The Strange History of Animals on Trial: Why Medieval Europeans Used to Put Animals on Criminal Trial

In the medieval period, something strange and fascinating happened: animals were put on trial. Yes, you read that right. In a time when human trials were a serious matter, animals across Europe were also held responsible for crimes. These creatures could face charges, have lawyers represent them, and even be sentenced to death, much like human criminals. This practice may sound bizarre today, but it was not an unusual sight in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Via Vocal Media 

Animals being punished for their supposed misdeeds might seem like an odd historical curiosity, but it raises an interesting philosophical question about animals and their moral responsibility. Can animals be held accountable for their actions? What makes us think they are capable of understanding right from wrong? And why were they put on trial in the first place?

Via 

A Long History of Animal Trials

The history of animals on trial dates back to as early as the 13th century, and it continued into the 18th century. These trials were often serious legal proceedings, where animals could be accused of crimes ranging from crop destruction to even more bizarre accusations, such as bestiality or witchcraft. In many cases, these trials were part of the medieval belief that animals were not only creatures to be feared or admired, but also capable of acting with intent, similar to humans.

Via Ancient Origins

One of the reasons these animal trials were so frequent in medieval Europe was the strong religious and social influences at the time. Christianity, in particular, played a major role in shaping the belief systems of medieval Europeans. The Church and religious authorities often saw the legal system as a reflection of God’s will and wanted to show the public that law and order were divinely sanctioned. Trials involving animals could be used to demonstrate that even the animal kingdom was subject to moral and legal rules.

Via MSN

The Case of the Satanic Rooster

One of the most famous examples of animals on trial occurred in 1474 in Switzerland, when a rooster was put on trial for laying an egg. You might be wondering how this could be a crime. Well, in the Middle Ages, it was believed that eggs laid by cocks were associated with witches and sorcerers who used them in their evil spells. This particular rooster was accused of being in league with the devil for laying an egg, and despite the defense claiming that laying eggs was an involuntary act, the rooster was found guilty and burned at the stake.

Via Wikipedia

Such trials were not uncommon in the medieval world, and the idea of animals facing the law was rooted in a belief that animals, like humans, had a moral responsibility for their actions. However, this belief wasn’t universal, and there were debates about whether animals could truly understand the nature of their actions or if they were just behaving on instinct.

Via Ancient origins

Pigs on Trial

One animal that often found itself on trial was the pig. Pigs were considered a nuisance in many European villages, and their free-roaming habits could lead to all sorts of problems, especially when they wandered into the streets or ate crops. In 1457, in the French village of Savigny, a sow and her six piglets were put on trial after attacking and killing a young child.

Via Macleans

The case went to court with a judge, two prosecutors, eight witnesses, and a defense lawyer. The sow was found guilty and executed, while the piglets were set free, though they were later slaughtered once they had been fattened up.

This was not the only case involving pigs. In 1386, another pig was put on trial in France after killing a child. The accused pig was dressed in human clothing, including a waistcoat and gloves, and was hanged in front of the public. This gruesome spectacle was seen as a way to demonstrate that even animals could face punishment for their actions.

Via ancient origins

Rats on Trial

Not only were larger animals like pigs put on trial, but even small creatures like rats were also held accountable for their actions. In 1508, a colony of rats was accused of destroying barley crops in the French town of Autun. A lawyer, Barthélemy de Chasseneuz, was appointed to defend the rats.

Via The Vintage News

He argued that it was dangerous for the rats to be forced to appear in court, as they would have to navigate through a gauntlet of village dogs and cats, which would likely kill them. The court agreed, and the rats were acquitted. This case highlights the strange and sometimes humorous nature of medieval animal trials.

Excommunicating Vermin

Via genealogiesofmodernity

Not only were animals prosecuted in secular courts, but they were also brought to ecclesiastical courts. One famous case occurred in 1487 when the Bishop of Autun, Jean Rohin, was angered by a group of slugs destroying the crops in his diocese. He ordered that the slugs be excommunicated from the community, effectively banning them from the sacred lands. The slugs, however, did not heed the bishop’s command, and they were cursed with an anathema, or formal condemnation by the Church.

Via Spurl Editions

In 1516, a similar situation arose in the town of Troyes, where a local official attempted to evict insects that were causing damage to the crops. The same fate befell the pests: they were excommunicated. These bizarre ecclesiastical trials show how animals were sometimes treated as if they were human beings, held responsible for their actions and punished accordingly.

Why Were Animals Put on Trial?

So, why did people in the Middle Ages put animals on trial? Historians have proposed several explanations for this unusual practice. One reason is the religious influence of the time. The Church believed that the affairs of the world were divinely ordered, and any disruption of that order needed to be corrected. Animals that were believed to have committed crimes could be used as a way to demonstrate to the public that divine justice was being carried out.

Meister Drucke

Additionally, animals were often put on trial to set an example for the wider community. In many cases, animals like pigs or cows were seen as disruptive or dangerous, and their trials were a way for authorities to maintain control over the population. If a pig was found guilty of causing harm, it sent a message to the rest of the community that such behavior would not be tolerated.wherecreativityworks.

Another reason for animal trials was the medieval belief that animals were capable of rational thought and moral decision-making. Animals were often anthropomorphized, meaning that people attributed human characteristics, such as reason and intention, to them. This belief was supported by fables and stories that depicted animals behaving in ways similar to humans. The idea was that if animals could act with intention, they could also be held accountable for their actions.

The Philosophical Question: Can Animals Be Moral Agents?

The trials of animals raise an interesting philosophical question: can animals be held responsible for their actions? Today, we rarely see animals put on trial, but we still judge their behavior. We might scold a dog for chewing on shoes or punish a cat for knocking something off a shelf. But to what extent are animals responsible for their actions?

https://petsure.com.

One view is that animals can be considered moral agents to some degree. They can act with intention, make choices, and display behaviors that suggest they understand right from wrong. For example, a dog might act out of compassion when it comforts its owner after a bad day. In such cases, the dog is acting based on its own feelings and desires, which could be seen as a form of moral reasoning.

However, not all animals are capable of this kind of moral agency. While dogs and cats may be able to understand certain behaviors based on their training, other animals, like insects or fish, are less likely to have the cognitive abilities to make moral decisions. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, animals lower on the intelligence scale, like fish, may not have a sense of morality at all.https://www.aqueon.com/

Still, some argue that the ability to act morally does not require the same level of cognition as humans. As long as an animal behaves in ways that are motivated by empathy, fairness, or reciprocity, it can be considered a moral agent. Philosophers like Mark Rowlands argue that animals can exhibit moral behaviors like trust, empathy, and fairness, even if they are not fully capable of meta-cognition (thinking about thinking). This idea suggests that animals can act morally, even if they do not understand the broader implications of their actions.

Modern-Day Animal Trials

Nature

Although animal trials are no longer a common practice, there have been some rare instances where animals have been subject to legal proceedings. For example, in 2004, a bear named Katya was sentenced to 15 years in prison for mauling two people. The bear was released in 2019 after serving her sentence in a Russian zoo. While this case was certainly unusual, it highlights the ongoing interest in holding animals accountable for their actions, even in modern times.

A Strange Practice

The practice of putting animals on trial may seem strange and antiquated, but it raises important questions about animal behavior, morality, and the extent to which animals can be held responsible for their actions. While medieval Europeans may have believed that animals were capable of moral reasoning, modern thinkers are more likely to see animals as acting based on instincts and training, rather than on moral choices.

Even though we no longer hold animals accountable in the courts, the question of whether animals can be moral agents continues to fascinate philosophers, animal behaviorists, and everyday pet owners alike. Whether they’re comforting us during tough times or acting out of sheer instinct, animals continue to play an important role in our lives, and we continue to ponder the extent to which they deserve our praise or punishment. While animals may never face a judge and jury again, their behavior will always be a reflection of their unique nature and the complex ways in which they interact with the world around them.