[5] While public wars were to decide the feuds of nations and of tribes, a private war was considered right to settle individual disputes. In this private hostility, however, the kindred of both parties were obliged to espouse the quarrel, or forfeit all the rights and privileges of relationship; and it may be easily believed, from the inveteracy that marks all intestine discord, that these wars were waged with every possible refinement of ferocious revenge. [6] A remarkable instance of this influence of brute force, that set at defiance all power and subordination, occurs in the history of Clovis, whose soldiers having plundered a church, and borne away various sacred utensils of great value, the bishop sent a deputation to the prince to solicit the restoration of a certain precious and sanctified vase. Clovis replied that when the booty was divided, if this vase fell to his lot, it should be immediately returned. Arrived at Soissons, the prince requested as a favour that this vessel should be allowed him as the only share of booty he would claim. All appeared willing to comply with this request; when a fierce soldier, striking the holy vessel with his battle-axe, exclaimed in a thundering voice, “You shall secure nothing here but that which the lot shall give you.” And there is but little doubt, that, had Clovis persisted, the battle-axe would have lighted upon his head. [7] The accused was also sometimes obliged to walk barefoot and blindfold over nine red-hot ploughshares, laid lengthwise at unequal distances. [8] This cut of the sabre is to this day called _coup de Jarnac_. [9] The expressions quoted by the chronicler were affecting beyond translation. _Sire je vous le donne--prenez-le pour Dieu! et l’amour que vous l’avez nourri_; but the romantic monarch was deaf to the entreaty! [10] This accident was strangely commented on by the theologic writers of the time, as appears by the following extract from Cockburn:--