Talking animals: beast poetry, 750-1150, Jan M. Ziolkowski, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993, 0812231619, 9780812231618, 354 pages. .

DOWNLOAD HERE

In quest of Marie de France, a twelfth-century poet , Chantal Anne-Marie MarГ©chal, 1992, Literary Criticism, 294 pages. .

Aviani Fabulae Accedit eiusdem dissertatio de aetate et stilo Flavii Aviani, Avianus (Poeta), Hendrik Cannegieter, 1731, , . .

Socrates , , 2005, , 416 pages. .

Babrius and Phaedrus , Babrius, Phaedrus, Ben Edwin Perry, 1965, Literary Criticism, 634 pages. Babrius is the reputed author of a collection (discovered in the 19th century) of more than 125 fables based on those called Aesop's, in Greek verse. He may have been a ....

LittГ©rature d`Occident : histoire des lettres latines du Moyen Age , Maurice HГ©lin, 1949, Literary Criticism, 130 pages. .

Latin Epics of the New Testament Juvencus, Sedulius, Arator, Roger P. H. Green, Nov 23, 2006, Literary Criticism, 443 pages. An exploration of the way in which early Christians engaged with the Roman intellectual elite and its highly sophisticated Graeco-Roman tradition. Roger Green examines the ....

The fable as literature , Harold John Blackham, 1985, , 280 pages. .

Fables and children form & function, Angela Yannicopoulou, 1993, Literary Criticism, 191 pages. .

A history of secular Latin poetry in the middle ages, Volume 1 , Frederic James Edward Raby, 1934, , 796 pages. .

Miracles of the Virgin Mary, in verse , Nigellus Wireker, Jan 1, 1986, History, 101 pages. .

Letters of Peter Abelard, Beyond the Personal , Peter Abelard, 2008, Biography & Autobiography, 232 pages. Comprehensive and learned translation of these texts affords insight into Abelard's thinking over a much longer sweep of time and offers snapshots of the great twelfth-century ....

The Wandering Scholars , Helen Waddell, 1989, Poetry, 330 pages. A study of the , itinerant Latin lyricists of the 12th and 13th centuries.

A Cosmos of Desire The Medieval Latin Erotic Lyric in English Manuscripts, Thomas C. Moser, 2004, Literary Criticism, 485 pages. A groundbreaking illumination of the creation and reception of extant erotic poetry written in Latin during the Middle Ages.

The Romanesque lyric studies in its background and development from Petronius to The Cambridge songs, 50-1050, Philip Schuyler Allen, 1928, Literary Criticism, 373 pages. .

Encyclopedia of fable , Mary Ellen Snodgrass, 1998, Reference, 451 pages. Entries include authors, titles, sources, characters, and subcultures of fables, exemplary tales, and storytelling..

Nota Bene: Reading Classics and Writing Melodies in the Early Middle Ages , Jan M. Ziolkowski, 2007, Literary Criticism, 362 pages. Nota Bene explores a little-known juxtaposition of verbal text and musical notation in the Middle Ages. This particular intersection deserves attention from those interested in ....

Lions, goats, wolves, and flies ululate (and buzz) in this work, dispelling views of medieval Latin poetry as staid or dull. Asserting that the poems offer more than an entree to the Roman de Renart, Ziolkowski (medieval Latin, comparative literature; Harvard U.) explores their likely inspirations, and surveys what is known and speculated about them. He appends his own translations of 32 poems spanning the 10th through 12th centuries. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)

JSTOR uses cookies to maintain information that will enable access to the archive and improve the response time and performance of the system. Any personal information, other than what is voluntarily submitted, is not extracted in this process, and we do not use cookies to identify what other websites or pages you have visited.

