Trials in 16th Century Rome

The Sixteenth Century saw the Renaissance take hold in northern Europe, the spread of reading, and the first stirrings towards reason. However, reason remained beyond the ken of even the upper classes of European society.

The trial records of 16th Century Rome give good indication of just how little reason had penetrated the consciousness of most people. In transcripts (some incomplete) of nine trials, the magistrates examined the witnesses in great detail, sometimes using torture. Witnesses often lied, and the magistrates were hard put to extract the truth from some recalcitrant witnesses. However, there is no indication that magistrates ever used any kind of extended reasoning to get to the truth. There was little effort to use physical or documentary evidence to corroborate or refute a witness’s testimony. This was true even when such evidence was readily available. In one case, in which a woman was accused of witchcraft, she was confronted with a number of items found in her home that were clearly instruments of necromancy. But she claimed that they were the property of a friend who was conveniently out of town. No attempt was made to follow up on her claims.

In another case, a maidservant was accused of aiding and abetting the adultery of her mistress. The entire case boiled down to her word against her mistress’s. The matter could easily have been resolved by questioning the male adulterer, but his status as a nobleman apparently put him above questioning. There was some physical evidence in the form of money and letters that might have resolved the matter, but that too was never tracked down.

This reluctance to rely on physical evidence was partially due to the fact, that, under the law, a person could be convicted only by his own confession or by the testimony of two reliable witnesses. Physical evidence by itself had no legal weight. This is understandable, given the sloppy investigative techniques of the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, it is striking that every case was decided solely on the direct testimony of the accused and witnesses.

Table of Contents | Bibliography | Sources