Читать книгу The Old Yellow Book: Source of Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book - Various - Страница 4

[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.