The strange trials to which those suspected of guilt were put in the
middle ages, conducted with many devout ceremonies by the ministers of
religion, were pronounced to be the _judgments of God_! The ordeal
consisted of various kinds: walking blindfold amidst burning
ploughshares; passing through fires; holding in the hand a red-hot bar;
and plunging the arm into boiling water: the popular affirmation--"I
will put my hand in the fire to confirm this," was derived from this
custom of our rude ancestors. Challenging the accuser to single combat,
when frequently the stoutest champion was allowed to supply their place;
swallowing a morsel of consecrated bread; sinking or swimming in a river
for witchcraft; or weighing a witch; stretching out the arms before the
cross, till the champion soonest wearied dropped his arms, and lost his
estate, which was decided by this very short chancery suit, called the
_judicium crucis_. The bishop of Paris and the abbot of St. Denis
disputed about the patronage of a monastery: Pepin the Short, not being
able to decide on their confused claims, decreed one of these judgments
of God, that of the Cross. The bishop and abbot each chose a man, and
both the men appeared in the chapel, where they stretched out their arms
in the form of a cross. The spectators, more devout than the mob of the
present day, but still the mob, were piously attentive, but _betted_
however now for one man, now for the other, and critically watched the
slightest motion of the arms. The bishop's man was first tired:--he let
his arms fall, and ruined his patron's cause for ever. Though sometimes
these trials might be eluded by the artifice of the priest, numerous
were the innocent victims who unquestionably suffered in these
superstitious practices.
From the tenth to the twelfth century they were common. Hildebert,
bishop of Mans, being accused of high treason by our William Rufus, was
prepared to undergo one of these trials, when Ives, bishop of Chartres,
convinced him that they were against the canons of the constitutions of
the church, and adds, that in this manner _Innocentiam defendere, set
innocentiam perdere_.
An abbot of St. Aubin, of Angers, in 1066, having refused to present a
horse to the Viscount of Tours, which the viscount claimed in right of
his lordship, whenever an abbot first took possession of that abbey, the
ecclesiastic offered to justify himself by the trial of the ordeal, or
by duel, for which he proposed to furnish a man. The viscount at first
agreed to the duel; but, reflecting that these combats, though
sanctioned by the church, depended wholly on the skill or vigour of the
adversary, and could therefore afford no substantial proof of the equity
of his claim, he proposed to compromise the matter in a manner which
strongly characterises the times: he waived his claim, on condition that
the abbot should not forget to mention in his prayers himself, his wife,
and his brothers! As the _orisons_ appeared to the abbot, in comparison
with the _horse_, of little or no value, he accepted the proposal.
In the tenth century the right of representation was not fixed: it was a
question whether the sons of a son ought to be reckoned among the
children of the family, and succeed equally with their uncles, if their
fathers happened to die while their grandfathers survived. This point
was decided by one of these combats. The champion in behalf of the right
of children to represent their deceased father proved victorious. It was
then established by a perpetual decree that they should thenceforward
share in the inheritance, together with their uncles. In the eleventh
century the same mode was practised to decide respecting two rival
_Liturgies_! A pair of knights, clad in complete armour, were the
critics to decide which was the authentic.
"If two neighbours," say the capitularies of Dagobert, "dispute
respecting the boundaries of their possessions, let a piece of turf of
the contested land be dug up by the judge, and brought by him into the
court; the two parties shall touch it with the points of their swords,
calling on God as a witness of their claims;--after this let them
_combat_, and let victory decide on their rights!"
In Germany, a solemn circumstance was practised in these judicial
combats. In the midst of the lists they placed a _bier_.--By its side
stood the accuser and the accused; one at the head and the other at the
foot of the bier, and leaned there for some time in profound silence,
before they began the combat.
The manners of the age are faithfully painted in the ancient Fabliaux.
The judicial combat is introduced by a writer of the fourteenth century,
in a scene where Pilate challenges Jesus Christ to _single combat_.
Another describes the person who pierced the side of Christ as _a knight
who jousted with Jesus_.[52]
Judicial combat appears to have been practised by the Jews. Whenever the
rabbins had to decide on a dispute about property between two parties,
neither of which could produce evidence to substantiate his claim, they
terminated it by single combat. The rabbins were impressed by a notion,
that consciousness of right would give additional confidence and
strength to the rightful possessor. It may, however, be more
philosophical to observe, that such judicial combats were more
frequently favourable to the criminal than to the innocent, because the
bold wicked man is usually more ferocious and hardy than he whom he
singles out as his victim, and who only wishes to preserve his own quiet
enjoyment:--in this case the assailant is the more terrible combatant.
Those accused of robbery were put to trial by a piece of barley-bread,
on which the mass had been said; which if they could not swallow, they
were declared guilty. This mode of trial was improved by adding to the
_bread_ a slice of _cheese_; and such was their credulity, that they
were very particular in this holy _bread_ and _cheese_, called the
_corsned_. The bread was to be of unleavened barley, and the cheese made
of ewe's milk in the month of May.
Du Cange observed, that the expression--"_May this piece of bread choke
me!_" comes from this custom. The anecdote of Earl Godwin's death by
swallowing a piece of bread, in making this asseveration, is recorded in
our history. Doubtless superstition would often terrify the innocent
person, in the attempt of swallowing a consecrated morsel.
