Slavs and Dogs: Depiction of Slavs in Central European Sources from the Tenth-Eleventh Centuries

5
Slavs and Dogs: Depiction of Slavs
in Central European Sources
from the Tenth-Eleventh Centuries
Andrea Vanina Neyra
Introduction
The economic, legal, cultural and symbolic aspects of the animal world
have attracted growing interest in the humanities in recent years. Animals played
a role in medieval literary genres such as bestiaries and hagiography where,
among other functions, they often served as term of comparison to different
peoples and societies. In this preliminary examination of how animals and peoples
were depicted, my aim is to shed light on the ways in which the comparison
was employed to characterise peoples and construct identities in Central European
sources during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Specifically, in the narrative
sources (chronicles, passions of martyrs, and lives of saints)1 related to the
Christianisation of Central Europe selected, I contextualise concrete references
in order to show how certain depictions of non-Christian Slavs as dogs served
both to negatively characterise pagans by comparing them to animals and to bolster
the identity of Christians confronting alien cultures.2 My sources in this article
are the following:
1 I am not going to deal with the specificity of the genres mentioned above but instead limit
myself to referring to them in general terms.
2 This approach to the subject of animals and social identity, which I hope to explore further
in the future, is not my first experience with topics related to the animal world: I examined
certain facets of the relationship between animals, sin, and penance in Burchard of Worms’
Decretum. I explored the thematics of animals and sin in two papers: Andrea Vanina Neyra,
“Los animales y la penitencia: responsabilidad y reparación frente al pecado,” in Palimpsestos:
Escrituras y reescrituras de las Culturas Antigua y Medieval (Bahía Blanca:
Ediuns), 221-236; eadem, “Penas contra animales en el Corrector de Burchard de Works,”
unpublished ms., Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores en Historia Medieval y Moderna,
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, October 20-21,
2011; see http://www.conicet.gov.ar/new_scp/detalle.php?keywords=&id=27564&congresos
=yes&detalles=yes&congr_id=1199104. In Burchard’s Corrector animals may either perform
a sin or be a victim or instrument of a sin committed by men. There are three mentions
of dogs in the Corrector. Two of them do not imply a characterisation of people as animals,
but rather prescribe penances for sin in some way related to dogs. The first is the use of lig6
 Passio sancti Venceslavi martyris Gumpoldi Mantuani episcopi
 Passio sancti Adalberti martiris Christi
 Chronicon by Thietmar of Merseburg
They are representative of three different genres: passions of martyrs, lives of
saints, and chronicles. Other sources have been taken into consideration and will
be researched in further studies.
The uses of the image of dogs for characterizing the other
Animals have been compared to individuals or collective groups throughout
history. My aim in this presentation is to show how the comparison of dogs
with Slavs pejoratively portrays the otherness of both, while at the same time
aturas and spells in order to liberate dogs (or animals in general) from an illness (Burchard
von Worms, Decretorum Libri XX. Ex consiliis et orthodoxorum patrum decretis, tum etiam
diversarum nationum synodis seu loci communes congesti, ed. G. Fransen and T. Kölzer
(Darmstadt: Scientia Aalen, 1992), 193v; the other one has to do with eating meat from an
animal which had been killed by a dog or a wolf: Comedisti morticina, id est animalia quae
a lupis seu a canibus dilacerabantur, et sic mortua inventa sunt? Si fecisti, X dies in pane et
aqua poenitere debes (Burchard von Worms, Decretorum Libri XX, 197v). This refers to the
topic of contact with animals resulting in impurity, which will be mentioned later. Thirdly,
there is a penitential question dealing with incest, where the sinner´s behaviour is compared
to that of a dog who returns to his vomit: Accepisti uxorem cognatam tuam, vel quam cognatus
habuit, separari debes ab ea, et poenitere juxta modum cognationis: Quia sancti Patres,
et sancta illorum statuta, incestis conjunctionibus nil prorsus veniae reservant, neque
numerum generationum definiunt. Sed id statuerunt, ut nulli Christiano liceat de propria
consanguinitate seu cognatione uxorem accipere, usque dum generatio recordaretur,
cognosceretur, aut memoria retineretur. Quia sanctus Gregorius dicit: Si quis de propria
cognatione, vel quam cognatus habuit in conjugium duxerit, anathema sit. Quapropter scire
debes, quia non est ita ut multi sacerdotes multos seducunt, dicentes quod in ipso peccato
poenitentia esse possit. Verbi gratia, si tu modo haberes cognatam tuam, vel uxorem
alterius, vel aliquid tale quod licitum non esset, et velles in eo peccato permanere, et tamen
in poenitentia esse: verbi gratia, si hodie quadraginta dies in pane et aqua pro unoquolibet
peccato peractos haberes in poenitentia, et iterares prius peccatum, nihil valeret poenitentia
quam fecisti, juxta id quod dicitur: Sicut canis qui redit ad vomitum suum, et sues ad
volutabra sua, ita erit et peccatori, qui redit ad peccatum prius confessum: Quapropter
scias vere, dum in ipso peccato fueris, poenitentia ejusdem peccati nihil valet. Burchard von
Worms, Decretorum Libri XX, 192v. Despite the excerpt having come from the genre of
penitentials (in this case a normative citation from a canonical collection), unlike the narrative
instances analysed herein, this representation of a sinner who repeats his fault in the
guise of a dog returning to his vomit (a pig is another animal frequently referred to for pejorative
purposes) is noteworthy. The quotation derives from Proverbs 26, 11: sicut canis qui
revertitur ad vomitum suum sic inprudens qui iterat stultitiam sua. The proverb is also cited
in 2 Peter 2, 22: contigit enim eis illud veri proverbii canis reversus ad suum vomitum et sus
lota in volutabro lut. Quotations from the Bible come from the New Revised Standard Version,
ed. Zaine Ridling (USA: Division of Christian Education of the National Council of
the Churches of Christ in the USA, 1989).
7
casting adversaries as a kind of monster.3 In general terms, this type of depiction
can be based on either physical or moral characteristics or on both. But in all
cases the common thread is the view that one culture is, in some way, superior
to another as bearer of a truth – Christians as opposed to infidels, pagans or heretics,
for instance.4 And by contrast, any characterisation of the other necessarily
involves a characterisation of the self as well.5
3 “Como ha expresado Jeffrey Jerome Cohen en Monster Theory. Reading Culture, el
monstruo es una criatura que habita a las puertas de la diferencia, es la diferencia hecha
carne que reside entre nosotros. Las diferencias que pueden encarnar estas figuras pueden
ser de índole cultural, política, racial, económica y sexual.” Dora Barrancos, Preface to Dora
Barrancos et. al., Criaturas y saberes de lo monstruoso (Buenos Aires: FFyL, UBA, 2008),
13. Additionally, Michael Uebel explains the relationship between monsters and boundaries
in the world of myth: “Monsters, as discursive demarcations of unthought, are to be treated
not exclusively as the others of the defining group or self, but also as boundary phenomena,
anomalous hybrids that constantly make and unmake the boundaries separating interiority
from exteriority, historical world from fictional otherworld, meaning from nonsense. Because
they blur categorical distinctions with their heterogeneity and mobility, monsters are
especially symbolic of displaced, hence threatening, matter. Aversion to the ambiguity of
such boundary phenomena falls under the famous category of ‘pollution behavior,’ a ‘reaction
which condemns any object or idea likely to confuse or contradict cherished classifications.’
