ORDEALS
277
ORDEALS
upon the practice of ordeals. By prayer and religious
ceremonies, by the hearing of holy Mass and the recep-
tion of holy communion before the ordeal, the mission-
aries sought to give to it a distinctly religious charac-
ter. The liturgical prayers and ceremonies are to be
found in Franz, "Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im
Mittelalter" (Freiburg im Br., 1909), II, 364 sqq,;
the celebration of Mass on the occasion of the ordeal,
in Franz, "Die Messe in deutschen Mittelalter" (Frei-
burg im Br., 1902), 213 sqq. This attitude of the
clergy in regard to ordeals may be explained if one
takes into consideration the religious ideas of the times,
as well as the close connexion which existed between
ordeals and the Germanic judicial system.
The principal means of testing the accuser as well as the accused in the Germanic judicial practice was the Oath of the Co-jurors. It being often difficult to find jurors who were projjerly qualified, perjury fre- quently resulted, and the oath could be rejected by the opposing party. In such cases, the ordeal was brought forward as a substitute in determining the truth, the guilt, or the innocence. This mode of pro- cedure was tolerated by the Church in Germanic coun- tries in the early Middle Ages. A thoroughgoing op- position to ordeals would have had little prospect of success. The only bishop to take measures against the practice of ordeals during the conversion to Chris- tianity of the Germanic races was St. Avitus of Vienne (d. about .518). Later, Agobard of Lyons (d. 840) attacked the judicial duel and other ordeals in two writings (" Liber adversus legem Grundobadi and Liber contra indicium Dei", in Migne, P. L., CIV, 125 sqq., 254 sqq.). On the other hand, shortly afterwards. Archbishop Hincmar of Reims, at the time of the matrimonial disagreement between King Lothair and Theutberga, declared himself to be of the opinion that ordeals were permissible, I'l support of which he must assuredly have brought forward noteworthy argu- ments ("De divortio Lotharii regis et TetbergEe", in Migne, P. L., CXXV, 659-80; cf. also Hincmar's "EpistolaadHildegariuraepiscopum",ibid., 161 sqq.). The universal opinion among the peoples of the Prank- ish kingdom favoured the authorization of ordeals, and the same may be said of Britain. In 809 in the Capitulary of Aachen, Charlemagne declared: "that all should believe in the ordeal without the shadow of a doubt" (Mon. Germ. Hist., Capitularia, 1, 150). In the Byzantine Empire also, we encounter in the later Middle Ages the practice of ordeals, introduced from the countries of the West.
The ordeals, strictly speaking, of the Germanic coun- tries are the following:
(1) The duel, called judicium Dei in the Book of Laws of the Burgundian King Gundobad (c. 500). (Mon. Germ. Hist., Leges, III, .537.) The outcome of the judicial duel was looked upon as the judgment of God. Only freemen were qualified to take part, and women and ecclesiastics were permitted to appoint substitutes. The duel originated in the pagan times of the Germanic peoples. In certain individual na- tions were to be found various usages and regulations regarding the manner in which the duel was to be conducted. The Church combatted the judicial duel; Nicholas I declared it to be an infringement of the law of God and of the laws of the Church ("Epist. ad Carolum Calvum", in Migne, P. L., CXIX, 1144), and several later popes spoke against it. Ecclesiastics were forbidden to take part in a duel either personally, or through a substitute. Only English books of ritual of the later Middle Ages contain a formula for the blessing of the shield and the sword for use in the judicial duel; otherwise, no medieval Ritual con- tains prayers for these ordeals, a proof that they were not looked upon favourably by the Church.
(2) The cross, in which both parties, the accuser and the accused, stood before a cross with arms out- stretched in the form of a cross. Whoever first let
fall his arms was defeated. The earliest information
we possess regarding this form of ordeal dates from the
eighth century. It was destined to replace the duel,
and was prescribed by various capitularies of the
ninth century, especially for disputes with ecclesiastics.
(3) The hot iron, employed in various ways, not only in courts of law, where the accused in ancient times to prove his innocence must pass through fire or place his hand in tin- flames, but also to prove the authen- ticity iif relics, and to reveal the truth in other ways. The judicial test by fire, as an ordeal, was ordinarily conducted in the following manner: the accused must walk a certain distance (nine feet, among the Anglo- Saxons) bearing a bar of red-hot iron in his hands, or he must pass barefooted over red-hot ploughshares (usually nine). If he remained uninjured, his inno- cence was considered established. Medieval ecclesias- tical Rituals of various dioceses contain prayers ami ceremonies for use before the undergoing of tlic lest. The accused was also obliged to prepare himsi'lf be- forehand by confession and fasting.
(4) Hot water, or the cauldron. The accused must draw a stone with his naked arm from the bottom of a vessel filled with hot water, after which the arm was bound up and the bandage sealed ; three days later it was removed, and, according to the condition of his arm, the accused was considered innocent or guilty. The religious ceremonies for this ordeal were similar to those used for the ordeal of the hot iron.
(5) Cold water, in use at an early date among the Germanic races, and which continued to be practised notwithstanding the prohibition of the Emperor Louis the Pious in 829. The accused, with hands and feet bound, was cast into the water; if he sank, he was considered guilty; if however he floated upon the water, his innocence was believed to be established. For tills test also, the accused prepared himself by fasting, confession, and communion, and by assisting at Mass.
(6) The blessed morsel {iudicium offce, Anglo-Saxon corsnaed, nedbread), which consisted in the consuming by the accused of a piece of bread and a piece of cheese in the church before the altar, the morsels being blessed with special prayers. If he was able to swal- low them, his innocence was established, but if not, he was considered guilty. This test was in use princi- pally among the Anglo-Saxons. It is not mentioned in the ancient Germanic codes of the Continent.
(7) The suspended loaf. — A loaf of bread was baked by a deacon from meal and blessed water, through which a stick of wood was passed. The suspected person then appeared with two witnesses, between whom the bread was suspended, which, if it turned in a circle, was supposed to be a proof of guilt.
(8) The Psalter, which consisted in clamping into the Book of Psalms a stick of wood with a knob attached, and then placing the whole in an opening ma,de in another piece of wood, so that the book could turn. The guilt of the accijsed was established if the Psalter turned from west to east, and his innocence, if it turned in a contrary direction.
(9) The Examen in mensuris. — Though forms of prayer in connexion with its use have been handed down to us, they do not give us a clear idea of how this test was conducted. It would seem to have been practised but seldom. It appears to have been an ordeal decided by lot, or by the measuring of the ac- cused by a stick of a determined length.
(10) Stecdinf/, to discover a murderer. The person suspected of the murder was forced to look upon the body or the wounds of the victim. If the wounds then began to bleed afresh, the guilt was supposed to have been proved.
In addition to these^orms of genuine ordeals, two other kinds are frequently considered, which, however, do not exactly correspond to the idea of a judgment of God, as in their case there is no question of a direct
