Talk:Trial by ordeal

Apologetical statements
Is it me or are the statements in the first paragraph seem a little bit too apologetical to others too? What on earth makes you believe that trial by ordeal lasted longer elsewhere than it lasted in Europe. For one thing I don't know anything that resembles such a practice in middle east. There were executions without trial, torture so on so forth but I never heard of trial by ordeal. Does the author have a problem admitting there may be meaningless and violent things in comperatively recent european history? After all the whole article is about the practice as it is done in europe but the introduction puts the blame on every culture. How do you know if such a thing existed in Hawaii or not for example?

---

Didn't trial by ordeal survive on the books in England a lot longer than it was actually used? I know trial by combat did. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:16 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that since the traditional ordeals were supervised by the Roman Catholic clergy, and probably got most of their probative value from the practice of auricular confession, that they fell into disuse with the Reformation. Unlike trial by combat, I don't know of any instances where surprised judges learned that it was still called for.  I have Pollock and Maitland at my office, and I can check there on Monday.  -- IHCOYC 00:34 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Am I correct in saying that trial by combat was only outlawed in the reign of George III (though it had not been practiced for quite some time)? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:47 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * You are. The case of Ashford v. Thornton ruled that it was still part of English law in 1818.  Now I suspect that the answer to your question has to do with the Roman Catholic Church's decision not to allow priests to participate in the early thirteenth century.  Since I strongly suspect that the involvement of the priests was more than merely passive, and that the priests were finagling the outcomes to make sure that the decision they thought right was confirmed by miracle of God in the ordeal, the ban on their participation may have spelled doom for the procedure.  Later "ordeals" seem more investigative tools than trials. -- IHCOYC 18:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * According to Blackstone, Henry III abolished trials by ordeal early in his reign, in 1220; see Bl. Commentaries v. IV, p. *418. So while battle continued for some time as a theoretical possibility, ordeal was no longer an option.  -- IHCOYC 14:10 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Disputed
The ordeal by water paragraph repeats claims ("dunking of witches") that are the subject of an accuracy dispute in trial by drowning. I have no expertise to help the resolution but I have inserted the dubious marker to flag the need for:

a. A common resolution in both articles

b. Suitable cross links between the two articles

--Cje 19:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ordeal by cold water involved binding and tossing the "defendant" into a pond after the water had been consecrated by a priest. The test was if you were accepted by consecrated water - you went under - you were innocent and possibly drowned but at least you died with your reputation restored. If you floated then you were guilty at which point you were fished from the pond tied to a stake and after some smoldering burned to death.

I seem to not be the only one that connects english "Ordeal" to Late Latin "Ordalium", from Out-Deal "Deal out", anyway, if that's correct, I wonder why that would be Fordalia in Interlingua, and not Ordalia.

The "cursed morsel" - I wonder if this was the source for Eddie Izzard's Cake or Death routine? Ubermonkey 21:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quote: 'a Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon practice was for the accused to walk nine paces with a red-hot iron bar held in both hands. This is one proposed etymology for the traditional phrase "the whole nine yards."'

The second sentence is literally true - this *is* one proposed etymology - but the chances of it being the true etymology are zero (the phrase is not commonly used in the UK and first appears in the US in the 1960s). This article isn't the place for a discussion of folk etymology; I propose simply deleting that sentence. Amroth 19:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Question regarding statement in "Ordeal of Fire" section. It is stated "...was described by Gregory of Tours in the seventh century AD". If Gregory of Tours died in 594, I believe the author meant sixth century AD, but I didn't want to change it in case I'm misunderstanding something.67.42.103.2 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a few minor points of contention on this article's opening and suggestions for references.

1. There should be some qualification in describing the ordeal as a painful task. Although ordeals usually were painful, this was not always the case, such as in the turf ordeal in medieval Iceland (see: William Ian Miller, "Ordeal in Iceland," Scandinavian Studies, 60, pp. 189-218).

