Methodological Problems of a History of Everyday Life in the Early Middle Ages

Methodological Problems
of a History of Everyday Life
in the Early Middle Ages
HANS-WERNER GOETZ, HAMBURG
I
A history of everyday life has been developed by modern and contemporary
historians who have all sorts of testimonies at hand, including living
„time witnesses“. The documentation of earlier times, such as the early
Middle Ages, is extremely different. New questions ask for new methods
of investigation and criticism, a task which has not even been solved for
modern history, Iet alone for the Middle Ages. What I intend to do here
is, first, just to mention and discuss very shortly some main problems and
suggestions for solving them. 1 Second, I illustrate this with the one example
that is documentated amply comparatively speaking: the everyday life in a
monastery. I ask three questions:
1 ) What are ( or should be) the achievements or ends of a history of everyday
life?
2) What are its particular problems in regard to the early Middle Ages?
3) What methods are necessary to overcome these difficulties?
1) In Germany at least, a history of everyday life cannot Iook back upon
a long tradition, and still is a marginal branch more despised than respected
1 The following remarks rely on a former article published under the title: Geschichte
des mittelalterlichen Alltags. Theorie – Methoden – Bilanz der Forschung, in: Mensch
und Objekt im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Leben – Alltag – Kultur (Veröffentlichungen
des Instituts für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
13 = Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sitzungsberichte 568) Vienna 1990,
pp. 67-101, where the epistemological research on the history of everyday life is cited
and discussed. Instead of enumerating a long Iist of titles I simply refer to the fundamental
study by Gerhard Jaritz, Zwischen Augenblick und Ewigkeit. Einführung in
die Alltagsgeschichte des Mittelalters, Vienna-Cologne 1989, which includes an ample
bibliography.
10
by established historians. One reason for this lies in the discontinuity of
a cultural history as a discipline, unlike in Britain or other countries (and
I think it is not by chance that a new beginning by installing an institute
aligned accordingly was made in Krems in Austria). The advantage
of a rupture. however, lies in the necessity of legitimizing and consequently
refiecting any new beginning. Modern hlstory of everyday life has been developed
as a reaction against structural and theoretical history in order to
recall that man is the centre of hlstorical interest. It also bad the pretension
to pursue the „right course“. Some irritations and verbal fights have
developed out of this last, misleading claim that need not be repeated here
and should be antiquated by now:
– A „modern“ history of everyday life is concerned with the same objects
as a traditional cultural hlstory, but these are investigated in a sociohistorical
perspective.
– It is not able to dispense with theories (on the contrary) .
– It is not an alternative to structural history, but must consider its
structural conditions and study the mutual interactions. Indeed, this
is the core of a modern history of everyday life which therefore is not
necessarily a „history of private life“.
– Finally, in my opinion, it is not a new perspective capable of viewing
the whole of history from a new angle, but rather one branch in the
overall range of historical research.
The specific theme or object of a history of everyday life is a change of
pcrspertive:
– away from the great historic events towards the private world of the
individual,
– away from the important personalities towards the world of ordinary
people,
– away from the great actions towards the world of „microhistory“, within
the family, the neighbourhood, the place of settlement.
Within this frame, a history of everyday Jife inquires into active behaviour
and passive experience as weil as mental perception. Again, however, this
must be seen within the „world of the living“ („Lebenswelt“), not detached
from the surrounding conditions: that is the spatial, legal, political, social,
economic, cultural, religious and intellectual forces, and also within the
frame of the human „conceptual world“. The history of everyday life is, of
course, not a collection of anecdotes about individuals, but is interested in
11
a sort of „collective individual“; it is a „history of normality“ or „mass phenomena“
and therefore dependent on a generalization of individual cases .