Monsters, by inhabiting the gap between exclusive zones of intellectual or social
meaning, deliver a threat to the zones‘ integrity, or, more precisely, to the assumption that
such zones can be delimited in the first place. In other words, monsters expose classificatory
boundaries as fragile by always threatening to dissolve the border between other and same,
nature and culture, exteriority and interiority. It is therefore understandable why monsters
are at home in the belief structures of myth. They are mythic creatures in the precise Levi-
Straussian sense: as figures of liminality or in-betweenness, monsters, like the structures of
myth circumscribing them, are at the same time charged with the insoluble task of resolving
real social contradictions and with the function of inventing symbolic solutions to imaginary
contradictions.” Michael Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to
Saracen Alterity,” in Monster Theory: Reading Culture, ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 266.
4 The infidelitas – implied in the pejorative use of the term “dog”, as it will be discussed below
– “fue entendida en la Edad Media como negación u oposición a la fides religiosa. Así,
se considera en dos sentidos: en el primero, negativo, es la propia del que es infiel en cuanto
que no tiene fe por no haberla conocido. Es la de los paganos o gentiles. Obviamente, no
hay culpa personal en esta clase de i. En el segundo sentido, positivo, se entiende como
oposición a la fe religiosa y, entonces, es infiel quien desprecia o directamente rechaza las
proposiciones de la fides, como el hereje.” Silvia Magnavacca, Léxico técnico de Filosofía
Medieval (Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía
y Letras, 2005), 366. In Burchard´s Decretum (mentioned above), which is a normative
source from the same period considered here, it is possible to observe how there is
some kind of assimilation among heresy, infidelitas, and superstition, which are, in some instances,
interchangeable concepts used to invigorate the preaching of clerics against what
the Church considered dangerous beliefs and practices. Andrea Vanina Neyra, “El Corrector
sive medicus de Burchard de Worms: una visión acerca de las supersticiones en la
Europa medieval,” PhD diss. (Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2011).
5 The existence of monsters (or peoples characterized as such) “… real or imagined, has done
nothing less than place in question the self-identity of humans. Where does the human begin
8
The idea of otherness and monstrosity is relative to each culture, and
consequently must be understood in context. In his classical study on monsters,
Claude Kappler maintains that there is no single definition of a monster, but rather
descriptions vary according to author and epoch. However, it should be
noted that, in general, definitions do bear a relationship to the norm: “Resulta
claro que no existe una definición del monstruo, sino diversos intentos de
definición, que varían según los autores y, sobre todo, según las épocas. En el
sentido más amplio, el monstruo se define con relación a la norma, siendo ésta
un postulado de sentido común; el pensamiento no atribuye al monstruo con
facilidad una existencia en sí, mientras que la concede espontáneamente a la
norma. Así, pues, todo depende del modo en que se define esa norma.”6 Taking
as point of departure the sources cited above deriving from the Christianisation
Age of Central Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries, it becomes clear that
“the monstrous other”, “the dog”, is the non-Christian.
As part of the general context, it should be mentioned in passing that
monsters with dog-like attributes are present in the imaginary of the Middle
Ages. For example, Claude Kappler explains that cynocephali stand out among
hybrid monsters (animal-headed with a human-body)7 in the medieval times:
“En nuestros días, uno de los más conocidos es el minotauro, pero en la Edad
Media entre los más célebres figuraban los cinocéfalos. Es categoría muy
difundida por todo el mundo, y pueden incluirse en ella todas las divinidades
and the monster leave off?” David Gordon White, The Myths of the Dog-Man (Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 1. “… la historia del sujeto puede leerse
en el trazado de sus formas de subjetivación, formas que no dejan de confrontar con sus
versiones pesadillescas, con sus dobles, con los límites que siempre las rebasan hasta el
punto de enfrentarlas con ellas mismas y con los nuevos y renovados modos de exterminio
en los que, histórica y faltamente, parecen expresarse.” Dora Barrancos, Preface to Barrancos
et. al., Criaturas y saberes de lo monstruoso, 10. Similarly, Gerardo Rodríguez, who
studied the image of the Muslim-“other” in three Carolingian narrative sources, stating:
“Las imágenes de sí y del otro que crea y recrea cada sociedad están íntimamente vinculadas
a objetos, actos o acciones a las cuales se adjudican determinados valores y sentidos – y
también la carencia de ellos. Cada persona se define y, a su vez, es definida por los demás,
con relación a un ‘nosotros’, pero también a un ‘ellos’/’otros’. Esta definición colectiva
sobre el mundo natural, el universo y el contexto histórico-cultural particular está indiscutiblemente
ligada a lo simbólico y lo imaginario.” Gerardo Rodríguez, “La construcción
histórica de la imagen del otro en las narrativas carolingias de la novena centuria,” in
Historia, literatura y sociedad: aproximaciones al mundo medieval desde el siglo XXI, dir.
Gerardo Rodríguez (Mar del Plata and Bahía Blanca: Cultura Fusión and Centro de Estudios
e Investigaciones de las Culturas Antigua y Medieval del Departamento de Humanidades de
la Universidad Nacional del Sur: Ediuns, 2010), 123.
6 Claude Kappler, Monstruos, demonios y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media (Madrid: Akal,
1986), 235.
7 “Designamos con este término genérico de hibridación a todos los seres constituidos por
elementos anatómicos dispares que alteran el aspecto físico normal… Los monstruos
‘híbridos’ más frecuentes son, precisamente, seres en que se mezclan elementos humanos y
animales.” Kappler, Monstruos, demonios y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media, 167.
9
egipcias, como Anubis, el dios-chacal (muy cercano a los cinocéfalos); Amón, el
dios con cabeza de carnero; Horus, con cabeza de toro, etc. (…) En la
imaginería religiosa hay representaciones de estos ‘monstruos’. Existen más
concretamente incluso en la escenificación de los dramas litúrgicos – o misterios
– de varias civilizaciones de la Antigüedad: las danzas con máscaras de los
magos o de los medicine-men tienen lugar desde la prehistoria. En las
representaciones de los mitos, los actores visten a menudo como animales y
llevan máscaras apropiadas.”8 In the case at hand, Slavs are not viewed as cynocephali
or given the physical features of animals, but they do bear the name and
may even “bark”9 instead of speaking in a human language, which is a cultural
product.10 Thus, my focus here will be on the cultural and religious implications
of using the word “dog” to refer to the other.
The Bible provides us with numerous examples of references to dogs (literal
and symbolical) in textual contexts where, as in The Book of Psalms,
8 Kappler, Monstruos, demonios y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media, 170. The author
mentions several examples of cynocephaly and affirms the relevance of the myth: “Hay
pocos monstruos que se presten a variaciones tan numerosas, lo que prueba la riqueza y la
importancia de este mito;” ibidem, 172. The examples given include the following: “Más
cerca de nosotros, en fin, se encuentran santos cristianos con cabeza de animal; es el caso de
ciertas representaciones de los cuatro evangelistas, así como, más en especial, el de San
Cristobal. Señala G. Lascault a propósito de los cinocéfalos que ‘existe una curiosa imagen
en ciertos íconos, un San Cristóbal con cabeza de perro; L. Réau presenta ejemplos de este
‘Cristóbal cinocéfalo desde un códice del siglo XII hasta los íconos populares del XIX’;”
ibidem, 171; Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (c. 1182?-1252), an Italian franciscan misionary
relates “… que tienen pezuñas de buey y que su lenguaje es en parte humano y en parte
canino: ´Pronunciaban escasas palabras al modo humano, el resto era como un ladrido de
perro, mezclando aquéllas y éste para hacerse entender’;” ibidem, 172; “… Odorico
pretende que en la isla de Vacumerán (sin duda Nicobar) ‘las gentes tienen rostro de perro,
tanto los hombres como las mujeres’, extendiendo así este fenómeno a los dos sexos, y
Mandeville, al contrario que Hethoum, afirma que ‘son razonables y de buen entendimiento’;”
ibidem, 172.
