Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs. Paris, 1877, p. 229.

1637 Desmaze, PÉnalitÉs Anciennes, p. 204.

1638 Bodini de Magor. DÆmonoman. Basil. 1581, pp. 325, 334, 390.

1639 ScialojÆ Praxis torquendi Reos c.i. No. 12 (Neap. 1653).

1640 ThomÆ Grammatici Decisiones NeapolitanÆ, pp. 1275-6 (Venetiis 1582). Cf. ScialojÆ op. cit. c.i. No. 22.

1641 L’Oiseleur, Les Crimes et les Peines, pp. 206-7.

1642 Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudinar. HalÆ Cattor. 1740, p. 28.

1643 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 285, 293.

1644 Legg. Capital. Caroli V.c. lx. lviii.

1645 Ibid. c. xx. lviii.

1646 Ibid. c. lv. lvi. lvii.

1647 Legg. Capital. Carol. V.c. xxii. lxix.

1648 Ibid. c. xxviii.

1649 Ibid. c. xxiii. xxi.

1650 Ibid. c. xxxiii.-xliv.

1651 Ibid. c. xx. lxi.

1652 Ibid. c. lviii. lix. Accusatus, si periculum sit, ne inter vel post tormenta ob vulnera expiret, ea arte torquendus est, ne quid damni accipiat.

1653 Heineccii Hist. Jur. Civ. Lib. II. §§ cv. sqq.—Meyer (Instit. Judiciaires, Liv. VI. chap. xi.) gives a very interesting sketch of the causes which led to the overthrow of the old system of jurisprudence throughout Germany. He attributes it to the influence of the emperors and the municipalities, each equally jealous of the authority of the feudal nobles, aided by the lawyers, now becoming a recognized profession. These latter of course favored a jurisprudence which required long and special training, thus conferring upon them as a class peculiar weight and influence.

1654 My principal authorities are:—

Rerum Criminalium Praxis, by Josse Damhouder, a lawyer and statesman of repute in Flanders, where he held a distinguished position under Charles V. and Philip II. His work was received as an authority throughout Europe for two centuries, having passed through numerous editions, from that of Louvain, in 1554, to that of Antwerp, in 1750. My edition is of Antwerp, 1601.

Tractatus de QuÆstionibus seu Torturis Reorum, published in 1592 by Johann Zanger, of Wittenberg, a celebrated jurisconsult of the time, and frequently reprinted. My edition is that of 1730, with notes by the learned Baron Senckenberg, and there is a still later one, published at Frankfort in 1763.

Practica Criminalis, seu Processus Judiciarius ad usum et consuetudinem judiciorum in Germania hoc tempore frequentiorem, by Johann Emerich von Rosbach, published in 1645 at Frankfort on the Mayn.

Tractatio Juridica, de Usu et Abusu TorturÆ, by Heinrich von Boden, a dissertation read at Halle in 1697, and reprinted by Senckenberg in 1730, in conjunction with the treatise of Zanger.

ScialojÆ Praxis torquendi Reos, Neapoli, 1653.

Tractatus de Maleficiis, nempe D. Alberti de Gandino, D. Bonifacii de Vitalianis, D. Pauli Grillandi, D. Baldi de Periglis, D. Jacobi de Arena. Venetiis, 1560.

1655 Cum nihil tam severum, tam crudele et inhumanum videatur quam hominem conditum ad imaginem Dei ... tormentis lacerare et quasi excarnificare, etc.—Zangeri Tract. de QuÆstion. cap. I. No. 1.

Tormentis humanitatis et religionis, necnon jurisconsultorum argumenta repugnant.—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach. Process. Crimin. Tit. v.c. ix. No. 1.

Saltem horrendus torturÆ abusus ostendit, quo miseri, de facinore aliquo suspecti, fere infernalibus, et si fieri possit, plusquam diabolicis cruciatibus exponuntur, ut qui nullo legitimo probandi modo convinci poterant, atrocitate cruciatuum contra propriam salutem confiteri, seque ita destruere sive jure sive injuria, cogantur.—Henr. de Boden Tract. PrÆfat.

1656 Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 49-58.

1657 Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 59-88.—Knipschild, in his voluminous “Tract. de Nobilitate” (Campodun. 1693), while endeavoring to exalt to the utmost the privileges of the nobility, both of the sword and robe, is obliged to admit their liability to torture for these crimes, and only urges that the preliminary proof should be stronger than in the case of plebeians (Lib. II. cap. iv. Nos. 108-120); though, in other accusations, a judge subjecting a noble to torture should be put to death, and his attempt to commit such an outrage could be resisted by force of arms (Ibid. No. 103). He adds, however, that no special privileges existed in France, Lombardy, Venice, Italy, and Saxony (Ibid. Nos. 105-7). Scialoja expressly says (Praxis c. xiii. Nos. 40-49, 55) that in Naples no dignity, secular or ecclesiastical, except that of judges, conferred immunity from torture; and all privileges were set aside by a direct order from the sovereign.

1658 Erphurdianus Variloquus, ann. 1514 (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. II. 527-8).

1659 Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura Q. vi.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus c. iii. § 4.—Alberti de Gandino de QuÆstionibus §§ 7, 9, 36, 37.

1660 Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. Nos. 23, 24. Cf. Passerini Regulare Tribunal QuÆst. xv. Art. ix. No. 117.

1661 Emer. a Rosbach Process. Crimin. Tit. v. cap. xiv.

1662 SimancÆ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 50.

1663 Willenbergii Tract. de Excess. et Poenis Cleric. 4to. JenÆ, 1740, p. 41.

1664 Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. p. 32.

