A Database of Animals in Medieval Misericords

123
A Database of Animals in Medieval Misericords
Sarah Wells (Durham)
Introduction
The monks and canons of the medieval church had to stand in the choir
stalls for long periods of time in daily prayer and devotion whilst reciting the
divine offices,1 and during the recitation of psalms, canticles and hymns in a
service or mass. The need to stand for such long periods of time was no doubt
tiring and in some cases difficult for any sick, weak or older members of the ecclesiastical
community.
Over time, full or half seat ledges were fitted to the choir stalls of a
church, cathedral or college, to offer relief, support and rest to the occupant of a
stall (fig. 1).2 The design of these choir stall ledges or seats enabled those in the
stall to give the appearance that they were still standing, in some cases whilst
they were really propped up, half sitting or fully seated depending upon the design
of the misericord and the height of the occupier in the stall.
Misericord seat ledges could be smooth and blank, or more commonly
they were made with their main carved image found on the underside of the
ledge. The scenes depicted portray legends, romances and folktales that can be
found in contemporary manuscripts, books and woodcuts of the period; the
representation of biblical stories, allegories and proverbs; images of heraldry,
humans and other secular themes from daily life; and carvings of identifiable
species of flora and, of course, fauna (fig. 2).3
1 Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline.
2 Wildridge (1879) indicates these were in use as early as the 11th century.
3 Laird (1986) estimated this at almost a quarter of all themes, though he does not provide any
calculations to indicate how this estimate was reached.
124
Fig. 1: Medieval choir stall in Durham Cathedral: seat ledge down
(misericord not visible). Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
Fig. 2: Medieval misericord in Durham Cathedral: seat ledge raised
(misericord visible). Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
125
Surveys and Catalogues of Misericords
There have been a variety of amateur and professional scholars who have
shown a strong interest in misericordia over the last two centuries, including
works by authors such as Bond, 1910; Druce, 1913-14, 1919-20, 1931, 1938,
1939; Anderson, 1935, 1938, 1951, 1954, 1955, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1967, 1969,
1971; Remnant, 1969; Laird, 1986; Tracy, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1988, 1990,
1997; Jones and Tracey, 1991; Block, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2003a, 2003b,
2004; and Grössinger, 1975, 1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1991 and 1997. The
publication of works on misericords can be found targeted at a variety of levels
of consumer, from short pamphlets and popularist books, to catalogue volumes
with academic analyses.
The largest number of available publications consist of qualitative or descriptive
studies of misericords and illustrated survey works, with hand drawn
sketches, black and white or colour photographs (refer to Phipson, 1896; Cox
and Harvey, 1908; Howard and Crossley, 1917; Roe, 1927; Gardner, 1958; Cox,
1959; Smith, 1968 and 1974; Kraus and Kraus, 1976; Agate, 1980; Hayman,
1989; Harding, 1998; Wood and Curry, 1999; Jewitt, 2000). Many general, introductory
or thematic works on misericords are helpful to explain the development
of them, sources of misericord themes, meanings of their imagery, and
even how to photograph misericords. However, the vast majority of works from
Britain are regional studies and therefore focused on English churches and
cathedrals,4 with a poor representation for those in Wales, and still fewer for
Scotland and Ireland.
The representation of creatures as a theme for research in misericords has
been a rather under-researched field. Prior to the development of this database,
no quantitative, systematic or national survey of creatures in misericordia was
available. Nevertheless, there were a number of articles or book sections which
highlight the animals to be found in misericords (refer to Laird, 1986; Jones,
1989, 1991, 2002; or most recently in Mellinkoff, 2004). Beyond this, only a
few publications were available for consultation specifically on a particular animal
or bird found to be depicted in misericords. These include publications such
as those on winged mammals, fowl and birds (refer to Wells, 2005a, 2005b),
poultry (Hardwick, 2004), owls (Miyazaki, 1999), as well as cats (Block, 1991),
the fox (Varty, 1967, 1999), and the representation of more exotic creatures such
as the camel, elephant, rhinoceros and unicorn (refer to Wells, 2005c).
