Monarchia (II, ix, 1-21)

(1) Et quod per duellum adquiritur, de iure adquiritur. Nam ubicunque humanum iudicium deficit, vel ignorantie tenebris involutum vel propter presidium iudicis non habere, ne iustitia derelicta remaneat recurrendum est ad Illum, qui tantum eam dilexit ut, quod ipsa exigebat, de proprio sanguine ipse moriendo supplevit; unde psalmus: «Iustus Dominus et iustitias dilexit». (1) Furthermore, whatever is acquired through trial by combat is acquired by right. For wherever human judgment is unequal to the task, whether because it is wrapped in the darkness of ignorance or because no judge is available to preside, then to ensure that justice is not left abandoned we must have recourse to Him who so loved justice that, dying, he met its demands with his own blood; whence the psalm: "The Lord is just and has loved just things".
(2) Hoc autem fit cum de libero assensu partium, non odio, non amore, sed solo zelo iustitie, per virium tam animi quam corporis mutuam collisionem divinum iudicium postulatur: quam quidem collisionem, quia primitus unius ad unum fuit ipsa invenia, 'duellum' appellamus. (2) Now this happens when by free agreement of both sides, not out of hatred, nor out of love, but solely out of a passionate concern for justice, we seek to know divine judgment through a clash of strength of both body and soul; we call this clash of strength trial by combat ("duellum") because originally it was devised as combat between two ("duo") individuals.
(3) Sed semper cavendum est ut, quemadmodum in rebus bellicis prius omnia temptanda sunt per disceptationem quandam et ultimum per prelium dimicandum est, ut Tullius et Vegetius concorditer precipiunt, hic in Re militari, ille vero in Offitiis; et quemadmodum in cura medicinali ante ferrum et ignem omnia experienda sunt et ad hoc ultimo recurrendum; sic, omnibus viis prius investigatis pro iudicio de lite habendo, ad hoc remedium ultimo quadam iustitie necessitate coacti recurramus. (3) But just as in warfare all ways of reaching a resolution through negotiation must be tried first and only as a last resort do we engage in battle (and Cicero and Vegetius are in agreement in urging this, in the De officiis and the De re militari respectively); and just as in medical treatment everything must be tried before the knife and fire and these are to be used as a last resort; in the same way care must always be taken to ensure that, when all other ways have first been investigated as a way of resolving the dispute, we have recourse to this remedy as a last resort, forced to adopt it as it were by a need for justice.
(4) Duo igitur formalia duelli apparent: unum hoc, quod nunc dictum est; aliud, quod superius tangebatur, scilicet ut non odio, non amore, sed solo zelo iustitie de comuni assensu agoniste seu duelliones palestram ingrediantur. Et propter hoc bene Tullius, cum de hac materia tangeret; inquiebat enim: «Sed bella quibus Imperii corona proposita est, minus acerbe gerenda sunt». (4) There are thus two identifying features of trial by combat: the first is the one we have just described; the other is the one we touched on earlier, i.e. that the contenders or champions enter the arena by mutual agreement, and not out of hatred, nor out of love, but solely out of a passionate concern for justice. And that is why Cicero spoke wisely when he touched on this subject, for what he said was: "But wars aimed at securing the crown of empire should be waged less harshly".
(5) Quod si formalia duelli servata sunt, aliter enim duellum non esset, iustitie necessitate de comuni assensu congregati propter zelum iustitie nonne in nomine Dei congregati sunt? Et si sic, nonne Deus in medio illorum est, cum ipse in evangelio nobis hoc promictat? (5) For if these essential conditions of trial by combat have been respected - and if they have not it would not be trial by combat - is it not true that those who out of a need for justice have come to confront one another by mutual agreement through a passionate concern for justice have come to confront one another in the name of God? And if so, is not God in their midst, since he himself promises us as much in the Gospel?
(6) Et si Deus adest, nonne nefas est arbitrari iustitiam succumbere posse, quam ipse in tantum diligit, quantum superius prenotatur? Et si iustitia in duello succumbere nequit, nonne de iure acquiritur quod per duellum acquiritur? (6) And if God is present, is it not impious to think that justice can fail to triumph - that justice which he himself so loves, as we noted above? And if justice cannot fail to triumph in trial by combat, is it not true that what is acquired through trial by combat is acquired by right?
(7) Hanc veritatem etiam Gentiles ante tubam evangelicam cognoscebant, cum iudicium a fortuna duelli querebant. (7) Even the pagans, before the trumpet of the Gospel sounded, acknowledged the truth of this when they sought a judgment in the outcome of trial by combat.
