INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material subm itted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Micrcxilms International

300 N /hl-B HOAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48100 18 Bl Dl ORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 41 J, ( N OLAND 7908233

WARREN, JERRY LEWIS I THE INFLUENCE OF THE -PHYSIOLOGUS" ON PRUSS* "HCRBARY" DF 1S09.

THE DHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, PH.D., 197U

University M ic ro film s International 300 N n I H HOAD ANN AHHOH. Ml 4810U

© 1978

JERRY LEWIS WARREN

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE INFLUENCE OF THE PHYSIOLOGUS

ON PROSS' HERBARY OF 1509

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Jerry Lewis Warren, B.A., M.A., M.T.S.

*******

The Ohio State University

1978

Reading Committee: Approved by

Dr. Johanna Belkin

Dr. Gisela Vitt Adviser Dr. Harry Vredefeld Department of German AC KNOWLE DSEMENTS

I wish to express :ny gratitude to the following libraries:

Southeastern Oklahoma State University Mr. Raymond Piller

Southern Methodist University Dr. Decherd Turner

University of Illinois at Chicago,Health Sciences Dr. Edward Rich

Cambridge University (England) Mr. J. C. T. Oates

Univesrity of Texas

Universit.y of Oklahoma

University of Chicago.

Special thanks are due the Book Club of California for permission to quote from Francis Carmody's English trans­ lation of the Physlologus.

Also, I wish to thank Mr. and Mrs. W. 0. Cooper and

Mr. Thomas 0. Criswell,III for use of microfilming and re­ production equipment. Finally, my profound thanks are due a patient Doktormutter, Johanna Belkin and my longsuffering wife(and typist),Rose Lee, and daughter, Kirsten.

ii VITA

December 16,1941...... Texas City, Texas

1964...... B. A., Southern Methodist Univer­ sity, Dallas, Texas

1966...... M. A., University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon

1966-1968...... Instructor of German, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

1968-1970...... Instructor of Latin and German Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Durant, Oklahoma

1970-1972...... Teaching and Research (NSF) Fellow, German Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1972-1975...... Assistant Professor of Foreign Languages, Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Durant, Oklahoma

1977 ...... Master of Theological Studies Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois

197 8 ...... Assistant Priest, Trinity Church Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Medieval German language and literature

Studies in medieval literature and philology, Professor Johanna Belkin

Studies in medieval literature, Professor Hugo Bekker

Studies in German philology, Professor Wolfgang Fleischhauer

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... V

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Chapter

I. The Citation of the Physiologus in Priiss' Herbary ...... 49

II. Structural Analysis ...... 73

III. The Taxonomy of the Physiologus and Herbary ...... 84

IV. The Hermeneutic of the Physiologus and Herbary ...... 9 7

V. Summary ...... 135

APPENDICES

A. Verified Citations of the Physiologus in the Herbary ...... 139

B. Composite Sources of the Hortus Sanitatis (1491) and Herbary (1509).... 147

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 169

iv LIST OF FIGURES

page

Figure 1: Development of major manuscripts - Stemma I ...... 7

Figure 2: Development of Versio B-Stemma II...... 7

Figure 3: Castor ( beaver ) 38

Figure 4: Unicorn ...... 39

Figure 5: Pellicanus (pelican)...... 40

Figure 6: Monachus marinus (sea-monk) monoceron ( unicorn) ...... 41 r Figure 7: Hortus Sanitatis (piiij ) cephos and ccntrocuta...... 126

Figure 8: Herbary ( 1509 - diijr) cephos and ccntrocuta ...... 127 r Figure 9: Hortus Sanitatis (siij ) "De Animal.ibus" regulus ...... 128

Figure 10: Herbary ( 1509 - hii.ijV) regulus ...... 129

Figure 11: Hortus Sanitatis (a a i i j ) cetus ...... 130

Figure 12: Herbary (1509 - A i i i j r) cetus ...... 131

Figure 13: Hortus Sanitatis I j ^ ) perdix ...... 132

i r Figure 14: Herbary (oiiij ) perdix ...... 132

v INTRODUCTION

The Physiologus is the foremost example of the bestiary genre. It was compiled during the early patris­ tic period, flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and influenced the culture of the Middle Ages ■\ and Reformation. Despite copious scholarship regarding the Physiologus, there has been little consideration of its importance in late medieval science, specifically animal science. The purpose of this study is to demon­ strate the popularity of the Physiologus and its influ­ ence on the Herbary or Gart der Gesuntheit, printed in

1509 by Johannes Priiss in Strassburg. Before investigat­ ing this influence, however, a survey of the history and significance of Priiss' text is required.

Priiss' Herbary of 1509 belongs to the tradition of the Latin Hortus Sanitatis, first printed by Jacob

Meydenbach in 1491 in Mainz. The Hortus Sanitatis is an extensive herbal of 1,066 chapters with treatises on plants, animals, birds, fish, minerals, and urines.

^William Rose, "Introduction to 'Physiologus'" in The Epic of the Beast (New York: Dutton, 1924), p. 181. Rose notes Luther's interest in the Physiologus.

1 Although the 1509 text is an almost verbatim translation into German of the treatises on animals and minerals in the Hortus Sanitatis, it is not based on Meydenbach's original 1491 edition but on Priiss' reprints of 1496, 1497 2 and 1499, especially that of 1497.

It should be noted that Priiss used the text of the

German Gart der Gesundhe.it (or small Hortus Sanitatis) for the first volume of the Herbary which he printed in

1507. Both the 1507 and 1509 volumes comprise the Herbary and form the so-called German "Hortus." Since the treatises on animals in the 1509 text are taken from Meydenbach's

Hortus Sanitatis, a sketch of this work is given below.

The Hortus Sanitatis was published in Latin and is considered to be the oldest edition of the so-called 3 large Hortus Sanitatis. Shaffer has observed that

Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis "was the most comprehensive 4 herbal and materia medica of them all." The comprehen­ siveness of Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis, particularly the inclusion of the treatises on animals, distinguishes

2 Arnold Klebs, "Introduction," in Karl Becher, A Catalogue of Early Herbals (Lugano: L'art ancien, 1925) , p. 33. 3 Ludwig Choulant, Graphische Incunabeln fur Natur- geschichte und Medizin (Leipzig: 1858). Reprint: Hildesheim, Georg 01ms Verlag, 1963, p. 21. 4 Ellen Shaffer, The Garden of Health (n.p., Book Club of California, 1957). his work from previous herbals. There are 164 chapters on land animals, 122 chapters on birds, and 106 chapters on fish. Each chapter is usually divided into a descrip­

tive part and a part called operationes which lists specific medical uses of the creature. The treatise on plants, 530 chapters altogether, is an expansion of the material on plants in earlier herbals. Although this treatise on plants is of minimal significance for the present study, it should be noted that its contents were taken in part from the first German herbal. Citations from ancient and medieval authorities, among them the Physiologus, comprise the animal treatises in Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis.

In Mainz, on March 28, 1485, Peter Schoffer printed an illustrated herbal of 435 chapters entitled Gart der

Gesundheit. Scholars frequently refer to Schoffer's

Gart as the German Herbarius, the German Hortus Sanitatis, 5 or the Smaller Hortus. The epithet "German" is signif­ icant because the Gart of 1485 was the first herbal printed in German. The name of each plant, animal and mineral was stated in Latin and German and a description of its med­ icinal characteristics and uses was given. Schoffer also included woodcuts of plants, a fact which singles

5 Schaffer, op. cit., p. 6. See also Choulant, o p . cit., pp. 21-26, 55-56. out his work as innovative in the botanical literature of g this period.

Priiss' Herbary oder Kriiterbuch of 1507-1509 is not so extensive as Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis because Priiss used the treatise on plants from the small Gart der Gesund- heit of 1485. Consequently, there were 95 fewer chapters on plants. The Herbary of 1509 does, however, maintain the enormous increase of material on animals of Meydenbach's

Hortus Sanitatis. The eleven chapters on animals in

Schoffer's Gart der Gesundheit were expanded to 492 in the

Hortus Sanitatis and subsequently in Priiss' German trans­ lation of these treatises in the Herbary of 1509. Because

Priiss' text presents the animal and mineral treatises as a separate volume, the Herbary of 1509 recommends itself as a text for investigating the influence of the

Physiologus upon late medieval animal science.

The present study examines the relationship of the

Physiologus to Priiss' Herbary (1509) by investigating

(1) what material Priiss' Herbary inherited from the

Physiologus, (2) the sources which transmitted the

Physiologus to this late medieval text on animal science, and (3) the influence of the Physiologus on the animal science of Priiss' Herbary (1509).

^Ibid., pp. 10-14. The Physiologus

The Physiologus is a collection of anecdotes about

animals whose habits and nature are the basis for Christian 7 allegory and moralizing. Most of the anecdotes contain a brief description of the animal, a verse of scripture men­ tioning the animal, and a moral explication of the animal's 0 nature. Little is known about the date, place of compo­ sition, or authorship of the Physiologus. While probably

first written in Greek, the Physiologus was quickly trans­ lated into Latin. In turn, the Latin texts led to various

European translations, and eventually the Physiologus material was incorporated into medieval bestiaries and encyclopedic texts. A penchant for allegory and the un­ usual helped insure the Physiologus1 popularity throughout the Middle Ages.

Greek Versions of the Physj.q_lqg.us

There are two major editions of the Greek text; one by Friedrich Lauchert,the other by Francesco Sbordone.

Lauchert's edition of the Physiologus, which is included in his Geschichte des Physiologus, is based on the Wiener

7 "Physiologus," Oxford C lassical Dictionary, ed. N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 832. 0 Francis J. Carmody, "Physiologus," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, p. 342. Cod Theol. 128 and contains additions from Pitra's g "Haupthandschrift A." Sbordone's edition collates major 10 Physiologus manuscripts.

The Greek Physiologus contains stories of approx­

imately fifty creatures, the number of chapters and crea­

tures varying slightly with the different manuscripts.

Most of these stories pertain to real animals, although

there are a few imaginary creatures, as well as some

plants and stones.

Latin Versions of the Physiologus

The line of development from the Greek manuscripts

to medieval Latin versions is complex and unfortunately

not wholly known. The relationship of the various branches of development perhaps becomes clearer in the visual presentation on the succeeding page.

The following stemmas represent the main lines of

the Physiologus' development in the western bestiary

tradition. Stemma I is based on Francis J. Carmody's

listing in his study of De Bestiis et aliis rebus and his edition of Versio Y. Stemma II indicates M. R. James' and

9 Friedrich Lauchert, Geschichte des Physiologus (Strassburg, 1889). Details about the Greek manuscripts are given in his preface.

^ Physiologus (Greek), ed. Francesco Sbordone (Milano, 1936). Details about the Greek manuscripts are given in his prolegomena. 7

Florence McCulloch's analysis of the development of Versio

B. Bibliographical references to these authors are made

later in this study.

Stemma I

Greek______Versio A,Brussels, Royal Library,10074,Xth cent. ^ I Isidore Versio B,3ern 213,VIII cent. c, y Versio C,Bern 318,IX cent. I Versio F,Vincent of Beauvais, I Speculum Naturale. I Versio H,De Bestiis et aliis I Rebus (Migne,Pat. Lat., Latin CLXXVII,15-164)

Versio J,De Naturis animalium "a" ...Theobaldi (Migne,Pat. A , B H , L F , 0 Lat.,CLXXI,1217-122 4)

Versio- L,Dicta' - ■ - . - _ _ Chrvsostomi- - - -«■ Figure 1: Development ed. G. Heider. Versio 0,Glossary of of major manuscripts Ansileubus.

Versi o Y,Munich,Lat. 194 17, IX cent.

Stemma II

Latin

1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Family Family Family Family

B-Is .H

Figure 2: Development of Versio B The first Latin versions of the Physiologus date from

the fourth century, v/hen St. 7\mbrose used the bestiary to

describe the partridge in his Hexaemeron. ^ This fact in­

dicates that the Physiologus v/as composed before 388. Fur-

‘ 12 ther, the Gelasian Decretal (Dccretum Gelaslanum de

libris reclpiendis et non recipiendis) places the latest

date of composition of the Physiologus in the fifth or 13 sixth century. The oldest Latin texts extant are from 14 the eighth century. Although no scholar has compared all

Latin manuscripts to determine their relationships, the

major ones may be arranged according to McCulloch's clear

presentation. Her argument serves as the basis for this

summary. The oldest Latin versions are: Y, A, C, the

Glossary of Ansileubus, and B.

Textual Studies

Francis J. Carmody based his edition of Versio Y

upon three manuscripts: Y - Munich, Lat. 19317, IX. cent.;

■^Florence McCulloch, Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries (Chapel Hill, 1962), p. 21. 12 The Gelasian Decretal is ascribed to Pope Gelasius (492-96) and contains material on Christ and the Holy Ghost, the canon of scripture, ecclesiastical sees, orthodox coun­ cils, fathers, and writings. The Physiologus is one of the works banned in the Decretal. 13 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross (London: Oxford University Press, 1957,p. 382. 14 McCulloch, Oja. clt. , p. 21. - Munich, Lat. 13288, IX-X cent.; Y^ - Bern, Lat. 611, 15 VIII-IX cent. Versio Y contains forty-nine chapters and is related to the Greek Codex Mosquensis graecus 4 32 16 (or tt according to Sbordone). McCulloch concludes that

Versio Y was not circulating after the eleventh century and was not influential on other versions.

Versio A is located in Brussels and is catalogued as manuscript Bibl. Roy., 10074, f. 140v.-156v. X cent. It contains thirty-six chapters. Charles Cahier and Arthur

Martin edited Versio A from 1851 to 1856 and included 1 7 illustrations from the text.

Versio C is the manuscript in Bern, Burgerbibliothek, 18 Lat. 318, f. 7-22v. IX cent. This manuscript is not so reliable since it is a corrupt translation of the Greek 19 Physiologus. It does, however, have artistic value as the first illustrated Physiologus text. Versio C was first

1 5 Francis J. Carmody, "Physiologus Latinus Versio Y ," University of California Publications in Classical Philology, XII, no. 7 (1941)', pp. 95-134.

^McCulloch, op. cit., p. 23. 1 7 Charles Cahier and Arthur Martin, Mdlanges d'ar- chdologie, d'histoire, et de litterature (Paris, 1851-56), Vols. II-IV. Cited by McCulloch, p. 23. I have been un­ able to acquire this study. 18 See the Physiologus Bernensis, Vol1-Faksimile-Aus- gabe des Codex Bongarsianus 318 der Burgerbibliothek Bern, with commentary by Christoph Steiger and Otto Homburger (Basel: Alkuin Verlag, 1964). 19 McCulloch, op. cit., p. 24. 10 edited by Charles Cahiers in Nouveaux melanges d 1archeologie, d 1histoire et de litterature, vol. 1 (Paris, 1874).

Still another Latin version is the Glossary of

Ansileubus, descriptions of twenty-two creatures from the

Physiologus arranged in alphabetical order.

In 1939 Carmody used Bern manuscript 233, f. 1-13, 20 VIII-IX cent, to edit Versio B. Versio B is the manu- 21 script "most widespread in existence." It contains thirty-six chapters and is the basis for many of the later bestiaries.

In order to identify and classify the manuscripts of this version, M. R. James made a four-famiiy division.

The First Family includes versions such as that in Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae (Book XII) and the Pseudo-Hugo 22 of St. Victor, particularly the first book, the Aviarium.

The first chapter of a First Family manuscript tells of the lion and begins with "Leo etenim Jacob." As an example of this family, James cites the Bodleian MS., Laud. Misc. 23 247 of the twelfth century. James' Second Family is entitled the "bestiary" and is patterned on Isidore's

20 Physiologus Latinus ^Editions preliminaires versio B), ed. Francis J. Carmody (Paris, 1939). 21 McCulloch, op. cit., p. 25.

^ Ibid. , pp. 25-32. 23 Montague Rhodes James, The Bestiary (Oxford, 1928) , p. 7. 11

Etymologiae, Book XII. Such versions frequently have chap- 24 ters without moral or spiritual exegesis, material from

Solinus, Ambrose, and Hrabanus Maurus. The incipit of this version is usually "leo fortissimus bestiarum"—

Hrabanus Maurus' De Universo (VIII.I)— or "bestiarum vocabulum"— Isidore (xii.2.1). An example of this version is in Cambridge, University Library, Ii.4.26, f. 1-74, XII 25 cent. A characteristic of this family is its expanded mass of material, usually more than one hundred chapters.

James' Third Family of Versio B refers to manuscripts of the thirteenth century which have an incipit of "Cum voluntas conditoris" and introduce Isidore's account of

"Fabulous Nations." Next comes the bestiary itself along with mythological monsters from Isidore. Often parts of

Seneca's De remediis fortuitorum and the Seven Wonders of 2 6 the World are included. Finally, the Fourth Family is represented by a manuscript which is based on Bartholomaeus

Anglicus' De proprietatibus rerum. A manuscript from this family is frequently incomplete (for example, Cambridge 27 University Library Gg. 6.5, f. 1-100, XV cent.).

^ Ibid., p. 14. 25 McCulloch, op. cit., pp. 35-36.

^ Ibid. , pp. 38-39. 27 James, op. cit., p. 25. 12

McCulloch has suggested yet another division within

Versio B manuscripts which she calls the "B-Is" version.

The "B-Is" follows the order of Versio B (except for chap­ ters on Antalops, Lapides Igniferi, Serra, Caladrius,

Peredexlon, Amos and Mermecolion) and has additions from

Isidore. The oldest manuscript of the "B-Is" version is 28 Vatican, Palat. Lat. 1074, f. 1-22 of the tenth century.

In addition to the above manuscripts, there are still others which are considered major versions in themselves:

The "H" of Book II of Pseudo-Hugo of St. Victor, the

Aviarium, the Physiologus of Theobaldus, and the Dicta

Chrysostomi.

The Pseudo-Hugo (hereafter referred to as H) is prin­ ted in Migne's Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus, Vol.

177, cols. 15-164 under "de bestiis et aliis rebus." Pro­ fessor Carmody has shown that this work is actually a 29 version of the Physiologus. H refers to book II of the de bestiis and is preceded by book I or the Aviarium. The author of H included only two chapters on birds because 30 he compiled H as an addition to book I, the Aviarium.

Lauchert has noted the popularity of this version as

28 McCulloch, op. cit., pp. 28-29. 29 Francis J. Carmody, "De bestiis et aliis rebus and the Latin Physiologus," Speculum, 18 (1938), pp. 153-59.

^McCulloch, op. cit., p. 31. 13

attested by six manuscripts in the Wiener Hofbibliothek,

one from the thirteenth century, one from the fourteenth 31 century, and four from the fifteenth century.

The De Naturis animalium or Bestiarius seu Liber de

naturis XII animalium is attributed to Theobaldus, abbot 3 2 of Monte Cassino from 1022 to 1035. This metrical ver­

sion treats the lion, eagle, serpent, ant, fox, stag, spider, balena , siren, and onoccntaur, elephant, turtur, and panther. George Sarton lists this Bestiarius or

Physiologus Theobaldi among important scientific incu­ nabula . ^

The last major version is the Dicta Chrysostomi, attributed to Patriarch John Chrysostom of Constantinople.

Its title is based on the words: "Incipiunt dicta 34 Crisostomi de naturis bestiarum." The Dicta is composed of twenty-seven chapters which first present animals and 35 then birds. For a listing of actual manuscripts, the reader should consult McCulloch1s chapter,

31 Lauchert, o£. cit., p. 98. 32 McCulloch, 0 £. cit., p. 40. 33 George Sarton, "The Scientific Literature trans­ mitted through the Incunabula," Osiris 5 (1938), p. 184.

O A Gustav Heider, "Physiologus nach einer Handschrift des XI. Jahrhunderts, " Archiv f iir Kunde osterreichischer Geschiehtsguellen, V (1850), Unveranderter Nachdruck T965, pp. 541-582. 35 McCulloch, 0£. cit. , p. 41. 14 36 "The Latin Physiologus .11

Oriental^ French, and Germanic Versions

The above summary of Physiologus manuscripts deals only with Greek and Latin versions. Other versions exist 37 in Syrian, Ethiopian, Armenian, and Arabic. These orien­

tal versions represent some of the earliest Physiologus manuscripts.

In 1795 0. G. Tychsen edited the Physiologus Syrus and included a Latin translation of the thirty-two chapter 3 text. The Syrian version is probably one of the earliest.

Fritz Hommel published Die aethiopische Ubersetzung 39 des Physiologus in Leipzig in 1877. Hommel demonstrated

that this translation was from the fifth century, adhered

closely to the Greek Physiologus, and was one of the ear­

liest extant texts of the Physiologus. In 1855 J. B. Pitra pointed to an Arabic translation in his study of the

36Ibid., pp. 21-44. 37 Laucher, op. cit., pp. 79-87. 38 B. E. Perry, "Physiologus," Pauly-Wissowa, Real-En- cyclopadie der classischen Altcrtumswissenschaft (Neue Bearbeitung), ed. Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus (Stutt­ gart: Metzler, 1941), 20, col. 1117.

39Ibid., 20, col. 1116. 40 . Ibid., 20, col. 1118; see J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, Vol. Ill (Paris, 1855). 15 40 Physiologus. J. P. N. Land published an Arabic text in

1875.41

The French manuscripts of the Physiologus are of a later date than the oriental ones. The French metrical versions were written by Philippe de Taiin (ca. 1121),

Gervaise (ca. 1200), and Guillaume le Clerc (ca. 1210).

There is also a prose work by Pierre le Picard (ca. 1175—

1217). Perry notes that these versions were tailored to suit the morality of the day and frequently included mat­ erial from. Pliny and Isidore.43

There is also a Waldensian Physiologus of fifty-four chapters on animals (only twenty-five of which are from 4 3 the Physiologus), possibly by Jacques de Vitry. Spanish and Italian texts also exist, which draw upon Bartholomaeus 44 Anglicus and Brunetto Latini's Tresor.

For textual information, studies of these bestiaries, and their relation to the main Latin manuscript tradition, the reader is directed to Perry's article or McCulloch's work on Latin and French bestiaries which contain the fullest and most recent scholarship on these French versions

4 1 Lauchert, op. cit., p. 87. 42 Perry, op. cit., 20, col. 1124.

4 3Ibid., 20, col. 1 125-26. 44 Ibid., 20, col. 1123. 16 of the Physiologus.

The last of the western translations of the Latin

Physiologus to be considered here are the Germanic. Of these, the Anglo-Saxon version from the eighth century con­ sists of a poetic treatment of the panther, whale, and an 4 5 unnamed bird. The Old High German Physiologus derives from the Dicta Chrysostomi. There are twelve chapters in

Der altere deutsche Physiologus, Wiener Hs. 233 which is an eleventh century prose text, and twenty-seven chapters in Der jungere deutsche Physiologus from the twelfth cen- 46 tury. This latter version is extant in prose and verse.

A third German rendering is the Milstatter Reimphysiologus 4 7 also dating from the twelfth century.

Studies of the Physlolog us ' Contents

After the above-mentioned studies of Tychsen, Pitra, and Hommel, most scholarship was directed toward the Greek and Latin versions of the Physiologus.

