1589 L. Tanon, Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs, Introd. p. lxxxv. (Paris, 1877).
1590 Registre Criminel du Châtelet de Paris. Publié pour la première fois par la Société des Bibliophiles Français. 2 tom. 8vo. Paris, 1864.
1591 Ibid. I. 9, 14.
1592 Ibid. I. 143. See also the similar case of Raoulin du Pré (p. 149), who recanted on the scaffold and protested his innocence “sur la mort qu’il attendoit à avoir et recevoir presentement,” but who nevertheless was executed. Also that of Perrin du Quesnoy (p. 164).
1593 See the case of Berthaut Lestalon (Ibid. p. 501) accused of sundry petty thefts and tortured unsuccessfully. The court decided that in view of the little value of the articles stolen and of their having been recovered by the owners, the prisoner should be tortured again, when, if he confessed, he should be hanged, and if he still denied, he should have his right ear cropped and be banished from Paris. This logical verdict was carried out. No confession was obtained, and he was punished accordingly. Somewhat similar was the case of Jehan de Warlus (Ibid. p. 157), who was punished after being tortured five times without confession; also that of Jaquet de Dun (Ibid. p. 494).
1594 In the Registre Criminel de St. Martin-des-Champs the cases are recorded with too much conciseness to give details as to the process, only the charge and the sentence being stated. It frequently happens, however, that a man convicted of some petty larceny is stated to have confessed more serious previous crimes, which necessarily implies their confession being extorted. See, for instance, the case of Jehannin Maci, arrested in 1338 for having in his possession two brass pots, the stealing of which he not only confessed but also “plusures murtres et larrecins avoir fais” for which he was duly drawn on a hurdle and hanged (op. cit. pp. 120-1). The case of Phelipote de Monine (p. 178) is also suggestive.
1595 Registre Criminel du Châtelet de Paris, I. 36.
1596 Ibid. I. 201-209.—Somewhat similar was the case of Marguerite de la Pinele (Ibid. p. 322), accused of stealing a ring, which she confessed under torture. As she did not, however, give a satisfactory account of some money found upon her, though her story was partially confirmed by other evidence, she was again twice tortured. This was apparently done to gratify the curiosity of her judges, for, though no further confession was extracted from her, she was duly buried alive.
Crimes for which a man was hanged or decapitated were punished in a woman by burying or burning. Jews were executed by being hanged by the heels between two large dogs suspended by the hind legs—a frightful death, the fear of which sometimes produced conversion and baptism on the gallows (Ibid. II. 43).
1597 Ibid. I. pp. 1, 268, 289; II. 66, etc.
1598 Ibid. I. 419-475.—The same result is evident in a very curious case in which an old sorceress and a young “fille de vie” were accused of bewitching a bride and groom, the latter of whom had been madly loved by the girl (Ibid. I. p. 327).
1599 Ibid. I. 516.
1600 Ibid. I. 151, 163, 164, 173-77, 211, 269, 285, 306, 350, etc.
1601 See, for instance, the case of Pierre Fournet (Ibid. I. 516).
1602 Très Ancienne Cout. de Bretagne, cap. CI. (Bourdot de Richebourg IV. 224-5)—“Et s’il se peut passer sans faire confession en la gehenne, ou les jons, il se sauveroit, et il apparestroit bien que Dieu montreroit miracles pour luy.”
1603 Concil. Remens. ann. 1408, cap. 49 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VII. 420).
1604 Bull. Aur. cap. xxiv. § 9 (Goldast. I. 365).
1605 Chron. Cornel. Zantfleit, ann. 1376 (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 308-9).
1606 Statut. Criminali cap. xiv. (Gregorj, Statuti di Corsica, p. 101).
1607 Ibid. cap lx. (p. 163).
1608 Statuta Criminalia Mediolani e tenebris in lucem edita, cap. 3, 24-28 (Bergomi, 1694).
1609 Statuti della Terra del Comune della Mirandola, Modena, 1885, p. 91.
1610 Statuta et Decreta antiqua Civitatis Placentiæ, Lib. v. Rubr. 96 (Placentiæ, 1560, fol. 63b).
1611 Statuts de l’Inquisition d’Etat, 1e Supp. §§ 20, 21 (Daru).
1612 Li Statuti de Valtellina Riformati nella Cità di Coira nell’ anno del S. MDXLVIII. Stat. Crimin. cap. 8, 9, 10 (Poschiavo, 1549).
