[PAMPHLET 1.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:
Count Guido Franceschini, born of a noble race, had married, under ill
omen, Francesca Pompilia, whom Pietro and Violante had asserted (even
to one occupying a very high office) to be their own daughter. After a
little while, she was taken to Arezzo, the country of her husband,
along with her foster-parents, and was restrained from leading her
life with utter freedom. Yet she has made pretence that she was hated
on the pretext of sterility, as is clearly shown in her deposition
during her prosecution for flight from her husband's home. Both she
and her parents took it ill that they were denied their old free life,
and they urged their daughter to make complaint before the Most
Reverend Bishop, saying that she had been offered poison by her
brother-in-law. At the departure of this couple, when they were about
to return to the City, they most basely instigated her--yes, and even
commanded her by her duty to obey them--that she should kill her
husband, poison her brother-in-law and mother-in-law, and burn the
house; and then with the aid of a lover to be chosen thereafter, she
should put into effect her long-planned flight back to the City. (But
all this should be done after their departure, lest they might seem to
have given her evil counsel.) [Such facts] may be clearly deduced from
one of the letters presented as evidence in the same prosecution.
When these pseudo-parents had returned home, they declared that
Francesca was not born of themselves, but had been conceived of an
unknown father by a vile strumpet. They then entered suit before Judge
Tomati for the nullification of the dowry contract.
Day by day the love of Pompilia for her husband kept decreasing, while
her affection for a certain priest was on the increase. This affair
went so far that on an appointed night, while her husband was
oppressed with sleep (and I wish I could say that she had no hand in
this, and had not procured drugs from outside), she began her flight
from her husband's house toward Rome, nor was this flight without
theft of money and the company of her lover. Her most wretched husband
pursued them, and she was imprisoned not far from the City. Then, when
after a short time they were brought to trial, the lover was banished
to Civita Vecchia for adultery, and she herself was placed in safe
keeping. But owing to her pregnancy she returned to the home of Pietro
and Violante, where she gave birth to a child (and I wish I could say
that it had not been conceived in adultery). This increased the shame
and indignation of the husband, and the wrath, which had long been
stirred, grew strong, because his honour among upright men was lost
and he was pointed out with the finger of scorn, especially in his own
country, where a good reputation is much cherished by men who are
well-born. Therefore his anger so impelled the luckless man to fury,
and his indignation so drove him to desperation, that he preferred to
die rather than to live ignominiously among honourable men. With
gloomy mind, he rushed headlong to the City, accompanied by four
companions. On the second night of the current month of January, under
the show of giving a letter from the banished lover, he pretended to
approach the home of the Comparini. When at the name of Caponsacchi
the door was opened, he cut the throats of Violante and Pietro, and
stabbed Francesca with so many wounds that she died after a few days.
While this desperation continued, his dull and unforeseeing mind
suggested no way to find a place of safety. But accompanied by the
same men, he set out for his own country along the public highway by
the shortest route. Then, while he was resting upon a pallet in a
certain tavern, he was arrested, together with his companions, by the
pursuing officers.
Great indeed is this crime, but very greatly to be pitied also, and
most worthy of excuse. Even the most severe laws give indulgence and
are very mild towards husbands who wipe out the stain of their infamy
with the blood of their adulterous wives. [Citation of _Lex Julia de
Adulteriis, Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_ and the Gracchian law. Cf. _Ring
and Book_, I. 2268.]
This indeed was sanctioned in the laws of the Athenians and of Solon
(that is, of the wisest of legislators), and what is more, even in the
rude age of Romulus, law 15, where we read:
"A man and his relatives may kill as they wish a wife convicted of
adultery." [Citations; and likewise in the Laws of the Twelve Tables,
see Aulus Gellius, etc.]
I hold, to begin with, that there can be no doubt of the adultery of
the wife [for several reasons]. [First], her flight together with her
lover during a long-continued journey. [Citations.]
[Second], the love letters sent by each party; these cannot be read in
the prosecution for flight without nausea. [Citations.]
[Third], the clandestine entry of the lover into her home at a
suspicious time. [Citations.]
[Fourth], the kisses given during the flight (p. 100) according to the
following sentiment: "Sight, conversation, touch, afterwards kisses,
and then the deed [adultery]." [Citations.]
