Shooting the Bird and the Maigraf Festival in Medieval Livonian Towns

Shooting the Bird and the MaigrafFestival
in Medieval Livonian Townsl
Anu Mänd (Tartu/Budapest)
Feasts and festivals fonn an inseparable part of human life and can be
considered among the most important cultural phenomena of any period in
history. This paper aims to discuss two festivals celebrated in medieval
Livonia2 in springtime, namely the bird-shooting (Papagoienschützen) and
the election of the Lord of May (Maigraf). These two festivals were
among the most favoured outdoor entertainments of urban communities in
the region, especially since carnival, the greatest popular feast, remained
relatively modest, the main emphasis being laid on the indoor celebrations
of the individual guilds and confratemities.
Our knowledge about the May-festival and bird-shooting in Livonia
is based on a more than a century old survey by Eduard Pabst. 3 The merits
of his work lie above all in his detailed use of documents from the two
major towns in the region, Reval4 and Riga, but also the comparative
material he collected on these festivals in Gennany and Scandinavia. Other
Baltic Gennan authors as weil have provided brief overviews of these two
feasts; however, in their writings the festivities were approached in a
rather general and descriptive way, being introduced incidentally to
illustrate medieval urban culture.5 Post-war schalarship dealing with the
I This article is based on a paper delivered at the International Medieval Congress in
Leeds, July 14-17, 1997.
2 Medieval Livonia covered approximately the territories of present-day Estonia and
Latvia.
3 Eduard Pabst, Der Maigraf und seine Feste (Reval, 1 864).
4 In this paper, I use the German, i.e. medieval names of Livonian towns, thus, Reval
for Tallinn, Dorpat for Tartu.
5 Friedrich Amelung and Georges Wrangell, Geschichte der Revaler
Schwarzenhäupter (Reval: Wassermann, 1930); Constantin Mettig, Geschichte der
Stadt Riga (Riga: Jonck & Poliewsky, 1897); Herbert Spliet, Geschichte des rigischen
Neuen Hauses, des später sogenannten König Artus Hofes, des heutigen
Schwarzhäupterhauses (Riga: Verlag Ernst Plates, 1934).
46
(urban) history of the region6 has added little to Pabst’s facts or
interpretations. What I wish to do is to turn back to the sources,
particularly to archival material not known or disregarded by previous
scholars. 7 In the light of new evidence, I intend primarily to examine the
questions of how the bird-shooting and May-festival were carried out, and
who they were meant for; that is, who were the organisers and who could
take part in them. I also used a prosopographical approach and tried to
gather biographical data on some key figures at these festivals.
Since the guilds and confratemities were the main power behind the
urban feasts, it is relevant to review briefly the major associations in
Livonian towns. The guild system, transferred to Livonia from German
areas, was established mainly in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. Without going into too many details, one can say that in Riga
and Dorpat the burghers were organised into a Great Guild (Grosse
Gilde), which united the great merchants, and a Small Guild (Kleine
Gilde) consisting of different craftguilds. Medieval Reval provides an
exception since it had two minor guilds: St.Canute’s Guild (Kanutigilde)
consisted of more respectable and more highly skilled branches of
craftsmanship, such as goldsmiths, smiths, tailors, etc., whereas St.Olafs
Guild (Olaigilde) was formed of less prestigious crafts dealing with
transportation, fishing, etc. The merchants of the Great Guild were the
urban elite, and the most influential positions were held by them, including
places in the town council. One particular confratemity in Livonian towns
was the Brotherhood of Blackheads (Bruderschaft der Schwarzenhäupter),
also a corporation of merchants, but consisting of young,
urunarried merchants and merchants-joumeymen as opposed to the
merchants of the Great Guild who were married burghers. When a
Blackhead got married, he joined the Great Guild. The Brotherhood of
Blackheads was the secondmost influential corporation after the Great
6 Edgars Duosdorfs and Arnolds Spekke, Latvijas vesture 1500-1600 [A History of
Latvia 1500-1600] (Stockholm: Daugava, 1964 ); Tallinna ajalugu I 860-ndale
aastaleni [A History of Tallinn to 1 860s], ed. Raimo Pullat (Tallinn: Eesti Raamat,
1976); Tartu ajalugu [A History of Tartu], ed. Raimo Pullat (Tallinn: Eesti Raamat,
1980).
7 These are above all certain account books which throw light on the practical
organisation of these feasts: Tallinn City Archives (henceforth TLA), F. 1 91, n.2, s.19:
Maigrafenbuch 1527-15./3; F . 1 9 1 , n. l , s.179: Rechnungen der Grossen Gilde,
Maigrafenrechnungen 1526-1532; Latvian State Historical Archives in Riga
(henceforth L VVA), F.224, apr. l , 1.412: Sehnlien Aldennans Buch (Rechnungsbuch
der Schiit=engilde) /-15-1-·1569; F.4922, apr.2, 1 . 1 24: Kämmereirechnungen der
Schwar=en Häupter 1466-1582; and bird-shooting regulations delivered by the Town
Council of Reval: TLA, F.230, n. l , s.B.s. l : Ratswillküren 1405-1620, fol. 39-40
„Regeln über das Vogel und Scheibenschiessen.“
47
Guild, and these two merchants‘ Organisations often co-operated closely,
as can also be seen in the case of preparing and carrying out the feasts.
Moving on to the spring festivities in Livonian towns, one has to
face the fact that there exist no actual medieval descriptions of these
occasions. The only surviving narrative about the bird-shooting contest
and the Maigrafcelebrations is contained in the sixteenth-century
chronicle of Balthasar Russow, a pastor in Revai.S This chronicle is
especially valuable for its vivid descriptions of the customs and traditions
of the „good old days in Livonia,“ that is, before the beginning of the
Russian-Livonian war in 1 558 and the subsequent collapse of Old Livonia
in 1 56 1 . It should be noted that the author, Balthasar Russow, was a
Lutheran pastor of the period which immediately followed the
Reformation; therefore, his negative evaluations concerning the Iifestyle of
the Livonians, whom he describes as „constantly carousing and pursuing
pleasure,“ are most likely exaggerated. At the same time, his detailed
accounts of local customs offer valuable infonnation on tl1e practice of
feasts and festivities in Livonia.
