Trials by Ordeal resorted to in Modern and Ancient
Times--Ordeal by means of Hot Iron--Plunging the Arm
into Boiling Water or Oil--Walking Blindfold in
Dangerous Places--Weighing a Witch--Extending the Arms
before a Cross--Swallowing Consecrated Bread--Ordeal
among the Hindoos--Touching a Dead Body--A Murdered
Traveller--An Inquest, how conducted long ago--Dead
Henry's Wounds--Sir George M'Kenzie's Opinion of Trial
by Ordeal--Killing a Brother by Sorcery--Touching a
Dead Body--Sir K. Digby on Trial by Ordeal.
Trial by ordeal were resorted to by many people and nations both in
ancient and modern times, with the view of establishing the
criminality or innocence of suspected persons. Among the ordeals may
be enumerated: holding in the hand a red-hot bar of iron, plunging the
arm into boiling water or oil, walking blindfold amidst burning
ploughshares, passing through fires, swallowing a morsel of
consecrated bread, swimming or sinking in water (or, as it was
occasionally termed, weighing a witch), stretching out the arms before
the cross until the sorest wearied competitor dropped his arms, and so
lost his cause, and therewith perhaps his life or his estate, or it
might be both.
* * * * *
A dispute occurred between the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St.
Denis about the patronage of a monastery; and Pepin, surnamed the
Short, not being able to decide such an intricate question, decreed
that the matter should be settled by ordeal. Each of the disputants
chose a man, and both the men appeared in a chapel, where they
extended their arms in the form of a cross. Numerous spectators were
present to witness the trial, and betted on the feat. The bishop's
representative dropped his arms first, and thereby ruined his
employer.
Warren Hastings has found, from Asiatic researches, that trial by
ordeal was common among the Hindoos. He says these trials are
conducted in nine ways: first, by the balance; secondly, by fire;
thirdly, by water; fourthly, by poison; fifthly, by the Cosha, or
water in which an idol has been washed; sixthly, by rice; seventhly,
by boiling oil; eighthly, by red-hot iron; ninthly, by images.
"I. Ordeal by the balance is thus performed:--The beam
having been previously adjusted, the cord fixed, and
both scales made perfectly even, the person accused
and a Pandit fast a whole day; then, after the accused
has been bathed in sacred water, the homa, or
oblation, presented to fire, and the deities
worshipped, he is carefully weighed; and, when he is
taken out of the scale, the Pandits prostrate
themselves, and pronounce a certain mentra or
incantation, agreeably to the Sastras, and having
written the substance of the accusation on a piece of
paper, bind it on his head. Six minutes after, they
place him again in the scale, and, if he weigh more
than before, he is held guilty; if less, innocent; if
exactly the same, he must be weighed a third time;
when, as it is written in the Mitacshera, there will
certainly be a difference in his weight. Should the
balance break down, it would be considered a proof of
guilt.
"II. For the fire ordeal, an excavation, nine hands
long, two spans broad, and one span deep, is made in
the ground, and filled with a fire of pippal wood:
into this the person accused must walk bare-footed,
and, if his foot be unhurt, they hold him blameless;
if burned, guilty.
"III. Water ordeal is performed by causing the person
accused to stand in a sufficient depth of water,
either flowing or stagnant, to reach his navel; but
care must be taken that no ravenous animal be in it,
and that it be not moved by much air: a Brahman is
then directed to go into the water, holding a staff in
his hand, and a soldier shoots three arrows on dry
ground from a bow of cane; a man is next despatched to
bring the arrow which has been shot farthest, and,
after he has taken it up, another is ordered to run
from the edge of the water; at which instant the
person accused is told to grasp the foot or the staff
of the Brahman, who stands near him in the water, and
immediately to dive into it. He must remain under
water till the two men who went to fetch the arrows
are returned; for, if he raise his head or body above
the surface before the arrows are brought back, his
guilt is considered as fully proved. In the villages
near Banares, it is the practice for the person who is
to be tried by this kind of ordeal to stand in water
up to his navel, and then, holding the foot of a
Brahman, to dive under it as long as a man can walk
fifty paces very gently; if before the man has walked
thus far the accused rise above the water, he is
condemned; if not, acquitted.
