Medieval Hunting (14 page)

By the middle of the sixteenth century, bow and stable hunting had developed into a complex and hugely expensive demonstration of wealth and power, much favoured by great nobles and European royalty. The original idea of a sporting occasion was prostituted into one of slaughter and self-indulgence, the idea being to guarantee sport for royalty. Two paintings of the time illustrate the beginnings of this departure from true sport.
The Stag Hunt of the Elector Frederick the Wise
, completed by Lucas Cranach in about 1529, shows dozens of deer, having been driven into a lake, being shot by hunters from their stands or trysts. The Elector Frederick and Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I are easily recognised.
The Stag Hunt for the Emperor Charles V at the Castle of Torgau
, painted by Lucas Cranach the Younger in about 1544, is a similar scene of slaughter but on a grander scale, taking place in front of the impressive castle at Torgau.
¹¹⁴
This sort of guaranteed hunting could degenerate and become even more symbolically ritualised. To celebrate the marriage of Leonello d'Este to Maria of Aragon in 1444, there was a St George play, followed by a joust and a ‘hunt'. The latter event involved the slaughter of animals released into the piazza in the middle of Ferrara.
¹¹⁵
Bullfighting and other Games in the Piazza del Campo, Siena
, painted in about 1600 by Vicenzo Rustici, is a further development of this notion of guaranteed sport, again making use of the great central square of a Renaissance city.
¹¹⁶

There are two other related ways in which aristocratic hunting differs markedly from commonalty hunting and these are the ‘fence month', the season of non-hunting or disturbance of red deer, and approved seasons for hunting quarry. It could be rightly argued that the imposition of a close season is not a technique of hunting, but it is certainly part of aristocratic methodology in its wider sense, as is the season when it was best to hunt specific beasts.

The concept of a close season, imposed on hunters for whatever reason, is intimately bound up with the whole aristocratic attitude towards quarry and methodology. The fence month is specifically mentioned by Edward, Duke of York, and at the end of the fifteenth century,
The Boke of Saint Albans
is also exacting about the times when certain beasts may be hunted or allowed relief. Only the hart and the hare are given the privilege of a close season. Of the hart, Dame Juliana Berners comments ‘From the Annunciacion of owre lady day/ The hert then releues the sooth for to say/ Till saynt Petris day and paule.'
¹¹⁷
This made sense as early summer is the time when red deer calves are born and a regime of protection and lack of disturbance was essential to the well-being of both youngsters and nursing mothers. Prohibiting hart hunting thus also guaranteed the protection of hinds and calves, ensuring stock for the following year. William Baillie-Grohman uses the 1598 edition of Manwood's manual to illustrate this point. Manwood's fence month was:

fifteen days before and ended fifteen days after midsummer. During this time great care was taken that no men or stray dogs should be allowed to wander in the forest, and no swine or cattle were allowed to feed within the precincts, so that the deer should be absolutely undisturbed during three or four weeks after the fawning season.

The deer had complete precedence; it was clearly imperative and doubtless enforced, that no commoner or his animals entered the Forest. He continues to explain the origin of the term:

in this month there must be watch and ward kept with men and weapons for the fence and defence of wild beasts, for that reason the same is called fence or defence month.
¹¹⁸

The use of the term ‘fawning', rather than ‘calving', may indicate that Manwood was generally referring to fallow rather than red deer, the latter's numbers being in decline by the end of the Tudor period. This tradition of imposing the fence month continued for centuries in England, C.J. Cornish commenting in 1895:

‘Defense de chasser' is probably the origin of the ancient term of venery which heads the notices, posted during May and June at the gates of the royal deer parks, requesting that during the ‘fence-months' visitors will prevent their dogs from disturbing the deer.
¹¹⁹

In spite of this special privilege accorded red deer, in general the advised hunting seasons were related to when animals were fit and in prime fat condition, not to the modern considerations of mating, pregnancy and nursing young. The concept of a season as a period which included the time when it was best to hunt deer and other animals because they were fat, or
in grece
, was pragmatic and economically based, very different from a period of relief imposed on hunters out of consideration for the quarry. Baillie-Grohman compiled a useful list of seasons from various medieval sources in his Appendix to
The Master of Game
. Inevitably, some of these sources were contradictory and the following is a simplified version:

Red deer stag: June 14th. to September 14th., but probably from May onwards.