(8) Unde bene Pirrus ille, tam moribus Eacidarum quam sanguine generosus, cum legati Romanorum pro redimendis captivis ad illum missi fuerunt, respondit:
Nec mi aurum posco, nec mi pretium dederitis; non cauponantes bellum, sed belligerantes, ferro, non auro, vitam cernamus utrique. Vosne velit an me regnare Hera, quidve ferat sors, virtute experiamur. Quorum virtuti belli fortuna pepercit, eorundem me libertati parcere certum est. Dono ducite.
Hic Pirrus 'Heram' vocabat fortunam, quam causam melius et rectius nos 'divinam providentiam' appellamus. 		(8) And so the great Pyrrhus, who was noble by reason both of the customs of the Aeacidae and of blood, gave a worthy answer when the Roman ambassadors were sent to him to ransom prisoners: "I ask no gold, nor shall you give me payment; Let us decide by the sword, and not with gold, As warriors, not traffickers in war, The matter of life and death on either side. Let us test by our valour if Hera wants That you should rule or I, and what fate brings. Doubt not I shall restore to liberty Those whom fortune of war spared for their valour. I give them; take them". Here Pyrrhus called fortune "Hera"; we call that same cause by the more appropriate and accurate name "divine providence".
(9) Unde caveant pugiles ne pretium constituant sibi causam; quia non tunc duellum, sed forum sanguinis et iustitie dicendum esset; nec tunc arbiter Deus adesse credatur, sed ille antiquus Hostis qui litigii fuerat persuasor. (9) So let champions beware that they do not make money their motive for fighting; for then it should not be called trial by combat, but a market-place of blood and justice; nor should it be thought that God is then present as arbiter, but that ancient Adversary who stirred up the quarrel.
(10) Habeant semper, si duelliones esse volunt, non sanguinis et iustitie mercatores, in hostio palestre ante oculos Pirrum, qui pro imperio decertando sic aurum despiciebat ut dictum est. (10) If they wish to be true champions, and not traffickers in blood and justice, then as they enter the arena let them always have Pyrrhus before their eyes, Pyrrhus who when fighting for supremacy disdained gold in the manner described.
(11) Quod si contra veritatem ostensam de inparitate virium instetur, ut assolet, per victoriam David de Golia obtentam instantia refellatur; et si Gentiles aliud peterent, refellant ipsam per victoriam Herculis in Antheum. Stultum enim est valde vires quas Deus confortat, inferiores in pugile suspicari. (11) And if the usual objection should be urged against the truth I have shown (that opponents may be unevenly matched in strength), let the objection be refuted by the victory of David over Goliath; and if the pagans want a different example, let them refute it by the victory of Hercules against Antaeus. For it is very foolish to suppose that strength sustained by God in a champion might be unequal to the task.
(12) Iam satis manifestum est quod per duellum acquiritur de iure acquiri. Sed romanus populus per duellum acquisivit Imperium: quod fide dignis testimoniis comprobatur. In quibus manifestandis non solum hoc apparebit, sed etiam quicquid a primordialibus Imperii romani diudicandum erat per duellum esse discussum. (12) By now it is sufficiently clear that what is won through trial by combat is won by right. But the Roman people acquired the empire through trial by combat; and this is confirmed by trustworthy testimony. In detailing this testimony, not only will this point become clear, but it will also be apparent that from the very beginnings of the Roman empire any matter of dispute was decided by trial by combat.
(13) Nam de primo cum de sede patris Enee, qui primus pater huius populi fuit, verteretur litigium, Turno Rutulorum rege contra stante, de comuni amborum regum assensu ad ultimum, propter divinum beneplacitum inquirendum, inter se solum dimicatum est, ut in ultimis Eneydos canitur. (13) For at the very beginning, when a dispute arose about the abode of father Aeneas, who was the first father of the Roman people, and Turnus king of the Rutuli opposed him, in the end, in order to seek out what was God's will, the two kings agreed to fight in single combat, as is related at the end of the Aeneid.
(14) In quo quidem agone tanta victoris Enee clementia fuit, ut nisi balteus, quem Turnus Pallanti a se occiso detraxerat, patuisset, victo victor simul vitam condonasset et pacem, ut ultima carmina nostri Poete testantur. (14) In this combat the clemency of the victor Aeneas was so great that, had he not caught sight of the belt which Turnus had taken from Pallas when he killed him, the victor would have granted life as well as peace to the vanquished, as our poets closing lines testify.