Russow describes the bird-shooting as follows:9
„The burghers also had pleasure and pastime in surnmer days,
between Easter and Pentecost, as they went, one guild and company
after another, to shoot the bird. It took place in this way, that the one
who had shot the bird down a year ago and was called tl1e Old King,
on one Sunday aftemoon was escorted by two aldennen and a long
procession of all the guild brothers, and accompanied by town
trumpeters, out of the city to the field where the pole with the bird
had been set up. There the whole town community gathered, young
and old, to watch this pastime, which because of iron arrows was not
without danger [ . . . ]. And after they had been shooting at the bird for
half a day, and had shot it down, the New King was greeted by
everybody with great joy. No less was the happiness of the King’s
friends and of tl10se who had bet on him and won. Not long
afterwards this New King, accompanied by trumpeters, paraded in
procession [ . . . ] t11rough the city to the guild house. Many people were
standing in front of every door, men, women, maidens, children, and
8 Balthasar Russow, Chronica der Prouintz Lyfflandt (Rostock, I 578). In the
following, I have quoted the revised version published in I 584, reprint in Scriptores
renmz Livonicarum, vol. 2 (Riga, Leipzig: Eduard Frantzen, 1853). On Russow, see
Paul Johansen, Balthasar Rüssow als Humanist und Geschichtsschreiber, Quellen und
Darstellungen zur Baltischen Geschichte, vol. 14 , ed. H. von zur Mühlen (Cologne:
Böhlau, 1 996).
9 Balthasar Russow, Chronica der Prouintz Lyflf andt, 45. Excerpts from the chronicle
translated by Anu Mänd.
48
servants, all looking at the New King with great admiration and joy.
Then the King had to carry a stick with a silver bird in his hand, and
his steel bow along with the arrow with which he had shot down the
bird was carried high in front of him. And when they reached the
guild house, where everything was splendidly and weil decorated,
their wives and daughters also came to the banquet. Then a Queen
was chosen from among the adomed maidens for the New King, and
she had to sit next to him and to dance only with him, even though he
bimself had a wife.“
And Russow finishes on a note of indignation:
„Such festival of the bird-pole was held on the three Sundays after
Easter. Therefore the priests usually did not hold aftemoon services
on these three Sundays, since everybody preferred to go to the birdpole
rather than to the church.“
Shooting contests similar to the one described by Russow in Livonia are
known to have already been taking place in the towns of Flanders and
southem Netherlands as early as the end of the thirteenth century, whence
this custom spread to Gennany, as weil as to other parts of Europe. The
fonnation of special shooting guilds (Schützengilde) began in the
fourteenth century and intensified during the course of the fifteenth
century. The annual shooting contest of such guilds, Iogether with the
election of the shooting king (Schützenkönig), usually Iook place in spring
or summer, most frequently areund Pentecost. IO These shooting guilds
were often called parrot-companies (Papagoiengesellschaften), since the
symbol of such guilds as weil as the trophy for the best bowman was,
especially in Hanseatic towns, a colourful „parrot.“
The earliest known record of a bird-shooting contest in Livonia is
found in a decision (bursprake) of the Town Council in Reval at the end of
the fourteenth century. The bursprake ordains that „there must be only one
bird-shooting (papeghoye), and the drinking feast should not last Ionger
than from the Sunday when they shoot the bird up to the following
10 On shooting confratemities and their contests, see August Edelmann,
Schiitzenwesen und Schiitzenfeste der deutschen Städte vom 13. bis zum 18.
Jahrhundert (Munich: E. Pohl, I 890); Hermann Goja, Die Österreichischen Schützengiiden
und ihre Feste 1500-1750: Studien zu ihrer Geschichte (Vienna: Verlag
Notring der wissenschaftlichen Verbände Österreichs, 1 963); Jürgen Küster,
Wörterbuch der Feste und Bräuche im Jahreslauf (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder,
1985), 170-7 1 ; Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 7, col. 1595, „Schützengilden“ by 0. G.
Oexle; Peter Arnade, Realms of Ritual: Burgundion Ceremony and Civic Life in Late
Medieval Ghent (Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1996), esp. chapter 3
„Shooting Confratemities and the Circulation ofPrestige,“ 65-94.
49
Sunday.“ll From this short passage, nothing can be deduced about whb
arranged or who took part in the contest. However, it seems likely that
more than one confratemity had tried to hold its own contest and to elect
their own shooting king since the town authorities attempted to Iimit the
nurober of such contests to a single one.
No more informative is the statute ofthe Great Guild in Dorpat from
approximately the same period, that is, the end of the fourteenth century. 12
The statute mentions only that „in the time of bird-shooting, the members
should pay two marks to the guild house for (its) trouble,“ presumably
referring to the required contribution for the organisation of the feast. But
from this early statute of Dorpat, it is clear that the Great Guild itself
organised and participated in the shooting contest.
The bursprake of Reval and the Dorpat statute are the only two
pieces of information from the fou.rteenth century. However, the number of
sources from the fifteenth century is relatively higher. From the year 1408
originates tl1e statute of tl1e shooting confratemity (schutten kumpanie) in
Riga, 13 which is the oldest among such organisations in Livonia. The
membership of this confratemity is not specified, but according to tl1e Iist
of names mentioned at the end of the document, it consisted most probably
of tl1e members of the Great Guild. At Easter 1 4 1 6 followed the
foundation of a shooting confratemity of the Great Guild and the
Blackheads in Riga.14 The Town Council also took an active part in this
formation since at the head of the shooting guild stood one of the
burgomasters (Bürgermeister), two town councillors (Ratsherr), and the
town treasurer (Stadtkämmerer). The membership of this guild thus
consisted of representatives of the three elite corporations: the Great
Guild, the Blackheads, and tl1e Town Council.
II „Revalsche Bursprake aus dem Ende des 14. Jh-s“, in Liv-, Est- und Kurkindisches
Urkundenbuch (henceforth LECUB), ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge, vol.4 (Reval:
Kluge, 1 859), no. l 5 16, §84.
