Front matter (continued 2)

This is also true in the council of Rollandus a Valle. [Citations.] May that learned authority pardon me; for even if he does attempt to confute Paolo de Castro in the said 154th council, which is in our favour, under the pretext that he speaks contrary to the common opinion, this claim does not suffice in view of the above-cited authorities. And if there were time, I would demonstrate this more clearly.

Furthermore, Rollandus alleges Parisius, cons. 154, lib. 4. But he could well omit that, because No. 22 proves expressly contrary to him on its very face, where it says: "Under our very conditions was given that excellent decision of Paolo de Castro in the before-cited council. In stronger circumstances (which also include the present case) he concludes that those who knew of, or were present, or were associated with a husband in the act of the said murder, and who furnished him aid, ought not to be punished with a greater penalty than the principal, according to the rule concerning auxiliaries, beside the accurate authority of Marsilius." And he concludes that at the very worst, when the utmost rigour of it is considered, they should not be punished with more than a temporary banishment.

Furthermore, Rollandus in the said council is expressly confuted by Facchinus. [Citation.] Nor is this without vital reason. For just as a qualification that modifies a crime in the principal delinquent increases it also for the auxiliaries, whenever they are aware of it, so all sense of equity demands that a qualification that diminishes the penalty for the principal, even though it be unknown to the auxiliaries, shall act in favour of them also. [Citations.] Hence Caballus remains without a stable foundation, and is opposed to the opinion of the many doctors here alleged, who make no distinction between those who simply assist and those taking a hand in the murder; and indeed all of them speak of auxiliaries. Furthermore, it is found that this has often been the judgment, even in the more extreme circumstances of one commanded to a murder, as was said above. And so strong is the plea of injured honour that not only does it extend its protection to mere mandatories, but even to mandatories whose case is modified by the circumstance of assassination. And it causes them to be absolved, as we find that it was so decided. [Citations.]

Hence if both mandatories and assassins are redeemed from the ordinary death penalty, whenever they kill an adulteress at the command of the husband, it necessarily follows that the distinction of Caballus is not a true one, nor is it accepted in practice. For if they are mandatories, we cannot deny that they may kill with their own hands; and nevertheless, not to speak of the other decisions cited above, Clar. [Citation] testifies such a decision favourable to the accused was handed down, contrary to the opinion of Caballus.

If, therefore, Blasio and his fellows are not to be punished with the death penalty for affording aid in the murders, vain is the question whether they can be subjected to the torment of the vigil for the purpose of having the very truth from their own mouths. For this procedure demands two requisites: one that the most urgent proofs stand against the accused, and the other that the crime be very atrocious, according to the prescript of the Bull. [Citations.]

And although the powers of this Tribunal are very great for the dispensing with one of the said requisites, yet I have never seen the said torment of the vigil inflicted unless when there was no doubt that the crime, for which the Fisc was trying to draw confession from the accused, deserved the capital penalty. We cannot believe that the prosecution expects to make a case to this end because of the pretended conventicle; since those who are assembled are not to be held under the penalty for conventicle, but only the one who assembled them is so held, as Baldo well asserts. [Citations.] Nor in this case can the penalty for the asserted conventicle be made good against Count Guido himself, since the cause for which he assembled the men aids him in evading the penalty; inasmuch as one may assemble his friends and associates for the purpose of regaining his reputation. [Citations.]

For this has been well proved, that whenever any one for just grievance assembles men to avenge his injury, he has not incurred the crime and penalty of conventicle.

And although Farinacci, quaest 113, n. 55, declares that this holds good provided the vengeance be immediate, but that it is otherwise if the vengeance be after an interval, yet I pray that it be noted that in either case, if it concern vengeance for a personal injury (in which conditions he himself speaks), and therefore when for an injury which wounds the honour, such vengeance is at all times said to be taken immediately. For such an injury always urges and presses, because it should be termed the restoration and reparation of honour (which the one injured in his reputation could not otherwise accomplish), rather than vindication and vengeance, as we believe was satisfactorily proved in our other plea in behalf of Count Guido.

But all further difficulty ceases with this consideration: prosecution can be brought for conventicle, if the men were assembled for an evil end and no other crime followed therefrom; but when, according to the sense of the Fisc, they have been called together for committing murders, and these are really committed, no further action can be taken as regards the prohibited conventicle, but rather for the murders themselves; for the assembling of the men tended to this same effect. [Citations.] And it is for this reason more particularly; because when the beginning and the end of an act are alike illegal, the end is given attention, and not the beginning, as Bartolo teaches us. [Citations.]

It is to be added still further, that the assembling of men is not illegal in itself; indeed it is possible for it at some times to be both permissible and worthy of approval, as in the cases related by Farinacci. But it is illegal because of its evil consequences and the base end for which it is usually made. Hence, as the assembling of men is prohibited, not in itself, but because of something else, the end ought to be considered rather than what precedes the end.

Nor should the rigorous penalty of death be inflicted at all upon Domenico Gambassini and Francesco Pasquini for the pretended carrying of arms of illegitimate measure; because they are foreigners and had not stayed long enough in the Ecclesiastical State so that their knowledge of this law could be taken for granted. Nor ought it to be inflicted upon the others; for even if the death penalty is threatened by the Constitutions and Banns for the bearing or retention of them; yet since the carrying of this kind of arms is not prohibited for reasons in itself, but because of the pernicious end which follows it, or can follow it; and because this bearing of arms was looking towards the said murders; and because these, although they are not entirely permissible, are not utterly without excuse, the crime of carrying such arms should be included with the end for which they were carried; because the one is implied in the other, nor may the means seem worse than the end. And although, according to the opinion of some persons, the penalty for carrying arms is not to be confused with the crime committed with them, whenever the latter is the graver, yet this seems to be so understood when a crime is committed with them which is entirely illegal and without excuse. But this is not so when the crime is deceased and extenuated, and indeed excused in part, because of the reason for which it was committed.

In any case, the bearing of arms, according to common law, is but a slight crime. [Citations.]

Although by special Constitutions and Banns the penalty has been increased almost to the highest possible point, yet this kind of increase does not change the nature of the crime. And just as in the eyes of the common law, torture is not inflicted for getting the truth from those indicted for the said carrying of arms, in view of the insignificance of the crime, in like manner it cannot be inflicted by the force of Constitutions and Statutes which have increased the penalty. [Citations.]

And this is especially true in the case of the torment of the vigil, which cannot be inflicted for a crime that is not in its very nature most atrocious, but that is held as such, so far as the penalty is concerned, merely by the strength of a decree. This holds good unless indeed the nature of that crime is changed according to the method of proceeding in it. [Citation.]

And we see in the Banns of our Illustrious Lord Governor that he expressly declared this, when he wished to proceed with the torment of the vigil in cases in which he could not proceed legally; that of a certainty he would not do so. Nor would he indeed have done this, if he could have inflicted such tortures in the case of crimes which are not capital by common law, but are to be expiated with the death penalty by the rigour of the Banns.

Giacinto Arcangeli, Procurator of the Poor.

[File-title of Pamphlet 4.]

By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor in Criminal Cases:

ROMAN MURDER-CASE with qualifying circumstance.

For the Fisc.

Summary.

At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, 1698.

SUMMARY

[Pamphlet 4.]

No. 1.—The sworn testimony of a witness as to the poverty of said Count Guido Franceschini and the miseries suffered by the Signori Comparini while they stayed in his home in the city of Arezzo.

June 24, 1694.

Angelica, the daughter of the deceased Pietro and Johanna Battista of Castelluccio, in the Diocese of Arezzo, about 35 years of age, was examined by me on behalf of Pietro Comparini, against any one whomsoever, and put on permanent record; as to which testimony, she took oath to speak the truth, as is seen below.

