Traces of Orality in Written Contexts. Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court as Reflected in Documentary Sources from lt“-century Germany

Traces of Orality in Written Contexts.
Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court
as Reflected in Documentary Sources
from lt“-century Germany
Detlev Kraack
Introduction
Wben we deal with the oral world of the Middle Ages we face the problern
that we are looking for a reality which can not directly be deduced from contemporary
written source material. The intensive historical and philological research
of the last decades has worked out this problern very clearly.1 Even though
this research provided us with a broad spectrum of methodological facilities the
foreshortened perspective of our perception of the mediaeval world will, however,
remain one of the key problems of mediaeval history in general. We should
nevertheless try to stick to our written sources as closely as we can. If we want to
go beyond the written documents and deal with problems conceming the spoken
word reflected by them it is first necessary to give a convincing explanation of
these documents in the context of their historical background.
From this point of view the problern of the present study can be charaterized
as follows: especially for the period between the lO’h and the 13’h century, that
means the span of time after the Early Germanie law codifications and the
Carolingian capitularies and before Eike von Repgowe’s Sachsenspiegel, we know
1 Cf. Michael T. Clanchy, From Mem01y to Wrillen Record. England 1066-1307, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1 993) ; Haru1a Vollrath, „Oral Modes of Perception in Eleventh-Century
Clu·onicles“, in Alger N·. Doane and C. Brown Pastemack, eds., Vox intexta. Orality and
Textuality in the Middle Ages (Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991),
pp. I 02- 1 1 1 , Michael Richter, The Oral Tradition in the Early Middle Ages (Tumhout:
Brepols 1994); Hans-Werner Goetz, Moderne Mediävistik. Stand und Perspektiven der
Mille/alterforschung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 1999, pp. 339-365;
and Michael Richter, „Die ‚Entdeckung‘ der Oralität der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft durch
die neuere Mediävistik,“ in Hans-Werner Goetz, ed., Die Aktualität des Mittelalters (Bochum:
Win.kler, 2000), pp. 273-285. Michael Richter draws the conclusion that a closer Iook to the
oral world of the Middle Ages would cause a complete change of our impression of the period
(„Die Beschäftigung mit mündlicher Kultur im Mittelalter hat Zukunft. Sie wird das
traditionelle Bild der Vergangenheit nachhaltig bereichern. Sie wird weniger ereignisgeschichtlich,
weniger oberschichtlieh orientiert sein, als es lange Zeit üblich war“, p. 284).- Cf.
also the „Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy;‘ e. g., Karl Heidecker, ed .. Charters and the
Use ofthe Written Ward in Medieval Society (Tumhout: Brepols, 2001).
TRACES OF ÜRALITY IN \V RITTEN CONTEXTS 143
hardly anything about public life in the councils and law courts of the regnum
Teutonicorum. Judicial and administrative life took place i n a sphere that was
almost entirely dominated by the spoken word. With respect to this fact we must
admit that intimate aspects of mediaevai life will remain inaccessible to us. Even
beyond the span of time from the I Oth to the 13th century we have to differentiate
very carefully between descriptive and normative sources to get a reliable and
consistent picture of this oral world. Especially, the major part of the specific
regulations and provisions reflected in Eike von Rergowe’s codification of the
Saxon customary law from the first half of the 131 century should be neither
generalized nor uncritically be projected on the preceding centuries.
With regard to the multifarious relationship between orality and literacy it
seems to be useful to add some further remarks on our perception of the oral
culture of the Middle Ag es and the sources this study is based on. As in most other
cases of scientific research there are different ways of approaching the subject
matter and dealing with the problems that derive from it. I became aware of the
interdependence between orality and literacy when I analysed the generat problern
of mediaeval acting representatives. In this context I looked at counts and vicecounts
as weil as at kings and those who acted as representatives of kings and
rulers in the High Middle Ages? When we analyse the itineraries of the contemporary
elites we see that mediaeval govemment was based on personal
networks. This observation led the German scholar Theodor Mayer to the
description of mediaeval society as a ‚Personenverbandstaat‘ as opposed to the
modern state based on anonymaus institutions and civil servants. ln the Middle
Ages, however, the personal presence of kings and rulers was a conditio sine qua
non for the people’s loyalty and those who govemed had to keep travelling. On the
one hand this caused an impressive mobility. On the other hand the intensification
of govemment, the expansion of the spaces under control and the increasing
mobility with the frequent absence of monarchs and princes made it necessary for
them to duplicate their person and to have some of the administrative work done
by representatives. This duplication must have been an integral part of everyday
govemmental practice. Ncvertheless, the phenomenon of representation is reflected
in our written sources very rarely and mostly in cases when contemporaries
disagreed on how the representation should be delegated and how duties and
competences should be divided between the one who was represented and the one
who acted as his representative. A second problern is that in most of the cases
reflected in the written documentation we are confronted with different conceptions
of govemment and administration, while the concrete realization of these
conceptions remains more or less hidden under the significant silence of the
sources. There was no reason to pass information about everyday administration to
the following generations.
When I looked through the chronicles and the documentary sources from the
2 Cf. Detlev Kraack, „Von namenlosen Vizegrafen und verkappten Vizekönigen. Widerstreitende
Herrschaftskonzeptionen und Herrschaftspraxis unter Friedrich I. Barbarossa“ (Habilitationsschrift,
Tedmische Universität Berlin) (Berlin, 2000), to be published.
1 44 DETLEV KRAACK
span of time between the I oth and the 12th century with special regard to vicecounts
and representatives of the king, I realized that the interdependence of orality
and literacy had to be analysed from at least two different perspectives: on the one
hand I carefully examined the usage of V� generally based on orality and on the other hand I looked at the spoken word and
direct speech reflected in written sources.
During my research I made some astonishing observations that are worth
being reflected on in this context, because they are of overriding importance.
Before going into further detail we should, however, once again underline the fact
that there are only relatively few cases through which we can gain insight into the
matter. In most of these cases we are confronted with the mutual relationship
between the spheres of orality and literacy.3 The reciprocity of orality and literacy
is reflected in at least three different respects that are sometimes even interwoven
with each other. Firstly, our perception of the oral word of the past is completely
based on written sources. The knowledge that can be deduced from a study of
these sources is, therefore, foreshortened and often unconsciously or even intentionally
narrowed by those who fixed information by writing it down and who
passed the written documentation on to the following generations. Secondly, some
of these sources bear witness to the use of written documents in situations that
were generally characterized by the spoken word and by the use of the vemacular.
