Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHARLES. Pray, Sir, what is the meaning of a fiery ordeal?

MR. CONSTANCE. It is now an exploded custom, but is known to have been practised by our Saxon ancestors, particularly in the middle ages. There were four sorts of ordeals to which criminals were subjected. The fiery ordeal, the watery ordeal, the ordeal of the cross, and the ordeal, or trial by battle; all of which were considered as appeals to the judgment of the Almighty. For instance, if a person had been pronounced guilty of a crime by his judges, they either sentenced him to, or he claimed the right of, an ordeal; and the superstitious notion was, that if the person came out of the trial uninjured, he was pronounced not guilty. The fiery ordeal consisted either of carrying red-hot coals or balls in the hands, or of walking barefoot upon nine heated plough-shares.

[ocr errors]

ANGELINA. And pray whoever came out of such an ordeal uninjured?

MR CONSTANCE. Why it is stated that Saint Britius, and many others, did.

ANGELINA. Then it must have been by some such juggling as is practised in the present day-preparing the hands and feet with a chemical coating.

MR. CONSTANCE. That is very probable.

Indeed,

there can be no doubt of it; the person accused was committed to the care of the priests, (who invariably conducted the fiery ordeal) during three entire days previously to the trial, and remained in their custody for the same space after it was over. The ordeal took place in the church under their own immediate inspection; they also conseerated and heated the iron themselves. Mass was then said, and various ceremonies were performed, all calculated to divert the attention of the people; and, when the operation was over, the part which had been exposed to the fire was carefully bound up and sealed, not to be opened

until the end of the third day: doubtless, therefore, the time before the trial was occupied in preparing the skin to resist the effects of heat, and that afterwards in obliterating the marks of any injury that it might have sustained. But this fact has, I believe, been acknowledged in the works of Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, who, after the trial by ordeal had been abolished, published the secret of the art; which, if his account be correct, consisted in nothing more than covering the hands and feet at repeated intervals with a paste made of the sap of certain herbs, mixed together with the white of an egg.

MARIA. This was the method then practised by St. Britius, I suppose?

MR. CONSTANCE. Very probably it was; but, unfor tunately for him, he was suspected of having dealings with the evil spirit, and was therefore banished the city. The Trial by Water was equally absurd in its practice, though not quite so revolting to one's feelings: the culprit had his left hand and right foot bound together, when if he could contrive to float on the surface of the water, he was considered innocent.

CHARLES. Oh! that might be done : there was at least a chance for the person. But pray what was the Ordeal of the Cross: were they crucified?

MR. CONSTANCE. No: this was a still milder proceeding, and usually practised by the nobility. It was a trial of strength between the accuser and the accused. The cross, you are aware, is considered an instrument of salvation; the parties, therefore, upon trial, used to stretch out their arms in a supplicatory manner, and he who could continue longest in that position, was adjudged the innocent person.

MARIA. What an absurdity! Of course, the strongest man was always in the right.

MR. CONSTANCE. The Trial by Battle, which was

the last in point of antiquity, has at least the character of being less absurd, if not more just. Of course the advantage was always on the side of the best swordsman, or most dexterous combatant: but as, in all these ordeals, it was superstitiously supposed that the Almighty would support the innocent, any disparity of ability was not deemed of conséquence. "God and my right," used to be the solemn exclamation of the combatants on setting to; and every person now charged with a capital offence, when asked how he will be tried, answers, "By God and my country;" which probably took its origin from the solemnization of the ordeals.

WILLIAM. Was not the Ordeal of Battle upon our statute books until within a few years past?

MR. CONSTANCE. Yes; until the year 1820, when a young lad claimed his right of combat with the supposed murderer of his sister, a man twice his own age. This unequal contest immediately suggested the absurdity of such a law; and as no superstitions, however ancient, will bear the scrutiny of the superior light of knowledge now spread abroad, the combat was evaded by some legal informality, and the King's Attorney-General obtained an act of the legislature for its erasure from our statute books. Although the ordeal by battle was the last adopted by our Saxon ancestors, it was very ancient in its practice, being common amongst the Franks and Lombards.

MARIA. Pray who was Machutus, whose name stands opposite the 15th of this month?

WILLIAM. He was a Welshman by birth, but gained his notoriety in France. He was born at Llancaroon in Glamorganshire, where he was conspicuous for early piety. His intention, upon proceeding to the Continent, was to lead the life of a recluse; but being solicited, he was pre vailed on to accept the bishoprick of Aleth, since called St. Maloe's, in honour of our saint, who was better known

by that name than by the one which graces the calendar. Exclusive of the miracles related, there is nothing remarkable in the history of Machutus further than that his character for piety, learning, and religious zeal, was not sufficient to protect him from the persecutions of the evil-disposed, who succeeded in forcing him to take shelter under the roof of his friend the archbishop of Bordeaux. Whe ther the impiety and absurdity of his pretended miracles disgusted the more intelligent inhabitants, or what caused his expulsion, is not stated; he, however, lived to be recalled to his see. Upon his return he is said to have restored the sick to health; made the hitherto barren soil productive; and, finally, to have bestowed upon the city and its inhabitants his blessing while living, and parental watchfulness after his decease, which happened about the year 564.

CHARLES. Was there any thing remarkable in St. Maloe's miracles?

MR. CONSTANCE. All miracles appear remarkable, I think, Charles; but if you mean to ask whether the miracles of Machutus differed in any material points from those stated to have been worked by other saints, I answer no. He could restore the dead to life, give sight to the blind, extract the poison of serpents, and either raise or subdue a storm. In short, if you believe the historians of his time, nothing came amiss to him: but my opinion is, that they have not done justice to the good bishop; for in their anxiety to make him appear something more than human, they have neglected to give the best colouring to those real virtues which he no doubt possessed in an eminent degree. But it is pleasing to turn from the consideration of a biography so overcharged with improbable incidents to one of a more decided and consistent character. The history of the one noted on the 17th, St. Hugh, is of this description, I believe.

ANGELINA. Was he an Englishman?

WILLIAM. No; he was a native of Burgundy, and born in the year 1140; he, however, subsequently became an English bishop, and presided over the see of Lincoln until his death, which happened in the year 1200; of course, he was then in his sixtieth year. He was an early genius, and at the age of nineteen took the monkish hood at a convent near Grenoble, of which he ultimately became grand procurator. He was introduced into this country by Henry II., who, by much solicitation, prevailed on him to take the priorship of an order of Carthusian monks at Witham, in Somersetshire. During his residence at Lincoln (to which see he was next translated), he rebuilt the cathedral from its foundation; in this church he was afterwards buried.

MR. CONSTANCE. Some estimate of the respect in which this worthy man was held, may be formed from the circumstances attending his funeral. He happened to die in London; and having previously requested that he might be interred in his own cathedral, the funeral was conducted in solemn pomp from the metropolis to Lincoln. His grave was surrounded by two sovereigns, (King John, and William, King of Scotland,) three archbishops, fourteen bishops, one hundred abbots, and a long train of nobility. His pall was supported by their majesties. In year 1220, he was canonized at Rome, and his remains were taken up October 7, 1282, and deposited in a

[ocr errors]

the

silver shrine.

CHARLES. It is rather a remarkable circumstance, I think, that the history of St. Hugh should be altogether free from the superstitions of the times in which he lived.

WILLIAM. I am sorry it is not quite so: but though nothing improbable is stated of him while living, many miracles of a wonderful nature are said to have been

« PreviousContinue »