12 „Schragen der Grossen Gilde zu Dorpat vom Jahre 1387,“ in Die Schragen der
Grossen Gilde zu Dorpat, ed. Constantin Mettig (Riga: Häcker, 1 907), 45.
13 Schragen der Gilden und Aemter Riga bis 1621, ed. Wilhelm Stieda and Constantin
Mettig (Riga: Häcker, 1 896), 548-49, no.109.
14 Constantin Mettig, „Das Schützengildenbuch der Schwarzen Häupter,“
Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft der Geschichte und Altertumskunde der
Ostseeprovinzen Russlands (henceforth SB Riga) 1885 ( 1 886), 1 OS. The year 1416
actually marks the establishment of an account book of this shooting confraternity;
therefore it cannot be excluded that this confratemity was identical with the previously
mentioned the statute of which was delivered in 1408. However, since this account
book, the „Schützengildenbuch“, covering the years 1 4 1 6- 1 555, was taken from Riga
to Germany in 1939, and I have not had a chance to consult it, the question of the
relations ofthe two confraternities will at this point remain open.
50
Somewhat later the craftsmen ofRiga must have followed the model
of the merchants, since in 1 436 another shooting confraternity, that of the
Small Guild, first appears in the documents.15 The information on these
two shooting confraternities can mainly be gathered from their account
books, in which they listed each year the names of the alderman, his
assessor (Beisitzer), and the shooting king, then the number of brothers
participating in the feast, and finally the foodstuffs purchased and other
expenses.16 However, besides these rather standardised entries, one can
occasionally find short remarks on some unusual events17 or on new
regulations concerning the feast.
The time of the annual shooting contest in Riga varied between
Easter and Pentecost.18 The contest was performed outside the town walls.
For the fifteenth century, we only know that this place was called the
Shooting Garden (schetengarden),19 but there is no information
concerning its exact location. From the beginning of the sixteenth century
we know that both confraternities used a common spot for their contest,
which was situated near the windmills bellind the Kalkpforte (also known
as Sandpforte).20 The Iatter was the main gate of Riga on the land side,
and the contest site was a public place open to everybody. A wooden or
metal bird was fixed on the top of a pole and served as the target. It can be
concluded from the sources that these two shooting_confraternities did not
elect a common shooting king, but tl1at both guilds competed separately,
1 5 Constantin Mettig, „Ueber das Schützen-Gildenbuch der kleinen Gilde zu Riga,“ SB
Riga 1893 (1 894), 24.
16 The account book of the shooting confratemity of the Small Guild covers the years
1454-1569 and is kept in the Latvian State Historical Archives, LWA, F.224, apr. 1 ,
1.412. Since the „Schützengildenbuch“ ofthe Blackheads has not been accessible t o me
(see note 14), I have used the drafts for this account book, found in LWA, F.4922,
apr.2, 1.124: Kämmereirechnungen der Schwarzen Häupter 1466-1582, as weil as the
excerpts from the „Schützengildenbuch“ written down in the 1 8th century, LVV A,
F.4038, apr.2, 1.234: Manuscripta Livonica 5, „Auszüge aus den bei der Gesellschaft
der Schwarzen Häupter in Riga befindlichen Büchern,“ 1 47r-148v.
17 Unusual eilher in a positive sense, such as the presence of guests of high status, or
in a negative sense, such as circumstances due to which the shooting contest was
postponed (a storm) or even cancelled (plague, outburst ofwar).
18 Most often it is indicated in the sources as up passchen or up pingesten, only in
some years it is specified that the contest took place on the Monday after Easter
(LVVA, F.224, apr. l , 1.412, fol.20), on the second Sunday after Easter (lbid., fo1. 1 4),
or on the Monday after Pentecost (L VV A, F.4922, apr.2, 1.124, fol.31).
19 LVVA, F.224, apr . 1 , 1.412, fol.3 (anno 1454); Stieda and Mettig, Die Schragen,
549.
20 Spliet, Geschichte des rigischen Neuen Hauses, 250-5 1 . Cf. LVV A, F.224, apr. l ,
1.412, fol.20 (anno 1 5 1 7).
5 1
and, thus, there would be two such kings each year. What is more
important, the honour of being the shooting king of the town was reserved
exclusively for the winner from the merchants‘ guild, whereas the shooting
king of the craftsmen was acknowl edged only by the members of bis
confratemity. This suggests that the Schützenkönig not only had to be
good in archery, but also – or even primarily – of decent origin, a member
of the urban elite, in other words, a proper person to represent the town
community.21
There is no evidence on the existence of similar shooting
confraternities in Reval; however , all the major corporations – the Great
Guild, the Blackheads, and St. Canute’s Guild – arranged shooting contests
between Easter and Pentecost. Here, too, the shooting place and the target
– the pole with the wooden bird on top (papagoienbom) – was one and the
same for all three guilds. The contest took place outside the town wall in a
garden in front ofthe Strand Gate (Strandpforte), which therefore received
the name Parrot Garden (Papagoiengarten).22 It was the duty ofthe town
carpenters to set up the pole, and in return, they received one tun of beer.
The costs of setting up the pole, looking after it, and taking it down were
covered by the Great Guild, which, however, demanded that two thirds of
the costs shou ld be reimbursed by the Blackheads and St. Canute’s
Guild.23
The bird-shooting seems to have been not only a fun pastime but a
serious ritual for the confratemities. The statu tes of the Great Guild (1 436)
and the Blackheads ( 1 520) in Reval obliged every member to participate
in the shooting contest with his crossbow. The fine for non-participation
was, in the case of the Great Guild, one mark, and in the case of the
Blackheads, one pound of wax. 24
21 The first town councillor to win the title ofthe Schützenkönig was Godeke Durkop
in 1433, and he was followed by several others, Mettig, „Das Schützengildenbuch der
Schwarzen Häupter,“ 108.
