I read the book, Locust, The Devastating Rise and Mysterious Disappearance of the Insect that Shaped the American Frontier not long ago and then began to read it again after seeing a terribly awesome 1950’s movie about giant locusts attacking Chicago at the Smithsonian. I went with my friend Thom, who is a lawyer for good causes, and since he likes talking about law, and since I like talking about insects, I told him about the strange court proceedings that have occurred because of locust swarms. When I went home I started reading the locust book again and am still enthralled with those 3 pages of the book that tell of the locust trial in the 1300’s.

Because I’m not a cool kid and don’t listen to music unless my hipster friends make me mixed CDs (which they do, quite often, to keep me up to date), instead of posting music lyrics I’m just going to post portions of books I read over and over again out of sheer amusement, similar, I suppose, to listening to the same song over and over.

Anyway, for all the lawyers, entomologists, insect-haters, Christians, whoever, here you are:

since i did transcribe this myself, and since i have considerable problems catching mistakes on screen, my apologies for all typos...

“The Christian response to locust invasion was most thoroughly documented in Edward P. Evan’s bizarre and authoritative treatise, The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals.

Amid incredible accounts of legal proceedings against unruly pets and homicidal livestock can be found the strangest of human-animal legal conflicts that played out in the ecclesiastical courts of Europe—locusts on trial.

The earliest involvement of the Church as an extermination agency appears in 880, when roman authorities sought help from Pope Stephan VI. The Holy Father provided a huge volume of holy water, which was apparently used in the course of exorcising the swarm. But exorcism became viewed as a drastic intervention, a subtler strategy emerged.

During the reign of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, the church took on a different take in dealing with troublesome locusts: excommunication. This approach was applied to a swarm that settled in the northern Indian province of Mantura. In this case, as in many previous cases, the locusts dutifully dispersed not long after the church’s proclamation. Of course, locust swarms tend to move about even when they are not subjects of religious persecution, but this entomological pattern did nothing to diminish people’s faith in the efficacy of religious interventions.

The use of excommunication, however, raised a thorny theological issue. To be excommunicated one needs to be a communicant in the first place. That is, if an insect is not part of the church and able to take in communion, then it is, strictly speaking, nonsensical to excommunicate the creature, not matter how destructive it might be. The only legitimate recourse was to anathematize, or curse, the beasts. But that raised an even more troublesome religious problem.

The locust swarm could mean one of two things. The insect, might be the work of a godless nature or even the devil. If plowing and planting were a noble labor, even a higher calling, then the locusts could be seen as the diabolical work of Satan. In this case, calling upon the church to deliver a searing curse might be just the thing to drive them away.

One the other hand, the creatures could be emissaries of God sent to punish the people for their sins. If the farmer has wandered from the straight and narrow, then the locusts could be viewed as the servants of an angry god. In this case, the proper response would be humility and repentance to placate the angry deity, who might then send the swarm on its way. The last thing a cleric wanted to do was pronounce an anathema on the lord’s messengers.

So, how could the church know whether a locusts swarm originated demonically or divinely?

On St. Bartholomew’s day in 1338, locusts began to decimate the farming region around Botzen in the Tyrol of modern-day Austria. To determine the proper course of events—repentance of curse—the church convened a trail of the insects before the ecclesiastical court at Kaltern. The trial followed what would become a standard sequence of events. First came the petition from those seeking redress. If the petition was accepted, the proceedings next involved a declaration or plea on behalf of the inhabitants. This was a flowery speech concerning the horrors of hunger with loads of classic citations, historical allusions, irrelevant digressions, and literary discourse. The meandering series of accusations was followed by the defense allegation or plea for the insects. As the locusts could not speak for themselves, they were given legal counsel, who was no less officious in his rejoinder.

These phases were followed by the presentation of substantive arguments for and against the locusts. The defense invoked the entomological equivalent of the modern insanity plea to contend that the locusts lacked reason and volition and were thus immune from condemnation. After all, the insects were simply exercising their innate and god-given rights to swarm and feed.

The prosecution rebutted this claim by acknowledging that the law cannot punish the irrational and insane for crimes already committed but pointed out that it can intervene to prevent further harm. So, the anathema should not be seen as punishing the locusts but as a means of driving them away before they did more damage. Then, the prosecutor played theological hardball, noting that Jesus cursed the fig tree, an entirely irrational organism, and was it the defense council’s intention to question the son of God’s judgment?

As things started looking bad for the locusts, their counsel resorted to the ecclesiastical version of the ‘race card” in the OJ Simpson trial. He proposed that his clients were actually agents sent by the almighty to punish the farmers for their sinful ways—and to curse these messengers would be to fight against god himself. But the prosecution was unshakable. With righteous indignation he asserted that the pious and near saintly villagers were god’s people and the insects were surely diabolical. Indeed, for the besieged people to appeal to the church for assistance was an act of authentic religiosity and abiding faith, not resistance to god.

The resolution of the trial was up to the bishop’s proctor. The proctor began by expressing his serious reservations that a misfired curse could become a boomerang, “being a weapon of such peculiar energy and activity that, if it fails to strike the object against which it is hurled, it returns to smite him, who hurled it.”

Then, perhaps top provide himself with an alibi if the almighty cross examined him on judgment day, he claimed to be meddled by the complexity of the case, saying “we cannot tell why god has sent these animals to devour the fruits of the earth; this is for us a sealed book.” The official next pontificated on what sins might have induced such a plague, which seemed to suggest that the judgment would be in favor of the insects. However, in the end he set aside these arguments and ordered the swarm to vacate the countryside within sic days or else suffer anathematization. The proctor’s declaration included one final recommendation aimed at the petitioners.

The court strongly suggested that the farmers avail themselves of prayers and penances. As was customary, the plaintiffs were instructed to manifest their in the form of tithes to the church. It was widely known—although it bore repeating from the proctor—that abstinence from sin and payment of tithes—particularly the latter—enhanced the efficacy of anathema.

The locusts left the region not long after the trial concluded. "