4 Examples of regional surveys include: Letts, 1886; Middleton, 1888-91; Henderson, 1891;
Wolfgang, 1911; Harris, 1927; Clarke, 1920; Cave, 1953; Steer, 1961, 1963, 1973; Bennett,
1965; Morgan, 1966; White, 1974; Whittingham, 1981; Farley, 1981; Wiltshire, 1991; Chapman,
1996.
126
The Database of Animals in Misericords
In October 2000, a funded doctoral research project on ‘Animal Visual
Culture in the Middle Ages’ commenced. The research included the development
of a number of databases to collect and record details of animal representations
within various types of visual material culture. A database of ‘Animals in
Medieval Misericordia’ was one of those compiled, since there was no published
quantitative data available on animals in misericords, nor any synthesis or national
survey conducted of the creatures carved in them.
The ideal scenario in developing such a database would be to systematically
travel around all the surviving medieval choir stalls that the United Kingdom
had to offer and systematically make a full and accurate record of any animals
that were carved.5 However, this was not a realistic methodology to be applied
to a doctoral research project, in view of the wide variety of media to be
investigated, and the limited time available to complete the research. Therefore,
the misericord database was created utilising the existing published data on
misericords.
The database was initially designed as an Excel spreadsheet. This enabled
the published information on animal carvings to be extracted and recorded into a
large number of categories. The categories or fields selected for recording, included:
the type or types of creatures carved; the number of creatures depicted;
and a description of the main carving and any supporting carvings of animals
within a misericord ensemble. Any specific details of the animal’s individual
identifiable characteristics, such as its age, health or physiology were also entered,
along with the animal’s activities, and any objects, or figures that were
associated with the scene.
Other columns of the database contained more general details about the
misericord itself such as: the date the misericord was carved, and how this date
was sourced, along with any details of patronage or donorship. In addition to
this, the location of the carving was recorded by national grid reference, by regional
county, by common name, by type of structure, and by internal location
(setting/sequence/position) within the set of choir stalls, and by its orientation
(e.g. north or south side) within the building. This information was invaluable in
later analysis of the national distribution and frequency of animals over time
(chronologically) from the 13th to 17th centuries; and space (geographically),
representing a large number of animals carved throughout England, Wales,
Scotland and Ireland.
5 To some extent this is being achieved by scholars such as Block (2003a, 2004) around
Europe. However, this process has required around thirty years to conduct, and the photographic
data for the UK is not yet complete, nor was it available at the time this contribution
went to press.
127
The Data Recorded in the Animal Database
The core structure of the database was formed by information extracted
from the ‘Catalogue of Misericords for Great Britain’, published by Remnant in
1969. This volume continued the work of Bond (1910) and provided records of
surviving misericords from structures such as churches, cathedrals and museum
collections. The catalogue was searched for any entries that contained reference
to animals. This process enabled a basic list of over 100 different creatures to be
compiled. However, a number of problems began to emerge in the use of the
existing published material. Some of the entries in the catalogue were contradicted
by sources of evidence from other authors who had published entries detailing
some of the same misericords. The discrepancies related to the number of
misericords that had survived, their position and sequencing within a choir stall,
and most worryingly, in the identification of the animal depicted. Unfortunately,
it was not stated in any of the published literature what criteria were used for the
identification of the recorded animals. These factors were revealed following
field assessments at a number of locations, made in order to check the published
records of the surviving misericords at first hand. Nevertheless, this process enabled
further confirmation of details of the animals, scenes or themes depicted.
