Medieval Law Gus McLeavy

Medieval Law

Gus McLeavy - Fitzwilliam, NH

Quaint 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

described: “dirty animals in the form of rats, of a grayish color, living in holes.” Court=appointed counsel for the animals was a man named Bartholomew Chassanee, who later became one of France’s legal luminaries.

When the rats did not appear in court to answer the first summons, Chassanee argued that the summons, although read at a place frequented by rats, was of too local a character. Furthermore, as all the rats in the area were interested parties in the case, each should be addressed individually-the court could not assume the infallibility of the rats’ grapevine. The court acquiesced, and the curate of each parish in the district was instructed to inform every rat under his jurisdiction when and where to appear in court. When no rats came the second time, the lawyer explained that, as all rats had been summoned, young and old, sick and well alike, many preparations were necessary, and there hadn’t been enough time for them to be made. The court again agreed and set a third date.

When no rats appeared on the third appointed day, Chassanee argued that the administration of the paperwork was faulty. Although a summons was supposed to guarantee the safety to and from the court of the parties involved, adequate protection had not been provided to his clients from the plaintiffs’ rat-hungry cats, which lined the rats’ routes to the courthouse. The rats were most desirous of obeying the court’s order, Chassanee insisted, but until the plaintiffs would post a bond to ensure the good conduct of their cats toward the defendants, the rats did not dare attend. The court admitted the legitimacy of this argument, too, but the plaintiffs refused to be bound over for the conduct of their cats, and Chassanee won the case by default.

In 1451, in Lausanne, leeches were brought into an ecclesiastic court to hear a monitoire (admonishment) of their conduct. They were then ordered to leave the district within three days. When they did not do so, they were formally exorcised by the church. It was reported that after the exorcism the leeches began to die and disappeared entirely in a very short time.

In the town of Levigny, a sow and her six piglets were placed on trial for murder in 1457. It was alleged that they had killed and eaten a baby. Counsel for the defense was able to get the piglets acquitted because of their youth, their mother’s bad example, and lack of hard evidence against them, but the sow was convicted and executed.

France was not alone in the prosecution of its sinning animals; it just kept the best court records. Similarly, bizarre cases were prosecuted in Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. In Basel, Switzerland, in 1464, a rooster was charged with laying an egg. The prosecution alleged conspiracy with Satan, while the defense argued that a dumb animal could not enter into a contract with the Evil One. The court found that, even though there was no proof of an affiliation between the cock and Satan, simply because the cock had laid an egg (the egg of a rooster being a commodity much sought after by witches) the fowl was the instrument of his evil, and must be condemned. In other words, guilt by association in a conspiracy to commit sorcery.

In Switzerland, it was not unusual for all animals to be witnesses in court, even in murder cases. Swiss law at the time permitted a householder to kill an intruder in his home between sunset and sunrise. Some individuals took advantage of this to settle scores, inviting a person to their homes and then murdering him after dark, claiming later that they had believed the guest to be a thief. Without witnesses, courts could not prove that such murders were not committed in defense of property. In such cases, animals often were called to the box. The accused would be made to swear his innocence in front of a family pet before the court would give a verdict of not guilty. The Swiss believed that God would not allow a guilty man to go unpunished for murder, and would therefore intercede by making a cat meow or a dog bark in an obvious fashion if the master were really guilty.

The fates of innocent men unlucky enough to own naturally vociferous pets are not recorded.

Gus McLeavy operates an out of print book business called AardBooks. Summer 2021