It must be admitted at the outset that I am not a specialist in any of the three dozen or so poems dealt with by this book. But it must also be admitted that such specialists do not seem to be the book's intended audience, and are, indeed, unlikely to find the book entirely satisfactory. From a marketing standpoint, given the paucity of such specialists, this is probably a good thing. Medieval Latinists, however, should note that Z.'s shorter discussions, usually accorded the shorter poems, are for the most part too brief, general, non-technical, and perhaps unoriginal to please someone looking for (say) a metrical analysis of 's +"The Cock and the Wolf" or an innovative literary reading of the beast poems of Theodulf of Orleans. Z.'s longer discussions, on the other hand, such as he gives the more substantial poems like the Echbasis Captivi or Ysengrimus, valuable and marked as they are by Z.'s familiar exactness and philological thoroughness, compete against a correspondingly larger and more substantial monograph- and article-literature—among the latter of which, moreover, some of his discussions have already appeared. Finally, one's expectation that in a comprehensive work like this, devoted to an entire corpus of poems taken together, one might find new insight into the literary relations within the corpus, an appreciation for the connectedness of the poems that it comprises, and a sense of the group as a coherent whole, though not entirely dashed, does rather run aground on the hard fact that such relations, connectedness, and cohesion do not exist to any significant degree. This, at least, is the conclusion to which Z. repeatedly, and perhaps ruefully, comes.

To be more exact, Z. finds that particular pairs and groups of poems exhibit some odd and suggestive similarities. Several poems make use of the same underlying fable, for example that of the "sick lion and flayed bear (wolf)." Several make use of the same (stock?) figures of the cowled wolf and the cunning fox. Several are centos or pastiches of classical and antique Christian poetry. Several use such quotation to produce the effect of a burlesque or mock-epic, others, (as Z. would have it) to supply meaning and context for their own verse, so that a true understanding of it requires immediate recognition of the original contexts from which the individual lines are quoted. Several adopt the guise of a poem about animals to protect what amounts to personal abuse or political complaint. Several draw heavily on the same authors, especially Horace, or on the same genres or techniques. Several do none of these things and are wholly sui generis. None can be shown to depend on any of the others. Aside from the rather arbitrary criteria which justified their inclusion in Z.'s corpus to begin with, what all of these poems can be said to share is a common dependence on more traditional texts in more traditional genres, many or all of these laboring under the disadvantage of being familiar school texts or the subjects of school exercises (fable, physiologus and bestiary, riddles, animal testaments, epitaphs, and flytings), —and a common mindset: a willingness to experiment, to recast and combine traditional texts and genres, as well perhaps as traditional oral tales and genres (though Z.'s references to these are less than persuasive, not least in their assumption that folk tales are told only by "peasants" (236, elsewhere)) to suit present needs or amusement. Z. explicitly rejects attempts to see these poems merely as immature forerunners of the later medieval Renard literature, or as late and degenerate descendants of Aesopic fable. They are too individual and too interesting to be worthily treated as either. Z. suggests that we look at them as we do at the airplanes of the first decade of the age of flight (6): all strangely different, all experimental, and all designed to accomplish the same end. Aside from that,The medieval Latin poems have few immediately discernible traits in common with one another. They were not the products of the same time or region. They range greatly in length.... In structure, a beast poem can be as humble as one speech by a bird struggling to fly home safely..., but then again it can intertwine a dozen main stories and another dozen visions, reminiscences, and divagations.... The beast poems were created for many occasions and audiences..., to be pored over in the library..., read aloud, sung, and staged.... Some were perhaps scripts for schoolroom performances..., others for recitation in the refectory. (5)Such an elusive commonality amongst such a diverse variety is really as much as can be expected from a group of poems chosen on negative criteria: poems, that is, that predate the high-medieval explosion of beast poetry, but that are not native to the ongoing traditions of fable or physiologus. Z.'s conclusions may thus be said to spring from the conception of his project, which means in this case that they arise from the inception of the project as a proposed Cambridge doctoral dissertation, supervised by Peter Dronke. For Talking Animalsrepresents the arrival in print of a ten-year-old graduate dissertation (even as Z.'s Alan of Lille's Grammar of Sex(1985) represented a revision of his undergraduate thesis). The origin of the book as a dissertation, and that dissertation's initial decision on a corpus of poems (with the consequent need to create a coherent discourse about an inherently incoherent subject) have both had some evident consequences for the book's argument and style. The transitions and connections often seem forced—and therefore to lack force—and probably for that reason tend to be a chief source of the book's occasional prolixity and repetitiveness, as if stating and restating the connections (or lack of connections!) would produce connection, and as if emphasizing the structure of the book and the cohesiveness of the material would make either argument cogent. One is tempted to attribute the book's occasional descent into pedantic philological plodding (e.g. the irrelevant list of Indoeuropean cognates for "fable" in Chapter One (p.16)) likewise to its origins as a dissertation.