I tell you in all truth, sir, that while I was staying in Arezzo last January in the home of Signora Maddalena Baldi Albergotti, the chance was offered me to go and serve Signora Beatrice Franceschini and her sons, etc. I decided to do so, and when I had gone to the home of the Signori Franceschini I spoke with the said Signora Beatrice. She drew me aside into a little room and told me that she would take me as a servant, but that I should never have any private dealings with the two old people who were in the house; one of them was Signor Pietro Comparini and the other Signora Violante, his wife. She charged me still further that if either of the two old people chanced to call me into their chamber, I should not go without first asking her permission. On these terms I accepted the service. After I had entered thereupon, I noticed that Signora Violante stayed in her room most of the time, weeping, and though the Comparini were stiff with cold, the room was without fire. Hence I took pity on her, and without the knowledge of Signora Beatrice, I took the coals from my own brazier and carried them to her. But no sooner did I offer them to her than Signora Violante ordered me out of the room, lest Signora Beatrice might take offence that I had done this act of charity. Also, once among the many times, when Signora Beatrice found it out she made me leave the coals in the fireplace and snatched the shovel from my hands, and threatened me, saying that if she had wished it she herself would have come to bring it; because she did not want me to do any service whatsoever for the said Signori Comparini. And the Comparini could not even speak among themselves, because Signor Guido Franceschini, the Canon Girolamo his brother, and Signora Beatrice, their mother, would stand at one door or another of the apartment and listen to what the said Signori Comparini were saying to one another. This occurred every evening and morning until the said Signor Pietro left the room and the house. And when he returned at night they were unwilling for me to make a light for him on the stairway. And once when Signor Pietro came back home about half-past six in the evening, and I heard him scrape his feet, I took up the lamp to go and meet him. But Signor Guido noticing that, snatched the lamp from my hands, telling me that I had better keep still, and that I had better not approach unless I wished to be pitched out of the window. And this seemed all the worse to me, because when I first entered upon the service of the said Franceschini I had heard it said around the house that one evening, as Signor Pietro was coming back home, he had fallen, while ascending the same steps without a light, and that he had made a very ugly bruise, because of which he had had to keep his bed for many days. At the same time, while I was in the said service, it chanced one morning at breakfast that the Franceschini gave some offence to Signora Violante, because of which a mishap befell her. For no sooner had she reached her own room than she threw herself into a straw-chair and swooned away. When Signora Francesca Pompilia, wife of the said Signor Guido, found it out, she began to weep and to cry out with a loud voice, saying, "My mother is dying." Whereupon I ran to Signora Violante and began to unlace her, and turned to bring her a little vinegar and fire. But because there was no fire I took some wood and put it in the fireplace to kindle it. When Signora Beatrice saw this she snatched the wood from the fire, in great anger, and told me to take the ashes, which were quite enough to warm her feet. So I took the ashes that were in the fireplace, but because of the intensely cold weather they were cool when I reached the room where the Signora Violante was half dead. Accordingly, the Signora Pompilia and I, both of us weeping, unclothed Signora Violante and put her in the bed, which was as cold as ice. And because I was crying when I returned to the kitchen, after having put Signora Violante to bed, Signora Beatrice said to me: "Do you want me to take a little hemp and wipe your eyes?" Signora Francesca Pompilia also heard this, and she made some complaint to Signora Beatrice who did not want me to return to the room again nor to make a little gruel, as Signora Violante had ordered.

It happened a few days later, during the month of February following, that while the Signori Franceschini, Francesca Pompilia, Signor Pietro, and Signora Violante were at the table, they began talking of their purpose of sending me away, as the Franceschini had already dismissed me from service. When Signora Francesca Pompilia, who was at the table with the others as I have said above, heard this, she remarked to Signor Pietro and Signora Violante: "Do you know why they wish to send her away? They believe she wished to censure me because Signora Beatrice said some days ago that she would take hemp and wipe the tears from her eyes, when she was weeping over the accident that happened to you, mother." Then Signor Pietro spoke up and asked the Signori Franceschini to keep me in their good graces for eight or ten days more, for if he wished to return to Rome with Signora Violante he would take me with them. And he said he could expect this favour at their hands, as it was the first he had ever asked of them. To this, none of the Franceschini replied; but Signor Guido rose from the table and, approaching me, gave me two very good licks. The others then came up. While he was doing this, the Canon, his brother, also gave me some kicks, and his mother struck me and told me to leave at once. As soon as Signora Violante saw and heard this she took pity on me and exclaimed to the said Signori: "Where do you wish the poor thing to go now?" And all the Franceschini with one accord said to Signora Violante: "You get out with her, too." And they called her "slut," and other insulting names, so that Signora Violante went to her room to put on her wraps. The Canon drew a sword and ran after her into the room and shut the door. I, fearing that he would inflict some wounds upon Signora Violante, ran to enter the room and found that the Canon had locked himself within. So myself and Signor Pietro and Francesca Pompilia began to weep and to cry out for help, thinking that the Canon would kill Signora Violante there inside. And after some little time, I left the house, while the said couple and Signora Francesca Pompilia were still making outcry to the Signori Franceschini.

During all the time I remained in the service of the said Signori Franceschini at Arezzo, as I have said above, I can say of a truth that every morning and evening at the table I served the said Signori Franceschini, Signora Francesca Pompilia, Signor Pietro, and Signora Violante Comparini. For the food of all this tableful, the Franceschini bought on Saturday a sucking lamb, on which they spent, at most, twelve or fourteen gratie. Then Signora Beatrice cooked it and divided it out for the entire week. And the head of the lamb she divided up for a relish three times, and for the relish at other times she served separately the lights and intestines. During the days of the week when they ate there was no other sort of meat on the table to satisfy the needs of all the tableful. When he did not buy the lamb on Saturday, as I have said, Signor Guido gave money to Joseph, the houseboy, to buy two pounds of beef. Signora Beatrice herself put this to cook every morning, nor was she willing for the rest to meddle with it, and they ate therefrom at the table and carved for the evening meal. And because this meat was so tough that Signor Pietro could not eat it (as they had not cooked it enough), Signor Pietro did without eating meat, for the most part, and ate only a little bread, toasted and in bad condition, and a morsel of cheese. Thus Signor Pietro passed the days when they bought beef. On fasting days he ate vegetable soup with a little salted pike, and sometimes a few boiled chestnuts. But always, whether on fasting days or not, the bread was as black as ink, and heavy, and ill-seasoned. Then the wine which served for the table was but a single flask; and as soon as the wine was poured into this, Signora Beatrice made me put in as much more of water. And so I made out to fill the wine flask, half of it being water, and very often there was more water than wine. This flask she put on the table, and ordinarily it sufficed for all those eating, although at most the flask did not hold more than 3½ foghliette [half-pints] according to Roman measure.

Furthermore, I say that, not many days after I had left this service, it was public talk throughout Arezzo that Signor Pietro had gone home about half-past six in the evening and had found the street door shut so that he could not open it, and he was obliged to knock. When Signora Violante saw that no one about the house was going to open the door, she herself went downstairs to do so, but the door was locked with a key. And although she called Signor Guido and others who were in the house, yet no one stirred to go and open it. Therefore Signor Pietro went to sleep at the inn, and in the morning returned to see Signora Violante and Signora Francesca Pompilia. It was likewise said throughout Arezzo that when Signor Pietro complained at having been locked out of the house by the Canon, and when both Signor Pietro and Signora Violante reproached them bitterly about it, a new quarrel arose among them, and because of it both the Signori Comparini were driven out of the house. Signora Violante was received at the home of Signor Doctor Borri, where she dined that evening and spent the night. And Signor Pietro went to the inn to dine and sleep.

When I heard that, I went to the house of Signor Borri to see Signora Violante, but was not admitted. And the wife of Signor Borri told me to go and tend to my own affairs. For she did not wish the Franceschini, who lived opposite, to perceive that I had gone there to see Signora Violante, as some disturbance might arise therefrom. Then the next morning I went to the inn, where I had been told Signora Violante had gone to find Signor Pietro, but I did not find either of them, and was told by the host that they had gone out. So, not knowing where to find them, I returned to the home of Signora Maddelena Albergotti, where I was staying. And I heard afterwards that both Signor Pietro and Signora Violante had returned to the Inn, where they had breakfasted. Then by the interposition of the Governor of Arezzo they were reconciled with the Franceschini, and they returned indeed to the house of the latter. I heard also that the Franceschini continued to maltreat and insult the said couple, as they had continually done while I was in their service. Therefore they were finally obliged to leave Arezzo and go back to Rome.

All the abovesaid matters I know from having seen and heard the ill-treatment, which the Franceschini inflicted upon the Comparini and the insults which they offered them and Signora Francesca Pompilia; and likewise from having heard them talked about publicly throughout Arezzo, where it is known to every one and is notorious, and where there is public talk and rumour about it.

No. 2.—Various attestations as to Francesca's recourse to the Bishop and Governor because of the cruelty of her husband and relatives.

June 17, 1697.

To whomsoever it may concern:

We, the undersigned, attest as true: That Signora Francesca Pompilia Comparini, wife of Signor Guido Franceschini, has many and many a time fled from home and hastened now to Monsignor the Bishop, and again to the Governor, and also to the neighbours, because of the continual scolding and ill-treatment which she has suffered at the hands of Count Guido her husband, Signora Beatrice her mother-in-law, and the Signor Canon Girolamo her brother-in-law. We know this from having met her when she was fleeing as above, and from the public talk and notoriety of it throughout the city of Arezzo. In pledge of which, have we signed the present attestation with our own hands this abovesaid day and year, etc.

I, Canon Alessandro Tortelli, affirm the truth to be as abovesaid, and in pledge thereto have signed with my own hand.

I, Marco Romano, affirm the truth to be as abovesaid, and in pledge, etc., with my own hand.

I, Antonio Francesco Arcangeli, affirm the truth to be as is contained above, with my own hand.

I, Cammillo Lombardi, affirm as is contained above, with my own hand.

I, Francesco Jacopo Conti of Bissignano, affirm as is contained above, and in pledge, etc., with my own hand.

