THIS book has shown the complexities which lay behind pet keeping in the medieval period (and to an extent, the early modern period), and has brought to life the experiences of owners and their pets. Here I shall summarize the main themes from the previous chapters.

Pet keeping is a component in the wider scheme of human–animal relationships. In a culture of anthropocentrism, mankind had dominion over all the beasts. Pets, though, were treated kindly, and led a spoiled, privileged life, completely dependent on the whim of their owner, who had elevated the animal to the category of companion. The pet's status was wholly dependent on the human owner's perception of the animal's affection as genuine.

Being a pet exempted the animal of any traditional utilitarian function, but instead placed the emphasis solely on a social and psychological role: as animal companions, which received and were perceived by their owners as giving affection. This role relied on an invisible emotional bond between the human and animal.

Does the privileged position of pets, allowed indoors (and into more private spaces, such as bedrooms), place them above other domesticated animals? Do they become ‘honorary humans’, leaving behind their inferior animal condition? Many of the rituals of pet keeping appear to point at least to an ambiguous animal–human status. Pets were given names, allowed to roam indoors with as much as freedom as humans, and rather intriguingly, at their deaths, were greatly mourned over.