The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals

The archives of the old episcopal city of St. Jean-de-Maurienne contain the original records of legal proceedings instituted against some insects, which had ravaged the vineyards of St. Julien, a hamlet situated on the route over Mt. Cenis and famous for the excellence of its vintage. The defendants in this case were a species of greenish weevil (charançon) known to entomologists as rychites auratus, and called by different names, amblevin, bèche, verpillion, in different provinces of France.

Complaint was first made by the wine-growers of St. Julien in 1545 before François Bonnivard, doctor of laws. The procurator Pierre Falcon and the advocate Claude Morel defended the insects, and Pierre Ducol appeared for the plaintiffs. After the presentation and discussion of the case by both parties, the official, instead of passing sentence, issued a proclamation, dated the 8th of May, 1546, recommending public prayers and beginning with the following characteristic preamble: “Inasmuch as God, the supreme author of all that exists, hath ordained that the earth should bring forth fruits and herbs (animas vegetativas), not solely for the sustenance of rational human beings, but likewise for the preservation and support of insects, which fly about on the surface of the soil, therefore it would be unbecoming to proceed with rashness and precipitance against the animals now actually accused and indicted; on the contrary, it would be more fitting for us to have recourse to the mercy of heaven and to implore pardon for our sins.” Then follow instructions as to the manner in which the public prayers are to be conducted in order to propitiate the divine wrath. The people are admonished to turn to the Lord with pure and undivided hearts (ex toto et puro corde), to repent of their sins with unfeigned contrition, and to resolve to live henceforth justly and charitably, and above all to pay tithes. High mass is to be celebrated on three consecutive days, namely on May 20th, 21st, and 22nd, and the host to be borne in solemn procession with songs and supplications round the vineyards. The first mass is to be said in honour of the Holy Spirit, the second in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and the third in honour of the tutelar saint of the parish. At least two persons of each household are required to take part in these religious exercises. A procès-verbal, signed by the curate Romanet, attests that this programme was fully carried out and that the insects soon afterwards disappeared.

About thirty years later, however, the scourge was renewed and the destructive insects were actually brought to trial. The proceedings are recorded on twenty-nine folia and entitled: De actis scindicorum communitatis Sancti Julliani agentium contra animalia bruta ad formam muscarum volantia coloris viridis communi voce appellata verpillions seu amblevins. The documents, which are still preserved in the archives of St. Julien, were communicated by M. Victor Dalbane, secretary of the commune, to M. Léon Ménebréa, who printed them in the appendix to his volume: De l’origine de la forme et de l’esprit des jugements rendus au moyen-âge contre les animaux. Chambery, 1846. This treatise appeared originally in the twelfth tome of the Mémoires de la Société Royale Académique de Savoie.

It may be proper to add that Ménebréa’s theory of “the spirit, in which these judgments against animals were given,” is wholly untenable. He maintains that “these procedures formed originally only a kind of symbol intended to revive the sentiment of justice among the masses of the people, who knew of no right except might and of no law except that of intimidation and violence. In the Middle Ages, when disorder reigned supreme, when the weak remained without support and without redress against the strong, and property was exposed to all sorts of attacks and all forms of ravage and rapine, there was something indescribably beautiful in the thought of assimilating the insect of the field to the masterpiece of creation and putting them on an equality before the law. If man should be taught to respect the home of the worm, how much more ought he to regard that of his fellow-man and learn to rule in equity.”

This explanation is very fine in sentiment, but expresses a modern, and not a mediæval way of thinking. The penal prosecution of animals, which prevailed during the Middle Ages, was by no means peculiar to that period, but has been frequently practised by primitive peoples and savage tribes; neither was it designed to inculcate any such moral lesson as is here suggested, nor did it produce any such desirable result. So far from originating in a delicate and sensitive sense of justice, it was, as will be more fully shown hereafter, the outcome of an extremely crude, obtuse, and barbaric sense of justice. It was the product of a social state, in which dense ignorance was governed by brute force, and is not to be considered as a reaction and protest against club-law, which it really tended to foster by making a travesty of the administration of justice and thus turning it into ridicule. It was also in the interest of ecclesiastical dignities to keep up this parody and perversion of a sacred and fundamental institute of civil society, since it strengthened their influence and extended their authority by subjecting even the caterpillar and the canker-worm to their dominion and control.

