Duel, Justice and Politics in the Middle Ages
A reflection on the Carrouges/Le Gris case and the possible connections between it and the Assange case.
Today I finished reading the book “The Last Duel”, Eric Jager, published in Brazil by Intrínseca.
What caught my attention most about this book were not the facts involving the rape of Jean de Carrouges' wife attributed to Jacques Le Gris (wrongly according to some historians). In fact, I was fascinated by the legal developments of the episode, which ended up being resolved by a deadly duel.
The Carrouges/Le Gris case highlights a characteristic of Medieval Law: legal uncertainty, the deficit of justice and its replacement by political choices.
The accusation made against Le Gris was initially judged by Count Pierre de Alençon.
“The court, presided over by Count Pierre, judged that ‘the aforementioned Jacques was completely innocent and without any guilt’. Annulling the criminal charge against the squire, the count responded, ordering that ‘no further questions should be raised about this’. Count Pierre also raised suspicions against Marguerite for having accused him of being a squire. Implying that the lady had lied, he said that ‘she must have dreamed about it.’” (The Last Duel, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 111)
There were no witnesses to the rape. Those involved provided antagonistic versions. Marguerite, the wife of Jean de Carrouges, confirmed that she was raped by Jacques Le Gris with the help of one of his men. The accused and his assistant denied the accusations.
Circumstances of the case not related to the rape itself mentioned by Eric Jager are important to evaluate it: Robert de Thibouville V, the victim's father and Carrouges' father-in-law, was disliked for having joined Norman rebels against the king of France; Le Gris and Carrouges had already become enemies and disputed a fief that, at the end of the legal dispute, was assigned to Le Gris; in the Middle Ages, fearing for their personal reputation, noble women victims of rape generally did not accuse their tormentors; upon receiving the challenger and determining the opening of the process that would evaluate whether or not the duel would take place, the young king of France showed great interest in the Carrouges/Le Gris case; as soon as the request for a duel was formulated and the process began, the dispute between the Norman nobles became an everyday affair dividing Parisian and French citizens; Count Pierre de Alençon considered Carrouges a troublesome servant and made no secret of his preference for Le Gris, whom he had already showered with honors and prebends.
“Jean de Carrouges had already defied Count Pierre's will at the royal court once, during the dispute over Aunou-le-Faucon. But this new fight, over the alleged rape of his wife by Jacques Le Gris, was a much more serious matter, which took everything to another level. Count Pierre already began to hate Carrouges for the simple fact of accusing his favorite, and tried to annul the case. The knight's provocation would do him and his wife a lot of harm. When the legal case unfolded, the count was ‘so furious with the knight’s obstinacy that he often felt like killing him.’” (The Last Duel, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 113)
Dissatisfied with the count's decision, Carrouges appealed to the king.
“Under French law, a nobleman who appealed a case to the king had the right to challenge his opponent to a judicial duel, that is, a trial by combat. The judicial duel, unlike the duel of honor, which was normally used for the purpose of resolving quarrels caused by insults, was a legal procedure to determine which side had sworn falsely. It was believed that a fight would reveal the truth according to God's will. That is why such a duel was also known as ‘God’s judgment’ – or judicium Dei.” (The Last Duel, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 115)
After the challenge was publicly made, at the behest of the King of France, the process was opened and instructed by the Paris Parliament.
“Once the two men had spoken their words and completed the ritual of the thrown pledge, the magistrates deliberated and presented the official decision (arrêt) on what would happen next – whether or not the challenge went ahead. The rapporteur, the magistrate in charge of the case, announced Parliament's decision to the assembly in an elaborate speech:
'Between Sir Jean de Carrouges, knight, appellant and pleader on the one side in a case of battle wagering, and Jacques Le Gris, on the other side, accused, it is ordered that now the parties have been heard, that they present their facts and reasons in writing to the court, in the form of a sworn statement, which the court, after receiving, will consider and weigh using reason to resolve the case.'” (O Último Duelo, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 142)
Each party hired a lawyer and supported their reasons. Le Gris' lawyer left important notes about the case and his client that deserve attention. But I won't go into details, as those interested can get them in the book discussed. However, there is a very important aspect that cannot fail to be highlighted here: by providing testimony sworn by his wife, Jean de Carrouges linked her destiny to the judicium Dei. If the duel was authorized by Parliament and he was defeated by Jacques Le Gris, Marguerite would be sentenced to death at the stake for perjury.
