Abbildungen der Seite

et suspende illos contra solem in patibulis, &c. Et paulopost: ‘Et ecce unus de filiis Israel intravit coram fratribus suis ad scortum Madianitem, &c. Quod cum widisset surrexit de medio multitudinis Phinees, et arrepto pugione ingressus est post virum Israelitem in lupinar, et perfodit ambos simul in locis genitalibus. Et occisi sunt viginti quatuor millia hominum. Et sic Phinees placavit Deum. Et ideo innocentius inde miseria conditionis humanae ait. Extrema libidinis turpitudo : quae non solum mentem effoeminat, sed etiam corpus aggravat. Omne namque peccatum quodcunque fecerit homo extra corpus est; qui autem fornicatur in corpus suum peccat.' That is to say, This duke and a great part of his people committed fornication with pagan and Saracen women of the country of Moab, who induced them to worship their idols. God was much angered thereat, and said to Moses, who was their sovereign commander, ‘Take all the princes of the people and hang them up on a gibbet in the face of the sun.” “But why, said he, “hang all the princes !” “Because part of them were consenting to this crime, and the other part, though not following their example, were neglectful to avenge such heavy offences against God, their Creator.” “Moses instantly assembled all the princes and people of Israel, and told them what God had commanded. The people began to weep, because the offenders were so powerful the judges dared not condemn them,-and duke Zambry had full twenty-four thousand men of his tribe. This duke quitted the assembly, and, in the presence of all the people, entered the house of the pagan lady, the mistress of his heart, who was the handsomest woman of the country. A valiant man, named Phineas, roused by this insult to his God, stepped forth and said, “I vow to God, that I will instantly avenge this offence.’ He departed without saying more, or having any commands from Moses, and having entered the lady's house found her in dalliance with her lover, when, with a knife or dagger, he pierced their bodies through, and instantly put them to death. The twenty-four thousand adherents of the duke wished to revenge his death in battle, but, through God's grace, they were the weaker, and were all slain. This example of the valiant man Phineas is worthy of notice, for he was so much enamoured with the love of God, and so grieved on seeing the daring insult offered to him, that he was regardless of exposing his own life to danger; nor did he wait for the orders of Moses to perform the act, but he did it because he saw that the judges would not do their duty, some through neglect, others from fear of duke Zambry. “See what praise and recompense he received for this act, as it is written in the holy Scriptures: “Dixit Dominus ad Moysem, Phinees filius IIeleazari filii Aaron sacerdotis avertit iram mean a filiis Israel, quia zelomeo commotus est contra eos ut non ipse delerem filios Israel in zelomeo idcirco loquere ad eum. Ecce do ei pacem foederis mei et crit tam ipsi quam semini ejus pactum sacerdotii sempiternum: quia zelatus est pro Deo suo, et expiavit scelus filiorum Israel." That is to say, That the act he had done was so agreeable to God that he rewarded him, by ordaining that none but such as were of his blood should be anointed priests; and this is confirmed by the writings in the Old Testament: “Placuit et cessavit seditio, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam usque in sempiternum.’ Scribitur in Psalmo. Which means, That this action redounded to the honour, glory and praise of Phineas and his family for ever. Thus it plainly appears, that concupiscence and disorderly lusts had so entangled the duke Zambry in their snares that he became an idolater, and worshipped idols. Here concludes the third example of my second article. “Respecting the third article of my major, I must show from the authority of the Bible, which none dare contradict, that covetousness has made many become disloyal, and traitors to their sovereigns; but although I could produce numerous instances from the Scriptures and other writings, I shall confine my examples to three only,