The written documents served as evidence for Iegitimation or for the authentic
conservation of information. Most of these documents may have been regarded as
useful to claim one’s ,rights in judicial litigations. Other written sources reflect
elements of originally‘ direct speech in the vemacular translated into Latin and
mostly embedded in situations of communication that were either fictitious or at
least reconstructed from memory. Usually it is worth looking at the structure of the
written documentation, as we gain insight into the different procedural horizons
interwoven with each other, when the documents were written down. From time to
time it is even possible to extract reliable information about solving judicial and
procedural problems from documents that turn out to be partly forged or entirely
fictitious.
With respect to written sources in generat and to the use of documents in the
context of orality, we have to ask for the circumstances out of which these sources
emerged, for their concrete use, and for the ways through which they have been
handed down to us. In this context, we should pay special attention to the interests
of the persons who were involved in these circumstances, those who functioned as
intervenientes, those who were favoured by the arrangements, and those who had
the documents written down in the end. The fact that our sources were almost
without exception written by clerics and that they retlect the world from the
perspective of the powerful causes a Iasting distortion of our perception of the
mediaeval world. Just to give an example we can refer to a prominent type of
3 Cf. Franz H. Bäum!, „Verschriftlichte Mündlichkeil und vermündlichte Schriftlichkeit,“ in
Ursula Schaefer, ed., Schriftlichkeil im frühen Mittelalter (Tübingcn: Narr, 1993), pp. 254-
266.
TRACES OF ÜRALlTY IN WRITTEN CONTEXTS 145
source: Whoever tries to interpret royal charters from the perspective of the
supplicants and of the recipients of these charters or from the perspective of those
who were affected by the arrangements, will make astonishing observations, ask
new questions and answer these questions in a way that differs from the explanations
given in traditional manuals of constitutional and administrative history.
While royal charters are generally interwoven with the dignity of royal pathos and
contain only the filtered and edited results of judicial and administrative
controversies and decisions, normally we do not learn much about how these decisions
were taken and what controversies preceded them. The influence of the
people in attendance, the anonymous and mute populus, is almost completely
ignored in this kind of source. In reality, judicial and administrative decisions
might often have been preceded by discussions and controversies that did not leave
any traces in the written documentation. The findings of decisions, judgements and
Sentences should nevertheless be seen as a complex process involving people and
groups with common interests who had to make compromises, who had to integrate
even the accuser and the defendant, and in the end to reconcile the community
as a whole.4
Of course, we should be careful not to awaken anachronistic ideas, but when
we combine the pieces of information scattered in the written sources we get the
impression that the notion of the mediaeval world as depicted in the preceding
explanations is thoroughly well-founded. On the basis of these generat Observations
it should be much easier to go into further detail. In the following we
will restriet ourselves to the analysis of some selected documents from the 12th
century, as these sources automatically stimulate questions concerning the
problems and difficulties indicated above.
Count Bertbold of Hamm as advocatus of the monastery of Prüm (ca. 1100) –
oral traditions vs. written evidence
We will start our investigation with the analysis of a document from the very
beginning of the 12’h century. This document draws our attention to some of the
general problems that were outlined above. lt reflects the guarreis between the
monastery of Prüm in the High Lothringian duchy and a local nobleman, called
Berthold of Hamm (Bertoldus de Harn), who functioned as the monastery’s
advocate (Latin advocatus!German ‚Vogt‘).5 Dietrich von Gladiss, who published
4 Cf. Hanna Vollrath, „Fürstenurteile im staufisch-welfischen Konflikt von 1 1 38 bis zum
Privilegium Minus. Recht und Gericht in der oralen Rechtswelt des früheren Mittelalters,“ in
Kar!. Kroeschell and A. Cordes, eds., Funktion und Form. Quellen- und Methodenprobleme
der millefalterliehen Rechtsgeschichte (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1 996), pp. 39-62.
5 Cf. Die Urkunden Heinrichs IV I Heinrici IV. Diplomata, part li (1077- 1 1 06), ed. Dietrich von
Gladiss (Weimar: Böhlau, 1 959), pp. 647-650, n. 476 [DHIV 476] (ca. 1 1 02- 1 1 04) (edition
according to the liber aureus of the monastery of Prüm, fol. 80′). Cf. also Hanna Vollrath,
„Rechtstexte in der oralen Rechtskultur des früheren Mittelalters,“ in Michael Borgolte, ed.,
Mittelalterforschung nach der Wende (Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft [N.S.J 20), (München,
1995), pp. 3 1 9-348, pp. 332-334, and pp. 344-345, Ernst Pitz, „Diplom und Registereintrag.
146 DETLEV KRAACK
the document in the edition ofthe charters of the emperor Henry IV in the series of
the Monurnenta Gerrnaniae Historica, characterized it as „a document of doubtful
validity.“ It seems to be a kind of draft for a royal charter written by a scribe from
the monastery of Prüm, as we may conclude from the intitulatio and from the
detailed narratio of the document. Taking this into consideration it is an important
fact that the document has been handed down to us only indirectly in a cartulary of
the monastery, the farnaus liber aureus from the 12’h century. The validity and the
authenticity of the document as a whole may be doubted, because some elements
that can normally be found in the eschatocol, the concluding part of a royal charter,
like a Iist of witnesses, other means of corroboration or authentication, and the
dating are not given in this copy. Nevertheless, the document can be dated indirectly
to the years between 1102 and 1104 as we may summise from the persans
mentioned in its context. We do not know whether the monks had special reasons
not to present their draft to the royal chancery to get it drawn up in the form of an
authentic royal charter.6 Perhaps this project failed as it was outstripped by the
violent revolt of the king’s son and Henry IV’s deposition by his own son in
1104/05 and by the following troubles.
Even though the document as a whole doubtlessly reflects the conflict from
the monastic point of view and should, therefore, be looked upon critically, the
controvers dealing with procedural questions reported in it may be regarded as
authentic because the monks had no reason to invent or add these passages.7
In the years before the court trial reflected in this document there had been
repeated quarrels between the monastery of Prüm and Berthold, count of Hamm,
who functioned as the administrating advocate of the monastery’s territory as we
may conclude from the narratio of the document. The clerics chose legal
Über normative und prozessuale Interpretation von Papst- und Königsurkunden und ihre
Abhängigkeit von der Form der Überlieferung,“ in Christel Meier, Dagmar Hüpper, and
Hagen Keller, eds., Der Codex im Gebrauch (München: Fink, 1996), pp. 101-107, p. 106; and
Bemhard Diestelkamp and E. Rotter, Die Urkundenregesten zur Tätigkeit des dewschen
Königs- und Hofgerichts bis 1451, vol. I: Die Zeit von Konrad I. bis Heinrich VI., 911-1197.
