The Old Yellow Book Part 2

Still further, it is well worthy of consideration that one may kill an adversary with impunity, for the sake of his personal safety, but he must do so immediately and in the very act of aggression, and not after an interval. For the life of one slain may not be recovered by the slaying of the murderer. Accordingly, whatever violence may follow upon the first murder becomes vengeance, which is hateful and odious to the law; for the jurisdiction of the judge is insulted by depriving him of the power of publicly avenging murder. But if by the death of the slayer the one slain could be called back to life, I think there is no doubt that any one could kill the said slayer; for then such an act would not be revenge, but due defence, leading toward the recovery of the life that had been lost. But even when we are dealing with an offence and injury which does not affect the person of the one injured, it is likewise permitted that one who has been robbed may, even after an interval, kill the thief for the recovery of the stolen goods, provided every other way to recover them is precluded.

Likewise, one offended in his reputation should be permitted at all times to kill the one injuring him; for such an act may be termed, not the avenging of an injury, but the re-establis.h.i.+ng of wounded honour, which could be healed in no other way. [Citations.]

Furthermore, as I have said, when one is discussing the subject of self-defence, he is dealing with an instantaneous act; hence the anger conceived therefrom ought to quiet down after a while, according to the warning of St. Paul, Eph. 4: "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." But when we are dealing with an offence that injures the honour, this is not merely a momentary matter, but is protracted, and indeed with the lapse of time becomes the greater, as the injured one is vilified the more. Therefore, whensoever the murder follows it is always said to have been committed immediately. [Citation.]

Relying upon these and other reasons, most authorities affirm that a husband killing his adulterous wife after an interval, but not found in licentiousness, is to be punished indeed, but more mildly and with a penalty out of the ordinary. [Citations.]

Caball testifies that this has been the practice in many of the world's tribunals. Calvinus gives other cases so decided. [Citation.]

And Cyriacus, who speaks in worse circ.u.mstances, adduces numerous other cases, and the authorities recently cited offer many more.

This lenient opinion is the more readily to be accepted because, as I claim, the deed about which we are arguing does not also carry with it (as the Fisc holds) attendant circ.u.mstances demanding such a rigorous penalty.

[First] the taking of helpers to be present at the murders [is not such a circ.u.mstance]; because he could lawfully use the help of companions to provide more safely for his own honour by the death of his wife. [Citations.]

[Secondly] the crime is not raised to a higher cla.s.s because he led with him helpers at a price agreed upon; for what is more, and is far more to be wondered at, a husband can lawfully demand of others the murder of an adulterous wife, even by means of money, as the following indisputably affirm. [Citations.]

Likewise it does not at all disturb [our line of argument] that Count Guido might have killed his wife and the adulterer when they were caught in the very act of flight at the tavern of Castelnuovo, but that he preferred rather to have them imprisoned, seeking their punishment by law, and not with his own hand. We deny that he could have safely killed both of them, inasmuch as he was alone, nor could he attack them, except at the risk of his own life. Because the lover was of powerful strength, not at all timid, and all too prompt for resisting, since, in the word of one of the witnesses in the prosecution for flight, he was called _Scapezzacollo_ [cut-throat].

Nor is it credible that, unless he had been fearless and full of spirit, he would have ventured upon so great a crime, and would have dared to partic.i.p.ate in her flight, and to accompany the fugitive wife from the home of her husband. And this fact is more clearly deducible from one of his letters, in which, after urging Francesca to mingle an opiate in the wine-flasks for the purpose of putting her husband and the servants to sleep, he adds that if they find it out she should open the door; for he would either suffer death with her or would s.n.a.t.c.h her from their hands. These things indicate both courage and audacity. And though the wife is a woman, that is a timid and unwarlike creature, nevertheless Francesca was all too impudent and audacious, whether because of her hatred for her husband or on account of her anger at the imprisonment of her lover. For she drew a sword upon her husband in the very presence of the officers who were about to arrest her. And to prevent her from going further, one of the bystanders had to s.n.a.t.c.h it from her hands. Therefore, before their imprisonment, Guido could not put into effect what he had had in mind and what he could lawfully do, because he was alone and his strength was not sufficient. Then when she had been taken to prison, and afterwards was placed in safe keeping, it was impossible for him to vindicate his honour. But when at last she had left the monastery and had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, he took vengeance as soon as he could. Therefore we hold that he killed her in the very act, as it were, and immediately. In Sanfelicius [Citation], we read of a case where a husband, though he could have killed his wife immediately, did not do so, but craftily redeemed himself from his disgrace by slaying his wife as soon as possible. And Giurba also speaks of a case where the argument is concerning an injury that was not personal, but real, as was said above.

