The French Pig Trial of 1457

Join Kelli as she looks into the weird world of European animal trials, focusing on the French Pig Trial at Savigny in 1457, where a sow owned by Jehan Bailly was put on trial for the murder of 5-year-old Jehan Martin.

That's right - the pig was put on trial for murder. Not her human owner.

But where does the legal precedent for animal trials come from? Let's find out!

Sources Referenced:

• Alexander Lee, “Pigs Might Try,” 2020. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/natural-histories/pigs-might-try
• Esther Cohen, Law, Folklore, and Animal Lore. 1986. https://www.academia.edu/66540937/Law_folklore_and_animal_lore
• E. P. Evans, The Criminal Prosecution And Capital Punishment Of Animals. 1906. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43286/43286-h/43286-h.htm#Page_138
• J. J. Finkelstein, The Ox That Gored. 1981. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1006346.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A9eca8c357bbe59ed8b98754ab5426357&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
• Paul Schiff Berman, Rats, Pigs, and Statues on Trial: The Creation of Cultural Narratives in the Prosecution of Animals and Inanimate Objects. 1994. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=faculty_publications

Chapters

• 0:28 Intro
• 2:05 Historical Context
• 10:35 The Trial
• 13:25 But…Why Though?
• 19:48 Outro

Transcript

The French Pig Trial of 1457
Intro
Welcome to A Popular History of Unpopular Things, a podcast that covers the… unpopular stories from history - tales about disease, death, and destruction. I like learning about all things bloody, gross, mysterious, and weird.

And today’s episode definitely belongs in the weird category.

In 1457, a mama pig, or sow [rhymes with how], and her six piglets were put on trial for the murder of a 5-year-old boy in Savigny [sah-vee-knee], France. Yep, you heard that right. A pig and her six little piglets were put on trial.

So in today’s episode… we’re going to dig into the history and find out 1 - howwwww and 2 - whyyyy. 

Like we normally do on the APHOUT podcast, we’ll start with some historical context. What was happening in that period of time that led to a trial against a pig? And in fact, with today’s story, this particular case wasn’t the first - or only - trial against an animal. We have records of animals on trial in Europe from the 13th to the 18th centuries, or the 1200s to the 1700s. The 1457 trial is just the one I’m using as my main example for today.

Once we’re clear on the history of the times, we’ll look at the case itself. Then, I want to try to understand why this happened in this very strange period in history when man could actually file a lawsuit against a beast. 

Today’s story may sound like a Blackadder sketch, but I can assure you, it’s fact, not fiction.

So let’s get started!
Historical Context
Forgive me in advance for my attempts at French. 

Before we cover the case itself, we really need to talk about how it was even possible for pigs to be put on trial for their actions. 

So in today’s society, and I’m using the United States as my frame of reference, how can you be tried before a judge? What has to happen to put you there? Well, of course, you need to break a law. You’re arrested on suspicion of breaking a law, you’re put on trial, and either the judge or jury decides whether or not you broke that law. 

Okay, so who decides what is law and what is not? In the United States it depends on whether it’s a federal, state, or local law, but a legislature decides what is law, right? This could be something small, like a local ordinance in your town. Or a State Law, or a federal law. So how about in Medieval Europe then? Who decided what would be law, and how it would be enforced?

Ahh, well this is where things get more complicated.

Monarchs would issue laws or decrees when in power. Sometimes, local towns would have their own customs and traditions that people would have to follow. There were also church laws. And of course, an English staple, common law, which were decisions made by judges in past cases that would become the new standard going forth. We’ve got that in the US too, right? If, well let’s use a classic example, if the Supreme Court says that it’s unconstitutional to separate children into public schools based on race - Brown vs. Board of Ed - then their decision informs future cases. They said you can’t separate them into schools based on race, so that is now the law. Legal precedent. 

But Medieval Europe… had a mish-mash of laws and customs. And this allowed for things like animal trials to take place. Esther Cohen, in her 1986 article titled “Law, Folklore, and Animal Law,” summarizes it nicely. Quote:

Learned Roman glosses, royal legislation, [church] law, customs and urban statutes existed side by side, each one created and affected by a different social group and expressing a different facet of contemporary culture, but constantly interpenetrating and influencing each other.

End quote.

So where, from that wide arrangement of legal codes and customs, does the idea of putting animals on trial come from?

Well, let’s go back to Roman law, which of course preceded the rest. Roman law did not try animals. Instead, they had a system where the offending animal would be given to the victim in recompense; animals were considered property, not sentient beings. So the animals themselves were never put on trial.

But clearly, at some point, that shifted. We know that Roman Law was still around in Medieval Europe, but as I mentioned before, there were other systems now as well. 

Let’s take Philippe de Beaumanoir as an example. Beaumanoir, in the late 13th century, wrote in the Coutumes [coo-tyomb] de Beauvaisis [bow-vey-zee], or Customs of Beauvaisis, noted that animal trials were meaningless and invalid, quote,

…for all crime presupposes intent, and beasts possessing neither knowledge of good and evil nor malicious intentions could not be held responsible for their actions.

End quote.

Beaumanoir was a secular judge and administrator, so he’s not coming from a religious place. But Thomas Aquinas, a very famous priest and theologian from the same time period, more or less agreed with Beaumanoir, believing that animals were irrational beasts and could not feel guilty for their actions, so therefore could not receive punishment for their crimes.

So on the back of Roman law, we now have some secular and religious scholars that seem to believe that animals could not be put on trial. And yet, beginning in 1266 in the French town of Fontenay-aux-Roses [fawn ten yee    aww   hrose], a pig was burned at the stake for eating an infant. The first known animal trial.

But, considering the sources themselves gives us our answer. Roman law, in the Middle Ages, was practiced and studied by intellectuals. Beaumanoir and Aquinas were both academics and learned men. But the custom of putting an animal on trial didn’t come from the sphere they occupied, it was more of a local custom. And as Esther Cohen notes, quote,

Throughout the later middle ages and the early modern period, country folk, far from denying animals any human characteristics, consistently attributed to them both reason and will in direct contradiction to learned opinions… It thus became subsequently identified with a popular level of culture and belief. By the twelfth century it had re-emerged into the realm of learning as a result of the "Christian modification and adaptation of ancient substrata".

End quote.

That last part, Christian modification and adaptation of ancient substrata, references the practice that Christians and more particularly the Catholic Church had of adapting to local customs, absorbing local beliefs and creating, sometimes, syncretic practices. Like when Catholics in Ireland merged the celtic autumnal fire festival of Samhain [SAAH win] into All Saint’s and All Soul’s Day; this was to win the Celts over and convert them. All Saint’s Day used to be practiced at another time of year, but Pope Gregory III made it November 1st to connect with the Celts and their beliefs. These are also the roots of today’s Halloween; I did an episode all about this back in 2023 called “The History of Halloween”.

Or, for a more recent example, we can look at blending Catholic practices with Aztec traditions in the early 16th century to create Dia de los Muertos, which also takes place over All Saint’s and All Soul’s Day. The first two days of November. 

So the idea of the Catholic Church blending their beliefs with local customs was certainly not new. So while men like Thomas Aquinas believed animals couldn’t be put on trial, and indeed Roman Law supported this, if local practices put animals on trial, then the church would certainly incorporate those practices too. And once it became an established practice, it then transferred over into secular law as well. 

The idea of animal trials also bled into fictional works, which only reinforced the popular belief of trying an animal in court. In the 1170 French book Le Roman de Renart, or Reynard the Fox, the titular character, a trickster, is summoned before King Leo the Lion to answer for charges levied by his enemy, Isengrim the Wolf. Sure, it’s all anthropomorphized animals, but it at least helped popularize the image of an animal being tried for crimes.

Then there’s the 12th century story of Chanson [shaan sawn] de geste [zjest] which details a dog who avenges his human master’s murder, is taken to court, and was given the chance to prove his case with a duel. Which he wins. This story, even more than the previous one with Reynard the Fox, shows a case where an animal is put on trial for attacking a human. And that fiction was echoed in real life.

I like the way Cohen puts it. Quote:

[Animal trials] were unacceptable to an intellectual elite that rejected any blurring of boundaries between man and beast. But in this field the learned offensive failed. The tradition of animal trials may have had its roots in elements of folklore and paganism, but it was too deeply integrated into institutional legal procedures to be easily eradicated.

End quote.

Animal trials fell into one of two basic categories - secular cases or ecclesiastical cases, or non-religious and religious. Domestic animals that killed a human would be tried in secular courts. Esther Cohen writes that, quote,

Pigs, who seem to have accounted for the deaths of many unattended infants, were the most common culprits, but there are also records of homicidal oxen, cows, horses and dogs.

End quote.

Homicidal oxen. That’s a great band name.

Ecclesiastical courts would typically try natural pests that couldn’t be punished individually, so think locusts, rats, creatures like that.

So now that we know a bit more about where animal trials came from, let’s look at the sow [rhymes with how] in question.
The Trial
In December of 1457, five-year-old Jehan [zjee ohn] Martin [mar taan] was killed by a sow and her six piglets, owned by Jehan Bailly [zjee ohn   bye eee] of Savigny [sah-vee-knee]. Again, I’m doing my best with the French! The pigs were caught in the act, so there was no doubt it was the sow who attacked and killed the boy. 

And if you’re questioning whether or not sweet, innocent little Wilbur could harm a boy… yes. Pigs can definitely kill and consume you. Go watch Hannibal (the movie, not the show). Or Snatch. Or Rambo. Or a strange 70s horror film called Pigs. And I know there are more examples out there! But those are the ones that come to mind. And why are there so many movies that feature pigs eating people?

Anyways.

Now since this pig was a domesticated animal, she was tried in secular courts in Savigny [sah-vee-knee], where the incident took place. There was a judge who presided over the trial, one lawyer for the accused, two prosecutors, eight named witnesses, and then, according to documents, several other witnesses summoned and requested during the trial.

So this was serious business.

The owner, Jehan Bailly [zjee ohn   bye eee], was formally the defendant. But he was only accused of negligence, not murder. And apparently, he was given the option to argue why his pig should be spared punishment. And he decided not to do that, so the prosecutors argued for a death sentence.

After the judge heard from the witnesses and went over the local laws, he decided that the pig should be hanged by her hind legs from a tree. Why this method of execution? This was apparently the custom in nearby Burgundy, so the judge applied that legal custom to this case. If this took place elsewhere, like in Ghent, then the pig may have been beheaded instead, her head put on display. …There’s a case where this happened to a Ghentian cow.

Now luckily for the cute little pig babies, there was no proof that they were involved with the murder or consumption of poor little Jehan [zjee ohn] Martin [mar taan], so they received no punishment. I guess they were just orphaned.

So you might be thinking - was this all a farce? Was it a show trial just to make a point?

Well according to historians… animal trials were conducted as similarly as possible to human ones. So, therefore, for a few centuries, animals were placed on the same level as humans in court.

But interestingly, this goes counter to the very assumptions that the West has about animals and man.
But…Why Though?
I know I keep quoting Esther Cohen, but honestly her article is really fascinating and gave me a lot to think about. Here’s what she writes about this conundrum. Quote:

The basic difficulty lies in the common occidental perception of the relationship between man and nature. Starting with the Bible, both Judaism and Christianity have consistently viewed man as the only creature in God's image and likeness, the only one possessing a reasonable soul, aspiring to salvation and destined for an after life. Within the hierarchy of the universe, therefore, man occupies a special place… Carried further, the same concept meant that the vegetal and animal kingdom existed solely for man's use.

In this sense, western culture differs radically from other systems of thought that perceive man and animal as existing upon one continuous plane. The American Indian spoke of "his brother the buffalo", the Mexican Indian perceived animals as individual soul-mates of each human and the Buddhist saw transmigration of souls between humans and animals as inevitable, but European thinkers did their best to mark an impassable boundary between man and beast. Perhaps the most extreme expression of this approach was Descartes's idea, that animals are automata possessing neither sense nor feelings. Within this framework it was inconceivable that a beast should be placed in a human situation and treated as a human being. Animal trials, however, did exactly that.

End quote.

So then, a problem. Western belief systems tell us that animals are below us. I’m not calling anyone’s individual beliefs out, I’m just talking on the macro scale here - Western religious texts place humans on their own plane, higher than animalkind. So if those same systems don’t see humans on the same plane as other animals, then how can they be given the same treatment in court? There’s something contradictory about that, right? And, I mean, religions and governments have nEvEr contradicted themselves… so what could possibly explain this paradox? And as EP Evans writes in his book, The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals, quote,

…strangely enough, it was in the latter half of the seventeenth century, an age of comparative enlightenment, that this cruel penalty seems to have been most frequently inflicted.

End quote.

This is a contradiction I pointed out in various episodes where I talk about slavery. I mentioned it most recently in my Belgian Congo episode. How can a Western world undergoing the scientific revolution and enlightenment, which pushed the ideas of freedom and equality, still actively engage in slavery? You can’t have both - How can you rationalize freedom and equality for some, but not all? And the answer to that is racism among other things like ethnocentrism. But the animal trials represent another side of contradictory European principles - Europe was transitioning from the superstitious middle ages to the rational, industrial period. But we don’t see that same progression when we look at the legal systems.

So what can we say about why these animal trials took place? 

I read one explanation in JJ Finkelstein’s 1981 article titled The Ox That Gored. He argued that animal trials were a way of cementing an animal’s place in the social hierarchy below humans; killing a human was an infringement of that social order, and the animal in question needed to be punished for it. Esther Cohen adds that for this to work, for humans to be able to reassert their power over animals as described in the Western view of the world, then those animals would need to be given the same legal process and punishments as humans.

More recent historians have pointed out that a trial wouldn’t be necessary for this, though; the aggrieved party could just kill the animal his or herself and get the same result, right?

Paul Schiff Berman argued in a 1994 article that animal trials were simply a way of reimposing social order in the wake of a child’s death, which may have seemed random at the hands (or hoofs, I suppose) of an irrational actor. He continues with the idea that trials exist as much for the community as for the disputants. In this case, trying a sow [rhymes with how] and her piglets was a symbolic trial.

Finkelstein also pointed out that animal trials were a kind of drama, quote,

…simple morality plays enacted in medieval Europe for the unlettered folk… Certain moral and even civil points were brought home through then. Sometimes the message was full of common sense and obvious. Thus, in pronouncing a sentence of hanging upon a pig that had killed and partially devoured an infant in 1567, the [French court in Senlis] warned the local population against letting their swine run free…

End quote.

This makes sense. I mean, the Romans used to teach morality plays and Roman customs through enactments in amphitheatres. For those who were illiterate, going to the Colosseum or other, smaller venues throughout the empire was a way to be entertained, but also to be indoctrinated with Roman values, myths, and stories. Like that scene from the recent shitty film Gladiator II, with the mock naval battle in the Colosseum. That was meant to be the naval battle at Salamis in 480 BCE, one of the major battles during the Peloponnesian War between the Greek city-states and Persia.

So, Finkelstein tells us that by putting animals on trial, locals would be warned about keeping their animals in control, lest they be charged with their crime and put to death. Makes sense to me.

Cohen echoes this by pointing out that animal trials lasted for so long because they fulfilled necessary functions; they defined man’s relationship with animals by giving him judicial rights over beasts. And they allowed society to appear just - if a pig killed a boy, then making the pig pay for that crime provided justice. 

So given all of that evidence, putting animals on trial - like the pig with her six piglets in Savigny, France, in 1457 - was a way of giving a community the chance to restore order. In a time of near-constant political, religious, and social turmoil, anything helped. And if a pig killed a child, being able to prosecute the one responsible - even though it’s an animal and can’t understand its actions from a human perspective - might have been a way of bringing peace to a community.
Outro
Thanks for joining me for this episode of A Popular History of Unpopular Things! My name is Kelli Beard, and I hope you’ve enjoyed this weird episode on pig trials and medieval legal practices. Thank you for tuning into my podcast, and check out some of the other episodes if you want more!

If you want to support the show, I’ve got a link in the description for Buy Me A Coffee, a site where fans can fund small creators like me, but without having to sign up for an account. I would of course appreciate any help you can give me, but honestly, I just appreciate you being here and listening to me talk about cool history stuff. You are why I’m still here doing this!

Be sure to like and follow my podcast, available wherever you listen, so you know when new episodes are dropped. And stay tuned to get a popular history of unpopular things.