1613 Synod. Reg. ann. 1514, Proœm. (Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hung. I. 574). According to some authorities, this was a general rule—“Judex quamvis viderit committi delictum non tamen potest sine aliis probationibus reum torquere, ut per Specul. etc.”—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. v. No. 13 (Francof. 1645).
1614 Du Boys, Droit Criminel, I. 650.
1615 Jo. Herb. de Fulstin. Statut. Reg. Polon. (Samoscii, 1597, p. 7).
1616 Esneaux, Hist. de Russie, III. 236.
1617 Pauli Jovii Moschovia.—This is a brief account of Russia, compiled about the year 1530, by Paulus Jovius, from his conversations with Dmitri, ambassador to Clement VII. from Vasili V., first Emperor of Russia. Olaus Magnus, in the pride of his Northern blood, looks upon the statement in the text as a slander on the rugged Russ—“hoc scilicet pro terribili tormento in ea durissima gente reputari, quæ flammis et eculeis adhibitis, vix, ut acta revelet, tantillulum commovetur”—and he broadly hints that the wily ambassador amused himself by hoaxing the soft Italian: “Sed revera vel ludibriose bonus præsul a versuto Muscovitici principis nuntio Demetrio dicto, tempore Clementis VII. informatus est Romæ” (Gent. Septent. Hist. Brev. Lib. XI. c. xxvi.). The worthy archbishop doubtless spoke of his own knowledge with respect to the use of the rack and fire in Russia, but the contempt he displays for the torture of a stream of water is ill-founded. In our prisons the punishment of the shower-bath is found to bring the most refractory characters to obedience in an incredibly short time, and its unjustifiable severity in a civilized age like this may be estimated from the fact that it has occasionally resulted in the death of the patient. Thus, at the New York State Prison at Auburn, in December, 1858, a strong, healthy man, named Samuel Moore, was kept in the shower-bath from a half to three-quarters of an hour, and died almost immediately after being taken out. A less inhumane mode of administering the punishment is to wrap the patient in a blanket, lay him on his back, and, from a height of about six feet, pour upon his forehead a stream from an ordinary watering-pot without the rose. According to experts, this will make the stoutest criminal beg for his life in a few seconds.
During the later period of our recent war, when the prevalence of exaggerated bounties for recruits led to an organized system of desertion, the magnitude of the evil seemed to justify the adoption of almost any means to arrest a practice which threatened rapidly to exhaust the resources of the country. Accordingly, the shower-bath was occasionally put into requisition by the military authorities to extort confession from suspected deserters, when legal evidence was not attainable, and it was found exceedingly efficacious.
1618 Du Boys, op. cit. I. 618.
1619 Quod iidem prælati et inquisitores de ipsis Templariis et eorum corporibus, quotiens voluerint, ordinent et faciant id quod eis, secundum legem ecclesiasticam, videbitur faciendum.—Rymer, Fœdera, III. 203.
1620 C. 1 § 1 Clement, V. 3.—Bern. Guidonis Gravamina (MSS. Doat, XXX.).
1621 Haroldus, Lima limata Conciliis etc. Romæ, 1672, pp. 75, 76.
1622 Statut. S. Ludov. ann. 1254, §§ 20, 21 (Isambert, I. 270).
1623 Thus Gratian, in the middle of the twelfth century—“Qui calumniam illatam non probat pœnam debet incurrere quam si probasset reus utique sustineret.”—Decreti P. II. caus. v. quæst. 6, c. 2.
