Bohemian Sheep, Hungarian Horses, and Polish Wild Boars: Animals in Twelfth-Century Central European Chronicles

66
Bohemian Sheep, Hungarian Horses,
and Polish Wild Boars:
Animals in Twelfth-Century Central European Chronicles
Krisztina Fügedi (Budapest)
Omnis mundi creatura
Quasi liber et pictura
Nobis est speculum
Nostrae vitae, nostrae mortis,
nostrae status, nostrae mortis
Fidele signaculum
(Alain de Lille)
It is a sign of the gradual cultural assimilation with the rest of Europe that
similarly structured chronicles or gesta were written at almost the same time in
Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary each strongly connected with a particular dynasty:
the Piasts in Poland, the Přemysls in Bohemia, and the Árpáds in Hungary.
With the adoption of Christianity these kingdoms also became connected with a
Western way of looking at history and literature; and they soon began to use
literary patterns and write about their own origins and the glorious deeds of their
kings.
Both the Chronicae et Gesta Ducum sive Principum Polonorum, written
by the so-called Gallus Anonymus in 1113-1117 and the Chronica Bohemorum
by Cosmas of Prague in 1119-1125, seem to have followed the style and genre
of German and French models. Based on later texts, we can assume that the,
more or less, similar Gesta Hungarorum were also written around that time.
In this paper, I will compare the Bohemian1 and Polish2 chronicles with
the (reconstructed) early parts of the Hungarian Chronicle Composition3 of the
Fourteenth Century (henceforth: Illuminated Chronicle) regarding the “use” of
1 Kosmas von Prag,. Die Chronik der Böhmen des Cosmas von Prag. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, SSrerGerm NS 2 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1923) (henceforth Cosmas).
2 Jan Maleczynsky, ed., Galli Anonymi Chronicae et Gesta Ducum sive Principum Polonorum
(Cracow: Nakl. Polskiej Akad. Umietnoşci, 1952) (henceforth Gallus).
3 Imre Szentpétery, ed., Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum Tempore Ducum Regumque Stirpis
Arpadianae Gestarum (reprint edition, Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1988) (henceforth Ill. Chr.).
67
animals in it. By this, I mean the appearance and various functions of animals in
the texts. My main objective is to compare the use of animals as indicators of
thought and culture in these three chronicles. In the final analysis, I intend to
make some statements about the thinking, education, and erudition of the authors,
4 in the light of the way animals appeared in their narratives. Moreover,
chronicles also reflect the education and preferences of their audience, the clergy
and nobles who may have read them or listened to them.
It is clear that many objects or phenomena reflect the characteristics of a
culture, offering numerous possibilities for investigation. The role animals play
in the representation of culture is one of these characteristics. I chose the study
of animals5 because I think that animals held a unique position in medieval society,
and their existence and different tasks in every important aspect of life and
culture can help us understand medieval worldviews.
No literary work that refers to animals can be studied without understanding
their crucial role in almost every area of medieval society. Animals played a
decisive role in the Middle Ages because they provided important sources of
food,6 raw material,7 power8 and help in transportation9 and as game animals in
4 The three authors seem to represent different cultural and educational levels. Gallus Anonymus
was a monk, apparently with no ecclesiastical rank, who may have traveled a great
deal before he settled down in Poland. Cosmas was a man of great reknown in the
ecclesiastical hierarchy of his country. The probable author of the Hungarian Chronicle was
in all likelihood a bishop or a clerk at the royal court. Among the three authors, Cosmas
seems to have had the widest access to classical Greek and Latin sources, although he also
may have known them only from florilegia or similar secondary collections.
5 For a general overview of animals see Robert Delort, Der Elefant, die Biene und der heilige
Wolf. Die wahre Geschichte der Tiere (Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1987); idem, “Les
animaux en occident du Xe au XVIe siècle”, in Le monde animal et ses représentations au
Moyen Âge (Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 1985), 11-47; Nona C. Flores,
ed., Animals in the Middle Ages (New York: Garland, 1990); F. Klingender, Animals in Art
and Thought to the End of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1971); L. A. J. R.
Houven ed., Animals and Symbols in Medieval Art and Literature (Groningen: Egbert
Forsten, 1997); Joyce Salisbury, The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages (New York:
Routledge, 1994).
6 For animal keeping and husbandry in the Middle Ages, see László Bartosiewicz, “Animal
Husbandry and Medieval Settlement in Hungary”, Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in
Österreich 15 (1999): 139-155; János Matolcsy, Állattartás őseink korában (Animal keeping
in the time of our ancestors) (Budapest: Gondolat, 1982); Sándor Bökönyi, History of
Domesticated Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: MTA, 1974).
7 For clothes and dress in connection with animals in the Middle Ages see Robert Delort, “Les
animaux et l’habillement”, in L’uomo di fronte al mondo animale nell’alto Medioevo,
2.vols. (Spoleto: Presso La Sede del Centro, 1985), 673-701.
8 See J. Langdon, Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986).
9 For the multiple functions of horses in the Middle Ages see J. Clark, ed. The Medieval
Horse and its Equipment 1150-1450 (London: HMSO, 1995); R. H. C. Davis, The Medieval
War-Horse (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989); Ann Hyland, The Horse in the Middle
Ages (Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing Ltd, 1999); J. Hewitt, The Horse in Medieval
England (London: J. A. Allen, 1988).
68
the hunt.10 As part of valuable personal or family property they also held a
significant place in medieval society.
Animals in the Middle Ages were part of everyday life; everyone had
dealings with them in some form. Perhaps because of this pervasive familiarity
with animals, they also served as metaphors in literary works. These metaphors
are strongly context-bound, and can only be interpreted within the network of
connections throughout the text, because the text provides the background or the
basis for the comparison of humans and animals.
Beside philosophical and theological writings several literary genres dealt
with the relationship of animals and mankind: for instance, bestiaries,11 fables,12
beast epics,13 and travel literature, but we can find metaphors utilizing animals
in almost every lyrical or narrative source as, for example, chronicles. They also
used animals as instruments for comparison and providing additional
information about humans.