(Köln and Wien: Böhlau, 1988), pp. 114-116, n. 164. With special regard to the constitutional
problems reflected in the docurnenl cf. Hans Hirsch, Die hohe Gerichtsbarkeil im deuTschen
Mittelalter (Prag: Verlag der Gesellschaft zur Förderung Deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und
Literatur in·Böhmen, 1922, reprint Köln and Graz: Böhlau, 1958), pp. 135-137; and Egon
Boshoff, „Untersuchungen zur Kirchenvogtei in Lothringen im 10. und II. Jahrhundert,“
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifung für Rechtsgeschichte (Kanonistische Abteilung), 66 (1979), pp.
55-119,pp.l07-108.
6 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, pp. 647-648: „Mit welcher Absicht diese Aufzeichnung ursprünglich
hergestellt wurde, läßt sich mit Sicherheit nicht sagen. Von einem ausgefertigten Diplom kann
man bei dem gänzlichen Mangel eines Eschatokolls nicht ohne weiteres sprechen. … , dürfte
die Annahme auf einen vom Ernpfarrger verfaßten Entwurf, der der Kanzlei zur Unterfertigung
und Beglaubigung eingereicht werden sollte, die größte Wahrscheinlichkeit fiir sich haben.
Die Gleichzeitigkeit der Aufzeichnung möchten wir jedenfalls nicht in Abrede stellen.“
7 Cf. Vollrath, „Rechtstexte,“ p. 333. Hanna Vollrath argues that the charter is a very indicative
source and especially with regard to the contemporary description of the judicial procedures of
high validity.
TRACES OF ÜRALITY IN WRITTEN CONTEXTS 147
proceedings and brought an action against Berthold to the royal court.8 They
complained about his inappropriate administration and about his offences against
the monastery and the people of its territory. King Henry IV surnmoned the Iitigant
parties to a session of the royal court. They were cited to Münstereifel (novum
monasterium), the central place in the north-east of the monastery’s territory,
where the court session would be held under the presidency of the king’s son
Henry (who succeeded his father some years later), and in the presence of high
ecclesiastical dignitaries and secular princes of the realm.9 At the beginning of the
trial Wolfram, the abbot of Prüm monastery, brought forward an extended complaint
about Berthold’s offences. With respect to the mutual relationship between
orality and literacy it should be underlined that Wolfram’s proclamatio is inserted
into our document in direct speech as if it was held in Latin.10
To corroborate what he brought forward, Wolfram presented a series of
royal charters that granted the monastery’s privileges. The series of these documents,
which were read to the public and interpreted, went back to Carolingian
times and started with a charter of Pippin the Younger, the father of Charlemagne.
11 The claims of the monastery’s party were made known to the public.12 It
8 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, in the narratio of the docwnent: … notum esse volumus, quod Wolf­
rammus abbas Prumiensis et congregatio sancti Salvatoris dolens abbatiam iniusta
advocatorum et subadvocatorum, maxime autem Bertoldi de Harn et jiliorum eius insolentia
vexari, sepe clementiam nostram et principum noscrorum id ipsum lacrimabiliter proclamans
adiit, donec … (p. 648, I. 19-23).
9 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio of the document: .. . , donec timore et amore dei et
isa iusticia compulsijilium naserum Henricum regem et episcopum Traiectensem, Cuonradum
et Henricum comitem palatinum aliosque quamplurimos principes nostros convenire ad
novum monasterium [= Münstereifelj ipsius abbatis precepimus pro iusticia inter eos
examinanda et iniusticia prohibenda (p. 648, I. 23-26).
1° Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio of the document: … Ventum est ad diem, abbas
irerum et fratres sui eandem proclamationem jacium, quam huic carte iussimus annotari,
quatenus ex iniusticie consideratione clarius eluceat decretum iusticie: ‚Deo et vobis, domini
et principes, proclamamus, quod advocatorum et subadvocatorum, maxime vero Bercdolji de
Harn etfiliorum eius tanta super familiam et res ecclesie sancti Salvatoris excrevit insolentia,
ut ipse B[ertholdusj. publice exactores suos super loca et viilas nostras ponat er servicium
suum per totum annum, ubi neque censum neque ullam omnino excepta advocatia
proprietatem habet vel habuit. prout sibi videtur, constituat et quasi debitum exigat. Unde
coacti exactores sui loca nostra predonum vice circu[m}euntes placitis iustis et iniustis
peticionibus minis, postremo invasionibus ad ultimam homines nostros pauperiem redegeruni
et exire de patria et hereditate sua mendicandi coegerunt causa. Super hec vero omnia ipse
hospitia in curtibus nostris et in domibus jamiliarum singulis, quotiens vult, accipit, post jilii
eius et servi, deinde subadvocati et venatores de rebus nostris et familie, quantum sibi et suis
libet, singuli accipientes et ex toto abbatiam devastantes ‚ (p. 648, I. 26-39).
11 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio of the docwnent: … Proclamatione facta, jilio
nostro et regni principibus cause abbatis compatientibus er indignatione et clamore B[ertholdi}
et jiliorum eius crudelissimam iniusticiam quasi uno ore increpantibus, lectis etiam et
expositis in audientia cunctorum omnibus Iestamenfis signatis a Pippini regis tempere ipsius
ecclesie conditoris, que predicte ecclesie et advocatorum officium et iura continebant, … (p.
648, I. 39-43).
12 Cf. Peter Johanek, „Zur rechtlichen Funktion von Traditionsnotiz, Traditionsbuch und früher
148 DETLEV KRAACK
is easy to imagine that it was not only the fact that the clerics were able to bring the
charters forward, but that it was also the reading out itself which can be seen as a
public performative act and as a constitutive element of legal proceedings.13 Apart
from this remarkable information we should focus our attention on the reaction of
Berthold, who was confronted with this documentary evidence and with its presentation
to the audience. He laughed about the charters and rejected them because
he did not accept them as pieces of evidence. As every literate person could easily
prepare such documents and bring them forward, he demanded the oral consultation
of local witnesses instead.14 In addition, Berthold declared that he hirnself
would take over the task of designating these witnesses. According to his opinion
this procedure would guarantee an adequate judgement, because only local people
could have the special knowledge requested in this context. He proclaimed that he
would only accept the results of such an oral inquisition.15
Before the participants of the court session could go into further detail and
discuss single aspects of the abbot’s complaint they had to deal with this procedural
question. In this context the question of whether they would accept written
evidence or restriet themselves to oral inquisition played a decisive roJe. As we
would have expected, the abbot and his brethren rejected Berthold’s proposals and
wanted to particip􀄓te at least on equal terms in the designation of the witnesses.