In 1872 J. Victor Carus gave a thorough summary of the previous scholarly editions of the Physiologus as well

45Ibid., 20, col. 1123. 4 6 Der Althochdeutsche Physiologus, ed. Friedrich Maurer (Tubingen, 1967). 47 See M. F. Mann, "Die althochdeutschen Bearbeitungen des Physiologus," Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Vol. 1 1 (1886) , pp. 310-329. 17 48 as a discussion of the text for each creature. Carus

dealt with the vagaries of manuscript traditions and the

attribution problem. Basing his discussion upon Tychsen,

Carus proposed that the Physiologus represented a biblical

"Naturkunde" and that the animals were mostly of biblical 49 origin. Perry has disproved this by noting that not all

biblical creatures are in the Physiologus and that not all 50 Physiologus creatures are in the Bible.

In 1889 Friedrich Lauchert wrote his Geschichte des

Physiologus, which is based on the Greek version of the

Codex Vind. Theol. 128 and the Old High German prose version

found in Viennese manuscript 2721. After examining each of

the forty-nine creatures in the Physiologus, Lauchert ex­

plores the origin and transmission of the text. He also

refers to studies about oriental translations. Lauchert

devotes the last sections of part one of his book to the

Latin Physiologus and its history in the western world up

through the Middle Ages. The second part of the book per­

tains to the Physiologus in Germanic and Romance literature.

Lauchert's work has been criticized for omission of

important manuscripts and critical studies, for lack of a

4 8 J. Victor Carus, Geschichte der Zoologie in Geschich­ te der Wissenschaf ten, Vol. 12 (Mtinchen, 1872), pp. 108-1 34.

49Ihid. , p. 1 20. 50 Perry, ojp. cit. , 20, col. 1097. 18 chronological study, and for superficiality. As Voigt said:

"Eine wirkliche geschichte des physiologus soil noch ge- 51 schrieben werden."

Writing from the perspective of a cultural historian,

Lynn Thorndike investigates the Physiologus within the con­ text of magic and science and warns that the bestiary should not be interpreted from an exclusively theological viewpoint.

He proposes that the Physiologus is what its title implies— 52 the work of a natural scientist. Thorndike also tries to limit the extent of the Physiologus1 supposed influence on science and art by showing that the term "Physiologus" sometimes referred to an authority but was not actually used as a source.

In his analysis William Rose concluded that the

Physiologus was an indicator of how the Greek genius had 53 declined since the Golden Age. Rose did not regard the

Physiologus as a scientific or a religious work. His critical position toward the Physiologus is summarized in

51 Ernst Voigt, "(jber Lauchert, Physiologus," ZfdP, 22 (1890), pp. 236-242. For other reviews of Lauchert and a bibliography of the Physiologus, the reader should consult Max F. Mann, "Zur Bibliographie des Physiologus," Anglia Beiblatt, Vol. X, No. 9 (Jan. 1900), pp. 274-287, and Vol. XII, No. 1 (Jan. 1901), pp. 13-23. 52 Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York: Macmillan, 1929), Vol. I, pp. 501-03; II, 433-44. 53 Rose, op. cit.., pp. 157-183. 19 these sentences:

The fact that these grotesque parodies of natural history with their uncouth and perverted morals were written and were read for a thousand years as expositions of science and religion is not without its importance. The reader may . . . read the tales simply as specimens of uncon­ scious humor; but, if he prefers to study them as documents illustrative of a bygone condition of thought, he will find they throw some light on the decay of the Greek mind, on the conflict between Pauline Christianity and the mystery- faiths, and on the resulting attitude of mind which characterized the Dark A g e s . 54

Today's historiographic and theological insights suggest that Rose's attitude is outdated. His evaluation of the

Physiologus hardly allows a positive and unbiased apprecia­ tion of the bestiary.

Max Wellmann undertook the next major study of the 55 Physiologus in 1930. Wellmann's thesis is that the

Physiologus originated not in Alexandria but in Caesarea 56 toward the end of the fourth century. Wellmann concluded that there were several sources for the Physiologus, one being an Egyptian work by Bolos of Mendes (3rd-4th century 57 B.C.) who drew upon Democritus. Wellmann also suggested

~*^Ibid. , pp. 1 58-59. 55 Max Wellmann, "Der Physiologus: eine religionsge- schichtlich-naturwissenchaftliche Untersuchung," Philologus Suppl. XXII, Heft 1 (Leipzig: 1930), pp. 1-116.

~^Ibid., pp. 13-14.

^Ibid, p. 19. 20 5 8 a Jewish text, Pseudo-Solomon's uoiicd as an Urquelle and demonstrated the similarity of the Physiologus with such 59 works as the Koiraniden attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.

Sbordone has shown that many of Wellmann's conclusions pre­ suppose that the texts compared are derived from rather than contemporary with the Physiologus.^

A novel interpretation of the Physiologus was made by 61 Robert J. Glendinning in 1959. His interpretation is based upon Jungian psychology, which finds a logic in ap­ parently contradictory images and ideas. For Glendinning the Physiologus' success was due to its appeal to arche- 6 2 types in the reader's subconscious mind. Glendinning does not consider if the contradictory images in the

Physiologus arose from conflicting theologies or from the juxtaposition of proof-texts in scripture.

By far the most reliable study of the Physiologus is by B. E. Perry, who is thorough and succinct in treating the origin, attribution, contents, manuscript history, and

58t, . , Ibid., p. 60.

~*^Ibid. , p. 35f f .

^McCulloch, op. cit., p. 19.

^Robert J. Glendinning, A Critical Study of the Old High German Physiologus and its Influence (Master's Thesis) University of Manitoba, 1959.

^ Ibid. , p. 164. 21

dissemination of the bestiary material. Perry describes the

Physiologus' nature in this incisive manner:

Was den Charakter der Naturkunde anbelangt, so gehort der P. zu jener Gattung pseudonaturwis- senschaftlicher Bucher, die, von der Alexandri- nerzeit ausgehcnd, im 1. und 2. Jhdt. n. Chr. zu besonderer Bltite gelangte und deren Eigen- art, abgesehen von ihrer allgemeinen paradogra- phischen Richtung, darin besteht, dass sie die gesamte Natur umfasst und liber ihre vac\f mit Riicksicht auf die darin liegenden mystisch- magischen oder medizinischen Wirkungen be- richtet.®^

Perry rejects Wellmann's theory of authorship, time, and

place of origin^ on the basis of simplicity of style.

As Perry notes, the Physiologus contains no technical

theological terms such as one might expect in the Nicene

and post-Nicene church. Perry argues that an appeal to

allegedly heretical remarks in the Physiologus as proof of its fourth century origin cannot be substantiated in 6 6 all manuscripts. The importance of allegory in

Alexandria's history suggests that this metropolis rather

than Caesarea might have been the point of origin for the

Physiologus.

6 3_, Perry, op. cit. , 20, col. 1098. 64- Perry , 22- cit. , 20, col. 1 102. 6 5n Perry, op. cit. , 20, col. 1098. 66 Perry, op. cit. , 20, col. 1103. 21

dissemination of the bestiary material. Perry describes the

Physiologus1 nature in this incisive manner:

Was den Charakter der Naturkunde anbelangt, so gehort der P. zu jener Gattung pseudonaturwis- senschaftlicher Bucher, die, von der Alexandri- nerzeit ausgehend, im 1. und 2. Jhdt. n. Chr. zu besonderer Bltite gelangte und deren Eigen- art, abgesehen von ihrer allgemeinen paradogra- phischen Richtung, darin besteht, dass sie die gesamte Natur umfasst und uber ihre v3aei/ mit Rucksicht auf die darin liegenden mystisch- magischen oder medizinischen Wirkungen be- richtet.63

Perry rejects Wellmann's theory of authorship, time, and

place of origin*^ on the basis of simplicity of style.

As Perry notes, the Physiologus contains no technical

theological terms such as one might expect in the Nicene

and post-Nicene church. Perry argues that an appeal to

allegedly heretical remarks in the Physiologus as proof

of its fourth century origin cannot be substantiated in

all manuscripts.^^ The importance of allegory in

Alexandria's history suggests that this metropolis rather

than Caesarea might have been the point of origin for the

Physiologus.

6 3n Perry, op. cit., 20, col. 1098. 64n Perry, op. cit., 20, col. 1 102. 6 5n Perry, op. cit., 20, col. 1098. 66 Perry, op. cit., 20, col. 1103. 22

McCulloch has drawn upon all the previous scholarship

for her study of the Physiologus and French bestiaries.

Her study treats the Greek Physiologus, the Latin

Physiologus, and traditional French bestiaries. She also

gives a brief description of illustrated bestiaries and

then analyzes the principal creatures treated in Latin and

French bestiaries.

The most recent study of the Physiologus is Nikolaus

Henkel's Studien zum Physiologus im Mittelalter^ rWhi rh

contains an excellent summary of scholarship and a precise

treatment of material. Henkel examines some previously un­

noticed Physiologus versions, particularly inscriptions

found in the Danielskirche in Celje (Yugoslavia) from the

14th or 15th century.

The reader's attention may also be directed toward

two translations of the Physiologus, T. H. White's The

Book of Beasts and Otto Seel's Physiologus. White's

English translation is based on an expanded version of an

anonymous Latin twelfth century bestiary. His footnotes are quite helpful, as is his appendix, which contains a discussion of the bestiary tradition. Seel's German 6 8 translation of the Greek Physiologus is complemented by

Nikolaus Henkel, Studien zum Physiologus im Mittel- alter, (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1961). 6 8 Per Physiologus translated and edited by Otto Seel (Stuttgart: Artemis, 1967), 2nd ed. 23 a wealth of philological information and folklore contained in the footnotes. Seel displays a striking ability to ap­ preciate the Physiologus for its own intrinsic form and beauty and for its charming mixture of human and divine aspects of* creation.4.- 6 9

The Bestiary and the Phys_iologus

One manuscript of Versio B begins with the following sentence: "Incipit Liber Physiologus de Natura Animalium vel avium seu bestiarum" (Bodl., Auct. T.2.23, f. 127,

IX cent.).^0 Another example of Versio B, the Physiologus

Theobaldi, has an alternate title of Bestiarius. The term bestiary refers primarily to the Physiologus, but it may also refer to other works regarding animals. A prime ex­ ample of this is James' Second Family of manuscripts for

Versio B, which contains material other than the

Physiologus material.

The medieval bestiary tradition developed from Pliny's

Historia Naturalis, Solinus' Collectanea, and the

Physiologus. The Physiologus became part of the scientific knowledge of the Middle Ages when it was transmitted by 71 Isidore's Etymologiae. In the Etymologiae Isidore

^ Ibid. , p. 65 .

^McCulloch, op. cit., p. 25. 71 Lauchert, op. cit., p. 103. 24 adopted the encyclopedic scope of Pliny's text and used some 72 of Solinus' colorful descriptions. Because the

Etymologiae was a seminal text for medieval science, the

Physiologus material was transmitted by those medieval authors who used the Etymologiae. Isidore and consequently the Physiologus are cited by Thomas of Cantimpre in De pro- prietatibus rerum, by Vincent of Beauvais in his Speculum

Naturale (Books 17-21) , by Albertus Magnus in De Animalibus

(Books 22-26), by Bartholomaeus Anglicus in De Proprietati- 73 bus rerum, and in the Lucidarius.

The term bestiary, then, applies to texts containing books or treatises on animals as well as to the Physiologus itself. The Physiologus existed as a separate, independent work and as bestiary material assimilated by other texts, and it differs from bestiaries or bestiary treatises only in the number of entries. Clearly the Physiologus was expanded (Versio B), condensed (Theobaldus or the Dicta

Chrysostomi), and assimilated (Etymologiae or Speculum

Naturale). One must speak of a bestiary tradition to en­ compass the simultaneous transmission of the Physiologus proper and the Physiologus in altered forms throughout the

Middle Ages. The importance of the Physiologus for the

72 Francis J. Carmody, "Bestiary," New Catholic En­ cyclopedia , II, p. 367. 73 Lauchert, op. cit., p. 104. 25 bestiary tradition, medieval zoology, and science is clear; its attitude toward animals was taken literally until around 74 the twelfth century. The Physiologus was most widely disseminated in western literature during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, according to Max Goldstaub, who fur­ ther maintains that, as a separate work, it began to dis- 75 appear around the end of the fifteenth century.

Manuscripts of the Physiologus from the fifteenth century make such a conclusion doubtful and suggest that fifteenth or sixteenth century writers had direct as well as indirect access to the Physiologus. Such facts indicate that the

Physiologus1 influence on medieval science was pervasive and that the bestiary and Physiologus are concomitant sources of bestiary science for medieval texts.

The Latin versions, which are a likely vehicle for transmitting the Physiologus material, will be used to trace the influence of the bestiary on Johannes Prtiss'

Herbary (1509). Carmody's Versio B will serve as a text for comparison with the Physiologus passages in the Herbary

(1509). As noted earlier, McCulloch has shown that Versio

" 7 A Grover Cronin, Jr., "The Bestiary and the Medieval Mind— Some Complexities," MLQ, II (1941), p. 194. 75 Max Goldstaub, "Der Physiologus und seine Weiter- bildung, besonders in der lateinischen und in der byzan- tinischen Literatur," Philologus, Zeitschrift fiir das klassische A lterthum, Suppl. VIII (1899-1901), p.350. 26

B, along with the Physiologus of Theobaldus (TH), was the

most widespread medieval manuscript. Therefore, TH will

also be used to corroborate the version of the Physiologus.

Because of the protean nature of the Physiologus, however,

other manuscripts such as the Dicta Chrysostomi (DC) and

Book II of the Pseudo-Hugo of St. Victor (H) have also

been examined. Versio Y is consulted because it is earlier

than Versio B and nearer the printing date of Priiss'

Herbary (1509). As depicted in the diagram of the stemma,

these versions of the Physiologus are the main branches in

the development of the bestiary. Likewise Seel's Greek

version is used to attest whether or not a creature belongs

to the earliest canon of creatures, while II, with additions

from White's Book of Beasts, is consulted as an example of

the expanded bestiary. These manuscripts form the basis

for examining the Physiologus passages in the Herbary (1509),

since they represent the most influential Latin versions

extant and contain a core or canon of creatures in the

bestiary.

History of the Gart Per Gesundlicit

Since there is no critical edition of the Gart der

Gesundheit, the Hortus Sanitatis, or Priiss' herbal to inform

the reader of the significance of these works, a brief discussion of the three texts is offered. 27

The textual and critical history of the Gart der

Gesundheit is almost as complicated and disputed as that of the Physiologus. Critical study of the Gart has produced

no agreement on the problems of authorship, textual history,

title, and sources.

The history of the Gart der Gesundheit, which Choulant has called "das wichtigste naturhistorische Werk des Mittel- 76 alters mit Abbildungen," begins with the first herbal printed, the Latin Herbarium (Apulei) which appeared in Rome 77 in 1481 (Klebs 505.1). The second chapter in this history

is represented by Peter Schoffer's Latin Herbarius Moguntinus printed in Mainz in 1484 (Hain 8444, Pritzel 11867, Stillwell 7 8 H56). In 1485 Schoffer produced an herbal in German whose preface (second leaf) contains the titles Gart der Gesundheit and Ortus Sanitatis (Hain 9848, Pritzel 11884, Klebs 507.1) and which Schoffer referred to as "Diser Herbarius." The third chapter in the history of the Gart der Gesundheit is signalled by the printing of the monumental Hortus Sanitatis

7 6 Choulant, op. cit., p. 20. 77 Arnold C. Klebs, Incunabula Scientifica et medica (Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1963), pp. 169-171. 78 Ludovicus Hain, Repertorlum Bibliographicum in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD (Milano: 1948). Georg Pritzel, Thesaurus Literaturae Botanicae (Lipsia: 1854). M. B. Stillwell, The Beginning of the Wor.1 d of Books 1 450- 1 470 (New York: The Bibliograph­ ical Society of America, 1972). 28 79 in 1491 by Jacob Meydenbach. Its structure and character­ istics have already been noted.

Whether Klebs' conclusion that the Herbarius is the prototype for the Gart der Gesundheit and Hortus Sanitatis is correct remains uncertain. One can, however, surely agree with Klebs' observation that the Gart der Gesundheit is a new work "textually and artistically," while the Hortus Sanitatis, with its greater scope of material, represents a different 80 stage of development in herbals. Choulant has called the

German Hortus Sanitatis the smaller Hortus and the Latin

Hortus Sanitatis the larger Hortus. Using a topical break­ down of both principal versions, Choulant concludes that the

Gart der Gesundheit first appeared in German and that the

Hortus Sanitatis first appeared in Latin. Despite the fact that the title "Hortus Sanitatis" has been applied to the large and small Hortus Sanitatis, Choulant asserts that they 81 are separate and different works.

The question of which work preceded the other is of less significance for this study than the fact that Priiss

79 The copies which I examined are located in the de Golyer Collection of the Dizzell Library at the University of Oklahoma and in the Humanities Research Center at the Uni­ versity of Texas at Austin. The latter library also holds a copy of the smaller Hortus Sanitatis.

80 Arnold C. Klebs, "Incunabula Lists," The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America,XI (1917) ,p.85.

81 Choulant, op.cit.,p.21. 29

drew upon both works to publish his two-volume Herbary of

1507 and 1509. His partial conflation of the Gart der

Gesundhe.i t and the Hortus Sanitatis in the Herbary is an im­

portant edition of the numerous reprints and translations of both works. Priiss' Herbary is, then, a new version of

these two herbals.

The Authorship of the Gart der Gesundheit

The preface in the 1507 Herbary tells how a certain man traveled to the Orient to gather medical knowledge and how he was accompanied by a painter who copied the wonderous sights of the journey. The preface of Schoffer's Gart der

Gesundheit (1485) presents the traveler as the author him­ self, while the preface in Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis says that a nobleman who traveled to the Orient convinced 8 2 another to compile the text. The identity of both tra­ velers is disputed, and the problem of attribution remains one of the most intriguing aspects of the history of the

Gart der Gesundheit and the Hortus Sanitatis.

Usually the Gart's authorship is attributed to Johannes 8 3 Cube (Kaub) von Wonnecke (Dronnecke). As yet there has

8 2 Choulant, op.cit.,p .24.

8 3 Gustav Ehrismann, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur bis zum Ausgang des M lttelaltors (Munich,1965),II,2,2,p .64 8. Also see the Verfasserlexikon,IV,col.109 3-1094. 30 been no certain proof that Cube was the author or even co-author of the Gart. Bay ascribes the translation of the Latin Hortus Sanitatis into German, as well as the compilation of both the Latin and German versions, to 84 Cube. Schreiber bases his claim for Cube's authorship upon the seventy-sixth chapter of the Gart, i.e., the chap­ ter on Bolus Armenus, in which Cube is named as "Statarzt alhie zu Frankfurt" and upon Eucharius Rosslin's preface to his KreutterbQch of 1533 which refers to Cube as the 8 5 author of the Gart. The reference to Cube is maintained in this chapter in Priiss' Herbary of 1507. Choulant, however, is willing to accept Cube— if at all— only as a possible author of the Gart, and then solely for the 8 6 so-called smaller Gart. Citing the lack of primary documents to substantiate claims to authorship, Choulant also rejects Bernhard von Breydenbach, Rewich von Utrecht, and Jacob Meydenbach. Choulant incisively concludes:

Uebrigens ist der Hortus deutsch und lateinisch eine Compilation, und giebt sich auch fur nichts anderes; ein durchaus abgeschriebenes

84 J. Christian Bay, "Hortus Sanitatis," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, XI (1917), p. 58. 85 W. L. Schreiber, "Die alten Krauterbiicher," Zeit- schrift fur die Biicherfreunde, I. Jhg. (1904-05), Heft 8 (1904), pp. 301-02. 8 6 Choulant, 0£. cit.. , pp. 32 , 42 , 43. 31

Buch hat aber . . . gar keinen Verfasser, hochstens einen Redakteur.87

This opinion seems to prevail since there is presently

no consensus regarding bibliographical, artistic, or his­

torical evidence for ascertaining the authorship of the

Gart. Attribution continues to perplex scholars.

Along with the problem of attribution, scholars have attempted to discover the sources of the Hortus Sanitatis and of the Gart der Gesundheit. Most studies have focused on the sources for the plant treatises and devoted little attention to the sources of the animal treatises. This investigation, therefore, will seek to find the direct sources for the animal treatises in Priiss1 Herbary of

1509, and hence for those of the Hortus Sanitatis.

Priiss1 Her bary (1507-1509)

Since there is no critical edition of Priiss1 Herbary

(1507-1509), a bibliographical description of the text is presented below in order to provide the reader with the particulars of this herbal which serves as the basis for investigating the influence of the Physiologus.

Text of 1507

Page one of the 1507 text bears the title and woodcut of a doctor pointing with a staff to one jar in two rows

®^Ibid., p . 4 3. 32 of apothecary jars while another doctor sits at a table with an open book. The title page (aiV) contains the following: o In disem buch ist| der herbary: oder kriiterbuch: genant der gart | der gesuntheit: mit merern figuren vnd registern[ .

The verso of the title page has a woodcut of three doctors visiting a patient in bed. A shelf with five jars and two books is behind the doctors. This cut is repeated on

Bbiijv . (See Klebs, Early Herbals , No. 33,p p .21-22.)

Each page of the text has double columns and measures ca. 275 x 203 mm. The leaves run as follows: 6ff. n. n . , g 182 ff. numbered, and 18 ff. n.n. The signatures are a - 8 8 8 8 8 z , A -H ,Aa -Dd . Signature cij is printed c$ij, Aai is missing, and a blank sheet is bound after the last signa­ ture.

After the title page there is an index of the chap­ ters in German though the heading is printed "zu latin"

(ai] ). Next there is an index of herbs given in Latin , ....v, (a i m ).

The preface (b ) is the same as that of Schoffer's

1485 Gart der Gesundheit with the incipit: "Oft vnd vil hab|ich by mil* seb betract| die wunderbare werck | des 88 scheppfers der na| ture." The preface is concluded

88 For a summary and discussion of the preface, the reader is referred to Shaffer and Choulant. 33 with Priiss' printer's mark: an eagle with outspread wings over h.is name.

Following the preface there are 435 alphabetized

TO V chapters on plants (bij - Hiiij ) with a few chapters on animals interspersed. Each chapter is accompanied by a woodcut. In the copy which I examined some cuts have been hand-colored. After the last entry there is a long paragraph in which Priiss states that, as a printer and citizen of Strassburg, he finished the book in the winter of 1507. He reports how a little snow fell "vff sant

Claus obent" and that there was little snow that winter.

Such a warm March followed that wine and grain prospered and, before St. Bartholomew's Day, a penny bought 12-14 carrots (turnips?).

Priiss next includes an index of various parts of the

IT / V text (Aaij ): plants for laxatives, aromatic plants, gums, fruits, seeds, roots, and animals. There is also

TO /v a short entry on urinoscopy (Aaiij ) and an index of remedies that each plant, animal or mineral supplies

([Bbi] - Ddij). The index is arranged according to the parts of the human body.

The colophon (Ddiij verso) consists of the following statement:

HGetruckt vnnd flyszlichen besehen \ mit | meer figuren \ artlycher gesetzt\ durch Jo | annem Priisz bQchtrucker zQm Thier/'' | 34

garten\ Burger z0 straszburg. Geendet | vff sant Johannis enthauptung tage\| In dem iare da man zalt nach der geburt | Christi \ Tusent fiinffhundert vnd syben. |

Printed beneath the colophon on the same page is Priiss' printer's mark.

The text used is located at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Library of the Health Sciences.

