The Old Yellow Book Part 6

In pledge thereto we have signed this present attestation with our own hands here in Rome this tenth of January, 1698.

I, NICOLO CONSTANTIO, etc., who a.s.sisted at the treatment of the said Francesca Pompilia during four days, attest as above, etc.

I, Fra CELESTINO ANGELO of St. Anna, barefooted Augustinian, say that I was present from the first instant of the case, even to the end of her life, and was always ministering to her. She ever said, "May G.o.d pardon him in heaven as I pardon him on earth; but as for the matter they charge me with, and for which they have slain me, I am utterly innocent." In proof whereof she said that G.o.d should not pardon her that sin, because she had never committed it. She died as an innocent martyr in the presence of another priest, to the edification of all the bystanders, as I have affirmed above with my own hand.

I, PLACIDO SARDI, a priest, affirm with my own hand as the abovesaid Father, Fra Celestino, has declared, having been present as above.

I, the MARQUIS NICOLO GREGORIO, affirm as above with my own hand.

I, the undersigned, affirm what is contained in the abovewritten statement, as well as in the attestation of the reverend Father Celestino of Jesu and Maria. I a.s.sisted the abovesaid Signora Francesca Pompilia from the first, having picked her up from the earth where she lay in utter weakness because of her wounds. She had her head upon the legs of Signor Pietro Comparini, who was already dead. She made confession in my arms to the Princ.i.p.al of the Greek College, because she could neither rise up nor lie down. And from that hour I never left her, but always ministered to her even unto her death. She was the most exemplary and edifying Christian I have ever seen.

For I saw her resigned to the divine will, and she always relied upon her own innocence, etc.

I, GIUSEPPE D'ANDILLO, with my own hand.

I, the undersigned, attest and affirm what is contained in all the said affidavits, from having a.s.sisted the said Francesca Pompilia, etc.

DIONYSIO G.o.dYN, with my own hand.

I, LUCA CORSI, affirm with my own hand as is contained in all the said attestations, from having a.s.sisted day and night as long as the malady of the former Francesca Pompilia continued, and from having heard as above.

I, GIOVANNI BATTISTA GUITENS, apothecary, who have a.s.sisted at the treatment and care of the said Francesca Pompilia, affirm with my own hand as is contained in all the above affidavits and attestations, from having a.s.sisted continually throughout a night and a day at the malady of the same.

I, GIOVANNI BATTISTA MUCHA, the boy of the said Giovanni Battista Guitens, apothecary, affirm with my own hand as is contained above in the said attestation, from having a.s.sisted with the former Francesca Pompilia.

Full and unquestionable statement is given by me the here undersigned, Abate Liberato Barberito, Doctor of Theology, that, as I was summoned to a.s.sist at the death of the said Signora Francesca Comparini, I often noticed, and especially during an entire night, that the above-named defendant suffered the pains of her wounds with Christian resignation, and condoned with superhuman generosity the offences of the one who had caused her innocent death with so many wounds. I also observed during the night the tenderness of the conscience of the above-named. For she pa.s.sed it in showing the unwavering feelings of an heroic and Christian perfection. And this so much so that I can attest that during the experience I have had, having been four years Vicar in the Cure of Monsignor, the Bishop of Monopoli, of blessed memory, I have never observed the dying with like sentiments. And this is all the more so in an evil, caused so violently by another.

Therefore in pledge, etc. Rome, this tenth day of January 1698.

I, ABATE DI LIBERATO BARBERITO, affirm as above, etc.

[File-t.i.tle of Pamphlet 5.]

_By the Most Ill.u.s.trious and Most Reverend Lord Governor of the City in Criminal Cases:_

_ROMAN MURDER-CASE._

_In behalf of the Fisc, against_ Count Guido Franceschini and his a.s.sociates_.

_Memorial of fact and law of the Lord Procurator General of the Fisc._.

_At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Church, 1698._

ROMANA EXCIDII

[PAMPHLET 5.]

Most Ill.u.s.trious and Most Reverend Lord:

The deplorable slaughter of the entire Comparini family, which occurred in this dear city of ours on the second night of the current month of January, and the shedding of their blood, cries out from earth to G.o.d for vengeance upon the criminals. And in order that we may fulfil the obligations of the office we are occupying, we have paid down the price of toil to narrate here with faithful pen the series of events. From this, my Lords Judges may readily see what laws may be applicable for a decision as to this cause and for the punishment of the delinquents for the same deed, etc., and so Barbosa says in his axioms in jurisprudence, axiom 93, No. 1: "Just as from the deed the law takes its rise, so from the deed the law dies."