The book's sense of straining for coherence and its occasional pedanticism are, however, two of the very few flaws in its presentation. Z.'s prose style will already be familiar to many BMMR recipients. It might best be described as amiable: professional in tone, yet enlivened by personal warmth and resolutely devoid of jargon; patiently explanatory or gently persuasive in manner, as need be; and calm and even in movement, with few surprises of either the welcome or the unwelcome kind. Z.'s prose at its best strives to be simple and to make things seems simple; it appears at its worst when this intention is transparent, i.e. when it overexplains or seems to condescend. In this category might fall a minor feature that I found distracting (though others would not): Z.'s habit of employing attributive nouns as variants for adjectives or phrases, e.g., referring repeatedly to the two elements of a fable as "the moral" and "the story part"; or referring to allusive use of Biblical characters as "Bible wit." Z. ventures an occasional witticism, a frequent extended metaphor or analogy, and not infrequently an implicit or explicit appeal to common experience with his authors or with his readers. Among the latter, I would include the many references to modern adult and juvenile fiction dealing with animals (Orwell's Animal Farm; Lofting's Dr. Dolittle), which never seem out of place and are often illuminating; among the former, Z.'s characteristic critical approach, to put himself in the place of the medieval author, recreating (or imagining) the historical circumstances, intellectual environment, and literary resources available to him as best he can. At its worst, his method entails a speculative and potentially crude assessment of the authorial state of mind, as when he writes of the mixture of pride and defensiveness with which the poets must have attempted to draw on "the strengths and popularity of fable while avoiding its childish associations" (237) or of the putative attitude which governed their literary choices. At its best, it exhibits the strength and depth of the reconstructive project that is philology, with all its attention to sources and analogues, historical allusion and context, and intellectual and literary history. Talking Animals certainly will not strike many as methodologically innovative, nor was it intended to.

If the book, then, (to make the worst case) has flaws as a cohesive argument, and is of only minimal to middling use to medieval latinists and literary theorists, for whom and for what purpose was it intended? Surprisingly, given the recondite nature of the texts, it would serve admirably as a introductory text for any number of different kinds of readers with any number of different pursuits. First, as the title suggests, Talking Animals should prove an indispensable introduction to otherwise inaccessible texts for those to whom literature concerning talking animals (rather than literature in medieval Latin) is the chief interest: these would include medievalists, of course, whatever their field. But there is no reason that the book's potential audience should not be extended to include students of modern fairy tales, fables, and children's fiction; to those whose first love is The Wind in the Willows, Narnia, or Watership Down, not just the Roman de Renard, Lydgate, or Henryson; or to those who begin with Margaret Blount's Animal Land or Elliott Gose's Mere Creatures and wish to extend their chronological reach. As K.'s mention of his own young daughters' stories in the Acknowledgments suggests, these need not be mutually exclusive groups. Even for the beast fable proper there is very little current introduction in English; and if most of the literature on the more obscure poems that Z. treats remains in German, from Ernst Voigt's Kleinere lateinische Denkmäler der Thiersage (1878) to Hans Robert Jauss's Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Tierdichtung (1959), at least Z. provides a key and an English-labelled map.

A second purpose, and a second readership, for Talking Animals might be as a companion to readings of his original texts, perhaps as part of an introduction to medieval Latin. The book would in that case have to be used, as it were, back to front. Start with the bibliography to gather the primary texts scattered among the volumes of the MGH, Studi Medievali, and so on; work through them with the aid of the provided translations; and move finally to Z's text to see what he (and others) have to say about them. The very heterogeneity of the poems would here prove useful, providing the kind of formal variety, as well as the kind of intrinsic interest, commonly to be looked for in an anthology.