Text of 1509

The first page (aij ) of the copy which I examined contains the subsequent heading and introductory paragraph

Die Vorrede des buchs von den thieren

Sitmal wir in den vorderen gschrifften des herbary | durch beystandt der gStlichen hilff: das erste bQch disz wercks von den kriitern \ wie sye | zu der artzneyen dienen \ beschriben haben \ geburt sich das wir z9 dem andern bQch von | den thieren: fischen m8rwundern\ edel- gesteinen\ vnd anderen wundersamen natiirli/ | chen dingen \ die scherpffc vnser vernunfft keren. In welchem auch \ so die obriste gSte | gottes (als wir hoffen) nit abweset die natu- ren vnd complexion\ vnd ob sy etwas in der | artzneyen dienent: der thierer die vff ertrich leben vszlegen worden. Darumb aber vn | der alien andern thieren das aller wtirdigest\ edelst\ vnd volkomest auch von got das | aller- liebest ist der m e n s c h \ sollen wir am ersten ort von der natur des menschen syner | complex­ ion vnd tugend sagen. Vnd darnach in andern nachuolgenden Capiteln\ | ist die ordnung nach- einander vsz dem latin (wie im bQch genant Ortus sanitatis) ge / | nomen als Agnus \ heiszt eyn lamb \ vnd fahet an am A \ darnach\ Aries ein wyder etc. |

A woodcut of a patient in bed with three physicians attend­ ing is printed beneath the preface and is used again before the index (NiijV). 35

The text is in.Gothic print and contains 174 leaves, each having two columns and measuring c. 283 by 200 mm. The 8 8 8 8 signatures are a -p , A -0 ; Choulant lists only a-o. Each treatise is divided into chapers indicated by Roman numeral headings. A chapter may include several entries, for exam­ ple, chapter 113: Pilosus, Plrolus, Putorius (Eichhermlin).

Furthermore, the name of the animal of stone used as a chap­ ter heading is usually the Latin name and is followed by

Greek, Arabic, and German equivalents, but there is no con­ sistency in listing these equivalents. An index or cross- reference system in a modern sense does not exist.

On the verso of the title page is a woodcut of a human skeleton entitled: "Homo natus de muliere brevi vivens tem­ pore." The first chapter has the wrong treatise heading of

"Von den vogelen" instead of "Von den thieren." "Homo, eyn mensch" is the heading of the first entry of the treatise

"Von den thieren." The remainder of this treatise (agnus-

zilio) is comprised of 163 chapters and closes with (kijV):

o , UDisz sey gnug gesagt von der natur vnd | wiirckungen der vierfQssigen thier| vnd anderer die vff dem ertrich| wonen: wann ob schon noch | ettlich andere sei.nt\ so mSgen sie leichtlich vsz dem vorgesag/| ten erkant wer| den.|

The third treatise, containing 122 chapters, deals with birds (kiijr): "Von den Vogelen" (Aquila-Zelentides) . Trea­

tise four, "Von den vischen" (Abremon-Zifius) is comprised of 106 chapters and starts with the following introductory 36 r* remarks (A ):

Hie nach volget das | buch von den vischenj HAn disem teyl wellen wir sagen von | den geschlechten so in den wassern wonent| vnd von seinen wirckungen in der artzney.| £ This treatise closes with (F ): i ° HHie endet sich das vierd theyl disz| buchs (das recht der gart der gesunt|heyt geheyssen wiirt) von der fischen vnd andern wasserigen wunderlich| en thieren. Deren natur tugend vnd |wiirckungen gnSgsam gesagt ist.| Millie nach uolget das ftinfft| theyl von den edlen gesteinen.| V IT The fifth treatise (F -Niij ) contains 144 chapters and has no closing remarks. Instead, instructions for using the in­ dex are given and the woodcut of the patient in bed which accompanies the preface of the 1509 volume is repeated:

Hienach volget ein register behend zefinden die| stiicke der artzney aller kranckheyten. In welchem dise ordnung gehalten wiirt\| an dem erston was stuck tugent vnnd krafft der artznyen\ das annder they! disz| buchs (das do billich der gart der gesuntheyt geheyssen ist) von den vierfiessigen| thieren inhaltet\wir sagen werden. Zum andern was krafft die vSgel: dgnach| die fisch: zSm letschen\ die stein. zu den krankheyten ver- mogen ordcnlich ge/1 sagt wiirt. Merck auch wie disz taffel nit wyset vff die zal der blettcr\ sunder der| capitel: vnd eygentlicher vff die bSchstaben. A D C D. etc. Die in all wurckungen| verzeychent scint\ vnd vnderscheidlich durch die paragraphen gesetzt.|

The index which lists diseases and cures is divided into

four sections, one for each of the treatises of the text.

Each therapeutic section of the index commences with Zja dem r har uszfallen. There are fourteen pages in the index (0 -

0vV) , each page having four columns. Beneath the last por- 37

tion of the index the book is concluded with the colophon:

o \ , Hie endet sich disz lob.l.ich buch\von alien | thieren\ vff erdtrich\ in wassern vnd lufften| lebende\ vnd auch von alien edlen steynen^ | besondcr von deren natur vnd wiirckungen in der artzney\mit yren registern\ von niiwen vsz dem latinischen buch Ortus sanitatis (das| ist ein gart der gesuntheit) gezogen. Vnd flyszj lichen getruckt durch der fiirsychtigen Joan| nem Priisz\ truckerherren vnd burgern der| keyserlichen stat Straszburgk. Vollendet| Am. xxii. tag Jaij. Im. ccccc. vnd ix. iar| nach der geburt Christi.|

The errors in chapter headings are:

Von den thieren--xlii for lii; liii for liv;

Von den vogelen lviii for xlviii; xcviii precedes

xcvii;

Von den vischen---vi.i for viii; xv for xvi; xxi (Chilon)

is omitted;

Von den steinin Ixxii for lxxiij; cii for ciij;

cxxxij for cxxxiij.

Also, each chapter has a small woodcut of whatever creature or object is discussed. In the section on minerals there

is noticeable repetition. Identical cuts are used for

ix Albeston - Piritides c xxiii Belagius - Opalus xciij - Saphirus cix xxix Carbunculus - C rista11us xxix xxxv Cerusa - Peanites cii - Orithes cxiij xlviij Deimonis - Vitrum cxxxix lviij Gagates - Margarite lxxviij lix Galactites - Iacinctus lxv - Zimemellazuri cxlii lxxiij Lichinis - Perdonius xcix xcvii j Prassius - Sardius ex.

Although there is repetition of woodcuts in the first three

treatises of the Herbary(1509), it is not so noticeable as 38 in the lapidary. The following are representative examples of the woodcuts from the bestiary treatises in the Herbary of 1509.

Figure 3: Castor(beaver)

"Von den Thieren", Das. xxxj. capitel 39

Figure 4: Unicornus (unicorn)

"Von den Thieren" Das. civ. Capitel / . • . -r. Figure 5: Pellicanus (pelican)

"Von den Vogelen" Das. xcviij. Capitel (oiiijV) Figure 6: Monachus marinus (Sea-monk) monocoron (unicorn) "Von den vischen" Pas. lxij. Capitel 42

Damaged chapters of the 1509 text which I examined are

[thiere] xlii Critetus , xliij Coluber ([diij]);[vogele] xvi

Bubo, xvi j Buteus (lij.) • [steine] cxiv Or ithes (Kiiijr) . Each

of these chapters contains six to eight incomplete lines be­

cause the corner of the page is missing, excepting the chap­

ter on Orithes which lacks a word in the last line.

The copy of the 1509 text which I examined is located

in Cambridge University Library (F 150.b.1.8).

The most important literature on Priiss' edition of the

Gart der Gesuntheit (1507-1509) is contained in: Karl

Becher, A Catalogue of Early Herbals (Lugano: L'Art Ancien s.a. 1925), pp. 21-22; Ludwig Choulant, Graphische Incuna- beln fur Naturgeschichte und Medizin, Leipzig,1858 (Reprint:

Hildesheim,1963), p.66; Joseph Frank Payne,"On the 'Herbari­ us1 and 'Hortus Sanitatis'," Transactions of the Bibliogra­ phical Society,VI ,pt.2, (London: 1900-02),p .119; Claus

Nissen, Die Botanische Buchillustration, I (Stuttgart:1951), p.35; Claus Nissen,Herbals of Five Centuries (Zurich:1958), p.58; Ellen Shaffer, The Garden of Health, Book Club of

California, 1957,pp.33,39-40;W. L. Schreiber, "Die alten

Krauterbiicher," Zeitschrift fur Bucherfreunde, Heft 8, Ok- tober,1904,p.309; W. L. Schreiber, Die Krauterbiicher des

15. und 16♦ Jahrhunderts (Munchen: Verlag der Munchener

Driicke, 1924) , pp. xxv, xxviii. 43

The Sources of the Herbary (1509)

A comparison of Priiss' Herbary (1509) with Meydenbach's

Hortus Sanitatis (1491) shows the animal treatises to be

nearly identical. - Rarely has Priiss deleted any portion of

the text except in the avian treatise; even more rarely has

he added material. The few substantial changes which Priiss

made are noted in Appendix B of this study. There are,how­

ever striking differences in the citation of sources. Differ­

ences of a formal nature are also noticeable. For example,

Priiss has moved the locater letters from the margin of the text into the body of the entry and has sometimes treated the operationes or wiirckung as part of the descriptive entry.

Far more significant than the formal changes, however, are those in the use of sources.

Meydenbach apparently drew upon many sources in com­ piling the vast amount of scientific material gathered in the Hortus Sanitatis. Throughout the Hortus Sanitatis

Meydenbach cites ancient and medieval authorities. Mention of some of the approximately ninety authorities in the ani­ mal treatises of Meydenbach's Hortus Sanitatis and Priiss'

Herbary (1509) points to the composite and encyclopedic na­ ture of the work: Avicenna, Aristotle, Cicero, Diascorides,

Pliny, Rabbi Moses, Platearius, Rasis, Serapion, and

Theophrastus. Meydenbach and Priiss also cite other sources which are particularly important for this investigation:

Actor, Isidore of Seville, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, Albertus 44

Magnus, the buch der natur,and the Physiologus.

Priiss' Herbary (1509) contains citations from these authorities, although the number of citations for each of these sources is not identical with that in the Hortus

Sanitatis (1491). This discrepancy arises from the fact that Meydenbach acknowledged sources for some material for which Priiss did not. Thus, the following entries in

Priiss' treatises on animals lack the corresponding referen­ ces cited by Medyenbach: 89 Cameleon (2,28) Isidore

Calopus (calopur) (2,33) Albertus in libro de

naturis rerum

Ceruus (2,34) liber de natura rerum

Cirogrillus (2,39) Actor

Engula (2,61) liber de natura rerum

Pigargus (2,115) Bartholomaeus

Rattus (2,124) Actor

Rubeturn (2,128) Isidore

Salamandra (2,129) liber de natura rerum

Simia (2,135) Isidore

Uitulus (2,153) Isidore

Merillus (3,76) Isidore

89 The numerals in parentheses represent treatise and chapter references: 2 = animals, 3 = birds, 4 = fish. 45

These variations in quoting sources can be explained either by the fact that Priiss' Herbary (1509) is based upon a source or sources which amend Meydenbach's citings or that

Priiss has not been scrupulous in maintaining the textual references. These differences in citing sources, however, might indicate still another problem, namely that of direct and indirect sources.

After reviewing the attribution problem, Choulant says:

"Nicht minder wiinschenswerth ware e s , die Quellen zu kennen, aus welchen der Hortus geschopft wurde; es ist dies aber sehr schwierig, weil die citierten Schriftsteller grossten- theils nicht selbsc ausgeschrieben, sondern die Citate aus 90 andern entnommen wurden." Choulant suggests that the

Hortus Sanitatis is a compilation from several medieval sources but offers no means whereby one might discover which sources. A perusal of the sources which Meydenbach and Priiss cite discloses the frequent use of three major encyclopedists of the thirteenth century: Albertus Magnus,

Bartholomaeus Anglicus, and Vincent of Beauvais. 91 The liber de natura animalium of Albertus Magnus is cited by Meydenbach and Priiss. Books 22-26 of the liber

90 Choulant, op.cit.,p.43.

91 Albertus Magnus, De Animalibus Libri XXVI (Nach der Coiner Urschrift) , Vol.2,ed. Hermann Stadler (Miinster 1920) in Beitrage zur Geschichto der Philosophic des Mittelalters, Vol. 16, ed. Clemens Baeumker. 46

contain many of the creatures described in the animal trea­

tises of the Herbary. The fact that works by Albertus Magnus

were among the most popular scientific incunabula indicates

the availability of Albertus1 scholarship to Meydenbach and 92 Pruss.

The Herbary contains only a few references to 93 Bartholomaeus Anglicus' De proprietatibus rerum or

Bartholomaeus himself. Meydenbach could easily have used a

printed edition of the De proprietatibus as it was published 94 circa 1470 in Basel. 95 Vincent of Beauvais' Speculum Naturale is mentioned only in the chapter on the cicade in the Hortus Sanitatis

and the Herbary. Vincent himself, however, is named in the

preface as one of the masters consulted; he is one of the

"probatissimis medicinarum magistris." Julius Schuster's

92 Sarton, op.cit.,pp.182-183.

9 3 The copy of Bartholomaeus examined was printed in Strassburg in 1505 and is presently owned by the Bizzell Library, University of Oklahoma.

94 Sarton, op.cit.,p.110.

9 5 Two copies of the Speculum Naturale were examined: the Naturale, ca. 1483-86 (Klebs 1036.2) held in the Army Medical Library, Washington,D .C., and the Naturale ca. 1486 by the R-Printer hold in the Bridwell DeBellis Collection at Perkins Theology School (S.M.U.), Dallas, Texas. 47 finding that Vincent's Speculum was a major source for the

Gart der Gesundheit and the Hortus Sanitatis is, however, not conclusive for this study because Schuster's concern was 9 6 only with literature on plants. But the prominence of the

Speculum Naturale in the Middle Ages does increase the like­ lihood of its being a source for the Hortus Sanitatis and

Herbary. Most interesting and significant is the fact that

Vincent uses "Actor" [sic: Auctor] to distinguish his own 97 comments from those of other authors in the Speculum , especially when one recalls the numerous citings of Actor in the Hortus Sanitatis and Herbary.

The encyclopedias of Albertus Magnus, Bartholomaeus

Anglicus, and Vincent of Beauvais may prove to be sources for the animal treatises in Meydenbach and Priiss and, as such, indirect transmitters of Physiologus material to the

Hortus Sanitatis and Herbary. Given the pedantic nature of medieval science, one might conclude that the publishers of the Hortus Sanitatis and Herbary took material from compila­ tions such as these encyclopedias. Investigation of

Meydenbach and Priiss' sources will establish how the

Physiologus was transmitted and thereby lead to an evaluat:on

96 Julius Schuster, "Secreta Salernitana und Gart der Gesundheit," Mittela1terliche Handschriften...,Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstage von Hermann Degering (Leipzig: 1926) , pp. 228-230.

97 Thorndike, op.cit.,11,p.642. 48

of the influence of the material transmitted on the animal

treatises in the Hortus Sanitatis and Herbary.

Methodology

The first phase of this study will define the extent of the Physiologus1 influence upon Priiss' Herbary by:

(1) verifying which material in the Herbary derives

from the Physiologus

(2) isolating the probable version(s) of the

Physiologus cited; and,

(3) investigating the transmission of the Physiologus

material through secondary sources.

The second phase of inquiry will focus on the kind of influence which the Physiologus exerted upon the Herbary by studying:

(1) the structure of each text, specifically the

structure of individual chapters;

(2) the allegorical and scientific viewpoints in both

texts; and,

(3) the theological and aesthetic perspectives.

Analysis of the content and form in the primary and secondary sources of the bestiary material will ascertain the extent and kind of influence which the Physiologus had on the animal treatises in Priiss1 Herbary of 1509. I. THE CITATION OF THE PHYSIOLOGUS

IN PRUSS' HERBARY

The purpose of this chapter is to ascertain how many

of the Physiologus citations in Priiss' Herbary (1509) are

verbatim passages or are indebted to the Physiologus. Of

the 39 2 chapters in the Herbary forty-six refer to the

Physiologus as an authoritative source. Twenty-three of

the 164 chapters on animals cite the Physiologus, while

sixteen of the 122 chapters on birds and seven of the 106

chapters on fish refer to the Physiologus. The subsequent

chart lists those chapters in the Herbary which cite the

Physiologus. Each chapter is given in the order of its appearance within each treatise of the Herbary. The numeral before the creature's name is not that of the chapter in the Herbary but is my tabulation.

Von den thieren von den vogelen von den vischen

1. asinus 24. accipiter 40. aspidochelon

2. aspis 25. botaurus 41. delphin

3. bombix 26 bubo 42. locusta marina

4. borax 27. caiadrius 43, loligo

5. bufo 28. fulica 44. salmo

49 50

Von den thieren von den vogelen von den vischen

6. canis 29. gallina 45. serra

7. castor (fiber) 30. hirundo 46. syrena

8. centrocuta 31 . ibis

9. ceruus 32. pauo

10. coluber 33. pelicanus

11. draco 34. oerdix

12. leo 35. Pica

13. leopardus 36. psitacus

14. lupus 37. strutio (azida)

15. monoceros 38. upupa

16. rinoceohalus 39. vultur

17. oanthera

18. porcus

19. tarante

20. tygris

21 . ursus

22. vipera

23. nepa

To verify the references to the Physiologus in these forty-six chapters, the name of the creature as given in the Herbary was located in Versio A, B, C, or Y of the

Physiologus. Next the content of the citation in the

Herbary and that of the pertinent chapter in the

Physiologus were compared. This method disclosed which 51

descriptions of creatures in the Herbary were attributable

to early versions of the Physiologus > Because of interme­

diate transmitters of the bestiary material, such as the

medieval encyclopedias previously mentioned, this procedure

does not show that the ancient versions of the Physiologus

had direct and immediate influence upon the Herbary. It

does, however, demonstrate the validity of many references

in the Herbary to the Physiologus.

Investigation of the major Physiologus versions (A, B,

C, Y) has revealed that there are basically three groups of

chapters in the Herbary which cite the Physiologus; (1)

those which apparently do not belong to the Physiologus;

(2) those which are attributable to the oldest Physiologus

versions; and (3) those which belong to later versions (for

example, Versio H).

Group one is comprised of twenty-six chapters in the

Herbary whose citations of the Physiologus were not trace­

able to any of the earliest versions such as A, B, C, or Y .

Evidently there is no basis for reference to the Physiologus

in the chapters pertaining to asinus, bombix, borax, bufo,

canis, coluber, delphin, leopardus, lupus, panthera, por­

ous , rinocephalus, tarante, tygris, ursus, accipiter, bo-

taurus, bubo, gallina, hirundo, pauo, pica, psitacus,

locusta marina, loligo, and salmo. 52

One exception to this group is the chapter on the pan­

ther, which exists in all the early versions (A, B, C, Y).

None of these versions, however, presents information sim­

ilar to that which is ascribed to the Physiologus in the

Herbary. Thus, this chapter is either falsely attributed

to the Physiologus or represents a later manuscript tradi­

tion. In the latter instance, the font for this information might be an intermediate source of the Physiologus.

Four of these twenty-six chapters in the Herbary which cite the Physiologus share a peculiar trait. Comparison of the chapters in the Herbary on borax, accipiter, gallina, and hirundo with the corresponding chapters in Meydenbach's

Hortus Sanitatis discloses that the chapters in Meydenbach contain citations of "philosophus" instead of Physiologus.

For example, the chapter on borax in the Hortus Sanitatis begins: "Philosophus: Bo|rax de genere bufonis est."

In the Herbary the same passage is introduced by

"Physiologus. Borax ist vsz|der krotten geschlecht."

Since these citations were not found in A, B, C, Y or H versions of the Physiologus, one may conclude that the ref­ erences to the bestiary are false, probably the result of a printer's error or a confusion of philosophus with

Physiologus. These four chapters and that on the panther reduce the actual number of chapters without verified cita­ tions of the Physiologus from twenty-six to twenty-one. 53

The second group is composed of seventeen chapters in the Herbary, all of which have citations of the Physiologus that were found in Versio A, B, C, or Y. Following is a chart of these sixteen chapters. An "x" indicates that a chapter on the creature is included in the designated ver­ sion of the Physiologus.

Creature from the Herbary Physiologus

Versio A B c Y

1. beaver XX XX

2. stag - X X X

3. lion X XX X

4. monoceros XX XX

5. caladrius X XX X

6 . fulica XX - X

7. ibis - X - X

8. pelican XX XX

9. perdix X X - X

10. ostrich X - - -

11. viper X - X X

12. nepa X - X X

13. hoopoe XX X X

14. aspidochelon XXX X

15. serra XX X X

16. siren X X X X

17. vultur — — X 54

The passage on the hoopoe (upupa) in the Herbary serves

as an example of this second group. It contains the fol­

lowing citation (piijV ):

Phisio: So die iungen widhopf|fen sehen das ir elter alt worden seint\ al/|so das sye weder fliegen noch sehen m§gen so ropffen sye die eltesten federn inen vsz vnd bestrichen iren augen mit einem krut | vnd erquicken iren fliigeln: bisz das ir fe/’|dern widerwachsen vnd iren augen wider | klar sehen werden also vergelten sye iren | eltern ir fruntschafft.

The Physiologus passage (as translated by Carmody, Chapter

11) demonstrates the similarity of the material on the hoopoe:

When the young see their parents grow old, and their sight grown obscure, they pluck out the old feathers of the parents, and lick their eyes, and cover them with their wings, and feed them. Then the parents become young, and their feathers grow again, and they can fly as before.

The third group of chapters citing the Physiologus consists of the asp, dragon, and centrocuta. Each of these is traceable to Versio H. Although the asp is included in

Versio B and Y of the Physiologus, the chapter on the asp in the Herbary is found only in Versio H.

The above study of the citations of the Physiologus in the Herbary has shown that: (1) twenty-one chapters have no apparent precedent in the earliest Physiologus versions; (2) one chapter might belong to a later version;

(3) four chapters should cite "philosophus" instead of

Physiologus; (4) seventeen chapters belong to the earliest 55

Physiologus versions; (5) three chapters stem from an ex­

panded version of the Physiologus, such as Versio H.

Finally, an evaluation of the twenty-one chapters without verified Physiologus citations and the twenty chap­

ters with verified Physiologus citations discloses that

each group contains creasures which are domestic and for­

eign (for example, dog and beaver, leopard and lion). Each

group without verified antecedents in early Physiologus

versions reflects an interest in domestic habits ( how an

ass behaves toward a wolf), in practical use (how a loepard

can hunt like a dog), in medicinal value (the stone found

in the head of the bufo), and in breeding habits (hen,

swallow, peacock). Within this group only the rinocephalus,

the parrot, loligo, and bufo are included as unusual crea­

tures. Those creatures whose source is immediately veri­

fiable in ancient versions of the Physiologus are mostly unusual ones or have unusual traits. Still, this observa­ tion cannot be used to claim that the Physiologus is cited primarily as a source for unusual creatures in Priiss'

Herbary since chapters whose citations derive from secondary sources of the Physiologus would also be involved in such a thematic influence.

Before investigating the possible influence of second­ ary sources on the Herbary, the exactness of the quotations must be determined. Many of the nineteen chapters in the 56

Herbary with verified citations of the Physiologus contain

exact translations of Physiologus passages. The chapter on

the beaver is among the least variable in all the

Physiologus manuscripts^ and, therefore, is well suited for

comparison with the corresponding chapter in the Herbary.

