Matthias Lentz. Konflikt, Ehre, Ordnung: Untersuchungen zu den Schmähbriefen und Schandbildern des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (ca. 1350 bis 1600). Mit einem illustrierten Katalog der Überlieferung. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2004. 384 S. + 60 s/w & 24 f. Abb. EUR 38.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-3-7752-6017-6.
Reviewed by Kathy Stuart (Department of History, University of California-Davis)
Published on H-German (February, 2007)
Infamous Images and Defamation Letters in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany
In 1468, Thuringian Count Erwin von Gleichen addressed a series of defamatory letters to several members of the upper nobility in neighboring Hesse. In one of these letters, von Gleichen denounced the knight Werner von Hanstein as a "loose, red-bearded, red knight, a rogue and villain" who had been conceived by a whore. The letter was adorned by an image of a man in blue and white striped clothing riding backwards on an old mare, wearing spurs as a sign of his knightly status, leaning over to lift the tail of the animal with one hand, in order, as the accompanying text explained, "to press his signet ring upon the mare's cunt [fotze]" with the other (p. 95).[1]
This text and image are typical of late medieval and early modern German letters of defamation, the subject of Mathias Lentz's monograph, the first major scholarly examination of these fascinating documents since the publication of amateur historian Otto Hupp's edition of defamation letters in 1930.[2] The abusive, scatological language and the violence of the images--often depicting the addressee of the letters hanging from a gallows or broken on the wheel--might lead one to expect that these texts were prompted by knightly feuds, rebellion, confessional disputes or some deep-seated personal hatreds, expressions of "uncontrolled affects" not yet tamed by a "civilizing process" as described by Norbert Elias (p. 10). But in fact, as Lentz shows, these letters, neither irrational nor impulsive, invariably arose in the more mundane context of civil disputes between debtors and creditors. Commissioned by private individuals, German letters of defamation were quite distinct from the many official defamatory practices authorized by governments in the context of criminal justice, such as the late medieval Italian pitture infamanti painted on city walls to defame absent malefactors.[3]
Lentz has compiled a catalogue of two hundred of these documents, produced between 1350 and 1600, many of which contain images. Each catalogue entry includes the date, sender, addressee, a summary of the dispute that provoked the letter and archival and bibliographic references. Lentz's analysis of the defamation letters is based on the detailed reconstruction of three of these disputes and a careful examination of the rhetoric and iconography of the letters. Von Gleichen's letter, for example, was intended to pressure Landgrave Ludwig II of Lower Hesse, to whom von Gleichen had lent over 2000 Gulden, to repay his debt. At the time of the loan, Ludwig signed a contract, buttressed not only with his own signature and oath, but also with the signatures and seals of prominent members of the Hessian upper nobility, von Hanstein among them. These nobles agreed to serve as guarantors for the loan. In case of non-payment by the principal debtor, the guarantors swore upon their honor to turn themselves into what amounted to an up-scale debtors' prison: the guarantors, typically accompanied by at least two squires, were to take lodgings at a reputable inn where they were encouraged to live lavishly at the expense of the original debtor who was liable for these expenses along with his original loan. This legal institution, known as the Einlager or obstagium, was closely linked to the production of defamatory letters and images. When guarantors failed to appear at the Einlager as promised, creditors pressured them and the principal debtors by commissioning defamatory letters and images against them. Using the most offensive possible language and imagery, the letters proclaimed debtors and guarantors to be devoid of honor for their breach of trust and urged all honorable men and corporations to shun them.
Letters of defamation were widely used by the upper and lower nobility from the mid-fourteenth through the late sixteenth centuries and by the early fifteenth century urban merchants were using them as well. Addressing territorial lords, cities, fellow nobles and merchants, creditors crafted and, in some cases, also publicized letters in a considered and methodical way. When debtors missed a payment, creditors wrote them polite reminders. If the debtors did not respond, creditors wrote the guarantors, reminding them of their oaths and obligations and enjoining them to appear at the Einlager. Only when guarantors did not appear at the appointed time did creditors ratchet up the rhetoric, first threatening to write defamatory letters, then actually sending sample letters and images and threatening to make them public. Finally, if a resolution was not forthcoming, creditors would then publicize the letters and images broadly, sending them to cities far and wide, exposing them in public and infamous places, taverns, church doors, brothels, pillories or gallows.
The rhetorical strategies and iconography of the letters, Lentz points out, drew on a symbolism of infamy that they shared with other medieval and early modern defaming media and practices. Like von Gleichen's letter, the majority employed the principle of inversion to show the addressees riding backwards on an animal, stigmatized by infamous colors or attributes.[4] The images reproduced in the catalogue, however, raise a number of questions not mentioned in Lentz's discussion. The sexual symbolism in the texts and images, for example, is worth exploring. The animals in the images were invariably female, often visibly pregnant, teats swelling with milk, as the men riding them handled their genitalia. In a small number of images, human females take the place of animals, while men ride them or kneel behind them, impressing their signet rings on their genitals (pp. 338, 345). Who were these women? Did they simply represent generic whores? The images also seem to make use of anti-Jewish motifs. While some of the images portray the defamed parties riding old broken-down horses, donkeys, cows and dogs, the bulk of the images show them riding backwards on a sow, imagery strikingly similar to the Judensau,[5] a resemblance Lentz does not note. This similarity is quite paradoxical, given that accusations of usury played such a prominent role in anti-Jewish rhetoric, all the more so since Lentz's catalogue contains examples of defamation letters sent by Jewish merchants to defaulting Christian debtors (p. 243). Here, Lentz's analysis might have been enriched by placing his sources in a broader cultural context in order to recognize reciprocal influences, particularly regarding contemporary defamatory media and practices.
