tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post6359403960458302350..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: Who can be a witness?Cord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-51730490941521286312010-04-15T11:30:19.391-04:002010-04-15T11:30:19.391-04:00JJ/10th: thanks VERY much for the further info.JJ/10th: thanks VERY much for the further info.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-77675782298109851122010-04-15T07:34:38.388-04:002010-04-15T07:34:38.388-04:00Well, as I say, all the codes are online in the dM...Well, as I say, all the codes are online in the dMGH. The problem with the Scott translation, aside from its old and rather Victorian treatment of race, is that there was an early edition which was substantially abridged, and though the online version is the full one, his name is mistrusted all the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-42122618680210866132010-04-13T08:36:33.366-04:002010-04-13T08:36:33.366-04:00Ah ha! Talking birds. Good one.
Thanks for the wa...Ah ha! Talking birds. Good one.<br /><br />Thanks for the warning in re: Scott's translation. I have read it (at least its material on Jews), not yet cited it anywhere, and will be cautious in the future. Another very old law code available through the MGH: the <a href="http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&contentId=bsb00000657_00007" rel="nofollow">Edicts of Rothari, King of the Langobards.</a><br /><br />I'm wondering what mileage I can get out of this issue from Derrida's discussion of biopolitics in Beast and the Sovereign? (Discussed <a href="http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=19307" rel="nofollow">here.</a> Again, it's a matter of seeing where things take me... this all being a project for 2011, at any rate.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-40999171846406534382010-04-13T07:12:52.075-04:002010-04-13T07:12:52.075-04:00Yes, the ability to choose would be key, I agree. ...Yes, the ability to choose would be key, I agree. Where do the Middle Ages stand on birds like jackdaws or even parrots that can be taught to imitate the human voice? Do they ever get accused of lying? (How on <b>earth</b> you would search for such anecdotes, I have no idea...)<br /><br />I certainly don't have enough ignorance to hoist anyone on law, and what I do know is mostly too early to affect your study, but if you want a quick check of one of the more erudite (and therefore possibly atypical) 'barbarian' codes, it's often worth knowing that <a href="http://libro.uca.edu/vcode/visigoths.htm" rel="nofollow">the Visigothic Law is online in translation</a>, with a reasonably handy table of contents too. (Of course, the whole corpus is online in Latin via <a href="http://www.dmgh.de" rel="nofollow">the dMGH</a> and I've been told off for citing Scott's translation, but if you just want an inkling-checker, it's there.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-79908524466894472672010-04-12T16:23:28.569-04:002010-04-12T16:23:28.569-04:00Matt, thank YOU, for the OJ bit. I'd forgotten...Matt, thank YOU, for the OJ bit. I'd forgotten it, and it would make a wonderful epigraph to whatever I end up writing.<br /><br />JJ/10th: thanks also. I was waiting for either you, or Matthew Gabriel, or Larry Swain to come swooping in and hoist me on my legal ignorance. Feeling more secure now, and AFTER, definitely. I think the issue of the slave.animal comparison is definitely one to consider in this context, as is the question of rationality. IN a way, the purported lack of rationality and thus lack of free choice would make the animal a, I imagine, BETTER witness than any given human, since an animal can't choose to deceive (hence, again, the Dog of Antioch story, where the dog's irrepressible loyalty to its dead master and to identify the murderer are both what makes it a superior 'policeman' AND less rational than humans).Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-39507525029639675742010-04-12T13:02:21.675-04:002010-04-12T13:02:21.675-04:00Great post, Karl.
I remember thinking about the...Great post, Karl. <br /><br />I remember thinking about the status of nonhuman testimony, when, during the OJ murder trial, the bloody-pawed Akita emerged as the only living witness to the crimes. The Akita (also named Kato?) emitted what a (human) witness described as a "plaintive wail" that brought the first humans to the scene.<br /><br />Never had a clue that the question of nonhuman witness had been examined in the way you document. Thanks!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267907649652160741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-25378872594707820452010-04-11T17:00:55.595-04:002010-04-11T17:00:55.595-04:00Man. I have enough trouble working out what allows...Man. I have enough trouble working out what allows a person to be a witness in my stuff without going for animals :-) That said, there is one thing that springs to my mind which I'm sure you've already thought of but is all that occurs: animals are, in all these cases at least, owned. Where that applies to people, i. e. slaves, they're not allowed to witness, because it is assumed that they'd be under the influence or duress of their owners. So what you are touching here is an understanding of how far a dog (or indeed cat, which some would say is a different question) is rational enough to understand threat or pressure or alternatively to act in an understandable way in response to circumstances. The rationality or predictability of the animal—and I suppose those are opposite ends of a scale, mostly—could be read in either direction, as disqualifying it or qualifying its evidence either for being brute or loyal. The human animal is not considered the same way, but why? because it's rational enough to be threatened? But a dog can be trained... I suppose these are the sort of questions you'd hope to answer after the project, not before...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-71876150231538229802010-04-10T11:02:00.484-04:002010-04-10T11:02:00.484-04:00Thanks much. Sections III.A-B are particularly int...Thanks much. Sections III.A-B are particularly interesting, and the whole article is very very useful as a review.<br /><br />I would like, I think, to differentiate the kind of witness I'm interested in writing about from the witness of an animal's body in an abuse case (one of the key examples about which Sunstein writes). There's a kind of muteness and passivity in the latter case, where the animal witnesses by having been acted upon, whereas in the above examples from Bracton and the Westminster Statutes, I feel as though animal life itself, as such, is the witness.<br /><br />This is quite boggy as stands, but maybe I'll be able to figure it out in a bit.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-3405094216838294952010-04-10T10:42:37.757-04:002010-04-10T10:42:37.757-04:00As I'm sure you're aware, Cass Sunstein, p...As I'm sure you're aware, Cass Sunstein, probably the most-cited legal scholar of recent times (and a longshot for Supreme Court Justice), has advocated animal standing in legal disputes:<br /><br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=196212gsongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-34191848782795309022010-04-10T08:18:55.064-04:002010-04-10T08:18:55.064-04:00Great! Thanks, Brandon, very much. This is exactly...Great! Thanks, Brandon, very much. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm hoping to compile.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-90182857265291585572010-04-10T07:26:32.187-04:002010-04-10T07:26:32.187-04:00Karl, you may be interested in an account summariz...Karl, you may be interested in an account summarized in James Masschaele's recent (and, I think, very good) book <i>Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England</i> (New York: Palgrave, 2008). Masschaele relates the following: "An inquest jury in Kent rejected a man's claim of spiteful accusation, explaining that he was reasonably accused because his dog, who followed him everywhere, had been seen near the corpse, but went on to note that the canine was a false clue because someone else had committed the crime" (p. 24). This single condensed sentence is meant to be only a brief example of a general idea, but it may point to more room for exploration in the source. His footnote indicates that the account appears in an archival source in the National Archives.<br /><br />I don't recall anything else about animals in Masschaele's book, but your thoughts & questions sparked my memory of this odd/humorous account of animal intervention in human law. Then again, I didn't have any particular reason to be looking for animals when I read the book--I wonder what else might be found.bwhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17909010609907741198noreply@blogger.com