Sunday, 22 May 2016
The cat was much persecuted in the later Middle Ages because of her link to witchcraft. But in the early Middle Ages she was revered and had a value equivalent to an adult goat.
So how did cat PR deteriorate so dramatically?
Well, it’s all to do with paganism.
The first factor was how early culture was organized in western Europe around 500 AD. Most people lived in villages that were scattered around the countryside, and there was a lack of central government. This meant it was hard for the church to exert a major influence over the population as a whole. As a result pagan religious traditions were able to persist.
Particularly popular was the cult of Diana, the huntress.
“Wicked women perverted by the devil…in the hours of the night to ride up certain beasts with Diana, the goddess of the pagans….wander from the right faith.”
Witchcraft in the Middle Ages. J B Russell
Part of Diana’s legend was that she rode out into the night on a wild hunt, accompanied by women and their cats. Diana’s female companions were said to obey her, rather than the one true god. Indeed, documents from the early church put worship of Diana on the same level as devil worship.
As Christianity began to spread, the early church had to tackle paganism head on if it wanted to dominate. This meant demonizing paganism and especially the cult of Diana. They did so with mixed success.
“Christian people continued to practice ancient superstitions in a more or less disguised form, and pagan and magical elements entered the saints’ cults.”
So what next?
The Church upped the ante by perverting the worship of Diana into a form of witchcraft. Their propaganda preached the message that those who refused to give up the ‘old ways’ were actually worshipping the devil.
Taking things further still, the Inquisition were doing their part by coercing people into converting. They weren’t afraid to use terror and intimidation in order to make converts, and this often meant persecuting women who resisted and still followed pagan ways. To be accused of “cat worship” became a dangerous thing, which could result in being burnt at the stake. Then according to the Inquisition, many of these ‘agents of the devil’ admitted in their dying confessions that they worshiped cats as agents of the devil.
In the 11th century these confessions were then seized up by Pope Gregory VII who issued a Papal Bull stating that black cats were agents of the devil…and so the persecution began.
Sunday, 15 May 2016
Why is it that dogs are referred to as “he”, whilst cats are “she”?
One explanation, perhaps the most obvious, is the graceful elegance of cats gives them a feminine air. Whilst this is true, it’s only part of the picture and the actual explanation is much less flattering to the feline.
To find the answer we need to go back to a couple of centuries to the Georgian and Victorians, and the birth of pet keeping. In the 18th century more people had disposable income and keeping pets for pleasure (rather than as working animals) became fashionable.
However, not all pets were considered equal. For example, the eagerness of dogs to please and to respond to training, earnt them a label as being loyal, brave, and courageous, which were all desirable male characteristics. Thus dogs were looked on as noble pets that were a fitting companion for man, and in general speech referred to with the male pronoun.
Cats however were a different case. Cats aren’t trainable and prefer to please themselves rather than their mistress. This was strongly frowned upon by the Victorian male who expected obedience from everyone in his household, and upright moral behavior was treasured above all else.
An independent spirit was seen as rebellious, even in an animal. To make matters worse, cats have a habit of escaping and finding a mate, which according to the perceived wisdom of the day meant they were promiscuous.
According to the judgmental Victorian male, the cats’ characteristics of independence (read rebellion) and promiscuity made them akin to prostitutes, and the worst sort of advertisement for feminine wiles. In short, cats became strongly associated with the worst aspect of female behavior and acquired the female pronoun.
Thus dogs became ‘he’ and cats ‘she’.
Sunday, 1 May 2016
It hasn’t always been safe to like cats. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull (a law issued by the Vatican) that made it legal to burn those implicated in witch craft, by virtue of owning a cat. Thus, being a cat-owner became a high risk occupation.
As hysteria over witchcraft grew, persecution of cats and cat-owners continued for the next couple of centuries. But in the early 16th century, and the court of King Henry VIII one man was not afraid to like cats – Cardinal Wolsey.