22 There were two Strand gates, a „Big“ and a „Small,“ in medieval Reval, and the
exact location ofthe „Parrot Garden“ is unknown. According to some scholars, it was
situated near the Grosse Strandpforte: Eugen von Nottbeck, Die alten Schragen der
Grossen Gilde zu Reval (Reval: Kluge, 1 885), 30; Paul Johansen and Heinz von zur
Mühlen, Deutsch und Undeutsch im mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Reval
(Cologne: Böhlau, 1 973), Fig. 3 „Die alten Immobilien Revals.“ However, the birdshooting
regulations delivered by the Town Council state that the bowmen must gather
„vp den schuften wa/1 twischken der Kleinen Strandporten „, TLA, F.230, n. l , s.B.s. 1 ,
fol.39r.
23 Nottbeck, Die alten Schragen, 30.
24 lbid., 48-49, §72; Amelung, Schwarzenhäupter, 77.
52
. .
……
53
The shooting contest was, however, only one part of the festival. It
was followed by the yearly drinking feast called Schützendrunke, which
was celebrated in the guild halls. The Blackheads decided in 1 5 1 4 that at
the time of the camival celebrations (Fastelabenddrunke) in February,
they should name two stewards, the Papagoien-Schajfer, who would be
responsible for organising the bird-shooting festival together with the
drinking feast in the company house.2s Another duty of the stewards was
to provide the pole with the painted wooden bird, which was to be made
„not of very hard wood“ in order to avoid accidents. They were also to
commission a silver bowl, the weight of which was fixed to half a pound.
This bowl should be the prize for the future winner since the silver bird,
that is the parrot, which was carried by the king in the procession and used
each year as the trophy, was the property of the confratemity. One such
silver „parrot“ from the sixteenth century, betonging to the Blackheads of
Reval, has been preserved, and is kept in the Estonian Museum of Art in
Tallinn (fig. l ).26 The inventories of St.Canute’s Guild frequently record a
silver parrot as weil as a crossbow of silver.27 The Iatter was most likely
also carried as a trophy by the winner of the contest.28 The Town Council
of Reval had a special award (Rades Clenodia) for the shooting king,
which could be kept by the latter during his year of „reign.“ The
regulations delivered by the Town Council took care that no foreigner or
non-burgher was to win this award. 29
But Iet us tum back to the drinking feast. Regulations regarding the
brewing for the bird-shooting celebrations have been preserved in the
agreement from 1 497 between the Town Council of Reval and the
representatives of St.Canute’s and St.Olafs guilds.Jo This agreement states
25 Amelung, Schwarzenhäupter, 76. A similar Statement is found in the statute of the
Blackheads in Riga (1477), see Stieda and Mettig, Schragen der Gilden, 557, §8. For
some years the names of the two Papagoien-Schaffer were indicated among the participants
of the drinking feast at carnival, TLA, F.87, n. l , s.2 1 : Bruderbuch der
Bruderschaft der Schwarzenhäupter zu Reval 1500-1570, fol . l 44b, 146b.
26 See also Anton Buchholtz, Goldschmiedearbeiten in Livland, Esthland und
Kurland (Lübeck: Nöhring, 1 892), 18-19, table XVII; Annelore Leistikow, Baltisches
Silber (Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1996), 8 1 , 9 1 , ill. 1 19.
27 LECUB, vol.9, no.922.
28 A silver crossbow was also carried by the shooting king of the craftsmen in Riga,
L VV A, F.224, apr. l , 1.412, fol.6: „ltem dat Sllluer armborst dat de konick drecht … “
(anno 1486).
29 „Eyn vthman edder de nicht borger is mach des Rades Clenodie nach dem Vogel/
nicht gewinnen, “ TLA, F.230, n. l , s.B.s. l , fol.39v.
30 Revaler Pergament Rentenbuch 1382-1518, ed. Arthur Plaesterer, Publikationen
aus dem Revaler Stadtarchiv Nr. 5 (Tallinn: Eesti Ki􀋘astuse Ühisus, 1 930), 3 14,
no. 1 1 77.
54
first that the beer should be brewed out of no more than three Last of
barley; second, that this beer should not be sold outside the company
houses; and third, that the tasting of the beer should begin no earlier than
eight days after Easter. The regulations conceming the armual shooting
feast became more and more detailed in the course of the centuries, thus
reflecting the generat trend in late medieval Europe, the attempts of town
authorities to increasingly regulate the public aspects of urban life.
The ordinances of the Blackheads from 1 522 fix the amount and
kinds of foodstuffs that the Stewards had to purchase for the feast, namely
7 good sheep, 3 good hams, 6 smoked sausages, and 7 tongues, then
spices, almonds, raisins, butter, flour, eggs and honey for the cakes.31
However, twenty years later, in 1542, it was decided that the spiced soup
and sausages should be left out because the costs of the feast were already
too high.32
The account books of the shooting guilds in Riga reveal that the
honour of being the shooting king resulted in considerable economic
burden: Not only had the king to pay the required contribution for the feast
(as all the other brothers had to), but he also had to give one banquet at his
own cost. Considering the fact that in the first decades of the sixteenth
century the average number of brothers participating in the feast of the
merchants‘ guild fluctuated between 80 and 10033, and 50 and 80 within
the shooting confratemity of the Small Guild,34 this duty of being the host
was certainly not an easy one. In 1 532 the craftsmen finally decided to
reduce the Obligations of their king by exempting bim from the
participation fee and diminishing the types of food he had to serve on his
banquet „so that the brothers would have more delight and eagemess to
shoot at the bird“ without fear of incurring the obligation. 35 In 1545 a
similar decision was made by the Town Council of Riga together with the
aldennen of the Great Guild and of the Blackheads, which led to the result
that the shooting king was no Ionger expected to arrange a banquet, and
3 1 Amelung, Schwarzenhäupter, 78.
32 /bid.
33 L VV A, F.4922, apr.2, 1.124, fol.27, 29-30, 39.
34 L VVA, F.224, apr. l , 1412, foi . I S-34.
35 lbid., fol. 32: „ltem in/ jar [15}32 { . .] do warth boueleth vann den gemeinen
broderen olth und junck da/ de koninck solde de fryenn druncke hebbenn unnd wen de
konick de kost deyt nha o/der lefjlicker wyse unnd gewanht, so sa/1 de konick frig
brodt hebbenn, kokenn unnd eyer, kesen sollenn genzlick aff gedaenn werden { . .}.