In order to prepare an appropriate basis for comparison, the study of animals
either lacking symbolic meaning or as examples of human-type behaviour,
or as bearers of additional information about the culture from which the author
of these chronicles comes necessitates a brief overview of the rise of these
chronicles and of their authors. Both Polish and Bohemian historiography starts
with rather similar works at the beginning of the twelfth century. Between the
years 1113 and 1117, an anonymous author with loyalty to the Polish kingdom
wrote the history of Poland from the origins of the country until his own time.
He received his name Gallus from his first editors who believed that he had
come from France to Poland.14
10 See: John Cummings, The Hound and the Hawk (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988).
11 Willene Clark and Meradith T. Mcmumm, Birds and Beasts of the Middle Ages: the Bestiary
and its Legacy (Philadelphia: n. p., 1989); Wilma George and Brunsdon Yapp, The
Naming of the Beasts: Natural History in the Medieval Bestiary (London: Gerald Duckworth,
1991); Debra Hassig, Medieval Bestiaries, Text, Image, Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995).
12 See: David Bell, Wholly Animals: a Book of Beastly Tales (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications,
1992); Peter Rickard, et al., Medieval Comic Tales (Totowa, N.J.: Reowman and
Littlefield, 1973).
13 Jan Ziolkowski, Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993).
14 There have been innumerable hypotheses about who he was, or which country he came
from, but the consensus is that probably he was educated in Liège as a Benedictine monk.
He might have reached Poland at the very beginning of the twelfth century, and he came in
close contact with the most notable ecclesiastical personalities, particularly Chancellor Michael.
For the beginnings of Central European chronicles, see Norbert Kersken, Geschichtsschreibung
im Europa der “nationes” – Nationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen
im Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 1995); idem, Bibliographien zur Geschichte Ostmitteleuropas
(Marburg: Herder Institut, 1997). Joseph Bujnoch compared the two contemporaries
in his “Gallus Anonymus und Cosmas von Prag. Zwei Geschichtsschreiber und Zeitgenossen”,
in Osteuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. H. Leeberg, P. Nitsche and E.
Oberlander (Cologne: Böhlau, 1977), 301-315.
69
Although the chronicles of Gallus Anonymous and Cosmas of Prague
were similar regarding the time in which they wrote, their concept of historiography,
and the structure and purpose of their writings, the life and career of
Cosmas was completely different from that of Gallus, and this fact left its mark
on his work. Cosmas of Prague15 was born around 1045 into a noble family, and
received an excellent education, first in Prague, then in Liège. After his return to
Prague, he became the deacon of the cathedral of Prague, and remained in this
important position until his death. He worked on his chronicle from 1119-1125.
No less influential was the third coeval chronicle, the Hungarian Chronicle,
although in this case the author, dating, and structure of the work poses a
more complex problem for modern scholars. It is clear that this chronicle is not
the work of one author, but rather a compilation of earlier versions of Hungarian
history. Sándor Domanovszky edited the Chronicle in a parallel version, which
he took from the famous Illuminated Chronicle. He argued that eleventh-century
text had existed, commonly referred to as the Urgesta which became the source
of later continuations with interpolations. It was probably written either in the
middle of the eleventh century, that is, in the reign of Andrew I, or in the second
third of the eleventh century (in the reign of King Salomon). We can find
several traces of this Urgesta in the Illuminated Chronicle16 including the story
of the miraculous stag and the myth of the turul (a Hungarian mythical vulturelike
bird). The story of Lehel and the fight of Botond may also have been part of
the Urgesta. One can follow the line of chroniclers to the time of Louis the
Great, under whose reign the version in the Illuminated Chronicle was finished
in 1358. The Chronicle was also the first Hungarian codex, which offered a
store of information via its illuminations17 concerning heraldry, armour, and
national dress.
From the above-mentioned description of sources it is clear that although
the Illuminated Chronicle probably contains pieces of earlier chronicles, that is,
from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the work which is now in our hands is a
15 To know more about Cosmas, see also Joseph Hemmerle, “Kosmas von Prag”, in
Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 4, ed. Ferdinand Seibt (Munich:
Oldenbourg, 1981), 23-48, Dušan Trestik, “Anfänge der böhmischen Geschichtschreibung,”
Stud. Zrodloznawcze 23 (1978): 1-37.
16 See the best pieces of the huge literature on the chronicle composition: József Gerics,
Legkorábbi gesta-szerkesztéseink keletkezésproblémái (The problems of origin in the
earliest Hungarian Gesta-Compositions) (Budapest: MTA, 1961), György Györffy, Krónikáink
és a magyar őstörténet. Régi kérdések-új válaszok (Hungarian Chronicles and
Hungarian Ancient Tradition) (Budapest: MTA, 1993); János Horváth,. Árpádkori latinnyelvű
irodalmunk stílusproblémái (Problems in the style of Latin literature from the
Arpadian Age) (Budapest: MTA, 1954), Elemér Mályusz, Királyi kancellária és krónikaírás
a középkori Magyarországon (The royal chancellery and chronicles in Medieval
Hungary) (Budapest: MTA, 1973).
17 There are also numerous animals in these images, e.g. deer, horses. For the images, see:
Képes krónika (Illuminated Chronicle), eds. Csaba Csapodi and Klára Gárdonyi Csapodi .
(facsimile edition, Budapest: Magyar Helikon Könyvkiadó, 1964).
70
fourteenth-century compilation. In a comparative study, two centuries may see
very great changes in almost every aspect of culture. Parallel to this, changes are
also apparent in the way chronicles were written, in their approach to events,
style, and the patterns that they followed.
To avoid the accusation of ahistorical comparisons, I examined the Illuminated
Chronicle from two different points of view: first, from the point of
view of the twelfth-century sections and second from the point of view of the
entire fourteenth-century compilation. There is a change in style and the narrative
of events in the year 1152, where the author began to tell the events year by
year, enumerating only the names of kings, battles, and natural catastrophes, instead
of recounting the events together with their background. Moreover, scholars
argue that this is the turning point, the point where the chronicler of Geysa II
may have ended his version including the Urgesta among other chroniclers‘
works as well as the Gesta Ladislai Regis.