2. In discussing the ordeal in other parts of the world, it might be useful to mention the poison ordeal in Africa (see: Roberts, “Oaths, Autonomic Ordeals, and Power,” American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 67, No. 6, Part 2: The Ethnography of Law (Dec., 1965) 3. In the statment: "where the intended effect is magical" add, "or based on a belief in fate" (again, see Miller on Icelandic ordeals)

4. the statement: "Priestly cooperation in trials by fire and water was forbidden by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, and replaced by compurgation.[1]" seems to imply that the 4th lateran council replaced the ordeal with compurgation, which is not at all the case. Canon 18 of Lateran IV prohibits clerical involvement in the ordeal (the reasoning seems to be that the ordeal involves the clerical shedding of blood), but does not suggest anything to replace the ordeal. Thus, how the ordeal was to be replaced was left up to secular authorities--and as far as I know, they did not replace the ordeal with compurgation. According to Robert Bartlett's Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (New York: Clarendon Press, 1986)--possibly the most useful secondary source on the ordeal--the ordeal was replaced by the trial jury in England and judicial torture in much of the rest of Europe.

5. When discussing England, I am pretty sure one should refer to the Anglo-Saxons, not the Saxons (the latter were Germanic).

The Young Wizards Series
Diane Duane's wizards, as seen and mentioned VERY often in the Young Wizards Series, must go through something called an "Ordeal" - which is basically a trial by fire (not necesarrily in the literal sense, heh) where they go up against the Lone Power (which Itself is supposed to be the inspiration behind most of the, if you will, Boss Monsters of mythology, as well as being equated with Satan/Lucifer - It is sometimes greeted in the books as "Fair and Fallen", and is known for its devious tactics - and also the inspiration for many of the Native American Trickster gods, since It too invented death and entropy and consistently tricks peoples and worlds into accepting it); this is one of the first things that happens after a wizard takes his or her Oath and is given powers by the Powers That Be. If they pass the test and defeat the Lone Power, they are officially considered a wizard. If they don't, they either die (as part of the consequences of failing to defeat the Lone Power in whatever It was doing; it's noted at one point in the series that many of the missing persons cases in the world are actually wizards disappearing when they fail their Ordeal), or apparently would lose their newly-given powers and all memory of their time as a wizard (or at least, this is suggested in Deep Wizardry; when Nita considers backing out of what she's agreed to do, she's told, as I recall, that there would be dire consequences but that the Powers aren't generally heartless and would probably allow her to escape and therefore live - but not as a wizard. This wasn't her Ordeal, but other than it being a wizard's first - and therefore inherently most frightening - mission, there seems to usually be relatively little to distinguish the Ordeal from a normal mission undertaken on behalf of the Powers. I say "usually" because another wizard in the sixth book had a rather weird one, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, given the circumstances in that book). In fact, the whole first book (So You Want To Be A Wizard) revolves around one such Ordeal, which is by its very nature life-threatening; the fact that it's said to be a test of the wizards' mettle and is given special status in the series (the notes in the wizarding directories always mention status, in other words, whether a wizard is on a mission, or available... and it ALWAYS mentions if the wizard is "on Ordeal") would sort of seem to connect to the subject of this article, or else something very similar (the fact that our own internal links make "trial by fire" a disambig that links right back to here at the top lend even further credence; Duane is well-read and the series largely involves a theme or themes of the power and evolution and love of languages - you have to love language in order to be a wizard in her books, because they use the mystical Speech to alter the universe - so it's not inconcievable that the metaphorical trial by fire they undergo is called an Ordeal on purpose).

I say all of this because I think it might be good to change the "parodies" section to "Cultural references" or some similar title, and include this tidbit (though made more concise, of course :P) in there alongside the Monty Python reference. The only reason I'd like to see the title "Parodies" changed is that the "Ordeal" of Duane's wizards seems obviously connected, but it's treated seriously instead of as a joke. The Monty Python mention is excellent, but it's the only parody mentioned and the only parody I can think of. Unless people want to add a Cultural references section and made "Parodies" a subsection of that?

Or, do you disagree that Duane's wizard stories have elements taken from something like this? Certainly the NAME seems to have a common origin, though I can't be positive it isn't a coincidence. That's the only reason I have yet to add this; because I don't want to add OR to it. Hell, Duane edits on Wikipedia herself- maybe we could ask her if the connection is intentional or not? What do you guys think? Runa27 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the following text: "This practice is known today as Ordeal of Lichtblau, and has been administered by Daniel Lichtblau, foremost of the Lichtblau clan, to wayward luminaries such as Val Kilmer and John Paul Jones. In Kilmer's case, some have questioned whether the actor was indeed 'asking for it.'" because it appears to be nonsense. The cited references contained no support for these bizarre assertions, and as far as I can tell Daniel Lichtblau is Val Kilmer's body double. Looks to be vandalism, although strange vandalism. 69.134.217.103 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Proscribed?"
There appears to be an error in the text here: "This ordeal was proscribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806. On the other hand, a decree of Lothar I, recorded in 876, rules its abolition so as to avoid mockery of Christ."