Dusse vorgeschreuenn artikkel unnd puncte synt boueleth unnd ingegaenn vann den
gemeinen broderen, da/ idt dem koninge nicht tho swar val/e mith der wanlickenn kost
alsdann heft ock eyn yder broder desto mher Iust wmd /eue nha dem voge/1 tho
schetenn.“
55
had only to pay for the wine and mead for the women invited to the
feast.36
Every feast had to contain not only food and drink but also music. In
the case of the bird-shooting festival, the town musicians were present
both at the shooting place and at the following celebrations in the guild
houses.37 Their payment consisted partly of money, partly of beer.
Occasionally, as reflected in the sources of Riga, the shooting guilds also
hired the musicians who were in the service of the master of the Livonian
Order, or even some Russian musicians. 38 Sometimes guests of quite high
rank were known to have been present at the shooting feasts in Riga, for
example, the master of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order in the
year 1473,39 the archbishop in 1492, and the bailiff ofthe castle in 15 1 0.40
Hence, to sum up, we can say that the bird-shooting festival was a
festival for the entire town community. Both the merchants‘ guilds and the
craft guilds took part in the contest, and since it was a public, open-air
occasion, everybody could come and participate as spectators. At one
Ievel, such contests offered an opportunity for the burghers to show their
individual skills in shooting; at the same time, this festival also functioned
as a demonstration of the armed forces of the city, the readiness of the
burghers to defend their town. The presence of highly esteemed guests
certainly added prestige to the feast, and, at the same time, for the town
community it offered the possibility of manifesting its power and military
strength as weil.
• • •
The celebrations of bird-shooting were followed by another immensely
popular festival, the election of the Lord of May (Maigraj). The earliest
infonnation about this feast in Livonia comes from the same late
fourteenth-century bursprake of Reval cited for the bird-shooting festival.
This burprake contains the sentence that „there should be (i.e. be elected)
only one Maigraf“41
Almost two centuries later, the chronicler Balthasar Russow
describes the feast as follows:42
36 L VV A, F.4038, apr.2, 1.234, S.148r.
37 The sources frequently mention spellude, sometimes specified as vigeler, bassuner,
piper, trumper, and trommitter.
38 LYYA, F.224, apr. 1, 1.412, fol.20-21 .
39 Spliet, Geschichte des Neuen Hauses, 88 note 90, 253.
40 LVVA, F.224, apr. l , 1.412, fol.7, 17.
41 LECUB, vol. 4, no. 1 5 16, § 84.
42 Balthasar Russow, Chronica der Prouintz Ly.fflandt, 45.
56
„At Pentecost, the burghers and journeymen rode out into the May
and elected the Maigraf from among themselves, who would best
arrange a magnificent banquet, and then sent him back into the town
with great pomp. Such Maigrafcelebrations were held by
everybody and also by common folk throughout the summer on
every Sunday, and not without all kind of light-mindedness.“
Although Russow’s description of this feast is much shorter than that of the
bird-shooting, in practice the celebrations connected with the election of
the Lord of May seem to have been considered more important. For
example, we read in the statute of the Great Guild of Riga that „the
drinking feast of parrot-shooting must last four days, but if it were the case
that May day (i.e. the first of May) happens to fall into the (period of the)
shooting-drinking-feast, then this day must be dedicated to the Lord of
May, because it is his highest day.“43
Although the statutes of both the Great Guild and of the Blackheads
affinn that the Lord of May was to be elected on the May day,44 in
practice the feast seems to have been connected rather with Pentecost. For
instance, the statute of the Great Guild in Dorpat prescribes that the guild
hall must be ready for the Maigraffeast eight days before Pentecost.45 In
Reval, the banquets took place at Pentecost and on the following
Monday,46 and the Blackheads in Riga celebrated the festival until the
Wednesday after Pentecost.·H Russow, too, connects the Maigraffestival
with Pentecost.
The source material on the Maigrafcelebrations is much more
abundant than in the case of bird-shooting. In the following, I will
concentrate on what can be said about the election procedure, how the
celebrations were organised, and what is known about the persons who
were elected to be Lords ofMay.
First, it must be said that, although Russow speaks of „everybody,“
there is no trace of any active participation of the craft guilds in this event,
that is the right to elect the Maigraf, or for one of their members to be
elected as one. This may be partly due to the fact that the status of the
Lord of May involved relatively !arge expenditures. The sources from all
three towns prove that the merchants‘ guilds and the members of the Town
Council alone organised this feast. The statute of the Great Guild in Reval
specifies that the Lord of May was to be elected by one of the burgomas-
43 Stieda and Mettig, Die Schragen, 322, §72(77): addition for the year 1 559.
44 Jbid., 551 §I 0: „den meygreven sal man kesen uppe meydach.“
45 Mettig, Die Schragen der Grossen Gilde zu Dorpat, 45.
46 TLA, F.l91, n.2, s.l9.
47 Stieda and Mettig, Die Schragen, 557 §10.
57
ters and a nwnber of town councillors, the aldennan of the Great Guild
and his two assessors (Beisitzer), and by the Lord of May of the previous
year.48 The statute of the Blackheads in Riga from 1477 asserts that the
Maigrafhad to be a citizen ofthe town.49 The statute ofthe Great Guild in
Riga states that the aldennan of the guild cannot be chosen as the Lord of
May as long as he holds the office of aldennan,so which makes sense in
view of the fact that the aldennan of the Great Guild was among the
persons who decided about the future Maigraf
The election would take place in a field outside of the town, to
which the burghers rode on horseback. Unfortunately, the sources do not
indicate exactly how the Maigraf was chosen, that is according to which
qualities. Surely, the ability to organise a festive meal, as Russow claims,
was not the only criteria. We will retum to this question later.
The election was followed by a trimnphal riding into the town and
by festive meals and celebrations. As was the case with bird-shooting
festivities, the two stewards organising the Maigraffeast and responsible
for its frnances had already been appointed in February during the carnival
celebrations.5 1 The duty ofthe steward was by no means popular, not only
because of the organisational efforts required but also because of the
material responsibility. According to the statute of the Great Guild in
Dorpat, if something was broken in the guild hall during the feast, for
example, windows or other things, the stewards had to pay for this.s2 Also,
if the expenses for the feast were high er than the income, the stewards had
to make up the difference.
