August 29, 1884.] 



SCIENCE. 



169 



humor. Grasshoppers and grubs were the most fre- 

 quent offenders. 



Bartholomaeus Chassanaeus, a jurist of repute in 

 the old territory of Burgundy, proposed a course of 

 proceedings proper for such a lawsuit, and its conse- 

 quences, — the judgment of excommunication. He 

 says, after written summonses are served, and after 

 a judge is appointed, two advocates are to be chosen, 



— one for tbe people, the other for the grasshoppers. 

 The first begins the case against the defendant, and 

 concludes finally that the grasshoppers should be 

 burnt. The other advocate objects, and answers that 

 the order cannot be issued until after a judgment has 

 been rendered that the grasshoppers should leave the 

 country. If this was not done by the defendant in 

 a specified term of days, the thunder of excommuni- 

 cation was to be thrown on the defendant. 



A later jurist, Job Ludolf of Saxony, a man 

 with the extraordinary knowledge of twenty-five lan- 

 guages, speaks in 1694 at some length against the 

 proceedings just related. He declares himself to be 

 pained by the lack of knowledge of the law of ex- 

 communication shown by Bartholomaeus, and by the 

 miserable arrangement of the process as proposed by 

 him. Apparently it was at that time not the fashion 

 of to-day among lawyers to begin with the slur of " a 

 slight difference of opinion, as emitted by my honored 

 friend on the other side." Ludolf says, when the 

 greater excommunication is intended, the defendant 

 has to be summoned before the court in the pre- 

 scribed manner the first, the second, the third, and 

 the fourth time, and then has to be brought before 

 the court. Then comes the answer of the defend- 

 ant. The argument and the principle of law must be 

 given, so that it may appear whether the controversy 

 consists in a difference about facts or law. It must be 

 decided whether witnesses are needed, and on whom 

 the burden of proof falls. Other parties interested in 

 the case ought to be thought of : for instance, tame 

 and wild birds should be heard, because they are in 

 danger of being deprived instantaneously of their 

 favorite food; the Acridophagi (grasshopper-eating 

 people) should be heard, as they could otherwise take 

 exceptions, and move the nullity of the case, or they 

 could by appeal from the judgment, which injures 

 other parties and is therefore unjust, suspend the 

 execution of said judgment. Further, it would be 

 unjust to compel grasshoppers to leave and to go to 

 neighboring territories; and perhaps it would be more 

 to the point to allow them to be eaten by any one 

 who likes them. The proceeding proposed by Bar- 

 tholomaeus, says Ludolf, could never be proved to 

 agree with the decree of the Holy See; and nothing 

 like it is to be found in the Pontificale Bomanum. 

 There is a threefold excommunication, — the minor, 

 the major, and the anathema (which is the end of all), 



— "that the culprit's body is given over to Satan, to 

 save the spirit for the day of the last judgment." 

 After all, it seems that lawsuits in those days have 

 been very similar to those of to-day, — not shorter, 

 not less complicated, except that nothing is men- 

 tioned about retainers and obligatory fees. 



It is only right to state that Ludolf concludes with 



the following words : ' But of what use is all this 

 against disgusting beasts ? ' It is praiseworthy, that, 

 among the twenty-five languages known by him, he 

 chose just the one known by everybody to express 

 feelings which could easily have been followed by 

 more than dangerous consequences in triose dark 

 times. 



In 1479 appeared in the canton of Berne, Swit- 

 zerland, an enormous number of grubs; and it was 

 feared that the whole crop would be destroyed : there^ 

 fore the council of the commonwealth sent a deputa- 

 tion to the Archbishop of Lausanne, with the petition 

 to banish the obnoxious creatures from the canton. 

 Of course, it is not stated that the neighboring can- 

 tons had agreed to receive the grubs, but the arch- 

 bishop seems not to have considered the incongruity 

 of said petition. He gave an affirmative answer, and 

 authorized the priest at Berne to impose the banish- 

 ment of the grubs, providing for strict observance of 

 the customs and laws. After a prayer, an advocate 

 for the people was chosen. He notified the court of 

 his appointment, and proposed the citation of the 

 grubs. On a certain day some of the grubs were 

 brought before the court, and their advocate chosen. 

 The priest, followed by a large crowd of pious people 

 in a solemn procession, went to the cemetery, to the 

 fields, to the vineyards, and to the banks of the river, 

 to serve the summons on the defendant. He deliv- 

 ered the following, at that time probably courteous, 

 address as warning and as citation to the felons: — 



" Ye hideous and degraded creatures, ye grubs! 

 There was nothing like ye in the ark of Noah. By 

 orders of my august superior, the archbishop of Lau- 

 sanne, and in obedience to the holy church, I com- 

 mand ye all and every one to disappear, during the 

 next six days, from every place where food grows for 

 man or beast. If not obedient, I enjoin ye to appear 

 on the sixth day, at one o'clock, afternoon, at Willis- 

 burg, before the Archbishop of Lausanne." 



As some righteous people objected because the cita- 

 tion was not exactly made in the manner provided 

 by law, the case was postponed, and, after a lawful 

 citation, another day was named. Then the process 

 began. The advocate chosen for the defendant was 

 Jean Perrodet, a well-known dogmatical and obsti- 

 nate disputant. Perhaps it will appear somewhat 

 doubtful if the nomination of this advocate fulfilled 

 exactly the demands of the law and custom of the 

 time, as it is stated that Mr. Perrodet died a short 

 time before his nomination. Nevertheless, the case 

 and the complaint were read ; and, as no defender ap- 

 peared, the judgment was given for the plaintiff. 



"We, Benedictus of Monferrand, Archbishop of 

 Lausanne, condemn and excommunicate Te obnox- 

 ious worms and grubs, that nothing shall be left of 

 Ye, except such parts as can be useful to man." 



Tbe government ordered its officers to report the 

 consequences of the excommunication: but the saucy 

 chronicler says " that no success had been obtained 

 — probably on account of tbe sins of the people." 

 In the year 133S immense swarms of grasshoppers 

 came from Tartary to Hungary and Austria, and ar- 

 rived the day of St. Bartholomew at Bozen, South 