[Fifth], their sleeping in the same room at the inn. [Citations.]
[Sixth], the sentence of the judge, who condemned the lover for his
criminal knowledge of her, which made this adultery notorious.
[Citations.]
Furthermore, we are not here arguing to prove adultery for the purpose
of demanding punishment [upon the adulteress], but to excuse her
slayer, and for his defence; in this case, even lighter proofs would
be abundant, as Matthæus advises. [Citations.]
These matters being held as proved, the opinion of certain authorities
who assert that a husband is not excusable from the ordinary penalty,
who kills his adulterous wife after an interval, does not stand in our
way. For the aforesaid laws speak of the wife who had been found in
her guilt and has been killed incontinently. Hence such indulgence
ought not to be extended to wife-murder committed after an interval,
because the reins should not be relaxed for men to sin and to declare
the law for themselves. [Citations.]
Furthermore, Farinacci does not affirm this conclusion, but shows that
he is very much in doubt, where he says: "The matter is very doubtful
with me, because injured honour and just anger--both of which always
oppress the heart--are very strong grounds for the mitigation of the
penalty." Matthæus well weighs these words on our very point. And both
Farinacci and Rainaldi conclude that the penalty can be moderated at
the judgment of the Prince.
I humbly pray that this be noted. The aforesaid laws, which seem to
require discovery in the very act of sin, as some have thought, do not
decide in that way merely for the purpose of excusing a husband moved
to slaughter by a sudden impulse of wrath and by unadvised heat. But
they so decide lest on any suspicion of adultery whatsoever,
oftentimes entirely without foundation, men should rush upon and kill
their wives, who are frequently innocent. Hence the "discovery in the
very act of crime," which is required by law, is not to be
interpreted, nor to be understood, as discovery in the very act of
licence, but is to be referred to the proof of the adultery, lest on
trifling suspicion a wife should be given over to death. But when the
adultery is not at all doubtful, there is no distinction between one
killing immediately and killing after an interval, so far as the
matter of escaping extreme punishment is concerned. [Citations.]
For whenever a wife is convicted of adultery, or is a manifest
adulteress, she is always said to be "taken in crime." [Citations.]
And in very truth the reasons adduced by those holding the contrary
opinion are entirely too weak. For murder committed for honour's sake
is always said to be done immediately, whensoever it may be committed.
Because injury to the honour always remains fixed before one's eyes,
and by goading one with busy and incessant stings it urges and impels
him to its reparation. [Citations.]
Such relaxation of the reins to husbands, for taking into their own
hands the law, would indeed be too great if the law of divorce were
still valid. For in that case husbands would not be permitted to make
such reparation of their honour. For another way would be
satisfactorily provided for them, namely, in their right to dismiss
and repudiate the polluted wife. In this way they could put far from
themselves the cause of their disgrace, yes, and the very ignominy
itself. But when by the divine favour our Gentile blindness was
removed, and matrimony was acknowledged to be perpetual and
indissoluble, those were indeed most worthy of pity who, when all
other way of recovering their honour was closed to them, washed away
their stains in the blood of their adulterous wives. Petrus Erodus
[Citation], after he has discussed a matter of this kind according to
the usual practice of Roman Law, adds in the end: "For as all hope of
a second marriage is gone so long as the adulteress still lives, we
judge that such very just anger is allayed with more difficulty,
unless it be by the flight of time;" and therefore such a case, when
not terminated by divorce, is usually terminated by murder. For as
Augustine says, "what is not permitted, becomes as if it were
permitted; that is, let the adulteress be killed, that the husband may
be released."
I acknowledge that it is laudable to restrain the audacity of
husbands, lest they declare the law for themselves in their own cause;
since they may be mistaken. But it would be more laudable indeed to
restrain the lust of wives; for if they would act modestly and would
live honourably they would not force their husbands to this kind of
crime, which I may almost call necessary. Nor can we deny that by the
ignominy brought upon them by the adultery they are exasperated and
are driven insane, and a most just sense of anger is excited in their
hearts. For this grievance surpasses all others beyond comparison, and
hence is worthy of the greater pity, according to the words of the
satirist [_Juv._ X. 314]: "This wrath exacts more than any law
concedes to wrath."