Above all, this field should not content itself with describing evidence, but
should explain the way of living and its underlying connections. With such
an orientation, a history of everyday life is a highly complex field that offers
an understanding of structures and environments, allowing us to interpret
the experiences and realities of people . And, naturally, everyday life is not
static, but. like all historical objects, is constantly developing . This leads
us to the second question:
2) If these are the purposes and ends of a history of everyday life, what then
are the particular problems regarding the early Middle Ages? The main
problern is, of course, the Iack of sources or rather of adequate and clear
sources. Early medieval authors had absolutely no scholarly interest at all
in everyday life . Not only were their testimonies written for very different
purposes, but they would tend to emphasize normative intentions and ideal
concept.s rather than reality, singular and exceptional events rather than
usual and ordinary incidents. With regard to everyday reality, the contents
of our sources are therefore considerably distorted by affering an ideal, a
legal or moral norm, exceptions and highlights . Aspects of everyday life
are merely mentioned in a casual and unintentional manner, or as negation,
as the departure from an ideal or the prohibition of an unwanted practice.
Moreover, many texts and phrases are figurative and symbolic in content.
The same is true for early medieval pictures, mostly book illuminations
which are invaluable sources for the later Middle Ages, but regarding the
earlier centuries, they make a stereotypical and „spiritual“ impression.
3) Finally, I attempt to give some clues as to how to surmount these problems
and meet the requirements discussed above . The problems emerge
primarily in relation to a criticism of the sources.
a) The fact that our interests are distinct from those of the writers of our
sources requires a careful criticism of the sources which takes into account
their authors‘ actual intentions to avoid misleading conclusions.
It is therefore advisable to ask respectively three questions:
– What did the author really want to say?
– What does he teil us about everyday life?
– What conclusions can be drawn from these statements with regard
to his actual intention?
In addition, we must examine the character or genre of the sources as
12
well as its specificity. This is more important, as we often must consult
so-called „new“ sources in order to get „everyday information“, that is
genres which have been neglected so far by historians. In many cases
a specific criticism has yet to be developed.
b) With regard to the contents of described everyday realities, one must
analyse its character: does it refiect an ideal, a social or moral norm
or a fiction, or does it describe a real case ( or perhaps a supposed
reality), to use expressions coined by Gerhard Jaritz? A repeated prohibition,
for example, may indicate a very different reality (things that
are prohibited may be rather usual).
c) Regarding the „representativeness“ of a text – how „everyday“ is
it -, the latter must be examined for its general validity ( or whether
it just describes an exception) and compared with other texts. Wherever
possible, this requires quantitative analysis. Again, exceptions,
Contrasted with their opposites, may allow conclusions on normal proceedings.
The „representativeness“, however, must not be confused
with the question how „medieval“ something is. There are distinctions
to be made. We must distinguish, of course, between different
classes, sexes, ages etc.
d) Finally (and this is presumably the most difficult part to achieve) we
must ask for the meaning of our information within the totality of life,
that is we must situate it in its structural and intellectual background in
order to explain its occurrence. In this phase particularly the adoption
of historical theories is required. lt is only by observing these criteria
that we may progress from information about everyday life to a history
of everyday life. Moreover, we may even explain the „great history“
through its everyday background. Succeeding in this would be proof
of the absolute necessity and relevance of a history of everyday life.
li
This may all so und rather banal ( and should do so because the history of
everyday life is part of the historical science and therefore bound to its
methods), but it has too often been neglected in practice and, moreover,
turns out to be extremely difficult in applying. As an example, I have chosen
the everyday life in an early medieval monastery. We certainly have
much evidence on monasteries in the early Middle Ages: rules, conventions
( consuetudines) and their commentaries, capitularies and synodical
13
decrees, charters and letters, chronicles, lives and miracles of abbots and
monks. Yet, though monastic life is no doubt the best documented sector of
everyday life in the early Middle Ages,2 it is far from easy (and sometimes
impossible) to describe (let alone explain) the everyday life in a normal
early medieval monastery. To make this more obvious, I deal with just one
aspect: eating and drinking, of course, „classical“ themes of traditional
“cultural history“. Where then is the difference in a „modern“ history of
evcryday life? In space of this essay, I can give no answers; I aim to disclose
the problems.
1) Looking at the sources, the first problern is their relation to tradition.