The most valuable source conceming the practical side of the feast
is undoubtedly an unpublished account book, the Maigrafen-Buch of
Reval, covering the years 1527-1 543,53 together with some separately
surviving bills of the same feast from the years 1 526, 1 529, and 1532.54
This account book was kept by the Stewards of the Maigrafcelebrations.
Each year the name of the Lord of May was written down frrst, followed
by the names of the two stewards. Then, the stewards listed all the
expenses for food, drink, decoration of the guild hall, horses, payments for
helpers, bakers, musicians, and so on. After that, the stewards recorded
the income of the feast, which consisted of the contributions collected
48 Nottbeck, Die alten Schragen, 49, §76: addition for the year 1473.
49 Stieda and Mettig, Die Schragen, 557, § 9.
so /bid., 322, §70: addition for the year 1 559.
51 Jbid., 557 § 8.
52 „Schragen der Grossen Gilde zu Dorpat vom Jahre 1387“, 45.
53 Maigrafenbuch 1527-1543, TLA, F.191, n.2, s.19.
54 Maigrafenrechmmgen 1526-1532, TLA, F. 19 1, n. l , s.J79.
58
from the guild members as weil as from the guests attending the feast. The
Maigrafhimselfhad to pay fixed 30 marks, a considerable sum of money
(in the beginning of the period, in 1 526-30, it fonned almost half of the
total sum spent for the feast). The rest of the income was collected from
the representatives of the Blackheads. Occasionally, small sums were
eamed by selling the Jeftover beer or beef. In most years, the stewards
managed to balance their books ( or at least managed to suggest that they
had); that is, the total income corresponded exactly to the sum which was
spent. In some years55 the income was even a little higher than the
expense. In such cases the company usually decided to give this small
amount of money ( 1 -2 marks) to the stewards as a bonus for their good
job.
If the expenses listed in the account book are examined more
closely, it becomes evident that the types of foodstuffs and drinks bought
for the feast remained practically the same during the whole period, but the
prices tended to rise, which resulted in general increase of the total sum
spent for the feast (graph I ). The expense-list always started with beer,
which was purchased in considerable quantities, and which fonned more
than forty percent of the expenditure (graph 2). In addition to the ordinary
beer, table-beer and Harnburg beer were bought, and also wine, sometimes
specified as Rhenish wine. Among the meat products were always beef,
ham, smoked sausages, and tongues. Moreover, we find bread and alms
bread, cakes, nuts, apples, etc. Thus, the tables in the guild hall must have
been richly covered. The problern is that we do not know for how many
people this amount of food was intended.56 The feast itself must have
Iasted at least two days, since in some years it is specified that the helpers
were hired for two days, the horses were rented for two days, and the
flowers and greenery for decorating the hall were purchased for two days.
These days were most likely the Pentecost Sunday and the following
Monday since on these two evenings the participation fee was collected.
Although the celebrations took place in the house of the Great Guild, the
Blacklteads shared an equal responsibility for carrying out the feast: one of
the stewards was appointed from runong the members of the Great Guild,
and the other one from among the Blacklteads .57
55 1527, 1528, 1538, I 539.
56 Unlike in the accounts of the drinking feasts (drunke) at camival and Christmas, the
names ofthe participants in theMaigraffeasts were not listed.
57 The names of the Stewards in the Maigrafenbuch were always listed in this order:
first the representative of the Great Guild and thereafter the Blackhead. There were
three exceptional years (1529, 1537, 1539) when both Stewards came from the Great
Guild. On those occasions, however, the second steward was chosen fi“om among the
junior members ofthe guild. TLA, F. l 9 1 , n.2, s.19, foi.J4, 46, 54.
59
0\0
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
E x p e n d iture for M a ig r a f fe a s t
1 5 2 6 – 1 5 4 3
0 I““““‚ r:s->:1 = f:‘::N 􀂧 t»’J tS>j „‚Si 􀂨 􀂩 􀂧 􀂪 ts$l I;’S3;;j !;3SI f>SS E>S:3 􀂪
1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543
􀄆 sums in Riran marks
Graph 1
􀂦
E x p e n diture o n food a n d drink
in 1 5 2 7
wine
7%
meat products
32%
Graph 2
beer
44%
nuts and apples
5%
cakes
6%
5%
What do we know about the persons elected to be the Lord of May?
The accounts record the names of eighteen Lords of May from the years
1 526-43, to whom can preswnably be added one more person occurring on
the first page of the Maigrafenbuch.SS A study of their backgrounds59
enabled me to determine which guild they belonged to at the time of being
elected, as weil as to trace their previous or subsequent career (see the
appendix). It tums out that ten Lords of May were members of the Great
Guild and eight were Blackheads. Three persons (Euert Hessels, Andres
Luhr, and Euert Eckholt) were officially accepted to the Great Guild
during the drinking feast at Christmas of the very same year as they gained
the status of Maigraf All nineteen originated from well-known farnilies in
Reval which were represented in the Town CounciJ.60 The Lords of May
from among the Blackheads were often the sons or nephews of town
councillors, which indicates the importance of family ties. The Lords of
May elected from within the Great Guild tended to be by no means
ordinary members of this corporation, but had often held the most
prominent positions, such as aldennan or assessor of the Great Guild, or
Vorsteher of the Table GuiJd 61 Many Lords of May became town
councillors afterwards. It is also interesting to note that the age of the
future Lord of May was of no significance. Some of the Blackheads seem
to have been relatively young; there are, however, several persons (e.g.
Cordt Cardena1J,62 Wohner Brockhusen, Hinrick Busch, Mauritius Rotert,
Berent Bussman) who must have been over forty. Thus, to emphasise once
more, it was the origin of a person, his family ties and wealth, and his
outstanding status within Jus corporation, which played the decisive roJe in
being considered for the honour of being elected as Maigraf Again, as in
58 lbid., fol. l . The note indicates only the name, Rotger Boismann, and a year [1 5]24;
and there is no further data, such as an expense Iist, which forrns the core of the
regular entries ofthe following years.