The pertinent sections of the Herbary and Physiologus are

given below:

Herbary (ciiijV) Physiologus (Versio B17)

Castor ein byber . . . Est animal quod dicitur UPhisiologus. Der biber so castor, mansuetum nimis, den der ieger | verfolget\ cuius testiculi in medicina wiirfft sein vszgebyssen proficiunt ad diuersas hoden | gegen des iegers an- ualetudines. Physiologus aesycht \ vnd also gat der | exposuit naturam eius dicens ieger hyn vnd nympt daz er quia, cum Lnuestigauerit begert hatt \ vnd | sQcht jn eum uenator, sequitur post nit mer. 1st es aber das ein eum; castor uero, cum re- ander | ieger an jn k o m p t \ spexerit post se et uiderit so richt er sich v f f \vnd | uenatorem uenientem post zeygt daz er die hoden nit hat\ se, statim morsu abscidit vnd also wtirt | er erlBszt. testiculos suos, et proicit Es ist ein gar tugenthafft eos ante faciem ucnatoris, thier. et sic fugiens euadit; uenator autem ueniens col- ligit eos, et ultra iam non persequitur eum, sed recedit ab eo. Si autem rursus euenerit ut alter uenator perquirens inueniat et sequatur post eum, ille, uidens se iam euadere non posse, erigit se et demon- strat uirilia sua uenatori; uenator autem cum uiderit eum non habere testiculos, discedit ab eo.

Although slightly abbreviated, he Physiologus passage in

^McCulloch, 0£. cit., p. 95. 57 the Herbary bears remarkable resemblance to the original description of the beaver in Versio B of the Physiologus.

A second example of how closely the Herbary follows the Physiologus is found in the chapter on the pelican.

Herbary (oijjjv) Physiologus (Versio B,6)

Pellicanus . . . Physiologus dicit de peli- Phisiolo. Der pellican ist cano quoniam amator est ein grosser lieb | haber filiorum nimis; cum autem seiner iungen\wan so die genuerit natos et coeperint anfahenJ wachsen \ so crescere, percutiunt paren- schlagen sie yre eltern in tes suos in faciem; paren- das | angesycht \ vnd dann tes autem eorum percutiens so werden sie zornig\| vnd costam suam aperit latus schlagen sie wider zetod\ suum, et incumbit super vnd beweynen | sie drey tag: pullos, et effundit san- am dritten tag slecht vnd guinem suum super corpora thQt | ire mQter yr scitten filiorum mortuorum; et sic vff \ legt sich vif die iun| sanguine suo suscitat eos gen \ vnd gtiszt ir blQt vff a mortuis. yr cdrper \ vnd er/ weckt sie vom tod.

Clearly only a few differences exist between the two extracts regarding the pelican. The phrase "genuerit natos" has been deleted and minor changes made, such as restatement in participial rather than finite forms. No substantive change regarding the pelican's behavior has occurred, and the fidelity of the description in the Herbary to that in the Physiologus is amazingly great.

A third instance of precise translation is the chapter on the aspidochelon. This passage in the Herbary is sig­ nificant because it is composed of two excerpts from the

Physiologus. These two parts have been combined into one chapter and are presented as one continuous passage. Since 58 the Physiologus is the one source cited for the aspidochelon, it is the sole authority for this chapter.

Herbary (Aijr) Physiologus (Versio B, 24)

Aspidochelon vnnd Aurata Est belua in mare quae di- fisch | also genant (phisio- citur graece aspidochelone, logus spricht) | Aspidochelon latine autem aspido testudo; wirt in kriechisen ge | nant cetus ergo est magnus, ha- ein thier im mSr: in latin bens super corium suum tam- genant | Aspido testudo\ ein quam sabulones, sicut iuxta gifftige schneck. Es [ ist littora maris. Haec in medio aber ein grosser walfisch: pelago eleuat dorsum suum der vff syner | hut hat glich super undas maris sursum: dem sand: der am mSrsta^ | ita ut nauigantibus nautis den ligt: darumb z8m dickern non aliud credatur esse mal so er | syn rucken erhebt quam insula, praecipue cum iiber das wasser so mey | nent uiderint totum locum ilium die schiffliit daz es ein insel sicut in omnibus littoribus sy: darumm | so nahen sy sich maris sabulonibus esse re- etwenn zQ im \ vnd werffen [ pletum. (Putantes autem ir hacken vsz vff in vnnd insulam esse, applicant hefften die schiff | also an: nauem suam iuxta earn, et vnd zindent dann fur an zQ descendentes figunt palos kochen | Aber so bald er emp- et alligant naues; deinde findt den geschmack | vnd wer- ut coquant sibi cibos post me des fiires \ so bewegt er laborem, faciunt ibi focos sich. | vnd ertrenckt die. super arenam quasi super Disz thier hat auch ein | an- terram; ilia uero belua, dere natur \ so in hungert cum senserit ardorem ignis, thQt er seyn | mund vff vnd subito merget se in aquam, gibt gar ein wolriechenden et nauem secum trahit in ge | roch. So das die kleinen profundum maris . . . fischlin riechen | vnd empfin- den \ so fliessent sy in Secunda eius beluae natura synen mund | so er dann gar haec est: quando esurit, voll wirt: so th8t er in aperit os suum, et quasi z8 | vnd verschluckt sy also quemdam odorem bene olentem gantz. exhalat de ore suo; cuius odorem, mox ut senserint minores pisces, congregant se intra os ipsius; cum autem repletum fuerit os eius diuersis piscibus pusillis, subito claudit os suum et transglutit eos. 59 The material on the stag in the Herbary is an instance

of conflation. This information is derived from two ver­

sions of the Physiologus, or a source which had already

combined the excerpts. What might appear as one passage

or an interpolation is in reality two excerpts joined

together.

Herbary (dijr) Physiologus (Versio B29)

Ceruus . . . Physiologus dicit quoniam, Phisiologus. Der hirtz wo ubi agnoverit ceruus ser- er | vermerckt eyn schlang pentem esse, implet os suum ze seyn \ so fiillet er | aqua et effundit in fora- synen mundt voll wasser\ mine, et cum quodam spira- vnd schiit das | in das mine oris sui attrahit loch \ darnach mit synem serpentcm foris, et concul- athem zti/ | het er die cans eum pedibus interfecit schlangen harusz \ vnd mit eum. synen | fiessen trit er sie ze tod. Es sint aber zwei[ H 2 ,14 erley geschlecht der hirtz- Item duo genera cervorum. en. Eins ist so es | eyn Unum, quod ut invenerit schlange in den lSchern serpentem in caverna ubi oder hiilen do I er verborgen latitat, flatum immitit ut lyt \ mit vszgbndem hals exeat, et egredientis col- trit | es hyn vnd her\ lum percutiens hinc et inde, schlecht in todt vnd ver/ | occidit serpentcm, et de- schluckt in Darnach vmb der vorat: postea autem prop­ forcht wil | len laufft es ter tumorem currens ad z9 dem lutern wasser vnnd | aquas purissimas, venenum schiitt von im das gifft. evomit, sed propter hunc aber vnder sSlch | er tumorem pilos mutat, et geschwulst \ so laszt er cornua abjicit . . . Aluid die iiui. vnd hor/ | ner est genus cervorum quod si fallen. Das ander ge­ invenerit serpentem, occidit schlecht ist so es f eyn eum, et post victoriam petit schlang fyndet schlecht montem, ubi pabulum inveniat. es die ze todt | vnd dar­ nach laufft er z 9 den bergen \ do er sein weyd fyndet . . .

The medical information in the Herbary about the stag is

taken from yet a third Physiologus passage: 60

Herbary (dijr) Physiologus (H 2, 14)

Phisiologus spricht \ der Lacrymae eorum collectae, hirtzen trehen | gesamlet\ et ossa in eorum corde in- vnd die beyn in synem venta, apta sunt potui, hertzen | funden \ svnt gQt cordis pulsu laborantibus. z0m dranck denen die das hertzklopffen haben.

Finally, the chapter in the Herbary on the unicorn

contains the briefest citation of the Physiologus. A terse

observation characterizes this remarkable creature:

Herbary (gijV ) Physiologus (Versio B, 16)

Phisio. Monoceros ist eyn Physiologus dicit unicornem kleyn thier | eym kytzlin hanc habere naturam: glych \ eyn grosz scharpff pusillum animal est, simile horn | am kopff tragende. haedo, acerrimum nimis, unum cornu habens in medio capite.

As the preceding examples indicate, citation of the

Physiologus in the Herbary is quite precise. This same exactness is found in the remaining fifteen instances of citing the Physiologus. The chapters on asp, centrocuta, nepa, serra, siren, viper, caladrius, fulica, ibis, perdix, hoopoe, and vulture all contain accurate and verified cit­ ings of the Physiologus. Only the chapters on the dragon and lion have interpolated information, while that on the ostrich is tenuously based on a Physiologus passage. These examples are contained in Appendix A.

Whether a chapter in the Herbary relies on the

Physiologus for one sentence or for the entire entry, fi­ delity to the Physiologus is clear. Evidence of this same 61

fidelity in secondary sources will further define the role

of the Physiologus in the Herbary.

Secondary Sources

To determine if Physiologus material was incorporated

in the Herbary under the authority of a secondary source,

the chapters about the remaining creatures in the early

Physiologus versions were examined. Following is a list

of creatures in the Herbary whose descriptions are trace­

able to the Physiologus (Versio B or Y): antelope, eceola,

eagle, elephant, enidros, fox, gazelle, hyena, lizard,

nocticorax, onager, phoenix, rinocephalus, and weasel.

The chapter on the lizard (saura) serves as an example of this influence:

Herbary (hiiijV)

Saura vnd Stellio seint wiirme | also genant. Isido. Saura ist ein | eglesz. so die alt w u r t \ erblindent ire | augen: vnd schlufft in ein loch der muren | das gegen der sonnen vffgang stat\ dovon es | erliicht wiirt . . .

Isidore's Etymologiae contains the above information (cf.

12, 3, 27). The precedent for this description of the lizard is found in Versio Y49 of the Physiologus:

Est qui uocatur saura eliace, hoc est anguilla solis. Cum senuerit, impeditur duobus oculis suis, et execatur, non uidens solis lumen. Quid faciet? ex bona sua natura inquirit parietem respicientem ad orientem, et intrat in fissuram parietis, uidens ad orientem, et oriente sole aperientur, et noua efficitur. 62

The Herbary has retained the basic description of the

lizard's aging and manner of restoring its sight by gazing

at the sun. Thus, Isidore's Etymologiae is the secondary

source of the Physiologus' material which the Herbary

cites.

Another example of secondary influence is the chapter

on the onocenthaurus;

Herbary ([giiijV ])

Vsz des bGch der | natur. Onocenthaurus ist ein sel | tzam wonderlich thier \ vnd hat zweyerley| gestalt \ eyn esels k o p f f \ vnd eyn corper wie] ein mensch \ es hat gar ein scheiitzlich ge / | sicht\ vnd hend gschickt zQ allem gebruch j vnd wercken. So es syn stimm eigt \ fahet sy | an als ob sv redt. aber es hat vngewSnte | lefftzen die mogen kein menschlich stimm ma | chen. Das wirfft wid- der syne nachfolgcr | holtz vnd steyn \ als der erfarer setzt.

Versio Y(15) contains the basis for describing the onocen- taur: "Similiter ^Syrenae] et onocentauri, a pectore et sursum hominis habet figuram, deorsum autem asini."

Versio B (12) of the Physiologus presents more informa­ tion in its description: "Onocentaurum duabus naturis con- stare Physiologus asserit, id est: superior pars homini similis est, inferioris uero partis membra sunt naturae ualde agrestis. Huic assimilantur uecordes atque bilingues homines informes . . . ."

Although the chapter on the onocentaur in the Herbary reverses the description of the upper and lower parts of the creature, the Herbary's dependence on the Physiologus is obvious. The chapters on the antelope and calopur offer a third

instance of the Physiologus1 influence on the content of

the Herbary. Note the resemblance of these two creatures

as depicted in Priiss' Herbary;

Antaplon (bijr) Calopur (<3 V)

flVsz dem b8ch der natur. Calopur is eyn thier vnd Aptalon oder | aptalo ist wonet bey | dem wasser ein thier vast grusam wyld\ Eufrates \ vnd drincket | al | so das der ieger im darusz vmm der kelte willen nit nahen darff: es hat | des was | sers. vnd man lang h8rner in der gestalt sagt das es listig vnd be- als ein sege oder | sychel hend | ist\also das im der do mit man meyget \ also ieger nit nachkomen | mag. daz es auch | domit grosse es treit auch lange horner hohe b8um abhauwen ma | ge\ wie eyn | sege \ mit wel- vnd vff die erd werffen. chen es die beum nider So es diirstet | laufft es wirfft. | aber die rQten z9 dem wasser Eufrates. | vnd gerten die sich biegen| UEs ist aber ein gewSchsz von synen hornern mag es daz in kriechisch | heiszt nit brechen \ wie | wol hercinie \ das hat lang sub- es das dick verstat. tyl rQten oder | gerten\ darumm gehan | get es dick an welchem es sich geylet\ darinn mit den h o r n e r n \ vnd ver | hefft sich also vnnd | dan so zan klaffet mit den h8rnern in densely] es \ vnd wan das der i e / | ben hecken \ vnd schreyet ger h6rt \ so wirt es dan das es der ieger | h8ret: von im gefangen. so es also verwiirret vahet er es. |

The similarity of these two creatures is based on the des­ cription of the antelope in the Physiologus (Versio B2);

Est animal accerimum nimis, ita ut nec uenator ei possit appropinquare. Habet autem longa cor­ nua serrae figuram habentia, ita ut possit etiam arbores altas et magnas secare et ad terram de- ponere. Et cum sitierit, uenit ad magnum flumen Euphratem, et bibit; est autem ibi frutex qui dicitur grece herecine, habens uirgulta subtilia atque prolixa; ueniens autem incipit ludere cor- nibus suis ad herecinam; et dum ludit, obligat cornua sua in uirgultis eius. Cum autem diu pugnans liberare se non possit, exclamat uoce 64

magna; audicns autem uenator uocem eius, uenit et occidit eum.

The relation of the antelope and calopur is indicated not only by their common description and behavior but also by their names. There has been much speculation about the identity of the antelope and about the etymology of its name. Perry has suggested that the name derives from ctvGoXotjj in the Hexaemeron of Eustathius of Antioch. 3 Talopus and calopus are medieval Latin forms of "antelope."

These facts indicate that the two creatures are indeed one and the same.

Although the source in the Herbary for the chapter on the antelope is Konrad von Megenberg's buch der natur, there is no authority cited for that on the calopus. The descrip­ tion of the calopus in Albertus Magnus' Liber de natura animalium (22, 2, 1, 18), however, is the probable source for the content of this chapter in the Herbary:

Liber de natura

Calopus dicitur esse animal Syriae iuxta Eufratem habitans et de Eufrate propter aquae frigiditatem bibens, astutum et velox esse dicitur, ita ut Ven­ ator sibi appropinquare non possit. Cornua gestat longa serrae modum praetendentia,quibus etiam ar- bores deicere dicitur: sed virgulta ante impulsum cornuum suorum cedentia frangere non potest, licet ad hoc saepe nitatur: et ideo in eis frequenter

^Perry, op. cit., col. 1091.

•^White, op. cit. , p. 19, note. 65

involutis cornibus captum tenetur, tentem stridet et audito stridore a venatore capitur.

After examining the above passages, one may conclude

that the material about the antelope in the Physiologus

actually produced two chapters in the Herbary, one via

the buch der natur, the other through Albertus Magnus.

These two chapters substantiate the influence of the

Physiologus on the Herbary and attest to the proliferation

of the bestiary material in various medieval encyclopedias.

The chapter on the eagle in the Herbary points to an­ other source for Physiologus material. Since the chapter

is extensive, only that part which derives from the

Physiologus is cited (kj.ijV)

Ac | tor. Der adler ist ein grosser vogel vnnd | vast edel \ als ein kiinigin der v8gel. So | der mit alter beschwert wiirt \ so fliiget er | in die h8he tiber all wolcken \ vnd von der | sonnen wiirt die dunckelheit seiner augen | vnd gesychts ver- zert\ vnd als bald fait er | schnell mit dersel- ben hitze herab \ vnd teuf | fet sich drey male in dem aller keltisten was | ser \ dann stat er wider vff \ vnd gat als bald | zQ seineni neste\ vnd holet vnder seincn | iungen die yetz starck worden seint \ den | raup vnd die narung. In der qualitet | vnd eygenschafft der natur kalt vnd warm | als ob er das kalt febcr hette\ mitt einem | grosscn schweysz laszt er sein federen vsz/ | fallen. Vnd wiirt also von seinen iun/| gen wider erquickt vnd ernert \ bisz das er | wider sein federn iiberkommet \ vnd also | eriunget wiirt. |

The bulk of the quote cited under Actor's authority in the

Herbary is found in the Physiologus (Versio B8 and other major versions): 66

Physiologus (Versio B8)

De aguila Dauid in psalmo centesimo secundo: Re- novabitur ut aquilae iuuentus tua [Ps. 102.5]. Physiologus dicit aquilam talem habere naturam: cum senuerit, grauantur alae eius, et obducuntur oculi eius caligine; tunc quaerit fontem aquae et contra eum fontem euolat in altum usque ad aerem solis, et ibi incendit alas suas, et cali- ginem oculorum comburit de radio solis; tunc demum descendens ad fontem trina vice se mergit, et statim renouator tota, ita ut alarum uigore et oculorum splendore multum melius renouetur.

The description of the eagle in Actor as cited in the

Herbary clearly derives from the Physiologus. Equally ob­ vious is the fact that Actor or Vincent of Beauvais is the immediate source for this passage:

Speculum Naturale, 17, 36

Aquila est auis magna et nobilissima:| vt pote auium regina: que cum senecta grauatur. super| omnes nubes in sublime volat et ex calore solus oculorum| et caligo consumitur: et mox impetu cum ipso caloris estu| descendens aquis frigid- issimis tercio immergitur Indeque| resurgens statim nidum petit. et inter pullos iam robu| stos ad predam in qualitate frigoris et caloris quasi qua| dam febre correpta: quodam sudore plumas exuit. foue| turque a pullis suis et pascitur. Donee pennas plumasque recupans innouetur.

Interestingly enough, not only the section cited under

Actor in the Herbary but also the remaining citations from

Isidore, Jorath, the buch der natur, and a reference to

"ander natiirliche meister" are contained in the Speculum.

Further comparison of the Herbary and Physiologus shows that another thirteen chapters derive part of their contents from the Physiologus via secondary sources. Given 67

below is a listing of these chapters with a collation of

the Physiologus manuscripts.

Herbary Physiologus

eceola H3, 55 elephas Y20 enidros Y38 caprea B20, Y21 hyena B18, Y37 mustela (weasel) Y34 onager B21, Y25 rinocephalus see previous citations on monoceros ydra B19, Y38, H 2 , 7 uulpis Y18 fenix Y9 , Aviarium HI, 49 nocticorax Y7 turtur B28, Y41

Only the chapter on the eceola is not traceable to an early manuscript, and its source could either be Isidore or an expanded manuscript of the Physiologus such as Versio H.

Also, the chapter on the ydra is difficult to analyze be­ cause of the confusion of the ichneumon and hydra. The meagre description of the ichneumon-ydra derives from

Isidore or an expanded Physiologus version, while the ac­ tual Physiologus material is in the chapter on the enidros in the Herbary.

In summary, seventeen chapters in the Herbary have derived their descriptions from the Physiologus via inter­ mediaries. Isidore, the buch der natur, Albertus Magnus, and Vincent's Speculum Naturale have all transmitted the

Physiologus material to the Herbary. 68

There are, however, chapters on creatures in the early

Physiologus versions which have produced no apparent influ­

ence on the corresponding chapters in the Herbary either via

a Physiologus citation or an intermediate source. This

category in the Herbary is comprised of chapters on the hedge-hog, frog, salamander, ape, crow, and swallow. The

lack of Physiologus material in these chapters seems to have arisen from arbitrary or accidental omission by the compiler of an intermediate source or by Prtiss himself.

The reason for omitting the Physiologus material remains unknown.

When one considers the verified citations of the

Phys iologus and the secondary sources which transmitted

Physiologus material, the prominent versions which contain the cited material are Versio B and Versio Y. There are also instances of the influence of Versio H, such as the chapter on the kite or miluus in the Herbary. Comparing the passage in the Herbary with the corresponding chapter in the Aviarium (Book 1,40 of Versio H of the Physiologus) reveals an error in citation:

Herbary (niiijV) Physiologus (Versio H)

Mil/ | uus wtirt genannt\als Est igitur milvus viribus, ein weicher |.vogel von sei- illosque significat quos nen fliegen\ doch so ist er millities voluptatis tentat. ein reuber vnd allweg vffset- Cadaveribus milvus vescitur, zig den zam | men husvSgelen quia carnalibus desideriis ...Der weyhe ist vff/ |setzig voluptuosi delectantur. den huszvbgeln \ vnd besonder Milvus enim carnes rapiens 69 0 den | iungen hunern. wann desidiosus, voluptuosa welche er sycht vn/| uer- quaerens. Circa coquinas sorgt \ die raubt er als et macella milvus assidue bald. Vnd fltigt gerne bey volitat, ut si quid crudae den kiichen vnd fleischben- carnis ab eis projiciatur cken\| ob etwan roh fleisch foras, velociter rapiat. hyngeworffen wiirt | das er das behend erwiische.

The designation "avianus" in the Herbary is missing in the

Hortus Sanitatis but is given in Vincent's Speculum as

"ex aviario." The chapter in the Speculum on the miluus contains all the information which the Herbary chapter presents, i.e., material from Isidore, the buch der natur, and Pliny. Thus, this error in the Herbary indicates that

Priiss used a source other than the Hortus Sanitatis, quite probably the Speculum itself.

In translating the Hortus Sanitatis Priiss evidently re-collated the animal treatises with the Speculum in hand.

This would explain the variations in the citing of author­ ities. What is more evident is that the Aviarium and pos­ sibly Versio H were influential on the Speculum and hence on the Herbary. If we bear this in mind, the importance of the Speculum as a transmitter of the Physiologus becomes increasingly obvious.

Extensive comparison of the Herbary with the animal treatises in Vincent's Speculum has revealed the sources for these treatises in Meydenbach and Priiss. The remain­ ing text of the Herbary can be found in Albertus Magnus, 70

Bartholomaeus Anglicus, and the Speculum. There are only

nine chapters in the Herbary the source of whose contents

has not been located. Appendix B presents the results of

the comparison and gives the chapter references for each of

the chapters in the Herbary with citations of the three

encyclopedias.

Knowing that the Speculum is a source for the Hortus

Sanitatis and Herbary helps explain some peculiarities of citation in the Herbary. The chapters in the Herbary on the ant, rabbit, wolf, hydra, basilisk, dove and sparrow all belong to the Physiologus canon of animals. A study of the pertinent chapters in the Speculum with those in the Herbary reveals that the compiler of the animal trea­ tises (Meydenbach and Priiss) omitted certain Physiologus references. These omissions are also noted in Appendix B.

Possible causes for these variations in citation will be discussed later.

One further step in investigating the citing of the

Physiologus in the Herbary remains. In realizing that an expanded version of the Physiologus was used in Vincent, those chapters in the Herbary with Physiologus references and without verified quotations must be reconsidered. For instance, the chapter on the dog in the Herbary refers to the Physiologus, but no major version contains such mat­ erial. The Speculum presents information on the dog in 72

Herbary is probably greater than can be definitively shown.