In my research regarding animals I investigated both this part of the Illuminated
Chronicle, that is, from the beginning to the 168th chapter in the SRH
edition, and in the whole chronicle. What I found supports the hypotheses of
previous research, because there is a radical change in the way animals are used
from the 168th chapter. This change can be seen first in the number of animals
which appear. In the suspected twelfth-century chronicle there are 81 animals,
while in the later part only 13 are mentioned. Furthermore, in the later version,
animals appear around the larger block of narratives, while in the twelfthcentury
part, the animals are distributed throughout the text, and there are no
significant blocks containing animals. I think that the fourteenth century chronicler
who compiled these earlier pieces wanted to preserve the events in an annalistic
way, and he only described those events, which were important for him.
Since there is a significant change in style as well as in the narration for the
events of the year 1152, I decided to investigate only the presumed twelfth-century
part of the Illuminated Chronicle. In this way, I can compare three chronicles
from almost the same period, in which the usage of animals as objects embodying
information on culture, traditions, and religion can give us a detailed
overview of medieval mentality.
Methodology
I used the best printed editions of the chronicles to create a database for
the animal references.18 I applied the database management system Kleio to
18 I looked for all the animals that can be found in the three chronicles. I only used the nouns
and the adjectives such as columbinus: mild as a pigeon, but not the verbs, like equitare: to
ride on a horse, and so on. After the source, I wrote the exact and whole context of the
mentioned animal, as long as necessary. In order to create later the inquiries and to have
good references, I used the English name of the animals. When there is more than one animal
in the sentence, I put them into alphabetical order, with every animal in a new row. The
71
handle my data19 and to prepare different inquiries. In order to distinguish the
sense in which these animals were used I created five major groups and several
subgroups of animals according to the role they played in the narratives:
1. If the animals were used without any added meaning, that is, as an animal
that produces food, material, or was used as a tool;20 those animals that
show up as helpers of men in an evil act,21 for example, horses, who step
on the enemy’s body or dogs who bite or attack children on command; the
wild animals that neither participate in any comparison nor embody any
added cultural connotations. Such wild animals do not embody the added
glory that the man acquires if he hunts them or any other aspect of value.
2. Animals symbolise value in different senses: the fertility and richness22 of
a certain field; why it was worth settling down there; how the hunter23
acquires glory because the prey was strong or dangerous; when a ruler
most important entries of my database have been the classification of the animal together
with its connotation.
19 Creating the database I had to face some inaccuracies. For example, in the Hungarian Chronicle
the author mentions several kinds of hunting birds. In Latin, the words he used for
naming the birds have at least three or four meanings, all of them hunting birds. I decided
to translate them consistently, although other solutions might have been possible. I also had
problems with the collective nouns, like sheep in the sense of flock or cows in the sense of
herd. In these cases, I distinguished the places where the meaning comes closer to the
collective noun. Every author used several variations for naming horses: sonipes, quadrupes,
dextrarius, caballus; I put them all into the category of horse, although, where necessary,
I noted about the specific name.
20 Cosmas 3. XXVII: Quem ut vidit primo iam noctis in crepusculo stipatum ingenti caterva
militum obsequentium, insiluit equum et paulisper se inmiscuit agmen in medium. (As he
saw him in the twilight of the night, surrounded by an enormous crowd of people who all
obeyed him, he jumped onto his horse and mingled among the crowd.).
21 Cosmas 1. XII; Sed utinam mortem, verum peius morte ageretur, coniuges vestras in conspectu
vestro violabunt et in sinu earum infantes ferro trucidabunt et ad lactandum eis catulos
dabunt. (If only they had planned death, but they planned even worse than that, to destroy
your wives in front of you and in their laps they kill your babies with a sword and
give them whelps of dogs to suckle).
22 Cosmas 1.II:. Hec est illa, hec est illa terra, quam sepe me vobis promisisse memini, terra
obnoxia nemini, feris et volatilibus referta, nectare mellis et lactis humida, et, ut ipsi perspicitis,
ad habitandum aere iocunda. (This is that, this is the land, which I remember to
have promised you often, the land that does no harm to anybody, that is rich in beasts and
birds that is watered by rivers of milk and honey, and that has, as you yourselves can see,
appropriate air to live from).
23 Cosmas 1. LXI: Semper aderat comes individuus duci in venationibus, primus enim affuit in
occisione silvatici apri et abscidens eius caudam purgat et parat, ut ducem velle norat,
paratamque venienti domino ad vescendum donat. (He was present as individual companion
of the duke in hunting, he was the first to kill the wild boar and cutting its tail off, he
disembowled and prepared it as he knows that the duke likes it, and he gives the prepared
wild boar to the duke to eat).
72
gives horses or cows as presents24 to another ruler; or the chroniclers say
that the cows, bulls or horses were captured as booty.
3. In group three there are the animals that provide basis for an external
comparison.25 There are only a few animals that belong to this group, because
they present the reason for the comparison only by their form or
outlook, not by their characteristics.
4. The most interesting categories are those of internal comparisons, and
5. of comparisons with a cultural background.
Into the former, I put all the animals, which present a basis for internal comparison,
that is, their characteristic features help to enlighten the behaviour or
character of a person. Animals can represent several qualities, from wildness26
and slyness27 through stupidity28 to cowardice29 or concord30 (for all the
subgroups see Table 1).
I followed a consistent method in creating these subgroups by recording
all the possible attributes in connection with each kind of animal. I grouped
these attributes and tried to find an appropriate name that described all the
features in the group. For example: the lions, wolves, and some of the hunting
birds are characterised by almost the same attributes: rapax, rabidus, inmanis,
occulto ruit, ferox, iratus, rapiens, rugiens. Then I separated the wild and
24 Ill. Chr. 29: Deinde communi consilio ad predictum ducem eundem nuncium remiserunt et
ei equum album et magnum cum sella deaurata auro Arabie et freno deaurato miserunt pro
terra sua. (Then they sent a messenger to the above-mentioned town with common counsel
and they sent a great white horse with a golden saddle from Arabia and with a golden bridle
in return for his land).