1665 Grillandi de QuÆstione et Tortura, Q. vi. §§ 4, 6, 9.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus cap. i. § 4.

1666 Zangeri op. cit. cap. I. Nos. 34-48.

1667 ScialojÆ c. xiii. No. 21.

1668 Ibid. Nos. 24-30.

1669 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, LipsiÆ, 1742, pp. 46-8.

1670 Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. pp. 24, 43.

1671 Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 73-83.

1672 Del Rio Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. v. Sect. iii. L.

1673 Damhouder. op. cit. cap. xxxviii. Nos. 3, 4.—Rosbach. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 14.—Simancas, however, declares that only two applications of torture are allowable (De Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. Nos. 76, 81).

1674 Disquis. Magicar. Lib. V. sect. ix.

1675 Assessores tamen honoris et avidi et cupidi hoc non servant imo quotidie quÆstiones repetunt absque novis indiciis.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus cap. i. § 6. So also Alberti de Gandino de QuÆstionibus § 20, and Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. QuÆ Indicia § 8.

1676 Zangeri PrÆfat. No. 31.

1677 ScialojÆ op. cit. cap. i. No. 27.

1678 Statuta Criminalia Communis BononiÆ (BononiÆ, 1525, fol. 15 a).

1679 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 52-3.

1680 Zangeri Tract. Not. ad p. 903.

1681 Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura Q. vii.

1682 ScialojÆ op. cit. cap. i. No. 34.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 53.—Grillandi, loc. cit.—Bernhard (Diss. Inaug. de Tort. cap. I. § iv.) states that in these cases not only the principals but even the witnesses could be tortured if suspected of concealing the truth.

1683 Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura, Q. V. § 6.

1684 Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus cap. iii. § 2.—Damhoud. cap. xxxviii. No. 13.—Alberti de Gandino de QuÆstionibus § 31.

1685 Zangeri PrÆfat. No. 32.—Tortura enim datur non ad liquidandum factum sed personam.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 7.

1686 Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. ix. No. 17.

1687 De Usu et Ab. Tort. Th. IX.—Qui aliter procedit judex, equum cauda frenat et post quadrigas caballum jungit.

1688 Boyvin du Villars, MÉmoires, Liv. VII.

1689 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x.

1690 Not. ad p. 907 Zangeri op. cit.

1691 Del Rio Magicar. Disquisit. Lib. V. sect. ix.

1692 Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura, Q. vi. § 10.

1693 SimancÆ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 56.

1694 De Usu et Abusu Tort. Th. XIII.

It must not be supposed from this and the preceding extracts that von Boden was an opponent of torture on principle. Within certain bounds, he advocated its use, and he only deplored the excessive abuse of it by the tribunals of the day.

1695 Quando quis dicatur competenter tortus vel non, similiter quando quis dicatur purgasse indicia vel non, omnia ista demum relinquuntur arbitrio et discretioni honesti judicis, quoniam in his certa regula tradi non potest.—Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura Q. vii. § 10.—Cf. Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x. § 36.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus cap. i. § 5.

1696 Zangeri op. cit. cap. I. Nos. 42-44.

1697 Ibid. cap. III. Nos. 20-22.

1698 Baldi de Periglis cap. iii. § 7.

1699 Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. de Perseverentia § 5.—Alberti de Gandino, De QuÆstionibus § 35.

1700 Godelmanni l.c. § 54.

1701 Cap. xxxviii. No. 18.

1702 Zangeri cap. III. Nos. 20-22.

1703 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 74.

1704 So thoroughly was this recognized, that in 1668 Racine represents a judge, desirous of ingratiating himself with a young girl, as offering to exhibit to her the spectacle of the question as an agreeable pastime.

“Dandin. N’avez vous jamais vu donner la question?

Isabelle. Non, et ne le verrai, que je crois de ma vie.

Dandin. Venez, je vous en veux faire passer l’envie.

Isabelle. HÉ! Monsieur, peut-on voir souffrir les malhereux?

Dandin. Bon! cela fait toujours passer une heure ou deux.”

Les Plaideurs, Acte III. Sc. derniÈre.

1705 Fortescue, in his arguments against the use of torture, does not fail to recognize that the acquittal of a tortured prisoner is the condemnation of the judge—“qui judex eum pronuntiet innocentem, nonne eodem judicio judex ille seipsum reum judicat omnis sÆvitiÆ et poenarum quibus innocentem afflixit?”—De Laud. Legg. Angl. cap. xxii.

1706 Occurrit hic cautela Bruni dicentis, si judex indebite torserit aliquem facit reum confiteri quod fuit legitime tortus, de qua confessione faciat notarium rogatum.—Rosbach. Process. Crim. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 6.

1707 Quoted by Nicolas, Diss. Mor. et Jurid. sur la Torture, p. 21. This mode of torture consisted in placing the accused between two jailers, who pummelled him whenever he began to doze, and thus, with proper relays, deprived him of sleep for forty hours. Its inventor considered it humane, as it endangered neither life nor limb, but the extremity of suffering to which it reduced the prisoner is shown by its efficaciousness.

Marsigli received much credit for this ingenious invention. Grillandus informs us that he experimented with it in a difficult case of two monks “et profecto vidi ea quÆ prius non credebam, quod illud affert maximum tormentum et fastidium in corpore absque aliqua membrorum lÆsione.”—Grillandi de QuÆstione et Tortura Art. ii.

