Ordeals Duels Wager Of Battle
Ordeals belong to times and communities of rudeness, violence,
materialism, ignorance, gross superstition and blind faith. The theory
of ordeals is, that God will miraculously decide in the case of any
accused person referred to Him. He will cause the accused to be
victorious or defeated in a duel, will punish him on the spot for
perjury, and if the innocent be exposed to certain physical dangers,
will preserve him har
less.
The duel, for instance, used to be called the "ordeal by battle," and
was simply the commitment of the decision of a cause to God. Duels were
regularly prefaced by the solemn prayer "God show the right." Now-a-days
nobody believes that skill with a pistol is going to be specially
bestowed by the Almighty, without diligent practice at a mark.
Accordingly, the idea of a divine interposition has long ago dropped out
of the question, and duelling is exclusively in the hands of the devil
and his human votaries,--is a purely brutal absurdity. But in England,
so long was this bloody, superstitious humbug kept up, that any hardened
scoundrel who was a good hand at his weapon might, down to the year
1819, absolutely have committed murder under the protection of English
law. Two years before that date, a country "rough" named Abraham
Thornton, murdered his sweetheart, Mary Ashford, but by deficiency of
proof was acquitted on trial. There was however a moral conviction that
Thornton had killed the girl, and her brother, a mere lad, caused an
appeal to be entered according to the English statute, and Thornton was
again arraigned before the King's Bench. In the mean time his counsel
had looked up the obsolete proceedings about "assize of battle," and
when Thornton was placed at the bar he threw down his glove upon the
floor according to the ancient forms, and challenged his accuser to
mortal combat. In reply, the appellant, Ashford, set forth facts so
clearly showing Thornton's guilt as to constitute (as he alleged,)
cause for exemption from the combat, and for condemnation of the
prisoner. The court, taken by surprise, spent five months in studying on
the matter. At last it decided that the fighting man had the law of
England on his side, admitted his demand, and further, found that the
matters alleged for exemption from combat were not sufficient. On this,
poor William Ashford, who was but a boy, declined the combat by reason
of his youth, and the prisoner was discharged, and walked in triumph out
of court, the innocent blood still unavenged upon his hands. The old
fogies of Parliament were startled at finding themselves actually
permitting the practice of barbarisms abolished by the Greek emperor,
Michael Palaeologus, in 1259, and by the good King Louis IX of France in
1270; and two years afterwards, in 1819, the legal duel or "assize of
battle" was by law abolished in England. It had been legal there for
five centuries and a half, having been introduced by statute in 1261.
Before that time, the ordeals by fire and by water were the regular
legal ones in England. These were known even to the Anglo Saxon law,
being mentioned in the code of Ina, A. D., about 700. It appears that
fire was thought the most aristocratic element, for the ordeal by fire
was used for nobles, and that by water for vulgarians and serfs. The
operations were as follows: When one was accused of a crime, murder for
instance, he had his choice whether to be tried "by God and his
country," or "by God." If he chose the former he went before a jury. If
the latter, he underwent the ordeal. Nine red hot ploughshares were
laid on the ground in a row. The accused was blindfolded, and sent to
walk over them. If he burnt himself he was guilty; if not, not.
Sometimes, instead of this, the accused carried a piece of red hot iron
of from one to three pounds' weight in his hand for a certain distance.
The ordeal by water was, in one form at least, the same wise alternative
in after years so often offered to witches. The accused was tied up in a
heap, each arm to the other leg, and flung into water. If he floated he
was guilty, and must be killed. If he sank and drowned, he was
innocent--but killed. Trial was therefore synonymous with execution. The
nature of such alternatives shows how important it was to have a
character above suspicion! Another mode was, for the accused to plunge
his bare arm into boiling water to the elbow. The arm was then instantly
sealed up in bandages under charge of the clergy for three days. If it
was then found perfectly well, the accused was acquitted; if not, he was
found guilty.
Another ordeal was expurgation or compurgation. It was a simple
business--"as easy as swearing;" very much like a "custom house oath."
It was only this: the accused made solemn oath that he was not guilty,
and all the respectable men he could muster came and made their solemn
oath that they believed so too. This is much like the jurisprudence of
the Dutch justice of the peace in the old story, before whom two men
swore that they saw the prisoner steal chickens. The thief however,
getting a little time to collect testimony, brought in twelve men who
swore that they did not see him take the chickens. "Balance of evidence
overwhelmingly in favor of the prisoner," said the sapient justice (in
Dutch I suppose,) and finding him innocent in a ratio of six to one, he
discharged him at once.
