350 Jur. Provin. Saxon. I. 18; II. 12.—This has been questioned by modern critics, but there seems to be no good reason for doubting its authority. The whole formula for the proceeding is given in the Richstich Landrecht (cap. 41), a manual of procedure of the fourteenth century, adapted to the Saxon code.
351 Richstich Lehnrecht, cap. xxvii.
352 Carol. Mag. Chart. Divisionis ann. 806 cap. xiv.
353 Liutprandi Antapodos, Lib. III. cap. 46.
354 De Pressuris Eccles. Pt. II. This was written about 945.
355 Dithmari Chron. Lib. II. ann. 950.
356 Widukind. Rer. Saxon. Lib. II. cap. x.—The honest chronicler considers that it would have been discourteous to the nobility to treat questions relating to them in a plebeian manner. “Rex autem meliori consilio usus, noluit viros nobiles ac senes populi inhoneste tractari, sed magis rem inter gladiatores discerni jussit.” In both these cases Otho may be said to have had ancient custom in his favor. See L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. xii. § 2.—L. Alamann. cap. LVI., LXXXIV.; Addit. cap. XXII.
357 Liutprandi Hist. Otton. cap. vii.
358 Liutprandi Legat. cap. vi.
359 Benedict. Abbat. Gesta Henrici II. p. 139 (M. R. Series).
360 Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1056.
361 Conquest. Ludov. in Synod. Ingilheim. ann. 948.
362 S. Mathild. Regin. Vit. c. I.
363 Wipponis vit. Chunradi Salici.
364 “Nos belli dono ditat rex maximus Otto.”
365 L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. lv. § 38.
366 Ibid. § 34.
367 Si non audeat, res suæ infiscentur.—Convent. Papiens. ann. 971.
368 Qui vero infra treugam, post datum osculum pacis, alium hominem interfecerit, et negare voluerit, pugnam pro se faciat.—L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit ix. § 38.
369 Roderici Toletani de Reb. Hispan. VI. xxvi. This story has been called in question by orthodox writers for the reason that Archbishop Roderic, who flourished in the middle of the thirteenth century, is the only authority for it, but there is nothing in the manners of the age to render it incredible, and he mentions that the champion of the Mozarabic rite came from Matanza near the Pisuerga, and that his family still existed.
In 1121, when the Queen-regent Urraca was at Compostella, one of her courtiers informed a gentleman of the Archbishop Diego Gelmirez, that she was plotting to seize him, whereupon he surrounded himself with a guard. This attracted attention and led to discussion in which the archbishop’s retainer gave the name of his informant. The latter denied the statement and Urraca, as a matter of course, ordered the duel between them, in which her courtier was defeated and was punished with blinding.—Historia Compostellana, Lib. II. c. xxix. (Florez, España Sagrada, T. XX. p. 312).
370 Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1070, 1073, 1074.—Conrad. Ursperg. ann. 1071.—Bruno de Bello Saxonico.
371 Conrad. Ursperg. ann. 1175.
372 Dithmari Chron. Lib. V.
373 From the time of Henry I., the office of king’s champion was one of honor and dignity. See Spelman’s Glossary.
374 Constit. Frid. II. ann. 1245 cap. 9 (Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 303).
375 For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxvi.
376 Dithmari Chron. Lib. VII. c. 36, 37.—“Ibi tunc multi latrones a gladiatoribus in singulari certamine devicti suspendio perierunt.”
377 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 37, § 5.
378 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 33, § 2; 34, § 2.
379 Dreyer, Anmerckung von den ehemaligen Quellgesetzen, p. 156.
380 Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita sua, Lib. III. cap. xvi.—Hermann. de Mirac. S. Mariæ Laudun. Lib. III. cap. 28.—Forsitan, ut multi putarunt, pro fidei violatæ reatu, qua promiserat fidem Anselmo, quod eum non detegeret.