The original source is, of course, the Rule of Saint Benedict. In chapters
39-41,3 Benedict regulates meals and drinks, but here we are already
confronted with some problems:
a) Benedict deals only with three aspects (and disregards the rest):
the tim es of the meal( s), differing according to the season, the
number of meals served (one or two, according to the season) and
the quality of the meals (two cooked meals plus fruit and vegetables
and bread and wine).
b) This is, of course, a norm ( though one that, by its choice, reflects a
certain reality), but we do not know how far it had been observed.
c) It is not understandable without taking into regard the „monastic“
intentions.
d) (with priority): Benedict’s rule had been written for Montecassino
about 540. Of course, the rule was still valid in the early Middle
Ages, indeed, it did not become compulsory for all convents until
the Reform of Benedict of Aniane in the early ninth century,
henceforth forming the „norm“ for all monasteries. Benedict’s
biographer, Ardo, writes: „Every monastery thus was reduced to
one standardized form, as if instructed by one master and in one
place, and all was given to observe one standardized measure of
2 A short bibliography can be found in: Mönchtum und Gesellschaft im Frühmittelalter,
ed. Friedrich Prinz (Wege der Forschung 312) Darmstadt 1976. Most pertinent are the
various articles written by Josef Semmler. For the traditional view of monastic life, see
Leo Moulin, La vie quotidienne des religieux au Moyen Age, Xe-XVe siede, Paris 1978.
3 The edition by Adalbert de Vogüe and Jean Neufville, La regle de Saint-Benoit I-VI
(Sources chretiennes 181-186) Paris 1971, is not complete. Cf. Regula Benedicti. Die
Benediktusregel, 1992.
14
drink, food, watch, and rhythm.“4 Yet, despite the crucial question,
whether the rule had been acknowledged in practice, different
rules remained to be used supplementally, and it was Benedict of
Aniane himself who wrote a „Concordia regularum“ comparing
the single dispositions in all rules available.5
2) Early medieval evidence has its own character, but, as with Saint Benedict’s
rule, consists mostly of sources that do not reflect an immediate
reality but are normative. The second problem, therefore, is how to
disdose reality in those norms. Saint Benedict’s rule already left
some free play (and thereby reacted to the monks‘ actual needs) when
it made the quantity of meals and drinks dependent upon the amount
of physical exercise, on age, health, the weather, and individual differences;
the existence of two meals shows that each monk could choose
according to his taste (which accordingly was being regarded). We may
conclude, therefore, that a certain discrepancy existed between the rule
and its realization from the beginning. This was extended in early medieval
sources (such as the ninth century commentary on Benedict’s
rule written by Smaragd of Saint Mihiel ) .6
Actually, the norms themselves and some narrative sources disclose
that these rules were not strictly observed. New regulations seemed
to react to infringements. Thus, in Aachen, eating between meals was
ruled out: apples and salad should be consumed only in connection
with the main meals.7 lt obviously had become usual to pass over part
of one’s food to another monk, so that Smaragd had to ban this custom
as well.8 The Council of Rome of 826 had to recall the indispensable
existence of refectories and dormitorics.9 We may conclude, therefore,
that in some places there were defects even in these basic pillars of a
4 Ardo, Vita Benedicti abbatis Anianensis 36, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 15, S. 215:
cu.nctaque monasteria ita ad formam u.nitatis redacta su.nt, acsi ab u.no magistro et in
u.no imbtterentu.r loco. Uniformis mensu.ra in potu., in cibo, in vigiliis, in modu.lationibu.s
cu.nctis observanda est tradita.
5 Migne PL 103, Sp. 701-1380.
6 Commentaria in Regulam s. Benedicti, c. 39-41, Migne PL 102, col. 873-8.
7 Legislatio Aquisgranensis c. 10, ed. Josef Semmler (Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum
ICCvi] 1) Siegburg 1963, p. 546.