25 Cosmas 1. VIII: Loci autem mons curvatur in modum delphini, marini porci, tendens usque
in predictum amnem. (The mountain of this place bends like a dolphin, a marine pig, and
extends to the above-mentioned river).
26 Cosmas 2. XXVII: Oblitus sacri ordinis, oblitus fraternitatis, immemor humanitatis, ceu
leopardus lepusculum aut leo agniculum rapit, ita ille furibundus hospes ambabus manibus
per capillos fratrem suum episcopellum alte sustuli. (He forgot his holy orders, forgot his
brother, forgot humanity, and as a leopard or lion tears away the little lamb, the angry guest
lifted high his brother, the little bishop, by his hair with his both hands).
27 Cosmas 2. XXII: At ille, … ut vulpecula que non illuc fugit, quo suam iactavit caudam, ita
dux aliud clausum retinens in pectore, aliud promit suis fratribus ore. (And he, as the little
fox who does not go to that place to which his tail turns, the duke kept other things in his
heart than what he said to his brothers with his mouth).
28 Cosmas 1.V: Heu tarde frustra vos penitebit, sicut ranas penituit, cum ydrus, quem sibi
fecerant regem, eas necare cepit. (Too late you will regret this in vain, as the frogs regretted
it when the snake whom they made king above them, began to kill them).
29 Gallus 3.134: Tunc verum Bolezlavus non sicut lepus formidolosus evanuit, sed suos sicut
miles animosus ammonuit. (Then Bolezlav did not disappear as a timid rabbit, but he
warned the people as a brave soldier).
30 Cosmas 2. XLIII.; Sicut fertur leo pertimuisse tres iuvencos inter se collatis cornibus stantes,
ita nunquam ausus est rex invadere suos fratres. (The lion, which stood in front of
three heifers that put together their horns, is said to have been afraid of them like this, as the
king who never dared to attack his brothers).
73
domestic animals by forming a subgroup with the name “wild”, and put all these
animals into this subgroup.
Into the group of animals with a cultural background, I put all the animals
whose meaning implies characteristics of the thinking of the nation, of a culture,
religion or traditions. These animals show both the chroniclers’ and the readers’
intellectual background and level of education. The subgroups are strongly connected
to national traditions, customs and approaches to historical events or behaviours.
The first subgroup are animals as attributes,31 which contains all animal
names involved during a quarrel. In these cases, a man desecrates his enemy
with the name of an animal; he calls him a dog’s or a wolf’s son. This fact also
represents the thinking and tradition of a nation, because, for example, in Hungarian
it means something different to call someone a dog, a pig or a cow. This
subgroup contains the phrases chroniclers used to define another nation by an
animal name. These are negative attributes in all cases.
To the next subgroup, animals signifying social status,32 belong all animal
names involved in indicating social rank. Horses signify social status by simply
being owned, by their appearance, by their colour, size, or equipment, and by the
context of their use. For example, if someone sits on a horse while speaking to
another person who is standing on the ground, it would have been considered
demeaning and humiliating.
Two other subgroups reflect a Christian way of thinking, but we can also
find traces from classical philosophy. Animals often appear as counterparts to
humans, as inferior,33 subordinate creatures who, unlike humans, have no souls,
are subject to passions, and are unable to live according to rules and God’s law.
Christian thinking also reflects the flock theme. All the animals that are connected
with Christ’s people belong to the Christi ovilia subgroup: lambs, sheep and
the flock used in a Christian sense are to be found here.
The last two subgroups of the animals with a cultural background category
are the mythological animals34 and the animals with transcendental
31 Ill. Chr.161:.Quis facis, vilissime canis, cum regno? (What are you doing to the country,
you bloody dog?)
32 Gallus 1.54: Nam cum regnum alienum fugitivus introiret, ut vir humilis properabat, eumque
propinquitatem eminus equo descendens ob reverentiam exspectabat. (Namely, when
he entered the foreign realm as a refugee, he went there as a humble man and out of respect
he was waiting for him to get off his horse.)
33 Gallus 1.54: Nam cum regnum alienum fugitivus introiret, ut vir humilis properabat, eumque
propinquitatem eminus equo descendens ob reverentiam exspectabat. (Namely, when
he entered the foreign realm as a refugee, he went there as a humble man and out of respect
he was waiting for him to get off his horse.)
34 Ill. Chr. 6: Et post hec … est desertum inmeabile, ubi … sunt serpentes diversi generis,
ranes velud porci, basiliscus et plura animalia toxicata, tigris et unicornis ibi generantur.
(And after this there is an enormous desert where there are different types of snakes, frogs
as big as pigs, basilisks and other poisonous animals; tigers and unicorns are born there.)
74
meanings35. In the Middle Ages, the borders between real and mythological
animals were not sharply drawn, so this category may be “ahistorical,” because
only modern people regard, for instance, unicorns as mythological animals. For
medieval people they were as real as dogs. Nevertheless, I created this subgroup
to have a place for unusual and supernatural creations, like the leviathan, the
unicorn, etc.
Table 1: The different categories of animals.
1. Animals without added meaning
1. Animals as animals
2. Animals as tools
2. Animals of negative helpers – helpers in an evil act
3. Animals of positive value
1. Symbols of richness
2. Animals for hunting
3. Animals as presents
4. Animals as booty
4. Animals as metaphors
1. External comparison
2. Internal comparisons
1. Stupid, conceited
2. Slyness
3. Ignorant
4. Cowardice
5. Wild, aggressive
6. Victim
7. Defence of whelps
8. Concord
9. Numerous
10. Organised state
5. Comparisons with a socio-cultural background
1. Animals as attributes
2. Animals signifying social status
3. Animals as inferior creatures
4. Christi ovilia
5. “Mythological animals”
6. Animals with transcendental
meanings
35 Ill. Chr.124: …. apparuit eius cervus habens cornua plena ardentibus candelis cepitque
fugere coram eis versus silvam at in loco, ubi nunc est monasterium, fixit pedes suos. (A
deer appeared in front of them with burning candles on his antlers; he turned to the forest
and stopped at the place where the monastery now stands.)
