marquise de brinvilliers-第10章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ome　on　the　point　of　her　knife；　and　at　once　felt　ill。　　She　also　gave　her　a　slice　of　mutton；　rather　wet；　which　she　ate；　afterwards　suffering　great　pain　in　the　stomach；　feeling　as　though　she　had　been　pricked　in　the　heart；　and　for　three　years　had　felt　the　same；　believing　herself　poisoned。

It　was　difficult　to　continue　a　system　of　absolute　denial　in　face　of　proofs　like　these。　　The　marquise　persisted；　all　the　same；　that　she　was　in　no　way　guilty；　and　Maitre　Nivelle；　one　of　the　best　lawyers　of　the　period；　consented　to　defend　her　cause。

He　combated　one　charge　after　another；　in　a　remarkably　clever　way；　owning　to　the　adulterous　connection　of　the　marquise　with　Sainte…　Croix；　but　denying　her　participation　in　the　murders　of　the　d'Aubrays；　father　and　sons：　these　he　ascribed　entirely　to　the　vengeance　desired　by　Sainte…Croix。　　As　to　the　confession；　the　strongest　and；　he　maintained；　the　only　evidence　against　Madame　de　Brinvilliers；　he　attacked　its　validity　by　bringing　forward　certain　similar　cases；　where　the　evidence　supplied　by　the　accused　against　themselves　had　not　been　admitted　by　reason　of　the　legal　action：　'Non　auditur　perire　volens'。　　He　cited　three　instances；　and　as　they　are　themselves　interesting；　we　copy　them　verbatim　from　his　notes。


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　FIRST　CASE

Dominicus　Soto；　a　very　famous　canonist　and　theologian；　confessor　to　Charles　V；　present　at　the　first　meetings　of　the　Council　of　Trent　under　Paul　III；　propounds　a　question　about　a　man　who　had　lost　a　paper　on　which　he　had　written　down　his　sins。　　It　happened　that　this　paper　fell　into　the　hands　of　an　ecclesiastical　judge；　who　wished　to　put　in　information　against　the　writer　on　the　strength　of　this　document。　　Now　this　judge　was　justly　punished　by　his　superior；　because　confession　is　so　sacred　that　even　that　which　is　destined　to　constitute　the　confession　should　be　wrapped　in　eternal　silence。　　In　accordance　with　this　precedent；　the　following　judgment；　reported　in　the　'Traite　des　Confesseurs'；　was　given　by　Roderic　Acugno。　　A　Catalonian；　native　of　Barcelona；　who　was　condemned　to　death　for　homicide　and　owned　his　guilt；　refused　to　confess　when　the　hour　of　punishment　arrived。　However　strongly　pressed；　he　resisted；　and　so　violently；　giving　no　reason；　that　all　were　persuaded　that　his　mind　was　unhinged　by　the　fear　of　death。　　Saint…Thomas　of　Villeneuve；　Archbishop　of　Valencia；　heard　of　his　obstinacy。　　Valencia　was　the　place　where　his　sentence　was　given。　　The　worthy　prelate　was　so　charitable　as　to　try　to　persuade　the　criminal　to　make　his　confession；　so　as　not　to　lose　his　soul　as　well　as　his　body。　　Great　was　his　surprise；　when　he　asked　the　reason　of　the　refusal；　to　hear　the　doomed　man　declare　that　he　hated　confessors；　because　he　had　been　condemned　through　the　treachery　of　his　own　priest；　who　was　the　only　person　who　knew　about　the　murder。　In　confession　he　had　admitted　his　crime　and　said　where　the　body　was　buried；　and　all　about　it；　his　confessor　had　revealed　it　all；　and　he　could　not　deny　it；　and　so　he　had　been　condemned。　　He　had　only　just　learned；　what　he　did　not　know　at　the　time　he　confessed；　that　his　confessor　was　the　brother　of　the　man　he　had　killed；　and　that　the　desire　for　vengeance　had　prompted　the　bad　priest　to　betray　his　confession。　　Saint…Thomas；　hearing　this；　thought　that　this　incident　was　of　more　importance　than　the　trial；　which　concerned　the　life　of　only　one　person；　whereas　the　honour　of　religion　was　at　stake；　with　consequences　infinitely　more　important。　　He　felt　he　must　verify　this　statement；　and　summoned　the　confessor。　　When　he　had　admitted　the　breach　of　faith；　the　judges　were　obliged　to　revoke　their　sentence　and　pardon　the　criminal；　much　to　the　gratification　of　the　public　mind。　The　confessor　was　adjudged　a　very　severe　penance；　which　Saint…Thomas　modified　because　of　his　prompt　avowal　of　his　fault；　and　still　more　because　he　had　given　an　opportunity　for　the　public　exhibition　of　that　reverence　which　judges　themselves　are　bound　to　pay　to　confessions。