Papinianus also well acknowledges this [Citation], where we read:
"Since it is very difficult to restrain just anger." For these
reasons, authorities hold that a just grievance should render the
penalty more lenient even in premediated crimes; because the sense of
"just grievance does not easily quiet down, or lose its strength with
the flight of time, but the heart is continually pierced by infamy,
and the longer the insult endures, the longer endures the infamy, yea,
and it is increased." [Citations.]
And this drives one on the more intensely, because with greater
impunity, as I may say, wives pollute their own matrimony and destroy
the honour of their entire household. In ancient times, while the _Lex
Julia_ was in force, wives who polluted their marriage-bed underwent
the death penalty. [Citations.]
Likewise it was so ordained in the Holy Scriptures; for adulterous
wives were stoned to death, Gen. 38; Lev. 20, 10; Deut. 23, 22; Ez.
16.
The solace drawn from the public vengeance quieted the anger and
destroyed the infamy. Then the husband, who was restored to his
original freedom, could take a new and honest wife and raise his sons
in honour. But now, in our evil days, there is a deplorable frequency
of crime everywhere, as the rigour of the Sacred Law has become
obsolete. And since wives who live basely are dealt with very mildly,
the husband's condition would indeed be most unfortunate if either he
must live perpetually in infamy, or must expiate her destruction, when
she is slain, by the death penalty, as Matthæus well considers.
[Citation.]
Therefore, when it is claimed that the husband shall escape entirely
unpunished, it is necessary that the wife be killed in the very act of
discovered sin. But when the question is as to whether or not a
husband may be punished more mildly than usual when driven to
wife-murder for honour's sake, it makes no difference whether he kill
her immediately or after an interval. [Citation.]
Nor does this opinion lack foundation in the very Civil Law of the
Romans, for Martian [Citation] asserts that a father who had killed
his son while out hunting, because he had polluted his stepmother with
adultery, was exiled. Nor had the father found him in the very act of
crime, but slew him while out hunting, that is with a pretence of
friendliness and by dissimulating his injury. Accordingly he was
punished, but not with the usual penalty; for he had killed his son,
not in his right as a father, but in the manner of a robber. Hence we
can infer that not the killing, but the method of killing was
punishable, as we may deduce from Bartolo. [Citations.]
Still further, it is well worthy of consideration that one may kill an
adversary with impunity, for the sake of his personal safety, but he
must do so immediately and in the very act of aggression, and not
after an interval. For the life of one slain may not be recovered by
the slaying of the murderer. Accordingly, whatever violence may follow
upon the first murder becomes vengeance, which is hateful and odious
to the law; for the jurisdiction of the judge is insulted by depriving
him of the power of publicly avenging murder. But if by the death of
the slayer the one slain could be called back to life, I think there
is no doubt that any one could kill the said slayer; for then such an
act would not be revenge, but due defence, leading toward the recovery
of the life that had been lost. But even when we are dealing with an
offence and injury which does not affect the person of the one
injured, it is likewise permitted that one who has been robbed may,
even after an interval, kill the thief for the recovery of the stolen
goods, provided every other way to recover them is precluded.
Likewise, one offended in his reputation should be permitted at all
times to kill the one injuring him; for such an act may be termed, not
the avenging of an injury, but the re-establishing of wounded honour,
which could be healed in no other way. [Citations.]
Furthermore, as I have said, when one is discussing the subject of
self-defence, he is dealing with an instantaneous act; hence the anger
conceived therefrom ought to quiet down after a while, according to
the warning of St. Paul, Eph. 4: "Let not the sun go down upon your
wrath." But when we are dealing with an offence that injures the
honour, this is not merely a momentary matter, but is protracted, and
indeed with the lapse of time becomes the greater, as the injured one
is vilified the more. Therefore, whensoever the murder follows it is
always said to have been committed immediately. [Citation.]
Relying upon these and other reasons, most authorities affirm that a
husband killing his adulterous wife after an interval, but not found
in licentiousness, is to be punished indeed, but more mildly and with
a penalty out of the ordinary. [Citations.]
Caball testifies that this has been the practice in many of the
world's tribunals. Calvinus gives other cases so decided. [Citation.]
And Cyriacus, who speaks in worse circumstances, adduces numerous
other cases, and the authorities recently cited offer many more.