After a while, however, they accepted the count’s requirements, probably because
they did not want to risk a total failure of the trial.16
The members of the royal court could not start to deal with the complaint of
the accusing party until they had fixed the procedure for the trial. According to the
detailed account of our document, Berthold of Hamm seems to have had a very
Siegelurkunde,“ in Peter Classen, ed., Recht und Schrif/ im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke,
1977), pp. 1 3 1 – 162, p. 132: The documents were made ‚landeskundig‘ (known to the
local people).
13 Cf. Johanek, „Zur rechtlichen Funktion,“ p. !55, with regard even to the time of Henry IV: „Es
ist noch nicht die Urkunde, die die Partner eines Rechtsgeschäftes bindet, sondern immer noch
in erster Linie die Rechtshandlung und ihre Publizität, ihre Landeskundigkeit.“
14 Cf. Vollrath, „Rechtstexte,“ p. 324, regarding the difficulties to integrale the written evidence
fixed in charters into the oral world of medieval judicial life.
15 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio ofthe document: … , ipse [sc. Bertholdus} adhuc in
pertinacia objirmatus er irridens testamenta dicensque penna cuiuslibet quelibet notare
passet, non ideo suwn ius amittere I deberet. fandem ad sue defensionis arma confugiens ius
voluntarium solus hoc modo sibi constituit, ut servientes sepe fate ecc/esie. quos ipse eligeret
et nominaret, ius i/lud. quod ipsi dicerent et sacrarnento jirmarent, i/lud ipse probaret er
sequeretur. . .. (p. 648, I. 43 – p. 649, l. 3).
16 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio of the document: . . . Huic conditioni abbas primwn
fortiter repugnavit; videbatur enim esse pericu/osum, ut re/ictis testamentis sequeretur
sacramenturn eorum. qui datis manibus illi ve/ ab eo suscepto benejicio propter Iimorem sui
vel rerum suarum i/li adherebant. Victus tarnen eius importunitote et amicorwn vix suscepto
consi/io hac conditione concessit. ut eorum. qui iuraturi erant. dimidiarn parlern ipse abbas,
dirnidiarn parlern B{ertholdus] nominaret. Qui rursum. nisi solus ipse cunctos norninaret.
propositurn reprobavit. abbate denique satis faciente inportunitati eius consensu suo, … (p.
649, I. 3-9).
TRACES OF ÜRALITY IN WR!TTEN CONTEXTS 149
strong position in the first part of the trial, while the examination of the local witnesses
brought forward results that weakend the position of the advocate. These
witnesses enforced the position of the abbot and the monastery’s party. They
restricted the activities of the administrator to a fixed nurober of court sessions, and
in addition they fixed his revenues and reduced his competences as well.17
These results seem to be a complete reversal of Berthold’s strong position at
the beginning of the trial. Apart from that it is improbable that the count did not
know what would follow when he proposed the procedure for the trial. From this
point of view the case as a whole remains mysterious, but it reveals that the
members of the royal court aimed to take local conditions into account and to
accept local people’s decisions. As we will see, the story had not yet come to an
end. Although Berthold and his sons waived their claims and confirmed their
renunciation, the litigations continued even in the generation of Berthold’s successors,
when the problern was brought to court again and when the present document
was written down. To repel the advocate’s claims and to restriet his rights in a
legal way (legali iure) the case required a public act in front of the king’s court and
the consensus of the curia. There was, however, no need to write anything down.
The abbot of the monastery chose some kind of interim provisional solution that
was suitable to neutralize the position of Berthold’s successor by stirring up the
concurrence of one of his relatives. He engaged the brother of the former advocate
to take over the monastery’s administration. Until the ‚final‘ hearing of the case
this seems to have been a suitable way to claim the monastery’s rights. From this
perspective we have to ask why the public renunciation of Berthold and his sons at
Münstereifel was not binding. 1 8
With regard to the generat questions raised at the beginning of this study we
should, therefore, take a closer Iook at the procedure of the trial. It has to be
underlined that the series of royal charters presented by the abbot as a piece of
evidence was not accepted by the accused and that even the presider of the royal
17 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden, still in the narratio of the document: … , quos B[ertholdus] nominavit,
processerunt et, sicut unquam rectius a maioribus suis acceperant vel ad memoriam verius
revocare poterant, advocatorum iura per singulas viilas diligenter predixerunt et predicta
reverenter sacramento sanxerunt. Hec sunt, que predixerunt et iuraverunt: Nullus subadvocatus
… (p. 649, I. 9-12) . Hec sunt advocatorum iura et offlcia et hec condicio inter
predictum abbalern Wolframmwn Prwnie et ipsius loci advocatum Berthdolfum de Harn e/
filios eius et omnes post eos advocatos afilio quidem nostro et principibus nostris constituta et
/audata, a servientibus alllern ecc/esie iurata, que omnia ab ipso filiisque suis bene sunt
laudata, sed in multis postea male servata (p. 650, I. 10-14).
18 Cf. Gladiss, Urkunden: Post mortem enim patris iunior fi/ius in beneficio eius successit, qui
rursum proiecto iure per vias patris incessit. Quod iterum abbas sepius proc/amans et quasi
inconsolabiliter dolens, cum aliud non poterat, donum beneficii fratri eius B. videlicet usque
ad audientiam nostram nostrorumque principum protraxit, ubi pertinatia tanti mali patris et
fratris ab omnibus, qui aderant, intellecla cum iure /ega/i negare ei passet. Consilia tarnen
nostro rogatuque non modico ibi in presentia nostra recepit, sed tali conditione ipso laudante
et vix impetrante, ut, si quicquam de his. que laudata a patre et a servientibus ecclesie fuerant
iurata, ipse vel quisquam post eum infringeret, non aliud iudicium quam proscriptionem tocius
beneficii, quod ab ecclesia teneret et exspectaret (p. 650, I. 14-22).
