Read Ebook: The Old Yellow Book: Source of Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book by Hodell Charles W Charles Wesley Editor

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 760 lines and 106062 words, and 16 pages

And not infrequently, in the contingency of such a deed, men have escaped entirely unpunished, who, when moved by just anger, have laid hands even upon the innocent. For a certain Smyrnean woman had killed her husband and her son conceived of him, because her husband had slain her own son by her first marriage. When she was accused before Dolabella, as Proconsul, he was unwilling either to liberate one who was stained with two murders, or to condemn her, as she had been moved by just anger. He therefore sent her to the Areopagus, that assembly of very wise judges. There, when the cause had been made known, response was given that she and her accuser should come back after a hundred years. And so the defendant in a double murder, although she had also killed one who was innocent, escaped entirely unpunished.

Likewise, a wife who had given command for the murder of her husband because of just anger from his denial of her matrimonial dues was punished with a fine, and a temporary residence in a monastery, as Cyriacus testifies. Such pleas might indeed hold good whenever the accused had confessed the crime, or had been lawfully convicted, neither of which can be affirmed . But much more are they to be admitted, since he confesses only that he gave order for striking his wife's face, or for mutilating it; and if those he commanded exceeded his order, he should not be held responsible for their excess.

His fellows and companions give his name, and claim that he had a hand in the murders. And in spite of the fact that the Fisc claims they have hidden the truth in many respects, equity will not allow that certain matters be separated from their depositions and that these be accepted only in part; for if they are false in one matter, such are they to be considered in all. It would be more than enough to take away from those depositions all credence that, under torture in his presence, they did not purge that stain.

It has very justly been permitted that in defence of this noble man, I should deduce these matters, as they say, with galloping pen. The scantiness of the time has not suffered me to bring together other grounds for my case; these could be gathered with little labour, and possibly not without utility. Yet I believe that all objections, which can be raised on the part of the Fisc, have been abundantly satisfied.

ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:

From the "prosecution ," which was brought in this very tribunal, and by his honour, Lord Venturini, Judge in this present case, there is more than satisfactory proof of adultery committed by Francesca Pompilia, wife of Count Guido Franceschini, a nobleman of Arezzo, with the Canon Caponsacchi. With Caponsacchi the parents of this same Francesca Pompilia entered into conspiracy, although they were living here in the City. And after she had given an opiate to Count Guido and his entire household, she fled that same night from the City of Arezzo toward Rome.

Consequently, the Canon, as may be remembered, was banished to Civita Vecchia, with a statement of his criminal knowledge of that woman in the said decree of condemnation. This adultery is also evident from other matters of evidence deduced by the Procurator of the Poor. There remains, accordingly, no room to doubt it, but rather their adultery may be said to be notorious here in the City, in the country of Count Guido, and throughout all Etruria.

Since this is established, we can safely assert that even if Guido had confessed that he slew his wife with the complicity and help of Blasio Agostinelli of the town of Popolo, Domenico Gambassini of Florence, Francesco Pasquini of the castle of Monte Acuto, and Alessandro Baldeschi of Tiferno, he should not therefore be punished with the ordinary death penalty, but more mildly. This is in accord with the decision of Emperor Pius as related by Ulpian and by Martian. For in both of them it is said that a man of low birth is sent into perpetual exile, but that a noble is banished only for a limited time, but the crime of a husband who is moved by just anger is overlooked, as this same Ulpian confirms , since it is most difficult to restrain such anger.

Yet we should not consider it necessary that the adultery of the wife be conclusively proved in order that there be room for mitigating the said penalty. For it would be enough, if we were dealing with a case of mere suspicion: Glossa, etc. "A man who had killed his son because he believed the young man had lain with his stepmother, as was true, was deported to an island."

Dondeus also speaks of a man who had boasted that he wished to ruin the sister of the one who killed him, which is said to have aroused just suspicion and fear for the loss of honour sufficient to free the slayer from the ordinary penalty of murder.