1624 Ordonnance, Mars 1498, §§ 110-116 (Isambert, XI. 365.—Fontanon, I. 710). It would seem that the only torture contemplated by this ordonnance was that of water, as the clerk is directed to record “la quantité de l’eau qu’on aura baillée audit prisonnier.” This was administered by gagging the patient, and pouring water down his throat until he was enormously distended. It was sometimes diversified by making him eject the water violently, by forcible blows on the stomach (Fortescue de Laudibus Legg. Angliæ, cap. xxii.). Sometimes a piece of cloth was used to conduct the water down his throat. To this, allusion is made in the “Appel de Villon”:—
1625 Ordonn. de Villers Cotterets, Août 1539, §§ 162-164 (Isambert, XIII. 633-4). “Ostant et abolissant tous styles, usances ou coutumes par lesquels les accusés avoient accoutumés d’être ouïs en jugement pour sçavoir s’ils devoient être accusés, et à cette fin avoir communication des faits et articles concernant les crimes et délits dont ils étoient accusés.”
1626 Anc. Cout. de Bretagne, Tit. I. art. xli.—D’Argentré’s labored commentary on this article is a lamentable exhibition of the utter confusion which existed as to the nature of preliminary proof justifying torture. Comment. pp. 139, sqq.
1627 Nemo igitur de proprio crimine confitentem super conscientia scrutetur aliena.—Const. 17 Cod. IX. ii. (Honor. 423).
1628 Nemini de se confesso credi potest super crimen alienum, quoniam ejus atque omnis rei professio periculosa est, et admitti adversus quemlibet non debet.—Pseudo-Julii Epist. II. cap. xviii.—Gratian. Decret. P. II. caus. v. quæst. 3, can. 5.
1629 Inhærendo decretis alias per felicis recordationis Paulum papam quartum Sanctissimus dominus noster Pius papa quintus decrevit omnes et quoscunque reos convictos et confessos de heresi pro ulteriori veritate habenda et super complicibus fore torquendos arbitrio dominorum judicum.—Locati Opus Judiciale Inquisitorum, Romæ, 1570, p. 477.
1630 Chéruel, Dict. Hist. des Institutions, etc. de la France, p. 1220 (Paris, 1855).
1631 Isambert, XIV. 88. Beccaria comments on the absurdity of such proceedings, as though a man who had accused himself would make any difficulty in accusing others.—“Quasi che l’uomo che accusa sè stesso, non accusi più facilmente gli altri. E egli giusto il tormentare gli uomini per l’altrui delitto?”—Dei Delitte e delle Pene, § XII. A curious illustration of its useless cruelty when applied to prisoners of another stamp is afforded by the record of a trial which occurred at Rouen in 1647. A certain Jehan Lemarinier, condemned to death for murder, was subjected to the question définitive. Cords twisted around the fingers, scourging with rods, the strappado with fifty pounds attached to each foot, the thumbscrew were applied in succession and together, without eliciting anything but fervent protestations of innocence. The officials at last wearied out remanded the convict to prison, when he sent for them and quietly detailed all the particulars of his crime, committed by himself alone, requesting especially that they should record his confession as having been spontaneous, for the relief of his conscience, and not extorted by torment.—Desmaze, Les Pénalités Anciennes, p. 159, Paris, 1866.