The series of facts, therefore, is as follows: Guido Franceschini of the city of Arezzo, married Francesca Comparini, for whom, by Pietro and Violante Comparini, there were promised as dowry, among other matters, certain properties subject to a reversionary interest. For they had brought this same Francesca up in their home as their own daughter, and as such they married her. Then, as the aforesaid Pietro and Violante had no other children, they left their home in the City to go and live in the home of Franceschini at Arezzo. There, for some time, they continued to live together in peace; but, as often happens among friends and relatives, contentions and quarrellings arose. On account of these, the aforesaid Pietro and Violante left that home and the city of Arezzo, and went back to Rome. In the meantime, as the flame of this enkindled hatred increased, a lawsuit was inst.i.tuted as to the dowry once promised, but now denied by Pietro, on the pretext that Francesca was not indeed the daughter of the same Pietro and Violante, but that, after a pretence of her birth had been made, she had been received and brought up by them. And for this reason the said Guido and Francesca could not hope for the inheritance of the properties under the reversionary interest. But although Franceschini gained a favourable judgment on this point, yet when appeal had been made on behalf of Pietro Comparini, Francesca declared that she was ill-treated in the home of her husband by himself, and therefore desired to leave that home. Accordingly with the aid and companionship of Canon Caponsacchi, a relative of the said Franceschini, as is supposed, she ran away. But Franceschini had notice of his wife's flight and, following her up, he overtook her at the tavern of Castelnuovo. There he went to the governor of that place and saw to effecting the capture of his wife and the Canon, as indeed followed.

Then the quarrel was continued. A criminal suit was brought in this Tribunal of the Governor of the City; the process of action was arranged, and the counsel on both sides was often heard, both by word of mouth and in writing. At last it was decided that owing to lack of proof of adultery the said Canon should be banished to Civita Vecchia and Francesca should be held in safekeeping. But because the Comparini claimed that the furnishing of food in the safekeeping was the duty of Franceschini, and the latter declared it lay with Comparini, the most Ill.u.s.trious Lord Governor, having first secured the consent of Abate Paolo, the brother of Guido and his representative in the case, a.s.signed the home of the Comparini to Francesca as a safe and secure prison under security.

While these contests were still pending, both in the civil and criminal cases, as well as in that for divorce brought by Francesca, the wife, this same Franceschini schemed to take vengeance upon the abovesaid. For the execution of this criminal purpose he brought together Domenico Gamba.s.sini of Florence, Alessandro Baldeschi of the region of Castello, Francesco Pasquini Antonii of the Marquisate of Monte Acuto, and Blasio Agostinelli of the town of Popolo, and dwelling at the Villa Quarata. He provided them with swords and dagger, prohibited by the Bull of Alexander VIII., and entered the City in company with the aforesaid men. Approaching the home of the Comparini, at the first hour of the night, he secured the opening of the door to himself under the pretence of bringing a letter, sent to Violante by the said Canon Caponsacchi, then staying at Civita Vecchia. As soon as the door of the home was opened by the said Violante, the aforesaid Guido and his companions immediately set upon her. She was cut to pieces with their swords and immediately fell dead. Pietro likewise was cut down and died. Francesca, however, tried to hide under a bed, but was found and wounded in many places. Then, as if G.o.d granted her the favour, she was not left utterly dead, though after a few days she also pa.s.sed away; and thus she could reveal this monstrous crime. As soon as my Lord Governor had notice of this, with most vigilant attention, he saw that the malefactors were pursued beyond the City. Accordingly that same night, they were discovered in the tavern at Merluccia with firearms and illegal swords, still b.l.o.o.d.y, and were taken back to prison. Then, when a case had been made against them, they were examined as to the crime. Some of them indeed confessed it, and although the others made denial of the management and knowledge of the killing of the entire family, yet against them there are most urgent presumptions of the knowledge and management abovesaid. Furthermore, from the same prosecution the gravest proofs have resulted, such as can be but slightly attacked and controverted by the Defence.