As might be expected in a work dealing with such varied material, the arrangement of the book is roughly chronological, rather than generic or thematic. Though Z. attempts to impose at least a superficial thematic coherence on most of the chapters, the attempt, as I have suggested, is often rather strained. In the Introduction, Z. defines his corpus and subject (the equivalent, he says, of tierdichtung); declares its independence of generic categories; discusses its long-vexed nature as alternatively "folk" or bookish; defends it as a worthy subject of study; and roams far afield in search of some universals of beast poetry. He observes the agglutinative tendency of beast poetry and lore to combine into larger and larger works ( The Golden Ass), notes the widespread connection of beast poetry with the oppressed (Aesop, Phaedrus, and Uncle Remus were all freedmen, and do not forget Orwell), its capacity for expressing great matters in miniature; conversely also its comic aptitude for mockingly rendering small things in epic terms. And lastly, its intrinsic vitality and cultural centrality.

Chapter One, "Inspirations and Analogues," introduces the materials and traditions on which the beast poets drew, chiefly the various strains of beast fable (Aesopic, oriental, and native vernacular folktale) with all their permutations through centuries of adaptation, re-moralization, classroom imitation, and independent folk transmission. The discussion and references here are necessarily limited, as even more so are those regarding Christian relations with animals (St. Francis, historical beast trials, animal imagery, symbolism, and lore of the bestiary type). Probably least well known to general medievalists are the texts of Z.'s third category: classical animal catalogues (especially of voces animantium "animal noises"); animal epitaphs and wills (from sincere threnodes to mocking laments and schoolboy buffoonery: from Catullus, Ausonius, and Ovid to the pseudo-Virgilian Culex, Thierry of St. Trond's +"Weep, Dogs," and +"The Testament of the Piglet"); and animal riddles (Symphosius, often collected with Avian's Fables in school texts; Aldhelm; Eusebius).

Chapters Two and Three divide between them the poems of the ninth and early tenth centuries, Chapter Two being devoted to poems that retain the most overt resemblance to Aesopic beast fable (and other poems that Z. finds it convenient to discuss in connection with them); Chapter Three, as the chapter heading suggests, being devoted to three beast- poems that share no feature save that they are less fable-like than the poems of Chapter Two, as well as (again) certain other poems with which one or another of these three can be said to share some broad theme or to enjoy a vague resemblance. Chapter Two, "Beast Narrative and the Court of Charlemagne," discusses Alcuin's +"The Cock and the Wolf" with regard to its departures from classical fable, especially its addition of a second, Christian moral. Theodulf's +"The Fox and Hen" makes a brief appearance, described as a riposte to Alcuin's poem, as do Alcuin's +Letter 181 and +Eclogue on Dodo, cited as evidence for the use of animal nicknames in Carolingian court circles, in the latter piece extending to the poetic attribution of avian qualities to the person. Theodulf's +"What do the Swans Do?" appears unattractively as an abusive jeu d'esprit displaying only superficial similarities to John the Deacon's verse version of "Cyprian's Supper." Theodulf's +"The Battle of the Birds" appears as an early example of complaint about real people cloaked in animal disguise, to which Alcuin's letter 181 might be compared. After a brief dismissal of the attribution of +"The Sad Calf" and +"The Sick Lion" to Notker Balbus and Paulus Diaconus, the first is briefly paraphrased, along with its MS neighbor, +"Gout and the Flea" (an etiological tale relating that gout and fleas once afflicted the poor and the rich respectively, then exchanged places); +"The Sick Lion" is briefly discussed in terms first of its sources and analogues, then of its somewhat riddling conclusion. Several speculative topical explanations are summarized, but left inconclusively with the comment that "the poet judged the moral [either] too obvious or too dangerous to bear direct statement" (66).