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SECOND　CASE

In　1579　an　innkeeper　at　Toulouse　killed　with　his　own　hand；　unknown　to　the　inmates　of　his　house；　a　stranger　who　had　come　to　lodge　with　him；　and　buried　him　secretly　in　the　cellar。　　The　wretch　then　suffered　from　remorse；　and　confessed　the　crime　with　all　its　circumstances；　telling　his　confessor　where　the　body　was　buried。　　The　relations　of　the　dead　man；　after　making　all　possible　search　to　get　news　of　him；　at　last　proclaimed　through　the　town　a　large　reward　to　be　given　to　anyone　who　would　discover　what　had　happened　to　him。　　The　confessor；　tempted　by　this　bait；　secretly　gave　word　that　they　had　only　to　search　in　the　innkeeper's　cellar　and　they　would　find　the　corpse。　　And　they　found　it　in　the　place　indicated。　　The　innkeeper　was　thrown　into　prison；　was　tortured；　and　confessed　his　crime。　　But　afterwards　he　always　maintained　that　his　confessor　was　the　only　person　who　could　have　betrayed　him。　　Then　the　Parliament；　indignant　with　such　means　of　finding　out　the　truth；　declared　him　innocent；　failing　other　proof　than　what　came　through　his　confessor。　　The　confessor　was　himself　condemned　to　be　hanged；　and　his　body　was　burnt。　　So　fully　did　the　tribunal　in　its　wisdom　recognise　the　importance　of　securing　the　sanctity　of　a　sacrament　that　is　indispensable　to　salvation。


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THIRD　CASE

An　Armenian　woman　had　inspired　a　violent　passion　in　a　young　Turkish　gentleman；　but　her　prudence　was　long　an　obstacle　to　her　lover's　desires。　　At　last　he　went　beyond　all　bounds；　and　threatened　to　kill　both　her　and　her　husband　if　she　refused　to　gratify　him。　　Frightened　by　this　threat；　which　she　knew　too　well　he　would　carry　out；　she　feigned　consent；　and　gave　the　Turk　a　rendezvous　at　her　house　at　an　hour　when　she　said　her　husband　would　be　absent；　but　by　arrangement　the　husband　arrived；　and　although　the　Turk　was　armed　with　a　sabre　and　a　pair　of　pistols；　it　so　befell　that　they　were　fortunate　enough　to　kill　their　enemy；　whom　they　buried　under　their　dwelling　unknown　to　all　the　world。　　But　some　days　after　the　event　they　went　to　confess　to　a　priest　of　their　nation；　and　revealed　every　detail　of　the　tragic　story。　　This　unworthy　minister　of　the　Lord　supposed　that　in　a　Mahommedan　country；　where　the　laws　of　the　priesthood　and　the　functions　of　a　confessor　are　either　unknown　or　disapproved；　no　examination　would　be　made　into　the　source　of　his　information；　and　that　his　evidence　would　have　the　same　weight　as　any　other　accuser's。　So　he　resolved　to　make　a　profit　and　gratify　his　own　avarice。　　Several　times　he　visited　the　husband　and　wife；　always　borrowing　considerable　sums；　and　threatening　to　reveal　their　crime　if　they　refused　him。　　The　first　few　times　the　poor　creatures　gave　in　to　his　exactions；　but　the　moment　came　at　last　when；　robbed　of　all　their　fortune；　they　were　obliged　to　refuse　the　sum　he　demanded。　　Faithful　to　his　threat；　the　priest；　with　a　view　to　more　reward；　at　once　denounced　them　to　the　dead　man's　father。　　He；　who　had　adored　his　son；　went　to　the　vizier；　told　him　he　had　identified　the　murderers　through　their　confessor；　and　asked　for　justice。　　But　this　denunciation　had　by　no　means　the　desired　effect。　　The　vizier；　on　the　contrary；　felt　deep　pity　for　the　wretched　Armenians；　and　indignation　against　the　priest　who　had　betrayed　them。　He　put　the　accuser　into　a　room　which　adjoined　the　court；　and　sent　for　the　Armenian　bishop　to　ask　what　confession　really　was；　and　what　punishment　was　deserved　by　a　priest　who　betrayed　it；　and　what　was　the　fate　of　those　whose　crimes　were　made　known　in　this　fashion。　　The　bishop　replied　that　the　secrets　of　confession　are　inviolable；　that　Christians　burn　the　priest　who　reveals　them；　and　absolve　those　whom　he　accuses；　because　the　avowal　made　by　the　guilty　to　the　priest　is　proscribed　by　the　Christian　religion；　on　pain　of　eternal　damnation。　The　vizier；　satisfied　with　the　answer；　took　the　bishop　into　another　room；　and　summoned　the　accused　to　declare　all　the　circumstances：　the　poor　wretches；　half　dead；　fell　at　the　vizier's　feet。　　The　woman　spoke；　explaining　that　the　necessity　of　defending　life　and　honour　had　driven　them　to　take　up　arms　to　kill　their　enemy。　　She　added　that　God　alone　had　witnessed　their　crime；　and　it　would　still　be　unknown　had　not　the　law　of　the　same　God　compelled　them　to　confide　it　to　the