The Old Yellow Book Part 19

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 l.u.s.t. The partic.i.p.ation 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 t.i.tle of "carnal cognition" was written down; because, as was formerly responded, the alteration of that was demanded, and likewise the subst.i.tution of a general t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 a.s.sumed.

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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sumption 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 pract.i.tioners 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 diminis.h.i.+ng 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 circ.u.mstances are present which increase the crime; and any one of these is punishable with death.

To this end we should first consider the a.s.sembling of armed men, which is so very injurious to the public peace, and const.i.tutes 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 a.s.sembled. This had been formerly prohibited under the same penalty by the seventy-fifth Const.i.tution 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, a.s.serting that it should generally be so understood in all cases in which the a.s.sembling 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 Const.i.tution of Sixtus V. of blessed memory, prohibits such a.s.sembling 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 Const.i.tution and of the Banns, since it was made for an illegal and d.a.m.nable end, namely to kill his wife, and his father-in-law and mother-in-law along with her. This is rendered plain by the a.s.sertion 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, st.u.r.dy 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 a.s.sociates with better right, and fully armed could pursue her; and in such a case his a.s.sembling 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 a.s.sembling 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 circ.u.mstance 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 Const.i.tution, which so distinctly prohibits such arms. For Policardus speaks of the _Regula Pragmatica_ which takes for granted the qualifying circ.u.mstance of the crime of treachery from the kind of arms, and he a.s.serts 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 Const.i.tution; 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 _laesa majestas_, punishable with death and the confiscation of goods. This qualifying circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstance 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 friends.h.i.+p, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 _laesa majestas_. [Citation.]

This very grave qualifying circ.u.mstance, 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 a.s.signed 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstance 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 Ill.u.s.trious Governor, it is quite within limits that the crime should be punished with the ordinary penalty, even if the qualifying circ.u.mstance of special atrocity were not present, so that the penalty should not be increased on that account.

But such a qualifying circ.u.mstance is not wanting here, as it results indeed from the treacherous manner and from the charge of _laesa majestas_, which is provable in our case on three grounds; namely offence committed during a lawsuit, the a.s.sembling of armed men, and the violation of public safekeeping, because of the home a.s.signed as a prison. For according to the Apostolic Const.i.tutions, 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 a.s.serts 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 circ.u.mstances Spada gives this opinion in demanding the torment of the vigil.

Nor can that qualifying circ.u.mstance 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 n.o.bleman to be made worse, as is accustomed to happen in very atrocious crimes (because n.o.ble 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 n.o.blemen, priests, and men in religious office upon whom an infamous penalty cannot be inflicted. But n.o.bility 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, a.s.sisted 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 compa.s.sion, 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 circ.u.mstances of this crime. And this in substance is all that is claimed by the author of the pamphlet ent.i.tled _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 d.a.m.nable 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 G.o.d's precept and into eating the forbidden fruit; for [Satan] considered the matter in this way: "If I wish to a.s.sault 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 s.e.x," 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 n.o.bility 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 a.s.sumed 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 n.o.bility. 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 furnis.h.i.+ng 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 a.s.signed 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 Ill.u.s.trious 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 n.o.bility 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 n.o.bility 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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sed 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 compa.s.sion 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 sh.o.r.e." 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 chast.i.ty, 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 a.s.sistance 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.