Neptune (Vulcan then) the faithless trust?
He suffers who gives surety for th’ unjust:
But say, if that leud scandal of the sky
To liberty restor’d, perfidious, fly,
Say, wilt thou bear the mulct? He instant cries,
The mulct I bear, if Mars pefidious flies.
ODYSS. viii. l. 381.
The Greeks also admitted a composition for murder; as appears from the following passage:
Stern and unpitying! if a brother bleed,
On just atonement, we remit the deed;
A sire the slaughter of his son forgives,
The price of blood discharg’d, the murd’rer lives;
The haughtiest hearts at length their rage resign,
And gifts can conquer ev’ry soul but thine.
The gods that unrelenting breast have steel’d,
And curs’d thee with a mind that cannot yield.
ILIAD, ix. l. 743. <30>
[print edition page 27]
Again,
There in the forum, swarm a num’rous train;
The subject of debate, a town’s-man slain:
One pleads the fine discharg’d, which one deny’d,
And bade the public and the laws decide.
ILIAD xviii. l. 577.
One of the laws of the Twelve Tables was “Si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto.”* And Tacitus is very express upon this custom among the Germans:† “Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias necesse est: nec implacabiles durant; luitur enim etiam homicidium certo armentorum ac pecorum numero, recipitque satisfactionem universa domus.” We find traces of the same thing in Abyssinia,‡ among the negroes on the coast of Guinea,|| and among the blacks of Madagascar.§ The laws of the barbarous nations cited above, insist longer upon these compositions than upon any other subject; and that the practice was established among our Saxon ancestors, under the name of Vergelt, is known to all the world.
This practice at first, as may reasonably be conjectured, rested entirely upon private consent. <31> It was so in Greece, if we can trust Eustathius in his notes on the foregoing passage in the Iliad first quoted.13 He reports, that the murderer was obliged to go into banishment one year, unless he could purchase liberty to remain at home, by paying a certain fine to the relations of the deceased. While compositions for crimes rested upon this foundation, there was nothing new or singular in them. The person injured might punish or forgive at his pleasure; and might remit the punishment upon terms or conditions. But the practice, if not remarkable in its nascent
[print edition page 28]
state, made a great figure in its progress. It was not only countenanced, but greatly encouraged, among all nations, as the likeliest means to restrain the impetuosity of revenge: till becoming frequent and customary, it was made law; and what at first was voluntary, became in process of time necessary. But this change was slow and gradual. The first step probably was to interpose in behalf of the delinquent, if he offered a reasonable satisfaction in cattle or money, and to afford him protection if the satisfaction was refused by the person injured. The next step was to make it unlawful to prosecute resentment, without first demanding satisfaction from the delinquent. And in the laws of King Ina* we read, that he who takes revenge without first demanding satisfaction, must restore <32> what he has taken, and further be liable in a compensation. The third step completed the system, which was to compel the delinquent to pay, and the person injured to accept, a proper satisfaction. By the laws of the Longobards,† if the person injured refused to accept a composition, he was sent to the king to be imprisoned, in order to restrain him from revenge. And if the criminal refused to pay a composition, he also was sent to the king to be imprisoned, in order to restrain him from doing more mischief. After composition is made for manslaughter, the person injured must give his oath not further to prosecute his feud;‡ and if he notwithstanding follow out his revenge, he is subjected to a double composition.||
Altars, among most nations, were places of sanctuary. The person who fled to an altar, was held to be under the immediate protection of the deity, and therefore inviolable. This practice prevailed among the Jews, as appears by the frequent mention of laying hold on the horns of the altar. Among the Grecians,§
Phemius alone the hand of vengeance spar’d,
Phemius the sweet, the heav’n-instructed bard. <33>
Beside the gate the rev’rend minstrel stands;
[print edition page 29]
The lyre, now silent, trembling in his hands;
Dubious to supplicate the chief, or fly
To Jove’s inviolable altar nigh.
ODYSSEY xxii. l. 367.
Aedibus in mediis, nudoque sub aetheris axe,
Ingens ara fuit; juxtaque veterrima laurus,
Incumbens arae, atque umbra complexa Penates.
Hic Hecuba, et natae nequicquam altaria circum
Praecipites atra ceu tempestate columbae
Condensae, et Divum amplexae simulacra tenebant.
Ipsum autem sumptis Priamum juvenilibus armis
Ut vidit: Quae mens tam dira, miserrima conjux,
Impulit his cingi telis? aut quo ruis? inquit.
Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
Tempus eget: Non, si ipse meus nunc afforet Hector.
Huc tandem concede: Haec ara tuebitur omnes,
Aut moriere simul. Sic ore effata, recepit
Ad sese, et sacra longaevum in sede locavit.
AENEID, l. 2. l. 512.14
Altars prevailed also among Christians.15 Thus by the law of the Visigoths,* if a murderer fly to the altar, the priest shall deliver him to the relations of the deceased, upon giving oath that, in prosecuting their revenge, they will not put him to death. Had the prosecutor, at this period, been bound to accept of a composition, the privilege of sanctuary would have been unnecessary.
[print edition page 30]
<34> By this time, however, the practice of compounding for crimes had gained such authority, that it was thought hard, even for a murderer to lose his life by the obstinacy of the dead man’s relations. But this practice gaining
