Crime in Taverns of Late Medieval Dubrovnik

Crime in Taverns of Late Medieval Dubrovnik1
Gordan Ravancic (Zagreb)
Medieval Dubrovnik as a !arge market on the eastem Adriatic coast
attracted a great number of various kinds ofpeople. Such a city, naturally,
beside its market, had to have resources of amusement in order to
entertain its visitors and the inhabitants of the city. Among the
establishments which offered entertainment, tavems were one of the
possible choices. The amusement in a tavem, of course, consisted not
only of drinking, but it was also a combination of other affairs. As the
tavern was gathering place, people there probably exchanged information,
and indubitably, they would entertain themselves there or they were
entertained. In this, liquid refreshments – in the case of Dubrovnik, that
was wine – played a considerable role. If we know that even today much
of ordinary daily life happens in different kinds of cafes, pubs, and
taverns, then the question about tavern life in the past has to be even more
interesting to us because in this way we could understand much better this
aspect in our present time. Thus, it is not difficult to assume what made
the tavern such an interesting place to visit, for even today such places are
very frequently visited. Therefore, one can speak about one aspect of
everyday life which we could name as tavern-life. As each aspect of life
can have many „faces“, so the tavems also have, but in this article I will
try to discuss only one aspect of tavem-life – crime. When one thinks
about criminality, one must be aware that crime has to be viewed as one
of the basic sociaJ activities and that the patterns of crime can teil us
important features of the cultural setting in which people lived? On the
other hand, examining crime in the past is not quite the same as it would
be today, for one must take into account that only fragments of the
1 The article is based on the records of criminal justice of the Republic of Dubrovnik
from the 14th and 15th centuries. This material is still unpublished, and one can find it
in the archival series Lamenta de foris (s. 52, vol. I and s. 53. vol. I) and Libri de
maleficiis (s. 50-1, vol. 1-10) in the Historical Archives in Dubrovnik.
2 Eva Österberg and Dag Lindström, Crime and Social Control in Medieval and
Early Modem Swedsi h Towns, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Historica
Upsaliensia !52 (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell lnternational, 1 988), 36.
31
evidence bave survived up to the present time and that our perception of
crime is different from the one which existed in the Middle Ages. 3
Of course, one cannot just simply jump into a topic like this one;
thus, before the discussion about crime in the taverns of late medieval
Dubrovnik, we will say something about this establishment in the period.
Firstly, it is necessary to detennine what the tavern actually was. The
victualling houses in the English-speaking regions can be generally
divided into three basic groups: the inn, the tavern, and the alehouse. This
division is not the only one possible, for different regions in Europe had
different names and types of such an establishment, but this one will suit
our purpose very weil. The inn was an establishment, mainly situated in
towns, which affered housing and refreshments, and it was basically
orientated towards higher-class visitors. The tavern, usually, affered only
refreshments, but one could find some which also provided guests with
accommodation. The basic distinguishing feature of the tavem was that
wine was its primary refreshment. While the inn and the tavem were
mostly orientated towards wealthier customers, the alehouse’s visitors
came predominantly from the lower strata. The alehause affered different
kinds of liquid beverages and sometimes even meals. In addition, there
were some which could also provide visitors with accommodation, but
generally they were just public drinking houses.4
A typical tavern in late medieval Dubrovnik, considering the offer
and clientele, was more or less similar to the alehause in England, except
the fact that taverns in Dubrovnik offered, as regards beverages, only
wine. This means that the guest in such an establishment could obtain
refreshments (drink and probably also food), but accommodation was not
one of the tavern services. lt also seems that guests entertained
themselves in several ways – playing cards and dice or simply talking
over a jug of wine and joking among themselves.
According to the normative sources, it is clear that the government
prescribed the working hours of tavems – they could be open only until
the third bell (tertia campana). 5 The time of the third bell depended on
the season of year – in the summer it was around eleven pm, and during
3 Bronislaw Geremek, The Margins of Society in Late Medieval Paris (Cambridge
and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de Ia Maisan des Seiences de
I’Homme, 1 987), 10.
4 For a detailed analysis about differences and similarities between these victualling
houses, see Peter Clark, The English Alehause – A Social History 1200-1850 (London
and New York: Longman, 1983), passim.
s Statut grada Dubrovnika [Statutes of the city of Dubrovnik] (Dubrovnik:
Historijski arhiv Dubrovnik, 1990), lib. 2, c. 4 and lib. 4, c. 26.