150 DETLEV KRAACK
court agreed to what Berthold brought forward and shared his point of view. Apart
from that we learn that written documents presented to the court were brought
forward to the public by showing them, reading them, and interpreting them, a
threefold act of visual and acustic judicial performance. Nevertheless, the charters
were rejected and not accepted as legal pieces of evidence. The oral examination of
local witnesses was prefered instead, and we may assume that the contemporaries
could even have expected this procedure. One may ask why the abbot and his
brethren brought forward the series of royal documents when they should have
known that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove their claims in this
way. 19 As the vivid description of the trial’s procedure fixed in the liber aureus is
interwoven with the interpretation of its results from the point of view of the
monastery, it turns out to be difficult to differentiale between the different
horizions of the document’s narratio. Although it seems to be impossible to
answer central questions concerning this trial I would like to present some further
reflections about the case that might bring our interpretation forward.
A closer Iook at the relationship between oral and written elements shows
that the report of the quarrels over the administration of the monastery’s territory
as reflected in our document comprises at least three chronological Ievels. The
point of reference for all that follows consists of the repeated complaints of the
clerics about Berthold’s administration. This constellation provides the background
for the session of the royal court at Münstereifel, which is reported in detail. In this
context the clerical scribe Iets the abbot bring forward an impressive proc/amatio
in direct speech, and he informs those who read the document about the procedure
and the results of the trial. It is not until the end of the document that we learn that
it was written down at least some years later when the abbot and his brethren tried
to restriet the administrator’s competences and to reject the presumptuous claims
of Berthold’s son, who succeeded the father in his office. In this Situation it may
have seemed to be sufficient to the clerics to have their own rights and the
competitive claims of the administrator written down in the way these rights were
attested by the local witnesses. In this respect our example resembles cases
presented in the sturlies of Peter Johanek about the judicial relevance of written
evidence in monastic traditions, cartularies and copy books.20 According to
Johanek‘ s observations; royal charters were not the only kind of written evidence
that could be brought forward in legal trials. The transitional period of time that
passed before written documentation made its way and replaced oral evidence was
19 Cf. with a careful answer given to this question Vollrath, „Rechtstexte,“ p. 338: „Daß Klöster
und Kirchen sich Urkunden ausstellen ließen, weil sie hofften, damit ihre Rechte besser
sichern zu können, besagt keinesfalls, daß diese Rechtssicherung im Streitfall auch
funktionierte. Urkunden waren der Versuch, Autorität ohne physische Präsenz aus der –
zeitlichen oder räumlichen – Feme auszuüben. Sie stellten in sich den Versuch der Transpersonalität
dar. Die gesamtkulturellen Umstände des früheren Mittelalters mit den personenvcrbandlichen,
primär kleinräumigen Ordnungen standen diesem Versuch entgegen. Die
Annahme, daß Urkunden, wie alle anderen Rechtstexte auch, eine ne1menswerte Funktion in
der oralen Rechtswelt gehabt haben, scheint daher problematisch.“
2° Cf. Johanek, •·zur rechtlichen Funktion.“
TRACES OF ÜRALITY IN WRITTEN CONTEXTS 1 5 1
much more extended than one would have expected. Apart from that, the accurate
account of the abbot’s proclamatio and the detailed description of the rights and
duties of the administrator (advocatorum iura et ojjicia), which is given for the
single possessions and villages of the monastery’s territory, indicate that there had
perhaps been some written documents before a clerical scribe took over the task of
writing down the draft that was handed down to us in the liber aureus. We may
assume that these documents contained some significant pieces of inforrnation, but
after their contents had been included in the report of the present document there
was no reason to keep them any longer. We do not know anything about the form
of these means of temporary memory nor do we know the Janguage in which they
were written down. In this context one should perhaps ask once again for the
reason why the clerics bad the matter written down in the form of such a document.
Perhaps a closer Iook at contemporary forged documents and other forms of
„pragmatical writing“ that were used at the monastery of Prüm at that time can
help to answer these questions.21
A court trial presided over by Henry the Lion, duke of ßavaria, in 1176
as reflected in the traditions of the convent of Reichersberg
The vivid picture ofthe mutual interdependence between orality and literacy
as reflected in the document from the monastery of Prüm can be completed by
additional material from chronicles and documentary sources of the 12’h century. In
this context I would like to focus the attention on a passage from the written
documentation (Traditionskodex) of the convent ofReichersberg on the Inn river.22
This document resembles the narratio ofthe document that came down to us in the
liber aureus of the monastery of Prüm. The document reflects a quarre! between
the convent and the noble family von Stein (Latin de Lapide) about the exchange
of some possessions. The quarre! was settled by arbitration (Latin per
misericordiam I contemporary German nach Minne) at a session of the ducal court
21 Cf. for example a lictitious ‚charter of Charlemagne‘ concerning the advocate’s rights („Kar!
der Große erneuert und bestätigt dem Kloster Prüm die Bestimmungen über die Rechte und
Pflichten der Vögte in den Villen Revin, Fymai und Fepin an der Maas“) – which was forged
in the f􀃹rst half of the r2′“ century and which has also come down to us copied in the liber
aureus of the monastery of Piiirn (fol. 60′); Die Urkunden Pippins, Kar/manns und Kar/s des
Großen I Pippini, Carlomanni. Caroli Magni Diplomata, ed. Engelbert Mühlbacher (Hannover:
Hahn, 1906, reprint München: Menumenta Germaniae Historica, 1 979), pp. 378-388, n.
261 (Bribuaria [sie!], 800 December 10). – Concerning the connection between the forged
document and the trial at Münstereifel cf. also Boshoff, „Untersuchungen.“ p.l 07, note 246:
„Ob die auf den Namen Karls des Großen geflilschte Vogteiregelung … in Zusammenhang mit
diesem Konflikt [i.e. the conflict betwcen the monastery and Berthold of Hamm] entstanden
ist, wäre noch zu untersuchen.“
22 Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen, ed. K. Jordan (Weimar: Böhlau, 1949), pp. 1 6 1-163, n.
I 06 [DHdL I 06] ( 1 1 76 March 14). Cf. also Peter Classen, „Der Prozeß um Münstcur ( 1 1 54-
1 1 76) und die Regalienlehre Gerhochs von Reichersberg,“ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifung für
Rechtsgeschichte (Germanistische Abteilung), 77 (1960), pp. 324-345.
