The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Yellow Book, by Anonymous
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Old Yellow Book
Source of Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book
Author: Anonymous
Editor: Charles W. Hodell
Release Date: December 6, 2011 [EBook #38238]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD YELLOW BOOK ***
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Melissa McDaniel and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's Note:
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. Inconsistent
hyphenation and spelling in the original document have been
preserved.
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by =equal
signs=.
EVERYMAN'S LIBRARY
EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS
POETRY AND
THE DRAMA
THE OLD YELLOW BOOK
BEING A SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME TO
"THE RING AND THE BOOK"
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY
CHARLES W. HODELL
THIS IS NO. 503 OF _EVERYMAN'S
LIBRARY_. THE PUBLISHERS WILL
BE PLEASED TO SEND FREELY TO ALL
APPLICANTS A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED
AND PROJECTED VOLUMES, ARRANGED
UNDER THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
TRAVEL * SCIENCE * FICTION
THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
HISTORY * CLASSICAL
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ESSAYS * ORATORY
POETRY & DRAMA
BIOGRAPHY
REFERENCE
ROMANCE
IN FOUR STYLES OF BINDING: CLOTH,
FLAT BACK, COLOURED TOP; LEATHER,
ROUND CORNERS, GILT TOP; LIBRARY
BINDING IN CLOTH, & QUARTER PIGSKIN
LONDON: J. M. DENT & SONS, LTD.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
POETS
ARE THE
TRUMPETS
WHICH SING
TO BATTLE ...
POETS
ARE THE
UNACKNOWLEDGED
LEGISLATORS
OF THE
WORLD
SHELLEY
THE OLD YELLOW BOOK:
Source of Robert Browning's
THE RING & THE BOOK
London & Toronto
J. M. DENT & SONS
LTD. NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON & CO
FIRST ISSUE OF THIS EDITION 1911
REPRINTED 1917
PUBLISHERS' NOTE
Some years before his death Browning promised to leave the _Old Yellow
Book_, together with other books and manuscripts, to Balliol College,
Oxford, and his son carried out the promise soon after the poet's
decease. The Carnegie Institution of Washington, D. C., has reproduced
the entire book in photo-facsimile, with translation and editing by
Charles W. Hodell. The Publishers gratefully acknowledge the kindness
and generosity of the Institution in allowing the translation of the
_Yellow Book_ to be reproduced in the present volume. They have also
to acknowledge their indebtedness to Professor Hodell for the courtesy
he has shown, and the great help he has given in editing these
volumes. Hitherto the work has been practically inaccessible to
British readers, and in its new dress it is hoped it will be found
invaluable in interpreting the greatest work of Robert Browning.
INTRODUCTION
The _Old Yellow Book_ is a soiled and bloody page from the criminal
annals of Rome two centuries ago, saved apparently by mere chance for
the one great artist of modern literature who could best use it, and
who has raised this record of a forgotten crime to a permanent place
in that ideal world of man's creation where Caponsacchi and Pompilia
have joined the company of Paolo and Francesca, of the Red Cross
Knight, of Imogen, of Marguerite and Faust, and of Don Quixote.
One June day of 1860, Robert Browning passed from the Casa Guidi home
to enjoy the busy life of Florence. There, "pushed by the hand ever
above my shoulder," he entered the Piazza of San Lorenzo:
crammed with booths,
Buzzing and blaze, noontide and market-time.
He had brought home from such wanderings many a rare old tapestry, or
picture, or carving from the long artistic past of the city. This day
his eye caught the soiled, vellum-covered volume, crowded between its
insignificant neighbours. "One glance at the lettered back," declares
the poet, "and Stall! a lira made it mine." All the way home and all
day long, he pored over these pages, until by nightfall he had so
mastered the facts of the case that the whole tragedy lay plain before
his mind's eye.
The book led him, and leads us, back to the morning of January 3,
1698, when all Rome was astir with the sensation of a brutal
assassination. The aged Comparini, cut to pieces in their own home in
the very heart of Rome on the evening before by a band of assassins,
were now exposed to the view of an excited mob of the curious and
idle. Pompilia, desperately wounded, lay a-dying. A police captain and
posse were in pursuit of the criminals, one of whom was a nobleman who
had held office in the household of one of the great cardinals. Toward
night the criminals were brought back to the city, and were followed
through the streets to the prison doors by a great throng.
Just seven weeks later and again Rome was throbbing with excitement.
Unwonted crowds were pressing into the Piazza del Popolo, where
gallows and scaffold had been prepared. At last, up the Corso filed
the Brotherhood of Death with their black gowns and great cross, and
behind them, in separate carts, the five criminals. In the midst of a
sea of upturned faces Guido and his fellows met their end, and the
curtain fell.
The _Old Yellow Book_ is the record of the court procedure of those
seven intervening weeks, and shows us the whole legal battle fought to
save Guido, while Rome looked on with the fascinated interest which
has always attended the great murder trials. It includes the lawyers'
arguments for and against the accused, together with a part of the
evidence brought into court, and some additional miscellaneous data on
the case. All this had evidently been assembled by the Florentine
lawyer, Cencini, to whom certain letters included are addressed. He
seems to have been interested in the case as a precedent on an
important and much disputed point of law, "whether and when a husband
may kill an adulterous wife." Cencini may also have had some
professional relation with the Franceschini family at Arezzo. At any
rate, he set the material in order, provided title-page and index, and
a transcript of the record in a criminal case against Pompilia in the
Tuscan courts (pp. 5-7), and bound it securely in the vellum cover
which conveyed it to the poet's hands more than a century and a half
later.
Whatever meaning this volume may have as a legal precedent, it had for
Browning, and has for the lay reader, a deep human interest as the
incomplete record of a sordid series of intrigues for certain
properties, ending at last in a fearful crime.
Guido Franceschini, scion of a noble but impoverished Tuscan family,
had sought his fortunes in Rome, and had attained a secretaryship in
the household of Cardinal Lauria. His brother, the Abate Paolo, a
shrewd and effective man, rose much higher, at last attaining
important office among the Knights of St. John. Guido, less astute and
less ingratiating, reached middle life with but scant success, and at
last was left unprovided. With the assistance of Abate Paolo, he
planned to recoup his fortunes by a bourgeois marriage. Though past
forty years of age and of unattractive appearance, he won, by his noble
name and subtle intrigue and falsification, the thirteen-year-old
daughter of the Comparini, of the well-to-do middle class of Rome.
After the marriage in December 1693, Pompilia and her parents
accompanied Guido back to Arezzo, where, in the ruinous Franceschini
_palazzo_, the Comparini had ample opportunity to repent their folly.
Bitter contentions soon arose, and at last the Comparini fled from the
brutalities of their son-in-law, and returned to Rome. There they
published broadcast the sordid poverty and the ignoble brutality of
their persecutors, probably printing and circulating the affidavit of
the servant (pp. 49-53). Guido seems to have retorted by circulating
the forged letter from Pompilia (pp. 56, 57). But they struck a more
deadly blow at the pride of the Franceschini when they revealed that
Pompilia was not their own child, but was of ignominious parentage.
And in the spring of 1694 they brought suit before Judge Tomati for
the recovery of the dowry monies paid to Franceschini--a bitter
humiliation to the greedy poverty of the Franceschini. It must have
been a scandalous suit, bringing dishonour to both parties as their
domestic difficulties were exposed to the throngs of the curious. In
this trial were adduced the letters of the governor (pp. 89, 90) and
of the Bishop of Arezzo (p. 99). The Comparini lost their suit, but
appealed to the Rota, and their case was pending for several years,
during which time they may have baited the Franceschini with spiteful
scandals.
In the meantime, the child-wife, Pompilia, was left in desperate
plight--despised and hated by her husband's family. Her situation grew
intolerable. Guido had evidently determined to rid himself of her
without relaxing his grip on her property. His brutalities were
systematic and cunning. At last she was driven to flee for her life,
and on April 29, 1697, made her escape under the protection of
Caponsacchi, a gallant young priest. It was a desperate step, gravely
reprehensible in the eyes of the world. The fugitives pressed toward
Rome, but Guido overtook them at Castelnuovo, fifteen miles short of
their destination, and had them arrested.
At Rome, criminal charges of flight and adultery were brought against
them. This Process of Flight, as it is repeatedly called in the
_Yellow Book_, continued all through the summer. It was for their
defence in this case that Pompilia and Caponsacchi made their
affidavits (pp. 90 and 95), giving their motives for the flight. At
the same time Guido urged the evidence of the love-letters (pp.
99-106), which he claimed to have found at the time of the arrest of
the fugitives. In September, judgment was rendered against
Caponsacchi--relegation for three years to Civita Vecchia--a
punishment commensurate with indiscretion rather than with crime.
Pompilia was unsentenced, but was retained for a month in safekeeping
in the nunnery delle Scalette, and was then permitted to return to the
home of her foster-parents, the Comparini, though still technically a
prisoner in this home (p. 159). Here on December 18 a boy was born.
On Christmas Eve, Guido reached Rome with four young rustics, whom he
had hired to assist him in the assassination. For a week he lurked in
the villa of his brother, Abate Paolo, who had left Rome. Then, on the
evening of January 2, he won entrance to the home of the Comparini by
using the name of Caponsacchi. The parents were instantly stabbed to
death, and Pompilia was cut to pieces with twenty-two wounds. Leaving
her for dead, Guido and his cut-throats fled, as the outcries of the
victims had given the alarm. That night they travelled afoot nearly
twenty miles, but were pursued by the police, and were arrested with
the bloody arms still in their possession.
Such was the crime, and the _Old Yellow Book_ is the record of the
legal battle over the assassins, which was fought through the criminal
courts of Rome, presided over by Vice-governor Venturini. The
prosecution and defence alike were conducted by officers of the court,
two lawyers on each side, the Procurator and Advocate of the Poor for
the defendants, and the Procurator and Advocate of the Fisc against
them. As the fact of the crime was definitely ascertained, the legal
battle turned entirely on the justification or condemnation of the
motive of the crime. The defence maintained that the assassination had
been for honour's sake, and the unwritten law, to which appeal is made
in generation after generation, was urged at every point. That Guido
had suffered unspeakable ignominy cannot be denied; that his wife had
been untrue to him even in the perilous flight with Caponsacchi is
unproved, as the courts had evidently held in the Process of Flight.
The prosecution, on the other hand, reiterated in every argument their
reading of Guido's motive--greed. Greed had led him to marry Pompilia.
Greed had occasioned his disgraceful wranglings with the Comparini.
Defeated greed had made him torture his wife into scandalous flight,
and calculating greed had led him to commit the murder at a time and
in a manner to save the whole property to himself. Still further, said
the prosecution, not only was his motive bad, but the crime was
committed in a way which involved him in half a dozen accessory
crimes, each of them capital. Such is the drift of the argument, which
is fortified at every point by citation of precedent from the legal
procedure of all ages. Altogether it is a highly skilled legal battle
according to the technical limitations of the game, while the simple
appeals to equity and to common human feeling hardly enter at all.
The trial proceeded in two stages. The earlier one, during the latter
half of January, was opened by Arcangeli (pamphlet 1), supported by
Advocate Spreti (pamphlet 2). The prosecution is opened by Procurator
Gambi (pamphlet 5), supported by Advocate Bottini (pamphlet 6).
Arcangeli and Bottini make further argument in pamphlets 3 and 14. Two
pamphlets of evidence were assembled and printed--for the defence,
pamphlet 7; and for the prosecution, pamphlet 4. The latter part of
this stage of the case is much occupied with arguing whether Guido and
his companions may be tortured to get a fuller statement from them. In
spite of the efforts of Guido's attorneys, the torture was evidently
decreed, and fuller evidence was forced from the defendants, though
one of them bore the torture till he fainted twice. The trial then
enters on its second stage, in which, after some preliminary
skirmishing about the legality of the torture and the status of the
evidence given under this torture, the lawyers settle to their most
masterly work. Arcangeli and Spreti develop an elaborate and skilled
defence (pamphlets 8 and 9), and are answered by Bottini's masterpiece
for the prosecution (pamphlet 13). Spreti closes the defence in
pamphlet 16. Pamphlet 11 presents some additional matters of evidence.
All these arguments and summaries of evidence were printed by the
official papal press (see the imprint _Typis Rev. Cam. Apost._),
probably overnight, between the sessions of the court, as typewritten
briefs would be prepared to-day. Few copies were printed, and these
were solely for the judges and attorneys in the case. There would be
no popular circulation of them in Rome at large. The particular copies
included in the _Old Yellow Book_ were probably gathered by one of
these attorneys, and sent to Signor Cencini in Florence (letter iii.
p. 238).
We need but look to our own age to rest assured that outside of the
court room all Rome was athrill with interest in this murder case, and
was speculating on the fate of the accused. The attorneys for the
defence, in the midst of the trial, made a sudden appeal to this
public interest and sought the support of public sentiment by means of
an anonymous pamphlet (pamphlet 10) written in Italian and printed
without an imprint or signature, but evidently addressed to the bar of
public opinion. It seems to have been written by Guido's lawyers, or
their lackeys, for it repeats the various points already made in the
arguments. Whether it was distributed free or was sold for a small
price, it must have been seized and devoured by all Rome as are the
journalistic reports of notorious criminal trials to-day. We can
imagine the alarm of the prosecution when they perceived this flank
movement against them. With all possible haste they prepared their
reply, also in Italian and without signature or imprint, and probably
within a day or two had issued this response (pamphlet 15), which
meets the other pamphlet at every point, and bitterly arraigns the
greed of Guido. These two pamphlets evidently suggested to Browning
his "Half-Rome" and "Other Half-Rome."
There must have been other popular exploitations of this crime. Two
manuscript Italian narratives of it have been discovered. The first of
these (pp. 259-266) was found in London and sent to Browning, who used
it extensively in writing his poem. The second (pp. 269-281) was
discovered a few years ago in Rome. Other accounts may yet come to
light.
The trial of Guido and his companions was carried forward to a prompt
judgment, and on February 18 they were pronounced guilty and were
condemned to death. A technical staying of sentence for four days was
granted by reason of Guido's _clerical privilege_, but execution
followed on February 22. The _Old Yellow Book_ includes three original
letters (pp. 237-8) written from Rome immediately after the execution
to Signor Cencini at Florence.
Yet the case was not quite at an end. A number of civil suits were
promptly instituted by various claimants for the property of the
Comparini. The Franceschini still pushed their claim in spite of the
infamy they had suffered for that property. Pompilia's executor,
Tighetti, claimed all in trust for the child, Gaetano. Then the refuge
of the Convertites, under their legal right to the property of all
women of evil life who died in Rome, accused the memory of Pompilia
and claimed her property. The case seemed to be entering on one of
those interminable struggles in court. The Procurator Lamparelli
(pamphlet 17) goes back to analyse again the motives in the whole case
and to justify Pompilia's innocence. The remainder of this trial is
lost to us save for the final _Definitive Sentence_ of the courts
(pamphlet 18), issued in September 1698, which clears the memory of
Pompilia entirely and for ever in the eyes of the law.
This was the record which fell into Browning's hands. The poet tells
of his immediate interest in the tragedy, partly due to that common
human interest in great crimes, partly to the casuistic presentation
of motive throughout the _Book_, partly to his championing the rights
of Pompilia, dishonoured and slain not merely by a brutally selfish
husband, but by a corrupt social condition around her.
After some delay, Browning saw his way to embody in art the story
which had interested him so deeply. The plan came to him, according to
W. M. Rossetti, one day while he was walking at Biarritz, and from
1862 till the publication in 1868-9, he was working continuously on
_The Ring and the Book_. He had mastered every detail of the _Yellow
Book_ by continuous re-readings, and in his art he was scrupulously,
but never laboriously, accurate to the facts before him. In the poem
he names thirty-three persons exactly as he found them in his
original. Place names are adopted with the same accuracy. The specific
dates recorded in the _Book_ are followed at all points, save in the
significant change of the date of Caponsacchi's rescue of Pompilia
from April 29 to 23, St. George's Day. The incidents of the tragedy,
even when compromising to Pompilia, whose cause he championed, are
used without repression or falsification. And perhaps most remarkable
of all, the poet had mastered all the technical paraphernalia and
phraseology of the lawyers, and uses these with minute care, not
entirely devoid of misunderstanding and error. In the _Book_ he found
all the points of law, all the precedents and authorities, and almost
all of the Latin phrases and sentences found in the monologues of the
lawyers of the poem. A remarkable instance of this is seen in his word
for word adaptation of the long peroration of Arcangeli (pamphlet 8)
in the close of the monologue of the Arcangeli of the poem. And the
actual letter of Arcangeli (p. 237) is reproduced verbatim in the
poem, book xii. ll. 239-88. Altogether the poet affords one of the
most remarkable illustrations of literal and detailed accuracy in the
use of the raw material of art.
Yet here, as in all cases of true art, the greatness of the final
product lies not so much in the material that fell to the artist as in
the personal resource and power within himself which was able to use
the material. Browning found suggestion for a suffering saint in Fra
Celestino's report of Pompilia's death-bed (pp. 57, 58), but the
Pompilia of the poem embodies the poet's deepest insight into
womanhood with all its spiritual relationships, in the love of man,
the passion of maternity, and devotion to God. Browning ascertained in
the _Book_ that Caponsacchi was a resolute man, who had involved
himself in many perils for the sake of Pompilia, but from his own
personal resource of manly devotion, of chivalrous daring, of
passionate indignation at wrong, of spiritual tenderness and
reverence, he created a Caponsacchi. In the _Book_ he found every turn
of the cunning, of the greed, of the brutality of Guido and his
family, but from his own deep realisation of the power of evil in the
world, and of the black depravity of the lowest forms of humanity, he
created his Franceschini. Thus at every point, founding himself on the
fact of the _Book_, he is able to set forth this tragedy to the world
as it grew in his own imagination while searching his own heart and
the hearts of others through many years. And the chance-found _Old
Yellow Book_ at last occasioned the most profound utterance Robert
Browning was to give to the world in all that concerns the human heart
and its motives as they play the drama of the world before the eye of
the Almighty.
CHARLES W. HODELL.
"Do you see this square old yellow book
... pure, crude fact.
Give it me back! The thing's restorative
I' the touch and sight."
A Setting-forth
of the entire Criminal Cause
against
GUIDO FRANCESCHINI, Nobleman
of Arezzo,
and his Bravoes,
who were put to death in Rome,
February 22, 1698.
The first by beheading, the other four by the gallows.
ROMAN MURDER-CASE.
In which it is disputed whether and when a Husband
may kill his Adulterous Wife without
incurring the ordinary penalty.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Sentence of the Criminal Court of Florence in the criminal case
against Gregorio Guillichini, Francesca Pompilia Comparini,
wife of Guido Franceschini, etc. December 1697 5
Argument in defence of the said Franceschini of the Honourable
Signor Giacinto Arcangeli, Procurator of the Poor in Rome,
made before the congregation of Monsignor the Governor 9
Argument of the Honourable Signor Advocate Desiderio Spreti,
Advocate of the Poor, in defence of said Franceschini and his
associates 25
Argument of the abovesaid Signor Arcangeli in defence of Biagio
Agostinelli and his companions in crime 39
Summary of fact made in behalf of the Fisc 47
Argument of Signor Francesco Gambi, Procurator of the Fisc and of
the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, against the abovesaid Franceschini
and his companions in crime 63
Argument of Signor Giovanni Battista Bottini, Advocate of the Fisc
and of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber, against the abovesaid 73
Summary of fact in behalf of Franceschini and his associates in crime 87
Another Argument of the abovesaid Signor Arcangeli in favour and
defence of the abovesaid 107
Another Argument of Signor Advocate Spreti in favour of the above 131
An Account of the facts and grounds, made and given by an Anonymous
Author 145
Another Summary made on behalf of the Fisc 157
Argument of Signor Gambi, Procurator of the Fisc, against the abovesaid
Franceschini and his companions 163
Another Argument of the Signor Giovanni Battista Bottini, Advocate
of the Fisc 169
Another Argument of the abovesaid against the said Defendants 197
A Response of the abovesaid account of fact as given by the Anonymous
Author 209
Argument of Signor Advocate Spreti in favour of Franceschini, etc. 227
Letter written by the Honourable Signor Giacinto Arcangeli, Procurator
of the Poor, to Monsignore Francesco Cencini in Florence,
in which he tells him that the sentence of death had been
executed in Rome against the guilty on February 22, 1698--that
is, that Franceschini had been beheaded, and the other four
hanged 235
Two other Letters, one written by Signor Gaspero del Torto and the
other by Signor Carlo Antonio Ugolinucci to the aforesaid
Monsignore Francesco Cencini 237
Argument of Signor Antonio Lamparelli, Procurator of the Poor in
the said case 239
The Sentence of Signor Marco Antonio Venturini, Judge in Criminal
causes, which declares that the said adultery was not proved,
and which restores to her original fame the memory of Francesca
Pompilia Comparini, wife of Guido Franceschini 253
THE SECONDARY SOURCE OF "THE RING AND THE BOOK" 257
TRIAL AND DEATH OF FRANCESCHINI AND HIS COMPANIONS 267
NOTES AND COMMENT 283
[Illustration: _But for me the Muse in her strength prepares her
mightiest arrow._]
[Illustration: _Facsimile Page from the Original "Old Yellow Book."_]
SENTENCE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF FLORENCE
_February 15, 1697 A.D._
Attestation by me undersigned how, in the order of the affairs of the
Governors, which are set before His Serene Highness, in the Chancery
of the Illustrious Signori Auditori of the Criminal Court of Florence,
there appears among other affairs of business, under decision 3549,
the following of tenor as written below, that is Arezzo against
1. Gregorio, son of Francesco Guillichini, not described.
2. Francesca Pompilia Comparini, wife of Guido Franceschini, and
3. Francesco, son of Giovanni Borsi called Venerino, servant of
Agosto, Host at the "Canale,"
because the second Accused, against her honour and conjugal faith, had
given herself up to dishonest amours with the Canon Giuseppe
Caponsacchi and with the first Accused, who instructed her, as you may
well believe, to part from the aforesaid City of Arezzo, the evening
of April 28, 1697. And, that they might not be discovered and
hindered, the second Accused put a sleeping-potion and opium in her
husband's wine at dinner. At about one o'clock the same night, the
said Canon Caponsacchi and the first Accused conducted the aforesaid
second Accused away from the home of her husband. As the gates of the
city were closed, they climbed the wall on the hill of the Torrione;
and having reached the "Horse" Inn, outside of the gate San Clemente,
they were there awaited by the third Accused with a two-horse
carriage. When Canon Caponsacchi and the second Accused had entered
into the said carriage, the word was given by him, the aforesaid first
Accused, and they set out then upon the way toward Perugia, the said
third Accused driving the carriage as far as Camoscia. And while they
were travelling along the road they kissed one another before the very
face of the third Accused.
Still further, the second Accused, along with the first Accused and
Canon Caponsacchi, carried away furtively from the house of the said
Guido, her husband, from a chest locked with a key, which she took
from her husband's trousers [the following articles]: About 200 scudi
in gold and silver coin; an oriental pearl necklace worth about 200
scudi; a pair of diamond pendants worth 84 scudi; a solitaire diamond
ring worth 40 scudi; two pearls with their pins, to be used as
pendants, 6 scudi; a gold ring with turquoise setting worth 2 scudi; a
gold ring set with ruby worth 36 scudi; an amber necklace worth 5
scudi; a necklace of garnets alternated with little beads of fine
brass worth 6 scudi; a pair of earrings in the shape of a little ship
of gold with a pearl worth 16 scudi; two necklaces of various common
stones worth 4 scudi; a coronet of carnelians with five settings and
with a cameo in silver filigree worth 12 scudi; a damask suit with its
mantle, and a petticoat of a poppy colour, embroidered with various
flowers, worth 40 scudi; a light-blue petticoat, flowered with white,
worth 8 scudi; two vests to place under the mantle worth 2 scudi; a
pair of sleeves of point lace worth 20 scudi; another pair of sleeves
fringed with lace worth 5 scudi; a collar worth 4 scudi; a scarf of
black taffeta for the shoulder with a bow of ribbon worth 8 scudi; an
embroidered silk cuff worth 14 scudi; two aprons of key-bit pattern
with their lace worth 12 scudi; a pair of scarlet silk boots worth 14
scudi; a pair of woollen stockings, a pair of white linen hose, and a
pair of light-blue hose, worth 5 scudi; a snuff-coloured worsted
bodice with petticoat, ornamented with white and red pawns, worth 3
scudi; a blue and white coat of yarn and linen, adorned with scarlet
and other coloured ornaments, worth 10 scudi; a worsted petticoat of
light-blue and orange colour, striped lengthwise, with yellow lines
and with various colours at the feet, worth 14 scudi; an embroidered
petticoat worth 9 scudi; a silk cuff worth 5 scudi; four linen smocks
for women worth 14 scudi; a pair of shoes with silver buckles worth 8
scudi; many tassels and tapes of various sorts worth 14 scudi; six
fine napkins worth 7 scudi; a collar of crumpled silk worth 7 scudi;
two pairs of gloves of a value of 4 scudi; four handkerchiefs worth 5
scudi; a little silver snuff-box with the arms of the Franceschini
house upon it worth 16 scudi; a coat of her husband Guido, rubbed and
rent by the lock of a chest where he kept part of the aforesaid
clothing. And they had converted the whole to their own uses against
the will of the same, the first Accused and Canon Caponsacchi having
scaled the walls of the city in company with the second Accused, as
soon as she had committed adultery with them. And the said third
Accused had given opportunity for flight to the said second Accused
along with the Canon, in the manner told.
Therefore the Commissioner of Arezzo was of opinion to condemn
arbitrarily the first Accused to five years' confinement at
Portoferrio with the penalty of the galleys for the same length of
time, not counting the reservation of 15 days to appear and clear
himself; to condemn the second Accused to the penalty of the Stinche
for life and to the restitution of what was taken away, with the
abovesaid reservation; and that the third Accused be not prosecuted
further and be liberated from prison. But the Criminal Court was of
opinion that the first Accused should be condemned to the galleys
during the pleasure of His Serene Highness, with the said reservation.
As to the second Accused, who was imprisoned here in Rome, in a sacred
place, it suspended the execution. And for the third, who had done no
voluntary evil, it gave up further inquiry.
Again proposed in the said business before His Serene and Blessed
Highness with the signature of December 24, 1697.
The opinion of the Court stands approved.
In sign of which,
I, JOSEPH VESINIUS, J. V. D., an official
in the Criminal Court of Florence,
etc., in faith whereto, etc.
[File-title of Pamphlet 1.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases_:
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE_
_On Behalf of Count Guido Franceschini,
Prisoner, against the Fisc._
_Memorial of fact and law._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 1.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:
Count Guido Franceschini, born of a noble race, had married, under ill
omen, Francesca Pompilia, whom Pietro and Violante had asserted (even
to one occupying a very high office) to be their own daughter. After a
little while, she was taken to Arezzo, the country of her husband,
along with her foster-parents, and was restrained from leading her
life with utter freedom. Yet she has made pretence that she was hated
on the pretext of sterility, as is clearly shown in her deposition
during her prosecution for flight from her husband's home. Both she
and her parents took it ill that they were denied their old free life,
and they urged their daughter to make complaint before the Most
Reverend Bishop, saying that she had been offered poison by her
brother-in-law. At the departure of this couple, when they were about
to return to the City, they most basely instigated her--yes, and even
commanded her by her duty to obey them--that she should kill her
husband, poison her brother-in-law and mother-in-law, and burn the
house; and then with the aid of a lover to be chosen thereafter, she
should put into effect her long-planned flight back to the City. (But
all this should be done after their departure, lest they might seem to
have given her evil counsel.) [Such facts] may be clearly deduced from
one of the letters presented as evidence in the same prosecution.
When these pseudo-parents had returned home, they declared that
Francesca was not born of themselves, but had been conceived of an
unknown father by a vile strumpet. They then entered suit before Judge
Tomati for the nullification of the dowry contract.
Day by day the love of Pompilia for her husband kept decreasing, while
her affection for a certain priest was on the increase. This affair
went so far that on an appointed night, while her husband was
oppressed with sleep (and I wish I could say that she had no hand in
this, and had not procured drugs from outside), she began her flight
from her husband's house toward Rome, nor was this flight without
theft of money and the company of her lover. Her most wretched husband
pursued them, and she was imprisoned not far from the City. Then, when
after a short time they were brought to trial, the lover was banished
to Civita Vecchia for adultery, and she herself was placed in safe
keeping. But owing to her pregnancy she returned to the home of Pietro
and Violante, where she gave birth to a child (and I wish I could say
that it had not been conceived in adultery). This increased the shame
and indignation of the husband, and the wrath, which had long been
stirred, grew strong, because his honour among upright men was lost
and he was pointed out with the finger of scorn, especially in his own
country, where a good reputation is much cherished by men who are
well-born. Therefore his anger so impelled the luckless man to fury,
and his indignation so drove him to desperation, that he preferred to
die rather than to live ignominiously among honourable men. With
gloomy mind, he rushed headlong to the City, accompanied by four
companions. On the second night of the current month of January, under
the show of giving a letter from the banished lover, he pretended to
approach the home of the Comparini. When at the name of Caponsacchi
the door was opened, he cut the throats of Violante and Pietro, and
stabbed Francesca with so many wounds that she died after a few days.
While this desperation continued, his dull and unforeseeing mind
suggested no way to find a place of safety. But accompanied by the
same men, he set out for his own country along the public highway by
the shortest route. Then, while he was resting upon a pallet in a
certain tavern, he was arrested, together with his companions, by the
pursuing officers.
Great indeed is this crime, but very greatly to be pitied also, and
most worthy of excuse. Even the most severe laws give indulgence and
are very mild towards husbands who wipe out the stain of their infamy
with the blood of their adulterous wives. [Citation of _Lex Julia de
Adulteriis, Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_ and the Gracchian law. Cf. _Ring
and Book_, I. 2268.]
This indeed was sanctioned in the laws of the Athenians and of Solon
(that is, of the wisest of legislators), and what is more, even in the
rude age of Romulus, law 15, where we read:
"A man and his relatives may kill as they wish a wife convicted of
adultery." [Citations; and likewise in the Laws of the Twelve Tables,
see Aulus Gellius, etc.]
I hold, to begin with, that there can be no doubt of the adultery of
the wife [for several reasons]. [First], her flight together with her
lover during a long-continued journey. [Citations.]
[Second], the love letters sent by each party; these cannot be read in
the prosecution for flight without nausea. [Citations.]
[Third], the clandestine entry of the lover into her home at a
suspicious time. [Citations.]
[Fourth], the kisses given during the flight (p. 100) according to the
following sentiment: "Sight, conversation, touch, afterwards kisses,
and then the deed [adultery]." [Citations.]
[Fifth], their sleeping in the same room at the inn. [Citations.]
[Sixth], the sentence of the judge, who condemned the lover for his
criminal knowledge of her, which made this adultery notorious.
[Citations.]
Furthermore, we are not here arguing to prove adultery for the purpose
of demanding punishment [upon the adulteress], but to excuse her
slayer, and for his defence; in this case, even lighter proofs would
be abundant, as Matthæus advises. [Citations.]
These matters being held as proved, the opinion of certain authorities
who assert that a husband is not excusable from the ordinary penalty,
who kills his adulterous wife after an interval, does not stand in our
way. For the aforesaid laws speak of the wife who had been found in
her guilt and has been killed incontinently. Hence such indulgence
ought not to be extended to wife-murder committed after an interval,
because the reins should not be relaxed for men to sin and to declare
the law for themselves. [Citations.]
Furthermore, Farinacci does not affirm this conclusion, but shows that
he is very much in doubt, where he says: "The matter is very doubtful
with me, because injured honour and just anger--both of which always
oppress the heart--are very strong grounds for the mitigation of the
penalty." Matthæus well weighs these words on our very point. And both
Farinacci and Rainaldi conclude that the penalty can be moderated at
the judgment of the Prince.
I humbly pray that this be noted. The aforesaid laws, which seem to
require discovery in the very act of sin, as some have thought, do not
decide in that way merely for the purpose of excusing a husband moved
to slaughter by a sudden impulse of wrath and by unadvised heat. But
they so decide lest on any suspicion of adultery whatsoever,
oftentimes entirely without foundation, men should rush upon and kill
their wives, who are frequently innocent. Hence the "discovery in the
very act of crime," which is required by law, is not to be
interpreted, nor to be understood, as discovery in the very act of
licence, but is to be referred to the proof of the adultery, lest on
trifling suspicion a wife should be given over to death. But when the
adultery is not at all doubtful, there is no distinction between one
killing immediately and killing after an interval, so far as the
matter of escaping extreme punishment is concerned. [Citations.]
For whenever a wife is convicted of adultery, or is a manifest
adulteress, she is always said to be "taken in crime." [Citations.]
And in very truth the reasons adduced by those holding the contrary
opinion are entirely too weak. For murder committed for honour's sake
is always said to be done immediately, whensoever it may be committed.
Because injury to the honour always remains fixed before one's eyes,
and by goading one with busy and incessant stings it urges and impels
him to its reparation. [Citations.]
Such relaxation of the reins to husbands, for taking into their own
hands the law, would indeed be too great if the law of divorce were
still valid. For in that case husbands would not be permitted to make
such reparation of their honour. For another way would be
satisfactorily provided for them, namely, in their right to dismiss
and repudiate the polluted wife. In this way they could put far from
themselves the cause of their disgrace, yes, and the very ignominy
itself. But when by the divine favour our Gentile blindness was
removed, and matrimony was acknowledged to be perpetual and
indissoluble, those were indeed most worthy of pity who, when all
other way of recovering their honour was closed to them, washed away
their stains in the blood of their adulterous wives. Petrus Erodus
[Citation], after he has discussed a matter of this kind according to
the usual practice of Roman Law, adds in the end: "For as all hope of
a second marriage is gone so long as the adulteress still lives, we
judge that such very just anger is allayed with more difficulty,
unless it be by the flight of time;" and therefore such a case, when
not terminated by divorce, is usually terminated by murder. For as
Augustine says, "what is not permitted, becomes as if it were
permitted; that is, let the adulteress be killed, that the husband may
be released."
I acknowledge that it is laudable to restrain the audacity of
husbands, lest they declare the law for themselves in their own cause;
since they may be mistaken. But it would be more laudable indeed to
restrain the lust of wives; for if they would act modestly and would
live honourably they would not force their husbands to this kind of
crime, which I may almost call necessary. Nor can we deny that by the
ignominy brought upon them by the adultery they are exasperated and
are driven insane, and a most just sense of anger is excited in their
hearts. For this grievance surpasses all others beyond comparison, and
hence is worthy of the greater pity, according to the words of the
satirist [_Juv._ X. 314]: "This wrath exacts more than any law
concedes to wrath."
Papinianus also well acknowledges this [Citation], where we read:
"Since it is very difficult to restrain just anger." For these
reasons, authorities hold that a just grievance should render the
penalty more lenient even in premediated crimes; because the sense of
"just grievance does not easily quiet down, or lose its strength with
the flight of time, but the heart is continually pierced by infamy,
and the longer the insult endures, the longer endures the infamy, yea,
and it is increased." [Citations.]
And this drives one on the more intensely, because with greater
impunity, as I may say, wives pollute their own matrimony and destroy
the honour of their entire household. In ancient times, while the _Lex
Julia_ was in force, wives who polluted their marriage-bed underwent
the death penalty. [Citations.]
Likewise it was so ordained in the Holy Scriptures; for adulterous
wives were stoned to death, Gen. 38; Lev. 20, 10; Deut. 23, 22; Ez.
16.
The solace drawn from the public vengeance quieted the anger and
destroyed the infamy. Then the husband, who was restored to his
original freedom, could take a new and honest wife and raise his sons
in honour. But now, in our evil days, there is a deplorable frequency
of crime everywhere, as the rigour of the Sacred Law has become
obsolete. And since wives who live basely are dealt with very mildly,
the husband's condition would indeed be most unfortunate if either he
must live perpetually in infamy, or must expiate her destruction, when
she is slain, by the death penalty, as Matthæus well considers.
[Citation.]
Therefore, when it is claimed that the husband shall escape entirely
unpunished, it is necessary that the wife be killed in the very act of
discovered sin. But when the question is as to whether or not a
husband may be punished more mildly than usual when driven to
wife-murder for honour's sake, it makes no difference whether he kill
her immediately or after an interval. [Citation.]
Nor does this opinion lack foundation in the very Civil Law of the
Romans, for Martian [Citation] asserts that a father who had killed
his son while out hunting, because he had polluted his stepmother with
adultery, was exiled. Nor had the father found him in the very act of
crime, but slew him while out hunting, that is with a pretence of
friendliness and by dissimulating his injury. Accordingly he was
punished, but not with the usual penalty; for he had killed his son,
not in his right as a father, but in the manner of a robber. Hence we
can infer that not the killing, but the method of killing was
punishable, as we may deduce from Bartolo. [Citations.]
Still further, it is well worthy of consideration that one may kill an
adversary with impunity, for the sake of his personal safety, but he
must do so immediately and in the very act of aggression, and not
after an interval. For the life of one slain may not be recovered by
the slaying of the murderer. Accordingly, whatever violence may follow
upon the first murder becomes vengeance, which is hateful and odious
to the law; for the jurisdiction of the judge is insulted by depriving
him of the power of publicly avenging murder. But if by the death of
the slayer the one slain could be called back to life, I think there
is no doubt that any one could kill the said slayer; for then such an
act would not be revenge, but due defence, leading toward the recovery
of the life that had been lost. But even when we are dealing with an
offence and injury which does not affect the person of the one
injured, it is likewise permitted that one who has been robbed may,
even after an interval, kill the thief for the recovery of the stolen
goods, provided every other way to recover them is precluded.
Likewise, one offended in his reputation should be permitted at all
times to kill the one injuring him; for such an act may be termed, not
the avenging of an injury, but the re-establishing of wounded honour,
which could be healed in no other way. [Citations.]
Furthermore, as I have said, when one is discussing the subject of
self-defence, he is dealing with an instantaneous act; hence the anger
conceived therefrom ought to quiet down after a while, according to
the warning of St. Paul, Eph. 4: "Let not the sun go down upon your
wrath." But when we are dealing with an offence that injures the
honour, this is not merely a momentary matter, but is protracted, and
indeed with the lapse of time becomes the greater, as the injured one
is vilified the more. Therefore, whensoever the murder follows it is
always said to have been committed immediately. [Citation.]
Relying upon these and other reasons, most authorities affirm that a
husband killing his adulterous wife after an interval, but not found
in licentiousness, is to be punished indeed, but more mildly and with
a penalty out of the ordinary. [Citations.]
Caball testifies that this has been the practice in many of the
world's tribunals. Calvinus gives other cases so decided. [Citation.]
And Cyriacus, who speaks in worse circumstances, adduces numerous
other cases, and the authorities recently cited offer many more.
This lenient opinion is the more readily to be accepted because, as I
claim, the deed about which we are arguing does not also carry with it
(as the Fisc holds) attendant circumstances demanding such a rigorous
penalty.
[First] the taking of helpers to be present at the murders [is not
such a circumstance]; because he could lawfully use the help of
companions to provide more safely for his own honour by the death of
his wife. [Citations.]
[Secondly] the crime is not raised to a higher class because he led
with him helpers at a price agreed upon; for what is more, and is far
more to be wondered at, a husband can lawfully demand of others the
murder of an adulterous wife, even by means of money, as the following
indisputably affirm. [Citations.]
Likewise it does not at all disturb [our line of argument] that Count
Guido might have killed his wife and the adulterer when they were
caught in the very act of flight at the tavern of Castelnuovo, but
that he preferred rather to have them imprisoned, seeking their
punishment by law, and not with his own hand. We deny that he could
have safely killed both of them, inasmuch as he was alone, nor could
he attack them, except at the risk of his own life. Because the lover
was of powerful strength, not at all timid, and all too prompt for
resisting, since, in the word of one of the witnesses in the
prosecution for flight, he was called _Scapezzacollo_ [cut-throat].
Nor is it credible that, unless he had been fearless and full of
spirit, he would have ventured upon so great a crime, and would have
dared to participate in her flight, and to accompany the fugitive wife
from the home of her husband. And this fact is more clearly deducible
from one of his letters, in which, after urging Francesca to mingle an
opiate in the wine-flasks for the purpose of putting her husband and
the servants to sleep, he adds that if they find it out she should
open the door; for he would either suffer death with her or would
snatch her from their hands. These things indicate both courage and
audacity. And though the wife is a woman, that is a timid and
unwarlike creature, nevertheless Francesca was all too impudent and
audacious, whether because of her hatred for her husband or on account
of her anger at the imprisonment of her lover. For she drew a sword
upon her husband in the very presence of the officers who were about
to arrest her. And to prevent her from going further, one of the
bystanders had to snatch it from her hands. Therefore, before their
imprisonment, Guido could not put into effect what he had had in mind
and what he could lawfully do, because he was alone and his strength
was not sufficient. Then when she had been taken to prison, and
afterwards was placed in safe keeping, it was impossible for him to
vindicate his honour. But when at last she had left the monastery and
had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, he took vengeance as
soon as he could. Therefore we hold that he killed her in the very
act, as it were, and immediately. In Sanfelicius [Citation], we read
of a case where a husband, though he could have killed his wife
immediately, did not do so, but craftily redeemed himself from his
disgrace by slaying his wife as soon as possible. And Giurba also
speaks of a case where the argument is concerning an injury that was
not personal, but real, as was said above.
Guido saw to her capture, and insisted that she be punished, lest she
continue her adultery and viciousness, being powerless to do anything
else, because his confusion of mind, his helpless fury, and his sense
of shame led him unwisely into not taking the law into his own hands
and recovering his lost honour. He indeed lodged complaint, but it was
because he could not kill her. Nor would his ignominy have been wiped
out nor his infamy have been destroyed by her imprisonment and
punishment. But when, indeed, after her imprisonment he was still more
shut out from noble company, his injury ever became the more acute,
and it stimulated him the more strongly to regain his own reputation.
But his bitterness of mind was increased especially at hearing that
she had gone back to the home of Pietro and Violante, who had declared
that she was not their daughter, but the child of a dishonest woman;
hence his injury was increased by her staying in a home which he
suspected, as is said a little further on. Accordingly the same cause
kept urging him after her departure from the monastery, as had done
so before her imprisonment and the appeals made by Count Guido.
It makes very little difference that Francesca was staying in the home
of Violante, which had been assigned to her as a safe prison with the
consent of Guido's brother. For what would it amount to even if with
the consent of Guido himself she had been taken from the monastery
(yet we have no word of this matter in the trial). For Guido could
make that pretence to gain the opportunity of killing her for the
restoration of his honour. Nor would such dissimulation increase the
crime, especially to the degree of the ordinary penalty, since it is
certain that the husband may kill a wife stained with adultery without
incurring such penalty. Yet a heavier or lighter penalty is inflicted,
just as more or less treachery accompanies the murder, as Matthæus
testifies it was practised in the Senate of Matrinumsis. [Citation.]
Nor is the attendant circumstance of the place assigned as a prison
worthy of consideration, as if the custody of the Prince had been
insulted; for one is not said to be in custody when he is merely
detained in a place under security that he will not leave it.
[Citation.] Furthermore, this objection falls utterly to the ground,
because the circumstance of such a place does not increase the crime,
whenever it is committed by one having provocation or for the
repelling of an injury. And [the following authorities] hold thus in
the more serious case of a crime committed in prison. [Citations.]
Furthermore we do not believe, from what is said above, that the
penalty can be increased because of the murder of Pietro and Violante,
since the same injured honour, which impelled Count Guido to kill his
wife, forced him to kill the said parents. And now may the ashes of
the dead spare me if what I have urged above, and what I am about to
say, may seem to disturb their peace! Neither the flame of hatred nor
the impulse of anger (which are far from me) have suggested these
charges; but the demands of the defence, which I have assumed without
a penny of compensation, compel me to employ every means leading to
the desired end.
I have said, and I think not without due reason, that the Accused
sprang forward to the death of both of them, moved simply by an
immediate injury to his own reputation. For a few months after the
marriage contracted with Francesca, whom they had professed to be
their daughter, they had not blushed to declare that she was not such.
Hence there is an inevitable dilemma. Either [_first_] she was in
deed and truth their daughter, and then we must acknowledge that in
afterward denying her parentage they had inflicted the greatest injury
upon the honour and reputation of the Accused; for they had conceived
strong hatred and malice against him. Hence they did not hesitate to
disgrace their own daughter, in order that they might bring upon him
the infamy of having married the daughter of a vile and dishonest
woman. This is indeed a fact, that whoever knows Count Guido supposes
he has married a girl, not merely of rank unequal to his own, but even
of the basest condition, and this greatly injures the reputation of
his entire household.
Or else [_second_] Francesca was indeed conceived of an unknown father
and born of a dishonest harlot. And it cannot be denied, that in that
case he suffered even greater injury, which branded him with a mark of
infamy; both because of her birth and from the fact that daughters are
usually not unlike their mothers. Cephalus [Citations], where we read:
"From such mingling with harlots it is to be supposed that the people
become degenerate, ignoble, and burning with lust." And would that
experience had not taught us this fact!
The unfortunate man believed he was marrying the daughter of Pietro
and Violante, born legitimately, and yet by the contrivance and
trickery of this couple he married a girl of basest stock, conceived
illegitimately by a dishonourable mother. From this fact alone the
quality of those parents can be inferred, who, for the sake of
deceiving those lawfully entitled to the trust-moneys, had made most
vile pretence of the birth of a child, entirely unmindful that they
laid themselves liable to capital punishment. [Citations.]
It will not, therefore, be difficult to believe what Francesca reveals
in her letter to her brother-in-law, that the abovesaid couple, in
spite of the fact that she was well treated, kept instigating her
daily to poison her husband, her brother-in-law, and her
mother-in-law, and to burn the home. And though these crimes are very
base, they gave her still worse counsel, even by her obligation to
obey them; namely, that after their departure from Arezzo, she should
allure a lover, and leaving her husband's home in his company, should
return to the City. In her obedience to their commands, this daughter
seemed indeed all too prompt. Who then will deny that such reckless
daring, wherefrom a notorious disgrace was inflicted upon the entire
household of the Accused, ought to be attributed to the base
persuasion of the said couple? Nor was it difficult to persuade that
girl to do what she was prone to by inborn instinct and by the example
of her mother.
It is not my duty to divine why that couple so anxiously desired the
return of Francesca to their home. But I cannot persuade myself that
they were moved by mere charity, namely, that she might escape
ill-treatment. For Francesca, in the said letter, acknowledges that
she is leading a quiet life, and that her husband and the servants are
treating her very well, and that what she had laid before the Bishop
had been the falsehood of the said couple.
I know furthermore that if a husband have knowledge of the adultery of
his wife and keep her in his home, he cannot escape the mark and
penalty of a pimp. [Citations.] If, therefore, as the said couple
declare, Francesca was not their daughter, why did they receive her so
tenderly into their home after her adultery was plainly manifest? Why
did they, as I may say, cherish her in their breasts, not merely up
till the birth of her child, but even till death? And I wish I could
say that her love affairs with the banished [priest] were not
continued there! For at his mere name, after the knocking at the door,
as soon as they heard that some one was about to give them a letter
from the one in banishment, immediately the door was opened and Guido
was given an entry for recovering his honour. If, indeed, the said
couple had been displeased with the adultery of Francesca, they would,
without doubt, have shuddered at the name of the adulterer, and would
have cut off every way for mutual correspondence. Therefore it is most
clearly evident that the cause of wounded honour in the Accused had
continued, and indeed new causes of the same kind had arisen, all of
which tended toward blackening his reputation.
Nor does it make any difference that the Accused may have had in mind
several causes of hatred toward both Francesca and the Comparini. For
if these are well weighed, they all coincide with, and are reduced to,
the original cause, namely, that of wounded honour. However that may
be, when causes are compatible with one another, the act that follows
should always be attributed to the stronger and more urgent and more
acute. [Citations.] And on the point that when several causes concur,
murder is to be referred and attributed to injured honour, and not to
the others: [Citations.]
Therefore I think that any wise man ought to acknowledge that Guido
had most just cause for killing the said couple, and that very just
anger had been excited against them. This was increased day by day by
the perfectly human consideration that he would not have married her
unless he had been deceived by that very tricky couple. And to what is
said above we may add that either the child born [of Pompilia] was
conceived in adultery, as the Accused could well believe, since he was
ignorant of the fact that his wife was pregnant during her flight; and
then we cannot deny that new offence was given to his honour, or the
old one was renewed, by the said birth; or the child was born of his
legitimate father; and who will deny that by the hiding of the child,
Guido ought to be angered anew over the loss of his son? And the great
indignation conceived from either cause (the force of which is very
powerful) is so deserving of excuse that very many atrocious crimes
committed upon the impulse of just anger have gone entirely
unpunished. [Citations.] The following text [Citation] agrees with
this, "Nevertheless, because night and just anger ameliorate his deed,
he can be sent into exile." [Citations.]
And not infrequently, in the contingency of such a deed, men have
escaped entirely unpunished, who, when moved by just anger, have laid
hands even upon the innocent. For a certain Smyrnean woman had killed
her husband and her son conceived of him, because her husband had
slain her own son by her first marriage. When she was accused before
Dolabella, as Proconsul, he was unwilling either to liberate one who
was stained with two murders, or to condemn her, as she had been moved
by just anger. He therefore sent her to the Areopagus, that assembly
of very wise judges. There, when the cause had been made known,
response was given that she and her accuser should come back after a
hundred years. And so the defendant in a double murder, although she
had also killed one who was innocent, escaped entirely unpunished.
[Citation.]
Likewise, a wife who had given command for the murder of her husband
because of just anger from his denial of her matrimonial dues was
punished with a fine, and a temporary residence in a monastery, as
Cyriacus testifies. [Citation.] Such pleas might indeed hold good
whenever the accused had confessed the crime, or had been lawfully
convicted, neither of which can be affirmed [in our case]. But much
more are they to be admitted, since he confesses only that he gave
order for striking his wife's face, or for mutilating it; and if those
he commanded exceeded his order, he should not be held responsible for
their excess. [Citations.]
His fellows and companions give his name, and claim that he had a
hand in the murders. And in spite of the fact that the Fisc claims
they have hidden the truth in many respects, equity will not allow
that certain matters be separated from their depositions and that
these be accepted only in part; for if they are false in one matter,
such are they to be considered in all. It would be more than enough to
take away from those depositions all credence that, under torture in
his presence, they did not purge that stain. [Citations.]
It has very justly been permitted that in defence of this noble man, I
should deduce these matters, as they say, with galloping pen. The
scantiness of the time has not suffered me to bring together other
grounds for my case; these could be gathered with little labour, and
possibly not without utility. Yet I believe that all objections, which
can be raised on the part of the Fisc, have been abundantly satisfied.
GIACINTO ARCANGELI, _Procurator of the Poor_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 2.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases_:
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE_
_On Behalf of Count Guido Franceschini
and his Associates, Prisoners,
against the Court and the Fisc._
_Memorial of law by the Honourable
Advocate of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 2.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:
From the "prosecution [for flight]," which was brought in this very
tribunal, and by his honour, Lord Venturini, Judge in this present
case, there is more than satisfactory proof of adultery committed by
Francesca Pompilia, wife of Count Guido Franceschini, a nobleman of
Arezzo, with the Canon Caponsacchi. With Caponsacchi the parents of
this same Francesca Pompilia entered into conspiracy, although they
were living here in the City. And after she had given an opiate to
Count Guido and his entire household, she fled that same night from
the City of Arezzo toward Rome.
Consequently, the Canon, as may be remembered, was banished to Civita
Vecchia, with a statement of his criminal knowledge of that woman in
the said decree of condemnation. This adultery is also evident from
other matters of evidence deduced by the Procurator of the Poor. There
remains, accordingly, no room to doubt it, but rather their adultery
may be said to be notorious here in the City, in the country of Count
Guido, and throughout all Etruria.
Since this is established, we can safely assert that even if Guido had
confessed that he slew his wife with the complicity and help of Blasio
Agostinelli of the town of Popolo, Domenico Gambassini of Florence,
Francesco Pasquini of the castle of Monte Acuto, and Alessandro
Baldeschi of Tiferno, he should not therefore be punished with the
ordinary death penalty, but more mildly. This is in accord with the
decision of Emperor Pius as related by Ulpian [Citation] and by
Martian. [Citation.] For in both of them it is said that a man of low
birth is sent into perpetual exile, but that a noble is banished only
for a limited time, but the crime of a husband who is moved by just
anger is overlooked, as this same Ulpian confirms [Citation], since it
is most difficult to restrain such anger. [Citation.]