381 Und diser vor Got schuldig, und vor den luten nit (Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccxix. § 8). This is a provision for cases in which a thief accuses a receiver of having suggested and assisted in the crime. The parties are made to fight, when, if the receiver is worsted, both are hanged; if the thief, he alone, and the receiver escapes though criminal. The French version enlarges somewhat on the principle involved: “Se il puet vancre lautre il est quites et li autre sera panduz, et sera an colpe anver lo munde et anver dex andui: ce avient a assez de genz, que aucons sunt an colpe anver dex et ne mie anver le seigle” (Miroir de Souabe, P. II. c. vi.).
382 Innoc. PP. III. Regest. VI. 26 (c. 2 Extra, V. 35)—“Duellum in quo aliis peccatis suis præpedientibus, ceciderunt.”
383 Chron. Jocelini de Brakelonda (Ed. Camden Soc. pp. 50-2).
384 Isdem quoque Milo ... monomachi certaturus pugna, attribuit sancto Petro terram quam habebat in Luco, prope atrium ecclesiæ, quo sibi adjutor in disposito bello existerit.—Chron. Besuense, Chart. de Luco.
385 Cæsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. III. c. xviii.
386 Ibid. Dist. IX. c. xlviii.
387 Neilson’s Trial by Combat, p. 152.
388 Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, p. 487).—The oath prescribed in the Ordonnance of Philippe le Bel in 1306 is very elaborate—“Par les seremens que j’ay fais je n’entens pourter sur moy ne sur mon cheval paroles, pierres, herbes, charmes, charroiz, ne conjurations, invocations d’ennemis [demons] ne nulle autre chose ou j’aye esperance d’avoir ayde ne à luy nuire. Ne n’ay recours fors que à Dieu et à mon bon droit, par mon corps, par mon cheval et par mes armes. Et sur ce je baise ceste vraye croix et les saincts evangiles, et me tais.”—Isambert, Anc. Lois Françaises, II. 843.
389 Stow’s Annals, ann. 1571 (Ed. 1615, p. 669).
390 Ll. Frision. Tit. IX. § 3.
391 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxi. § 2; chap. xliii. § 6.
392 Ibid. chap. lxi. § 2; chap. xxxix. § 12.
393 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxiii. §§ 1, 2, 10.
394 Twenty-one years is the age mentioned by St. Louis as that at which a man was liable to be called upon to fight.—Établissements, Liv. I. chap. lxxiii., cxlii.
395 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, chap. lxiii. §§ 11, 13, 18. The denier was the twelfth part of the solidus or sou.
396 Établissements, Liv. I. chap. clxvii.
397 In contemporary Italy the great jurist Roffredo gives a long enumeration of the cases in which the duel is admitted covering nearly the whole of the more serious criminal actions and a number of civil suits.—Odofredi Summa de Pugna (Patetta, pp. 480-4).
398 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxvi. §§ 13, 27; cap. clxxvii. (Ed. Schilt.).—Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. I. clxviii.
399 This rule was strictly laid down as early as the time of Frederic Barbarossa.—Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxvii. § 3.
400 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccclxxxvi. § 2 (Ed. Schilteri).—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. lxiii.—Sachsische Weichbild, xxxv. 6.
401 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccxcii. § 2.—Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. III. c. xxvi. xxxiii.
402 Sed scias si de perpetrato homicidio agitur, probationem sine duello non procedere.—Richstich Landrecht, cap. xlix.
403 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. ccclxxxvi. §§ 28, 29 (Ed. Schilteri).—Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 64.—Sachsische Weichbild, art. lxxxvii. lxxxviii.
404 Sachsische Weichbild, lxxxi. If he accused more than the number of his wounds, they could defend themselves with six compurgators.
405 Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxxii. § 20 (Ed Senckenberg).
406 Hinc pervenit dispositio de duello. Quod enim homines non vident Deo nihilominus notum est optime, unde in Deo confidere possumus, eum duellum secundum jus diremturum.—Jur. Provin. Alaman. cap. clxviii. § 19 (Ed. Senckenberg).