Among the proofs of guilt in superstitious ages was that of the
_bleeding of a corpse_. It was believed, that at the touch or approach
of the murderer the blood gushed out of the murdered. By the side of the
bier, if the slightest change was observable in the eyes, the mouth,
feet, or hands of the corpse, the murderer was conjectured to be
present, and many innocent spectators must have suffered death. "When a
body is full of blood, warmed by a sudden external heat, and a
putrefaction coming on, some of the blood-vessels will burst, as they
will all in time." This practice was once allowed in England, and is
still looked on in some of the uncivilized parts of these kingdoms as a
detection of the criminal. It forms a solemn picture in the histories
and ballads of our old writers.
Robertson observes, that all these absurd institutions were cherished
from the superstitious of the age believing the legendary histories of
those saints who crowd and disgrace the Roman calendar. These fabulous
miracles had been declared authentic by the bulls of the popes and the
decrees of councils; they were greedily swallowed by the populace; and
whoever believed that the Supreme Being had interposed miraculously on
those trivial occasions mentioned in legends, could not but expect the
intervention of Heaven in these most solemn appeals. These customs were
a substitute for written laws, which that barbarous period had not; and
as no society can exist without _laws_, the ignorance of the people had
recourse to these _customs_, which, evil and absurd as they were, closed
endless controversies. Ordeals are in truth the rude laws of a barbarous
people who have not yet obtained a written code, and are not
sufficiently advanced in civilization to enter into the refined
inquiries, the subtile distinctions, and elaborate investigations, which
a court of law demands.
These ordeals probably originate in that one of Moses called the "Waters
of Jealousy." The Greeks likewise had ordeals, for in the Antigonus of
Sophocles the soldiers offer to prove their innocence by handling
red-hot iron, and walking between fires. One cannot but smile at the
whimsical ordeals of the Siamese. Among other practices to discover the
justice of a cause, civil or criminal, they are particularly attached to
using certain consecrated purgative pills, which they make the
contending parties swallow. He who _retains_ them longest gains his
cause! The practice of giving Indians a consecrated grain of rice to
swallow is known to discover the thief, in any company, by the
contortions and dismay evident on the countenance of the real thief.
In the middle ages, they were acquainted with _secrets_ to pass unhurt
these singular trials. Voltaire mentions one for undergoing the ordeal
of boiling water. Our late travellers in the East have confirmed this
statement. The Mevleheh dervises can hold red-hot iron between their
teeth. Such artifices have been often publicly exhibited at Paris and
London. Mr. Sharon Turner observes, on the ordeal of the Anglo-Saxons,
that the hand was not to be immediately inspected, and was left to the
chance of a good constitution to be so far healed during three days (the
time they required to be bound up and sealed, before it was examined) as
to discover those appearances when inspected, which were allowed to be
satisfactory. There was likewise much preparatory training, suggested by
the more experienced; besides, the accused had an opportunity of _going
alone into the church_, and making _terms_ with the _priest_. The few
_spectators_ were always _distant_; and cold iron might be substituted,
and the fire diminished, at the moment.
They possessed secrets and medicaments, to pass through these trials in
perfect security. An anecdote of these times may serve to show their
readiness. A rivalship existed between the Austin-friars and the
Jesuits. The father-general of the Austin-friars was dining with the
Jesuits; and when the table was removed, he entered into a formal
discourse of the superiority of the monastic order, and charged the
Jesuits, in unqualified terms, with assuming the title of "fratres,"
while they held not the three vows, which other monks were obliged to
consider as sacred and binding. The general of the Austin-friars was
very eloquent and very authoritative:--and the superior of the Jesuits
was very unlearned, but not half a fool.
The Jesuit avoided entering the list of controversy with the
Austin-friar, but arrested his triumph by asking him if he would see one
of his friars, who pretended to be nothing more than a Jesuit, and one
of the Austin-friars who religiously performed the aforesaid three vows,
show instantly which of them would be the readier to obey his
superiors? The Austin-friar consented. The Jesuit then turning to one of
his brothers, the holy friar Mark, who was waiting on them, said,
"Brother Mark, our companions are cold. I command you, in virtue of the
holy obedience you have sworn to me, to bring here instantly out of the
kitchen-fire, and in your hands, some burning coals, that they may warm
themselves over your hands." Father Mark instantly obeys, and, to the
astonishment of the Austin-friar, brought in his hands a supply of red
burning coals, and held them to whoever chose to warm himself; and at
the command of his superior returned them to the kitchen-hearth. The
general of the Austin-friars, with the rest of his brotherhood, stood
amazed; he looked wistfully on one of his monks, as if he wished to
command him to do the like. But the Austin monk, who perfectly
understood him, and saw this was not a time to hesitate,
observed,--"Reverend father, forbear, and do not command me to tempt
God! I am ready to fetch you fire in a chafing-dish, but not in my bare
hands." The triumph of the Jesuits was complete; and it is not necessary
to add, that the _miracle_ was noised about, and that the Austin-friars
could never account for it, notwithstanding their strict performance of
the three vows!