"IV. There are two sorts of trial by poison. First,
the Pandits having performed their homa, and the
person accused his ablution, two retti's and a half,
or seven barley-corns, of vishanaga, a poisonous root,
or of sanc'hya, that is, white arsenic, are mixed in
eight mashas, or sixty-four retti's of clarified
butter, which the accused must eat from the hand of a
Brahman: if the poison produce no visible effect, he
is absolved; otherwise, condemned. Secondly, the
hooded snake, called naga, is thrown into a deep
earthen pot, into which is dropped a ring, a seal, or
a coin; this the person accused is ordered to take out
with his hand; and, if the serpent bite him, he is
pronounced guilty; if not, innocent.
"V. Trial by the cosha is as follows: the accused is
made to drink three draughts of the water in which the
images of the sun, of Devi, and other deities have
been washed for that purpose; and if within fourteen
days he has any sickness or indisposition, his crime
is considered as proved.
"VI. When several persons are suspected of theft, some
dry rice is weighed with the sacred stone called
salcram; or certain slocas are read over it; after
which the suspected persons are severally ordered to
chew a quantity of it: as soon as they have chewed it,
they are to throw it on some leaves of the pippal, or,
if none be at hand, on some b'hurja patra, or bark of
a tree from Nepal or Cashmir. The man from whose mouth
the rice comes dry or stained with blood, is holden
guilty; the rest are acquitted.
"VII. The ordeal by hot oil is very simple: when it is
heated sufficiently, the accused thrusts his hand into
it; and, if he be not burned, is held innocent.
"VIII. In the same manner they make an iron ball, or
the head of a lance, red-hot, and place it in the
hands of the person accused; who, if it burn him not,
is judged guiltless.
"IX. To perform the ordeal by dharmarch, which is the
name of the sloca appropriated to this mode of trial,
either an image named Dharma, or the Genius of
Justice, is made of silver, and another, called
Adharma, of clay or iron, both of which are thrown
into a large earthen jar; and the accused, having
thrust his hand into it, is acquitted if he bring out
the silver image, but condemned if he draw forth the
iron; or the figure of a deity is painted on white
cloth, and another on black, the first of which they
name dharma, and the second adharma: these are
severally rolled up in cow-dung, and thrown into a
large jar without having ever been shown to the
accused; who must put his hand into the jar, and is
acquitted or convicted as he draws out the figure on
white or black cloth."
Touching the body of a murdered person was one way, in Scotland,
England, and elsewhere, of discovering who the murderer was. The
practice, we are informed, originated in Denmark. Certain gentlemen in
that kingdom, being together in a house, one evening fell out among
themselves, and from words came to blows. Unfortunately the candles
went out during the fray, and before lights could be procured one of
the gentlemen was stabbed. The murderer was unknown. Christernus II.,
then king, to find out the murderer, caused all who were present at
the brawl to stand around the dead body, and commanded that one after
the other should lay his right hand on the dead man's breast, and
swear that he had not committed the foul deed. The gentlemen complied;
and no sign appeared to indicate the guilt of any of them, until the
king's pursuivant kissed the feet of the corpse, and laid his hand on
the breast. As soon as he did so, the blood gushed out in great
abundance from the wound and nostrils. Thus condemned, the pursuivant
confessed his guilt. By the king's sentence, the criminal was
beheaded. Hence arose the practice, which was long common in many
places, of finding out unknown murders. In most cases the murderer was
discovered by the corpse bleeding the instant the bloodstained hand
was placed on the cold inanimate clay, but at times the sign was given
by the dead man opening his eyes on the slayer approaching the corpse.
A traveller was found murdered on a highway in Denmark; and because
the slayer was unknown, the magistrates of the place caused one of the
hands of him that was slain to be cut off, and hung up by a string at
the top of a room in the town prison. About ten years after the crime
was committed, the murderer happened to enter the apartment; and as
soon as he did so, the dry withered hand began to drop blood on a
table below it. The gaoler, beholding this, detained the man and
called in the magistrates, who extracted from him a confession of his
guilt.