Guido saw to her capture, and insisted that she be punished, lest she continue her adultery and viciousness, being powerless to do anything else, because his confusion of mind, his helpless fury, and his sense of shame led him unwisely into not taking the law into his own hands and recovering his lost honour. He indeed lodged complaint, but it was because he could not kill her. Nor would his ignominy have been wiped out nor his infamy have been destroyed by her imprisonment and punishment. But when, indeed, after her imprisonment he was still more shut out from n.o.ble company, his injury ever became the more acute, and it stimulated him the more strongly to regain his own reputation.

But his bitterness of mind was increased especially at hearing that she had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, who had declared that she was not their daughter, but the child of a dishonest woman; hence his injury was increased by her staying in a home which he suspected, as is said a little further on. Accordingly the same cause kept urging him after her departure from the monastery, as had done so before her imprisonment and the appeals made by Count Guido.

It makes very little difference that Francesca was staying in the home of Violante, which had been a.s.signed to her as a safe prison with the consent of Guido's brother. For what would it amount to even if with the consent of Guido himself she had been taken from the monastery (yet we have no word of this matter in the trial). For Guido could make that pretence to gain the opportunity of killing her for the restoration of his honour. Nor would such dissimulation increase the crime, especially to the degree of the ordinary penalty, since it is certain that the husband may kill a wife stained with adultery without incurring such penalty. Yet a heavier or lighter penalty is inflicted, just as more or less treachery accompanies the murder, as Matthaeus testifies it was practised in the Senate of Matrinumsis. [Citation.]

Nor is the attendant circ.u.mstance of the place a.s.signed as a prison worthy of consideration, as if the custody of the Prince had been insulted; for one is not said to be in custody when he is merely detained in a place under security that he will not leave it.

[Citation.] Furthermore, this objection falls utterly to the ground, because the circ.u.mstance of such a place does not increase the crime, whenever it is committed by one having provocation or for the repelling of an injury. And [the following authorities] hold thus in the more serious case of a crime committed in prison. [Citations.]

Furthermore we do not believe, from what is said above, that the penalty can be increased because of the murder of Pietro and Violante, since the same injured honour, which impelled Count Guido to kill his wife, forced him to kill the said parents. And now may the ashes of the dead spare me if what I have urged above, and what I am about to say, may seem to disturb their peace! Neither the flame of hatred nor the impulse of anger (which are far from me) have suggested these charges; but the demands of the defence, which I have a.s.sumed without a penny of compensation, compel me to employ every means leading to the desired end.

I have said, and I think not without due reason, that the Accused sprang forward to the death of both of them, moved simply by an immediate injury to his own reputation. For a few months after the marriage contracted with Francesca, whom they had professed to be their daughter, they had not blushed to declare that she was not such.

Hence there is an inevitable dilemma. Either [_first_] she was in deed and truth their daughter, and then we must acknowledge that in afterward denying her parentage they had inflicted the greatest injury upon the honour and reputation of the Accused; for they had conceived strong hatred and malice against him. Hence they did not hesitate to disgrace their own daughter, in order that they might bring upon him the infamy of having married the daughter of a vile and dishonest woman. This is indeed a fact, that whoever knows Count Guido supposes he has married a girl, not merely of rank unequal to his own, but even of the basest condition, and this greatly injures the reputation of his entire household.

Or else [_second_] Francesca was indeed conceived of an unknown father and born of a dishonest harlot. And it cannot be denied, that in that case he suffered even greater injury, which branded him with a mark of infamy; both because of her birth and from the fact that daughters are usually not unlike their mothers. Cephalus [Citations], where we read: "From such mingling with harlots it is to be supposed that the people become degenerate, ign.o.ble, and burning with l.u.s.t." And would that experience had not taught us this fact!

The unfortunate man believed he was marrying the daughter of Pietro and Violante, born legitimately, and yet by the contrivance and trickery of this couple he married a girl of basest stock, conceived illegitimately by a dishonourable mother. From this fact alone the quality of those parents can be inferred, who, for the sake of deceiving those lawfully ent.i.tled to the trust-moneys, had made most vile pretence of the birth of a child, entirely unmindful that they laid themselves liable to capital punishment. [Citations.]

It will not, therefore, be difficult to believe what Francesca reveals in her letter to her brother-in-law, that the abovesaid couple, in spite of the fact that she was well treated, kept instigating her daily to poison her husband, her brother-in-law, and her mother-in-law, and to burn the home. And though these crimes are very base, they gave her still worse counsel, even by her obligation to obey them; namely, that after their departure from Arezzo, she should allure a lover, and leaving her husband's home in his company, should return to the City. In her obedience to their commands, this daughter seemed indeed all too prompt. Who then will deny that such reckless daring, wherefrom a notorious disgrace was inflicted upon the entire household of the Accused, ought to be attributed to the base persuasion of the said couple? Nor was it difficult to persuade that girl to do what she was p.r.o.ne to by inborn instinct and by the example of her mother.