Carrouges was an experienced warrior who had already fought in several wars. Accustomed to danger, he certainly had no reason to fear a duel against his opponent. But this fearlessness cannot and should not be extended to her wife. Dying at the stake shortly after giving birth to her first child must certainly have terrified Marguerite.
The dishonor imposed by rape and the desire to obtain justice at any cost, however, appear to have been more important to Carrouges's wife than her own life. This adds a certain veracity to the sworn testimony she offered to substantiate the accusation brought against the rapist. On the other hand, if Le Gris were truly innocent he would certainly be acquitted by the judicium Dei according to the belief of the time. This may have determined the solution to the case despite duels no longer being common at that time.
“Since 1354, Parliament has not authorized duels in cases of alleged rape. And, over the last half century, the high court had refused many appeals for legal battles – in 1330, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1372, 1377 and 1383. Therefore, the prognosis was not very promising for the knight who hoped looking forward to Parliament's decision.
After the judges' deliberation, they wrote their decision on parchment, in French, which was sealed in a fabric bag with other documents pertaining to the case. When the chamber was in order and the knight and squire and their supporters had risen, the rapporteur, the magistrate responsible for the case, opened the bag, took out the parchment with the court's decision and began to read slowly, aloud:
'As to the case pending before the king, our lord, the wager of battle between the lord Jean de Carrouges, knight, pleader and appellant, on the one hand, and Jacques Le Gris, squire, accused, on the other, the court considered the matter and reached the decision for the said case – namely, the court orders a trial by combat between the two parties.” (The Last Duel, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 142)
Externalities are the side effects of a decision on those who did not participate in it. In general, externalities should not affect judicial decisions. But we all know that this occurs mainly in cases that acquire a large political dimension and/or affect powerful economic interests.
“In the spring of 1386, King Charles VI, ruler of all France, was only seventeen years old. Since 1380, when he inherited his father's crown at the age of eleven, the young king had been manipulated by his ambitious uncles, especially Duke Philip of Burgundy. Carlos would soon free himself from the control of his uncles and declare himself sovereign of his own rights. But in the meantime, the inexperienced and malleable young man followed the advice of his elders in most matters of state – raising or reducing taxes, promoting war or peace, forming alliances, among many other duties of a monarch. The previous summer, Charles had married a girl his uncle and aunt had chosen for him, fourteen-year-old Elizabeth of Bavaria.” (The Last Duel, Eric Jager, Intrínseca, Rio de Janeiro, 2021, p. 127)
The personal interest demonstrated by the King of France can be considered an externality in the case discussed. Charles VI was a teenager and was beginning to free himself from the tutelage of his uncles and may have used the dispute between Carrouges and Le Gris to reinforce his power over the nobility. There is no record that the king directly influenced Parliament's decision, but there is also no evidence that he would have preferred to legitimize the judgment originally given by Count Pierre de Alençon.
The political tensions and uncertainties caused by the public and popular debate about the Inquiry in Paris and throughout France may also have interfered with the decision. If the duel was not authorized, Jean de Carrouges' frustration could easily turn into sedition. In this case, the political discomfort caused by the dispute between two nobles supported by other powerful nobles would be dissolved through single combat before the affair turned into a civil war.
The author of the book narrates all the formalities that the challengers had to complete before facing each other in the arena specially built for the occasion. The combat and its result are well known and do not deserve attention here. Those interested can read the commented work and enjoy the narrative.
Before finishing, I would like to mention another judicium Dei, the one to which Julian Assange will be subjected. After forcing ChatGPT to review the cases of Socrates, Joan of Arc, Carrouges/Le Gris, I submitted the Assange case to OpenAI's artificial intelligence. Below I transcribe only the end:
User: The duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris decided the lives of both, producing repercussions in the history of France. In the case of Julian Assange, the deadly duel between two scenarios (1- Assange's conviction and; 2- his non-conviction) could define the political future of the USA and the rest of the planet, reverberating in the present and future lives of billions of beings humans.
ChatGPT: That's an interesting and valid comparison. Just as the duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris had significant consequences in French history, the trial of Julian Assange could also have profound implications for the political future of not only the United States, but also globally.