Although the above investigation of the actual

Physiologus citations in the Herbary failed to isolate a specific version or versions of the Physiologus, it has established the actual influence of the Physiologus on the animal treatises of the Herbary. In fact, the investiga­ tion has proved that the Herbary incroporated almost the entire canon of creatures from the Physiologus. Eve'n though the animal treatises in the Herbary are compilations based on other earlier compilations, the significance of the

Physiologus material is attested by the verified citations and by transmission of the Physiologus material through secondary sources.

Now that we have ascertained the quantitative influ­ ence, we will examine the question of the Physiologus * qualitative influence upon the Herbary. This procedure will provide a conclusive statement about the influence of the Physiologus on Priiss1 Herbary. II. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Despite the centuries intervening between the composi­

tion of the Physiologus and that of the Herbary, there is

a question of whether there were any structural influence

of the one work on the other. This aspect of influence

pertains to the ordering of the contents, the scope, and

the general context within which the material is presented.

Because the Physiologus was conveyed to the Herbary by

medieval encyclopedias, its structure can only be examined

in transmitted form.

As previously noted, the earliest versions of the

Physiologus are comprised of random descriptions of various

creatures. Occasionally, in a version such as Versio B,

there is a sentence which introduces a topic with "aliud

animal." This kind of reference hints at an overall unity

in the work, but there is no discernible organization of

the chapters in the Physiologus. One lone exception to

this observation is found in the chapter on the lion, which

occupies the first place in all major manuscripts of the

Physiologus. The primacy of the lion in the animal king­ dom is denoted by this arrangement of chapters in the 74 physiologus, although no particular order has been followed in presenting the remaining creatures. Occasionally there appears to be an incipient arrangement of chapters accord­ ing to theme when two chapters pertain to the same doc­ trine, e.g., hydrus and pharoah's rat for atonement. No such thematic arrangement was used to organize the entire

Physiologus. Only as late as the thirteenth century was any kind of classification of animals used in the bestiary.

The Aviarium contains material on birds, and the De bestiis et aliis rebus has the following groupings: "de bestiis,"

"de animalium in genere," "de avibus," "de serpentium gen- eribus," "de vermibus," "de natura hominibus," and "de

■i actatibus hominis." Even this kind of grouping did not create structural unity in the Physiologus, since the bestiary was not bound together by category or alphabet.

The Physiologus1 structure was at best that of a loose col­ lection with organization existing in the individual en­ tries. One may speak of the Physiologus as a miscellany, and therefore of a work whose organization pertains solely to the single chapter.

The number of creatures discussed in the early

Physiologus was quite limited, but its agglutinative nature allowed a considerable expansion of the scope. Whether in

^McCulloch, op. cit., pp. 37-38. 75 the minimal scope of the early versions or the expanded scope of the second family versions, the Physiologus viewed the individual creature as an instance of a univer­ sal experience. Hence there was no attempt by the

Physiologus to give an exhaustive presentation of the animal world. All creatures served as allegorical vehicles for homilies, whether it were the pelican for the atonement, the phoenix for the . irrection, or the ichneumon for the 2 defeat of Satan. From the allegorical and homiletic treat­ ment of animals, the Physiologus derives a loose unity based on two themes: the Christian Heilsgeschichte and

Christian morality. The majority of the chapters in the

Physiologus pertain to doctrine as exemplified in the fol­ lowing list:

1). lion: divinity-humanity or incarnation

2) eagle: baptism

3) snake: Fall

4) ibis: sign of the cross

5) whale: hell

6) vulture: crucifixion

7) unicorn: Virgin birth

8) heron: heresy.

Other chapters in the Physiologus contain exhortations to

2 The allegorical aspect of the Physiologus will be dis­ cussed fully in the section on hermeneutic. 76

a v o i d the sins enumerated in Galatians 5.19, while still

others urge the reader to cultivate certain virtues, for

example:

1) sawfish: cupidity

2) hoopoe: filial devotion

3) onager: chastity

4) viper: spiritual blindness

5) siren: hypocrisy

6) hyena: lust.

Clearly the doctrinal and moral examples belong to a system of thought, but the structure of the Physiologus does not present these in an intentional arrangement The framework of Christian thought, however, does provide a unified background for each chapter. The structure or ar­ rangement of each chapter consists of a biblical citation regarding a creature, a description of the creature, and a homiletic exposition based thereon. It is the structure of the individual unit, not the scope of the text, which is significant; for any chapter is an independent' entity with­ in itself. Through this tri-partite arrangement the

Physiologus presents its insights into the animal world.

The structural characteristics of the Physiologus must now be compared with those of the Herbary. Because the order of contents and scope of the Herbary are closely in­ tertwined, they are discussed simultaneously. 77

The first and most obvious fact about the structure of

the Herbary is its actual comprehensive scope since the presentation of creatures in the Herbary encompasses all

"der thierer vff dem ertrich" ("Vorrede" aijr). In the 392

chapters of the animal treatises, 566 creatures are des­

cribed: 222 animals, 161 birds, and 183 fish. Like the

Physiologus, the Herbary focuses on individual creatures.

The separate chapters, however, are part of an overall structure which the Herbary derived from earlier texts, primarily Vincent's Speculum. Selections taken largely from books 19, 20, and 21 of Vincent's Speculum comprise the treatises on animals in the Herbary, although Vincent's categories are classified under one large order in each treatise of the Herbary. The arrangement of land and do­ mestic animals, other animals, and serpents, reptiles and insects is abandoned for a simpler alphabetic grouping.

The same procedure is evident in the avian treatise, which is a combination of books 17 and 21, and in the treatise on fish, which is composed of Vincent's book 18 and Albertus’ section on fish.

The following chapters from the treatise on animals are an example of Priiss' editing and rearranging of

Vincent's order: 78 Herbary

encyclopedic chapter creature source

5 asinus V,19,10-11

6 ahanc V,20,2

7 antaplon V,20,3

8 afferato V,21,18

9 anfibena V,21,19

10 aspis V,21,20-21

11 aranea V,21,112-117

13 bonnacon V,19,4

Chapter five is taken from Vincent's treatises on

"de pecoribus," while chapters six and seven are from "de bestiis" and "de reptilibus" and "de serpentibus." Chap­ ter thirteen in the Herbary resumes with material from

"de pecoribus." Priiss has excerpted these chapters and alphabetized them but, as is clear in the above list, not 3 always correctly. To grasp the kind of change which

Priiss has made, the purpose and original order of the mat­ erial in Vincent's Speculum must be examined.

The properties of each treatise in Vincent are com­ prehensible when seen within the framework of the entire

Speculum. Vincent announces the overall purpose of the

^His principle of selection and arrangement are dis­ cussed in a later chapter. 79

Speculum In the prologue:

ex omnibus fere | quos legere potui: siue nostro- rum. id es,t. catholicorumj doctorum siue gen- tilium scilicet philosophorum et po| etarum: et ex vtriusque historicum in vnum corpus vo^llu- minis quodam compendio et ordine summatique redigere | Ex his dumtaxat praecipueque per- tinere videntur; vel ad fidei \ nostre dogmatis astructionem: vel ad morum instructionemjsiue ad excitandam charitatis deuotionem. Aut divinarum \ scripturarum misticam expositionem vel etiam ad ipsi> veritaj tis manifestam aut simbolicam declarationem. Aut et studio j meo quasi modum > quendam imponens curiositati mee: ce | terorum- que non nullorum forsitan mei similium: quorum studium etjlabor est plurimos legere: eorumque flores excerpere. Prologus, capitulum primum

The structure of the Speculum becomes clear from examining the five books (1?-21) of Vincent's bestiary. The seven­ teenth book of tome one deals with volucribus celi created on the fifth day, beginning with the formation of birds and swimming creatures (17,1). Vincent next discusses the general nature of birds and their differences, concluding with a lengthy consideration of color, beaks, wings, flesh, food, voices, fighting, wisdom, etc. Finally,

Vincent states that the names and nature of the birds will be given alphabetically.

The eighteenth book, last in the first tome, contains entries on "piscibus et monstris marinis." The nineteenth book, first in tome two, introduces the sixth day with its categories "de animalibus terrestribus" and "de pecoribus."

Book twenty is entitled "De bestiis" and twenty-one "de 80

ceteris animalibus"— serpents, reptiles and vermin. After

discussing the general animal nature in book twenty-two and

various aspects of animals, such as movement, generation

and humiditas in book twenty-three, Vincent turns to the

creation of man in book twenty-four.

Vincent used the framework of the Genesis account of

creation for structure of the Speculum Naturale: "post

hoc [the fall of the angels] de materia informi et de

fabrica mundi ac iuxta seriem operum sex dierum" (prologus

1 5 ). The Physiologus material was incorporated into the

treatises of the Speculum as it pertained to the various

days of creation, and the order of the Physiologus material

was subsumed into the so-called hexameron framework. This

biblical manner of regarding creation as a work of six

days, or hexameron, became the philosophical and theologi­

cal perspective of the patristic and medieval eras. For

the Speculum, Vincent tapped this ancient theological sys­

tem of describing creatures. In the western tradition, the

foremost scholar who used the hexameron structure was St.

Ambrose, and his influence is evident.^ Both the Speculum and the Herbary refer to Ambrose. Intriguingly, Vincent says in prologus 14: "Liber qui dicitur phisiologus: am (

^Henkel notes the incorporation of Ambrosias' chapter on the cock (Hexaemeron 5, 24, 88) into Versio C of the Physiologus, op. cit., p. 23. 81

brosii nomine signatus," investing the Physiologus with the

authority of St. Ambrose. Elsewhere in the prologue

V i n c e n t cites Ambrose as a major source. The Herbary also

contains several references to St. Ambrose. It was

Ambrose's Hexaemeron which was a molding force in the

be-stiary tradition, since its presentation of creation in

the six-day period was so influential. Ambrose and other

patristic authors, such as St. Basil, classified all crea­

tures according to the day upon which they were created by

God and according to the categories set forth in Genesis.

The structure of Vincent's Speculum is literally fixed by

this order. Such is not the case with Priiss' Herbary.

Because the sacralized concept of time and its con­

comitant order is missing, the hexameron structure is not

present in the animal treatises of the Herbary. The

Herbary has the apparent structure of the treatises in the

.Speculum, but it does not in fact have the internal unity

of these treatises or the overt theological framework.

This lack of internal unity is indicated by the cross-ref­

erences which have been taken from Vincent. One would

assume that the material of each treatise in the Herbary

was carefully arranged in a consistent fashion, for there

are numerous cross-references of one chapter to another;

e.gt/ Herbary 3,22 -to 3,6; 3,20 to 3,14; 3,24 to 3,21; etc.

Moreover, similar creatures or names of creatures are com­

pared by these cross-references; e.g., luscinia 3,72 to K 1omena; ulula 3,117 to buthorlo and onocrocula. There are also references in one treatise which cite chapters in a second treatise; e.g., ygel 2,72 refers to merygel "in der fisch tractat" and 4,4 to 2,77. These cross-references, however, are not always consistently carried out; they are instead somewhat casually taken from the Speculum. The chapter on basiliscus (Herbary 3,13) says that there is more information under regulus in the same treatise, but the en­ try for regulus is located in 2,125. Supposedly, ceruleus

(Herbary 2,25) is located in the treatise on fish, but there is no entry for this creature in the fourth treatise.

Still a third example of unedited cross-references is the chapter on the limax (Herbary 2,85) , which promises further discussion "vnden do wir von den schnecken sagen werden."

Priiss includes no other discussion of the limax in the

Herbary and omits the passage from Vincent's Speculum (21,

172) with Physiologus material.

As these instances of faulty cross-references in­ dicate, Priiss did not organize the mater icil so that there was consistency within the several treatises. This lack of internal consistency, or rather adaptation, indicates a shift from the theological order of the Speculum, that is, its arrangement as a theological summa, to a simple, lexical ordering of material within each treatise of the

Herbary. In other words, the Physiologus material and that from other sources has been excerpted from the summa

structure of the Speculum. The Physiologus-Speculum mat­ erial on animals in the Herbary is not corroborating data

for the overarching theological framework as in Vincent's

summa. In the Herbary the chapters on animals are individ­ ual entries whose function is not to demonstrate a theolog­ ical position by amassing exhaustive proofs. The arrange­ ment of creatures in the Herbary, then, resembles the particularity of and focus on individual animals as found in the Physiologus' miscellaneous order. But this is solely a statement of similarity and not of genetic influence. In regard to the structure and scope of the Herbary, the most that one can conclude is that the Herbary develops from the bestiary tradition which derived in part from the

Physiologus. The principle of selecting creatures is sim­ ilar in each work, but a causal relationship between the two works is demonstrable in specified instances only.

Apparently the Herbary did not derive its structure from ' the Physiologus, and evidence of a qualitative influence must be sought in .a comparative study of the taxonomy and hermeneutic of both works. III. THE TAXONOMY OF THE

PHYSIOLOGUS AJND HERBARY

The Physiologus and Herbary do not, of course, embody

the systematic empiricism of present-day sciences, and yet

both works are based upon a certain "scientific" approach.

By examining the observations and classifications of each

text, this chapter focuses on the taxonomy of the Physiologus

Herbary as a primary aspect of the scientific approach.

Scientific Classification in the Phy_sloioqus

In describing a creature, the Physiologus first states the name of the creature in each chapter. The Latin versions of the Physiologus, of course, have the name in Latin, often using the phrase "graece dicitur . . . latine uero." Chap­ ters with Greek names may seem, at first glance, to pertain to unusual creatures, but no explanation can be given for the lack of Greek names in the chapters on fabulous or ordi­ nary animals, e. g., the caladrius, ant, ibis, or beaver.

The use of Greek and Latin names seems random and not a primary tool of classification. In early versions the absence 85 of etymologies tends to substantiate the Physiologus1 lack of interest in names as a categorizing tool.

In fact, the Physiologus employs minimal systematic nomenclature, and most creatures are classified with the term animal, e.g. antelope, siren, wolf, onager, asida

(ostrich). Creatures such as the lion, hedgehog, ape, unicorn, and onocentaur are not classified as members of the animal category, but the omission does not seem inten­ tional or indicative of any difference in classification.

Uolatile (infrequently auis) is a second categorical term found in the Physiologus, e.g., in the chapters on caladrius, phoenix, hoopoe. The eagle and pelican, how­ ever, are not listed as birds, and the ostrich is described as "quasi uolturium."

The remaining categories in the Physiologus are belua, reptile, and uolatile animal. Belua applies to the aspidochelone, serra, and hyena, signifying their monstrosity. The salamander is the only reptile so clas­ sified, while the lacerta (lizard) is the only uolatile animal. The terminology of the Physiologus, then, is minimally important since the terms are not explanatory and many creatures are unclassified.

A second factor in the Physiologus' natural history is that of the creature's environment. The Physiologus

(Versio B) notes that the serra and aspidochelone live 86

"in the sea," that the phoenix is said to live "in parts of India," and that the antelope goes to the Euphrates.

Similar general remarks are made concerning the creature's habitat, e.g., a lion walking in the mountains or the

fulica living near streams. The above examples indicate the Physiologus' meagre knowledge of or interest in a creature's habitat.

A third aspect of the Physiologus' descriptions of a creature is observation about color. For instance, the panther and salamander have varying color, but no clear information is given about this varying color. The

Phys iologus also notes the many different colors of doves, whereas the total whiteness of the caladrius is observed as a correlative of its symbolic purity. Color is noted in isolated instances, but it is not a principal concern of the Physiologus in describing and presenting the various creatures.

Similarly, the Physiologus gives only passing atten­ tion to comparison and gender as salient aspects of scien­ tific knowledge. The unicorn is "simile haedo" and the salamander is like the "lacertulae pusillae." Comparison of creatures is seldom made by the Physiologus and is not a taxonomic tool.

Finally, the gender of a creature is infrequently used as an aspect of description in the Physiologus. 87

The masculinity of the beaver is necessarily noted in the story about his self-castration, as is the femininity of the siren in her alluring calls to men. The male and female of a species may be mentioned but not with the pur­ pose of scientific categorization. In the story about the birth of lion cubs, the male and female each have different functions whose importance relates to exegesis and not to empirical observation. Although the dual sexuality of the hyena is recorded, the Physiologus' purpose is not that of observation and taxonomy but homiletics, for the hyena's sexuality indicates sexual and spiritual deviation.

As the above examination of taxonomy suggests, the

Physiologus employs minimal scientific technique in describ­ ing and presenting its catalog of creatures. Standard aspects of taxonomy, such as terminology, color, habitat, and gender, are not significant characteristics in the

Physiologus' scientific system. Rather, the Physiologus' approach to creatures consists of classification and identification by Deuteronomic law, scriptural citation, and isolation of one to three peculiarities (rarely four) in the nature and behavior of each creature.

Relying upon the Levitical (chapter 11) and Deutero­ nomic (chapter 14) codes, the Physiologus classifies several creatures as unclean: the serpent, nycticorax, ibis, hyena, and weasel. In one instance, however, the 88

Physiplequs uses an unclean animal, the charadrius, as a symbol of Christ, Which suggests that absolute adherence to the code was not observed and that the classification of "clean-unclean" was not understood as a scientific 1 category.

More pervasive than the classification of animals by the Levitical code of clean and unclean is the Physiologus1 use of scriptural identification of a creature. The cit­ ing of a verse of scripture which refers to a creature serves to specify which animal is under discussion as well as to indicate its existence as attested by the authority of scripture. A biblical reference is used to establish the name of the creature and not necessarily to corroborate the characteristics which the Physiologus observed. For example, the chapter on the pelican cites

Psalm 101.7, "like a pelican in the wilderness." Nov/here in the Bible is the self-sacrificing nature of the pelican discussed, and yet, for the Physiologus, the scriptural reference is the authoritative source of identification.

In many instances the authoritative content of scripture provides the Physiologus with suggestive material for describing a creature. The chapter on the eagle tells of

Henkel, op. cit., p. 142. 89 its "baptism" or plunging into pools and of its subsequent rejuvenation. Psalm 102.5 states that the righteous shall be renewed like an eagle. In this manner the peculiar characteristic of the eagle, rejuvenation, is isolated and interpreted to relate an aspect of the Christian gospel. The Physiologus directs its attention not to the whole nature of a creature but to its outstanding feature; e.g., the antelope is a very swift creature with long horns; the serra has immense fins; the nyctlcorax loves darkness more than light; and the onocentaur has hybrid traits. In instances where more than one trait ("natura") of a creature is discussed, each trait is dealt with separately and is not necessarily related to other charac­ teristics. The three acts of the lion (walking, sleeping, and giving birth) are separate characteristics of its be­ havior. Moreover, the relation of these three characteris­ tics occurs only in the exegesis, suggesting that the

Physiologus1 observations are unintegrated and consequently unscientific from a modern viewpoint. Nevertheless, the very description of a creature as supported by scriptural references establishes a creature's identity, which in turn functions as a taxonomic device in the Physiologus.

A final category of creatures in the Physiologos is comprised of those creatures which are inimicus or hostile to another. In Versio Y the chapters on the elephant, panther, nil urns (hydrus in Versio B) , ichneumon, and staj all record the hostility of these creatures to the serpent, dra­ gon or crocodile. The chapter on the elephant recounts how the dragon v/aits to eat newborn elephant calves and thus pro­ vides an explanation for the elephant's hatred of the dragon.

The Physiologus1 concern v/ith the enmity between the other four creatures and a reptile arises not purely from scienti­

fic observation but from the symbolic associations of the reptile v/ith satan and the devil. The Physiologus' remarks about the panther's enmity toward the dragon demonstrate this symbolic rather than scientific classification: "de panthere dictum est, quoniam .inimicus est draconi in aqua.

Nihil ergo sine intentione intellectus de uolatilibus diuine scripturae dixerunt" (Versio B). These five crea­ tures' characteristic enmity toward reptiles is sufficiently noted so as to form a minor category of creatures in the

Physiologus, but the isolated trait serves the purpose of divine rather than natural science.

In summary, one may conclude that the Physiologus' taxonomy is restricted to a few general categories and to iso­ lating an animal's salient trait v/ithin these categories.

This rudimentary taxonomy Was sufficient for the didactic and allegorical presentation of creatures in the Physiologus.

An abstract method of scientific observation, as expressed through categorical terminology and as derived from empirical data, would scarcely have contributed to a 91

symbolic natural history and would not have served the homi­

letic and exegetical purpose of the Physiologus.

The Herbary*s Taxonomy

In comparison v/ith the Physiologus the Herbary contains

a- considerably more complex and comprehensive nomenclature

in the bestiary treatises. These three treatises represent

the categories of land, air, and water creatures. In the

treatise on animals most creatures are quadrupeds, but about

one-third of the 164 chapters deals with various snakes,

insects, worms, and anything but quadrupeds. No criteria

are used to include or exclude any creature. Likewise,

thex*e are numerous creatures in the avian treatise which are

not birds: insects such as the bee,cicada, wasp, fly, and

the ostrich (s.trutio camelo) . Of the three treatises, that on fish contains the greatest incidence of unexpected entries which present everything from eels to snails to crocodiles.

All are grouped as fish since they inhabit water, and many hybrid creatures abound in the sea-world in parallel exis­

tence to their land counterparts.

Preparation of an index to the three animal treatises

in the Herbary entailed listing each creature with synony­ mous and comparable names and disclosed that the Herbary

has a taxonomic complexity greater than the categories of

land, air, and water creatures as found in the Second and 2 Third Family manuscripts of the Physiologus. For instance, there are twenty-four listings for schlange plus examples of moerschlang and wasscrschlang. Varied kinds of Bachfisch

(Gardj us , Gobius,Brenna) are noted, while there are also

Felszen- ,Regen- ,Stein-,Moer-, and Wasserfisch. These cate­ gories were clearly intended to identify specific kinds of fish, a fact v/hich indicates a taxonomic complexity greater than that of the Physiologus. The complexity of this tax­ onomy is shown by the following list of composite terms de­ scribing sea creatures:

moerdrack,-fogell,-frosch,-fucchs,-hund,-hasz,

-kalb,-loew,-muench,-musz,-nessel,-ochs,-pfawe,

-pferd,-r a pp,-schrecke,-schwyn,-schlang,-snecke,

-scorpion,-spinne,-s tern,-strel,-swalb,-swamm,

-weye, and -wolff.

The Herbary has another category of water creatures known as the moerthier which applies to creatures such as the serra or zyphius, that is creatures without land counter­ parts. Likewise there are various other water creatures: wasserf isch,-fogel,-hoen,-pferd,-schlang,-schnecke,-thier, and -wurm. The last category is divided into Bauch,Holtz-

Kleider- , and Wasserv/urme, which listing points to medical and practical interests.

2 McCulloch,op.cit.,pp.36-38. 93

Occasionally, the terminology in the Herbary is stated in Arabic, thereby pointing to another source of scientific influence, e.g., adgazel (cf. damma). Cross references in­ dicate that comparison as a categorical method is customary in the Herbary and its sources, e.g., erinineus (cf. erinacius, cirogrillus) or geysz (cf. capra,caprea, ybex). In fact, on the basis of terminology alone one may conclude that the scientific categories of the Herbary are far more complex and extensive than those of the Physiologus.

Lastly, the above-mentioned index reveals a category created by an avid interest: the moerwund or moerv/under along with wonderlich thier and wonderlicher wurm. An abundance of land, air, and water creatures exists in the bestiary treatises of the Herbary as well as the terminology to describe this plenitude of unusual creatures. There is, however, nothing comparable to the Linnaean system in the

Herbary which uses only the universally applied term thier for ordinary and extraordinary creatures.

