By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor in Criminal Cases:

      ROMAN MURDER-CASE

      On Behalf of Count Guido Franceschini,

       Prisoner, against the Fisc.

      Memorial of fact and law.

      At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,

       1698.

      ROMANA HOMICIDIORUM

      [Pamphlet 1.]

      Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor:

      Count Guido Franceschini, born of a noble race, had married, under ill omen, Francesca Pompilia, whom Pietro and Violante had asserted (even to one occupying a very high office) to be their own daughter. After a little while, she was taken to Arezzo, the country of her husband, along with her foster-parents, and was restrained from leading her life with utter freedom. Yet she has made pretence that she was hated on the pretext of sterility, as is clearly shown in her deposition during her prosecution for flight from her husband's home. Both she and her parents took it ill that they were denied their old free life, and they urged their daughter to make complaint before the Most Reverend Bishop, saying that she had been offered poison by her brother-in-law. At the departure of this couple, when they were about to return to the City, they most basely instigated her—yes, and even commanded her by her duty to obey them—that she should kill her husband, poison her brother-in-law and mother-in-law, and burn the house; and then with the aid of a lover to be chosen thereafter, she should put into effect her long-planned flight back to the City. (But all this should be done after their departure, lest they might seem to have given her evil counsel.) [Such facts] may be clearly deduced from one of the letters presented as evidence in the same prosecution.

      When these pseudo-parents had returned home, they declared that Francesca was not born of themselves, but had been conceived of an unknown father by a vile strumpet. They then entered suit before Judge Tomati for the nullification of the dowry contract.

      Day by day the love of Pompilia for her husband kept decreasing, while her affection for a certain priest was on the increase. This affair went so far that on an appointed night, while her husband was oppressed with sleep (and I wish I could say that she had no hand in this, and had not procured drugs from outside), she began her flight from her husband's house toward Rome, nor was this flight without theft of money and the company of her lover. Her most wretched husband pursued them, and she was imprisoned not far from the City. Then, when after a short time they were brought to trial, the lover was banished to Civita Vecchia for adultery, and she herself was placed in safe keeping. But owing to her pregnancy she returned to the home of Pietro and Violante, where she gave birth to a child (and I wish I could say that it had not been conceived in adultery). This increased the shame and indignation of the husband, and the wrath, which had long been stirred, grew strong, because his honour among upright men was lost and he was pointed out with the finger of scorn, especially in his own country, where a good reputation is much cherished by men who are well-born. Therefore his anger so impelled the luckless man to fury, and his indignation so drove him to desperation, that he preferred to die rather than to live ignominiously among honourable men. With gloomy mind, he rushed headlong to the City, accompanied by four companions. On the second night of the current month of January, under the show of giving a letter from the banished lover, he pretended to approach the home of the Comparini. When at the name of Caponsacchi the door was opened, he cut the throats of Violante and Pietro, and stabbed Francesca with so many wounds that she died after a few days.

      While this desperation continued, his dull and unforeseeing mind suggested no way to find a place of safety. But accompanied by the same men, he set out for his own country along the public highway by the shortest route. Then, while he was resting upon a pallet in a certain tavern, he was arrested, together with his companions, by the pursuing officers.

      Great indeed is this crime, but very greatly to be pitied also, and most worthy of excuse. Even the most severe laws give indulgence and are very mild towards husbands who wipe out the stain of their infamy with the blood of their adulterous wives. [Citation of Lex Julia de Adulteriis, Lex Cornelia de Sicariis and the Gracchian law. Cf. Ring and Book, I. 2268.]

      This indeed was sanctioned in the laws of the Athenians and of Solon (that is, of the wisest of legislators), and what is more, even in the rude age of Romulus, law 15, where we read:

      "A man and his relatives may kill as they wish a wife convicted of adultery." [Citations; and likewise in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, see Aulus Gellius, etc.]

      I hold, to begin with, that there can be no doubt of the adultery of the wife [for several reasons]. [First], her flight together with her lover during a long-continued journey. [Citations.]

      [Second], the love letters sent by each party; these cannot be read in the prosecution for flight without nausea. [Citations.]

      [Third], the clandestine entry of the lover into her home at a suspicious time. [Citations.]

      [Fourth], the kisses given during the flight (p. 100) according to the following sentiment: "Sight, conversation, touch, afterwards kisses, and then the deed [adultery]." [Citations.]

      [Fifth], their sleeping in the same room at the inn. [Citations.]

      [Sixth], the sentence of the judge, who condemned the lover for his criminal knowledge of her, which made this adultery notorious. [Citations.]

      Furthermore, we are not here arguing to prove adultery for the purpose of demanding punishment [upon the adulteress], but to excuse her slayer, and for his defence; in this case, even lighter proofs would be abundant, as Matthæus advises. [Citations.]

      These matters being held as proved, the opinion of certain authorities who assert that a husband is not excusable from the ordinary penalty, who kills his adulterous wife after an interval, does not stand in our way. For the aforesaid laws speak of the wife who had been found in her guilt and has been killed incontinently. Hence such indulgence ought not to be extended to wife-murder committed after an interval, because the reins should not be relaxed for men to sin and to declare the law for themselves. [Citations.]

      Furthermore, Farinacci does not affirm this conclusion, but shows that he is very much in doubt, where he says: "The matter is very doubtful with me, because injured honour and just anger—both of which always oppress the heart—are very strong grounds for the mitigation of the penalty." Matthæus well weighs these words on our very point. And both Farinacci and Rainaldi conclude that the penalty can be moderated at the judgment of the Prince.

      I humbly pray that this be noted. The aforesaid laws, which seem to require discovery in the very act of sin, as some have thought, do not decide in that way merely for the purpose of excusing a husband moved to slaughter by a sudden impulse of wrath and by unadvised heat. But they so decide lest on any suspicion of adultery whatsoever, oftentimes entirely without foundation, men should rush upon and kill their