Hence, when this cause may be presented to receive judgment, we believe that no foundation can afford defence for the criminals to escape the capital penalty, so far as they have confessed their crime, or can release those who have denied it from the rigorous torture of the vigil. For what if the Defence do strongly argue the question as to whether a husband who kills an adulterous wife, not immediately and when found in adultery, but after an interval, ought to be excused from the ordinary penalty of the _Lex Cornelia de Sicariis_? Some authorities indeed give an affirmative opinion for the excuse of the husband, as is to be seen in Giurba. [Citations.] Yet all of these authorities for mitigating the penalty upon a husband who kills his wife after an interval are moved by this reason: That since the sense of injured honour always oppresses the heart, it is difficult to restrain just resentment; for this reason the defence of the honour is said to be immediate when done as quickly as possible.

But there are indeed many other authorities who stand by the negative, a.s.serting that a husband who kills his wife, otherwise than when taken in adultery and in acts of pa.s.sion, should be punished with the ordinary penalty. [Citations.] Rainaldi [Citation] says this opinion is the truer and the more advantageous to the state, nor should one depart from it in giving judgment. Sanzio says that it was often adjudged in this Senate that a husband was not excused by adultery legitimately proved, if he killed his wife after an interval; and for this reason, because formerly, according to the law of Romulus, a husband could kill his wife, but the _Lex Julia_ permitted him to kill only the vile adulterer, as Matthaeus proves. [Citation.]

But in this our present show of fact we believe we are dealing with a matter outside of the difficulty of this proposed question. For the authorities cited above for the contrary opinion hold good, and should be understood to do so, whenever the contention is about a husband who has killed his wife without excess of law and with no concurring circ.u.mstances and aggravating qualities, and when moved only by just grievance. But it is otherwise when, as in our case, excess and contempt of law is present and aggravating circ.u.mstances and qualities concur. Laurentius Matthaeus [Citation] testifies that, according to common practice, such a distinction has been followed out. And after he had affirmed that a husband should be excused from the ordinary penalty and be punished more mildly, he adds: "For these reasons, it is the common practice to weigh the effect of the grievance and to punish only the excess; so that if the suspicion of guile in the manner of killing is present (as he considers any circ.u.mstance which tends toward treachery) the penalty is aggravated."

The aggravating circ.u.mstances which concur in our case are indeed many, and they are so grave that any one of them is enough reason for imposing the death penalty or for qualifying the crime.

The first of these is the a.s.sembling of armed men; for according to decrees of the Governor of this City, the penalty of death and of the confiscation of goods is inflicted upon the one a.s.sembling the men; and this is true even if those a.s.sembled are but four, as is read in chapter 82 of the same Banns. This circ.u.mstance and quality cannot be evaded on the authority of certain jurists who a.s.sert that it is permissible for a husband to kill his wife, even by means of men thus brought together. For the said authorities speak, and should be understood, in a case in which a husband may kill with impunity an adulterer and his own wife in the very act of adultery, or in the home of the husband. But it is otherwise if she is killed after an interval, or outside of the home of her husband; according to what is given. [Citation.] Or these matters might hold good if in no other way he could kill the adulterer and his wife. So think all authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband. This cannot be said in our case since Franceschini, while following his wife with firearms, could have taken vengeance at the inn of Castelnuovo. But he had recourse to the judge, and chose the legal way of punishing his wife and the Canon with whom she fled. Or these claims would hold good if he had a.s.sembled a smaller number of men, whereby the crime of conventicle would not have been established. And this is the more strongly to be held because we are not concerned with a deed that is unpunishable, and permissible by law, as I have said.

Nor do we believe that the Defence can make a claim that the husband may kill an adulterous wife after an interval with impunity; for all the authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband free him indeed from the ordinary penalty, but not from an extraordinary penalty, as those adduced by us above in -- _Hinc c.u.m Causa_ can be seen to hold. If therefore, in our case, the husband committed a crime punishable in itself, how could he a.s.semble a number of men forming a conventicle prohibited by the Banns, without incurring the penalty threatened by them?

The second quality and circ.u.mstance is the carrying of arms contrary to the specification of the Const.i.tution of Alexander VIII., which is extended to the whole Ecclesiastical State. Still less can the authority of jurists be alleged in excuse from this threatened penalty, if the husband kill an adulterer and the wife with prohibited arms. For aside from the response given by us in the explanation of the first circ.u.mstance of a.s.sembling and of conventicle (namely that these authorities hold good and should be understood to apply only in cases permitted by law, and therefore unpunishable), we say still further that they have very little application as regards the arms we are discussing; since the said Const.i.tution prohibits not merely the carrying of such arms, but even their retention, manufacture, or introduction into the City and the Ecclesiastical State, under the penalty of rebellion and criminal insult to the majesty of the law.