It appears that none of the misericords were dated using any scientific
methods (by archaeological standards). The criteria used to date misericords can
be collated, and are more relative, subjective and tentative. The dating methods
rely primarily on the identification of variations of shape of the choir stall and
misericord seat ledges, stylistic details of foliage, armour or clothing, the finding
of a carved date surviving on the misericord, the carved name of a patron or donor,
or a carved crest, and coat-of-arms or cognizance known to have been in
use during a specific period in time. It is difficult, therefore, to attribute an absolute
date of carving to a large number of the misericords (in terms of approximate
date of creation, finish and installation). This is because some of the misericords
were not carved and completed during a single period of time but over
a number of years, and indeed restored and replaced at later dates, and so there
is some doubt as to whether all the carvings themselves are originals. To support
the validity of misericord dating techniques, contemporary manuscripts, church
archives, building accounts or wills can be used to establish an estimated date
for the carved stall work (refer to Purvis, 1936, and Grössinger, 2002). Unfortunately,
some carvings do not survive in complete clarity to enable period
characteristics to be identified, nor do all have the required features that can be
used for dating. This means that any data presented on misericord chronology
should be regarded flexibly, understood along with its limitations, including an
awareness that the dating is possibly inaccurate.
128
The Animals Represented in Misericords
There were over 1,500 instances of creatures appearing in the misericords
from the United Kingdom.6 Of these, 90% were specifically named creatures,
and only 10% were unnamed creatures.7 The species that were recorded by name
included a large number of land animals (50% of all of the named creatures in
the sample). The range of species that were represented are listed alphabetically
and included: antelopes, apes, asps and bears (fig. 3); boars, bulls, calves,
camels, dromedaries, cats, cows, deer, doe, and dogs (fig. 4). There were also a
number of donkeys, elephants, foxes, frogs, fawns, goats, greyhounds, hares,
harts, hedgehogs, hippopotamus, hog, hounds and horses (fig. 5); as well as
animals such as hyena, kids, kittens, lambs, leopards (fig. 6), lions, lizards, and
monkeys (fig. 7). Other creatures that were carved were mice, oxen, pigs,
piglets, puppies, rabbits, rams, reptiles, rhinoceros, salamander, serpent/snakes,
sheep, slugs, snails, stags, squirrels, tigress, weasel and wolves.
Fig. 3: A chained bear (?). Misericord in Durham Cathedral, UK.
Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
6 Approximate numerical data and calculations of statistics are available for consultation in
the volume ‘Animal Visual Culture in the Middle Ages’ currently in preparation by the author.
7 The unnamed creatures were often catalogued but unidentified beyond a generic name such
as bird (28%), or fish (6%), whilst the remaining creatures catalogued as animals, beasts,
monsters or composite creatures accounted for the remaining proportion of the unnamed
animals (66%). These could represent either real land animals or imagined creatures.
129
Fig 4: A dog misericord in Durham Cathedral, UK. Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
Fig. 5: A horse misericord in Durham Cathedral, UK.
Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
130
Fig. 6: A catalogued leopard (?) misericord in Durham Cathedral, UK.
Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
Fig. 7: A monkey funeral misericord in Lincoln Cathedral, UK.
Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
131
There were a good proportion of creatures of the air, which accounted for
20% of all the named animals. These included bats, blackbirds, chickens, cocks,
cranes, doves, ducks, eagles (refer to fig. 2), falcons, geese, hawks, herons, a
hoopoe, ibis, osprey, ostrich, owls, parrots, peacocks, pelicans, pigeons, plovers,
raven, snipe, sparrow, stork, swallow, swans, teal, woodcocks and woodpigeon.
In addition to these animals were a small number of sea creatures representing
2% of all the named instances, including conch, scallop and whelk shells, crabs
(fig. 8), dolphins, salmon and eel. Finally, there were a variety of imagined
(mind) creatures, which represented the final 28% of all named instances of
animals. The mind creatures included the amphisbaena, basilisk/cockatrice,
blemya, centaurs, dragons, griffins, the harpy, hydra, lindworm, mantichora,
mermaids/mermen, satyrs, the serra, sirens, the sphinx, unicorns, the wodehouse
and wyverns.
Fig. 8. A Carved Crab Misericord in Durham Cathedral, UK. Photograph: Sarah Wells 2004.