Red deer hind: September 14th. to January 6th. or February 2nd.

Fallow deer buck: June 24th. to September 14th.

Fallow deer doe: September 14th. to February 2nd.

Roe deer buck: Easter to September 29th.

Roe doe: September 29th. to February 2nd.

Hare: September 29th. to February 2nd. or June 24th., but Twiti, Gaston Fébus and Edward, Duke of York, like hare hunting as it ‘lasteth all the year'.

Wild boar: September 14th., 29th. or Christmas Day to February 2nd.

Wolf: Christmas to March 25th. but probably all year.

Fox: September 8th. or Christmas Day to March 25th.

Otter: February 22nd. to June 24th.

Martin, badger and rabbit were hunted at all seasons.
¹²⁰

Hunting seasons and non-hunting seasons were not legislated under statute law at this time, although the Forest Laws did specify hunting seasons for most animals. This sort of control by the ruling élites over their own pastime must also have been the result of two factors which were very different to the practical aspect of ‘grease time': respect for their quarry and conservation of the species.

This ‘respect' for the ‘dignity' of the hunted beast, which is eventually to be killed, is one of the continuing ambiguities of hunting throughout the ages. The medieval hunter perceived and classified certain animals as ‘noble', and so applied human rules of chivalry to those favoured beasts. This sportsmanlike regard was essentially one of honour and ‘fairness' by one gentleman to another of equal status, somewhat akin to the Plains Indians' respect for the American bison, but also, in our case, involving notions of rank and status. The aristocratic hunter was very definitely identifying himself and other sportsmen of his class with the accepted ‘beasts of venery', an aristocratic form of anthropomorphism, more profound than simple humane respect for the quarry. In the English language, we are familiar with the term ‘sportsman', which is used in a complimentary way. The equivalent term in the medieval Middle German manuals is
Weidmann
,
¹²¹
indicating an attitude of decent consideration for the quarry and other hunters, and of general good behaviour in the hunting field.

The preservation of stocks and the continuity of species for future hunting must also have played a significant part in assigning a fence month to high status species. The medieval aristocratic hunter was an educated and well-versed man and he undoubtedly realised that the supply of large game was not endless. Imparking of unenclosed land and the rearing of deer and wild boar to stock such parks were understandable reactions to the decline in numbers of large quarry species. The idea of conservation in the later Middle Ages was thus complex and to a large extent based upon completely different philosophies from the fundamentally humane ideas of modern hunters and legislators.

Remarkably, the fence month is actually illustrated in one high-quality German manuscript, the Calendar pictures of which form a cycle dedicated to aristocratic hunting. The
bas de page
miniature for May of MS Egerton 1146 shows a peaceful pastoral scene of stags, hinds and calves grazing in a wood beside a stream.
¹²²
Significantly, this is the only miniature of the Calendar in which hunters are absent. The occurrence of such an illustration in this manuscript surely reflects not only the occupational accuracy of the whole hunting cycle but also the forbearance and sportsmanship of the patron, two essentially chivalric ideals of aristocratic medieval hunters which separate them from their peasant counterparts. Of course, gentle hunters could afford to indulge themselves in these idealistic and generous ways whereas peasants could not, particularly if they were poaching venison. The snares, traps and other ‘engines' used by peasant deer poachers in royal Forests demonstrate skilful efficiency but also unspeakable cruelty, the object being to incapacitate the deer, not grant an honourable and quick death after a long chase.
¹²³

In conclusion, although quarry type was a vital element in defining the aristocratic medieval chase, methodology, seasons, lexis, ritual and procedure were perhaps more important indicators of an élitist pastime, a ‘sport apart'. After all, anybody could poach a deer or hare, but this did not make a man a gentle hunter or indicate social status, in fact very often the exact opposite, although many poachers were aristocratic or ecclesiastic in origin. It was only a minority of the population who could afford to hunt on horseback and equip themselves adequately and also be members of that properly educated élite, regarded as ‘lerned' by both peer and socially inferior groups. Their premier pastime and sport had to be, and be seen clearly to be, remote from the commonalty and unattainable by any but those of noble, or at least gentle, birth. This was an important part of the public face of the European ruling classes.