Yet we should not consider it necessary that the adultery of the wife
be conclusively proved (as it really is) in order that there be room
for mitigating the said penalty. For it would be enough, if we were
dealing with a case of mere suspicion: Glossa, etc. "A man who had
killed his son because he believed the young man had lain with his
stepmother, as was true, was deported to an island." [Citations.]
Dondeus also speaks of a man who had boasted that he wished to ruin
the sister of the one who killed him, which is said to have aroused
just suspicion and fear for the loss of honour sufficient to free the
slayer from the ordinary penalty of murder. [Citations.]
Nor is it true, as some authorities affirm, that the husband must take
the wife in very adultery, and kill her immediately; in which case,
they say the abovesaid laws hold good, but that it is otherwise if the
murder is done after an interval. [Citations.] For the contrary
opinion is the truer, the more usual, and the one to be observed in
practice, as Marsilius well advises, where he speaks in defence of a
certain nobleman who had killed another person after an interval. The
man slain had betrothed his sister by promise and had kept her for
three months, and had then rejected her. Because of this, a great
injury and much infamy were inflicted upon his family and the entire
kin. Marsilius then adduces the abovesaid laws, which pronounce
concerning a husband who kills his adulterous wife; and Bertazzolus
offers the case of one who had killed his adulterous wife and had
afterward, in his own defence, proved the adultery by the double
confession of the same wife. Claudius Jr. testifies that the murderer
was banished for a time by the praetor of Mirandola, and after the
lapse of several months he was recalled by the Duke of Mirandola.
[Citations.]
Afflitto cites the decree of the Kingdom, beginning _Si Maritus_,
which concedes impunity to a husband who kills his wife and the
adulterer both, in the very act of adultery, and without any delay. He
then says that if both of these requisites are not present, the
husband is excused in part, but not entirely; and so is punished more
mildly. And in No. 2 he gives the reason; because whenever one commits
a crime, under impulse of just anger, the penalty should be somewhat
moderated, according to the aforesaid text. [Citations.]
Matthæus [Citation] adduces the excellent words of Theodoric as quoted
by Cassiodorus [Citation], where we read: "For who can bear to drag
into court a man who has attempted to violate his matrimonial rights?
It is deep-seated even in beasts that they should defend their mating
even with deadly conflict, since what is condemned by natural law is
hateful to all living creatures. We see bulls defending their cows by
strife of horns, rams fighting with their heads for their wethers,
horses vindicating by kicks and bites their females; so even these,
who are moved by no sense of shame, lay down their lives for their
mates. How then may a man endure to leave adultery unavenged, which is
known to have been committed to his eternal disgrace? And so if you
have made very little false statements in the petition you offer, and
if you have indeed only washed away the stain to your marriage-bed by
the blood of the adulterer, taken in the act, and if you are looking
back from your exile, which was evidently inflicted not by reason of a
bloodthirsty mind, but because of your sense of shame, we bid you
return from your exile; since for a husband to use the sword for the
love of his sense of honour is not to overthrow the laws, but to
establish them."
Dondeus says this interpretation is clearly proved by the authority of
a glossa in the chapter: _Ex litterarum_. [Citation.] For in the text,
when these words are used: "your wife taken in adultery," a glossa
explains the word "taken" as equal to "convicted." Marta says this
opinion is much more just and equitable, and is commonly held. And
Muta (_dec. Siciliæ 61_) in the end offers a decision of the supreme
court of the kingdom, by which a husband was condemned to the galleys
for seven years. This was on account of the accompanying
circumstances; for he had had his wife summoned outside of the city
walls by his son, and there had killed her; and afterward her body was
found to have been devoured by dogs. Dexartus testifies that it was
thus decided in Sacred Royal Court, in condemning a husband only to
exile. Sanfelix also tells us that certain noble young men, who had
killed their wives, after an interval, because of strong suspicion of
adultery, were absolved by the Royal Council of Naples, in view of the
quality of the persons concerned. In their favour, authorities of the
highest rank had written, whose allegations this same author places
under the said decision. And although some of these young men were
condemned to the oars, he said that this punishment had been imposed
because of the mutilation of the privates which followed; because
those who do such things are considered enemies to nature. (_Panimoll.
dec. 86._) And Caldero, although in the preceding numbers he inclined
toward an opinion contrary to ours, came over to our side when he saw
that Matthæus held that opinion.
And the reason is very evident, for whenever such an injury is
suffered by fine natures, especially among the noble class, it is
ever present with them, and continually oppresses the heart, and urges
it on to vengeance for the recovery of lost honour, as Giurba well
notes. [Citations.]
For this reason, it has always and everywhere been held in case of
murder committed for honour's sake that there is no place for the
ordinary death penalty, which should be mitigated at the discretion of
the judge. And this rule has been followed, when the murder was
committed after an interval, and even after a long interval. For the
abovesaid reason, both Grammaticus and Gizzarellus affirm and hand
down this opinion. The latter says that it has always been so adjudged
by the Sacred Council of Naples, and that this opinion has always been
accepted by our ancestors. [Citations.]
It was so judged by the high court of the Vicar, although it was
dealing with a murder committed after two years, and by craft, by two
brothers upon the adulteress in the presence of her sister's cousin.
Cyriacus also speaks of the murder of a husband by his wife, because
he was keeping a mistress and was contriving against her honour; and
there he said that since just anger has a long continuance, because of
its extreme bitterness, vengeance should always be said to follow
immediately. [Citation.]
Another reason also is at hand, which is considered by the
authorities, namely, that an injury, whereby the honour is hurt, is
not personal, but real, and therefore can be resented at any time
whatsoever, even after the lapse of a very long time, as Giurba holds
in our circumstances. [Citations.]
We have therefore a great many standard authorities who affirm, for
most vital reasons, that murder committed, even after an interval,
upon the person of the wife or of any one else, for honour's sake,
ought not to be punished with the ordinary death penalty, but more
mildly. Furthermore, these authorities bear witness that the matter
has been so judged in the tribunals with which they are acquainted. No
attention therefore should be paid to the opposite opinion held by
Farinacci [Citation]; for we plainly see that he speaks contrary to
the common and usually accepted opinion in tribunals. [Citation.]
Still further it should be noted that the same author in _cons. 66,
num. 5_, holds the very opposite, basing his opinion especially upon a
text in the law of Emperor Hadrian [Citation], where a father had
killed his son, who was not found in the act with his stepmother, but
while out hunting and in the woods, that is, after an interval. And he
was punished not with the death penalty, but by deportation. Several
of the above-cited authorities offer the decision of this text
likewise in corroboration of this opinion of ours. Our point is also
proved by the fact that this same author in _quaest. 121_ is rather
doubtful; and there he acknowledges that for this opinion of ours the
reason given above is very strong, namely, that "injured honour" and
"just anger" always oppress the heart. And so he says in such a case
one should note the sense of the text in the law _Non puto_
[Citation], where Modestinus, Doctor of Law, says that he thinks that
one would not make a mistake who in doubtful cases should readily give
this response against the Fisc; and Farinacci cites him so speaking.
But one should be on his guard against what this same Farinacci
asserts: namely, that this opinion of his, so far as he could see, was
the one more approved by the Sacred Court. For since this point of
doubt, as he himself confesses, had not then been advanced, he could
not judge what would be the outcome if it had been proposed. And
indeed the wisest of the said high authorities do not give their
assent to his opinion, but rather hold the contrary, which is
favourable to ourselves, as is seen in the decisions they have given
from time to time. For it was so held on March 25, 1672, in the case
of Carolo Falerno, who was condemned to an unusual penalty for the
murder of Francesco Domenici; for he had found him coming out of a
church, to which he had warned him not to go, as he was suspicious
that the one slain was following his wife. In like manner with Carolo
Matarazzi, August 15, 1673, who killed his wife on the foolish grounds
that he suspected her of illegitimate conception because of the
absence of her menses; but this suspicion did not indeed correspond
with the truth. And in law a matter may be even more mistaken and less
observed by human intellect. [Citations.]
Likewise in a murder committed treacherously with an arquebus upon the
person of Tomaso Bovini by Francesco Mattucio of Monte San Giovanni, a
person of the very lowest class, merely because of the attempted
dishonour of his sister. The attempt of the one killed was proved by
two witnesses on hearsay of the one slain. On September 4, 1692, the
penalty of life sentence to the galleys, to which the said Mattucio
had been convicted on strongest proofs on the preceding July 12, was
moderated by the sacred court, before the Right Reverend Father Ratta,
of blessed memory. With good right, therefore, this same Farinacci is
expressly confuted and overthrown by Matthæus. [Citations.]
This opinion of ours is to be accepted the more readily when we
consider that the husband is more stirred by the adultery of his wife
than by the murder of his son. [Citations.] Yes, and even more than by
the defilement of his daughter. [Citation.] So that if a husband does
not complain of the adultery of his wife, he is considered a pimp, as
Paschal holds, where we read recently: "Adultery of the wife gives
offence not merely to the husband, but blackens and stains the entire
kin." [Citations.] That this happened in the present case is plainly
evident; for Abate Paolo, brother of Guido, was compelled not only to
leave the City, in which he had lived for many years with highest
praise, but even to pass out of Italy, because he was pursued
undoubtedly by the greatest disgrace on account of this adultery.
While he was carrying on Guido's cause in the courts, he moved the
laughter and sneers of almost all sensible and wise men, not to say of
the very judges themselves, as usually happens in these circumstances.
[Citations.]
Nor would it stand in the way of what we have said above, if without
prejudice to the truth, we should admit (as the Fisc claims) that
Count Guido killed his wife with the complicity and aid of the said
Blasio, Domenico, Francesco, and Alessandro, assembled for that
purpose; for he could do that in order to take vengeance upon her more
easily and more safely. [Citations.]
[Nor would it stand in our way if we admitted] that he had assembled
the said men by means of money. [Citations.]
Nor does this plea of injured honour cease with regard to the murders
of the said father-in-law and mother-in-law; for since their
conspiracy in the adultery of their daughter is established, they
themselves were among the causes of the injury and ignominy which
resulted therefrom to the prejudice of the honour and reputation of
Count Guido, their son-in-law, and her husband respectively.
Therefore, these murders likewise ought to be punished with the same
penalty as the principal, according to texts in the law _Qui domum_.
[Citations.] And so they gave cause enough to Count Guido to take
vengeance on them.
It is to be added, furthermore (as will be proved indeed, and as Count
Guido himself has asserted in his testimony), that they themselves did
another injury to his reputation by means of the civil suit which they
brought on the grounds of the pretended birth of Francesca Pompilia;
and not merely here in the City, but also in his own country, they
distributed the most bitter libels, which were added to this same
lawsuit. Hence it cannot be denied that Count Guido for this reason
had conceived a just anger and provocation, and that he had just
cause for taking vengeance. This is according to the text [Citation],
where Alexander the Third wrote to the Bishop of Tournay that a
certain woman who had killed her child should be placed in a
monastery, because she was reproached by her husband with the
accusation that it had been conceived in adultery. For in crimes where
anger does not entirely excuse, still the delinquent who kills in
anger conceived from just grievance is somewhat excused. [Citation.]
And this is true in spite of the fact that the Fisc may claim that the
penalty given in the Constitution of Alexander has been incurred. For
in the present case the crime cannot be said to have been committed on
account of hatred aroused by the lawsuit; for in that suit Count Guido
had gained a favourable sentence from Judge Tomati, which was
sanctioned by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. But the crime was
committed indeed because of his just indignation. And this arose,
first, from the ignominy growing out of the said pretence as to her
birth; second, from the provocation given by the Comparini (now slain)
in issuing and distributing the said papers; and, third, from their
conspiracy in the flight of his wife. For indeed this Constitution of
Alexander does not apply where no guile is present and where some
provocation has been given by the one hurt. Farinacci very fully
affirms this throughout _cons. 67_, where in the end he places the
complete decision of the Sacred Court.
In any case, since with Count Guido two causes for committing crime
concurred: one the aforesaid matter of the lawsuit, another wounded
honour because of the lawsuit brought and the flight in which they
conspired, wherefrom the adultery had followed, the cause of honour
should be given attention, as it is the graver and consequently the
more proportionate to the crime. [Citations.]
Likewise the penalty should not be increased in view of the place of
the crime, because the defence of one's honour is so justifiable, and
the anger and commotion of mind arising therefrom is so just, that
reason for it cannot be demanded, as Merlin Pignatelli [Citation]
holds, because Giovanni Francesco de Carrillo [Citation] speaks of an
insult offered in prison. And No. 29 approves the decision for the
reason that greater reverence is due to churches and other places
consecrated to God, and in which the King of Kings and Lord of Lords
dwells in essence; and yet one who commits crime in them from just
anger and grievance is excused; for he asserts that all Canonists and
other authorities there alleged by him unanimously acknowledge this.
More readily, therefore, should this conclusion follow in our case,
since the said Francesca was not staying in a formal prison, but was
merely keeping her home as a prison, under security of 300 scudi, that
she would not depart therefrom; because one who has given bond and has
sworn not to leave a place is neither in chains nor in custody.
[Citations.]
Lucano holds that there are differences between being kept in chains
and being committed under bond, etc. And Farinacci holds that the word
"custody" should be more strictly interpreted than the word "chains."
[Citations.]
Even if, therefore, Count Guido had confessed that he killed his own
wife, his father-in-law, and his mother-in-law, with the complicity
and aid of the above-named helpers, he should not be punished with the
ordinary penalty, for reasons given above. And much more readily
should we follow this opinion since we can see that he confessed only
that he gave commands for mutilating his said wife (_ad sfrisiandum_),
if I may use the word of the authorities. In this case he is not to be
held responsible for the subsequent death of his wife and of the
others. Decian, _cons. 622, no. 4_, in this very condition, holds that
one giving orders can be punished only for the manner of committing
the crime for which bodily punishment cannot be inflicted.
Thus far the Fisc has been unwilling to rest satisfied with such a
qualified confession. Yet since he claims the right to torture the
accused for proving some further pretended truth, the torture shall be
simple; nor can the torment of the vigil be inflicted; because the
Constitution given out by Pope Paul Fifth, of sacred memory, for the
reformation of the courts of the City, stands in the way of that. This
is included among his Constitutions as the 71st. By this it was
decreed that such torment could not be inflicted unless these two
features jointly concur: namely, that the crime be very atrocious and
that the accused be burdened with the strongest proofs. [Citations.]
But a crime is said to be "very atrocious" provided it is one for
which a penalty more severe than mere death should be inflicted, such
as useless mutilation, burning, and the like. _Farinaccius qu. 18,
num. 68_, etc. And such a death, as ignominious and infamous, has no
place with the persons of nobles. [Citations.]
Hence it is much less so here, because we are not arguing about the
death penalty even, which does not enter into the present case for
reasons given above. And Gabriellus speaks to this effect on the point
that such a crime may not be said to be qualified.
What has been said in favour of Guido, the principal, also stands in
favour of the aforesaid Blasio, Domenico, Francesco, and Alessandro;
because they cannot be punished with the ordinary penalty, but only
with the same penalty as the principal. [Citation.] Baldo cites a case
under the statute which shows that one under bann for a certain crime
cannot be killed save by the enemy who had him put under bann; and he
says that if the enemy has him assassinated, the assassin is not
punished. And he gives this reason, that what is permissible in the
person of the one giving the order should be held as permissible in
the one to whom orders are given; and he says it had been so held in a
case under that law. Castro [Citation] holds that when one is
permitted under the statute to take vengeance upon a person who has
given him offence, he is also permitted to assemble his friends, to
afford him aid, and that they shall go unpunished, just as the
principal does. He also asserts that Jacobus Butrigarus [Citation],
held thus, in _cons. 277_, where he speaks of the case of a husband
who had assembled men to beat one who had wished to shame the modesty
of his wife, he ordered his wife to pretend to give ear, and when the
intriguer had come, murder was committed. And he says that men brought
together in this way should be spared, because such an assembly was
permissible for the husband, who was principal. [Citation.] Jason
holds that in any vengeance permitted by law, one cannot demand it of
another; yet he to whom it is permitted may take fellows and
accomplices with him for the same act, and if they kill in company
with him they shall not be held to account for the murder nor for the
aid they have given; and he says that this opinion should be much kept
in mind. Cæpollinus also illustrates this in several cases, especially
in that of certain men who had killed one keeping the company of the
sister of the man who had assembled them; and he says that they should
not be punished, just as the principal was not, and he gained his
point so that it was thus adjudged. [Citations.]
Soccini also holds it should be thus adjudged, unless one wishes to
say that they should be punished with a slighter penalty than the
principal, as often happens in the case of auxiliaries. And he speaks
in our very circumstances of men assembled by a husband for the sake
of killing one who had polluted his wife. In these same
circumstances, see also Parisius. [Citation.] Carera [Citation] speaks
of a father who had his daughter (who had been keeping bad company)
killed by an assassin; and he says that neither the father nor the
murderer are to be held to account. [Citation.]
Marsilius also, after placing in the very beginning this principle
that when one matter is conceded all seem to be conceded which lead
thereto, draws inference therefrom for the present case and many
reasons for it are adduced. Cassanis also [Citation] holds that men
assembled in this way are not held responsible either for the murder
or for the aid furnished, if they do the killing in the company of the
principal. And in these same circumstances Garzonus speaks, decision
71, throughout.
Nor does it stand in the way of our reasoning that one of the
aforesaid defendants had inflicted wounds with his own hands, or had
killed one of the victims; as Francesco has confessed that he
inflicted four or five wounds in the back of Francesca Pompilia. Even
in these circumstances the rule holds good that auxiliaries shall not
be punished with greater penalty than the principal. And so affirm
individually the following authorities among those recently cited.
[Citations.]
And Garzoni testifies that it was so adjudged in the said decision 71,
where we read: "Or he may have with himself associates for this act,"
and if they kill the adulterers in company of the principal they are
held to very slight account, either for the murder or for the aid
given, and it was so adjudged.
And even in the more extreme case of one killing by assassination, and
consequently in the absence of the principal, this is the opinion of
Baldo [Citation], where we read: "And now it is inquired whether an
assassin is ever punished, and I say he is not; because what is
permitted in the person giving command is also permitted in the person
commanded." Castro [Citation] also says: "Because what I can do of
myself I can have done through my helpers who are necessary for that
purpose." And Afflitto [Citation] says: "Either with one's own hands,
or by help of another, even with the influence of money, and thus by
an assassin; for Baldo says on this same point: 'What is permitted in
the person giving command is also permitted in the person commanded';
and he witnesses that it was so adjudged." [Citations.] Marta [speaks
as follows]: "Much more so because authorities affirm that a husband,
who on account of fear cannot kill the adulteress, may even by the
help of money demand of another that he kill her, and neither of them
is then to be punished."
But whatever Caballus [Citation] may say to the contrary, he bases his
opinion upon Castro and Rollandus. Castro, however, favours our
opinion, as is to be seen in No. 3. Rollandus should not be given
heed; for when he offers this very same opinion about the statute
which permits any one to take vengeance; and says that since this kind
of permission is personal, it cannot be passed on from one to another,
this opinion of his is expressly contrary to the teaching of Baldo,
Castro, Jason, and others, whom we have alleged above in paragraph
_quae dicta sunt_. And since this opinion of ours is milder and more
equitable, it should hold good, as Jason decides on this point.
[Citation.]
Nor can the punishment be increased because of the alleged carrying of
prohibited arms; because the latter offence is included then with the
real crime. [Citations.] In Guazzin we read that this is so, even if
for the carrying of the arms a greater penalty would be inflicted
[than for the principal offence]. And so, whenever it is evident that
the crime has been committed for honour's sake and for a just
grievance, as in the present case, the carrying of the arms may go
unpunished, or at least it should not be punished with a more severe
penalty than should be imposed for the principal crime itself. Thus
Policardus [Citation] well affirms when speaking of arms which are
considered treacherous by the Banns.
These claims should hold good more readily as regards Domenico and
Francesco, who are foreigners, and are therefore not included in any
of the Apostolic Constitutions or Banns, which prohibit the bearing of
arms under very heavy penalties. [Citations.]
Especially since they are minors, as is made clear in the course of
the trial, pp. 35 and 304; in which case they are likewise not bound
by these Constitutions and Banns, which give judgment upon the crime
of a minor. For the power to make and establish such regulations was
lacking in the Prince or public official concerned. [Citations.]
Such are the matters which, in view of the excessive scantiness of
time, I have been able to collect in discharge of my duty for the
defence of these poor prisoners. Nor do I at all distrust that my
Lords Judges, when they see that too little has been said, will wish
to supply and offer what is lacking out of the high rectitude for
which they are distinguished. For this would be quite in accord with
the decree of Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, as related.
[Citation.] And they will follow the advice of Hippolitus Marsilius,
famous in criminal proceedings, who says that a judge is obliged by
his office to seek out grounds of defence for the accused.
[Citations.]
DESIDERIO SPRETI, _Advocate for the Poor_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 3.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases_:
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE._
_In behalf of Blasio Agostinelli and his
Associates, Prisoners, against
the Fisc._
_Memorial of fact and law._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 3.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
The plea of injured honour which redeems Count Guido from the rigorous
penalty that should follow for the commission of murders, likewise
urges mitigation of the ordinary penalty for Blasio and the associates
who had hand in the murder, even though it may be pretended that they
were paid thereto. For it is taken for granted that we are dealing
with a case far removed from assassination, because of the presence of
a person who had real cause for vengeance, as the following
authorities think in common. [Citation.]
There has been the strongest controversy among authorities as to
whether a father or husband may demand of any one except his son the
murder of his daughter or of his adulterous wife. And divided on the
two sides of the question, they have contended strongly. [Citation.]
Yet the majority are in favour of the affirmative and of the milder
sentence; and often, in the event of such a murder, it has evidently
been so adjudged. [Citation.]
But since this question lies outside of our line of argument, it would
be vain and quite useless labour to take it up, nor is time to be
wasted when we are so hard pressed for it. For we are evidently
dealing with auxiliaries, assembled for committing homicide, according
to the thought of the Fisc. Hence the conditions of a mere "mandatory"
are not applicable; because of the immediate presence of the principal
in the crime; for when he also lays hand to the crime, those who do
likewise are not called mandatories, but auxiliaries and helpers.
[Citations.]
Furthermore, just as Guido himself is freed from the death penalty
because of the said plea of injured honour, so likewise are his allies
and auxiliaries freed, as the following authorities unanimously
assert. [Citations.]
Those who are cited in support of the opposite view do not pronounce
opinion in our peculiar circumstances, but speak of a husband
demanding of another the murder of his adulterous wife, and not of
auxiliaries who do the killing in company with the husband, as in our
case. [Citations.]
In such contingency, auxiliaries who give aid to a husband while
killing his adulterous wife have always enjoyed the same indulgence as
the principal himself; that is, they always escape the capital
penalty, and indeed go entirely unpunished. [Citations.]
Nor does the distinction of Caballus make any difference, where he
holds that auxiliaries may indeed assist with impunity a husband or a
father killing a wife or daughter respectively, in order that these
may kill the more safely; but that they cannot lend a hand and
actually kill; for in the latter case they are to be held accountable
for the murder. Because, for foundation in making such a distinction,
he plants his feet upon Paolo de Castro. [Citation.] But this is so
far from proving his purpose that it rather turns back on him
remarkably to his own injury. For after the latter sets before himself
this kind of a difficulty, under No. 2, he adds: "But I hold entirely
the contrary: that neither the one who did the killing nor he who made
the assembly (as it may be called) are to be held for the murder for
the purpose of inflicting the capital penalty."
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.
[Sidenote: 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.
At the time of the affair of the play told above, as soon as we had
returned home, he pointed a pistol at my breast saying: "Oh, Christ!
What hinders me from laying you out here? Let Caponsacchi look to it
well, if you do not wish me to do so, and to kill you."
[Sidenote: B.
She died asserting that she did not know how to write.]
Furthermore at the beginning of these troubles, I went twice to
Monsignor the Bishop, because he might have remedied it in some way;
but this did no good, because of his relation with the house of my
husband. And so as I was a stranger in that city and did not know how
to free myself from these perils and abuses, and as I feared that if
Guido did not slay me with weapons he might poison me, I planned to
run away and go back to Rome to my father and mother. But as I did not
know how to accomplish this, I went about a month later to confession
to an Augustinian Father, whom they call Romano. I told him all my
distresses, imploring him to write to my father in my name, as I do
not know how to write, and to tell him that I was desperate, and must
part from my husband and go to him in Rome. But I had no response.
[Sidenote: C.
She confesses the strength and audacity of her lover.]
[Sidenote: D.
She confesses a conversation with her lover.]
[Sidenote: E.
She confesses a new conversation with her lover.]
Therefore, not knowing to whom I might turn to accomplish my desire,
and thinking that no one in the place would assist me, because of
their relationship or friendship to my husband, I finally resolved to
speak of it to the said Caponsacchi, because I had heard said that he
was a resolute man. Accordingly, as he was passing one day before our
house, at a time when my husband was out of the city, I called him and
spoke to him from the stairs. I told him of the peril in which I found
myself on his account, and begged him to bring me here to Rome, to my
father and mother. He replied, however, that he did not wish to meddle
at all in such an affair, as it would be thought ill of by the whole
city, and all the more so as he was a friend of the house of my
husband. But I implored him so much and told him it was the duty of a
Christian to free from death a poor foreign woman. At last I induced
him to promise me that he would accompany me as above. Then he told me
he would secure the carriage, and when that had been arranged he would
give me a signal by letting his handkerchief fall in passing before
our house, as he had done before. But the next day went by, and
although I stood at the blinds, he did not give the signal. When the
day following had also passed, I spoke to him again as above, and
complained to him that he had broken the word he had given me. And he
excused himself, saying that he had not found a carriage in Arezzo. I
answered him that, at any rate, he should have procured one from
outside, as he had promised to do. Then the last Sunday of the past
month, he went by our house again and made the signal with the
handkerchief, as he had promised. And so I went to bed with my husband
that evening, and when I had assured myself that he was asleep I arose
from bed and clothed myself. I took some little things of my own, a
little box with many trifles inside, and some money, I know not how
much there was, from the strong-box. These were, moreover, my own, as
is evident from the list of things and moneys made by the treasurer of
Castelnuovo. Then I went downstairs at dawn, where I found
Caponsacchi, and we went together to the Porta San Spirito. Outside of
it stood a carriage with two horses and a driver, and when we had both
entered the carriage we journeyed toward Rome, travelling night and
day without stopping until we reached Castelnuovo, except for them to
take refreshment and to change the horses. We arrived at dawn, and
were there overtaken by my husband as I have told heretofore to your
Honour. The said Caponsacchi is not related in any degree to my
husband, but was certainly a friend.
[Sidenote: F.
The lie about the arrival at Castelnuovo.]
[Sidenote: G.
The lover is not a relative of her husband.]
The said Caponsacchi, before the said affair, did not send me any
letter, because I do not know how to read manuscript, and do not know
how to write.
[Sidenote: H.
New lies, that she did not receive letters from her lover, and that
she does not know how to write.]
Before the said affair, I did not at all send a letter of any sort to
the said Caponsacchi.
[Sidenote: I.
Another lie, that she did not send letters to her lover.]
[Sidenote: K.
She does not know how to write, and her husband had traced the
letter.]
When again put under oath, she responded: While I was in Arezzo, I
wrote at the instance of my husband to Abate Franceschini, my
brother-in-law here in Rome. But as I did not know how to write, my
husband wrote the letter with a pencil and then made me trace it with
a pen and ink it. And he told me that his brother had much pleasure in
receiving such a letter of mine, which had been written with my own
hand. And he did this two or three times.
If your Honour should cause me to see one of the letters written by me
as above, and sent to Abate Franceschini, I should clearly recognise
it.
And when it was shown, etc., she responded: "I have seen and carefully
examined the letter shown me by the order of your Honour, which
begins--_Carissimo Sig. Cognato, sono con questa_--and ends _Francesca
Comparini ne Franceschini_, and having examined it, it seems to me,
but I cannot swear to it as the truth, that it is one of the letters
written by me to Abate Franceschini, my brother-in-law, in conformity
to my husband's wishes, etc."
And after a few intervening matters, etc., when questioned, etc., she
replied: "I have never sent letters of any sort by the said Maria to
any one."
[Sidenote: L.
Another lie about the arrival at the tavern of Castelnuovo.]
In all truth, I arrived at Castelnuovo at the blush of dawn.
We shut ourselves in there at the tavern of Castelnuovo for the space
of more than an hour. During that time we stayed in a room upstairs.
[Sidenote: M.
New lies that she did not lie down to sleep at the Inn of
Castelnuovo.]
And after a few other matters, when questioned, she replied: "I did
not go to sleep, nor lie down to rest in the tavern at Castelnuovo
during the time I stopped there, as above."
I know that your Honour tells me that the authorities pretend further
that I slept all night in the abovesaid tavern of Castelnuovo in an
upstairs room, in which Canon Caponsacchi also slept. And I say and
respond that no one can truly say so, because I did not rest at all in
the said tavern, and stopped there only for the time stated above.
[The letter of Pompilia to Abate Franceschini occurs both here and in
the summary of the Defence. It is translated on pp. 56, 57.]
No. 4.--_A letter of Francesca written to Abate Franceschini._
Outside: To Abate Paolo Franceschini, Rome; but inside:
My very dear Sir and Brother:
I have received the fan which you sent, which has been most welcome to
me. I accept it with pleasure and thank you for it. It displeases me
that, without reason, my parents wound the honour of our house. I for
my part am well and am happy in not having them now to stir me to
evil. I wish well to all our house, in the sacred fear of God. In fact
you may well laugh at the maledictions of my parents. Command me, who
reverence you from the bottom of my heart.
Your deeply obliged servant and sister-in-law,
FRANCESCA COMPARINI FRANCESCHINI.
AREZZO, _July 19, 1694_.
No. 5.--_The examination of Canon Caponsacchi._
I had to go to Rome on my own business, and as I told my secret to
Giovanni Battista Conti, a relative of Franceschini, who frequented
the home of the latter, Francesca might have learned about it from the
same Canon, although there was talk about town of my coming to Rome,
which was to follow soon. Hence a letter, sent to me by the said
Francesca, was brought one day by a certain Maria, then a servant of
the Franceschini. In it she told me that she had heard of my going to
Rome, and that, as her husband wished to kill her, she had resolved to
go to Rome to her father; and not knowing with whom she might intrust
herself, she asked me to do her the service of accompanying her as
above. I answered her that I was unwilling to do anything of that
kind, or to expose myself to such a risk; and I sent her a reply by
the same servant. I do not remember the precise time that she sent me
the above letter. Thereafter, when I passed the house, she continued
making the same request to me, by flinging from time to time from the
window a note that repeated the request. And I replied to her, sending
the response by the same servant, and telling her that I did not care
to involve myself in such affairs. And therefore she finally cast me
another note from the window, which, as I learned, was seen by a
working-woman living across the street, whose name I do not know, and
she carried it to the husband. The same servant was then commissioned
to tell me that there had been a great commotion in the house because
of it, and that the sister of Guido, who had been married into the
house of Conti, had declared furthermore that that servant had carried
the letter to me. She also told me that Guido said he was going to
kill his wife in some way after a little while, and that he would also
be avenged on me. Accordingly, with this purpose, to free myself from
every difficulty and danger, and also to save from death the said
Francesca, I resolved to leave for Rome and to accompany her thither,
conducting her to her father. And so one evening--I do not remember
the exact time--as I was passing their house I gave her a letter,
which she drew up to the window with a string. In it I told her that
to free her from death I would accompany her as above. Another evening
she threw to me from the window a letter in which she renewed the
above insistence, declaring to me that her husband was always
threatening to kill her; she would therefore have to receive the
favour of my company as above, of which I had spoken. And finally, the
last Sunday of the past month of April, while I was going by their
house and she was standing at the window, I told her that I had
secured the carriage for early the following morning, and that I would
have it await her at the gate of San Clemente. Accordingly, at about
one o'clock in the morning, she came alone to the said gate. We
entered the carriage and turned along outside of the city wall to go
to the gate of San Spirito, which is in the direction of Perugia.
This carriage belonged to Agostino, tavern-keeper in Arezzo, and a
driver, surnamed Venarino, the servant of the said Agostino, drove it.
I had had him leave the city Sunday evening at the Ave Maria. Then we
pursued our journey without stopping to spend the night anywhere, and
we paused only as it was necessary for refreshing ourselves and
changing horses, until we reached Castelnuovo on Tuesday evening, the
last day of the said month of April. Then because Francesca said that
she was suffering some pain, and that she did not have the fortitude
to pursue the journey further without rest, she cast herself, still
clothed, upon a bed in a chamber there, and I, likewise clothed,
placed myself on another bed in the same chamber. I told the host to
call us after three or four hours, for resuming our journey. But he
did not call us, and the husband of the said Francesca arrived in the
meantime, and had both of us arrested by the authorities, and from
there we were taken to Rome.
I have not spoken in Arezzo to Francesca at other times than those I
have recounted above to yourselves.
[Sidenote: E.
The lover is not related to Count Guido.]
The husband of the said Francesca is not related to me in any degree
whatsoever.
I have no profession at all, but am a Canon of the Pieve, of Santa
Maria of Arezzo, and am merely a subdeacon.
When I was imprisoned at Castelnuovo certain moneys, rings, and other
matters were found, of which a memorandum was made by the authorities.
I have never written any letter to the said Francesca, except as
stated by me above.
The letters sent to me as above by the said Francesca were burned by
me in Arezzo.
Although in the prison of Castelnuovo, where I was placed, a diligent
search was made by the authorities and also by the husband of the said
Francesca, nothing at all was found there.
The said Francesca when leaving Arezzo carried with her a bundle of
her own clothing and a box, in which she said there were some
trinkets, but I did not see them. And she had it in a handkerchief
with certain coins, which were then described at Castelnuovo by the
Treasurer.
I do not know precisely by whom the letters sent to me by the said
Francesca were written, but I suppose that they may have been written
by her, but I do not know whether she knows how to write.
In the chamber of the inn at Castelnuovo where we stopped, as I said
in my other examination, there were two beds. Only one of these was
provided with sheets by the servant of the tavern, that it might serve
for Signora Francesca. I did not have sheets placed on the other,
because I did not care to undress myself. Nor did she undress herself,
as I said in my other examination.
If I should see one of the letters written by me to Signora Francesca,
I would know it very well.
I have seen and I do see very carefully these two letters which have
been offered as evidence in this suit and have been shown to me by the
order of your Honour. One of them begins _Adorata mia Signora, vorrei
sapere_, etc., and ends _mi ha detto il Conti_. Having well considered
this letter, I declare that it was not written by me, though the
handwriting of the same has some resemblance to my own. I have also
seen the other letter, which begins _Amatissima mia, Signora, Ricevo_,
etc., and ends _questa mia_, and having well examined it I say that
the same was not at all written by me, and is not in my handwriting.
Furthermore, it has not the slightest resemblance to my handwriting.
I have never spoken in Arezzo to Signora Francesca, except when I
spoke to her at the window, as I said in my other examination.
I have never received other letters from the said Signora Francesca
concerning other matters than her flight to Rome, as I have said in my
other examinations.
I marvel that the Fisc pretends that, before the flight, several other
love-letters had been sent to me by the said Signora Francesca; for
she was a modest young woman and such actions would be out of keeping
with her station and her birth. And therefore I declare that the
abovesaid pretence is false and without foundation.
I turn back to say to your Honour that in the prison of Castelnuovo
there was not found by the authorities anything whatsoever. And if
your honour tells me that certain love-letters were found, which the
Fisc pretends are those sent me by Signora Francesca, I say and
respond that it is not at all true.
No. 6.--_Letter of the Most Reverend Bishop of Arezzo._
Outside: To the Most Illustrious and Most Respected Signor Paolo
Franceschini, Rome.
And inside:
My Most Illustrious and Respected Signor:
I understand why you desire to tell me about the quarrels which have
arisen between Signor Guido, your brother, and Signor Comparini. And I
cannot but pity you for the trouble you have had in a case so rare,
and indeed so unprecedented. The Signora, your sister-in-law, had some
recourse to me, but her great excitement, taken along with the
excessive passion of her mother, revealed to me that the daughter had
taken this step entirely by instigation. So I tried to make peace
between them, thinking that when the instigations of the parents were
removed she might be brought to right reason. I believed this the more
readily, as she was of tender age. And the more she spoke, and the
more she made outcry, that much the more had she been urged thereto by
the instigation of her mother. And that she might not be excited even
more, I had her taken home in my carriage twice. I have some knowledge
of this because Signor Senator Marzi-Medici, who presides over the
laic government of this town for our Most Serene Grand Duke, has told
me all. And I need only add that I reaffirm what I have written with
entire sincerity. Wishing for new chances to serve you, I affirm
myself to you, Sir,
Your Most Obedient Servant,
THE RIGHT REVEREND BISHOP OF AREZZO.
AREZZO, _September 15, 1694_.
No. 7.--_Reciprocal love-letters._
My dear Sir:
I do not multiply my assertions for the purpose of proving my love to
you, because my resolution and your desert is enough proof of it. My
affection no longer has any rein, etc. May grace be to him who gives
grace.
My own Signor:
I tell you, do not be surprised if my mother was at the window,
because she was looking at the one who was setting the sofa in order.
And therefore you can pass here without fear. When more at my leisure,
I will write you some fine matters, etc. When they tell me anything, I
will advise you of it.
My Adored Mirtillo, My own Life:
I pray you pardon me that I did not look at you yesterday when I was
at the Cappucchini, because I saw that the two were watching to see if
I would look at you. Therefore I suffered much pain in not being able
to look at my Sun. But I saw mine own with my heart, in which I have
you engraved. I remain as I am and shall be
Your devoted servant and faithful sweetheart,
AMARILLIS.
My well-beloved:
I have received your letter, which has given me much pain, etc., that
the Jealous One might have seen the letters. And he did see them, but
did not open them, because they were tied up together, and he supposed
that they were other letters, and did not take them into his hand.
This fellow is telling it because he would like you to get angry with
me, etc. You ask me if I am of the same thought, and I tell you yes.
If you have not changed, I am ready to do what I have told you, etc.
Then soon, if they continue to drink red wine, I will tell you so.
Whether you are of the same mind still, or have repented of it, I am
content to do what you wish, etc. I remain as I have been
YOUR FAITHFUL SWEETHEART.
Most beloved Signor:
I do not know why you did not pass here yesterday evening; for I took
my stand at the window and saw no one. I forsook the window because
the Canon, my brother, was there. I left there to go to the other
windows lest he might see me, etc. But you turned toward the door of
your sweetheart, because there is the one adored by you. Conti has
asked me for those octaves, which you gave me, etc. Therefore tell me
if I must give them to him or still keep the precious verses for
myself. And I remain as I am and shall be
Your faithful, yes, your most faithful Sweetheart,
AMARILLIS.
I forgot to tell you that the Signora my mother no longer has the
fever, and is drinking wine, but by herself. Her wine, however, is
red like ours. Therefore tell me what to do, that I may do it. I close
with sending you a million kisses. But I know that in this way they
are not so dear as a few would be if you would give them to me. But
those of the Signora are very dear to you, though I tell you that they
are poisoned, etc. Be the scrupulous one with others that you have
been with me. For you have reason for this with others, but you have
no occasion for it with me, etc.
Most Cherished Narcissus:
This evening I received your letter, and it gives me great comfort to
know that you are not angry, etc. I do not know when he will give it
to me, but if he gives it to me I will give it to you. The Jealous One
is away, but I shall still be here, and all the rest; but because my
mother has not found a servant, etc., they have said that they will
stay here a while. Therefore you will not pass [?] out of my mind
because of my not seeing you for a while. But whoever loves from so
good a heart as I do, will keep one in mind. I pray you pardon me if I
make myself tedious by writing too often. Acknowledging myself as I
am, I remain
YOUR DEVOTED SERVANT AND MOST FAITHFUL SWEETHEART.
Most beloved Signor:
If you could imagine with what haste I have written to you these two
verses, etc. I met Signor Doctor, as usual. He asked me where I was
going, and along the street, he asked me why I had written scornfully
to him. I told him that he deserved even worse, because he had given
evil deeds and good words; for he had said he was fond of me and that
he wished him and the rest of them in Sovara, etc. He replied it did
not come from this one, but on account of another gentleman whom I
used to like, who was more gallant than he. I answered him that if
that one was not more gallant than himself, he was at least more
faithful, etc. Professing myself, as I have ever been faithful, etc.
My Adored and Revered Signor:
I wish by this letter of mine to excuse myself from my error in
sealing the letter which I sent to Rome, etc. I tell you that they
have not found any letter at all of mine, because I do not let them
lie around the house, but give them to the flames. And while I keep
them, I place them in my bosom. This is not an excuse, why you should
surmise [it to be] one of my letters; for I tell you that I give it
place in my bosom, etc. Inasmuch as one of the family may be behind
the curtain, as I believe, do not make any signal when you are under
the windows. I shall be at the window this evening, or else at the
blinds, and when I shall see you I will show myself at the window. But
it is necessary to be prudent, that he may not see me. Because he has
told me that if he sees me he will wish to do such things as not even
Æneas, the Trojan, did. To avoid arousing his suspicion I will not
stay there. But I pledge myself
YOUR MOST DEVOTED SERVANT.
My Longed-for Blessing:
If your saying that I do not love you, because you do not know me, is
not an error, it is at least displeasing to me. Hear me, my dear: I am
offended with you, because either you consider me blind or you do not
consider me amiable. You cannot say of a truth that I do not love you,
nor can you say truly that any one does love as much as I love you.
Look into my eyes, and you will be astonished; for when bright with my
tears they will be faithful mirrors to reveal to you that your face is
copied there (in which an outline of it is made in the Sun), that your
whiteness is snow in comparison with the Milky Way, that the Graces
have directed your movements by their own hand, that Venus in
fashioning you took the measure of your limbs with her own girdle. Ah
yes, I love you so much that in one respect I would wish alone to love
you in the world, because it seems to me that I could love you all in
central Latium. I should like that all might love you, because you
would see that all of them put together cannot love you as much as I
alone do. My breast is envied by every other part of me, because it
alone is able to love you. These are matters one cannot know by mere
hearing; they are matters to render one excusable to any one else who
does not believe it. But you are a cruel beauty; for if you see a face
composed by the miracles of angels you should not consider it a lie if
a heart is found fashioned by the miracles of love, etc. I leave you a
thousand thousand kisses.
My well-beloved:
I pass by compliments, because I cannot match your very gallant
verses, which are so far different from what I merit. You tell me that
you wish to know what has happened in our house. I tell you that
nothing has happened, so far as I can see, because none of them have
said anything to me--none of them. But Signor Guido seems rather well
disposed toward me than otherwise, and therefore I cannot find out
whether they are angry with me. Let my brother-in-law lock the door;
he does it often, etc. If you do not wish to pass by here any more, I
leave that to your own judgment, and I will suffer quietly the pains
which are pleasing to you. Therefore I tell you that you may do as you
wish. For as gold is refined in the fire, so love is refined by
suffering. I can well say that I shall suffer pain at not seeing you
as I have been accustomed, etc. With a loving kiss, I remain as I have
ever been, your most sincere sweetheart and your most faithful slave.
I had quite forgotten to tell you that I stay in the same room as at
first, and that Thursday evening I went to bed at eight o'clock, and
so you did not hear me enter the room. I told the servant that she
should make the signals agreed upon, etc.
Signor Guido returns Saturday morning and you may pass this evening at
ten o'clock or sooner, when you shall see the light in the room, etc.
My well-beloved:
I received your letter, which was most pleasing to me, as are all the
rest you have sent me, etc. I see that you like the Pastor Fido. But I
would wish you to imitate him, and I will imitate another Vienna. I
hear from her that you will want to come to see me at the Villa, etc.
If I could only bring it about, I would more willingly be your wife
than your servant. You tell me that Conti is unwilling to bring any
more letters for you. But let me inform you that I am wheedling him,
and I have the wits to bring it about that he will carry them to you;
because I say two kind words to him and he is charmed and will do what
I wish. You tell me that I shall let a cord down through the lattice,
but you do not tell me what evening, etc. But I tell you that the
Jealous One had gone to Sovara, if I might speak to you. But the
Confessor is utterly unwilling, and for that reason I do not have you
come here, because now the street door is no longer opened, but you
might be able to open the back door, etc. But that Fate does not wish
it, and you do not. I thank you for the kisses you send me, but if you
yourself could give them to me, I would hold them dear. And I give you
others in reply, as many millions as you have given to me.
YOUR MOST FAITHFUL SWEETHEART.
I do not know what name to give myself, whether Vienna, or Amarillis,
or Dorinda, or Lilla, but I wish to call myself Ariadne, for I believe
I have had to be such. I wish to call myself such, only so you are not
a Theseus, but a chaste Joseph, or a dear Narcissus, or an Ilago, or a
Fedone. Adonis indeed took pity on Venus, but I am none such, but even
a Medusa. Therefore I deserve, etc. If you have read Tasso, you will
know who this was, etc.
My Beloved Idol:
I know of the affairs which have happened to you. I do not take it in
bad part when you tell me that it is not possible to make my mother
sleep, while she is ill and drinks no wine, and therefore cannot
sleep. It may be in the next few days that she will get well. Then I
will inform you of it, etc.
Your faithful Sweetheart,
AMARILLIS.
My Adored, Beloved, and Revered Heart:
I am confused at such praise, etc. You write to me oftener than you
might about the Doctor. You offend me by saying that I will love him
again. I tell you as sure as the Sun shall rise upon this world, I
have not the heart for another such blow. But he who does ill, thinks
ill, etc. As to what you wish to know about the wine, I tell you that
it is red now, but I do not know how much longer it will be so, but I
will let you know about it. Sending you a thousand and a thousand, and
a million of kisses, I remain, etc.
Come this evening at seven o'clock, because I wish to speak to you,
and cough when you are under the window.
AMARILLIS.
She is bursting because she cannot say, as you tell me here, that she
is white as milk, and that you are darker than I. If I had been you, I
might have called you ivory, as I do call you. Watch this evening lest
it be the Jealous One, and not myself. Therefore I will cough, and if
you do not hear me cough, do not move.
I let you know that Signor Guido is going out of the city, and will be
gone several days. Therefore I pray you come this evening about seven
o'clock. And when you are under the window cough and wait a little
while, that I may not make a mistake. He goes away Monday morning,
etc.
My dearest and Most Deserving Well-beloved:
I give the infinite thanks of Rosalinda, etc. I wish you to know that
he makes me signals along the Via del Poggio, etc., and not because I
wish to make proof of your love, which I know very well. You are as
constant as myself, and therefore I do not wish to make these proofs,
etc. So that you cannot say that I no longer love you, because all my
good wishes for Signor Guido are turned to you, who deserve it.
AMARILLIS.
_Letter of the Lover._
My adored Signora:
I wish to know whether you can leave Sunday evening, that is,
to-morrow evening, for if you do not go away to-morrow evening, God
knows when you shall be able to do so, because of the scarcity of
carriages, owing to the fact that on Wednesday the Bishop departs with
three carriages. Therefore, if you can go, as soon as you have read
this letter of mine, return to the window and throw it to me as a sign
that I may reserve a carriage beforehand, which may be secured from
some one or other. If I secure the carriage to-morrow, in passing
along there I will let fall my handkerchief one time only. Then for
the rest, to-morrow evening I will wait from eight o'clock in the
evening on as long as necessary. And as soon as you see that they are
sound asleep, open the door for me, that I may help you make up your
bundles and collect the money. Above all, try to put some into all
their cups, and do not yourself drink it. And if by ill luck they
shall find it out, and shall threaten you with death, open indeed the
door, that I may die with you or free you from their hands. And
praying God that he will make this design of ours turn out well, I
declare myself as ever.
Your Most Faithful Servant and Lover,
MIRTILLO.
It is a very bad sign that the Jealous One seems pacified, and that he
has said you were at the window. Because he will wish to find out in
that way what you are doing at the window, and for what purpose you
are there. For Conti has told me that now he is more jealous than at
first, and that if he find out about anything, he will wish to avenge
himself by putting us to death. He wishes to do the same to me, and
that is what will happen. Here then has come at last the breaking of
the chord.
Most Beloved Signora:
I have received your note full of those expressions (and then loving
words follow). Be pleased to receive me into your bosom, in which I
rest all my affections, etc. Consign to the ashes this note of mine.
_Another letter of Francesca._
My Revered Signor:
Driven by the affection which I feel for you, I am forced to
contradict what I sent you yesterday evening in that letter when I
said I did not wish to tell you to come here. If you did not tell me
then, I tell you now that I would wish you to come here this evening
at the same hour as day before yesterday evening. I have indeed
thought that towers are not moved by such light blows. But if you do
[not?] wish to come here (that there may be no occasion for you to
break your promise to some beloved lady or even though it may not be
convenient), I do not wish to be the cause. Therefore if you wish to
come here, pass along as soon as you have read this, etc.
No. 8.--_Decree of banishment of the lover._
_Tuesday, September 24, 1697._
Joseph Maria Caponsacchi, of Arezzo, for complicity in flight and
running away of Francesca Comparini, and for carnal knowledge of the
same, has been banished for three years to Civita Vecchia.
[File-title of Pamphlet 8.]
_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, against the Fisc._
_New Memorial of the fact and law,
together with a summary,
by the Honourable Procurator of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 8.]
Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lord Governor:
The confession of Count Guido and his fellows as to the murder of
Francesca, his wife, and of Pietro and Violante Comparini, his
father-in-law and mother-in-law, falls far short of supporting the
Fisc in demanding the ordinary death penalty. But, rather, it is
remarkably in our favour in excluding that penalty. For there is no
longer any doubt as to the cause of the murders, namely _causa
honoris_. This at first was denied by the Fisc because of the presence
of other causes, though these either were insufficient or were
indirectly hurtful to the sense of honour. We will go over them
hereafter, not "with unwashed hands." For a confession indeed should
be received along with all its details, and is not to be divided
according to a preconceived purpose. [Citations.]
This cause alone would be ground enough for demanding that he and his
fellows be dealt with more mildly, if we bear in mind that _causa
honoris_ is quite sufficient for the moderating of this penalty. For
we have proved in our other argument that a husband may kill his
adulterous wife, even after an interval, without incurring the death
penalty, wherever the adultery is really proved, as the Advocate of
the Fisc concedes in his response. § _Solamque suspicionem_.
And in very truth, we have in our other plea adduced a great many
decisions of the highest courts, wherefrom it is evident that the
penalty has been diminished for husbands who have had their wives
killed even by means of an assassin; and, on the contrary, no decision
favourable to the Fisc is cited. Such an opinion is therefore to be
accepted more readily, inasmuch as it is sanctioned by the greater
number of authorities. And even although Farinacci and Rainaldi seem
to take the other side, yet Farinacci, in his _Questions_, shows
himself very much in doubt, as I have shown in my other plea; and in
_cons. 141_, he shows that he is very changeable, since in _cons. 66,
No. 5_, he has proved the contrary. Therefore, when his attention was
called to this changeableness, in excusing himself, he asserted, in
the said _cons. 141_, under _No. 16_, that Beatrice, in behalf of
whom he had written in _cons. 66_, had been beheaded; as if this kind
of rigorous sentence should be followed in practice. And may this
distinguished authority pardon me, but he responds inconsistently,
having forgotten what he had written in the end of _cons. 66_: that
is, that Beatrice was put to death not because she, after an interval,
had commanded that one be put to death who was plotting against her
honour, but because she did not prove her right to this latter
exception, where he says: "So also there was strong hope for the
sister Beatrice, if she had proved the excuse she offered, as she did
not prove it."
But the Honourable Rainaldi, whose words and writings I venerate, in
his _Observationes Criminales_ (_cap. 2_, § 4, _No. 156_), after he
asserts that some remission from the ordinary penalty may be hoped
through the benignity of the Prince, does not decide the point by
citing Gizzarellus and Giurba, who affirm that in justice the penalty
should be decreased. But he goes back to what he had written (_cap. 7
in Rubrica sub No. 60_), where, however, he does not openly examine
the point as to murder permitted for honour's sake. Otherwise he would
go contrary to the general opinion of authorities, and to many
decisions of the highest magistrates, that is to the common practice
of the courts. [Citation.] "And this opinion is followed in practice,
as I find in the event of such a fact the Neapolitan court has so
decided." And concerning this same practice, Matthæus likewise bears
witness. [Citation.]
Yet, as I have said, it would be enough to clear Guido of conviction
if only his confession be taken in its entirety without subdivision.
For greater completeness, however, we offer full proofs of the
adultery, as brought out in the prosecution for the flight from home.
The Fisc has attempted to attack these proofs lest he might have to
lay down his arms; and the Achilles of his pretence is solely a
preposterous cross-examination, which was not admitted into the suit
for permanent record. It gives the word of a certain baseborn woman,
formerly a servant in the home of the Accused, who was severely
maltreated by Guido, by the Canon his brother, and by their mother.
