CHAPTER III.

THE BARBARIANS.

In turning from the nicely poised and elaborate provisions of the Imperial laws to the crude jurisprudence of the Barbarian hordes who gradually inherited the crumbling remains of the Empire of the West, we enter into social and political conditions so different that we are naturally led to expect a corresponding contrast in every detail of legislation. For the cringing suppliant of the audience chamber, abjectly prostrating himself before a monarch who combines in his own person every legislative and executive function, we have the freeman of the German forests, who sits in council with his chief, who frames the laws which both are bound to respect, and who pays to that chief only the amount of obedience which superior vigor and intellect may be able to enforce. The structure of such a society is fairly illustrated by the incident which Gregory of Tours selects to prove the kingly qualities of Clovis. During his conquest of Gaul, and before his conversion, his wild followers pillaged the churches with little ceremony. A bishop, whose cathedral had suffered largely, sent to the king to request that a certain vase of unusual size and beauty might be restored to him. Clovis could only promise that if the messenger would accompany him to Soissons, where the spoils were to be divided, and if the vase should chance to fall to his share, it should be restored. When the time came for allotting the plunder, he addressed his men, requesting as a special favor that the vase might be given to him before the division, but a sturdy soldier, brandishing his axe, dashed it against the coveted article, exclaiming, “Thou shalt take nothing but what the lot assigns to thee.” For a year, Clovis dissembled his resentment at this rebuff, but at length, when opportunity offered, he was prompt to gratify it. While reviewing and inspecting his troops, he took occasion to reproach bitterly the uncourtly Frank with the condition of his weapons, which he pronounced unserviceable. The battle-axe excited his especial displeasure. He threw it angrily to the ground, and as the owner stooped to pick it up, Clovis drove his own into the soldier’s head, with the remark, “It was thus you served the vase at Soissons.”[1456]

This personal independence of the freeman is one of the distinguishing characteristics of all the primitive Teutonic institutions. Corporal punishments for him were unknown to the laws. The principal resource for the repression of crime was by giving free scope to the vengeance of the injured party, and by providing fixed rates of composition by which he could be bought off. As the criminal could defend himself with the sword against the _faida_ or feud of his adversary, or could compound for his guilt with money, the suggestion of torturing him to extort a confession would seem an absurd violation of all his rights. Crimes were regarded solely as injuries to individuals, and the idea that society at large was interested in their discovery, punishment, and prevention, was entirely too abstract to have any influence on the legislation of so barbarous an age.

Accordingly, the codes of the Feini, the Ripuarians, the Alamanni, the Angli and Werini, the Frisians, the Saxons, and the Lombards contain no allusion to the employment of torture under any circumstances; and such few directions for its use as occur in the laws of the Salien Franks, of the Burgundians, and of the Baioarians, do not conflict with the general principle.

The personal inviolability which shielded the freeman cast no protection over the slave. He was merely a piece of property, and if he were suspected of a crime, the readiest and speediest way to convict him was naturally adopted. His denial could not be received as satisfactory, and the machinery of sacramental purgation or the judicial duel was not for him. If he were charged with a theft at home, his master would undoubtedly tie him up and flog him until he confessed, and if the offence were committed against a third party, the same process would necessarily be adopted by the court. Barbarian logic could arrive at no other mode of discovering and repressing crime among the friendless and unprotected, whose position seemed to absolve them from all moral responsibility.

The little that we know of the institutions of the ancient Gauls presents us with an illustration of the same principle developed in a somewhat different direction. Cæsar states that, when a man of rank died, his relatives assembled and investigated the circumstances of his death. If suspicion alighted upon his wives, they were tortured like slaves, and if found guilty they were executed with all the refinements of torment.[1457]

In accordance with this tendency of legislation, therefore, we find that among the Barbarians the legal regulations for the torture of slaves are intended to protect the interests of the owner alone. When a slave was accused of crime the master, indeed, could not refuse to hand him over to the torturer, unless he were willing to pay for him the full _wer-gild_ of a freeman, and if the slave confessed under the torture, the master had no claim for compensation arising either from the punishment or crippling of his bondman.[1458] When, however, the slave could not be forced to confess and was acquitted, the owner had a claim for damages, though no compensation was made to the unfortunate sufferer himself. The original law of the Burgundians, promulgated in 471, is the earliest of the Teutonic codes extant, and in that we find that the accuser who failed to extract a confession was obliged to give to the owner another slave, or to pay his value.[1459] The Baioarian law is equally careful of the rights of ownership, but seems in addition to attach some criminality to the excess of torture by the further provision that, if the slave die under the torment without confession, the prosecutor shall pay to the owner two slaves of like value, and if unable to do so, that he shall himself be delivered up as a slave.[1460] The Salic law, on the other hand, only guards the interests of the owner by limiting the torture to 120 blows with a rod of the thickness of the little finger. If this does not extort a confession, and the accuser is still unsatisfied, he can deposit with the owner the value of the slave, and then proceed to torture him at his own risk and pleasure.[1461]

