Trial by ordeal

Trial by ordeal was an ancient judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the
accused was determined by subjecting them to a painful, or at least an unpleasant, usually
dangerous experience. The test was one of life or death, and the proof of innocence was
survival. In some cases, the accused was considered innocent if they escaped injury or if their
injuries healed.

In medieval Europe, like trial by combat, trial by ordeal was considered a judicium Dei
(Latin:"judgement of God"): a procedure based on the premise that God would help the
innocent by performing a miracle on his behalf. The practice has much earlier roots, attested
to as far back as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

I. Trial by combat
Ordeal by combat took place between two people in a dispute. They or, under certain
conditions, a designated "champion" would fight, and the loser of the fight or the party
represented by the losing champion was deemed guilty or liable.
*A notable case was that of Gero, Count of Alsleben, whose daughter married Siegfried
II, Count of Stade.

II. Trial by Fire

After being accused of adultery Cunigunde of Luxembourg proved her innocence by
walking over red-hot ploughshares. Ordeal by fire was one form of torture.

(1)Ordeal of fire typically required that the accused walk a certain distance, usually 9
feet (2.7 metres) over red-hot ploughshares or holding a red-hot iron. Innocence was
sometimes established by a complete lack of injury, but it was more common for the wound
to be bandaged and re-examined three days later by a priest, who would pronounce that
God had intervened to heal it, or that it was merely festering—in which case the suspect
would be exiled or put to death. One famous story about the ordeal of ploughshares
concerns Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma of Normandy. According to legend, she was

Ordeals -CRM5-Polygraphy Mary Grace G. Escabel

accused of adultery with Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester, but proved her innocence by walking
barefoot unharmed over burning ploughshares.

(2)Another form of the ordeal required that an accused remove a stone from a pot of
boiling water, oil, or lead. The assessment of the injury and the consequences of a miracle or
lack of one, followed a similar procedure to that described above.

Trial by ordeal was adopted in the 13th century by the Empire of Nicaea and the
Despotate of Epirus; The most famous case where this employed was when Michael
Palaiologos was accused of treason: he avoided enduring the red-iron by saying he would
only hold it if the Metropolitan Phokas of Philadelphia could take the iron from the altar with
his own hands and hand it to the future emperor.

Ordeal by fire (Persian:‫ ) ور‬was also used for judiciary purposes in ancient Iran. Persons
accused of cheating in contracts or lying might be asked to prove their innocence by ordeal
of fire as an ultimate test. Two examples of such an ordeal include the accused having to
pass through fire, or having molten metal poured on his chest. There were about 30 of these
kinds of fiery tests in all. If the accused died, he was held to have been guilty; if survived, he
was innocent, having been protected by Mithra and the other gods. The most simple form of
such ordeals required the accused to take an oath, then drink a potion of sulphur, They
thought fire has an association with truth.

In Ancient India, the trial by fire was known as agnipariksha, in which Agni, the Fire God,
would be invoked by a priest using mantras. After the invocation, a pyre is built and
enkindled, and the accused would be asked to sit on it. According to Hindu Mythology, the
Fire God would preserve the accused if he was innocent, if not, he would be burned to
ashes.
Legal texts from reign of King Athelstan provide some of the most elaborate royal
regulations for the use of the ordeal in Anglo-Saxon England, though the period's fullest
account of ordeal practices is found in an anonymous legal text written some time in the
tenth century. According to this text, usually given the title Ordal, the water had to be close
to boiling temperature, and the depth from which the stone had to be retrieved was up to
the wrist for a 'one-fold' ordeal and up to the elbow for a 'three-fold' ordeal. The distinction

Ordeals -CRM5-Polygraphy Mary Grace G. Escabel

between the one-fold and three-fold ordeal appears to be based on the severity of the
crime, with the three-fold ordeal being prescribed for more severe of fences such as
treachery or for notorious criminals. The ordeal would take place in the church, with several
in attendance, purified and praying God to reveal the truth. Afterwards, the hand was bound
and examined after three days to see whether it was healing or festering.

This was still a practice of 12th-century Catholic churches. A suspect would place his
hand in the boiling water. If after three days God had not healed his wounds, the suspect was
guilty of the crime.

Trial by ordeal mostly took place in a church because it was believed that God could
watch over and decide if they were innocent.

Cold water
The ordeal of cold water has a precedent in the Code of Ur-Nammu and the Code of
Hammurabi, under which a man accused of sorcery was to be submerged in a stream and
acquitted if he survived. The practice was also set out in Frankish law but was abolished by
Louis the Pious in 829. The practice reappeared in the Late Middle Ages: in the Dreieicher
Wildbann of 1338, a man accused of poaching was to be submerged in a barrel three times
and to be considered innocent if he sank, and guilty if he floated.

Ordeal by water was later associated with the witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th
centuries, although in this scenario the outcome was an accused who sank was considered
innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. Demonologists developed inventive new
theories about how it worked. The ordeal would normally be conducted with a rope holding
the subject connected to assistants sitting in a boat or the like, so that the person being
tested could be pulled in if he/she did not float; the notion that the ordeal was flatly devised
as a situation without any possibility of live acquittal, even if the outcome was 'innocent', is a
modern exaggeration. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced
baptism when entering the Devil's service.

Ordeals -CRM5-Polygraphy Mary Grace G. Escabel

By cross
The ordeal of the cross was apparently introduced in the Early Middle Ages in an
attempt to discourage judicial duels among the Germanic peoples. As with judicial duels, and
unlike most other ordeals, the accuser had to undergo the ordeal together with the accused.
They stood on either side of a cross and stretched out their hands horizontally. The one to
first lower his arms lost. This ordeal was prescribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806.
A capitulary of Louis the Pious in 819 and a decree of Lothar I, recorded in 876, abolished the
ordeal so as to avoid the mockery of Christ.

By ingestion

Franconian law prescribed that an accused was to be given dry bread and cheese
blessed by a priest. If he choked on the food, he was considered guilty. This was transformed
into the ordeal of the Eucharist (trial by sacrament), the accused was to take the oath of
innocence. It was believed that if the oath had been false, the person would die within the
same year.
A woman suspected of adultery should be made to swallow "the bitter water that cause
the curse" by the priest in order to determine her guilt. The accused would be condemned
only if 'her belly shall swell and her thigh shall rot'. It is known as the Sotah.

By poison
Some cultures, such as the Efik Uburutu people of present-day Nigeria, would
administer the poisonous Calabar bean (Physostigma venenosum) in an attempt to detect
guilt. A defendant who vomited up the bean was innocent. A defendant who became ill or
died was considered guilty.
Residents of Madagascar could accuse one another of various crimes, including theft,
Christianity, and especially witchcraft, for which the ordeal of tangena was routinely
obligatory.

By boiling oil
Trial by boiling oil has been practiced in villages in India and in certain parts of West
Africa. There are two main alternatives of this trial. In one version, the accused parties are

Ordeals -CRM5-Polygraphy Mary Grace G. Escabel

ordered to retrieve an item from a container of boiling oil, with those who refuse the task
being found guilty.
In the other version of the trial, both the accused and the accuser have to retrieve an
item from boiling oil, with the person or persons whose hand remains unscathed being
declared innocent.

By turf
An Icelandic ordeal tradition involves the accused walking under a piece of turf. If the
turf falls on the accused's head, the accused person is pronounced guilty.

English common law

Suppression
Popes were opposed to ordeals, although there are some apocryphal accounts
describing their cooperation with the practice. At first there was no general decree against
ordeals, and they were only declared unlawful in individual cases. Eventually Pope Innocent
III in Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) promulgated a canon forbidding blessing of
participants before ordeals. This decision was followed by further prohibitions by synods in
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The king of Sicily Frederick II (1194-1250AD) was the
first king who explicitly outlawed trials by ordeal as they were considered irrational.

Ordeals -CRM5-Polygraphy Mary Grace G. Escabel