But to return to the records of the trial. On the 13th of April, 1587, the case was laid before “his most reverend lordship, the prince-bishop of Maurienne, or the reverend lord his vicar-general and official” by the syndics and procurators, François Amenet and Petremand Bertrand, who, in the name of the inhabitants of St. Julien, presented the following statement and petition: “Formerly by virtue of divine services and earnest supplications the scourge and inordinate fury of the aforesaid animals did cease; now they have resumed their depredations and are doing incalculable injury. If the sins of men are the cause of this evil, it behoveth the representatives of Christ on earth to prescribe such measures as may be appropriate to appease the divine wrath. Wherefore we the afore-mentioned syndics, François Amenet and Petremand Bertrand, do appear anew (ex integro) and beseech the official, first, to appoint another procurator and advocate for the insects in place of the deceased Pierre Falcon and Claude Morel, and secondly, to visit the grounds and observe the damage, and then to proceed with the excommunication.”

In compliance with this request, the distinguished Antoine Filliol was appointed procurator for the insects, with a moderate fee (salario moderato), and Pierre Rembaud their advocate. The parties appeared before the official on the 30th day of May and the case was adjourned to the 6th of June, when the advocate, Pierre Rembaud, presented his answer to the declaration of the plaintiffs, showing that their action is not maintainable and that they should be nonsuited. After approving of the course pursued by his predecessor in office, he affirms that his clients have kept within their right and not rendered themselves liable to excommunication, since, as we read in the sacred book of Genesis, the lower animals were created before man, and God said to them: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and he blessed them saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Now the Creator would not have given this command, had he not intended that these creatures should have suitable and sufficient means of support; indeed, he has expressly stated that to every thing that creepeth upon the earth every green herb has been given for meat. It is therefore evident that the accused, in taking up their abode in the vines of the plaintiffs, are only exercising a legitimate right conferred upon them at the time of their creation. Furthermore, it is absurd and unreasonable to invoke the power of civil and canonical law against brute beasts, which are subject only to natural law and the impulses of instinct. The argument urged by the counsel for the plaintiffs, that the lower animals are made subject to man, he dismisses as neither true in fact nor pertinent to the present case. He suggests that the complainants, instead of instituting judicial proceedings, would do better to entreat the mercy of heaven and to imitate the Ninevites, who, when they heard the warning voice of the prophet Jonah, proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth. In conclusion, he demands that the petition of the plaintiffs be dismissed, the monitorium revoked and annulled, and all further proceedings stayed, to which end the gracious office of the judge is humbly implored (humiliter implorato benigno officio judicis).

The case was adjourned to the 12th and finally to the 19th of June, when Petremand Bertrand, the prosecuting attorney, presented a lengthy replication, of which the defendants’ advocate demanded a copy with due time for deliberation. This request led to a further adjournment till the 26th of June, but as this day turned out to be a dies feriatus or holiday, no business could be transacted until the 27th, when the advocate of the commune, François Fay (who seems to have taken the place of Amenet, if he be not the same person), in reply to the defendants’ plea, argued that, although the animals were created before man, they were intended to be subordinate to him and subservient to his use, and that this was, indeed, the reason of their prior creation. They have no raison d’être except as they minister to man, who was made to have dominion over them, inasmuch as all things have been put under his feet, as the Psalmist asserts and the apostle Paul reiterates. On this point, he concludes, our opponent has added nothing refutatory of the views, which have been held from time immemorial by our ancestors; we need only refer to the opinions formerly expressed by the honourable Hippolyte Ducol as satisfactory. The advocate for the defence merely remarked that he had not yet received the document ordered on the 19th of June, and the further consideration of the case was postponed till the 4th of July. Antoine Filliol then made a rejoinder to the plaintiffs’ replication, denying that the subordination of the lower animals to man involves the right of excommunicating them, and insisting upon his former position, which the opposing counsel had not even attempted to disprove, namely, that the lower animals are subject solely to natural law, “a law originating in the eternal reason and resting upon a basis as immutable as that of the divine law of revelation, since they are derived from the same source, namely, the will and power of God.” It is evident, he adds, that the action brought by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and that judgment should be given accordingly.