I, Urbano Antonio Romano, a priest of Arezzo, and at present Curate of the parish church of San Adriano, affirm the truth to be as is contained above, and in pledge thereto have subscribed with my own hand.

Then follows the identification of the handwriting in due form, etc.

Extract from a letter written by D. Tommaso Romani, uncle of Guido Franceschini, to Pietro Comparini in Rome.

Most Illustrious Sir, my most Honoured Master:

I can not do less, etc., departure, she has been little like the Signora Francesca, etc.; she fled from home, and went into San Antonio. And thither ran also Signor Guido, the Canon, and Beatrice, etc., in order that she might come back, and in that belief the Signora Francesca returned home, etc. Yesterday, Signora Francesca and my sister were in the Duomo at sermon. At its close, while she was going away and was near the gate of Monsignore, Francesca fled into the Palace, which is very near by. This was about seven o'clock in the evening, and there was a fine row in the Palace, etc.

Extract from another letter written by Bartholomeo Albergotti, a gentleman, to Pietro Comparini.

Most Illustrious Signor and most Cherished Master:

At my return, etc., the Signora, his wife, has been melancholy, and two evenings after your departure, she made a big disturbance, because she did not wish to go and sleep with Signor Guido her husband, etc. The day before Palm Sunday, the Signora went, etc., to preaching, etc., and in leaving there, she rushed into the Palace of the Bishop, etc. She took her station at the head of the stairs and stayed there until half past six in the evening; and neither Signora Beatrice nor Signor Guido were able to make her return home. Yet the Bishop did not give her an audience, but his secretary hastened thither and urged Signor Guido and Signora Beatrice not to scold the Signora his wife, etc. And after quite enough of such disputes, they took her back home, etc.

No. 3.—Deposition of Francesca as to the letters asserted to have been written by her to Abate Franceschini, and previously outlined by her husband; recorded in the prosecution brought for her pretended flight.

March 21, 1697 [for May.]

Francesca Comparini, when under oath, etc., when questioned whether she had ever sent any letter to Abate Franceschini here in the City, while she lived in Arezzo, replied:

While I was in Arezzo I wrote at the instance of my husband, to my brother-in-law Abate Franceschini here in Rome; but as I did not know how to write, my husband formed the letters with a pencil and then he made me trace it with a pen and ink it with my own hand. And he told me that his brother had taken pleasure in receiving such a letter of mine, written by myself. This happened two or three times.

When questioned whether, if she should see one of the letters written as is told above, and sent to the City to the same Abate Franceschini, she would recognise it, etc.

She replied: If your Honour would cause me to see one of the letters written by me, as above, and sent to Abate Franceschini, I should recognise it very well.

And when at my command the letter was shown to her, about which there was discussion in the prosecution, and which begins Carissimo Cognato sono con questa, and ends, etc., Arezzo 14 Giugnio 1694, affetionatissima Serva, e Cognata Francesca Comparini ne Franceschini.

She responded: I have seen and have examined carefully this letter shown me by the order of your Honour, which begins Carissimo Signor Cognato sono con questa, etc., and ends Francesca Comparini, ne Franceschini, and having looked at it, I think, but cannot swear to it as the truth, that this is one of the letters written by me to my brother-in-law, Abate Franceschini, in conformity [to my husband's wishes] as is said above.

No. 4.—The tenor of the letter written as above to Abate Franceschini.

Dearest Brother-in-law:

I wish by this letter to pay my respects to you, and to thank you for your efforts in placing me in this home, where, far removed from my parents, I live now a tranquil life and enjoy perfect safety, not having them around me. For they grieved me night and day with their perverse commands, which were against the law, both human and divine: that I should not love Signor Guido, my husband, and that I should flee by night from his couch. At the same time they made me tell him that I had no congeniality with him and that he was not my husband because I have no children by him. They also caused me to run away often to the Bishop without any reason whatever, and made me tell the Bishop that I wished to be divorced from Signor Guido. And for the purpose of stirring up great discord in the home, my mother told the Bishop, and Signor Guido, and then the entire town, that the Canon my brother-in-law had solicited me dishonourably, a thing that had never been thought of by him. They urged me to continue these evil counsels, which were far from right and far from the submission due to my husband. And they left me at their departure their express command, by my obligation to obey them, that I should kill my husband, give poison to my brothers-in-law and my mother-in-law, burn the house and break the vases and other things, in order that in the eyes of the world it might not appear after their departure that it was they who had counselled me to commit so many crimes. And finally at their departure, they left me, as a parting command, that I should choose for myself a young man to my taste, and with him should run away to Rome, and many other matters, which I omit for blushing. Now that I have not her at hand who stirred up my mind, I enjoy the quiet of Paradise, and know that my parents were thus directing me to a precipice, because of their own rage. Therefore, now that I see in their true light these deeds proposed by the command of my parents, I pray for pardon from God, from yourself, and from all the world. For I wish to be a good Christian and a good wife to Signor Guido, who has many times chidden me in a loving manner, saying that some day I would thank him for the reproofs he gave me. And these evil counsels which my parents have given, I have now made known, and I acknowledge myself

Your most affectionate servant and sister,

Francesca Comparini ne Franceschini.

Arezzo, June 14, 1694.

Outside directed to Abate Paolo Franceschini, Rome.

[The deposition of Pompilia is translated pp. 90-95 in its completer form as given in the Summary for the Defence. The only additional fact in this version is the date of the affidavit, Monday, May 13, 1697. She had been arrested at Castelnuovo, May 1.]

No. 6.—Attestation of priests and other persons, worthy to be accepted in all respects; who gave Francesca, assistance even till her death; they speak of her honesty, and her declaration that she had never violated her conjugal faith.

I, the undersigned, barefooted Augustinian priest, pledge my faith that inasmuch as I was present, helping Signora Francesca Comparini from the first instant of her pitiable case, even to the very end of her life, I say and attest on my priestly oath, in the presence of the God who must judge me, that to my own confusion I have discovered and marvelled at an innocent and saintly conscience in that ever-blessed child. During the four days she survived, when exhorted by me to pardon her husband, she replied with tears in her eyes and with a placid and compassionate voice: "May Jesus pardon him, as I have already done with all my heart." But what is more to be wondered at is that, although she suffered great pain, I never heard her speak an offensive or impatient word, nor show the slightest outward vexation either toward God or those near by. But ever submissive to the Divine Will, she said: "May God have pity on me," in such a way, indeed, as would have been incompatible with a soul that was not at one with God. To such an union one does not attain in a moment, but rather by the habit of years.

I say further that I have always seen her self-restrained, and especially during medical treatment. On these occasions, if her habit of life had not been good, she would not have minded certain details around her with a modesty well-noted and marvelled at by me; nor otherwise could a young girl have been in the presence of so many men with such modesty and calm as that in which the blessed child remained while dying. And you may well believe what the Holy Spirit speaks by the mouth of the Evangelist, in the words of St. Matthew, chapter 7: "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Note that he says "cannot," and not "does not"; that is, making it impossible to infer the ability to do perfect deeds when oneself is imperfect and tainted with vice. You should therefore say that this girl was all goodness and modesty, since with all ease and all gladness she performed virtuous and modest deeds even at the very end of her life. Moreover she has died with strong love for God, with great composure, with all the sacred sacraments of the Church, and with the admiration of all bystanders, who blessed her as a saint. I do not say more lest I be taxed with partiality. I know very well that God alone is the searcher of hearts, but I also know that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks; and that my great St. Augustine says: "As the life, so its end."

Therefore, having noted in that ever blessed child saintly words, virtuous deeds, most modest acts, and the death of a soul in great fear of God, for the relief of my conscience I am compelled to say, and cannot do otherwise, that necessarily she has ever been a good, modest, and honourable girl, etc.

This tenth of January, 1698,

I, Fra Celestino Angelo of St. Anna, barefooted Augustinian, affirm as I have said above, with my own hand.

Another attestation as above.

We, the undersigned, being interrogated for the truth, have made full and unquestioned statement on our oath, that we were present and assisted at the last illness from which Francesca Pompilia, wife of Guido Franceschini, died. She was often asked by her confessors and other persons whether she had committed any offence against the said Guido, her husband, whereby she might have given him occasion to maltreat her in such a manner as to cause her death. And she always responded that she had never committed any offence against him, but had always lived with all chastity and modesty. And this we know from having been present during the said suffering, and from having heard all these questions and responses while we were giving her medical treatment, or otherwise assisting, and from hearing her respond to these questions, as above, during the four days while she was suffering from her wounds, as we have seen and heard her; and we have witnessed her dying the death of a saint.

In pledge thereto we have signed this present attestation with our own hands here in Rome this tenth of January, 1698.

I, Nicolo Constantio, etc., who assisted at the treatment of the said Francesca Pompilia during four days, attest as above, etc.