This lenient opinion is the more readily to be accepted because, as I
claim, the deed about which we are arguing does not also carry with it
(as the Fisc holds) attendant circumstances demanding such a rigorous
penalty.
[First] the taking of helpers to be present at the murders [is not
such a circumstance]; because he could lawfully use the help of
companions to provide more safely for his own honour by the death of
his wife. [Citations.]
[Secondly] the crime is not raised to a higher class because he led
with him helpers at a price agreed upon; for what is more, and is far
more to be wondered at, a husband can lawfully demand of others the
murder of an adulterous wife, even by means of money, as the following
indisputably affirm. [Citations.]
Likewise it does not at all disturb [our line of argument] that Count
Guido might have killed his wife and the adulterer when they were
caught in the very act of flight at the tavern of Castelnuovo, but
that he preferred rather to have them imprisoned, seeking their
punishment by law, and not with his own hand. We deny that he could
have safely killed both of them, inasmuch as he was alone, nor could
he attack them, except at the risk of his own life. Because the lover
was of powerful strength, not at all timid, and all too prompt for
resisting, since, in the word of one of the witnesses in the
prosecution for flight, he was called _Scapezzacollo_ [cut-throat].
Nor is it credible that, unless he had been fearless and full of
spirit, he would have ventured upon so great a crime, and would have
dared to participate in her flight, and to accompany the fugitive wife
from the home of her husband. And this fact is more clearly deducible
from one of his letters, in which, after urging Francesca to mingle an
opiate in the wine-flasks for the purpose of putting her husband and
the servants to sleep, he adds that if they find it out she should
open the door; for he would either suffer death with her or would
snatch her from their hands. These things indicate both courage and
audacity. And though the wife is a woman, that is a timid and
unwarlike creature, nevertheless Francesca was all too impudent and
audacious, whether because of her hatred for her husband or on account
of her anger at the imprisonment of her lover. For she drew a sword
upon her husband in the very presence of the officers who were about
to arrest her. And to prevent her from going further, one of the
bystanders had to snatch it from her hands. Therefore, before their
imprisonment, Guido could not put into effect what he had had in mind
and what he could lawfully do, because he was alone and his strength
was not sufficient. Then when she had been taken to prison, and
afterwards was placed in safe keeping, it was impossible for him to
vindicate his honour. But when at last she had left the monastery and
had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, he took vengeance as
soon as he could. Therefore we hold that he killed her in the very
act, as it were, and immediately. In Sanfelicius [Citation], we read
of a case where a husband, though he could have killed his wife
immediately, did not do so, but craftily redeemed himself from his
disgrace by slaying his wife as soon as possible. And Giurba also
speaks of a case where the argument is concerning an injury that was
not personal, but real, as was said above.
Guido saw to her capture, and insisted that she be punished, lest she
continue her adultery and viciousness, being powerless to do anything
else, because his confusion of mind, his helpless fury, and his sense
of shame led him unwisely into not taking the law into his own hands
and recovering his lost honour. He indeed lodged complaint, but it was
because he could not kill her. Nor would his ignominy have been wiped
out nor his infamy have been destroyed by her imprisonment and
punishment. But when, indeed, after her imprisonment he was still more
shut out from noble company, his injury ever became the more acute,
and it stimulated him the more strongly to regain his own reputation.
But his bitterness of mind was increased especially at hearing that
she had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, who had declared
that she was not their daughter, but the child of a dishonest woman;
hence his injury was increased by her staying in a home which he
suspected, as is said a little further on. Accordingly the same cause
kept urging him after her departure from the monastery, as had done
so before her imprisonment and the appeals made by Count Guido.
It makes very little difference that Francesca was staying in the home
of Violante, which had been assigned to her as a safe prison with the
consent of Guido's brother. For what would it amount to even if with
the consent of Guido himself she had been taken from the monastery
(yet we have no word of this matter in the trial). For Guido could
make that pretence to gain the opportunity of killing her for the
restoration of his honour. Nor would such dissimulation increase the
crime, especially to the degree of the ordinary penalty, since it is
certain that the husband may kill a wife stained with adultery without
incurring such penalty. Yet a heavier or lighter penalty is inflicted,
just as more or less treachery accompanies the murder, as Matthæus
testifies it was practised in the Senate of Matrinumsis. [Citation.]
