[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, Fœdera, 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, Fœdera, 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, Fœd. 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 pœnam 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 pœna 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).
[Illustration: Two men fighting, one with club the other with ball on
chain.]
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. 317^a).
[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, pœnam 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 pœnam 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.
6_s._ 8_d._ Et pro apparatu ejusdem Rad. et socii ejus ad duellum
16_s._ 4_d._”—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, XV^e 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. 317_a_.
[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. 317_a_).
[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. 8_a_. (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] Kœnigswarter, _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.