I, Fra Celestino Angelo of St. Anna, barefooted Augustinian, say that I was present from the first instant of the case, even to the end of her life, and was always ministering to her. She ever said, "May God pardon him in heaven as I pardon him on earth; but as for the matter they charge me with, and for which they have slain me, I am utterly innocent." In proof whereof she said that God should not pardon her that sin, because she had never committed it. She died as an innocent martyr in the presence of another priest, to the edification of all the bystanders, as I have affirmed above with my own hand.

I, Placido Sardi, a priest, affirm with my own hand as the abovesaid Father, Fra Celestino, has declared, having been present as above.

I, the Marquis Nicolo Gregorio, affirm as above with my own hand.

I, the undersigned, affirm what is contained in the abovewritten statement, as well as in the attestation of the reverend Father Celestino of Jesu and Maria. I assisted the abovesaid Signora Francesca Pompilia from the first, having picked her up from the earth where she lay in utter weakness because of her wounds. She had her head upon the legs of Signor Pietro Comparini, who was already dead. She made confession in my arms to the Principal of the Greek College, because she could neither rise up nor lie down. And from that hour I never left her, but always ministered to her even unto her death. She was the most exemplary and edifying Christian I have ever seen. For I saw her resigned to the divine will, and she always relied upon her own innocence, etc.

I, Giuseppe D'Andillo, with my own hand.

I, the undersigned, attest and affirm what is contained in all the said affidavits, from having assisted the said Francesca Pompilia, etc.

Dionysio Godyn, with my own hand.

I, Luca Corsi, affirm with my own hand as is contained in all the said attestations, from having assisted day and night as long as the malady of the former Francesca Pompilia continued, and from having heard as above.

I, Giovanni Battista Guitens, apothecary, who have assisted at the treatment and care of the said Francesca Pompilia, affirm with my own hand as is contained in all the above affidavits and attestations, from having assisted continually throughout a night and a day at the malady of the same.

I, Giovanni Battista Mucha, the boy of the said Giovanni Battista Guitens, apothecary, affirm with my own hand as is contained above in the said attestation, from having assisted with the former Francesca Pompilia.

Full and unquestionable statement is given by me the here undersigned, Abate Liberato Barberito, Doctor of Theology, that, as I was summoned to assist at the death of the said Signora Francesca Comparini, I often noticed, and especially during an entire night, that the above-named defendant suffered the pains of her wounds with Christian resignation, and condoned with superhuman generosity the offences of the one who had caused her innocent death with so many wounds. I also observed during the night the tenderness of the conscience of the above-named. For she passed it in showing the unwavering feelings of an heroic and Christian perfection. And this so much so that I can attest that during the experience I have had, having been four years Vicar in the Cure of Monsignor, the Bishop of Monopoli, of blessed memory, I have never observed the dying with like sentiments. And this is all the more so in an evil, caused so violently by another. Therefore in pledge, etc. Rome, this tenth day of January 1698.

I, Abate di Liberato Barberito, affirm as above, etc.

[File-title of Pamphlet 5.]

By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor of the City in Criminal Cases:

ROMAN MURDER-CASE.

In behalf of the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini and his Associates.

Memorial of fact and law of the Lord Procurator General of the Fisc.

At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Church, 1698.

ROMANA EXCIDII

[Pamphlet 5.]

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:

The deplorable slaughter of the entire Comparini family, which occurred in this dear city of ours on the second night of the current month of January, and the shedding of their blood, cries out from earth to God for vengeance upon the criminals. And in order that we may fulfil the obligations of the office we are occupying, we have paid down the price of toil to narrate here with faithful pen the series of events. From this, my Lords Judges may readily see what laws may be applicable for a decision as to this cause and for the punishment of the delinquents for the same deed, etc., and so Barbosa says in his axioms in jurisprudence, axiom 93, No. 1: "Just as from the deed the law takes its rise, so from the deed the law dies."

The series of facts, therefore, is as follows: Guido Franceschini of the city of Arezzo, married Francesca Comparini, for whom, by Pietro and Violante Comparini, there were promised as dowry, among other matters, certain properties subject to a reversionary interest. For they had brought this same Francesca up in their home as their own daughter, and as such they married her. Then, as the aforesaid Pietro and Violante had no other children, they left their home in the City to go and live in the home of Franceschini at Arezzo. There, for some time, they continued to live together in peace; but, as often happens among friends and relatives, contentions and quarrellings arose. On account of these, the aforesaid Pietro and Violante left that home and the city of Arezzo, and went back to Rome. In the meantime, as the flame of this enkindled hatred increased, a lawsuit was instituted as to the dowry once promised, but now denied by Pietro, on the pretext that Francesca was not indeed the daughter of the same Pietro and Violante, but that, after a pretence of her birth had been made, she had been received and brought up by them. And for this reason the said Guido and Francesca could not hope for the inheritance of the properties under the reversionary interest. But although Franceschini gained a favourable judgment on this point, yet when appeal had been made on behalf of Pietro Comparini, Francesca declared that she was ill-treated in the home of her husband by himself, and therefore desired to leave that home. Accordingly with the aid and companionship of Canon Caponsacchi, a relative of the said Franceschini, as is supposed, she ran away. But Franceschini had notice of his wife's flight and, following her up, he overtook her at the tavern of Castelnuovo. There he went to the governor of that place and saw to effecting the capture of his wife and the Canon, as indeed followed. Then the quarrel was continued. A criminal suit was brought in this Tribunal of the Governor of the City; the process of action was arranged, and the counsel on both sides was often heard, both by word of mouth and in writing. At last it was decided that owing to lack of proof of adultery the said Canon should be banished to Civita Vecchia and Francesca should be held in safekeeping. But because the Comparini claimed that the furnishing of food in the safekeeping was the duty of Franceschini, and the latter declared it lay with Comparini, the most Illustrious Lord Governor, having first secured the consent of Abate Paolo, the brother of Guido and his representative in the case, assigned the home of the Comparini to Francesca as a safe and secure prison under security.

While these contests were still pending, both in the civil and criminal cases, as well as in that for divorce brought by Francesca, the wife, this same Franceschini schemed to take vengeance upon the abovesaid. For the execution of this criminal purpose he brought together Domenico Gambassini of Florence, Alessandro Baldeschi of the region of Castello, Francesco Pasquini Antonii of the Marquisate of Monte Acuto, and Blasio Agostinelli of the town of Popolo, and dwelling at the Villa Quarata. He provided them with swords and dagger, prohibited by the Bull of Alexander VIII., and entered the City in company with the aforesaid men. Approaching the home of the Comparini, at the first hour of the night, he secured the opening of the door to himself under the pretence of bringing a letter, sent to Violante by the said Canon Caponsacchi, then staying at Civita Vecchia. As soon as the door of the home was opened by the said Violante, the aforesaid Guido and his companions immediately set upon her. She was cut to pieces with their swords and immediately fell dead. Pietro likewise was cut down and died. Francesca, however, tried to hide under a bed, but was found and wounded in many places. Then, as if God granted her the favour, she was not left utterly dead, though after a few days she also passed away; and thus she could reveal this monstrous crime. As soon as my Lord Governor had notice of this, with most vigilant attention, he saw that the malefactors were pursued beyond the City. Accordingly that same night, they were discovered in the tavern at Merluccia with firearms and illegal swords, still bloody, and were taken back to prison. Then, when a case had been made against them, they were examined as to the crime. Some of them indeed confessed it, and although the others made denial of the management and knowledge of the killing of the entire family, yet against them there are most urgent presumptions of the knowledge and management abovesaid. Furthermore, from the same prosecution the gravest proofs have resulted, such as can be but slightly attacked and controverted by the Defence.

Hence, when this cause may be presented to receive judgment, we believe that no foundation can afford defence for the criminals to escape the capital penalty, so far as they have confessed their crime, or can release those who have denied it from the rigorous torture of the vigil. For what if the Defence do strongly argue the question as to whether a husband who kills an adulterous wife, not immediately and when found in adultery, but after an interval, ought to be excused from the ordinary penalty of the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis? Some authorities indeed give an affirmative opinion for the excuse of the husband, as is to be seen in Giurba. [Citations.] Yet all of these authorities for mitigating the penalty upon a husband who kills his wife after an interval are moved by this reason: That since the sense of injured honour always oppresses the heart, it is difficult to restrain just resentment; for this reason the defence of the honour is said to be immediate when done as quickly as possible.

But there are indeed many other authorities who stand by the negative, asserting that a husband who kills his wife, otherwise than when taken in adultery and in acts of passion, should be punished with the ordinary penalty. [Citations.] Rainaldi [Citation] says this opinion is the truer and the more advantageous to the state, nor should one depart from it in giving judgment. Sanzio says that it was often adjudged in this Senate that a husband was not excused by adultery legitimately proved, if he killed his wife after an interval; and for this reason, because formerly, according to the law of Romulus, a husband could kill his wife, but the Lex Julia permitted him to kill only the vile adulterer, as Matthæus proves. [Citation.]