9 The anthropologist David Gordon White briefly examines the etymology of the English term
“hound”, the form of either a widespread morpheme among Indo-European, Semitic, and
also central Asian languages or the onomatopoetic sound of a bark. White, The Myths of the
Dog-Man, 13. Additionally, after pointing to Central Asia as the “primal vortex” of the
world mythology of cynanthropic and cynocephalic races, he adds in a note that “A perennial
description of Dog-Men has them barking rather than speaking, or barking after a few
words of human speech: this echoes the place of the hellhound in Indo-European mythology,
whose growl places it on the threshold between silence and speech. In Sophocles‘ play,
the noble Philoctetes craves human speech as much as he does anything else in his desire to
free himself from savage nature;” ibidem, 217.
10 Inversely, the line between humans and animals seems to be transgressed in the apocryphal
Acts of Peter, when a stray dog starts to speak. The Acts of Peter, IX, Apocryphal New
Testament, ed. J. K. Elliot (Oxford, OUP, 2005), 408. For some examples of talking animals
in apocrypha, see: Dominic Alexander, Saints and Animals in the Middle Ages
(Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2008), 23.
10
praises to God are sung, along with pleas for salvation from the enemy,11 the
impious12 and evildoers.13 In the Book of Revelation, dogs share the same fate as
sorcerers, the immoral, murderers and idolaters, all of whom are left outside the
gates of the Christian city.14 What is the origin of this association? The Bible
judges dogs to be impure: dogs eat meat torn from beasts in the field (Ex 22,
31); they eat human corpses (1 Kings 14, 11; 1 Kings 16, 4; 1 Kings 21, 23-24; 2
Kings 9, 10; 2 Kings 9, 36);15 they lick blood flowing from corpses.16 There is
therefore a link between impurity – which prevents entrance into the Temple and
participation in certain rituals – and unbelieving – which means that the infidel
is (far) away from God; on the contrary, Christians are united in Eucharist, in
Christ.
11 “Prayer for Deliverance from Enemies. To the leader: Do Not Destroy. Of David. A Miktam,
when Saul ordered his house to be watched in order to kill him. Deliver me from my
enemies, O my God; protect me from those who rise up against me. Deliver me from those
who work evil; from the bloodthirsty save me. Even now they lie in wait for my life; the
mighty stir up strife against me. For no transgression or sin of mine, O LORD, for no fault of
mine, they run and make ready. Rouse yourself, come to my help and see! You, LORD God
of hosts, are God of Israel. Awake to punish all the nations; spare none of those who
treacherously plot evil. Selah Each evening they come back, howling like dogs and prowling
about the city. There they are, bellowing with their mouths, with sharp words on their
lips – for “Who,” they think, “will hear us?” But you laugh at them, O LORD; you hold all
the nations in derision. O my strength, I will watch for you; for you, O God, are my fortress.
My God in his steadfast love will meet me; my God will let me look in triumph on
my enemies. Do not kill them, or my people may forget; make them totter by your power,
and bring them down, O Lord, our shield. For the sin of their mouths, the words of their
lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter, consume
them in wrath; consume them until they are no more. Then it will be known to the ends of
the earth that God rules over Jacob. Selah Each evening they come back, howling like dogs
and prowling about the city. They roam about for food, and growl if they do not get their
fill. But I will sing of your might; I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning.
For you have been a fortress for me and a refuge in the day of my distress. O my strength, I
will sing praises to you, for you, O God, are my fortress, the God who shows me steadfast
love.” Ps 59.
12 “But God will shatter the heads of his enemies, the hairy crown of those who walk in their
guilty ways. The Lord said, ‘I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back
from the depths of the sea, so that you may bathe your feet in blood, so that the tongues of
your dogs may have their share from the foe’.” Ps 68, 21-23.
13 “For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have
shriveled…” Ps 22, 16.
14 “Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone
who loves and practices falsehood.” Rev 22, 15.
15 The topic of impurity after touching a human or animal corpse is found in Lev 5, 2; Lev 11,
35; Lev 11, 39; Num 19, 11; Num 19, 13; Num 19, 16.
16 The topic of dogs licking blood appears in: 1 Kings 21,19; 1 Kings 22, 38; Ps 68, 23, while
the impurity of blood and the prohibition consigned to it is found in: Lev 3,17; Lev 7, 26-
27; Lev 12, 4; Lev 12, 7.
11
Due to spatial limitations, I cannot quote or comment at any length on
these scriptural precedents.17 Nor is it possible to provide an in-depth examination
of the question of the appeal to negative connotations when recognizing or
delimitating identities in other contexts. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to mention
that contacts between Christendom and Judaism or Islam are also relevant in this
regard. In fact, “Visual and literary constructions of otherness in medieval
Christian (as well as Jewish and Muslim) societies often employed animal metaphors
in a process of graphic dehumanization.”18
In his book on ritual murder, Kenneth Stow explores “… the scenario presented
in Matthew 15: 26: Matthew’s statement, put in the mouth of Christ, that
‘the bread’ that he, Christ, has brought for ‘the children’ should not be ‘thrown
to the dogs’… Exegetically, this verse was transmogrified into an image of
Christian children hungering for the Eucharist, which ‘Jewish dogs’ incessantly
plot to steal, consume, savage, or pollute. This identification dates from no later
than the fourth century. Yet… often imagined Jewish plots against the Eucharist
were expressed in later times in terms of ritual murder or blood libel, the victims
called martyrs, and every martyr considered a Eucharistic surrogate. As though
by definition, all imagined Jewish assaults against ‘innocent children’ came to
be identified as assaults against the Eucharist. It is the perennially perceived interchangeability
of martyr-victim with Eucharistic purity and its defence, or
simply the idea of defending Eucharistic purity against its pretended enemies,
that unites centuries of thinking.”19 Additionally, the author states that “This
17 The precedents for the link between the idea of impurity and dogs extend back to Hittite
society (18th-12th century B.C.): “Yet purity and its conservation is not a Christian invention.
It has been a central theme throughout the human past. It featured already in Hittite
conceptions of the Temple Gate as early as the second millennium b.c.e. But so, tellingly,
did the dog. Who might pass through the gate? Neither pigs nor dogs, for they were considered
foci of impurity. No attempt will be made here directly to trace the transmission of this
Hittite concept to the future. Yet one cannot but note the parallel to the prophet Isaiah, who
contrasts the antinomies of proper sacrifice, an ox or a lamb and incense, with the unclean
sacrifice of a dog, a pig, or idolatry. Adepts of the ancient Dead Sea Sect, too, may have
used the canine image as a marker of impurity. That members of this sect linked the sense
of their own purity with the idea of being chosen goes without saying.” Kenneth Stow,
Jewish dogs: an Image and Its Interpreters: Continuity in the Catholic-Jewish Encounter
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006), 17.
18 Aleksander Pluskowski, “The dragon´s skull: How can zooarchaeologists contribute to our
understanding of otherness in the Middle Ages”, in Animals and Otherness in the Middle
Ages. Perspectives across disciplines, ed. Francisco de Asís García García, Mónica Anna
Walker Vadillo, and María Victoria Chico Picaza (Oxford: BAR, 2013), 109. On this point
Pluskowski refers to Alexandra Cuffel, Gendering Disgust in Medieval Religious Polemic
(Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 198.
19 Stow, Jewish dogs, XIV-XV: Actually, “… the arch-locus of impurity, dogs – read here,
‘Jewish dogs’ – were to be kept from entering ‘the temple’, now, the Christian temple.
They must especially be kept away from (Matthew’s [15:26]) ‘bread.’ Were not Hittites
admonished: ‘let not a pig or a dog stay at the door of the place [the temple] where the
loaves are broken?’ And were they not further told: ‘Since a dog approached the [altar]
12
sense Matthew 7:6 reinforces, warning believers not to give the holy to dogs,
their ‘pearls’ to swine. About the tenth century, this last verse was applied directly
to Jews. The images of dogs (and pigs) and (Eucharistic) loaves (regardless
of Matthew’s original intention) seem almost destined to become focal
points in Christian confrontational teachings regarding Jews.”20 These ideas expand
to include references to barking21 and, I might add, to other peoples.