Nor is it true, as some authorities affirm, that the husband must take the wife in very adultery, and kill her immediately; in which case, they say the abovesaid laws hold good, but that it is otherwise if the murder is done after an interval. For the contrary opinion is the truer, the more usual, and the one to be observed in practice, as Marsilius well advises, where he speaks in defence of a certain nobleman who had killed another person after an interval. The man slain had betrothed his sister by promise and had kept her for three months, and had then rejected her. Because of this, a great injury and much infamy were inflicted upon his family and the entire kin. Marsilius then adduces the abovesaid laws, which pronounce concerning a husband who kills his adulterous wife; and Bertazzolus offers the case of one who had killed his adulterous wife and had afterward, in his own defence, proved the adultery by the double confession of the same wife. Claudius Jr. testifies that the murderer was banished for a time by the praetor of Mirandola, and after the lapse of several months he was recalled by the Duke of Mirandola.

Matthaeus adduces the excellent words of Theodoric as quoted by Cassiodorus , where we read: "For who can bear to drag into court a man who has attempted to violate his matrimonial rights? It is deep-seated even in beasts that they should defend their mating even with deadly conflict, since what is condemned by natural law is hateful to all living creatures. We see bulls defending their cows by strife of horns, rams fighting with their heads for their wethers, horses vindicating by kicks and bites their females; so even these, who are moved by no sense of shame, lay down their lives for their mates. How then may a man endure to leave adultery unavenged, which is known to have been committed to his eternal disgrace? And so if you have made very little false statements in the petition you offer, and if you have indeed only washed away the stain to your marriage-bed by the blood of the adulterer, taken in the act, and if you are looking back from your exile, which was evidently inflicted not by reason of a bloodthirsty mind, but because of your sense of shame, we bid you return from your exile; since for a husband to use the sword for the love of his sense of honour is not to overthrow the laws, but to establish them."

And the reason is very evident, for whenever such an injury is suffered by fine natures, especially among the noble class, it is ever present with them, and continually oppresses the heart, and urges it on to vengeance for the recovery of lost honour, as Giurba well notes.

For this reason, it has always and everywhere been held in case of murder committed for honour's sake that there is no place for the ordinary death penalty, which should be mitigated at the discretion of the judge. And this rule has been followed, when the murder was committed after an interval, and even after a long interval. For the abovesaid reason, both Grammaticus and Gizzarellus affirm and hand down this opinion. The latter says that it has always been so adjudged by the Sacred Council of Naples, and that this opinion has always been accepted by our ancestors.

It was so judged by the high court of the Vicar, although it was dealing with a murder committed after two years, and by craft, by two brothers upon the adulteress in the presence of her sister's cousin. Cyriacus also speaks of the murder of a husband by his wife, because he was keeping a mistress and was contriving against her honour; and there he said that since just anger has a long continuance, because of its extreme bitterness, vengeance should always be said to follow immediately.

Another reason also is at hand, which is considered by the authorities, namely, that an injury, whereby the honour is hurt, is not personal, but real, and therefore can be resented at any time whatsoever, even after the lapse of a very long time, as Giurba holds in our circumstances.

We have therefore a great many standard authorities who affirm, for most vital reasons, that murder committed, even after an interval, upon the person of the wife or of any one else, for honour's sake, ought not to be punished with the ordinary death penalty, but more mildly. Furthermore, these authorities bear witness that the matter has been so judged in the tribunals with which they are acquainted. No attention therefore should be paid to the opposite opinion held by Farinacci ; for we plainly see that he speaks contrary to the common and usually accepted opinion in tribunals.

But one should be on his guard against what this same Farinacci asserts: namely, that this opinion of his, so far as he could see, was the one more approved by the Sacred Court. For since this point of doubt, as he himself confesses, had not then been advanced, he could not judge what would be the outcome if it had been proposed. And indeed the wisest of the said high authorities do not give their assent to his opinion, but rather hold the contrary, which is favourable to ourselves, as is seen in the decisions they have given from time to time. For it was so held on March 25, 1672, in the case of Carolo Falerno, who was condemned to an unusual penalty for the murder of Francesco Domenici; for he had found him coming out of a church, to which he had warned him not to go, as he was suspicious that the one slain was following his wife. In like manner with Carolo Matarazzi, August 15, 1673, who killed his wife on the foolish grounds that he suspected her of illegitimate conception because of the absence of her menses; but this suspicion did not indeed correspond with the truth. And in law a matter may be even more mistaken and less observed by human intellect.