The third chapter, "Further Beyond Fable," is devoted to three poems: a short ninth-century poem of but five elegiac couplets, entitled "The Nanny Goat" ( de capra); Sedulius Scottus's much longer and better known poem about "The Ram"; and the mystical "Swan "— three poems "as unlike in structure and function as three poems can be" (67). The "Nanny Goat" is translated, then used to make two quick points: that a very remote analogue (of no discernible resemblance) can be found in the ancient aramaic Ahikar (thus, one supposes, establishing for the poem a weak link with beast fable); and that, unlike the Carolingian poems discussed in chapter one, in which only animals appear, this poem's few lines comprise a sharp exchange between herdsman and goat, thus introducing human-animal interaction. Another very different poem from the same MS (+"The Ass Brought Before the Bishop," in which a bishop agrees to ordain an ass once he has noticed the bribe tied beneath its tail) also contains both animals and people, and so makes an appearance here, on the grounds that it serves as a fitting contrast to "The Nanny Goat": though both contain human-animal interaction, the dumbness of the "The Ass," which remains mute, "fortuitously counterbalances" the "sharp tongue and...quick wit" of "The Nanny Goat." The goat's "combativeness and repartee" appear also in other beast poetry, such as the ninth-century beast flytings discussed in Chapter Five.

I have mentioned in some detail the treatment that Z. accords these minor pieces because it illustrates some of the more dubious characteristics of the book's argument and design. Firstly and more fundamentally, Z. not infrequently seems to engage in philological exercise—especially the seeking and citation of analogues of marginal relevance—for the sheer pleaure of it, with little apparent concern for the its effect on the strength of his literary or literary- historical argument. In some cases, no doubt, this reflects a dissertation-writer's habit of refusing to excise any piece of information that he has worked to obtain; but the same habit persists in some of the more extended arguments which have seen separate publication and a presumably more rigorous editorial hand. It seems best to take these exercises in the spirit of cheerful curiosity with which they are evidently performed.

Secondly, the critical comments to which Z. subjects these two poems are typical of at least some of Z.'s remarks on those poems which he treats most summarily—typical in (to be honest) their banality and superficiality. Superficiality of criticism seems to mark a point at which the structure of the book proves too weak for the weight it must bear. Being obliged by his design to incorporate every poem in his chosen corpus, he is likewise obliged to treat each poem in such a way as to establish some connection with another poem, however tenuous, and to say something about it to that end, however confined to the surface or the obvious the remark may prove. When a poem resists easy assimilation, Z. is compelled to resort, as here, to brute force and drag it in willy nilly.

The third chapter continues with a satisfying discussion of Sedulius Scottus' poem +"The Ram," along with Sedulius's shorter and more playful celebration of sheep, sheepskin, and mutton, +"Our Glory Returns." Z. gives the manifoldly allusive language of +"The Ram" the close reading it deserves, demonstrating how the mutual interference of classical and Christian allusion, Vergilian and Biblical lexical connotation, and slyly inserted personal references create a complex, balanced, and ultimately unclassifiable unity. Equally defiant of classification are the bird poems with which the chapter concludes: the +"Swan Sequence," an enigmatically symbolic quasi-liturgical piece; +"The Hawk and Peacock," which makes of the Peacock a Christian symbol not unlike the Phoenix; and Cuono of St. Nabor's +"The Peacock and the Owl," a much later (ca. 1000) poem that regards the peacock similarly and concludes with a doxology. Inserted before this group of bird poems is a very extended digression (published also in Poetica 34: 1-38) on Walahfrid Strabo's bizarre little dream vision +"To Erluin, About a Certain Dream" (admittedly not properly a beast poem at all), in which a certain Pollachar dreams of being carried to the outskirts of heaven by an eagle, of purging his bowels in mid-flight so as not to bring human filth within heaven's gates, and of being castigated for this by the eagle, only to awaken in his bed and find that one element of his dream, at least, was all too real. Z. invokes Freud (clumsily), medieval dream theory, penitential doctrine regarding nocturnal emission, and the Babylonian myth of Etana's flight to heaven, among other things, in a fascinating if slightly overambitious discussion too long to summarize here.

Chapter Four, "Toward Narrative Complexity," conceals, appropriately enough, under that heading two deliberately obscure poems of the early tenth and early eleventh century respectively. Eugenius Vulgarius' +"Comic Visions," a diptych involving a song contest among birds, is so animated by obscurantism, and so filled with untraceable topical allusions, as to remain incomprehensible. Leo of Vercelli's much longer and more novel, though fragmentary, +"Meter," is a similarly "nutty" poem which Z. attempts to crack. The kernel he finds is that of a poem inventive chiefly in two respects: its method of creating a longer story by combining the narrative portions of several fables on a single theme (treachery), along with motifs from hagiography, animal testaments, and elsewhere; and its selective use of commentary-by-allusion. The last must remain, to my mind, unproven. It is certainly true, as Z. demonstrates, that one reads Leo's poem differently when one not only recognizes his Horatian and Vergilian allusions but brings some features of the lines' original context to bear on the poem, but the procedure is more than a little arbitrary, and the resultant readings, though surely legitimate, can hardly be called compelling. Z. will return to this theme in Chapter Six.

Chapter Five, "Dramatic and Dialogic Beast Poems," is less concerned with explicating the several small pieces adduced than with proposing the existence of a large body of lost beast flytings (which Z. distinguishes from scholastic beast debates), probably emerging immediately from the classroom exercises and even performances, but with an ultimate source in folk plays consisting of ritual abuse and invective uttered from behind animal masks and disguises. Vernacular poems long regarded as essentially learned debates, especially The Owl and the Nightingale have closer ties to this flyting tradition than is usually realized, as do some Latin poems like the eleventh- century "Debate of the Sheep and Flax Plant" ( Conflictus ovis et lini) by Winrich of Trier, a ninth-century exchange between bear and hound beginning +"Cur me torquetis," and two ninth-century poems, the exchange +"Quid mihi caprige[r]o" and the monologue +"Learn, Lion" ("Disce, leo supplex...").

In Chapters Six and Seven, which contain the two longest sustained interpretative essays in Talking Animals, Z. addresses two long satiric fable-derived poems about wolf-monks, the Echbasis captiviand Ysengrimus. In considering the two most conspicuous features of the Echbasis—its nature as a cento and its tripartite structure as fable, fable-within-fable, and frame—, Z. attempts to use the details of the former to interpret the purpose of the latter. Arming himself with the equipment of close reading, but especially with the "nutcracker" that he used on Leo of Vercelli's +"Meter," namely the use of recognizable quotation as internal commentary, Z. tries to crack the obscure relationship between the three parts of the structure, especially between the inner and outer fables. The kernel that he finds is a central concern, aptly symbolized by the setting of both fables at Eastertide, with the passing of the Old Law into the New and more generally with the superiority of mercy to strict justice. In his view, the inner fable provides an answer to the outer fable's dilemma and a key to its meaning. Other readers will be able to judge better than I how successfully Z. makes his case.

Z. prefaces his discussion of Ysengrim by adducing the two extant short beast poems from the eleventh century, +"The Cock and the Fox" and +"The Wolf," finding illustrated in them two directions in which the adaptation of fable could be taken. In +"The Cock and the Fox," the traditional fabular moral of the fraus fraudata is abandoned in favor of a long and thoroughly counterintuitive moralization in accordance with the traditional exegetical (Gregorian) interpretation of the Biblical gallus as symbolic of the preacher. +"The Wolf," on the other hand, presages the full-blown anti-monastic satire of Ysengrimus, for it tells of a sheep-eating wolf who escapes punishment by feigning conversion and taking the habit and tonsure, solely that he may continue his old ways unhindered. To the shepherd shocked at such behavior, the wolf explains "Sometimes I am a monk, sometimes a canon": that this is an old joke about monastic fare is clear from an analogue in the Fecunda ratis. It is similarly primarily the satire in Ysengrim that interests Z., as it is manifested through the characters of the wolf-monk and his enemies. Much of the discussion, too lengthy to be readily summarized, turns on the wolf's cynical perversion of liturgical formulations, and the consequent "revenge" that the liturgy may be said to take on him.

