_Item._ To the executioner, who came from Paris to
Meulan to put the criminal to death, by orders of
the bailiff and the Procureur du Roi 54 sols
_Item._ To a conveyance for conducting her to
execution 6 sols
_Item._ To cords to tie and bind her 2 sols 8 deniers
_Item._ To gloves 2 deniers
The charter of Eleanora, drawn up in 1395, and entitled “Carta de logu,”
containing the complete civil and criminal code for Sardinia, enjoins that
oxen and cows, whether wild or domesticated, may be legally killed when
they are taken marauding. Asses convicted of similar delinquencies--common
enough, by the way--are treated more humanely. They are considered in the
same light as thieves of a higher order in society. The first time that an
ass is found in a cultivated field not belonging to its master, one of its
ears is cropped. If it commits the same offence again, it loses the second
ear; should the culprit be hardened in crime, and inveterate enough to
trespass a third time, it is not hanged, does not even lose its tail, but
is confiscated to the Crown and goes to swell the royal herd.
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the guilty animals suffered
death on the gallows, and our sires considered that such a punishment must
strike terror into the minds of all cattle-owners and jobbers, so as
effectually to prevent them from suffering their beasts to stray at large
over the country. Later on, however, these capital condemnations were done
away with, the proprietor of the animal was condemned to pay damages, and
the criminal was killed without trial.
One more specimen, and we shall pass to cases coming under Ecclesiastical
Courts.
Country folk believe still that cocks lay eggs. This is an old
superstition, people holding, formerly, that from these accursed eggs
sprang basilisks, or horrible winged serpents.
Gross relates, in his _Petite Chronique de Bâle_, that in the month of
August 1474, an abandoned and profligate cock of that town was accused of
the crime of having laid one of these eggs, and was brought before the
magistrates, tried, convicted, and condemned to death.
The court delivered over the culprit to the executioner, who burned it
publicly, along with its egg, in a place called Kohlenberger, amidst a
great concourse of citizens and peasants assembled to witness such a
ludicrous execution.
The poor cock no doubt suffered on account of the belief prevalent at the
period that it was in league with the devil. A cock was the offering made
by witches at their sabbaths, and as these eggs were reputed to contain
snakes--reptiles particularly grateful to devils--it was taken as a proof
of the cock having been engaged in the practice of sorcery.
The annals of Ireland relate that in 1383 a cock was convicted of a
similar offence in that island, and that it suffered at the stake; the
heat of the flames burst the egg, and there issued forth a serpent-like
creature, which, however, perished in the fire.
We shall pass now to the second part of our subject--namely, proceedings
against snails, flies, mice, moles, ants, caterpillars, etc.
It has frequently happened, in all parts of the world, that an unusual
number of vermin have made their appearance and destroyed the garden
produce, or that flies have been so abundant as to drive the cattle mad
from their bites. In such cases the sufferers had recourse to the Church,
which hearkened to their complaints and fulminated her anathema against
the culprits. The method of proceeding much resembled that already stated
as being in vogue in the ordinary tribunals. The plaintiff appointed
counsel, the court accorded a counsel to the defendants, and the
ecclesiastical judge summed up and gave sentence.
All requisite forms of law were gone through with precision and
minuteness. As a specimen we shall extract some details from a
consultation on the subject, made by Bartholomew de Chasseneux, a noted
lawyer of the sixteenth century.
After having spoken, in the opening, of the custom among the inhabitants
of Beaume of asking the authorities of Autun to excommunicate certain
insects larger than flies, vulgarly termed _hureburs_, a favour which was
invariably accorded them, Chasseneux enters on the question whether such a
proceeding be right. The subject is divided into five parts, in each of
which he exhibits vast erudition.
The lawyer then consoles the inhabitants of Beaunois with the reflection
that the scourge which vexes them devastates other countries. In India the
_hureburs_ are three feet long, their legs are armed with teeth, which the
natives employ as saws. The remedy found most effectual is to make a
female in the most _dégagé_ costume conceivable perambulate the canton
with bare feet. This method, however, is open to grave objections on the
score of decency and public morality.