Lentz is able to draw only limited conclusions on the impact of the letters. In the one case where he is able to follow the careers of the addressees in the years following the publication of letters, which were sent by a local noble to prominent patricians of the Hessian city of Fritzlar in 1490, the action had no apparent negative impact on the guarantors' social standing. On the contrary, the individuals and their families continued to rise in the urban social and political hierarchy, despite the fact that the letters were broadly distributed and the conflict festered for years. In general, the letters failed to achieve their ostensible purpose of inducing debtors and guarantors to honor their contractual obligations and oaths, at least in the short term. Lentz does not mention a single instance where the threat of a defamatory letter actually induced a guarantor to appear at the Einlager as promised, nor would debtors pay up once the letters were published. Instead, they would respond in kind, sparking "paper wars," as Lentz calls them, that could last for years or even decades and sometimes ended only at the death of one of the adversaries. Recipients of defamatory letters seem to have been remarkably impervious to the insults hurled their way.
What then was the social function of these letters? Why did they remain in use for over two centuries? Defamatory letters had their heyday between 1530 and 1560, concurrent with the expansion of an early capitalist credit economy. The letters, Lentz shows, were one among a range of tactics employed by lenders. Lenders used the letters to appeal to "public opinion" or Öffentlichkeit, a term normally associated more with the eighteenth century than the later Middle Ages, but which Lentz argues applies here. In a society largely founded on networks of reciprocal obligations, a breach of contract posed a threat to the common good. The letters appealed to "the public" to help enforce an honor code rooted in commonly accepted values and norms, and prompted third parties to help negotiate a settlement. At the same time they pursued their case in court, lenders used the letters as a complementary tactic to leverage a favorable settlement.
As an "extra-judicial means of self-help" (p. 55), the letters elicited the hostility of governments from the very beginning, since they jeopardized the state's goal of establishing a legal monopoly. Lentz traces attempts by governments to curtail or suppress both the practice of Einlager and the use of defamatory letters from the fifteenth century on. Lentz argues that only with the Reichspolizeiordnung of 1577, which prohibited sending letters of defamation throughout the empire, did the practice finally come to an end. Use of letters declined precipitously in the late sixteenth century and the latest examples date from the early seventeenth century. On this point, however, Lentz is unpersuasive. It is hardly likely that imperial legislation, which proved remarkably ineffective at suppressing honor disputes in other social contexts,[6] would be able to bring about the end of letters of defamation by legislative fiat, had it not been for other contributing factors. Had the letters outlived their usefulness for some reason? Had the legal landscape changed? What alternative tactics were available to replace letters of defamation at the end of the sixteenth century? Placing letters of defamation in a broader social and cultural context might shed additional light on processes of social change.
Mathias Lentz has provided a meticulously researched, clearly argued introduction to a remarkably rich body of source materials. The work is particularly strong on questions of legal history, where he is careful to place legal doctrine within the context of legal and social practice. The catalogue is invaluable. He has paved the way for further study of these intriguing texts and images.
Notes
[1]. The image can be viewed online. See "Bildliche Darstellungen 2.1, Dokument 15," Schätze des Staatsarchivs Marburg, DigAM digitales archive marburg, http://pdf.digam.net/?str=224 (accessed February 15, 2007). For another more elaborate sixteenth-century defamatory image, see "Bildliche Darstellungen 2.2, Dokument 16," Schätze des Staatsarchivs Marburg, DigAM digitales archive Marburg, http://pdf.digam.net/?str=224 (accessed February 15, 2007).
[2]. Otto Hupp, Scheltbriefe und Schandbilder. Ein Rechtsbehelf aus dem 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, gesammelt und erläutert von Otto Hupp (Munich: Manz, 1930).
[3]. On the Italian pitture infamanti , see Samuel Y. Edgerton, Pictures and Punishment: Art and Criminal Prosecution during the Florentine Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
[4]. On such stigma symbols, see Ruth Mellinkoff, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).
[5]. On the Judensau, see Isaiah Shachar, The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History (London: Warburg Institute, 1974).
[6]. Honor conflicts among artisans are a case in point. From the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, imperial prohibitions were unable to squelch proliferating defamatory practices among artisans. See Kathy Stuart, Defiled Trades and Social Outcasts: Honor and Ritual Pollution in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 51-53, 95-96.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-german.
Citation:
Kathy Stuart. Review of Lentz, Matthias, Konflikt, Ehre, Ordnung: Untersuchungen zu den Schmähbriefen und Schandbildern des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (ca. 1350 bis 1600). Mit einem illustrierten Katalog der Überlieferung.
H-German, H-Net Reviews.
February, 2007.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12890
Copyright © 2007 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.