152 DETLEV KRAACK
in 1 1 76, which was held under the j urisdiction of Henry the Lion, who functionned
as duke of Bavaria at that time. In this document we find detailed information
about the court session, about the controversies between the Iitigant parties, about
gestures as weil as about procedural questions and about the role of the duke, who
presided over the trial. We are informed about written evidence that was brought
forward by the clerical party and about difficulties that were caused by local
Bavarian toponyms, when a member of Henry’s retinue, who was obviously of
Saxon origin and background, was told to read the document concemed.23 The
monastic scribe’s description of this scene does not seem spectacular, but it shows
that written evidence had to be brought to the public audience as correct and as
authentic as possible. Somebody had to read the document out loud and distinctly
to render it a relevant legal piece of evidence.
Even the examination of local witnesses was a common means of
investigation all though the 12’h century. It was proposed by Berthold of Harnm in
Münstereifel and by Henry the Lion/4 and it was directed by the emperor as well.
This can be proved by a royal charter from 1 1 5 2 in which Frederick I Barbarossa
instructed some members of his household to conduct such an investigation and to
give a written report to the royal court.25 This information gives us a better
understanding of how extensive sets of data and complex facts could be kept for a
long time, handed down to posterity or transported even by unlearned persons
without any special knowledge about the facts concemed.
Conclusion – literacy did not sirnply replace orality
To conclude, we should not surrender to the complex interdependence of
orality and literacy in j udicial circumstances. All through the 1 2’h century and even
23 Cf. Jordan, Urkunden: Qui statim ut surrexit a prandio, in auribus omnium legi fecit
privilegium, sed quia capel/anus suus. cui ad legendum oblatum erat, inpedicius legebat ob
ignorantiam prediorum. que ibi ex nomine designabantur, decanus tune eiusdem cenobii
Wicmannus iussus legit aperte et distincte ad intelligendum (p. 162, I. 13-1 7).
24 Cf. Jordan, Urkunden: Ad quam inquisitionem faciendam destinavit comitem Rapotonem,
dominum Erchenpertum, Albertum de Hut. Quod et illi statim in Pentecosten conpleverunt et
concambio adiudicatum ecc/esie confirmaverunt(p. 163, I. 30-33).
2s Cf. Die Urkunden Friedrichs I. I Friderici I. Diplomata, ed. Heinrich Appell, vol. I
(Hannover: Hahn, 1975), pp. 14-16, n. 8 [DFJ 8] ( 1 152 [April/May], Paderbom): .. . Ad
precidendas occasiones dissension11m … , misimus nuntios nostros R[icherum] decanum
Aquensem et A. scultetum et Macelinum mar[ejscalcum nostrum, qui diligenti inquisitione
perquirerent, quid iuris dominus G[oswinus] in curia Marnensi ex advocalia, que ad regnum
pertinet, habere deberet, et veritatem rei scripti a/lestatione nobis representarent (p. 15, I. 22-
28). Cf. also Diestelkamp and Rotter, Urkundenregesten. pp. 234-235, n. 304; Kar! J. Leyser,
Friedrich Barbarossa – Hof und Land, in Alfred Haverkarnp, ed., Friedrich Barbarossa.
Handlungsspielräume urzd Wirkungsweisen des Staufischen Kaisers (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke,
1992), pp. 5 1 9-530, pp. 524-525, and Timothy Reuter, „Mandat, Privileg und Regierungspraxis.
Überlegungen zur Regierungstechnik im Zeitalter Friedrich Barbarossas“ (protocol of a
lecture held to the Konstanzer Arbeitskreis, Sektion Hessen, 5. Dezember 1993 in Gießen [p.
12] – to be published).
TRACES OF ÜRALITY IN WRITTEN CONTEXTS 153
beyond it it was not necessary to write down judicial sentences and placita to
render them valid, as we may conclude from a branch of the Chronica Slavorum of
Helmold of Bosau from the second half of the 12’h century.26 Some Holzati,
members of the Saxon ethnic group that settled north of the river Eibe in the
diocese of Lübeck (Lubeca), quarreled with the bishop of Lübeck because they
refused to pay certain taxes. In the end, they succeeded in claiming their rights in
front of the court of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and they asked for a charter
that would corroborate their claim. When the members of the ducal chancery ·
demanded a certain amount of money for the document the Holzati withdrew their
request. For these illiterates written evidence had a certain significance, but it was
not worth paying such a high price for it. Nevertheless, we observe a growing
number of cases in which litigants tried to get written evidence to claim their rights
with regard to imminent quarrels. In 1 1 60, for example, Bishop Eberhard of
Samberg asked Frederick Barbarossa at a royal court held in Pavia to issue a royal
charter on the basis of a judicial decision that had been taken three years earlier in
Bamberg.27 In this whole period written documents never simply replaced oral
evidence. Both remained closely connected to each other, even until today.
26 Helmold von Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Bemhard Schmeidler, 3’d ed. (Hannover: Hahn,
1 937), lib. I, c. 92: . . . Et ne succedentium forre pontificum innovatas paterentur angarias,
rogaverunt [sc. Holzatij, hoc ducis atque pontificis sigillo jirmari. Cumque notarii iuxta
morem curie marcam requirerent auri, gens indocta resiliit, et negotium mansit imperfectum
(p. 1 8 1 , I. 2 1 -25).
27 Cf. Die Urkunden Friedrichs 1., ed. Heinrich Appell, vol. II ( 1 979), pp. 1 1 9-1 2 1 , n. 305 [DFI
305] (Bamberg, 1 1 57 July I Pavia, 1 1 60 February 14): .. . Non multo autem post. altero
videlicet anno secunde expeditionis nostre in ltaliam pene iam expleto prenominatus familiaris
noster Eberhardus Babenbergensis episcopus debitam ecclesie sue gerens so/licitudinem
nostram clementiam [Paviae] deprecatus est, ut scripto mandari preciperemus sententiam, ne
forte processu temporis memorie excideret aut minus auctoritatis haberet. Nos igitur tam per
nos quam per nobilissimos proceres ac principes nostros facti non immemores iusris
petitionibus dilecti et fidelis nostri Babenbergensis episcopi, qui pacis et belli Iernpore constanter
nobis adfuit, libenter adquievimus ac presenti adnotatione et sigilli nostri auctoritate
perpetui roboris firmitatem sententie prelibate conrulimus concordantibus in eiusdem sententie
assertione simul et attestatione, qui presenres in ipsa felicissimi nominis nostri expeditione
aderant et actioni interfuerant. Regenoldo excancellario iam archicancellario in
ltalia et adhuc Coloniensis ecclesie electo. Ottone et Friderico palatinis de Witelinespach, el
aliis quam pluribus (p. 120, I. 29-41). – Cf. also Diestelkamp and Roller, Urkundenregesten.
pp. 286-287, n. 372.