32
the winter months it was around ten o’clock in the evening.6 However, the
evidence from the criminal justice records suggests that many tavemkeepers
and many of the guests did not obey this Iimitation. Moreover,
from the Major Council’s regulation of 28 January 1 335, it is clear that
tavems in medieval Dubrovnik were open during the whole year – on
working days, as weil as during the feasts and holidays.7
Similarly, the evidence suggests that tavems (see Graphs 1 and 2)
were visited regularly throughout the year. The difference between these
two graphs can be easily explained by one factor; that is, the data for the
fourteenth century is scarce. Thus, the sample for the analysis was smaller
than the one for the first half of the fifteenth century. Therefore, even
though both graphs can show only tendencies of the frequency of visiting,
Graph 1 is slightly less reliable.8
6
6 –
5
4
3
2
0
Visiting Frequency in the Secend Half of the 1 4th Century
(months)
6
–
5
–
4 4 4 4
– – – –
3 3
– –
2 2 2
– – –
Graph l
6 Zdenka Janekovic-Römer, „Post tertiam campanam: dubrova􀉝ki nocni zivot u
srednjem vijeku“ [Post tertiam campanam: night life in medieval Dubrovnik], Otium
I (1993): 6.
7 Liber omnium reformationum, Zbomik za istoriju, jezik i knjizevnost srpskog
naroda, s. 3, vol. 6, transcribed by A. Solovljev (Belgrade: Srpska kraljevksa
akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1936), p. X, c. 3 .
8 The graphs are not based on data of the entire period but o n the samples. Thus, the
Graph I is based on two sample periods, 1349-50 and 1 372-74, while Graphs 2 and 3
are based on the samples from 1402-14, 1422-29, and 1435-40.
9 The numbers in Graphs I , 2, and 3 stand for the number of noted cases which took
place in the taverns.
33
10 Visiting Frequency in the First Half of the 1 5th
10 – Century (months) 9 9 9
9 – – –
8
7
7 r- 8 • 8
6 r- ‚ r- ‚ r-
5 I• – r- 4 4
4 r- –
3
I• il
2
0
Jan Feb Mar Apc May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Graph 2
As is obvious from the graphs, the frequency is especially high in
the harshest winter month (generally, tbat is, January). This confirms the
hypothesis about the correspondence between medieval man’s rhythm of
life and nature’s rhythm. The unexpectedly high visiting frequency during
the months designated for Lent (that is, February, March or April) is
misleading because each graph combines fifty years of information, a
combination which minimises the real differences. This can be explained
because the Lenten months shift from year to year according to the rolling
date of Easter which can be anywhere between 22 March and 25 April. If
we know this, we can normally expect more frequent visiting in the
period just before or just after Lent. This assumption is supported by the
fact that, for example, in the year 1437 Easter was on the 31st of March,
and that year there were no criminal charges regarding tavems between
February 1 0 and March 3 1 . Later in the year, the relation between the
rhythm of labour and the rhythm of nature is also confirmed by increased
visits to tavems in July. We cannot explain this only by temperature and
climate changes, but I believe that the answer is related to the rhythrn of
labour throughout the year. Even though the city lived from trade and
seamenship, the majority of the population was more or less associated
with agricultural production; that is (in the case of Dubrovnik), they
owned vineyards or worked in them. Most of the work in a vineyard had
to be finished by the end of June, after which the grapes were left to
34
mature. 10 Thus, after June everyone had more free time than before, until
the vintage in the second half of August. Therefore, in August they did
not h ave the time to visit tavems, so the nurnbers decrease. With the
production ofthe young wine and the must in September and October, the
visiting frequency increases, but again in November, it decreases
probably because everyone had to work in the field and prepare the land
and the livestock for winter. In December, one c an notice another rise in
the visiting frequency. However, the visiting rate was not so high as in
January, probably because ofthe fast before Christmas.
The following graph illustrates the pattem of daily visits to t averns.
When considering working d ays, the visiting frequency also shows us a
regular connection between going to a tavem (leisure) and the rhythm of
labour (work). As Graph 5 shows, the frequency on Saturdays and
Sundays was higher than during the rest ofthe week.