“The first instance is that of Lucifer, the most perfect of all the creatures God had made, of whom the prophet Isaiah says, “Quomodo cecidisti de coelo Lucifer, qui mane orieberis: qui dicebas in corde tuo, conscendam supra astra Dei, exaltabo solium meum, ascendam supra altitudinem nubium et similis ero altissimo. Veruntamen ad infernum detraheris in

profundum laci.” Scrib. Is. xiv. Lucifer, as the prophet writes, considering himself as the

most perfect of creatures, said, within his own mind, ‘I will exert myself so greatly that I will place myself and my throne above the angels and rival God;’ that, is to say, he would have the same obedience paid to him. For this end, he deceived numbers of angels, and brought them over to his party, so that they were to do him homage and obedience, as to their sovereign lord, and be no way subject to God; and Lucifer was to hold his government in like manner to God, and independent of all subjection to him. Thus he wished to deprive God, his Sovereign and Creator, of the greater part of his power, and attribute it to himself, being induced to it by covetousness, which had taken possession of his mind. “St. Michael, on discovering his intentions, came to him, and said, that he was acting very wrong; and that, since God had formed him the most perfect of his creatures, he was bounden in gratitude to pay him greater reverence and obedience than all the others, for the gracious favours that had been shown him. Lucifer replied, that he would do no such thing. St. Michael answered, that neither himself nor the other angels would suffer him to act so injuriously to their Sovereign Lord and Creator. In short, a battle ensued between them, and many of the angels took part on either side, but the greater number number were for St. Michael. St. Michael slew Lucifer with a perdurable death, and he and his legions were cast out of heaven by force, and thrown into hell. Their sentence is in the xiith chap. of the Revelations: “Michael et angeli ejus praeliabantur cum dracone, et draco pugnabat et angeli ejus cum eo.' Et paulum post,-' et projectus est in terram draco ille, et angeli ejus missi sunt cum eo. Et audivi vocem magnam in coelo dicentem, nunc facta est salus, et virtus, et regnum Deo nostro;'-which means, That St. John saw in a vision this battle, and how Lucifer was cast with his angels from heaven into hell. When the battle was won, he heard a loud voice proclaiming through the heavens, “At present, peace is restored to our Lord God and to his saints.’—Thus ends the first example of the third article. “The second instance refers to the fair Absalom, son to David king of Jerusalem.— Absalom, considering that his father was become old and very feeble, practised a conspiracy against him, and had himself anointed king. He collected ten thousand fighting men, whom he marched towards Jerusalem, to put his father to death and take possession of the town. “King David received intelligence of what was intended, and in consequence fled from the city of Jerusalem, with some of his faithful friends, to a town beyond Jordan, whither he summoned his adherents. A battle was shortly proposed in the forest of Lendeue, whither Absalom came with a large force of men at arms, leading them as their prince. His constable and other knights advised him to remain within the forest, for it was strongly situated. This he did; but as he was one of the most expert knights in the world, he would himself form his army into three battalions: the first was put under the command of Joab his constable; the second was given to Bisay, brother to Joab; and the third was commanded by Eschey, son to Jeth. When the battle took place, it was very severe and hard-fought; but the party of Absalom was slain or put to flight. “It happened, as Absalom was flying on his mule after the defeat of his party, that he passed under an oak, whose spreading branches caught hold of his hair, and thus suspended him, while his mule galloped from under him. Absalom had that day taken off his helmet from his head, the more readily to escape, and his hair was extremely thick and long, reaching to his girdle, and got twisted among the branches, so that he seemed to hang there miraculously, as a punishment for the disloyal treason he had formed against his father and sovereign. Absalom was seen in this situation by one of the men-at-arms of Joab, constable to king David, and hastened to tell Joab of it, who replied, “When thou sawest him, why didst thou not kill him? and I would have given thee ten golden besants, and a handsome girdle.” The man answered, “If thou wouldst have given me ten thousand besants, I should not have dared to have touched him, or done him the least evil; for I was present when the king commanded thee, and all his men at arms, saying, ‘Save me my child Absalom Oh, save him from being slain " Joab said, “that the commands of the king were contrary to his honour and safety; and that so long as Absalom should live, the king would be always in peril, and we shall not have peace in the kingdom. Lead me where Absalom is.’ And the man led him to where Absalom was hanging by his hair. Joab, on seeing him, thrust his lance thrice into his body, near to the place of his heart, and then had him thrown into a ditch and covered with stones; for according to the laws of God, all traitors against their fathers and sovereigns were to be put to death and covered with stones. “When David heard of the death of his son, he went into an upper chamber, and wept bitterly, uttering these words: “Fili mi Absalon, fili mi quis mihi tribuat, ut ego moriar prote Absalon fili mi". It was told to Joab and the other captains, that David was inconsolable for the loss of Absalom, which made them very indignant; and Joab went to David, and said, ‘Confudisti hodie vultus omnium servorum tuorum qui salvam fecerunt animam tuam. Diligis odienteste, et odio habes diligenteste, et ostendisti hodie quia non curas de ducibus tuis, et de servis tuis, et vere cognovi modo quod si Absalon viveret, et nos omnes occubuissemus tunc placeret tibi. Nunc igitur surge et praecede et alloquens satisfac servis tuis : juro enim tibi per dominum, quod si non exieris, ne unus quidem remansurus sit tecum nocte hac ; et pejus erit hoc tibi, quam omnia mala, quae venerunt super te ab adolescentia tua usque in praesens.’ Scribitur 2 Reg. xix. That is to say, the good knight Joab went to the king, and said to him without disguising his sentiments, “Thou hatest those who love thee, and art fond of such as hate thee : thou wouldst that we, who have risked our lives in battle to save thee, had perished, so that Absalom had lived. Thy captains and people are so wroth against thee that, unless thou arise and seat thyself at thy gate to thank them cheerfully as they enter thereat, they will deprive thee of thy kingdom, and choose another king; and no greater misfortune will have befallen thee from thy youth to this day, unless thou dost as I have advised.’ The king, feeling the justice of what Joab had said, went and seated himself at the gate to thank his men-at-arms on their entrance, and made them good cheer. In this example, it is to be noticed, that Joab killed Absalom contrary to the king's express orders, because they were prejudicial to the honour of God, of the king, and of the people. Notwithstanding that Joab slew Absalom, they had always been intimate friends, insomuch that Joab had made peace for him with his father David for a murder which he had committed on the eldest of the king's sons, and for which Absalom had been a fugitive from the kingdom four years. “Some may, however, argue the contrary, because king David, when on his death-bed, charged his son Solomon, who was to succeed him, to punish Joab; but I am sure it was not for the above-mentioned act, for although Joab, at the time he slew Absalom, was a good and loyal knight, he committed two great faults toward the end of his days. The first, when he killed a very good knight and man-at-arms, called Amasa,—and, secondly, by putting that excellent knight Abner to death treacherously, namely, by embracing him, and at the same time thrusting a knife into his body; and as king David had not punished Joab for these two enormous crimes himself, he felt such compunctions of conscience for it on his death-bed, that he ordered king Solomon to have it done when he should be deceased, and punish him in this mortal life, that Joab might escape perpetual damnation, saying thus: “Tu scis quae fecerit mihi Joab filius Sarviae quae fecerit duobus principibus exercitus Israel, Abner filio Ner, et Amasae filio Jether, quos occidit, et effudit sanguinem belli in pace. Facias ergo juxta sapientiam tuam, et non deduces canitiem ejus pacifice ad infernos.' Scribitur 3 Reg. ii. Which means, “that the two knights, chiefs of the chivalry of Israel, had been disloyally slain, when at peace with God and man. I am hurt in mind for having been too lenient towards him; and if thou dost not punish him for these two crimes, thou wilt cause the damnation of his soul.” “I must here remark, that there is no knight so perfect but who may commit a fault, and one indeed so great as to do away all his former good actions. And therefore men do not at justs and at battles cry out, ‘The brave for ever !" (Aua preuz 1) but men always cry out, ‘The sons of the brave!” (Aur fils de preuz 1) after the deaths of their fathers. For no knight can be judged preuw (valiant, or brave) till after his death +.