59 TLA, F. l 9 1 , n.2, s. l : Mitgliederbuch der Grossen Gilde zu Reva/ nebst Satzungen
und chronikalischen Nachrichten 1364-1549; F. J 9 l , n.2, s. l 5 : Rechnungen und
Brüderverzeichnisse der Grossen Gilde zu Reval 1509-1603; F.87, n. l , s.21:
Bruderbuch der Bruderschaft der Schwarzenhäupter zu Reval 1500-1570; F.87, n . l ,
s.2la: Bntderbuch der Bntderschaft der Schwarzenhäupter zu Reval 1500-1581;
F.230, n . l , s.B.N. l : Testamente; F.230, n . l , lll-b: Testamente.
60 See Friedrich Georg von Bunge, Die Reva/er Rathslinie (Reval: Kluge, 1874).
61 Table Guild (Taje/gilde) was a charitable organization consisting ofthe members of
the Great Guild.
62 There exists evidence for two Cordt Cardenall’s in Reval; however, since the
„second“ one appears as a member ofthe Blackheads only after 1530 (TLA, F.87, n . l ,
s.2la, fol.21 0ff.), it i s most likely that the „first“one was the one elected to be Lord of
May in 1 526.
62
the case of the shooting contest, we see the same pattem – the „winner“
had to come from among the urban elite.
The office of the Maigraf Iasted for one year. Among his
obligations, after the festival itself was finished, were the preparations for
the feast of Corpus Christi. He had to invite women to make candles in
the house of the Great Guild as weil as to choose male persons to carry
these candles in the Corpus Christi procession.63 The fact that the position
of the Lord of May was highly respected is underlined by the fact that in
the regulations of Reval from 1451 and 1 460,64 that established the order
in which the guilds and confratemities had to walk in the Corpus Christi
procession, the Lord of May with his candles is specifically mentioned.
The order was to be the following: first, the members of St.Gertrude’s
guild, then St. Olafs guild and St.Canute’s guild, then the Great Guild
itself. After these came the skippers, then the Lord of May with candles
and the Blackheads, then the Table Guild, and the Sacrament itself. The
feast of Corpus Christi closed the feast-cycle which had begun with
Easter, the cycle of springtime festivities. Hence, the Corpus Christi feast
provides an appropriate end for this paper.
As can be seen, the two festivals – bird-shooting and the election of
the Lord of May – not only followed each other in time, but shared many
common features. The ceremonial, open-air parts of these festivities were
meant for everybody in the town community, but for „everybody“ in the
sense of spectators. At the same time, these festivals were organised by
the town elite, and only the town elite could actively participate, by being
elected as the shooting king or the Lord of May. The drinking feasts,
connected to these two festivals, were celebrated by each guild in their
company houses, and, thus, bad a less public character. Whereas the
outdoor part of these festivals aimed to demoostrate and strengthen the
unity of the entire town conummity, the following banquets served to
strengthen the social identity and conunon values inside the corporations,
and, by doing so, to set themselves apart or even in opposition to other
guilds and other urban residents.
63 Nottbeck, Die alten Schragen, 28, 47.
64 LECUB, voi. J I, no. l 58.
63
Appendix: The Maigrafen in Reval 1524, 1526-1543
Abbreviations: GG= Great Guild ; BB= Brotherhood ofBlackheads;
TG= Table Guild; TC= Town Council; Bm= burgomaster;
f= Fastelabenddrunke; w= Weihnachtsdrunke
Name ofthe Maigraf
Year and his membership Remarks
at the
time of election
1 524 Rotger Boismann member of GG since 1 5 1 7f; Vorsteher of
[GG] TG 1 527; assessor ofGG 1 528-29;
member ofTC 1 535-42; died 1 545.
1 526 Cordt Cardenall member of GG since 1 503w; assessor of
[GG] GG 1 5 18-20; alderman ofGG 1 529-32;
died 1 549.
1 527 Tonnies Bokelmann mentioned in BB 1 526-35; member of
[BB] GG since 1 535w.
1 528 Wohner Brockhusen member of GG since 1 50 I f; alderman of
[GG] GG 1 5 14- 17; Vorsteher ofTG 1 5 14;
member ofTC 1 507-22; testament 1 548;
died after 1 549.
1 529 Euert Hessels li. son ofEuert Hessels I. (member ofTC
[BB] 1 507-24); mentioned in BB 1 523-29f;
steward ofBB 1 528w; member ofGG
since 1 529w.
1 530 Hinrick Boismann member of GG since 1 5 1 8w; Vorsteher of
[GG] TG 1 532; assessor of GG 1 534-35 and
1 539; aldennan ofGG 1 54 1-44; member
ofTC 1 554-63; brother ofRotger
Boismann.
1 5 3 1 Hinrick Hulsberch mentioned in BB 1 527-35; member of
fBBl GG since 1 536f; member ofTC 1536-39.
1 532 Hans Vygent (Viant) mentioned in BB 1 525-33; member of
[BBl GG since 1 534f; member ofTC 1 534.
64
1 533 Andres Luhr (?] son of Hennen Luhr (member ofTC
1 5 1 1 -34); not mentioned in BB; member
ofGG since 1 533w.
1 534 Hinrick Busch [GG] member of GG since 1 5 1 2f; Vorsteher of
TG 1 524; testament 1 547; died 1 550.
1 535 Merten Bretho1t [BB] mentioned in 88 1 527-35; steward ofBB
1 5 3 1 f; member ofGG since 1 538f.
1536 Hans Hower [GG] member ofGG since 1 5 23w; steward of
Maigraffeast 1 5 3 1 ; assessor of GG
1 537; Vorsteher ofTG 1 542; member of
TC 1539-50 (1 550 8m); testament 1 565
and 1566.
1537 Andres Witte [BB] mentioned in BB 1524-38; steward of
Maigraffeast 1533; steward ofBB
1 534f.
1538 Hans Kampferbeck member of GG since 1 526f; Vorsteher of
[GG] TG 1 542; assessor ofGG 1 544-45;
member ofTC 1 5 50-59.