But in this our present show of fact we believe we are dealing with a matter outside of the difficulty of this proposed question. For the authorities cited above for the contrary opinion hold good, and should be understood to do so, whenever the contention is about a husband who has killed his wife without excess of law and with no concurring circumstances and aggravating qualities, and when moved only by just grievance. But it is otherwise when, as in our case, excess and contempt of law is present and aggravating circumstances and qualities concur. Laurentius Matthæus [Citation] testifies that, according to common practice, such a distinction has been followed out. And after he had affirmed that a husband should be excused from the ordinary penalty and be punished more mildly, he adds: "For these reasons, it is the common practice to weigh the effect of the grievance and to punish only the excess; so that if the suspicion of guile in the manner of killing is present (as he considers any circumstance which tends toward treachery) the penalty is aggravated."

The aggravating circumstances which concur in our case are indeed many, and they are so grave that any one of them is enough reason for imposing the death penalty or for qualifying the crime.

The first of these is the assembling of armed men; for according to decrees of the Governor of this City, the penalty of death and of the confiscation of goods is inflicted upon the one assembling the men; and this is true even if those assembled are but four, as is read in chapter 82 of the same Banns. This circumstance and quality cannot be evaded on the authority of certain jurists who assert that it is permissible for a husband to kill his wife, even by means of men thus brought together. For the said authorities speak, and should be understood, in a case in which a husband may kill with impunity an adulterer and his own wife in the very act of adultery, or in the home of the husband. But it is otherwise if she is killed after an interval, or outside of the home of her husband; according to what is given. [Citation.] Or these matters might hold good if in no other way he could kill the adulterer and his wife. So think all authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband. This cannot be said in our case since Franceschini, while following his wife with firearms, could have taken vengeance at the inn of Castelnuovo. But he had recourse to the judge, and chose the legal way of punishing his wife and the Canon with whom she fled. Or these claims would hold good if he had assembled a smaller number of men, whereby the crime of conventicle would not have been established. And this is the more strongly to be held because we are not concerned with a deed that is unpunishable, and permissible by law, as I have said.

Nor do we believe that the Defence can make a claim that the husband may kill an adulterous wife after an interval with impunity; for all the authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband free him indeed from the ordinary penalty, but not from an extraordinary penalty, as those adduced by us above in § Hinc cum Causa can be seen to hold. If therefore, in our case, the husband committed a crime punishable in itself, how could he assemble a number of men forming a conventicle prohibited by the Banns, without incurring the penalty threatened by them?

The second quality and circumstance is the carrying of arms contrary to the specification of the Constitution of Alexander VIII., which is extended to the whole Ecclesiastical State. Still less can the authority of jurists be alleged in excuse from this threatened penalty, if the husband kill an adulterer and the wife with prohibited arms. For aside from the response given by us in the explanation of the first circumstance of assembling and of conventicle (namely that these authorities hold good and should be understood to apply only in cases permitted by law, and therefore unpunishable), we say still further that they have very little application as regards the arms we are discussing; since the said Constitution prohibits not merely the carrying of such arms, but even their retention, manufacture, or introduction into the City and the Ecclesiastical State, under the penalty of rebellion and criminal insult to the majesty of the law. And so far as we are acquainted with such cases as are permitted by law, the authority of these jurists should be understood to hold good concerning arms, the carrying of which is indeed prohibited, but not the retention and introduction under any pretext whatsoever, even the pretext of justice; as is included in this same Constitution § 1, where we read: "Or to carry them on any pretext whatever, whether of military service or of the execution of justice, and still less to keep them in one's home or elsewhere." And in § Ad haec it prohibits even the introduction of them: "the retention of them at home, in storehouses, and elsewhere, their introduction into the Ecclesiastical State, and their manufacture."

If therefore the retention and introduction of such arms is prohibited, even when on the pretext of executing justice, ridiculous indeed would be Franceschini's pretence that he could approach the City and the home of his wife with such arms to vindicate after an interval this pretended offence of honour. This is the more certain as the crime concerning such arms is grave and of itself is punished with the capital penalty, as we have proved. In this case, when the crime actually follows, if the penalty for carrying the arms is greater than for the crime itself, the penalty for the graver offence is held to apply, and includes the lighter. [Citations.]

The third circumstance is that Franceschini and the aforesaid men committed the murders in the very home and dwelling-place of the Comparini; because homicide is always said to be qualified when it is committed in the home of the one slain; since the home should be a safe refuge for its master, etc. Then also Franceschini entered with changed garb; in which case the murder is said to be committed ex insidiis. [Citations.]

The fourth quality and circumstance is that the said Francesca was under the power of the judge, since the home, as we have said in our narrative of fact, was assigned to her under bond to keep it as a safe and secure prison. And hence she was under the protection of the court. [Citations.] And this is especially true when arguing in favour of the one who is under protection of the court, whatever may be said when arguing to his prejudice. And therefore the law holds that one under the protection of the court cannot be killed under less penalty than the death [of the assassin]. [Citations.]

But all debate seems to cease since it is proven in the process that the said Franceschini approached the said home with his company of men with the thought and intent to kill not merely Francesca, his wife, but also Pietro and Violante. These, as he himself acknowledges, he hated with a deadly hatred, because of the suit they had brought and because they had urged Francesca to poison her husband and her brother-in-law, and had kept his wife in their home so that still further, in the continuation of the adultery, his honour was offended. But aside from this, as we have said above, Francesca was placed in the said home by the authority of the judge with the consent of the brother of this same husband, and so the question does not enter as to whether a husband may lawfully kill the relatives, friends, and servants of his adulterous wife, even if he does suspect them of affording their leave or assent to the wife committing adultery; since the special rights and privileges conceded to the husband should not be multiplied against the wife, and be given greater scope, but rather should be strictly interpreted. [Citation.] This holds good not merely when one is arguing about the prejudice of a third party, but concerning one's sole prejudice. [Citation.] In our very circumstances we read that the permission cannot be passed from person to person. [Citation.] Yet we can more truly declare that such an assertion of adultery on the part of Franceschini is calumniously false; for, in the very face of death, Francesca protested, to the very damnation of her soul, that she had given no offence to her husband's honour. This protestation is the more to be believed since those about to die are not presumed to be unmindful of their eternal salvation. [Citation.]

The other causes adduced by Franceschini himself, so far as they are true, can indeed prove hatred and enmity existing between himself and the couple, which would tend in that direction and so would serve to prove in him a cause for their premeditated murder. But this is not sufficient to excuse him from the ordinary penalty of death, which premeditated homicide altogether demands. [Citations.] And it is for this reason, because the laws prohibit private vengeance (that is, vengeance which those without public office usurp to themselves because of their hatred, by killing or otherwise injuring men). [Citations.] Raynaldus affirms that in premeditated murder the ordinary penalty is inflicted not merely upon the slayer himself, but also upon all others who aid and give help, or concur in committing the murder by their help or council. [Citations.]

Francesco Gambi, Procurator General of the Fisc and of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber.

[File-title of Pamphlet 6.]

By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor in Criminal Cases:

ROMAN MURDER-CASE, with qualifying circumstance.

For the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini and his Associates.

Memorial of the law in the case by the Advocate of the Fisc.

At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, 1698.

ROMANA HOMICIDII CUM QUALITATE

[Pamphlet 6.]

Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lord Governor:

Since the chief defence of Count Franceschini, the Accused, as we have heard, consists in the pretended plea of injured honour, by which he was moved to crime, it is the office of the Fisc to disclose the lack of foundation for this plea, in order that this atrocious and enormous crime may be punished with the due penalty.

Therefore I assume that we ought to examine the foundations on which the asserted plea of injured honour may rest; namely the flight of the unfortunate wife from the home of her husband in company with Canon Caponsacchi, with whom she was taken at the inn of Castelnuovo, and the pretended love-letters which were put forward in the prosecution of Pompilia for the said flight and departure. The pretended dishonesty of the wife is drawn from these two; but along with them other proofs were brought together in the said prosecution; the latter, however, are either altogether stupid or equivocal, or else unproven. This may be inferred from the dismission of the said Francesca, his wife, merely with the precaution of keeping her home as a prison and of the Canon with a three years' banishment to Civita Vecchia. Such action shows that in this same prosecution there was found by the Fisc no legitimate proof of dishonesty and of the pretended violation of conjugal faith, which the husband had charged against her.

And indeed, from the defences then made and even from the trial itself, a very just cause has clearly appeared, which forced the luckless girl to flee from the home of her husband and to go back to her own home, there to live safely and quietly with her parents. Notorious indeed are the altercations which, on account of the parsimony of the Franceschini home, straightway arose between the parents of the wretched girl on the one hand, and the Accused, his mother, and his brothers on the other hand. The former in vain bewailed the fact that they had been deceived by the show of no small opulence, on account of the false statement of an annual income of 1700 scudi, which was afterward shown to have no existence. Indeed, while they stayed in the home of the accused husband in Arezzo, they were so badly treated by himself and his relatives that after a few months they were obliged to leave it and return to the City. During the whole time they lived there, contentions and reproaches throve continually among them. The Comparini were indeed excited with just indignation by the deception they had suffered. This is evident from the letters of Abate Paolo Franceschini, which presuppose these troubles and which were considered for the Defence by the Procurator of the Poor. These prove that hostility of mind had even then been conceived against the unfortunate parents, especially the one written March 6, where we read: "I write again to you that I do not wish to imitate him in his manner of writing, not being of his mind to sow broadcast in letters such words as would merit response by deeds and not by words. And these are so offensive that I have kept them for his reproof and mortification." And further on he says: "So that if you give us trouble, which I will never believe, you yourself will not be exempt therefrom." But sufficient proof results from the letters, as the following advise. [Citations.]