The advocate then discusses the legality of citing insects before a court
of justice. He decides that such a summons is perfectly justifiable. He
proceeds to inquire whether they should be expected to attend in person,
and, in default of their so doing, whether the prosecution can lawfully be
carried on. Chasseneux satisfies himself and us that this is in strict
accordance with law.
The sort of tribunal before which the criminals should be cited forms the
next subject of inquiry. He decides in favour of the Ecclesiastical
Courts. The advocate proceeds to convince his readers, by twelve
conclusive arguments, that excommunication of animals is justifiable;
having done so, he brings forward a series of examples and precedents. He
asserts that a priest once excommunicated an orchard, whither children
resorted to eat apples, when--naughty chicks!--they ought to have been at
church. The result was all that could have been desired, for the trees
produced no fruit till, at the request of the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy,
the inhibition was removed.
He mentions, as well, an excommunication fulminated by a bishop against
sparrows, which, flying in and out of the church of S. Vincent, left their
traces on the seats and desks, and in other ways disturbed the faithful.
Saint Bernard, be it remembered, whilst preaching in the parish church of
Foligny, was troubled by the incessant humming of the flies. The saint
broke off his sermon to exclaim, “O flies! I denounce you!” The pavement
was instantaneously littered with their dead bodies.
Saint Patrick, as every one knows, drove the serpents out of Ireland by
his ban.
This is the form of excommunication as given by Chasseneux:--“O snails,
caterpillars, and other obscene creatures, which destroy the food of our
neighbours, depart hence! Leave these cantons which you are devastating,
and take refuge in those localities where you can injure no one. I. N.
P.,” etc.
Chasseneux obtained such credit from this opinion that, in 1510, he was
appointed by the authorities of Autun to be advocate for the rats, and to
plead their cause in a trial which was to ensue on account of the
devastation they committed in eating the harvest over a large portion of
Burgundy.
In his defence, Chasseneux showed that the rats had not received formal
notice; and, before proceeding with the case, he obtained a decision that
all the priests of the afflicted parishes should announce an adjournment,
and summon the defendants to appear on a fixed day.
At the adjourned trial, he complained that the delay accorded his clients
had been too short to allow of their appearing, in consequence of the
roads being infested with cats. Chasseneux made an able defence, and
finally obtained a second adjournment. We believe that no verdict was
given.
In a formulary of exorcisms, believed to have been drawn up by S. Gratus,
Bishop of Aosta, in the ninth century, we find unclean beasts
excommunicated as agents of Satan.
From such a superstition as this sprang the numerous legends of the Evil
One having been exorcised into the form of a beast; as, for instance, by
S. Taurinus of Evreux, and by S. Walther of Scotland, who died in 1214,
and who charmed the devil into the shapes of a black dog, pig, wolf, rat,
etc. The devil Rush, in the popular mediæval tale of _Fryer Rush_, was
conjured into a horse, and made to carry enough lead on his back to roof a
church.
Felix Malleolus relates that William, Bishop of Lausanne, pronounced
sentence against the leeches which infested the Lake of Geneva and killed
the fish, and that the said leeches retreated to a locality assigned them
by the prelate. The same author relates at large the proceedings
instituted against some mosquitoes in the thirteenth century in the
Electorate of Mayence, when the judge before whom they were cited granted
them, on account of the minuteness of their bodies and their extreme
youth, a curator and counsel, who pleaded their cause and obtained for
them a piece of land to which they were banished.
On the 17th of August 1487, snails were sentenced at Mâcon. In 1585,
caterpillars suffered excommunication in Valence. In the sixteenth
century, a Spanish bishop, from the summit of a rock, bade all rats and
mice leave his diocese, and betake themselves to an island which he
surrendered to them. The vermin obeyed, swimming in vast numbers across
the strait to their domain.
In 1694, during the witch persecutions at Salem, in New England, under the
Quakers Increase and Cotton Mather, a dog was strangely afflicted, and was
found guilty of having been ridden by a warlock. The dog was hanged.
Another dog was accused of afflicting others, who fell into fits the
moment it looked upon them; it was also put to death. A Canadian bishop in
the same century excommunicated the wood-pigeons; the same expedient was
had recourse to against caterpillars by a grand vicar of Pont-du-Château,
in Auvergne, as late as the eighteenth century.