75
The mythological subgroup overlaps somewhat with the animals embodied
with transcendental meaning. In the latter group I categorised animals
that are accompanied by supernatural power, where God or an angel appear in
their faces, and unusual signs accompany their appearance.
Animals in the Chronicles
General findings
There is a wide and colourful palette of animals used in the three chronicles.
Table 2 shows how varied these animals are, from mammals to insects and
reptiles. Almost all types of domesticated, not domesticated and wild animals
significant to the region are represented, as well as animals on the boundary
between wild and domesticated, like falcons and worms. One can find dozens of
“common” animals as well as exotic and “fantastic” ones, which surely would
never have been seen in Central Europe, for example, dolphins, leopards, lions,
tigers, vultures, or unicorns.
Table 2: Animals in the three chronicles,
with the number of their occurrence in each chronicle.
Animal Cosmas
Gallus
Ill.
Chr.
Total
Animal 3 4 4 11
Ant 0 1 0 1
Basilisk 1 0 1 4
Bear 1 2 1 4
Beast 6 7 2 15
Bee 5 0 0 5
Bird 5 3 1 9
Bull 1 0 1 2
Buzzard 0 0 3 3
Cat 1 0 0 1
Cattle 0 1 0 1
Centaur 1 0 0 1
Chicken 0 1 0 1
Cock 1 0 0 1
Cow 2 2 1 5
Crow 0 0 1 1
Deer 1 2 4 7
Dog 8 8 3 19
Dolphin 1 0 0 1
Donkey 5 0 0 5
Dragon 0 3 1 4
Eagle 1 0 2 3
Ermine 0 0 1 1
Falcon 3 0 1 4
Fish 9 4 1 14
Flock 4 1 2 7
Fox 1 0 0 1
76
Frog 1 0 1 2
Goat 0 0 1 1
Goose 2 0 0 2
Grasshopper
2 0 0 2
Gryphon 0 0 1 1
Hawk 2 0 0 2
Hen 2 1 0 3
Herd 1 1 2 4
Horse 33 27 29 89
Hydra 2 0 0 2
Kite 2 0 1 3
Lamb 9 0 3 12
Leopard 1 0 0 1
Leviathan 0 0 1 1
Lion 11 7 1 19
Lizard 1 0 0 1
Mink 1 0 0 1
Mosquito 1 1 1 3
Mouse 1 0 0 1
Owl 1 0 0 1
Ox 10 1 2 13
Pig 3 2 1 6
Pigeon 7 0 0 7
Hare 2 2 0 4
Roe 0 1 0 1
Sheep 18 4 2 24
Snake 4 0 1 5
Stork 0 0 1 1
Swallow 1 0 0 1
Swan 2 0 0 2
Tiger 2 0 1 3
Unicorn 0 0 1 1
Vulture 1 0 0 1
Wild boar 4 8 0 12
Wolf 15 7 1 23
Wood–
pecker
1 0 0 1
Worm 1 0 0 1
Total 204 102 81 387
Although each of the three chronicles used animals for similar purposes,
namely for describing territories, people, or events, on the one hand, and to
develop examples for human behaviour, on the other, there is a significant
difference between them.
77
Chart I: Total number versus variability of animals in the chronicles.
.
As one can see from Chart I, which represents both the variability in the
kinds of animals in each chronicle and the total number of animals, Cosmas
made reference to the most animals as well as the most variable ones (204/52).36
There is only a small difference in the number of animals referred to between
Gallus (102/25) and the Illuminated Chronicle (81/35), but the Hungarian
chronicler used a greater variety of animals than Gallus. Cosmas made mention
of twice as many animals as each of the other two authors although his chronicle
is not much longer than the others.
Table 3: The most frequently employed animals
(more than ten occurrences).
Type of animal Number of occurrences Percentages
Horse 89 37 % / 23 %
Sheep 24 10 % / 6 %
Dog 19 8 % / 5 %
Ox 13 5 % / 3 %
Lamb 12 5 % / 3 %
Wolf 23 10 % / 6 %
Lion 19 8 % / 5 %
Beast 15 6 % / 4 %
Fish 14 6 % / 4 %
Wild boar 12 5 % / 3 %
Subtotal 240 100 % / 62 %
Remainder 147 —- / 38 %
Total 387 —- / 100 %
36 Of course from a statistical point of view the higher the number of animals the greater the
variability expected.
0
50
100
150
200
250
different total
Cosmas
Gallus
Ill.Chr.
78
There are 387 animals altogether in the three chronicles and 65 different
types of animals. Animals that occur more than ten times in the whole database
were compiled in order to see which of them were referred to most frequently
(Table 3). Horses comprise almost one quarter (23 %) of all the animals that
were referred to.
One can also see that only a relatively small part of all the animals belong
among the most commonly used wild or not domesticated species (wolves,
lions, wild boars, beasts, fish), and a much larger number consist of domesticated
animals such as horses, sheep, oxen, and dogs. Although the chroniclers
were also interested in exotic species, they mainly made reference to the animals
which they could encounter every day. Beast refers to animals in general, but
with a pejorative connotation that emphasises the superiority of humans over the
untamed fauna.37
The ratio of domestic to not domesticated and wild animals
In Tables 4 and 5, I examine the way the three chroniclers referred to
domestic and not domesticated animals taking the examples of mammals and
birds,38 not the reptiles, insects and amphibians, because there are only few of
these species mentioned.
Table 4: Domestic animals in the chronicles: mammals and birds.
Domestic
animals
Cosmas Gallus Illuminated
Chr.
Total
Bull 1 0 1 2
Cat 1 0 0 1
Cattle 0 1 0 1
Chicken 0 1 0 1
Cock 1 0 0 1
Cow 2 2 1 5
Dog 8 8 3 19
Donkey 5 0 0 5
Goat 0 0 1 1
Goose 2 0 0 2
Hare 2 2 0 4
Hen 2 1 0 3
Horse 33 27 29 89
Lamb 9 0 3 12
Ox 10 1 2 13
Pig 3 2 1 6
Pigeon 7 0 0 7
Sheep 18 4 2 24
Altogether 104 49 43 196
37 For example, Cosmas 1. XXXVI: Vivebant enim quasi bruta animalia conubia habentes
communia (They lived as brute animals having common marriages).