Encounters between Christians and Muslims are also marked by
reciprocative characterisations of infidels as dogs.22 Islam challenged the existence
of Christianity from the late seventh century on. In “Unthinking the Monster:
Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity”, Michael Uebel wonders
how identity can be configured as both effective limit and collapsible boundary.
23 In such a context he argues, “Like the monstrous race of Cynocephali
(dog-headed men) with whom they were often identified, Saracens and their religion
symbolized the blurring of ideal boundaries, such as those separating rational
man from animal or civilized man from barbarian.”24 Such appreciations
table and consumed the daily [sacrificial offering of] bread, they ‘consume’ [destroy] the
table’.” The near identity of Matthew and the Hittite texts is breath-taking. Kenneth Stow,
Jewish dogs, XVII.
20 Stow, Jewish dogs, XVII.
21 Kenneth Stow quotes events from the Modern Age to support the idea of this continuous
use of the image, Stow, Jewish dogs, XVII-XVIII.
22 Muslims have also used the term “dog” to refer to Christians as was proved by Soha Abboud-
Haggar, “En Granada sólo quedó el llanto”, in: La aventura de la Historia, Año 4,
Nº39, enero 2002, 63-66. After the fall of Granada, the 16th-century poet al-Daqqun manifests:
“A comienzos del año noventa y siete, / el sol de al-Andalus desaparecido quedó, / Y
el pero alcanzó / su objetivo porque a nadie / se encontró que nos defienda; / Que la
voluntad de Allah se cumpla, / pues todo de Allah depende; Que cada desdichado se
encierre / sobre su tristeza, y que Allah / nos proteja de todo mal.” This topic was explored
in Gerardo Rodríguez, “Denominar y denostar. La injuria en Los Milagros de Guadalupe
(España, siglo XV),” IV Jornadas Internacionales de Historia de España „Tierra.
Hombres. Culturas“, Fundación para la Historia de España, Buenos Aires, September 9-10,
2004.
23 In the preface to his book, Jeffrey Jerome Cohen summarizes that “Michael Uebel
(„Unthinking the Monster“) unpacks how this process of identity formation was conducted
in … the writing of horrifying anti-Muslim polemic that purported to give an accurate account
of the interaction between Christendom and Islam. By monsterizing Saracen alterity,
Christians constructed their image of Self; Uebel turns to this field of ‘unthought’ (what is
abjected in the process of becoming Christian, what is constructed as monstrous) to build a
theoretical framework for the reading of monsters more generally.” Cohen, ed., Monster
Theory: Reading Culture, XII.
24 Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 268.
Additionally, the author remarks that “One of my favourite examples is the famous Borgia
mappa mundi that pictures northern Africa as a cynocephalic king of the Saracens seated on
a throne and holding court for two subjects as monstrous in appearance as himself” and that
“The conflation of Saracens and dogs occurs frequently in the French chansons de geste,
where the Muslims are frequently portrayed as barking like dogs when they rush into
battle.” He suggests the following reading: C. Meredith Jones, “The Conventional Saracen
13
become exacerbated during the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and
the long Spanish Reconquista, as well as during the Crusades,25 because “Islam
threatens the preservation and renewal of sacred history by setting up an alternative,
deviant history”,26 distinguished by error, deviant practices, disorder, and
monstrosity. Gerardo Rodríguez explored the subject of “los perros moros” in a
paper about injury in Los Milagros de Guadalupe (s. XV),27 where he outlines
the chronology of the three-stage process of building the concept: “Este proceso
de construcción de ‘lo imaginario’ no es ni uniforme ni rápido ni simple, todo lo
contrario. Es un proceso múltiple, que se nutre de imaginarios diversos y que
atravesó tres fases en su proceso de construcción: nacimiento – siglos VIII al XI
–, difusión – siglos XI al XIV – y declinación – siglos XIV/XV.”28 The initial
steps of this periodization (birth and dissemination) coincide chronologically
with the use of the image “Slav dogs” in the early days of the Christianisation
process in Central Europe.
On the other hand, the studies of authors such as Peter Dinzelbacher on
legal proceedings against animals or Michel Pastoureau’s research on symbolism
examine the concept of the animal in general, while another area of analysis
of otherness is zooarcheaology, where Aleksander Pluskowski considers “…
whether variables in animal exploitation can be linked to the deliberate promotion
of group identity…”,29 contributing to “breaking down the notion of a single,
simple medieval attitude to the natural world, and the values attached to differof
the Songs of Geste,” Speculum 17 (1942): 205. In addition, he points out that the fact of
the identification of cynocephalics with Muslim ‘Turks’ shows the extension beyond the
Latin tradition of popular folktales and romances, as shown by White in The Myths of the
Dog-Man, where the anthropologist refers to the “… Slavic folk identification of Turks
with dog-headed man-eaters”; Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses
to Saracen Alterity,” 284, footnote 18. Furthermore, Uebel refers to southern Slavs
and the word pesoglavci to name the Turks: “To understand, for example, monsters and
Saracens in the Middle Ages as figures of abjection who constitute in the cultural imaginary
the limits of Christian identity, we must see these figures as boundary phenomena
inseparable from their place at the territorial edge and inside the symbolic structure”;
Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 267.
25 According to Uebel, “Such border anxiety in crusade literature often takes the form of an
obsession with preserving the purity and fixity of origins.” Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster:
Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 269.
26 Ibidem, 270.
27 Los Milagros can be found at Archivo del Real Monasterio de Guadalupe.
28 Rodríguez, “Denominar y denostar. La injuria en Los Milagros de Guadalupe (España,
siglo XV),” 9.
29 Pluskowski, “The dragon’s skull: How can zooarchaeologists contribute to our understanding
of otherness in the Middle Ages,” 110. The author concludes that his paper “… has
suggested how zooarchaeologists can and are contributing to furthering our understanding
of heterogeneity in medieval European society on either side of the widespread acceptance
of Christianity, by mapping the development of cultural norms through the study of the
varied treatment of animal remains in the context of religious self-identification;” ibidem,
120.
14
ent species.”30 The French historian Michel Pastoureau explains that there are
two, apparently contradictory, currents of thought regarding animals’ status
during the Middle Ages:31 the first current leads to a symbolic thinking of the
animal, but also toward the repression of any behaviour which may involve confusion
between the human and animal species (this includes practices such as
dressing up like animals or using masks);32 the second current, reflecting
Aristotelian and Pauline influences, holds that there exists a community of living
creatures. Additionally, Dinzelbacher identifies two different periods related to
the conception of the animal during the Middle Ages: “… In der Antike und im
Mittelalter bis ins 13. Jahrhundert wurden Mensch und Tier als auf ganz unterschiedlichen
Stufen befindlich gesehen. Tiere galten keineswegs als Mitgeschöpfe,
sondern als von Gott klar und ausschlieβlich zum Gebrauch und zur
Beherrschung durch den Menschen geschaffen.”33 However, during the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, there is a process of humanization of animals, which
leads to the appearance of phenomena such as Tierprozesse.34
With regard specifically to dogs, the anthropologist David Gordon White
published a book that traces the transformations of the Dog-Man theme in various
cultures (European, Indian, and Chinese), all sharing the image of otherness.
35 The author considers what these monsters were intended to warn about or
monstrate (quoting Isidore of Seville’s identification of monsters with the ideas
of monstrations (monere) or warnings (monare). He argues that “In all of the
three traditions we will address in these pages, monsters are ideologically…
construed as marginal groups that haunt the boundaries of human, civilized people”.
36 Additionally, “Ultimately, the dog, with its ambiguous roles and cultural
values, its constant presence in human experience coupled with its nearness to
the feral world, is the alter ego of the man himself, a reflection of both human
culture and human savagery. Symbolically, the dog is the animal pivot of the
30 Pluskowski, “The dragon’s skull: How can zooarchaeologists contribute to our understanding
of otherness in the Middle Ages,” 120. The author mentions here Vicki Ellen Szabo’s
book, Monstrous Fishes and the Mead-Dark Sea: Whaling in the Medieval North Atlantic
(Leiden: Brill, 2008).
31 “Por un lado, hay que oponer con la mayor claridad posible el hombre, creado a imagen de
Dios, a la criatura animal, sumisa e imperfecta, si no impura. Pero, por otro lado, se percibe
en varios autores la idea más o menos difusa de la existencia de un vínculo entre los seres
vivos y de un parentesco – no sólo biológico, sino también trascendente – entre el hombre y
el animal.” Michel Pastoureau, Una historia simbólica de la Edad Media occidental
(Buenos Aires: Katz, 2006), 28-29.
32 According to the theology derived from the Fathers: “hay que oponer con la mayor claridad
posible el hombre, creado a imagen de Dios, a la criatura animal, sumisa e imperfecta, si no
impura.” Pastoureau, Una historia simbólica de la Edad Media occidental, 28.
33 Peter Dinzelbacher, Das fremde Mittelalter. Gottesurteil und Tierprozess (Essen: Magnus
Verlag, 2006), 152.
34 Ibidem, 153.
35 White, The Myths of the Dog-Man.
36 Ibidem, 1.
15
human universe, lurking at the threshold between wilderness and domestication
and all of the valences that these two ideal poles of experience hold.”37
Nevertheless, there are also saints who have a dog’s characteristic attributes,
among them, Saint Christopher38 and Saint Guinefort, the venerated French dog
whose cult, prohibited by the Church, was studied by Jean-Claude Schmitt.39
The ambivalence is also remarked upon by Elisa Anti, who researched the
topic of saints and animals in the Italian Padan Plain between the 4th and 12th
centuries. The author explores the prohibition of hunting: “È anche significativo
il fatto che la caccia vietata agli ecclesiastici –e anche, va sottolineato, alle
badesse– fosse proprio la caccia nobile, quella che si distingueva dalla caccia
contadina per l’utilizzo del cavallo, del cane e del falcone. Questi animali,
appunto tipici e caratterizzanti della nobiltà, finirono inevitabilmente coinvolti
nel clima di condanna che coinvolgeva l’intera attività venatoria.”40 The dog,
“… già in precedenza segnato da una connotazione quantomeno ambivalente”
was “animale della soglia” (the threshold) in Mediterranean religions.41
Regarding the subject at hand in light of the aspects discussed above, how
is this other, this monster, the Slav, framed in Christian sources dating from the
tenth and eleventh centuries? Constructions of the other canalise the view and
assessment of both the other and the self. In my view, traces in the sources I
have examined merit consideration. In the next section I will analyse the images
of Slavs as dogs depicted in them and discuss the implications.
37 Ibidem, 15.
38 See above, Kappler, Monstruos, demonios y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media, 171. See
also White, The Myths of the Dog-Man, 34-36.
39 Jean-Claude Schmitt, Der heilige Windhund. Die Geschichte eines unheiligen Kults (Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta, 1982).
40 Elisa Anti, Santi e animali nell’Italia padana (secoli IV-XII) (Bologna: CLUEB, 1998), 150.
41 Ibidem. The author adds: “Il demone dei morti in aspetto canino ha origini antichissime e,
in tutte le mitologie, questo animale appare associato alla morte, agli inferi, al mondo
sotterraneo, tanto che la sua prima funzione mitica è quella de psicopompo. Nella cultura
ebraica il cane, così come lo sciacallo, è caratterizzato da una fama del tutto negativa:
animale impuro, esso è, nelle Scritture, immagine di ciò che è volgare e spregevole,”
ibidem, 150-51. However, the dog also carries a positive image, that of fidelity and
preachment: “Gli autori cristiani confermano, nei loro scritti, tale immagine duplice del
cane. Isidoro di Siviglia, trattando di questo animale, pone l’ accento sulle sue qualità
positive, ricordandone l’ assoluta fedeltà al padrone, di cui non abbandona nemmeno il
corpo morto. Rabano Mauro aggiunge a queste caratteristiche positive anche quelle più
negative, rammentando come il cane possa farsi simbolo dei Gentili, dei Giudei e degli
eretici, mentre in Ugo di San Vittore torna a prevalere la connotazione positiva. Negli
autori monastici, al contrario, il cane resta animale del tutto negativo, vera e propria
‘immagine dell’ immondezza’;” ibidem, 151.
16
Slavs as dogs: irreligiosity, infidelitas, and identity in narrative sources
At this point, I would like to indicate some references which particularise
how Central European Slavs are presented in narrative sources from the region
written during the tenth and eleventh centuries.
The sources selected are inscribed in different documental genres: chronicles,
lives of saints, and passiones of martyrs. In the present article I will limit
myself to references in three sources where the word “dog” was used to allude to
Slavs (in general or to a particular people). My aim in subsequent research will
be to systematically extend the temporal scope to include source material from
twelfth-century texts in which the comparison is still found.
Although written within the boundaries of the Ottonian Empire, the three
sources discussed here come from its geographical fringes. All three focus on
encounters between Christians and non-Christian or superficially christianised
peoples in an area where the population was mixed. These texts reflect the obstacles
to imposing Christian culture on all aspects of life.
I will begin with the Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg,42 a chronicle
written between 1012 and 1018 during the reign of Henry II, when the author
was the bishop of the see (1009 and 1018). The chronicle’s objective was to recount
the history of Merseburg – a see which was part of the Archdiocese of
Magdeburg –,43 as well as the history and deeds of the Saxon kings.44 Real dogs
are present in diverse contexts in this source: during Henry I´s conquest, Northmen
and Danes were “recalled from their ancient error”, which involved the sacrifice
of human beings, horses, dogs, and cocks on January 6 every nine years as
an offering to their gods;45 protagonist of a “miraculous event”, a dog performed
an act of “justice” when it bit off the hand of the man who had killed its
master;46 ravenous dogs guarded hostages,47 while ferocious dogs that disturbed
a sick countess with their barking inexplicably and miraculously stopped bark-
42 I am using the English translation of the chronicle: Ottonian Germany. The Chronicon of
Thietmar of Merseburg, trans. David Warner (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2001), hereafter Thietmar.
43 Magdeburg was created as a border-see from where christianising attempts of the Slavs
were launched. Helmut Beumann, Theutonum nova metropolis. Studien zur Geschichte des
Erzbistums Magdeburg in ottonischer Zeit (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau Verlag,
2000).
44 I dealt with the topic in an article where, focusing on the prologues of the books in
Thietmar´s Chronicle, the aim was to show how the author perceived the deeds of the Ottonian
kings from the perspective of the interests of his own see. Andrea Vanina Neyra,
“Glorias y aflicciones del imperio otoniano: la Crónica de Thietmar de Merseburg”, Revista
electrónica anual: Actas y Comunicaciones del Instituto de Historia Antigua y Medieval 9
(2013): 1-12.
45 Thiemar, I 17.
46 The dog’s victim recognizes he is paying for his crime because “… no criminal can hide
from judgement without penalty, whether in this world or the next.” Thietmar, I 27.