(15) Cumque duo populi ex ipsa troyana radice in Ytalia germinassent, romanus videlicet et albanus, atque de signo aquile deque penatibus aliis Troyanorum atque dignitate principandi longo tempore inter se disceptatum esset, ad ultimum de comuni assensu partium, propter iustitiam cognoscendam, per tres Oratios fratres hinc et per totidem Curiatios fratres inde in conspectu regum et populorum altrinsecus expectantium decertatum est: ubi tribus pugilibus Albanorum peremptis, Romanorum duobus, palma victorie sub Hostilio rege cessit Romanis. Et hoc diligenter Livius in prima parte contexit, cuius Orosius etiam contestatur. (15) When two peoples had sprung up in Italy from that same Trojan root, i.e. the Romans and the Albans, and a conflict had raged between them for a long time about the eagle standard and the other household gods of Troy and the honour of supremacy, in the end, by mutual agreement, in order to reach a just settlement the matter was fought out by three Horatii brothers on one side and the same number of Curiatii brothers on the other, in the presence of the kings and the peoples waiting on either side. When the three champions of the Albans and two of the Romans had been killed, the prize of victory passed to the Romans under king Hostilius. And Livy wrote a meticulous account of this episode in his first book, and Orosius too confirms it.
(16) Deinde cum finitimis, omni iure belli servato, cum Sabinis, cum Samnitibus, licet in multitudine decertantium, sub forma tamen duelli, de imperio decertatum fuisse Livius narrat: in quo quidem modo decertandi cum Samnitibus fere fortunam, ut dicam, incepti penituit. (16) Livy tells how later, respecting all the rules of warfare, they fought for supremacy with the neighbouring peoples, with the Sabines and the Samnites, in the manner of a trial by combat (even though there was a vast number of combatants); and in this way of fighting with the Samnites Fortune almost repented, so to speak, of her undertaking.
(17) Et hoc Lucanus in secundo ad exemplum reducit sic:
Aut Collina tulit stratas quot porta catervas tunc cum pene caput mundi rerumque potestas mutavit translata locum, romanaque Samnis ultra Caudinas speravit vulnera furcas.
(17) And Lucan reports this by way of example in his second book in these words: "What heaps of slain lay at the Colline Gate When the world capital and its government Was nearly transferred to a different seat, And the Samnite hoped for a heavier blow to Rome Than the Caudine Forks".
(18) Postquam vero Ytalorum litigia sedata fuerunt, et cum Grecis cumque Penis nondum pro divino iudicio certatum esset, ad Imperium intendentibus illis et illis, Fabritio pro Romanis, Pirro pro Grecis, de imperii gloria in militie multitudine decertantibus, Roma obtinuit; Scipione vero pro Ytalis, Annibale pro Affricanis in forma duelli bellum gerentibus, Ytalis Affricani succubuerunt, sicut Livius et alii romane rei scriptores testificari conantur. (18) But after the disputes between Italians had been resolved, and there had as yet been no confrontation to ascertain divine judgment with the Greeks and with the Carthaginians (both of whom were striving for Empire), Fabritius fought for the Romans and Pyrrhus for the Greeks along with a vast number of soldiers for the glory of supremacy, and Rome won; and Scipio for the Italians and Hannibal for the Africans fought a war in the form of trial by combat, and the Africans were beaten by the Italians, as Livy and all Roman historians are at pains to relate.
(19) Quis igitur adeo mentis obtuse nunc est, qui non videat sub iure duelli gloriosum populum coronam orbis totius esse lucratum? Vere dicere potuit homo romanus quod quidem Apostolus ad Timotheum «Reposita est michi corona iustitie»; 'reposita', scilicet in Dei providentia ecterna. (19) Who then is now so obtuse as not to see that the glorious people gained the crown of the whole world by right through trial by combat? A Roman could truly have said with the Apostle to Timothy: "There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness"; "laid up", that is, in God's eternal providence.
(20) Videant nunc iuriste presumptuosi quantum infra sint ab illa specula rationis unde humana mens hec principia speculatur, et sileant secundum sensum legis consilium et iudicium exhibere contenti. (20) Now let the presumptuous jurists see just how far they are below that watch-tower of reason from which the human mind contemplates these principles, and let them be silent and be satisfied to give counsel and judgment in accordance with the sense of the law.
(21) Et iam manifestum est quod romanus populus per duellum acquisivit Imperium: ergo de iure acquisivit; quod est principale propositum in libro presenti. (21) And it is already clear that the Roman people acquired the empire through trial by combat; therefore it acquired it by right; which is our main thesis in this present book.