Likewise in a murder committed treacherously with an arquebus upon the person of Tomaso Bovini by Francesco Mattucio of Monte San Giovanni, a person of the very lowest class, merely because of the attempted dishonour of his sister. The attempt of the one killed was proved by two witnesses on hearsay of the one slain. On September 4, 1692, the penalty of life sentence to the galleys, to which the said Mattucio had been convicted on strongest proofs on the preceding July 12, was moderated by the sacred court, before the Right Reverend Father Ratta, of blessed memory. With good right, therefore, this same Farinacci is expressly confuted and overthrown by Matthaeus.

This opinion of ours is to be accepted the more readily when we consider that the husband is more stirred by the adultery of his wife than by the murder of his son. Yes, and even more than by the defilement of his daughter. So that if a husband does not complain of the adultery of his wife, he is considered a pimp, as Paschal holds, where we read recently: "Adultery of the wife gives offence not merely to the husband, but blackens and stains the entire kin." That this happened in the present case is plainly evident; for Abate Paolo, brother of Guido, was compelled not only to leave the City, in which he had lived for many years with highest praise, but even to pass out of Italy, because he was pursued undoubtedly by the greatest disgrace on account of this adultery. While he was carrying on Guido's cause in the courts, he moved the laughter and sneers of almost all sensible and wise men, not to say of the very judges themselves, as usually happens in these circumstances.

Nor would it stand in the way of what we have said above, if without prejudice to the truth, we should admit that Count Guido killed his wife with the complicity and aid of the said Blasio, Domenico, Francesco, and Alessandro, assembled for that purpose; for he could do that in order to take vengeance upon her more easily and more safely.

that he had assembled the said men by means of money.

It is to be added, furthermore , that they themselves did another injury to his reputation by means of the civil suit which they brought on the grounds of the pretended birth of Francesca Pompilia; and not merely here in the City, but also in his own country, they distributed the most bitter libels, which were added to this same lawsuit. Hence it cannot be denied that Count Guido for this reason had conceived a just anger and provocation, and that he had just cause for taking vengeance. This is according to the text , where Alexander the Third wrote to the Bishop of Tournay that a certain woman who had killed her child should be placed in a monastery, because she was reproached by her husband with the accusation that it had been conceived in adultery. For in crimes where anger does not entirely excuse, still the delinquent who kills in anger conceived from just grievance is somewhat excused.

In any case, since with Count Guido two causes for committing crime concurred: one the aforesaid matter of the lawsuit, another wounded honour because of the lawsuit brought and the flight in which they conspired, wherefrom the adultery had followed, the cause of honour should be given attention, as it is the graver and consequently the more proportionate to the crime.

Likewise the penalty should not be increased in view of the place of the crime, because the defence of one's honour is so justifiable, and the anger and commotion of mind arising therefrom is so just, that reason for it cannot be demanded, as Merlin Pignatelli holds, because Giovanni Francesco de Carrillo speaks of an insult offered in prison. And No. 29 approves the decision for the reason that greater reverence is due to churches and other places consecrated to God, and in which the King of Kings and Lord of Lords dwells in essence; and yet one who commits crime in them from just anger and grievance is excused; for he asserts that all Canonists and other authorities there alleged by him unanimously acknowledge this.

More readily, therefore, should this conclusion follow in our case, since the said Francesca was not staying in a formal prison, but was merely keeping her home as a prison, under security of 300 scudi, that she would not depart therefrom; because one who has given bond and has sworn not to leave a place is neither in chains nor in custody.

Lucano holds that there are differences between being kept in chains and being committed under bond, etc. And Farinacci holds that the word "custody" should be more strictly interpreted than the word "chains."

Hence it is much less so here, because we are not arguing about the death penalty even, which does not enter into the present case for reasons given above. And Gabriellus speaks to this effect on the point that such a crime may not be said to be qualified.