8 Smaragd, Commentaria c. 39 (n. 6) col. 873.
9 MGH Capit, 1, no. 180, c. 28, p. 375.
15
regulated monastic life. Wheo the life of Joho of Gorze praised the
saint because he was able to fast for (just) two days, this cannot have
been a very widespread virtue. And even John oever dispensed with
wine because, by driokiog water, he got stomach trouble.10 A similar
cooclusioo can be drawo from Ardo’s report that Beoedict of Aoiaoe
had never eaten any meat since his conversioo.H Considering thc bias
of a Vita, this was obviously very „abnormal“.
A completely different „reality“ is shown by some narrative sources
such as Ekkehard of St. Gallen’s report of King Conrade’s visit to the
monastery.12 This report abounds with offeoces against the Rule: the
king was allowed to eat in the refectory; on the third day, everybody
ate meat aod game in the King’s aod Christ’s hooour, the monks did
not listeo to the reader, aod they disregarded the command to keep
silence; moreover, the meal was accompanied by jugglers and musicians.
Finally. the king offered a donation so that, from then on, the monks
could feast more opulently in the Easter week in his own memory.
Again, this is not the norm, but an exception, and Ekkehard may
certainly have had a moral as well as a satirical bias ( though far from
easy to grasp his intentions, it is significant that, according to his
words, nobody cared except some older brothers to whom all this was
absolutely novel) . Yet these reports warn us against believing that the
rules and norms were widely observed. In another episode Ekkehard
consequently reports of a decision of the visitator, who came to Saint
Gallen to see if rules were observed, that „the free decree of the ab bot
could grant what the monk might eat and drink“. 13 In a further satirical
story, the visitator himself, a reform abbot, was caught eating meat
clandestinely. 14
3) One of the crucial problems remains the question of the representativeness
of such reports. After all, all early medieval sources present
individual cases, referring to one monastery at a particular time, and
10 Vita Johannis Gorziensis 27, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 4, p. 344.
11 Vita Benedicti 41 (n. 4) p. 218.
12 Casus s. Galli 14/16, ed. Hans F. Haefele (Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen
Geschichte des Mittelalters 10) Darmstadt 1980, pp. 40-4.
13 Ibid. c . 105, p. 212.
14 Ibid. c. 143, p. 276-8.
16
they very rarely allow us to apply a quantitative analysis of the evidence.
Since, for lack of sources, it is extremely difficult to reconstruct
the everyday life of a „microcosm“ , that is of one monastery, in comparing
the evidence, one must observe carefully the different contexts.
4) A further. related factor is development. There were changes (Smaragd
even had to explain some expressions used by Benedict and obviously
not understood any Ionger by early medieval monks, such as
pulmentum, crapula, or hemina). Then there were adaptations. The
famous reform council of Aachen in 816, for example, allowed twice the
quantity of beer if there was no wine available.15 Significantly, some
proscriptions were mitigated: Smaragd, for example, facilitated the
fasting rules during summ er, and the canons of Aachen allowed drinks
after vespers if necessary. 16 In due course, the meals offered more variety,
and there were different sorts of bread and wine.17 Few of these
adaptations were infringements on the rule, but indicate rather a fairly
nonchalant application. ‚(We shall have to consider the reasons for this).
On the other hand, however, there were also restrictions in the context
of monastic reforms: The Council of Aachen not only prohibited the
consumation of meat of quadruped animals, but also of fowl. 18 Monks
were prohibited to participate in the banquets of laymen 19 or to eat
and drink in taverns.20 We can hardly observe, however, a straightlined
development, but rather ups and downs that are connected with
a certain kind of secularization and a subsequent monastic reform.
5) This leads us to the crucial point of advancing from a cultural history
to a history of everyday life by considering structural background
in order to explain evidence. I emphasize just two exemplary points.
a) From an ideological or abstract point of view, we must consider the
aims and purposes of a monastic lije first. An underlying sense of
15 Legislatio Aquisgranensis c. 28 (n. 7), p. 436.
16 lbid. c. 20, p. 436.
17 Cf. Gerd Zimmermann, Ordensleben und Lebensstandard. Die Cura Corporis in den
Ordensvorschriften des abendländischen Hochmittelalters (Beiträge zur Geschichte des
alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens 32) Münster 1973, pp. 37-87.