In a formula of application for the duel, given by Hermann de Bare (De Formandis Libellis, 1535), there is no allusion to defect of evidence; it is a simple assertion of the guilt of the other side with a demand for the duel in case it is desired.—“Domine Judex, etc. Ego Petrus, etc. Quod Martinus hic præsens est falsus et proditor, qui perditionaliter rapuit mihi quendam equum pili mauri, stellatum in fronte, quod si ipse confiteatur peto ipsum condemnari super prædicta rapina ut raptorem. Si autem hoc neget ego per pugnam armis paribus sumtis a me et ab eo faciam eum confiteri palam per os suum in campo nobis per vos assignando, vel reddam eum victum vel mortuum in dicto campo. Et super dicta pugna pignus meum vel chyrothecas meas hic in medio in præsentia vestra offero et reddo, et promitto me juraturum in introitu campi per vos nobis ad certamen seu ad dictam pugnam assignandi quod ego non habeo herbas nec breves conjuratorias vel alia quæ maleficia vel fascinationes pariant vel parturiant quoquo modo. Et quod tunc Martinus juret similiter illud. Item et peto per vos Dominum judicem si Martinus prædictam rapinam neget declarari et judicari pugnam posse et debere esse et fieri ex prædicta causa inter me et eum et ipsum sententialiter condemnari ad subeundam pugnam mecum ex prædicta causa ut super prædicta rapina possit per pugnam veritas inveniri.”—Eph. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judicio duellico, cap. I, § 5 (Francof. 1735).
407 Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour, ch. ix. xi. xii; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi. vii. (Venise, 1876). This code, of which the existence has long been suspected, has recently been discovered in an Armenian version made by Sempad, the Constable of Armenia Minor, in 1265, for the use of his fellow countrymen. It has been published, with a French translation, by the Mehkitarist Society of St. Lazarus, and gives us the customary law of the Crusaders in an earlier form than the current texts of the Assises de Jerusalem.
408 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 18.—Fleta Lib. I. cap. xxxi. §§ 2, 3.
409 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 23, § 1.
410 Si autem uterque defaltam fecerit, et testatum sit quod concordati fuerunt, uterque capiatur, et ipsi et plegii sui in misericordia.—Ibid.
The custom with regard to this varied greatly according to local usage. Thus, a charter of the Count of Forez in 1270 concedes the right of avoiding battle, even at the last moment, by satisfying the adversary, and paying a fine of sixty sols.—Chart. Raynaldi Com. Forens. c. 4 (Bernard, Hist. du Forez, T. I. Preuves, p. 35). According to the customs of Lorris, in 1155, if a composition was effected after battle had been gaged and before security was given, each party paid a fine of two sous and a half. If after security was pledged, the fine was increased to seven sous and a half.—Chart. Ludov. Junior. ann. 1155, cap. xiv. (Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, I. 155).
411 Fleta Lib. II. cap. xxi. § 2.
412 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 24 § 4.—“Hujusmodi vero dentes multum adjuvant ad devincendum.”—Olivier de la Marche tells us (Traités sur le Duel, communicated to me by George Neilson, Esq.) that if the defendant had lost an eye the appellant must have one correspondingly bandaged. This device can scarce have been known in England, else it would have deprived Sir William Dalzell of the £200 forfeit adjudged to him by Richard II. when Sir Piers Courtenay refused to submit to the loss of an eye, to counterbalance that which Sir William had lost at Otterburn (Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 237).
413 Glanvil. Lib. XIV. cap. i.—Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 3 § 1.
414 Feudor. Lib. II. Tit. xxxix.
415 Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 128.
416 For de Morlaas, Rubr. xxxviii. xxxix.
417 Marca, Hist. de Béarn. p. 293 (Mazure et Hatoulet).
418 For de Morlaas, Rubr. iv.
419 De Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 68.
420 Libell. Catalan. MS. (Du Cange).
421 Meo arbitrio determinabo duellum, vel judicium judicabo.—Lib. Juris Civil. Veronæ, cap. 78 (p. 63).
422 Statut. Montispess. ann. 1204 (Du Cange).
423 Établissements de Normandie, passim (Édition Marnier).