All too eagerly she narrates the ill-treatment suffered by Pietro and
Violante, and by Francesca their daughter, and his wife, respectively,
especially in the matter of their food, on account of which Pietro and
Violante preferred to return to Rome.
Yet Guido by a written agreement had bound himself to furnish food to
the abovesaid couple. And furthermore it is claimed that the flight
of Pompilia also was necessary, because she was being threatened with
death; in order that her own base desire of violating her matrimonial
fidelity may not be deduced therefrom.
If, however, we have any regard for the truth, the domestic affairs of
the Accused were not so pinched, because they were more than enough,
not merely for frugal, but even for lavish living. The theft of the
moneys committed by Francesca in the act of flight demonstrates this.
(See the prosecution for flight, pages 5, 63, and 92.)
The real and true cause which moved Pietro and his wife to go back to
Rome was undoubtedly that the mother of Count Guido could not bear
that the aforesaid Comparini should regulate family matters and should
at their own pleasure dispose of everything looking toward the
government of the home; this with greatest flagrancy and with none the
less boldness they desired to do. Furthermore, Pietro took it ill that
he was rebuked for leaving the company of the noble class and
associating in taverns with the commonest persons in town, to the
scandal of well-born men. And still more because he was compelled by
the Governor of the City, under fear of imprisonment, to restore
certain trinkets and gems of his daughter, which he had taken away, as
Count Guido testified in his examination (pp. 96 and 97). And this is
admirably proved by a letter of the same Governor recently presented
by ourselves, which we give in Summary, No. 1.
With these statements the cross-examination of the same Francesca,
when arrested in her flight, agrees; in it we nowhere read that she
was maltreated, nor that she ever complained of that home of decent
poverty. And yet it is very probable that, to put a good face upon her
flight, she would have alleged the domestic want and home miseries, if
she had ever suffered them.
We do not deny that disputes immediately arose between Francesca and
her husband, and possibly he threatened her with death. But this was
for another reason, namely that she should quit the illicit amours she
had begun at the suggestion of her parents, and that she should live
with evident chastity as is to be read expressly in her deposition
(our Summary, No. 2, letter A).
It is verified from the fact that Francesca herself, in a letter
written to Abate Franceschini, ingenuously confesses (Summary of the
Fisc, No. 4, and our Summary, No. 3) that her parents indeed were
sowing strife between the couple, and were urging her to have recourse
to the Bishop under the false pretence of ill-treatment; and day and
night they kept instigating her to poison her husband, her brother,
and mother-in-law, to burn the house, and what is still more awful, to
win a lover and return to Rome in his company. Nor did she fail to
obey them in several of these matters.
And in another letter written to the same Abate, and shown by us, and
given in our Summary, No. 4, we read: "Not now having those here who
urge me to evil."
Of no counter-effect is the response that the single characters of the
said first letter had been previously marked out by Guido, and were
afterward traced with a pen by herself, as she asserts in our Summary,
No. 2, letter K. For proof of this statement she can bring no other
evidence than that she does not know how to write. Summary, No. 2,
letters B, H, and K.
In this, furthermore, she stands most clearly convicted of falsehood
by her signature, which was recognised by herself at the command of
the court while she was in prison, as we find in the prosecution for
flight (p. 39). She also stands convicted of falsehood by the
signature of her marriage agreement, concerning the truth of which it
would be ill to doubt, both because there is along with it the
signature of one of the Lord Cardinals, and because her handwriting
was recognised by herself who had written it, at the demand of the
notary, as is to be seen in the copy filed in the prosecution for
flight, p. 132. And, furthermore, she is convicted by the priest with
whom she fled, who asserts that more than once at night he has
received letters which were either thrown out of the window by her or
were sent by a servant; we give his deposition in our Summary, No. 5,
letters A, B, C, and D. This is verified by the Fiscal witness (p.
108), where we read: "And she threw down a note, as I saw very
clearly, and the Canon picked it up, and went away." There are,
besides, the letters and sheets of paper filled with mutual love,
found in the prison at Castelnuovo, where they themselves were
overtaken. But it is utterly impossible that the characters of these
were also marked by her husband, nor is it told by whom they were
written; accordingly it is to be presumed that they were devised by
herself, lest she might betray their forbidden love-intrigues, which
they would have to hide with the greatest care. And I pray that the
abovesaid letter be submitted to our eyes, and it will be clearly seen
whether the characters were formed by one not knowing how to write,
but forming them in ink in imitation of certain signs, or rather by
the expert hand of the woman herself.
In the first place, the truth of the said letter of which we are
speaking, we may gather from the letter of the Governor of Arezzo, in
our Summary, No. 1, where we find: "Of much greater scandal were the
flights and petitions made by the said 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."
And this is likewise expressly deducible from another letter of the
most reverend Bishop, which is given in the Summary, No. 6, where we
read: "The more she made outcry, that much the more she had been urged
thereto by the instigation of her mother." And after a few words: "I
have some knowledge of this, because Senator Marzi-Medici, who
presides over the secular government of this city for our Most Serene
Grand Duke, has told me all."
It is verified still further by another letter of Signor Bartolommeo
Albergotti, produced by the other side, which is given in the Summary
of that side, No. 2, at the end. But the letter is not given in its
entirety, for, where it speaks of the Secretary of the Bishop urging
Count Guido and his mother, we should read there: "Not to maltreat the
Signora for the affront offered him. After disputes enough of this
kind, he took the Signora back home. And she declared that she was
absolutely unwilling to live with Signora Beatrice and with the Canon
Girolamo, her brother-in-law." And after a few other matters: "I pray
yourself and Signora Violante to be willing to offer a remedy by
instilling the wife with a tranquil peace, which will be for the quiet
of all" (as we read in page 190).
This is also proved by the letter of the Abate produced on the other
side (p. 182), where we read: "By Signor Guido, my brother, several
offers have been made to him, but have not been accepted; and they
insist that we force our mother and the Signor Canon to leave the
house. But this shall never be, even if there do not follow both love
and concord. I will never advise that."
And from the letter of Signor Romano, 188, later, where we read (cf.
p. liv.): "I have known why she fled to Monsignor, and it was because
she did not wish to live with the Canon and Beatrice," etc. (which
words are not noted in the Summary of the Fisc, No. 2).
See for yourselves, therefore, that Francesca was not maltreated,
although she so deserved because of her eager and indecent recourse
without cause to the most reverend Bishop. Hence it is evident whether
the Comparini left Arezzo and Francesca fled from home because of
ill-treatment.
It remains now that we see--even granting this ill-treatment--what
cause of fleeing from the home of her husband Francesca might have, or
rather if her flight were not scandalous. This will not be difficult
to make clear, if we will dwell for a little while upon the deposition
of the same Francesca and upon the letters found in the said prison of
Castelnuovo. These latter were produced by the Fisc in the prosecution
for flight, though they were not given recognition. The lack of this
acceptance cannot stand in our way, nor do I think it can be denied
that they are of the same handwriting, if they are compared with the
assured writing of the command of the court. Furthermore, as they
contain love affairs, and the name of Guido himself, no sensible
person will think that they were not written by them.
From her own deposition, it is evident that she was often abused for
her sterility, and was terrified by threats of death on account of her
love affairs with the said priest (as we see in the said Summary, No.
2, letter A). Nor was the cautious husband deceived, since her love
increased day by day, while her conjugal affection indeed decreased
just as her feeling for her lover increased. In the said letters
(which are given in Summary, No. 7), that priest is called: Beloved,
Adored, Mirtillus, My Soul, Most Dearly Beloved, Narcissus, My Eagerly
Craved Blessing, Dearest Idol; and she signs herself "Thy faithful
Sweetheart," and "Amarillis." And conversely, she is called by her
lover "My Adored Signora." And in the details of those letters is
expressed her intense love and the ardour with which that unfortunate
one was burning for her lover, as is evident. Nor may I without shame
refer to the very tender expressions of her love. But one of them, and
possibly a second, I may not omit, that "from the claw, you may
recognise the lion." Thus in letter 17, we read: "So that you cannot
say that I no longer love you; because all my good wishes for Signor
Guido are turning toward you, who deserve it." And this possibly is
the reason why she refused to lie with her husband, as the said letter
of Signor Albergotti points out, where he says: "The Signora 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, which displeases me very much."
In the first letter [we read]: "My affection no longer has any rein";
in the fourth: "I am ready to do what I have told you"; in the tenth:
"I will suffer quietly the pains which are pleasing to you." And it
would be a long task and a disgusting one, to tell them over singly.
For she was unwilling to conform herself to the chaste manners of
Arezzo, accustomed as she was to living a freer life. This may be read
in the letter of Abate Franceschini produced by the other side (page
179), and following, where we read:
"These occasions for bitterness, which have arisen between yourselves
and Signor Guido, I do not wish to examine. I know enough to say that
this has arisen from your wishing to turn the wife from what,
according to the custom of the country, her husband both may and ought
to do. Because over the wife God has given him authority, and likewise
it is the general usage and the custom of the country. If yourself and
Signor Pietro should stand in the way of this, you would do wrong, and
it would be the duty of the husband to admonish his wife." And in
another letter, p. 124, we read: "I cannot persuade myself that my
mother and brothers would conduct themselves in such a way as to force
her to have such recourse." And after a few words we read: "And know
well that what I have endeavoured by my words to urge upon Signora
Francesca, Signor Pietro, and yourself is only out of pure zeal for
the honour of your house and of yourselves."
On the other hand, the same thing is to be drawn from the letter of
the said priest (as we read in letter 20): "I have received your
notes, full of those expressions [of love], etc. Be pleased to receive
me into your bosom, in which I rest all my affections." And the
letters which have reference to the flight give clear proof of the
mutual exchange of affection, as is well proved by the effect that
followed. Thus, in letter 18, we read: "I wish to know whether you can
leave Sunday evening, that is to-morrow evening; for if you do not go
away to-morrow evening, God knows when you will go, because of the
scarcity of carriages." And after a few intervening words: "As soon as
you see that they are sound asleep, open the door for me, so that I
may help you make up your bundles and collect the money." And after a
few more words: "Praying God that he will make this design of ours
turn out well."
And letter 19 of the same lover, in which proofs of love are given by
no means obscurely, also shows us of what quality those loves were,
where we read: "That the Jealous One seems pacified, and that he has
said you were at the window, is a very bad sign; because he will wish
to find out in that way what you do at the window, and for what
purpose you are there. For [Conti] has told me that now he is more
jealous than at first, and that if he find out anything he will wish
to avenge himself by putting you to death and will wish to find means
to do the same to me."
It is proved still further that the wretched Accused complained
bitterly that she was not content merely with a single lover at
Arezzo, but that she has been defiled by many suitors, so that she
multiplied the disgraces to his house (page 98), and following. We
also read clearly in the seventh letter:
"I met Signor Doctor, as usual. He asked me where I was going, and
along the street he asked me why I had written scornfully to him. I
told him that he deserved even worse, because he had given evil deeds
and good words; for he had said he was fond of me, that he wished him
and the rest of them 'in Sovara.'"
And in the thirteenth:
"As to the Doctor, you offend me by saying that I will love him again.
I tell you, as sure as the Sun shall rise, I have not the heart for
another such blow."
It is therefore quite evident whether Francesca had an honest cause
for leaving the home of her husband, or whether she was not rather
impelled by the more urgent spurs of love. It may be said now that
these letters were sent for a good purpose, that the priest might be
induced to accompany her so that she might shun the danger of death,
since she found herself therein without any just cause. And it may be
said that she could have kept her modesty uninjured in the company of
her lover. But since without doubt the amorous expressions used in the
letters do not show chastity of mind and a modest disposition, and as
just cause for flight is lacking, the veil wherewith her viciousness
tried to hide itself is destroyed. I acknowledge that Judith, who was
an entirely chaste widow, of decorous appearance and fine looking in
many ways, made advances toward a very licentious enemy; but this was
for the purpose of accomplishing a pious work, namely, to liberate her
own native land. She was provided not with lascivious letters, but
with earnest words, the unimpaired modesty of which it were evil to
doubt, since she was moved by the breath of the Holy Spirit. But
to-day, how very few Judiths are found; yet the daughters of Lot are
multiplied, who when they could not preserve their sense of shame even
in their father's company made him drunken with wine, lest he, when
sober, would deny them because they were sinning weakly, so that, when
out of his own mind, he was involuntarily polluted with nefarious
incest. (Genesis, chapter 29.) Do we believe that a girl who was dying
for love, and who burned most ardently for the company of the loving
Cupid and her lover, would keep safe her modesty during a long
journey? Which modesty I only wish she had preserved in the home of
her husband!
And even if Guido had imposed upon her, without due reason, a just
fear of death, she should not therefore have increased his suspicion
of base and lustful acquaintanceship by choosing as her companion in
flight that priest whom her husband had suspected; for Caponsacchi was
not at all related to herself or her husband, as each of them
confesses in our Summary, No. 2, letter G, and No. 5, letter E. Thus
she would prove her dishonour. But while still guarding carefully her
matronly shame, she might either have entered some monastery with the
help of some church official, if she had used truth and not
falsehoods; or she might have had recourse to the civil governor, who,
after examining all things, would have afforded her a safe return to
the City in company with honest men and women; or he might have placed
her in the home of some honest matron, with due safeguards. But even
if she had no faith in either of these, and was determined to go back
to Rome, she might at least have entered upon the journey with one of
the servants.
Likewise, the other excuse for putting an honest face on the illicit
amour falls to the ground--namely, that concerning the aforesaid
flight another priest, the brother-in-law of the sister-in-law of the
said Francesca, was informed. For if the abovesaid letters are read
through carefully, the suspicion of illicit correspondence with his
connivance is very greatly increased. We read in letter 11:
"You tell me that [Conti] is unwilling to bring letters for you. But
let me inform you that I am wheedling him; and I have the wits to
bring it about that he will carry them for you. Because I say two kind
words to him, and he is charmed and will do what I wish."
And in letter 19 of the lover:
"For he has told me that now he is more jealous than at first, and
that if he finds out about anything, he will wish to avenge himself."
But who would judge that we can deduce from the said words that their
mutual love was chaste, because another priest was aware of it. I
know that for Francesca to show herself at the window at the hiss of
her lover in company with the other priest does not savour well. Of
this a witness for the Fisc, in the prosecution for flight, gives oath
(pp. 107-8). Therefore, not without cause did Count Guido have
suspicion also of the other priest, as Francesca herself asserted in
her deposition in our Summary, No. 2, before letter A.
These [two] things are taken as proved therefore: [first] that it is
not established that Francesca was threatened with death without just
and legitimate cause, and [second] that a most suspicious
correspondence with her lover is established. It will follow that the
threats were offered by her husband to preserve his honour, and so it
was in the power of Francesca to free herself from these threats
without scandal, without flight, and without shame, by living
chastely. She, however, was too prone to the tickling of the flesh,
and had deferred all things to the fulfilling of her vicious desire,
without respect to her violation of conjugal faith. It is all too
foolish to doubt her utter recklessness, since it is manifestly
evident from matters brought forward in the prosecution for flight,
and especially from the reciprocal love between the lovers, etc. It is
also clear from the letters containing such very tender expressions.
[Citations.]
As to the entry and egress of the said priest from the home of
Francesca at a suspicious time, a witness for the prosecution
testifies (p. 107): "At the sound of the Ave Maria, while I was at the
same window, I saw the door of the said Signori Franceschini open very
softly, and from it passed the said Signor, etc. He pulled the door to
as he went out, but did not in fact close it, and therefrom, after a
little while, I saw the said Signora Francesca Pompilia, with a light
in her hand, who closed the said door." It is also proved from letter
11, where we read: "For that reason, I do not have you come here
because now the street-door is no longer opened, but you might be able
to open the back-door," etc. This of itself is enough to prove
adultery, even when trial is being made to demand punishment
therefore. [Citations.]
Her leaning from the window at a hiss, day and night, and their mutual
nods, concerning which a witness testifies, p. 108, are quite enough
to prove carnal communication. [Citations.]
Then there is the manner in which they prepared for the flight, which
includes, as I may say, a show of treachery, as is to be understood
from the letter of the priest, No. 18, where [we read]: "Above all,
try to put some into all their cups, but do not yourself drink it."
For in seeking an opportunity to mingle an opiate for them, he was
inquiring what coloured wine they were drinking in the home, lest, as
I suppose, the colour of it when altered by the drug mixed therewith
might betray their plots. So in letter 4, where we read: "Then,
further, if they continue to drink the red wine I will tell you so."
In No. 12: "When you tell me that it is not possible to make my mother
sleep, while she is ill, and drinks no wine." And in letter 13: "As to
what you wish to know about the wine, I tell you that it is red now,
but I do not know how much longer it will be so; but I will let you
know about it."
Still further this most wretched wife was moved with a burning ardour
for the said priest, as is noted in letters 5 and 21; this is usually
conceived by lovers only. Therefore, since it is undeniable that the
carnal love was reciprocal between them, I think it can not be doubted
that her departure from the home of her husband and their association
through a long journey, prove their adultery. [Citations.]
In the progress of the journey kisses were given on both sides; of
this the witness for the prosecution testifies; but I do not find in
the evidence that he saw these at night, as is supposed by the other
side; for page 100 asserts "I only saw that at times they kissed each
other." And these kisses Francesca so strongly desired to give and to
receive likewise, that in letter 11 [we read]: "I thank you for the
kisses you send me; but if yourself could give them to me, I would
hold them dear. I give you as many million more." And in letter 10:
"And giving you an amorous kiss." And in 5: "I say good-bye with a
million kisses." And here and there in the other letters. These render
the adultery not at all doubtful, so much so that there are not
wanting authorities who assert that when the kiss is proved the
adultery may be said to be proved. [Citations.]
Therefore, unless I am very much mistaken, no one who knew what we
have recounted could be found so senseless and so weak-minded as not
to believe strongly that when they were found in the inn her matronly
shame had been tampered with, either during the journey or at night
while they were taking their rest, or more probably in the morning
while they were enjoying each other's society.
But passing over the fact that the priest was clothed in laic garb
(pp. 4 and 100), which affords no small weight for the proof of the
adultery, all further doubts are removed, since they arrived together
at the tavern of Castelnuovo at half-past seven at night, as three
witnesses for the prosecution agree in swearing (pp. 44, 47, 49). And
although two beds were in the chamber, only one indeed did the said
priest wish to have made ready, and all night long, behind closed
doors, he rested alone with her (if lovers can rest); from this the
adultery is proved without doubt. [Citations.]
This proof indeed becomes all the stronger from the lie of Francesca,
who asserts that they arrived at the said tavern at dawn (Summary, No.
2, letters F and L). For if no evil had been done she would not have
attempted to hide the truth. [Citation.]
Finally, the sentence or decree of this Tribunal, which is given in
Summary, No. 8, where the said priest is condemned for carnal
knowledge of Francesca, removes all doubt; because the adultery is
thereby rendered infamous, as was proved in our other argument. And
though it is asserted that it was in the minds of the Lords Judges to
modify this sentence and to add "for pretended carnal knowledge," yet
it never was thus modified. And yet such modification would not have
stood in the way after it had reached the ears of the luckless husband
that the adultery of his wife had been made manifest and notorious and
had been confirmed by the Judges' decree.
But certainly, even if we are cut off from this proof, their carnal
communication remains more than sufficiently proved for our purpose;
for we are arguing not for the infliction of the penalty of adultery,
but we have deduced the adultery for exclusion of a penalty.
[Citations.] For it is quite customary that, for a civil purpose, such
as divorce or loss of dowry, adultery is abundantly proved by
circumstantial evidence. [Citations].
Nor is it of consequence that some of the stronger proofs are proved
by single witnesses; for we are arguing to establish dishonesty and
adultery in kind; not for the purpose of condemning the adulteress,
but for the defence of the accused.
And the reason is very evident, because to excuse a husband from the
murder of his adulterous wife after an interval, an exact proof of the
adultery is not required, but strong suspicion of adultery is quite
abundant, as Sanfelicius testifies it was decided (_dec. 337, num.
13_). But we are upon firmer grounds, because we not only have strong
suspicions drawn from single witnesses, but other finely proved
grounds, yes, the clearest of proofs, deduced by the Prosecution.
Very little does it stand in the way of this proof of her guilt that
Francesca, when near to death, tried to exculpate herself and her
lover by asserting that there had been no sin between them; for this
kind of exculpation, which is all too much a matter of pretence, might
help her companion just as theretofore she had brought blame upon him;
and by no other proof might his inculpation have been removed. This
would indeed aid her fellow, but not herself. But since she stands
convicted by the abovesaid proofs of having broken her matrimonial
faith, it would be absurd that an exculpation made that she might seem
to die an honest woman, should be of such efficiency as to destroy the
proofs of her baseness. [Citations.] And what is more horrible, that
from the said exculpation, her murderer might be the more severely
punished.
I have faith, and this helps me to hope, that her soul rests in
eternal safety, by divine aid, since she had time to hate her previous
life. But no man of sense could praise her testamentary disposition,
in which she appointed as her sole heir her son, who, as I hear, was
but just born and hence innocent, and who had been hidden away from
his father, and which appointed as residuary legatee a stranger joined
by no bond of relationship.
From these considerations, therefore, it is plain that the adultery of
Francesca is fully proved. Hence according to the opinion of the Fisc,
her murder, even if committed after an interval, is not to be expiated
by the death penalty; not only because of the justly conceived
grievance, but because the injury to the honour always keeps its
strength, according to the sentiment of Virgil in the _Æneid_, Book I:
"Keeping an eternal wound within the breast."
It is of no force in response to this that he did not kill his wife
and the adulterer, whom he had overtaken at the inn of Castelnuovo,
but that he merely saw to their imprisonment; as if that, after his
recourse to the judge, he could not with his own hand avenge his
honour.
For we deny in the face of all heaven that he could have killed either
of them, because he was worn out by the rapid journey, and was so
perturbed by the agitation of his mind, that he was seized by a fever.
And furthermore he had heard that the said priest was armed with
firearms, as he asserted in the prosecution for flight, at a time when
his word cannot be suspected, because the murders had not yet been
committed (pp. 76 and 77). It is also true that the priest was a
terrible fellow, according to the witness for the prosecution (p.
167), and as Francesca herself confesses. Elsewhere, the Accused
speaks of the taking away of an arquebus pointed at the officers, as
he himself asserts (p. 71). And, furthermore, Caponsacchi was all too
prompt and too much disposed to resisting, as we read in letter 18.
There, in speaking of the opiate to be given to the domestics, he
adds: "If by ill luck they shall find it out and shall threaten you
with death, open the door, that I may die with you, or free you from
their hands." And the wife, indeed, was unterrified, full of
threatening, angered, and even furious, as the outcome proved; since
when captured by the posse of the Ecclesiastical Court, she dared in
the very presence of the officers and other witnesses to rush upon her
husband with drawn sword. And she would easily have killed him, if she
had not been hindered (p. 50). He, indeed, weak, as he is, and of
insufficient strength, could not have taken vengeance by killing both,
or either of them, provided as he was with only a traveller's sword.
Hence, as he was not able to kill them, he saw to their imprisonment
in the confusion of his mind, in order that he might prevent the
continuation of his disgrace, and thus might hinder their future
adultery.
But, indeed, even if he could have killed them, and did not do so, he
would be praiseworthy; for up to that time the adultery had not been
made notorious by the sentence of the judge, and only strong
suspicions of it were urging him on.
But as for the recourse to the judge, whereby it can be claimed that
he renounced the right to kill his adulterous wife, which we deny, I
pray you note that the Tribunal acted prudently in placing Francesca
in the Monastery, that she might be kept more decently than in a
prison. Then when it received the attestation of the physician as to
her condition, lest she might be kept there destitute of necessary
aids, and so might undergo punishment in the very course of events
(which is everywhere avoided), after obtaining the consent of Abate
Franceschini, brother of the Accused, the court permitted her to be
placed in the home of her parents with the warning to keep that home
as a prison.
But I cannot commend any one, whoever he may be, who tried to get
Francesca from the Monastery under the false pretence of ill health,
since he could legitimately and with more decency have succeeded in
his intent by laying bare the truth, namely her pregnancy. But this
was done for no other reasons than these: either that the son might be
hidden away from Count Guido, since the law presumes that he was born
of his legitimate father, although his wife had shown herself
incontinent; or else Francesca, believing that the child was
conceived of some one else, possibly was trying to hide from her
husband the fact of her pregnancy.
And now in the meantime, let it please my Most Illustrious Lord to
turn his eyes toward Arezzo and for a little while to think of Count
Guido stained with infamy, when the decree of condemnation for
adultery reached his ears. The adulteress was still unpunished, and he
was ignorant of the fact that she could not be punished, owing to her
supposed ill health, and that during her pregnancy, which she had so
carefully hidden from him, she was unsuited to the vengeance of the
sword. Furthermore, when he saw that Francesca had gone back to that
very suspicious home of Pietro and Violante, who had instilled
Francesca with dishonesty, had repudiated her, and had professed that
she was the daughter of a harlot, he lost all patience, as is evident
from the deposition of Blasio (p. 318), where we read: "But still
further, she had been received back into the home, after she ran away
from Guido, although the latter had put her in a Monastery." This
change drove to desperation her luckless husband, who was at least an
honourable man. Therefore his recourse to the judge ought not to
increase the penalty for him.
We do not deny that Abate Franceschini had given consent to the
removal of Francesca to the home of Pietro and Violante (in order that
we may yield to our respect for my Lord Advocate of the Fisc), but
only on verbal representation, for I have not been able to see it in
writing. But, for our proposition, this does not affect Count Guido,
since it is not made clear that he was informed of such consent, and
thus far the Fisc merely presumes that he had been informed by Abate
Franceschini, his brother, of this consent. [Citation.]
We are compelled to affirm that this knowledge is not to be presumed
as is shown below, or at the very worst there is present only
presumptive knowledge. And I do not think that on this kind of merely
presumptive knowledge the death penalty can be demanded, nor can Count
Guido be condemned, since he has neither confessed nor been convicted
of such knowledge: chapter _nos in quemquam_, where we read: "We
cannot inflict sentence upon any one unless he is either convicted or
has confessed of his own accord."
Indeed, what if Count Guido had acknowledged that he had written the
consent furnished by the Abate, his brother, since it had no special
authorisation for that particular matter; nor a general authorisation
to conduct litigation, but only to receive moneys taken from himself
by Francesca, as is to be seen (p. 136). By exceeding the limit of
his power, Abate Paolo would have exasperated the mind of Guido; for
the luckless man was already burning so with rage at the temerity of
Francesca, Pietro, and Violante, that he was almost driven, I might
say, to taking vengeance. He had put this off as long as he had any
hope that he might have the marriage annulled because of mistake
concerning the person married. For he was ignorant of the point of
Canon Law that error as to the nature of the person contracted does
not render a marriage null, but only an error as to the individual.
[Citation.]
Nor does it amount to anything that Francesca, at the time she was
killed, was under surety to keep the home as a prison, as if she were
resting in the custody of the Prince. For, however that may be, even
if the Accused had killed Francesca to the offence of the Prince, yet
since he wished to recover his honour and to remove with her blood the
unjust stains upon his reputation, for this particular reason the
aforesaid custody is not to be given attention, nor does it increase
the crime; as in the more extreme case of one injuring a person having
safe-conduct from the Prince, Farinacci affirms in making a
distinction [Citation] where knowledge thereof is not to be presumed.
Furthermore, when we speak of custody we should understand it to apply
to public custody and not to a private home as was proved in our other
argument. Nor is the response enough that this would hold good in the
one under custody, but not concerning the custodian, Violante; for I
do not know any probable distinction between the two, since both cases
may suffice for escaping the penalty; nor is any stronger reason to be
found for the one than for the other. And indeed a third case would be
more worthy of excuse, of one who broke this kind of custody, when
knowledge thereof was not proved. Because such an offence might arise
under such custody, just as one who had killed a person under bann,
but ignorant of that bann, excused himself. [Citations.]
If therefore Count Guido is not to be punished for murder of his wife,
for the same reason he cannot be punished for the murder of Pietro and
Violante, because these murders were committed for the same cause,
_causa honoris_. For at their instigation, Francesca found her lover,
and still more, in order that they might disgrace Guido, they did not
blush to declare that Francesca had been conceived illegitimately, and
had been born of a harlot. This greatly blackens the honour of an
entire house, as Gratian observes [Citation]; for the daughters of
such are usually like their mothers. Then also, as I have said above,
the Accused burned with anger when he had notice of the return of
Francesca to their home (p. 318), and the following. And Alexander
proves this in his confession where he says (p. 646): "So that he had
to kill his wife, his mother-in-law, and his father-in-law: because
the said mother-in-law and father-in-law had a hand in making their
daughter do evil, and had acted as ruffians to him." This following
fact makes it all the clearer, because on the fatal evening when they
were slain, at the knock on the door, and as soon as Violante heard
the much beloved name of the lover, straightway she opened it. And
thus she showed, unless I am mistaken, what removes all doubt that
Pietro and Violante were not at all offended with the love affairs of
their daughter and her lover.
It is all one, because we are compelled to acknowledge either [first]
that the Comparini had done new injury to his honour by receiving her
into their home after they had declared that she was not their
daughter, and after her adultery was clearly manifest, and hence there
should be departure from the ordinary penalty. [Citation.] For just
indignation, when once conceived, always oppresses the heart and urges
one to take vengeance. [Citation.]
Or else [secondly] we must acknowledge a cause of just anger
continued, and indeed was increased, which is quite enough foundation
for asserting that the murders were committed incontinently.
[Citations.]
Since, then, from the confession of Count Guido as well as from that
of his associates, and since from so very many proofs brought forward
in the trial, it is evident that Guido was moved to kill them by his
sense of injured honour, in vain does the Fisc pretend that for some
other remote reason he committed the crimes. For, to tell the truth, I
find no other cause which does not touch and wound the honour, if we
only bear in mind what Guido has said in the trial (pp. 96 and 97):
namely, that the Comparini had arranged the flight of Francesca and
had plotted against his life. This alone would be enough to free him
from the ordinary penalty. Bertazzolus and Grammaticus [Citation],
testify that a man was punished more mildly who had had one who
threatened him killed, though the threats were not clearly proved.
[Citations.] "And the death which he had threatened fell upon himself,
and what he planned he incurred," and also: "There is no doubt that
one who had gone with the intention of inflicting death seems to have
been slain justly."
Another cause of the murder alleged by the Fisc is the lawsuit brought
to annul the promise of dowry. Upon this point a complete and a very
skilful examination was made by the other side, and because of this it
was pretended that he had incurred the penalties of the Alexandrian
Constitution and of the Banns. But this pretence in fact soon
vanishes. For if we look into it well we shall find, without
difficulty, that a cause of this kind is no less offensive to the
sense of honour. For the ground on which Pietro had attempted to free
himself from the obligation to furnish the promised dowry was this
solely: that Francesca was not his own daughter, but the child of an
unknown father and of a harlot. Every man, however, well knows whether
this kind of a declaration would wound the reputation of a nobleman.
Whether or not a pretence of this kind could have found a place for
itself before we had the confessions of Count Guido and his
companions, as I have said above (for then the Fisc might have been in
doubt how Guido could be moved to kill her), yet thereafter it was
clear from the confessions of them all that the sense of injured
honour had given him the impulse, and had even compelled him to the
killing, as Count Guido asserts (p. 678) where we read: "To inflict
wounds upon them, inasmuch as they had injured my honour, which is the
chief thing." Vain is it to inquire whether he had killed them for
some other reason, because, as it was clearly for honour's sake, the
Fisc never could prove that they were killed on account of the
lawsuit, and not on account of honour, as is required for the
incurring of the penalty of the aforesaid Bull. [Citation.]
These statements are apt also as regards the murder of Francesca, who
had sought a divorce. For if she had made pretence of being separated
from him for any other reason, and if her dishonour were not perfectly
clear, then indeed there might be room for the Alexandrian
Constitution. But since wounded honour gave occasion for the murder,
we are far beyond the conditions of the Alexandrian Constitution.
Otherwise a very fine way would be found for wives to act the
prostitute with impunity. For if it were possible, after adultery was
admitted, to bring suit for divorce, they would find a safe refuge to
escape the hands of justly angered husbands, and would be rendered
safe by the protection of the said Bull even though the divorce was
not obtained and though the husbands had been offended because of
their dishonour.
But still less can such capital punishment be inflicted upon Guido on
the pretext that he assembled armed men, contrary to the rule of the
Apostolic Constitutions and Banns. For whenever the question is
whether a husband may assemble men to kill his adulterous wife, we are
still beyond the conditions of the Constitutions; for they have place
whenever men are assembled for an indeterminate crime, and crime does
not follow; then indeed the provisions of the Bull are applicable. But
whenever men are joined together to commit crimes, and these actually
follow, attention is directed to the end for which the men had been
assembled, and the punishment for that is pronounced, nor is there any
further inquiry concerning the beginning (that is, the assembling), as
I have proved in my other argument. And I now add another citation
[Citations], where after the question was disputed, he asserts: "But
certainly, notwithstanding what has been said above, in the current
case, I do not believe there should be any departure from the decision
of so many men, whom we may well believe have considered and written
the entire matter with maturity and prudence for Our Most Sacred Lord
Clement VIII." And at the end of this addition, it is testified that
the Apostolic Chamber had so decided it at the order of the said Pope.
[Citation.]
This is also proved by the Banns of my Most Illustrious Lord Governor,
chapter 82, where they impose a penalty for assembling men for an evil
end, if the evil end may not have followed. But they decide nothing
when the crime for which the men had been assembled had been put into
execution, because in this case the penalties for assembling cease and
only the penalty for the crime committed is inflicted, as was said
above.
And that the assembling of men for the purpose of recovering one's
reputation does not fall under the penalties of the Apostolic
Constitutions (see _Farinaccius_, _cons. 65_, _No. 66_).
Finally, the matter of carrying prohibited arms is still left for
consideration. Even if some authorities have asserted that this is not
to be confounded with the principal crime, yet the contrary opinion is
held by the majority; for the purpose is to be considered, which the
delinquent chiefly had in mind. So Bartolo holds in our very
circumstances. [Citations.] And on the point that one killing for
honour's sake, with prohibited arms, is still to be punished more
mildly, Matthæus testifies that it has been so judged. [Citation.]
This also holds good in the more extreme case of several crimes, which
can easily be committed separately and which tend toward different
ends; yet, if they are committed at the same time and for the same
end, the punishment only for the crime which was chiefly in mind is
imposed. Thus, if one wishing to commit theft climb over the walls of
the city, even though he could commit that deed without the crime of
crossing the wall (which is a very grave crime, according to
Farinaccius, _quaest. 20_, _No. 146_), even then only a single
penalty, namely that for theft, is inflicted, as the one chiefly in
mind; and this is a little harsher than that for crossing the walls of
the city, but is not of utmost severity. [Citations.]
Nor does it escape my notice that the Banns of our Most Illustrious
Lord Governor, chapter 8, seem to settle the question by deciding that
the punishment for carrying arms ought not to be confounded with
punishment for the crime committed therewith. Nor do I fail to see,
still further, that these Banns do not include one of the companions,
who was a foreigner and not of that district. But since by common law
these Banns receive a passive interpretation whenever arms are not
borne for an ill end, and then some crime is committed with them
(because the delinquent did not have in mind the crime which he
committed), he is punished for both crimes, because at divers times he
committed different crimes. But when any one bears prohibited arms
with the purpose of murder, and then commits the murder, the chief
crime of homicide, in view of which he bore the arms, is considered
and the penalty for murder is inflicted, but not that for carrying the
arms. [Citations.]
I beg you note that this crime in question is made important from the
fact that those three who had no fear of ill, but who ought by all
means to have feared, were slain, and not because of the kind of arms
with which they were slain. The number of the victims, and not the
instrument of their death, excited astonishment, and it would have
been the very same if they had been slain with the longest of swords,
or with sticks, or with stones. Therefore it would indeed be a very
hard matter that the Fisc should be aflame over these murders, and not
being able to demand the death penalty for them, should demand it for
the carrying of arms.
But beside this, Count Guido denies expressly that he owned, carried,
or kept arms of unlawful measure. And although it is asserted by the
four associates that at the time of the murders Guido had in his hands
a short knife, and had given the same kind of arms to his companions,
yet these could not doom him to the ordinary penalty. Thus Farinaccius
and others affirm after this matter has been well discussed and the
contrary opinion confuted. [Citations.]
Nor does he deny that he had on his person a dagger which was entirely
lawful. But he did not have it with him at the murder, nor did he
carry it for the murder, but only to defend himself if he should find
in the aforesaid home outsiders ready to use force against him. And
that was permissible to him; for there is ample right to bear arms of
this kind throughout the Ecclesiastical State, and (I may boldly add)
even in the very City. Because no mention is made of the City,
although some places are excepted; according to that very true axiom:
"The exception proves the rule in what is not excepted." [Citations.]
And he could the more readily believe that it was permissible for him
to do so, because he had enemies in the city who threatened him there
and made plots against him, as Guido himself says; and therefore the
bearing of arms of this kind was more necessary here than elsewhere.
Nor is it to the point that, because it is claimed he had killed with
forethought, the privilege of bearing this kind of arms should not be
granted him. For aside from what is said above and in the other
argument establishing the fact that the aforesaid crimes were "for
honour's sake," they cannot be said to be committed "after an
interval." The objection might hold good if he had used the arms in
the murder, but as this is not established, it does not seem possible
to deny him the right to carry the arms. In any case, although
strictly speaking he could be said to have done the killing when armed
with the said arms, yet he should not be punished with the extreme
penalty of death. In _Caballus_, _case 90_, _No. 7_: "Yet in fact in
these cases, I have never seen the death penalty follow, but by grace
it is commuted to a milder penalty."
Finally, he cannot be said to have incurred the penalty for prohibited
arms from the fact that he was present at the murders committed by his
associates with such arms; because the penalty of this kind which is
due to one furnishing the said arms does not extend to the helpers and
assistants. [Citations.]
I do not speak of Domenico and Francesco, because these last two, as
foreigners, are not bound by our Banns. But all matters fight for all
of them, and every single ground for the diminution of the punishment,
which favours Count Guido, also favours them all; since accessories
are not to be judged on different grounds from the principal, as I
have shown in my other argument. There I cited, not the authority of
one or another doctor singly, but the decisions of the highest
magistrates. Clar also testifies that this opinion has been observed
in actual practice. (§ _Homicidium_, _sub No. 51_).
But I earnestly beg that my Most Illustrious Lord will be pleased to
consider with kindly countenance and untroubled vision that Count
Guido did the killing that his honour, which had been buried in
infamy, might rise again. He killed his wife, who had been his shame,
and her parents, who had set aside all truthfulness and had repudiated
their daughter. Nor had they blushed to declare that she was born of a
harlot, in order that he might be disgraced. They also perverted her
mind, and not merely solicited, but even by the strength of her filial
obligation compelled her to illicit amours. He killed her lest he
might live longer in disgrace, loathed by his relatives, pointed out
by the noble, abandoned by his friends, and laughed at by all. He
killed her, indeed, in that City which in olden days had seen a noble
matron wash away the stains of shame with her own blood--stains which
against her will the son of a king had imposed upon her. And thus she
expiated the violent fault of another by her own death. (See Valerius
Maximus and Titus Livius.) This city also saw a father go entirely
unpunished, and even receive praise, who had stained his hands with
the murder of his daughter, lest she might be dragged away to shame.
[Citations.] So much did the fear of losing his honour weigh upon his
heart, that he preferred to be deprived of his daughter rather than
that she should continue to live in dishonour, even against her own
wish. Count Guido did the killing in their own home, that the
adulteress and her parents, who were aware of her crime, might find
out that no place nor refuge whatsoever was safe from and impenetrable
by one whose honour had been wounded. He killed them lest deeds of
shame might be continued there, and that the home which had been
witness of these disgraces might also be witness of their punishment.
He killed them because in no other way could his reputation, which had
been so enormously wounded, find healing. He killed them that he might
afford wives an example that the sacred laws of marriage should be
religiously kept. He killed them, finally, that either he might live
honourably among men, or at least might fall the pitied victim of his
own offended honour.
GIACINTO ARCANGELI, _Procurator of the Poor_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 9.]
_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, against the Fisc._
_New Memorial of law,
by the Advocate of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 9.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
The confessions of Count Guido Franceschini, and of Domenico
Gambassini, Francesco Pasquini and Alessandro Baldeschi, his
companions, are null; and therefore they should be given no
consideration, as they issued under fear of the rigorous torment of
the vigil, unjustly decreed against them. [Citations.] And this is
true even though they still persevere in the same confessions.
[Citations.] For as we have said in our past argument (which may be
reassumed here by favour), the Constitution of Paul V., of sacred
memory, issued for the reformation of the tribunals of the City
[Citation], commands that this torture be not inflicted except under
two concurrent circumstances. One of these is that the accused be
under the strongest of proofs, and the other that the crime be very
atrocious. And the authorities alleged in my argument, § _Quatenus_,
etc., testify that it has been so practised.
Nor indeed can the asserted [discretionary] powers of this tribunal
give support; because, whatever they may be, they have no place unless
the crimes are punishable by death. Raynaldus [Citation] gives this
reason: Whenever the defendant should not be condemned to death, he
also should not, for the purpose of getting confession from him, be
exposed to torture which might cause death, as it almost caused the
death of Alessandro, who fainted dead away under two turns at the same
torture.
But the crime, which has been imputed to Count Guido and his helpers,
and which they themselves have confessed, is murder neither of the
first nor of the second degree, as was fully proved in my past
argument. And indeed since Count Guido was moved to kill or to have
killed both Francesca Pompilia, his wife, and Pietro and Violante, his
parents-in-law, because of his sense of honour; namely, on account of
the adultery which Francesca Pompilia committed with their conspiracy
and aid, this fact relieves from the penalty of death, not merely
himself (according to the texts and authorities alleged in my said
argument) [Citations], but also his helpers (according to the
authorities likewise alleged in said argument). [Citations.]
Gabriel states: "And much less ought those to be punished with death,
because if we will only examine the common opinion of wise men, just
anger may excuse from a graver penalty than this; for according to the
Gracchian law, Code concerning Adultery, even those who are called and
led to the crime should likewise be excused."
Aside from what may be claimed in this present state of the case, that
the plea of injured honour is not established, the decree in
condemnation of the Canon Caponsacchi for the said adultery issued in
this tribunal, September 24, last past, and given in full in our
Summary, No. 8, makes the matter clear and manifest. [Citations.] For
it is there said: "Joseph Maria Caponsacchi, of Arezzo, for complicity
in the flight and running away of Francesca Comparini, and for carnal
knowledge of the same, has been banished for three years to Civita
Vecchia." Nor can these words be said to be merely the title of the
case, which does not make any one guilty, as my Lord Advocate of the
Fisc supposes; but the very decree and the title of the case, as seen
by me in the original Process, was that which follows: _Aretii in
Etruria fugæ a viro_.
But, in brief, the said Canon was condemned merely to the said
punishment because he was a foreigner and had committed his crime
outside of this State; in such case he should be dismissed merely with
exile. [Citation.]
Nor is it true that the Court receded from the said decree and still
less that a modification of it was demanded. For we have no other fact
than that for the purpose of giving some little indulgence to the
still asserted honour of the wife and to the decorum of the said
Canon, for which the Procurator of the Poor, their defender, kept
sharply and incessantly urging, in the command for imprisonment,
instead of the words of the said decree, these other words were
applied: _Pro causa de qua in actis_. These words do not imply the
correction of the preceding words, but indeed the virtual insertion of
all the acts, and consequently of this same decree also. [Citations.]
And this is all the more true because the said decree could not be
changed unless both sides were heard; which, as I remember, was the
response given to the said Procurator when he insisted upon the said
modification. [Citations.]
But why should I now insist on former matters when there is such
conclusive proof of the adultery and further dishonour of the said
wife from the many strong reasons deduced in the present stage of the
case, and well weighed by my honourable colleague, the Procurator of
the Poor, in his customary excellent manner? (I do not here repeat
them, that I may avoid useless superfluity.) Hence there is left no
room for doubt as to the outraged honour, which indeed impelled Count
Guido to the commission of crime. For it would be quite enough that a
cause of this kind be verified, even after one has committed the
crime, as Bertazzolus advises on this point. [Citations.]
Still further, there is no need now to insist on past matters because
Count Guido has stated the plea of injured honour not merely against
his wife, but against his parents-in-law in his confession (especially
page 98): "Thereupon followed her flight, which was so disgraceful,
not merely to my house, which is noble, and would have been so to any
house whatsoever, even if of low estate. She made this escape by night
with Canon Caponsacchi and his companions. In the progress of her
flight along with the driver of the carriage, she was seen by the said
driver, kissing and embracing the abovesaid Canon. Still further, I
have found out that they slept together at Foligno in the posthouse
and then again at Castelnuovo. By such proof, she stands convicted as
an adulteress, not merely for this, but for other like excesses, which
I have since heard that she committed in Arezzo with other persons."
And page 672, where we read: "And when the said Santi was asked
whether he would give ear to offering an affront to the Comparini,
because of my honour and the plots they had made against my life,
Alessandro responded that he would do it, and if some one else were
necessary he would find him. Accordingly, after a few days, I received
in my home Biagio, who has been twice named above, in company with the
abovesaid Santi, and he said that he also would give ear to it, as
being specially a question of my honour and the contrivance against my
life." And at page 678: "And while we were staying in the same
vineyard, that is in the house within it, we spoke of various matters
and particularly of what was to be done, namely of the affronts to be
offered to the Comparini (that is to Pietro, Violante, and Francesca,
my wife) and of wounding them because they had taken away my honour,
which is the chief thing, and had also plotted against my life." And
at page 683, near the bottom, we read: "And I would have so much to
say that one might write from now till to-morrow morning, if I wished
to tell all the trouble and expense I have suffered from the said
Comparini. But all this would amount to nothing, if they had not
touched my honour and plotted against my life." And page 684: "The
Santi above-named was a labourer of mine at my villa of Vittiano, and
consequently was informed of all these troubles I had suffered at the
hands of the said Comparini. He also knew of the very indecent flight
made by my wife in the manner elsewhere told. The abovesaid Alessandro
then began of his own accord to seek me out and did find me, so that
he might give ear, in the event that I should wish to avenge my honour
and the plots which they had made against my life." And page 699: "And
she together with Canon Caponsacchi was overtaken by myself at
Castelnuovo, where they were arrested by the officers and conducted to
these prisons. In the Court, many a time I laid stress on the crime of
her supposed conception in order that they might be punished. I never
having seen what would be considered expedient in an affair of such
importance to my honour, have been obliged to take some resolution for
recovering it, because the Comparini, with greatest infamy, had
transferred to me their own ignominy." And page 722: "And what I said
to Alessandro, Biagio, and Domenico, I also said to Francesco once
when he, knowing the offences against my honour which I had suffered,
asked me if I were ready to give a beating to my said wife. And I then
replied to him that she deserved not merely a beating, but death."
Such a confession should be accepted with its own qualifications, for
the Fisc cannot divide and detach this from it (according to the usual
theory). [Citations.]
This is undoubtedly true, when, as in the present case, one is arguing
for the infliction of the ordinary penalty, whatever may be said,
according to some authorities, for the infliction of an extraordinary
penalty. [Citations.] Ludovicus extends this conclusion to all
qualified confessions in any kind of crime.
This is true especially when the qualification is not merely propped
up in some way, but is conclusively proved. [Citations.] For beside
the said decree, and the other considerations above, we have his
fellows in crime especially swearing that their services were required
by Count Guido for committing crime in his very company for the
abovesaid reason. Especially is this the case with Blasio Agostinelli,
page 316: "Signor Guido told me that his wife had fled from him in
company of an Abate, and had carried away some money and jewellery. He
led me into the very room where she had robbed him of the said
jewellery and money, and told me that he wished to go to Rome to kill
his wife, and that he wished that I and the said Alessandro would go
with him," etc. And page 317: "At the above time the said Guido told
me that his wife, for the purpose of fleeing securely with the said
Abate, and that he might not perceive it, had mixed an opiate in the
wine for dinner to put himself and all the rest of them to sleep. He
also said that he was in litigation with his father-in-law, who had
not merely sworn that the said wife was not his own daughter, but
still further had received her back into his home, after she had run
away from her husband, although he would have put her in a monastery
after he overtook her at Castelnuovo during the flight." And
Alessandro Baldeschi (page 623): "The said Guido in the presence of
myself, as well as that of Biagio, Francesco, and Domenico, told me
that he ought to kill the lady, that is, his wife, who was here in
Rome, to recover his own honour; and also to kill the father and
mother of the said wife because they had lent her a hand in the insult
she had offered to his honour." And page 645: "He told us also, in the
presence of the keeper of the vineyard, that he was obliged to kill
his wife, his father-in-law, and his mother-in-law, because the latter
had lent a hand to their daughter in her ill-doing, and had acted the
ruffians too, and because the said Guido also declared that these same
people, whom he had to kill, had wished to have himself, that is
Guido, killed."
Nor can the plea of injured honour be excluded by the attestations of
those who afforded assistance to Francesca Pompilia even up to the
time of her death: for they attest that she made declaration that she
had never violated her conjugal faith. These assertions are merely
testimony given outside of a trial, and do not demand belief.
[Citations.]
And more especially as they were extorted and begged (while the suit
was pending and the other side was not summoned), by the heir of the
same Francesca Pompilia, for avoiding the prosecution by the Monastery
of the Convertites, which was laying claim to the succession to her
property on account of her dishonesty. Such shame would cause all of
her hereditary property to be sequestered and judicially assigned to
the said Monastery by law. [Citations.]
And this objection to their testimony is especially true because some
of the witnesses who swear as above are beneficiaries of the same
Francesca Pompilia, so that they might be swearing for their own
advantage. For if her dishonour were substantiated, her property would
devolve upon the said Monastery, and consequently they would be shut
out of their legacies. [Citations.]
And however far these attestations may occasion belief, a declaration
of this kind serves to no purpose, because no one is presumed to be
willing to reveal his own baseness. [Citations.] So likewise Francesca
Pompilia should not be believed, especially when testifying outside of
a court and without oath. [Citations.] Much less are the aforesaid
witnesses to be believed, lest more credence be given to hearsay
evidence than to its original. [Citations.]
Nor can it be said that no one is presumed to be unmindful of his
eternal safety; for all are not presumed to be Saint John the Baptist.
[Citation.] Especially when the argument is concerning the prejudice
of the third. [Citation.] And still more so when the argument is for
punishing more gravely the enemy of the declarant. [Citations.]
And therefore, as the plea of injured honour is substantiated, it
makes no further difference that the said murders were committed after
an interval, according to what we have very fully affirmed in our last
argument, § _nec verum est_, even down to § _prædictis nullatenus_.
There it was shown that this is the general opinion of authorities,
and in accordance therewith judgment has been given from time to time
not only in the Sacred Courts, but also in all the other tribunals of
the world, as Matthæus well observes, etc. [Citation.]
Nor can there be any departure from this opinion in the present case
on the ground that Count Guido did not kill his wife in the act of
seizing her in her flight with her lover, but was indeed content to
carry her before the judge as an adulteress. For it would not have
been safe for him to kill her then; because he was alone and she was
in company of the said lover, a daring young fellow, strong, and well
armed, and accustomed to sinning. And what is more, this lover was
prompt and well prepared to make resistance, lest his beloved
Amarillis should be snatched from him. Likewise she was prompt and
ready to hinder her husband even with a sword she had seized and
drawn, lest her beloved Mirtillo might be offended. Guido should not
therefore be considered to have spared her nor to have remitted his
injury. But lest she might escape into more distant parts where he
could have no hope of the due vengeance, his just and sudden anger
then counselled him to have her arrested by officers, so that he might
kill her as soon as possible; and when afterward a suitable occasion
arose, if he killed her, it should be considered as if he had slain
her immediately. [Citations.]
And, generally, whatever is done after an interval may be said to be
done incontinently, if done as soon as a chance for doing it was
given. [Citations.]
But so far is the Law from believing that this kind of injury is
remitted by a husband that it rather believes that the spirit of
vengeance always continues in him. Therefore it comes about that a
wife may be held responsible for looking out for herself; so much so,
indeed, that her death which follows thereupon may never be said to be
treacherous. [Citations.] Muta speaks of the case of a husband who had
his wife summoned outside of the city walls by his son, in order that
he might kill her safely, and yet the husband was condemned only to
the oars for seven years.
This also makes some difference in the case, that certain authorities
hold that a husband may indeed hide his wife's baseness for the
purpose of taking vengeance upon her safely later on. [Citations.]
