The Criminal Prosecution And Capital Punishment Of Animals

by Edward Payson Evans

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Law, Animals, Legal

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1906

About the author

Edward Payson Evans was an American scholar, linguist, educator, and early advocate for animal rights.

See also E.P. Evans: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...

Reviews

[Shane Moore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Animals used to be put on trial in court in Europe and Colonial America. It wasn't an everyday occurrence, but it happened reasonably often. This book goes into detail about how it happened and why.

The usual defense of an animal in court was that animals aren't capable of reason, understanding laws, or taking responsibility for their actions. Therefore animals shouldn't be prosecuted in court. The counterpoint to this argument was that animals, like insane people, are brought to court not to punish them, but to prevent future harm. This specific set of arguments for and against animals in court are recorded as taking place repeatedly in different regions and hundreds of years apart.

An interesting understanding of demonic possession was offered in a French court in the 1100's. They said a sound mind and body are sufficient to prevent demonic possession, but a troubled mind and sick body are not capable of withstanding demonic attack. Thus, an ill person becomes worse at the infestation of an evil spirit, and cannot properly heal until the demon is cast out.

In the year "864, the Council of Worms decreed that bees, which had caused the death of a human being by stinging him, should be forthwith suffocated in the hive before they could make any more honey, otherwise the entire contents of the hive would become demoniacally tainted and thus rendered unfit for use as food."

"Bartholomew Chassenee, a distinguished French jurist of the sixteenth century (born at Issy-l'Eveque in 1480), made his reputation at the bar as counsel for some rats,
which had been put on trial before the ecclesiastical court of Autun on the charge of having feloniously eaten up and wantonly destroyed the barley-crop of that province.
The attorney assigned to the rats began by pointing out that a single summons was not sufficient since the rats themselves were spread out across the countryside, so a second summons with a later court date was sent to and posted in every parish where the rats reside.
When the court date arrived the attorney argued that his clients had not appeared due to the danger of them travelling through areas inhabited by their enemies, the cats." - page 26

"The same ancient code that condemned a homicidal ox to be stoned, declared that a witch should not be suffered to live, and although the Jewish lawgiver may have regarded the former enactment chiefly as a police regulation designed to protect persons against unruly cattle, it was, like the decree of death against witches, genetically connected with the Hebrew cult and had therefore an essentially religious character." - page 30

"Diabolical agencies were assumed to be at work in every maleficent force of nature and to be incarnate in every noxious creature." - page 31

"There was described the miracle of St. Bernard, who excommunicated the flies annoying the worshipers at the abbey church of Foigny, and the next day they were all dead in such a great quantity that they had to be shoveled out. Of course "a sharp and sudden frost may have added to the force and efficacy of the excommunication."

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "the lower animals are satellites of Satan instigated by the powers of hell and therefore proper to be cursed,"
"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." - page 55

Origen held that the scheme of redemption embraced also Satan and his satellites, who would be ultimately converted and restored to their primitive estate. - page 68

Father Pere Bourgeant was of the opinion that since animals had no original sin, they would be smarter and more moral than humans as a result of their pure souls, but they had even more imperfect bodies than humans hindering them. "So far from being astonished at their manifestations of intelligence, foresight, memory and reason, I am rather surprised that they do not display these qualities in a higher degree, since their soul is probably far more perfect than ours. Their defects are, as I have discovered, owing to the fact that in brute as in us, the mind works through material organs, and inasmuch as these organs are grosser and less perfect in the lower animals than in man, it follows that their exhibitions of intelligence, their thoughts and all their mental operations must be less perfect; and, if these proud spirits are conscious of their condition, how humiliating it must be for them to see themselves thus embruted ! Whether they are conscious of it or not, this deep degradation is the first act of God's vengeance executed on his foes. It is a foretaste of hell."

Other priests believed that animals were only animated by the spirits of devils. "The worship of animals originates in the belief that they are embodiments of devils, so that zoolatry, which holds such a prominent place in primitive religions, is only a specific form of demonolatry." As a result, "The good Catholic becomes an efficient co-worker with God by maltreating brutes and thus aiding the Almighty in punishing the devils, of which they are the visible and bruisable forms. Whatever pain is inflicted is felt, not by the physical organism, but by the animated spirit. It is the embodied demon that really suffers, howling in the beaten dog and squealing in the butchered pig."

There was a case in France in the late 1800's where a nobleman bequeathed his estate to his own corpse, to preserve the corpse as well as possible, manage and expand the estate on its behalf for to build a massive grand mausoleum to house it.

Public executions of animals were often the result of a child being disfigured or killed by the animals. These trials served three purposes. Firstly, they established whether or not the parents of the child were at fault. Secondly, they reiterated the value of the childrens' lives and provided a forum to publicly condemn the tragedy. Thirdly, they guaranteed that however monetarily valuable the animals might be they would be destroyed and not present a future threat to the safety of the community.

In some bestiality cases the animals were pardoned as unwilling participants, while in others the animals were executed alongside their owners, depending on the opinion of the particular judge.