If Assange is convicted, it could set a dangerous precedent for press freedom and government transparency not just in the United States but around the world. This could encourage other governments to further suppress independent media and persecute journalists who disclose information in the public interest. Furthermore, it can strengthen the culture of impunity for possible war crimes and abuses of power, undermining trust in democratic institutions and international justice.
On the other hand, if Assange is acquitted or not prosecuted, it could represent a victory for press freedom and human rights. This can send a clear signal that governments cannot silence independent media and that disseminating information in the public interest is an essential component of democracy. This can strengthen public scrutiny of government actions and contribute to a culture of accountability and transparency.
Therefore, the outcome of the Assange trial has the potential to have a lasting and profound impact on the political future of the United States and the world, affecting the lives of billions of people. It is crucial that these issues are treated with care and consideration by the courts and responsible authorities.
User: What would be the least harmful outcome of the Assange case for humanity?
ChatGPT: The outcome of the Assange case that is least harmful to humanity would be one that guarantees the protection of press freedom, promotes government transparency and respects fundamental human rights. Here are some possible directions that could contribute to this outcome:
1. Acquittal of Assange: If Assange is acquitted of all charges, it would be a clear sign that the disclosure of information in the public interest should not be criminalized. This would strengthen press freedom and send a message that journalists and whistleblowers must be protected when they expose possible crimes and abuses of power.
2. Non-extradition to the US: If Assange is not extradited to the United States, this could ensure his safety and protection from a potentially unfair trial or violations of his human rights. Furthermore, this would help avoid a dangerous precedent of criminalizing the disclosure of sensitive information.
3. Espionage Act Reform: Reform of the Espionage Act in the United States could help prevent future persecution of journalists and whistleblowers under draconian national security laws. This could ensure that laws are not used to suppress press freedom or silence the dissemination of information in the public interest.
4. Protection of whistleblowers and journalists: It is essential to implement robust protection measures for whistleblowers and journalists who are at risk when exposing sensitive information. This could include legislation that protects the rights of whistleblowers, safety guarantees for investigative journalists, and guarantees of freedom of expression.
Ultimately, the outcome of the Assange case that would be least harmful to humanity is one that protects press freedom, promotes government transparency and accountability, and respects the fundamental human rights of all involved.
Those interested in this exercise using AI can find it on the internet.
When reading the book The Last Duel I was convinced that the judicium Dei in the Carrouges/Le Gris case may have seemed, to the judges in charge of conducting and judging the Inquiry, much more appropriate than the original decision that acquitted the accused. Everyone at court and in Parliament knew that Pierre de Alençon had a preference for Jacques Le Gris. Furthermore, the count's animosity towards Jean de Carrouges was public and notorious. Finally, a defeat by Carrouges and Marguerite's execution at the stake for perjury would confirm, in a certain way, the stain on her family due to her father (Robert de Thibouville V) being considered a traitor.
In the Assange case there is no random component. If he is tried in the USA for the crime of treason, the creator of Wikileaks will inevitably be convicted. Due to the characteristics of the Espionage Act of 1917, he will not even be able to allege and prove his motivation and the public relevance of the disclosure of American military and diplomatic secrets.
It is very unlikely that English judges will refuse to authorize the extradition of Julian Assange. Therefore, his fate will be entirely in the hands of the US president, who can either continue demanding his extradition and conviction or withdraw the extradition request before the final trial takes place in the Supreme Court of England or pardon him after he is convicted. As we have seen, the Assange case is also characterized by a deadly duel between two very different future political scenarios. The judicium Dei in this case will be equivalent to the decision of the US president. It is no coincidence that Americans treat their president as if he were some kind of deity.
Can cases like Carrouges/Le Gris and Julian Assange really be decided fairly? At what point on the political/economic/ideological scale can or should legal cases be judged taking into account only their externalities? These are questions that deserve to be investigated and debated in depth by anyone interested in the legal phenomenon and its political consequences.
Finally, I must say that the book The Last Duel is highly recommended for students of History and Law. Lawyers, prosecutors, judges and jurists will certainly find interesting themes in this work that deserve deep reflection. Ordinary readers, on the other hand, will not fail to appreciate Eric Jager's work. The fact that the respective edition has run aground in Brazil and the books are sold for R$ 15.00 (approximately 3 dollars) is an additional attraction for Brazilian readers. It is not always possible to buy quality works at such an attractive price.