Visiting Frequency i n the First Half of
the 1 5th Century (week}
43
43
42
41
40
39
39
38
37 �———-�
�-Monday·
Fr1day
Graph 3
Saturday·
Sunday
Persons who were attracted to tavems came from different
backgrounds and different social strata. Thus, one could find different
kinds of petty artisans, such as t anners, shoemakers, butchers, and
stonemasons. With them in the tavems were sailors and fishermen as weil
as hired labourers and other people whose profession is not known to us,
for in the criminal records they are noted only by their names. T averns
were also visited by state officials such as the commune couriers,
soldiers, and wine officials, who came there in the line of duty – or
10 Lucic, Obrti i usluge u Dubrovniku do pocetka 14. stoljeca [Crafts and services in
Dubrovnik until the beginning of the fourteenth century] (Zagreb: Radovi Instituta za
hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 1979}, I I0 .
3 5
sometimes just to have a jug of wine. It is interesting to note that tavemkeepers
also went as guests to other tavems in which they did not work. 11
Another interesting fact is that among those visitors there were no
merchants.
As is clear from the following graph, the predominant visitors in
tavems were small craftsmen. A similar pattern can also be found in
Central Europe.12 Other groups are rather poorly represented (altogether
Iess than 50%), and only the group of indentured servants ifamuli) stands
out with more than I 0%, but it is possible that they visited tavems in the
Iine of their duty, that is, to buy wine for their masters. The next group,
the textile workers, appeared in Dubrovnik in the first half of the fifteenth
century with the business of Petar Pantella. It is possible that in the Iater
periods, they were much stronger represented as tavern visitors, but in
this period there probably were not too many of them in the city at all.
Thus, they occupied only 4% of all visitors. Hired labourers were
predominantly longshoremen, and probably, they spent their time in
tavems waiting for someone to hire them for their services. As has been
mentioned, all the citizens and inhabitants of Dubrovnik were somehow
involved in agrarian production, but there were a number of people whose
sole occupation was work in the fields. In Graph 4 the people employed
only in the agricultural sector were mainly gardeners (ortarii) and field
labourers (zugolatores). The group „others“ is the most diverse one; here
one can find different people mentioned only by their name, foreigners,
and a very small number of wealthy artisans such as goldsmiths.
11 E.g. LM, s. 50-1, vol. I 0, fol. 1 1 7′; LF, s. 53, vol. I , fol. 94‘. 12
See Gertrud Blaschitz, „Lehrhafte Literatur als Quelle fur mittelalterliche Realienkunde:
‚Der Jüngling‘ des Konrad von Haslau und der ‚Magezoge‘,“ Medium Aevum
Quotidianum 28 (1994): 33.
36
Clientele of Taverns
(without tavern-keepers)
others
9% state offoclats
textile workers
4%
small artisans
53%
Graph 4
8%
hired labourers
8%
It is not surpnsmg timt we cannot find here any merchants or
patricians, for the common opinion existed that visiting the tavem was
quite below their social rank. Moreover, if some merchants visited
tavems, they certainly avoided fights and situations of conflict because
such things were bad for their business. Many examples from the rest of
Europe indicate a similar attitude. Thus, even if noblemen sometimes
went to tavems, they did it in order to escape their ordinary way of life. 13
It appears that the same attitude existed in late medieval Dubrovnik, for
one example directly points to this. The witness of one tavem fight,
among others, was a patrician Ser Johannes Marini de Zrieua, but next to
his name it was written qui transibat per viam, probably in order to point
out that he was not part of that crowd which visited tavems.14 However,
exceptions occurred. For example, Ser Michael de Martinusso, who
owned a tavern in the city, often visited his own tavem and drank there.
Moreover, occasionally he was not only a witness but also a participant in
tavern fights and quarrels. 15
Similarly, one cannot note many females in the taverns. As is clear
from Graph 5, they were a fairly insignificant part of tavern life.
Generally, they visited taverns in the company of their husbands16 or just
13 lbid., 34.