Likewise he may have his wife hide his disgrace for the purpose of
taking vengeance securely upon the one who wishes to offend her
modesty, according to the very famous council of _Castro_ 277, _lib._
2.
And this is all the more to the point because Count Guido was censured
by the Procurator of the Poor himself, the defender of Francesca and
Canon Caponsacchi, for this appeal to the judge. [Citations.] We have
alleged many of these authorities in our past argument, § _et hæc
nostra_: for they unanimously assert that husbands are considered vile
and horned, if they do not take vengeance with their own hands, but
wait for that to be done by the judges, who themselves ridicule and
laugh at them. Therefore it is no wonder if the luckless husband,
after he had made the said recourse to the judge, as the foolish heat
of his wrath suggested to him, wished to avenge himself for his lost
honour. For he sinned that he might shun the censure of the vulgar and
learned alike, and that he might not add this infamy also to his lost
honour.
Nor is it at all to the point that the said Count Guido, in his
confession in one place, beside speaking of his injured honour, also
mentions the plots aimed at his life; because the force of honour was
far the stronger in his mind, as he himself asserts (page 678): "In
consideration of the fact that they had taken away my honour, which is
the principal thing." Nor ought any consideration be given the other
cause; because, as it is so much weaker, it should be made to give way
to the aforesaid reason, as was proved in our former argument, § _Et
in omnem Casum_, where for another purpose we have adduced Matthæus
[Citation], who is speaking in these very terms.
And so far as we desire to give attention to this other cause, it
likewise is sufficient for escaping the ordinary penalty. [Citations.]
The Fisc acknowledges the relevance of the abovesaid matters; he
therefore has recourse to the circumstances attending the crime,
namely, the assembling of armed men, the lawsuit going on between
Count Guido and the Comparini, the prohibited arms, and finally the
place where the crime was committed. For Francesca Pompilia was
detained in the home where she was killed, as a prison. But a response
is easy because such circumstances can indeed somewhat increase the
penalty of the principal in the crime, but not so much as to raise it
to the highest degree, in such a way that Count Guido and his
associates should come to be punished with death. For we find it
decided in these circumstances as quoted by Muta [Citation]: "A
decision was therefore made in view of the case in general, March,
1617, before his Excellency, wherefrom the ill manner of killing her
was evident; for he had her summoned by her son, and afterward her
body was discovered, which the dogs had eaten outside of the walls.
Leonardus was therefore condemned to the royal galleys for seven
years." And Sanfelici [Citation] says: "And although some of them were
condemned to banishment, it was because of their mutilation of the
privates, a crime for which the Fisc claimed they ought to be punished
by the penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_."
And Matthæus [Citation] says:
"When the matter had been more carefully considered in the Council, it
was decided that the husband had proceeded too treacherously in
pretending absence, in taking his brother with him, and in killing
with prohibited arms; because merely by the use of firearms a crime is
rendered insidious with us, etc. And it was accordingly decided that,
because of this excess, he should be condemned to the penalty of exile
for four years and to the payment of 2000 ducats." And this at the
stage of appeal was confirmed [Citation] where we read: "And thus it
was decided in the face of the facts proposed in condemning Francesco
Palomi to the penalty of the galleys for ten years, etc., from the
aggravating qualification of firearms. To the same penalty, Antonio
Alvarez was condemned, who had deliberately killed his wife because
she was playing him false, etc. The penalty was increased because he
was judged to have omitted this earlier, since he did not complain of
mere adultery, but of her living as a strumpet. And she could not do
this without the indifference and connivance of the husband."
And our reasoning is manifest, because it cannot be denied that Count
Guido and his associates committed all the aforesaid crimes on the
same ground of injured honour. Because just as this excuse should be
considered sufficient for escaping the ordinary penalty for murder, so
likewise it should be considered sufficient for avoiding the other
punishments whatsoever, appointed in the Apostolic Constitutions
against those committing other crimes expressed in the same; as the
principal purpose of the delinquent is always to be attended.
[Citation.]
So it was declared on this point for the purpose of avoiding the
penalty inflicted in the 75th Constitution of Sixtus V. [Citation],
against those who assembled armed men, whenever these men were
evidently assembled for the purpose of committing some other crime,
such as breaking prison and freeing those detained therein. And three
very celebrated judges of the Sacred Court, namely Coccini,
Blanchetti, and Orani so decided. Their decision is included among
others gathered by Farinacci [Citation], and he testifies that it was
so decided in the full chamber, in which the case was proposed and
examined at the order of Clement VIII. of sacred memory.
Nor does what he wrote later on to the contrary in aid of the Fisc, of
which he was then Advocate, stand in refutation; Spada. [Citation.]
For this opinion of his was refuted clearly and rejected on the most
substantial of reasons and arguments, [Citations.]
And in such conditions, for the purpose of avoiding the penalty of the
Banns or Apostolic Constitutions prohibiting the carrying of arms, I
have alleged many authorities in my past argument, § _neque plures_
[neque vero], and above the rest, Policardus, etc. [Citation], who
fully examines the matter. My honourable Procurator of the Poor
gathers together others in his present argument, § _remanet tandem_.
To these I add, Caballus [Citations], where it says that preparatory
acts are to be included with what was prepared, and he testifies that
it was so decided by the Sacred Council of Naples.
Likewise, for the purpose of avoiding the penalty set for those
killing one detained in prison, and so remaining in the custody of the
Prince, I have cited many authorities in my past argument, § _similiter
nec aggravari_. To these I now add. [Citations.]
Nor does it make any difference that Policardus, in the place cited,
and some of the other authorities recently alleged speak of homicide
committed in a quarrel or for self-defence. For the attendant
circumstance of a quarrel relieves one committing crime from the
ordinary penalty of the crime only in so far as it overlooks the crime
in one who, when provoked, wished to be avenged (as Ulpian says), and
insomuch as one swept away by a just indignation is not in the
fullness of his intellect. [Citation.]
But both of these reasons without doubt stand in favour of the husband
or of any one else committing murder for honour's sake [Citation],
even if they do so after an interval. [Citations.]
And in these very conditions, one killing an adulterous wife after an
interval is excused because of just anger, which causes him not to be
in the fullness of his intellect, etc. [Citations.]
Ulpian [Citation] also says: "He ought to be angered with a wife who
has violated his marriage with her, and his wrath should spring from
indignation for contumely when received, and his nature should arise
so that he would drive her from himself in whatever manner he could."
"For it is more difficult to restrain one's anger than to perform
miracles," as St. Gregory says. [Citation.]
The other authorities, indeed, who speak of persons committing murder
in self-defence with prohibited arms or in prisons should likewise be
in our favour. For the defence of honour in the case of men of good
birth, especially of nobles, is to be likened to the defence of life
itself. [Citations.] And indeed it surpasses life, according to the
words of the Apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter
9: "Better were it for me to die than that any one should deprive me
of my glory." And St. Ambrose: "For who does not consider an injury to
the body, or the loss of patrimony, less than injury to the spirit or
the loss of reputation?" And the third Philippic of Cicero: "We are
born to honour and liberty; either let us keep them, or die with
honour." [Citations.]
So that he who spurns his own honour, and does not see to regaining it
by vengeance, differs naught from the beasts. [Citations.] Indeed he
should be considered even more irrational than the very beasts,
according to the golden words of Theodoric. as quoted by Cassiodorus,
which we have cited in our past argument, § _Nec verum est_.
[Citations.]
Then as to the lawsuit going on between Count Guido and the Comparini
as regards the fraud about the birth, beside what was said recently, I
pray that it again be noticed that the Constitution of Alexander does
not enter where some provocation has arisen from the one injured, as
Farinacci well affirms [Citation] in following a decision of the Rota,
which he places at the end of his counsel. And we have weighed this
heretofore in our past argument, § _absque eo quod_. Such provocation
in the present case resulted from the injury which the said Comparini
inflicted upon this same Count Guido while the lawsuit was pending,
because of their complicity in the said flight and adultery committed
by their daughter on that occasion.
The other lawsuit which Francesca Pompilia made pretence of bringing
against Count Guido, for divorce, might be omitted. For beside the
considerations offered by my honoured Procurator of the Poor in his
present argument, § _quæ etiam aptantur_, this suit was brought
illegally, because the warning of it, as I suppose, had reached only
Abate Paolo, the brother of Count Guido, who had no authority in this
matter. And this is true especially because it is not proved that the
same Guido had any knowledge of that suit brought, as is now
pretended.
As to Blasio Agostinelli enough has been written in the former
argument, since he has not been examined anew, and in his former
examination he confessed only that he was present at the said murders,
but that he had no hand in them. So the more rigorous opinion of
Caballus cannot apply to him, who said that such helpers are not
immune from the penalty of murder whenever they kill any one with
their own hands. For the opinion of this author was proved by us to be
erroneous, in our past argument, § _quidquid in contrarium_.
I might wish to add something to what has been said in the past
argument as to the alienage and minority of Domenico and Francesco;
but it is not yet very clear under what law the Fisc pretends that
they miss these. Therefore I will rest satisfied with this response,
believing certainly that it will not chance that my Lord Advocate of
the Fisc may fashion his own allegations and also respond to ours
without communicating them to me, as happened in the past argument
very greatly to the astonishment of myself and of others. For he and I
both ought to seek the truth and to be advocates of that, as both of
us are officers of the Prince according to the considerations of
Rainaldi. [Citation.] Who indeed desires that anything else than
justice be administered, and especially when dealing with poor
imprisoned wretches? In their cause, piety should triumph, because
they are the treasure of Christ. [Citation.]
DESIDERIO SPRETI, _Advocate of the Poor_.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF THE FRANCESCHINI CASE
[PAMPHLET 10.]
The property of Pietro Comparini did not amount to more than the sum
of 10,000 or 12,000 scudi, subject to a reversionary interest, coupled
likewise with the obligation to compound a good percentage of the
income. He, therefore, had to live sparingly to avoid being reduced to
a state of destitution, there being a bar against his use of the
capital and of a part of the income. He was also too indulgent to his
stomach and was given to laziness, and furthermore had taken a wife
with a very small dowry. Then lawsuits came upon him, the income of
his bonds was reduced, and other misfortunes befell him, so that he
was brought down to a state poor and miserable enough. So much so that
he was several times arrested for debt and, after making a statement
of his property, received from the Papal Palace secret alms each
month.
When he found himself in such straits, he decided to marry off
Francesca Pompilia, his daughter, to some person who would undertake
the burden of supporting him together with his wife, Violante Peruzzi,
who was a very shrewd woman and of great loquacity. It was with her
advice that he had undertaken the affair, and the marriage with Count
Guido Franceschini was considered suitable. For when the latter had
conducted his new wife and her parents back to Arezzo, his own
country, he might be able to find some opportune remedy for their
necessities, by the assistance in Rome of Abate Paolo Franceschini his
brother, an active and diligent man; thereby putting in order the
patrimony of Pietro which had been sequestered and tied up by his
creditors. Therefore, when the dowry had been set at twenty-six bonds,
with added hope of future succession to the rest of his property by
virtue of the reversionary interest to which the wife was entitled,
the bargain was accepted. This bargain was advantageous to Pietro and
his wife in freeing them from the straits in which they found
themselves. And it was likewise advantageous to the Franceschini, as
the diligence of the Abate, and some temporary expenditure by their
house well attests. For they might well believe that they would gain
in time the aforesaid property either entire, or little decreased.
Such from the beginning were the mutual purposes of that unhappy
marriage. From this fact one may see how slight a pretext there is for
saying that Count Guido, while making the arrangements, had tricked
Pietro and his wife by giving an inventory of property with an annual
income of 1700 scudi, which income was later proved to be much less,
because the primary end for which the marriage was concluded might
very well have been obtained by showing a much smaller income. For it
is known that when this inventory was shown by Violante to Pietro
Comparini, he said on seeing it: "Ho, ho, it would have been enough
for me if it had been only half as much." And indeed it would have
been the greatest stupidity in Pietro to have given his daughter a
husband, upon the simple inventory of a foreigner and without finding
out if this were true, so that the real impelling cause of the
marriage had been the resources represented in the said inventory. Not
even on the mere grounds of propriety and civility may Guido be
reproved; because when the said inventory was produced by Pietro in
the trial, the Abate Paolo Franceschini was very much surprised at it,
so that he took his brother to task about it by letter, and Guido
replied that he had done it at the instigation of Violante. For she
desired the completion of the marriage, and, seeing Pietro irresolute,
she induced Guido to give the abovesaid inventory, with some
modifications, for the purpose of stimulating her husband thereto.
The marriage was finally effected, and they all went back together to
the city of Arezzo. Nor were the Comparini mistreated there, as they
tried to prove by the unauthoritative deposition of a servant, who had
left the house in anger. One mere reading of this deposition is enough
to assure one that she did this with a bad motive and at the
instigation of others, as she herself has declared to various persons.
This deposition shows sickeningly the distasteful prejudice with which
it was conceived, and especially where she says that a little sucking
lamb was made to serve as food for seven or eight persons throughout
an entire week. And there are other matters alike unfit for belief.
[The Comparini] were indeed treated with all consideration and
decorum, as Monsignor the Bishop and the Governor of the city attest;
and they are persons much better qualified to judge and much more
worthy of belief than a malign and suborned servant. But you may also
have the attestation of one who was serving in that household for
thirteen months, during the time when the abovesaid Pietro and
Violante were there, and he is able to tell many particulars of the
good treatment which they received at the hands of the Franceschini.
It is quite true that disturbances of considerable importance arose in
that household; but they were occasioned by the bitter tongue of
Pietro and the haughtiness of Violante, his wife. For they laughed at
all the proceedings of the Franceschini, and thrusting themselves
forward, with pretence of superiority, they brought upon the mother of
the Franceschini, and upon the rest of the family, bitter vexations,
which were hidden at the time, to avoid violating the laws of
hospitality. And notwithstanding all this, when Pietro and his wife
decided to return to Rome, as soon as they expressed their wish, they
were provided with money for the journey, and in Rome with furniture
to put in order the house they had left.
As soon as Pietro and Violante arrived in Rome, a judicial notice was
dispatched at the instance of Pietro, in which he declared that
Francesca Pompilia was not really his daughter, and that therefore he
was not bound to discharge his promise of dowry. To prove this fact,
he brought the attestation of his wife Violante. In substance, she
declared that for the purpose of keeping her husband's creditors from
their rights, by virtue of the reversionary interest, and also for the
purpose of enjoying the income of the bonds, she had feigned that she
was pregnant, and then, with the aid of a midwife, that she had
brought forth a daughter. This was Francesca Pompilia, who had come of
a most vile parentage.
From this blameworthy act made public so suddenly throughout the
entire Court, there necessarily arose in the Franceschini an intense
hatred toward the authors of it. But they were able to restrain
themselves from the due resentment in the hope that if Francesca
Pompilia were not indeed the daughter of Pietro and Violante, as was
supposed at the time of the espousal, the marriage might be annulled
and they might thus purge themselves of such a blot on their
reputation. Witnesses of this feeling of theirs are found in the many
authorities and experts who were requested by the Franceschini to give
thought to that point and to express their opinion of it. But as these
did not agree, the Franceschini were unwilling then to commit
themselves to so doubtful an undertaking, in the prosecution of which
they would necessarily be obliged to presuppose and confess that she
was not the child of the Comparini. But by such a confession they
would be prejudiced in their interest in the dowry. And therefore they
thought well then to pass the matter by that they might avoid exposing
themselves to the danger both of losing the dowry and of being unable
to nullify the marriage.
Nevertheless they opposed the notice, and obtained for Francesca
Pompilia the continuance in quasi-possession of her daughtership and a
decree for the transfer of the dowry bonds. But Pietro appealed from
the decree, and the case was continued in the _Segnatura di
Giustizia_. This was followed by the copious distribution of pamphlets
throughout Rome, which had been printed by Pietro to the very grave
injury of the honour of the Franceschini, not to say to their infamy.
But the latter were able to restrain the just resentment of their
irritated minds by cherishing the hope of making the court acknowledge
(as did follow), no less the falsehood of their adversaries than their
own truth. Supported by this hope, they subsequently bore with all
patience the many insults planned against them by various cliques, and
the twists and turns for hindering the transfer of the dowry bonds,
the Comparini having trumped up various creditors, whether real or
pretended. On account of this opposition, the Franceschini were made
to feel the inconvenience and expense of that transfer. Nor have they
had any benefit of the income; of which they have been able to obtain
not even a two months' payment.
To such a pitch had the affairs of the two parties come, when Guido,
waking up one morning, found that his wife was not in bed. As soon as
he arose, he found that his jewel-box had been rifled and his wife had
fled. Nor was the suspicion lacking that she had given an opiate to
Guido and the entire household the preceding evening; and it was
thought that this had happened at the suggestion of Pietro and
Violante, as he had more than once heard threats of it. He travelled
quickly along the way to Rome, and after a headlong journey he
overtook his fugitive wife, in company with Canon Caponsacchi of
Arezzo, at the inn of Castelnuovo. And as he was alone and unarmed,
and they were armed and resolute, he saw that he was unequal to
avenging that excess. He therefore thought it well to have them
arrested by applying to the authorities of the said place. The court
had both of the fugitives captured by the police. They were consigned
to the jurisdiction of Monsignor the Governor of Rome, and were then
conducted to the New Prisons.
The Fisc, indeed, makes much out of the particular that Franceschini
should have avenged his insults in the act of overtaking them; but, as
an adequate response, one should think of the impossibility of his
carrying out his revenge because of their precaution in the matter of
arms, for Franceschini had heard along the way that the fugitives were
travelling armed. In proof of this, also, when his wife saw her
husband she had the hardihood to thrust at his life with bare sword.
For this reason it was prudent moderation to check their flight then
by arresting them. And this was all the more true because the adultery
of his wife had not then been proved, and possibly he had a repugnance
against imbuing his hands with the blood of her whom he had often held
in his arms, as long as any hope was left alive of regaining his
reputation in any other way than by her murder.
But afterward there were found the mutual love-letters of the same
fugitives, barefaced and immodest and preparatory to flight. And from
the cross-examination of the driver it became evident that during
their journey in the carriage they had done nothing else than kiss
each other impurely. And from the deposition of the host at
Castelnuovo, Guido found out that both of them had slept in the same
chamber. Finally, from the sentence or decree of the court in
condemnation of the Canon Caponsacchi to banishment to Civita Vecchia
for three years, for "having carnally known Francesca," the notoriety
and publicity of this adultery followed. Let any one who has the sense
of honour consider in what straits and perturbations of mind poor
Guido found himself, since even the very reasonless animals detest and
abominate the contamination of their conjugal tie, with all the
ferocity that natural instinct can suggest. They not only avenge the
immodesty of their companions by the death of the adulterer, but they
also avenge the outrages and injuries done to the reputation of their
masters. For Elian in his Natural History tells of an elephant which
avenged adultery for its master by the death of the wife and the
adulterer found together in the act of adultery. And there are other
examples also, as Tiraquelli cites. [Citation.]
But returning to the series of events, it must be stated that, after
the imprisonment of the fugitives, Guido also came on to Rome and was
deeply affected and, as it were, delirious because of the excesses of
his wife. He was comforted by his good friends with the hope that this
attempt at flight, taken along with the lack of decent parentage of
Francesca (under supposition of which he had contracted the marriage)
would facilitate the dissolution of that marriage, and in that way
all the blots upon his reputation would be cancelled. Hence, with this
hope he returned to his own country, leaving the management of the
affair to the Abate, his brother. The Secretary of Sacred Assembly of
the Council may be a witness of this; for Abate Paolo presented the
matter to him and entreated him to propose, in that sacred assembly,
this point of law as to the validity of the marriage then--that is,
after a criminal sentence in the Tribunal of Monsignor the Governor,
had been obtained.
In the meanwhile the same Abate attended to the plan of petitioning
the conclusion of the said criminal cause. When Pompilia, to avoid
conviction by the love-letters, had recourse to the falsehood that she
did not know how to write, it was easy for the Abate to convict her of
that lie by showing the marriage agreement signed with her own hand,
as well as by a Cardinal now dead, by means of the recognition of the
handwriting. But in spite of this, when the merits of the case had
been made known everywhere, the same Abate perceived that instead of
his being pitied, little by little every one began to laugh at him and
to deride him, as he has told several persons. Perchance the attempt
was being made to introduce into Rome the power of sinning against the
laws of God with impunity, along with the doctrine of Molinos and
philosophic sin, which has been checked by the authority of the Holy
Office. So many persons would desire to blot out from the minds of men
their esteem of honour and of reputation in order that they might sin
with impunity against the laws of men and might give opportunity to
adulterers without any check from disgrace or shame.
And it is certain that the Abate, seeing the cause unduly protracted,
had just grounds for placing it at the feet of our Lord [the Pope],
with a memorial in which he declared that he could no longer endure
such important and such various litigation and vexation arising from
that luckless marriage, and he prayed that a special sitting be
appointed for all the cases--that is the ones concerning her
daughtership, her flight, her adultery, the dowry, and others growing
out of the marriage as well as the one concerning its annulling. But
he had no other reply than: "The matter rests with the Judges." So,
with devout resignation to His Holiness, he awaited the outcome of the
said criminal trial, from which he hoped to regain, at least in part,
the reputation of his house.
In the meantime, Pietro Comparini was supplied with plenty of money
by the generosity of some unknown person, possibly a lover of the
young girl. He vaunted his triumph boldly in the throngs and the
shops, places of his accustomed resort, and he praised the resolution
and spirit of his daughter for having known how to trick the
Franceschini with a disgraceful flight and with the thievery of such
precious things, and for having found an expedient to give to the
judge in the trial such good replies with all details thereof. He also
boasted that in a little while she would return to his home despite
the Franceschini. For he would bring so many lawsuits and scandals
upon them that they would be forced to be silent and to let matters
run on. For these statements we can have the attestations of many
persons, in case they are needed. Therefore, because of such stinging
boasts and such irritations, the mind of Guido was ever more
embittered in spite of all the power he could master for restraining
the impetus of his anger which had been provoked by such injuries.
Francesca Pompilia had been previously transferred from the prisons
into the Refuge called _della Scalette_, where she stayed for some
months. Then it was discovered that she was pregnant, and many
attempts were made to secure an abortion. For this purpose, powders
and other drugs were given several times by the mother. As this proved
useless, she was remanded to the home of Pietro and Violante on the
pretext of an obstruction and the necessity of relieving herself.
There, at the approach of the physicians, her pregnancy was
discovered. The truth is, that when her womb began to grow, the nuns
did not wish for her confinement to take place within their walls, and
therefore a pretext was found for removing her on the grounds of the
said obstruction and the necessity of removing it.
Now at this point the Abate found it necessary to break the bonds of
his forbearance: for although it was indirectly that he was offended,
that is, in the person and honour of his brother, nevertheless it
seemed to him that every man's face had become a looking-glass, in
which was mirrored the image of the ridicule of his house. Therefore,
being humiliated, though he was strong and constant in other matters,
he often burst into bitterest tears, until he felt very much inclined
to throw himself into the river, as he indeed declared to all his
friends. And to free himself from such imminent danger, he decided to
abandon Rome, the Court, his hopes and possessions, his affectionate
and powerful patrons, and whatever property he had accumulated during
thirty years in the same City. Any one may imagine with what pain he
parted from these and went to a strange and unknown clime, where he
would not meet the fierceness of his scorners, who had been merited
neither by himself nor his household.
But the injury of Guido, arising from a sharper and severer wound,
within his very vitals as a husband, had the power to arouse his anger
even to the extreme. Nor did he consider it sufficient redress to
punish himself with voluntary exile for the crimes of others; for such
a resolution might be considered by the world as a plain proof of his
weakness and cowardice. He soon had sure information that, during the
month of December, Pompilia had given birth to a boy in the home of
the Comparini, which child had been intrusted secretly to a nurse. He
also heard that the infamy of the friendship with the said Canon had
been continued, inasmuch as he was received as a guest into the said
home (as was said). For like a vulture, Caponsacchi wheeled round and
round those walls, that he might put beak and talons into the desired
flesh for the increase of Guido's disgrace. Guido accordingly felt the
wildest commotion in his blood, which urged him to find refuge for
himself even in the most desperate of determinations.
In the meantime he turned over again and again, as in delirium, his
sinister thoughts, reflecting that he was abhorred by his friends,
avoided by his relatives, and pointed at with the finger of scorn by
every one in his own country. And the word went abroad that in Rome
they were selling his reputation at an infamous market. (This matter
has moved the treasurer of the Convertites, since the death of
Pompilia, to begin proceedings and to take possession of her
property.) Added to the above were the continual rebukes which he
received because of his lost honour, so that he became utterly drunk
with fury. He left Arezzo with desperate thoughts, and when he had
reached Rome he went to that home which was the asylum of his
disgraces. Nor could he have any doubt how much the very name of the
adulterer was respected; for when Guido made pretence of delivering a
letter of his sending, the doors were immediately thrown open; and so,
scarcely had he set his foot upon the threshold, before he saw his
dishonour proving itself before his very face; of which dishonour he
had heretofore had only a distant impression in his imagination. Then
bold and triumphant, he no longer feared to upbraid her with unmasked
face for all the insults which had been inflicted upon his honour in
that household; and as he looked all around at those walls incrusted
with his heaviest insults, and with his infamy, the dams of his
reason gave way and he fell headlong into that miserable ruin of
plunging himself with deadly catastrophe into the blood of the
oppressors of his reputation.
There is no doubt that Franceschini has committed the crime of a
desperate man, and that his mind, when it was so furious, was totally
destitute of reason. As he had lost his property, his wife, and his
honour, there was nothing else for him to lose unless it were his
miserable life. For, as Paolo Zacchia, the learned philosopher and
jurist, says in speaking of anger in man: "Such and so great is its
force that it does not differ at all from insanity and fury." Galenus
very clearly affirms this, adding that when in law it is known that
crimes are committed in such a state, they are punished with a smaller
penalty, even though it has to do with the very atrocious crime of
parricide. Calder [Citation] also gives many other matters on our
point in No. 27 and the following numbers. And these theoretic
propositions are verified in actual practice in Guido; for he was so
utterly mad and void of reason that he entered upon so great an
undertaking even at an hour of the night when many people were around.
And after that he took no precaution, such as any other person of
sound mind would have taken in governing his actions. He set out by
the high road on his journey of about seventy miles from the outskirts
of the city without providing any vehicles, as if he were merely a
traveller leaving Rome. These circumstances are plain evidences of an
offended and delirious mind. [Citations.] St. Jerome writes in his
letters:
"Where honour is absent, there is contempt; and where contempt is,
there is recurring insult; and where insult, there indignation; and
where indignation, there is no quiet; and where quiet is wanting,
there the mind is often thrown from its balance."
Nor in this case does the legal distinction enter as to whether the
one driven by anger committed the crime in the first impulse of anger,
or after an interval of time. For this distinction might have a place
when the anger arose from an insult in some transitory deed, and one
that was not permanent. But in the case we are treating, the insult
provocative of anger consisted of frequent and reiterated acts; that
is, not so much in the passing of the wife from the nunnery to the
home of Pietro under an empty and ridiculous pretence, but still more
from her staying in the said home with the aggravating circumstance of
his own infamy (as has been said above). Accordingly, as the injury is
permanent because of the continual affronts which the injured one
received, so the vengeance is understood to be taken immediately and
without any interval. This the defenders of the cause have
sufficiently proved in their no less erudite than learned writings
with their very strong arguments and their unsurpassable learning.
Nor does it amount to anything for one to say that the crime was
aggravated, first, by the kind of arms used; for Virgil [A. I. 150]
says: _Furor arma ministrat_; nor, secondly, by the company of four,
or let us say the conventicle; nor, thirdly, by the place, the excess,
or the other circumstances considered by the Fisc. For in a madman,
everything is excusable, as it is axiomatic and a very sure principle
that nature then arises in such a way that it drives a man from
himself, in whatever manner is possible, etc. In conformity therewith,
Fracosto speaks as follows: "And in truth an ingenuous mind, and one
that knows the value of its own honour and reputation, is very
painfully offended in a part so sensitive and so delicate; and at such
a time reaches the limit of madness and of desperation; for it has
lost the light of reason, and in delirium and frenzy cannot be
satisfied even if it succeed in turning upside down, if that were
possible, the very hinges of the Universe, for the purpose of
annihilating not merely the authors but the places and the memory of
its insults and shames." For "the rage and fury of a man does not spare
in the day of vengeance, nor does it grant the prayers of any, nor
does it accept in requital many gifts," as the Holy Spirit speaks on
this point, through the mouth of Solomon, in the sixth chapter of
Proverbs, at the end. With this very well agrees what St. Bernard has
very learnedly written in his letter to his nephew Robert at the
beginning: "Anger indeed does not deliberate very much, nor has it a
sense of shame, nor does it follow reason, nor fear the loss of
dignity, nor obey the law, nor acquiesce in its judgment, and ignores
all method and order."
There is no doubt that Samson reached this pitch when he fell into the
power of his enemies. He suffered with an intrepid mind the loss of
his eyes and other grievous disasters, but when he saw that he was
destined to serve as a pastime in public places, and when he there
heard the jeers and derision of the people, the anger in his breast
was inflamed, so that, all madness and fury, he cried out: "Let me die
along with the Philistines." And giving a shake to the columns which
sustained the palace he reduced it to ruin: "And he killed many more
in his death than he had killed while alive," as the Holy Scripture
testifies. And Christ himself, although he was very mild, and had the
greatest patience while receiving opprobrium and insults without ever
complaining, yet answered, when he knew that his honour was touched,
"My honour I will give to no one." And it is certain that any one who
cares for honour and reputation would rather die an honoured man
beneath _mannaia_ than live for many ages in the face of the world
with shame and dishonour.
This argument, strong as it is, has succeeded in weakening one wise
and earnest adherent of the Fisc. And this is why the very learned pen
of Monsignor of the Fisc has uttered the following period, which says:
"But because the Comparini claimed that the furnishing of food to
Francesca while in prison was the duty of Franceschini, and the latter
declared that it belonged to the Comparini, the Most Illustrious and
Reverend Lord Governor, after having the consent of Abate Paolo, own
brother of Guido, and his representative in the case, assigned the
home of the same Comparini to Francesca as a safe and secure prison
under security." But this fact can be clearly explained so that it
will not form an objection.
When Francesca Pompilia was about to be taken from the prison to the
nunnery, Abate Franceschini was asked to provide the food, with the
statement that if he refused there would appear a third and unknown
person who would assume the burden of it to their dishonour. Therefore
the Abate wished once for all to put an end to any chance of receiving
new insults; and to avoid every charge of preserving even the
slightest sign of relation with this disgraceful sister-in-law,
accepted a middle way proposed to him, namely, that Lamparelli, as
Procurator of Charity, should make provision for it by the
disbursement of his own funds and should pay it back again by what
reasonably belonged to the Franceschini; for he reimbursed himself for
it with the money which had been found upon the fugitives, and which
had been stolen from the husband; at her capture, this money was
placed on deposit in the office, where there remained so much of it
still that, after all was over, the balance of it was consigned to the
same Abate.
And as when the said Francesca was transferred from the nunnery to the
home of Violante, all the preceding and succeeding circumstances made
it very improbable that the Abate gave his consent, and as this
consent is not found registered among those acts, it seems very clear
that it was not given at all. Nor could he legally give it, for he was
not the representative of his brother in that matter; for his
authorisation confined him solely to the power of receiving back the
money and other things which were deposited in the office. This is
proved by his acts and by the story which the Abate then gave to his
friends and relatives; and it utterly destroys the assertion of the
Fisc, since Abate Paolo says that he was indeed notified that the
young woman was obliged to find relief in an indisposition, certified
by a physician, and that she was obliged to leave the nunnery and to
go back to her father's home. To this, as it seemed a mere pretence,
he replied that he could easily undertake to purge the wife in the
nunnery without exposing her to such evident danger of greater shame.
He also said that he wondered very much that the affection of a father
had so suddenly returned in Pietro Comparini for Pompilia, whom he and
his wife had so often denied as their daughter. He wondered how they
could both be, and not be, the parents of the said woman, according to
their own desires to the injury of the house of Franceschini.
And if the solicitor, for the purpose of giving colour to the honour
of the said lady, has falsely urged many justifications, it is to be
noted that in substance all that he says on that point is founded on
what with her own mouth she has said in her own favour and what she
has proffered to free herself from the blame of her sins, both at this
juncture and in the flight, as well as in the trial which may be
referred to; in fact, quite the contrary is evident; and from the
external tests which the Convertites intended to make, but from which
they abstained when they heard the news of the birth of the son. And
would that it had pleased God that she had observed the laws of holy
modesty! for in that case so great a misfortune would not have
resulted from her whims. We should notice, further, that the
declaration made by the wife in the face of death may be doubtful in
itself, in the sense that after confession and absolution one's sin is
cancelled as if it had never been committed, so that in a court of
justice she would no longer have any need of pardon. Therefore, from
the above-cited circumstances and very strong reasons, there is no
room to doubt that Franceschini deserves the indulgence which the laws
give to excesses that find origin from the stings of honour. And, if
we were within the circumstances under which the case ought to be
adjudged according to expediency, without any hesitation, Franceschini
should be punished mildly to diminish the force of immodesty and
impudence. For the woman is not without adherents, who triumph
throughout all Rome in a coterie of treachery, both in public and in
private. This is for the oppression and derision against husbands who
have regard for their reputation. And they give the title of pedantry
to that circumspection which one ought to practise for the
preservation of his own honour.
[File-title of Pamphlet 11.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor of the
City in Criminal Cases:_
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE
with qualifying circumstance._
_For the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini
and his Associates._
_Summary._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
SUMMARY
[PAMPHLET 11.]
No. 1.--_Bond given by Francesca Pompilia to keep her home as a
prison._
October 12, 1697.
Before me, etc., Francesca Pompilia, wife of Guido Franceschini of
Arezzo, was placed at liberty, etc., and promised, etc., to keep to
this home of Pietro (son of the former Francesco Comparini), etc.,
situated in Via Paolina, as a safe and secure prison, and not to leave
it, either by day or by night, nor to show herself at the doors or
open windows, under any pretext whatsoever, etc., with the thought of
having to return again to prison, etc. And after she has recovered her
health to present herself at any time whatsoever, etc., at every
command of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor of the
City; for the cause concerning which there was argument in the trial,
etc., from proofs that may arise, whether new or not new; under the
penalty of 300 scudi, laid by the Reverend Apostolic Chamber in the
case, etc.
This is followed by the surety in due form,
NOTARY FOR THE POOR.
No. 2.--_Certificate of the Baptism of Francesca Pompilia._
I, the undersigned, certify, etc., as is found in the baptismal
record, page 152, the particulars given below, namely:
July 23, 1680. I, Bartolomeo Mini, curate, have baptised the infant
daughter born on the 17th of this month to Pietro Comparini and
Violante Peruzzi, who live in this parish. To her the following name
was given: Francesca Camilla Vittoria Angela Pompilia, etc. In pledge
of which, etc.
Rome this 9th day of February, 1698.
Thus it is, Pietro Ottoboni, Curate of San Lorenzo in Lucina.
No. 3.--_Letter of Francesca, Pompilia, written in the prison of
Castelnuovo to her parents._
My dear Father and Mother:
I wish to inform you that I am imprisoned here in Castelnuovo for
having fled from home with a gentleman with whom you are not
acquainted. But he is a relative of the Guillichini, who was at Rome,
and who was to have accompanied me to Rome. As Guillichini was sick,
and could not come with me, the other gentleman came, and I came with
him for this reason, because my life was not worth an hour's purchase.
For Guido my husband wished to kill me, because he had certain
suspicions, which were not true, and on account of these he wished to
murder me. I sent you word of them on purpose, but you did not believe
the letters sent you were in my own hand. But I declare that I
finished learning how to write in Arezzo. Let me tell you that the one
who carries this was moved by pity and provided me with the paper and
what I needed. So as soon as you have read this letter of mine come
here to Castelnuovo to give me some aid, because my husband is doing
all he can against me. Therefore if you wish your daughter well, come
quickly. I stop because I have no more time. May 3.
Directed to Signor Pietro Comparini, my father, Via Vittoria, Rome.
No. 4.--_Another letter of the same person, in which she calls the
Canon to task for dishonourable advances._
I give you infinite thanks for the octaves which you have sent me. All
of these are the very contrary of the Rosalinda, which was as
honourable as these are immodest. And I am surprised that you who are
so chaste have composed and copied matters so immodest. I do not want
you to do in everything as you have done in these books, the first of
which was so very nice; while these octaves are quite the contrary. I
cannot believe that you, who were so modest, would become so bold,
etc.
No. 5.--_Portions of the will of Pietro Comparini._
As to each and all of my properties, etc., I appoint, as my
usufructuary heir, my wife Signora Violante Peruzzi, etc. And when
she dies I appoint in her stead, in the said usufruct of my entire
estate, Francesca Pompilia, wife of Signor Guido Franceschini of
Arezzo. And I do so because of her good character and because for a
long time, yes, for many years, I looked upon her in good faith as my
daughter, and thought that Signora Violante, my wife and myself were
her parents. Then I found out that both she and I were tricked in that
belief, thanks to the vanity of the schemes, unfortunately conceived
by my said wife, to make me believe in the birth of the same daughter.
And because of a scruple of conscience after the marriage of Francesca
Pompilia, this fact was revealed to me by Signora Violante my wife.
And this pretence of birth was found by me to be a fact because of the
information of it from persons worthy of credit.
All this I grant, therefore, on the condition that the said Francesca
Pompilia seek again her own city and stay here in Rome, etc., in which
city I hope she will live chastely and honestly, and will lead the
life of a good Christian. But if she do not come back to this city, or
if when she has come back she live with shameless impurity (and may
God forbid that), I wish that she be deprived of the said usufruct of
my estate and that opportunity be given for a substitution in favour
of the heir mentioned below, as proprietor, etc. Because thus, etc.,
and not otherwise, etc. And because the chance might arise that she be
left a widow, or that her marriage be dissolved, since a lawsuit is
going on, which was brought before Monsignor Tomati by the Olivieri as
to her relation as child, and if the said Francesca wish to marry
again, or become a nun, I am willing that she separate from my estate
as much as 1000 scudi for the purpose of remarrying or becoming a nun,
if she shall so please. And I advise her not to marry again, lest she
subject herself a second time to other deceptions. Still further, I
give her the power to leave by will 200 scudi more of my estate. And
in the event that Signor Guido die first, whereby there would come
about the restitution to the said Francesca Pompilia, etc., of the
money received by Signor Guido, to the sum of about 700 scudi, etc.
(which I think would be at least very difficult, if not impossible,
because Signor Guido is wretchedly poor and his family is very poor),
I wish that these moneys be not counted against the said Francesca
Pompilia in said 1000 scudi, much less in her power of making a will,
because then, etc.
No. 6.--_Authorisation for the management of his affairs made by Guido
Franceschini to the person of Abate Paolo, his brother._
_October 7, 1694._
Guido, son of the former Tomaso di Franceschini of Arezzo, of his own
will, etc., made and appointed, etc., to be his true, etc.,
representative, etc., special and general, etc., Abate Paolo
Franceschini, his own brother, now living in Rome, etc., for the
purpose of carrying on and defending, in the name of the said
Constituent, all lawsuits and causes, civil or mixed, already brought
or to be brought for any reason whatsoever, and against any persons
whatsoever, anywhere, and especially in Rome, whether as plaintiff or
defendant before any judge, either ecclesiastical or secular, whether
before the Congregation or Tribunal, and before one or both, to give
or receive charges, or to contest lawsuits, to take oath as regards
the calumny, and to furnish whatever other testimony is lawful, etc.,
and to carry on and obtain each and all other necessary matters, in
the same manner and form as the Constituent could, if he were present,
and as seems well pleasing to the said Procurator, etc., promising,
etc., and demanding, etc.
I, Joseph, etc., de Ricii, Notary Public, etc., of Arezzo was asked,
etc., in pledge whereto, etc.
[File-title of Pamphlet 12.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor of the
City in Criminal Cases:_
_For the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini
and his Associates, Prisoners._
_Response of The Procurator General
of the Fisc._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA EXCIDII
[PAMPHLET 12.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
Why should we waste time in disputing the point whether adultery
committed by Francesca Comparini with Canon Caponsacchi, as is claimed
by the other side, is sufficiently proved? For in our first
information [Pamphlet 5] as to the law and fact in the case, we have
already declared that judgment was given in the _Congregation_ only
for the penalty of banishment to Civita Vecchia against the abovesaid
Canon, and of retention in the nunnery against Francesca, because of
the very lack of proof of the said adultery. And this is quite right
in law, because neither the Canon himself nor the said Francesca have
confessed, much less been convicted of it; and because the
suppositions brought on the other side are trivial and equivocal. But,
even if these latter had been weighty and very urgent, they would not
have been enough to establish conclusive proof, but at the most could
only lead the mind of the judge to place some minor punishment upon
them arbitrarily, as Farinacci testifies. [Citation.]
Therefore there should be strict insistence on behalf of the Fisc upon
the point that Guido Franceschini had not the right to kill, after an
interval, his wife, whom he had not taken in adultery nor in base
conduct, without incurring the ordinary penalty of the _Lex Cornelia
de Sicariis_. For in our former writings, § _Alii vero_, we have
proved by the strength of many distinguished authorities that a
husband who kills his wife after an interval is not excused from the
said penalty.
Now that this fundamental assertion [in their argument] is overthrown,
we declare that the rights of the Fisc cannot at all be controverted
in the case with which we are dealing, since the authorities alleged
by the Defence, who excuse a husband from the ordinary penalty, speak
in the case of simple murder; and they ought not, accordingly, to be
extended to a case made still graver by qualifying attendant
circumstances. And for this reason, because the penalty cannot
possibly be the same, when the crime is greater in the one case than
in the other. [Citations.]
Nor for the purpose of overthrowing this fundamental idea of the Fisc
can the objection be made that all the qualifying and attendant
circumstances, which have been brought together in behalf of the Fisc,
should have no consideration, because they tend toward and are
preordained for the end had in mind; for the end and intention of
Count Guido was directed toward the murder of his wife and the
vindication of his honour. But one can well understand how fallacious
this argument really is, from what I have already written in § _Prima
enim_ together with the one following, and § _secunda qualitas_ and
_si ergo_. There we have proved that the learned authorities who can
be adduced by the other side speak and should be so understood when
the end is licit and not prohibited by law, or else when some
qualifying circumstance, through the force of particular Constitutions
or Banns, does not establish some further capital crime, distinct and
separate. And this is true whether the preordained end in the mind of
the delinquent follow or do not follow.
But in our case, from what has been conceded by the lawyers for the
Defence, the husband is not permitted by law to kill with impunity his
wife, after an interval, for adultery. But he is permitted by law to
slay the vile adulterer and his adulterous wife only when taken in
adultery. How then can these authorities be applied to our case? For
they hold good and find a place for themselves only in a case
permitted by law. In these circumstances speaks Laurentius Matthæus
[Citation], who is cited by the other side, where in his setting forth
a case we may read: "The adulterer and adulteress were slain in the
home of the husband, although in that case the husband did not escape
unpunished, because he had used firearms."
Nor does it hold good in law and practice that the bearing of arms is
included along with the crime committed. Not in law, as we have
affirmed in our other argument § _si ergo_; nor in practice, because
in all the tribunals of the entire Ecclesiastical State, it is held
that even when murder in a rage has been committed, if it has been
committed with the arms which are prohibited under the capital
penalty, especially if these arms come into the possession of the
Court, a more severe penalty is inflicted. And murders which should
suffer a lighter penalty because they were done in anger are condemned
under the ordinary penalty because of the carrying of such arms.
Farinacci and Guazzini testify that this has been the practice in the
Ecclesiastical State while this Decree has held good. [Citations.]
Still less applicable are the other authorities, who were adduced to
escape the order of the Constitution of Alexander. For although it is
true that for this crime the penalty threatened by the same decree
does not enter, unless these three matters are concurrently present,
namely craft, the occasion of a lawsuit, and the fact that no
provocation has arisen (as Farinacci holds [Citation]), yet in our
case, all of the abovesaid concur. As to the craft, there can be
little doubt, since by the very confession of the Defendants we have
knowledge of the preceding discussion and deliberation for committing
the murders. And Decian and others affirm the charge of craft may
arise from such a discussion. [Citations.]
The presence of a lawsuit is likewise undoubted; because, on the
representation of Pietro Comparini, suit was not only brought before
Judge Tomati as to the dowry promised and the goods subject to entail,
for the exclusion of the said Guido Franceschini and Francesca his
wife, but also a sentence favourable to the said Franceschini has been
handed down by the same judge.
But still further we may gather, from the confession of Franceschini
himself, that the provocation whereby he was moved to kill his wife
arose because of the pretended adultery; on this point the counsel for
the defence have principally insisted. Nor can they deny that this
same cause was introduced in the criminal prosecution in the presence
of the judge by the same Franceschini. It is quite necessary, then, to
acknowledge that this ought to justify the application of the penalty
of the Alexandrian Bull; for this decree speaks in civil as well as
criminal cases, as is evident in the fourth paragraph of the same
Bull, where we read: "That successively in future times forever, each
and all persons, ecclesiastical and secular, of whatever quality,
dignity, state and grade of rank and prominence, in their own causes
under benefit of clergy or secular, also in criminal and mixed cases,
whether now before this Court or pending for the time, their
adversaries, or those following or helping them, or the Advocates or
Counsel of them." And also in the place where we read: "If mutilation
of limb, or death (which God avert) follow, they incur _ipso facto_
beside the loss of their right and case, the sentence for the outraged
majesty of the Law."
We believe we have sufficiently canvassed these matters with galloping
pen (there being but a brief three hours) to prove clearly that the
foundations of the Fisc affirmed in our former writings still stand
fast, in spite of what has been recently deduced by the opposition so
fully and so learnedly, but without legitimate proof.
F. GAMBI,
_Procurator General of the Fisc and of the
Reverend Apostolic Chamber_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 13.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor of the
City in Criminal Cases_:
_ROMAN MURDER-CASE
with qualifying circumstance_.
_For the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini
and his Associates._
_A reply in matters of law, by the Lord
Advocate of the Fisc._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 13.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
In the beginning of his recent information, my Lord Advocate of the
Poor has criticised as unjust the decree of this Supreme Tribunal,
which inflicted the torture of the vigil upon Count Guido Franceschini
and his associates, for the purpose of getting confession of that most
horrible crime committed by them. Hence he claims that those
confessions, given under the fear of it and ratified after it was over
(as is the custom), cannot do the Accused any harm. He attempts,
indeed, to deny the justice of the said decree, not merely because of
the absence of the quality of special atrocity (as required by the
decree of Paul V. of sacred memory for the reformation of the
tribunals of the City), but also from the fact that the death penalty
cannot be demanded for the crime under discussion. And this he claims
is so (in spite of the unusual powers for ordering the torture of the
vigil granted to this Tribunal) lest there may be greater harshness in
the course of the trial than in the penalty itself. [Citation.]
In the end of this said recent information, he also criticises me
because, to the very great wonder of himself and others, I have failed
in my duty of seeking the truth in that I have made certain
allegations in the defence of the rights of the Fisc, which I have not
communicated to him. I thought he had complained quite enough about
that orally, so that he might have spared us his new complaint. But it
was not my duty to tell them to him, just as his informations, which
he made for the Defence (very learned indeed in their way), have never
been made known to me by him. But I assert only this, that I have paid
the price of much labour, lest I may seem to have failed in my office
and in the reverence with which I attend upon my Lord.
Passing over, therefore, my own personal apology, I go on to vindicate
the decree of this Tribunal from the injustice charged against it. I
also omit proof of the quality of the crime as to whether it may be
considered very atrocious, for I have abundantly argued this point in
my past response, § _Sed quatenus etiam_, with the one following.
For I showed that this quality could be sustained because of the
attendant circumstances which exasperated and raised the crime to the
outraging of the majesty of the law, according to the provisions of
the Apostolic Constitutions and the General Banns. I think it is quite
enough in my present argument to show that for this offence the death
penalty should be demanded. I hope to accomplish this with little
difficulty, since from the very kind of severe torture decreed, by
judges of such integrity, the applicability of this said penalty is
pre-supposed. And so since nothing new, whether in fact or in law, can
be brought, which has not been already examined in relation to the
cause for decreeing the torture, now that the confession of the
Accused has followed it, it is the duty of the Judges to pronounce the
execution of the well-deserved penalty, which has been long expected
by every one.
I have said that nothing new is brought by the defence, since their
special attempt consists in repeating the plea of injured honour
because of the pretended adultery committed by the wife of Guido, with
the help and conspiracy of her parents, who were barbarously
slaughtered along with her. This plea is offered for the purpose of
exciting the pity of my Most Illustrious Lord, and the Lords Judges,
in order that Guido and his associates may be punished more mildly,
according to the authorities adduced on that point in their first
information, § _hoc stante_, together with the one following, and §
_Prædictis nullatenus_, likewise with the one following; and in the
present information, § _Verum et socios_. But the same response
recurs, that for the Accused this exception on the plea of pretended
injury to honour can afford no refuge, because this plea has no
foundation in fact and is irrelevant in law.
For what difference does it make even if the mere strong suspicion of
adultery is enough to excuse vengeance taken immediately by a husband
against his wife or her lover? If she were found either in lustful
acts, or in those preparatory thereto; then because of such a sudden
grievance excited thereby, which provokes a man to anger, the penalty
should very often be tempered according to the nature of the case and
the persons. But it is quite certain that to escape the ordinary
penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_ for the murder of a wife
committed after an interval, the mere suspicion of adultery, however
strong, is not enough; but the clearest proof of it is required,
either from the confession of the wife herself or from a condemnatory
sentence following. [Citations.]
But such proof is entirely lacking in our case. For the luckless wife
constantly denied the adultery even till the last breath of her life,
as is evident from the sworn attestations of priests and others who
gladly ministered to her after she had been wounded. For they
unanimously assert that she always affirmed that she had never
violated her conjugal faith. Nor did she ask that such sin be forgiven
her by the Divine Clemency; this assertion indeed should have much
weight, since no one is presumed to die unmindful of his eternal
safety. [Citations.]
Nor are the responses given by the Defence at all relevant; namely,
that such proof in denial of the adultery is drawn entirely from
testimony taken out of court, and extorted by the heir while a lawsuit
was pending, to remove the annoyances brought by the Monastery of the
Convertites, and that some of the undersigned were legatees. They also
respond that since such an assertion as hers served to cover her own
baseness, it should not be believed, especially as it was not sworn.
And further, that although no one is presumed to be unmindful of his
eternal safety, yet all are not supposed to be immune from sin, like
Saint John the Baptist, which is especially true when the argument is
about the prejudice of a third party and about the more severe
punishment of an enemy of the one making declaration.
Now that all these claims are destroyed with so little trouble, the
irregularity of the proof could stand in our way, if the Fisc were
obliged to assume proof and perfect it. But the burden of proof rests
upon the Accused, according to the authorities cited above for
avoiding the death penalty, whenever a man kills his wife after an
interval. The above attestations are brought merely to damage the
proof of pretended adultery, offered by Guido. In this case,
certainly, such attestations are not to be spurned, especially when we
consider the quality of the persons attesting, since they are priests
of well-known probity, and it is incredible that they would be willing
to lie. [Citations.]
The further objection that these attestations were extorted by the
heir, while a lawsuit was pending, for the purpose of escaping the
trouble brought upon him by the Monastery of the Convertites, is also
removed by the same reply; because when one is arguing for the proof
of an assertion given in the last days of life and in the very face of
death, proof cannot be established, unless this hold good. And the
heir is praiseworthy, because he is obliged to avenge the murder of
the one slain, lest he be considered unworthy according to the text.
[Citation.] "Heirs who are proved to let the murder of the testator
go unavenged are compelled to give back the entire property," etc. He
procured these attestations that he might guard the good fame of the
testatrix; and this was rather because of his zeal for her good repute
than to prevent the annoyances unjustly brought, and the quashing of
these latter could be turned back for the exclusion of the pretended
proof of the dishonesty of the unfortunate wife.
Still less can it stand in our way that some of the signers are
legatees, since their interest is not large enough to prevent their
giving testimony. [Citations.] And this is especially true when one is
arguing to prove a matter which happened within the walls of a home,
and the proof of which, on that account, is considered difficult.
[Citations.] And such an exception to their testimony, so far as it
has any foundation, is utterly removed by the number of the witnesses
subscribed to the said attestations. [Citations.]
But [last of all], as to the objection that the assertion of one dying
is not to be attended, when directed toward the exoneration of one's
self, because no one is compelled to reveal his own baseness. This
might indeed hold good if the adultery had been proved, and if it were
not evident that, though wounded, she had died with strongest
manifestation of Christian penitence, which would exclude all
suspicion of a lie. In this case such an objection does not hold good,
but another very valid supposition takes its place, namely, that no
one is believed to be willing to die unmindful of his eternal safety.
[Citations.]
For Mascardus [Citation.] says that a confession given in the hour of
death holds good, and he adds that this approaches nearer the truth,
and cites in proof of it Marsilius. [Citation.] The latter affirms
that if any one assert that a person making oath in the hour of death
is lying, he says what is improbable. And Mascardus concludes that
this opinion is more just, and more in accord with reason and with
natural law. And though he offers some limitations, none of these are
applicable to our case; and the question about which he was arguing
was concerning the assertion of one wounded, as to whether such
assertion constituted proof against the one charged; and this differs
by the whole heaven from our dispute, if we only note that the burden
of proof does not rest with the Fisc. Nor does the assertion of
Pompilia when dying tend principally toward vengeance, since it is
quite evident from those making attestations that she shrank with
horror from that; as she always professed that she most freely
pardoned her husband.
These matters we have noted beforehand rather in super-abundance than
because we were obliged to assert the justice of the decree of this
Tribunal. It will now be easy to escape the proof of pretended
adultery, brought by the counsel for the Defence. For so far as this
proof is drawn from the other decree of this same Tribunal, condemning
Canon Caponsacchi for flight and carnal knowledge with Francesca
Pompilia, the response which has already been given holds good:
namely, that a title should be given no attention, but merely the
proof resulting from the trial, and the penalty imposed by the
sentence. And what if in that decree, along with the "title" of
"complicity in the flight and escape of Francesca Pompilia," there was
also added the title "for criminal knowledge of the same"? Yet since
in the trial itself no proof in verification of this was found, and
since the penalty of three years' banishment does not correspond
therewith, the mere title should not be given attention, according to
the authorities adduced in my past response, § _non relevante_.
And on account of the following reason, still less can such clear
proof of the pretended adultery be established as is required to
escape the ordinary penalty for taking vengeance after an interval.
For at the instance of the Procurator of the Poor a correction was
decreed by the Judges, with the approval of my Most Illustrious Lord,
which substituted a general title relative to that suit, namely _Pro
causa de qua in actis_; and although this correction is not to be read
in the record (commonly called the _Vachetta_) in which decisions are
usually noted, yet it was made in the order for the dispatching of
Caponsacchi to his exile and in the decree assigning to Pompilia the
home as a prison. (Summary, No. 1.) And since the latter was made with
the consent of Abate Paolo Franceschini, we may assert that the said
change of title became known to him because of his notorious
solicitude in conducting the case; and so it would be very improbable
that he had not carefully examined such a decree and the obligation
made by Pietro to furnish her food, without hope of repayment, and the
bond given for her to keep the home as a prison. For these reasons his
knowledge of that change should be considered as sufficiently proved.
[Citations.]
And therefore the response falls to the ground that the decree could
not be changed unless both sides were given a hearing. For while
Francesca Pompilia, whose defence had not yet been finished, was
unheard, much less could the title of criminal knowledge be included
in the condemnation of the Canon. For this would be injurious to her,
not merely as regards her reputation, but also for the loss of her
dowry, for which her husband was especially greedy. For in this way
would an undefended woman suffer condemnation, and what is worse, as
the event shows, would be exposed to the fury of her husband. And
hence with justice was this correction requested and made. And even if
this had not happened, a sentence given against the Canon could not
injure her, as it was a matter done with regard to other parties.
[Citations.]
But it is quite gratuitous to assert that a change as regards the
matter of the trial does also impart the same change as to the
expression of the title of carnal knowledge. For since several titles
were originally expressed in the decree of condemnation (such as
complicity in flight, running away, and carnal knowledge upon which
the suit was based) the statement of the cause contained therein is no
more probable as regards one than as regards another, and certainly it
is not probable as regards them all. For if they had wished to include
all those in the modified decree, they would have said: _Pro causis de
quibus in Processu_, for the singular number does not agree with
several causes. [Citations.] But in the prosecution the charge of
"criminal knowledge" was not proved and the Canon could not be
condemned for that while Francesca Pompilia was unheard and
undefended. This is on account of the indivisibility of the crime of
adultery, which does not permit the division of the case for the
purpose of condemning the one, while the case is pending as regards
the other. And this is especially true when all parties are present
and are held in prison. [Citations.] The expression, therefore,
_Causæ, de qua in Processu_, should be understood to apply only to the
complicity in flight and running away (for this could be issued
without the condemnation of Francesca Pompilia), and not to apply to
"carnal knowledge." For the statement made should be considered
applicable only to those matters with which the judgment relative
thereto agrees. [Citations.]
And this claim of ours is rendered manifest by the mildness of the
penalty to which the Canon was condemned, namely, that of three years'
banishment. This certainly does not correspond with the offences of
running away with a married woman from her husband's home, bringing
her to the City, and carnal knowledge of her. For inasmuch as the
attendant circumstance of rape, spoken about, is punishable by the
capital penalty, unless a priest is being dealt with, a far severer
penalty would have to be inflicted for the adultery alone, if proof
thereof had resulted from the trial. [Citations.]
My Lord Advocate of the Poor acknowledges that the penalty was too
light to expiate harshly such a crime, and especially in accordance
with the Constitution of Sixtus, revived by Innocent XI. of sacred
memory. And therefore to avoid acknowledging the lack of proof, which
might very well be inferred from the lightness of the penalty, he
attempts to respond that the said Canon was dealt with more mildly
because he was a foreigner and because the crime under consideration
had been committed outside of the Ecclesiastical State. In this case
one should be dismissed merely with exile. But this response is proved
to be without foundation for many reasons.
First, because on account of the well-known privilege of the City of
Rome, which is the country of all men, even those may be punished here
who have committed crime outside of the Ecclesiastical State, which is
subject to the secular authority of the Pope. And this is true, not
merely for the handling of criminals, which is permitted to any
Prince, but for the trial of the crimes. [Citations.] Cyrill testifies
that he himself had so held in 1540, in the Capitolian Court, and
Farinacci testifies that it was so held in this same Court in the year
1580, in the case of Gregorio Corso, who had been condemned to the
galleys, because he had committed murder in Florence and had come here
to Rome, after seizing the horse of the one he had slain. And this was
notwithstanding the fact that the cause was very sharply defended for
the accused. [Citations.]
Second, because this authority holds good whenever there is argument
for punishing crimes committed by churchmen, who are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff, and in the City can be punished
for their crimes with the ordinary penalty, even though the crimes
were committed outside of the temporal authority of the Pope.
[Citations.] "Rome is a common country and, therefore, in the Roman
courts any cleric or layman may be brought to trial, even though he
did not commit his crime there." [Citation.]
Third, because inasmuch as it was claimed that the approach to the
City and the carrying away of the wife to the same were done because
of lust, and to secure greater liberty for knowing her carnally, by
taking her from the home of her husband, so the Canon, on account of
this purpose, would have subjected himself to penalties such as could
really expiate the crime, and which also might be inflicted here in
the City; for one is punishable with the same penalty who continues
in a crime here, although he put it into effect outside of the State.
[Citations.] Caballus [Citation] holds that, for deciding the
jurisdiction of a judge over crimes that have been committed, the
person offending, rather than the offence, should be considered.
[Citation.]
Fourth, because the pretended carnal knowledge, so far as it can be
said to be proved in the prosecution (and it can be verified that the
decree was changed with relation to that), happened in the
Ecclesiastical State; for the strongest proof of that crime was drawn
from the asserted sleeping together in the same bedroom at the inn of
Castelnuovo. [Citation.] And therefore the Canon could and should have
been punished with condign punishment, not merely for his undertaking,
but for the adultery, if that had been proved. And since this was not
imposed, it may well be asserted that the Canon was not at all
condemned for "criminal knowledge," unless one wishes to criticise as
unjust that decree, which imposed a mild penalty and one suitable
merely to simple running away and complicity in flight, and which was
much tempered because of the excuse brought by the Procurator of the
Poor. Therefore it may be asserted that the Canon was not condemned
for the pretended criminal knowledge, since the nature of the penalty
well proves the nature of the crime, with which it should be
commensurate, according to Deuteronomy 25: "According to the measure
of one's sin shall be the manner of his stripes." [Citations.]
And therefore, since the pretended condemnation of Canon Caponsacchi
for criminal knowledge of Francesca Pompilia is excluded, the
pretended notoriousness of the adultery resulting therefrom also falls
to the ground. Neither can this notoriousness be alleged against her
undefended. And just as public vengeance, which is to be decreed by a
judge, cannot be based lawfully upon it, so much less should private
vengeance be considered excusable, when taken by the husband in
murdering her after an interval. He is immune from the ordinary
penalty for murder even according to the more merciful opinion only
when the adultery is established by the very clearest proofs displayed
in confession by the accused, or by a sentence given thereupon.
Likewise it would be superfluous to avoid the presumptions adduced by
the Defence, especially by the Procurator of the Poor, to destroy the
proof of adultery drawn therefrom; for this single response would be
enough, namely, that these proofs were all gathered together in the
prosecution for Pompilia's flight, made at the instance of Count
Guido, he pressing hard to gain the dowry because of her adultery. And
this was insisted on by the counsel for the Fisc, who wrote acutely
upon these matters at that time. And yet, in the report of the cause
these presumptions were not considered by the judges because of their
irrelevance. This is evident from the lightness of the penalty decreed
against the Canon. And so the examination of these cannot be renewed
after the Fisc has yielded and quietly acquiesced in the sentence,
from which it could appeal if it considered itself wronged. Nor could
Guido legitimately have recourse to such awful vengeance by his own
hand. But lest some feature of the case may be left untouched, and
that the justice of the decree may be more clearly asserted, I have
taken the pains to confute these briefly.
And since, in the first place, the cause of flight is considered by
the Defence in order that they may prove that the said flight was
entirely illicit and was planned for easier criminal knowledge, the
proofs brought for this purpose should be examined. The chief of these
was drawn from the asserted letter of Francesca Pompilia, written to
Abate Franceschini. This makes pretence that her parents urged her to
poison her husband, her brother, and her mother-in-law, to burn the
home, and to return to the City with her lover. But one cannot have a
better refutation of this than the very tenor of that letter,
including matters that are so improbable, yes and indeed incredible,
that it was rightly rejected by the judges. For who can be found so
destitute and ignorant of filial love and duty as to make himself
believe that a mere child, not more than fourteen years old
[Citation], married away from her father's home, grieving bitterly for
the departure of her parents, and wretchedly kept in the home of her
husband, so that she was obliged to have recourse to ecclesiastic and
laic authorities, could have written to her husband's brother (who was
so unfeeling toward them), with a calm mind, of such base counsels and
commands given by them, unless, as she ingenuously confesses, she was
compelled by her husband to write it? Nor could she, without great
peril, refuse her husband, who was demanding this. Such an
improbability alone is enough to thrill with horror those reading it,
and well shows that she had written this not of her own accord, but
under compulsion. [Citations.]
And, therefore, there is no need to examine whether the qualification
added to her confession is probable, namely, that her husband had
first marked the letters of the said epistle, which she had afterward
inked by tracing them with a pen; because she did not know how to
write. For possibly she shuddered to confess that she had written such
matters, even under compulsion of fear, to the injury of her father
and mother. Such fear is quite presumable in a wretched wife of tender
age, destitute of all help, away from her father's hearth and in her
husband's home. [Citations.] Mogolon says that from the absence of
relatives, the presumption of such fear may arise. [Citation.] And
this is especially true after she had had recourse in vain to the
authorities. Nor is a sufficient proof to the contrary deducible from
Francesca's signature to the matrimonial contract, and from the
letters that were said to have been written and sent by her in
succession to the Canon, or else thrown from the window. [Citation.]
For the very brief signature made in the marriage agreement does not
show such skill in writing that with the same ease she could have
written so long a letter, inasmuch as daily experience teaches that
many are found who can scarcely write their own names.
Still less can the ability to write be said to be proved by the
asserted love-letters; for these were constantly denied by Pompilia.
Nor can these letters be said to be sufficiently verified by the
assertion of the said witness for the Fisc, namely, that she threw
from the window a note, which the Canon picked up and then departed.
For aside from the fact that the witness stands alone and is of the
basest condition, namely a dishonest harlot, and so unsuited for
proving a matter [Citations], she neither affirms, nor can affirm that
the said letter was written by Francesca Pompilia. Likewise the
letters found in the prison of Castelnuovo might have been written by
some stranger's hand. And even though they had been written by her,
inasmuch as they are of a later date, they do not prove her skill in
writing at some past time; for she could have acquired this skill
afterward because of desperation which sharpened her wits, for the
purpose of inducing the Canon to undertake the flight with her, so
that she might escape the peril of imminent death. For in such matters
at these, which are variable and can be changed, one cannot well argue
from the present to the past. [Citations.] And that in fact she did
learn to write in Arezzo after the departure of her parents is evident
from her letter written in the prison of Castelnuovo, and found among
her private papers after her death. This is given in the present
Summary, No. 3.
The proofs of the abovesaid letter [to Abate Franceschini] drawn from
the letters of the Governor of Arezzo, of the Reverend Bishop, and of
Bartolommeo Albergotti, are so far from excluding the legitimate
reason for flight given by herself and the Canon, during the
prosecution, that they rather favour it. For although they criticised
her for having such ill-advised recourse to them, they possibly did
this to free themselves from censure for having thoughtlessly turned
her away. Therefore it is more probable that by them the minds of her
cruel husband and of her mother-in-law, who was pitiless and
implacable, as experience teaches us, were exasperated all the more.
Any one may well know that Guido's mind was much more embittered after
the lawsuit brought concerning the pretence of birth and the
rescinding of the dowry contract, and after the publication of
pamphlets about the domestic scantiness and the base treatment which
they had suffered in the home of the couple in Arezzo. His anger was
also stirred by his jealous suspicion of the Canon (although
Pompilia's love of the latter was merely pretended for the purpose of
winning him) and by his exasperation, that increases the deadly
hatred, which arises from a lawsuit about a considerable amount, and
much more about an entire property. [Citations.] Such should the
controversy about the pretence of birth be considered. Nor can the
just fear of the luckless wife as to her deadly peril be denied. And
driven to desperation in avoiding this, she might well have fled; for
if it is permissible because of blows beyond mere legitimate
correction [Citations] how much more permissible should it be
considered, when the wife was continually afraid that he would kill
her either with the sword or by means of poison. And, to avoid this,
it was but prudent counsel for her to leave her husband and go back to
her father's hearth.
It would indeed have been better if she had won her security by having
recourse to the Right Reverend Bishop, in order that he might place
her in some nunnery or with some honest matron; or to the Lord
Governor, who would have considered her safety and the honour of her
husband's family; or if she had fled in the company of some one
connected with the household. But the fear of imminent peril does not
permit one to take better counsel, and especially a wretched wife of
tender age, destitute of all aid and exposed to the fury of her
husband and her mother-in-law. And still further, she might well fear
that new recourse to them would be in vain, since she had found the
former so useless. Nor could she find any better way of fleeing
safely, wherein she thought lay the sole help for herself, than by
using the help and company of the Canon, who had been proposed to her
for this purpose by the Canon Conti and by Signor Gregorio
Guillichini, relatives of her husband. It is incredible that they
would have conspired against Guido's honour without the strongest and
most urgent reason and without confidence in Caponsacchi's honesty and
modesty. For one of them, namely Gregorio, had offered himself as a
companion for the journey and would have carried out his offer if his
infirmity had permitted; as we read in the said letter of Francesca
Pompilia found since her death and shown in our present Summary, No.
3, which refers to the same causes, of the infirmity of Gregorio and
the imminent peril, which did not permit her to await his
convalescence. And therefore she is worthy of excuse since she fled
for dire necessity in company of the Canon, a man of modesty well
known by her (as is likewise evident from another letter in the
Summary of our opponents, No. 7, letter 12, in which she calls him the
chaste Joseph, and from the other letter, in which she commends him
for his sense of shame). For if she chose this remedy under dire
necessity, she should be excused according to the common axiom,
"necessity knows no law." [Citations.]
Nor is an illegitimate cause of flight to be inferred because of the
dishonest love with which Francesca Pompilia pursued the Canon in some
of these letters. For although they seem amatory, yet they were
ordained to the purpose of alluring this same Canon, in order that he
might flee with her; since, without him, she knew that she could
neither carry that out, nor even attempt it. Hence the letters can
afford no proof of subsequent adultery. For although proof may result
from love-letters, according to the authorities adduced by the Defence
in § _His praehibitis_, yet this is avoided, if the letters are
directed to a permissible end, such as flight to escape deadly peril.
For then, inasmuch as the end is permissible, the means are likewise
so considered, even though these are not without suspicion; for they
are not considered in themselves, but because of their end.
[Citations.] Nor is the proof of adultery hitherto drawn from
love-letters so very strong unless they include the implicit
confession of subsequent fornication. [Citations.]
The following consideration is especially urgent in leading to the
belief that the luckless girl thought the Canon would conduct himself
modestly during the journey. For in one of her letters she does not
fail to take him to task (who had elsewhere been commended for honesty
and modesty) because he had sent her questionable verses (present
Summary, No. 4): "I am surprised that you, who are so chaste, have
composed and copied matters so immodest." And further on: "I do not
want you to do in everything as you have done in these books; the
first of them was so very nice, but these other octaves are quite the
contrary. I cannot believe that you, who were so honourable, would
become so bold." From this sincere rebuke it is quite evident in what
spirit these letters were written, even though they are filled with
blandishments and proofs of love; for she shrank even from the
dishonourable verses sent to her. Hence the letters should be
understood according to the intention of the one writing them, just as
one's words are. [Citations.]
And should not the supposition that the unfortunate wife had destroyed
her matronly shame in the journey be therefore considered trivial and
improbable? For she had quite enough to do to provide for her own
safety by headlong flight. Nor is it probable that she was tempted by
the Canon, since the love between them is proved merely by the said
letters which were preparing for the flight. And these letters show
her solicitude for his modesty and continence, since for the mere
sending of them she had made such complaint. For she feared lest he
might become too bold, as is evident from details of the letter cited
above. Nor are examples lacking of continence observed during a longer
and easier journey, which had been undertaken and completed by lovers,
even though they might lawfully have indulged their love. Hence it is
not improbable that the wretched girl kept herself scrupulously within
bounds; for she was in deadly peril, which she hoped to avoid by
precipitate flight.
The other proofs of this pretended adultery are far weaker, and were
rightly ignored in the report of the case, both as regards the flight
and as regards the decreeing of torment; for mutual love between her
and the Canon cannot be said to be sufficiently proved by the
abovesaid letters; for they were preparatory to this prearranged
flight.
The entry and egress to and from the home of Francesca by night is
proved by a single base witness. Nor should even such entry be
considered to be for a bad end, since it was in preparation for the
flight. For when we have a permissible cause given, to which a matter
may be referred, it should not be attributed to one that is
illegitimate and criminal. [Citation.]
To this reason also should be referred her readiness in showing
herself at the window by day and night at the hiss which gave signal
that her pretended lover was passing. For since her love might be a
mere matter of pretence for the purpose of winning him to give her
help in the flight by affording her his company in the journey, these
marks of love can be of no further import than the pretended love
itself. The unfortunate wife employed it as a stratagem, indeed, that
she might provide for her own safety. And so this response recurs: "If
the end is lawful, the means ordered toward carrying it out cannot be
condemned."
The pretended insidious manner of preparing for the flight and putting
it into execution by means of an opiate administered to her husband
and the servants (so far as it is proved, and it was by no means
proved in the Prosecution) affords indeed a proof of her flight, but
not of adultery; for it was prearranged, not for that purpose, but to
escape deadly peril, to which the wife would have exposed herself, all
too foolishly, unless she had made sure that her husband, who was
lying in bed with her, was sound asleep, or unless she had contrived
some such easy way.
The ardour shown in some of the letters is indeed a sign of love,
according to the word of the poet: "Love is a thing full of solicitous
fear." [Ovid, _Heroides_, I. 12.] But since love was pretended for a
legitimate end (as was said) she could also make a show of ardour for
feigning love, since it tended toward the same end of winning his
goodwill, so that possessed of his true service she might escape.
Therefore, from this pretended love and these feigned signs of love,
one cannot argue that their departure together from the home of the
husband and their association during a long journey gives proof of the
pretended adultery; because even in true and mutual love continence
has been observed, which is certainly more difficult.
Nor are the authorities adduced by the Defence, in § _Accedit quod_,
applicable; because that text has regard to a woman spending the night
outside of her husband's home and against his will, without just and
probable cause, as is evident from the words of the same. This
decision is not applicable to our case, since the wretched Pompilia
left her husband's home and went to her father's hearth that she might
escape the deadly peril which she feared was threatening her. And so,
since she did it for just and probable reason, the condemnation of the
aforesaid text is turned away. And Farinacci so explains the
assertion. [Citations.] "But it is otherwise if done for reason,
because the mere spending of the night together does not of itself
prove vice; for a case can be given where a wife spent the night with
men, and yet did not break her marriage vow." [Citation.] Since this
possibility is verified in our own case also, the proof of subsequent
adultery cannot be inferred from her flight and association with him
in the journey, for the purpose of providing for her own safety.
Their mutual kissing on the journey, so far as it is proved, affords
no light presumption of violated shame; but the proof of it is too
uncertain; for it rests upon the word of a single base witness, who
swears to matters that are quite improbable, namely that, while he was
driving their carriage very rapidly, he saw Francesca Pompilia and the
Canon kissing one another. How full of animus this deposition really
may be is evident from this fact--that during the night he saw a
momentary and fleeting deed, without giving any reason for his
knowledge, such as that the moon was shining or that some artificial
light afforded him the opportunity to see it. [Citations.] The
improbability, or rather incredibility, is increased because, while
the witness was intent on driving the carriage with such great speed
as to seem like flying (as another witness testifies), how could he
look backward and see their mutual kissing? Such an improbability
would take belief away not merely from a single witness, but from many
of them. [Citation.] Furthermore, there is the possibility to be
considered that the jostling together of those sitting in the carriage
might have happened from the high speed; and from this fact an
over-curious witness might believe that they were kissing each other,
although, in fact, the nearness of their heads and faces to one
another might indeed be by mere chance, and not for the purpose of
shameful and lustful kisses. Because whenever an act may be presumed
to be for either a good or a bad end, the presumption of the evil end
is always excluded. [Citations.] And so in the said report of the
prosecution for flight, this presumption was justly passed over
because of lack of proof; nor would it have been rejected otherwise.
Nor can this improbable and prejudiced deposition of the said witness
receive any support from the pretended letters, in which Francesca
thanks him for the kisses sent, which she says would be dearer to her
if they had been given by the Canon himself, and sends him back ten
hundred thousand times as many. For it cannot be thence inferred that
if the opportunity were given their mutual kissing would follow, since
these words were offered as serviceable and alluring for the purpose
of winning him over; nor do they involve an obligation. [Citations.]
And therefore they do not lead one to infer that they were carried
out, especially since Francesca many and many a time warned the Canon
to observe due modesty. And when she found that he had transgressed
its limits by sending her dishonourable verses she abjured him not to
become bold in urging his passion. This is far removed from impure
desire to receive his kisses, which is formally stated in the said
letter, as it is without any thought of injuring her matronly honour.
The use also of laic garb, in which the Canon was found clothed, can
afford no proof, because, as he is no priest, he cannot be said to be
forbidden to do so on a journey. And this was probably arranged in
good faith to conceal himself and to avert scandal, which might be
conceived at seeing a priest with a woman in the flower of her age
and, as I have heard, of no small reputation for beauty, journeying
without the company of another woman or servant. [Citation.] And so
the authority of Matthæus Sanzio, etc., is not applicable, because in
his case there was no concurrent cause on account of which the priest
might approach with improper clothes and girded with arms; and he was
found by the husband, either in the very act or in preparation
thereto, and was killed on the spot. In such a case the proofs of
adultery may well be admitted for the purpose of diminishing the
penalty, and they were gathered by the same author to that end.
Their sleeping together on the same bed, or at least in the same
bedroom, at the inn of Castelnuovo, was not given consideration in the
report of the prosecution for flight, because of defect of proof. This
charge was indeed denied by Francesca Pompilia, and the Canon frankly
confessed merely that he had rested for a little while on another bed
in the same room. Nor ought a brief stay in that room be magnified to
a crime, since it should be attributed to his guardianship of the said
Francesca, whom he was accompanying on the journey, and hence was
under obligation to guard her lest some evil might befall her.
Whenever an act may be said to be done for a good purpose all
suspicion of evil ceases. In these very circumstances, Gravetta
[Citation] says that the interpretation should tend toward lenience,
even though the harsher interpretation seems the more probable. Nor
does it suffice as a full proof of adultery (if one is arguing a
criminal case) that a young man be seen alone and naked with her, and
that he be found locked in the bedroom with the wife, even though he
have his shoes and clothing off; because these matters may be merely
preparatory. And much less can proof of adultery arise from his brief
stay in the same bedroom for the purpose of protecting her.
Nor can proof of their having slept together be drawn from the
deposition of the servant of the same inn who asserted that he had
been ordered to prepare only a single bed. For it does not follow
from this that both of them slept in it; but this was done because
only Pompilia wished to rest a little while to refresh her strength,
which had been exhausted by the swiftness of the journey they had
made. The Canon was keeping guard over her and preparing for the
continuance of the journey; and so, when the husband arrived, he was
attending to this by ordering that the carriage be made ready. Hence
no proof of their having slept together can result from this
deposition, and it was justly rejected by the judges, so that it needs
no further refutation.
And although Francesca Pompilia, in her cross-examination, tried to
conceal a longer stay at the said inn by asserting that they had
arrived there at dawn, yet no proof of adultery may be drawn from the
said lie, for she made that assertion to avoid the suspicion of
violated modesty, which might be conceived from a longer delay and
more convenient opportunity. And so, inasmuch as her confession would
have done her no harm, even if she had acknowledged it with
circumstances leading to belief in the preservation of her sense of
honour, neither can this lie injure her. [Citations.]
Since, for these reasons, the proof of the pretended adultery is
excluded and almost utterly destroyed, no attention should be paid to
the fact that Count Guido, in his confession, claims the mitigating
circumstance of injured honour, as regards both his wife and his
parents-in-law; and that this confession cannot be divided for the
purpose of inflicting the ordinary penalty. For authorities of great
name are not lacking who affirm that a qualification to this end added
to a confession, ought to be rejected; and above the others, is
Bartolo [Citation], who proves this conclusion by many reasons, and
responds to those given contrary [Citation], where it is said that a
judge should not admit such qualified confession. [Citations.]
Nor is such a plea of injured honour always in one's favour in
avoiding the capital penalty, but only when vengeance is taken
immediately; or after an interval, according to more lenient opinion,
when the adultery is proved by condemnatory sentence or by confession.
But the reins of private vengeance would be relaxed far too much to
the detriment of the state if, when proof of adultery were lacking, a
stand could be made for the purpose of diminishing the penalty upon
some qualification added by the defendant to his confession. Because
in this way a witness might make a way of escape in his own cause,
which is not permitted to any one. [Citations.] And nothing more
absurd can be thought of than that the burden of proof incumbent upon
him for escaping the ordinary penalty might be discharged by the mere
assertion of the defendant.
Nor should we admit the opinion that, even when the adultery is
proved, a husband may kill, after an interval, an adulterous wife
without incurring the capital penalty, since the weightiest
authorities deny that. [Citations.] Bartolo, in distinguishing between
real and personal injury, affirms that when injury is personal, it
should be resented immediately; but if it be real it may be resented
after an interval. [Citations.] And Gomez declares: "I hold the
contrary opinion, indeed, that a husband may be punished with the
ordinary penalty of such a crime as murder; and for this reason he may
not by any means be excused, because murder cannot be committed to
compensate for a crime or for its past essence, unless one kill in the
act of flagrant crime," etc. And in subsequent numbers he responds to
reasons given to the contrary. [Citation.] Gaillard, after he says
that murder committed for honour's sake is permissible, states that
this exception should be understood to hold good if the injury be
resented immediately, but that it is otherwise if done after an
interval. In this case the retort is more like vengeance than the
defence of honour, and the offender is held to account for the
injuries. [Citation.]
Much less can it be claimed that the vengeance was taken immediately
because the husband executed it as soon as possible, according to the
authorities adduced by my Lord Advocate of the Poor [Citation], where
he tries to show that since Guido was unarmed, or insufficiently armed
(that is, he was girded only with a traveller's sword), he could not
attack the wife accompanied by the Canon; for Caponsacchi, as he
claims, is strong and bold, and accustomed to sin in that way, and was
carrying firearms. And the wife showed herself ready to die in the
defence of her lover; for it is said still further that the wife
rushed upon Guido with drawn sword, and was about to kill him, if she
had not been checked by the police officers. But the opportunity to
kill an adulteress is not to be so taken that a violent death may be
visited upon her with all security and without any risk. For every
legal opinion giving excuse for diminishing the penalty shrinks from
this. For such diminution of the capital penalty follows because of
the violence of sudden anger, which compels the husband to neglect the
risk to his own life, that he may avenge the injury done him by the
adultery. And so this first opportunity, as spoken of by the
authorities, in order that murder may be said to be committed
immediately, should be understood to be whenever an occasion first
offers itself, in excusing the delay in taking vengeance either
because of absence or for some other just reason. Such is the fact in
the case about which Matthæus Sanfelix writes, _contr._ 12. For in
that case, the adultery was committed in the absence of the husband,
and the wife had run away, so that he could not have avenged himself
earlier, as is evident from the narrative of fact, given in No. 1, and
No. 28 established this conclusion: "So they are excused if they take
vengeance as soon as possible, since it then seems that they killed
incontinently."
But who can say in our case that the husband took the first chance,
since when he found his wife in the very act of flight, at the tavern
of Castelnuovo, he abstained from vengeance with his own hand, and
turned to legal vengeance, to which he had always clung. And indeed he
charges himself with the worst baseness when he asserts that he was
unequal to the task of taking vengeance because of the fierce nature
of the Canon; since, when the latter had been arrested, Guido could
have rushed upon his wife. Nor ought the kind of arms they carried to
have alarmed him, because, according to the description made in the
prosecution, it is apparent that the Canon was wearing only a sword.
And so they were provided with like arms. He would not have taken such
care of his own safety if he had been driven to taking vengeance by
the stings of his honour that needed reparation, even at some risk to
himself. For just anger knows no moderation. And he should lay the
blame on himself if, alone and insufficiently armed, he had followed
up his wife, who was fleeing, as he might fear, with a strong and
better-armed lover. His very manner of following her proves the more
strongly that his mind had turned toward legal vengeance, for the
purpose of winning the coveted dowry, rather than to vengeance with
his own hand for recovering his honour. For facts well show that such
was his thought. [Citations.]
Likewise the delay of the vengeance after the return of the wife to
her father's home excludes the pretended qualification that the
vengeance was taken "immediately," because he could not put it into
execution sooner. For the return home took place on October 12 of last
year, and the murder was not committed till the second of January of
this year. And we should rather assert that he was waiting for her
confinement, which took place on December 18, in order that he might
make safe the succession to the property, for which he was eagerly
gaping; because he immediately put into effect his depraved plan by
destroying his wife and her parents with an awful murder. Hence, from
a comparison of these dates it will be easy to see this, and it is
evident with what purpose he committed the murders, and whether this
vengeance for the asserted reparation of his injured honour may be
said to have been undertaken "immediately," that is, as soon as
opportunity was given, according to the authorities adduced on the
other side.
Then when he had chosen legal vengeance by the imprisonment of the
wife and of the pretended lover, and by the prosecution of the
criminal cause, it was not permissible for him to go back to vengeance
with his own hand; and in taking that he cannot be said to have taken
vengeance immediately. He also violated public justice and the majesty
of the Prince himself. This single circumstance greatly exasperates
the penalty and increases the crime. [Citations.]
[But the above is true] in spite of the fact that the conclusions
adduced by the Advocate of the Poor, in § _Et tantum abest_, may be
applicable, and likewise the authorities approving those conclusions,
on the ground that it is not presumable that the husband has remitted
the injury, but rather that his desire to avenge himself has
continued; and that this excludes the charge of treachery, even though
the husband use trickery in taking vengeance. Because in the present
case the question is not as to the nature of the murder, from which it
might be claimed to have been treacherous. The husband indeed did not
conceal his injury, but rather laid it bare by turning to legal
vengeance. Although this is possibly less honourable, yet since it was
pleasing to him, for the purpose of gaining the dowry, he could not
when frustrated in this hope, because the adultery was unproved, take
up again the vengeance with his own hand. And this is true even though
he pretends as an excuse for his delay that he could not accomplish it
sooner. For since the delay and hindrance arose from his own act he
could not take therefrom the protection of an excuse. [Citations.]
But, however he might find excuse for the barbarous slaughter of his
wife while under the authority of the judge at the instance and
delivery of her husband, certainly the murder of Pietro and Violante
should be considered utterly inexcusable. In his confession he has
tried to apply to them also his plea of injured honour, because of
their pretended complicity in urging the flight of his wife and in her
asserted dishonour. Yet no proof of this qualification can be
brought, nor did the slightest shadow of it result from the
prosecution for flight. And this is proved to be improbable, and
utterly incredible, from merely considering the fact that Abate
Franceschini, brother of the accused and confessed defendant, would
not have consented that she be committed to their custody if he had
had even the slightest suspicion of their complicity, since he so
keenly desired the reparation of their honour. This fact, which was
plainly confessed in an instrument prepared in the statement of fact
in the Italian language [Pamphlet 10] and very stoutly denied by the
Procurator of the Poor, was admitted by his own wonderful ingenuity in
denying merely that notice had reached the husband, or in claiming
that the Fisc could pretend to no more than mere presumptive knowledge
in Guido.
But, still further, such knowledge is quite probable and is drawn from
strong proof. For it is very probable that Guido was informed by his
brother of his wife's departure from the Monastery, of her
establishment in the said home, of the obligation assumed by her
parents to provide her with food, and especially of her detected
pregnancy. [Citation.] But we are not now arguing to prove the
husband's knowledge thereof, but to draw from that consent of Abate
Paolo a proof which would exclude the pretended complicity of Pietro
and Violante in the dishonour of the wife, which latter is by no means
proved.
So far is such complicity from being proved as regards Pietro, that
the very contrary is quite evident from his will, made in 1695, after
litigation had been instituted about Pompilia's pretended birth. In
this will, notwithstanding the litigation, in the first place he
leaves as his usufructuary heir Violante his wife, and after her death
Francesca Pompilia, laying upon her the obligation to dwell in the
City and to live honourably. This is evident from the details of the
said will given in our present Summary, No. 5. In this he also asserts
that she had thus far conducted herself honourably, and he claimed to
leave the annuity to her because of her good manner of life. And so it
becomes still further incredible that he, while alive, was willing to
conspire in her dishonour, from which he shrank even when dead. For
the income was to be taken from her if she should live a dishonest
life, and he urged her in case her marriage were dissolved to assume a
religious dress, and he left her a fat legacy to that end.
Nor can it afford any proof of this pretended complicity that when
Guido had made pretence of delivering a letter sent to them from the
Canon, the doors were immediately opened by Violante to the assassins.
The attorneys for the Defence try to argue from this ready credulity
that the name of the lover was not hateful to Violante, and that hence
his intimacy with Francesca was not displeasing. But since the Canon
was the author of her liberation from deadly peril by bringing her
from her husband's home to her father's hearth at the neglect of his
own risk, it should not seem wonderful that Violante should give proof
of a grateful mind for the help given her daughter and should open the
door. Nor can one infer therefrom consent in unchastity, from which
their past acquaintance had been entirely free. Much more is this so
at a time when he himself was absent and in banishment at Civita
Vecchia.
Therefore the true cause, on account of which the Comparini also were
murdered, could be no other than the hatred with which the husband had
been aflame; [and this first of all was] because of the lawsuit
concerning the supposed birth, which they had brought, and which had
deceived him in his hope of gaining a fat dowry and inheritance; [and
second] his desire for vengeance because of the pamphlets distributed
at the time of the said lawsuit, and which had exposed the meagreness
of the home comforts and the wretched treatment they had received in
the home of the husband. These two do not excuse Guido from the
penalty for premeditated murder, and indeed increase it, even raising
it to the crime of _læsa majestas_, according to the well-known order
of the Constitution of Alexander, as was proved in our past
information, § _Accedit ad exasperandam_.
To escape the penalty assigned thereto by the disposition of this
decree, in vain does he turn to an excuse drawn from supervening
provocation. [Citation.] But so far as it is claimed that this crime
resulted from the counsel they gave toward her flight, and their
complicity in the same, the proof of such complicity is entirely drawn
from the asserted letter, written by Francesca Pompilia to Abate
Franceschini. But this letter has been completely rejected, and even
spurned by Guido himself, since in the prosecution for flight we find
no insistence was made that action should be entered against Pietro
and Violante for their pretended instigation. Pietro, moreover, had
long ago broken off the lawsuit brought as regards the pretended birth
and the revocation of the dowry contract, and so this complicity
cannot be made to seem the sole provoking cause, which would exclude
_causa litis_. For such a cause should be true and not pretended, and
should be in accord with the crime committed. [Citations.] These
excuses, indeed, which are claimed to be drawn from complicity in the
asserted dishonour, are still further excluded by lack of proof, both
of the impurity and of their connivance therein; and so the
provocation implied therefrom is shown to be entirely irrelevant, and
possibly fraudulent.
The other suit for divorce, brought in the name of Francesca Pompilia,
it is vainly claimed is made void because of the asserted invalidity
of the summons; for this summons was executed against Abate
Franceschini, who lacked the authority of a proxy. Yet his
authorisation was quite full enough for a lawsuit, as is evident from
its tenor as given in our present Summary, No. 6, and accordingly when
a suit was brought it was ample for receiving a summons. [Citation.]
We are also dealing with the conditions of the Constitution of
Alexander and of the order of the Banns given against those who commit
offence on account of lawsuits. Hence the reply is not relevant, which
is given by the Procurator of the Poor in § _Quae etiam aptantur_,
that when the dishonesty of the wife is established her impunity from
the wrath of her husband, who would take vengeance, should not be
permitted by the introduction of a divorce suit. Nor can such murder
be said to be committed for the reparation of honour when committed in
anger at a lawsuit. For he takes for granted as proved, what is in
question, namely, the dishonour of the wife, the proof of which is
quite lacking. And Guido might have proceeded to such an extreme if,
as soon as the adultery was committed, his wife brought a suit for
divorce; but it is otherwise since he tried that revenge after the way
of legal vengeance had been chosen by bringing criminal charge for the
pretended adultery and for the purpose of winning the dowry. For after
he was frustrated in this hope (since no proofs of adultery resulted
from the prosecution), and after her husband's mind had been
exasperated, she ought to be permitted to provide for her own safety
by begging for the remedy of divorce. And while such judgment is
pending any murder inflicted upon her ought surely to be expiated by
the penalties inflicted under the sanction of the Alexandrian
Constitution and of the Banns. For the provision of this decree is
applicable, since the murder was committed while the criminal cause,
brought against her for pretended adultery by her husband, was still
pending. And this decree includes both civil and criminal suits, as is
evident from reading it.
Likewise the assembling of armed men, and their introduction into the
City for accomplishing more safely the murder of the entire family,
increases the crime to _læsa majestas_, and also necessitates the
increasing of the punishment, as was affirmed in our former
information. Nor is this avoided by the replies given, or rather
repeated, by the Defence, and especially by the response that since
the principal offence was committed for honour's sake (and hence the
ordinary penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_ has no application
for that reason), so likewise the penalty for assembling men, imposed
by the Apostolic Constitutions and the general Banns, cannot be
inflicted; for the latter is included with the penalty for the
principal offence, which alone is to be attended, since the spirit and
purpose make differences in crimes. [Citations.] Because the order of
the said Constitution and Banns would prove utterly vain if the
penalty for assemblage should cease, whenever the assembly were made
for the purpose of committing some crime that is punishable with a
milder penalty. [Citation.] This Bull indeed is applicable even when
men are called to arms in a permissible cause and for a good end;
because by it the Supreme Pontiff wished to provide for the public
security and to restrain the audacity of those laying down the law for
themselves. Hence all the more shall it have place when the assembly
may be made for an evil end, namely for committing crime, even though
the crime may not deserve the ordinary death penalty, and when the
crime actually follows. [Citation.] Spada gives this reason, that the
Pontiff in establishing this Constitution considered only the uproar
and other ills which are accustomed to arise from the assembling of
armed men to the injury of the public peace. And although his opinion
was rejected by the authorities adduced by his Honour, the Advocate of
the Poor, in § _non refragante_, this refutation does not apply to the
assembling of armed men to an evil end (even though this end is not so
criminal that the death penalty may be inflicted), but to their
assemblage for a permitted cause of regaining possession immediately,
by meeting force with force. Even in this latter case Spada holds that
there is place for the order of the Bull. Hence the refutation given
above does not prevent the application of the provision of the
abovesaid Constitution to our case, since the assembling was
prearranged for the murder of an entire family, which was put into
execution with reckless daring.
Nor may the opinions of the said judges of the Sacred Rota, requiring
that the assemblage be directed against the Prince or the State, and
not to commit some other crime, stand in the way; because if this
qualification were accepted as true the decree would be vain which
had raised the act to the crime of _læsa majestas_ and rebellion; for
this crime would result plainly enough from the deed itself, and from
the intent to disturb the peace of the Prince and the State. And so
far as the opinion affirmed by these authorities does have foundation,
it can be applied when we investigate the order of the Constitution,
and not of the Banns issued later. For this decree would prove vain
and useless if the capital penalty, imposed thereby against those
assembling armed men, could be applied only when the crime for which
the assembly was made was punishable with the same penalty. And even
if this necessity be admitted, the application of the Constitution
cannot be avoided, because no plea of injured honour can be alleged in
excuse for the murder of Pietro and Violante, and it had not at all
been proved as regards Francesca Pompilia.
Likewise the preparation and use of prohibited arms is also punishable
with the capital penalty, if we investigate the order of the Banns and
Constitutions of Alexander VIII., of sacred memory. Nor is this
sufficiently avoided by the response given by the Defence that it is
included in the main offence; so that no greater penalty can be
inflicted for it than the main crime itself deserves. For what we have
said above as regards "an assembling" is opposed to such a confusing
of the punishment of the Banns, and the authorities adduced in our
past response, § _nec delationis_, affirm the contrary. And those
authorities cited for the contrary opinion should be understood to
apply only when one is dealing with an insult, or with murder
committed in a quarrel, or in self-defence, or for the sake of
immediate reparation of honour. [Citation.] The difficulty is at an
end in our case, because of the clear disposition of the Banns, which
expressly declare and command that the penalty for the carrying of
arms is not to be confounded with the penalty of the crime committed
therewith. Nor does the response given by the Procurator of the Poor
seem strong enough to avoid this; namely that when, under the common
law, the Banns receive only a passive interpretation, merely the crime
of preparing and bearing arms for committing murder is considered; but
that it is otherwise if the arms are borne, for no ill end, and then a
crime is committed with them. Because it would be too harsh for one
bearing arms for no ill end and then sinning with them, to suffer a
greater penalty than one preparing arms to commit crime, and carrying
his purpose into effect. Hence these Banns never can receive such an
interpretation. For since by them the carrying of arms is forbidden
as pernicious and as affording occasion to commit crime, much more
should the bearing of them when purposed for committing crime be
considered prohibited and punishable with a rigorous penalty. This is
especially true when we consider the declaration that the crimes are
not to be confounded with one another.
There is left, finally, one other qualification, which greatly
aggravates the crime, namely the violating of the home assigned as a
prison with the consent of Abate Franceschini. And this is so in spite
of what can be alleged as to Guido's ignorance of this circumstance.
Because in the said writing prepared in Italian for giving true notice
of the fact [Pamphlet 10], it is asserted that the entire management
of the cause was left and committed to this same brother, since Guido
had left the City. Hence it is quite incredible that Guido was not
informed by him of so important a matter. And as concerning the
distinction between violating a public prison and mere custody in a
home under bond, and as to offence permitted therein for honour's
sake, we have given sufficient response in our past argument, § _Quibus
accedit_ and those following. For the same reasoning is applicable in
both cases, since in both the person detained is under the protection
of the Prince whose majesty is accordingly insulted. And the excuse
would hold good if we were arguing about the resenting of an injury
offered in prison. Under these very circumstances do those authorities
adduced by the Defence speak, as is evident from their recognition of
them.
Therefore, in the present case many grave qualifications are present,
which increase the crime, and on account of these his Honour, the
Advocate of the Poor, admits in § _Agnoscit Fiscus_ that the penalty
should be increased. Nor can such increase of penalty be made good
except by death. For even if the adultery were proved, as it is not
proved in our case, the mere murder of the wife, when committed after
an interval, could demand only a diminution of penalty, according to
the more lenient opinion. Hence the justice of the decree for the
torment of the vigil should be said to be sufficiently asserted and
vindicated against opposing reasons. And now that confession has
followed, there remains only that condign punishment be inflicted in
expiation of this awful crime.
GIOVANNI BATTISTA BOTTINI,
_Advocate of the Fisc, and of the Reverend
Apostolic Chamber_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 14.]
_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 the others._
_Response of the Lord Advocate of the Fisc._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM CUM QUALITATE
[PAMPHLET 14.]
Most Illustrious Lord:
The matters deduced by his Honour, the Advocate of the Poor, for the
defence of Guido Franceschini, who is accused of three murders with
very grave qualifications which magnify the same, are of no real force
in proving [first] that he should not be punished with the ordinary
penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_, inasmuch as he had
confessed these crimes, and [secondly] that simple torture only should
be demanded for gaining the truth as to these, and that the torment of
the vigil should be omitted. I will attempt to show this, in
responding to these points singly, so far as the excessive scantiness
of time admits, and will keep my eyes on the rights of the Fisc, as
the duty of my office and the dire atrocity and inhumanity of the
crime demand.
The chief ground taken by my Lord consists in placing on an equality
[first] a case of vengeance taken immediately by the husband with the
death of the adulteress found in her sin, and [second] that of one
slain after an interval when the wife is plainly convicted of adultery
(as he claims is proven in our case). But this falls to the ground
both in fact and in law; and hence the inference for the moderation of
the penalty drawn from this same parity is likewise shown to be
without foundation.
In fact, the proof of the pretended adultery is quite deficient
according to what I deduced fully in my other information. In that, I
have confuted singly his proofs, or rather suspicions, resulting from
the prosecution, to which his Honour attaches himself. I have shown
that the wife's flight in company with Canon Caponsacchi, the
pretended lover, was for a legitimate reason (namely the imminent and
deadly peril, which she feared), and not from the illicit impulse of
lust. The participation and complicity of the Canon Conti and Signor
Gregorio Guillichini, relatives of the Accused, in forwarding the
same, ought to prove this. For they would not have furnished aid if
she were running away for the evil purpose of violating her conjugal
faith, even to their own dishonour. But they well knew the necessity
of the remedy, and that it was to free her from peril. And a witness
for the prosecution in the same trial for flight swore to having heard
this from Signor Gregorio. And they gave their aid in carrying this
out.
Nor is it at all relevant that, in the decree in condemnation of the
same Canon to banishment in Civita Vecchia, the title of "carnal
cognition" was written down; because, as was formerly responded, the
alteration of that was demanded, and likewise the substitution of a
general title relative to the trial. And since no proofs of it
resulted either from the prosecution or from the defences which the
unfortunate wife (who was dismissed with the mere precaution of
keeping her home as a prison) could have made, if she had not been so
horribly murdered, and since the said decree, issued without her
having been summoned or heard, would be void, the inscription made by
the judge in the records as a title could not convict her of that
crime; but only the truth of the fact resulting from the proofs should
be considered. [Citations.]
I acknowledge that the Accused should have been considered worthy of
some excuse if he had slain his wife in the act of taking her in
flight with the pretended lover; since for this purpose, not merely
the absolute proof, but the mere suspicion of adultery committed,
would be enough. [Citation.] But when, after neglecting the pretended
right of private vengeance, he sought out with entreaty public
vengeance, by having her arrested, he could not thereafter, while she
was under the public authority of the judge, take private vengeance by
butchering her who had no fear of such a thing. The suspicion of a
just grievance, which is difficult to restrain when aroused, excuses
the husband in part, if not entirely, whenever he takes vengeance
immediately under the headlong impetus of anger. But when the
vengeance is after an interval, and while the cause is in the hands of
the judge, and the victim is imprisoned at his own instance, this does
not hold good, as will be proved further on, by showing the
irrelevance of the principle assumed.
Nor does the glossa in the alleged text, in the law of Emperor
Hadrian, stand in the way; because it speaks of a son taken by his
father in flagrant adultery with his step-mother, and killed by the
father immediately. [Citation.] And there is a wide difference between
a father and a husband killing after an interval; because, as
Farinacci adds, a father has the greatest authority over his son, and
by ancient law could even kill him. And certainly the husband does
not have this. The law also more readily excuses a father, because he
is always supposed to take good counsel for his child, from the mere
instinct of paternal love. But one does not have this same confidence
as regards a husband, who is accustomed to conceive unjust suspicion
of his wife more readily. Hence it is not permitted that he kill her
on mere suspicion after an interval. Nor is he in any way to be
excused on this account, according to the text. [Citation.] "The
devotion of a father's love usually takes good counsel for his own
children, but the hot precipitancy of a furious husband should readily
be restrained." [Citation.]
This is so far true that a father is not excused unless he kill, or at
least severely wound, his daughter along with the adulterer; so that
it should be attributed to fate, rather than to paternal indulgence,
that she escape death. And this has been passed by law-makers for no
other reason than that such a grievance, provoking to rash anger, is
required for excusing a father, so that he may not spare his own
daughter. But since this statute is not to be found among the laws
about husbands, the manifest difference between the two, because of
the husband's excessive readiness to seize a suspicion and fly into a
rage against his wife, is plainly revealed.
Nor is mere suspicion a sufficient ground to diminish the penalty for
a husband who kills his wife after an interval. This is evident from
the very authorities excusing him in such a case, whenever the
adultery is proved either by the confession of the wife or by other
proofs, so that she can be said to be convicted of it. [Citations.]
Bertazzolus says: "I have seen the matter so regarded in the
contingency of such a fact, and the husband has been excused who had
killed an adulterous wife, not found in the very act, but whose
adultery was really and truly existent and was quite plainly proved."
Hence it is plain, from those very authorities adduced by his Honour,
that the husband who kills his wife after an interval is not excused
because of mere suspicion, or because of an adultery case which is
still pending judgment, and which he himself had brought.
In law, also, is his assumption proved to be without foundation, which
places on an equality [first] vengeance taken immediately, that is, in
the very act of taking the wife in adultery, or in acts immediately
preparatory, which lead him to such a legitimate belief; and
[secondly] vengeance taken after an interval, even when the adultery
is evident from such proofs as render it perfectly clear. There are
many authorities who urge the diminution of the penalty for the
following reason which they give--that the sense of injured honour
always keeps urging and provoking to vengeance, and that a wife may be
well enough said to be taken in adultery, when she has either
confessed it or been convicted of it. And these authorities have been
collected with a full hand by his Honour, and I myself recently
pointed out one of them. But the contrary opinion is the true one, and
is accepted in practice. To this fact the most distinguished and most
skilful practitioners of our time in criminal law bear witness. These
are [first] Farinacci, where, after he has first learnedly answered
the reasons and authorities adduced to the contrary, he concludes that
he undoubtedly believes so as to the law in the case, and counsels
that it be so held, unless we wish to err; and [second] Canon
Rainaldi, who also filled the office of Procurator of the Poor with
the highest praise, and so it may well be believed that he was very
strongly inclined toward mercy and commiseration, and that he
therefore adhered to this opinion in the mere zeal for the truth. And
he declared it to be the truer and the more advantageous to the State,
and said that one should not depart from it in giving judgment.
[Citations.]
But even if the conflict of authorities might in some manner favour
the diminishing of the penalty for the Accused, if there had been
excess merely in the matter of time; yet he is still to be considered
as inexcusable, so that he cannot escape the ordinary penalty, since
so many qualifying circumstances are present which increase the crime;
and any one of these is punishable with death.
To this end we should first consider the assembling of armed men,
which is so very injurious to the public peace, and constitutes the
crime of "conventicle." In the Banns, chapter 82, this is punishable
with the death of its author. It is also declared that it is enough to
establish this crime if four armed men are assembled. This had been
formerly prohibited under the same penalty by the seventy-fifth
Constitution of Sixtus V. of blessed memory, which had raised it to
the crime of rebellion, for whatever reason it might be done. Spada
proves this fully, asserting that it should generally be so understood
in all cases in which the assembling of men has been prohibited.