38 I left out all the collective nouns, like bird, beast, animals, etc.
79
The domestic mammals and birds in all three chronicles amount to roughly
half of all the animals mentioned: Cosmas 104 of 204; Gallus 49 of 102; the
Illuminated Chronicle 43 of 81. The differences are greater for the wild and not
domesticated species. The ratio of them to all animals is 38 of 204 (19%) in
Cosmas, 32 of 102 (31 %) in Gallus, and 16 of 81 (20%) in the Illuminated
Chronicle.
Table 5: Wild and not domesticated animals in the three chronicles: mammals and birds.
Wild Animals Cosmas Gallus Illuminated Chr. Total
Bear 1 2 1 4
Buzzard 0 0 3 3
Crow 0 0 1 1
Deer 1 2 4 7
Eagle 1 0 2 3
Ermine 0 0 1 1
Falcon 3 0 1 4
Fox 1 0 0 1
Hawk 2 0 0 2
Kite 2 0 1 3
Mink 1 0 0 1
Mouse 1 0 0 1
Owl 1 0 0 1
Roe deer 0 1 0 1
Stork 0 0 1 1
Swallow 1 0 0 1
Swan 2 0 0 2
Vulture 1 0 0 1
Wild-boar 4 8 0 12
Wolf 15 7 1 23
Woodpecker 1 0 0 1
Total 38 21 16 75
There are also differences in the way “exotic” mammals and birds were
used. I put into Table 6 not only those animals which an average Central European
would have been unlikely to encounter, but also those which are today regarded
as mythological animals.
Cosmas referred to the largest number of exotic animals (17; 50% of all
exotic ones in the three chronicles together), while the other two authors mentioned
them less often (Gallus: 10; Ill. Chr. 6). All three authors, however,
preferred to use common animals. Cosmas may have written for a more educated
audience, with broader views of nature and literature, making it easier for
him to refer to animals which were from further away and less known.
80
Table 6: Exotic animals in the three chronicles: mammals and birds.
Exotic animals Cosmas Gallus Illuminated
Chr.
Centaur 1 0 0
Dolphin 1 0 0
Dragon 0 3 1
Gryphon 0 0 1
Leopard 1 0 0
Leviathan 0 0 1
Lion 11 7 1
Tiger 2 0 1
Unicorn 0 0 1
Vulture 1 0 0
Total 17 10 6
The fact that it was also Cosmas who made mention of the most different
kinds of animal species: mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and insects,
supports the hypothesis of a more educated audience (Table 7). Gallus did not
mention any reptiles or amphibians, and only once did he refer to an insect.
There is one mention of insects in the Illuminated Chronicle as well.
Table 7: Different types of animals used in the chronicles.
Type of animal Cosmas Gallus Illuminated
Chronicle
Mammals 20 13 14
Birds 12 2 5
Reptiles & Amphibians
5 0 3
Insects 3 1 1
Collective nouns 6 6 6
Total 46 22 29
Moreover, I examined which animals were only used by one of the
chroniclers (Table 8). There are 22 animals used by Cosmas, which were not
used by either of the other two. Conversely, Gallus and the Hungarian author
only used four and eight animals, which were not used by Cosmas.
Table 8: Animals only used in one of the chronicles.
Cosmas Gallus Illuminated Chronicle
Bee Ant Buzzard
Cat Cattle Crow
Centaur Chicken Ermine
Cock Roe Goat
Dolphin Gryphon
Donkey Leviathan
Fox Stork
81
Goose Unicorn
Grasshopper
Hawk
Hydra
Leopard
Lizard
Mink
Mouse
Owl
Pigeon
Swallow
Swan
Vulture
Woodpecker
Worm
From Tables 6 and 8, one can also see that although the Hungarian author
used numerically fewer exotic animals, he used more variations. Gallus’ exotic
animals mainly come from his frequent mention of lions, something that is not
surprising if one considers that the lion is one of the most popular and most
frequently mentioned animals in the Bible,39 one of Gallus’ main sources.
Animals connected to hunting
There are some oddities in the way animals are used in connection with
hunting and fishing. Chart II contains those animals that were hunted commonly,
such as bears, wild boar and wolves, but omits those kept by people as hunting
companions, that is, dogs and raptors.
The proportion of animals in connection to hunting and fishing, that is, the
number of bears, deer, dogs, fishes, foxes, hares, roes, wild boar and wolves is
the highest in the Chronica Polonorum. Altogether, Cosmas used 31 animals
connected to hunting (15%), Gallus 26 (25%), the Illuminated Chronicle 7 (8%).
There is an explanation for this that may clarify the differences. Hunting was the
image of warfare in the eyes of the nobility and, thus, the favourite occupation
of the nobility. On the one hand, Gallus’ chronicle is, more or less, about the
lives of kings, dukes and other high ranking people. As a consequence, the
depiction of their behaviour while hunting fits to their characterisation. On the
other hand, Gallus’ admired topic was the narrative of the life and deeds of
Bolezlav III, whom he respected as a brave and noble king as well as an
invincible warrior. If we examine, how many animals he used in telling the
deeds of Bolezlav III, we find that more than half (59) of all the animals were
mentioned in connection with this ruler. And also 22 of all the animals associated
with hunting are found in this part.
39 There are 47 occurrences of lions in the Vulgata.
82
Chart II: Animals connected to hunting and fishing.
There appear to be some other, hard to explain, peculiarities connected to
hunting. There are no wild boars in the Illuminated Chronicle, although one
knows of several accidents caused by wild boar including the death of the young
St. Emeric and later Zrínyi and other noblemen, too. The number of wolves is
rather small in the Hungarian chronicle in comparison to the other two works
(15/7/1), for which one cannot give an exact explanation.40 Moreover, only
Cosmas mentioned foxes, and only Gallus used roe deers. I am convinced that
there was wild boar in Hungary, and surely the Bohemians knew about roe deer.
One has to find appropriate explanations for these strange absences. A good
explanation must also be found for the small proportion of animals connected to
hunting in the Hungarian chronicle.