I have purposely abstained from entering into the details of the various forms of torture. They may be interesting to the antiquarian, but they illustrate no principle, and little would be gained by describing these melancholy monuments of human error. Those who may be curious in such matters will find ample material in Grupen Observat. Jur. Crim. de Applicat. Torment., 4to., Hanov. 1754; Zangeri op. cit. cap. IV. Nos. 9, 10; Hieron. Magius de Equuleo cum Appendd. Amstelod. 1664, etc. According to Bernhardi, Johann Graefe enumerates no less than six hundred different instruments invented for the purpose. Damhouder (op. cit. cap. xxxvii. Nos. 17-23) declares that torture can legally be inflicted only with ropes, and then proceeds to describe a number of ingenious devices. One of these, which he states to produce insufferable torment without risk, is bathing the feet with brine and then setting a goat to lick the soles.

The strappado, or suspension by the arms behind the back with weights to the feet, was the torture in most general use and most favored by legal experts.—Grillandus, loc. cit.

1708 Augustin Nicholas, op. cit. pp. 169, 178.

1709 Even this, however, was not deemed necessary in cases of conspiracy and treason “qui fiunt secreto, propter probationis difficultatem devenitur ad torturam sine indiciis”—Emer. a Rosb. Tit. V. cap. x. No. 20.

1710 Fama frequens et vehemens facit indicium ad torturam (Zanger. c. II. No. 80. Cf. Alberti de Gandino de QuÆst. § 39). Reus ante accusationem vel inquisitionem fugiens et citatus contumaciter absens, se suspectum reddit ut torqueri possit (Ibid. No. 91. Cf. SimancÆ Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. Nos. 28-30). Inconstantia sermonis facit indicium ad torturam (Zanger. Nos. 96-99). Ex taciturnitate oritur indicium ad torturam (Ibid. No. 103). Physiognomia malam naturam arguit, non autem delictum (Ibid. No. 85). How exceedingly lax was the application of these rules may be guessed from a remark of Damhouder’s, that although rumor was sufficient to justify torture, yet a contrary rumor neutralized the first and rendered torture improper.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxv. Nos. 14, 15.

1711 Deinde a pallore et similibus oritur indicium ad torturam secundum Bartol. (Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. vii. Nos. 28-31). Whereupon von Rosbach enters into a long dissertation as to the causes of paleness.

1712 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x. § 29.

1713 ScialojÆ cap. iii. Nos. 5, 6.

1714 Judicis arbitrio relinquitur an indicia sint sufficientia ad torturam (Zanger. cap. II. Nos. 16-20). An indicia sufficiant ad torturam judicis arbitrio relictum est.... Indicia ad torturam sufficientia relinquuntur officio judicis (Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. ii. p. 529). Damhouder, indeed, states that no rules can be framed—“neque ea ullis innituntur regulis: sed universum id negotium geritur penes arbitrium, discretionem ac conscientiam judicis.”—Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvi. Nos. 1, 2. Cf. Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudin. HalÆ Cattor. 1740.

So Grillandus (De QuÆstione et Tortura Q. iii.)—“QuÆ autem indicia dicantur esse sufficientia ad torturam certa regula tradi non potest, sed hoc relinquitur arbitrio et discretioni boni judicis.”

And Albertus de Gandino (De QuÆstionibus § 14)—“Nec de his possit dari certa doctrina sed hoc committitur arbitrio judicantis.”

1715 Sunt tamen nonnulli prÆtores et judices sanguine fraterno adeo inexsaturabiles ut illico quemvis malÆ famÆ virum, citra ulla certa argumenta aut indicia, corripiant ad sÆvissimam torturam, inclementer dicentes, cruciatum facile ab illis extorturum rerum omnium confessionem.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxv. No. 13.

1716 Hipp. de Marsiliis Singularia, No. 455 (Venet. 1555).

1717 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. v. § 26.—Emer. a Rosbach Tit. V. c. x. No. 25.

1718 Groot, Historia Eclesiastica y Civil de Nueva Granada, BogotÁ, 1869, T. I. pp. 114-5, 116-20. Cf. ScialojÆ Praxis torquendi Reos, cap. i. No. 25.

1719 Rosbach Tit. V. cap. x. No. 2.

1720 Ibid. Tit. V. cap. xiv. No. 16.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 54.—Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura, Q. vii.

1721 ScialojÆ cap. xiv. Nos. 5-20.—Jo. Frid. Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, Erford. 1724, pp. 72 sqq.

1722 Passerini Regulare Tribunal, QuÆst. XV. Art. ix. No. 115 (Colon. Agripp. 1665).

1723 Process. contr. Card. de Caraffa (Hoffman. Collect. Script. I. 632).

1724 ScialojÆ c. xiv. No. 2.

1725 Statuta Criminalia Communis BononiÆ (BononiÆ 1525, p. 15 b).

1726 Damhouder, op. cit. cap. xlvii. No. 3.

1727 Passerini, loc. cit. Nos. 122-3.

1728 Ibid. No. 118.

1729 SimancÆ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 73.

1730 Zangeri, op. cit. I. Nos. 8-25.

1731 Zangeri cap. IV. Nos. 25-30.—Damhouder, op. cit. cap. xxxvii. Nos. 15, 16.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus, cap. i. § 7.—Alberti de Gandino de QuÆstionibus § 11.

1732 Grilland. de QuÆstione et Tortura Q. iv. §§ 2-10. “Quod tunc corpus ipsius rei dilaniatur membraque et ossa quodammodo dissolvuntur et evelluntur a corpore.”

1733 Zangeri, op. cit. cap. III. No. 3.

1734 Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. x. No. 7.

We have already seen (p. 514) that in France the accused was not allowed to see the evidence against him; and the same rule was in force in Flanders—“Toutes depositions de tesmoins en causes criminelles demeureront secrÈtes À l’Égard de l’accusÉ.”—Coutume d’Audenarde, Stile de la Procedure, Art. 10. (Le Grand, Coutumes de Flandre, Cambrai, 1719, p. 103).