Soccini also holds it should be thus adjudged, unless one wishes to say that they should be punished with a slighter penalty than the principal, as often happens in the case of auxiliaries. And he speaks in our very circumstances of men assembled by a husband for the sake of killing one who had polluted his wife. In these same circumstances, see also Parisius. Carera speaks of a father who had his daughter killed by an assassin; and he says that neither the father nor the murderer are to be held to account.

Marsilius also, after placing in the very beginning this principle that when one matter is conceded all seem to be conceded which lead thereto, draws inference therefrom for the present case and many reasons for it are adduced. Cassanis also holds that men assembled in this way are not held responsible either for the murder or for the aid furnished, if they do the killing in the company of the principal. And in these same circumstances Garzonus speaks, decision 71, throughout.

Nor does it stand in the way of our reasoning that one of the aforesaid defendants had inflicted wounds with his own hands, or had killed one of the victims; as Francesco has confessed that he inflicted four or five wounds in the back of Francesca Pompilia. Even in these circumstances the rule holds good that auxiliaries shall not be punished with greater penalty than the principal. And so affirm individually the following authorities among those recently cited.

And Garzoni testifies that it was so adjudged in the said decision 71, where we read: "Or he may have with himself associates for this act," and if they kill the adulterers in company of the principal they are held to very slight account, either for the murder or for the aid given, and it was so adjudged.

And even in the more extreme case of one killing by assassination, and consequently in the absence of the principal, this is the opinion of Baldo , where we read: "And now it is inquired whether an assassin is ever punished, and I say he is not; because what is permitted in the person giving command is also permitted in the person commanded." Castro also says: "Because what I can do of myself I can have done through my helpers who are necessary for that purpose." And Afflitto says: "Either with one's own hands, or by help of another, even with the influence of money, and thus by an assassin; for Baldo says on this same point: 'What is permitted in the person giving command is also permitted in the person commanded'; and he witnesses that it was so adjudged." Marta : "Much more so because authorities affirm that a husband, who on account of fear cannot kill the adulteress, may even by the help of money demand of another that he kill her, and neither of them is then to be punished."

Nor can the punishment be increased because of the alleged carrying of prohibited arms; because the latter offence is included then with the real crime. In Guazzin we read that this is so, even if for the carrying of the arms a greater penalty would be inflicted . And so, whenever it is evident that the crime has been committed for honour's sake and for a just grievance, as in the present case, the carrying of the arms may go unpunished, or at least it should not be punished with a more severe penalty than should be imposed for the principal crime itself. Thus Policardus well affirms when speaking of arms which are considered treacherous by the Banns.

These claims should hold good more readily as regards Domenico and Francesco, who are foreigners, and are therefore not included in any of the Apostolic Constitutions or Banns, which prohibit the bearing of arms under very heavy penalties.

Especially since they are minors, as is made clear in the course of the trial, pp. 35 and 304; in which case they are likewise not bound by these Constitutions and Banns, which give judgment upon the crime of a minor. For the power to make and establish such regulations was lacking in the Prince or public official concerned.

Such are the matters which, in view of the excessive scantiness of time, I have been able to collect in discharge of my duty for the defence of these poor prisoners. Nor do I at all distrust that my Lords Judges, when they see that too little has been said, will wish to supply and offer what is lacking out of the high rectitude for which they are distinguished. For this would be quite in accord with the decree of Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, as related. And they will follow the advice of Hippolitus Marsilius, famous in criminal proceedings, who says that a judge is obliged by his office to seek out grounds of defence for the accused.

ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:

The plea of injured honour which redeems Count Guido from the rigorous penalty that should follow for the commission of murders, likewise urges mitigation of the ordinary penalty for Blasio and the associates who had hand in the murder, even though it may be pretended that they were paid thereto. For it is taken for granted that we are dealing with a case far removed from assassination, because of the presence of a person who had real cause for vengeance, as the following authorities think in common.