This ordeal by oath was reserved for people of eminence, whose word went
for something, and who had a good many thorough-going friends.
Another sort of ordeal was reserved for priests. It was called
corsned. The priest who took the ordeal by corsned received a bit of
bread or a bit of cheese which was loaded heavily, by way of sauce, with
curses upon whomsoever should eat it falsely. This he ate, together with
the bread of the Lord's supper. Everybody knew that if he were guilty,
the sacred mouthful would choke him to death on the spot. History
records no instance of the choking of any priest in this ordeal, but
there is a story that the Saxon Earl Godwin of Kent took the corsned
to clear himself of a charge of murder, and (being a layman) was choked.
I fully believe that Earl Godwin is dead, for he was born about the year
1000. But I have not the least idea that corsned killed him.
The priests had the management of ordeals, which, being appeals to God,
were reckoned religious ceremonies. They of course much preferred the
swearing and eating and hot iron and water ordeals, which could be kept
under the regulation of clerical good sense. Not so with the ordeal by
battle. No priests could do anything with the wrath of two great mad
ugly brutes, hot to kill each other, and crazy to risk having their own
throats cut or skulls cleft rather than not have the chance. In
consequence, the whole influence of the Romish church went against the
ordeal by battle, and in favor of the others. Thus the former soon lost
its religious element and became the mere duel; a base indulgence of a
beast's passion for murder and revenge. The progress of enlightenment
gradually pushed ordeals out of court. Mobs have however always tried
the ordeal by water on witches.
Almost all the heathen ordeals have depended on fire, water, or
something to eat or drink. Even in the Bible we find an ordeal
prescribed to the Jews (Numbers, chap v.,) for an unfaithful wife, who
is there directed to drink some water with certain ceremonies, which
drink God promises shall cause a fatal disease if she be guilty, and if
not, not. It is worth noticing that Moses says not a word about any
"water of jealousy," or any other ordeal, for unfaithful husbands!
This drinking or eating ordeal prevails quite extensively even now. In
Hindostan, theft is often enquired into by causing the suspected party
to chew some dry rice or rice flour, which has some very strong curses
stirred into it, corsned fashion. After chewing, the accused spits out
his mouthful, and if it is either dry or bloody, he is guilty. It is
easy to see how a rascal, if as credulous as rascals often are, would be
so frightened that his mouth would be dry, and would thus betray his own
peccadillo. Another Hindoo mode was, to give a certain quantity of
poison in butter, and if it did no harm, to acquit. Here, the man who
mixes the dose is evidently the important person. In Madagascar they
give some tangena water. Now tangena is a fruit of which a little
vomits the patient, and a good deal poisons or kills him; a quality
which sufficiently explains how they manage that ordeal.
Ordeals by fire and water are still practiced, with some variations, in
Hindostan, China, Pegu, Siberia, Congo, Guinea, Senegambia and other
pagan nations. Some of those still in use are odd enough. A Malabar one
is to swim across a certain river, which is full of crocodiles. A Hindoo
one is, for the two parties to an accusation to stand out doors, each
with one bare leg in a hole, he to win who can longest endure the bites
they are sure to get. This would be a famous method in some of the New
Jersey and New York and Connecticut seashore lowlands I know of. The
mosquitoes would decide cases both civil and criminal, at a speed that
would make a Judge of the Supreme Court as dizzy as a humming-top.
Another Hindoo plan was for the accused to hold his head under water
while a man walked a certain distance. If the walker chose to be lazy
about it, or the prisoner had diseased lungs, this would be a rather
severe method. The Wanakas in Eastern Africa, draw a red hot needle
through the culprit's lips--a most judicious place to get hold of an
African!--and if the wound bleeds, he is guilty. In Siam, accuser and
accused are put into a pen and a tiger is let loose on them. He whom the
tiger kills is guilty. If he kills both, both are guilty; if neither,
they try another mode.
Blackstone says that an ordeal might always be tried by attorney. I
should think this would give the legal profession a very lively time
whenever the courts were chiefly using tigers, poison, drowning, fire
and red hot iron, but not so much so when a little swearing or eating
was the only thing required.
This whole business of ordeals is a singular superstition, and the
extent of its employment shows how ready the human race is to believe
that God is constantly influencing even their ordinary private affairs.
In other words, it is in principle like the doctrine of "special
providence." Looked at as a superstition however--considered as a
humbug--the history of ordeals show how corrupt becomes the nuisance of
religious ways of deciding secular business, and how proper is our great
American principle of the separation of state and church.