In Herefordshire, in the time of Charles I., Johan Norkett, wife of
Arthur Norkett, was found dead. At first it was thought she had
committed suicide, but afterwards circumstances transpired which led
to the belief that the unfortunate woman did not lay violent hands
upon herself. A jury was summoned, and, after deliberation, the
coroner directed that the body, which had been buried for a month,
should be exhumed, and four suspected persons brought to touch the
corpse. The persons being afterwards brought to trial at the assizes,
an old minister swore that, the body being taken out of the grave and
laid on the grass, the accused were required to touch it. On laying
their hands on the brow, which before was of a livid and carrion
colour, it began to have a dew or gentle sweat upon it, which
increased by degrees until the sweat ran down the face. The brow then
turned to a lifelike and flesh colour, and the dead woman opened one
of her eyes and shut it again, and this opening the eye was done three
times. She likewise thrust out the ring or marriage finger three
times, and the finger dropped blood on the grass. Another clergyman
corroborated the statement of the first witness. Sir Nicholas Hyde
threw doubt on the correctness of the evidence, but the jury found
three of the prisoners guilty of murder, and two of them were
executed; the third being a woman, escaped with her life.
The popular superstition that the wounds of a murdered person would
bleed afresh when touched by the murderer, is thus referred to by
Shakspeare:
"Dead Henry's wounds
Open their congealed mouths, and bleed afresh;"
And Dryden says:
"If the vile actors of the heinous deed
Near the dead body happily be brought,
Oft hath been proved the breathless corpse will bleed."
That murder might be discovered in the way referred to, was generally
believed in Scotland in the seventeenth century. Sir George Mackenzie,
when conducting the prosecution in the trial of Philip Stansfield,
said: "That divine power which makes the blood circulate during life,
has oft-times, in all nations, opened a passage to it after death upon
such occasions, but most in this case; for after the wounds had been
sewed up, and the body designedly shaken up and down, and, which is
most wonderful, after the body had been buried for several days, which
naturally occasions the blood to congeal, upon Philip touching it, the
blood darted and sprang out, to the great astonishment of the
chirurgeons themselves, who were desired to watch this event;
whereupon Philip, astonished more than they, threw down the body, and
became so faint that they were forced to give him a cordial."
In the middle of the seventeenth century, Christina Wilson was
accused, in one of the supreme courts of Scotland, of having killed
her brother by sorcery. On being suspected of the crime by the
minister and others, she was brought in to touch the corpse. At the
first sight of the dead body, she prayed that He who made the sun to
shine on their house would bring the murder to light, and immediately
thereafter she touched the corpse. It bled, though it did not do so
before when touched by others. Of course this was held sufficient
proof against the unfortunate woman, and she suffered according to her
supposed guilt.
In another case a man was condemned on similar evidence for the murder
of his father; but the prisoner insisted that the bleeding was owing
to an incision made on the body, and not to his presence. The defence
was disregarded; but this need not be a matter of surprise, when such
men as Sir K. Digby and Sir George Mackenzie took it for granted that
the corpse of a murdered person would bleed on being touched by the
murderer. He (Sir K. Digby) says in his _Religio Medica_: "And to this
cause, peradventure, may be ascribed the strange effect which is
frequently seen in England, when, at the approach of the murderer, the
slain body suddenly bleedeth afresh: for certainly the souls of them
that are treacherously murdered by surprise leave their bodies with
extreme unwillingness, and with vehement indignation against them that
forced them to so unprovided and abhorred a passage. The soul then, to
wreak its evil talent against the hated murderer, and to draw a just
and desired revenge upon his head, would do all it can to manifest the
author of the fact. To speak it cannot, for in itself it wanteth
organs of voice, and those it is parted from are now grown too heavy,
and are too benumbed for it to give motion unto; yet some change it
desireth to make in the body, which it hath so vehement inclination
to, and therefore it is the aptest for it to work upon. It must then
endeavour to cause a motion in the sublimest and most fluid parts (and
consequently the most moveable ones) of it. This can be nothing but
the blood, which, being violently moved, must needs gush out at those
places where it findeth issues."
The swallowing of a piece of barley bread, over which mass had been
performed, was not unfrequent in trials of ordeal. If the suspected
person swallowed the bread without injury, he was declared innocent;
but if the bread choked him in the attempt to swallow it, then was he
considered to be guilty. At times cheese was given with the bread; but
when that was done, it was essential to supply ewe-milk cheese made in
the month of May.