Z.'s Conclusion, largely a repetition of points made through the book, serves less to urge a synthesis than to remind us of the variety both of the material and of Z.'s readings. It is on the strength of those individual readings, primarily, that the value of Talking Animals rests, as well as on the compendious scholarship, charted with a sure hand, that Z. amasses to inform and defend them, and the impressive set of translations that he produces to make them accessible. In all of these respects its value is considerable.

"This study of medieval Latin beast poetry provides scholarly discussion and idiomatic translations of a number of important poems that have been largely neglected by Anglo-American scholarship. The author's thesis-that these early writers were pioneers working with a new genre and therefore had a freedom forced upon them-permits him to employ a formalistic approach showing how the underlying meaning of these works is often determined by the writers' use of classical and Christian source materials. Ziolkowski's source work, along with his translations, is itself a pioneering effort, making a little-known group of poems more accessible to both specialists and nonspecialists." -- Michael P. Kuczynski, Speculum, 1994

"Although fables of course figure largely in medieval beast literature, the use of animal characters extends far beyond the exemplary genre. The Owl and the Nightingale, Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale and The Parliament of Fowls, the Roman de Renart and its analogues in other languages, all witness to the range of texts in which animals speak up. The present study focuses on the Latin development. In that tradition, one of the arguable masterpieces of twelfth-century literature, the Ysengrimus, and one of the same period's most successful and widely read works, Nigel Whiteacre's Speculum stultorum (Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Daun Burnel the Asse), both employ the anthropomorphic mode." -- David Townsend, The Review of English Studies, 1996" abbot Aeneid Aesopic Alcuin allusions Amalar beast fables beast literature beast poems birds bishop calf calf's Carmen Charlemagne Christ Christian classical Cock and Fox Cock and Wolf Comic Visions Cyprian's Supper death dogs dreamer dreams Dummler eagle Easter Ecbasis captivi epic epitaph Erluin Eugenius fear flea flytings Ganymede genre heaven Horace horns Hrabanus Maurus human Incipit inner story king Knapp lament Latin beast poems Latin beast poetry Leo's lines liturgy Lord manuscript medieval Latin beast Meter Middle Ages monastery monastic monks moral mouth narrative nightingale nocturnal emission once outer story pard parody peacock Phaedrus Physiologus poet Pollachar praise Psalm quotations Reinard riddles Roman Satires Sedulius Sedulius Scottus Sedulius's sheep shepherd Sick Lion sing song Sparono Speculum stultorum Strecker Swan Sequence Symphosius Testament Theodulf Tityros trans twelfth century Venantius Fortunatus verse Voigt Walahfrid's poem Wetti's Vision wolf-monk wolf's words Wretched Ysengrim Jan M. Ziolkowski is Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Medieval Latin at Harvard University and director of Dumbarton Oaks. His publications include thirteen books and nearly one hundred articles and essays. The books encompass critical editions of Medieval Latin texts (such as The Cambridge Songs; Jezebel: A Norman Latin Poem of the Early Eleventh Century; and two of poetry by Nigel of Canterbury), as well as literary histories such as Alan of Lille's Grammar of Sex and Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry. http://edufb.net/757.pdf http://edufb.net/1555.pdf http://edufb.net/605.pdf http://edufb.net/1048.pdf http://edufb.net/2101.pdf http://edufb.net/110.pdf http://edufb.net/489.pdf http://edufb.net/1591.pdf http://edufb.net/239.pdf http://edufb.net/808.pdf http://edufb.net/537.pdf http://edufb.net/250.pdf http://edufb.net/1657.pdf http://edufb.net/375.pdf http://edufb.net/1706.pdf http://edufb.net/501.pdf http://edufb.net/296.pdf http://edufb.net/1474.pdf http://edufb.net/2125.pdf