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 exerce a manier des armes, la peau rude et calleuse ne devoit pas recevoir assez l'impression du fer chaud, ...

pour qu'il y parut trois jours apres?
Et s'il y paroissoit, c'etoit une marque que celui qui faisoit l'epreuve etoit un effemine_." 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.