* See the 19th chap. 2 Samuel.

f This is a very striking allusion to a particular custom at tournaments, and sometimes in actual fight, of which Saint Palaye gives a most interesting account in the “Memoires sur l'Ancienne Chevaleric.” The exclamation, “Aux filz des Preux "was evidently used to encourage young knights to emulate the glories of their ancestors, and

to do nothing unworthy the noble title given them ; and
in many instances it was attended with the most animating
The greatest misfortune attending on a translation of
French chronicles is the total absence in our language
of an expression answerable to the French word “preux,”
which conveys in itself whole volumes of meaning. The

“My third instance shall be of Athalia, queen of Jerusalem, of whom the holy Scriptures say, ‘Athalia vero mater regis Ochosiae, videns filium suum mortuum surrexit et interfecit omne semen regium. Tollens autem. Josaba filia regis Joran et soror Ochosiae Joas filium Ochosiae furata est eum de medio filiorum regis qui interficiebantur, et nutricem ejus de triclinio et abscondit eum a facie Athaliae ut non interficeretur,’ &c. 4 Reg. xi. Which, being translated, means, That the wicked Athalia, observing king Ochosias, her son, was dead, and had left but very young children to succeed him, through lust of governing the kingdom, slew all the king's children excepting Joas, who, through the courage of a valiant lady, inspired thereto by the grace of God, was carried away from his cradle, and sent by her secretly to the high-priest, who educated him until he was seven years old. This wicked queen reigned tyrannically for seven years, when the high-priest had her put to death by those who lay in wait for the purpose. He then caused the young child to be anointed king, who, notwithstanding his youth, being only seven years of age, governed his kingdom excellently well, through the advice of the high-priest and other prudent counsellors. The holy Scriptures say, “Joas regnavit 40 annis in Hierusalem, fecitgue rectum coram Domino cunctis diebus quibus docuit eum Joiada sacerdos.’ “Thus you have the third example, which shows how the concupiscence of vain honours is nothing more than a disorderly passion, to take by force the possessions of another. This it was that made queen Athalia a murderess, false and disloyal, and induced her to obtain, by a succession of crimes, the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem. You have heard how she was privily slain by such as lay in wait for her, which is a lawful manner of slaying tyrants, and is the death which all such ought to suffer.—With this I conclude the third article of my major. “I come now to my fourth article, to which I propose adding eight facts, by way of conclusion, and eight others as corollaries, the stronger to lay my foundation for the justification of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy. I shall first lay down as law, that any subject-vassal, who by an artful desire of obtaining the realm of his sovereign lord and king, shall employ any witchcraft, or other illegal means, against his corporal safety, sins most grievously, and commits the crime of high treason, in the first degree, and, consequently, is deserving a double death. I secondly prove my proposition, by adding, that any subjectvassal who is an enemy to his sovereign lord sins mortally. My conclusion is therefore true, and that he is a tyrant I shall prove by my lord St. Gregory, who says: “Tyrannus est proprie quinon dominus reputatur. Non juste principatur; aut non principatu decoratur. Nam sicut regnum rectus principatus dicitur. Sic dominium perversum tyrannis nuncupatur.” “It appears plain, that whoever commits the crime of high treason against the person of the prince is guilty of the highest possible offence, and is deserving of a double death. By the first death, I mean the separation of the body from the soul, which causes a perdurable damnation; for St. John the evangelist says, “Qui vivit non morieturnec ladetur a morte secunda;" that is to say, That every human creature who shall obtain a victory over Covetousness and her three daughters, need not to be afraid of the second death, namely, eternal damnation. The second fact is, that in cases where a subject-vassal has been guilty of this crime, he cannot be too severely or too speedily punished; but a man of rank is more deserving of punishment than a simple subject, a baron than a simple knight, a count than a baron, a duke than a count, the cousin to the king than a foreigner, the king's brother than a cousin, the son to the king than his brother. Such is the first part of the second fact, and I thus prove the second part; for as the obligation is greater, by many degrees, to desire to preserve the safety of the king's person and the good of the state, so the punishment of those who act contrary increases according to their rank; and the consequence I draw from it will prove true, namely, that the son is more bounden than the brother, the brother than the cousin, a duke than a count, a count than a baron, a baron poet Spenserventured to adapt the word in its superlative virtues in one expression. The exclamation was somedegree to the English tongue. He says somewhere “the times varied—“Honneur aux filz des preux " which

prowest knight alive.” In fact, the word “preux" may be seems to be the original expression. considered as summing up the whole catalogue of knightly

than a knight, &c. to guard and preserve the honour of the king and the welfare of the realm ; for to each of these ranks and dignities is a certain corresponding duty attached,— and the higher the rank, the greater the obligation; for the larger the possessions, and the more noble the person, the more he is bounden, as St. Gregory, before quoted, says, “Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum.’ “To continue my argument: the nearer the person is to the king by blood or hereditary honours, should he commit such crimes, it is by far more scandalous than if they were done by others removed at a greater distance from royalty. It is more scandalous for a duke or a potent lord, nearly related to the king, to practise his death, in order to gain his kingdom, than it would be for a poor subject no way related to the king; and being more iniquitous, the more deserving punishment. “I shall, in the third place, prove my proposition by saying, Where there is greater danger there should be a greater degree of punishment; for the machinations of near relations to the king are of far more importance and more perilous than those of poor people. And as they are more dangerous, they are deserving of severer punishment to obviate the perils that may happen, and to check the desires that may arise in such as are so near to the crown, to gain possession of it. For this end, they may exert every influence, by force or otherwise, to grasp it, which a poorer subject would never think of doing, as he could not have any expectations of wearing it. My third truth is, That it is lawful for any subject, without any particular orders from any one, but from divine, moral, and natural law, to slay, or to cause to be slain, such disloyal traitors; I say it is not only lawful for any one to act thus in such cases, but it is also meritorious and highly honourable, particularly when the person is of such high rank that justice cannot be executed by the sovereign himself. I shall prove this truth by twelve reasons, in honour of the twelve Apostles. “The three first reasons are drawn from the authorities of three moral philosophers: three others are from three dogmas of sacred theology of St. Augustin, who says, in the last part of the second book of Sentences: “Quando aliquis dominium sibi per violentiam surripit nolentibus subditis, vel etiam ad consensum coactis ; et non est recursus ad superiorem per quem de talijudicium posset fieri. Talis enim qui ad liberationem patriae talem tyrannum occidit, laudem et praemium accissit. Hic primum laudatur. Item debet laudari per qua, facit opus dignum laude. Idem licitum praemium et honorabile accipit, et idem debet accipere. Ille facit opus meritorium quia nullum opus est dignum, primo nisi fieret meritorium.' To translate this briefly, the holy doctor declares, that a subject who shall put to death such a tyrant does a work deserving praise and remuneration. My second authority is as follows: Salisberiensis sacrae theologiae eximii doctoris in libro suo Policratiri, lib. ii. cap. 15. Sic dicit:-‘Amico adulari non licet; sed aurem tyranni mulcere licitum est, ei namgue scilicet tyranno licet adulari quem licet occidere;’ that is to say, It is unlawful to flatter a friend, but not so to deceive by fair words the ears of a tyrant; for since it is lawful to put him to death, it is allowable to cheat him by flattering speeches. My third authority is from several doctors, whom I class together, not to exceed the number of three, namely, Ricardi de Media-Villa, Alexandri de Hallis et Astensis, in summa qui conclusionem praefatam ponunt in iii. efforum; adding, for higher authority, the confirmation of St. Peter the apostle, who says, “Subditi estote regi quasi praecellenti sive ducibus, tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum, quia sic est voluntas Dei.' Scribitur primae Pet. ii. That is to say, It is the will of God that all should obey the king, as sovereign lord over his kingdom; and the duke, as being sent by the king to punish those who have done ill, and remunerate the good. Hence it follows, that dukes are obliged, to the utmost of their power, to avenge the injuries that are done, or may be intended, against the king's person, and to oppose all such attempts as may come to their knowledge. “I now proceed to the authorities from moral philosophers, the first of which is, “Ante forum principis pluribus locis cuilibet subditorum licitum est occidere tyrannum, et non solum licitum, immo laudabile. That is to say, It is lawful for any subject to destroy a tyrant, and not only lawful, but even honourable and worthy of praise. Cicero, in libro de Officiis, ‘Laudatis illos qui illum Caesarem interfecerunt quamvis esset sibi familiarium amicus, eo quod jura imperii quasi tyrannus usurpaverat.' That is, Tully writes, in his noble

« ZurückWeiter »