Thomas Wolsey was born in 1473, the son of a cattle dealer and butcher. The young Wolsey studied at Oxford University and joined the church. Obviously a man of talent, he became chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury and then entered the household of King Henry VII.
This Tudor monarch was prepared to favor talent for its own sake rather than solely promote the nobility, which found Wolsey in the right place at the right time.
Wolsey quickly established a reputation for intelligence, diligence, and diplomacy. When Henry VIII succeeded his father to be king of England, it was natural that he appointed Wolsey as Almoner. The latter’s efficiency and ingenuity won Henry’s trust, so that Wolsey rose and rose, eventually becoming Chancellor and dominating the Royal Council.
But at a time when being a cat lover was dangerous, the Cardinal was just that. He had several and they were said to keep him company whilst he worked hard on the King’s business. A cat also sat with him during mass, behaving impeccably and providing quiet comfort. A cat was often at his side during formal meetings. Indeed, Wolsey was said to take two cats along when he accompanied the king of royal progress. It seemed people exercised tact rather than point out the link between cats and witchcraft to one of the most powerful men in England.
Wolsey’s story came to an unhappy end, but it was nothing to do with cats. When he failed to do what Henry wanted most – to secure his divorce from Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. This saw Wolsey dismissed from his position as Chancellor on 22nd September 1529, and a rapid fall from grace saw him stripped of most of his assets. He died in 1530
Sunday, 24 April 2016
Apologies for a two-week absence of posts. This was due to the arrival of Poggle the Puggle puppy! This week a short post about the character of cats and how they made good illicit pets (at least in medieval times!)
In the Middle Ages pet keeping was frowned upon. This was because animals were seen as servants of man, as adorned by God and set out in the Bible, and to ‘spoil’ them went against nature. There was also the argument that in times of terrible hardship, keeping a pet took food out of the mouths of the starving poor.
Indeed, noblemen did keep pet dogs and overfed them, since obesity was seen as a way of showing off your wealth and that you had so much food you could feed it to the dog.
However, cats were hunters which meant they could fend for themselves and not eat valuable rations. This meant in medieval times many people who had no reason to keep a working dog, could justify contact with a cat. Indeed, working animals were usually kept outside, but the nature of mice meant the cat was allowed indoors, which provided another contact point between people and potential pet.
Women who lived and worked in the home, those in religious orders, and scholars spent a lot of time indoors. The quiet nature of cats meant that those in religious orders could pet a cat without being found out, and cats suited the reflective nature of scholars.
"I have seen in my own order, some lectors who despite being highly learned and of great sanctity had a blemish [pet-keeping] on account of which they were judged frivolous men."
In religious orders especially, it was considered saintly to love wild animals, but frivolous to keep them as pets. The Cistercian order banned keeping of animals for pleasure.
“Cats, dogs, and other animals are not to be kept by nuns as they distract from seriousness.”
But how do legislate against showing affection to the kitchen cat? In reality, a blind eye was often turned when it came to cats, because of their quietness and use as hunters.
Sunday, 3 April 2016
What is a bestiary?
A bestiary is a book about beasts (a sort of early natural history volume); they were popular in the middle ages and reached peek interest Victorian times. Bestiaries were the “Discovery Channel” of their day, offering people a glimpse into an exotic world of fearsome and extraordinary animals that they might otherwise not encounter.
Then as now, people were hugely curious about animals, and a richly detailed bestiary was a source of endless fascination. Indeed, in the 1730s the first children’s natural history book was published and promised to ‘entertain and engage’ attention such that children would develop a reading habit for life.
But the details included were not always what we expect to read in the modern day. For example William Wood’s bestiary of 1792 included descriptions of the animal’s appearance and behavior, but it also described what they tasted like when eaten. The Capybara (a large, guinea pig like rodent from South America) was described as tasting: “Fat and tender…with an oily and fishy taste.” And Edward Topsell’s ‘History of Four-Footed Beasts’ described cat meat as having “poisonous qualities”.