1735 Diss. Inaug. cap. I. § xii.

1736 Goetzii, op. cit. p. 36.

1737 Zangeri, op. cit. cap. III. Nos. 1, 4, 5-43.

1738 Process. Crim. Tit. V. cap. xi. No. 6.

1739 Goetzii, op. cit. p. 35.

1740 Zangeri cap. II. Nos. 49-50.—Cum enim confrontatio odiosa sit et species suggestionis, et remedium extraordinarium ad substantiam processus non pertinens, et propterea non necessaria.

1741 Zangeri, cap. IV. Nos. 1-6.

1742 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 34.

1743 Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudin. p. 16.

1744 Process. Crimin. Tit. V. cap. ix. No. 10.

1745 Zangeri cap. I. No. 37.

1746 Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxviii. Nos. 6, 7.

1747 Boden de Usu et Abusu TorturÆ Th. XII. Damhouder declares this practice to be unjustifiable, though not infrequent (Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. No. 12).—Bonifazio de’ Vitaliani speaks of it as a common but evil custom.—De QuÆstionibus, Rubr. QuÆ indicia, § 7.

1748 He represents the judge as addressing his victim “Tu sei il reo di un delitto, dunque È possibile che lo sii di cent’ altri delitti: questo dubbio mi pesa, voglio accertarmene col mio criterio di veritÀ: le leggi ti tormentano, perche sei reo, perche puoi esser reo, perche voglio che tu sii reo.”—Dei Delitti e delle Pene, § XII.

1749 Martini Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. de Tortura cap. I. § 4. Scialoja, in 1653, assures us that this torture after confession to prevent appeals was no longer permitted in the Neapolitan courts, and that it was only allowed for the discovery of accomplices (Praxis torquendi Reos. c.i. Nos. 8-10).

1750 ScialojÆ, op. cit. cap. i. No. 14.

1751 Damhouder, Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 9, cap. xxxviii. No. 14.—Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, pp. 76 sqq.

1752 Damhoud. cap. xxxix. No. 6.

1753 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 26.

1754 Emer. a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. x. Nos. 8-16.—SimancÆ Cath. Inst. LXV. 17.

1755 Bernhardi, loc. cit. The difference between the practice and principles of the law is shown by the rules laid down in 1647 by Brunnemann, coexisting with the above. He directs that the proceedings are to be exhibited to the accused or his friends, and then submitted to a college of jurists who are to decide as to the necessity of torture, and he warns the latter that they can have no graver question placed before them—“Et sane nullam graviorem puto esse deliberationem in Collegiis Juridicis quam ubi de tortura infligenda agitur.”—Brunneman. de Inquisitionis Processu cap. VIII. Memb. iv. No. 10; Memb. v. No. 1.

1756 Passerini Regulare Tribunal; Praxis, cap. viii. No. 170.

1757 LouÏse, Sorcellerie et Justice Criminelle À Valenciennes (Valenciennes, 1861, pp. 121-125).

1758 Goetzii Diss. de Tortura, p. 71.

1759 Bodin de Magor. DÆmonom. (Basil. 1581, p. 325).

1760 Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 79-81.

1761 Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. cap. I. § xi.

1762 Emer. a Rosbach, op. cit. Tit. V. cap. xviii. No. 13.—Godelmanni de Magis L. III. cap. x. § 52.—Gerstlacheri Comment. de QuÆst. per Tormenta, p. 35.—Grillandi de QuÆst. et Tortura Q. vii. § 11. So Beccaria (Delitt. e Pene, § XII.)—“Alcuni dottori ed alcune nazioni non permettono questa infame petizione di principio che per tre volte; altre nazioni ed altri dottori la lasciano ad arbitrio del giudice.”

1763 This custom prevailed in Electoral Saxony until the abrogation of torture (Goetzii Diss. de Tort. p. 33), and was especially the case at Amsterdam. Meyer (Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 295) states that the registers there afford scarcely an instance of a prisoner discharged without conviction after enduring torture.

1764 Zanger. loc. cit.

1765 Bernhardi, cap. I. § xii.—Goetzii op. cit. p. 74.—Cf. Caroli V. Const. Crim. cap. XX. § 1.—Goetz (p. 67) derives urpheda from ur before, and fede enmity.

1766 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 31.

1767 Werner. Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 91-2.

1768 Zangeri cap. II. Nos. 9-10; cap. V. Nos. 19-28.—Damhouder. op. cit. cap. xxxvi. No. 36.—Baldi de Periglis de QuÆstionibus cap. ii. § 9.

1769 Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 1-18.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 67-9.

1770 Damhouder. op. cit. cap. xl. No. 3.—Bigotry and superstition, especially, did not allow their victims to escape so easily. In accusations of sorcery, if appearances were against the prisoner—that is, if he were of evil repute, if he shed no tears during the torture, and if he recovered speedily after each application—he was not to be liberated because no confession could be wrung from him, but was to be kept for at least a year, “squaloribus carceris mancipandus et cruciandus, sÆpissime etiam examinandus, prÆcipue sacratioribus diebus.”—Rickii Defens. Aq. ProbÆ cap. I. No. 22.

1771 Alberti de Gandino de QuÆstionibus § 21.

1772 Zangeri cap. V. No. 53-61.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 57.

1773 Boden, op. cit. Th. V. VI.

1774 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 72.

1775 Boden, op. cit. Th. V. VI.

1776 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 76. Distinction was sometimes made between crimes involving death or corporal punishment and those of lighter grade, but Goetz states that in his time (1742) in Saxony the above was the received practice.