On the 18th of July, the same parties appear before the official of St. Jean-de-Maurienne. The procurator of the insects demands that the case be closed and the plaintiffs debarred from drawing up any additional statements or creating any further delay by the introduction of irrelevant matter, and requests that a decision be rendered on the documents and declarations already adduced. The prosecuting attorney, whose policy seems to have been to keep the suit pending as long as possible, applies for a new term (alium terminum), which was granted.

Meanwhile, in view of the law’s long delay, other measures were taken for the speedier adjustment of the affair by compromise. On the 29th of June, 1587, a public meeting was called at noon immediately after mass on the great square of St. Julien, known as Parloir d’Amont, to which all hinds and habitants (manants et habitants) were summoned by the ringing of the church bell to consider the propriety and necessity of providing for the said animals a place outside of the vineyards of St. Julien, where they might obtain sufficient sustenance without devouring and devastating the vines of the said commune. This meeting appears to have been held by the advice of the plaintiffs’ advocate, François Fay, and at the suggestion of the official. A piece of ground in the vicinity was selected and set apart as a sort of insect enclosure, the inhabitants of St. Julien, however, reserving for themselves the right to pass through the said tract of land, “without prejudice to the pasture of the said animals,” and to make use of the springs of water contained therein, which are also to be at the service of the said animals; they reserve furthermore the right of working the mines of ochre and other mineral colours found there, without doing detriment to the means of subsistence of said animals, and finally the right of taking refuge in this spot in time of war or in case of like distress. The place chosen is called La Grand Feisse and described with the exactness of a topographical survey, not only as to its location and dimensions, but also as to the character of its foliage and herbage. The assembled people vote to make this appropriation of land and agree to draw up a conveyance of it “in good form and of perpetual validity,” provided the procurator and advocate of the insects may, on visitation and inspection of the ground, express themselves satisfied with such an arrangement; in witness whereof the protocol is signed “L. Prunier, curial,” and stamped with the seal of the commune.

But this attempt of the inhabitants to conciliate the insects and to settle their differences by mutual concessions did not put an end to the litigation. On the 24th of July, an “Extract from the Register of the Curiality of St. Julien,” containing the proceedings of the public meeting, was submitted to the court by Petremand Bertrand, procurator of the plaintiffs, who called attention to the very generous offer made by the commune and prayed the official to order the grant to be accepted on the conditions specified, and to cause the defendants to vacate the vineyards and to forbid them to return to the same on pain of excommunication. Antoine Filliol, procurator of the insects, requested a copy of the procès-verbal and time for deliberation. The court complied with this request and adjourned the case till “the first juridical day after the harvest vacation,” which fell on the 11th of August, and again by common consent till the 20th of the same month.

At this time, Charles Emanuel I., Duke of Savoy, was preparing to invade the Marquisate of Saluzzo, and the confusion caused by the expedition of troops over Mt. Cenis interfered with the progress of the trial, which was postponed till the 27th of August, and again, since the passage of armed men was still going on (actento transitu armigerorum), till the 3rd of September, when Antoine Filliol declared that he could not accept for his clients the offer made by the plaintiffs, because the place was sterile and neither sufficiently nor suitably supplied with food for the support of the said animals; he demanded, therefore, that the proposal be rejected and the action dismissed with costs to the complainants (petit agentes repelli cum expensis). The “egregious Petremand Bertrand,” in behalf of the plaintiffs, denies the correctness of this statement and avers that the spot selected and set apart as an abode for the insects is admirably adapted to this purpose, being full of trees and shrubs of divers kinds, as stated in the conveyance prepared by his clients, all of which he is ready to verify. He insists, therefore, upon an adjudication in his favour. The official took the papers of both parties and reserved his decision, appointing experts, who should in the meantime examine the place, which the plaintiffs had proffered as an asylum for the insects, and submit a written report upon the fitness of the same.