18 Legislatio Aquisgranensis c. 8 (CCM 1, nr. 7) p. 546.
19 Council of Reisbach a. 800, c. 24, MGH Conc. 2, p. 210.
2° Capitula Ansegisi 1,14, MGH Capit. 1, p. 399.
17
the normative evidence can be properly conceived only from this
perspective. On the one hand, the sotuces aimed at regulating
the community life, the vita communis, on the other, they derived
from monastic endeavours and ideals that were linked with ascetic
and religious purposes. Clear examples for this are the fasting regulations,
the prohibition to eat meat or, to a certain degree, the
different order of meals between Easter and Whitsuntide, in summer
and winter. Another example of a religious ( and at the same
time social) purpose is the proscription that the monks should
not fast on Sundays and feasts, but rather eat more in honour of
the Saviour (as a counterpart to the fasting regulations).21 Early
medieval customs regulated the entry into the refectory and the
behaviour during and after meals.22 The Memoriale I from Aniane
delivered a strict order of the appropriate times which were
announced by the sound of a cymbalum, of how to enter the room
( quickly and orderly, with folded hands, saluting the cross ), of the
seating arrangements ( according to the ordo), the beginning of the
meals according to a strict ceremony, and its sequence. There is
a similarly detailed proscription for drinking (with bowing before
the Cross and before the abbot).23 The Master’s Rule regulated
not only the number of drinks but demanded a prayer before and
after each drink.24 Smaragd, in his cornmentary, says that the
meal should not begin before the benediction of the abbot.25 Such
regulations are partly due to discipline ( om first aspect). But
apart from that, the monastic meals were organized as a ceremony
meant to hold the cornmunity together and remind it of
its primary vocation. And yet, these ceremonies were a refiection
not merely of a monastic ideal, but also of a common social
procedure, even in the secular world. In several articles, Gerd
21 The Master’s Rule prescribed three or four dishes on Sundays, Isidor allowed even
light meat.
22 Cf. Ordo regularis of Montecassino c. 4-5, ed. Thomas Leccisotti, CCM 1 (n. 7) p.
102.
23 Memoriale I, c. 5,11-14, ed. Claude Morgand, ibid. pp. 254–7.
24 Cf. Benedict of Aniane, Concordia regularum (n. 5) col. 1132-8.
25 Smaragd c. 39 (n. 6) col. 873.
18
Althoff has emphasized the social and even political importance
of common meals in Ottonian times as a means to establish and
confirm fraternity and friendship.26 Of no minor importance were
the symbolic meanings. Smaragd even gives a religiously symbolic
explanation for the restricted use of wine: wine is bad (he says)
because Noah, who remained unconquered by the waters, was afterwards
defeated by the wine (how much more, Smaragd warned,
would this be true for a weak monk)Y Eating and drinking in a
monastery was certainly more than mere intake of food; it was determined
by religious, monastic, social, and disciplinary concerns,
though again, contrasting mental and social norms with reality, it
is doubtful t.hat such thinking really was present in the heads of
all the monks during their meals.28
b) No less important in understanding the proscriptions on meals
and drinks is the material background of the monastic site29 and
of monastic economy. Though we are inclined to consider medieval
convents as belanging to the riebest landowners this is, of course,
not true in every single case. On the contrary, there are many examples
of bad times and decline. Indeed, the monastic meals were
dependent on the situation of supplies. Smaragd teaches that the
monks should never demand more than the abbot can grant according
to the ·’strength of the monastery“. 30 Adalhard of Corbie,
26 Gerd Althoff, Der fricden-, bündnis- und gemeinschaftsstiftende Charakter des Mahles
im früheren Mittelalter, in: Essen und Trinken in Mittelalter und Neu zeit, ed. Irmgard
Bitsch, Trude Ehlert u. Xenj a von Ertzdorff, Sigmaringen 1990, pp. 13-25; Id., Verwandte,
Freunde und Getreue. Zum politischen Stellenwert der Gruppenbindungen im
früheren Mittelalter, D armstadt 1990, pp. 203-11.