It will be observed that all these regulations provide merely for extracting confessions from accused slaves, and not testimony from witnesses. Indeed, the system of evidence adopted by all the Barbarian laws for freemen was of so different a character, that no thought seems to have been entertained of procuring proof by the torture of witnesses. The only allusion, indeed, to such a possibility shows how utterly repugnant it was to the Barbarian modes of thought. In some MSS. of the Salic law there occurs the incidental remark that when a slave accused is under the torture, if his confession implicates his master, the charge is not to be believed.[1462]

Such was the primitive legislation of the Barbarians, but though in principle it was long retained, in practice it was speedily disregarded by those whom irresponsible power elevated above the law. The Roman populations of the conquered territories were universally allowed to live under their old institutions; in fact, law everywhere was personal and not territorial, every race and tribe, however intermingled on the same soil, being subjected to its own system of jurisprudence. The summary process of extracting confessions and testimony which the Roman practice thus daily brought under the notice of the Barbarians could not but be attractive to their violent and untutored passions. Their political system was too loose and undefined to maintain the freedom of the Sicambrian forests in the wealthy plains of Gaul, and the monarch, who, beyond the Rhine, had scarce been more than a military chief, speedily became a despot, whose power over those immediately around him was limited only by the fear of assassination, and over his more distant subjects by the facility of revolution.

When all thus was violence, and the law of the strongest was scarcely tempered by written codes, it is easy to imagine that the personal inviolability of the freeman speedily ceased to guarantee protection. Even amid the wild tribes which remained free from the corruptions of civilization the idea of torturing for confession the friendless and unprotected was not unfamiliar, and in the Elder Edda we find King Geirröd using the torment of fire for eight days on Odin, who visits him in disguise for the purpose of testing his hospitality.[1463] Among the Gallic Franks, therefore, it need not surprise us to see irresponsible power readily grasping at such means to gratify hate or ambition. In the long and deadly struggle between Fredegonda and Brunhilda, for example, the fierce passions of the adversaries led them to employ without scruple the most cruel tortures in the endeavor to fathom each other’s plots.[1464] A single case may be worth recounting to show how completely torture had become a matter of course as the first resource in the investigation of doubtful questions. When Leudastes, about the year 580, desired to ruin the pious Bishop Gregory of Tours, he accused him to Chilperic I. of slandering the fair fame of Queen Fredegonda, and suggested that full proof for condemnation could be had by torturing Plato and Gallienus, friends of the bishop. He evidently felt that nothing further was required to substantiate the charge, nor does Gregory himself, in narrating the affair, seem to think that there was anything irregular in the proposition. Gallienus and Plato were seized, but from some cause were discharged unhurt. Then a certain Riculfus, an accomplice of Leudastes, was reproached for his wickedness by a man named Modestus, whereupon he accused Modestus to Fredegonda, who promptly caused the unhappy wretch to be severely tortured without extracting any information from him, and he was imprisoned until released by the miraculous aid of St. Medard. Finally, Gregory cleared himself canonically of the imputation, and the tables were turned. Leudastes sought safety in flight. Riculfus was not so fortunate. Gregory begged his life, but could not save him from being tortured for confession. For six hours the wretched man was hung up with his hands tied behind his back, after which, stretched upon the rack, he was beaten with clubs, rods, and thongs, by as many as could get at him, until, as Gregory naïvely remarks, no piece of iron could have borne it. At last, when nearly dead, his resolution gave way, and he confessed the whole plot by which it had been proposed to get rid of Chilperic and Fredegonda, and to place Clovis on the throne.[1465] Now, Plato, Gallienus, and Modestus were probably of Gallo-Roman origin, but Riculfus was evidently of Teutonic stock; moreover, he was a priest, and Plato an archdeacon, and the whole transaction shows that Roman law and Frankish law were of little avail against the unbridled passions of the Merovingian.