The Question of Evidence

The fundamental exercise of the medieval historian is teasing a narrative out of an often scattered or incomplete body of evidence.  At our last meeting, we once again discussed some of the problems that evidence (or the lack of it) can pose for the researcher of animals in the Middle Ages.  How should we interpret archaeological findings, for example?  Do medieval animal remains offer us a comprehensive view of the ways in which people and animals during the period encountered one another?

In the case of the latter question, we seemed to agree that it is highly problematic to argue for continuity of animal experience for the whole of medieval Europe going off of isolated archaeological evidence alone.  Nevertheless, an archaeological approach can be extremely useful as a means of filling in gaps in our knowledge stemming from incomplete records or conflicting accounts.  Our readings on rats and the plague were informed by substantial use of archaeological data and epidemiological/statistical modeling.  The findings of these modern scientific approaches were interpreted against the backdrop of more standard forms of medieval historical evidence (writings and art), resulting in novel theories about the relationship between rats and the spread of plague in the fourteenth century.  It seems to me, however, that David E. Davis either undercuts the importance of his own research or underestimates its potential value for the historian when he says that the Rattus rattus’s presence in Europe prior to the outbreak of the plague is of lesser concern to the medievalist than the plague’s consequences (Davis, 468).  Most historians, I would wager, value understanding of the causes behind events just as highly as they do understanding of the consequences of events—but this is just a personal quibble I had with Davis’s presentation.

Animals in Court

I was doing random searches trying to find possible bibliographical data for my paper and came across a couple of webpages dealing with the trial and/or execution of animals for a variety of offenses against humans as well as witnesses and character references! Punishment for guilty animals included exile, excommunication, execution, and damnation and consideration was taken by the court regarding age, sex and infirmity, just as if the animal was human. If animals don't have the rational soul with gives them free will, intellect, and memory, how can they be held accountable for their actions in a court of law? By thier very actions, they are fulfilling the existence that God created them for, so how can that be considered a crime? I'm very curious as to the logic of this since - from what i can tell - this was not an extremely rare occurence. Yet it seems to clash with the whole system of logic that was in place during this time period regarding the place of animals in the medieval world.

LRW

PS: I've already decided on a topic for my paper and since I'm a MAPSS student, i am keeping it semi focused on my larger thesis. Therefore, i can't use this idea but it would make for such an entertaining paper i can't resist putting the idea out there for someone else to use (if you are having difficulties coming up with a paper topic).

Animal Utility in the Salic Law

The Salic Law (or the Law of the Salian Franks)¹ was written and revised multiple times between ca. 500 and 798 by a number of different people and groups from both Frankish and Roman perspectives. It is an extremely complicated source for historians for a number of reasons. It is impossible to say exactly how it was perceived by the people who created it, much less how or even whether it was used by them. It is impossible to tell exactly what it means in some parts because it is impossible to tell what was meant by some of the words used in it, most notably the Malberg glosses but also some of the Latin terms. It is also impossible to tell exactly how severe the monetary punishments it prescribed were since we do not have an adequate sense of the economy of the time or the exact value of the fines either objectively or in relation to the wealth of the average Frank. Given these and other issues it should be used carefully, especially when attempting to draw conclusions about Frankish society. However, the law can be examined internally in order to reveal its own sometimes fractured logic and used tentatively to draw conclusions about the ways in which its creators organized their world. Whatever its dangers it remains an excellent source dealing with animals in northern Europe during its time period. I would like to briefly suggest some of the main conclusions about the use of animals that can be drawn from it.