27 Smaragd c. 40 (n. 6) col. 876.
28 A different purpose of some regulations was the care for the monks‘ health. For
example, after blood-letting monks were allowed to eat and drink how much they wanted;
cf. Benedict of Aniane, Collectio Capitularis c. 7, ed. Josef Semmler, CCM 1 (n. 7) p.
518.
29 The farnaus plan of St. G all gives a detailed image o f a refectory, with benches all
along the walls, two tables at the lang sides, a seperate table o f the abbat and a small
one for guests as well as the reading-desk in the middle of the room; cf. Zimmermann
(n. 17) pp. 322-3.
30 Smaragd c. 40 (n. 6) col. 876.
19
in his Statuta, took great efforts to explain how many bushels his
monastery should receive each year from the villages and from the
mllls, and how much bread for how many monks could be made
from this. 31 The income, however, should not only suffi.ce for the
monks, but also for prebendaries, vassals, scholars, clerics and
laymen, and, of course, for feeding the poor. In his Life of Saint
Benedict ( of Aniane ), Ardo relates that, during a time of famine,
the abbat ordered to reduce the monks‘ ration; afterwards, the
monks themselves voluntarily dispensed with part of their ration
in order to help the poor; as a consequence, some of them even
died of hunger.32 (Of course, this is told as a praiseworthy exception.)
There are other examples of temporary menaces. The Life
of Alcuin reports of great Iosses because merchants filled the wine
boxes with sand and water,33 and Letald of Micy complained that
Bishop Ermentarius desecrated the monastery and distributed its
possessions to his vassals so that the monks of Micy themselves
received only a small bread, a handful of vegetables and almost
no wine.34 There may have been times when even fish was lacking
on feasts. 35 Thus, life in a monastery depended on econornic resources
as weil as the organizational abilities of the abbat and his
functionaries. Seerningly banal problems such as the real worth of
the medieval measures and weights become decisive once we try
to find out the actual quantity of food of a single monk.36
These are only a few examples to illustrate some of the problems one must
take into account. Open questions remain. Is the monks‘ food, for example,
31 Adal l1ard of Corbie, Statuta c. 3 (De annona) , ed. Josef Semmler, CCM 1 (n. 7) pp.
375-8.
32 Vita Benedicti c. 7 (n. 4) p. 204.
33 Vita Alcuini 17, ed. Wilhelm Arndt, MGH SS 4, p. 193.
34 Letald, Liber miraculorum S. Maximini 4,23, Migne PL 137, col. 807-8.
35 Wandalbert of Prüm, Miracula s. Goaris 8, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 1 5 ,
p. 366, reports such a Iack of fish exactly when Abbot Asuerus o f Prüm visited the
monastery of Saint Goar. (A miracle saved the „meal“ at that time.)
36 Cf. the controversy between Michel Rouche, La faim a l’epoque carolingienne: essa.i
sur quelques types de rations alimentaire, Revue historique 250, 1973, pp. 295-320, and
Jean-Claude Hocquet, Le pain, le vin et lajuste mesure a la table des moines carolingiens,
Annales ESC 40, 1985, pp. 661-690.
20
a pa.rticular monastic phenomenon or just a reflection of the contemporary
social habits of that time? In comparison, is it to be considered opulent
or frugal? How do we explain the motives for the monks‘ diverging from
the rulc, and is this a cornmon factor? There is still a long way to go
until we know what eating and drinking in a monastery really meant and
how far i t differed from other ways of life, but at least, by asking the right
questions, we become more and more conscious of how to get there. lt is
only by considering such methodological factors as discussed above that we
shall succeed in turning from a cultural description to an explanation of the
specific character of an everyday life.