1632 Ordonnance Criminel d’Août 1670, Tit. xiv. xix. (Isambert, XIX. 398, 412).
1633 Nicolas, Dissertation Morale et Juridique sur la Torture, p. 111 (Amsterd. 1682).
1634 Déclaration du 13 Avril 1703 (Ordonnances d’Alsace, I. 340).
1635 Coutumier de Picardie, Éd. Marnier, p. 88.
1636 Registre Criminel de la Justice de S. Martin-des-Champs. Paris, 1877, p. 229.
1637 Desmaze, Pénalités Anciennes, p. 204.
1638 Bodini de Magor. Dæmonoman. Basil. 1581, pp. 325, 334, 390.
1639 Scialojæ Praxis torquendi Reos c. i. No. 12 (Neap. 1653).
1640 Thomæ Grammatici Decisiones Neapolitanæ, pp. 1275-6 (Venetiis 1582). Cf. Scialojæ op. cit. c. i. No. 22.
1641 L’Oiseleur, Les Crimes et les Peines, pp. 206-7.
1642 Braune Dissert. de Tortura Valetudinar. Halæ Cattor. 1740, p. 28.
1643 Meyer, Institutions Judiciaires, IV. 285, 293.
1644 Legg. Capital. Caroli V. c. lx. lviii.
1645 Ibid. c. xx. lviii.
1646 Ibid. c. lv. lvi. lvii.
1647 Legg. Capital. Carol. V. c. xxii. lxix.
1648 Ibid. c. xxviii.
1649 Ibid. c. xxiii. xxi.
1650 Ibid. c. xxxiii.-xliv.
1651 Ibid. c. xx. lxi.
1652 Ibid. c. lviii. lix. Accusatus, si periculum sit, ne inter vel post tormenta ob vulnera expiret, ea arte torquendus est, ne quid damni accipiat.
1653 Heineccii Hist. Jur. Civ. Lib. II. §§ cv. sqq.—Meyer (Instit. Judiciaires, Liv. VI. chap. xi.) gives a very interesting sketch of the causes which led to the overthrow of the old system of jurisprudence throughout Germany. He attributes it to the influence of the emperors and the municipalities, each equally jealous of the authority of the feudal nobles, aided by the lawyers, now becoming a recognized profession. These latter of course favored a jurisprudence which required long and special training, thus conferring upon them as a class peculiar weight and influence.
1654 My principal authorities are:—
Rerum Criminalium Praxis, by Josse Damhouder, a lawyer and statesman of repute in Flanders, where he held a distinguished position under Charles V. and Philip II. His work was received as an authority throughout Europe for two centuries, having passed through numerous editions, from that of Louvain, in 1554, to that of Antwerp, in 1750. My edition is of Antwerp, 1601.
Tractatus de Quæstionibus seu Torturis Reorum, published in 1592 by Johann Zanger, of Wittenberg, a celebrated jurisconsult of the time, and frequently reprinted. My edition is that of 1730, with notes by the learned Baron Senckenberg, and there is a still later one, published at Frankfort in 1763.
Practica Criminalis, seu Processus Judiciarius ad usum et consuetudinem judiciorum in Germania hoc tempore frequentiorem, by Johann Emerich von Rosbach, published in 1645 at Frankfort on the Mayn.
Tractatio Juridica, de Usu et Abusu Torturæ, by Heinrich von Boden, a dissertation read at Halle in 1697, and reprinted by Senckenberg in 1730, in conjunction with the treatise of Zanger.
Scialojæ Praxis torquendi Reos, Neapoli, 1653.
Tractatus de Maleficiis, nempe D. Alberti de Gandino, D. Bonifacii de Vitalianis, D. Pauli Grillandi, D. Baldi de Periglis, D. Jacobi de Arena. Venetiis, 1560.
1655 Cum nihil tam severum, tam crudele et inhumanum videatur quam hominem conditum ad imaginem Dei ... tormentis lacerare et quasi excarnificare, etc.—Zangeri Tract. de Quæstion. cap. I. No. 1.
Tormentis humanitatis et religionis, necnon jurisconsultorum argumenta repugnant.—Jo. Emerici a Rosbach. Process. Crimin. Tit. v. c. ix. No. 1.
Saltem horrendus torturæ abusus ostendit, quo miseri, de facinore aliquo suspecti, fere infernalibus, et si fieri possit, plusquam diabolicis cruciatibus exponuntur, ut qui nullo legitimo probandi modo convinci poterant, atrocitate cruciatuum contra propriam salutem confiteri, seque ita destruere sive jure sive injuria, cogantur.—Henr. de Boden Tract. Præfat.
1656 Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 49-58.