The types of land, air, sea and mind animals that are represented in these
misericord carvings range from a single animal to groups of animals carved together,
forming a scene. Obviously, the more complex the animal or theme was,
or according to the use of the theme or story portrayed, this meant that a greater
amount of carving space was required. However, there were limitations on the
space into which scenes could be carved underneath the seat. This may have influenced
the manner in which an animal image was presented as a misericord,
for example the proportional size, dimension, direction, poise and stance in
which the creature was depicted. A further consideration of the making and
132
carving of misericords was their decoration or colouration. Jones and Tracy
(1991) discuss the trace of pigment on a stall end at Haddon Hall, which indicates
that possibly misericords were painted. Other forms of woodwork were
painted during the period (refer to Baxandall 1980), so it is quite possible that
paint was applied to enhance the visual identification of species and add to the
overall effect achieved.
Conclusion
It is hoped that the existence of the current animal misericord database
will be further enhanced by additional finds of unpublished carvings and over
time a complete photographic record of all carvings. This will strengthen the
data available on medieval animals and details of their contexts of depiction,
which can be utilised for further research and analysis. A CD ROM of all the
data in the misericord database will be available within the volume Animal
Visual Culture in the Middle Ages.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Durham Cathedral for permission to take photographs of all the misericords
illustrated within this chapter, and for permission to publish them for educational purposes.
My appreciation is given to Gerhard Jaritz at the Central European University for his
interest in my work, the opportunity to contribute to this volume, and to the Medieval Animal
Database Project.
References
Agate, J. (1980). Benches and Stalls in Suffolk Churches. Suffolk: Historic Churches Trust.
Anderson, M. D. (1935). The Medieval Carver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, M. D. (1938). Animal Carvings in British Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Anderson, M. D. (1951). The Choir Stalls of Lincoln Minster. Lincoln: The Friends of
Lincoln Cathedral.
Anderson, M. D. (1954). Misericords: Medieval Life in English Woodcarving. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
Anderson, M. D. (1955). The Imagery of British Churches. London: Murray.
Anderson, M. D. (1963). Drama and Imagery in English Medieval Churches. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, M. D. (1971). History and Imagery in British Churches. London.
Baxandall, M. (1980). The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, 1475-1525. New
Haven, Connecticut and London: Yale University Press.
Bennett, B. (1965). The Choir Stalls of Chester Cathedral. Chester. 1st edition.
Block, E. C. (1991). “Bell The Cat And Gnaw The Bone.” Reinardus 4: 41-50.
133
Block, E. C. (1992). “Half Angel – Half Beast. Images of Women on Misericords.” Reinardus
5: 17-34.
Block, E. C. (1995). “Judaic Imagery on Medieval Choir Stalls.” Reinardus 8: 25-47.
Block, E. C. (1998). “Physical and Social Inversions in the Topsy-Turvey World.” The Profane
Arts/Les Artes Profanes 7(1): 8-28.
Block, E. (2003a). Corpus of Medieval Misericords in France XIIIth –XVIth Century. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Block, E. C. (2003b). “Liturgical and Anti-liturgical Iconography on Medieval Choir Stalls.”
In Objects, Images and the Word. Art in the Service of the Liturgy. Ed. C. Hourihane.
Princeton, New Jersey: Index of Christian Art, Department of Art and Archaeology,
Princeton Universtity in association with Princeton University Press, 161-179.
Block, E. (2004). Corpus of Medieval Misericords. Iberia (Portugal, Spain) XIII-XVI
Century. Turnhout, Brepols.
Bond, F. (1910). Wood Carvings in English Churches. I – Misericords. London, New York,
Toronto and Melbourne: Henry Frowde.
Cave, C. J. P. (1953). Medieval Carvings in Exeter Cathedral. London: Penguin Books.
Chapman, B. (1996). Yorkshire Misericords. Beverley: Highgate of Beverley.
Clarke, K. M. (1920). “The Misericords of Exeter Cathedral.” Devon and Cornwall Notes and
Queries xi, II: 1.
Cox, J. C. and A. Harvey (1908). English Church Furniture. London: Methuen & Co.