And although these letters do not make clear the nature of their altercations, yet some of them more than prove the reproaches had so increased that their bitterness grew into hatred as is evident from the letter of February 12, 1694, where we read: "But hearing from the one side or other that the bitterness between them, not to say the hatred, is increasing." It would be all too easy for the Accused and the Abate, his brother, to prove, by showing letters written to him, that the reproaches were unjust and were occasioned by the Comparini themselves. This is apparent from the tenor of the said letter, where we read: "Because I feel that the enemy of God has put strife among them, it is improper that I should fulfil my duty toward you of a reply." But since the Franceschini did not show such letters, the presumptive truth of these same complaints and of this cause of complaint and altercation is strongly against the ones thus concealing them. In such circumstances the Roman court thus affirmed. [Citations.]

But the truth of the charge of ill-treatment toward the parents, whom he was obliged by the dowry contract to provide with food, is also to be drawn from the deposition of a servant, as given in the Summary, No. 1. And since this would excite the pity of any who read, it becomes all the clearer that, by such very ill-treatment of her parents, the mind of the wretched wife was greatly exasperated; for she kept grieving in vain at seeing them thus troubled; yes, and she was even prohibited from grieving.

And any one may know that the return of her parents to the City would indeed disturb with a considerable and very just grief this wretched child who was not more than fifteen years old. For she was destitute of all aid, and was left exposed to her husband's severity, because of which she daily feared that she was in peril of her life. In vain did she have recourse to the Reverend Bishop and to the Governor, Summary, No. 2. In vain was the interposition of certain noblemen tried; which had proved utterly useless, as is evident from the letter of March 6, where we read: "But what remedy can I give you, when so many gentlemen friendly to both parties have interfered to settle the troubles and it has not turned out well?" She might indeed think that no other remedy was left her than to flee from the abode of her husband and to seek again her father's home. As therefore she fled to escape deadly peril, her flight can afford no proof of dishonesty nor of the violation of conjugal faith; for it is attributable to a lawful rather than to a criminal cause. [Citations.]

But there was another urgent cause for her eagerly desiring to seek her father's hearth, namely the ill-health of her father. She speaks of this in the letter which mentioned that she cannot look for the company of Gregorio Guillichini, and that this task had to be remitted to the Canon [Caponsacchi]. Hence we can well infer that she was arranging for the flight for legitimate reasons.

No reliance whatever can be placed in the letter written by this same wife to Abate Franceschini. In that she thanks him for having joined her in marriage with the Accused, his brother. And she also acknowledges therein that, since the departure of her parents, she was living a life of utter tranquillity; because their evil persuasion, which was alienating her from her husband, had ceased. She also reveals a very base plan that had been proposed to her, namely, to destroy the entire household. Now the wife in her sworn statement frankly confesses that she wrote this letter to appease her husband, and that he had marked the characters, which she had afterwards traced with a pen. This statement is found in an extract from her sworn testimony as given in our Summary, No. 3. And a mere reading of the said letter so thrills one with horror that it is incredible that the luckless girl could have written such matters to the injury and detraction of her own parents, unless she had been compelled thereto by fear of her husband. For this reason the same letter is given in our Summary, No. 4.

But even just ground of fear, because of which the luckless girl was moved to flee, has come to light, namely, the lawsuit brought by her father against the Accused for the nullification of the dowry contract. This contract had been made on false grounds; for Pietro had believed that he was promising the dowry to his own daughter, but then, from a confession made by the mother, he had found out that she was none such and that Violante had made pretence of giving birth to the child for the purpose of deceiving her husband and barring his creditors. Since Pietro had assigned all his property as dowry (and indeed it was of considerable value when we consider the quality of the persons concerned) he soon raised a dispute about it. And we may well fear that very grave and even deadly hatred arose therefrom. Thereby the conjugal peace, which had been disturbed by long-continued altercation, was utterly destroyed by recrudescent hatred. For a lawsuit as to a considerable amount of money, much more as to an entire property, would produce this effect, as daily experience well teaches us and as Grammaticus and others assert. [Citations.]

Such just fear should be well considered by a prudent judge, who will take into account the circumstance of the persons and of the time. [Citation.] In our case it may be absolutely affirmed that these matters should be so considered, inasmuch as not merely a girl of tender age (as was the unfortunate wife, who was destitute of all aid and exposed to the severity of the husband, who had sought her life with a pistol and had threatened her with death on trivial suspicions), but even a woman of greatest fortitude would be unable to bear being exposed to such constant risk of her life and would see the necessity of taking care of herself. And whatever the cause, even if it were merely supposititious, it would be enough to excuse her according to the text. [Citations.] And Canon Rainaldi holds, that it is enough if one see the signs or acts of manifest desire, or preparations thereto. How much more excusable and how worthy of pity should Francesca be considered, since she had such an urgent and such a well-verified cause for fleeing? Mogolon holds that the mere sight of arms, even though the one having them does not use them nor unsheathe them, is just cause for fear.

Nor can presumption of dishonour and of violated conjugal faith arise from the company of Canon Caponsacchi, with whom she fled, and for which flight he was condemned to three years' banishment in Civita Vecchia. For the luckless girl was destitute of all aid, and the demands of her age, of her sex, and of her station in life, did not admit of her undertaking so perilous a journey either alone, or in company with any baseborn woman. For then, in escaping dangers at home, she might incautiously expose herself to even graver perils; as might have happened if while alone she had been overtaken by her husband in the journey. Nor could she find any safer companion than this very Canon, who was bound by friendship to the Canon Conti. And the latter, who was a familiar friend and blood-relative of the Accused, although he had great pity upon her condition, judged it safer for her to flee with Caponsacchi, whom he believed to be apt and far-seeing to bring about the desired end. Otherwise she would have undertaken this flight with even greater risk. Therefore this necessary and prudent choice of the lesser evil excludes all suspicion of pretended dishonour. [Citations.]

This suspicion is also excluded by the manner in which the flight was put into effect, namely in hurrying to the City by the direct route and with the greatest possible speed. For if the unfortunate girl had fled for the purpose of satisfying her lust with the same lover, the Canon Caponsacchi (as was charged elsewhere and as is repeated now even more bitterly to prove the plea of injured honour), she would either have delayed somewhere out of the public highways, where she could not be seized by the Accused, or she would not have approached the City with such great speed. She would have done neither of these, unless she were making the journey for the purpose of seeking again her father's hearth, where she hoped to find security for her life and her honour. It would be far too imprudent a plan for a lover to take a wife from the home of her husband to some other place where he could not possibly satisfy his lust. This improbability alone would be enough to prove the truth of the cause given by the wife in her affidavit—namely, that she had fled to avoid the deadly peril in which she feared she was placed, and that she might return to her father's hearth. The Canon also gave her his aid and companionship out of mere pity, and her honour was kept entirely untouched. The probabilities are always to be very much observed in arguing about a crime, or in excluding it, as the following hold. [Citations.]

Still less firmly established is the other ground for the asserted plea of injured honour, which has been offered elsewhere by the Accused on the basis of the asserted love-letters. These letters, it was pretended, had been written in part by that most wretched girl to the Canon, and in part by the Canon himself. All these, it was claimed, had been found in the privy of the inn at Castelnuovo, where they were said to have been cast for the purpose of hiding them. Response was indeed then given by the Procurator of the Poor that the identity of the handwriting was unproved and uncertain; for the letters did not show to whom they were directed. And these responses were indeed admitted, since no punishment was inflicted upon Francesca, and she was simply dismissed with the precaution of keeping her home as a prison. And even though these letters, when we investigate their hearing, seem to give proof of excessive goodwill, yet Francesca could have made pretence of this for the purpose of winning over the Canon, who was reluctant (as she herself acknowledges in her affidavit), to afford her aid by giving her his company back to the City in the execution of her premeditated flight. It is indeed quite evident that the letters were prepared for this purpose. (Summary, No. 5.) And therefore this wretched girl, who was destitute of all aid and was placed in imminent risk of her life, should be judged worthy of all pity, if with gentle and even with loving words she tried to entice the Canon, whom she believed was well suited to afford her aid. Nor can stronger proof of violated modesty be drawn from these letters written for the purpose of the flight than from the flight itself. Nor is it a new thing for the most chaste of women to use similar arts sometimes for quite permissible ends. In the sacred Scriptures we read that Judith did so to deceive Holofernes, for the purpose of freeing her country. This luckless girl could therefore do so without any mark of dishonour, for the purpose of escaping deadly peril.