In addition to the interest in the marvellous, the

Herbary is also attentive to the category of the practical and medical. Because the index, which has the heading of

"Register der artzneyen," separates descriptive from purely medical considerations, the medical category is quite ob­ vious. The index is comprised of a section for each trea­ tise of the Herbary. At first glance, the four sections of 94

the index seem to have no order, but comparison of the

sections discloses a similarity. The diseases listed in each section are not alphabetized and are not arranged

according to their occurrence in the treatise, but there is a common sequence of diseases and topics as the following excerpts demonstrate:

IT IT Register uber das theyl Von den Thieren (o [sic:0 ]) Zu dem har usz fallen, capitulo xxij.D. capitulo xxiij.D. zQ dem orenwee capitulo. iij. am end.

"uber das theyl Von den Vogelen" (oiijr[sic:Oiijr ]) Zu dem har usz fallen. Capitulo. x. A. HZU dem orenwee Capitulo. x. E.

"iiber das theyl Von den Fischen" (Oiiijr) Zu dem har usz fallen. Capi. xxxvj. am end.

• • • HFiir das orenwee Capitu. ij. B .

"Register von den steynen" (OiiijV) Zu dem har usz fallen. Capitu. xxij. B.

• • • HFiir das orenwee Capitulo. xxxvj. A.

The listings cover four areas: pathological, therapeutic, cosmetic, and practical. Remedies for the following diseases or problems are given in all treatises: baldness, earache, asthma, boils or ulcers (geschwer), carbuncle, headache, lust (unkeuschheit), dysentery, epilepsy, drunkenness, men­ struation, hydrophobia, melancholy, poisonous bites, fevers, and constipation. There are also diuretics, whitening agents 95

(for teeth and face), and depilatories. With certain pre­ scriptions one can determine the sex of the fetus, rid the woman of the after-birth, or increase one's sperm and one's wealth. With other medicinal preparations one can stop a child from drooling, get rid of ants, predict death, become

invisible, or deal with an incubus. Unfortunately, many cures reflect the superstition of the day and are anything but clear in their manner of preparation or administration. The cures are dietetic and medicinal in kind, perhaps suggesting that the user was not a trained physician.

Another significant medical and taxonomic aspect of the

Herbary is that the cures are often based on the doctrine of humors, and a creature is valued according to its humor. For instance, the Herbary, citing Isidore, refers to the four humors in the chapter on man (homo, aiij ):

Aber dag caro das fleisch| ist von der schopffung genant\ aber das | fleisch ist von den vier elementen zamen ge| formiert\ das ertrich ist im fleysc’n\ der lufft| im athern die fiichte in blut das fur in der le| bendigen werme\ dann die element hond inJ vns yeglichs seinen teyl dem etwas zu ge hort\ so der lyb wiirt vffgelost.

As the above passage states, in the Herbary mention of a creature's humor conveys medical knowledge and is not merely descriptive. Hence, a lamb, because of its complexion or make-up of humors, which borders on fuchtigkeit, aids those with a hot and dry complexion. People living in a hot, dry 96 land are to eat mutton (Herbary aliijv). This doctrine of humors serves as a kind of taxonomy which is oriented to therapeutic rather than to external classification.

Clearly the systematic organization of material in the

Herbary is more complex than that of the Physiologus, for the Herbary employs all the categories applied in the

Physiologus (clean-unclean,habitat,color,gender,comparison) but far more extensively and in far greater detail.

As the above consideration of taxonomy implies, applying modern scientific categories to the Physiologus -nd Herbary does not demonstrate specific taxonomic influence. A cate­ gory in the Physiologus may constitute one element in the

Herbary1s composite presentation of the same creature and indeed serve as the basis for the Herbary1s categorizing of the creature. But, in evaluating the Herbary and its sources, one must resist thinking of a simple linear influence, be­ cause neither the category nor the terminology exists for abstract purposes. The taxonomy extant in the Physiologus and Herbary can only be evaluated when examined from a view­ point more consistent with patristic and medieval scientific thought. Therefore, this study will now analyze the hermen­ eutic of each work to determine if there is taxonomic influ­ ence, in a much broader sense of the term, of the Physiologus upon the Herbary. IV. THE HERMENEUTIC OF THE

PHYSIOLOGUS AND HERBARY

The first chapter of this study established that the

Herbary contains Physiologus material, while chapters two and three made it amply clear that the question of the

Physiologus' influence upon the Herbary must be investigated in connection with the bestiary tradition and medieval an­ imal science. This chapter will now consider the relation­ ship of the Physiologus1 hermeneutic upon that of the

Herbary.

Re-evaluation of Approach

As stated earlier, the two standard critical approach­ es to the Physiologus have been the scientific and theolog­ ical, each approach challenging the validity of the other.

Scholars have likewise raised questions about the scien­ tific quality of the Hortus Sanitatis and the Herbary.

Even a sympathetic writer such as Shaffer describes the time in which the Hortus Sanitatis and the Herbary arose as having

its practical common sense and its absurd

97 98

superstitions, its profound respect for author­ ity and its complete disregard of empirical knowledge, its painstaking scholarship and its often repeated errors . . .

She emphasizes that such a statement should in no way de­ tract from the Herbary1s stature, but she also characterizes the Herbary* s science as "charming." Beyond the charm of both works, there is a significant scientific dimension to the Physiologus and the Herbary.

That the Physiologus contains empirical observations must be granted, but only with the stipulation that the 2 facts are almost lost in the exegesis. In other words, the Physiologus includes particles of scientific truth which have almost been absorbed into allegorical homilies.

Scholars such as Thompson, who view the Physiologus as a nascent scientific text, neglect the fact that no passages in the bestiary suggest that its contents are collected and presented for scientific purposes. In fact, the purpose of 3 the Physiologus is to express similitudo, not verisimil­ itude. The science of the Physiologus is soteriological and the <{>uai/ of all creatures and of the Physiologus

^Shaffer, op. cit., p. 1. 2 The apparent bleeding of the adult pelican or the two-headed snake amphisbaena serve as examples of such observation. 3 Henkel, op. cit., pp. 140-141 99

itself exists to reveal the Xoyofj for all creation is a hierophany to its author and reader. The hermeneutic of

the Physiologus must be kept in mind if false expectations are not to affect its interpretation.

There is a similar problem with understanding the

Herbary. Generally the term herbal or medical text is used to describe the Herbary. Of great importance, however, is the fact that many of the entries in the Herbary contain no obvious medical information. Of the 164 chapters on animals, eighty-nine entries have no wiirckung. Eighty-one of the 122 on birds and seventy of the 106 on fish present no therapeutic information. These chapters indicate that

Priiss compiled a work which drew upon other than purely medical sources. Inclusion of chapters without medical content suggests that Meydenbach and Priiss produced a text whose purpose was not strictly limited to medicine. There­ fore, the genre of the Herbary must be reconsidered.

The incongruities between definitions pertaining to these two works and the works themselves are resolved by examining statements about animals from the Physiologus and Herbary. The Physiologus (Versio B; herinacius) says of its purpose and method: "congrue igitur Physiologus naturas animalium contulit et contexuit intelligentiae spiritalium scripturarum," and Priiss similarly proposes to study the "naturen vnd complexion" of animals. Science 100 in the Physiologus is not natural science, but rather wisdom which is bound to the Bible; it is knowledge of nature as understood via scripture. This biblical attitude and prin­ ciple permeates the Physiologus:

Quoniam autem acutissimam habet aciem oculorum caprea, et procul omnia prospicit et a longe cognoscit, significat saluatorem nostrum, dicente scripture quoniam: Deum scientiarum dominus est [I Sam. 2.3] Versio B 20

Knowledge in the Physiologus is clearly theocentric, where­ as the thrust of the Herbary is, despite references to religious texts, anthropocentric.

In the preface Priiss invokes divine aid: "durch bey- standt der gSttlichen hilff . . . die obriste gute | gottes (als wir hoffen) ..." (aij). The position of man, however, is that of the first creature: "das aller wiir- digest\ edelst\ vnd volkomest auch von got das | aller liebest . . . ." The Herbary1s approach to earth's crea­ tures is not from the same perspective as that of the

Physiologus, for in an almost perfunctory manner the

Herbary acknowledges the divine and proceeds to discuss its several hundred creatures with infrequent reference to God.

There is no intended homiletic purpose in the Herbary; and, whereas the Physiologus' approach is found in the author­ itative and didactic phrase, "Physiologus dicit," the in­ tent of the Herbary is focused in the presentation 101

("vslegen") of the many creatures. The didactic and hom­

iletic purpose of the Physiologus as distinguished from the

descriptive and prescriptive intent of the Herbary becomes

evident when entries on several creatures are compared.

Comparison of Hermeneutic Examples

The lion, the first creature in the Physiologus, serves

as the first hermeneutic example. Versio B begins its

characterization of the lion's three traits with a quote

from Genesis 49.9 which associates Judah with the lion's whelp. The first nature or habit is the erasing of its

tracks with its tail. The exegesis of this passage asserts

that the Savior, the spiritual lion of Judah and the root

of Jesse, covered his deity when he was incarnated. Those

not understanding this portent ("ignorantes") ask who this

king is and receive the response, the king of glory.

Next, the second nature is stated; the sleeping lion

keeps its eyes open. The Physiologus substantiates this

observation with a quote from the Song of Songs (5.2):

''Ego dormio, et cor meum uigilat." When Christ was cruci­

fied and buried, his deity watched, since "non dormitabit

neque dormiet qui custodit Israel" (Ps. 120.4).

Finally, the third nature or trait is observed: how

lion cubs are born dead. After three days, the father

comes and inspires ("insufflat") the cub. Thus, God 102 resurrected (11 suscitauit") Christ, for "dormitabit tamquam leo, et sicut catulus leonis, quis suscitabit eum" (Gen.

49.9). The construction of this sermon on the lion around scriptural allusions and quotations indicates how much the

Physiologus relies upon the magisterium of the Bible.

The Herbary * s material on the lion is presented in quite a different fashion. In explaining the lion's traits, the

Herbary starts with an etymology from Isidore: leo equals rex equals kunig. Next Aristotle's observations about the lion's external appearance are given. Particularly note­ worthy are the lion's habit of raising his leg and the odor coming from his opened mouth, a trait also referred to in the quote from the buch der natur. Then there is the observation that the lion sleeps with open eyes, as recorded in the Physiologus . The same traits are mentioned again in the excerpt from Jorath, who tells of the lion's habit of covering its spoor. Subsequently, there is further informa­ tion from Isidore, Aristotle, Pliny, the Physiologus, the buch der natur, Solinus, a second passage from the

Physiologus, Isidore, Jorath, Rasis and Esculapius. The second Physiologus citation in the Herbary contains a fascinating interpolation regarding the still-birth of the lion-cubs, for they are said to have (fiij ):

temperierung des geschlechts | welche truck- ner complexion ist\ vnd wiirt|von der hitz schlymig\vnd allermeist im hirn herschet 103

die durre\vnd dem thier mit wtircker der lufft Oder geyst \ darumb so die | kleynen ederlin im verstopfft werden \ so | mag die lufft nit hynin komen die krefften j z0 irer wiirckung zebev/egen.

Here medieval science explains the ancient belief in the still-birth of lion cubs. The shift in explanation in the

Herbary from religious to empirical criteria is remarkable in that an ancient superstition is infused with a "scien­ tific" attitude, a step away from the Physiologus1 inter­ pretation.

The wiirckung contains material from Isaac, Esculapius,

Haly, Diascorides, Avicenna, and Pliny. Although these sources introduce disparate information, all this material is therapeutic and has a topical unity. No such unity ex­ ists in the descriptive part of the entry on the lion since excerpts from various works are assembled without correlation or consistent editing. There does not seem to be any selective principle behind compiling the general descriptive section, whereas the medical section is com­ prised of information on specific diseases and cures.

A second hermeneutic example is provided by the mat­ erial on the ibis. Citing the Physiologus, the Herbary speaks of the ibis' essential habits (niijV):

Phisio. Der vogel ibis wandelt allweg | am staden \ ein scholmen suchende der yetz | von dem wasser vszgeworffen sey: dan er | fliicht die tieffen hohen vnd reynen wasser | do die reyne fisch wonend\wan er kan nit | schwiiiunen \ vnd fleyszt sich nit das zelernen. 104

Versio B(14) of the Physiologus uses this brief description for a lengthy admonition to the Christian to become spirit­ ually mature while seeking the clean foods of Christian virtues (Rom. 11.33, Gal. 5.22-23). The Christian is warned to avoid the habits of the ibis and not to follow the works of the flesh as enumerated in Gal. 5.19-21, e.g., adultery, fornication, idolatry. While avoiding worldly temptations, the Christian is to learn to swim spiritually. The

Physiologus likens the ibis' inability to swim to man's lack of salvation within himself, for only by lifting one's hand in the sign of the cross can one traverse the spiritual sea. Allusions to Exodus 17.11 and Psalm 103.25 substan­ tiate the Physiologus' belief. The Physiologus concludes his sermon with:

Sic igitur omnes sancti in hoc figurantur; tamquam aues pertranseuntes, perueniunt ad regna caelorum, uelut quietissimum portum; nescientes autem spiritaliter natare, sed terrenis ac mortalibus operibus uacantes, exclusi sunt a regno caelorum, mortui cum mortuis pereunt ....

Versio Y (17), in discussing the ibis, says: "radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas: etenim typus crucis super omnem creaturam est." Carmody renders the passage on the ibis:

Each kind of being has its symbol in the sign of the cross. The sun, unless it ex­ tends its rays, cannot give light; the moon, 105

unless it extends its two horns, cannot give light . . . .4

For the Physiologus a list of people aided by the sign of the cross— Moses, Daniel, Susanna, Thecla, and the Three

Children— proves the efficacy of the cross. The purpose of the homily is to urge that all must be conformed to the sign of the cross, the ultimate figura within which exists the configurating principle of all creation and of the

Physiologus itself. In Versio B the chapters on the follow­ ing creatures expressly use the figura: serra, nycticorax, phoenix, formica, uulpis, simia, and elephas. In a word, the Physiologus1 use of figura (or figurantur) points to its allegorical nature and to the fact that each aspect of creation is a type of Heilsgeschichte. The perspective is that of an icon which forces the viewer to understand him­ self solely within the context of the holy, because it is the holy which imbues earthly events and creatures with meaning. For the Physiologus the figura derives its energy from the Christian kerygma, and it is this figura which constitutes the Physiologus1 hermeneutic.

In contrast, the Herbary relies upon the buch der natur,

Pliny, a gloss on Isaiah, Josephus, and the Physiologus for its entry on the ibis. The Herbary notes the locale of the

4 Carmody, Physiologus (English), chapter 18. 106 ibis in the Nile, the feeding habits of the ibis, the con­ fusion of the ibis with storks, the fact that it is a water­ fowl and that Moses used the ibis in the battle against the moren. The last citation is the Physiologus excerpt as given above. Obviously, this account contains no homily, and the sole medical remark in the Herbary is that eating the ibis' egg proves fatal to human beings.

That which lends the Herbary1s chapter on the ibis coherence and meaning is nothing so pervasive as the kerygmatic figura of the Physiologus. Rather, the most apparent factor in the entry is its composite nature and perspective, for the significance of the ibis is not de­ rived from a Heilsgeschehen. Instead, the Herbary1s in­ terest is directed to the ibis as an almost self-contained topic. This and all other chapters in the Herbary are primarily self-contained encyclopedic entries whose func­ tion is to give facts about numerous creatures. That which holds the facts together is a thematic treatment of the topic. The arrangement and presentation of the bestiary material in the Herbary is that of a topical concordance whose composition resembles that of the Physiologus. The purpose and intention of such a composition, however, differ in the Physiologus and Herbary.

The Physiologus1 purpose in gathering biblical ref­ erences is not simply to present the creature, rather to attest the "significatum" of the creature in contrast to the descriptive approach of the Herbary. For example, the Physiologus regards the pelican's behavior toward its offspring (shedding its blood on them) as an act signify­ ing the sacrificial love of Christ. Such a significance is absent in the Herbary's scholastic approach, which is derived from medieval encyclopedias. This observation per­ tains to the mode of compilation and not to the scientific methodology in each work, which was discussed in the pre­ vious chapter. As in the case of the Physiologus, the meaning of the Herbary's compilation is clear when seen within the framework of its intended purpose. The

Physiologus' didactic homiletic framework determines the purpose of exegeting individual animal characteristics.

Within the Herbary, however, the Physiologus' homiletic framework has disappeared; and, consequently, the sig­ nificance of the citation does not remain the same. Fur­ ther, the Physiologus' use of biblical phrases anticipates an exegetical technique— the "catena" or chain of referen ces.^ Exegetes such as Jerome, Bede, and Aquinas col­ lected biblical and patristic sources regarding various questions and formed them into catenae. The catena itself was proof of a point, required little logical explanation,

5 "Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis," Encyclopedia Britannica (1973), Vol. 8, p. 951. 108 and contained within itself an associative principle which also operated in the Physiologus.

Just as the Physiologus' entries are built upon the catena principle, those of the herbary are based upon amass­ ing excerpts of authorities. Empirical proof, however, is not intended. In the Herbary the importance and number of the cited authorities constitute proof; in the Physiologus isolated biblical references suffice . For both texts, the

"auctoritas" of the sources obviate direct knowledge, but

for the Physiologus the hermeneutic lies in demonstrating the

"significatum," whereas in the Herbary the principle concern is to show the "eygenschafft" of the creatures.

The Herbary's Encyclopedic Context

The preceding statements regarding the Physiologus and

Herbary infer that the allegorical approach of the

Physiologus and the itemized account as given in the Herbary scarcely seem to resemble one another. Yet, despite their apparent dissimilarity, the Physiologus and Herbary are linked by their appropriation of knowledge from other books.

The biblical nature of the Physiologus is undeniable, and the encyclopedic tradition and context of the Herbary is obvious.

Since an earlier chapter of this study has shown that the Hortus Sanitatis and the Herbary (1509) are compilations 109 of Vincent of Beauvais, Albertus Magnus and Bartholomaeus

Anglicus,. it is helpful to recall that the work is basically

from the High Middle Ages, circa 1250 to 1275 and not 1491 or 1509,and that its authors or compilers were two Dominicans and a Franciscan. It is likely that the Hortus Sanitatis and

Herbary reflect a medieval outlook related to this scholas­ tic tradition. The Herbary collects and presents corroborat­ ing authorities, a method familiar, for example, to the g Preaching Orders who used concordant points in homilies.

In order to appreciate the actual context in which the

Physiologus is transmitted to the Herbary, a brief consider­ ation of examples from the other two encyclopedias is now made. Analysis of Bartholomaeus' chapter on the hynnulus or hind serves to reveal his procedure in discussing a creature:

Herbary (2,75)(fijV) Bartholomaeus

Bartholo/ meus in dem buch Hinnulus cerui est filius, der ding eygent/|schafft ab inneundo est dictus, quia spricht. Hynnulus ist des nutu matris absconditur, vt hyrzten frucht\von dem dicit Isid. lib. 1_2. animal schryen also genantjIsido. quidem est debile & imbelle, x i ’j. Hynnulus ist ein swach sicut damula, & est acutis- stritbar thier\ als ein simi visus, & velocis cursus, damula\ vnd hat ein gar mater autem eius ipsum in scharpff gesicht vnd specubus, antris & locis schnellen lauff.| Sein vmbrosis abscondit, & ilium mutter verbiirgt das in vltra spineta & rubeta sal- den hulen | vnd finsteren tare instruit, vt dicit stetten \ vnd lernet es iiber Plinius lib. 8. cap. de

^"Ars praedicandi," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 853. 110

die | hecken vnd buhel ceruls. Vide supra litera C. springen. Sie hant zart | Carnes habent teneras & fleisch vnd deiiwig vmm jrer digestibiles, propter motus steten bewegung | Willen\ frequentiam & discursum vt vnd wan jm verschnitten wiirt dicit Constant. & Isaac in ee ir | hSrner wachsen \ so diaetis Et si fuerit ist sein fleisch besser vnd| castratus antequam crescunt temperierter an der druckne eius cornua, caro eius melior vnd hytze \ vnnd I darnach & temperatior in siccitate & wachszen im die horner nim- calore est, vt dicit idem. mer. | Wann im aber vqn der Et si fuerit castratus ante­ verschneidung die | horner quam cornua habuerit, nunquam gewachsen seint \ so wiirffet ei vlterius crescent, & si es die j nymmer ab \ vnd post, nunquam ea abiiciet nec endert sie auch nit. Ari/| mutabit, vt dicit Aristot. sto. viij. Die hynnuli lib. 8. & Plin. Hinnuli ser- seint vast wider die | pentibus contrariantur mito schlangen. modo, qui enim fuerit inunc- Cwiirckung omitted] tus eius sepo vel sanguine, a serpente illo die non tangi- tur, vt dicit 38. lib, cap. 9_ & eius coagulum est summum remedium in venenis, vt dicit idem.?

The "wiirckung11 states that a person who is smeared with the

dung or blood of a hind is protected against serpents and

that the hind 's body is the greatest aid against poison:

Sein lipp ist | die grost vnd hochst hilff wider das giffte."

The Bartholomaeus passage in the Herbary omits the titles

of authoritative sources but very little of the content.

All the citations point to the pedantic and descriptive

nature of the Herbary and, as might be expected,

Bartholomaeus' method resembles that of Vincent due to the

7 Bartholomaeus Anglicus, "De Hinnulo," De proprieta- tibus rerum, Cap. LVII (Strassburg, 1505), p. 1075. The copy examined is held by Oklahoma University, Bizzell Science Library. Ill

fact that both compilers drew upon Thomas' encyclopedia.

Since Albertus also used Thomas' work, his method of presentation is quite similar to that of Vincent and

Bartholomaeus. A representative selection from Albertus is

the entry on the plataniste and perna:

Herbary (4,68)(Pijv) Albertus, De animalibus

Plataniste vnd perna \fisch 97. Perna animal est marinum also ge | nant. Alber. im de genere concarum et est buch von der thier | natur croceum valde magnae quan- Paltaniste (als Pli. sagt)| titatis existens et intra synd m§rwunder die in gange ipsas concas noscitur vellere dem flusz In | die wachsen fulvo et rutilo valde pretio- vnd in daz mor komen sy so et fiunt inde ornamenta hond | ein delphin snabel vestium et peplorum pretiosa. vnd ein schwantz. 98. Plataniste ut dicit xvj | elen lang. Der Plinius belluae sunt marinae gesellen seynd die thier quae Gange fluvio Indiae nas- die | sye bild oder statuas cuntur et in mare veniunt et heissen \ hond zwen | arm\ rostrum habent delfini et die also starck seind daz caudam habent sedicim cubit- sie die helffant | bekiim- orum longitudinis. Hiis vo- mern so die in daz wasser cant, brachia bina habentes komen vnnd | brechen inen quibus tanta inest fortitudo, die nasz abe. Vsz dem ut elefantes in equam in- selben buch. | Perea ist trantes infestent et eis ein thier im more von dem promuscidas abrumpant.^ gslecht | der snecke Es ist fast gele vnd grosz\ in im | selb ist es be- kleidt mit einer golt faren hut | vnd die fast kostlich schynet dauon macht | man zierung der kleidern vnd schleyern.

Albertus' citing of Pliny is maintained in this entry of the Herbary as is his approach in presenting the material.

®Albertus, o j d . cit., p. 1542. The Physiologus, then, is like an entry in the Herbary which is taken from Vincent, Bartholomaeus, or Albertus.

