William Riguelle is a researcher and project lead for the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment at the Université de Namur in Belgium. You can read his article in the Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada, vol. 34, no. 2 (2024) by clicking here.
What was the role in domesticated animals in the development of French colonies in the Americas?
As was the case throughout the Americas, the French colonists who landed and settled in the St. Lawrence Valley in the early 17th century brought with them cows, pigs, chickens, horses and sheep. They brought them to New France because these animal species didn’t exist in that region, and the settlers wanted to reproduce a familiar and therefore reassuring way of life that was known to be viable: that of their country of origin. Pre-industrial European society was totally dependent on domestic animals to meet a series of basic food, economic and social needs: animals provided energy, meat, hides or wool. The role of domestic animals in New France was therefore considerable, as they were essential to the settlement, survival and development of the colony. Certain species, such as the horse, also helped to differentiate the way of life in the colony from that in France. After its integration into the colony in 1665, the horse became increasingly popular and spread throughout all social strata in the St. Lawrence Valley. The widespread breeding of Equidae reduced the gaps between social groups and gave the inhabitants an autonomy and a lifestyle they would never have known in France, where riding a saddle horse was a privilege reserved for the nobility or the military.
The importation of European domestic animals had environmental consequences (an impact on the landscape) and social consequences (an impact on the way of life of the Indigenous Peoples and possible conflicts with the colonists). Further research on this in the case of New France, as several researchers have done for New England (W. Cronon, E. Melville, V. De John Anderson), would surely be beneficial. There are still things to be discovered.
Human-animal relations has been a growing field of research. What do you find particularly exciting about this field? What differences have you observed in how scholars approach this topic in French and English and in North America and Europe?
What I find particularly interesting about the study of human-animal relations in the early modern period is that by looking at human activities or practices in relation to a range of animal species, we can touch on many aspects of everyday life: transport, entertainment, food, private life and public hygiene are all themes that are addressed when we look at animals. This diversity of themes is matched by the diversity of archives required for a study of this kind, whether written, iconographic or archeozoological.
In terms of historiographical diversity between Europe and North America, there is of course a difference in terms of the historical period covered – even if the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are the most abundantly documented periods on both continents. In recent years in France, under the leadership of Eric Baratay, there has also been a desire to study history “from the animals’ point of view,” a perspective that requires interdisciplinary work.
« Ordonnance de l’intendant Hocquart qui réitère les défenses de laisser vaquer les cochons dans les rues de Québec; enjoint de les tenir enfermés dans des endroits particuliers de manière qu’ils ne puissent produire aucune infection, à peine contre les contrevenants de confiscation desdits cochons au profit des hôpitaux de Québec », 7 mai 1731, E1,S1,D19,P2305. Fonds Intendants – BANQ – Archives nationales à Québec.
Did this new context (far from Europe) shape how the French-speaking inhabitants of cities like Montreal and Quebec embraced/relied on pigs?
Not really. In Europe, we find the same use of pigs and the same tolerance on the part of the authorities towards their rearing in towns and cities: these animals must not be “vagrants”. The issues of roaming and public hygiene were paramount. There are also spatial restrictions on the presence of pigs in densely populated commercial areas and near political or religious buildings. One difference, however, is that in Quebec City and Montreal, the pig appeared to be particular problematic. Laws frequently order the kill of those found straying from state directives.
What was so bad about pigs? And could they have just raised more chickens or cows?
The harsh treatment meted out to pigs can be explained by the animal’s low pecuniary value, by concerns about public hygiene, and by its negative image. The pig is considered impure, unclean and smelly: the Old and New Testaments made connections between pigs and the pagan world and Satan, personifying several vices such as gluttony, filth and lust. This link is explicit in a commentary that appeared in the newspaper Le Spectateur canadien in the early-nineteenth century: on the subject of the ban on horses, pigs and goats ‘straying’ into public squares, the author states that “as the pig is an impure animal, it can be killed.” Economic reasons then probably played a part in the devaluation of pigs, since it produces nothing (wool, energy, labour) apart from food.
Richard Short, Le couvent des Ursulines (détail), BAC, C-0003585, 1761.
Your research has followed an interesting trajectory; your first book was about a similar topic but in European cities. Where is your research headed now?
My first book looked at practices involving animals in the towns of the Netherlands and the Principality of Liège (in the seventeen and eighteen centuries). In it, I addressed issues relating to the movement of animals in towns, their provisioning and urban management. My research in Quebec led me to transfer these questions across the Atlantic, but also to turn my attention to the study of animals in a colonial context, particularly as regards the phenomenon of importation. I’m currently working on the urban history of Quebec and Montreal during the French period, and more specifically on the street: what did the street look like in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries before snow-clearing operations? Before the invention of pavement? Before the organized and regular disposal of rubbish? Before modern slaughterhouses were set up outside the city? There are a whole series of questions that naturally include animals.
Have you read anything good lately?
I’ve rediscovered one of my favourite history books: Timothy Brook’s Vermeer’s Hat. I love this global approach to history and the easy-to-understand writing. A book I’d highly recommend!