1657 Zangeri cap. I. Nos. 59-88.—Knipschild, in his voluminous “Tract. de Nobilitate” (Campodun. 1693), while endeavoring to exalt to the utmost the privileges of the nobility, both of the sword and robe, is obliged to admit their liability to torture for these crimes, and only urges that the preliminary proof should be stronger than in the case of plebeians (Lib. II. cap. iv. Nos. 108-120); though, in other accusations, a judge subjecting a noble to torture should be put to death, and his attempt to commit such an outrage could be resisted by force of arms (Ibid. No. 103). He adds, however, that no special privileges existed in France, Lombardy, Venice, Italy, and Saxony (Ibid. Nos. 105-7). Scialoja expressly says (Praxis c. xiii. Nos. 40-49, 55) that in Naples no dignity, secular or ecclesiastical, except that of judges, conferred immunity from torture; and all privileges were set aside by a direct order from the sovereign.
1658 Erphurdianus Variloquus, ann. 1514 (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. II. 527-8).
1659 Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vi.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus c. iii. § 4.—Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus §§ 7, 9, 36, 37.
1660 Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Praxis cap. xxxvii. Nos. 23, 24. Cf. Passerini Regulare Tribunal Quæst. xv. Art. ix. No. 117.
1661 Emer. a Rosbach Process. Crimin. Tit. v. cap. xiv.
1662 Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 50.
1663 Willenbergii Tract. de Excess. et Pœnis Cleric. 4to. Jenæ, 1740, p. 41.
1664 Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. p. 32.
1665 Grillandi de Quæstione et Tortura, Q. vi. §§ 4, 6, 9.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 4.
1666 Zangeri op. cit. cap. I. Nos. 34-48.
1667 Scialojæ c. xiii. No. 21.
1668 Ibid. Nos. 24-30.
1669 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, Lipsiæ, 1742, pp. 46-8.
1670 Braune Diss. de Tortura Valetudinar. pp. 24, 43.
1671 Zangeri cap. V. Nos. 73-83.
1672 Del Rio Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. v. Sect. iii. L.
1673 Damhouder. op. cit. cap. xxxviii. Nos. 3, 4.—Rosbach. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 14.—Simancas, however, declares that only two applications of torture are allowable (De Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. Nos. 76, 81).
1674 Disquis. Magicar. Lib. V. sect. ix.
1675 Assessores tamen honoris et avidi et cupidi hoc non servant imo quotidie quæstiones repetunt absque novis indiciis.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 6. So also Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 20, and Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. Quæ Indicia § 8.
1676 Zangeri Præfat. No. 31.
1677 Scialojæ op. cit. cap. i. No. 27.
1678 Statuta Criminalia Communis Bononiæ (Bononiæ, 1525, fol. 15 a).
1679 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, pp. 52-3.
1680 Zangeri Tract. Not. ad p. 903.
1681 Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vii.
1682 Scialojæ op. cit. cap. i. No. 34.—Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 53.—Grillandi, loc. cit.—Bernhard (Diss. Inaug. de Tort. cap. I. § iv.) states that in these cases not only the principals but even the witnesses could be tortured if suspected of concealing the truth.
1683 Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura, Q. V. § 6.
1684 Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. iii. § 2.—Damhoud. cap. xxxviii. No. 13.—Alberti de Gandino de Quæstionibus § 31.
1685 Zangeri Præfat. No. 32.—Tortura enim datur non ad liquidandum factum sed personam.—Damhouder. Rer. Crimin. Prax. cap. xxxv. No. 7.
1686 Process. Criminal. Tit. V. cap. ix. No. 17.
1687 De Usu et Ab. Tort. Th. IX.—Qui aliter procedit judex, equum cauda frenat et post quadrigas caballum jungit.
1688 Boyvin du Villars, Mémoires, Liv. VII.
1689 Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x.
1690 Not. ad p. 907 Zangeri op. cit.
1691 Del Rio Magicar. Disquisit. Lib. V. sect. ix.
1692 Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura, Q. vi. § 10.
1693 Simancæ de Cathol. Instit. Tit. LXV. No. 56.
1694 De Usu et Abusu Tort. Th. XIII.
It must not be supposed from this and the preceding extracts that von Boden was an opponent of torture on principle. Within certain bounds, he advocated its use, and he only deplored the excessive abuse of it by the tribunals of the day.