Bestiaries also held another, perhaps less obvious function. In the 16th and 17th century the animal kingdom had yet to be categorized into families, species, and genus. In other words all of animal creation was largely a disordered jumble. To bring order to this chaos writers of bestiaries sometimes ordered their subjects alphabetically, or by location, or by features such as what they ate (carnivore or herbivore) as the author saw fit. By grouping animals together within the pages of the bestiary, this fulfilled a perceived right of man, as top of the creation tree, to assert his superiority over other species.
However, the divisions within a bestiary were not always “scientific” to say the least. One 17th century book divided animals into “Those that are hard to draw” (including the lion, unicorn, horse, and rhinoceros) and “Rough and shaggy haired” (such as dogs).
Alternatively, they might be grouped as to the satisfaction they gave the hunter. Beasts that were hunted included the duck, fox, roe, and marten, whilst beasts that gave “Good sport” included the badger, otter, and wild cat.
It was work by men of thought such as Ray, Buffon, and then Linnaeus who began a movement to group animals according to scientific terms, rather than appearance or moral grounds. This wasn’t without problem though, with some authors of bestiaries apologizing that monkeys appeared too close in relation to man.
“…hoped the no specialist reader would pardon the repugnance we feel to place the monkey at the head of the brute creation, and thus to associate him with man.”
However, other people took an alternative view that the new-fangled scientific groupings helped to emphasize man’s supremacy and his pre-eminence and supremacy in creation. With whatever wry smile we might be tempted to think of bestiaries in the modern age, it remains a fact that they had undying appeal to an audience for whom this was the only way to gaze upon extraordinary creatures and marvel.
Sunday, 27 March 2016
Did you know the Pied Piper of Hamelin was a rat-charmer?
|The Pied Piper of Hamelin-|
charming the rats and inviting them to leave
What’s even more interesting is that in medieval times ‘rat-rhymers’ were an established profession. Their job was to write incantations or poems, which were chanted aloud to induce rats to leave properties where they caused a nuisance.
The rationale behind this bizarre occupation was a widely held belief that rats (and all other animals) were responsible for their own actions, and had the ability to respond to a well-reasoned argument – should they see fit. It was also held that if an animal deliberately misbehaved in active defiance of their owners, then they must accept the consequences.
This extended to animals being summoned as witnesses in formal court proceedings. Indeed, early laws in England gave animals members of the household with the same rights as women and serfs (turning this on its head, this could also be a reflection of the low regard in which women were held).
|It was held dogs could not live without man|
(Cats however ...)
For example, if a farmer’s house was robbed and there were no human witnesses to testify in court, it was not unusual to summon animal witnesses instead. Their presence in court strengthened the victim’s case (although quite how this worked is not clear.)
However, this also meant that animals could be put on trial held for their misdeeds and found guilty in the same way as people. Thus a dog that followed their natural instincts and worried sheep, could be tried in a court, found guilty, and sentenced to death by hanging.
It took until the 19th century for the British authorities to drop the practice of sentencing animals to death for their ‘crimes’ and instead think of them as property
This led to a shift in responsibility from the animal onto the owner. It was now the owner’s job to decide if his livestock were a risk to other people, and take steps to prevent harm. Thus the female cat that bit someone interfering with her kittens was no longer held ‘at fault’ and the action was acknowledged as typical of a nursing cat. Furthermore, when a farmer let a vicious ram run amuck, it was no longer the ram that paid the price with his life, but the farmer who was required to pay compensation.
|The natural hunting ability of cats|
made them less dependent on man
This represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between man and beast. But whilst it might be tempting to view this as a wholesale improvement for animals, this change of attitude was not without its problems.