Cox, T. (1959). “The Twelth Century Design Sources of the Worcester Cathedral Misericords.”
Archaeologia 97: 165-178.
Druce, G. C. (1913-14). “Animals in English Wood Carvings.” Walpole Society Annual 3: 57-
73.
Druce, G. C. (1919-20). “The Medieval Bestiaries and Their Influence on Ecclesiastical
Decorative Art.” Journal British Archaeological Association 25, 26: 41-82 and 35-79.
Druce, G. C. (1931). “Misericords: Their Form and Decoration.” Journal British Archaeological
Association N.S. xxxvi: 244-64.
Druce, G. C. (1938). “Stalls and Misericords in Hertfordshire Churches.” East Hertfordshire
Arch. Society Trans. x, II: 131-40.
Druce, G. C. (1939). “Stall Carvings in the Church of St Mary of Charity, Faversham.” Arch.
Cantiana 1: 11-32.
Farley, J. (1981). The Misericords of Gloucester Cathedral. Gloucester: Jack Farley, The
King’s School.
Gardner, A. (1958). Minor English Wood Sculpture 1400-1500. London.
Grossinger, C. (1975). “English Misericords of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries and
their Relationship to Manuscript Illuminations.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institute XXXVIII: 97-108.
Grossinger, C. (1987). “Misericords.” In Age of Chivalry. Art in Plantagenet England 1200-
1400. Ed. J. Alexander. and P. Binski. London: Royal Academy of Arts in association
with Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 122-124.
Grossinger, C. (1989a). “Humor and Folly in English Misericords of the First Quarter of the
Sixteenth Century.” In Early Tudor England. Ed. D. Williams, Woodbridge. Pls. 1-19:
73-85.
Grossinger, C. (1989b). “The Misericords in Beverley Minster: their Relationship to other
Misericords and Fifteenth-Century Prints.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association
Pls. XXXIIA-XXXVH: 186-94.
Grossinger, C. (1989c). Ripon Cathedral-Misericords. Ripon.
Grossinger, C. (1991). “Misericords.” Medieval World 3: 3-8.
Grossinger, C. (1997). The World Upside Down: English Misericords. London: Harvey
Miller.
134
Grossinger, C. (2002). Humour and Folly in Secular and Profane Prints of Northern Europe
1430-1540. London: Harvey Miller.
Harding, M. (1998). A Little Book of Misericords. London: Aurum.
Hardwick, P. (2004). “Foxing Daun Russell: Moral Lessons of Poultry on Misericords and in
Literature.” Reinardus 17: 85-94.
Harris, M. D. (1927). “Misericords in Coventry.” Birmingham Arch. Soc.Trans LII: 246-66.
Hayman, R. (1989). Church Misericords and Bench Ends, Shire Publications.
Henderson, R. and H. K. (1891). “Misericords of Carlisle Cathedral.” Cumberland & Westmorland
Trans. o.s, xii: 103-4.
Howard, F. E. and F. H. Crossley (1917). English Church Woodwork, 1250-1550. London.
Jewitt, Llewellynn. (2000). Art Under the Seats. Portsmouth: Bardon Enterprises.
Jones, M. (1989). “Folklore Motifs in Late Medieval Art I: Proverbial Follies and Impossibilities.”
Folklore 100: 201-17.
Jones, M. (1991). “Folklore Motifs in Late Medieval Art III: Erotic Animal Imagery.” Folklore
102 (no.2): 192-219.
Jones, M. (2002). The Secret Middle Ages: Discovering the Real Medieval World. Stroud:
Sutton Publishing.
Jones, M. and C. Tracey (1991). “A Medieval Choirstall Desk End at Haddon Hall: The Fox-
Bishop and the Geese-Hangmen.” Journal British Archaeological Association Pls.
XII-XV: 107-15.
Kraus, D. and H. Kraus (1976). The Hidden World Of Misericords. London: Michael Joseph.
Laird, M. (1986). English Misericords. London: John Murray.