47 Thietmar, IV 25.
17
ing at the death of this holy servant of God;48 and finally, furious dogs attempting
to hunt down a bishop appointed in Burgundy (Archbishop Bertald of
Besanҫon) by William (“the most powerful man in those parts”), were thwarted
when he managed to escape by making the sign of the cross over his tracks and
letting the dogs smell his scent.49
Of particular interest is chapter 17 in the third book: Thietmar narrates the
Slavic uprising started by the Liutizi in the year 983.50 The bishopric sees of
Havelberg and Brandenburg were attacked and destroyed. Brandenburg was
abandoned by Bishop Folkman and his warriors, but the clergy were captured
and the tomb of Dodilo (the second bishop of that see) plundered. The event is
recounted, using terms emphasizing the violence of the episode and its consequences,
as interpreted by Thietmar: “The second bishop, Dodilo, was dragged
from his tomb. He had been strangled by his own people and, though three years
in the grave, his body and priestly vestments were as yet uncorrupted. The
greedy dogs then plundered him and carelessly threw him back again. They also
stole all of the church’s treasures and brutally spilled the blood of many. Thus
various cults of demonic heresy were venerated instead of Christ and his fisherman,
the venerable Peter. And not only the heathen praised this sorrowful change,
but also Christians!”51
The last sentence shows clearly the impressive damage done by the Liutizi
as a consequence of Margrave Dietrich’s arrogance – which is detected as the
cause of the uprising:52 pagans and Christians have united. In fact, the chapter
48 Thietmar, IV 34.
49 Thietmar, VII 28. Some questions arise: why do the dogs leave “as if propelled by a great
whirlwind”? Because of the scent (of holiness)? Were they “converted” somehow? If so,
can peoples depicted as dogs be converted? We assume these questions should be answered
affirmatively.
50 I will not go into detail about the uprising. It has been thoroughly researched by Christian
Lübke, “Konflikte zwischen Sachsen und Slawen vom 10. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert,“ in
Politische, soziale und kulturelle Konflikte in der Geschichte von Sachsen-Anhalt. Beiträge
des landesgeschichtlichen Kolloqiums am 4./5. September 1998 in Vockerode, ed. Werner
Freitag, Klaus Erich Pollmann and Matthias Puhle (Halle, Saale: Mitteldeutscher Verlag,
1999), 12-21. Also, Christian Lübke, “Ein Fall von ‘challenge and response’? Die autochthonen
Bewohner des südlichen Ostseeraums gegenüber Macht und Pracht des
Christentums”, in Glaube, Macht und Pracht. Geistliche Gemeinschaften des Ostseeraums
im Zeitalter der Backsteingotik. Beiträge einer interdiszipilären Fachtagung vom 27. bis
30. November 2007 im Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald, ed. Oliver Auge,
Felix Biermann and Christofer Herrmann (Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2009),
39-47.
51 Thietmar, III 17.
52 “Während sich Heinrich I. noch mit der bloßen tributären Abhängigkeit der Elbslawen begnügt
hatte, intensivierte sein Sohn Otto der Große die Herrschaft über die ihm qua
Kriegsrecht als Königsland zugefallenen Gebiete: Er sorgte nicht nur für den Ausbau militärischer
Stützpunkte und den organisatorischen Anschluß an die Reichskirche, sondern er
förderte auch die Verflechtung der neu entstandenen Elbmarken mit dem Altsiedelland und
das Ausgreifen kirchlicher Institutionen und sächsisch-thüringischer Adelsgeschlechter
18
opens as follows: “Margrave Dietrich’s arrogance so irritated peoples who had
already accepted both Christianity and the status of tribute payer in regard to our
kings and emperors that their members unanimously decided to take up arms.”53
The attackers are called “greedy dogs”: Slavic in origin, some christianised and
others not, but all infidels (infidelity interpreted as either denial or opposition to
religious fides)54 living on the margins – geographical and cultural: they destroy
the work of the Church in the area, plundering its property out of rage, infidelity,
and greed, as well as desecrating the tomb of an uncorrupted former bishop55
and leaving him unburied, in defiance of the sacred character of the body itself,
56 the sacrality of the place of burial, and the authority of the Church represented
by the space and the episcopal office. “Greedy dogs”, these Slavs are impure
infidels; they are a threat to Christian society.57
Written only a few years earlier than Thietmar´s Chronicle,58 the Passio
sancti Venceslavi martyris Gumpoldi, mantuani episcope by Bishop Gumpold of
nach Osten. Als all diese Elemente schließlich die noch intakte slawische Selbstverwaltung
auf lokaler Ebene sowie die kulturelle Autonomie erstickten, formierte sich im nördlichen
Bereich der Elbslawen, im östlichen Mecklenburg, wirksamer Widerstand, der 983 in einen
großen Slawenaufstand mündete und die ottonische Kirchen und Markenorganisation
östlich der Elbe hinwegfegte.” Lübke, “Konflikte zwischen Sachsen und Slawen vom 10.
bis zum 12. Jahrhundert,” 15. The tax pressure by the Church and the Empire is also
referred to by Timothy Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800-1056 (Longman:
London and New York, 1998), 178.
53 Thietmar, III 17.
54 See above: Silvia Magnavacca, Léxico técnico de Filosofía Medieval, 366.
55 “Christian accounts of corporeal integrity and purity were inevitably expressed in terms of
the body as a site, a topography of licit and illicit areas. Indeed, the renunciation of the natural
body in Judeo-Christian thought only served to reaffirm its ideological centrality. Thus
an elaborate system of analogies developed between the physical body and the political or
collective body. The body often served to map political and religious hierarchies.” Uebel,
“Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 277.
56 “Purity also referred to the physical purity of holy spaces and objects. These, too, had to be
defended. No less important was the desire to demonstrate purity’s merits. Here, martyrdom
and its commemoration played a particular role. So essential was the testimony of
martyrdom to demonstrate Eucharistic resilience and purity that martyrs were fictionally
created. To this, the repetition of ritual murder tales over the centuries both contributed and
unerringly attests.” Stow, Jewish dogs, 16.
57 Lübke, “Ein Fall von `challenge and response´? Die autochthonen Bewohner des südlichen
Ostseeraums gegenüber Macht und Pracht des Christentums,” 39-47.
58 I am using the English translation published by the Central European University Press. In
terms of previous and current editions, Marina Miladinov summarises in her preface:
“Gumpold´s life was first edited by Josef Dobrowsky in Kritische Versuche, die ältere
böhmische Geschichte von späteren Erdichtungen zu reinigen, 3 (Prague, 1819), 53-115,
and then by G. H. Pertz in MGH SS IV (Annales, chronica et historiae aevi Carolini ex
Saxonici) (Hanover, 1841), 211-23, whence it was taken over by J. Emler, FRB I, 146-66.
The most recent critical edition is that of Jana Zachová, who in some cases adopted a different
reading with respect to the previous editors. This is the edition we have chosen for
our basic text, and in cases where I considered her divergences from the previous editions
19
Mantua,59 commissioned by Otto II,60 describes the royal martyr Wenceslas’s
murder in 935 at the instigation of his own brother, Boleslav.61
The Passio starts with a portrayal of the state of Bohemia as inhabited by
a cruel and pagan population, where the Christian faith –although predestined to
rule– has advanced less than in other parts.62 Gumpold recounts Wenceslas’
early years and his willingness to devote himself to “heavenly things”; evidence
of which was that, even when elected as his father’s (Vratislav) successor to ducal
rule,63 he encouraged the expansion of Christianity through his deeds and the
recognition of ecclesiastical rights.64 In spite of his brother’s desire to abandon
secular power, Boleslav was full of rage and, incited by the devil, sought to acquire
his kingdom.65 This fraternal envy led him to prepare a plot against
of interest to the reader, they have been indicated in the notes below the Latin text.” Marina
Miladinov, Preface to “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by Gumpold of Mantua,” in Saints of
the Christianization Age of Central Europe (Tenth-Eleventh Centuries), ed. Gábor
Klaniczay, trad. Cristian Gaspar and Marina Miladinov (Budapest and New York: CEU
Press, 2012), 25-26.