The final decision of the case, after such careful deliberation and so long delay, is rendered doubtful by the unfortunate circumstance that the last page of the records has been destroyed by rats or bugs of some sort. Perhaps the prosecuted weevils, not being satisfied with the results of the trial, sent a sharp-toothed delegation into the archives to obliterate and annul the judgment of the court. At least nothing should be thought incredible or impossible in the conduct of creatures, which were deemed worthy of being summoned before ecclesiastical tribunals and which succeeded as criminals in claiming the attention and calling forth the legal learning and acumen of the greatest jurists of their day.

In the margin of the last page are some interesting items of expenses incurred: “pro visitatione III flor.,” by which we are to understand three florins to the experts, who were appointed to visit the place assigned to the insects; then “solverunt scindici Sancti Julliani incluso processu Animalium sigillo ordinationum et pro copia que competat in processu dictorum Animalium omnibus inclusis XVI flor.,” which may be summed up as sixteen florins for clerical work including seals; finally, “item pro sportulis domini vicarii III flor.,” three florins to the vicar, who acted as the bishop’s official and did not receive a regular fee, but was not permitted to go away empty-handed. The date, which follows, Dec. 20, 1587, may be assumed to indicate the time at which the trial came to an end, after a pendency of more than eight months. (Vide Appendix A.)

In the legal proceedings just described, two points are presented with great clearness and seem to be accepted as incontestable: first, the right of the insects to adequate means of subsistence suited to their nature. This right was recognized by both parties; even the prosecution did not deny it, but only maintained that they must not trespass cultivated fields and destroy the fruits of man’s labour. The complainants were perfectly willing to assign to the weevils an uncultivated tract of ground, where they could feed upon such natural products of the soil as were not due to human toil and tillage. Secondly, no one appears to have doubted for a moment that the Church could, by virtue of its anathema, compel these creatures to stop their ravages and cause them to go from one place to another. Indeed, a firm faith in the existence of this power was the pivot on which the whole procedure turned, and without it, the trial would have been a dismal farce in the eyes of all who took part in it.

It is related in the chronicles of an ancient abbey (Le Père Rochex: Gloire de l’Abbaye et Vallée de la Novalaise), that St. Eldrad commanded the snakes, which infested the environs of a priory in the valley of Briançon, to depart, and, taking a staff in his hand, conducted them to a desert place and shut them up in a cave, where they all miserably perished. Perhaps the serpent, which suffered Satan to take possession of its seductive form and thus played such a fatal part in effecting the fall of man and in introducing sin into the world, may have been regarded as completely out of the pale and protection of law, and as having no rights which an ecclesiastical excommunicator or a wonder-working saint would be bound to respect. As a rule, however, such an arbitrary abuse of miraculous power to the injury or destruction of God’s creatures was considered illegal and unjustifiable, although irascible anchorites and other holy men under strong provocation often gave way to it. Mediæval jurists frowned upon summary measures of this sort, just as modern lawyers condemn the practice of lynch-law as mobbish and essentially seditious, and only to be excused as a sudden outburst of public indignation at some exceptionally brutal outrage.