14 LM, s. 50-1, vol. 3, fol. 128.
15 E.g. IM, s. 16 50-1, vol. 2, fol. 153 and 153′. E.g. IM, s. 50-1, vol. 10, fol. 1 17′.
37
to purchase wine, after which they would have retumed to their homes. 17
lt is interesting that even prostitutes are not noted as regular guests of
tavems in medieval Dubrovnik although it is known that in this period
they existed in tl1e city and occupied one district called Castelleto where
iliey ran a broiliel called castelleturn.
18
Clientele of Taverns
Graph 519
The possible reason why women were such rare guests in tavems is
that tavem life was very often quite violent and thus dangeraus for
women. Men in tavems, while they drank, used to joke among
themselves, often at the expense of women 20 An additional explanation
might be the general attitude towards women’s roJe in family and society,
which still exists today in some parts of Mediterranean – tl1e tavem was a
public place, and women were supposed to be a part of ilie domestic
sphere. This perfectly corresponds with the fact iliat even the female
tavem-keepers, who had to spend much time in tavems because of their
profession, did not have the best reputation.21
17 E.g. IM, s. 50-1, vol. 7, fol. 175′.
18 Dinic-Knezevic, Poloiaj iene u Dubrovmku u Xll i XIV veku (The position of
woman in Dubrovnik in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries], Odeljenje istorijskih
nauka 2 (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1974), 1 4 1 .
19 A s the absolute numbers o f this opposition are males= I65, females=9, this graph
can only reflect Iendeneies in this fluctuation.
20 Janekovic-Römer, Post tertiam campanam, 8.
21 Lucic, Obrti i us/uge, 123.
38
When considering the common image of tavem, one must admit
that, unfortunately, the Dubrovnik Archives did not preserve any sources
from which one could read what image of the tavem existed in the minds
of the inhabitants of Iate medieval Dubrovnik. Therefore, we will use the
comparative method. Thus, in German medieval Iiterature one can find
direct and explicit assessments of tavems. According to different poets
and writers, tavems were places where people drank too much alcohol
and gambled, where bad manners and dishonesty ruled – and places
which were visited only by bad people and „where the devil often stays
Jong, for there he can find many suitable customers. „22
If such a negative image also existed in Dubrovnik, then we should
not be surprised by the fact that women were not generally involved in
tavem life. By the same token, it seems that all the others who did visit
tavems frequently feit themselves to be in a pleasant ambience. This does
not mean that all of the customers were comfortable because they were
bad or dishonest persons (though some of them obviously were) but
probably because of the social roJe of the tavem – it was a generat
gathering place.
If we assume that people in tavems, while they gambled and joked,
often drank too much, it is not difficult to imagine what would be the
normal result. As Graph 6 shows, a brawl or fight was the most common
„answer“ to any kind of unpleasant „question“ or remark. A similar
pattem – that is, that different types of assaults were the most common
crime – can be found in the rest of Europe?3 As is clear from the sources,
most of the fights were not premeditated acts but simply responses caused
by bad temper or intoxication. Fights could break out because of unpaid
bills for the wine, or because the tavern-keeper did not want to give wine
on credit, or sometimes because of an insult, or for any other reason
which a guest or a tavern-keeper considered inappropriate and offensive.
However, one must admit that some of those actions were obviously
planned, such as the case of 1350 when Peter from Koreula (Petrus de
Crur;ol􀁞) immediately attacked a tavern-keeper Slavoe after entering the
tavern.
12 Blaschitz, „Lehrhafte Literatur“, 33.
23 See the graph in Österberg and Lindström, Crime and Socia/ Contra/, 47.
24 IM, s. 50-1, vol. 10, fol. 1 1 7′.
39
Types of Crime Related to Taverns or Tavern-keepers
foght
57%
Graph &5
Thefts and robberies obviously are organised acts, and the tavern
was an ideal place for such crimes, for in the crowd which usually
gathered in taverns, thieves could operate almost without any risk of
being caught. Therefore, in the criminal records one can find many cases
where the perpetrator (thief) is unknown.26 Similarly, fraud was also
probably a planned crime, but as its percentage is not high, one can
assume that either the perpetrators were usually weil organised (and, thus,
they were rarely caught) or that the „fear“ of the punishment was the
reason why there are not so many cases of deceit. The group of insults is
probably the most interesting one, for one can find there many interesting
everyday offences, such as tua mater est meretrix et magi9«1 or tu es
bastardul8 or filius meretricis.29 These forms of the personal insult
follow the pattern which can be found everywhere in Europe. 30 It is
interesting to note that pulling someone’s beard was considered an
25 The absolute numbers for Graphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 are fraud=8 (males 6, females 2),
fight=!66 (males 1 4 1 , females 16, unknown 9), robbery=28 (males 23, females 2,
unknown 3), 􀉞=69 (males 26, females 8, unknown 35), insult=23 (males 19,
females 4), guarrel=4 (males 3, females 1), and other crimes=9 (males 8, females 1).