There has been the strongest controversy among authorities as to whether a father or husband may demand of any one except his son the murder of his daughter or of his adulterous wife. And divided on the two sides of the question, they have contended strongly. Yet the majority are in favour of the affirmative and of the milder sentence; and often, in the event of such a murder, it has evidently been so adjudged.

But since this question lies outside of our line of argument, it would be vain and quite useless labour to take it up, nor is time to be wasted when we are so hard pressed for it. For we are evidently dealing with auxiliaries, assembled for committing homicide, according to the thought of the Fisc. Hence the conditions of a mere "mandatory" are not applicable; because of the immediate presence of the principal in the crime; for when he also lays hand to the crime, those who do likewise are not called mandatories, but auxiliaries and helpers.

Furthermore, just as Guido himself is freed from the death penalty because of the said plea of injured honour, so likewise are his allies and auxiliaries freed, as the following authorities unanimously assert.

Those who are cited in support of the opposite view do not pronounce opinion in our peculiar circumstances, but speak of a husband demanding of another the murder of his adulterous wife, and not of auxiliaries who do the killing in company with the husband, as in our case.

In such contingency, auxiliaries who give aid to a husband while killing his adulterous wife have always enjoyed the same indulgence as the principal himself; that is, they always escape the capital penalty, and indeed go entirely unpunished.

Nor does the distinction of Caballus make any difference, where he holds that auxiliaries may indeed assist with impunity a husband or a father killing a wife or daughter respectively, in order that these may kill the more safely; but that they cannot lend a hand and actually kill; for in the latter case they are to be held accountable for the murder. Because, for foundation in making such a distinction, he plants his feet upon Paolo de Castro. But this is so far from proving his purpose that it rather turns back on him remarkably to his own injury. For after the latter sets before himself this kind of a difficulty, under No. 2, he adds: "But I hold entirely the contrary: that neither the one who did the killing nor he who made the assembly are to be held for the murder for the purpose of inflicting the capital penalty."

Furthermore, Rollandus in the said council is expressly confuted by Facchinus. Nor is this without vital reason. For just as a qualification that modifies a crime in the principal delinquent increases it also for the auxiliaries, whenever they are aware of it, so all sense of equity demands that a qualification that diminishes the penalty for the principal, even though it be unknown to the auxiliaries, shall act in favour of them also. Hence Caballus remains without a stable foundation, and is opposed to the opinion of the many doctors here alleged, who make no distinction between those who simply assist and those taking a hand in the murder; and indeed all of them speak of auxiliaries. Furthermore, it is found that this has often been the judgment, even in the more extreme circumstances of one commanded to a murder, as was said above. And so strong is the plea of injured honour that not only does it extend its protection to mere mandatories, but even to mandatories whose case is modified by the circumstance of assassination. And it causes them to be absolved, as we find that it was so decided.

Hence if both mandatories and assassins are redeemed from the ordinary death penalty, whenever they kill an adulteress at the command of the husband, it necessarily follows that the distinction of Caballus is not a true one, nor is it accepted in practice. For if they are mandatories, we cannot deny that they may kill with their own hands; and nevertheless, not to speak of the other decisions cited above, Clar. testifies such a decision favourable to the accused was handed down, contrary to the opinion of Caballus.

If, therefore, Blasio and his fellows are not to be punished with the death penalty for affording aid in the murders, vain is the question whether they can be subjected to the torment of the vigil for the purpose of having the very truth from their own mouths. For this procedure demands two requisites: one that the most urgent proofs stand against the accused, and the other that the crime be very atrocious, according to the prescript of the Bull.

And although the powers of this Tribunal are very great for the dispensing with one of the said requisites, yet I have never seen the said torment of the vigil inflicted unless when there was no doubt that the crime, for which the Fisc was trying to draw confession from the accused, deserved the capital penalty. We cannot believe that the prosecution expects to make a case to this end because of the pretended conventicle; since those who are assembled are not to be held under the penalty for conventicle, but only the one who assembled them is so held, as Baldo well asserts. Nor in this case can the penalty for the asserted conventicle be made good against Count Guido himself, since the cause for which he assembled the men aids him in evading the penalty; inasmuch as one may assemble his friends and associates for the purpose of regaining his reputation.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet