« 前へ次へ »
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 secn in this sitslation 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 pro te 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 Sarvia 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 bravel’ (Aur fils de preur !) 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 Chevalerie.” 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
“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 Spenser ventured 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 s” which 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, par.icularly 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 quae 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 namdue 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 book on morality, That those who killed Julius Caesar are praiseworthy, because Julius had usurped the government of Rome as a tyrant. My third authority is from Boccacio, who, in his book De Casibus Virorum illustrium, lib. ii. cap. 15, contra filios tyrannorum, in speaking of the tyrant, says, “Shall I call him king 7 shall I call nim prince 2 shall I preserve my allegiance to him? Oh no : he is an enemy to the public welfare. May I employ conspiracies and open force against him : It is very proper and necessary so to do, —or there is not a more agreeable sacrifice than the blood of a tyrant, and it is insupportable to receive blame for having done good.’ “I come now to my three authorities from the civilians. As I am no lawyer, it will suffice if I mention the judgments that have been given without producing them; for in my life I never studied the canon nor civil law more than two years, and twenty years have passed since that time, so that what little I may have learnt I have quite forgotten since the period of my studies. The first authority of the civil law is, That any one may put to death deserters from the laws of chivalry; and who can be a greater deserter from chivalry than he who deserts the person of his king, the fountain of chivalry, and without whom it cannot long exist? Secondly. It is lawful for every one to kill thieves and robbers, who infest forests and rob on the highways, because they are particularly the enemies of the public weal, and consequently plotting to destroy all travellers: consequently, it is lawful to kill a tyrant, who is contin:ally practising against his king, the sovereign lord, and against the public good. Thirdly, If it be lawful for any one by the civil and imperial law to put to death a thief found by night in a house, it is much more so to slay a tyrant, who day and night devises the death of his sovereign lord. This consequence clearly follows, and will be apparent to any man of sound understanding, if he consider it, and the antecedent texts from holy writ. “Before I touch on the three examples from the holy Scriptures, I wish to reply to some cbjections that may be made to what I say, in arguing thus: All murder is forbidden by every law, divine, natural, moral, and civil. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I shall prove it from Scripture: “Non occides, in Ex. xx. is one of the divine commandments, which forbids any kind of murder. That it is forbidden by the natural law, I prove by this quotation,-- Natura enim inter homines quandam cognationem constituit qua hominen homini insidiari nefas est.' I prove it forbidden by the moral law, from “Quia per id: hoc non facias aliis quod tibi non vis fieri; alterum non laedere; jus suum unicuique tribuere: hoc est morale, insuper et de naturalijure.' That the civil and imperial laws forbid murder, those laws shall prove, “Qui hominem occidit capite puniatur, non habita differentia sexus vel conditionis. Item omne bellum omnis usus armorum vitiosus praecipue proh bitus est: nam qui vitio praecipue bellum gerit, laesae majestatis reus est. Item regis proprium furta colibere, adulteria punire, ipsos de terra perdere: qui enim talia sibi appropriat aut usurpat, principem injuriatur et ladit: quoniam ut dicit lex judiciorum vigor: juris et publica tutela in medio constituta est, ne quis de aliquo quantumcunque sceleribus implicito assumere valeat ultionem.' “To reply to the above arguments: It should be known that theologians and jurists use diversely this word homicidium ; but, notwithstanding, they agree in the sanie opinion respecting the thing. The theologians say, that to kill a man lawfully is not homicide; for the word homicidium carries with it ‘quod sit justum propter hoc dicunt quod Moyses, Phinees, et Mathathias non commiserunt homicidia, quia juste occiderunt;' but some jurists say, that killing of a man, just or unjust, is homicide,-while others deny it, saying there are two modes of homicide, legal and illegal; and for justifiable homicide no man ought to be punished. I answer, therefore, with the theologians, that the killing of a tyrant is not homicide, inasmuch as it is just and legal. According to the general law, I confess it would be homicide; but if there be shown justifiable cause for it, no punishment, but remuneration, should follow. “With regard to that part of the argument which says, “Quod hominem homini insidiari nefas est, et quae magis insidiatur homini,’ &c. it alludes to a tyrant who is continually practising the death of his king and sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas. As for him who says a man, by watching a proper opportunity for it, to save
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