Even though it is clear the sample is not big enough to be reliable for an accurate
statistical analysis, the graphs still show certain tendencies.
26 E.g. LF, s. 52, vol. I, fol. 88; IM, s. 50-I, vol. 3, fol. 1 34′; IM, s. 50-I, vol. 5, fol
1 14.
27 28 Your mother is a whore and witch: IM, s. 50-1, vol. 4, fol. 210. IM. s. 50-I, vol. 6, fol. 3 I 2.
29 (You are] a son of a whore. IM. s. 50-1, vol. 8, fol. 287′.
30 Österberg and Lindström, Crime and Social Control, 107.
40
especially rude insult.31 In the group of „other crimes,“ one can come
across different cases such as disturbances,32 the devastation of someone’s
property,33 the selling of foreign wine,34 and I have found even one
homicide. 35
Perpetraters of Crime Related to Taverns
or Tavern-keepers
male
75%
remale
12%
unknown
13%
The perpetrators of those crimes which took place in a tavem or
which were related to tavern-keepers, as is clear from Graph 7, were
predominantly mal es. This should not surprise us if we bear in mind that
the most frequent visitors of tavems were men. The group of unknown
perpetrators was mostly related to the crime of stealing (that is, theft and
pickpocketing).36 Moreover, if we consider that males were the
predominant tavem customers, we can assume that this group of unknown
perpetrators probably consisted mostly ofmale persons.
Among males the most common crime, as could be expected, was
fighting and brawling (see Graph 8). It is quite normal that men were
more prone to tavern fights, for a fight is the most usual response to Iack
of argument, and by the same token, it was a way to show off their
31 E.g. IM. s. 50-1, vol. 7, fol. 262.
32 E.g. IM. s. 50-I, vol. 8, fol. 225.
33 E.g. IM, s. 50-1, vol. 7, fol. 165.
34 E.g. IM, s. 50-1, vol. 5, fol. 3 16.
3′ IM. s. SO-l, vol. 7, fol. 259′.
36 Thefts are represented by 67.6%, among all crimes committed by unknown
persons.
4 1
masculinity. The second most frequent crime by males was theft,
something which, again, should not be surprising if we realise that the
tavem was a public place with a high fluctuation of aii kinds of people.
Also, it is significant that purely verbal quarrels did not so much occur
here, possibly because the men thought that something other than words
would be a better argument.
Male Crimes Related to Tavern or Tavern-Keeper
Graph 8
Fernale Crimes Related to Tavern or Tavern-Keeper
foght
46%
then
24%
Graph 9
42
On the other band, if we Iook at Graph 9, we will see that the
predominant female crimes, other than fights, were thefts and verbal
insults. This corresponds to the trends in the rest of Europe in the period.
It is interesting to note that among „female crimes“, robbery is
represented by 6%, which is quite a high percentage if we consider the
fact that such a crime often included a violent assault against the victim.
However, one must recall that women in general participated much Iess in
crime than men.
As we are approaching the end of this section, we should say
something about the distribution of crimes in the tavem among the
professions. Tavem-keepers are excluded from Graph I 0, for they were
obviously the most prone to tavern crime because they had to be present
there.37 However, this does not mean that tavem-keepers were just
passive witnesses or victims of the situation. Quite the contrary, they
were very o ften the main promoters and perpetrators of tavem fights. For
example, in January 1 374 a tavern-keeper Sriedan (Sriedan tabemarius
domine Philippe) accused his guest Ostoja of having beaten him in the
tavern while Sriedan was selling wine. Then the witness, another tavemkeeper,
Miloslav (Miloslauus tabernarius), testified that Sriedan bimself
started the quarre! and the fight because he had not wanted to accept the
money which Ostoja had offered him for the broken jug.38 As Graph 1 1
shows, it appears that tavem-keepers were in fact the main trouble
makers.