Properly speaking, animals cannot be excommunicated, but only anathematized; just as women, according to old English law, having no legal status of their own and not being bound in frankpledge as members of the decennary or tithable community, could not be outlawed, but only “waived” or abandoned. This form of ban, while differing theoretically from actual outlawry, was practically the same in its effects upon the individual subjected to it. Excommunication is, as the etymology of the word implies, the exclusion from the communion of the Church and from whatever spiritual or temporal advantages may accrue to a person from this relation. It is one of the consequences of an anathema, but is limited in its operation to members of the ecclesiastical body, to which the lower animals do not belong. This was the generally accepted view, and is the opinion maintained by Gaspard Bailly, advocate and councillor of the Sovereign Senate of Savoy, in his Traité des Monitoires, avec un Plaidoyer contre les Insects, printed at Lyons in 1668, but it has not always been held by writers on this subject, some of whom do not recognize this distinction between anathema and excommunication on the authority of many passages of Holy Writ, affirming that, as the whole creation was corrupted by the fall, so the atonement extends to all living creatures, which are represented as longing for the day of their redemption and regeneration.

One of the strong points made by the counsel for the defence in prosecutions of this kind was that these insects were sent to punish man for his sins, and should therefore be regarded as agents and emissaries of the Almighty, and that to attempt to destroy them or to drive them away would be to fight against God (s’en prendre à Dieu). Under such circumstances, the proper thing to do would be, not to seek legal redress and to treat the noxious creatures as criminals, but to repent and humbly to entreat an angry Deity to remove the scourge. This is still the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy, Protestant as well as Catholic, and the argument applies with equal force to the impious and atheistic substitution of Paris green and the chlorate of lime for prayer and fasting as exterminators of potato-bugs. The modern, like the mediæval horticulturist may ward off devouring vermin from his garden by the use of ashes, but he strews them on his plants instead of sprinkling them on his own head, and thus indicates to what extent scientific have superseded theological methods in the practical affairs of life.

Thomas Aquinas, the “angelic doctor,” in his Summa Theologiæ raises the query, whether it is permissible to curse irrational creatures (utrum liceat irrationabiles creaturas adjurare). He states, in the first place, that curses and blessings can be pronounced only upon such things as are susceptible of receiving evil or good impressions from them, or in other words, upon sentient and rational beings, or upon irrational creatures and insentient things in their relation to rational beings, so that the latter are the objects ultimately aimed at and favourably or unfavourably affected. Thus God cursed the earth, because it is essential to a man’s subsistence; Jesus cursed the barren fig-tree symbolizing the Jews, who made a great show of leafage in the form of rites and ceremonies, but bore no fruits of righteousness; Job cursed the day on which he was born, because he took from his mother’s womb the taint of original sin; David cursed the rocks and mountains of Gilboa, because they were stained with the blood of “the beauty of Israel”; in like manner the Lord sends locusts and blight and mildew to destroy the harvests, because these are intimately connected with the happiness of mankind, whose sins he wishes to punish.

It is laid down as a legal maxim by mediæval jurisprudents that no animal devoid of understanding can commit a fault (nec enim potest animal injuriam fecisse quod sensu caret). This doctrine is endorsed by the great theologian and scholastic Thomas of Aquino. If we regard the lower animals, he says, as creatures coming from the hand of God and employed by him as agents for the execution of his judgments, then to curse them would be blasphemous; if, on the other hand, we curse them secundem se, i.e. merely as brute beasts, then the malediction is odious and vain and therefore unlawful (est odiosum et vanum et per consequens illicitum). There is, however, another ground, on which the right of excommunication or anathematization may be asserted and fully vindicated, namely, that the lower animals are satellites of Satan “instigated by the powers of hell and therefore proper to be cursed,” as the Doctor angelicus puts it. Chassenée refers to this opinion in the treatise already cited (I. § 75), and adds “the anathema then is not to be pronounced against the animals as such, but should be hurled inferentially (per modum conclusionis) at the devil, who makes use of irrational creatures to our detriment.” This notion seems to have been generally accepted in the Middle Ages, and the fact that evil spirits are often mentioned in the Bible metaphorically or symbolically as animals and assumed to be incarnate in the adder, the asp, the basilisk, the dragon, the lion, the leviathan, the serpent, the scorpion, etc., was considered confirmatory of this view.