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.