424 Bracton. Lib. III. Tract. ii. cap. 19 § 6, cf. cap. 23 § 2.
425 Ibid. cap. 20 § 5. Cf. Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown, Vol. i. p. 43.
426 Maitland, p. 48—“Utrum verum sit appellum vel athia” (hate).
427 Würdinger, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Kampfrechtes in Bayern, p. 7.
428 L. Anglior. et. Werinor. Tit. XV. The variations in the coinage are so numerous and uncertain, that to express the values of the solidus or sou, at the different periods and among the different races enumerated, is virtually impossible. In general terms, it may be remarked that the Carlovingian solidus was the twentieth part of a pound of silver, and according to the researches of Guérard was equivalent in purchasing power to about thirty-six francs of modern money. The marc was half a pound of silver.
429 L. Baioar. Tit. VIII. cap. ii. § 5; cap. iii.
430 L. Longobard, Lib. ii. cap. lv. § 37.
431 L. Henrici I. cap. 59.
432 Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, I. 162. This occurs in an edict abolishing sundry vicious customs of the town of Orleans. It was probably merely a local regulation, though it has been frequently cited as a general law.
433 Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. xvii. § 3, Tit. xxii. § 4, Tit. xxxviii. § 3. See also a coutumier of Anjou of the same period (Anciens Usages d’Anjou, § 32—Marnier, Paris, 1853).
The “Livre de Jostice et de Plet” was the production of an Orléannais, which may account for his affixing the limit prescribed by the edict of Louis le Jeune. The matter was evidently regulated by local custom, since, as we have already seen, his contemporary, Beaumanoir (cap. lxiii. § 11), names twelve deniers, or one sou, as the minimum.
434 Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. cap. xxi. § 7 (Ludewig, Reliq. MSS. VII. 307). The judgment of God was frequently styled Lex apparens or paribilis.
435 Anc. Coutum. de Normandie, cap. 87 (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 55).
436 Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 149.—Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour. ch. ix.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi.
437 Laws of Huescar, by Don Jayme I. (Du Cange, s. v. Torna).
438 L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. XXV. § 49.
439 Ibid. Lib. I. Tit. IX. § 38.
440 L. Frision. Tit. XI. cap. iii.
441 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. lxiii. § 1.—The consent of the master was necessary to authorize the risk of loss which he incurred by his serf venturing to engage in the duel. Thus, in a curious case which occurred in 1293, “idem Droetus corpus suum ad duellum in quo perire posset obligare non poterat sine nostra licentia speciali.”—Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 446.
442 Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. 13.—Tabul. Vindocinens. cap. 159 (Du Cange, s. v. adramire).
443 Assises de l’Echiquier de Normandie, p. 174 (Marnier).
444 Laurière, Table Chron. des Ordonnances, p. 105.
445 Beaumanoir, op. cit. cap. lxi. §§ 9, 10.—Établissements de S. Louis, Liv. I. chap. lxxxii.
446 Beaumanoir, cap. lxiv. § 3.
447 Conseil, ch. XXI. Tit. xiv.
448 Actes du Parlement de Paris, T. I. No. 2269 A. p. 217.
449 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 50, 62. Lib. III. c. 29, 65.—Sachsische Weichbild xxxiii. xxxv. Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccclxxxv. §§ 14, 15 (Ed. Schilteri). According to some MSS. of the latter, however, this privilege of declining the challenge of an inferior was not allowed in cases of homicide.—“Ibi enim corpus corpori opponitur”—cap. liii. § 4 (Ed. Senckenberg). On the other hand, a constitution of Frederic Barbarossa, issued in 1168 and quoted above, forbids the duel in capital cases unless the adversaries are of equal birth.