40 An appropriate explanation for this strange absence is missing, because wolf bones have
been found, but from these findings one can only prove that wolves were present, but does
not know whether they were common or not. Here I have to mention another important fact
in connection with wolves, too: they were important totem animals, which is clearly visible
from the fact that wolves could not be named directly (farkas means an animal with a tail).
The same is true for roe deers; their names mean an animal with horns. As far as I know, in
the Slavic languages there are no such names for wolves and deers, but the same phenolmenon
can be noticed on the name of the bear (medved) “the animal, which eats honey.”
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Bear
Deer
Fish
Fox
Rabbit
Roe
Wildboar
Wolf
Cosmas
Gallus
Ill. Chr.
83
Animals in the mirror of categories
Categories
Table 9 offers an overview of the groupings, classifications and specifications
of animals in the three chronicles.
Table 9: Types of classifications in the three chronicles.
Types of
classifications
Cosmas Gallus Illuminated
Chronicle
Total
Animals without
added meaning
ANIMALS
WITHOUT ADDED
MEANING
Animals as animals 26 17 19 62
Tools 34 26 28 88
Animals as value
ANIMALS OF
NEGATIVE
VALUE
9 1 1 11
ANIMALS OF
POSITIVE VALUE
Richness 21 15 15 51
Hunting 3 11 2 16
Presents 3 3 5 11
Booty 0 0 2 2
Animals as metaphores
EXTERNAL
COMPARISON
6 0 2 8
INTERNAL
COMPARISON
Stupid, conceited 3 0 0 3
Slyness 8 0 0 8
Ignorant, innocent 17 1 5 23
Cowardice 3 3 0 6
Wild aggressor 40 19 6 65
Victim of aggressor 27 7 4 38
Defense of whelps 3 3 1 7
Numerous 5 1 1 7
Organized state 2 1 0 3
SOCIOCULTURAL
COMPARISON
Attribute 5 1 1 7
Social status 2 3 5 10
Inferior creation 9 4 3 16
Christi ovilia 5 1 0 6
Transcendent 0 0 5 5
Mythological 3 0 2 5
Concord 2 0 0 2
84
There are no great differences concerning the animals without added
meaning. In the group of animals with negative value, however, Cosmas is more
likely to use animals as evil helpers, while Gallus and the Hungarian author
apply animals in this sense only once.
One may conclude (see also Table 10 and 11) that Cosmas used most
animals for external and internal comparisons, while Gallus and the Hungarian
author used the largest number without added meaning. In the second place,
Cosmas applied animals without added meaning, afterwards the animals as
positive or negative values, and then animals in comparisons with a cultural
background. The Polish chronicle contains the second largest number of animals
in external and internal comparison, followed by animals as positive or
negative values and by animals in comparisons with a cultural background. The
second place in the Hungarian chronicle is taken by animals as values, followed
by the animals in external or internal comparisons and also by the comparisons
with a cultural background.
Table 10: Types of categories and their occurrences in each chronicle.41
Types of category Cosmas Gallus Ill. Chr. Altogether
Animals without added meaning 60 43 47 150
Animals of negative and positive value 36 30 25 91
External and internal comparisons 116 35 19 170
Comparison with a socio-cultural background
24 9 16 49
Total 236 117 107 460
Considering the authors, these results are not surprising. Among the three
chroniclers, Cosmas was a high-ranking deacon in Prague who had received an
excellent education in Liège. He would also have had wide access to many
ancient and medieval literary sources. The animals used in internal comparisons
almost all come from either classical, or other medieval sources. The other two
authors, Gallus the monk, and the suspected author of the Hungarian chronicle
who may have been a bishop, lived in a world where animals were chiefly
everyday creatures reflected in the frequent mention of animals without added
meaning. It is interesting, however, that the Hungarian author used more animals
as reflections of positive and negative value compared to external and internal
comparisons, while Gallus followed Cosmas’ hierarchy in the third and fourth
places. On the one hand, this shows that Hungarian traditions had deeper roots
in the different practical values of animals rather than their use in abstract
comparisons. On the other hand, of the three chroniclers the author of the
Illuminated Chronicle used relatively the most animals in socio-cultural comparisons.
41 The numbers are so high because of the multiple possibilities for each animal to be in
different categories.
85
Table 11: Order of the most commonly used categories.
Author Cosmas Gallus Illuminated chronicle
First
place
External and internal
comparison 49%
Animals without
added meaning
37%
Animals without added
meaning 44%
Second
place
Without added meaning
25%
External and internal
comparison
30%
Animals of pos. and neg.
value 23%
Third
place
Animals of pos. and
neg. value 15%
Animals of pos.
and neg. value
26%
External and internal
comparison 18%
Fourth
place
Cultural comparison
10%
Cultural comparison
8%
Cultural comparison
15%
Subgroups of categories
Table 9 displays several characteristic features for each of the three chronicles
within each category, that is, within the subgroups. Within the first
category, in each chronicle most of the animals are used as tools, deriving from
the overall use of animals in ploughing, draught work, riding, transport, hunting,
and so on. The manifold possibilities animals offered as sources of meat and
other products for human consumption comprise most of the animals used in
daily life. If we consider the great variety of ways animals were used in hunting
and fieldwork, it is not surprising that they were sometimes used as helpers in an
evil act, as for examples as instruments of torture, revenge or killing. Into this
subgroup belong all animals that could be used to threaten an enemy in a quarrel
or in a speech of exhortation, although animals in this context are used almost
exclusively by Cosmas.
In the category of external and internal comparisons come all the animals
that were referred to be based on ‘real context’ and appearance in order to describe
a place or a human.42 I cannot really give an acceptable explanation for
the rare use of animals in external comparisons, because it would have seemed
more logical for me to have more animals in this category since Gallus and the
Hungarian chronicler preferred actual animals to abstract ones.