The absurdity of these trials called forth several treatises during the
middle ages. Philip de Beaumanoir in the thirteenth century, in his
_Customs of Beauvoisis_, complained of their folly; and in 1606, Cardinal
Duperron forbade any exorcism of animals, or the use, without license, of
prayers in church for their extermination.
A book published in 1459, _De Fascino_, by a Spanish Benedictine monk,
Leonard Vair, holds up the practice to ridicule. Eveillon, in his _Traité
des Excommunications_, published in 1651, does the same.
One curious story more, and we shall give a detailed account of one of
these trials.
We have taken this from Benoit’s _Histoire de l’Edit de Nantes_ (tom. v.
p. 754), and give a translation of the writer’s own words. “The Protestant
chapel at La Rochelle was condemned to be demolished in 1685. The _bell_
had a fate sufficiently droll: it was _whipped_, as a punishment for
having assisted heretics; it was then buried, and disinterred, in order to
represent its new birth in passing into the hands of Catholics.... It was
catechised, and had to reply; it was compelled to recant, and promise
never again to relapse into sin; it then made ample and honourable
recompense. Lastly, it was reconciled, baptized, and given to the parish
which bears the name of Saint Bartholomew. But the point of the story is,
that when the governor, who had sold it to the parish, asked for payment,
the answer made him was, that it had been Huguenot, that it had been
_newly converted_, and that consequently it had a right to demand a delay
of three years before paying its debts, according to the law passed by the
king for the benefit of those recently converted!”
We propose now giving the particulars of a remarkable action brought
against some ants, towards the commencement of the eighteenth century, for
violation of the rights of property. It is related by P. Manoel Bernardes
in his _Nova Floresta_ (Lisbóa, 1728), and is quoted by M. Emile Agnel
among his _Curiosités Judiciaires et Historiques_; to whom and to the
paper of M. Menabréa, entitled “Procès fait aux Animaux,” in the twelfth
volume of the _Transactions of the Chambéry Society_, we are indebted for
much of our information.
Action brought by the Friars Minor of the province of Pridade no
Maranhao in Brazil, against the ants of the said territory.
“It happened, according to the account of a monk of the said order in that
province, that the ants, which thereabouts are both numerous, large, and
destructive, had, in order to enlarge the limits of their subterranean
empire, undermined the cellars of the Brethren, burrowing beneath the
foundations, and thus weakening the walls which daily threatened ruin.
Over and above the said offence was another, they had burglariously
entered the stores, and carried off the flour which was kept for the
service of the community. Since the hostile multitudes were united and
indefatigable night and day--
Parvula, nam exemplo est, magni formica laboris
Ore trahit quodcumque potest, atque addit acervo
Quern struit ... (Horace, _Sat._ i.)--
the monks were brought into peril of famine, and were driven to seek a
remedy for this intolerable nuisance: and since all the means to which
they resorted were unavailing, the unanimity of the multitude being quite
insurmountable, as a last resource, one of the friars, moved by a superior
instinct (we can easily believe that), gave his advice that, returning to
the spirit of humility and simplicity which had qualified their seraphic
founder, who termed all creatures his brethren--brother Sun, brother Wolf,
sister Swallow, etc.--they should bring an action against their sisters
the Ants before the divine tribunal of Providence, and should name counsel
for defendants and plaintiffs; also that the bishop should, in the name of
supreme Justice, hear the case and give judgment.
“The plan was approved of; and after all arrangements had been made, an
indictment was presented by the counsel for the plaintiffs, and as it was
contested by the counsel for the defendants he produced his reasons,
requiring protection for his clients. These latter lived on the alms which
they received from the faithful, collecting offerings with much labour
and personal inconvenience; whilst the ants, creatures whose morals and
manner of life were clearly contrary to the Gospel precepts, and were
regarded with horror on that account by S. Francis, the founder of the
confraternity, lived by fraud; and not content with acts of larceny,
proceeded to open violence and endeavours to ruin the house. Consequently
they were bound to show reason, or in default be concluded that they
should all be put to death by some pestilence, or drowned by an
inundation; at all events, should be exterminated from the district.
