“I, Benedict of Monferrato, Bishop of Lausanne, having heard the complaint against the beetles, acknowledge and certify that the complaint is well founded and that these beetles are subject to a spell. I call upon them my curse, demand obedience from them, and anathematize them, so that they leave all fields and lands, and retire away. By virtue of this verdict, I declare and confirm that from now on they are cursed, and their number will decrease every day until there are no more of them left than is necessary for the benefit and demand of man”(court verdict in the case of garden pests).
Court for … forty years
A similar verdict passed to pest beetles in 1478 by the church authorities of the city of Bern (Switzerland) now seems rather absurd. However, in those distant times, trials in which various insects, mice and rats, roosters, pigs and other "smaller brothers" were on trial, took place quite often and did not surprise anyone. Historians have found hundreds of protocols in the archives of European countries, similar to the one above.
It was considered a matter of course to sue the locust that destroyed the crop or the rats who were insolent at the end. As a rule, such "cases" were dealt with by the church authorities - secular judges rightly believed that when passing a conviction they would hardly be able to contribute to its correct execution. But the priests, as people closest to the heavenly forces, do not need to "come to an agreement" with the Almighty and thus guarantee the condemned wordless creatures a well-deserved punishment.
Another thing is that the ministers of the church themselves were well aware that they were far from omnipotent, and therefore did not at all strive to immediately and unconditionally pass convictions. Hearing "atrocious" cases sometimes dragged on for many years, prosecutors and lawyers were appointed and changed, numerous witnesses were summoned and heard … For example, the trial initiated by the Saint-Julien community (France) against garden pests, and which began in 1445, lasted from in small intervals … more than forty years. Moreover, in this dispute, the "defendants" - pest beetles, in the end, defeated people and retained the right to live in communal gardens and orchards.
Promotional video:
The case of the "Spanish flies"
Back in the XIII century, the inhabitants of the city of Chur (Switzerland) started a process against small green bugs, better known as spanish flies. The judge, who was examining the case of the "Spanish flies" out of compassion for the tiny insects, provided them with a guardian and a lawyer at public expense.
A brilliant speech by a lawyer who somehow proved the usefulness of these insects to the court ended with the flies, like people, gaining ownership of the land. Historical chronicles say the following about this: "To this day, the custom is strictly observed: every year a certain piece of land is allocated for these beetles, where they gather, and no one is bothered by them."
In the province of Savoie (France), since the 16th century, a tradition has been practiced according to which caterpillars and other insects, in the event of serious damage to the crop, were excommunicated. On the appointed day, the priest went to the field damaged by the enemies, where he listened to speeches of specially appointed defenders and prosecutors. Usually, lawyers referred to the fact that God created insects earlier than humans, and therefore they have a priority right to all the gifts of nature. The prosecutors focused more on the suffering and devastation of the peasants as a result of the invasion of caterpillars and other harmful creatures.
After carefully listening to the debate of both parties, the priest usually agreed with the accuser and solemnly excommunicated the insects from the church.
Rodent lawyer
Another surprising and rather high-profile trial was initiated at the beginning of the 16th century in Autuns (Burgundy). It so happened that the ubiquitous rats destroyed most of the crop, and angry locals duly called them to account.
In the local bishopric, formal subpoenas were drawn up throughout the form, in which rats were referred to as "filthy grayish animals living in burrows." A specially appointed church official spent several days visiting the barns and bins most frequently visited by rodents and loudly reading out the rat's rights and responsibilities.
It goes without saying that on the day appointed by the court, the animals did not appear at the hearing of their "case". The residents of Autun (the plaintiffs) were already ready to celebrate the victory, but the lawyer Bartholomew de Chassenet brilliantly stood up for the rodents (the defendants), who thanks to this "rat" process made himself a big name in the future.
First of all, the lawyer said that the summons prepared by the Episcopal Court were too general. In view of the fact that every rat living not only in Authen itself, but also in its suburbs, bears responsibility for the ruined crop, the summons must be drawn up individually and officially read out to each rodent separately.
Strange as it may seem, but these arguments were taken into account by the court. The nearby priests received strict instructions from the bishop: to talk to each rat separately, to call her to account and oblige him to appear in court at a strictly appointed time.
Of course, the village priests could not disobey the order of their master. However, we agree that it is quite difficult to fulfill such an assignment, to put it mildly.
Safety certificate for rats
Be that as it may, but on the next appointed day, the rats again did not appear, thus showing disrespect, both for the court itself and for the church authority, this court is creating.
The enraged bishop again turned to Chassenet with a demand: either to recognize the case as hopelessly lost, or to somehow explain the shameless behavior of his clients.
It is known that Bartholomew de Chassenet brilliantly got out of this delicate situation. He stated that in view of the summons of all his clients, young and old, healthy and sick, to the court, they must make great preparations, and first of all demanded another extension of the term. Then the rat defender began to challenge the legality of the call itself. He argued to the Episcopal Court that the summons should serve his wards as a kind of protective letters; that the rats are ready to obey and at any time to appear at the hearing, but only one thing stops them: the presence of cats and other aggressive animals on the way. Rodents are simply worried about their lives, and therefore do not dare to leave their holes and appear before the eyes of the bishop and his entourage.
“Let the plaintiffs,” Chassenet said, “undertake, under the threat of a large monetary fine, that their cats will not disturb my clients, and the demand to appear in court will be immediately executed.”
The arguments of the gallant lawyer were recognized as fair. The court not only granted the rats a two-week reprieve, but also offered special benefits to pregnant rodents and infant rats. But the residents of Authen and its environs did not dare to take responsibility for the behavior of their domestic predators, and the case "Oten v. Rats" as a result was postponed indefinitely, and then completely lost.
Silent witnesses
It should be noted that animals did not always occupy places in the dock. There were cases when "smaller brothers" were summoned to court as … witnesses.
In the Middle Ages, in some countries there was a law according to which, if in the period from sunset to sunrise a robber broke into a private house, and the owner killed him, then this murder was not considered a crime. However, the trial was still carried out - after all, it could have happened that the malicious owner deliberately lured his victim into the house at night, and then killed her, ostensibly for self-defense.
However, it was easy enough for the killer to prove his innocence. According to the laws that reigned then, it was enough to bring to court anyone living in the house of a “witness” of a crime: a cat, a dog, a bird or even a mouse. In the presence of the judges and the "witness" - the animal, the killer had to loudly declare his innocence. It was believed that if the owner of the house was guilty, then higher powers would force the animal to speak so that the crime would not go unpunished. However, the beasts never refuted the words of their master, and the criminal was released on all four sides.
Konstantin Fedorov