59 “… apart from the authorship of this legend, virtually nothing is known about Bishop Gumpold.
Jana Nechutová has presumed that he spent some time in Prague before taking up his
office in Mantua, which may explain his full knowledge of details and his precision in the
spelling of Slavic names.” Miladinov, Preface to “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by Gumpold
of Mantua,” 22.
60 “A number of Wenceslas’s legends were written soon after the prince’s martyrdom, in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, both in Latin and Old Slavonic. In the late 970s most likely,
and certainly before his death in 983, Emperor Otto II commissioned a new hagiography of
the Bohemian saint from Bishop Gumpold of Mantua. The most famous manuscript containing
Gumpold´s work is the one preserved in the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel
(Cod. Guelf. II.2 Aug 4°, fol. 18v-37v), which has the particular value of being
roughly contemporary with the composition of the legend itself. It was ordered by Emma,
daughter of Adelaide of Burgundy and wife of Boleslav II, at the time of her widowhood
and exile before her death in 1006. The codex contains 109 folios and its first section (fol.
1-37) contains three legends of various saints, among which Gumpold’s is the oldest.”
Miladinov, Preface to “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by Gumpold of Mantua,” 21. On Otto’s
agenda and Gumpold’s text, see: Ian Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the
Evangelisation of Europe 400-1050 (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001), 195-97.
61 “The cult of the royal martyr spread quickly throughout the Empire, contributing to the
intentional creation of Ottonian dynastic cults.” It is celebrated each September 28. Miladinov,
Preface to “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by Gumpold of Mantua,” 20.
62 “But although some pagans were, after erring on a tortuous side-path for a long time,
guided back to the straightness of the normal way by the sacred illustration, still not all the
nations of the world, even though predestined, obtained equally the gift of this grace; by the
order of the celestial majesty, it reached those regions gradually, as if the devil were meant
to be ruined step by step. Among such lands I will refer to one, which is inhabited by a
Slavic people and will be described with the simplicity of this pen. It is a northern region,
more savage and more belated in faith than others…” “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by
Gumpold of Mantua,” 33.
63 Ibidem, 35.
64 Ibidem, 53.
65 Ibidem, 55.
20
Wenceslas, early attempts of which were hindered by “God´s orders” and divine
protection.66 Even though Wenceslas showed mercy to his brother and his companions,
the man who had hidden “like a wolf in his cave”67 attacked him, again,
unsuccessfully, with his sword. When the right time came, however, in the end
the duke was martyred: “‘Don’t you see, you dismal man?’ he said, ‘Your
mischievous cruelty could turn against you now. There! What prevents me from
becoming the one who spills his brother’s blood? But I do not want, my brother,
that your blood should be asked from my hand at the last judgment. Take the
sword, complete the sacrifice; do not postpone any longer what is to be done!’
As the irreverent brother received back his sword, he cried out loudly, as if in
fear of being defeated, and called upon his companions to help him, pretending
that he was compelled to fight back and that he was first wounded by his
brother´s attack. The companions immediately came running, attracted by the
great outcry, and asked their lord what was the reason for the tumult, as if ignorant
of the crime, feeling his ardent rage. As the author of the crime shattered the
holy head with the blow of the sword for the fourth time, everyone grabbed their
weapons at once and eagerly pierced Wenceslas’ limbs with their lances and
swords. The injured body fell prostrated upon the earth, half dead. Again and
again, savage blows of swords were falling; guiltless blood was flowing; the
body, free of sin, was torn in small pieces as if by dogs. The most sacred soul,
liberated under so many tortures of wounds from the enclosure of its fleshly
dwelling and given over to the hands of angels in noble triumph, entered the jubilant
divisions of the heavenly kingdom forever on 28 September, in order to
gaze at the face of the supreme remunerator in joy and sit among the glorious
orders of martyrs in eternity.”68
As a consequence, Wenceslas became a martyr who performed miracles,69
and his cult spread, attracting the attention of the Emperor, who commissioned
this hagiographical piece.70 On the other hand, rage gripped the murderers: “As
it has been truthfully related to us many times, after the triumph of the most
steadfast athlete, all those who spilt his innocent blood were struck by anger
from above and were either seized by the power of demons and never appeared
again among people, or they changed their nature and began to bark like dogs
instead of speaking, imitating the dog’s bite by gnawing their teeth; or again,
they withered in pitiful dryness of body and, forever deprived of their hearing,
soon ended their hateful life.”71 The image of dogs is again used here as an
incarnation of infidelity, since the martyrdom was performed by pagans against
66 Ibidem, 59.
67 Ibidem, 61.
68 Ibidem, 61-63.
69 Ibidem, 63-75.
70 See above.
71 “Passion of Saint Wenceslas by Gumpold of Mantua,” 65.
21
a merciful, Christian leader, partly because of the brother´s ambition and partly
because he was distorting the order, leading it away from the ancient customs.
The last source I have selected is Passio sancti Adalberti martiris Christi,
which relates the life and office of Bishop Adalbert of Prague (983-989 and 992-
994).72 The document has a complex tradition and transmission history,73 well
researched by the Polish editor Jadwiga Karwasińska74 and her critics, such as
Johannes Fried and Jürgen Hoffmann.75 The Vita prior (X),76 written in 999 in
Rome, was reworked three times (versions A, B, C), all of which have elements
taken from the lost original.77 The well-known Life of Saint Adalbert starts with
Adalbert´s family background and a brief description of Sclavonia: “There is a
place in the parts of Germany, rich in resources, most mighty in arms, and ferocious
men called Sclavonia by its inhabitants. The greatest part of this land, held
fast in pagan error, worships the creature instead of its Creator, sticks and stones
instead of God.”78 Thus, at the very beginning of chapter 1 it is stated that
Sclavonia is part of Germany (margin) and the inhabitants are pagans (error).
The text continues: “And, moreover, many among them, Christians in name
72 “Life of Saint Adalbert Bishop of Prague and Martyr,” in Saints of the Christianization Age
of Central Europe (Tenth-Eleventh Centuries), ed. Gábor Klaniczay, trad. Cristian Gaşpar
and Marina Miladinov (Budapest and New York : CEU Press, 2012), 77-182.
73 I am using the English translation published in the Central European Medieval Texts volume,
which is based on version A (Ottonian version) with additions from B and C (which
might have been part of the original). The translator checked previous translations to the
Polish and Czech languages by Abgarowicz and Zachová, respectively, while translations
by Kürbis and Weinrich are disregarded. Cristian Gaşpar, Preface to “Life of Saint
Adalbert Bishop of Prague and Martyr,” 90-94. The Preface also summarises the
transmission history, 82-94.
74 Jadwiga Karwasińska, Les trois rédactions de ‘Vita I’ de S. Adalbert (Rome: Angelo
Signorelli editore, 1958).
75 There are two recent efforts to reconstruct the “original” of the source, which the translator
considers a step backward: Johannes Fried denied Karwasińska´s conclusions and proposed
a Western origin in the see of Lieja for the manuscript tradition, and Jürgen Hoffmann produced
a new edition based on Fried´s theory, taking into account a small group of manuscripts.
Cristian Gaşpar, Preface to “Life of Saint Adalbert Bishop of Prague and Martyr,”
88-90.
76 On the authorship of the first Life: “The numerous examples of formulae quoted verbatim
or creatively adapted from the works of classical Latin authors, and especially the poetic
tags which he so evidently favors, suggest that our author had received a solid classical
training before taking on the monastic habit. At the same time, his familiarity with the
works of Gregory the Great and especially John Cassian, as well as his constant reference
to the Rule of St. Benedict, all point towards a man who was deeply conversant with staple
authors of the monastic tradition. All these indications reinforce the hypothesis that the
original version of the Life of Adalbert, best represented, perhaps, by its earliest surviving
Ottonian version, originated in a monastic milieu and was the work of Iohannes Canaparius.”