“The counsel for the little black folk, replying to these accusations,
alleged with justice to his clients, in the first place: That, having
received from their Maker the benefit of life, they were bound by a law of
nature to preserve it by means of those instincts implanted in them.
_Item_, That in the observance of these means they served Providence, by
setting men an example of those virtues enjoined on them, viz. prudence--a
cardinal virtue--in that they (the ants) used forethought, preparing for
an evil day: ‘Formicæ populus infirmus, qui præparat in messe cibum sibi’
(Prov. xxx. 25); diligence, also, in amassing in this life merits for a
life to come according to Jerome: ‘Formica dicitur strenuus quisque et
providus operarius, qui presenti vita, velut in æstate, fructus justitiæ,
quos in æternum recipiet, sibi recondit’ (S. Hieron., in Prov. vi.);
thirdly, charity, in aiding each other, when their burden was beyond their
strength, according to Abbat Absalon: ‘Pacis et concordiæ vivum exemplum
formica reliquit, quæ suum comparem, forte plus justo oneratum, naturali
quadam charitate alleviat’ (Absalon apud Picinellum, _in Mundo symbolico_,
8); lastly, of religion and piety, in giving sepulture to the dead of
their kind, as writes Pliny, ‘sepeliuntur inter se viventium solæ, præter
hominem’ (Plin., lib. xi. 36); an opinion borne also by the monk Malchus,
who observes, ‘Hæ luctu celebri corpora defuncta deportabant’ (S. Hieron.,
_in Vita Malchi_).
“_Item_, That the toil these ants underwent far surpassed that of the
plaintiffs, since their burdens were often larger than their bodies, and
their courage greater than their strength.
“_Item_, That in the eyes of the Creator men are regarded as ‘worms’; on
account of their superior intelligence, perhaps superior to the
defendants, but inferior to them morally, from having offended their
Maker, by violating the laws of reason, though they observed those of
nature. Wherefore they rendered themselves unworthy of being served or
assisted by any creatures, since they (men) had committed greater crimes
against heaven than had the clients of this learned counsel in stealing
their flour.
“_Item_, That his clients were in possession of the spot in question
before the appellants had established themselves there; consequently that
the monks should be expelled from lands to which they had no other right
than a seizure of them by main force.
“_Finally_, he concluded that the plaintiffs ought to defend their house
and meal by human means which they (the defendants) would not oppose;
whilst they (the defendants) continued their manner of life, obeying the
law imposed on their nature, and rejoicing in the freedom of the earth;
for the earth belongs not to the plaintiffs but to the Creator: ‘Domini
est terra et plenitudo ejus.’
“This answer was followed by replies and counter-replies, so that the
counsel for the prosecution saw himself constrained to admit that the
debate had very much altered his opinion of the criminality of the
defendants. He had, the learned counsel for the defendants argued,
admitted that the action was brought by brethren against sisters, brethren
Monks against sister Ants. The sister Ants, conform to the law of nature
imposed on them, continued the counsel for the insects; the brother Monks,
claiming to be ruled by an additional law, that of reason, violate it, so
that they place themselves only under the law of animal instinct, the same
which regulates the ants. The latter are not raised to the level of man,
but the friars have lowered themselves to that of brutes. Consequently,
the action is not between man and beast, but between beast and beast. All
arguments founded on the assumption of higher intelligence in man
consequently break down.
“The judge revolved the matter carefully in his mind, and finally rendered
judgment, that the Brethren should appoint a field in their neighbourhood,
suitable for the habitation of the Ants, and that the latter should
change their abode immediately under pain of major excommunication. By
such an arrangement both parties would be content and be reconciled; for
the Ants must consider that the Monks had come into the land to sow there
the seed of the Gospel, and that they themselves could easily obtain a
livelihood elsewhere, and at less cost. This sentence having been given,
one of the friars was appointed to convey it to the insects, which he did,
reading it aloud at the openings of their burrows.
“Wondrous event! ‘It nigrum campis agmen,’ one saw dense columns of the
little creatures, in all haste, leaving their ant-hills, and betaking
themselves direct to their appointed residence.”
Manoel Bernardes adds, that this sentence was pronounced on the 17th of
January 1713, and that he saw and examined the papers referring to this
transaction, in the monastery of Saint Anthony, where they were
deposited.