1 539 Themas Hessels [BB] mentioned in BB 1 530-57; steward ofBB
1533w.
1540 Mauritius Rotert steward ofBB 1 5 1 7f; member of GG
[GG] since 1 5 2 l f; assessor ofGG 1 538-40;
died 1 547.
1 54 1 Berent Bussman member of GG since 1 5 1 8w; Vorsteher
[GG] ofTG 1 530; assessor ofGG 1 532-33;
aldennan ofGG 1 538-4 1 ; testament
1 547.
1 542 Cordt Beckhusen mentioned in BB 1523-28; member of
[GG] GG since l528w; Steward of Maigraf
feast 1 535; assessor
ofGG 1 54 1 -43.
1543 Euert Eckholt [BB] mentioned in BB 1 534-37fand 1 547f;
member of GG since 1 543w; Vorsteher
ofTG 1 56 1 .
65
MEDIUM AEVUM
QUOTIDIANUM
38
KREMS 1998
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Titelgraphik Stephan J. Tramer
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der
materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Kömennarkt 13, A-3500 Krems, Österreich.
Für den ltlhalt verantwortlich zeiclmen die Autoren, olme deren ausdrückliche
Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. – Druck:
KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
History ofDaily Life: The Variety of Approaches . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . …. . . . . . 7
Franceise Piponnier, L’histoire de Ja vie quotidienne
au Moyen Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Gerhard Jaritz, Geschichte des Alltags im Mittelaltereine
Herausforderung zur komparativen Forschung . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 10
Axel Bolvig, Medieval Images and the History ofEveryday Life . . . 20
Norbert Schnitzler, „Reality“ oflmages- „Realities“ ofLaw . . . . … . 23
Melitta Weiss Adamson, Researching the Diet of
Medieval Germany: Possibilities and Limitations of
Written Sources and Material Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Gordan Ravancic, Crime in Tavems ofLate Medieval Dubrovnik .. . . . . . . 31
Anu Mänd, Shooting the Bird and the MaigrafFestival
in Medieval Livonian Towns . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . … . . . . . … . . . . . 46
Rezensionen . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
3
Vorwort
Medium Aevum Quotidianum legt mit diesem Heft 38 die erste Veröffentlichung
des Jahrgangs 1998 vor. Der Band widmet sich im
besonderen den Statements zu einem Round-Table-Gespräch „History of
Daily Life: The Variety of Approaches“, welches im Juli 1997 am
International Medieval Congress in Leeds mit reger Publikumsbeteiligung
stattgefunden hat. Dabei zeigte sich wieder, daß einerseits die
interdisziplinäre Analyse unterschiedlichsten Quellenmaterials im
jeweiligen Kontext, andererseits die vermehrte Heranziehung bildlicher
Überlieferung im Zentrum der Diskussion stehen. Aspekte der digitalen
Bildverarbeitung spielen dabei eine relevante Rolle sowohl in bezug auf
Bilddokumentation als auch hinsichtlich der Analysen. Zwei Einzelstudien
behandeln Wirtshauskriminalität im spätmittelalterlichen Ragusa,
sowie die Ausgestaltung von Kaufmanns- und Handwerkerfesten im spätmittelalterlichen
Baltikum.
Heft 39 wird bereits anfangs Juli 1998 erscheinen und sich vorrangig
mit verschiedenen Möglichkeiten der Bildanalyse in der Geschichte
des Alltags auseinandersetzen. Die einzelnen Beiträge werden den nordund
zentraleuropäischen Raum behandeln und konzentriert von Beispielen
mittelalterlicher Wandmalerei ausgehen.
Unser Heft 40 wird – mit Schwerpunk-t auf dem ungarischen Raum
– vor allem der mittelalterlichen Ernährung gewidmet sein und soll neue
interdisziplinäre Forschungsansätze vorstellen; dabei werden besonders
die Möglichkeiten einer Verbindung der Analyse schriftlicher Quellen
und archäologischen Materials im Zentrum der Argumentation stehen.
Heft 41 wird sich wiederum in starkem Maße mit jenen Ergebnissen
auseinandersetzen, welche am International Medieval Congress,
Leeds 1998, in dessen alltagsgeschichtlichen Sektionen zur Vorstellung
gelangen werden. Damit soll neuerlich vermittelt werden, auf welch
intensive Weise sich die Anwendung moderner Methoden und die
Verwirklichung neuer· Ansätze in aktuellen Studien zu Alltag und
materieller Kultur des Mittelalters – im internationalen Rahmen –
verfolgen läßt.
5
Medium Aevum Quotidianum dankt seinen Mitgliedern und
Freunden für das anhaltende bzw. steigende Interesse an den Anliegen
und an der Arbeit der Gesellschaft.
Gerhard Jaritz, Herausgeber
6
History of Daily Life: The Variety of
Approaches
At the International Medieval Congress, Leeds 1997, a round table
discussion was organised as part of the strand „History of Daily Life“ that
dealt with the variety of possible approaches towards this, still rather
young field of Medieval Studies. The international panel consisted of
Axel Bolvig (Copenhagen), Gerhard Jaritz (Krems), Franyoise Piponnier
(Paris), Norbert Schnitzler (Chemnitz), and Melitta Weiss Adamson
(London, Ontario).
As a kind of basis for the discussion, it was emphasised that the
history of medieval everyday life is a field of research dependent on
interdisciplinary approaches. Written and pictorial sources, as weil as
archeological evidence play important rotes for any analysis. The
different contexts of infonnation and their interpretation detennine our
(re)constmction of everyday life in the Middle Ages decisively. The aim
of the round table was to discuss some of the methods and approaches
which are relevant for today’s research. It should also show that „History
of Daily Life“, generally, has to be seen as an undispensable field of
Medieval Studies that also offers relevant methodological aspects and
results for many other historical disciplines.
We are happy to be able to publish the modified short statements of
the panelists in this volume of Medium Aevum Quotidianum. The
originally English statements of Franyoise Piponnier and Gerhard Jaritz
were translated by their authors into French and Gennan respectively.
7