1777 Dissert. Mor. et Jurid. sur la Torture, pp. 36-7.

1778 Ibid. p. 169.

1779 Damhoud. Rer. Criminal. Prax. cap. 34, § 7.

1780 Const. 7 Cod. IX. xviii.

1781 Concil. Emeritan. ann. 666 can. xv.

In the middle of the thirteenth century, the Emperor Theodore Lascaris invented a novel mode of torture in a case of this kind. When a noble lady of his court was accused of sorcery, he caused her to be inclosed naked in a sack with a number of cats. The suffering, though severe, failed to extort a confession.—Georg. Pachymeri Hist. Mich. PalÆol. Lib. I. cap. xii.

1782 Bodini de Magorum DÆmonoman. Lib. IV. cap. 2.

1783 Boguet, Discours des Sorciers, chap. lv. (Lyon, 1610).

1784 LouÏse, La Sorcellerie et la Justice Criminelle À Valenciennes (Valenciennes, 1861, pp. 133-64).—For other similar instances see Bodin, op. cit. Lib. IV. cap. 1, 2.

1785 Bodin. Lib. I. cap. 2.

1786 Per legales testes hujus rei ad convincendum fides certa haberi non potest.—Rickii Defens. AquÆ ProbÆ cap. III. No. 117.

1787 Idque facilius in excepto et occulto difficilisque probationis crimine nostro sortilegii admiserim quam in aliis.—Disquisit. Magicar. Lib. V. Sect. iii. No. 8.

1788 Boguet, Instruction pour un juge en faict de Sorcelerie, art. xxxii.

1789 Soit pour ne trouver les dÉlitz suffisament vÉrifiez, ou pour savoir tous les complices, ou autrement.—Chart. nouv. du Haynau, chap. 125, art. xxvi. (LouÏse, p. 94).

1790 Nicolas, p. 145. The curious reader will find in Del Rio (Lib. V. Sect. ix.) ample details as to the arts of the Evil One to sustain his followers against the pious efforts of the Inquisition.

1791 “Qu’aprÈs qu’on eut lavÉ ses jambes, qui avoient ÉtÉ dÉchirÉes par la torture, et qu’on les eut prÉsentÉes au feu pour y rapeller quelque peu d’esprits et de vigueur, il ne cessa pas de s’entretenir avec ses Gardes, par des discours peu sÉrieux et pleins de railleries; qu’il mangea avec apÉtit et but avec plaisir trois ou quatre coups; et qu’il ne rÉpandit aucuns larmes en souffrant la question, ni aprÈs l’avoir souffert, lors mÊme qu’on l’exorcisa de l’exorcisme des Magiciens, et que l’Exorciste lui dit À plus de cinquante reprises ‘prÆcipio ut si sis innocens effundas lachrymas.’”—Hist. des Diables de Loudon, pp. 157-8.

1792 Rerum Crimin. Praxis Cap. xxxvii. Nos. 21, 22. Cf. Brunnemann. de Inquisit. Process. cap. VIII. Memb. v. No. 70.

1793 Rickii op. cit. cap. I. No. 24.

1794 Grillandi de QuÆstione et Tortura, Art. iii. §§ 12-16. One of the conjurations is an allusion to the Crucifixion,

“Imparibus meritis tria pendent corpora ramis.
Dismas et Gestas, in medio est divina potestas.
Dismas damnatur, Gestas ad astra levatur.”

Another “Quemadmodum lac beatÆ gloriosÆ MariÆ virginis fuit dulce et suave domino nostro Jesu Christo, ita hÆc tortura sit dulcis et suavis brachiis et membris meis.”

1795 Boguet, Instruction pour un juge, art. xxix.—Damhouderi Rer. Crim. Prax. cap. xxxviii. No. 19.

1796 Sprenger Mall. Maleficar. P. III. q. xvi. This was directly in contradiction to the precepts of the civil lawyers. Ippolito dei Marsigli says positively that a confession uttered in response to a promise of pardon cannot be used against the accused (Singularia, Venet. 1555, fol. 36 b). The Church, however, did not consider itself bound by the ordinary rules of law or morality. Marsigli in another passage (fol. 30 a) relates that Alexander III. once secretly promised a bishop that if he would publicly confess himself guilty of simony he should have a dispensation, and on the prelate’s doing so, immediately deposed him.

1797 Bodin. Lib. IV. cap. I.

1798 Boguet, Instruction, art. xxvii.

1799 De Cathol. Instit. Tit. XIII. No. 12.

1800 Disquisit. Magicar. Lib. V. Sect. x.

1801 Father Tanner states that he had this from learned and experienced men.—Tanneri Tract. de Proc. adv. Veneficas, QuÆst. II. Assert. iii. § 2.

1802 Ibid. loc. cit.

1803 Nicolas, p. 164.

1804 Chabot, EncyclopÉdie Monastique, p. 426 (Paris, 1827). For instances see Angeli Rumpheri Hist. Formbach. Lib. II. (Pez, I. III. 446).—A. Molinier in Vaissette, Ed. Privat, IX. 417.

1805 “Ita torquatur ut nec plagam referat nec color cutis livescat.”—GrÁgÁs, Festathattr cap. xxxiii.

1806 GrÁgÁs, Vigslothi cap. cxi.

1807 Ibid. Vigslothi cap. lxxxviii.

1808 Schlegel Comment. ad GrÁgÁs § xxix.

1809 Legg. Cimbric. Woldemari Lib. II. cap. i. xl. (Ed. Ancher, HafniÆ, 1783).

1810 Christiani V. Jur. Danic. Lib. I. cap. xx. (Ed. Weghorst, HafniÆ, 1698). Senckenberg (Corp. Jur. German. T.I. PrÆf. p. lxxxvi.) gives the chapter heads of a code in Danish, the Keyser Retenn, furnished to him by Ancher, in which cap. iv. and v. contain directions as to the administration of torture. The code is a mixture of German, civil, and local law, and probably was in force in some of the Germanic provinces of Denmark.