Letts, E. F. (1886). “Misericords in Manchester Cathedral.” Transactions of the Lancashire
and Cheshire Antiquarian Society IV: 130-44.
Mellinkoff, R. (2004). Averting Demons. The Protective Power of Medieval Visual Motifs and
Themes. Hongkong: Ruth Mellinkoff Publications.
Middleton, J. H. (1888-91). “Notes on Three Misericords from Brampton.” Camb. Ant. Soc.
Pubns. vii: 28-30.
Miyazaki, M. (1999). “Misericord Owls and Medieval Anti-Semitism.” In The Mark of the
Beast. Ed. D. Hassig. New York, London: Routledge, 23-49
Morgan, F. C. (1966). Hereford Cathedral Church Misericords. Hereford.
Phipson, E. (1896). Choir Stalls and their Carvings. London: Batsford.
Purvis, J. S. (1936). “The Use of Continental Woodcuts and Prints by the Ripon School of
Woodcarvers.” Archaeologia 85 (LXXXV): 107-128.
Remnant, G. L. (1969, 1998 reprint). A Catalogue of Misericords in Great Britain. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Roe, F. (1927). “Misericords.” The Connoisseur lxxxv (p. 80) and lxxxviii (p. 18).
Smith, J. C. D. (1968). Church Woodcarvings & Misericords. London.
Smith, J. C. D. (1974). A Guide to Church Woodcarvings, Misericords and Bench-Ends.
Newton Abbot: David and Charles.
Steer, F. W. (1961). Misericords in Chichester Cathedral. Chichester: City Council.
Steer, F. W. (1963). Misericords in St Mary’s Hospital, Chichester. Chichester: City Council.
Steer, F. W. (1973). Misericords at New College, Oxford. Chichester.
Tracey, C. (1986). “Medieval Choir Stalls in Chichester: a Re-Assessment.” Sussex Archaeological
Collections 124: 141-55.
Tracey, C. (1987). English Gothic Choir-Stalls, 1200-1400, Woodbridge.
Tracey, C. (1988). A Catalogue of English Gothic Furniture and Woodwork. London:
Victoria and Albert Museum.
Tracey, C. (1990). English Gothic Choir-Stalls, 1400-1500, Woodbridge.
Tracey, C. (1997). “Choir-Stalls from the 14th Century Whitefriars Church in Coventry.”
Journal of the British Archaeological Association: 76-95.
135
Varty, K. (1967). Reynard the Fox. A Study of the Fox in English Medieval Art. Leicester:
Leicester University Press.
Varty, K. (1999). Reynard, Renart, Reinart: and Other Foxes in Medieval England: the
Iconographic Evidence. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wells, S. (2005a). “Carved for Consumption: Birds in English Medieval Misericordia.” Documenta
Archaeobiologiae 3. Ed. Gisela Grupe and Joris Peters. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag
Marie Leidorf, 381-396.
Wells, S. (2005b). “Flying Low Down Under: Winged Mammals, Fowl and Bird Representations
in Medieval England.” In The Profane Arts of the Middle Ages. Ed. E. Block.
Turnhout: Brepols.
Wells, S. (2005c, in preparation). “Seeing is Believing. Animal Material Culture in Medieval
England.” Oxford University Press.
White, M. F. (1974). Fifteenth Century Misericords in the Collegiate Church of Holy Trinity.
Stratford-Upon-Avon: Stratford.
Whittingham, A. B. (1981). Norwich Cathedral Bosses and Misericords. Norwich.
Wildridge, T. T. (1879). The Miseres of Beverley Minster: A Complete Series of Drawings of
the Seat Carvings in the Choir of St John’s, Beverley, Yorkshire: with Notes on the
Plates and Subject. Hull: J.Plaxton.
Wiltshire, K. F., Ed. (1991). Christchurch Priory. The Choir Stalls and Misericords, Christchurch.
Wolfgang, A. (1911). “Misericords in Lancashire and Cheshire Churches.” Transactions of
the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire LXIII: 79-87.
