The Old Yellow Book Part 17

_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 Ill.u.s.trious 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 a.s.sociates, 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 a.s.sert 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.

Pa.s.sing 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 circ.u.mstances which exasperated and raised the crime to the outraging of the majesty of the law, according to the provisions of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 Ill.u.s.trious Lord, and the Lords Judges, in order that Guido and his a.s.sociates 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 -- _Praedictis 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 l.u.s.tful 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sertion 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 Convert.i.tes, and that some of the undersigned were legatees. They also respond that since such an a.s.sertion 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 a.s.sume 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 Convert.i.tes, is also removed by the same reply; because when one is arguing for the proof of an a.s.sertion 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 quas.h.i.+ng 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 a.s.sertion 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sertion of one wounded, as to whether such a.s.sertion const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sertion of Pompilia when dying tend princ.i.p.ally 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 a.s.sert 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 t.i.tle 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 "t.i.tle" of "complicity in the flight and escape of Francesca Pompilia," there was also added the t.i.tle "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 t.i.tle 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 Ill.u.s.trious Lord, which subst.i.tuted a general t.i.tle 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 a.s.signing 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 a.s.sert that the said change of t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 a.s.sert that a change as regards the matter of the trial does also impart the same change as to the expression of the t.i.tle of carnal knowledge. For since several t.i.tles 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, _Causae, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 Const.i.tution 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 punis.h.i.+ng 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 l.u.s.t, 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.serted, 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 a.s.serted 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 dest.i.tute 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, dest.i.tute 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 a.s.serted love-letters; for these were constantly denied by Pompilia.

Nor can these letters be said to be sufficiently verified by the a.s.sertion 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, dest.i.tute 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.