ORAL HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES
THE SPOKEN WORD IN CONTEXT
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XII
=
CEU MEDIEV ALIA
VOLU1vfE 3
Oral History of the Middle Ages
The Spoken W ord in Context
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
Krems and Budapest 200 1
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICIDSCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
niederästerreich kultur
copy editor: Judith Rasson
Cover illustration: The wife of Potiphar covets Joseph: “ … erat autem Joseph pulchra facie et
decorus apectu: post multos itaque dies iecit domina oculos suis in Ioseph et ait donni mecum.“
(“ … And Joseph was (a] goodly fperson], and weil favoured. And it came to pass after these
things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. „), Gen. 39:
6-7 (KJV). Concordantiae Caritatis, c. 1350. Cistercian abbey of Lilienfeld (Lower Austria), ms
151, fol. 244v (detail). Photo: Institut fiir Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
(Krems an der Donau).
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 Hl94 15 6 (Krems)
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published by:
and
– ISBN 963 9241 64 4 (Budapest)
-ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-
3500 Krems. Austria,
Department ofMedieval Studies, Centrat European University,
Nador utca 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary.
Printed by Printself, Budapest.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………….. 7
Michael RICHTER, Beyond Goody and Grundmann ………. . . . . . . ………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Tom PETTIIT, Textual to Oral: the Impact ofTransmission
on Narrative Word-Art …………………………………………………………………….. 1 9
Elöd NEMER!<.ENYI, Fictive Audience. The Second Person Singular in the Deliberatio ofBishop Gerard of Csanäd …………………………………………….. 3 9 Katalin SZENDE, Testaments and Testimonies. Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills in Late Medieval Hungary ……………………………. 49 Anna ADAMSKA, The Kingdom of Po land versus the Teutonic Knights: Oral Traditions and Literale Behaviour in the Later Middle Ages …………… 67 Giedre MICKÜNAITE, Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince: the Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites ………………………………… 79 Yurij Zazuliak, Oral Tradition, Land Disputes, and the Noble Community in Galician Rus‘ from the 1440s to the 1 460s ……………………………………… 88 Nada ZECEVIC, Ai􀃭tc; yA.uKeia. The Importance ofthe Spoken Word in the Public Affairs ofCarlo Tocco (from the Anonymous Chronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 108 lohn A. NICHOLS, A Heated Conversation: Who was Isabel de Aubigny, Countess of Arundel? …………………………… 1 1 7 Tracey L. BILADO, Rhetorical Strategies and Legal Arguments: ‚Evil Customs‘ and Saint-Florent de Saumur, 979- 1 0 1 1 …………………….. 1 28 Detlev KRAACK, Traces of Orality in Written Contexts. Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court as Reflected in Documentary Sources from l21h-century Germany ……… 1 42 6 Maria DOBOZY, From Oral Custom to Written Law: The German Sachsenspiegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Martha KEIL, Rituals of Repentance and Testimonies at Rabbinical Courts in the 151h Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64 Michael GOODICH, The Use of Direct Quotation from Canonization Hearing to Hagiographical Vita et Miracula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 Sylvia ScHEIN, Bemard of Clairvaux ’s Preaching of the Third Crusade and Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Michael BRAUER, Obstades to Oral Communication in tbe Mission offriar William ofRubruck among the Mongois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Elena LEMENEVA, From Oral to Written and Back: A Sermon Case Study . . . . . . . . 203 Albrecht CLASSEN, Travel, Orality, and the Literary Discourse: Travels in the Past and Literary Travels at the Crossroad of the Oral and the Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 217 Ulrich MÜLLER and Margarete SPRJNGETH, “Do not Shut Your Eyes ifYou Will See Musical Notes:“ German Heroie Poetry („Nibelungenlied“), Music, and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Jolanta SZPILEWSKA, Evoking Auditory Imagination: On the Poetics of Voice Production in The Story ofThe Glorious Resurrection ofOur Lord (c. 1580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Jens T. WOLLESEN, SpokenWords and Images in Late Medieval Italian Painting . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 257 Gerhard JARTTZ, Images and the Power of the Spoken Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Preface Oral culture played an instrumental role in medieval society.1 Due to the Iack of any direct source evidence, however, research into the functions and importance of oral communication in the Middle Ages must confront a number of significant problems. Only indrect traces offer the opportunity to analyze phenomena that were based on or connected with the spoken word. The ‚oral history‘ of the Middle Ages requires the application of different approaches than dealing with the 201h or 2 151 century. For some decades Medieval Studies have been interested in questions of orality and literacy, their relationship and the substitution of the spoken by the written word2 Oral and literate culture were not exclusive and certainly not opposed to each other.3 The ‚art of writing‘ was part of the ‚ars rhetorica‘ and writing makes no sense without speech.4 Any existing written Statement should also be seen as a spoken one, although, clearly, not every oral Statement as a written one. Authors regularly wrote with oral delivery in mind. ‚Speaking‘ and ‚writing‘ are not antonyms. It is also obvious that „the use of oral conununication in medieval society should not be evaluated … as a function of culture populaire vis-a-vis culture savante but, rather, of thc communication habits and the tendency of medieval man 1 For the late Middle Ages and the early modern period, cf. Willern Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne i1 Ia fin du moyen äge et a l’epoque moderne: reflexions de theorie et de methode,“ in Kommunialion und Alltag in Spätmillefalter und fniher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 24: „La plupart de gens vivait encore pour l’essentiel dans une culture orale et !es procedes d’appropriation des idCes passaient de prefcrence par Ia parolc dite et ecoutee, quand bien memc on ctait capable d’une Ieelure visuelle plus ou moins rudimentaire.“ 2 See Marco Mostert, „New Approaches to Medieval Communication?“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 15-37; Michael Richter, “Die Entdeckung der ‚Oralität‘ der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft durch die neuere Mediävistik,“ in Die Aktualität des Miue/alters, ed. Hans-Werner Goetz (Bochum: D. Winkler, 2000), pp. 273-287. 3 Peter Burke calls the constrnct of „oral versus literate“ useful but at the same time dangerous: idem, „Mündliche Kultur und >Druckkultur< im spätmittelalterlichen Italien,“ in Volkskultur des europäischen Spätmittelalters, eds. Peter Dinzelbacher and Hans-Dieter Mück (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1987), p. 60. 