To escape or evade this capital penalty, it is not a relevant excuse
that a husband may kill an adulterous wife by armed men brought
together. For, however it may be when a husband wishes to kill his
wife taken in adultery, and is afraid that the armed adulterer can
resist him, and that he may have servants for his aid (in which case
he himself cannot take vengeance otherwise than by calling together
helpers, as Caballus advises), yet in the case of vengeance taken
after an interval, and while the wife is under the power of the judge,
and on the mere suspicion of adultery, such convocation of armed men
cannot be said to be at all permissible. For the seventy-fifth
Constitution of Sixtus V. of blessed memory, prohibits such assembling
even on lawful occasion, as a disturbance of the public peace.
[Citation.] And so it is much more to be prohibited and much the
rather to be expiated with the ordinary penalty both of the
Constitution and of the Banns, since it was made for an illegal and
damnable end, namely to kill his wife, and his father-in-law and
mother-in-law along with her. This is rendered plain by the assertion
of the very authorities who excuse from the ordinary penalty a husband
who takes vengeance after an interval. And indeed the path of private
vengeance, which is hateful to the law, would be strewn all too
broadly if, after the husband had chosen legal vengeance and had
neglected to avenge his pretended injury in the act of seizing his
wife in flight with the pretended lover, he should be excusable in
taking vengeance after an interval with all security, by means of
armed men, and in killing her while entirely off her guard, and under
the power of the judge, without the slightest risk to himself.
This is true in spite of the response which might favour him, that he
neglected to take private vengeance because he was unarmed, and the
wife was found in the company of the Canon, who was a bold, sturdy
man. The husband should impute it to himself if alone and unarmed he
was pursuing his wife, fleeing with the lover. For then he could take
associates with better right, and fully armed could pursue her; and in
such a case his assembling of men would be somewhat excusable. But
this is not so when he takes such awful vengeance after an interval.
For if we consider the reason why a husband killing an adulterer or
his wife is punished with a milder penalty according to the quality of
the persons, if the vengeance follow in the very act--namely, rash
anger, which cannot be restrained--the assembling of armed men to do
that after an interval is plainly revealed to be illegal. For rash
anger would cause him to expose himself to the risk of resistance by
the adulterer, who is not accustomed to approach unarmed. Because of
this risk the penalty is diminished, since it shows that the husband
carelessly exposed himself thereto, because of the violence of the
anger which blinded him. This is [not] the case in vengeance taken
after an interval, taken with all forethought and by means of armed
men, so that the husband cannot be afraid that any evil will befall
himself in carrying it out. Such preparation is quite repugnant to
rash anger, which cannot be restrained, and from which excuse is
drawn. [Citation.]
The second qualification that increases the crime results from the
kind of arms with which the murder was committed, for these were
prohibited by the well-known decree of Alexander VIII. of sacred
memory. This was not merely for the carrying, but even for the
keeping, introduction, or manufacture of them for any cause whatever,
even under the pretext of military service or the execution of
justice. Hence they would be all the more prohibited [when carried]
for the purpose of taking such impious and awful vengeance by the
destruction of an entire family.
Nor is the carrying of arms in such a case to be confused with the
main crime of murder; because when a greater penalty might be imposed
for the former, as when excuse for the killing is drawn from injured
honour, the carrying of the prohibited arms comes to be punished with
the ordinary penalty. [Citations.] Nor are the authorities adduced to
the contrary worthy of attention, for they hold good in the
circumstance of murder done in self-defence or because of provocation
in a quarrel. [Citation.] Still further, these are not applicable
because they do not speak within the bounds of the Constitution, which
so distinctly prohibits such arms. For Policardus speaks of the
_Regula Pragmatica_ which takes for granted the qualifying
circumstance of the crime of treachery from the kind of arms, and he
asserts that this order ceases in murder for self-defence, or on
provocation in a quarrel, when committed with the said arms. But this
judgment differs by the whole heaven from the sanction of our
Constitution; because the latter was issued for the very purpose of
entirely exterminating so pernicious a kind of arms.
The third qualification likewise increasing the crime is murder
committed because of a lawsuit; for by the well-known decree of
Alexander VII. of blessed memory, this was increased to the crime of
rebellion and _læsa majestas_, punishable with death and the
confiscation of goods. This qualifying circumstance as regards the
slaughter of Pietro and Violante cannot be denied; because the Accused
had won a victory in the lawsuit. And hence the offence should [not]
be said to have been committed because of just anger for injury
inflicted upon him; [first] by the pretence of birth, which was
revealed after the marriage had been celebrated, in order that they
might break the marriage contract; [second] by the publication of
pamphlets greatly to his injury; and [third] by their conspiracy in
the flight of his wife to the injury of the honour of the Accused and
of his entire family. They claim that since this cause for avenging
the injury is graver than that arising from the lawsuit, the murder
should be attributed to it, as more proportionate thereto.
But the victory he obtained had regard only to the actual possession
of the property while the lawsuit was under appeal. And the parents
were still pursuing this suit, so that that cause continued and could
not be said to be extinct. The injury, indeed, from whatever different
causes it may be claimed to have arisen, really came from this same
lawsuit. And this had regard both to the pretence of birth revealed,
and to the insults contained in those pamphlets concerning the
meagreness of the family affairs (which was quite the contrary of the
boasted riches, in the hope of which the marriage had been made), and
concerning the ill-treatment which the parents of the wife had
suffered in the home of the Accused. For by this marriage agreement
food was to be furnished them. Still further, as to any conspiracy in
her flight, much less as to any complicity in her pretended adultery,
we have no proof at all. And so the cause of hatred conceived because
of the lawsuit kept always urging him, and it does not redeem the
criminal from the penalty inflicted by the decree of Alexander,
because the suit might have been injurious to the Accused, either in
his substance or in the manner. For this indeed presents such a cause
as is always required in premeditated murders. Nor does it exclude the
qualifying circumstance of the lawsuit, and indeed confirms it; since
it is explicitly presupposed that injustice had been committed.
Otherwise an opportunity to take private vengeance would be permitted,
which in all law is forbidden, especially when a lawsuit is going on;
because then the majesty of the Prince is insulted, as was proved in
my other information, § _Accedit ad exasperandum_.
The fourth and, indeed, a very grave qualifying circumstance is drawn
from the place in which the crime was committed, namely in the home of
those slain. It was also in an insidious manner, by pretending the
delivery of a letter sent by Canon Caponsacchi. For one's home should
be the safest of refuges to himself, as was proved in our other
information, § _plurimum quoque_. The manner indeed savours of
treachery, as is proved not merely by committing murder under the show
of friendship, but also at a time when the power and obligation of
special caution in the one slain had ceased. [Citation.] And this is
far from doubtful in our case, for the wretched parents could have had
no such apprehension from the Accused, who was staying in his own
country.
To these is added a fifth very grave qualifying circumstance, drawn
from the place with respect to the very wretched wife. For she had
been imprisoned at the instance of the Accused, and was detained in
the home of her parents as a prison with the consent of the Abate, his
brother; and hence she was under public safekeeping, which it were
wrong for the Accused to violate without incurring the penalty of
_læsa majestas_. [Citation.]
This very grave qualifying circumstance, which increases the crime,
cannot be avoided by the dual response given by his Honour; first,
that we are dealing with no prison properly speaking; second, that one
giving offence, or killing in prison, is excused on a just plea of
injured honour. Neither of these excludes this qualifying crime; for
the unsuitability of a prison would be considerable if we could defend
a violation of it made by one in prison and so to avoid his own
injury, but if it were otherwise when we were arguing in his favour
for avenging an injury to himself in a home assigned as a prison. The
plea of injured honour can help one only if the offence in prison
follow in self-defence under the very impulse of rash anger. In such
circumstances the authorities adduced by his honour would hold good.
But this is not so in excusing vengeance taken after an interval upon
one imprisoned even at the instance of the slayer. For then the
qualifying circumstance of the place greatly aggravates the crime, as
it is indeed injurious to the public safekeeping and involves
treachery, etc.
It is therefore very evident that the murders committed by the Accused
have many qualifications mingled with them, which greatly magnify
them. And however far the opinion has weight, which urges the
diminution of punishment for one killing an adulteress after an
interval, and however much the pretended adultery may be declared to
have been proved in the manner required to gain such diminution, even
by all those in favour of the milder judgment, still this penalty,
because of these qualifications, would have to be increased and the
ordinary penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_ in its entirety
would have to be demanded. And therefore it seems superfluous to argue
about the kind of torture, since in view of these very urgent proofs,
of which I understand there is no doubt, and in view of the
well-known powers granted to the Most Illustrious Governor, it is
quite within limits that the crime should be punished with the
ordinary penalty, even if the qualifying circumstance of special
atrocity were not present, so that the penalty should not be increased
on that account.
But such a qualifying circumstance is not wanting here, as it results
indeed from the treacherous manner and from the charge of _læsa
majestas_, which is provable in our case on three grounds; namely
offence committed during a lawsuit, the assembling of armed men, and
the violation of public safekeeping, because of the home assigned as a
prison. For according to the Apostolic Constitutions, the crime would
be raised to that degree upon the basis of the first and the second;
and there should be no doubt as to the power of the Prince to do so.
[Citation.] Spada asserts that in such a case, so far as all the
effects of law are concerned, it should not be considered a matter of
controversy that the qualification of special atrocity, which is in
agreement with such a crime, is to be revoked. And in our very
circumstances Spada gives this opinion in demanding the torment of the
vigil.
Nor can that qualifying circumstance of the person concerned, so far
as it is proved, stand in the way of such infliction of the torment of
the vigil, which does not allow the death penalty upon a nobleman to
be made worse, as is accustomed to happen in very atrocious crimes
(because noble blood should not be degraded by such increase of
penalty which adds infamy). But for this purpose merely the nature of
the crime is considered, and not the quality of the person, which
would hinder the execution of a penalty carrying with it such infamy.
Otherwise the torture of the vigil never could be inflicted upon
noblemen, priests, and men in religious office upon whom an infamous
penalty cannot be inflicted. But nobility affords no privilege in the
manner of torment, especially in very atrocious crimes [Citation],
etc.
GIOVANNI BATTISTA BOTTINI,
_Advocate of the Fisc and of the Apostolic Chamber_.
RESPONSE
_To the Account of the Fact, and Grounds in the Franceschini Case._
[PAMPHLET 15.]
The splendid statue of Nebuchadnezzar fell because it was not firm on
its feet. So fall to ground those imagined and forced suppositions
concerning the origin of the present execrable murder, which the
Anonymous Writer in his printed pages [Pamphlet 10] has tried to
insinuate into the dull heads of the crowd. This murder was committed
here in Rome upon three wretched and innocent persons, by Guido
Franceschini, assisted by four men who were armed with prohibited
arms, who were brought together for that purpose by the influence of
money, and who were kept insidiously for many days at his expense.
[These pages claim that] the crime arose from justly conceived anger:
[first] because eight months earlier Guido had discovered Francesca
Pompilia, his wife, sinning against him in his own house at Arezzo,
and [then] because she had fled in company with Canon Caponsacchi of
the same city back to Rome to place herself again under the protection
of Pietro and Violante Comparini, who had raised her as their
daughter; and [thirdly] that the suspicion had also grown upon Guido
that in her precipitate journey she might have broken with the Canon
her marriage obligations, since certain love-letters were found upon
her, from which he unreasonably deduced her adultery, and he supposed
that the said Caponsacchi was condemned as an adulterer to a three
years' banishment at Civita Vecchia. And these pages try, under the
pretence of injured honour, to render Guido's crime less grave and to
excite compassion, no less in foolish persons than in the hearts of
our most religious judges, for the purpose of disposing them toward a
milder penalty and one out of keeping, according to the laws, with the
quality, form, and circumstances of this crime. And this in substance
is all that is claimed by the author of the pamphlet entitled _Notizie
di fatto, e di ragione nella Causa Franceschini_. But they are indeed
very much at fault in their account of that tragic history, which had
a different beginning and an occasion independent of the imagined
ground of honour. In that pamphlet it was presupposed all too
bitterly, that Guido's honour had been injured by his wife; whereas
she always preserved her sense of shame and had well observed the laws
of conjugal honour, as is plainly shown in this present article.
That this sad catastrophe, this slaughter of an entire family, did not
proceed (as the Anonymous Author claims in his pages) from the
pretended sense of injured honour, but from damnable greed, one can
very clearly see by considering the fact that for this very object the
unfortunate marriage with Francesca Pompilia was entered into by
Franceschini. For it was taken for granted that after the death of her
supposed parents she would surely fall heir to a considerable
property. All the more ought we believe that the crime was committed
because of hatred arising from the three lawsuits then pending; that
is, two in the civil courts and a third in the criminal courts. One of
these was as to the legitimacy of the parentage of Francesca Pompilia,
the wife, and the nullification of the dowry-agreement, and was
brought by Pietro in the Tribunal of the Sacred Rota. The second suit
was for divorce, and was brought by the said Francesca Pompilia before
the Vice-Governor. The third is a criminal suit, as to the pretended
adultery, which is still pending in the Tribunal of his Excellency the
Governor; this latter was brought under the very impulse of greed, to
gain the entire dowry. Since this fact was conclusively evident in the
case introduced by the said Franceschini, he was deceived in this hope
of gain by the failure of the proofs, which the defence caused to
vanish utterly, as they could do by means of the wife. Hence he broke
into an excess so tragic and so deplorable as to reveal clearly the
tricks and frauds practised for the purpose of bringing about that
marriage. Here then are the plain proofs that this is the truth.
Guido Franceschini was staying at Rome in idleness, out of the service
of a certain Cardinal, without a soldo, by which service he had
provided for himself up to that time. His usual loafing-place was in
the shop of certain women-hairdressers, where he often announced his
intention of setting up his house with some good dowry. He also
boasted of the grandeur of his country, his birth, and his property.
By his promises he induced this woman to find him a chance for such a
marriage, and she informed him of the opportunity in the said
Francesca Pompilia. The latter was then esteemed to be the true and
legitimate daughter of Pietro and Violante Comparini. He set about
this enterprise with the aid of his brother, Abate Paolo, using the
astute prudence with which the malign serpent advanced his designs in
Paradise to subvert Adam into disobeying God's precept and into eating
the forbidden fruit; for [Satan] considered the matter in this way:
"If I wish to assault the man directly, who is so strong and so
resolute, he will turn and give me a sure repulse. It is therefore
better that I first tempt the woman, who is of a fickle nature and
soft-hearted." And he made his first attack upon Eve; because when he
had gained his point that he might have her, by her means it would be
easier for him to win over Adam. "For he first attacked the mind of
the weaker sex," are the ingenious words of St. Hilary.
And so for this purpose did the said Guido devise the marriage with
the knowledge of his brother, Abate Paolo, and likewise to this point
he succeeded in it. For he avoided talking with Signor Pietro about
the marriage, by whom it would probably have been refused, and wished
first to tempt Violante, his wife. Because by gaining her he would the
more easily overpersuade her husband to give his consent. Nor was it
difficult for him to astound the woman, because he knew how to impress
her very well with the thought of the grandeur of his country, of the
first-rate nobility of his birth, and of the great income from his
patrimony, amounting to 1700 scudi. And he gave her an itemised
account of it written with his own hand. She was enchanted thereby
and, without getting any further information about the matter, she was
able to persuade her husband and to extract from him his consent to
it. This proves what we read written in Proverbs: "A wife takes
captive the soul of her husband." He speaks this of Mordecai who
availed himself of Esther, when he wished to placate the anger of
Ahasuerus against his people; of Joab, who used the services of the
woman of Tekoah when he wished to soften the anger of David against
his son; and of the Philistines of Timnath, when they wished to gain
from Samson the secret of the riddle proposed to them at the marriage
feast.
The credulous but deceived woman so cajoled her husband that she at
last induced him to sign the marriage agreement providing for a dowry
of 26 bonds and, at the death of the said Comparini, for all their
possession, amounting, as the Anonymous Writer acknowledges, to the
sum of 12,000 scudi. And, for the purpose of making the said
Franceschini guardians of the said property even during the life of
the Comparini, they had to give up even the income of it. This
property consisted of numbers of profitable and well-situated houses,
and of bonds. The Franceschini also assumed the obligation to take the
said Comparini to the city of Arezzo, and there to feed, clothe, and
provide them such service as they would need. This promise was made
not without the hope that on account of the insults and sufferings
which they would have to bear their death would be hastened. And thus
Guido would become the absolute master of their property.
After having signed the said agreement Pietro absolutely refused to go
on with the effectuation of the marriage of the said Francesca
Pompilia, with the abovesaid Guido, of whom he had had few good
reports; and these were far different from the pretended riches and
vaunted nobility. Hence one may well say of him what Persius concludes
in his fourth Satire: "See what has no real existence; let the rabble
carry off their presents elsewhere. Dwell with yourself, and you will
know how meagre your furnishing may be."
At any rate, the said Guido joined the said Violante, whom he had
imbued with his flatteries and endearments, spurning any further
consent of Pietro by keeping him in ignorance of it. And without the
knowledge of the latter, Guido contracted the marriage with the said
Francesca Pompilia in the face of the Church. And he evermore
discloses by this act, which shows so little reverence to the promiser
of the dowry, his own greed, not merely for the amount which had been
assigned to him in the marriage agreement, but also for the rest of
Pietro's property. For he felt sure that after Pietro's death the
property, by the entail of the ancestors, would necessarily fall to
the said Francesca Pompilia, who was already his wife.
When, after a few days, Pietro found out that the marriage had taken
place, though he reproved the deed vigorously, yet because what is
done cannot be undone, and by means of the cajoleries of Violante his
wife, and the interposition of another Cardinal, whom the Abate,
Guido's brother, served, the poor old fellow was constrained to drink
the cup of his bitterness. And he came, as it were by force, after
many months to the stipulations of the dowry agreement. He quickly
began to feel the effects of Franceschini's trick, since Guido had
scarcely a single soldo of his own to pay the first expenses of that
marriage agreement. Hence, to supply these, he was obliged, against
the wish of Pietro, to free from entail five of the bonds, or more, by
the authority of the Auditor of the Most Illustrious Governor, and to
sell them for meeting these expenses. Hence one may see clearly that
the primary object of Franceschini in this proceeding was to trick
Pietro, and Violante his wife, and their poor child, to enrich himself
with the property of others.
He can no longer deny the fraudulent pretence of vaunted riches of the
Franceschini in the note written in his own hand and given to the
Comparini. And indeed the Anonymous Writer confesses it openly. For,
in order to free Abate Paolo from complicity in that trick, the latter
pretended that he took Guido his brother to task roundly for the
alteration of the said note. The said Comparini very quickly found
this out. For as soon as they had gone to Arezzo they learned that the
property of the Franceschini family was very slight. And such were the
miseries and abuses that the Comparini had to suffer in victuals and
in harsh treatment that they were obliged to return to Rome after a
few months; for they were locked out of the home and had to go to the
tavern to lodge; and these abuses were for the purpose of shortening
their lives, either by their sufferings, or the fury caused thereby.
And this fact is very evidently proved by the rent-rolls taken from
the public records of the city of Arezzo. From these it is shown that
the said Guido did not possess a single dollar's worth of the settled
property mentioned in the said note. It is also untrue that he and his
family enjoyed the highest rank of nobility in the city, because, from
other extracts drawn from the public records of the city, it is
evident that his family is of only secondary rank.
The abovesaid crafty and fraudulent methods of dealing, which came to
light long before the murder had followed, and which became known in
this Court and in Arezzo, can well show that greed was the origin of
this premeditated slaughter (which was put in execution in such a
horrible manner, as is notorious) and not the pretended ground of
injured honour. For, according to common opinion, Abate Paolo, no less
than Guido his brother, had worked the tricks exposed as above. And by
men they were suspected of subterfuge and craft, so that this made
them more sensible of injury than anything else. Hence they could no
longer boast the grandeur of their nobility and the affluence of their
riches, which they had spread abroad on the lips of the crowd. And
every one avoided having anything to do with them, as persons of bad
faith and as usurping a glory to which they had no real right.
The greediness of this self-interest became greatly inflamed; so that
in these Franceschini brethren one may see the common axiom verified:
"Craft is deluded by craft." That is to say, Violante was urged on by
remorse of conscience and by the abuses and injuries received in their
house, and was constrained by her confessor at the time of the Jubilee
to reveal to Pietro, her husband, that the said Francesca Pompilia was
not their daughter, but was of a false birth. And this seems very
probable in view of the age of 48, which Violante had reached, when
she pretended to be pregnant with her; because in the fourteen years,
during which she had lived in lawful matrimony with Pietro, she had
never had children. Also, by witnesses then living, she could afford
conclusive proof of the pretence of the birth. And when notice of that
had been given to Abate Paolo, that he might come to some compromise
over the annulling of the dowry contract for the entire patrimonial
property, he spurned the kind offers made to him through the
meditation of friendly persons and refused every means of peace. Then
a warning (as to the falsity of the said birth and the illegality of
the dowry contract) was served on him by Pietro before Monsignor
Tomati. And conclusive proof of the birth was given by six witnesses,
who were examined before the judge with questions offered in behalf of
the said Franceschini. Yet the same judge saw best to forward the case
during the mere immediate possession, by continuing to the said
Francesca Pompilia the quasi-possession of her parenthood.
Nevertheless, an appeal was taken from his sentence, and it was
committed to the Sacred Rota, before Monsignor Molines, where it still
hangs undecided as to the principal point of the pretended parentage
and the nullity of the dowry contract. For righteous judgment in such
a tribunal the judge doubtless awaited for conclusive proofs of the
said pretence of birth. The nullity of the dowry contract would none
the less be decided, because it had made declaration that the said
Francesca Pompilia was their daughter. And with this falsehood the
advantage which the Franceschini had obtained for their own selfish
gain by such tricks would cease.
All this is proved by the reflection that the trick of Franceschini
was made public, not merely in Rome, but in Arezzo, and that he also
was deluded by a similar artifice because of the proofs already made,
while judgment was pending, that the said Francesca Pompilia was not
the real and legitimate daughter of the said Comparini. On the ground
of these far-fetched suspicions Guido made pretence of a reason for
maltreating her with insults and blows, and more than once he provided
himself with a sword and fire-arms to take her life. He did this to
take vengeance upon her for his own trick, by which he had been
deluded. Therefore it was quite right for the poor wife, who was of
the tender age of sixteen years and a stranger in the place, to avoid
the rage of her husband at different times by fleeing for protection
to Monsignor the Bishop, and to the Governor, or Commissioner of the
City, that they might put some check upon the cruelties she was
suffering. And although these persons by their interest in the matter
succeeded for the time in putting a stop to the threats, yet the poor
intimidated wife always passed her days shut in a room. And her fear
was greatly increased because she saw that the said Guido had made a
mixture of poison, with which he threatened he would take her life
without the uproar attendant on the use of arms; and thus he would be
the surer of his crime going unpunished. Now if, even at a time when
no shadow of suspicion of dishonour had fallen, the husband was
contriving the death of his wife, the Anonymous Writer might well
abstain from soiling his pages for the purpose of proving that the
slaughter of those murdered had had its origin in the impulse to
repair offended honour. For his pages would have had much better
foundation if he had consulted the truth, namely that these crimes had
arisen from deluded self-interest.
The poor wife in her agitation over these difficulties that we have
told, had nothing else to do but think of finding refuge from the
death she feared. And when her mind was somewhat sharpened by its
vexations, she intrusted herself to the Canon Conti, who is closely
related to the Franceschini, and declared to him her miseries, her
perils, and her just fears (although they were not unknown to him), in
order that he might try to give her consolation by placing her life in
safety. He was touched with living compassion and was moved to free
her therefrom by pity for the grievous state in which she was. And he
well knew that there was no other escape than flight from the home of
her husband, according to the saying of the poet [Virg. A. III. 44]:
"Alas, flee the cruel earth, flee the greedy shore." But not being
able to give her aid in this affair, he suggested to her that for
putting the matter into execution, there was no better person to the
purpose than Canon Giuseppe Caponsacchi, his friend and intimate,
whose spirit had stood every test. And when Conti had spoken of it to
him, although Caponsacchi saw difficulty in aiding the desire of the
young woman, because he did not wish to incur the anger of the
Franceschini, yet at last the impulse of charity and pity prevailed
upon him to free this innocent woman from death. And when his
readiness for the attempt was reported to her by Conti, she did not
fail to inflame him with more messages and letters, even containing
alluring endearments, for the effecting of her escape. Yet she also
kept during all this time her constant desire of not violating her
marriage-vow, since in some of these letters she praises the Canon for
his chastity, and in others reproves him for having sent her some
rather improper octaves. She also warned him against degenerating from
the good behaviour, on which she had congratulated herself and had
planned with him the flight.
While her husband and the whole household were asleep, both of them,
with the assistance of the Canon Conti, set out upon a headlong
journey by post, without losing a moment's time, except for changing
horses; and they arrived by night at Castelnuovo. And although the
host had prepared a bed for rest, nevertheless they did not avail
themselves of it. For Caponsacchi was always solicitously watching to
see that the driver prepared other horses, to continue the journey to
its end. Nor did the host of that tavern, when cross-examined in the
prosecution for flight, ever dream of bearing witness that the wife
and Caponsacchi had slept together in the bed that was prepared, even
though Franceschini, to his own dishonour, had published the contrary,
that he might, by the pretence of injured honour, throw a false light
upon the true grounds of the murders committed by him.
In the meantime her husband arrived. When his wife saw him, did she,
timid as she was, shrink back? Did she acknowledge herself guilty of
any sin, or of any wrong done to him in guarding her purity and
modesty? No! But all on fire, though she was at the tender age of
sixteen years, as I have already said, the constancy of her own honour
rebuked him for the tricks and abuses which he had employed, and for
the threats and blows he had very often given her, and for the
poisonous drugs he had prepared to take her life. And [she declared]
that she had been obliged to do as she had done, to find an escape by
flight from graver peril, and to return to the parental love of the
Comparini, who had raised her as their daughter; and that she had
always been careful to keep her wifely honour intact. The same rebuke
was made by Caponsacchi, who during the flight had religiously
observed the limits of due modesty.
What did Franceschini answer? What did he try to do, although he was
armed with a sword against his defenceless wife and against
Caponsacchi, who had with him only a little dagger? Nothing, indeed!
according to what the witnesses who were present deposed; because he
stood convicted by the just remonstrances of his wife. But what did he
do? He gave up all vengeance, which by right of natural law, or much
more by civil law, he might have taken for that; and, as the Anonymous
Writer goes on to boast in justifying him for this execrable crime, he
implored the arm of the Law and had his wife and Caponsacchi arrested
by the authorities of the place. And at his own instance they were
conducted as prisoners to the prisons of the Most Illustrious Governor
of Rome, before whom Guido charged them with flight. Then, not content
with this, he brought forward that other charge of supposed adultery
committed with the said Caponsacchi. He also outdid himself greatly by
making noisy petition to the Supreme Pontiff for their punishment, and
the latter sent back his entreaties to Monsignor the Governor. He was
brazen enough to demand, with a new complaint, that his wife should be
declared an adulteress and that to him, according to law, should pass
all the gain of the dowry. This in substance clearly proves that he
did not insist on vengeance for the reparation of his honour, which he
himself had passed by, but he did all this for the sole object of
gain, that is to win the dowry.
What efforts, what exclamations, what diligence did Franceschini and
Abate Paolo, his brother, not use to have the wife declared an
adulteress and to gain the desired lucre? Monsignor the Most
Illustrious Governor knows it, who endured with all forbearance their
passionate pressure upon him. Signor Venturini, judge in the case,
knows it. And all the other judges and notaries of the Court, who were
nauseated by their importunity, know this very well. Then since
judgment could not in any event fall according to the designs of the
Franceschini, as there was no proof in the trial of any offence,
either in the wife or in the said Caponsacchi, the most Religious
Judges, who in prudence were judging rigorously (for the purpose of
giving some satisfaction to the Franceschini brothers in their strong
insistence, rather than because of the obligations of justice),
banished the said Caponsacchi to Civita Vecchia for three years.
Caponsacchi straightway obeyed this sentence, and has never left the
place assigned him. The case was left undecided as regards the wife,
who was placed in the Nunnery of the Scalette as a prison. Then when
there was some question as to her pregnancy, with equal prudence, she
was removed from the nunnery by the order of the Most Illustrious
Governor; for it was not decorous that she should give birth to a
child there. And with the consent of the said Abate Paolo she was
placed in the home of the said Comparini under security of 300 scudi
to keep it as a secure prison.
On this point the Anonymous Writer disputes too bitterly what was
written learnedly by the Fisc, and claims that the consent of the said
Abate Paolo had not been given. But the great and incorruptible
integrity of the Fisc is known to every one; because of which he would
be unwilling to give his word in writing for what was not evident on
the surest proof. Yet the fact of Abate Paolo's consent is plainly
proved, since he in person so agreed with Monsignor the Most
Illustrious Governor and with Signor Venturini, the judge, jointly.
And he exacted from Pietro Comparini the obligation to supply her with
food without any hope of recompense. And this was so carried out,
although the quality of the Comparini did not deserve so indecent a
rebuke on account of having been too indulgent with them.
With like bitterness it is denied that the said Abate Paolo had power
of attorney from Guido, his brother, enough to give such consent;
because, in making such a provision, Monsignor the Governor had no
need of the consent of the parties. And, even if he had wished to show
Abate Paolo such courtesy and urbanity, the Author should not reply
thereto with such incivility, in criticising the judge for having done
wrong because of the lack of that power of attorney. For by such
procedure [Abate Paolo] proves that he wished to trick also Monsignor
the Governor into consenting to a thing beyond his power. And he rests
convicted of this, because the said Abate Paolo was the manipulator of
all they did, nor was a straw moved without his assistance. And he was
well provided with abundant power of attorney by his brother,
wherefrom he had the fullest authority to do as if he were the very
person of his brother, with a proviso of after confirmation, the
efficacy of which every one knows. And this is confessed even by the
Anonymous Author, since he asserts that Guido at his departure left
the entire conduct of his case to the Abate, his brother. But one may
well see with what object he denies the said consent, that is, in
order that he may more bitterly make pretence of the complicity of the
Comparini in the pretended dishonesty of Francesca, who had been
guarded by them as a daughter. This would seem very improbable if he
should once admit the consent of the Abate.
No less rancorous is the assertion made by the Anonymous Writer that
Lamparelli laid out the money to provide Pompilia with food while she
was in safekeeping. Nor was Lamparelli reimbursed by the deposit in
the Office, which had come from the money found on her and on
Caponsacchi, when they were arrested at Castelnuovo, which was
supposed to have been stolen from the husband. But the 48 scudi, which
the wife confessed to have taken away from him, were fully restored to
the said Abate Paolo, as is proved by his receipt, made during the
trial. The rest of the money was conclusively proved to belong to
Caponsacchi. And as soon as Abate Paolo received the money, for which
he continually clamoured, he left Rome to take part in the planning of
that notorious murder, which followed a little while later.
But there had previously been given notice, at the instance of
Francesca Pompilia before Monsignor the Vice-Governor, of a suit for
divorce and for the recovery of the dowry, which had been spent. This
was very bitter to the Franceschini, because in that lawsuit
conclusive proof would be made of their subterfuges, their cruelties,
their threats of poisonous drugs that had been prepared; of which the
Canon Conti, who was the mediator in that flight, had not been
ignorant. And it is public talk and report throughout Arezzo that he
died about a month ago under similar suspicious circumstances. Hereby
ceased all hope, which the Franceschini had had from the beginning, of
gaining the entire property of the Comparini. And from this, every
sane mind may see and know what is the true root of such rash and
pitiable murders; whether it is injured honour, or scandalous and
detestable greed and cupidity. From this arose the hatred in the
lawsuits brought and still undecided, which drew even greater
dishonour upon the said Franceschini, and when decided would be for
their ruin.
In vain therefore this Anonymous Writer and his other defenders wear
themselves out in exaggerating the plea of injured honour. For then
that which had no true existence would have been taken from Guido by
his wife. This was fully proved in the arguments made for the Fisc, in
answering those letters, from which Guido drew his strongest proof. On
the contrary, Franceschini has by his own deed renounced all right to
repair his honour, since he did not avenge it at the time of
overtaking her in the said inn of Castelnuovo. Nor does his excuse
really help him--that he was unarmed, because he had with him indeed a
sword, and possibly other concealed arms. For it is not probable that
he would have been willing to go on following his wife accompanied by
Caponsacchi, without being provided with arms. And this all the more
because the fugitives also were unarmed and were provided merely with
a little dagger. But Guido preferred to choose the judicial road and
had them arrested by the police, and he demanded that the charge
against them be pushed through to their punishment, even imploring the
rescript of the Supreme Pontiff. He also laid his entreaties again
before the judges in the case (this very well discloses his purpose,
which was the unconquerable motive of all his acts) and made special
insistence before them for the payment of the price of the honour,
which he pretended had been taken from him. And would he not even have
had his wife declared an adulteress for the sake of gaining the dowry?
If then he has, as one may say, demanded the price of his honour in
the Courts, how can he be permitted to commit such awful murders for
honour's sake?
For whenever a husband is permitted by reason of natural law, or even
by the civil law, to kill his wife for honour's sake, this power and
faculty ceases whenever the husband has renounced it by imploring, as
above, the arm of the law. And these complaints that he made, and his
recourse to the Pope, show the price he put upon his honour. And with
these judicial proceedings he lost, without doubt, his right of
private vengeance for his injured honour, which he might have carried
out. And by this one tacit renunciation, this right is extinct.
[Citation.] For the writer cannot claim that the judicial action
brought by Franceschini would not effect the renunciation of private
vengeance for his honour, but that he could still employ the one or
the other, and avail himself of whichever might seem better to him.
For this is contrary to the text [Citation] which is stated as follows
by the celebrated Canonist, Giovanni Andrea: "A choice cannot gain
both alternatives in seeking confirmation therefrom; even if the one
is claimed to include that by which the man can attain the end of his
intention. Therefore a man must choose one, and when it is chosen he
cannot turn to the other." And still clearer are the following words
of the same authority: "The right to return to a second alternative
shall not at all be allowed, when one seems to have renounced to
choose the first and to profess that his rights cannot arise
therefrom."
But although this exception from every miscarried law might be judged
permissible, every foundation of it would be destroyed by the utter
lack of proof of an offence received in his honour; for there was no
proof of it in the prosecution for flight. The Anonymous Writer
strives to deduce that from the pretended love-letters written to
Caponsacchi, which were denied by Francesca and were not proved to be
her handwriting, either by her own acknowledgment or by her signature.
One cannot claim that she was convicted of it, nor that any legitimate
proof of it resulted, as all judicial practice shows.
And even if without reason we were obliged to acknowledge that they
were written by her, would it not be too bitter and too unreasonable
an inference that from them arose the husband's motive for killing her
because she had written them? No one of sound mind will be persuaded
to pity the husband who has gone on to kill his wife for the sole
reason that she had written love-letters. For conjugal honour is
offended neither by note, nor by pen, but only by acts of impure
dishonour; and of this, in our case, every shadow of proof is lacking.
This is all the more true because the mere suspicion of dishonour
ceases with a thought of the true motive, for which the letters were
written; namely, by pretended demonstration of affection to allure
this Caponsacchi to rescue her from imminent peril of death. Nor from
this could she find any other escape than by flight; for she was
always terrorised by the anger and hatred conceived by her husband for
feigned reasons. And therefore, as the love-letters arose from that
occasion they ought to be referred to it, and not to a dishonourable
wish to smirch her conjugal faith to her husband. To the same cause,
likewise, should certain conversations be referred, which she had had
from the window with the said Caponsacchi in order to arrange the
manner of saving her life, and not to give offence, nor to hazard her
own modesty, nor the honour of her husband. Even the most chaste of
women have used like artifices. We find in the Sacred Scriptures that
Judith entrapped Holofernes in the same way, for the purpose of
winning the liberty of her native land. And so it may be no less
permissible for this poor woman, who was solely intent upon the
security of her life, to allure Caponsacchi by amatory letters to be a
safe companion for her in her flight, and this without any stigma of
immodesty.
Much less can an offence of his honour be inferred from the flight;
because, as I noted above, this flight resulted from the cause
declared. And one may see clearly that it was not for doing any injury
to her husband. For the fugitives did not turn aside into unknown
places, but they journeyed precipitately along the consular road by
post, without spending the night anywhere. And their journey was
toward Rome, where the poor wife hoped that the Comparini, who had
raised her as their daughter, would continue toward her those acts of
love with which they had brought her up, even till the said marriage
was contracted with Franceschini.
And all that is being reported that a driver testifies he had seen
them kissing along the road has no legal foundation. For it rests
merely on the word of a single witness of the lowest class, and he
swears to matters that are quite improbable, because he had to drive
the carriage with such rapidity as that with which the fugitives were
following their journey. Hence it was almost impossible for him to
look backward, or to see what they were doing inside of that covered
carriage. And this is all the more so because his deposition is vague,
nor does it specify whether the kisses were given at night or by day.
But his deposition is rendered much more doubtful and improbable
because, in such a swift journey as the carriage was making, it might
chance during the jolting of it that the accident of their faces
meeting casually would arise, and to him this might seem the act of
kissing. This happens very commonly, even when one is making no such
journey, according to the quality of the road and the rough ways which
one finds. This makes his testimony insufficient and doubtful enough
or, even further, it is audacious and incredible.
Then as to the other point which the Anonymous Writer asserts too
bitterly, namely, that when they arrived at Castelnuovo the innkeeper
was ordered to make up only one bed for the repose of the fugitives,
and that they slept together. The host however did not have the
hardihood to swear, in his cross-examination, that they had slept
together in it. This circumstance is excluded by the deposition of the
wife as well as by that of Caponsacchi. Because their affidavits
constantly affirm that neither of them went to bed for rest, but that
merely the wife, who was worn out by the discomfort and suffering of
so precipitate a journey, rested for a few hours seated in a chair;
and that the bed was left arranged as the host had adjusted it; and it
would have been found mussed, if they had slept in it. It is also
proved that when Franceschini arrived at the said place he found
Caponsacchi urging that the horses be harnessed for continuing the
journey, and no proof is given to the contrary. Nor can one justly
pity Franceschini for his injured honour, which had been kept intact
by the fugitives.
Likewise the title, to which the same Writer appeals--that the decree
of condemnation for Caponsacchi's banishment had been inflicted
because of criminal knowledge, to the injury of Guido's honour--has
no real foundation; because this title was corrected as untrue, and
not in accord with the proofs. Of this fact we may have as legitimate
witnesses the very Governor himself, and all the judges and notaries
of the tribunal who have any part in the criminal court. And if one
will only give it due thought, the title of that case was placed
there, just as a wine bush hangs outside the door of an inn, which
very well shows that they sell wine there, but does not prove whether
what they sell is good, and saleable, and agreeable. Oh! by no means.
For one may find the wine there to be sharp, and muddy, and of other
inferior qualities. If therefore we read the documents and the proofs
registered during the prosecution, by which the crime is proved, and
not by the erroneous title, which cannot offer a shadow of proof for
the pretended criminal commerce, there is even less suspicion of
immodesty. And one can well understand that all proof was lacking
during the prosecution from the mildness of the penalty inflicted,
which does not at all correspond with the gravity of the crime
charged. One can also see the impropriety of condemning Caponsacchi as
an adulterer while the cause against the wife was still pending;
because she could not be condemned while undefended.
But to remove every suspicion of this pretended adultery, I beg any
dispassionate reader to reflect that the adultery could not have been
committed in Arezzo, because to the guardianship of her husband was
added that of the brothers, of their common mother, of the servant, of
the relatives, and of the neighbours; yea, the voluntary imprisonment
of the unfortunate child, who was always shut in a small room to guard
her honour. Much less could adultery have been committed during the
journey, as has been proved to be utterly unlikely, improbable,
unproved, and far from the truth. Nor could it have been committed at
Rome; for it is well known that Pompilia was taken from Castelnuovo to
prison, and from there was removed to the Nunnery of the Scalette, and
then because of her pregnancy was consigned to the said Comparini,
under the form of keeping their house as a prison with security of 300
scudi. Caponsacchi also was staying then at his place of banishment in
Civita Vecchia. In this fact all suspicion ceases, since the consent
of Abate Franceschini, who is so zealous for his brother's honour, as
well as his own, concurred therein.
Nor can one restrain himself without strong exertion when he hears
such exaggeration from the Anonymous Writer as that Caponsacchi left
his prison to go in banishment to Civita Vecchia at a time when the
wife was staying in the house of the said couple, as a prison, and
that he lodged in their house. But he cannot speak a more barefaced
lie than that, because Caponsacchi has never been their guest, and as
soon as he left the prison he went to the place of his exile; and he
has faithfully observed his banishment without ever returning to Rome.
Nor did the wife leave the nunnery before it was proved to Monsignor
the Governor that Caponsacchi was staying in Civita Vecchia, as was
established by the authentic testimony of the Chancellor of that
district.
The said Writer, however, gives me even more room to blame his
excessive boldness in stigmatising the honour of Franceschini as
sullied by his wife, by saying that as soon as Guido had ascended the
stairs in company with his fellows, armed to commit this execrable
murder, he looked about upon those walls, which were all full of his
insults, as if the said silent stones had known how to make
contrivances of foolish thoughts to foment his inhumanity for so
horrible a murder. Because for this he can give no other proof than
that he was writing fancifully without any foundation. For Guido was
indeed willingly dishonoured; because to his other dishonours he added
these disgraces also, even by his own wrongdoing. For it is made very
clear above that the cause for which he committed the crime was not to
repair his honour, which had been injured by his wife. But it was his
unmasked tricks, the hoped-for lucre, which had vanished, and the
lawsuits still pending.
And why can he not bring some other no less convincing proof, if
honour urged Franceschini thereto? And was not that honour
sufficiently avenged by the death of his wife? Why imbrue himself
straightway with the blood of Violante and Pietro, who were not
accomplices in the pretended dishonour? And why should he lay such
plots through many days to procure the death of that kindly
benefactor, because the latter had been moved by pity and had
ministered to their aid in the said lawsuits? Upon that one there has
never fallen a suspicion prejudicial to Guido's honour. For while the
wife was in Arezzo he was staying at Rome. And when she was first
married she was not fully thirteen years old, and after her flight,
when she had returned to Rome, we know that she continued under guard
in prison, or in the nunnery, and then in the home of her parents, and
at this time she was very near her confinement. Hence one can conclude
truly that the motive of this murder was other than that of honour,
and that it was his greed, as was said, and the lawsuits, as
Franceschini himself confesses in his cross-examination.
Nor ought the declaration made by the said wife in the face of death
be despised, since in the presence of many priests and persons who are
quite trustworthy, even while she was constantly suffering from such
severe wounds, she maintained and professed with greatest frankness
that she had always lived chaste and faithful to her husband. And with
a heart in fullest resignation to the Divine Mercy, she prayed pardon
for every mistake she had committed to the disgrace of her husband.
Nor in such a matter is it to be presumed that the one dying lies, at
the risk of the eternal safety of her soul. A person should also
reflect that in this deed there occurs a special favour from the hand
of the very Omnipotent, who caused the wife to survive for a few days,
in order that she might make clear her own innocence and throw light
upon the murderers; for without this the crimes would have gone
unpunished. For during the same crime Franceschini had repeatedly
commanded his companions to see if she were quite dead. And when they
had taken her by the tresses and had lifted her from the ground where
she lay, they believed she was dead; because the poor wife, by natural
instinct, knew how to feign it by her relaxation, as the delinquents
confessed. And this mark of divine favour all the more verifies the
declaration of the wife, which has been proved by the confession of
those guilty of the crime.
I have left it for the last to discuss and refute what the said Writer
pretends concerning Abate Paolo. But if he had to speak the truth, he
might reasonably affirm that the Abate had been the whole foundation
of this scandal. For he had urged Guido on to the murders, and he had
woven the whole plot, inasmuch as it was he who, from the beginning,
wished to attain, by dint of industry and trickiness, the marriage of
the said Francesca Pompilia. It was he who had sustained the suits,
both civil and criminal, and he who, under the name of a grandee, and
by boasting of their word of honour, had tried to extort a judgment by
means of fine insinuations, by subterfuge, and by trickery; which was
not right. It was he, who was very sensible of having been proved to
be the man of guile, who had been deluded by his own trick. Therefore
this Writer had good reason to say that the faces of others served the
Abate as mirrors by which to read his own evil courses, and not the
lost honour of his brother.
I forbear to respond to what the Anonymous Writer has tried to have
believed to the praise of Abate Paolo Franceschini, to excite greatly
our pity; since the intention of the author of the present response is
no other than to make clear the falsity of the suppositions against
the honour of the poor wife and against the Comparini, and to serve
the cause of justice. And he leaves the judgment of it to those who
have full knowledge of it. From the same consideration I pass over
responding to many another impropriety, which has been advanced
uselessly and without any point by the said Writer.
And I close my response with the example of Samson, alleged by him.
When he saw himself exposed to the public scoffs of the people, he
gave a shove to the pillars of the palace, causing it to fall that he
might die with the rest under its ruins, and might cease to be longer
the scorn of that people. So lest the said Franceschini may be
ridiculed for his tricks, it is fitting that he and his companions pay
the penalty merited by their crime. For these are pernicious to the
State and to that peace and security which litigants in the Courts of
Rome ought to enjoy, if we would maintain what the vigilance of the
Supreme Pontiff Alexander VII., and his successors, has provided. For
they have published a Constitution as to that, and with it Banns,
successively promulgated. The sacred order of such laws should be
observed all the more willingly, inasmuch as Guido had chosen the
judicial way to vengeance, and the appeals made to the Supreme
Pontiff, who is most eager to do what is just, were sent back to his
judges. Nor could Guido grieve for this without some pretended injury,
as is evident; hence the Anonymous Writer wished to ascribe it to the
aggravation by which the anger of Franceschini had been exasperated.
This clearly shows with what intent he had broken into such detestable
excesses.
[File-title of Pamphlet 16.]
_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, against the Fisc._
_Reply as to law, by the Honourable Advocate
of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698._
ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM
[PAMPHLET 16.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
I omit further discussion with my Lord Advocate of the Fisc about the
communication of his allegations, because the time is brief, and I
have professed great reverence for him since my youth. Let me also
pass over the claim that when one is arguing about death inflicted by
a husband upon his wife, not in the act of taking her in adultery, but
after an interval, mere suspicion, however strong, is not sufficient
to redeem him from the ordinary penalty of the Cornelian law, but that
the clearest proof of the adultery is required, as is claimed by our
opponents. Yet we have proved the contrary in our former argument,
§ _quamquam ad hoc_. And Dondeus, Sanfelicius, and Muta, who were not
cited there, hold that it is quite enough if the couple be found alone
in some retreat; and No. 3 says especially if the wife be beautiful.
[Citation.] See the word of Ovid: "Great is the strife of modesty with
beauty, And man keeps eagerly craving it." [_Heroides_, Paris to
Helen.] So in the present case, according to the same author: "By this
young and passionate man is she supposed to have been returned still a
virgin?" [_Heroides_, 5, 109.]
At present, we are dealing with a case not merely of clearest proof,
but also of notorious fact; because we have a decree of this very
Tribunal by which such adultery was declared. Although the words of
this decree have been given in the present information, § _Absque eo
quod_, yet I wish to repeat them here, because they are so clear:
"Giuseppe Maria Caponsacchi, of Arezzo, for complicity in the flight
of Francesca Comparini, and for criminal knowledge of the same, is
banished for three years to Civita Vecchia."
But I cannot pass over what is still claimed--that this decree was
revoked--because, as I have said in my information, the truth is quite
the contrary; for we have only the fact that in the mandate for
imprisoning the sinning Canon the repetition of the whole decree, as
given above, was omitted, and it was said: "For the cause, concerning
which in the suit." These words are so far from showing a revocation
that they rather offer confirmation of the said decree, as we have
affirmed in our information, § _Nec verum est_. The same should be
said of the like words furnished by the notary in the bond which
Francesca Pompilia executed to keep the home of her father as a
prison. This was when she was brought there from the nunnery, where
she had been staying securely, on the grounds of her supposed
infirmity, but I may say more truly that it was because of her
pregnancy, which she wished to hide by some evil deed.
[Our claim is all the more true] because this pretended revocation of
the decree could not be made when the other side had not been heard,
as I have said in my information, § _Eoque magis_.
Likewise I cannot pass over what is said as to the Canon having been
condemned only to the penalty of banishment because of defect of proof
of adultery. For if such proof had not existed, how could my Lords
Judges express in the decree that they condemned him for criminal
knowledge of the same Francesca Pompilia? It is the truth that the
judges held that the said adultery was most conclusively proved, and
that the said Canon was convicted of the same, since in the
prosecution nothing is wanting but the taking of them in the foul act;
and this is not necessary to prove adultery. [Citations.]
The penalty to which the said Canon was condemned did not indeed
correspond with the said crime. As to this many replies may be made,
but, because this has no connection with Count Guido let it also pass
by. For however that may be, who can deny that Count Guido, on reading
the said decree, which needed no comment, ought justly to be angered
for the conjugal faith violated toward himself? And who can deny that
he ought to be somewhat excused, if afterwards he took vengeance for
such a violation? [Citations.]
And this is true, although he took such vengeance after an interval,
as was plainly demonstrated in my said past information, § _Nec verum
est_. For there are few authorities who hold the contrary, and
therefore it would be almost heretical to doubt the truth of such an
opinion. [Citation.] Especially since this has been accepted in almost
all the tribunals in the world, particularly in that of the Sacred
Council, which establishes the precedent for all the other tribunals
of the City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State. Hence Concioli
affirms that it is almost like sacrilege to depart from this opinion.
[Citation.]
And is it not a fine pretence to wish to exclude the plainest proofs
of adultery by the word of the very wife convicted of it, and then
retained in the nunnery by reason of it, as my honourable Lord
Procurator General of the Fisc has ingenuously acknowledged? For a
person is not obliged to disclose his own baseness in the face of
death, as we have proved in the said present information, § _Et
quatenus_, and the § following. And since she had lived badly, not to
say in utter baseness, to the injury of the honour and reputation of
her husband, we inflict no injury on her by wishing to presume that
even in death she did not come to her right mind, according to the
saying: "He who lives badly dies badly." And no one, even in death, is
presumed to be a Saint John the Baptist, as in my information, § _Nec
valet dici_.
As therefore it remains firmly established that Count Guido had just
cause for killing, or causing to be killed, Francesca Pompilia, his
wife, the same must be said as to the murder of Pietro and Violante,
the father-in-law and mother-in-law. For in the prosecution of the
said Francesca Pompilia for flight from her husband, proof also came
to light that they had conspired in that same crime, and consequently
were among the causes of the injured honour and reputation of Count
Guido. And this injury to his honour had also resulted from what they
had pretended and had exposed before every one--that his wife was not
their daughter, nor legitimately born, but was the daughter of a
harlot. And afterward they had received her into their home when she
had been declared an adulteress. For either she was their daughter,
and they ought not to deny it in Court, or else she was not their
daughter, and they should not receive her into their home after she
had been convicted of adultery. For in doing so they had, by that very
act, declared that they had been and wished to be her panderers.
[Citations.]
The confession of Count Guido cannot be divided from its
qualification, that he had demanded the murders for honour's sake. But
it ought to be accepted by the Fisc along with the said qualification,
as we have proved in our information, § _Huiusmodi enim confessio_.
The authorities alleged to the contrary by my Lord Advocate of the
Fisc hold good in a qualification, extraneous to the confession itself
and which is not therefore proved otherwise, and when there is
argument for some extraordinary penalty, and we have admitted this in
our information, § _Præsertim_.
But just as the plea of injured honour relieves Count Guido from the
ordinary penalty for murder, so should he be excused from certain
other ordinary penalties, laid in the Banns and Apostolic
Constitutions against those bearing prohibited arms or committing
other crimes. For I have said, and I repeat, that the just anger which
excuses him from the one crime should also excuse him from the others,
since this reason is everywhere and always in his favour, that he was
not of sound mind, according to what was affirmed in our information
from § _Agnoscit Fiscus_, down to § _quo vero ad litem_.
And just as this cause is enough to gain for Count Guido a diminution
of the penalty, so should it be considered to be sufficient likewise
to gain that favour for his fellows, who as auxiliaries cannot be
punished with a greater penalty than the principal himself, according
to almost innumerable authorities, and they of great name, who were
alleged in my past argument, § _quæ dicta sunt_, with the following,
and in my present argument, § _Verum et Sociis_. To this, no response
has been given by the other side.
This is all the easier as regards Blasio Agostinelli, who has not at
all confessed that he killed or wounded any one, but only that he was
present, as we have formerly considered the matter in our information,
§ _Quoad Blasium_.
