The Old Yellow Book: Source of Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book. Various

upon his family and the entire kin. Marsilius then adduces the abovesaid laws, which pronounce concerning a husband who kills his adulterous wife; and Bertazzolus offers the case of one who had killed his adulterous wife and had afterward, in his own defence, proved the adultery by the double confession of the same wife. Claudius Jr. testifies that the murderer was banished for a time by the praetor of Mirandola, and after the lapse of several months he was recalled by the Duke of Mirandola. [Citations.]

      Afflitto cites the decree of the Kingdom, beginning Si Maritus, which concedes impunity to a husband who kills his wife and the adulterer both, in the very act of adultery, and without any delay. He then says that if both of these requisites are not present, the husband is excused in part, but not entirely; and so is punished more mildly. And in No. 2 he gives the reason; because whenever one commits a crime, under impulse of just anger, the penalty should be somewhat moderated, according to the aforesaid text. [Citations.]

      Matthæus [Citation] adduces the excellent words of Theodoric as quoted by Cassiodorus [Citation], where we read: "For who can bear to drag into court a man who has attempted to violate his matrimonial rights? It is deep-seated even in beasts that they should defend their mating even with deadly conflict, since what is condemned by natural law is hateful to all living creatures. We see bulls defending their cows by strife of horns, rams fighting with their heads for their wethers, horses vindicating by kicks and bites their females; so even these, who are moved by no sense of shame, lay down their lives for their mates. How then may a man endure to leave adultery unavenged, which is known to have been committed to his eternal disgrace? And so if you have made very little false statements in the petition you offer, and if you have indeed only washed away the stain to your marriage-bed by the blood of the adulterer, taken in the act, and if you are looking back from your exile, which was evidently inflicted not by reason of a bloodthirsty mind, but because of your sense of shame, we bid you return from your exile; since for a husband to use the sword for the love of his sense of honour is not to overthrow the laws, but to establish them."

      Dondeus says this interpretation is clearly proved by the authority of a glossa in the chapter: Ex litterarum. [Citation.] For in the text, when these words are used: "your wife taken in adultery," a glossa explains the word "taken" as equal to "convicted." Marta says this opinion is much more just and equitable, and is commonly held. And Muta (dec. Siciliæ 61) in the end offers a decision of the supreme court of the kingdom, by which a husband was condemned to the galleys for seven years. This was on account of the accompanying circumstances; for he had had his wife summoned outside of the city walls by his son, and there had killed her; and afterward her body was found to have been devoured by dogs. Dexartus testifies that it was thus decided in Sacred Royal Court, in condemning a husband only to exile. Sanfelix also tells us that certain noble young men, who had killed their wives, after an interval, because of strong suspicion of adultery, were absolved by the Royal Council of Naples, in view of the quality of the persons concerned. In their favour, authorities of the highest rank had written, whose allegations this same author places under the said decision. And although some of these young men were condemned to the oars, he said that this punishment had been imposed because of the mutilation of the privates which followed; because those who do such things are considered enemies to nature. (Panimoll. dec. 86.) And Caldero, although in the preceding numbers he inclined toward an opinion contrary to ours, came over to our side when he saw that Matthæus held that opinion.

      And the reason is very evident, for whenever such an injury is suffered by fine natures, especially among the noble class, it is ever present with them, and continually oppresses the heart, and urges it on to vengeance for the recovery of lost honour, as Giurba well notes. [Citations.]

      For this reason, it has always and everywhere been held in case of murder committed for honour's sake that there is no place for the ordinary death penalty, which should be mitigated at the discretion of the judge. And this rule has been followed, when the murder was committed after an interval, and even after a long interval. For the abovesaid reason, both Grammaticus and Gizzarellus affirm and hand down this opinion. The latter says that it has always been so adjudged by the Sacred Council of Naples, and that this opinion has always been accepted by our ancestors. [Citations.]

      It was so judged by the high court of the Vicar, although it was dealing with a murder committed after two years, and by craft, by two brothers upon the adulteress in the presence of her sister's cousin. Cyriacus also speaks of the murder of a husband by his wife, because he was keeping a mistress and was contriving against her honour; and there he said that since just anger has a long continuance, because of its extreme bitterness, vengeance should always be said to follow immediately. [Citation.]

      Another reason also is at hand, which is considered by the authorities, namely, that an injury, whereby the honour is hurt, is not personal, but real, and therefore can be resented at any time whatsoever, even after the lapse of a very long time, as Giurba holds in our circumstances. [Citations.]

      We have therefore a great many standard authorities who affirm, for most vital reasons, that murder committed, even after an interval, upon the person of the wife or of any one else, for honour's sake, ought not to be punished with the ordinary death penalty, but more mildly. Furthermore, these authorities bear witness that the matter has been so judged in the tribunals with which they are acquainted. No attention therefore should be paid to the opposite opinion held by Farinacci [Citation]; for we plainly see that he speaks contrary to the common and usually accepted opinion in tribunals. [Citation.]

      Still further it should be noted that the same author in cons. 66, num. 5, holds the very opposite, basing his opinion especially upon a text in the law of Emperor Hadrian [Citation], where a father had killed his son, who was not found in the act with his stepmother, but while out hunting and in the woods, that is, after an interval. And he was punished not with the death penalty, but by deportation. Several of the above-cited authorities offer the decision of this text likewise in corroboration of this opinion of ours. Our point is also proved by the fact that this same author in quaest. 121 is rather doubtful; and there he acknowledges that for this opinion of ours the reason given above is very strong, namely, that "injured honour" and "just anger" always oppress the heart. And so he says in such a case one should note the sense of the text in the law Non puto [Citation], where Modestinus, Doctor of Law, says that he thinks that one would not make a mistake who in doubtful cases should readily give this response against the Fisc; and Farinacci cites him so speaking.

      But one should be on his guard against what this same Farinacci asserts: namely, that this opinion of his, so far as he could see, was the one more approved by the Sacred Court. For since this point of doubt, as he himself confesses, had not then been advanced, he could not judge what would be the outcome if it had been proposed. And indeed the wisest of the said high authorities do not give their assent to his opinion, but rather hold the contrary, which is favourable to ourselves, as is seen in the decisions they have given from time to time. For it was so held on March 25, 1672, in the case of Carolo Falerno, who was condemned to an unusual penalty for the murder of Francesco Domenici; for he had found him coming out of a church, to which he had warned him not to go, as he was suspicious that the one slain was following his wife. In like manner with Carolo Matarazzi, August 15, 1673, who killed his wife on the foolish grounds that he suspected her of illegitimate conception because of the absence of her menses; but this suspicion did not indeed correspond with the truth. And in law a matter may be even more mistaken and less observed by human intellect. [Citations.]

      Likewise in a murder committed treacherously with an arquebus upon the person of Tomaso Bovini by Francesco Mattucio of Monte San Giovanni, a person of the very lowest class, merely because of the attempted dishonour of his sister. The attempt of the one killed was proved by two witnesses on hearsay of the one slain. On September 4, 1692, the penalty of life sentence to the galleys, to which the said Mattucio had been convicted on strongest proofs on the preceding July 12, was moderated by the sacred court, before the Right Reverend Father Ratta, of blessed memory. With good right, therefore, this same Farinacci is expressly confuted and overthrown by Matthæus. [Citations.]

      This opinion of ours is to be accepted the more readily when we consider that the husband is more stirred by the adultery of his wife than by the murder of his son. [Citations.] Yes, and even more than by the defilement of his daughter.