Nor is the attendant circumstance of the place assigned as a prison
worthy of consideration, as if the custody of the Prince had been
insulted; for one is not said to be in custody when he is merely
detained in a place under security that he will not leave it.
[Citation.] Furthermore, this objection falls utterly to the ground,
because the circumstance of such a place does not increase the crime,
whenever it is committed by one having provocation or for the
repelling of an injury. And [the following authorities] hold thus in
the more serious case of a crime committed in prison. [Citations.]
Furthermore we do not believe, from what is said above, that the
penalty can be increased because of the murder of Pietro and Violante,
since the same injured honour, which impelled Count Guido to kill his
wife, forced him to kill the said parents. And now may the ashes of
the dead spare me if what I have urged above, and what I am about to
say, may seem to disturb their peace! Neither the flame of hatred nor
the impulse of anger (which are far from me) have suggested these
charges; but the demands of the defence, which I have assumed without
a penny of compensation, compel me to employ every means leading to
the desired end.
I have said, and I think not without due reason, that the Accused
sprang forward to the death of both of them, moved simply by an
immediate injury to his own reputation. For a few months after the
marriage contracted with Francesca, whom they had professed to be
their daughter, they had not blushed to declare that she was not such.
Hence there is an inevitable dilemma. Either [_first_] she was in
deed and truth their daughter, and then we must acknowledge that in
afterward denying her parentage they had inflicted the greatest injury
upon the honour and reputation of the Accused; for they had conceived
strong hatred and malice against him. Hence they did not hesitate to
disgrace their own daughter, in order that they might bring upon him
the infamy of having married the daughter of a vile and dishonest
woman. This is indeed a fact, that whoever knows Count Guido supposes
he has married a girl, not merely of rank unequal to his own, but even
of the basest condition, and this greatly injures the reputation of
his entire household.
Or else [_second_] Francesca was indeed conceived of an unknown father
and born of a dishonest harlot. And it cannot be denied, that in that
case he suffered even greater injury, which branded him with a mark of
infamy; both because of her birth and from the fact that daughters are
usually not unlike their mothers. Cephalus [Citations], where we read:
"From such mingling with harlots it is to be supposed that the people
become degenerate, ignoble, and burning with lust." And would that
experience had not taught us this fact!
The unfortunate man believed he was marrying the daughter of Pietro
and Violante, born legitimately, and yet by the contrivance and
trickery of this couple he married a girl of basest stock, conceived
illegitimately by a dishonourable mother. From this fact alone the
quality of those parents can be inferred, who, for the sake of
deceiving those lawfully entitled to the trust-moneys, had made most
vile pretence of the birth of a child, entirely unmindful that they
laid themselves liable to capital punishment. [Citations.]
It will not, therefore, be difficult to believe what Francesca reveals
in her letter to her brother-in-law, that the abovesaid couple, in
spite of the fact that she was well treated, kept instigating her
daily to poison her husband, her brother-in-law, and her
mother-in-law, and to burn the home. And though these crimes are very
base, they gave her still worse counsel, even by her obligation to
obey them; namely, that after their departure from Arezzo, she should
allure a lover, and leaving her husband's home in his company, should
return to the City. In her obedience to their commands, this daughter
seemed indeed all too prompt. Who then will deny that such reckless
daring, wherefrom a notorious disgrace was inflicted upon the entire
household of the Accused, ought to be attributed to the base
persuasion of the said couple? Nor was it difficult to persuade that
girl to do what she was prone to by inborn instinct and by the example
of her mother.
It is not my duty to divine why that couple so anxiously desired the
return of Francesca to their home. But I cannot persuade myself that
they were moved by mere charity, namely, that she might escape
ill-treatment. For Francesca, in the said letter, acknowledges that
she is leading a quiet life, and that her husband and the servants are
treating her very well, and that what she had laid before the Bishop
had been the falsehood of the said couple.
