Medieval Law Gus McLeavy - Fitzwilliam, NH
Q
uaint as such a legal custom may seem to us today, for hundreds of years in Europe people held both wild and domestic animals responsible for their actions, as if they had the power of reason and knew the difference between good and evil. Granted, we expect this of our pets to some degree. We want the family dog to demonstrate its shame when it “knows” it’s been bad; we sense that way down deep, the family cat knows better, too (not that any self-respecting cat would ever show it). But from the time when court systems were formally organized until the middle of the 18th century, animal transgressors were considered to be subject to all ecclesiastical and local civil laws throughout most of continental Europe, just the same as people. As in most legal proceedings, there were some very strict rules and regulations associated with bringing beasts before the bar. Domestic animals had to be tried in municipal courts, while wild animals, as God’s creatures, were tried in courts of the Catholic Church. Both courts could impose the death penalty, but the church could also prescribe banishment, exorcism, and ex-communication. Biblical authority for putting animals on trial was found in Exodus 21:28 (“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear”) and several other places in the Old Testament. In every trial, all the formalities of justice were observed, from the opening of the proceedings to the passing of the sentence, and each animal had a right to an advocate on its behalf. In France alone there were more than 90 documented proceedings during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance; the last one occurred in 1740 when a cow was tried and executed. Animal trial procedures were not without some ambiguity. Arguments were raised regarding the propriety of legal action against animals, especially in the ecclesiastic courts. Some theologians felt that because God had blessed the lower animals, and because they had preceded man o Earth, the church should have no dominion over them. The church insisted that, as God’s representative on Earth, it was incumbent upon that body Summer 2021
to exorcise, anathematize, and excommunicate all sinners, living or inanimate. Still, others challenged the church on the grounds that it could not anathematize that which it did not baptize. The church stuck to its arguments, though, and went right on exorcizing guilty beasts, birds, and insects. (Actually, the church avoided the exorcism ceremony whenever possible. The success rate for the practice was low, and it was an embarrassment when an exorcized creature did not “wither off the face of the earth” as it was supposed to, or, indeed, behaved worse than it had before.) Enforcing laws against animals was frequently anything but easy. The residents of the French commune of St. Julien brought suit in 1445 against a golden beetle for what was then the legal equivalent of harassment. After years of courtroom hassling, the people proposed that a certain part of their land
be given in perpetuity for the use of the bugs. The insects’ lawyer agreed to this on behalf of their clients, and it looked as if the lengthy litigation was finally over. Then someone who had a right of way through the property in question insisted on his legal use of it. The court decided this would disturb the beetles and declared the original compromise void. The case dragged on for a total of 42 years, but no one knows its resolution: the documents describing the outcome are too deteriorated to be legible. Several other remarkable cases occurred in France about this time. The residents of Autun had papers served o the rats of that village to appear in court on a certain day to answer to specific charges related to their ratty behavior. So that there would be no mistake who was meant, the rodents in question were carefully Continued Next Page
www.4LegsAndATail.com 27