ANIMAL DIVERSITIES
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz and Alice Choyke
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND XVI
ANIMAL DIVERSITIES
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz and Alice Choyke
Krems 2005
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Cover illustration:
The Beaver,
Hortus Sanitatis (Strassburg: Johannes Prüm the Older, c. 1499),
Tractatus de Animalibus, capitulum xxxi: Castor.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 1094 19 9
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A–3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich
zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck,
auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. – Druck: Grafisches Zentrum an der Technischen
Universität Wien, Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, 1040 Wien.
Table of Contents
Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Aleksander Pluskowski, Wolves and Sheep in Medieval Semiotics,
Iconology and Ecology: a Case Study of Multi- and Inter-disciplinary
Approaches to Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past …………… 9
Alice M. Choyke, Kyra Lyublyanovics, László Bartosiewicz,
The Various Voices of Medieval Animal Bones ………………………………. 23
Grzegorz Żabiński, Swine for Pearls?
Animals in the Thirteenth-Century Cistercian Houses
of Henryków and Mogiła ………………………………………………. 50
Krisztina Fügedi, Bohemian Sheep, Hungarian Horses, and Polish Wild Boars:
Animals in Twelfth-Century Central European Chronicles ……………….. 66
Hilary Powell, Walking and Talking with the Animals:
the Role of Fauna in Anglo-Latin Saints’ Lives …………….……………. 89
Gerhard Jaritz, Oxen and Hogs, Monkeys and Parrots:
Using “Familiar” and “Unfamiliar” Fauna
in Late Medieval Visual Representation …..………………………………… 107
Sarah Wells, A Database of Animals in Medieval Misericords …………….. 123
Zsofia Buda, Animals and Gazing at Women:
Zoocephalic Figures in the Tripartite Mahzor ………..…………………. 136
Taxiarchis G. Kolias, Man and Animals in the Byzantine World ………..…. 165
Ingrid Matschinegg, (M)edieval (A)nimal (D)atabase:
a Project in Progress ………………………………………………..… 167
7
Preface
Over the last two decades, interests in animals and the relationship between
humans and animals in the past have increased decisively. This is also
true particularly for the research into the Middle Ages. A variety of perspectives
and approaches can be traced concerning
• the questions asked;
• the used source evidence: zooarchaeological, textual, visual;
• the embedding of the analyses into the wider fields of the study of the
history of nature, environment, economy, religion and theology, signs
and symbols, social history, and so on;
• the degrees and levels of the application of interdisciplinary and comparative
methods;
• the level of consciousness of the diversities of use and functions of
animals in medieval society, on the one hand, and of the contextualized
networks of their meanings, on the other hand.
Such a consciousness of animal diversities and, at the same time, of animal networks
has been the basis for this volume of collected essays. They originate
from a number of international research collaborations, communications, and
presentations at international meetings, such as the annual Medieval Conferences
at Kalamazoo and Leeds. All the contributors have aimed to show individual
aspects of human-animal relations and have also been interested in the
social contexts animals occur in. Therefore, the book is meant to represent Animal
Diversities but certainly also, in particular, the indispensable Animal Contexts
and Contextuality: from zooarchaeological evidence to zoocephalic females
in visual representations of Ashkenazi Jews; from the economic function of
animals in Cistercian houses to the role of their representations in Gothic misericords;
from animals in chronicles or hagiographical texts to their images at different
levels of late medieval visual public space.
Some recently initiated projects, two of them introduced in the volume,
others referred to in the contributions, will hopefully also open up possibilities
for new insights into the variety of roles and functions that were played by
and constructed for all kinds of fauna in the Middle Ages.
“Zoology of the Middle Ages” may then perhaps be seen, in general,
as one of the model fields for representing the importance of relations and connections
between the sciences and humanities, economy and theology, daily life
8
and symbolic meaning, nature and culture, intention and response, as well as
construction and perception, …
December 2005 Gerhard Jaritz
.