What creature is fluffy, fleet of foot, and carries a large green club? In the Rare Book and Special Collections Division, that description fits a bunny in Manuscript 85. At least, a bludgeoning bunny is our best taxonomic guess. Amongst RBSCD staff there has been some debate over BB’s particular features; however, the general consensus is that, despite its evident penchant for naughty behavior, the animal depicted is most likely a member of the long-eared, short-tailed, (normally) herbivorous Leporidae family, which includes rabbits and hares. Fondly known in the Division as “BB” or “Little Bunny Foo Foo,” this wascally wabbit at the bottom of a fifteenth-century manuscript breviary leaf likely belongs to the late medieval visual tradition of killer bunnies.
Naturally, this tradition raises an important question from readers: why do late medieval manuscripts often contain bas-de-page scenes of homicidal hares? The short answer is that scholars are not certain. Debates continue to rage about the meaning and purpose of these playful animal scenes that start to appear in manuscripts beginning in the twelfth century but can also be found in stain glass windows, stone carvings, and misericords. Scholars have made arguments about mnemonics, humoral balance, subversive social commentary, and more. While a single interpretive consensus remains elusive, historians have observed patterns and themes common to many examples of this ludic tradition, which presents a fanciful, upside-down world where typically hunted creatures—such as the hare—can become the hunters.
The scene in Manuscript 85 follows this inverted huntsman theme. Little Bunny Foo Foo on f. 217r has ensnared a well-dressed human and is about to bop him in the head with single, presumably fatal blow.
Why this particular human-animal interaction was chosen to adorn a service book containing the texts necessary for the celebration of the Divine Office is not immediately apparent, but it is not unusual for sacred texts to be filled with drolleries and hunting scenes. The distinctive borders of Manuscript 85 are inhabited by saints as well as forest creatures—real and imaginary—that seem to pop in and out of the frame. Playful, detailed, and engaging, the scenes create something of a rotating carrousel effect in manuscript as the reader turns its leaves.
After encountering the club-carrying bunny, the reader turns only two leaves more to find another little rabbit face peeking out from behind the manuscript’s ruled margin. It’s as if the rabbit is popping out to say, “Still there?” or “I’m baaack!” Is the rabbit looking at the hybrid creature at the center of the penwork, or at the reader? Is it a nice bunny, or is someone about to get a bop on the head? As with many aspects of the imaginative visual program of this manuscript, it is hard to say for sure.
What can be confirmed with greater certainty, however, is that Manuscript 85 is likely one of more than thirty existent examples known to have been produced by the Birgittine double monastery Mariënwater, also known as Couldewater/Koudewater, situated in Rosmalen, near ‘s-Hertogenbosch in Brabant. Codices from this community are characterized by their distinctive penwork borders. Not all of the manuscripts produced at Mariënwater were kept; instead, some were created for other Birgittine communities that needed manuscripts, which may account for some of the variations in style. Nevertheless, the likeness in production is immediately evident among the few examples of Mariënwater codices available digitally. For example, the Birgittine psalter and breviary at Leiden University Library shown below contains not only similar penwork to Manuscript 85 but also a strikingly similar (though not identical) leather binding and button-like tabs.
Unlike Manuscript 85 in the Rare Book and Special Collections Division, however, all of the lovely penwork borders in the Mariënwater codex at Leiden University are uninhabited. The saints, unicorns, stags, and rabbits in Manuscript 85 are not a unifying feature of manuscript production in this community. Another individual feature of Manuscript 85 is its ownership inscription. On the inside of the front board is written: Suster Jutken Sokomans dit boeck.
Staff in the Rare Book Reading Room often wonder what this Birgittine sister thought of the bludgeoning bunny and its fantastical forest friends. While we can’t know for certain, we’re pretty she thought it was a hit.
Still not convinced our Little Bunny Foo-Foo is a killer rabbit? Have a different interpretation? Seen anything similar in another manuscript? Send us a note through our Ask-A-Librarian service. We’re all ears!
Sources and Further Reading
Dongen, G.A.M. van (2008). ‘More Manuscripts from Marienwater? Manuscript Production in a Birgittine Convent Reconsidered.’ In Anne Margreet W. As-Vijvers, Jos M.M. Hermans & Gerda C. Huisman (eds.), Manuscript Studies in the Low Countries. Groningen en Leeuwarden, 141-157.
Jackson, E. (June 15, 2021). Medieval Killer Rabbits: When Bunnies Strike Back. Medieval Manuscripts Blog. London, British Library.
Jackson, E. (August 7, 2020). Ludicrous Figures in the Margin. Medieval Manuscripts Blog. London, British Library.
Leiden, Leiden University Library, BPL 2856.
McLemore, E. (March 22, 2024). Medieval Rabbits: Ancient Symbolism, English Migration, and Manuscript Marginalia. Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute, University of Notre Dame.
Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Buchanan f. 2.
Rudy, K. M. (2015). “The Birgittines of The Netherlands: Experimental Printers and Colourists”. In Printing Colour 1400–1700. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Click here to subscribe to Bibliomania and never miss a post!