1811 Legg. OpstalbomicÆ ann. 1323 (ap. GÄrtner, Saxonum Leges Tres. LipsiÆ, 1730).

1812 Raguald. Ingermund. Leg. Suecor. StockholmiÆ, 1623.

1813 Ll. Henrici I. cap. v. § 16.

A curious disregard of this principle occurs in the Welsh laws, which provide that when a thief is at the gallows, with the certainty of being hanged, his testimony as to his accomplices is to be received as sufficient without requiring it to be sworn to on a relic—the inseparable condition of all other evidence. By a singular inconsistency, however, the accomplice thus convicted was not to be hanged, but to be sold as a slave.—Dimetian Code, Bk. II. ch. v. § 9 (Owen I. 425).

1814 Many interesting details on the influence of the Roman law upon that of England will be found in the learned work of Carl GÜterbock, “Bracton and his Relation to the Roman Law,” recently translated by Brinton Coxe (Philadelphia, 1866). The subject is one which well deserves a more thorough consideration than it is likely to receive at the hands of English writers.

It is curious to observe that the crimen lÆsÆ majestatis makes its appearance in Bracton (Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 3, § 1) about the middle of the thirteenth century, earlier than in France, where, as we have seen, the first allusion to it occurs in 1315. This was hardly to be expected, when we consider the widely different influences exerted upon the jurisprudence of the two countries by the Roman law.

1815 The passage which has been relied on by lawyers is chap. xxx.: “Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut aliquo modo destruatur; nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrÆ.” If the law just above quoted from the collection of Henry I. could be supposed to be still in force under John, then this might possibly be imagined to bear some reference to it; but it is evident that had torture been an existing grievance, such as outlawry, seizure, and imprisonment, the barons would have been careful to include it in their enumeration of restrictions. Moreover, Magna Charta was specially directed to curtail the royal prerogative, and at a later period was not held by any one to interfere with that prerogative whenever the king desired to test with the rack the endurance of his loving subjects.

1816 Et come ascuns felons viendrount en Jugement respondre de lour felonie, volons que ils viegnent dechausses et descients sauns coiffe, et a teste descouverte, en pure lour cote hors de fers et de chescun manere de liens, Ïssint que la peine ne lour toille nule manere de rason, selon par force ne lour estouva mye respondre forsque lour fraunche volunte.—Britton, chap. v.

1817 Per voluntÉ aussi se fait ceste peschÉ [homicide] si come per ceux qui painent home tant que il est gehist pur avouer peschÉ mortelment.—Horne, The Myrror of Justice, cap. I. sect. viii.—See also Fleta, Lib. I. cap. xxvi. § 5.

1818 Ou faussement judgea Raginald ... ou issint; tant luy penia pur luy faire conoistre, approver il se conoist faussement aver peschÉ ou nient ne pescha.—Horne, cap. II. sect. xv.

1819 Pike (Hist. of Crime in England I. 427) quotes a document of 1189 which seems indirectly to show that torture could be inflicted under an order of the king. The expression is somewhat doubtful, and as torture had not yet established itself anywhere in Europe as a judicial procedure the document alleged can hardly be received as evidence of its legality.

1820 See Fortescue de Laud. Legg. AngliÆ. cap. xxxiii.—The jealousy with which all attempted encroachments of the Roman law were repelled is manifested in a declaration of Parliament in 1388. “Que ce royalme d’Engleterre n’estait devant ces heures, ne À l’entent du roy nostre dit seignior et seigniors du parlement unque ne serra rulÉ ne governÉ par la ley civill.”—Rot. Parl., II Ric. II. (Selden’s Note to Fortescue, loc. cit.).

1821 De Laudibus Legum AngliÆ, cap. xxii.

1822 See Jardine’s “Reading on the Use of Torture in the Criminal Law of England,” p. 7 (London, 1837), a condensed and sufficiently complete account of the subject under the Tudors and Stuarts.

1823 Partim tormentis subjecti, partim crudelissime laniati, et partim etiam furca suspensi fuerant.—Wilkins Concil. III. 617.

1824 Jardine, op. cit. pp. 8-9, 24-5. It is due to Sir Thomas to add that he earnestly begs Lord Burghley to release him from so uncongenial an employment.

1825 Ibid. pp. 8, 47.

1826 Bacon’s Works, Philadelphia, 1846, III. 126.

1827 Strype’s Eccles. Memorials, III. 101.

1828 Burnet, Hist. Reform. Bk. III. pp. 341-2.

1829 According to Nicander Nucius (Travels, Camden Soc. 1841, pp. 58, 62), the investigation of these deceptions with the severest tortures, ?as????? ?f???t???, was apparently the ordinary mode of procedure.

1830 Diarium rerum gestarum in Turri Londinensi (Sanderi Schisma Anglicanum, ad calcem, Ingolstadt, 1586).

1831 Sir William Skevington, a lieutenant of the Tower, under Henry VIII., immortalized himself by reviving an old implement of torture, consisting of an iron hoop, in which the prisoner was bent, heels to hams and chest to knees, and was thus crushed together unmercifully. It obtained the nickname of Skevington’s Daughter, corrupted in time to Scavenger’s Daughter. Among other sufferers from its embraces was an unlucky Irishman, named Myagh, whose plaint, engraved on the walls of his dungeon, is still among the curiosities of the Tower:—

“Thomas Miagh, which liethe here alone,
That fayne wold from hens begon:
By torture straunge mi truth was tryed,
Yet of my libertie denied.
1581. Thomas Myagh.” (Jardine, op. cit. pp. 15, 30).