37 The absolute numbers for Graph I 0 and I I are butchers=4, shoemakers=2,
stonemasons=IO, jamuli=I I , state officials=9, hired labourers=2, seamen=6,
ernployed in the agrarian sector=2, tanners=3, tavern-keepers=28, persans recorded
only by their narne=15. Thus, for this graph one can say the sarne as for the previous it
can only reflect a tendency.
38 Lamenta de joris, s. 53, vol. I , fol. 258.
43
Participation ofProfessions in Crime
(without tavern-keepers)
famull 23’4 ahoemakers
4%
atate olllciala
employed in the
agrarian aeclor
4% I􀀼 IW‘ ilell il 18%
atonemasona 21%
Graph 10
hired laboure“ 4%
Participation ofprofessions in crirre
(including tavem-keepers)
tawm-l Wctoen.Shoemakers
5% 3%
agrarian sector seamen 3% 8%
Graph 11
stonemasons 13%
famuli 14%
hired labourers 3%
By the same token, persons recorded in the sources only by their
names are also excluded from both graphs, for a determination of their
occupations, unfortunately, is impossible. It is clear from Graph 1 0 that
the most numerous group is that of indentured servants (jamuli). Since we
know that in the rest of Europe, servants were one of the most frequently
convicted social groups, then this result fits perfectly into this pattem. 39
The next group, in tenns of numbers, are stonemasons (petrarii,
camenarii, lapicidae), and what is interesting in the third place are state
39 Österberg and Lindström, Crime and Social Contra!, 138.
44
officials. This proves that government representatives did not visit taverns
only in the Iine of duty but also in order to have a drink, which
occasionally ended in a fight or quarre! that came before the court of
justice. The group which comes next are seamen, and it should not be
surprising that they are represented by more than 1 0%, for after Iong
voyages they were usually Iooking for fun which, again, sometimes ended
in trouble. The other groups of small artisans, except the stonemasons, are
represented by relatively Iow percentages. This can Iead us to the
assumption that, even though small artisans were the predominant tavern
customers, only the stonemasons among them could be „blamed“ for
especially violent behaviour in the tavern.
Finally, we can draw several conclusions. First, the classification of
crimes committed in taverns shows a significant prevalence of fights.
This result perfectly reflects the functioning of medieval man, who was
probably more violent (or maybe one should say more free) than we are
today. Moreover, this result corresponds with results from other regions
of Europe where various types of assaults were also the predominant
crime. In addition, the prevalence of males as tavem customers fits into
this scheme of crimes, for one could expect that intoxicated men
occasionally expressed their masculinity in a violent way. This might also
be due to the fact that women rarely visited tavems. However, this
„scarcity“ of females in tavems was more affected by the common
opinion about women’s role in the society – her place should be more in
the domestic sphere than in the public. The comparison between male and
female crimes in the tavem indicated that females tended more than males
to crimes (excluding fights) such as theft and verbal insult, which did not
involve physical violence. However, as males were the predominant
tavern guests, the absolute number of offenders even in these crimes was
lligher on the male side. The last issue wluch was discussed in this section
– the distribution of crime among different professions – showed that,
even though the largest number of tavern visitors were small artisans,
most of them (except the stonemasons) were usually not guilty of the
fights and other crimes which took place in the tavern, rather they were
spectators or even victims of the situation.
45
MEDIUM AEVUM
QUOTIDIANUM
38
KREMS 1998
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Titelgraphik Stephan J. Tramer
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der
materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Kömennarkt 13, A-3500 Krems, Österreich.