We may speak still further of her confidence in her own continence as well as in the integrity of the Canon. Concerning this, a certain witness, examined by the Fisc in the said prosecution at the instance of Count Guido, who was then present, testifies to hearing from Gregorio Guillichini (likewise a relative of the Accused) as follows: "Signor Gregorio then added that the Signor Canon was going there for a good reason, and that therefore Signora Francesca had desired to go to Rome. And he told me also that no ill could arise from it, because there was not the slightest sin between them." The deposition of this witness, which is directly contrary to the party who had brought her into court, fully proves our point as the following hold. [Citations.] And therefore, since the luckless girl can be suspected of no evil from her association with Canon Caponsacchi, and since she had no other help more suitable for carrying out her plan, her dealings with him by letter ought to be excused as ordered to this end, even though we may read certain loving expressions in them. The latter, indeed, should be considered rather as courtesies adapted to winning his goodwill, and they should always be interpreted according to the thought of the one proffering them. [Citations.]

Still further, there is added the participation of the Canon Conti, a nobleman and a relative of the Accused, who forwarded the attempt. It is incredible that he would have been willing to plot against the honour of Guido, but he would merely wish to snatch that wretched girl from imminent death because of his pity of her. And such participation is made clearly evident from the very letters which it is pretended were written by Caponsacchi.

Of lighter weight still are the other proofs of pretended dishonesty; [first] the approach of the Canon to the home of the Accused at night time, for the purpose of speaking with the wife who was slain; [secondly] the kissing on the journey to Rome, concerning which Francesco Giovanni Rossi, driver of the carriage (commonly called calesse) bears witness; and [third] the pretended sleeping together in the same bed at the inn of Castelnuovo. As regards the first of these three, there is defect of proof; for it rests upon the word of a single witness only, Maria Margherita Contenti, and she endures the most relevant exception of being a public harlot, and so she alone can prove nothing. [Citations.] And since such approaching of the house was ordered to the permissible end of removing the wretched girl from the imminent peril of death, by taking her back to her father's house, it cannot be brought as a proof of illicit commerce. For the mere possibility that it was done for this purpose is enough to oblige us to take it in good part, according to the text. [Citations.]

This is especially so since the very witness who swears to this approach of the home states, by hearsay from the said Gregorio Guillichini, that it was to a good end, and that no sin was taking place between the Canon and the wife who is now slain. And, as Guillichini was better informed, and was indeed a friend and, as I understand, a relative of the Accused, this excludes all suspicion to the contrary. With this testimony another deposition seems to agree, namely, that of the Canon Franceschini, brother of the Accused, who when questioned as to whether he knew if any intimacy had existed between Canon Caponsacchi and Francesca, replied: "This we never knew of beforehand; but after the criminal flight the whole town said that there must surely have passed some correspondence between them." His ignorance quite excludes and renders improbable any furtive and illicit approach to the home by the Canon Caponsacchi. For if the Accused had indeed threatened to kill his wife on account of unjust suspicion of Caponsacchi, we may well believe that Guido himself, his brother, and all the household would have kept guard for her safe keeping with all their might. And so, the said approach to the home, if it had been frequent (as is alleged), or if it had been for an ill end, would have been observed by them.

[Secondly] under this same defect of proof lies the pretended kissing of each other on the journey. As to this matter only a single witness testifies, whose excessive animus is shown by his assertion, for he asserts that he saw this at night; nor does he give any reason for his seeing it, such as that the moon was shining, or that he could see because some artificial light was dispelling the gloom. As no such reason is given, he deserves no credence, as the following observe. [Citations.] Another very great improbability is added thereto—namely, that while he was driving the carriage with such velocity that it rather seemed to fly than advance swiftly, he could not have looked back to see such mutual kissing. This improbability likewise takes away from him all right to belief, according to what the following hold. [Citations.]

But the assertion of that most wretched girl herself is also well suited to exclude all suspicion of her pretended unchastity. This was made by her after she had suffered many severe wounds in the very face of death itself, at the demand of the priests and other persons ministering to her. For, according to their attestation, she asserted that she had never sinned against her conjugal faith and had always conducted herself with all chastity and shame: "We were present and assisted at the last illness from which Francesca Pompilia, wife of Guido Franceschini, died. She was often asked by her confessors and other persons whether she had committed any offence against the said Guido, her husband, whereby she might have given him occasion to maltreat her in such a manner as to cause her death. And she always responded that she had never committed any offence, but had always lived with all chastity and modesty." And Fra Celestino Angelo of St. Anna, of the order of barefooted Augustinians, in his testimony, bears even more exact witness to this constant assertion of her innocence, where he writes: "She always said, 'May God pardon him in heaven, as I pardon him on earth, but as for the sin for which they have slain me, I am utterly innocent': in proof whereof she said that God should not pardon her that sin, because she had never committed it." An assertion like this, indeed, given in the very face of death, deserves all credence, since no one is believed to lie at such a time, as the following assert. [Citations.] Menocchius speaks in these very circumstances of one suspected of heresy, saying that such suspicion is removed if in the hour of death the accused say and protest that he had lived and wished to die and to trust according to what is pleasing to the Sacred Roman Church, etc. [Citation.] And Decianus cites the opinion of Albericus, who declares that by means of an assertion of this kind, made before the Cardinals, the memory of Pope Boniface had been defended, and that this very Albericus had in this way defended Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan.

And this is more especially true since all the said witnesses agree that this most wretched girl died with the highest edification of the bystanders, and that she had always shown the deeds of Christian perfection, as we find in the said attestations, where we read: "And from having seen her die the death of a saint." And there is another statement of the said Father Celestino Angelo, which infers the innocence of her past life from her conduct just before death. All these matters are given in our Summary, No. 6.

But, however rightly the Accused might draw some suspicion of his wife's dishonesty from her flight and from these letters, the tenor of which seems to prove them love-letters (which suspicion could excite due anger), yet this would not make excusable such truculent vengeance, taken after so great an interval. For this vengeance was taken, not merely upon his most wretched wife, but also upon her parents, who were entirely off their guard and quite undeserving of such a fate. And these murders were attended with such grave circumstances, aggravating the crime, that he would have to be punished with death even if he had not confessed the murders. For although just anger because of violated conjugal faith usually moderates the penalty for a husband killing his adulterous wife, yet one can no longer argue for total impunity after an opportunity to take vengeance on the adulterer and adulteress has been thrown away. [Citations.]

But an especial and indispensable requisite is that the wife be taken in adultery, according to the text. [Citation.] "For thus it wishes this power to lie with the father, if he take his daughter in her very sin." Labeo also approves this, and Pomponius writes that she may be killed when taken in very licentiousness, and this is what Solon and Draco say. [Citations.] Much more does this hold good in the case of a husband, whose wrath may be kindled much more easily against a wife by sinister and unjust suspicion conceived about her. For the husband is not always accustomed to take good counsel for the wife, which the law presumes that the father does by natural instinct, etc.; and it excuses the father only when he kills his daughter along with her defiler, or inflicts wounds unhesitatingly upon her.

And this is so true that it is not enough if the wife be found only in acts that are remote from, or merely preparatory to adultery, as authorities commonly affirm. [Citations.] John Teitops holds thus, and I think it well to quote his words, since the Judges may not have him at hand, and he thus explains the words of the said text: "Therefore they argue that acts preparatory to adultery do not suffice, but the obscene commingling of limbs is required." And after citing his authorities, he adds: "And this is more clearly evident from the words of Solon as given by Lucian, the Eunuch," where we read: "Unless they lie who say that he was taken in adultery." And then he criticises the opinion of Accursius, who asserts that acts preparatory for adultery are enough. And in the second paragraph after this decision is given he asserts that his opinion should be understood to be concerning immediate preparations, and he so explains his decision, where he says: "From the taking of the adulterer alone and naked with her alone and naked, and lying in the same bed, violent and certain suspicion of adultery arises, wherefrom the sentence of divorce may be granted."

But the laws adduced (at letters I & J) show that strong suspicion does not indeed suffice. For this sort of discovery is the true taking in the act of adultery. And from a civil case under the said letter, one argues weakly for proof in a criminal cause. For no one can be condemned, much less killed, on suspicions alone in the absence of law. And violent suspicion is not indubitable ground for proof, such as is required in criminal cases. But indeed such suspicion is fallacious, because persons might be found to act thus for the purpose of committing adultery, and yet not actually to have committed the adultery, as Gravetta and others say.