1832 Jardine, pp. 53, 57-8.

It is rather remarkable to find torture legalized at this period, even in qualified form of the question dÉfinitive in the Colony of Massachusetts. The Body of Liberties, enacted in 1641, declares:—

“45. No man shall be forced by Torture to confesse any crime against himselfe nor any other, unlesse it be in some Capitall case where he is first fully convicted by cleare and suffitient evidence to be guilty, After which if the case be of that nature, That it is very apparent there be other conspiritours or confederates with him, Then he may be tortured, yet not with such Tortures as be Barbarous and inhumane.”—Whitmore’s Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Boston, 1889 (N. Y. Nation, No. 1268, p. 318).

From this it would appear safe to conclude that this is a limitation on a pre-existing, more general use of torture.

1833 Jardine, p. 65.

1834 Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, Am. ed. I. 122.—In his very interesting work, Mr. Lecky mentions a case, occurring under the Commonwealth, of an aged clergyman named Lowes, who, after an irreproachable pastorate of fifty years, fell under suspicion. “The unhappy old man was kept awake for several successive nights, and persecuted ‘till he was weary of his life, and was scarcely sensible of what he said or did.’ He was then thrown into the water, condemned, and hung.”—Ibid. p. 126.

1835 Cobbett’s State Trials, VI. 686.—Although ostensibly not used to extort confession, this pricking was practically regarded as a torture. Thus in 1677 the Privy Council of Scotland “found that they (i. e., the inferior magistracy) might not use any torture by pricking or by withholding them from sleep” (loc. cit.).

1836 Spottiswoode Miscellany, Edinburgh, 1845, II. 67.

1837 Rogers’s Scotland, Social and Domestic, p. 266.

1838 Statut. Roberti III. cap. xvi. (Skene).

1839 Lecky, op. cit. I. 145-6.—Rogers, op. cit. pp. 267-300.

1840 I quote from Mr. Lecky (p. 147), who gives as his authority “Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials of Scotland.”

“But others and perhaps worse trials were in reserve. The three principal that were habitually applied were the penniwinkis, the boots, and the caschielawis. The first was a kind of thumbscrew; the second was a frame in which the leg was inserted, and in which it was broken by wedges driven in by a hammer; the third was also an iron frame for the leg, which was from time to time heated over a brazier. Fire matches were sometimes applied to the body of the victim. We read, in a contemporary legal register, of one man who was kept for forty-eight hours in ‘vehement tortour’ in the caschielawis; and of another who remained in the same frightful machine for eleven days and eleven nights, whose legs were broken daily for fourteen days in the boots, and who was so scourged that the whole skin was torn from his body.” These cases occurred in 1596.

These horrors are almost equalled by those of another trial in which a Dr. Fian was accused of having caused the storms which endangered the voyage of James VI. from Denmark in 1590. James personally superintended the torturing of the unhappy wretch, and after exhausting all the torments known to the skill and experience of the executioners, he invented new ones. All were vain, however, and the victim was finally burnt without confessing his ill-deeds (Ibid. p. 123).

1841 Rogers, op. cit. p. 307.

1842 Diurnal of Occurrences in Scotland (Spottiswoode Miscellany, II. 90-91).

1843 7 Anne c. 21.—While thus legislating for the enlightenment of Scotland, the English majority took care to retain the equally barbarous practice of the peine forte et dure. This was commenced in 1275 simply as a “prisone forte et dure” (First Statute of Westminster, cap. xii.; Cf. Britton, cap. xi.) for felons refusing to plead, and speedily developed into starvation and nakedness (Fleta, Lib. I. cap. xxxii. § 33). Horne (Myrror of Justice, cap. I. § viii.; cap. II. § ix.) evidently regards as illegal “le horrible et perillous lien,” and treats as murder a death occasioned by it. In spite of this protest the process was rendered still more barbarous by piling weights of iron on the poor wretch, and finally the device of a press was adopted in which he was squeezed. In this shape it lost its original justification of wearing out his endurance and forcing him to plead either guilty or not guilty, and became a simple punishment of peculiar atrocity, for, after its commencement the prisoner was not allowed to plead, but was kept under the press until death, “donec oneris, frigoris atque famis cruciatu extinguitur” (Hale, Placit. Coron. c. xliii.). This relic of modern barbarism was not abolished until 1772, by 12 Geo. III. c. 20. The only case of its employment in America is said to have been that of Giles Cory, in 1692, during the witchcraft epidemic. Knowing the hopelessness of the trials, he refused to plead, and was duly pressed to death (Cobbett’s State Trials, VI. 680).

When the peine forte et dure had become simply a punishment, it was sometimes replaced by a torture consisting of tying the thumbs together with whipcord until the endurance of the accused gave way and he consented to plead. This practice continued at least until so late as 1734. See an interesting essay by Prof. James B. Thayer, Harvard Law Review, Jan. 1892.

1844 Rogers, op. cit. p. 301.

1845 Herzog, Abriss der Gesammten Kirchengeschichte, II. 346.

1846 His arguments are quoted and controverted by Simancas, Bishop of Badajos, in his Cathol. Institut. Tit. LXV. No. 7, 8.

1847 Essais, Liv. II. chap. v.—This passage is little more than a plagiarism on St. Augustin, de Civ. Dei Lib. XIX. cap. vi.—Montaigne further illustrates his position by a story from Froissart (Liv. IV. ch. lviii.), who relates that an old woman complained to Bajazet that a soldier had foraged on her. The Turk summarily disposed of the soldier’s denial by causing his stomach to be opened. He proved guilty—but what had he been found innocent?