It is not my duty to divine why that couple so anxiously desired the return of Francesca to their home. But I cannot persuade myself that they were moved by mere charity, namely, that she might escape ill-treatment. For Francesca, in the said letter, acknowledges that she is leading a quiet life, and that her husband and the servants are treating her very well, and that what she had laid before the Bishop had been the falsehood of the said couple.

I know furthermore that if a husband have knowledge of the adultery of his wife and keep her in his home, he cannot escape the mark and penalty of a pimp. [Citations.] If, therefore, as the said couple declare, Francesca was not their daughter, why did they receive her so tenderly into their home after her adultery was plainly manifest? Why did they, as I may say, cherish her in their b.r.e.a.s.t.s, not merely up till the birth of her child, but even till death? And I wish I could say that her love affairs with the banished [priest] were not continued there! For at his mere name, after the knocking at the door, as soon as they heard that some one was about to give them a letter from the one in banishment, immediately the door was opened and Guido was given an entry for recovering his honour. If, indeed, the said couple had been displeased with the adultery of Francesca, they would, without doubt, have shuddered at the name of the adulterer, and would have cut off every way for mutual correspondence. Therefore it is most clearly evident that the cause of wounded honour in the Accused had continued, and indeed new causes of the same kind had arisen, all of which tended toward blackening his reputation.

Nor does it make any difference that the Accused may have had in mind several causes of hatred toward both Francesca and the Comparini. For if these are well weighed, they all coincide with, and are reduced to, the original cause, namely, that of wounded honour. However that may be, when causes are compatible with one another, the act that follows should always be attributed to the stronger and more urgent and more acute. [Citations.] And on the point that when several causes concur, murder is to be referred and attributed to injured honour, and not to the others: [Citations.]

Therefore I think that any wise man ought to acknowledge that Guido had most just cause for killing the said couple, and that very just anger had been excited against them. This was increased day by day by the perfectly human consideration that he would not have married her unless he had been deceived by that very tricky couple. And to what is said above we may add that either the child born [of Pompilia] was conceived in adultery, as the Accused could well believe, since he was ignorant of the fact that his wife was pregnant during her flight; and then we cannot deny that new offence was given to his honour, or the old one was renewed, by the said birth; or the child was born of his legitimate father; and who will deny that by the hiding of the child, Guido ought to be angered anew over the loss of his son? And the great indignation conceived from either cause (the force of which is very powerful) is so deserving of excuse that very many atrocious crimes committed upon the impulse of just anger have gone entirely unpunished. [Citations.] The following text [Citation] agrees with this, "Nevertheless, because night and just anger ameliorate his deed, he can be sent into exile." [Citations.]

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 a.s.sembly 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.

[Citation.]

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. [Citation.] Such pleas might indeed hold good whenever the accused had confessed the crime, or had been lawfully convicted, neither of which can be affirmed [in our case]. 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. [Citations.]

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. [Citations.]

It has very justly been permitted that in defence of this n.o.ble 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.

GIACINTO ARCANGELI, _Procurator of the Poor_.

[File-t.i.tle of Pamphlet 2.]

_By the Most Ill.u.s.trious and Most Reverend Lord Governor in Criminal Cases_:

_ROMAN MURDER-CASE_

_On Behalf of Count Guido Franceschini and his a.s.sociates, Prisoners, against the Court and the Fisc._

_Memorial of law by the Honourable Advocate of the Poor._

_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, 1698._

ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM

[PAMPHLET 2.]

Most Ill.u.s.trious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:

From the "prosecution [for flight]," 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 n.o.bleman 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 a.s.sert 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 Gamba.s.sini 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 [Citation] and by Martian. [Citation.] For in both of them it is said that a man of low birth is sent into perpetual exile, but that a n.o.ble 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 [Citation], since it is most difficult to restrain such anger. [Citation.]

Yet we should not consider it necessary that the adultery of the wife be conclusively proved (as it really is) 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." [Citations.]

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. [Citations.]

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. [Citations.] 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 n.o.bleman 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 p.r.o.nounce 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.

[Citations.]

Afflitto cites the decree of the Kingdom, beginning _Si Maritus_, which concedes impunity to a husband who kills his wife and the adulterer both, in the very act of adultery, and without any delay. He then says that if both of these requisites are not present, the husband is excused in part, but not entirely; and so is punished more mildly. And in No. 2 he gives the reason; because whenever one commits a crime, under impulse of just anger, the penalty should be somewhat moderated, according to the aforesaid text. [Citations.]

Matthaeus [Citation] adduces the excellent words of Theodoric as quoted by Ca.s.siodorus [Citation], where we read: "For who can bear to drag into court a man who has attempted to violate his matrimonial rights?