And as to Domenico and Francesco, beside what has been deduced in
favour of the others, they are foreigners, and are therefore not bound
by the Banns of the Governor (for by these, men who live outside of
the District are not bound) nor by the Apostolic Constitutions
prohibiting the bearing of arms, as we have said in our past argument,
§ _Quae eo facilius_.
This is all the more so since Domenico still asserts that he is a
minor, and for this purpose he was so described in the prosecution
(page 304). And as regards Francesco, beside the abovesaid description
in the same prosecution (page 35), we have the baptismal register,
which conclusively proves his age. [Citations.] For he was born the
14th day of February, 1674, from which it is evident that at the time
of the commission of the crime, which is to be had in regard for
punishment [Citations], he had not completed the twenty-fourth year of
his age. And to one less than twenty-five years old the penalty should
be diminished, etc. [Citations.]
And this indeed is of necessity, and not at the discretion of the
judge, because such diminution of penalty arises by advantage of law
that has been passed and from intrinsic reason, diminishing the
penalty. [Citations.]
Although there are not lacking some authorities who think the
contrary, namely that it all depends upon the discretion of the judge,
yet our opinion is the truer and the more generally accepted in
criminal causes which are not very atrocious. [Citations.] And when
the crime is merely savage, or more savage, the judge is obliged by
the very necessity of his duty to diminish the penalty, according to
those authorities recently alleged. [Citations.]
This opinion also has a place in the crime of murder, notwithstanding
the order of the text. [Citations.] "If any one should make you a
defendant under the Cornelian Law, it is suitable that your innocence
shall defend and purge itself by your minority." For the order of this
text should be interpreted thus, namely, that a delinquent who is a
minor is not to be excused entirely, but is only to be punished more
mildly, according to the old authorities who are cited with abundant
hand by Farinacci. [Citations.]
This is especially so when, as in the present case, the delinquent
minor does not sin alone, but in company with others; for then he is
presumed to be seduced by them, and therefore the ordinary penalty
comes to be diminished the more readily for him. [Citations.]
We do not know whither the Fisc pretends to turn for the destruction
of these foundations in law, because my Honourable Lords, the
counsellors of the Fisc, have claimed nothing as to this matter,
either in their past argument or the present one. For when they claim
to escape our exception by the Florentine Statute [Citation], that a
minor of sixteen years is punished criminally, other responses are at
hand:
First, that the provision of this statute does not extend to crimes
committed outside of the territory of the said State, but that the
place of the crime and its statutes should be attended. Then these
indeed cease, as they do in the present case, because the Banns of the
Governor have no place when there is argument for the punishment of a
foreigner. This fact arises from defect of power in the Prince or
official establishing them, according to what was alleged in the past
argument, § _Quae eo facilius_, and the one following. For then the
criminal should be punished according to common law. [Citations.]
The second response is that the statute says nothing else than that a
minor of sixteen years cannot be punished with the ordinary penalty of
the crime. Consequently it ought to hold good in our case, since we
are indeed arguing about a minor exceeding sixteen years, but of one
less than twenty-five years old. Such a rule should be drawn from
Common Law, in view of which the said statute in such a case receives
a passive interpretation. [Citations.] Caballus testifies that he saw
it so practised in diminishing the penalty to one less than
twenty-five years, that is to one who was eighteen years old.
[Citations.]
Finally the third response, and the one that lays the axe to the root
of the tree, is that the Accused is not of the city of Florence, nor
of its territory, but of the territory of Arezzo. But the city of
Arezzo and its dependencies are not bound by the statutes of Florence;
first because they are not called subjects, but vassals, of the said
city of Florence; and, second, because the city of Arezzo has its own
statutes. [Citations.] For reference is had to the ruling state, when
other subject states have not their own statutes; but it is otherwise,
if they have them. [Citations.]
And so they are contrary, or incompatible. [Citations.]
Soccinius [Citation] bears witness of what manner these statutes of
Arezzo are, as compared with those of the city of Florence, etc., and
this is plain from the Rubric, etc., where it is commanded that those
under twenty-five years cannot be rendered liable, without certain
ceremonies, as Paolo di Castro counsels. [Citation.] For from this
statute it is sufficiently evident that in the said city and its
environs a less age is the rule according to common law.
So far as the Fisc may have foundations, which in our feeble judgment
we have been unable to guess, I pray that these be kindly communicated
to me, lest the poor accused minor may remain undefended.
Finally, as regards Count Guido, I pray that notice be taken of the
unfortunate condition of himself and of his noble family. For all of
his family and connection have had enough to lament even to the last
breath of their lives, when they look upon the ignominy brought upon
them by this woman and her parents. And because of this, there has
been doubt up to the very present moment whether one nearly related
would go mad. And the excellent piety of our most clement Prince and
Most Illustrious Lord has declared this, to whom the Accused himself
with his whole heart commends himself in the Arguments made in his
defence, not to speak of what they may learn about it from the
Anonymous Author [Pamphlet 10]. [Citation.]
DESIDERIO SPRETI, _Advocate of the Poor_.
LETTER
WRITTEN BY THE HONOURABLE SIGNOR GIACINTO ARCANGELI, PROCURATOR OF THE
POOR, TO MONSIGNORE FRANCESCO CENCINI, IN FLORENCE, IN WHICH HE TELLS
HIM THAT THE SENTENCE OF DEATH HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN ROME AGAINST THE
GUILTY ON FEBRUARY 22, 1698--THAT IS, THAT FRANCESCHINI HAD BEEN
BEHEADED, AND THE OTHER FOUR HANGED.
[LETTER I.]
To the illustrious Signor, my most worshipful Signor and Patron:
Too late have arrived those proofs, which were sent to me by your
Honour, on behalf of Signor Guido Franceschini of blessed memory. For
when the Congregation of Monsignor the Governor had determined, in
spite of the reasons given in his favour, that Signor Guido was guilty
under the death penalty, I obtained, with much trouble to myself, some
delay for proving his clergyship alleged by me. To this end a
messenger was dispatched to Arezzo. But since the Sanctity of Our Lord
[the Pope] did not deem it wise to postpone the execution of the
sentence already decreed, he has seen best by special writ to make
denial of any clerical privilege, which might have been claimed [in
Guido's favour], and also as regards the minority of Francesco di
Pasquini, one of the accomplices. Hence sentence against all five has
been executed to-day, with distinction only in the manner of their
death, as Guido's life was ended by decapitation. This consolation
survives for his relatives and friends, that he has been pitied by all
men of honour and by all good men. Confessing my own shortcomings, I
cannot deny feeling infinite regret, as I attribute the whole outcome
to my inability in offering the valid grounds. May God reward his
house and all his friends with abundant blessedness for this tragic
accident. Desiring your further commands, I reaffirm myself, as ever,
Your Excellency's most obedient servant,
GIACINTO ARCANGELI.
ROME, _February 22, 1698_.
To the illustrious Signor, my most worshipful Signor and Patron,
Signor Advocate Francesco Cencini, Florence.
LETTERS
WRITTEN BY SIGNOR GASPERO DEL TORTO AND SIGNOR CARLO ANTONIO
UGOLINUCCI TO THE AFORESAID MONSIGNORE FRANCESCO CENCINI.
[Letter II.]
The proofs you send did not arrive in time, because to-day finally,
after so many disputes, the execution of poor Signor Guido has taken
place, he having been beheaded, while the four cut-throats have been
hanged. The case was decided Tuesday, but because it was a churchman
who had sinned, and because it was claimed that the death-sentence was
not in keeping therewith, a messenger was dispatched to Arezzo later
on to get proofs of it. But the Pope yesterday set his hand thereto,
and has decided the case, so that to-day it has so followed
completely. Now that the will of God has been fulfilled that he should
suffer such a punishment, it has at least been brought about, in view
of the arguments made in his defence, that he died the death of a
gallant man. For aside from the fact that he has died with exemplary
courage, he has also been pitied by all gallant men, and his house has
lost nothing in the matter of reputation. All Rome was there, as you
may well believe. And [the mistake] cannot be made good with such
speed as this may be written, because there have not been lacking
admonitions of greatest consequence, since the Ambassador of the
Emperor spoke of that point on Tuesday, as he himself told me day
before yesterday; and than the matter was settled precipitately.
I have finished the argument before the Congregation of the Council,
and at any time that Monsignor Secretary wishes to take it, I think we
shall be ready. I pray you favour me with those copies of the proof as
soon as possible. And if Canon Philippo does not give us the
opportunity, he should be good enough to acknowledge it to me that I
may think of other measures, wishing once for all to get out of this
imbroglio if it shall be possible. And finally, I remain with all
reverence, my most illustrious and most excellent Signor, Your humble
and obedient Servant,
GASPERO DEL TORTO.
ROME, _February 22, 1698_.
To the most illustrious and most excellent Signor, my dear Signor,
Signor Francesco Cencini, Florence.
[Letter III.]
My most illustrious and excellent Signor, my most worshipful Patron:
Tuesday this most unfortunate case was brought up and the Congregation
of the Governor decided--Delay and according to instructions. The
instructions were that they would await the proofs of the well-known
clericate. At this favourable decision the defence took heart and
Guido's good friends began to breathe again. Then last evening at
eight o'clock Monsignor signed of his own accord the warrant, in
denial of the clergyship which might be alleged and of the minority of
one of the accomplices. No sooner had he signed the warrant than the
news of it sped throughout the City, and with it the assurance of the
sentence, which has been executed to-day since dinner against the
five; that is, the loss of his head in the case of Signor Guido, and
the gallows for the other four accomplices. I will not tell your
Excellency my own grief, because you yourself will be able to be a
true witness of it. These proofs would have been of the greatest
relevancy, but not in this case, because Monsignor wished it so.
I enclose the Fisc's argument, except a single response, which I will
send to you as soon as I can lay hands on it, that your Excellency may
have the entire case.
Now that Signor Advocate del Corto has abandoned his own interests I
may serve your Excellency in the matrimonial case and in the other of
Gomez. Therefore I set myself to all that in order that I may serve
your Excellency, praying evermore your continual commands, that I may
ever be your Excellency's obedient servant,
CARLO ANTONIO UGOLINUCCI.
ROME, _February 22, 1698_.
[File-title of Pamphlet 17.]
_By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases, or by
the Most Excellent Lord Venturini._
_ROMAN LAWSUIT._
_For the Heir-beneficiary of the former Francesca
Pompilia, formerly wife of the former Guido
Franceschini, against the Fisc and
Associates in the Lawsuit._
_Memorial of Fact by the Honourable Procurator
of the Poor._
_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber_,
1698.
ROMANA
[PAMPHLET 17.]
Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lord:
In the contention most sharply and most learnedly carried on between
the Defenders of the Poor and the Fisc in the case of the murders
committed by persons led by Count Guido Franceschini against the
person of Francesca Pompilia his wife, and Pietro and Violante
Comparini, I refuse to descend into the arena, lest I may seem to fail
in the office which I discharge in common with the said Defenders. My
silent pity has delayed and let time slip by; because I believed it
would be to the prejudice of Guido and his fellows imprisoned for that
offence (in whose excuse the plea of injured honour is especially
strong) if I should wish to push the defence (which was committed to
me long ago) of the shame and honour of the same Francesca Pompilia;
for her tender mind has been stained by no infamy arising from impure
lust, and against her the suspicious husband could have made no
objection, unless wife-murder had followed, as if from this he wished
to prove the adultery merely because he could then kill his wife, and
he killed her that she might be believed to be an adulteress.
But now since the case has been most sadly terminated as regards all
of those imprisoned (for thus these things terminated which should not
have been begun) I begin anew the dispute over that most unfortunate
question, and assert most safely (both for the reasons fully given in
my argument for exclusion of the asserted rape, which is reassumed
gratuitously, and for those more fully gathered by his Honour, My Lord
Advocate of the Fisc, in his very learned allegations distributed in
both presentations of the case), first that the memory of the
aforesaid Francesca Pompilia should be utterly absolved from the crime
of adultery, which was unjustly and all too bitterly charged upon her
by her husband, and second that declaration should be made by a
definitive sentence that she has never violated her marriage vow. And
this is in spite of the fact that such insistence may seem
incongruous. For although all crimes cease with the death of the
criminal [Citations], nevertheless when a crime is atrocious, and of
such a nature that it involves in itself a brand of infamy, its memory
ever endures. And therefore it is worth while for the principal to
vindicate the fame of the authoress from the asserted crime of
adultery, etc. Pellegrini speaks as follows: "The thirteenth case is
when the heirs of one dead, for the purpose of purging him from the
infamy which works against him publicly on account of crime, wish that
[the court] take knowledge of the crime itself, for the purpose of
establishing his innocence, for this is conceded by law." And Bossius
asserts: "Note that even if death does utterly remove any further
penalty, yet the heirs of one who is dead may make a stand for his
fame and honour, in order that a declaration may be made about that
crime." And Caballus: "For although with the death of the delinquent,
a crime may be said to be extinct so far as his own person is
concerned, yet the heirs of the accused, in their own interest and to
wipe out the infamy of the one who is dead, may petition that the
court go on to give an opinion, and that it be declared that the dead
one had not committed crime." And he affirms the same under the
following number.
And indeed this is not without manifest reason. For just as the Fisc
may go further in the investigation of a crime that had been
perpetrated during the lifetime of the one now dead, even for the
purpose of damning his memory [Citations], likewise it cannot be
denied by the principal himself, as the beneficiary heir and successor
of the same Pompilia and Pietro Comparini, that inasmuch as her
innocence is evident he may insist upon carrying away a sentence of
absolution; for in other cases any one at all may have a chance to
defend one who is dead. [Citations.]
And to delay such a judgment it is not right that the flight again be
alleged, which the said Pompilia made in the company of Canon
Caponsacchi, with whom she was arrested at the inn of Castelnuovo. For
to remove that charge it is quite enough for one to allege the
judgment of this Most Illustrious Congregation, given under the date
of February 18, last past, against Guido Franceschini, because of
which he was publicly put to death on the twenty-second day following,
notwithstanding the fact that, to avoid the penalty of wife-murder, he
insisted solely upon the asserted adultery, which he claimed had
resulted from the aforesaid flight from home. All suspicion whatsoever
of her dishonesty ceases because of the defences then made and
because, in the very prosecution, there was apparent a very just
reason, on account of which the wretched wife attempted to flee thus
from the home of her husband. Nor was it for the purpose of satisfying
lust with the asserted lover, but that she might go back to her own
hearth, and there, with her parents, might live a safe and honest
life. This cause is very plainly proved by the notorious quarrels
which arose on account of the poverty of the domestic establishment
immediately after her arrival at the City of Arezzo along with Pietro
and Violante Comparini in execution of the agreement included in the
marriage-contract. And on account of this poverty the Comparini were
obliged, after a few months, to go back to the City, with no small
bitterness on account of the deception which they had detected. This
is evident from the letters of Abate Paolo Franceschini, which
presuppose these complaints that resulted from the said deception, and
especially from the letter written March 6, 1694: "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 my letters such words as would
well 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: "So that if you give trouble, which I will never
believe, you yourself will not be exempt therefrom." It is also
evident from the letters given in my past information, and especially
in § _Videns igitur_, with the one following. And although this does
not show the nature of the altercation, yet, since Abate Paolo has not
shown the letters written to himself, the presumption presses upon him
very strongly that the complaints were just and that the cause of
their quarrels and altercations was well founded. [Citations.]
It is also true that a very bitter lawsuit was brought by Pietro
Comparini for the nullification of the dowry contract and for the
proof of the pretence of birth, which had been made by Violante, the
mother, both to deceive her husband and to bar his creditors, who were
pressing him hard at the time. And since the dowry included all the
property and the entire patrimony of Comparini, which was of no small
value when we consider the rank of the persons concerned, controversy
had indeed been raised for a considerable amount by the father-in-law.
And this, as experience teaches from time to time, is accustomed to
bring forth implacable hatred and deadly enmity. [Citations.] It
produced indeed such an effect for this unfortunate wife, so that the
love of her husband, which had long been disturbed by the preceding
altercations, was finally quite extinct. And this was so to such an
extent that she often found herself exposed to deadly peril because of
the severity of her husband, who at times pursued her with abuse, and
again even with a pistol. And it cannot be questioned that such perils
are quite suited to strike fear even into any hardy man. [Citations.]
Hence it can be much more affirmed of Francesca Pompilia, a girl of
tender age, who was destitute of all aid, and away from her own home
and her parents. [Citations.] And Mogolon [Citation] declares that the
mere sight of arms, even if the one who has them does not use them nor
unsheath them, is just cause for fear; and in § 7, _No._ 15, he
considers the absence of relatives as a ground for fear. And D.
Rainaldi [Citation] says that it is enough if one sees signs or acts
of manifest desire, or such as are preparatory.
Therefore, since so many very relevant circumstances concur, on
account of which Pompilia was moved to desert her husband's bed by
flight, all suspicion whatsoever of dishonesty and of violated
conjugal faith is utterly removed. For whenever we have two causes,
one of which is lawful and permissible, while the other is iniquitous
and abominable, the former is to be fully received, and thereby the
charge of crime is quite excluded. [Citations.] [And this is true] in
spite of the fact that this lawful cause may seem to be excluded
[first] by the letter written by Francesca Pompilia to Abate Paolo.
For in the letter, after she had thanked Abate Paolo because he had
joined her in marriage with his brother, pretence is made that her
parents gave her the depraved counsel to destroy the entire home and
to go back to the City with her lover; [it also makes pretence] that
since their departure she was enjoying a quiet and tranquil life.
[Second] from the company of the Canon Giuseppe Caponsacchi, with whom
she had fled; because of which he was banished to Civita Vecchia for
three years.
For however it may be with the asserted letter, whether it is
substantiated or not, and whether or not the qualification should be
considered probable, which is added in her sworn testimony by the same
Pompilia, namely that her husband had marked the characters and she
had blackened them with ink by tracing them with a pen, because she
herself did not know how to write; yet it is certain that if the
letter be read attentively it will be absolutely impossible to assert
that she had written it with a calm mind. For who can be found so
unmindful of filial love and duty toward parents as to persuade
himself that this tender girl could have laid upon her parents such
detestable crimes? Because at the time she was not more than fourteen
years old, according to the certificate of baptism given in the
Summary of the Fisc, in the second setting forth of the cause, No. 2.
And she was away from her own home and still grieving for the very
recent departure of her parents, and was badly treated in the home of
her husband, as is clearly shown by the continual complaints and
recourse made not merely to the most reverend Bishop, but also to the
Lord-Commissioner of the city. Nor is it probable that she would have
informed her brother-in-law, who was so very unsympathetic toward her,
of these matters unless, as she has frankly confessed in her sworn
examination, she was compelled thereto by her husband. Nor without
very evident peril of death could she show any reluctance to him
because of his excessive severity, which she had very often felt
before. And as this improbability is well suited to strike horror into
those who read it, so likewise it very well shows that the letter was
not written voluntarily, but under compulsion. [Citations.] Caballus
asserts that what no sane mind would approve is inadmissible.
[Citation.] And indeed such excessive cunning in extorting the said
letter from the wife plainly proves Guido's craft, and the fact that
the letter was obtained by false pretence, in order that he might
quiet the mind of the same Abate, his brother. For the latter had been
harassed by continual complaints on account of ill treatment of the
wife, and had not ceased to criticise Guido daily for them.
[Citation.]
As to her association with Canon Caponsacchi, this likewise does not
seem enough to establish the blot of dishonour. For the most wretched
wife was utterly destitute of all earthly aid and had vainly entreated
the authority of the most reverend Bishop, and of the Lord-Comissioner,
to free her from deadly peril; and on account of her age and sex it
was not suitable that she should flee alone or in the company of some
low-born serving-woman, for in that way she would carelessly expose
herself to graver peril, as might have happened to her if she had been
overtaken while alone on the journey. For then it could be said of
her: "She fell upon Scylla while trying to avoid Charybdis." Therefore
we should not be surprised if she took the aforesaid Canon as a
companion. For he had been proposed to her by both Canon Conti and
Gregorio Guillichini, who were related to Pompilia's husband. And it
is utterly incredible that they would have consented to such a flight
if they had not known it was quite necessary to evade the peril of
death, which they very well knew was threatening the luckless wife,
and if they had not had strong faith in the honesty and integrity of
her companion. Therefore, as such a necessity was pressing so hard
upon her, her prudent choice of the lesser evil eliminates any shadow
whatsoever of her pretended dishonesty. [Citations.]
[This is especially true when we] consider the manner in which the
flight was executed, by taking the most direct road to the City with
the utmost possible speed. And it very well shows that the sole motive
was to save her life, and not to debase herself by licentious
delights. For if this latter had indeed been the principal cause, she
would not have gone to Rome by the shortest road, where she might
immediately be taken by her brother-in-law and her parents, but would
have gone to some more distant regions, or else she would not have
gone with such swiftness, but would have delayed out of the public
highway, and in a place where her husband could not find her, and
where she could fulfil to satiety her lust.
This utter improbability therefore very well shows the truth of the
cause for flight adduced by the wife in her sworn testimony--namely
that she had gone swiftly to the City in order that she might there
place her life and honour in safety in the home of her parents. For
just as the strongest sentence of blame may arise from mere
probability, so likewise no less presumption of innocence should arise
from this improbability. [Citations.]
And this is strongly urged by the frank protestation made in the very
act of arrest at the inn of Castelnuovo to the husband himself by the
Canon, who rebuked him concerning this flight: "I am a gallant man,
and what I have done, I have done to free your wife from the peril of
death." So testifies Jacopo, son of the former Simon, a witness for
the Fisc, in the prosecution for flight (page 50). And an example was
offered by me in my allegation as regards that flight, namely that of
Scipio Africanus. For when the beautiful young wife of Aleucius, the
chief of the Celtiberi, had been captured by Scipio's soldiers, he
said in restoring her to her husband: "Your wife has been with me as
she would be with her own parents. Her virtue has been preserved for
you so that she can be given back to you again, a gift unviolated and
worthy of me and you." Titus Livius bears witness to this in his
_Histories_, book 26, and page 493 in my volume.
And although it may be very difficult for a beautiful woman to
preserve the decorum of her honour while journeying in the company of
a young lover, yet it is not utterly impossible, as the examples seem
to show, which were related in my allegation, § _Quidqud dicat_. And
to these I add that of Penelope, of whom Ovid sings in book 3 of his
elegies [_Amores_, III., 4, 23]: "Although she lacked a guard,
Penelope continued chaste among so many suitors."
And this is especially true since neither the journey nor the company
of the Canon were voluntary, but were merely for the purpose of
avoiding the peril of death. And since such necessity was present, the
presumption drawn from Ovid's _Ars Amandi_ is rendered still further
inapplicable, namely that "From a passionate young man, can she be
believed to have returned a virgin?" [_Heroides_, 5, 129.]
Nor do the letters which were found in the closet of the inn at
Castelnuovo seem to stand in the way and hinder the sentence
petitioned, and impose a blot of infamy upon Francesca Pompilia. It is
claimed that these were written by her to the Canon on account of the
very devoted love with which she was pursuing him. But the exceptions
and responses made in the past informations hold good. The first is
that they were not acknowledged by her, nor was the identity of the
handwriting proved; and some uncertainty is still present, since it is
not evident to whom they were directed; nor would it be improbable
that they might have been framed by the husband. For he was present at
the capture and search, and hoped, indeed, that therefrom might result
more readily the fixing of the crime of adultery. And he insisted very
strongly upon this, in order that he might gain the desired dowry and
lucre. This mere possibility to the contrary is enough to avoid the
proof, which it is claimed may be drawn from them. [Citations.]
The second response is that, even though such exceptions as the above
might not hold good, yet no proof of violated conjugal faith and of
dishonour can be drawn from these letters. For even though proof of
adultery may result from love-letters, it is utterly excluded in our
case when we see that they were directed to a licit end, namely toward
soliciting the Canon that he might afford her aid in her flight and
that she might avoid deadly peril. For then, just as the end is
permissible, so should the means also be considered lawful and
permissible, even though suspicion is not lacking; for these should be
considered, not in themselves, but on account of their end.
[Citations.] But indeed, unless from the love-letters themselves there
result an implicit confession of fornication, proof of adultery cannot
be drawn from them. [Citations.]
It should be specially noted that she had very strong confidence in
her own continence and in the integrity of the Canon. And she trusted
him much, and hoped that he would conduct himself modestly during the
journey, since it is evident from these same letters that she had
found fault with him for his freedom once: "And I marvel, that you who
have been so chaste, have composed and copied matters that are so
dishonourable." And further on: "But I would not have you do in any
case as you have done in these books. The first of them is honourable,
but the other octaves are quite the contrary. I cannot believe that
you, who have been of such honour, have become so bold." For such
sincere objurgation and the very tenor of the letters in which no
dishonesty is read, clearly show and declare the spirit of Pompilia,
who wrote them. For just as words are to be understood according to
the thought of the one proffering them, so likewise should letters be
interpreted according to the intention of the one writing them.
[Citations.]
Since therefore the honour and modesty of Pompilia is vindicated from
the flight and the letters, of still lighter weight are the other
proofs of pretended dishonour. These are deduced from the approach of
the Canon to her home for the purpose of speaking to her; from the
insidious manner in which the flight was prepared and put into
execution, by means of an opiate administered to her husband and the
servants; from their mutual kisses on the journey; and from their
sleeping together at the inn of Castelnuovo. For beside the general
response that no conclusive proof is offered for all these, such as
would be necessary to establish Pompilia as guilty of adultery, there
is a separate response for each of them.
The entry and egress at night time into the home of Francesca rests
merely upon the deposition of a single witness, Maria Margherita
Contenti, who is under two very relevant exceptions: namely those of
singleness and of harlotry. Her word therefore can impose no blot of
infamy. [Citations.] And since such approach would tend toward the
single end of arranging for the flight and rescue of the unfortunate
wife from the very imminent peril of death, it should not be presumed
to be for an evil end. For when an express cause is plainly present,
to which a matter may be referred, and this cause is entirely lawful,
the matter should not be attributed to a cause that is illicit and
criminal. [Citation.]
The insidious manner, also, whereby Francesca Pompilia put into
execution the flight, by preparing an opiate for her husband and all
the household (aside from the fact that it is not proved), would
afford proof of sagacity rather than of dishonour, even if it were
proved. For the wife would have been very foolish if she had attempted
flight without such a precaution.
Under the same lack of proof labours the asserted mutual kissing
during the journey; for that proof is entirely too slight, which is
pretended to result from the deposition of a single witness of the
lowest class. Especially since his word is shown to be too much
prejudiced; for he swears that, while he was driving the carriage
swiftly at night time, he saw Francesca Pompilia and the Canon kissing
each other. Nor does he give any reason, as that the moon was shining,
or that some artificial light was present to dispel the darkness.
Inasmuch as such a detail is necessary in a witness who is testifying
about a deed at night time, its omission takes away all confidence in
him. [Citations.] For there is to be added another very strong
improbability, namely that, while he was driving the carriage with
such velocity that it seemed to fly rather than to run, he could see
their mutual kissing by looking backward. Still more is this
improbability increased by the very word of this same witness, since
he swears that he had driven Pompilia without knowing that it was she,
until afterward returning to Arezzo, he had met Guido Franceschini,
her husband, following her. Because if he had seen her kiss, he would
have recognised her straightway, since he had often seen her before
and she was well known to him. And therefore it should be absolutely
declared that, either influenced by the tedium of his secret prison,
he had been compelled to swear so, or, as is more probable, since on
account of the very great speed of the carriage the bumping together
of those seated therein might chance, he had believed that this chance
jostling of their heads and faces was for the base purpose of kissing.
Hence the proof arising from his deposition was justly held in
contempt in the prosecution for flight. And it would have been
considered if it had had any probability.
Finally the proof of dishonour drawn from the asserted sleeping
together in the same tavern at Castelnuovo is far weaker, since it was
constantly denied by both Pompilia and Caponsacchi in their testimony.
And only a single witness, the house-man of the same tavern, swears to
it; and this also not from certain knowledge, but presumptively,
because they had asked him for a room with a single bed. Canon
Caponsacchi frankly confesses why he had ordered that only a single
bed should be prepared--namely that Francesca Pompilia, who was worn
out because of ill-health and the discomfort of their precipitate
journey, might rest a little, while he himself kept guard. Such an act
should not be assigned to an illicit cause, as Cravetta [Citation]
advises in such circumstances. And in No. 15, he says that
interpretation should always incline to the humaner side, even when
the rigorous side may seem the more likely. And the same author
continues thus in _Nos._ 20 _and_ 21. For it would not suffice as a
full proof of adultery that any one be found alone and naked with her
alone and naked, and that a young man be found unclothed and with
shoes off in a closed chamber with a woman. Much less can such proof
arise from a very brief delay in the same chamber for the purpose of
keeping watch.
Very slightly does it stand in the way that Francesca Pompilia, in her
cross-examination, concealed this delay by asserting that she had
arrived at the tavern at dawn. For she was very well aware of the
credulousness of her husband, and possibly asserted this to avert
further suspicion of violated honour, which certainly might have
arisen if she had confessed that she had spent a longer time in the
tavern. As even if she had not denied such a stay, the confession
under circumstances that still argue for the preservation of her
modesty would not have been to her prejudice, so likewise the lie can
do no injury. [Citations.]
But all suspicion of pretended dishonour is quite eliminated by the
assertion of the most unfortunate woman, which was made in the very
face of death, after many severe wounds had been inflicted upon her by
her husband. [For she declared that] she had never sinned against her
marriage vow, as is very evident from the numerous depositions of
religious men, who ministered to her in death. They assert that they
heard her continually praying that she might be given no forgiveness
by the Divine Clemency for such a sin. This assertion made in the very
face of death, deserves all faith, since no one placed in that
condition is presumed to be so unmindful of eternal safety as to be
willing to lie. [Citations.]
Finally, no foundation for accusing the memory of Francesca Pompilia
of dishonesty can be established upon the asserted decree of this most
Illustrious Congregation, by whom Canon Caponsacchi was condemned to
three years' banishment in Civita Vecchia, with a statement made of
his running away and criminal knowledge of Francesca Pompilia. For, as
the Fisc himself admits, there was demanded by me, though not _in
extenso_, the modification of that title by the honourable Judges,
with the approval of his Excellency the Governor. And therefore, in
the order for imprisonment, these words were suppressed and others
were put in their place: _Pro causa de qua in actis_.
All further difficulty is removed from the mere consideration that
such a decree had been issued, while no defences had been made for
Francesca Pompilia, and while she was still utterly without a hearing.
For she had not the slightest knowledge of it, since she had not been
notified. But in the decree for the assignment of the home as a
prison, only a cause relative to the trial was expressed. Hence it
could not injure her, since it was issued against a third party while
she herself had not been cited. [Citations.] And in the circumstances
that a sentence given against an adulterer can do no injury to the
adulteress when she has not been cited is the text. [Citations.] "If
he is condemned, the wife is not condemned thereby, but shall carry on
her own case." [Citation.]
This is especially true since we are not now contending to free the
husband from wife-murder, and to infer a just cause apart from belief
in the dishonour of the wife resulting from the said decree, and which
would excuse him from the penalty of the Cornelian law. In this case,
the changing of the said decree might possibly serve for an escape.
But we are contending about the damning of the memory of a woman now
dead, and about rescuing her and her family from infamy. And in the
latter case just as such a harsh decree could not injure her during
her lifetime, so likewise it cannot do her injury after her death.
ANTONIO LAMPARELLI, _Procurator of Charity_.
[in old writing.]
And according to the letter of Carolo Antonio Ugolinucci, May 17,
1698, I understand that the Criminal Court after two votes, decided on
absolution.
INSTRUMENT OF FINAL JUDGMENT
[PAMPHLET 18.]
Given for the restoration of the good name and reputation of Francesca
Pompilia, now dead; formerly the wife of Guido Franceschini of Arezzo,
now dead; for acquittal in favour of Domenico Tighetti, as an heir
beneficiary of the same Francesca Pompilia, from all disquietude, all
molestations, vexations, and perturbations, brought or threatened to
be brought by the Venerable Monastery of Saint Mary Magdalene of the
Convertites in the Corso; together with the citations lawfully
executed in observation of the four terms to instruct themselves as to
the appeal and its legal prosecution, in order that the same sentence
might pass on, as it has passed on, to judgment, because no appeal has
been interposed.
In the name of God, Amen.
September 9, 1698, under the sixth declaration in the eighth year of
the Pontificate of the Most Sacred Father in Christ, etc., Innocent
XII., Pope by Divine Providence. This is a copy, or transcript, of the
citations made by my own act, and written below, and of the sentence
rendered respectively of the following tenor, namely:
The Most Reverend and Most Illustrious Governor in criminal matters:
Let the undernamed principals on the other side be cited, etc., to
appear in the Criminal Court to-morrow, which will be the nineteenth
day of the current month, at the accustomed hour of convening court,
lest it seem good that each and all the terms be repeated as ill
founded, and that they therefore are to be held and observed as null
and void in their force for any powers whatsoever, and lest the one so
insisting be freed from censures, so far as, etc., it be concluded, or
seem best to be concluded in the case, and that the final sentence be
heard in due form according to the aforesaid insistence by Domenico
Tighetti, heir-beneficiary of the former Francesca Pompilia, the wife
of the former Guido Franceschini, as principal, or, etc.
NOTARY FOR THE POOR.
The Most Illustrious Francesco de Gambi, Procurator General of
the Fisc, and of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber.
The Honourable Giovanni Maria Serbucci, Procurator and Manager
of the lawsuit brought by the former Guido Franceschini.
The Honourable Francesco Paracciani, Procurator of the
Venerable Monastery Santa Maria Magdalena of the Convertites in
the Corso.
Against the Procurator General of the Fisc, etc. He says that no
sentence can be given, unless in favour of the Fisc, and so far as,
etc., insists that he be granted delay for the purpose, and in the
meantime they cannot go on to any expediting of the cause, except for
reason given in full court, and by the vote of the Lords thereof, and
by testimony of the opposition in prison, and without citing all who
have interest, etc., this 18th day of August, 1698.
FRANCESCO GAMBI, _Procurator General of the Fisc_.
I have made the above citation against the Fisc personally this day,
and against the others by copy, which was sent to their homes, this
August 18, 1698.
BALATRESIUS.
ALOYSIUS PICHIUS, _Substitute for the Fiscal General_.
_August 19, 1698._
When he had made statement of fact, Antonio Lamparelli, Procurator,
presented his case and petitioned as above. Thereupon the Most
Illustrious and Most Excellent Lord, Marcus Antonius Venturinus,
J.V.D., who holds the judicial bench, for the Most Illustrious and
Most Reverend Governor of our dear City in criminal cases, gave
sentence, as in this schedule, which he has taken in his own hands,
has seen, read, and subscribed, and given and consigned to me as a
notary for publication of the following tenor, etc., in the presence
of Antonio Bernardino Piceno and Antonio Toparino of Caprarola,
witnesses, etc.
In favour of Domenico Tighetti, in the name, etc., against the Fisc
and those consorting with him in the suit.
In the name of Christ, whom we have invoked, we who sit for this
Tribunal, and who have only God before our eyes, give this as our
definitive sentence, which we offer in these writings by the advice of
those skilled in law, in the cause or causes which have been tried
before ourselves in the first place, or in the second, and which are
now being considered, between Domenico Tighetti, as heir-beneficiary
of the former Francesca Pompilia, wife of the former Guido
Franceschini of Arezzo, on the one part; and the Fisc and Giovanni
Maria Serbucci as Procurator and Manager of the lawsuit of the former
Guido Franceschini, and Francesco Paracciani, Procurator of the
Monastery of Santa Maria Magdalena of the Convertites in the Corso,
for all their rights and parts in that interest, on the other part;
concerning and upon the pretended adultery committed by the said
former Francesca Pompilia with Canon Giuseppe Maria Caponsacchi, and
as regards other matters in the conduct of the cause or causes of this
kind, more fully deduced, etc. By authority of the decree for the
remission of the case, which was made by the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Auditor S.S., by the acts of Pascasius, concerning which in
the conduct, etc., and for cause given in the Court, and by vote of
the same, we say, pronounce, declare, and finally adjudge from what
has been newly deduced, that _proof is not established as regards the
pretended adultery_, and therefore the memory of the same Francesca
Pompilia should be and is _entirely_ restored to her pristine good
name and reputation; and that the same Domenico Tighetti, in whose
name the above was deduced, should be and is absolved and liberated
from each and all disquietudes, molestations, vexations, and
perturbations brought, or threatened to be brought, by occasion of
these as on account of the statement of these we have restored,
absolved, and freed him, as above. And for this restitution and
absolution and freedom, we wish and command that it be held as law
that the suit or suits, of whatever nature, which have been brought
thereupon be abolished, as we abolish them. And we charge that
perpetual silence be imposed upon the Fisc and his consorts in the
suit. And we have thus spoken, pronounced, declared, and finally given
sentence, not only, etc.
I, Marcus Antonius Venturinus, who hold the judicial bench have so
pronounced.
Given on this 19th day of August, in the presence of Antonio
Bernardino Piceno, and Antonio Toparino of Caprarola, Witnesses, etc.
By the Most Illustrious Governor of the City in criminal cases,
or the Most Excellent Lord Venturini.
Let the undernamed be cited for learning the appeal, and its lawful
prosecution for the first time, at the aforesaid instance of Domenico
Tighetti, as principal heir-beneficiary of the aforesaid Francesca
Pompilia, formerly wife of Guido Franceschini:
CHARITAS.
The Honourable Giovanni Maria Serbucci, as Procurator and
Manager of the legal proceedings of the said former Guido
Franceschini, as principal on the other side.
The Honourable Francesco Paracciani, the Procurator of the
Venerable Monastery and Convent of St. Mary Magdalene of the
Convertites in the Corso for all, etc.
I have made the said citation at his home, August 31, 1698.
MOLINELLUS.
_September 1, 1698._
When we had made statement of fact, R. D. Alexander Cassar, Substitute
Procurator of Charity, appeared, petitioned, and was granted, as
above.
By the Most Illustrious Governor of the City in criminal causes,
or by the Most Excellent Lord Venturini.
Let those named below be cited for learning of the appeal and its
legitimate prosecution this second time, at the aforesaid instance of
Domenico Tighetti, heir-beneficiary of the former Francesca Pompilia,
formerly wife of the former Guido Franceschini, principal, or, etc.
CHARITAS.
D. Giovanni Maria Serbucci, as Procurator and Manager of the
lawsuit brought by the former Guido Franceschini, as the
principal on the other side.
D. Francesco Paracciani, Procurator on the other side for the
Venerable Monastery and Convent of St. Mary Magdalene of the
Convertites in the Corso, for all, etc.
September 1, 1698, I have made this.
MOLINELLUS.
By the Most Illustrious Governor in criminal causes, or by the
Most Excellent Lord Venturini.
September 3. When he had made statement of fact, R. D. Alexander
Cassar, Substitute Procurator of the Poor, appeared, petitioned, and
was granted, as above.
Let those named below, be cited for learning of the appeal and its
lawful prosecution, this third time, at the aforesaid instance of
Domenico Tighetti, heir-beneficiary of the former Francesca Pompilia,
wife of the former Guido Franceschini, as principal, or, etc.
CHARITAS.
D. Giovanni Maria Serbucci, as Procurator and Manager of the
lawsuit brought by the former Guido Franceschini, as principal
on the other side.
D. Francesco Paracciani, Procurator of the other side for the
Venerable Monastery and Convent of Santa Maria Magdalena of the
Convertites in the Corso, for all, etc.
I made this September 3, 1698.
MOLINELLUS.
SEPTEMBER 4, 1698.
When he had made statement of fact, R. D. Alexander Cassar, Substitute
Procurator of the Poor, appeared, petitioned, and was granted as
above.
By the Governor in criminal causes, or the Most Excellent Lord
Venturini.
Let those named below be cited for learning of the appeal and its
lawful prosecution, this fourth time, and of the final presentation,
and the decree, etc., at the aforesaid instance of Domenico Tighetti,
heir-beneficiary of the former Francesca Pompilia, formerly wife of
the former Guido Franceschini, as principal, or, etc.
CHARITAS.
D. Giovanni Maria Serbucci, as Procurator and Manager of the
lawsuit brought by the former Guido Franceschini as principal
on the other side.
D. Francesco Paracciani, as Procurator of the Venerable
Monastery and Convent of Santa Maria Magdalena in the Corso,
for all, etc.
I have done this, September 4, 1698
BALATRESIUS.
_September 5, 1698._
When he had made statement of fact, R. D. Alexander Cassar, Substitute
Procurator of the Poor, appeared, petitioned, and was granted, as
above.
I, Domenico Barlocci, Notary of the Court of Criminal Causes of the
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Governor of the City, as Notary for
the Poor, have found this copy correct by collating it, although it
was extracted from the original documents by one who is trustworthy in
my eyes, etc. In pledge of the above, I have subscribed and have
published it, as I am required to do.
[The seal of the said Notary.]
THE SECONDARY SOURCE
OF
THE RING AND THE BOOK
A CONTEMPORARY MANUSCRIPT PAMPHLET
"The following pages contain a MS. contemporaneous account of the
execution of the principal actors in the tragedy which has been
immortalised in the poem of the _Ring and the Book_.
"I am enabled by the kindness of my friend, Mr. Browning, to give it a
place in these Miscellanies of the Philobiblion Society."
JOHN SIMEON.
(I shall not attempt to say with what a feeling I correct proof-sheets
received on the day subsequent to that which brought the intelligence
of the death of this great-hearted and noble-minded man,
characteristically good and gracious to the very last.)
R. B., May 24, 1870.
The above words are the introduction by Sir John Simeon and the
comment by the poet (Philobiblion Society Miscellanies, xii. 1868-9),
on the reprint of the subsequent pamphlet in the original Italian.
It was found in London by one of Browning's acquaintances, who,
knowing the poet's interest in the subject, sent it to him. Internal
evidence indicates that it was probably written (but not published)
some few years after the crime, and it is more popular in style than
any part of _The Book_. The writer during the first half of his
pamphlet follows closely the affidavit of Pompilia and the second
anonymous pamphlet [No. 15] of _The Book_. He then adds much
interesting information as to the murder and the pursuit, arrest,
trial, and execution of the criminals. Browning uses almost every
scrap of additional information it affords. He accepts its fact with
the same fidelity he shows in using _The Book_, and uses it
extensively and without discounting its value as compared with the
official record. It is therefore treated as an essential portion of
the present source-study. Its new matter will be indicated by italics
in the following translation.
Mrs. Orr has published somewhat less than half of the pamphlet in her
_Handbook_ in translation, which has been reprinted in the Camberwell
Browning, and in the _Browning Guide Book_ by G. W. Cook. The present
version is made directly from the Italian text of the Philobiblion
Society reprint.
THE DEATH OF THE WIFE-MURDERER GUIDO FRANCESCHINI, BY BEHEADING
Guido Franceschini, a nobleman of Arezzo, in Tuscany, had stayed for
some time here in Rome in the service of a person of some eminence. He
decided to take a wife with dowry enough to be of advantage to his own
house. When he had revealed this desire to a certain hairdresser _near
the Piazza Colonna_, she proposed to him the Signora Francesca
Pompilia, thirteen years of age, the daughter of a certain Pietro
Comparini and Violante Peruzzi. For beside the promised dowry, she was
heir to the reversionary interest in bonds and other properties worth
about 12,000 scudi. When he had heard of this advantageous dowry,
which seemed to him to be quite to his point, he lost no time in
revealing it to his brother Abate Paolo, who had dwelt here in Rome
for many years in the service of a Cardinal. He went along with Guido
to the mother of the young woman, as they flattered themselves that
they would succeed better in this way than by demanding her of the
father, who was somewhat hard to approach. When they had made it
appear that their income was of considerable amount, they succeeded in
their intent; although it was then found out that their entire capital
did not amount to the total of their income as given in that note.
It was easy for Franceschini to win over this woman, as _she was
driven by the ambition of establishing her daughter in the home of
persons of good birth_. She gave her own consent, and so worked upon
her husband as to induce him to sign the marriage bond. Then when
Comparini had been informed by a person who knew the resources of
Franceschini, that they were quite different from what they had been
represented to him, he changed his mind, nor did he wish under any
consideration to carry out the marriage. _He gave as a pretext the
very tender age of his daughter_, along with other reasons. The mother
of Francesca, however, not seeing any chance to give her daughter to
Franceschini, had her secretly _married during December_, 1693, _in
San Lorenzo in Lucina_.
When this marriage reached the ears of Comparini, he was much angered
at Violante. But she had such a gift of gab that Comparini not only
agreed to it, but beside the dowry of 2,600 scudi, _on which he had
already paid 700 scudi, he also made gift of his entire
possessions to the couple_.
After several days, Franceschini decided to conduct his wife and her
parents back to Arezzo, _and this took place in the same December_.
When they had arrived there, the parents of the wife could see that
the state of their son-in-law was much worse than they had imagined
it. Therefore they were all the more embittered at the penuriousness
they showed in the food, and many other matters. _One morning while
they were at the table they heard their daughter_ [Violante according
to _The Book_] _denied fire for warming her bed_, and saw the
Franceschini practise many other cruelties toward her. They were much
troubled at it, and _all the more so when they saw a Canon of the
Franceschini household, a brother of the husband, rush upon their
daughter_ [Violante according to _The Book_]. _He struck Francesca
with a dagger in his hand, who had to make her escape by running into
a room and shutting the door. Then one evening her father went to
visit a friend, and when he had come back home he found the door shut.
Therefore his daughter, who was still awake, was obliged to go
downstairs to open it for him, but not without first having called her
husband, who never even opened an eye. Then when she had gone down to
open the door and had gone outside a few steps to meet her father, all
of a sudden she found herself shut outside the house along with her
father. For that reason they were both of them obliged to sleep
outside of the house that night, her father at the inn and the
daughter at one of the neighbours._ Therefore, more and more, as the
days passed, the Comparini decided to return to Rome. But as they were
without money they were obliged to beg it of Franceschini, who
_scarcely gave them the necessary expenses of the journey_.
When the old Comparini had departed, Franceschini thought to hide what
had happened. He constrained his wife to write to Rome to the Abate,
his brother, to tell him that she cherished in her heart his memory.
This letter was dictated by the husband himself. The ignorant girl did
as Guido wished, whose purpose was to have it believed that his
parents-in-law were the fomentors of the dissension which prevailed
between the couple and the relatives of Franceschini.
When the Comparini had reached Rome, ill-contented as they were with
the house of their son-in-law, for whom they now saw they had
sacrificed their daughter, they did not know how to hold their peace
about that matter, of which they themselves had been the cause. All
the more so when they were harassed for the remainder of the dowry,
beside the fact that they saw the rest of their property in danger.
While affairs were in this state a Jubilee was announced; under these
circumstances Violante Comparini revealed in confession that Francesca
Pompilia, who was married to Franceschini, was not their daughter, but
that the birth had been pretended. She had in fact been born of a
_poor widow, a foreigner_, and had then been adopted to bring it about
that the reversionary interest would fall to their house, and hence to
make good the many debts of her husband. _When the confessor heard
this, he charged her to reveal all the affair to her husband himself.
Violante obeyed, and Comparini was greatly surprised at it, and
rebuked his wife sharply._ He then submitted the matter to judgment
before Monsignor Tomati; the following was spoken in sentence: It
should be maintained that Francesca Pompilia shall be and is in
quasi-possession of her relationship as daughter. Therefore appeal was
taken by Comparini to the Tribunal of the Sacred Rota, but the suit
still remains undecided. In the meantime the Franceschini, seeing that
they had been deluded by this circumstance, since they could not get
possession of the residue of the dowry, redoubled their cruelties to
the poor Pompilia even to the point of threatening her with death.
Hence she was very often obliged to save herself by fleeing into some
other house, or before the authorities, or even into the presence of
the Bishop, _whom she finally begged to save her by putting her in
some monastery_. But this prelate thought it better to send her back
to her husband's home, urging him not to mistreat her.
When the unfortunate woman saw that the admonitions of this Bishop had
been useless, and that this way of softening the heart of her husband
and his relatives had proved vain, and when they reproved her for
sterility and for coquetry, and for other faults of their own
imagining, she betook herself to an Augustinian, Romano, that he might
write to his Superiors or to her parents to find some provision for
her. But although the Father promised to do as she desired, his
letters never reached their destination. The wretched woman was
therefore desperate and determined to get to Rome in some manner or
other. She told the whole matter to Canon Conti, a relative of the
Franceschini, to whom she made a most pathetic picture of her
situation. He was moved thereby, and answered that he would aid her,
as he did, by offering to have her taken to Rome by Canon
Caponsacchi, his friend, since he himself ought not and could not do
it. When the circumstances had been told to Caponsacchi, he was
opposed to it, for fear of incurring the anger of the Franceschini;
but when he had been urged both by Conti and the woman, he consented
thereto. And on the last Monday of April the wife arose from bed as
soon as day dawned, without her husband knowing about it. She took
some things of her own, some jewels, and money, left the house, and at
the gate of the city found Caponsacchi, who was awaiting her with a
carriage. They mounted together and set out on the road toward Rome.
When Franceschini awoke and discovered the flight of his wife, as he
already suspected that she had started for Rome, he began to pursue
her, and on the following Tuesday [should be Wednesday] overtook her
at Castelnuovo in the post-house, where she was in company with
Caponsacchi. The young woman was not at all terrified at the sight of
her husband, but on the contrary she mustered her courage and reproved
him for all the cruelties practised upon her, because of which she had
been forced to this step. Then Franceschini was thunderstruck, and did
not know how or what to respond. Hence he thought it best to have
recourse to the authorities. The fugitives were arrested by the
Governor of the place, and both of them were taken to Rome and placed
in the New Prisons, and were charged with adultery because they had
run away together. He tried to prove the charge by certain
love-letters which had been found, and by the deposition of the
driver. But as the adultery was not proved, the Canon was condemned
for three years to Civita Vecchia, and the wife was shut into the
monastery of the Scalette on the Lungara.
When the husband therefore saw that this had not helped him in gaining
the dowry, he decided to go back to his own country, leaving the care
of his case in the hands of his brother, the Abate, who was in the
service of a Cardinal. But although the Abate tried by many a turn to
succeed in his intent before the tribunals, he could not achieve it.
Hence he also decided to leave Rome. And he was spurred all the more
by its becoming known that his sister Pompilia was with child. For
this reason, the Governor of Rome had constrained him to consent that
she should keep her own home as a prison, under security of 300 scudi
to present herself at every demand of the Tribunal. The Abate indeed
was unwilling to give his consent unless Pietro Comparini should first
assume obligation, by an official document, to furnish her with food.
_And then, when he had obtained the permission of his Cardinal, he
sold his furniture and books_, and when he had made them pay over the
47 scudi which had been found upon Pompilia at Castelnuovo, he left
Rome. After that Pompilia bore a son, _whom she named Gaetano, after
the saint to whom she made her vows_.
Franceschini, who was now overwhelmed with manifold troubles, and was
urged on now by honour and again by self-interest to take vengeance,
at last yielded to his base thoughts and planned to kill his
sixteen-year-old wife and her parents. When four other criminals had
been admitted to the scheme, he left Arezzo, _and on Christmas eve
reached Rome. He stopped at Ponte Milvio, where there was a villa of
his brother. There he remained in hiding with his followers until a
time opportune for the execution of his designs should come._
They spied out all the ways of the Comparini family, and on January 2,
_which was Thursday_, at about seven o'clock in the evening, he
approached the Comparini home with his companions. He left on guard at
the street door Biagio Agostinelli and Domenico Gambassini, and
knocked at the door. When he had said that he brought a letter of
Canon Caponsacchi from Civita Vecchia the door was opened to him.
Immediately this cut-throat Franceschini, assisted by the other two
criminals, leaped upon Violante who had opened it and struck her dead
to the ground. Pompilia in this crisis extinguished the light, hoping
thus to escape the assassins, _and ran to the neighbouring door of a
locksmith crying out for help. But when she saw that Franceschini was
provided with a lantern she went to hide under the bed_; but she was
dragged from there, and was barbarously slain _with 22 wounds_ by the
hand of her husband. Not content with that, he dragged her to the feet
of Comparini, who was likewise wounded by one of the other assassins,
_and was crying out_ "_confession_."
