2 79. THE ORDEAL. 343
either by hot iron,1 or by pure fire.2 The person accused or suspected of a crime was exposed to the danger of death or serious injury by one of these elements: if he escaped unhurt— if he plunged his arm to the elbow into boiling water, or walked barefoot upon heated plough-shares, or held a burning ball of
II. (824-827), who seems to have introduced it. The accused was bound with cords, and lowered with a rope into a reservoir or pond, with the prayer (St. Dunstan's formula) : " Let not the water receive the body of him who, released from the weight of goodness, is upborne by the wind of iniquity." It was supposed that the pure element would not receive a criminal into its bosom. It required therefore in this case a miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of things he would escape. Lea (p. 221) relates this instance from a MS. in the British Museum: ''In 1083, during the deadly struggle between the Empire and the Papacy, as personified in Henry IV. and Hildebrand, the imperialists related with great delight that some of the leading prelates of the papal court submitted the cause of their chief to this ordeal. After a three days' fast, and proper benediction of the water, they placed in it a boy to represent the Emperor, when to their horror he sank like a stone. On referring the result to Hildebrand, he ordered a repetition of the experi ment, which was attended with the same result. Then, throwing him in, as a representative of the Pope, he obstinately floated during two trials, in spite of all efforts to force him under the surface, and an oath was exacted from them to maintain inviolable secrecy as to the unexpected result." James I. of England was a strict believer in this ordeal, and thought that the pure element would never receive those who had desecrated the privileges of holy baptism. Even as late as 1836, an old woman, reputed to be a witch, was twice plunged into the sea at Hela, near Danzig, and as she persisted in rising to the surface, she was pronounced guilty and beaten to death. See Lea, p. 228 and 229.
1 Judicium ferri or ferri candentis. A favorite mode, administered in two different forms, the one by six or twelve red-hot plough-shares (vomercs igniti), over which the person had to walk bare-footed ; the other by a piece of redhot iron, which he had to carry for a distance of nine feet or more. See Lea, p. 201 sq.
s The accused had to stretch his hand into a fire ; hence the French proverb ial expression : tlj'en mettrais la main au feu" as an affirmation of positive belief. Sometimes he had to walk bare-legged and bare-footed through the flumes of huge pyres. Petrus Igneus gained his reputation and surname by an exploit of this kind. See examples in Lea, p. 209 sqq. Savonarola pro posed this ordeal in 1498 to his enemies in proof of his assertion that the church needed a thorough reformation, and that his excommunication by Pope Alexander VI, was null and void, but he shrunk from the trial, lost his cause, and was hanged and burned after undergoing frightful tortures. He had not the courage of Hus at Constance, or Luther at Worms, and his attempted re formation left nothing but a tragic memory.
344 FOURTH PEEIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
iron in his hand, without injury, he was supposed to be declared innocent by a miraculous interposition of God, and discharged ; otherwise he was punished.
To the ordeals belongs also the judicial duel or battle ordeal. It was based on the old superstition that God always gives vic tory to the innocent.1 It was usually allowed only to freemen. Aged and sick persons, women, children, and ecclesiastics could furnish substitutes, but not always. Mediaeval panegyrists trace the judicial duel back to Cain and Abel. It prevailed among the ancient Danes, Irish, Burgundians, Franks, and Lombards, but was unknown among the Anglo-Saxons before William the Conqueror, who introduced it into England. It was used also in international litigation. The custom died out in the sixteenth century.2
The mediae val church, with her strong belief in the miracu lous, could not and did not generally oppose the ordeal, but she baptized it and made it a powerful means to enforce her authority over the ignorant and superstitious people she had to deal with. Several councils at Mainz in 880, at Tribur on the Rhine in 895, at Tours in 925, at Mainz in 1065, at Auch in 1068, at Grau in 1099, recognized and recommended it; the clergy, bishops, and archbishops, as Hincmar of Rheims, and Burckhardt of Worms, and even popes like Gregory VII. and Calixtus II. lent it their influence. St. Bernard approved of the cold-water process for the conviction of heretics, and St. Ivo of Chartres admitted that the incredulity of mankind sometimes required an appeal to the verdict of Heaven, though
1 Tacitus (German, cap. 7) reports of the heathen Germans: « [Deum] adesse bellantibus credunt"
2 See Lea, p. 75-174. The wager of battle, as a judicial institution, must not be confounded with the private duel which has been more or less cus tomary among all races and in all ages, and still survives as a relic of bar barism, though misnamed ''the satisfaction of a gentleman." The judicial duel aims at the discovery of truth and the impartial administration of justice, while the object of the private duel is personal vengeance and reparation of honor.