A
s the previous chapters have demonstrated, there is a wealth of evidence in hunting manuals, treatises and imaginative and romantic literature on the European upper classes hunting and hawking. All of this contemporary literature was written by gentle authors for a gentle, or courtly, educated audience. Inevitably, the immediate impression given by this great and varied mass of material is of the almost total exclusion of the rest of medieval society, who did not possess the privilege of leisure. The Third Estate, or commons, had to work for a living. The great majority of people of this rank dirtied their hands pursuing an occupation. Whatever their status or wealth within this feudal category, they could not claim the title of ‘gentleman'. However, in spite of the humble status of common hunters, a few textual sources, notably some canonical French manuscripts, indicate that hunting was a widespread activity throughout the community. The
Livre de chasse
and
Roy Modus
include descriptions and instructions catering for the needs of the general rural population, in addition to those for the courtier and aristocratic landowner.
¹
Roy Modus
is indeed invaluable on peasant methods of taking birds. His manual of instruction is presented in the well-established form of a dialogue made up of question and answer, and includes chapters in which King Modus responds to a poor man's questions on methods of taking birds. The text is clarified with illustrations.
Livre de chasse
is also a precious source of commonalty methods but is confined to hunting mammals, lacking any instruction on taking birds, or on hawking. The MS fr. 616 and MS M.1044 manuscripts of
Livre de chasse
contain particularly good quality and useful illustrations of commonalty methods.

Movable type, first successfully used by Johann Gutenberg at Mainz from around 1454/5, expanded and accelerated the production of aristocratic hunting and hawking books. However, it is significant that there were no specific texts for the instruction of common hunters for nearly two centuries. Probably the first such text was German, Johann Conrad Aitinger's
Brief and simple report on bird-catching with snares
, written in 1631. Snaring birds was the most popular form of hunting for the mass of society. The fact that a book on commonalty methods was in print and available to a more literate public reflects changes in attitudes and the general unrest in Germanic society at this time.
²

Texts other than hunting books can prove useful for providing additional pieces of information on commonalty hunting.
The Luttrell Psalter
, a beautiful illuminated manuscript created as a status symbol for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell somewhere between 1320 and 1340,
³
shows some few pictures of peasant methodology as well as the expected aristocratic hunting and hawking illustrations. Janet Backhouse comments ‘It is however abundantly clear from the flavour of the original work that the craftsmen engaged to produce this splendid and expensive manuscript had been given very specific guidance about at least some of its desired contents.'
⁴
This manuscript is a unique record of everyday life on the Luttrell estate at Irnham in Lincolnshire in the early fourteenth century. As such, it is interesting that the patron, Sir Geoffrey Luttrell, very probably instructed the artists that illustrations of peasant hunting as well as gentle hunting were to be included, thus giving a rounded picture of estate life.

The humble hunter and villager, as far as is known, neither wrote nor read hunting treatises, so presumably relied upon oral tradition for instruction from family and friends on hunting methodology and techniques, as well as for advice on poaching. Using Forest court evidence on peasant deer poaching, Jean Birrell comments ‘Fathers passed on their skills to their sons, and . . . fathers, sons and brothers often hunted together'. In peasant communities, those who were related would not only know each other well but would also feel able to trust each other on illegal hunting forays.
⁵
Thus both lone hunting and small-group hunting were widely practised by English and European peasant hunters. According to Nicholas Orme ‘Ordinary children were unlikely to take part in hunting itself, but it is hard to believe that some did not follow to hold open gates or simply to watch what went on.'
⁶
Orme is clearly referring to aristocratic hunting and the mounted chase. However, the sons of commoners did undoubtedly hunt, not only in their own traditional ways, including poaching, but also in a formal manner if they became employed in the king's or a great lord's hunt establishment.