This new shift meant that people had to assume responsibility the actions of their animals. This led to a change in attitude where people now exerted power over their livestock and expected the animals to comply with their wishes. This was the beginning of people manipulating animals and asserting power over them. In the fields of stock breeding and selective breeding, man went a step further to show his influence by bending nature to his own will.
This in part goes to explain the 19th century attitude to cats, a constant source of frustration to the authoritarian Victorian male. Cats failed to conform to mans will in the same way as dogs and defied attempts at selective breeding (by escaping and finding their own mate).
At a time when animals were meant to yield their free will and be willingly led, clearly no one explained this to the cats.
|Promiscuous and in need of guidance:|
The 19th century man's opinion of cats and women
In a world where man measured success by his supremacy, the cat remained blissfully aloof, and so man's answer was to label cats as promiscuous, degenerate creatures –and also led to them being looked on as feminine creatures and labelled as a womanly pet (as opposed to a noble, loyal dog who was a manly pet.)
The attitude of the Victorian male to both women and cats was remarkably similar. He believed they both needed a firm hand to prevent them sliding into their natural state of promiscuity and laziness!
Sunday, 13 March 2016
How do you organize cats?
Last week in How the Victorians went Wild for Cat Shows we looked at the popular 19th century pastime of visiting dog or cat shows. However, the organizers of cat shows had a problem that dog show organizers did not have, which was how to group the entries. With dogs it was relatively easy because they came in so many varied sizes and shapes or breeds. Cats – not so much.
Cat fancier Harrison Weir, arranged the very first cat show, which took place at Crystal Palace, July 16, 1871. His stated aim as organizer in “a labor of love to the feline race,” was to draw attention and therefore favor to: “The different breeds, colors, markings.”
However, Weir had a problem because the existing description of cat breeds tended to dwell on distinctions that highlighted their weaknesses. One obvious solution was to arrange the cat classes by color. Gordon Stables, a man who was active in both the dog and cat show worlds, suggested categorizing cats into 13 groups.
These colors were:
Brow, blue, and silver tabby
Red, red-and-white, tabby
Black-and-white, black, white,
Unusual color and any other variety.
Stables asserted that color was actually key to the cats’ character, and that certain colors were more likely to have certain character traits. In effect he was trying to justify the color-grouped categories as being more significant than they really were.
He argued: “Properly speaking color is often the key to [the cats] characters…temper…and qualities as a hunter…and its power of endurance.”
This is an interesting observation, because coat color does carry some associations in the modern age. For example, tortoiseshell cats are often described as “naughty torties” within vet clinics, because they have reputation for misbehaving.
According to Stables:
Tortoiseshells were “Good mothers and game as bull terriers”
Black cats were “Noble and gentlemanly”
White cats were “Far from brave…fond of society…gentle, and often delicate”
And black-and-whites “Sometimes…did not trouble himself too much about his duties as a house-cat.”
Stables categories didn’t last long and soon went out of fashion. In the 1880s and 1890s Weir replaced them with not dissimilar groupings but broke them down into yet more colors, also long-haired or short-haired, age, and gender. However, he added one final category that was a bit of a showstopper. This was “Cats belonging to Working Men.”
The latter category was put in place out of the notion that animal social standing mirrored that of humans, and it wouldn’t do to have working men getting ideas above their station. Incredibly, everyone seemed to go along with it, and in 1889, out of 511 entries, 102 were in the category Cats of Working Men.
As the years passed, a greater study was made of the science of cat-breeding and specialist breed cat clubs sprang, such as the Siamese or the Abyssinian cat clubs, the Silver and Smoke Persian cat club or the Tortoiseshell society. However, rather than breeding to improve the cats, the main criteria for selecting animals to breed seemed to be rarity, with a cat with unusual colored eyes or a particularly striking coat commanding the most money.
But that was reckoning without the character of cats, which were perfectly capable of escaping and finding their own mate, much to the consternation of their own.
What are your experiences of different coat colors? Have you noticed distinctive personalities based on color or is it a load of bunkum?