1848 Bayle, Dict. Hist. s.v. Grevius.—Gerstlacheri Comment. de QuÆst. per Torment. Francof. 1753, pp. 25-6.

1849 Frid. Kelleri Paradoxon de Tortura in Christ. Repub. non exercenda. Reimp. JenÆ, 1688.

1850 DÉclaration du 24 AoÛt, 1780 (Isambert, XXVII. 374).

1851 Nicolas is careful to assert his entire belief in the existence of sorcery and his sincere desire for its punishment, and he is indignant at the popular feeling which stigmatized those who wished for a reform in procedure as “avocats des sorciers.”

1852 Dict. Histor. s.v. Grevius.

1853 Bernhardi Diss. Inaug. cap. II. §§ iv. x.—Bernhardi ventured on the use of very decided language in denunciation of the system.—“Injustam, iniquam, fallacem, insignium malorum promotricem, et denique omni divini testimonii specie destitutam esse hanc violentam torturam et proinde ex foris Christianorum rejiciendam intrepide assero” (Ibid. cap. I. § 1).

1854 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 297. Even, then, however, the inquisitorial process was not abolished, and criminal procedure continued to be secret. For the rack and strappado were substituted prolonged imprisonment and other expedients to extort confession; and in 1803 direct torture was used in the case of Hendrik Janssen, executed in Amsterdam on the strength of a confession extracted from him with the aid of a bull’s pizzle.

1855 An enumeration of the opponents of torture may be found in Gerstlacher’s Comment. de QuÆst. per Tormenta, pp. 24-30, and Werner’s Dissert. de Tortura Testium, pp. 28-31.

1856 M.A. Engel de Tortura ex Foris Christ. non proscribenda. LipsiÆ, 1733.

1857 Jo. Frid. Werner Dissert. de Tortura Testium, Erford. 1724. Reimpr. LipsiÆ, 1742.

1858 Carlyle, Hist. Friedrich II. Book XI. ch. i.

1859 I find this statement in an account by G.F. GÜnther (LipsiÆ, 1838) of the abolition of torture in Saxony.

1860 GÜnther, op. cit.

1861 Gerstlacheri Comment. de QuÆst. per Tormenta, Francofurti, 1753, p. 56.

1862 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, LipsiÆ, 1742, p. 24.

1863 Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana, Wien, 1769.

1864 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, I. 620.

1865 Instructions addressÉes par sa MajestÉ l’ImpÉratrice de toutes les Russies À la Commission Établie pour travailler À l’exÉcution du projet d’un Nouveau Code de Lois Art. X. §§ 82-87 (PÉtersbourg 1769).—See also Grand Instructions of Catherine II., London, 1769, pp. 113-8.

1866 Jardine, Use of Torture in England, p.3.—Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, T. I.p. xlvi.—T. II. p. 262.

1867 Groot, Hist. Ecles. y Civil de Nueva Granada II. 79-80.

1868 Toreno, Levantamiento, Guerra y RevoluciÓn de EspaÑa, Paris, 1838, II. 371, 438.

1869 Tant d’habiles gens et tant de beaux gÉnies ont Écrit contre cette pratique que je n’ose parler aprÈs eux. J’allois dire qu’elle pourroit convenir dans les gouvernements despotiques; oÙ tout qui inspire la crainte entre plus dans les ressorts du gouvernement: j’allois dire que les esclaves, chez les Grecs et chez les Romains—— Mais j’entends la voix de la nature qui crie contre moi.—Liv. VI. ch. xvii.

1870 Desmaze, PÉnalitÉs Anciennes, PiÈces Justicatives p. 423.

1871 Mary Lafon, Histoire du Midi de la France, T. IV. pp. 325-355.—The theory of the defence was that the murdered man had committed suicide; but this is incompatible with the testimony, much of which is given at length by Mary Lafon, a writer who cannot be accused of any leanings against Protestantism.

1872 ChÉruel, Dict. Hist. des Institutions de la France. P. II. p. 1220.

1873 DÉclaration du 24 AoÛt 1780 (Isambert, XXVII. 373).

1874 Desmaze, PÉnalitÉs Anciennes, pp. 176-77.

1875 DÉclaration du 3 Mai 1788, art. 8. “NÔtre dÉclaration du 24 AoÛt sera exÉcutÉe” (Isambert, XXIX. 532).

1876 Louise, Sorcellerie et Justice Criminelle À Valenciennes, p. 96.

1877 Isambert, XXIX. 529.—It is noteworthy, as a sign of the temper of the times, on the eve of the last convocation of the Notables, that this edict, which introduced various ameliorations in criminal procedure, and promised a more thorough reform, invites from the community at large suggestions on the subject, in order that the reform may embody the results of public opinion—“Nous ÉlÈverons ainsi au rang des lois les rÉsultats de l’opinion publique.” This was pure democratic republicanism in an irregular form.

The edict also indicates an intention to remove another of the blots on the criminal procedure of the age, in a vague promise to allow the prisoner the privilege of counsel.

1878 Dei Delitti e delle Pene, § XII.—The fundamental error in the prevalent system of criminal procedure was well exposed in Beccaria’s remark that a mathematician would be better than a legist for the solution of the essential problem in criminal trials—“Data la forza dei muscoli e la sensibilitÁ delle fibre di un innocente, trovare il grado di dolore che lo farÀ confessar reo di un dato delitto.”

1879 Carlo di la Varenne, La Tortura in Sicilia, 1860.

Transcriber’s Note

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.

Variations in hyphenation have been standardised but all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

*******

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
/5/8/7/5/58750

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed.

1.F.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page