ORDEAL, an ancient form of trial. It consisted in an appeal to the immediate interposition of divine power, being particularly distinguished by the appellation of judicium Deiς and was sometimes called purgatio vulgaris, to distinguish it from the canonical purgation, which was by the oath of the party. Two kinds of this trial were more common than the rest, at least in Europe; viz. fire-ordeal and water-ordeal. The former was confined to persons of high rank, the latter to the common people. Both these might be performed by deputy; but the principal was bound to answer for the success of the trial, the deputy only venturing some corporal pain, for hire, or perhaps for friendship.

That the purgation by ordeal, of some kind or other, is very aneient, admits not of a doubt; and that it was universal in the times of superstitious ignorance, seems to be equally certain. It appears even to have been known to the ancient Greeks; for, in the Antigone of Sophocles, a person suspected by Creon of a misdemeanour, declares himself ready “to handle hot iron and to walk over fire,” in order to manifest his innocence, which, the scholiast tells us, was then an usual mode of purgation. And Grotius gives many instances of water-ordeal in Bithynia, Sardinia, and other places. It seems, however, to have been carried to a greater height amongst the Hindus than ever it had been in any nation or amongst any people, however rude or barbarous; for in a paper in the Asiatic Researches, communicated by Mr Hastings, we find that the trial by ordeal amongst that people is conducted in nine different ways: firstly, by the balance; secondly, by fire; thirdly, by^water; fourthly, by poison; fifthly, by the cosha, or the water in which an idol has been washed; sixthly, by rice; seventhly, by boiling oil; eighthly, by red-hot iron; and ninthly, by images.

1. Ordeal by the balance is thus performed. The beam having been previously adjusted, the cord fixed, and both scales made perfectly equiponderant, the person accused and a pundit fast a whole day; then, after the accused has been bathed in sacred water, the homa or oblation presented to fire, and the deities worshipped, he is carefully weighed; and when he is taken out of the scale, the pundits prostrate themselves before it, pronounce a certain mentra or incantation, agreeably to the Shastras, and, having written the substance of the accusation upon a piece of paper, bind it on his head. Six minutes afterwards they place him again in the scale, and if he weigh more than before, he is held guilty; if less, innocent; if exactly the same, he must be weighed a third time, when, as it is written in the Mitacshera, there will certainly be a difference in his weight. Should the balance, though well fixed, break down, this would be considered as a proof of his guilt.

2. For the fire-ordeal, an excavation, nine hands in length, two spans in breadth, and one span in depth, is made in the ground, and filled with a fire of pippal-wood. Into this the person accused must walk barefooted; and, if his foot be unhurt, they hold him blameless; but if it be burned, he is held guilty.^[1. In Europe, fire-ordeal was performed either by taking up in the hand, unhurt, a piece of red-hot iron, of one, two, or three pounds eight; or else by walking, barefooted and blindfold, over nine red-hot ploughshares, laid lengthwise at unequal distances; and if the arty escaped unhurt, he was adjudged innocent; but if it happened otherwise, as without collusion it usually did, he was then )ndemned as guilty. However, by this latter method, Queen Emma, the mother of Edward the Confessor, is mentioned to have cared her character, when suspected of familiarity with Alwyn, bishop of Winchester. The first account which we have of Christians )pealing to the fire-ordeal, as a proof of their innocence, is that of Simplicius, bishop of Autun, who lived in the fourth century. This relate, as the story is related, before his promotion to the episcopal order, had married a wife, who loved him tenderly, and who, □willing to quit him after his advancement, continued to sleep in the same chamber with him. The sanctity of Simplicius suffered,; least in the voice of fame, by the constancy of his wife’s affection; and it was rumoured about that the holy man, though a bishop, irsisted, in opposition to the ecclesiastical canons, to taste the sweets of matrimony; upon which his wife, in the presence of a great ∣ncourse of people, took up a considerable quantity of burning coals, which she held in her clothes, and applied to her breasts, withI it the least hurt to her person or her garments, as the legend says; and her example being followed by her husband with similar I ιccess, the credulous multitude admired the miracle, and proclaimed the innocence of the loving pair. A similar trick was played ∣' St Brice, in the fifth century. (Mosheim, Ecclesiast. Hist. vol. ii.) ]

3. Water-ordeal is performed by causing the person [7:16:520]accused to stand in a depth of water, either flowing or stagnant, sufficient to reach his navel; but care should be taken that no ravenous animal be in it, and that it be not moved by much air. A Brahmin is then directed to go into the water, holding a staff in his hand; and a soldier shoots three arrows upon dry ground from a bow of cane. A man is next despatched to bring the arrow which has been shot farthest; and, after he has taken it up, another is ordered to run from the edge of the water; at which instant the person accused is told to grasp the foot or the staff of the Brahmin, who stands near him in the water, and immediately to dive into it. He must remain under water till the two men who went to fetch the arrows have returned; for, if he raise his head or body above the surface before the arrows are brought back, his guilt is considered as fully proved. In the villages near Benares, it is the practice for the person who is to be tried by this kind of ordeal to stand in water up to his navel, and then, holding the foot of a Brahmin, to dive under it as long as a man can walk fifty paces very gently; if, before the man has walked thus far, the accused rise above the water, he is condemned; but if not, he is acquitted.

4. There are two sorts of trial by poison. Firstly, the pundits having performed their homa, and the person accused his ablution, two rettis and a half, or seven barley-corns of vishanaga, a poisonous root, or of saudhya, that is, white arsenic, are mixed in eight mashas, or sixty-four rettis, of clarified butter, which the accused must eat from the hand of a Brahmin. If the poison produce no visible effect, he is absolved; but if otherwise, he is condemned. Secondly, the hooded snake, called nagga, is thrown into a deep earthen pot, into which is dropped a ring, a seal, or a coin. This the person accused is ordered to take out with his hand; and, if the serpent bite him, he is pronounced guilty; but if not, he is declared innocent.

5. Trial by the cosha is as follows. The accused is made to drink three draughts of the water in which the images of the sun, of Devi, and other deities, have been washed for that purpose; and if, within fourteen days, he has any sickness or indisposition, his crime is considered as proved.

6. When several persons are suspected of theft, some dry rice is weighed with the sacred stone called salgrarn, or certain slocas are read over it; after which the suspected persons are severally ordered to chew a quantity of it. As soon as they have chewed it, they are to throw on it some leaves of pippal, or, if none be at hand, some l>hurja patra, or bark of a tree from Nepaul or Cashmere. The man'from whose mouth the rice comes dry or stained with blood is held guilty; the rest are acquitted.

7. The ordeal by hot oil is exceedingly simple. When it is heated sufficiently, the accused thrusts his hand into it; and, if he be not burned, he is held innocent.

8. In the same manner they make an iron ball, or the head of a lance, red hot, and place it in the hands of the person accused, who, if it burn him not, is judged guiltless.

9. To perform the ordeal by dharmach, which is the name of the sloca appropriated to this mode of trial, either an image, named dharma, or the genius of justice, is made of silver, and another, called adharma, of clay or iron, both of which are thrown into a large earthen jar; and the accused having thrust his hand into it, is acquitted if he bring out the silver image, but condemned if he draw forth the iron. Or, one figure of a deity is painted on white cloth, and another on black; the first of which they name dharma, and the second adharma. These are severally rolled up in cow-dung, and thrown into a large jar, without having ever been shown to the accused, who must put his hand into the jar, and is acquitted or convicted according as he draws out the figure on white or on black cloth.

The superstitious weakness of mankind, when left to themselves, is astonishing. There is indeed nothing so absurd that they may not be made most firmly to believe, nothing so impious that they will not do. Nor can a more notorious instance of the truth of this assertion be possibly given than that of the trial by ordeal. The gross absurdity as well as impiety of pronouncing a man guilty unless he was cleared by a miracle, and of expecting that all the powers of nature should be suspended by an immediate interposition of Providence to save the innocent, when it was even presumptuously required, is self-evident. Yet the origin of this mode of trial may be traced to necessity as well as to superstition. At the time in which it originated in England, as well as in other countries of Europe, it was no easy matter for an innocent person, when accused of guilt, to get himself cleared by the then established mode of trial. It was therefore natural for superstition to fly to Heaven for those testimonies of innocence which the absurdity of human laws often prevented men from obtaining in the ordinary course of affairs. In this way, doubtless, did the trial by ordeal commence; and being thus begun by necessitous superstition, it was fostered by impious priestcraft and unjust power. During all the processes there was great room for collusion and deceit, and there can be no question but it was often practised; it could not, therefore, on any account, or in any case, be a sign of innocence or of guilt.

Besides the particular methods of trial which we have already mentioned, there were some few more common in European countries; as the judicial combat, the ordeal of the cross, and the ordeal of the corsned.

The judicial combat was well suited to the genius and spirit of fierce and warlike nations, and, as we might reasonably expect, formed one of the most ancient and universal modes of trial. We know that it was exceedingly common in Germany in very remote ages. It was also used in some countries on the Continent at a pretty early period; but it is not mentioned in any of the Anglo-Saxon laws, and it does not appear to have been much used in England until after the Conquest. It was so much the custom in the middle ages of Christianity to respect the cross even to superstition, that it would indeed have been wonderful if the same ignorant bigotry had not converted it into an ordeal; and accordingly we find it used for this purpose in so many different ways as almost to preclude description. In criminal trials, the judgment of the cross was commonly conducted in this manner. When the prisoner had declared his innocence upon oath, and appealed to the judgment of the cross, two sticks were prepared exactly like one another; the figure of the cross was cut on one of these sticks, and nothing on the other; each of them was then wrapped up in a quantity of fine white wool, and laid on the altar, or on the relics of the saints; after which a solemn prayer was offered up to God, that he would be pleased to discover, by evident signs, whether the prisoner was innocent or guilty. These solemnities being finished, a priest approached the altar, and took up one of the sticks, which was uncovered with much anxiety. If it was the stick marked with the cross, the prisoner was pronounced innocent; but if it was the other, he was declared guilty. When the judgment of the cross was appealed to in civil causes, the trial was usually conducted in this manner. The judges, parties, and all concerned, being assembled in a church, each of the parties chose a priest, the youngest and stoutest whom he could find, to be his representative in the trial. These representatives were then placed one on each side of some famous crucifix; and, at a signal given, they both at once stretched their arms at full length, so as to form a cross with their body. In this painful posture they continued to stand whilst divine service was performing; and the party whose representative dropped his arms first lost his cause.

The corsned, or the consecrated bread and cheese, was [7:16:521]the ordeal to which the clergy commonly appealed when they were accused of any crimes; and in this they acted a very prudent part, as it was attended with no danger or inconvenience. This ordeal was performed in this manner. A piece of barley bread and a piece of cheese were laid upon the altar, over which a priest pronounced certain conjurations, and prayed with great fervency, that if the person accused was guilty, God would send his angel Gabriel to stop his throat, that he might not be able to swallow that bread and cheese. These prayers being ended, the culprit approached the altar, took up the bread and cheese, and began to eat it. If he swallowed freely, he was declared innocent; but if it stuck in his throat, and he could not swallow, which we may presume seldom or never happened, he was pronounced guilty.

Besides these, there were a variety of other ordeals practised in Christian countries, many of which retain the same names which were used amongst Pagans, and differ only as to the mode in which they were performed. In all nations of Christians where these trials were used, we find the clergy engaged in them. Indeed, in England, as late as the time of King John, we find grants to the bishops and clergy to use the judicium ferri, aquae, et ignis ; and, both in England and Sweden, the clergy presided at this trial, and it was only performed in the churches, or in other consecrated ground. “Non defuit illis operae et laboris pretium,” says Stiernhook; “semper enim ab ejusmodi judicio aliquid lucri sacerdotibus obveniebat.” But, to give the canon law its due praise, we find it at a very early period declaring against trial by ordeal, or vulgaris purgatio, as being the work of the devil, “cum sit contra praeceptum Domini, Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum.' ’ Upon this authority, though the canons themselves were of no validity in England, it was thought proper (as had been done in Denmark above a century before) to disuse and abolish this trial entirely in our courts of justice, by an act of parliament 3 Henry III. according to Sir Edward Coke, or rather by an order of the king in council.

It may still perhaps be a postulate with some in what manner the effects of these trials were evaded, and how it was possible to appear to do that which we know could not be really done without material injury to the persons concerned. On this subject Dr Henry observes, in reference to the ordeals in ancient Britain, that, if we suppose few or none escaped conviction who exposed themselves to those fiery trials, we shall be very much mistaken. “For the histories of those times contain innumerable examples of persons plunging their naked arms into boiling water, handling red-hot balls of iron, and walking upon burning ploughshares, without receiving the least injury. Many learned men have been much puzzled to account for this, and disposed to think that Providence graciously interposed, in a miraculous manner, for the preservation of injured innocence. But if we examine every circumstance of those fiery ordeals with due attention, we shall see sufficient reason to suspect that the whole was a gross imposition on the credulity of mankind. The accused person was committed wholly to the priest who was to perform the ceremony, three days before the trial, in which he had time enough to bargain with him for his deliverance, and give him instructions how to act his part. On the day of trial, no person was permitted to enter the church but the priest and the accused till after the iron was heated, when twelve friends of the accuser, and twelve of the accused, and no more, were admitted, and ranged along the wallon each side of the church, at a respectful distance. After the iron was taken out of the fire, several prayers were said;, the accused drank a cup of holy water, and sprinkled his hand with it, which might take a considerable time if the priest was indulgent. The space of nine feet was measured by the accused himself with his own feet, and he would probably give but scanty measure. He was obliged only to touch one of the marks with the toe of his right foot, and allowed to stretch the other foot as far towards the other mark as he could, so that the conveyance was almost instantaneous. His hand was not immediately examined, but wrapped in a cloth prepared for that purpose three days. May we not, then, from all these precautions, suspect that those priests were in possession of some secret that secured the hand from the impressions of such a momentary touch of hot iron, or removed all appearance of these impressions in three days; and that they made use of this secret whenever they saw reason? What greatly strengthens these suspicions is, that we meet with no example of any champion of the church who suffered the least injury from the touch of hot iron in this ordeal; but when any one was so fool-hardy as to appeal to it, or to that of hot water, with a view to deprive the church of any of her possessions, he never failed to burn his fingers, and lose his cause.”

To this we may add what the learned Beckmann^[2. ‘ Vol. iii. 297∙ ] has stated concerning the imposition which was probably practised in the ordeal by fire. “I am not acquainted with every thing that concerns the trial by ordeal, when persons accused were obliged to prove their innocence by holding in their hands red-hot iron; but 1 am almost convinced that this was also a juggling trick of the popes, which they employed as might best suit their views. It is well known that this mode of exculpation was allowed only to weak persons, who were unfit to wield arms, and particularly to monks and ecclesiastics, to whom, for the sake of their security, that by single combat was forbidden. The trial itself took place in the church, entirely under the inspection of the clergy; mass was celebrated at the same time; the defendant and the iron were consecrated, by being sprinkled with holy water; the clergy made the iron hot themselves; and they used all these preparatives, as jugglers do many motions, only to divert the attention of the spectators. It was necessary that the accused person should remain at least three days and three nights under their immediate care, and continue as long after. They covered his hands both before and after the proof, sealed and unsealed the covering; the former, as they pretended, to prevent the hands from being prepared any how by art; the latter, to see if they were burned.

“Some artificial preparation was therefore known, else no precautions would have been necessary. It is highly probable, that during the first three days the preventive was applied to those persons whom they wished to appear innocent; and that the three days after the trial were requisite to let the hands resume their natural state. The sacred sealing secured them from the examination of presumptuous unbelievers; for, to determine whether the hands were burned, the last three days were certainly not wanted. When the ordeal was abolished, and this art rendered useless, the clergy no longer kept it a secret. In the thirteenth century, an account of it was published by Albertus Magnus, a Dominican monk.^[3. In his work De Mirabilibus Mundi, at the enel of his book De Secretis Mulierum, Amsterdam, 1702, 12mo, p. 100. “Experimentum mirabile quod facit hominem ire in ignem sine laesione, vel portare ignem vel ferrum ignitum sine laesione in manu. Recipe succum bistnalvae, et albumen ovi, et semen psylli et calcem, et pulveriza, et confice cum illo albumine ovi succum raphani; commisce; ex hac confectione illineas corpus tuum vel manum, et dimitte siccari, et postea iterum illineas, et post hoc poteris audacter ιustincre ignem sine nocumento.” ] If his receipt be [7:16:522]genuine, it seems to have consisted rather in covering the hands with a kind of paste than in hardening them. The sap of the althaea (marshmallow), the slimy seeds of the flea-bane, which is still used for stiffening by the hatmakers and silk-weavers, together with the white of an egg, were employed to make the paste adhere. And by these means the hands were as safe as if they had been secured by gloves.

“The use of this juggling trick is very old, and may be traced back to a Pagan origin. In the Antigone of Sophocles, the guards placed over the body of Polynices, which had been buried contrary to the orders of Creon, offered, in order to prove their innocence, to submit to any trial. We will, said they, take up red-hot iron in our hands, or walk through fire.”