Varied and diverse subgroups can be found for animals used to reflect
internal or behavioural characteristics or features of society. Stupidity, conceit,
slyness, ignorance and cowardice are internal features, while wildness, being a
victim, defending ones whelps and concord can only be interpreted within the
context of communication and interaction. Furthermore, the subgroup of numerous
and organised states are only valid for societies, not for single bees, grasshoppers
or ants.43
42 Cosmas 1, VIII; 1, XXXVI; 1, XLI; 2, XXXII; 3, LIX.
43 Cosmas 1,II; 1,XXXIV; 3,XXXI; XLII; Gallus 2, 61; Ill. Chr. 27;210
86
Worth noting is the remarkably large number of aggressive and victimised
animals. There are altogether 67 in Cosmas, 26 in Gallus and 10 in the Hungarian
chronicle, which are large numbers compared to the total number of
animals in internal comparisons. (110; 35; 17). Thus, 60%, 74%,and 58% of the
internally compared animals are either victims, that is, prey or predators. They
are animals chiefly characterised by their wildness and aggression. This is not
characteristic only for these chronicles but also for ancient and especially
medieval fables. Twelfth-century Marie of France and Odo of Cheriton also saw
the world as consisting of prey and predators, though they changed several
aspects of the classical traditions in order to be able to show the courtly or
ecclesiastical worldviews. Ancient prey, however, remained prey and predators
remained predators. Joyce Salisbury remarked about Mary of France that it was
prestigious to be a predator as it was noble to be a lion or an eagle, the king of
the animals and birds, because predators imitated the most important noble
occupation, war.44 The indicator of this favourable view of predators can be
found in the ratio of predators versus prey (40 to 27 in Cosmas; 19 to 7 in Gallus;
6 to 4 in the Hungarian chronicle). Moreover, in almost all cases, the chroniclers
empathized with the wild predators because of their braveness, strength or
because of their ability to fight and to defend either themselves (wild boar) or
their young.45 If they felt any sympathy, it was for the human victim not the
victimised animal.
The weak animals display another interesting part of the medieval worldview.
The animals treated as victims and those considered to have been stupid or
ignorant, overlap in almost all cases.46 The more the authors felt sympathy for
the wild predators as indicators of strong, noble and manly behaviours, the more
they thought of prey as stupid, ignorant, cowardly impotent victims, who could
do nothing against their fate; and this despite the religious tradition of Christ as
the Lamb of God, who offered himself as a victim without resistance. Cosmas
had even less sympathy for those weak animals who wanted to change their fate
and refused to accept it without complaint.
Concordance47 is seen as a rare behaviour among animals. There are only
two cases in which animals agree and help each other. Both instances appear in
Cosmas: the first is the mention of a lion being afraid of three cattle (!) who
agreed and united in their strength (Cosmas 2, XLIII); the other is about two
bulls who first agreed, but later someone sowed the seed of disagreement among
them and they separated (Cosmas 3, LI).
44 Joyce Salisbury, “Human Animals of Medieval Fables”, in Animals in the Middle Ages, ed.
Nona C. Flores, 49-53.
45 See the subgroup of defence of whelps.
46 Victim animals: chicken, crows, fish, lambs, owls, oxen, pigs, pigeons, sheep; stupid, conceited:
frogs, pigeons; ignorant: cows, fish, lambs, pigs.
47 An interesting counter-example for concordance: Cosmas III,16. …sicut vulgo dicitur, duo
catti uno sacco capti insimul esse non possunt. (It is said: two bobcats can not be put into
one sack at the same time).
87
There is another unusual aspect in the subgroup of defense of the young.
In this category we can find various animals: hens and their chicks twice,48 a
lioness,49 an eagle50 and a stork51. It belongs to the world of proverbs to speak
about the hens as defenders of their chicks. This topos also has a Biblical origin,
52 as does the parallel with the lion and eagle. Jordanes53 was the probable
model for the Hungarian author in his description of the story of the stork.
There are features that are strongly connected with ignorance and
innocence as well as with stupidity and offering oneself without resistance.
Stupidity can mean two different things in the chronicles, on the one hand, the
ignorance and lack of knowledge about something, and on the other, a real
absence of thought about the possible result of an act. Although only Cosmas
used animals in this sense and despite the fact that the story about the frogs and
their elected king as well as the one of the pigeons and the kite comes from
classical tradition, it should be mentioned, because it is totally different from the
other type of ignorance. In both cases, the animals want to rule their own lives
by choosing a king who seems appropriate to them. This desired king turns out
to be more dangerous, however, than their previous ones. The same kind of
social conservativism can be recognised here as in the fables of both Mary of
France and Odo of Cheriton, although Cosmas probably did not use them as
sources. This notion of the structure of society might have been widespread
within the circle of both the secular and ecclesiastical hierarchy.
* * *
I investigated the various animal categories in each chronicle and discovered
that their order of importance is different for each one. For Gallus and the
Hungarian author animals without added meaning played the most important
role. The chronicles show them most often as common creatures in daily life.
The Hungarian Chronicle, however, employed more animals in the sense of
value than in “learned” internal or external comparisons that represent the
second most important way of using animals for Gallus and, by far, are the most
relevant for Cosmas. On the one hand, this suggests that in the Hungarian
tradition the valuing of an animal from different points of view was more deeply
rooted than referring to animals in abstract comparisons. On the other hand, the
author of the Illuminated Chronicle mentioned among the three chroniclers the
most animals in socio-cultural comparison. He particularly dealt with animals
signifying social status and animals with transcendental meanings. Hungarian
society still had quite profound connections to traditions where animals were
48 Cosmas Appendix 1, Gallus 1,34.
49 Gallus 2, 101.
50 Cosmas Appendix 3.
51 Ill. Chr. 15.
52 Matthew.
53 Getica ch. 42.
88
highly venerated and because of this, in many cases, supernatural powers were
also attributed to them. In addition, they accepted the fact that certain animals
could reflect the social rank of humans.
From another viewpoint, it seems to be clear that Cosmas used most
animals in internal comparisons, because the latter had their sources either in
classical or medieval writings, those to which he had easiest access.
The difference among the three authors can also be explained by
considering their audience. Cosmas may have written for more educated people,
who had a broader view of nature and also literature. That is why he could more
easily refer to animals which were not so physically close to the audience.
Therefore, the Chronicon Bohemorum displays the broadest and most differentiated
approach to animals.
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
.