It is one source among several in medieval zoology as incor­ porated by the encyclopedists who created the context for

transmitting the bestiary material. The connection between

the Physiologus citations in the Herbary and the "de-moral-

ized" Physiologus versions (those without moral homilies) is yet to be explained. At some point in history and for some unknown reason, the characteristics of the Physiologus-- biblical citations, allegory, and moralizing— vanished.

Perry notes that the eleventh century saw the appearance of the Physiologus versions without the introductory Bible references and with amended allegories. These versions also introduced etymological theories and other natural g histories, with the result being a bestiary compiled from

the Physiologus, Pliny, Solinus, and Isidore. James ob­ serves this phenomenon in the manuscripts of the twelfth century, which are the most likely versions to have in­

fluenced the Herbary. The Physiologus1 popularity, as

Goldstaub suggests, caused it to be subsumed in medieval

zoological works and, consequently, to lose its homiletic

9 Perry, op. cit., col. 1113.

^James, 0 £. cit., p. 14. 113

11 aspects. The Physiologus, as a portion of an encyclo­ pedia article which has been appropriated for the Herbary, must now be scrutinized.

The Herbary's Reception of the Physiologus

The chapter in the Herbary on the nepa furnishes an example of how the Physiologus' material was received into the Herbary. The nepa is described as a female among snakes which decapitates the male during copulation. The nepa herself dies in birth, like the vipera, because the young gnaw through her belly. Her death gives birth to 1 2 the young. No background or explanation is given in the

Herbary for including this entry on the nepa. Thus, it appears that the Physiologus is the source for this ency­ clopedia article and is included because of its bizarre nature. The same observation applies to all Physiologus citations in the Herbary. Whether under the authority of an intermediary or under the Physiologus itself, the bestiary material is undistorted. The Physiologus, Isidore,

11 Goldstaub, op. cit., p. 350ff. 1 2 This last statement could well point to an allegor­ ical interpretation, but there is no way to know how it was understood. Certainly many of the passages cited in the Herbary may have been read allegorically, but finding parallels in art and literature of these allegories can only lead to speculation and not to solid conclusions. Actor and numerous other sources are cited in the Herbary as authorities of equal significance. And, although Vincen distinguishes "catholic," i.e., Christian, from pagan authors, including the Physiologus, the Herbary omits this difference and gives equal weight to all. What singles out certain authorities is the frequency of citation and their importance within the bestiary tradition. The outstanding significance of the Physiologus itself and of its normative value for the bestiary genre, as well as the authoritative position of the Physiologus in the Herbary, has been shown earlier in this study. Still, the Physiologus seems to be only one of several noteworthy authorities cited in the

Herbary. One must recall, however, that the authorita­ tiveness of the Physiologus and other sources is not fully intentional, as might seem, because Priiss restored some references and deleted others in the Herbary. Authors' names, titles of books, and chapter references were often omitted. Scholarly precision was not so important as was a general sense of authority which pervades the Herbary in its scholastic approach to medieval animal science. As

Nissen so tersely puts it: "Lange noch [12/13th centuries] bleibt man einer philologischen Stubengelehrsamkeit ver- 1 3 haftet . . . ." What saves the authoritative citations

1 3 Claus Nissen, Die illustrierten Vogelbiicher (Stutt­ gart: Hierseman, 1953), p. 23. 115 in the Herbary, including those of the Physiologus, from being mere repetitions of collected excerpts is the way in which they are used in the Herbary.

But, unless there is some other factor in the Herbary that connects the encyclopedic entries, the Physiologus, for all its importance, remains an isolated source. Since

Priiss included material which is neither practical nor medical, he must have intended that other structural aspects be operative in the Herbary. Discovery of these aspects would provide a fuller understanding of the Herbary and, thus, of the Physiologus1 influence.

The Journey Metaphor

Priiss' printing of the Herbary indicates that he saw a market and hence readers interested in the miscellaneous contents of his herbal. But who would be interested in such a work; and, as pertinent to the problem of the

Physiologus' influence on the Herbary, why were readers of the sixteenth century interested in this compilation? The following account from Bernhard Breydenbach's Peregrinatio ad terram sanctam may help answer this question.

Am 14. Tag kamen wir noch tiefer in die Wtiste, wo man weder Mensch noch Vieh noch Vogel fin- det, denn allein den Vogel Struss. Endlich kamen wir in ein Gebirge. Von dem hochsten Felsen sahen wir zur linken Hand den Berg Gottes Horeb und Sinai und zur rechten das Rote Meer, wohin es noch vier Tagesreisen war. 116

Auch sahen wir ein grosses Tier, das viel gros­ ser als ein Kamelthier ist. Unser Geleitsmann sagt uns, dass es ein Einhorn ware.^

This passage reveals Breydenbach's interest in the fabulous

as do the depictions of seven animals seen on his journey:

scraffa (giraffe), crocodile, goats of India (caprea),

camel, unicorn, salamander, and a simian creature without

name. Two salient features of his account are the journey

itself and the artistic presentation of the sights.

Breydenbach's trip to the Holy Land in 1483 returns the

reader to the atmosphere of medieval pilgrimages.

The journey metaphor, one of the most beloved of the

Middle Ages, does explain the seeming incongruity of the

fabulous with the medical and the delightful with the prac­

tical. Much like Breydenbach' s Peregrinatio, Priiss'

Herbary allows his readers to travel via the means of the

descriptions through a fabulous landscape filled with all 1 5 kinds of creatures. James noted that the medieval

bestiary would not have been so popular without its pic­

tures, since presenting the exotic in word and picture

14 Bernhard Breydenbach, Die Reise ins Heilige Land. Ubertragung und Nachwort von Elisabeth Geek (Wiesbaden, 1961), p. 34. Bernhard Breydenbach has been proposed as a possible author of the Hortus Sanitatis. 1 5 The reader is allowed to travel not only to unknown geographical places but also to realms of strange and eso­ teric knowledge imparted through the creatures. 117

1 6 better satisfied the readers' curiosity.

The journey metaphor is the vehicle which presents the Physiologus and other material in the Herbary. An awareness of this device helps explain the juxtaposition of disparate elements such as the bestiary material, medicine, natural history, and the curious and wonderful.

Consequently, the description of each creature provides a new sight for the journeying reader.

One creature seen on this journey through the

Herbary (1509), the formica major, is particularly interest­ ing because of the source of information. The chapter in the Herbary (2,64) on the formice maiores cites as a source

Johannes de Manda villa, the famous medieval traveler.

Mandeville's account of the formice maiores tells how men trick these creatures and steal their hoards of gold.

Their method involves placing baskets on a mare newly de­ livered of a colt and letting her graze until she comes to the ants' mounds. These giant ants, unable to tolerate anything being empty, fill the baskets with gold. Then the 1 7 men retrieve the mare by showing her the colt.

^James, The Bestiary, p. 1. 1 7 The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (N. Y.: Dover Publications, Inc., 1964), p. 199. 118

This tale of the formica maior is an ancient one found 18 in Pliny and Aelian. Vincent’s Speculum contains iden­ tical material cited under Physiologus (21,134), but Priiss has omitted the Physiologus and drawn upon the Itinerarium 19 which he printed in 1484. Not only does this extract from Mandeville support the idea that the journey metaphor is operative in the Herbary, but it also substantiates the idea that Priiss tried to incorporate the wonderful and exotic within the Herbary from still another book about the unusual and foreign. Priiss used Mandeville again in the entry on grippes (Herbary, 3,56 - nV):

0 0 I Der corper eins grossen greiffens ist gros | ser dann acht lewen in disen landen: wan so|. er ein rindt \ ochsen \ pferd oder mentschen | auch gewapnet ertotet\ hebt er jn vff vnd | treyt jn dohyn mit vollem flugk. Des ne | gel seint gleich des ochsen hornern \ vsz de | nen man drinckgeschiirr macht \ die man fast | achtet. Vnd von den federen seiner fettigen | macht man starcke bogen \ pfeyle \ vnd glenen.

Vincent's Speculum (17,90) does not have such an entry and the source for the griffin material is Mandeville's

Itinerarium.^

18 Seel, op. cit., p. 81, note 91. 19 Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century Now in the British Museum. Pts. 1-8 (London, 1963) , Litho. Reprint, pp. 118-130. 20 The Bodley Version of Mandeville's Travels, ed. M. C. Seymour, (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 96, 98. 119

In the closing paragraph of the Itinerarium, Mandeville says:

Et ego, Iohannes de Maundeuille supradictus, qui discessi de istis partibus et mare trans- iui anno gracie m.ccc.xxii. et multas terras et regiones adiui cum bono comitatu, multis probitatibus virorum strenuroum et actibus militaribus presens interfui[quamuis indig- nus]; et iam ad quietem perueni quasi in- uitus propter certas causes vrgentes. Ista redigi in scriptis prout ad memoriam recur- rebant anno gracie millesimo ccc.lvi., vide­ licet tricesimo quarto anno postquam recessi a partibus istis, scilicet Anglie, iter ar- ripiendo.21

It is probable that the enterprising Prtiss saw in the

Itinerarium another reason for producing the Herbary. That is, for the journey through his "Garden of Health," Priiss added to the practical and medical aspects those of the exotic and picturesque. He used Mandeville's idea of en­ during hardship by entertaining the patient and by provid­ ing medical knowledge. The fiction and purpose of the journey are found in the dedication appended to the pre­ face (bV) of the Herbary (1507): UNu far hyn jn alle land du edler vnd| schSner gart der gesuntheit. Du ergStz | ung dgr bediirftigen. Ein trost hoffnung | vnd zufersycht der krancken. Der dein(e ntitz\dein lob/dein friicht vssprechen mo | ge\ lebt nyemen. Ich danck dir schopffer | hymels vnd erderen\ der den kreiiteren\| vnd andern creaturen jnn disem garten | begryffen: kraft geben hast\ das du mir|

21 Mandeville's Travels, pp. 144-146. 120

soliche gnad: disen schatz \ der byszher der | gemeind begraben vnd verborget ist ge | wesen hast vergynnet an das liecht tze/| bringcn. Dir sey eer vnd lobe yetzunt*' | vnd zu cwigen zeitten. Amen.

Although Priiss merely translates Schoffer's preface, his purpose is to comfort and cheer the reader as well; for the Herbary is to act as "ein trost hoffnung vnd zufersycht der krancken." In addition to the medical knowledge, the treasure consists of descriptions and artistic presenta­ tions in the woodcuts. A few of the descriptions exemplify how the fictitious journey appeals to a variety of inter­ ests. Thus, the Herbary (3,27) includes an episode which depicts the stork quite differently from the mild and chaste bird described in Isidore (liijjv ) :

Do nun der recht | man vff die weyd vnd nar- ung hynflogeX | kam dick e.ln frernder man vnd beschysz dem | sin fraw. Aber als bald wusch die sich in ] eim bronnen \ vnd thet also ab das laster | des eebruchs \ vnd betrog yren rechten man. | Disz geschicht nam der herr des huses dick [ war \ vnd verhindert sie ein male nach dem | eebruch \ das sie sich nit weschen kunt bey | dem bronnen. Nit lang dar- nach kamm der | recht man von der weyd \ vnd erfand an sy | nem weib das laster des ee­ bruchs: vnd namm | sich des ein weyl nit an\ vnd kamm am an/ | dern tag wider \ bracht ein grosser schar der | storcken mit jm. die das weyb zerrisscnt.|

The moral purpose of this extract is obvious: punishment of adultery among birds as an example for the reader.

Evidently Unkeuschheit and the lack thereof were problems

for Priiss' readers since the index of cures often treats 121 22 these "ailments" with various potions and applications.

A second sight seen on this journey is recaptured in the chapter on the dragon (Herbary 2,4 8 - diijV) :

Petrus Damianus sagt | von eynem ackermann \ der stond eins tags fr8 | vff vnd sahe eyn grossen drachen \ meint er | es wer ein holtz vnd also miide sasz er vff | jn zerugen do ertzurnct das thier vnd ver | schlandt in alsbald. |

This episode is an example of humor in an animal story, a quality rare in the Herbary and absent in the Physiologus.

A last example of the scenes on the journey is the chapter on the coruus or rap, which is presented with a touch of local color (Herbary 3,34 - mV ):

Der rapp ist von natur geneygt zerauben \ | als die erfarung zu Erdfurt gelert hat. | Do ein zamer huszrapp von eim tisch do | allzeyt gelt lage\ in ein garten der nahe do [ by was vnder ein stein bey. v. oder vj. gul | den in ytel groschen verbor- gen hett.[

These examples, of an almost narrative character, touch upon three favorite themes of animal stories: the moral (didactic), the humorous, and the clever. Similar examples of episodic presentation are located in the chapters on the barliates (tree goose), halcyon, elephant.

Priiss thought that material of this' nature would fascinate his readers and fill their recuperative days with pleasure.

22 See entries under gazelle, badger, duck, egg, and sparrow for aphrodisiacs. 122

Their pleasant journey would take them to the imaginative

realm of the unusual and exotic and, in so doing, would

lessen the burden of the days. This fictitious journey

serves basically the same function as literature, e.g.,

Hartman von Aue's "swae re stunde senfter machen" in Der

Arme Heinrich. Thus, pleasance is added to practicality

in the composition of the Herbary.

In the preface to the Herbary (1509), Priiss claims

that he will turn his mind toward a book of animals, fish,

sea-wonders, jewels, and "andern wundersamen natiirlichen dingen." It is the concept of wundersam and of wunder which seems to be an element peculiar to the Herbary (1509).

Although the Physiologus may have arisen from wondering at

God's creatures, its somber attitude may not be charac­

terized as one of pleasant wonder but of awe in the presence of hierophany. Although nature in the Herbary

(1509) is acknowledged as a wonder of God, nature does not serve as a vehicle for dogmatic revelation. Delight in the wonders of nature pervades the Herbary whose creatures are objects of wonder because of bizarre or amusing appearances or habits. All three areas of creation— land, air, water— provide copious examples of the wonderful. A prime example of the delight in the wonders of nature is the loligo:

Herbary (4,51 - Ciijr):

Loligo ist ein | wunderthier an dem man achtet das | die natur gespielt vnd 123

geschympfft | habe \ den an der hut ist er schieppig vnd | mit den scharen der fisch ers8cht er die tief ✓ | fe des mores So er aber der wasser vr / | driitzig wiirt \ so hebt er sich vff mit sey ✓ | nen gefuderten flugel \ die im die natur| geben hat vnnd mit den vogeln fliiget | er in die liifft darumb das er nit mag lyden | die bloszt der winde N iiber kiirtze so in die j wind triben \ wiirt er gezwungen wider in | die wasser zu gan vnd fait hinab an dem| grunde.

Another example of wunderthier is the zydrach, which has a horse's head, a dragon's body, a long tail, and scales.

Other examples of similar creatures are: the ahuna, cephos, crocodile, sea unicorn (monoceron), onocentaur, pistris, dolphin, scilla, equonilus, tortuc a , uacca marina, zitiron, and thinnus.

The category of wundersam also includes creatures which are admired because of a single wonderful trait: the panthion for "wonderliche zier syner natur"; pegasus for "wonderbare flucht"; the tiger for "wonderbarliche behendigkeit vnd tugenden"; and the zydrach for "behend- ikeit."

Finally, there are creatures in both the Physiologus and Herbary which are described as having an extraordinary characteristic. In the Physiologus the phrase used is nimis plus an adjective: e.g., antelope— nimis acerrimum; pelican— nimis amator; panther (Versio B)— nimis mansue- tum; caprea— nimis de longe praeuidens; perdix— nimis 124

fraudulentum. Or sometimes prae with an ablative of com­

parison expresses the extraordinary: e.g., ibis— pre

omnibus uolatilibus; fulica— pre omnibus prudens. These

superlatives are also found in the Herbary, and many crea­

tures vie for the epithet vast: lupus— "vast reubig vnd beschissen"; zyphius— "vast forchtlich vnd aller thier gslecht vnglich." Each chapter on the above creatures is

part of the compendium for Priiss' journey. The Physiologus, of course, provides material for Priiss1 readers, who enjoy

the wonderful and exotic. Their interest is also rewarded by the artistic presentation of the wundersam in the wood­ cuts .

The woodcuts accompanying each entry in the Herbary

(1509) are borrowed from Meydenbach's edition of the 22 Hortus Sanitatis of 1491. These illustrations bear little resemblance to those of the Physiologus Bernensis or to those of an expanded Physiologus version as shown in White's

Book of Beasts. Their purpose in the Herbary is not to demonstrate the moral teaching of a verbal passage but to provide a pictorial complement for the passage. The intent and design of the illustrators of the Physiologus and

Herbary, therefore, are quite different. The Herbary's

22 The First Printers and Their Books, compiled by Elizabeth Morgan and Edwin Wolf, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1940), p. 20. 125

illustrations increase the appeal and artistic value of

each scene. Only the skeleton found on the verso of the

Herbary1s title page with the superscription "homo natus de muliere brevi vivens tempori" echoes the memento mori motif found in the Physiologus. This somber note fits the

Herbary as a medical book with its many diseases and re­ medies, although its somberness is not developed thematical­

ly but rather becomes noticeable from the volume of ail­ ments .

As shown below, a comparison of representative wood­ cuts in Priiss' Herbary (1509) with those of the Hortus

Sanitatis (1491) reveals that a significant number of

Figure 7: Hortus Sanitatis (piiij ) cephos and centrocuta 126 woodcuts is different. Most apparent is the frequent addi­ tion or modification of background. Usually this is done by adding just a line or two against which the creature is displayed such as in Figure 8 (cephos and centrocuta) into which Priiss has introduced a background of hills and a castle or house.

Figure 8: Herbary (1509 - diijr) cephos and centrocuta 127

The same procedure of adding background is evident in the woodcuts from the chapter on the regulus or basiliscus:

Figure 9: Hortus Sanitatis ( siijr) "De Animalibus" regulus

In contrast the woodcut from the Herbary contains several noteworthy changes such as the addition of background and a serpentine tongue (see Figure 10). 128

Figure 10: Herbary (1509 - hiiijV) regulus

Priiss has made dramatic changes in the woodcut depicting the cetus or whale. The Hortus Sanitatis shows a fish of a non-descript appearance and Meydenbach actually placed the woodcut in a vertical position with only a few lines for the background of waves (see Figure 11). 129

Figure 11: Hortus Sanitatis ( aaiij ) cetus

The woodcut in Priiss' Herbary, however, has changed the

appearance of the whale to make it consonant with its aggressive and monstrous reputation. The background of waves and of the ship which it is atcacking provides a narrative view of the whale's appearance and behavior as well as of the journey motif (see Figure 12). 130

Figure 12: Herbary (1509 - Aiiijr) cetus

Infrequently there is a minor reversal of Priiss' changes in

the background of the woodcuts. The chapter on the perdix

indicates that Priiss sometimes removed an item from the background of a woodcut. This occurrence, however, is sel­ dom and does not substantially detract from the effect of

using the background for the journey through the bestiary of the Herbary (see Figures 13 and 14). 131

Figure 13: Hortus Sanitatis (T v ) perdix

Figure 14: Herbary (oiiijr) perdix 132 Priiss' attention to background suggests a concern with land­

scape and natural surroundings. Such details attract the

reader as he leafs through the collection of creatures. In­

deed, the arm-chair journey via these descriptions is simi­

lar to the sights of an actual journey, and this visual as­

pect of the Herbary corroborates Priiss1 use of the journey

as a textual device.

The aspects of a journey in the Herbary (1509) suggest

that Priiss intended to print a text which was more than an

encyclopedia. "Medical handbook" is, moreover, not a com­

prehensive enough term to describe the Hortus Sanitatis

or Herbary. The multi-faceted nature of the Herbary (1509)

causes the reader to realize that a work which appears to be

a handbook or medical text actually has a form capable of

transmitting the useful, the curious, the exotic, and the amusing. The lexical arrangement of creatures is really a panoramic collection of das Wunderbare encountered on

the fictional journey which leads to the ancients and the east, the sources of all auctoritas in the Middle Ages.

Priiss' Herbary (1509) admits the reader to an imaginary world, born to a great extent out of the Physiologus and the bestiary tradition. Only when evaluated within the . complex fabric of the Herbary can the Physiologus1 influ­ ence be ascertained. But as the present chapter of this study has shown, the Physiologus * contents have been in­ corporated into a work which is natural history, bestiary, 133 encyclopedia, medical text, and an imaginary journey. For the Herbary1s fictitious journey, the Physiologus, and, in its expanded form, the bestiary, occupy a signal position.

The Physiologus1 religious frame of reference has disap­ peared and the significance of the creatures has been trans­ lated into the Herbary1s human, worldly perspective. But within this translation the influential hermeneutic trait of the Physiologus must be acknowledged. In its encyclope­ dic context the Physiologus * hermeneutic is operative in the animal treatises of Priiss' Herbary. Specifically, in the literal sense of the word, the "biblical" approach of the

Physiologus has infused the development of medieval animal science as embodied in the Herbary of 1509. In fact, the

Herbary represents a venture into the nature ($\)o\f) of the world's creatures by means of the word (Xoyof) of the cited authorities; and it is this organizing principle, ex­ pressed in the authoritative phrase "Physiologus dicit," which the Physiologus has imparted to Priiss' Herbary of

1509. SUMMARY

The purpose of this study has been to discover the

Physiologus' influence upon the bestiary treatises in Priiss'

Herbary of 1509. Comparative analysis of the two texts has established the influence of the bestiary upon the content of the Herbary as attested by verified Physiologus1 passages in the Herbary. In fact, almost the entire canon of Physiolo­ gus creatures in Versio B or Y has been incorporated into the Herbary under the authority of the Physiologus or under that of an intermediary source. Although there were several instances in which material ascribed to the Physiologus was not found in any major bestiary version, the ascription it­ self must be viewed as proof of the Physiologus1 popularity and authority for the Herbary. When compared with the total number of creatures in the Herbary, the sum of creatures de­ rived from the Physiologus is small, and yet the fact remains that a specific quantitative influence has been proven. The exact extent of the quantity is not so clear because the

Physiologus was subsumed into later bestiaries and encyclo­ pedias and,consequently, more material in the Herbary may actually have originated in expanded Physiologus versions than is obvious. Indeed, the quantitative influence of the

Physiologus upon the Herbary is probably greater than has

134 135 has been shown.

As this study has also determined, the works of

Bartholomaeus Anglicus, Albertus Magnus, and Vincent of

Beauvais were the primary sources of the bestiary treatises in the Hortus Sanitatis (1491) and Herbary (1509). And, whereas previous scholarship has only speculated about the significance of Vincent of Beauvais for the Hortus Sanitatis and Herbary, this study has produced conclusive evidence that the Speculum Naturale is the major source of animal science and the immediate transmitter of the Physiologus material for these herbals. Since Thomas a Cantimprd was

Vincent's source and since the line of transmission would lead to Thomas' sources, this study did not attempt to trace beyond Thomas but did establish the path of trans­ mission from Thomas to Vincent to Meydenbach to Priiss. In the line of transmission there is, unfortunately, no evi­ dence that a specific version of the Physiologus was con­ sulted for the animal treatises in the Herbary. The proba­ bility of Versio B or H is suggested by the material from the Aviarium (avianus or ex aviario) as cited in the

Herbary's chapter on miluus. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the Aviarium and Versio H contain material of Versio B, it is difficult to isolate one version as the single source of Physiologus material. At any rate, the Physiologus which is cited in the Herbary was in all likelihood a

"Second Family" text. Further investigation of the expan- 137

Physiologus and Herbary itself. Thus, the qualitative in­ fluence of the Physiologus is defined by the hermeneutic of authority in the bestiary tradition. The Hortus

Sanitatis and Herbary represent a last phase in the de­ velopment of the bestiary material and serve as instances in which the authority and popularity of the Physiologus influenced the 15th and 16th century herbals. The Herbary calls upon the authority of the bestiary for its scholastic journey to the world of the exotic and, in so doing, re­ flects the Physiologus1 fabulous view of the animal world.