Für den ltlhalt verantwortlich zeiclmen die Autoren, olme deren ausdrückliche
Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. – Druck:
KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
History ofDaily Life: The Variety of Approaches . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . …. . . . . . 7
Franceise Piponnier, L’histoire de Ja vie quotidienne
au Moyen Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Gerhard Jaritz, Geschichte des Alltags im Mittelaltereine
Herausforderung zur komparativen Forschung . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 10
Axel Bolvig, Medieval Images and the History ofEveryday Life . . . 20
Norbert Schnitzler, „Reality“ oflmages- „Realities“ ofLaw . . . . … . 23
Melitta Weiss Adamson, Researching the Diet of
Medieval Germany: Possibilities and Limitations of
Written Sources and Material Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Gordan Ravancic, Crime in Tavems ofLate Medieval Dubrovnik .. . . . . . . 31
Anu Mänd, Shooting the Bird and the MaigrafFestival
in Medieval Livonian Towns . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . … . . . . . … . . . . . 46
Rezensionen . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
3
Vorwort
Medium Aevum Quotidianum legt mit diesem Heft 38 die erste Veröffentlichung
des Jahrgangs 1998 vor. Der Band widmet sich im
besonderen den Statements zu einem Round-Table-Gespräch „History of
Daily Life: The Variety of Approaches“, welches im Juli 1997 am
International Medieval Congress in Leeds mit reger Publikumsbeteiligung
stattgefunden hat. Dabei zeigte sich wieder, daß einerseits die
interdisziplinäre Analyse unterschiedlichsten Quellenmaterials im
jeweiligen Kontext, andererseits die vermehrte Heranziehung bildlicher
Überlieferung im Zentrum der Diskussion stehen. Aspekte der digitalen
Bildverarbeitung spielen dabei eine relevante Rolle sowohl in bezug auf
Bilddokumentation als auch hinsichtlich der Analysen. Zwei Einzelstudien
behandeln Wirtshauskriminalität im spätmittelalterlichen Ragusa,
sowie die Ausgestaltung von Kaufmanns- und Handwerkerfesten im spätmittelalterlichen
Baltikum.
Heft 39 wird bereits anfangs Juli 1998 erscheinen und sich vorrangig
mit verschiedenen Möglichkeiten der Bildanalyse in der Geschichte
des Alltags auseinandersetzen. Die einzelnen Beiträge werden den nordund
zentraleuropäischen Raum behandeln und konzentriert von Beispielen
mittelalterlicher Wandmalerei ausgehen.
Unser Heft 40 wird – mit Schwerpunk-t auf dem ungarischen Raum
– vor allem der mittelalterlichen Ernährung gewidmet sein und soll neue
interdisziplinäre Forschungsansätze vorstellen; dabei werden besonders
die Möglichkeiten einer Verbindung der Analyse schriftlicher Quellen
und archäologischen Materials im Zentrum der Argumentation stehen.
Heft 41 wird sich wiederum in starkem Maße mit jenen Ergebnissen
auseinandersetzen, welche am International Medieval Congress,
Leeds 1998, in dessen alltagsgeschichtlichen Sektionen zur Vorstellung
gelangen werden. Damit soll neuerlich vermittelt werden, auf welch
intensive Weise sich die Anwendung moderner Methoden und die
Verwirklichung neuer· Ansätze in aktuellen Studien zu Alltag und
materieller Kultur des Mittelalters – im internationalen Rahmen –
verfolgen läßt.
5
Medium Aevum Quotidianum dankt seinen Mitgliedern und
Freunden für das anhaltende bzw. steigende Interesse an den Anliegen
und an der Arbeit der Gesellschaft.
Gerhard Jaritz, Herausgeber
6
History of Daily Life: The Variety of
Approaches
At the International Medieval Congress, Leeds 1997, a round table
discussion was organised as part of the strand „History of Daily Life“ that
dealt with the variety of possible approaches towards this, still rather
young field of Medieval Studies. The international panel consisted of
Axel Bolvig (Copenhagen), Gerhard Jaritz (Krems), Franyoise Piponnier
(Paris), Norbert Schnitzler (Chemnitz), and Melitta Weiss Adamson
(London, Ontario).
As a kind of basis for the discussion, it was emphasised that the
history of medieval everyday life is a field of research dependent on
interdisciplinary approaches. Written and pictorial sources, as weil as
archeological evidence play important rotes for any analysis. The
different contexts of infonnation and their interpretation detennine our
(re)constmction of everyday life in the Middle Ages decisively. The aim
of the round table was to discuss some of the methods and approaches
which are relevant for today’s research. It should also show that „History
of Daily Life“, generally, has to be seen as an undispensable field of
Medieval Studies that also offers relevant methodological aspects and
results for many other historical disciplines.
We are happy to be able to publish the modified short statements of
the panelists in this volume of Medium Aevum Quotidianum. The
originally English statements of Franyoise Piponnier and Gerhard Jaritz
were translated by their authors into French and Gennan respectively.
7