some pestilence, or drowned by an inundation; at all events, should be exterminated from the district.
The counsel for the little black folk, replying to these accusations, alleged with justice to his clients, in the first place: That, having received from their Maker the benefit of life, they were bound by a law of Nature to preserve it by means of those instincts implanted in them. Item, That in the observance of these means they served Providence, by setting men an example of those virtues enjoined on them, viz., prudence—a cardinal virtue—in that they (the ants) used forethought, preparing for an evil day: “Formicæ populus infirmus, qui præparat in messe cibum sibi” (Prov. xxx. 25.); diligence, also, in amassing in this life merits for a life to come, according to Jerome: “Formica dicitur strenuus quisque et providus operarius, qui presenti vita, velut in æstate, fructus justitiæ quos in æternum recipiet sibi, recondit” (S. Hieron., in Prov. vi.); thirdly charity, in aiding each other, when their burden was beyond their strength, according to Abbat Absalon: “Pacis et concordiæ vivum exemplum formica reliquit, quæ suum comparem, forte plus justo oneratum, naturali quadam charitate alleviat” (Absalon apud Picinellum, in Mundo symbolico, 8); lastly of religion and piety, in giving sepulture to the dead of their kind, as writes Pliny, “sepeliuntur inter se viventium solæ, præter hominem” (Plin., lib. xi. 36); an opinion borne also by the monk Malchus, who observes, “Hæ luctu celebri corpora defuncta deportabant” (S. Hieron., in Vita Malchi).
Item, That the toil these ants underwent far surpassed that of the plaintiffs, since their burdens were often larger than their bodies, and their courage greater than their strength.
Item, That in the eyes of the Creator men are regarded as “worms;” on account of their superior intelligence, perhaps superior to the defendants, but inferior to them morally, from having offended their Maker, by violating the laws of reason, though they observed those of nature. Wherefore they rendered themselves unworthy of being served or assisted by any creatures, since they (men) had committed greater crimes against heaven than had the clients of this learned counsel, in stealing their flour.
Item, That his clients were in possession of the spot in question before the appellants had established themselves there; consequently that the monks should be expelled from lands to which they had no other right than a seisure of them by main force.
Finally, he concluded that the plaintiffs ought to defend their house and meal by human means which they (the defendants) would not oppose; whilst they (the defendants) continued their manner of life, obeying the law imposed on their nature, and rejoicing in the freedom of the earth; for the earth belongs not to the plaintiffs but to the Creator: “Domini et terra et plenitudo ejus.”
This answer was followed by replies and counter-replies, so that the counsel for the prosecution saw himself constrained to admit that the debate had very much altered his opinion of the criminality of the defendants. He had, the learned counsel for the defendants argued, admitted that the action was brought by brethren against sisters, brethren Monks against sister Ants. The sister Ants conform to the law of nature imposed on them, continued the counsel for the insects; the brother Monks, claiming to be ruled by an additional law, that of reason, violate it, so that they place themselves only under the law of animal instinct, the same which regulates the ants. The latter are not raised to the level of man, but the friars have lowered themselves to that of brutes. Consequently, the action is not between man and beast, but between beast and beast. All arguments founded on the assumption of higher intelligence in man consequently break down.
The judge revolved the matter carefully in his mind, and finally rendered judgment, that the Brethren should appoint a field in their neighbourhood, suitable for the habitation of the Ants, and that the latter should change their abode immediately, under pain of major excommunication. By such an arrangement both parties would be content and be reconciled; for the Ants must consider that the Monks had come into the land to sow there the seed of the Gospel, and that they themselves could easily obtain a livelihood elsewhere, and at less cost. This sentence having been given, one of the friars was appointed to convey it to the insects, which he did, reading it aloud at the openings of their burrows.
Wondrous event! “It nigrum campis agmen,” one saw dense columns of the little creatures, in all haste, leaving their ant-hills, and betaking themselves direct to their appointed residence.”
Manoel Bernardes adds, that this sentence was pronounced the 17th January, 1713, and that he saw and examined the papers referring to this transaction, in the monastery of Saint Anthony, where they were deposited.
We might conclude with a still more extraordinary trial, recorded in the Eyrbyggja Saga (Ed. Thorkelin, Havniæ, 1787), which took place in Iceland during the twelfth century, where a house had been haunted nightly by a band of ghosts, and the inmates instituted legal proceedings against them, somewhat in the manner above recorded; with this striking difference, that the ghosts attended the trial in person.
The story, however, is long, and an outline of it has appeared in the Icelandic travels of Captain Forbes, R.N. We have omitted the account accordingly, though with regret, as it is full of most singular details.
COUNT DE ST. GERMAIN.
The last century was very fertile in adventurers, who cleverly took advantage of the struggle continually going on between superstition and scepticism to enrich themselves at the expense of their dupes. Such men as Cagliostro could only exist at a period when people still believed in the philosopher’s stone, and hoped to restore their estates injured by frantic extravagance by the employment of the Great Secret. Among these
