Chapter LV. IF ONE KNIGHT IS IN THE PRISON OF ANOTHER WHC KEEPS HIM SHUT UP IN A STRONG TOWER MAY HE WITHOUT ACTING AGAINST REASON BREAK PRISON AND GO?
NOW I ask your consideration of another matter which may commonly arise in case of war. A knight has captured another knight, his enemy, and has thrust him into a strong prison in his castle. I ask whether, if an opportunity present itself to escape by stratagem or subtlety, the prisoner may break prison, and his captor's arrest, without acting against reason ?

It would appear that he cannot, and that this is so I prove forthwith. It is quite certain that he is bound to be in his captor's mercy, according to law ; then, since law decrees this and has ordained it, why should he escape ? Again, we say, according to Scripture, that we must not do to another what we would not wish done to ourselves. And no man on earth would wish that his prisoner should break his arrest. Hence the prisoner must not break prison, for his captor is his master until the ransom due or agreed is paid. Further, according to written law, when a man has pledged his faith to his enemy he is bound to keep it ; and if this is so, how can he go without forswearing his faith and his oath and without incurring great guilt ?

On the other hand I might bring forward reasons against what has been said above. It is beyond argument that every man desires to have his liberty and freedom, for liberty comes of the law of nature, and we assert that natural law is at all times good and just. So, if he goes, he acts according to the law of nature, and offends in no point. Again, we say that a promise or obligation made under force or violence is null. But it is common knowledge that when the prisoner surrendered and pledged his faith he did it under force or violence. Hence I say that he may go and may break his arrest.

To cut this discussion short and to avoid a long story, I say that, in my opinion, if it happens that a knight is imprisoned and has given his faith to submit to arrest or prison, and takes his oath accordingly, then if he cannot depart without agreement with his master, and without obtaining leave, he offends against our Lord God and against man. This is on the assumption, however, that his master does not use any extraordinary harshness towards him ; for if he were kept in such close imprisonment that he was in danger of falling into languor, or mortal sickness, or any grievous ill of body, and for that reason took his opportunity to escape, he would commit no offence. Again, if his master refused to accept due and reasonable ransom, in keeping with the prisoner's estate, goods, and riches, and if it seemed plain that he was asking ransom beyond his condition, then the prisoner would commit no offence if he took himself off, since, within the limits of his ability, he had offered reasonable ransom. And if his master were so cruel as to be in the habit of killing or causing the death of his prisoners in his prisons, and if, on opportunity arising, he quitted such a host, I would blame him not at all, for commonly a man fears for his own house when he sees his neighbour's burning. I mention another possibility. In the case of a master so fierce and hard that he was not in the habit of putting his prisoners to ransom, but in preference inflicted death on them in his prisons, if the prisoner escaped when he could, he would act well and wisely. If the master were not a man of this kind, and did nothing unfitting, I hold that, notwithstanding the reasons urged above on the other side, according to right lie would break faith if he went off without his master's leave, and would be accounted perjured if he had taken his oath to remain a prisoner.