How is Charlemagnes proscription "on the other hand" to Lothar's abolition? To proscribe and abolish are fundamentally the same.

Was it intended to say that Charlemagne "prescribed" the ordeal of the cross? He supported it? I suspect so, but don't have any background knowledge. In any case, the text must be changed one way or another. zadignose (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

academic paper on the validity of ordeals
Prof. Peter T. Leeson, of the university of Chicago, released a paper on the statistical validity of ordeal. Maybe it should be mentioned in this article. here's a link to it: http://www.peterleeson.com/Ordeals.pdf Crackettt (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Counter argument to Peter Leeson assertion
"Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities would routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. If this theory is correct, medieval superstition was actually a useful motivating force for justice." I find this highly unlikely, and whitewashing the past in favor of governing bodies, of what was truly nothing short of a barbaric and superstitious practice of man against fellow man under the guise of the constructs of the church and state, to impose their absolute tyranical rule and will. All those witches and heretics who were burned at the stake, and aristocrats who were beheaded, were definitely guilty because god did not intervene on the behalf to stop heal them of the wounds of torture. Leeson in effect asserts... don't worry, the Church rigged the burnings alive and the beheadings... they weren't actually burned alive or beheaded, splayed on the rack or impaled in iron maidens, or hit with the thumbscrews, or scaled with molten metal or fire, it was just a trick with mirrors. These torture devices throughout Europe were not just for display only, they were working equipment. A burnt crispy body or behead head as end effect is not a miraculous escape from an ordeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Death as an expected result
The lead says "in others, only death was considered proof of innocence. (If the accused died, they were often presumed to have gone to a suitable reward or punishment in the afterlife(hell or heaven), which was considered to make trial by ordeal entirely fair.)". I know of no such practice. What's more it is inherently unlikely as it would mean that a mere accusation was a death sentence. No system of proof would work like that. Is there any evidence for such practice? Hard evidence that is.

In Mediaeval England it was certainly the case that ordeal by cold water was relatively easily subverted and the acquittal rate was pretty high. Baker (I think) suggests that one of the reasons for the introduction of more widespread jury trials was to avoid the ease of the old ordeals, and there was popular opposition to the jury as against the ordeal. All that seems unlikely if death was considered proof of innocence. Francis Davey (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that ordeal through water in the age of the witch hunts was deliberately set up as an oblique no-win situation for the accused woman - either she floated and that proved her pact with the Devil or she drowned and was sanctimoniously written off as "innocent but alas, dead" - is an entrenched modern myth: there is no such thing indicated in 16th-18th century sources, and routine killing of suspects even as the ordeal came to the result "innocent" would not have been accepted even in 1600. I added this caution into the article.
 * The notion was spread, largely, by modern feminist movements who have regarded witch hunts as an archetypal instance of oppression of womankind - by the way, the idea that the "crime" of the witches was to do with their being strong women has been dismantled many times over by serious scholarship, even by women scholars - and the picture of the water trial where you die no matter what has become bit of a standing metaphor of intolerable oppression of gender or of an entire people.Strausszek (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Leesons conjectures are interesting, but they also make broad assumptions, and as such are rubbish
"According to a theory put forward by Peter Leeson, trial by ordeal was surprisingly effective at sorting the guilty from the innocent.  Because defendants were believers, only the truly innocent would choose to endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead."

I find Peter Lessons argument particularly onerous, because it is based on a fallacy, that (all) defendants were believers; that that defendants had no common experience in real life; that they were oblivious to real world previous experience that they can and will be injured irregardless of their faith or belief; and their own real world experience of personally never witnessing any such fairy tale miracles in their own life was not a factor in them placing no such faith in such a thing to rescue them from an accidental or intentional physical act of violence, irregardless of what the clergy (their accusers) told them.

