Una corda eculey

Contrary to what is commonly believed, torture was not a frequent occurrence during the Middle Ages. Rather, it was typically applied to those who were deemed to be the most dangerous criminals, whereas those of good reputation (fama) were usually spared.✱ However, torture was used more frequently from the twelfth century onward, and during the later Middle Ages, it became part of extraordinary judicial procedure as a means for obtaining a confession from individuals who were reluctant to confess to the crimes they had been accused of.✱ As Edward Peters states, “Confession, the queen of proofs, required torture, the queen of torments.”✱ Although torture became available as a tool for judges to use in certain cases, it was extremely codified and controlled on the rare occasions when it was used, just as were other elements of the judicial inquest procedure.✱ For example, confessions that had been made under torture had to be repeated later by the accused once they were no longer experiencing physical pain.

In the extant judicial sources from Provence, we find only a few infrequent hints of torture in some inquests and trials from lay or ecclesiastical courts. Another type of document, however, demonstrates that even if torture may have been put into practice only on rare occasions, the courts reserved the right to resort to it if necessary. At the end of their one- to two-year terms, the clavaires, or accountants of the royal court (curia regia) in late medieval Provence, were required to provide their successors written documentation of the court’s rights in the administrative district they managed. These documents take the form of slim registers containing the information necessary for the new clavaire to do his work. The inventory of the movable and immovable goods owned by the curia regia would generally open the register, followed by a list of rights and revenues owned by the court in different villages of the administrative district, and then a list of cartularies. These might include, for example, cartularies listing condemnation fines which had not yet been paid to the court.✱

Several documents have survived for the viguerie of Forcalquier, in northern Provence, which list the goods and state the rights of the curia regia, and allow us to follow the evolution of these goods and rights over the course of the fourteenth century. The corda eculey, or “rope of the rack,” was attested in most of these inventories alongside other objects owned by the court such as chests containing cartularies, keys, bells, trumpets, weapons and kitchen tools.

The “rope of the rack,” was used to tie the accused to an instrument of torture called the equuleus, an ancient instrument dating back to Roman times and derived from the Latin word equulus, meaning foal.✱ The ropes were also used to exert pressure and extend the limbs of the accused: the infliction of pain was meant to encourage the accused to reveal his crimes. In French, this technique is known as the chevalet, also deriving from the word cheval, meaning horse. In Provence, where Latin remained the principal language of official documents until the end of the Middle Ages, the name for this torture instrument is spelled differently depending on the sources. For example, the initial “e” was at times transformed into an “a,” and the “q” was frequently replaced by a “c.” The Occitan word for the instrument, eculeon, derives directly from the Latin word. [8] The equuleus was the most common instrument of torture used during the late middle ages.

One of the main roles of the royal court—if not its main role—was to administer justice and direct inquests into criminal accusations. To do so, the court was equipped with instruments useful for an inquest or for corporal punishment inflicted afterwards. In addition to the royal court’s prison, objects of justice such as the equuleus, handcuffs, and legcuffs were also used by the court along with pillories and gallows. These objects had to be maintained, exchanged, or fixed when they were too old or in a bad repair. Traces of the changes made to these instruments and what it cost to do so are visible in the section dedicated to court expenses in the comptes de clavaires (clavaire’s accounts), as well as in statements of the court’s rights, written by the outgoing clavaire to the incoming one. In Forcalquier, the account for the fiscal year 1350-1351 mentions the sum paid to the master carpenter to repair the pillory, as well as the sum paid to the master rope maker for a new rack rope.✱ As shown in the image here, the record specifies that the expenses were "for the eculey rope…with which wrongdoers were subjected to torture (pro corda eculey (...) cum qua malefactores ad torturam elevarunt.").

In 1388, the mention of a new rack cord shows how important such objects were to court officials, who made sure to replace them if necessary.✱ This might also be a hint as to how the old cord was used, since we can imagine that once it had been used to torture one or several accused persons, it was somewhat damaged or dirty, and a new one had to be purchased. It also may have simply deteriorated with time.

The equuleus was employed to inflict physical torture, but it was also a psychological tool used by the court to obtain a confession: the simple sight of the instrument of torture might induce the accused to speak and confess his crime. In some sources, the accused was said to have been in pede acculei, that is, literally “at the foot of the instrument of torture.” This first step could be introduced by the judge to frighten the accused, who knew perfectly well what awaited him if he refused to speak, and was thereby forced to confess. This was the fate of Franciscus Botelhe, for example, who was arrested for arson by the royal court of Moustiers and whose goods were inventoried by the court in August of 1434.✱

Mention of the equuleus and the ropes required to make it work is evidence of how the judicial rights of the royal court were imposed upon the population, and proves that the royal courts of Provence considered it important to own instruments of torture, in case use of them was required. Although these instruments were in fact very concrete objects, they also served as powerful symbols of the extent of the royal court’s power.