I know furthermore that if a husband have knowledge of the adultery of
his wife and keep her in his home, he cannot escape the mark and
penalty of a pimp. [Citations.] If, therefore, as the said couple
declare, Francesca was not their daughter, why did they receive her so
tenderly into their home after her adultery was plainly manifest? Why
did they, as I may say, cherish her in their breasts, not merely up
till the birth of her child, but even till death? And I wish I could
say that her love affairs with the banished [priest] were not
continued there! For at his mere name, after the knocking at the door,
as soon as they heard that some one was about to give them a letter
from the one in banishment, immediately the door was opened and Guido
was given an entry for recovering his honour. If, indeed, the said
couple had been displeased with the adultery of Francesca, they would,
without doubt, have shuddered at the name of the adulterer, and would
have cut off every way for mutual correspondence. Therefore it is most
clearly evident that the cause of wounded honour in the Accused had
continued, and indeed new causes of the same kind had arisen, all of
which tended toward blackening his reputation.
Nor does it make any difference that the Accused may have had in mind
several causes of hatred toward both Francesca and the Comparini. For
if these are well weighed, they all coincide with, and are reduced to,
the original cause, namely, that of wounded honour. However that may
be, when causes are compatible with one another, the act that follows
should always be attributed to the stronger and more urgent and more
acute. [Citations.] And on the point that when several causes concur,
murder is to be referred and attributed to injured honour, and not to
the others: [Citations.]
Therefore I think that any wise man ought to acknowledge that Guido
had most just cause for killing the said couple, and that very just
anger had been excited against them. This was increased day by day by
the perfectly human consideration that he would not have married her
unless he had been deceived by that very tricky couple. And to what is
said above we may add that either the child born [of Pompilia] was
conceived in adultery, as the Accused could well believe, since he was
ignorant of the fact that his wife was pregnant during her flight; and
then we cannot deny that new offence was given to his honour, or the
old one was renewed, by the said birth; or the child was born of his
legitimate father; and who will deny that by the hiding of the child,
Guido ought to be angered anew over the loss of his son? And the great
indignation conceived from either cause (the force of which is very
powerful) is so deserving of excuse that very many atrocious crimes
committed upon the impulse of just anger have gone entirely
unpunished. [Citations.] The following text [Citation] agrees with
this, "Nevertheless, because night and just anger ameliorate his deed,
he can be sent into exile." [Citations.]
And not infrequently, in the contingency of such a deed, men have
escaped entirely unpunished, who, when moved by just anger, have laid
hands even upon the innocent. For a certain Smyrnean woman had killed
her husband and her son conceived of him, because her husband had
slain her own son by her first marriage. When she was accused before
Dolabella, as Proconsul, he was unwilling either to liberate one who
was stained with two murders, or to condemn her, as she had been moved
by just anger. He therefore sent her to the Areopagus, that assembly
of very wise judges. There, when the cause had been made known,
response was given that she and her accuser should come back after a
hundred years. And so the defendant in a double murder, although she
had also killed one who was innocent, escaped entirely unpunished.
[Citation.]
Likewise, a wife who had given command for the murder of her husband
because of just anger from his denial of her matrimonial dues was
punished with a fine, and a temporary residence in a monastery, as
Cyriacus testifies. [Citation.] Such pleas might indeed hold good
whenever the accused had confessed the crime, or had been lawfully
convicted, neither of which can be affirmed [in our case]. But much
more are they to be admitted, since he confesses only that he gave
order for striking his wife's face, or for mutilating it; and if those
he commanded exceeded his order, he should not be held responsible for
their excess. [Citations.]
His fellows and companions give his name, and claim that he had a
hand in the murders. And in spite of the fact that the Fisc claims
they have hidden the truth in many respects, equity will not allow
that certain matters be separated from their depositions and that
these be accepted only in part; for if they are false in one matter,
such are they to be considered in all. It would be more than enough to
take away from those depositions all credence that, under torture in
his presence, they did not purge that stain. [Citations.]
It has very justly been permitted that in defence of this noble man, I
should deduce these matters, as they say, with galloping pen. The
scantiness of the time has not suffered me to bring together other
grounds for my case; these could be gathered with little labour, and
possibly not without utility. Yet I believe that all objections, which
can be raised on the part of the Fisc, have been abundantly satisfied.
GIACINTO ARCANGELI, _Procurator of the Poor_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 2.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases_:
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE_
_On Behalf of Count Guido Franceschini
and his Associates, Prisoners,
against the Court and the Fisc._
_Memorial of law by the Honourable
Advocate of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._