The Accused might indeed have contended merely for the tempering of the penalty if he had killed his fugitive wife in the act of taking her at the inn of Castelnuovo in company with Canon Caponsacchi. But when he neglected to take vengeance with his own hand and preferred to take it by law, he could not then kill her after an interval. This is according to the text [Citation], which affirms that one can put off the vengeance from day to day. [Citations.] Farinacci asserts that it was so held in practice, lest men should be given the opportunity of avenging their own wrongs. And he confutes Bertazzolus, who places on the same footing a case of taking in adultery, and says that the wife may be convicted of it provided that there be no doubt of it. Nor may the suspicion of the husband, which gave a strong ground for the difference, be unjust or too ready. Because just grievance, exciting a wrath which usually disturbs the mind of the husband, is verified by the actual taking of the wife in adultery, or in acts very near to it and not after an interval, although his suspicion may be very strong. And so the laws which excuse a husband because of just and sudden anger cannot be extended to cover vengeance taken after an interval. For in the latter case neither the impetuosity nor the suddenness of the anger is proved, but the murder is said to be committed in cold blood. But if for the purpose of restraining the impetus of raging anger, lest the husband take vengeance on his own authority, he is not excused from the penalty of the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis, provided he kill his wife after an interval, how much less excusable will he be if, after choosing the way of public vengeance by imprisoning his wife and her pretended lover, he shall, after a long intervening time, slaughter her and her parents so brutally?

It should be added, for increasing his penalty, that as regards the unfortunate parents there was no just cause for killing them unless he wishes to consider as such the lawsuit which they brought for the nullification of the dowry contract because of the detection of her pretended birth. But this cause rather increases the offence to the most atrocious crime of læsa majestas, because of the utter security which the Pontifical Majesty wishes to afford to all litigants in the City. This point is found in the well-known decree of Alexander VI. where we read: "The inhumanity and savagery which thirsts for the death of others is horrible and detestable," and in the end we read: "In offence of the jurisdiction of his Divine Majesty, and to the injury of the Apostolic Authority." And, "They incur ipso facto the sentence of the crime of læsa majestas." And a little later: "And they may always be distrusted in all their good deeds by every one, and may be held as banditti and as infamous and unfit."

Very worthy of consideration, also, is that other aggravation of this inhuman slaughter, namely, that it was committed in their own home, which ought to be for each person the safest of refuges, according to the text. [Citations.] And Cicero elegantly says: "What is more sacred, what is more guarded by all religious feeling, than the home of each of our Citizens! Here are our altars, here are our hearths, here are our household gods, and here the sacred ceremonies of our religion are contained. This refuge is so sacred to all that it would be base for any one to be snatched hence." Much more is this true as regards the wretched wife, who was held in that place as a prison, with the approval also of the Abate Franceschini. And hence the public safekeeping may be said to be violated thereby, and the majesty of the Prince wounded, since the same reasoning is observed as regards a true and formal prison, and a prison assigned by the Prince, as the following assert. [Citations.]

Finally, we should also consider the aggravation of "prohibited arms," with which the crime was committed. This of itself demands the death penalty, even though the principal crime should otherwise be punished more mildly, as Sanfelicius advises, stating that it was so adjudged. [Citation.]

Giovanni Battista Bottini, Advocate of the Fisc and of the Apostolic Chamber.

[File-title of Pamphlet 7.]

By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor of the City in Criminal Cases:

ROMAN MURDER-CASE.

For Count Guido Franceschini and his Associates, Prisoners.

Summary.

At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, 1698.

SUMMARY

[PAMPHLET 7.]

No. 1.—Letter of the Honourable Marzi-Medici, Governor of Arezzo.

My most Illustrious and Dearly Beloved Master:

Your favoured letter of the twenty-fourth of last month has reached me, and I am exceedingly sorry for the uneasiness in which you hint you are placed by the maledictions which Signor Pietro Comparini and his wife have disseminated throughout Rome, concerning the ill-treatment they say they suffered in your home while staying in Arezzo. As your letter questions me for true information, I answer with all frankness, that both among the noble connection and in Count Guido's home they were treated with all respect and decorum. The cause of the first disturbance which sprang up between them and your mother and brothers was that Signora Violante, a few days after her arrival, presumed to domineer over the house and to keep the keys of everything, and in fact to turn out of house and home Signora Beatrice, your mother. With good reason, neither of the brothers was willing to consent thereto, and this gave occasion for the first insults and domestic broils. These afterwards increased when they saw that Signor Pietro had given over the company and conversation of the best people of the city, and had struck up acquaintance with the most vulgar. And with them he began to frequent daily all the taverns here. This cast discredit upon him, and was little for the good name of the Franceschini. Of much greater scandal were the many flights and petitions made by Guido's wife, their daughter, to Monsignor the Bishop. These were made for no other reason than that neither she nor her parents wished to stay any longer in Arezzo, but desired to return to Rome. When she had been rebuked by that most prudent Prelate, he always sent her home in his carriage. It is true that ever since the Comparini left this City until the present time the Signora has conducted herself with much modesty and prudence. From this fact every one infers that the poor child was led to such excesses by her parents, as she herself declares to everybody. Now she detests even the memory of them. Therefore, she is getting back into the good opinion of every one, and especially of those ladies of the city who had ceased having anything to do with her. Finally, these same Comparini had taken away all her jewellery from the Signora, which I forced them to restore. Altogether, such and so great are the scandals to which they have given rise before the whole city in the lapse of the few months they have stayed here, that I write you only a few of them. I assure you that with them your brothers have had the patience of martyrs. Accordingly when I saw that they had become incorrigible, and were the talk of the town, and that they might force your brothers to commit some excess against them, for the maintenance of good discipline, I availed myself of the authority vested in me by His Serene Highness, and threatened them with prison and punishment unless they behaved themselves. After these threats, which they evidently merited and which might have overtaken them, they decided to go to Rome, as they did a little later, leaving behind them in this city a very bad reputation.

As for the rest, there is now in your home an utter quietude, and the Signora lives with exemplary prudence, detesting the ill example she had shown the ladies of this city, and she confesses freely that it was so commanded by her parents. In my judgment, it is the hand of God that has freed your family from such turbid heads. This is all I can here put down, out of much else there is to say about it. Therefore rest at ease, and believe me that the discredit has been entirely their own. I need only sign myself, with all my heart, to your most illustrious self,

Your most devoted and obliged servant,

Vincenzo Marzi-Medici.

Arezzo, August 2, 1694.

To Signor Abate Paolo Franceschini, Rome.

No. 2.—Deposition of Francesca.

I will tell your Excellency why I have fled from the home of my husband. Here in Rome, three years ago, I was married by my father and mother to the said Franceschini, and after I was engaged to him he stayed here in Rome for two months without consummating the marriage. Then with my father and my mother I was taken by my husband to Arezzo, because in the marriage contract it was agreed that my father and mother should go and live in Arezzo, as they did. After they had remained there four months, they departed and returned to Rome, because of the ill-treatment they suffered, at the hands not only of my husband, but of the others in his house.

I was left behind in Arezzo, and when about a year had passed after the consummation of the marriage, as I did not become pregnant my husband and my mother-in-law Beatrice began to turn against me, because I had no children. He said that because of me their house would die out and that he could not hope for an heir by me after a while; for by chance he had heard my father say, that during a girlhood sickness certain seeds had been given to me as medicine, which possibly hindered me from having children. For that reason I came to be continually mistreated by my husband and mother-in-law, though I answered that I was not to blame for that. Yet they continued always to threaten my life, and, without any real occasion, they sought every pretext to maltreat me.

Then my husband began to be jealous of me, and forbade me to show my face at the window. And to remove that occasion of jealousy I never showed my face save when it was absolutely necessary. So one day, while we were on the loggia, he said to me that I was staying up there to make love, without telling me with whom. I replied that these were mere pretexts, and that from that place one could see only the street, without looking into the windows of the houses; for the loggia was entirely on the roof.

A.

She tells of her husband's threats because of her ardour for her lover.

And then because the Canon Caponsacchi, with other young men of the place, used to pass before our house and stop to talk with certain hussies, who were standing there in front, my husband began to fume with anger at me because the said Canon kept passing there as above, although I was not at all to blame. His suspicion increased all the more because, while we were in a great crowd at the play one evening, Canon Conti, the brother of the husband of my sister-in-law, threw me some confetti. My husband, who was near me, took offence at it—not against Conti, but against Caponsacchi, who was sitting by the side of the said Conti. Then because Conti frequented our house, as a relative, my husband took offence at him likewise; and this so much so that I, being aware of it, retired to my room whenever he came to our house, that I might not have to take even more trouble; but my husband was not thereby appeased, but said that I did this as a trick, and that his suspicions of me were not removed. He began anew to torment me so, on account of Caponsacchi, that I was reduced to desperation and did not know what to say. Then to remove that occasion for his ill-treatment, I spoke to the said Caponsacchi one day as he was passing our house and begged him not to pass that way, that he might relieve me from all the distresses I suffered at the hands of my husband on that account. He replied that he did not know whence my husband had drawn such a suspicion, as he used to pass along there on other affairs, and that, in short, Guido could not stop his passing along the street. And although he promised me not to pass along there, he continued to do so. But I did not show my face at the window. Yet with all this my husband was not appeased, but continued to maltreat me and to threaten my life, and he said that he wished to kill me.