_When the uproar of this horrible slaughter was heard abroad, people
ran thither, but the criminals succeeded in escaping. But in their
haste one of them left his cloak, and Franceschini his cap, which
betrayed him afterward._ The unfortunate Francesca Pompilia, under the
burden of such wounds as those with which she had been cut to pieces,
_implored the Holy Virgin for the favour of confession, and obtained
her prayer_. Hence she survived some little while, and _was able to
tell about this horrible crime. She told that after the deed was done
her husband had asked of one of the cut-throats who had done the
murder with him, if she were indeed dead. When that one had assured
him, he replied: "Let us lose no time, but return to the vineyard."_
And so they made their escape. _In the meantime the police had been
summoned, and came with a captain. A confessor was quickly called and
also a surgeon who gave his attention to the luckless girl._
When the Governor had been informed of the outcome, he _immediately
despatched Captain Patrizi_ to arrest the criminals. _When the posse
arrived at the vineyard, he found that these were no longer there, but
that about an hour ago they had left in the direction of the highway.
Then Patrizi followed without interrupting his journey, and when he
had reached the inn he learned from the host that Franceschini had
demanded horses with threat of violence, but they had been denied him,
because he lacked the necessary order._ Hence he had travelled afoot
with his companions toward Baccano. _Patrizi continued his march, and,
after taking the necessary precautions_, arrived at the tavern of
Merluzza. There he found the assassins, who were straightway arrested.
On them were found, still stained with blood, those daggers with which
they had done the murders, and _upon Franceschini were found 150 scudi
in money. This arrest indeed cost the life of Patrizi, because having
been overheated and wounded with a slight scratch he died in a few
days._
_Franceschini's dagger was of a Genoese pattern, triangular, and with
certain hooks made in such a way that in wounding they could not be
drawn from the wound without such laceration as to render the wound
incurable._
_When the criminals were known to be at Ponte Milvio, in that very inn
they were heard on their preliminary examinations by notaries and
judges sent there expressly, and satisfactory confession was had._
_When the capture of the delinquents was known in Rome, a countless
throng of people rushed thither to see them, while all the criminals
were tied to their horses and conducted to Rome. It is told that
Franceschini, while making the journey, asked one of the officers how
in the world the crime had ever been discovered. And when he was
answered that his wife, whom they had found still living, had revealed
it, he was so astounded that he was, as it were, deprived of his
senses. About five o'clock in the evening they reached the prisons. A
certain Francesco Pasquini, of the town of Castello, and Alessandro
Baldeschi of the same town, both of them 22 years old, along with
Guido Franceschini had been the slayers of the Comparini. And
Gambassini and Agostinelli were those who had stood guard at the
street door._
_In the meantime there were exposed in San Lorenzo, in Lucina the
bodies of the assassinated Comparini, who were so disfigured, and
especially the wife of Franceschini, by wounds in the face that they
were no longer recognisable._ The unfortunate Francesca, when she had
taken sacrament and had pardoned her murderers, and had made her own
will, died, not yet having completed her seventeenth year. This was on
the 6th, which was the day of the Epiphany. She was able to justify
herself against all the calumnies inflicted by her husband. _The
surprise of the people at seeing the said bodies was great, because of
the atrocity of the deed, which truly made them shudder_, seeing that
two old septuagenarians and a young girl of 17 years had so wretchedly
perished.
As the trial of the criminals advanced, there were many arguments made
on the matter, laying stress on all the more aggravating circumstances
which accompanied this horrible massacre. Others also were made in the
defence with much erudition, especially by the Advocate of the Poor,
who was a certain Monsignor Spreti. He succeeded in delaying the
sentence, because Baldeschi made denial, even though "the cord" was
administered to him twice, under which he swooned. Finally he
confessed, and the others did likewise. _They also revealed that they
had planned to kill Franceschini himself, and to rob him of his money,
because he had not kept his word to pay them as soon as they left
Rome._
On February 22 was seen _in the Piazza del Popolo a great platform
with mannaia, and two great gallows, which had been built for the
execution of the criminals. Many stands were constructed for the
accommodation of those curious to see such a terrible execution, and
so great was the concourse of people that some windows brought as much
as six dollars each. At the eighth hour [2 a.m.] Franceschini and his
companions were informed of their death and were placed in the
Consorteria. There they were assisted by Abate Panciatichi and
Cardinal Acciajoli, nor did they delay in preparing themselves to die
well. At the 20th hour [2 p.m.] the Company of Death and of Pity
arrived at the Prisons. The condemned were made to go downstairs, and
were placed upon separate carts to be drawn to the place of
execution._
_The first to mount the cart was Agostinelli, the second Gambassini,
the third Pasquini, the fourth Baldeschi, and the fifth Franceschini,
who showed more intrepidity and composure than the others, to the
wonder of all._
_They left the Prison and followed the Pilgrims Street, the Street_
_of the Governor, of Pasquini, Piazza Navona, the Pantheon, Piazza
Colonna, and the Corso._
_The first who was executed was Agostinelli, the second Gambassini,
the third Pasquini, the fourth Baldeschi, and the last Franceschini.
When the last-named had mounted the platform, he asked pardon for his
sins, and begged them to pray for his soul, adding that they should
say a Pater, an Ave, and Salve Regina for him. When he had made the
confessor announce that he was reconciled, he adjusted his neck upon
mannaia and, with the name of Jesus on his lips, he was beheaded. The
head was then shown to the people by the executioner._
_Franceschini was low of stature, thin and pallid, with prominent
nose, black hair and a heavy beard, and was_ fifty years of age. _He
wore the same garb as when he committed the crime--that is a coat of
brown cloth, black shirt, a vest of goatshair, a white hat and cotton
cap; clothed presumably as he had been when he had set out from
Arezzo._
The execution took place during the _Pontificate of Innocent XII._, in
1698.
TRIAL AND DEATH OF
FRANCESCHINI AND HIS COMPANIONS
FOR THE
MURDER OF COMPARINI, HIS WIFE, AND DAUGHTER
WHICH HAPPENED DURING THE TIME OF INNOCENT XII.
EDITORIAL NOTE
The following additional account of the Franceschini murder case was
discovered a few years ago in the Royal Casanatense Library, Rome
(Misc. MS. 2037), in a volume entitled _Varii successi curiosi e degni
di esser considerate_, containing thirteen pamphlets by various
authors, most of them concerning famous criminal trials, from Rome of
the seventeenth century. The volume is in a hand of the early
eighteenth century, and contains an endorsement to the effect that a
copy was made from it in 1746. The Franceschini murder is the subject
of the tenth narrative of the volume. Internal evidences indicate that
it was written somewhat later than the secondary source pamphlet, by
one who has considerable knowledge of the crime and whose attitude of
mind shows him to have been a priest. It presents a better story and a
fuller account of the motives of the actors, especially those of Abate
Paolo and Violante, together with a number of additional matters of
fact not contained in _The Book_. It never fell in Browning's way, and
hence has no immediate source-relation to the poem, but it does prove
in some cases the accuracy of Browning's conjectures of unknown facts
when definite data failed him.
The pamphlet was printed in translation by W. Hall Griffin in the
_Monthly Review_, November 1900. The present version has been made by
the editor from a transcript of the original Italian executed by a
friend in Rome.--C.W.H.
TRIAL AND DEATH OF FRANCESCHINI AND
HIS COMPANIONS
FOR THE
MURDER OF COMPARINI, HIS WIFE,
AND DAUGHTER
WHICH HAPPENED DURING THE TIME OF
INNOCENT XII.
The Abate Franceschini, born in Arezzo, Tuscany, of a family which was
noble, but poor of estate, having the cleverness to advance his own
fortunes, proceeded to the city of Rome, and was admitted by Cardinal
Lauria into his household as Secretary of the Embassy. His inherent
mental aptness won for him the favour of the Cardinal, who was held in
great esteem in the Sacred College by reason of his learning, and who
stood so high that he might well have aspired to the Papal Chair. In
this lucky juncture, Abate Paolo, wishing to take advantage of his
good fortune, thought to provide a wife for his brother Guido and to
recoup his family fortunes by a rich dowry. Guido had served Cardinal
Nerli in the same capacity, as Secretary of the Embassy; but either
because he had not the good luck or the ability of his brother he left
that service. Although Paolo knew that the idle state of his brother
would be hurtful to his claims of dowry, he did not cease aspiring to
a very advantageous one, flattering himself that his own distinction
might make up for the shortcomings of his brother.
Now Guido had reached full maturity, was of weak temperament, ordinary
in appearance, of a disposition more gloomy than pleasant, and,
moreover, was of scant means. Hence, unless Abate Paolo should use his
own influence, he could have little expectation for Guido. After
having attempted several alliances of high rank, Paolo fixed his
thought on Francesca Pompilia, the daughter of Pietro and Violante
Comparini. As she was their only child, and as her parents were too
far advanced in years to have other offspring, she would fall heir to
a reversionary interest of 12,000 scudi; and he hoped that he could
easily make the match, as the Comparini were rather inferior to him in
birth.
A certain hairdresser frequented the home of the Comparini with the
familiarity admitted by those women who desire to make themselves
appear more beautiful to their husbands' eyes than they are and which
some husbands tolerate who rely too much upon the fidelity of their
wives. Paolo considered this woman to be the best means for aiding his
designs for the marriage of Guido, and the latter often went to her
shop with the purpose of winning her confidence by odd jobs. When he
had often turned the talk to the subject of taking a wife, she told
him one day he might readily apply for the daughter of the Comparini,
for she had a suitable dowry, besides being heiress to a reversionary
interest, and was of a small family connection, which were his very
requirements. When through her efforts he had succeeded in achieving
the marriage, it was understood he should reward her with 200 scudi.
The hairdresser lost no time in broaching the matter to Violante, who,
anxious for the advancement of her daughter and for the establishment
of her own interests, agreed to speak of it to her husband, and, if
the matter were as stated, to persuade him to effect it. Violante
spoke to her husband about it and he did not reject the proposal,
provided that the vaunted riches of the Franceschini were verified,
but he said this would have to be given in a written statement
attested by well-known and reliable persons. When the hairdresser had
carried back this word to the Franceschini, they sent a statement of
their real estate in Arezzo, with an income amounting to 1700 scudi,
attested by persons well known to the Comparini, and who confirmed it
to them orally.
Abate Paolo, fearing lest this fortune might escape him, gave them no
time to change their minds, and in order to make the matter surer he
desired to secure it by the hand of Cardinal Lauria, his patron, by
whom he had the marriage agreement drawn up; for his Eminence was
pleased to show kindness to the advantage of a man whom he regarded
with some favour. Meanwhile Comparini had become better informed of
the rank and property of the Franceschini and found them far different
from the preceding account, both in rank and in property. Therefore he
had a warm dispute with his wife, who persisted in the marriage, and
declared that he had been advised by persons envious of the good
fortune of one or the other house, and who wished to hinder it, and
that she was not shaken in her original desire; for she was very sure,
from other truthful witnesses, that the Franceschini were of the
first rank of nobility of Arezzo, and not of the second, as those had
said, and that the property given in the list had been untampered
with. But the more she warmed to the matter, the cooler became Pietro;
for being very diplomatic, if he could not gain, at least he wished
not to lose by the marriage of his daughter. But what does not a man
lose when he allows his wife to rule him? He loved her so tenderly
that from the first day of their marriage he had constituted her the
arbitress of his wishes. Violante, nevertheless, fearing lest Pietro,
in a case of such importance, might be more influenced by reason than
by flattery, could suffer no delay in making secure the reversionary
interest which another house could claim if the Comparini were without
an heir; she therefore resolved to have the marriage performed without
the knowledge of Pietro. When she had secured the consent of the
daughter, who was always obedient to her commands, and had made an
appointment with Guido, she conducted her, suitably clothed, one
morning to San Lorenzo, in Lucina, and espoused the two.
Pietro felt the blow keenly, but being unable to find any remedy for
it, he cloaked his anger with the show of being displeased at not
having been present, and this displeasure would cease in him with the
joy of the nuptial feast, which should be in their house. He assigned
to his daughter as dowry twenty-six bonds, with future succession to
the remainder. On the very same day, after talking of the advantages
which would result to both houses from the union of their interests,
they decided upon the removal of the Comparini to Arezzo, which
followed in a few days, and with it the absolute administration of the
property by Guido.
When they had reached Arezzo the Comparini were received by the mother
and relatives of Franceschini with all that show of love which is
customary on such occasions. But very soon, from constant association,
disturbances arose, and thence they passed to hostilities. The mother
of Guido, a proud, avaricious woman, who governed the household
despotically, took to stinting it even in the necessary food. This
moved the Comparini to complaints, to which the Franceschini first
responded with insults and then with threats. This was a thing
Violante could not tolerate, for, being a woman, she had her own share
of natural arrogance. So she began tormenting Pietro, cursing the day
when he had decided to move to Arezzo, laying the blame on him for all
that of which she had been the cause. And Pietro, who was one of those
men who let themselves be overcome by a couple of crocodile tears of
their wives, instead of reproving her for the undertaking (although
she had concluded the marriage against his wish and without his
knowledge), entreated her affectionately to bear with patience the
abuses, which would possibly cease when the Franceschini saw them
defended by their daughter.
At that time [November 30, 1693] passed from this life to Heaven
Cardinal Lauria, a churchman of merit beyond all praise. Then Abate
Paolo was elected Secretary in Rome of the Religious Order of Malta.
At this the haughtiness of the Franceschini increased so much that
they considered it grand good fortune for the Comparini to be
considered their friends, not to say their relatives. Violante being
no longer able to live under the proud command of another woman, since
she had been in the habit of domineering, as her husband had been
subject to her wishes, so tormented him that she induced him to take
up his residence in Rome again. For this purpose the Franceschini gave
them a sum of money sufficient for the journey and for the most
necessary furniture in the home.
Scarcely had they reached Rome when, to the surprise of everybody, it
was reported that Pietro had dispatched a judicial warning, in which
he set forth that Francesca Pompilia was not really his own daughter
and that therefore he was not obliged to pay the dowry. He brought the
attestation of Violante his wife, who had declared that to check her
husband's creditors in the matter of the trust fund and to enjoy the
income of the bonds she had feigned to be pregnant and, that her
husband might not discover the trick, she agreed with him that when
she became pregnant they should abstain from association until after
the birth of their child. And so, on the very day of this pretence,
they took separate bedrooms; still further, by well-arranged clothes,
she feigned the swelling of the womb, and by suitable drugs made
pretence of nausea until her time was come. She then took advantage of
a day when Pietro was occupied in his lawsuits, to bring forth the
pretended birth, which was well carried out by the sagacity of a
midwife in the secret, who provided whatever was necessary. And that
the house servant might not detect the trick, they sent him to the
apothecary to secure certain medicines. At the same time the midwife
went to get a little creature whom she had received the day before
from a neighbour, who was already in the secret. When she had returned
to the house she summoned a familiar friend of the Comparini from a
window. Matters were so well arranged that when the woman arrived,
there was nothing more to do than to make her believe what was not
really so. And to trick more surely the thought of this neighbour,
they feigned that when Violante wished to pass from the bed to a
chair, she fainted into the arms of the woman by reason of her pains,
since the midwife could not run up in time.
This unexpected act of Pietro, which became known in Rome immediately,
was heard with less wonder than scorn. The just anger of the
Franceschini would have undertaken due vengeance if it had not been
mitigated by the hope that, since Pompilia was not the true and
legitimate daughter of Pietro and Violante, the marriage would be
annulled and Guido's wounded reputation would be healed. But when he
had taken counsel with several authorities and found they were of
different opinions, he was unwilling to risk so doubtful an affair, in
the promotion of which they would necessarily confess and presuppose
that she was not the daughter of the Comparini, and by this confession
they would be prejudiced in their claims to the dowry. They opposed
the judicial notice, and obtained for Pompilia the continuance of her
quasi-relation as daughter, together with a decree for the transfer of
the dowry bonds. But Pietro appealed to the Signature of Justice so
trickily that the Franceschini had the expense of the transfer, but
not the enjoyment of the income, since they obtained from it not even
a two months' payment.
The unfortunate Pompilia was the victim of the hatred of these two
houses; for she was left alone in Arezzo at the will of her husband,
her mother-in-law, and her relatives, who were mortally offended at
her parents, and she was hourly threatened with death. In so
deplorable a state the courage even of a more mature woman would have
failed, not to speak of that of a girl only sixteen years old. For she
was innocent of the wiles of her mother and of the duplicity of her
father and by her own good qualities she was worthy of tenderness
rather than cruelty. The unhappy one suffered as best she could these
tyrannies which were ever increasing, but despairing of all hope of
peace, she often had recourse to the Governor of the City, that he
might interpose his authority with the Franceschini. As this was of no
avail, she threw herself at the feet of the Bishop, who had Guido come
into his presence and who tried to reconcile him. But Guido's anger
increased all the more because of this public recourse, and he
threatened Pompilia with certain death if she should ever try it
again.
When the poor child saw every way to peace closed against her she
appealed to Canon Conti, a relative of the Franceschini, who was very
well informed of her wretchedness because he visited the house, and
she begged him to save her life, which was in continual peril. He was
moved to pity, for he knew that she had no other remedy than flight.
As he could not personally assist in this, lest he would have to bear
the hatred of the entire family connection, he suggested to her that
the very person for such an enterprise was the Canon Caponsacchi, his
intimate friend and somewhat related to him by blood, whose courage
was no less ready to meet danger than to overcome it.
Pompilia accepted the counsel of Conti, who lost no time in opening
the affair with Caponsacchi. He at first showed some unwillingness, as
he hesitated to carry away a wife from her husband, even with the sole
purpose of conducting her to her own parents. But when he had been
fully informed of the insufferable abuses of Guido and his relatives
his pity prevailed over all other considerations and he accepted the
undertaking. Pompilia, who was eager for this, tried to win him by
letters and amorous verses, yet always keeping herself true to her
marriage vows, as one may read in her letters. In some of these she
praises the modesty of Caponsacchi, in others she reproves him for
having sent some octaves which were slightly reprehensible, and she
urged him to keep unstained that nobility of which he boasted. On the
day appointed for flight, with the assistance of Canon Conti, the two
took their places in a carriage and travelled as fast as they could,
without resting save when it was necessary to change horses. They
arrived the second morning at dawn at Castelnuovo, and, in spite of
the fact that the host had assigned them a bed for repose, Pompilia
seated herself in a chair and Caponsacchi went down to the stable to
urge on the driver.
When Guido awoke after the flight of Pompilia and perceived that she
was not in bed, he arose in a fury, and, seeing the jewel-box open and
minus the jewels and money, which it had contained, he surmised what
had happened to him. Accordingly, on a good horse, he sped along the
Roman road and overtook the fugitives at the abovesaid inn of
Castelnuovo an hour after their arrival. When Pompilia saw him, with
that courage which desperation may arouse even in the weakest spirits,
she seized Caponsacchi's sword which lay upon the table, unsheathed
it, and thrust at his life, calling him betrayer and tyrant. Guido,
fearing lest her spirit no less than the valour of Caponsacchi might
bring his death rather than revenge, turned his horse and rushed to
the authorities. He had the fugitives arrested and conveyed to the New
Prisons, where he entered charge of flight and adultery against them.
The Abate Paolo who, as has been said, was the Secretary of the
Religious Order of Malta in Rome, made noisy recourse for his honour
to the Pope, and he put a petition before Monsignor Pallavicino, the
Governor, demanding that he declare Caponsacchi the seducer of his
sister-in-law, and both of them guilty of adultery, and that his
brother for that reason was entitled to gain the entire dowry. Legal
proceedings were instituted against them according to the most
rigorous forms of law, but no proof of guilt was found against
Caponsacchi and Pompilia except the love-letters written at the time
of the arranging of the flight, the undertaking of the flight itself,
and the deposition of the driver. For the latter declared that he had
sometimes seen, when he had turned back during the journey, that they
were joined face to face, that is cheek to cheek, a matter which did
not make full proof of fault, since the rough roads and the headlong
speed of the journey jostling them about might have been the cause of
it. Wherefore the Court deemed it prudent and just to sentence
Caponsacchi to three years' relegation in Civita Vecchia for his
rashness in running away with a wife from her husband, even though the
motive was pity. While the case of the Franceschini against Pompilia
was on trial, Pompilia was transported with their consent, as their
prisoner, into the Monastery of the Scalette on the Lungara, with the
obligation that Guido, her husband, should provide her food. There,
after a little while, it was discovered that she was pregnant, and as
it no longer comported with the reverence of that place that she
should remain there, with the consent of Abate Paolo, who had power of
attorney for his brother, Monsignor the Governor ordered that she
should pass into the home of the Comparini, her parents, under
security of 300 scudi to keep it as a secure prison; and he declared
that Guido's obligation for her food should cease the very day she
left the monastery.
This cause, in which the Franceschini were not obliged to have hand
for mere honour's sake, was seen to have its chief motive in
selfishness. Therefore there was not a company where the conduct of
one or the other party was not censured. For this reason the Religious
Order of Malta gave secret intimation to Abate Paolo that he should
resign his office. At the loss of this honourable post, rein was given
to the evil tongues of his adversaries. This put Abate Paolo in such
straits that, ashamed to meet his dearest friends, he decided to
leave Rome and to pass to a clime where information of the dishonour
that so afflicted him would never come.
When Guido was informed of the departure of his brother and of the
obligation resting on him of repairing the honour of his house, he
thought that to go into voluntary exile, as his brother had done,
would only prove the baseness of his own mind. For he had been justly
charged with this, since at the time he had overtaken his wife with
her abductor he had failed in that very place to take the vengeance
which was demanded at his hands.
In due time Pompilia had given birth to a son, who was sent out of the
house by the Comparini to nurse. Thereupon every one believed, and
especially Violante, that the ties of blood would move Guido to a
reconciliation with his wife. For in spite of their declaration that
Pompilia was not their daughter, the minds of the Comparini might
still be disposed to some reconciliation. But Guido's thought was
quite different, for he was continually stirred, even in the absence
of Abate Paolo, to plot the removal from this world of the entire
memory of his dishonour by the death of Pompilia, Pietro, and
Violante, and possibly of still others.
Guido had in his employ, in the country, a daring and wicked labourer
[Alessandro Baldeschi] to whom he often exaggerated the shame which
his wife and the Comparini had brought upon his house. To him Guido
revealed that with his assistance he wished to purge with their blood
the stain to his honour. The cut-throat straightway accepted and
declared that, if there were need of other company, he had three or
four friends for whom he would vouch. Guido replied that he should
take three bold and trusty ones to make sure against any possible
resistance, and should use all care to secure them at the lowest
possible price.
When all had been agreed upon, and arms suitable for the affair had
been prepared, Guido, with his four companions in disguise, secretly
took the road to Rome. Reaching the home of the Comparini at eight
o'clock in the evening, one of them knocked at the door, and when
Pietro responded, the murderer told him that he had a letter to give
him which had been sent from Civita Vecchia by Caponsacchi. When the
women heard this they told Pietro to have him come back again next
morning, urging him not to open the door. But he was curious about the
news from Caponsacchi, and when the murderer replied that he could not
come back in the morning, as he was obliged to leave that night, he
opened the fatal door and thereby admitted his own death and that of
Violante and Pompilia.
Guido in a transport of rage leaped in with two companions, leaving
the others on guard. They first dealt the poor old man many blows, and
deprived him of life before he could lift his voice. Scarcely had the
unfortunate women seen this when, transfixed with like wounds, they
suffered the same fate. Upon the unfortunate Pompilia fell the blows
of her husband, accompanied with countless insults, and after he had
trampled her several times under foot and wounded her anew, not
trusting his own fury, he told his companions to see if she were
really dead. One of them lifted her by the hair and let her fall
again, and assured Guido that she was no longer alive.
When this barbarous murder had been concluded and the money agreed
upon had been paid to the cut-throats, Guido wished to leave them, but
they would not allow him to desert them for fear that one might kill
another, as frequently happens for hiding such misdeeds. Or else the
murderers, while united with their leader, had agreed to kill Guido as
they thought he might have a large sum of money. Hence they did not
consent to his leaving them and they took the road toward Arezzo
together, which they agreed to make on foot, as they could not secure
posthorses.
From these repeated wounds Pietro and Violante were quite dead, but
not Pompilia, though her wounds were more numerous. For because of her
innocence she was especially helped by the divine mercy, and she knew
so well how to feign death that she deceived the murderers. When she
saw that they were gone, with her dying breath she mustered sufficient
strength of voice to make the neighbours hear her cries for help.
They found her in the last extremities, and eagerly ministered first
to her soul and then to her body. Her wounds were so numerous and of
such a nature that although they did not immediately kill her, they
made her death certain. This occurred a few days later, to the sorrow
of all those who assisted her and who had knowledge of this pitiable
case. The fortitude with which she suffered the pains of her treatment
caused as much wonder as her resignation to the Divine Will caused
love. She not only did not blame the cruelty of her husband, but with
fervent prayers she besought God to pardon him. The compassion of her
assistants both for her soul and for her body I attest by the
following sworn statement concerning not only her innocence, but the
happy passage of her pure soul to heaven. [Then follow the affidavits
of Fra Celestino and others given in _The Book_].
Divine justice, which would not suffer so atrocious a deed to go
unpunished, caused the criminals to be overtaken by the authorities at
the break of dawn at an inn a few miles from Rome. For when they had
eaten a little, they went to sleep by the fire, fatigued by the
journey and overcome with drowsiness. The police rushed violently in
upon them and, pointing carbines at their breasts, assailed and bound
them at once. They were straightway taken to the New Prisons, and the
Governor apprised the Pope of this barbarous murder and of the arrest
of the guilty. He gave commands that, without delay and with all
rigour, trial should be brought, this being a case which, by reason of
the consequences which might arise from it, should be examined into
with very special attention.
Far less torment than would seem to be necessary had to be applied to
get the confession of the murderers and of Guido, who more than the
rest had stood by his denial. But at the sight of torment he had not
the heart to resist longer and confessed fully, saying indeed that the
crime had had no other motive than the reparation of his honour which
had been so publicly offended. This was a matter which any common man
would have undertaken, not to speak of himself, who was a gentleman;
and if on his first examination he denied the truth of this, he had
done so lest he might injure his companions, who had aided him in a
deed worthy of all sympathy, because he had honour as his sole end.
With the confession of Guido and its ratification by the rest, the
process was finished, and they were sentenced, the cut-throats to the
gallows and Guido to mannaia, a means of death conceded rather out of
respect for his being in clerical orders than for any other reason.
The Advocate and Procurator of the Poor had written so ably in their
defence on the point of honour that there is no memory of more learned
arguments. But the features of the crime were so many (and all of them
punishable with death) that they were overcome no less by their nature
than by their number. Among such features was the bearing of arms
prohibited under capital penalty, the death of Pietro and Violante who
were not accomplices in the flight of Pompilia, the murder while a
lawsuit was pending, and in their own home, which place the
authorities had with the consent of Guido assigned to Pompilia as a
secure prison. The many other weighty charges which displayed the
great learning of the defenders were the just cause of the death of
the accused. Yet with the usual hope of all those who make confession
of capital crime, Guido flattered himself that he could save his life
by reason of his honour. At the unexpected announcement he did not
give up to such a frenzy as frequently follows in those who experience
so terrible a disaster, but, as if stupefied, after a few minutes he
heaved a deep sigh, accompanied by a few tears, which by their
extraordinary size showed dying symptoms. He said: "I well feared a
heavy sentence, but not that of death. My crime is great, but love of
honour has never suffered me to perceive what it was until now that
sentence has been passed, which I hold in such reverence that I wish
to appeal only to God, to whom alone I turn for the only mercy.
Without His will I should never have reached this awful pass, which
may be a comfort to me and not a source of bitterness, that I may gain
by entire resignation to His will the merit of His pardon." And then
he threw himself into the arms of the compassionate Frati and showed
such signs of true contrition that their prayers were accompanied by
tears rather than by exhortations.
His four accomplices did not submit themselves with the same
readiness, for as they were of lower birth so were they less swayed by
reason, which would render them impressible to the punishment they had
merited. The oldest [Baldeschi] and youngest [Agostinelli] were the
most obstinate, the one from having a heart hardened by so many years
of evil life, and the other being all too sensitive to so harsh a
punishment for a single crime, in the very flower of his youth,
without ever having spilled a drop of blood, and with the sole fault
of having been induced to stand as guard at a door through which Guido
had had to pass, to purge himself of the stains to his honour by the
blood of his foes. As the hour of execution drew nearer, the
stubbornness of these wretches so increased that the Frati despaired
of their repentance. At last the Divine Mercy, which works miracles
when we least expect it, entered their hearts and gloriously
demonstrated His omnipotence. They finally trusted in God, and the
memory of those faults which had made them obstinate, and which were
now illuminated by the Divine Grace that disposed them to penitence,
fitted them for pardon. When these souls had been secured for God
after such a hard contest, the execution passed from the New Prisons
at Tor di Nonna to the scaffold raised in the Piazza del Popolo in
view of the gate and of the Corso. In the midst was the block on a
lofty scaffold, larger than usual and with steps made with particular
care; on the two sides the gallows were placed at equal distances. In
spite of the vastness of the Piazza, not a single foot was left which
had not been occupied by stands, which were covered with tapestry and
other ornaments forming a theatre for festal celebrations rather than
for a solemn tragedy.
His four companions preceded Guido, each of them in a separate cart,
assisted by the devotion of the accustomed Frati [The Brotherhood of
Death], and followed by a countless concourse of people praying for a
blessed departure, which in view of their contrite resignation seemed
not at all doubtful and even a certain hope. Rarely did Guido
Franceschini turn his eyes from the crucifix, except when nature,
overwearied by the steadfastness of his gaze, made him turn away his
head but not his heart, which had been wholly given to his Creator so
that none was left for himself.
When he had reached the Piazza di Pasquino, and the cart had stopped
before the church of Agonizzanti, where on days of public execution it
is customary to offer the Sacrament to the delinquents condemned to
death and therewith to bless them, Guido knelt and began to recite, in
a voice quite audible to bystanders, certain verses of the _Miserere_,
and among them this, "Hide thy face from my sins and blot out all mine
iniquities." He accompanied this with such signs of sorrow and
penitence that the people by their tears showed no less grief than the
one condemned.
With equal devotion his companions received the same blessing, but the
behaviour of the youngest [Agostinelli] was remarkable beyond belief,
who beside himself with his love of Heaven and of God, by his
expressions which exceeded his own capacity, confounded the wisdom of
his pious assistants.
Thence by the most densely populated streets they continued the
journey to the Piazza del Popolo, where they all died, Guido last,
with those acts of contrition which their preparation had shown. As
the youngest had displayed most blessed signs during life, so it
pleased God that he met his death likewise, for at the moment the
executioner did his work, he clasped between his breast and his hands
the image of that crucifix whereby they had become certain of Divine
Pardon. This assured the people of his salvation as his untimely death
had aroused their pity.
Rome has never seen an execution with a greater concourse of people,
nor does it remember a case on which there was such general talk as
on this. Some defended the Comparini, because they had suffered abuse,
others the Franceschini as it was a matter of honour. But, on looking
at the matter dispassionately, they were adjudged to be equally
guilty, except that Pompilia, who was entirely ignorant of the truth,
was without blame; for she had consented to the marriage at the
command of her mother without the knowledge of her father, and had
fled from her husband for fear of death with which he had often
unjustly threatened her.
From trickery arose the union of these two houses, from the
Franceschini in frauds regarding property they did not possess, from
the Comparini by the pretended birth, or by this very pretence if the
birth were real. The trick arose from greed of gain in Pietro to
secure the trust moneys for himself, and in the Franceschini to
minister to their own ease; so all was done contrary to laws both
human and divine. Hence a bad beginning was followed with a wretched
ending, as has been told above.
NOTES AND COMMENT
1. _Title-page_ (p. 1). The manuscript title-page of the _Book_ is
closely paraphrased by Browning, _R.B._ 1. 122-31, the word "position"
being used as the equivalent of Italian _posizione_.
2. _The Index_ (p. 3) (Italian, _indice_) is a manuscript table of
contents, evidently supplied by the original collector.
3. _A Transcript of the sentence against Pompilia_ (pp. 5-7) in the
Criminal Courts of Arezzo, dated February 15, 1697 (for 1698).
Parallel with the Process of Flight (_see_ Note 18) in Rome, the
Franceschini family evidently instituted criminal proceedings in
Arezzo against the fugitive Pompilia, charging her with theft and
adultery. Signor Guillichini and the driver Borsi were included in the
action as accessory to the crime. The Franceschini were able to secure
the condemnation here which was not obtainable in Rome. Under security
of this sentence, granted in December 1697, Guido could safely go on
with the assassination of his wife, so far as Tuscan law was
concerned. The transcript in the _Book_ is dated February 15, while
the murder trial was at a crisis, and was probably sent to Rome by
Signor Cencini to assist Guido in his peril. It is noteworthy that
Guido did not include Caponsacchi in his accusation in Arezzo.
4. _Romana Homicidiorum._ The frequently repeated designation of the
case--_Romana causa homicidiorum_--Roman trial for murders.
5. _Hyacinthus de Archangelis_ (Italian, _Giacinto Arcangeli_),
_Procurator Pauperum_, was Guido's chief defender, not an attorney
employed privately by the defendant, but an official States' attorney
for the defence. The Roman court procedure in all cases assumed the
right and obligation of the State to conduct both sides of a criminal
case.
6. _Desiderius Spretus, Advocatus Pauperum_, was the co-defender of
the accused. Humphrey's _Urbs et Orbis_, p. 428, makes plain the
respective functions of the two attorneys: "The advocate is a man
skilled in civil and canon law, who defends causes in writing or by
word of mouth, on the point of law, setting before the judges that
which is true in law, or best founded in law, or the principles of law
which ought to be applied in a particular case. His is the scientific
part of the cause, and he speaks only to the point of law. Matters of
fact are to be established by the procurators, and it is upon these
established facts that the advocate develops his judicial
conclusions."
7. _Joannes Baptista Bottinius, Fisci et Cam. Apost. Advoc._ (Advocate
of the Fisc, or Treasury, and of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber), the
chief prosecutor of the criminals, with functions equivalent to those
of the prosecuting or States Attorney in the Common Law. Browning
continually used the clipt form, Fisc.
8. _Franciscus de Gambis, Procurator Fisci_, was the coadjutor in the
prosecution, opening the case in Pamphlet 5, but thereafter playing
little part in the case.
9. _Antonius Lamparellus, Procurator Charitatis_, the attorney who, in
Pamphlet 17, defended the memory of the dead Pompilia for her heir and
against both the Franceschini family and the Nunnery of Convertites
(_see_ Note 10), both of whom were accusing her memory to gain her
estate. This trial in the criminal court of the Governor, took place
between the death of Guido, February 22, and May 17, 1698. The
decision "for absolution" was made _definitive_ by the decree of
court, September 9, 1698 (Pamphlet 18).
10. _The Nunnery of the Convertites._ Within a month after the death
of Pompilia the Nunnery of _Sta. Maria Maddalena delle Convertite al
Corso_ (founded 1520 _pro mulieribus ab inhonesta vita ad honestam se
convertentibus_) laid claim to the whole of Pompilia's property on the
ground of their privilege of receiving the property of women of evil
life who died in Rome.
11. _Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor._ All the
arguments and the summaries of evidence in the murder case are
addressed to the Governor of Rome, but the Vice-Governor, Judge
Venturini, seems to have presided in his stead.
12. The title and imprint on the right half of the final page of each
of these official pamphlets was evidently for convenience in filing
the documents when folded into bundles. The imprint _Typis Rev. Cam.
Apost._ (Type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber), is the official
imprint of the Papal press.
13. _The Deposition of Angelica_ (pp. 49-53). Angelica, a domestic in
the Franceschini home during January 1697, while the Comparini were
living in Arezzo with their son-in-law, was probably carried back to
Rome by the Comparini on their return to Rome that she might serve as
a witness to the poverty and parsimony of Guido. She makes her
affidavit at Rome, June 24, 1694, evidently for use in the suit
brought by Comparini to recover the dowry paid with Pompilia. How far
it is true and how far it is the prejudiced and bitter word of a
resentful servant who had been kicked out of doors, we cannot say. But
its publication through court procedure must have been bitterly
humiliating to the Franceschini. What was worse, the Comparini
probably used this as a part of the slanderous stories they took pains
to print and circulate in Rome (p. 181).
14. _Diverse Attestations_ (p. 53). These attestations, made June 17,
1697, nearly seven weeks after the arrest of Pompilia at Castelnuovo,
were evidently secured by her lawyers for her defence in the Process
of Flight (Note 18).
15. _The letters of Signori Romani and Albergotti_ are undated, but
were probably written soon after the departure of the Comparini from
Arezzo in 1694.
16. _Pompilia's Letter to Abate Paolo_ (pp. 56-7). The much discussed
letter of Pompilia to Abate Paolo, dated June 14, 1694, full of
calumniation of her parents, who had left Arezzo only three months
before, could not have been written by the fourteen-year-old girl
voluntarily. Guido must have composed it as a counter attack on the
Comparini, who were bringing suit against him at Rome, and were
loading him with shame.
17. _The Attestations of Fra Celestino and Others_ (pp. 57-60), dated
January 10, only four days after the death of Pompilia, was given at
the instance of Pompilia's executor, Tighetti. It is a most important
piece of evidence, and is cited repeatedly during the trial. Its
genuineness and sincerity are beyond question, and Browning gained
from it most of his faith in the innocence and saintly patience of
Pompilia.
18. _Process of Flight._ After the arrest of Pompilia and Caponsacchi
at Castelnuovo they were taken to Rome and lodged in prison. They were
soon brought to trial on the criminal charge of adulterous elopement.
The case seems to have been in the same court which tried Guido for
murder eight months later, and probably continued in a desultory
fashion all summer. In this case both of the accused made the
deposition later included in the _Book_. In this trial also, Guido
tried to introduce the testimony of the harlot-servant, Maria
Margherita, and the love-letters. The case was never decided so far as
Pompilia was concerned.
19. _The Deposition of Pompilia_ (pp. 90-5), dated May 13, 1697, two
weeks after her arrest at Castelnuovo, giving the causes of her flight
from her husband's home, was made by Pompilia for her own defence in
the Process of Flight. The marginal comments, adverse to her, are, of
course, the prejudiced comments of Guido's lawyers.
20. _The Deposition of Caponsacchi_ (pp. 95-8), made about the same
time and under the same circumstances for the Process of Flight, was
reintroduced as evidence in the murder case, but there is no reason to
think that Caponsacchi was brought into the latter case in any other
way.
21. _The Love-Letters_ (pp. 99-106). These letters are one of the most
elaborately discussed pieces of evidence in the _Book_. Guido claimed
to have found them at the inn of Castelnuovo after the arrest of the
fugitives, and he offered them in court during the Process of Flight,
as a proof of adultery in his wife, but they were thrown out by the
court. Their conventional fine-letter-writing, their studied innuendo
and finesse, were quite beyond the capacity of an illiterate girl like
Pompilia. They were probably composed by Guido, and if so, they prove
that he was basely scheming to drive his wife into dishonourable
flight that he might disgrace her and cast her off. The eighteenth
letter was specifically denied by Caponsacchi in his cross-examination.
22. _The Sentence of Relegation_ (p. 106) for three years in Civita
Vecchia was decreed against Caponsacchi at the close of the Process of
Flight in September, 1697. It is commensurate with priestly
indiscretion rather than with crime.
23. _The Account of Fact_ (Pamphlet 10). This anonymous Italian
pamphlet is not at all a part of the official record of the murder
case. It has no imprint and is in entirely different face of type, and
must have been printed privately for circulation outside the courts.
While much less technical and formal than the arguments of the
lawyers, and much more studious of popular effects, it slips back
repeatedly into the thought and the language of Arcangeli, the
defender of Guido. It probably suggested Half-Rome in _The Ring and
the Book_.
24. _The Response_ (Pamphlet 15) is a highly rhetorical, but
effective, retort to the anonymous writer. It was written during the
later stage of the murder trial, and was probably the work of Signor
Bottini. It likewise is without imprint and signature, but may have
been broadly scattered throughout Rome.
25. "_To keep to this home of Pietro ... as a prison_," _Domus pro
Carcere_ (p. 159). For a month after the sentence against Caponsacchi,
Pompilia was kept prisoner in the refuge called the _Scalette_--a
provision for her safekeeping, not a punishment. On October 12, she
was permitted to give bond to keep the home of her foster parents, the
Comparini, as a prison, _Domus pro carcere_, sentence against her
being suspended.
26. _The Scalette._ The _Conservatorio di S. Croce della Penitenza
alla Lungara_ was an institution for penitent women, founded 1615, and
popularly called _Scalette_, because of the two adjoining stairways.
Browning confuses this institution with the Convertites (Note 10).
27. _Baptismal Record of Pompilia_ (p. 159). This note, taken from the
parish record of San Lorenzo, in Lucina, enables Browning to make the
exact statement of Pompilia's age and her full name, as given in the
opening lines of her monologue.
28. _Pompilia's Letter_ (p. 160) to her foster parents, written from
prison at Castelnuovo only two days after her arrest, is her plea to
them for assistance. It was probably cited as evidence in the Process
of Flight.
29. _The Will of Pietro Comparini_ (pp. 160-1), evidently drawn up
after he had learned Pompilia was not his own daughter, and before her
return to Rome, aimed to prevent her being disinherited for that
reason. Its personal tone is good, and it is almost the only
first-hand evidence of the character of Pietro to be found in the
_Book_.
30. _Power of Attorney_ (p. 162). Under date of October 7, 1694, Guido
grants full power of attorney to Abate Paolo, who was representing him
in the lawsuits in Rome and in other matters of business.
31. _Arcangeli's Manuscript Letter_ (pp. 235-6). On February 22, 1698,
only a few hours after the execution of Guido, Signor Arcangeli, his
legal defender, announces the end of the case to Signor Cencini, the
Florentine lawyer who collected the _Book_, and who seems to have been
professionally related to the Franceschini family, as he had sent
certain "proofs" to assist the cause of Guido, probably including the
report of the criminal condemnation of Pompilia in the Tuscan courts.
(_See_ Note 3). This letter is reproduced by Browning, _R. B._ XII.
239-98.
32. _The Other Letters_ (pp. 237-8), written on the same day and to
Signor Cencini, give a few additional details. The writers seem to
have been professionally associated with the Franceschini family.
33. _Francesca Pompilia_, foster daughter of the Comparini, _b._ July
17, 1680; was married to Guido Franceschini, December 1693; fled from
her husband's home in Arezzo, April 29, 1697; arrested at Castelnuovo,
May 1; wrote to her foster parents from her prison at Castelnuovo, May
3; made deposition in Rome concerning her flight, May 13; was on trial
for flight and adultery during the summer of 1697; was placed in the
convent of the _Scalette_, September 1697; removed to the home of the
Comparini as prison, October 12, 1697; gave birth to a son, Gaetano,
December 18, 1697; was assassinated January 2, 1698; died January 6.
34. _Giuseppe Maria Caponsacchi_, _b._ May 26, 1673, was invested
Canon of the Church of Santa Maria della Pieve, November 26, 1693, and
resigned "of his own accord," May 15, 1702. He is referred to in the
_Book_ as a man of courage, and his words as he faced Guido at
Castelnuovo are significant: "I am a man, and have done what I have
that I might save your wife from death." His affidavit is convincingly
straightforward, in spite of certain discrepancies with Pompilia's
statements, and there is evident moral indignation in his replies
under cross-examination. His participation in the dangerous flight in
mere amorous intrigue seems unbelievably foolish, and could hardly
have been carried through save on the motive he assigns, courageous
"Christian compassion." In September 1697 he went to Civita Vecchia
under sentence of three years' relegation.
35. _Canon Conti_, called the "mediator in the flight," was brother of
Count Aldobrandini, who had married Guido's sister, and Conti is
accordingly spoken of as a "relative and frequenter of the
Franceschini home." He had been invested Canon of the Pieve, August
14, 1692. He must have been fully informed of Pompilia's sufferings,
and to him she turned at last for help. Deeming it improper for
himself to afford her relief, he urged his friend Caponsacchi to
accompany her. No criminal procedure was instituted against him in
Arezzo when Pompilia and Guillichini were accused. He died January
1698, and the Second Anonymous Pamphleteer hints that this was due to
foul play.
36. _Guido Franceschini_, _b._ January 24, 1658, the youngest son of
an impoverished, second-rate, noble family of Arezzo, had sought his
fortunes in Rome, where he became secretary of Cardinal Nerli. He
dropped out of this service in middle life, with hardly a dollar in
his pocket, and planned to recoup his fortunes by marriage with
Pompilia, the heiress of the well-to-do Comparini. After the marriage
in December 1693, the Comparini accompanied him back to Arezzo. He
seems to have been unattractive and saturnine, and later on proved
himself both crafty and brutal.
37. _Abate Paolo Franceschini_, _b._ October 28, 1650, the older,
shrewder, and more able brother of Guido, was more successful in
seeking his fortunes in the official world of Rome. He became
secretary of the powerful Cardinal Lauria, and on the death of the
latter, November 30, 1693, obtained the lucrative office of Secretary
of the Order of St. John of Malta. He assisted Guido in effecting the
marriage with Pompilia, and was his active agent in Rome during the
lawsuits which followed. In 1697 he lost his secretaryship because of
the ignominy which had come upon him in Guido's shameful troubles, and
left Rome, possibly, as he is accused by the Second Anonymous
Pamphleteer, to assist in planning the murder of the Comparini.
38. _Honoris Causa._ As the fact of the murders by Guido and his
cut-throats was subject to no dispute, the whole law case turns on the
question whether these murders had been _for the sake of honour_, the
ever repeated plea of the unwritten law for the right of the husband
to slay a wife sinning against her wifehood. The lawyer's devote
themselves to ascertaining the limitations and privileges of this
plea.
39. _Incontinenti, Ex Intervallo._ There is much argument on the
justification for honour's sake in murder done _immediately_ after the
insult, or _after an interval_ of time has elapsed. In the latter
case, the murder becomes premeditated, and is not justifiable on the
ground of excusable heat of passion at an insult.
40. _The Aggravating Circumstances._ The prosecution makes much of the
attendant criminal circumstances which surrounded the main crime of
murder. These are first, the assembling of a band of armed men,
constituting the crime of rebellion; second, the murder of a prisoner
while under the care of the courts, Pompilia being technically a
prisoner detained in the Process of Flight; third, the assault upon
opponents in a pending lawsuit, the Comparini then being at law with
Guido; fourth, the violent breaking into a private home; fifth, the
commission of crime under cover of disguise; sixth, the use of certain
types of barbarous weapon, the very possession of which was a capital
offence. The first three of these were _laesa majestas_, criminal
insult to the majesty of the law.
41. _San Lorenzo in Lucina._ This church in the heart of Rome just off
the Corso, and not very far from the home of the Comparini at the
corner of Via Vittoria, and Strada Paolina, was evidently the parish
church of the Comparini, as both the birth and death of Pompilia are
entered in its register.
42. _Castelnuovo._ A village of but a few houses, fifteen miles north
of Rome. The inn and posthouse where Pompilia and Caponsacchi were
overtaken by Guido thus became one of the most important scenes in the
tragedy.
43. _Torture of the Vigil._ Guido and his companions were tortured
thus, to get fuller testimony from them. This torture consisted
originally in merely keeping the victim awake until he told his crime.
Later on his confession was accelerated by auxiliary devices for
intensifying the suffering of the subject.
44. Browning has taken the peroration used in the first lawyer's
monologue, _R. B._ VIII. 1637-1736, directly from the peroration of
Arcangeli in Pamphlet 8, p. 130.
45. The description of the execution as given in _R. B._ XII. 113 _et
seq._, is taken from the additional Italian pamphlet, pp. 265-6.
46. In like manner _R. B._ VIII. 587-683, is closely drawn from the
_Book_, pp. 153-4, with an interpolation in lines 640-57 from page
226. More than fifty of such word to word borrowings from the _Book_
are made in this monologue.
MINUTE OF THE DEFINITE ORDER OF EVENTS IN THE CASE
July 17, 1680. Pompilia born. (Note 27).
December (?) 1693. Pompilia married to Guido Franceschini.
December 1693. The Comparini accompany the bride to Arezzo.
Four months residence together in Arezzo.
Domestic broils in Arezzo, January and February, 1694.
March 1694. The Comparini return to Rome.
April or May 1694. Violante reveals base parentage of Pompilia.
June 14, 1694. Pompilia's letter to Abate Paolo. (Note 16).
June 24, 1694. Affidavit of Angelica. (Note 13).
Summer of 1694. Pietro Comparini prosecutes suit to recover
dowry.
August 2, 1694. Letter of the Governor to Abate Paolo.
September 15, 1694. Letter of the Bishop of Arezzo to Abate
Paolo.
March 1697. Pompilia seeks aid of Confessor Romano.
April, 1697. Seeks aid of Guillichini, Conti, and Caponsacchi.
April 29 (1 a.m.). Pompilia flees.
April 30 (in the evening). Fugitives arrive at Castelnuovo.
May 1 (early in the morning). Guido overtakes fugitives and has
them arrested.
May 3. Pompilia writes from the prison of Castelnuovo.
May 13. Pompilia makes her deposition. (Note 19).
May 21. Pompilia is further cross-examined.
June 17, 1697. Certain persons in Arezzo make affidavit in
Pompilia's behalf. (Note 14).
Summer of 1697. The Process of Flight. (Note 18).
September 24, 1697. Caponsacchi sentenced to relegation. (Note
22).
October 12. Pompilia permitted to return home under bond. (Note
25).
Fall of 1697. Pompilia institutes suit for divorce.
Fall of 1697. The Franceschini push a criminal suit against
Pompilia in the criminal courts of Arezzo. (Note 3).
Fall of 1697. Abate Paolo loses his secretaryship of the Order
of St. John.
December 18, 1697. Pompilia gives birth to a son.
December 24, 1697. Guido and his cut-throats arrive in Rome.
January 2, 1698. Guido murders his wife and the Comparini.
January 3. Guido and his associates arrested and imprisoned.
January 6. Pompilia dies.
January 19. Fra Celestino makes affidavit. (Note 17).
January 1698. The murder trial begins.
January 1698. Conti dies in Arezzo.
January 1698. Sta. Maria Maddalena delle Convertite institutes
suit to gain Pompilia's estate. (Note 10).
End of January. The torture of the Vigil. (Note 43).
February 1698. The second stage of the murder trial.
February 9. Certificate of the baptismal record of Pompilia
obtained. (Note 27).
February 15. Certificate of the Tuscan criminal prosecution of
Pompilia obtained. (Note 3).
February 18. Guido declared guilty, but a stay of sentence
granted.
February 21. Execution set for following day. The Pope overrules
delay.
February 22, 1698. The murderers are executed.
Spring of 1698. The Franceschini bring suit to recover
Pompilia's property.
May 17. The criminal court decides in favour of Pompilia's
executor.
September 1-9, 1698. Final decree of court, utterly clearing
Pompilia's reputation.
Browning uses all the above chronology with scrupulous accuracy, save
when, for good artistic reasons, he changes the flight from April 29
to the 23rd, St. George's day.
MINUTE OF THE PERSONAL NAMES FOUND IN THE BOOK AND PAMPHLET AND USED
BY BROWNING IN HIS POEM
Franceschini, Signor Guido. (Note 36).
Franceschini, Abate Paolo. (Note 37).
Franceschini, Canon Girolamo, _b._ August 5, 1654, brother of
Guido.
Franceschini, Donna Beatrice, 1631-1701, mother of Guido.
Franceschini, Count Tommaso, father of Guido.
Comparini, Signor Pietro, father of Pompilia.
Comparini, Violante, mother of Pompilia.
Comparini, Pompilia. (Note 33).
Canon Conti. (Note 35).
Canon Giuseppe Caponsacchi. (Note 34).
Signor Guillichini, helper in the flight.
Borsi, the driver.
Signor Marzi-Medici, Governor of Arezzo.
Bishop of Arezzo, Giovanni Matteo Marchetti, 1691-1704.
The Confessor Romano.
Maria Margherita Contenti, servant in the Franceschini home.
Monna Baldi (Albergotti).
Cardinal Panciatichi }
Cardinal Acciajuoli } Guido's confessors on the eve of execution.
Signor Tighetti, trustee of Pompilia's estate.
The babe, Gaetano.
Fra Celestino, confessor of the dying Pompilia.
Signor Giacinto Arcangeli. (Note 5).
Signor Bottini. (Note 7).
Signor Spreti. (Note 6).
Signor Cencini, a Florentine lawyer interested in the murder
trials.
Alessandro Baldeschi }
Domenico Gambassini } The assassins.
Francesco Pasquini }
Biagio Agostinelli }
Curate Ottoboni, Curate at San Lorenzo, in Lucina.
Judge Tommati, Auditor Curiae.
Judge Molines, of the Ruota.
Marco Antonio Venturini, Vice-Governor, presiding in the murder
case.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Old Yellow Book, by Anonymous
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE OLD YELLOW BOOK ***
***** This file should be named 38238-8.txt or 38238-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/2/3/38238/
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Melissa McDaniel and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
