...most evidence for the prevalence of pet keeping by members of religious orders comes from the criticism of the practice. The main argument put forward by religious authorities against keeping cats in enclosed institutional spaces was that they had no place in such a sacred environment, especially with such a versatile nature. It was argued that domesticated animals had no functional role, and had a negative effect on both the owner and the community by distracting them from religious duties and disrupting contemplative life. For example, the monastic rule (1082-83) Liber confortatorius by Goscelin condemned the practice of keeping pets: “Take neither a cat nor birds nor a small animal or any other senseless creature as pet to be with you. Be withdrawn and alone with God”.7 Evidently, too great a devotion to one’s companion animal could be severely criticized for religious and moralizing reasons. It would steer the human being away from God and the cat from its proper duties. Yet, the pet-keeping secular clergy could more easily ignore such prohibitions as they were not bound by institutional rules. - [Author]

This text is based on a presentation at the International Medieval Congress 2017 on the 4th of July 2017 in Leeds, Session 511: Reading Puss in Books.

Language: English