2 1
MED IUM AEVUM
QUOTIDIANUM
30
KREMS 1994
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Titelgraphik Stephan J.T ramer
Satz und Korrektur: Birgit Kar! und Gundi Tarcsay
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: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H.,
Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort 7
PAPERS DELIVERED AT THE l!IITERNATIONAL MEDIEVAL
Co:-:GREss, LEEDs 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
HA:-.15- Vi/ER:’\‘ ER G OETZ, Methodological Problems of a History
of Everyday Life in the Early Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
GERHARD JARITZ, Methodological Aspects of the History
of Everyday Life in the Late Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
KATHARINA SLVION-MUSCHEID, Gerichtsquellen und Alltagsgeschichte
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
DOROTHEE RIPPMANN, Alltagsleben und materielle Kultur
im Spiegel von Wirtschaftsquellen: Materielle Kultur und
Geschlecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
DIE VIELFALT DER D INGE: 10. Internationaler Kongreß veranstaltet
von Medium Aevum Quotidianum und vom Institut
für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit.
R<’siim<‚cs der Vorträge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
􀀭UR�1AC\‘ J . G . POUNDS, The Multiplicity of Things: the
Hist.orical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
HELMt:T HtJ!\DSBICHLER, Sachen und Menschen. Das Kon-
Z<‚pt Realienkunde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
BARBARA SCHULKMANN, Sachen und Menschen: Der Beitrag
der archäologischen Mittelalterforschung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
JOHN MORELAND, Theory in Medieval Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
BERNWARD DENEKE, Sachkulturforschuug in der modernen
Volkskunde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
FRED KASPAR. Das mittelalterliche Haus als öffentlicher
und privater Raum 75
5
PETER JEZLER, Mittelalterliche „Kunst“ und der öffentliche
und privat.f‘ Raum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
FRANZ VERHAEGHE, Medieval Social Networks: The Gontribution
of Archaeological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
J OZSEF LASZLOVSZKY, Archaeological Research into the Social
Structure of the Late Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
CHRISTOPHER DYER , Social aspects of medieval material
culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
GÖRA!’\ DAHLBÄCK, Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte der materiellen
Kultur im spätmittelalterlichen Skandinavien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
DucciO BALESTRACCI, The Regulation of „Salus Publica“
in Medieval Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
SVEN ScHÜTTE, Der archäologische Befund als Quelle der
Verwirklichung städtischer Normen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
KATHARINA SIMON-MUSCHEID, Materielle Kultur des Mittelalters.
Ein Spiegel der Normen handwerklicher Produktion?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
HEIKO STEUER, Archäologie und Realität mittelalterlichen
Alltagslebens? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
JEAN-CLAUDE SCHMITT‘ Le soulier du Christ ou le reel
transfigure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Other Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
REZENSIONEN:
HausGEschichten. Bauen und Wohnen im alten Hall und
seiner Katharinenvorstadt – Ausstellung u. Katalog zur Stadtarchäologie
und Stadtgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg (Helga
Schüppert) .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 100
Spannungen und Widersprüche. Gedenkschrift für Frantisek
Graus (Brigitte Rath) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Andnis Pal6czi Horvath, Petscherregen Kumanen Jassen.
Steppenvölker im mittelalterlichen Ungarn (Marina Mundt) 107
6
Vorwort
Das vorliegende Heft widmet sich zwei Anlässen: dem International Medieval
Congress. Leeds 1994, an dem Medium Aevum Quotidianum zwei Sektion(‚
n ausrichtete, und dem Kongreß Die Vielfalt der Dinge, den Medium
Aevum Quotidiamtm zusammen mit dem Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters
und der frühen Neuzeit der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
im Oktober 1994 in Krems veranstaltet. Zum einen kommen vier
überarbeitete Vorträge der Tagung von Leeds zum Abdruck. Zum anderen
werden Resümees der Vorträge der Kremser Veranstaltung präsentiert, die
auch den Kongreßbesuchern als Einführung dienen sollen.
Im “ ovember 1994 wird als Sonderband unserer Reihe Elke Schlenkrichs
„Alltag der Lehrlinge im sächsischen Handwerk, 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert“
publiziert werden. Gleichfalls noch im heurigen Jahr wird Heft 31
von Medium A e·vum Quotidianum erscheinen.
Gerhard Jaritz
7
PAPERS
DELIVERED AT THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIEVAL CONGRESS,
LEEDS 1994
9