Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/310

 ORDER

278

ORDERICnS

establishment of a fact by the intorposition of God. The first of tliese is the oath, which is but a means of estabhshiiiK the trutli, accompanied by a solemn calling upon (!od, but which is not in any sense a judj;inent of Ciod. Another example is furnished by the belief that the perjured would, sooner or later, be overtaken by death, which was (jod's punishment for perjury, but this was not a judicial ordeal. The same IS true of the Eucharist ic test. The firm belief existed that if anyone to pro\-e liis innocence should re('ei\e Holy Comnuinion, he would, if guilty, be punished by Goii with instant death. Here also it is question of Divine chastisement; the judgment however not tak- ing place by means of a judicial process. When at the Synod of Worms in 868 it was ordered that the bishops and priests should clear themselves of suspicion by the celebration of Mass, and the monks by the recep- tion of Holy Communion, this was in reality of the same significance as the oath of purgation, by which those under shadow of suspicion swore to their in- nocence.

The ecclesiastical authorities of the Prankish and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as we have remarked above, were very broad-minded in their acceptation of the greater number of species of ordeals; several councils publishing regulations concerning them [cf. Hefele, "Konziliengeschichte," 2 ed., Ill, 611, 614, 623, 690, 732; IV, 5.55; Synod of Tribur (895), IV, 672; Synod of Sehgenstadt (1022)]. Ordeals were practised in Britain, France, and Germany in connexion with legal processes before civil as well as ecclesiastical tribunals up to and during the thirteenth and four- teenth centuries. From then on they were gradually discontinued.

The tribunals of Rome never made use of ordeals. The popes were always opposed to them, and began, at an early date, to take measures for their suppres- sion. It is true that in the beginning no general de- cree was published regarding them; however, in indi- vidual cases concerning ordeals brought to Rome, the popes always pronounced against the practice, and designated it as unlawful. This course was followed b}' Nicholas I when, in 867, he prohibited the duel by which King Lothair sought to decide his matrimonial dispute with Theutberga. The latter had previously, through one of her servants, submitted to the test of hot water to prove her innocence, and indeed with favourable results. Upon the inquiry of the Arch- bishop of Mainz as to whether or not the tests of the hot water and the glowing iron could lawfully be made use of in the case of parents who were accused of hav- ing smothered their sleeping cliild, Stephen V (885- 891) forbade these ordeals (Deer. C. 20, C. II, qu. 5). Alexander II (1061-73) likewise condemned these tests, and .Alexander III (1159-81) prohibited the bishop and the clergy of the Diocese of Upsala from countenancing a duel or other ordeal imposed by law, as such a practice was disapproved of by the Catholic Church. Before long definite condemnations were published by the popes, as for example, that of Ce- Icstine III (1191-98) regarding the duel. At the Council of the Lateran In 1215, Innocent III promul- gated a general decree against ordeals, which pro- hibited anyone from receiving the blessing of the Church before submitting to the test of the hot water or to that of the glowing iron, and confirming the validity of the previous prohibition against the duel (Can. xviii; in Hefele, I. c, V, 687).

Various accounts in regard to the co-operation of the popes in the practice of ordeals in Prankish times which are contained in apocryphal writings have no historic value. From the twelfth century, a thorough and widespread opposition to ordeals, as a result of the stand taken by the popes, began to manifest itself generally, and whereas, at an earlier date, no one was found to support Agobard of Lyons in his opposition to. these tests, which was without result, the writings of

Peter Cantor (d. 1197) against the proceedings of the civil courts with regard to ordeals (in his "Verbum abbreviatum", Migne, P. L., CCV, 226 sqq.) had a far greater success. In "Tristan", Gottfried of iStrasburg sets forth his disapproval of ordeals.

As a result of the General Council of 1215, several synods of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries published prohibitions in this connexion. A synod held at Valladolid in 1322 declares in Can. xxvii: "The tests of fire and water are forbidden; whoever participates in them is ipxn facio excommunicated" (Hefele, "Konziliengesch.", VI, 616). The Kmperor Frederick 11 also prohibited the duel and other ordeals in the Constitution of iMelfi, 1231 (Michael, "Ge- schichte des deutschen Volkes", I, 318). Neverthe- less, there are to be found in Germanic code books as late as the thirteenth century, regulations for their use. However, a clearer recognition of the false grouml for belief in ordeals, a more highly-developed judicial system, the fact that the innocent must be victims of the ordeal, the prohibitions of the popes and the sy- nods, the refusal of the ecclesiastical authorities to co- operate in the carrying out of the sentence — all these causes worked together to bring about, during the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the gradual discontinuance of the practice. The ancient test of the cold water was resuscitated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the ducking of so-called witches, consequent upon the trials for witchcraft.

Zeumer, Formulfs Merovingici et KaroHni ccvi in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Legum, sec. V (Hanover, 1882); Franz, Die kitchlichen Benediktionen im. MittdaUer, II (Freiburg im Br., 1909), 307-98; Phillips, Ueber die Ordalien bei den Germanen (Munich, 1847) ; Pfalz, Die germanischen Gottesurteile in Bericht iiber die Rtali^chule (Leipzig, 1865); Dahn, Studien zut Geschichte der germanischen GoUeaurteile (Berlin, 1880) ; Patteta. Le Ordalie. Studio di sturia del diritto (Turin, 1890); de Smedt, Les origines du duel judiciaire in Etudes religieuses, LXIII, 1894, 337 sqq.; Idem, Le duel judi- ciaire et I'Eglise, ibid.. LXIV, 1895. 49 sqq.; Vacandard, L'Eglise et les ordalies in Etudes de critique et d'histoire religieuse (Paris, 1905), 19 sqq.

J. P. KiRSCH.

Order, Supernatural. See Supernatdral Order.

Ordericus Vitalis, historian, b. 1075; d. about 1143. He was the son of an English mother and a French priest who came over to England with the Normans and received a church at Shrewsbury. At the age of ten he was sent over by his father to St. Evroult in southern Normandy and remained for the rest of his life a monk of that abbey. He must have travelled occasionally: we have evidence of his pres- ence at Cambrai, for instance, and at Cluny, and he went three or four times to England: still he passed most of his days at home. He considered himself, however, an Enghshman, "Vitalis Angligena", and was always full of interest in English affairs. His his- tory was intended at first to be a chronicle of his abbey but it developed into a general " Historia Ecclesiastica" in 13 books. Books I and II are an abridged chronicle from the Christian era to 1143; books III-V describe the Norman Conquests of South Italy and England; book VI gives the history of his abbey. Books VII- XIII consist of his universal history from 751 to 1141, book IX being devoted to the first Crusade. The work begins to have real historical importance from about the date of the Norman Conquest, but Ordericus is discriminating throughout in his choice of authori- ties. Chronologically it is ill-arranged and very in- accurate; it is oftenpedantic in form. The author has, however, a wide interest and a keen sense of detail and picturesque incident. He was a very well-read man, but he united to his learning a taste seldom so frankly admitted for popular stories and songs. He was a man of observation and he attempted to give the outward appearance of the characters he described. He was fair-minded, anxious to give two sidesof a ques- tion and to be moderate in his judgments. In spite, therefore, of its clumsy arrangements and chronological