ceremonies. The culprit was thrown into a pool of water, in which if he
did not sink, he was adjudged guilty, as though the element (they said)
to which they had committed the trial of his innocency had rejected him.

Both these species of ordeal, though they equally appealed to God, yet
went on different principles. In the fire ordeal a miracle must be
wrought to acquit the party; in the water a miracle was necessary to
convict him. Is there any reason for this extraordinary distinction? or
must we resolve it solely into the irregular caprices of the human mind?
The greatest genius which has enlightened this age seems in this affair
to have been carried by the sharpness of his wit into a subtilty hardly
to be justified by the way of thinking of that unpolished period.
Speaking of the reasons for introducing this method of trial, "_Qui ne
voit_," says he, "_que, chez un peuple exercé à manier des armes, la
peau rude et calleuse ne devoit pas recevoir assez l'impression du fer
chaud, ... pour qu'il y parût trois jours après? Et s'il y paroissoit,
c'étoit une marque que celui qui faisoit l'épreuve étoit un efféminé_."
And this mark of effeminacy, he observes, in those warlike times,
supposed that the man has resisted the principles of his education, that
he is insensible to honor, and regardless of the opinion of his
country. But supposing the effect of hot iron to be so slight even on
the most callous hands, of which, however, there is reason to doubt, yet
we can hardly admit this reasoning, when we consider that women were
subjected to this fire ordeal, and that no other women than those of
condition could be subjected to it. Montesquieu answers the objection,
which he foresaw would be made, by remarking, that women might have
avoided this proof, if they could find a champion to combat in their
favor; and he thinks a just presumption might be formed against a woman
of rank who was so destitute of friends as to find no protector. It must
be owned that the barbarous people all over Europe were much guided by