And so far as we are acquainted with such cases as are permitted by law, the authority of these jurists should be understood to hold good concerning arms, the carrying of which is indeed prohibited, but not the retention and introduction under any pretext whatsoever, even the pretext of justice; as is included in this same Const.i.tution -- 1, where we read: "Or to carry them on any pretext whatever, whether of military service or of the execution of justice, and still less to keep them in one's home or elsewhere." And in -- _Ad haec_ it prohibits even the introduction of them: "the retention of them at home, in storehouses, and elsewhere, their introduction into the Ecclesiastical State, and their manufacture."

If therefore the retention and introduction of such arms is prohibited, even when on the pretext of executing justice, ridiculous indeed would be Franceschini's pretence that he could approach the City and the home of his wife with such arms to vindicate after an interval this pretended offence of honour. This is the more certain as the crime concerning such arms is grave and of itself is punished with the capital penalty, as we have proved. In this case, when the crime actually follows, if the penalty for carrying the arms is greater than for the crime itself, the penalty for the graver offence is held to apply, and includes the lighter. [Citations.]

The third circ.u.mstance is that Franceschini and the aforesaid men committed the murders in the very home and dwelling-place of the Comparini; because homicide is always said to be qualified when it is committed in the home of the one slain; since the home should be a safe refuge for its master, etc. Then also Franceschini entered with changed garb; in which case the murder is said to be committed _ex insidiis_. [Citations.]

The fourth quality and circ.u.mstance is that the said Francesca was under the power of the judge, since the home, as we have said in our narrative of fact, was a.s.signed to her under bond to keep it as a safe and secure prison. And hence she was under the protection of the court. [Citations.] And this is especially true when arguing in favour of the one who is under protection of the court, whatever may be said when arguing to his prejudice. And therefore the law holds that one under the protection of the court cannot be killed under less penalty than the death [of the a.s.sa.s.sin]. [Citations.]

But all debate seems to cease since it is proven in the process that the said Franceschini approached the said home with his company of men with the thought and intent to kill not merely Francesca, his wife, but also Pietro and Violante. These, as he himself acknowledges, he hated with a deadly hatred, because of the suit they had brought and because they had urged Francesca to poison her husband and her brother-in-law, and had kept his wife in their home so that still further, in the continuation of the adultery, his honour was offended.

But aside from this, as we have said above, Francesca was placed in the said home by the authority of the judge with the consent of the brother of this same husband, and so the question does not enter as to whether a husband may lawfully kill the relatives, friends, and servants of his adulterous wife, even if he does suspect them of affording their leave or a.s.sent to the wife committing adultery; since the special rights and privileges conceded to the husband should not be multiplied against the wife, and be given greater scope, but rather should be strictly interpreted. [Citation.] This holds good not merely when one is arguing about the prejudice of a third party, but concerning one's sole prejudice. [Citation.] In our very circ.u.mstances we read that the permission cannot be pa.s.sed from person to person.

[Citation.] Yet we can more truly declare that such an a.s.sertion of adultery on the part of Franceschini is calumniously false; for, in the very face of death, Francesca protested, to the very d.a.m.nation of her soul, that she had given no offence to her husband's honour. This protestation is the more to be believed since those about to die are not presumed to be unmindful of their eternal salvation. [Citation.]

The other causes adduced by Franceschini himself, so far as they are true, can indeed prove hatred and enmity existing between himself and the couple, which would tend in that direction and so would serve to prove in him a cause for their premeditated murder. But this is not sufficient to excuse him from the ordinary penalty of death, which premeditated homicide altogether demands. [Citations.] And it is for this reason, because the laws prohibit private vengeance (that is, vengeance which those without public office usurp to themselves because of their hatred, by killing or otherwise injuring men).

[Citations.] Raynaldus affirms that in premeditated murder the ordinary penalty is inflicted not merely upon the slayer himself, but also upon all others who aid and give help, or concur in committing the murder by their help or council. [Citations.]

FRANCESCO GAMBI, _Procurator General of the Fisc and of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber_.

[File-t.i.tle of Pamphlet 6.]