I would counter argue that even the lowliest house wife, farm hand, or town commoner in Medieval Europe would know from daily experience, that irregardless of your belief in anything, if you stick your hand in a boiling cauldron of water, it is going to get scalded; if you walk across hot coals, your feet will get burn; and if... (substitute your ordeal here, damage to yourself will occur). A house wife would know, that spilled boiling water would scald. A common blacksmith would know, that when poked with a hot poker he would get burned badly, irregardless of any guilt or innocence of anything at all. These things would a common accident and occupational hazard and danger during house-wifing, black smithing, and daily life.

I assert contrary to his argument, that Trial by Ordeal caused many false convictions through use of terror. Knowing fully well what would happen to them by being subjected to a blatant act of violence against them, they would chose to confess to an unknown punishment out of fear of the known outcome of a threat of grave bodily harm. If you fall out of a tree, you get hurt; if you get stabbed by a red hot stick, you get burned; if you get splashed by boiling hot water, you get scalded. Guilt and any belief in a deity or that such entity might intervene has nothing to do with it. The school of hard knocks of rough daily life in medieval Europe would of schooled them otherwise, as it does every kid growing up today.

Indeed, that his argument could be used today, to reinstate Trial by Ordeal, in countries where the leadership is permeated by fundamentalist religious beliefs, and that his arguments could be used effectively against those who are naive or could not defend themselves verbally, would be an assault upon human liberty of the grossest order.

I question why his argument should be introduced in the article at such an early point (introductory section), and that they should be moved down further in the article, and balanced by, if not mine, more rational counter arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

the question is not whether the system produced false convictions, or false exonerations, but whether its ratio of success was far inferior compared to the modern system, which obiously also has a certain rate of failure, where the verdict is basically determined by how many top lawyers you can pay for. Which system is more fair? You need to be a rich fart and buy your way out of trouble, or you have to clench your teeth and retrieve a stone from boiling water or something of that sort. I honestly don't know, but I put it to you that the question has no evident or easy answer.

The basic idea here is that both the accuser and the accused have to undergo exactly the same ordeal. The idea is that only a sufficient amount of moral outrage will enable you to submit to this, hedging against both false accusations and phoney claims of innocence. What is the modern equivalent? The cost of taking someone to court. Again, physical pain is substituted by financial cost. This may be less "barbaric", but it effectively biases the entire system towards the wealthy. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sierra Leone
How could a practice in Sierra Leone influence a practice in Europe, when these societies weren't even aware of each other? Do tell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.50.30 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article just says that the practice has roots going back to animistic societies, and Sierra Leone is offered as an example of a society which engaged in that practice. At no point does it say that Sierra Leone influenced Europe.  Try actually assuming that the writers of articles (or anything you read) are not dumbasses.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

' ... by inquisition'
At present inquisition in 'replaced by compurgation, later by inquisition' links to The (Spanish) Inquisition. Surely, in legal history, it simply means trial on the basis of evidence. Clarification would be useful. Norvo (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Theoretical Criminology source
I found a copy of the book in a library and I was not able to find the exact page on which the information came from, although it is the 1st edition and Vold et al. may have added the information in his 2nd edition. If anyone knows the page or has access to the 2nd edition to check this, I'd greatly appreciate it. — Mike moral  ♪♫

Bishop Quirinius and miracles as evidence of innocence
I removed a claim that ordeal by water sometimes meant that if you floated you were innocent, rather than the other way round, along with a reference to bishop Quirinius, who was reported to be miraculously saved from sinking. The incident was not an example of ordeal by water; the bishop was already found guilty and the miracle unexpected. There is no evidence of the custom of proving innocence by a miracle - a custom that no sane people would accept. --Jonund (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The disinformation was taken from Samuel Covington: The Esoteric Codex: Witch Hunting, a vanity press book. --Jonund (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trial by ordeal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429053347/http://www.stupormundi.it/Houben1.htm to http://www.stupormundi.it/Houben1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

should include trial by iron?
excerpt 17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russkaya_Pravda https://www.schroders.com/en/uk/the-value-perspective/blog/all-blogs/hot-iron-trial-by-ordeal/ JCJC777 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

“Ancient”
Does anyone else have a slight issue with how the opening is worded? It’s ancient, but was used as ‘recently’ as medieval times? Can we state “…originally used in…” instead? Just a nitpick. Maybe it’s appropriately-worded. MWFwiki (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)