In his Magnalia Christi Americana (Book VI, (III), London, 1702) Cotton Mather records that "on June 6, 1662, at New Haven, there was a most Capital Punishment of Animals
unparalleled wretch, one Potter by name, about sixty years of age, executed for damnable Bestialities." - Page 149

I know academically that Medieval Antisemitism was severe, but reading some of the specifics is horrifying. For instance, in some places intermarriage between Christians and Jews or Muslims was considered bestiality. "The question was gravely discussed by jurists, whether cohabitation of a Christian with a Jewess or vice versa constitutes sodomy. Damhouder (Prax. Rer. Critn. c, 96, n. 48) is of the opinion that it does, and Nicolaus Boer (Decis., 136, n. 5) cites the case of a certain Johannes Alardus or Jean Alard, who kept a Jewess in his house in Paris and had several children by her; he was convicted of sodomy on account of this relation and burned, together with his paramour, since coition with a Jewess is precisely the same as if a man should copulate with a dog" (DopL, Theat., II. p. 157). Damhouder, in the work just cited, includes Turks and Saracens in the same category, "inasmuch as such persons in the eye of the law and our holy faith differ in no wise from beasts." - Page 153

In some cases Jewish people were even considered lower than some animals. For instance, "A 12 Century law in the Customs and styles of Bourgoingne (Essai sur l'Histoire du Droit Francais by Amira, II. p. 302) states: ""it is the law and custom in Burgundy that if an ox or a horse commit one or several homicides, it shall not be condemned to death, but shall be taken by the Seignior within whose jurisdiction the deed was perpetrated or by his servitors and be confiscated to him and shall be sold and appropriated to the profit of the said Seignior; but if other beasts or Jews do it, they shall be hanged by the hind feet [until dead]"" - page 165

So that I don't end this on such a depressing note, in some cases inanimate objects have also been subject to ridiculous judicial attention.

In many Germanic states it was law that any object which caused a person's death was forfeited to the state. The idea behind this seems to have been that the object would be tainted if it were used by the relatives of the deceased, and a possible benefit was that if the family had been responsible they would not benefit.

In Athens some time before 100 AD the writer Pausanias records that a statue of an athlete named Theagenes fell on a man and killed him. The statue was put on trial, convicted of murder, and exiled by being thrown into the sea. After the Oracle at Delphi said that the land would be barren until the statue was restored it was pardoned, dredged up, and set up again.

In the archives of Maryland, edited by Dr. William Hand Browne and Miss Harrison in 1887, mention is made of an inquest held January 31, 1637, on the body of a planter, who " by the fall of a tree had his bloud bulke broken." " And furthermore the Jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid say that the said tree moved to the death of the said John Bryant; and therefore find the said tree forfeited to the Lord Proprietor."



Words I learned from this book:

abrogation: to legally cancel something
anthropophagy: human cannibalism
brigue: intrigue
durance: imprisonment
jurisconsult: A person authorised to give legal advice
jurisprudent: adjective meaning understanding law
murrain: any plague that effects domestic animals
adduce: allege
medicaments: medicines
hagiolatry: worship of the saints
supererogation: an effort beyond the call of duty
consentient: in complete agreement
transmigration: passing of a soul into another body after death
lucubration: laborious cogitation, a book that is the result of difficult thoughts
puceron: aphid
epizootic: adjective meaning epidemic among animals of a single kind in a specific region
hale: haul (also healthy)
yclept: by the name of

[Brennan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't like the actual writing that much. Luckily, the content was so ridiculous that it didn't really matter and I managed to march through the book in a few days.

There were so many tangents. The author would open a paragraph. Follow one thought for two sentences then go off on something sort of similar for two pages. By that time you'd forget what he was trying to explain in the first place.

[Evelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly, an excellent read. From the accounts of animal/insect trials to the annoyance with medieval lawyers because of their specious arguments. Just be prepared for a LOT of Latin.

"Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit."

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book is pretty cool on two levels - the first is that it's still really the only book out there on animal trials, and animals trials are interesting and funny enough that i could read anecdotes about them all day long. the second is that the book is from 1906 and evans spends a lot of time pontificating about how rational and enlightened he is compared to mediaevals who were putting animals on trial. of course it turns out that he's not actually as superior and rational as he thinks - he largely misses the inference presented by a lot of his sources that animal trials were being carried out with a ritualistic purpose, rather than because the animal was somehow aware of the concept of punishment. it seems to have been necessary to follow exact legal procedures when trialling a swarm of rats, not because mediaevals were stupid enough to think rats could understand trials, but because the church lead excommunication of the rats wouldn't work if the procedure was done correctly. anyway this book has some really great anecdotes here's my favourite:

"In the case of Jacques Ferron, who was taken in the act of coition with a she-ass at Vanvres in 1750, and after due process of law, sentenced to death, the animal was acquitted on the ground that she was the victim of violence and had not participated in her master’s crime of her own free-will. The prior of the convent, who also performed the duties of parish priest, and the principal inhabitants of the commune of Vanvres signed a certificate stating that they had known the said she-ass for four years, and that she had always shown herself to be virtuous and well-behaved both at home and abroad and had never given occasion of scandal to any one, and that therefore “they were willing to bear witness that she is in word and deed and in all her habits of life a most honest creature.” This document, given at Vanvres on Sept. 19, 1750, and signed by “Pintuel Prieur Curé” and the other attestors, was produced during the trial and exerted a decisive influence upon the judgment of the court. As a piece of exculpatory evidence it may be regarded as unique in the annals of criminal prosecutions."

[Elizabeth Morgan · Rating 2 out of 5]

An excellent work on animal prosecution in from Medieval to Modern Europe (and elsewhere), but it's currently 112 years old (first published in 1906 and expanding on work published in 1884), and although it is a great compilation of the source material, the theory is clearly obsolete in many respects. Interesting that no one has attempted to update it.

[Renae Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were dry parts of the book, but I laughed, and had to share other parts. It was a captivating read to learn how animals and bugs were charged with crimes and brought to nonsense trials throughout history.

[Amanda Speakman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A silly reminder how foolish and entitled human in society act and to the great lengths they are willing to go to have their way, often in the name of God/religion. Somewhat amusing and sometimes disturbing.

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hilarious yet historical

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

very interesting.

[Paul Sheridan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book abounds with historical anecdotes of not only the criminal prosecution of animals, but of plants, insects, corpses, and various inanimate objects also.

[David Johnston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing history of some of the most bizarre legal proceeding in history. And it's free on Gutenberg.