4 Michael Clanchy, „lntroduction,“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), p. 6. 8 to share his intellectual experiences in the corporate framework.“5 Oral delivery was not „the sole prerogative of any socioeconomic class. „6 For all these reasons, it is important to analyze the extent of and context, in which ’speech acts,‘ auditive effects, and oral tradition occur in medieval sources .7 Research into the use of the spoken word or references to it in texts and images provides new insight into various, mainly social, rules and pattems of the communication system. 1t opens up additional approaches to the organization and complexity of different, but indispensably related, media in medieval society, and their comparative analysis.8 The spoken word is connected with the physical presence of its ’sender.‘ Speech may represent the authenticity of the given message in a more obvious way than written texts or images. Therefore, the use of ’speech acts‘ in written or visual evidence also has to be seen in context with the attempt to create, construct, or prove authenticity. Moreover, spoken messages contribute to and increase the lifelikeness of their contents, which may influence their perception by the receiver, their efficacy and success. Being aware of such a situation will have led to the explicit and intended use and application of the spoken word in written texts and images- to increase their authenticity and importance, too. lf one operates with a model of ‚closeness‘ and ‚distance‘ of communication with regard to the Ievel of relation of ’senders‘ and ‚receivers,‘ then the ’speech acts‘ or their representation have to be seen as contributors to a ‚closer‘ connection among the participants of the communication process.9 At the same time, however, Speech might be evaluated as less official. One regularly comes across ‚oral space‘ 5 Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Commwzication in the Middle Ages (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 19. 6 Ibidem, p. 21. Cf. also Jan-Dirk Müller, „Zwischen mündlicher Anweisung und schrifilicher Sicherung von Tradition. Zur Kommunikationsstruktur spätmittelalterlicher Fechtbücher,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 400: „Offensichtlich sind schriftliche und nichtschriftliche Tradierung von Wissen weiterhin relativ unabhängig voneinander, nachdem die Schrift längst dazu angesetzt hat, lnseln der Mündlichkeil oder praktisch-enaktiver Wissensvermittlung zu erobem. Die Gedächtnisstütze kann die Erfahrung nicht ersetzen, sendem allenfalls reaktivieren. Sie ist sogar nur verständlich, wo sie auf anderweitig vermittelte Vorkenntnisse stößt.“ 7 􀆿f. W.F.H. Nicolaisen, ed., Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1995). 8 See, esp., Horst Wenzel, Hören und Sehen, Schrift und Bild. K ultur und Gedächtnis im Mittelalter (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995), passim. 9 See also Siefan Sonderegger, „>Gesprochen oder nur geschrieben?< Mündlichkeil in mittelalterlichen
Texten als direkter Zugang zum Menschen,“ in Homo Medietas. Aufsätze zu Religiosität,
Literatur und Denkformen des Menschen vom Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Festschrift
for Alois Maria Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Claudia Brinker-von der Heyde and
Niklaus Largier (Bem e\ al.: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 665: „Jedenfalls darf man sich bewußt bleiben,
daß auch in den Texten des deutschen Mittelalters die Reflexe gesprochener Sprache eine
bedeutende Schicht ausmachen, die besonders dann immer wieder hervortritt, wenn es um
einen direkten Zugang zum Menschen geht, um einVerstehen aus unmittelbarer Partnerschaft
heraus … “
9
that has become institutionalized or more official by the application of ‚written
space.‘ 10 Simultanous employment of such different Ievels and qualities of
messages must often have had considerable influence on their efficacy.11
The papers in this volume are the outcome of an international workshop that
was held in February, 2001, at the Department ofMedieval Studies, Central European
University, Budapest. Participants concentrated on problems of the occurrence,
usage, and pattems of the spoken word in written and visual sources of the
Middle Ages. They dealt with the roJe and contents of direct and indirect speech in
textual evidence or in relation to it, such as chronicles, travel descriptions, court
and canonization protocols, sermons, testaments, law-books, literary sources,
drama, etc. They also tried to analyze the function of oral expression in connection
with late medieval images.
The audiovisuality of medieval communication processes12 has proved to be
evident and, thus, important for any kind of further comparative analysis of the
various Ievels of the ‚oral-visual-literate,‘ i.e. multimedia culture of the Middle
Ages. Particular emphasis has to be put on methodological problems, such as the
necessity of interdisciplinary approaches,13 or the question of the extent to which
we are, generally, able to comprehend and to decode the communication systems
of the past.14 Moreover, the medievalist does not come across any types of sources
in which oral communication represents the main concem.15 lnstead, she or he is
confronted, at first glance, with a great variety of ‚casual‘ and ‚marginal‘ evidence.
We would like to thank all the contributors to the workshop and to this
volume. Their cooperation made it possible to publish the results of the meeting in
the same year in which it took place. This can be seen as a rare exception, at least
in the world of the historical disciplines. The head, faculty, staff, and students of
the Department of Medieval Studies of CentTal European University offered
various help and support. Special thanks go to Judith Rasson, the copy editor of
10 This, e.g., could be weil shown in a case study on thc pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela:
Friederike Hassauer, „Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeil im Alltag des Pilgers am Beispiel der
Wallfahrt nach Santiago de Compostela,“ in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher
Neuzeit, eds. Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 277-316.
11 Cf. Bob Scribner, „Mündliche Kommunikation und Strategien der Macht in Deutschland im
16. Jahrhundert,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed.
Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1992), pp. 183-197.
12 Wenzel, Hören rmd Sehen, p. 292.
13 Cf. Ursula Schaefer, „Zum Problem der Mündlichkeit,“ in Modernes Miuelalter. Neue Bilder
einer populären Epoche, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel Verlag,
1994), pp. 374 f.
14 Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne,“ p. 25: „Sommes-nous encore en mesure de
communiquer avec Ja communication de jadis?“
1􀅄 Michael Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur mündlichen
Kommunikation in England von der Mit te des elften bis zu Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts
(Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1979), p. 22.
10
this volume, who took particluar care with the texts of the many non-native
speakers fighting with the pitfalls of the English language.
Budapest, Krems, and Constance
December 200 I
Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter