THE CORSNÆD.
The ordeal of consecrated bread or cheese (_judicium offæ, panis
conjuratio, pabulum probationis_, the _corsnæd_ of the Anglo-Saxons)
was administered by presenting to the accused a piece of bread
(generally of barley) or of cheese, about an ounce in weight,[1079]
over which prayers and adjurations had been pronounced. After
appropriate religious ceremonies, including the communion, the morsel
was eaten, the event being determined by the ability of the accused
to swallow it. This depended of course on the imagination, and we
can readily understand how, in those times of faith, the impressive
observances which accompanied the ordeal would affect the criminal,
who, conscious of guilt, stood up at the altar, took the sacrament, and
pledged his salvation on the truth of his oath. The mode by which a
conviction was expected may be gathered from the forms of the exorcism
employed, of which a number have been preserved.
“O Lord Jesus Christ, ... grant, we pray thee, by thy holy name,
that he who is guilty of this crime in thought or in deed, when this
creature of sanctified bread is presented to him for the proving of
the truth, let his throat be narrowed, and in thy name let it be
rejected rather than devoured. And let not the spirit of the Devil
prevail in this to subvert the judgment by false appearances. But
he who is guilty of this crime, let him, chiefly by virtue of the
body and blood of our Lord which he has received in communion, when
he takes the consecrated bread or cheese tremble, and grow pale in
trembling, and shake in all his limbs; and let the innocent quietly
and healthfully, with all ease, chew and swallow this morsel of bread
or cheese, crossed in thy holy name, that all may know that thou art
the just Judge,” etc.[1080]
And even more forcible in its devout impiety is the following:—
“O God Most High, who dwellest in Heaven, who through thy Trinity
and Majesty hast thy just angels, send, O Lord, thy Angel Gabriel to
stick in the throat of those who have committed this theft, that they
may neither chew nor swallow this bread and cheese created by Thee. I
invoke the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with twelve thousand
Angels and Archangels. I invoke the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. I invoke Moses and Aaron, who divided the sea. That
they may bind to their throats the tongues of the men who have
committed this theft, or consented thereto. If they taste this bread
and cheese created by Thee, may they tremble like a trembling tree,
and have no rest, nor keep the bread and cheese in their mouths;
that all may know Thou art the Lord, and there is none other but
Thee!”[1081]
As the efficiency of the ordeal depended upon the effect produced on
the imagination of the patient clerical ingenuity exhausted itself
in devising tremendous and awe-inspiring exorcisms. One like the
following, for instance, could hardly fail to constrict the throat of
the most hardened sinner:—
“I exorcise thee, accursed and most filthy dragon, basilisk, evil
serpent, by the Word of truth, by almighty God, by the spotless Lamb
begotten of the Highest, conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary, whose coming Gabriel announced, whom when John saw he
cried aloud This is the Son of the living God, that thou may’st have
no power over this bread or cheese, but that he who committed this
theft may eat in trembling and vomit forth by Thy command, Holy Father
and Lord, almighty and eternal God.... May he who has stolen these
things or is an accomplice in this, may his throat and his tongue
and his jaws be narrowed and constricted so that he cannot chew this
bread or cheese, by the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, by
the tremendous Day of Judgment, by the four Evangels, by the twelve
Apostles, by the four and twenty elders who daily praise and worship
Thee, by that Redeemer who deigned for our sins to stretch his hands
upon the cross, that he who stole these things cannot chew this bread
or cheese save with a swelled mouth and froth and tears, by the aid
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory forever and
forever.”[1082]
Yet Boccaccio’s story of Calendrino, which turns upon the mixing of
aloes with the bread administered in the _corsnæd_, perhaps affords a
more rationalistic explanation of the expected miracle.[1083]
A striking illustration of the superstitions connected with this usage
is found in the story related by most of the English chroniclers
concerning the death of Godwin, Duke of Kent, father of King Harold,
and in his day the king-maker of England. As he was dining with his
royal son-in-law, Edward the Confessor, some trivial circumstance
caused the king to repeat an old accusation that his brother Alfred
had met his death at Godwin’s hands. The old but fiery duke, seizing
a piece of bread, exclaimed: “May God cause this morsel to choke me if
I am guilty in thought or in deed of this crime!” Then the king took
the bread and blessed it, and Godwin, putting it in his mouth, was
suffocated by it, and fell dead.[1084] A poetical life of Edward the
Confessor, written in the thirteenth century, gives a graphic picture
of the death of the duke and the vengeful triumph of the king:—
“L’aleine e parole pert
Par le morsel ki ferm s’ahert.
Morz est li senglant felun;
Mut out force la benaicun,
Ke duna a mors vertu,
Par unc la mort provée fu.
‘Atant’ se escrie li rois,
‘Treiez hors ceu chen punois.’”[1085]
This form of ordeal never obtained the extended influence which
characterized some of the other modes, and it seems to have been
chiefly confined to the populations allied to the Saxon race. In
England, before the Conquest, it was enjoined on the lower orders of
the clergy who were unable to procure conjurators,[1086] and it may be
considered as a plebeian mode of trial, rarely rising into historical
importance. Its vitality, however, is demonstrated by the fact that
Lindenbruck, writing in 1613, states that it was then still in frequent
use.[1087]
Aimoin relates a story which, though in no sense judicial, presents us
with a development of the same superstition. A certain renowned knight
named Arnustus unjustly occupied lands belonging to the Benedictine
Abbey of Fleury. Dining at the usurped property one day, and boasting
of his contempt for the complaints of the holy monks, he took a pear
and exclaimed—“I call this pear to witness that before the year is
out I will give them ample cause for grumbling.” Choking with the
first morsel, he was carried speechless to bed, and miserably perished
unhouselled, a warning to evildoers not to tempt too far the patience
of St. Benedict.[1088] Stories such as this are by no means uncommon,
and are not without interest as a portion of the armory by which the
clergy defended themselves against their unquiet neighbors. Of kindred
nature is an occurrence related about the year 1090, when Duke Henry of
Limburg was involved in a quarrel with Engilbert, Archbishop of Trèves,
and treated with contempt the excommunication and anathema inflicted
upon him. Joking upon the subject with his followers one day at dinner,
he tossed a fragment of food to his dog, remarking that if the animal
ate it, they need not feel apprehensive of the episcopal curse. The
dog refused the tempting morsel, though he manifested his hunger by
eagerly devouring food given him by another hand, and the duke, by the
advice of his counsellors, lost no time in reconciling himself with his
ghostly adversary. This is the more remarkable, as Engilbert himself
was under excommunication by Gregory VII., being a stanch imperialist,
who had received his see from Henry IV., and his pallium from the
antipope Guiberto.[1089]
In India, this ordeal is performed with a kind of rice called _sathee_,
prepared with various incantations. The person on trial eats it, with
his face to the East, and then spits upon a peepul leaf. “If the saliva
is mixed with blood, or the corners of his mouth swell, or he trembles,
he is declared to be a liar.”[1090] A slightly different form is
described for cases in which several persons are suspected of theft.
The consecrated rice is administered to them all, is chewed lightly,
and then spit out upon a peepul leaf. If any one ejects it either dry
or tinged with blood, he is adjudged guilty.[1091]
Based on the same theory is a ceremony performed by the pre-Aryan
hill-tribes of Rajmahal, when swearing judges into office preparatory
to the trial of a case. In this a pinch of salt is placed upon a
_tulwar_ or scimitar, and held over the mouth of the judge, to whom is
addressed the adjuration, “If thou decidest contrary to thy judgment
and falsely, may this salt be thy death!” The judge repeats the
formula, and the salt is washed with water into his mouth.[1092]