Tallhöfer’s Kamp-recht lays down the rule unconditionally—“Item ist das ain man kempflich angesprochen wirt von ainem der nit als gut is als er, dem mag er mit recht ussgan ob er wil ... sprict aber der edler den mindern an zu kempfen so mag der der minder nich absyn.”—Dreyer, op. cit. p. 166.
450 Jur. Prov. Alamann. cap. cclviii. § 20. (Ed. Schilter.)—We have already seen that the converse of this rule was introduced in England, as regards questions between Frenchmen and Englishmen, by William the Conqueror.
451 Quia surien et greci in omnibus suis causis, præter quam in criminalibus excusantur a duello.—Assises de Jerusalem, Baisse Court, cap. 269.
452 Laws of Huescar, ann. 1247 (Du Cange s. v. Torna).
453 Las Siete Partidas, P. VII. Tit. iii. l. 3.
454 Anomalous Laws, Book XIV. chap. xiv. § 1 (Owen II. 625).
455 Galberti Vit. Caroli Boni, cap. 2, n. 12.
456 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. art. 48.
457 Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 266, 267.
458 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. lx. § 5.
459 Jur. Provin. Saxon. Lib. I. c. 42, 43.
460 Belitz de Duellis Germanorum, p. 9 (Vitembergæ, 1717).
461 Jur. Provin. Alamann. cap. ccxxix. § 2. This chapter is omitted in the French version of the Speculum Suevicum.
462 Ephr. Gerhardi Tract. Jurid. de Judic. Duellico, cap. iii. § 7, et Mantissa.—Dreyer, Anmerckung von den Quellgesetzen, p. 160.—Meyer, Der Gerichtliche Zweikampf, 1873. Gerhardt gives from a MS. of the fifteenth century in the Grand-ducal Library of Saxe-Gotha a rude representation of the first stage of one of these combats, which is here reduced in facsimile. A MS. at Wolfenbüttel has a miniature virtually the same. In another representation of these combats, the antagonists are furnished with curved knives (Würdinger, Beiträge, p. 18).
In many places, however, crimes which a man was forced to disprove by combat were subject to the ordeal of hot iron or water when the accused was a woman. Thus, by the Spanish law of the thirteenth century, “Muger ... salvese por fierro caliente; e si varon fuere legador ... salvese por lid”—Fuero de Baeça (Villadiego, Fuero Juzgo fol. 317a).
463 Patetta, Le Ordalie, p. 159.
464 Capit. Ludov. Pii I. ann. 819, cap. X.
465 Ughelli, T. II. p. 122 (Du Cange).
466 Addunt insuper, quoniam si aliquis militum sacerdotes Dei in crimine pulsaverit per pugnam sive singulari certamine esse decernendum.—De Pressuris Eccles.
467 Muratori Script. Rer. Ital. II. II. 499, 505.
468 Clericus ... si duellum sine episcopi licentia susceperit ... aut assultum fecerit, episcopis per pecuniam emendetur.—Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c. 5.
469 Goffrid. Vindocinens. Lib. III. Epist. 39.
470 Du Cange.
471 Ut clerici non pugnent in duello, nec pro se pugiles introducent.—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig.—C. 1. Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xiv.
472 C. 1. Extra, Lib. I. Tit. xx.
473 C. 2. Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xiv.
474 Council. Lateran. IV. can. 18.
475 C. 22. Decret. caus. II. q. v.—Nicolai PP. I Epist. 148.
476 Atton. Vercell. De Pressuris Eccles. Pt. I.
477 Chart. S. Stephani (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. T. I. p. 384).
478 Chron. Piscariens. Lib. II. (D’Achery, II. 951).
479 Cartulaire de l’Église de Paris, I. 378.
480 The charter recording the suit and its results is given by Baluze and Mansi, Miscell. III. 59.
481 Ibid. p. 134.
482 C. 1 Extra, Lib. V. Tit. xxxv.
483 Du Boys, Droit Criminel des Peuples Modernes, II. 187.
484 Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1176 (Ed. 1644, p. 92).