1695 Quando quis dicatur competenter tortus vel non, similiter quando quis dicatur purgasse indicia vel non, omnia ista demum relinquuntur arbitrio et discretioni honesti judicis, quoniam in his certa regula tradi non potest.—Grillandi de Quæst. et Tortura Q. vii. § 10.—Cf. Godelmanni de Magis Lib. III. cap. x. § 36.—Baldi de Periglis de Quæstionibus cap. i. § 5.
1696 Zangeri op. cit. cap. I. Nos. 42-44.
1697 Ibid. cap. III. Nos. 20-22.
1698 Baldi de Periglis cap. iii. § 7.
1699 Bonifacii de Vitalianis, Rubr. de Perseverentia § 5.—Alberti de Gandino, De Quæstionibus § 35.
1700 Godelmanni l. c. § 54.
1701 Cap. xxxviii. No. 18.
1702 Zangeri cap. III. Nos. 20-22.
1703 Goetzii Dissert. de Tortura, p. 74.
1704 So thoroughly was this recognized, that in 1668 Racine represents a judge, desirous of ingratiating himself with a young girl, as offering to exhibit to her the spectacle of the question as an agreeable pastime.
“Dandin. N’avez vous jamais vu donner la question?
Isabelle. Non, et ne le verrai, que je crois de ma vie.
Dandin. Venez, je vous en veux faire passer l’envie.
Isabelle. Hé! Monsieur, peut-on voir souffrir les malhereux?
Dandin. Bon! cela fait toujours passer une heure ou deux.”
Les Plaideurs, Acte III. Sc. dernière.
1705 Fortescue, in his arguments against the use of torture, does not fail to recognize that the acquittal of a tortured prisoner is the condemnation of the judge—“qui judex eum pronuntiet innocentem, nonne eodem judicio judex ille seipsum reum judicat omnis sævitiæ et pœnarum quibus innocentem afflixit?”—De Laud. Legg. Angl. cap. xxii.
1706 Occurrit hic cautela Bruni dicentis, si judex indebite torserit aliquem facit reum confiteri quod fuit legitime tortus, de qua confessione faciat notarium rogatum.—Rosbach. Process. Crim. Tit. V. cap. xv. No. 6.
1707 Quoted by Nicolas, Diss. Mor. et Jurid. sur la Torture, p. 21. This mode of torture consisted in placing the accused between two jailers, who pummelled him whenever he began to doze, and thus, with proper relays, deprived him of sleep for forty hours. Its inventor considered it humane, as it endangered neither life nor limb, but the extremity of suffering to which it reduced the prisoner is shown by its efficaciousness.
Marsigli received much credit for this ingenious invention. Grillandus informs us that he experimented with it in a difficult case of two monks “et profecto vidi ea quæ prius non credebam, quod illud affert maximum tormentum et fastidium in corpore absque aliqua membrorum læsione.”—Grillandi de Quæstione et Tortura Art. ii.
I have purposely abstained from entering into the details of the various forms of torture. They may be interesting to the antiquarian, but they illustrate no principle, and little would be gained by describing these melancholy monuments of human error. Those who may be curious in such matters will find ample material in Grupen Observat. Jur. Crim. de Applicat. Torment., 4to., Hanov. 1754; Zangeri op. cit. cap. IV. Nos. 9, 10; Hieron. Magius de Equuleo cum Appendd. Amstelod. 1664, etc. According to Bernhardi, Johann Graefe enumerates no less than six hundred different instruments invented for the purpose. Damhouder (op. cit. cap. xxxvii. Nos. 17-23) declares that torture can legally be inflicted only with ropes, and then proceeds to describe a number of ingenious devices. One of these, which he states to produce insufferable torment without risk, is bathing the feet with brine and then setting a goat to lick the soles.
The strappado, or suspension by the arms behind the back with weights to the feet, was the torture in most general use and most favored by legal experts.—Grillandus, loc. cit.