Gaşpar, Preface to “Life of Saint Adalbert Bishop of Prague and Martyr,” 91.
77 Ibidem, 81 and 88.
78 “Life of Saint Adalbert Bishop of Prague and Martyr,” chapter 1, 97.
22
only, live according to the rites of the pagans…,”79 which implies contact
between Christians and pagans, dangerous cultural encounters, margins, and
superficiality of beliefs.
Right from the start Adalbert was different from others: he was more
handsome than his brothers, pious,80 chaste, and well-educated at the cathedral
school in Magdeburg. When Dětmar (Thietmar), the Bishop of Prague died
(992), Adalbert was chosen by the “desolate” flock and the ruler of Bohemia to
take charge of the office – a decision supported by Emperor Otto III and Archbishop
Willigis of Mainz81 and confirmed by a man possessed by the devil who
said he only feared the person who would occupy the seat of the bishop.82 The
arrival of Adalbert in Bohemia serves as an excuse for the author to introduce
the reader to Wenceslas’ martyrdom: “… where that most famous duke Wenceslas
had once reigned and had led an admirable life in God´s service. Later,
however, after consummating his noble martyrdom by the sword of his impious
brother, to this day he has never ceased revealing his merits through manifest
proofs and remarkable miracles.”83 Even though the Duke´s brother is not depicted
as a dog here, he is referred to as an impious person responsible for Wenceslas’
martyrdom as discussed above.
Adalbert was appointed to and intended to serve this same region “… for
a long time, yet with little gain to implement the rule of Christianity among his
flock.”84 The inhabitants were reluctant to follow their shepherd and continued
committing all kinds of crimes and sins,85 making the Bishop feel that he was
wasting all his efforts and decide to try a life of contemplation in Rome86 in the
company of his brother Gaudentius.87 Archbishop Willigis initiated a complaint
against him, and Adalbert was obliged to return to the “society of evildoers”.88
Chapter 19 is central to the subject discussed here: the wife of a nobleman, who
was accused of having committed adultery with a cleric, applied to the Bishop
for help “When, according to the barbarian custom, her disgraced husband’s relatives
started searching for her in order to cut her head off…”89Then “that godless
handful of people” demanded that the Bishop deliver the woman to them,
promising to avenge the offense on Adalbert’s brothers, their wives and children
if he acted otherwise. The man who threatens the future martyr is described as
79 Ibidem, chapter 1, 97.
80 In his free time, Adalbert used to visit the dwellings of sacred martyrs, such as Saint Maurice,
whose relics were venerated in Magdeburg. Ibidem, chapter 4, 103.
81 Ibidem, chapter 8, 115.
82 Ibidem, chapter 4, 113.
83 Ibidem, chapter 8, 117.
84 Ibidem, chapter 9, 117.
85 Ibidem, chapter 12, 123-27.
86 Ibidem, chapter 13, 127-29.
87 Ibidem, chapter 16, 141.
88 Ibidem, chapter 18, 145.
89 Ibidem, chapter 19, 147.
23
“the rabid Slav (who) was barking such things against the bishop.” The passage
shows that “godless people,” the ones who continue under the rule of their “barbarian
practices” bark like dogs, since they are untouched by Christian culture as
represented by the bishop´s office.90
Abandoning the “sick flock” once again,91 Adalbert was told to go back to
his land by Archbishop Willigis, where he learned that all his family had been
murdered by that “wicked nation”92 which did not receive him again because
“We are all sinful, a people of iniquity, a stiff-necked nation. You, on the other
hand, are a saint, the friend of God, a true Israelite… Such a great man and one
of this kind can hardly endure the company and the society of sinners!”93 Relieved,
Adalbert decided to preach among the Prussians,94 finding his martyrdom
among them: “The spineless crowd gathered from all sides and stood by watching
with rabid snarls, like dogs, what would happen to him.”95 Next, “Savage
barbarians… cut off his noble head…”96 Slavs and Prussians alike are considered
dogs, the former because of their irreligiousness and their clinging to prior
practices, and the latter for these same reasons and for being guilty of his martyrdom.
Is the Slavs’ monstrosity reflected in their visible appearance in the
sources? Unfortunately, no detail in the descriptions supports this view. Only
their ferocity, savagery, and fury are made explicit to the reader. However,
above and beyond physical features, monstrosity here is a question of morality:
paraphrasing Claude Kappler, are monsters intelligent? Do they have a soul? If
so, can they be virtuous?97 If these questions are answered affirmatively, then
the process can be reversed,98 a major premise in all the sources considered
above, which take into account the Christianisation undertaken on the outer
fringes of Europe.99
90 Ibidem, chapter 19, 147-51.
91 Ibidem, chapter 20, 151.
92 Ibidem, chapter 25, 165.
93 Ibidem, chapter 26, 167.
94 Ibidem, chapter 27, 169.
95 Ibidem, chapter 28, 171.
96 Ibidem, chapter 30, 179.
97 “… la Edad Media se preocupa igualmente por su naturaleza moral. Los monstruos, ¿son
inteligentes? ¿pueden ser buenos, virtuosos? ¿tienen alma?” Kappler, Monstruos, demonios
y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media, 251.
98 Dominic Alexander mentions a motif of the vita of Saint Fínán and a particularity in the
Cainnech version: a wolf that had devoured a calf guards the cows as if a “humble dog.”
This wolf becomes socialised, leaving his wildness, just as dogs can also adopt human social
rules. Alexander, Saints and animals in the Middle Ages, 77.
99 Claude Kappler mentions Augustine’s classification of monsters in two categories in The
City of God, (XVI.8): creatures who are rationalia mortalia, such as men, and others who
are magis bestias quam homines, such as cynocephaly: “Duda en incluir estos últimos –
hombres por su cuerpo y perros por su cabeza – entre los seres humanos por tener como
único lenguaje un latratus, un ladrido. Así, pues, es en buena medida la lengua, en tanto
24
Concluding remarks
In a world characterised by Christian cultural expansion and domination
marked by encounters among different cultures, the sources written within the
territories of the Christian Ottonian Empire reflect the boundaries and interaction
created by intensive contact which serve to define the self and the other:
“… imagining otherness necessarily involves constructing the borderlands, the
boundary spaces, that contain – in the dual sense of enclosing and including –
what is antithetical to the self.”100 Social and cultural differences are emphasised
by means of the projection on humans of animal characteristics: animals and
monsters – or human beings acting like them – become a cultural threat.
Slavs, or rather non-Christian Slavs, are depicted as dogs in the sources
chosen, which were written by ecclesiastics during the Christianisation age of
Central Europe. These infidels are the other who should be converted to the true
religion – which is, in fact, a feasible deed, as shown by martyrs Wenceslas and
Adalbert; they are monsters who live on the fringes (geographical and cultural)
of civilization. The authors resort to the images they have at hand to portray the
unfaithful as barbarian, savage, animal-like monstrous peoples. Slavs become, in
consequence, dehumanised, their fierceness, savagery, and “barking” corresponding
to their unbelief and the menace they represent to the Church, its leaders,
and the Christian world.
que testimonio de pensamiento, de razón, lo que decide la naturaleza humana, moral de los
monstruos.” Kappler, Monstruos, demonios y maravillas a fines de la Edad Media, 252.
This means that language is central to the definition of human nature. Additionally, David
Gordon White states that “Thanks to Augustine, the Cynocephali were seen to be a part of
the economy of salvation, albeit a fallen or exiled part; and so it was that they become
widely allegorized and moralized as a quarrelsome, morally dumb, or even demonic race
that was nevertheless redeemable”. White, The Myths of the Dog-Man, 30.
100 Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 265.