Medieval thought often relied heavily upon authority and the Herbary is a concrete instance of how the authority of the Physiologus was acknowledged in 16th century animal science. Finally, the importance of the bestiary for ani­ mal science as substantiated in this study of the Herbary indicates that further investigation of the Physiologus' significance for later versions of the Gart der Gesundheit and other herbals must now be made. The above examination of the bestiary in Priiss1 Herbary may be a first chapter in the history of the Physiologus1 influence upon late medie­ val and subsequent herbal science. APPENDIX A

138 139

The following appendix contains passages from

the Herbary with verified citations of the Physiologus.

Juxtaposed with the Herbary passage is an excerpt from a

particular version of the Physiologus which treats the

creature described in the Herbary. The similarity of

the two passages is usually obvious.

ASP

Herbarv (biiir) Physiologus (Versio H2, 30)

Phisiologus. Aspis so die Seps, tabficus serpens etiam ein menschen | byszt\so de genere aspidum est, qui verzert sie jn als bald si momorderit hominem, eum das er gantz \weich wiirt statim consumit, ita ut in dem mund der schlangen. liquefiat totus in ore serpentis.

CENTROCUTA

Herbary (diij ) Physiologus (Versio H3, 7)

Phisiologus. Cen/ | ipsa asin.i magnitudine, trocuta ist eyn thier das cervi clunibus, pectore ac all ander uber/| trifft\ cruribus leonis, capite hat ein leyb wie ein ese l\ equi, bisulca ungula, ore auch syne brust vnd beyn usque ad nares dehiscente, eim louwen glych\ hat oyn| dentium locis osse perpetuo. schlund bisz z8 den oren Haec quidem quoad formam, vffgeschlitzt\ vnd folget nam voce loquentium hominum nach des menschen stimm. sonos aenulatur. 140

Herbary (fjjjr) Physiologus (Versio B1)

Phisiologus. Der lew gadt ambulat in montibus, et si ger f ne durch die hohen contigerLt ut quaeratur a berg \ vnd wan er von [ den uenatoribus, uenit ei odor iegern gesQcht wirt\ merckt uenatoris; et cauda sua er ir ord/f nung vnd ver- cooperit post tergum ues- deckt seyn fusztrit mit demf tigia sua quocumque ierit, schv/antz \ vf f daz die ieger ut non secutus uenator per in dadurch nit \ mBgen spuren uestigia eius inueniat cubile noch nachkomen... eius et capiat eum cum Phisiologus. Der leuwen leaena peperit catulum, frucht ent/Jhaltet bisz generat eum mortuum, et cus- vff den dritten tag vnd todit eum tribus diebus; donee synt dot. | wan die leuwen ueniens pater eius die tertia, synt gantz hitziger natur\| insufflat in faciem eius das bewert ir adel vnd et uiuificat eum. stercke mit kienheit \ vnd zorn. Aber die iunge frucht hat fiich \ tigkeit von der temperierung des geschlechts | welche truckner complexion ist\ vnd wiirt| von der hitz schlymig\ vnd allermeist im \ hirn herschet die diirre \ vnd dem thier mit | wiircker der lufft oder geyst\darumb so die j kley- nen ederlin im verstopfft werden\so| mag die lufft n^t hynin komen die krefftenj zu irer wiirckung zebewegen. Darumm so \ schryen ir eltern by der iungen frucht\vndj geben inen d8rn in ^en mundt oren vnd \schweiszlocher des haubtes\also der ingonj de lufft macht die frucht sich bewegen.

NEPA

Herbary ([gjjjjv]) Physiologus (Versio Y,12)

Hepa ist eyn slang. Si autem masculus habeat Phisiolo. | Nepa wellen eum femina, effundet semen in etlich daz es eyn | w^^blin os femine, et si biberit sey vnder den schlan// gen semen eius, precidet femina 141

welche in der stund der necessaria masculi (hoc est vn | keiischeit\hitz vnd virilia), et moritur masculus; begirlicheit J dem menlin cum autem creuerint fi.lii irs gslechts den kopff eius in utero matris sue, ab bysset j vnd dStet es\ non habens ilia sinum unde vnd darumm stirbt sie auch pariatur, tunc filii adaperiunt in j der geburt. Nepa ist latus matris suae, et exeunt eben die schlang die | man occidentes matrem. nennet Vipera\ als die mit not vnd macht geburt \ wan so sie nahe an der ge | geburt ist\ so zernagen die iungen der m8 | ter biich\ vnnd komen also her- fgr\durchl den tod jrer muter.

SERRA

Herbary (Diiijv) Physiologus (Versio B4)

Phisiolo. Serra ein mSr- Est belua in mari dicitur thier\hat grosz federn so serra, pennas habens inmanes. es mit denen sicht im Haec, cum uiderit in pelago mor ( ein schiff dorther . nauem uelificantem, eleuat segeln richtet es sein fe^j pennas suas et contendit dern vff vnd vnderstat uelificare cum naue. Ubi z8 schiffen vnnd | faren uero currerit contra nauem mit dem schiff So es stadiis triginta uel quadra- aber gelaufft 1 etwan. xxx ginta, laborem non sustinens, oder xl. milen gelyt es anj deficit; et, deponens pennas, der arbeit vnd zucht die ad se attrahit eas; undae federn v/ider an 1 sich vnd uero maris iam lassam repor- laszt also dauon darumm tant earn ad pristinum locum so bringen | sie das schiff suum in profundum. sg es von dem m8r mied ist zu j seiner ersten stat in die tieffe.

SYRENA

Herbary (DiiijV) Physiologus (Versio B12)

Phisi. Die syrenen sindj Physiologus disseruit: t§tl iche thier bisz an sirenae (inquit) animalia den nabel menschen j gestalt sunt mortifera; quae a capite haben\aber do uon an usque ad umbilicum figuram 142

bisz zu den j fiessen hat hominis habent; extrema uero es die figur des fisches\ pars usque ad pedes uolatilis vnd flujget\sye singen habent figuram; et mus.icum ein siesz gesang also das quoddam ac dulcissimum mel- sye 1 die menschen die odiae carmen canunt, ita ut solichs von ferren h8ren| per suauitatem uocis auditus zQ in§n bringen vnd mit hominum a longe nauigantium dem zu vil siessen | langen mulceant et ad se trahant, gesang fassen vnd fahen ac nimia suauitate modula- sye ir syn [ ne vnd oren\ tionis prolixae aures ac vnd bringen die darzQ das| sensus eorum delinientes in sye schlaffen\ dann so sye somnum uertunt. Tunc deinde, sehen das die am J allor cum uiderint eos grauissimo schwerist schlaffen durch somno sopitos, inuadunt eos ihr dorheit j betrogen \ et dilaniant carnes eorum, gondt sye die ane. Vnnd ac sic persuasionis uocis zer/j rissen ir fleisch.J ignaros et insipientes homines decipiunt et mortificant sibi.

CALADRIUS

Herbary (iijjjr) Physiologus (Versio B5)

Isido.J Caladrius ist Est uolatile quod dicitur vnrein nach dem ge/|satz. caladrius: de hoc scriptum HSyne Wurckung [ UPhisio. est in Deuteronomis: Non sagt das es ein gantz v;e.is- manducandum [Deut. 14.18]. ser vo|gel sey: des inwen- Physiologus dicit de hoc quia diger kot heylet die dun/| totus albus est, nullam partem kelen augen\ vnd wiirt an habens nigram; cuius interior der fursten h8ff ge|funden. fimus curat caliginem oculorum. Durch den erkennet man an Istud in atriis regum inuenitur. einem | krancken\ob er Si quis autem est in aegritu- stiirbt oder nit. '.Vann soj dine constitutus, per hunc der kranck sterben soll\ caladrium cognoscitur si uiuat so keret der vogel sinj an moriatur: si ergo est in- angesycht von im. Ist formitas hominis ad mortem, er aber nit vff dem j dot mox ut uiderit infirmum, auer- kranck\so sycht er den tit faciem suam caladrius ab krancken an\ vnd j nimpt eo, et recedit, et omnes' cog- an sich alle sein kranck- noscunt quia moriturus est; si heit\vnd zer \ theylet autem infirmitas eius non per- die im lufft fliegende\ tingit ad mortem, intendit vnd wiirt der|scich gesundt\ faciem eius caladrius, et as- auch stiirbt der vogel dickj sum.it omnes infirmitates eius daruon, intra se, et uolat in aera solis, et comburit infirmitates eius, et disporgit cas, et sanatur infirmus. 143

UIPERA

Herbary (i ilj.j ) Physiologus (Versio Y12)

Phijsiologus. Uipera hat Physiologus dicit de uipera ein menschlich anigesycht quoniam faciem habet hominis bisz vff den nabel: aber masculus, femina autem von dem na'( bel bisz an mulieris usque ad umbilicum, den schwantz hat er eins ab umbilico autem usque ad coco// drils yestalt. caudam corcodrilli habet Vnd darumb nach gewon figuram . . . heit der andern schlan- gen mag sie nit en|pfahen dan allein durch den mundt.

FULICA

Herbary (m iiijv) Physiologus (Versio B22)

Phisiolo. Fulijca ist Est uolatile quod dicitur ein vast klQger vnd wevser fulica, satis intelligibile vogel: er j yszt keyn schel- et prudentissimum super m e n \ v n d bleibt an einer omnia uolatilia. Cadauer- stat I bisz an sein ende\ ibus non uescitur, non aliun­ vnd do samlet er sin spyszI de alibi peruolans atque vnd ruwet. Item fulica ist oberrans, sed in uno loco ein vogel gQter | sittenX commoratur et permanet schwartz/ gleich einer enter\ usque in finem, et ibi dann dazj er kleyner ist. escam suam habet, et ibi Er wont mit grossem lust| requiescit . . . an den wassern vnd weveren\ er laszt sich belnSgen mit der speisz vnd rQgen: dauon weicht I er nit.

IBIS

Herbary (niijv) Physiologus (Versio B14)

Phisio. Der vogel ibis . . . morticinis cadauer- wandelt allweg | am staden\ ibus semper uescitur et ein schelmen sQchende der iuxta littora maria, uel yetz | von dem wasser fluminum, uel stagnorum, vszgeworffen sey: dann die noctuque ambulat, quaerens er | flucht die tieffen aut rnortuos pisciculos aut hohen vnd reynen v/asser aliquod cadauer, quod ab 144

do die reyne fisch wonend\ aqua iam putridum uel mar- wann er kan n i t ( schwimmen\ cidum eiectum fuerit foras. vnd fleyszt sich nit daz Nam in aquam ingredi timet, zelernen. quia natare nescit; nec dat operam ut discat, dura mortuis cadaueribus delec- tatur. Ideo non potest in altitudincm aquae ingredi, ubi mundi pisciculi demo- rantur, ut inde sibi capiat cibum; sed semper foris oberrans circuit, refugiens puriores et altissimas aquas, unde possit mundus uiuere.

PERDIX

Herbary (oiiijr) Physiologus (Versio B25/Y31)

Phisiolo. Das rephQn Phisiologus dicit satis verliirt | sein ever\ aber astutam esse perdicem, quae sein gewonheit ist der aliena oua diripiat, hoc ver'|lornen eyern schaden est perdicis alterius, et zewiderkeren mit anjdern corpore foueat; sed fraudis eyern dohyn zetragen. suae fructum habere non posse, quia cum duxerit pullos alienos, amittit 6 0 S • • •

STRUTIO

Herbary (pjjjr) Physi ologus (Versio B27)

Phisio. Der strusz \ allein habet quidam pennas sed non mit seinem gesicht erquicket uolat sicut caeterae aues; sein eyer | im sand verbor- pedes uero habet similes gen\ vff das von inen die| camelo, et ideo graece structo iungen an den tag komen. cameleon dicitur. Hoc ergo Diser vogel vn|der alien animal, cum uenerit tempus andern vogeln hat allein suum ut oua pariat, eleuat zwo J gespalten zehen in der oculos suos in caelum et gstalt der wider kla|wen\ uidet si Stella ilia quae also daz er von der hole dicitur Uirgilia ascendit seins fBsz vnden | als von . . . fodit in terra et ibi einer schlencken die stein ponit oua sua et cooperit ea vszwiirfft vff die menschen. de sabulone in eremo . . . 145

Sye sagen auch das er I mit et ideo tempore aestatis eim aug die hymel ansene generat oua et obruit ilia vnnd mit |dem andern das de arena ut, quod ilia ertrich. factura essct, sodens super oua sua et ex fetu suo, eduxeret pullos suos,

VULTURE

Herbarv (piijV) Physiologus(Versio Y 32)

Phisio. Der gyer sitzet anj Physiologus dixit de uulture einer hohon stat\ dann er quoniam in excelsis et in altis wurt verhindert\ in dem inuenietur locis. vffstigen von der erden\ vnd stigt / allein in die aller hSchst ort das er miig I in das land sehe.

Henkel, op.cit., Footnote 103,p.199. Henkel notes a variant description of the ostrich which matches the passage in the Herbarv. There is no Phvsiologus version containing such a description, but Konrad von Wurzburg and Albertus Magnus do present this material on the ostrich. APPENDIX B

146 147

Appendix B contains a listing of each chapter in

the animal treatises of the Herbary with a collation of

the immediate sources used by Meydenbach and Priiss. Column

I gives the chapter reference from the Herbary and column II

states the name(s) of the creature (s). An asterisk in

column three indicates that the source was not found (only

9 of 392 chapters v/ere not located). A "V" is an instance

of Vincent's Speculum having been used, an "Al" of Albertus

Magnus' Liber de natura animalium, and a "B" of Bartholomaeus

Anglicus' De proprietatibus. Finally, column four is en­

titled "variation" and notes changes made by Priiss in the

Herbary. Particularly significant are changes in citing

the Physiologus. This last column also points out omissions

of authorities'names from a passage, here indicated by the

name in quotation marks, whereas omission of an entire passage

is so noted. Additions by Priiss are likewise cited. In

this manner Appendix B represents in tabular form the changes which Priiss made in editing and translating the animal treatises

of the Hortus Sanitatis.as he compiled the sources for his

Herbary of 1509. 148

APPENDIX OF COMPOSITE SOURCES

HERBARY

I II III IV Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

1 homo V29,6 source not totally found

2 agnus V19,3-4 A1 22,2,1,88

3 aries #

4 aper V10,5-6 omits Phys. passage

5 asinus V10,10-14

6 ahanc, alches V20,2

7 anabula, antaplon, V20,3 aucacinor

8 afferato, affudio V21,18

9 anfibena, armena V21 ,19

10 aspis V21,20-21 omits Phys. passage

11 aranea V21,112-117 omits Phys. passage

12 blacte bisantie * (vngula aromatica)

13 bonnacon V19, 4

14 bos V19,15-20

15 bombix V21,119

16 borax, batracha V21,56

17 bufo V21,57 149

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

18 bubalus, bisontes V19,21

19 bruchus V 2 1 , 1 20

20 bupreste V21,121

21 bubione, blata V21 ,118

22 capra V19,27-31

23 caprea V19,32

24 canis V20,10-27 omits two Phys. ref­ erences

25 Cattus, cathaplepa V20, 33; A 22,2,1,24

26 caccus V20,5

27 camelus V19,22-26

28 cameleon V20,6-8

29 camelopardus V20,9

30 capreolus *

31 castor V20,28-32

32 chama A1 ,22,2,1,

33 calopur A1 ,22,2,1,

34 ceruus V19,34-43

35 ceruleus V21,124

36 cecula, celidros, V21,26 c^nchrus

37 cerastes V21,27

38 cephos, centrocota V20,34

39 cirogrillus V20,35 "Actor" omitted Name of Creature Source Variation

cicade V21,125

41 cirotrochea A1 ,22,2,1 ,31

42 critetus A1,22,2,1,30

43 coluber V 21,28

44 cocodrillus V18,106-107

45 cuniculus V19,44

46 damma A 1 ,22,2,1,33

47 damula B34, p. 1052

48 draco V21,29-32

49 draconcopedes V21,33

50 daxus A 1 ,22,2,1,35

51 dipsa V21,34 omits Phys. passage

52 dromeda

53 duran V20,36

54 equus V19,47-56

55 elephas V20,37-52 omits 3 Phys. passages

56 enchires V20,53

57 enidros enitra V20,54

58 erinacius, ermineus V20,55

59 edus V1 9,46

60 emorrois, enidros, V21,35 Actor pas­ excedra sage omitted

61 engula, eruca V21 ,130 151

Name of Creature Source Variation

falena, fiber V20,56

formica V21,131-133 omits Phys, from Vincent

formice maiores V21,134 omits Phys. passage

65 furus, fSrunculus V20,57

66 gala, geneta V 2 0 ,58

67 gamaleon V 2 1 ,58

68 gazelle *

69 glandosa, gnatrix V 2 1 ,136

70 grillus, gurgulio V21 ,137

71 heritius V20,59-60

72 hiena V20,62 omits Ch. 61 from Vincent

73 histrix V 20,63

74 hircus V19 # 57-58

75 hynnulus B57, pp. 1075-76

76 iaculus, ipnalis V21,37

77 ianus, inachlin V20,64

78 lacertus V21,55

79 lamia, lauzamum V20,65

80 leo V20,66-75

leopardus V2G,76

leontophonos, V 2 0 ,77 leucrocuat 152 hapter Name of Creature Source Variation

83 lepus V19,61 ,63 omits ch. 6 2 with Phys. mat­ erial

84 leuiathan V21,38

85 lanificus, limax V21,138

86 linx V20,79-80

87 locusta V20,81; V21, 139-43

88 lupus V20,82-88 omits ch. 84 with Phys. ref­ erence

89 luther V20,89

90 lumbricus V21 ,144

91 luchaonem, lintiscus V20,78

92 maricomorion A 1 ,22,2,1 ,73

93 mustela V20,133-135 omits Phys. passage

94 mamonetos, manticora V20,90

95 marcatus A 1 ,22,2,1,81

96 melo, melosus, V20,91 monoceros

97 migale V20,132

98 mulus V19,65,68 omits Phys. passage in ch. 6 5 and omits chs. 66 and 67

99 mus V20,126-130

100 musquelibet, muscus V20,93 153

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

101 musio V20,92

102 multipes V21 ,145

103 nepa V21,39 Actor and Isidore omitted

104 neomon A 1 ,22,2,1,82

105 onager V20,94-96

106 orafflus A 1 ,22,2,1,87

107 onocenthaurus, orasius V20,97 in Albertus: orafflus

108 orix V20,98 CM O 0 O — 109 panthera 1 omits Phys. reference

110 papro A1 ,22,2,1,94 "papio”

111 panthion A1 ,22,2,1,95 "pathyo"

113 pilosus, pirolus V20,102

114 pegasus A1 ,22,2,1,92

115 pigargus B83, p. 1102 "Bartholo- maeus" omitted

116 pigmei B84, p. 1102

117 poledrus #

118 pulex V21,152

119 pediculus V21,151

120 porcus V19,78-83 omits Phys. passage CM o 121 prester, pader, parias >

122 rana V2-1,59-61 154

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

123 rangifer A 1 ,22,2,1,98 V20,103

124 rattus, sorex V20,136 "Actor" omitted

125 regulus V21 ,41

126 rinocephalus, rino V20,104 ceron

127 rutela V21,154

128 rubetum V21,62

129 salamandra V21,63-64

130 saura, stellio V21,65-66

131 sanguisuga V21,155 omits med­ ical mat­ erial from 156

132 scrabrones V21,157

133 salpiga, scitalis, V21,42 seps

134 situla, spuens, V21,43 sirena

135 simia V20,106-108 omits Phys. passage

136 scorpio V21 ,160-165

137 seta V21,166

138 spoliator, stella, V21 ,168 colubri

139 talpa V20,137-139

140 thaurus V19,87-91

141 tarandrus V20,109 155

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

142 taxus V20,110-111 "Isidore" not in Vincent, omits Phys.

143 tragelaphus, V20,113 tragodita

144 teredo B104, p. 1120

145 tinea B103, pp. 1119 -1120

146 tyrus V21,45-47 omits Phys. passage

147 tygris V20,112

148 tortuca V21,44

149 trogodice A1 ,22,2,1,104 "Albertus" omitted

150 uacca V10,92-94

151 ueruex V19,95

152 uesontes A 1 ,22,2,1,108

153 uitulus V19,96-98

154 uipera V21,48-53

155 unicornus, Varius V20,114

156 uro V20,115

157 ursus V20,116-120

158 uncia V20,114

159 uulpis V20,121-123 omits Phys. passage

160 ybex V1 9,59

161 ychneumon, ypotamus V20,124

162 Ydra V 2 1 ,54 omits Phys. 156

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

163 zubro V20,125

164 zilio A1,22,2,1,11

Von den vogelen

1 aquila V17,32-37

2 achacus, aurifrigius V17,39

3 achantis V17,22

4 accipiter V17,19-21

5 aeriophilon V17,23

6 agochiles, alauda V17,24

7 alietus V17,25 "Actor" omitted

8 altion V17,26

9 anas V17,27-28

10 anaser V17,29-31

11 ardeola, ardea, azida, azalon V17,38

12 apis V21,77-111

13 basiliscus V21,22-24 omits Phys.

14 barliata, berneca V17,40

15 bistarda, bonosa V17 ,41

16 bubo V17,42

17 buteus, butorius, V17,42[43] botaurus

18 bibiones, blata V21 ,118

19 cantarides * 157

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

20 carbates (barliates) A1,23 un.19

21 caladrius, calandris V17,43[44]

22 capo, caprilmulgus V17,45

23 carduelus V17,46

24 carabdrion, carista V17,46

25 ceruus volans V21,124

26 cicade V21,125

27 ciconia V17,47-48, A 1 ,23,24

28 cignus V17,49,50 omits Phys.

29 cinomulgus V17,51

30 cinomia V21,129 14 lines omitted from .1491 Hortus Sanitatis

31 cicendula V21,126

32 columba V17,53-59 omits Phys. passage

33 coredulus, cornix V17,60

34 coruus V17,61 section on rap not in Vincent

35 coturnix V17,64

36 cocix V17,52

37 crochilos V17,65 13 lines from Al- bertus in Hortus San­ itatis omitted 158

Name of Creature Source Variation

corinta A1, 23,29 "cornica"

39 cuculus V17 ,67

40 cubeth V17 ,66

41 culex V21 ,127-128

42 diomedas V17 ,68

43 draycha A1, 23 un 1,38 "daryatha"

44 egithus V17 f 69

45 f alco V17 ,70-71, A1, 23 un 23,106

46 jl 'sianus V17 ,72

47 fatator V17 ,73

48 fenix V17 ,74

49 filomena V17 ,75

50 fulica V17 ,76

51 fucus B53

1

1 O 00 'J -J oo _ 52 gallus V17 I—1 1

53 gallina V17 ,82-36

54 gallinacius V17 ,79a

55 graculus, garrulus V17 ,89

56 grippes V17 , 90 A1 ,23,24,46

57 griotenderon A1 ,23 un 24,47 00 r" 58 girfalco, gosturdo V17

59 grus V17 ,91-93 oo 00 60 gluta V17 Name of Creature Source

harpia V17,94

62 hirundo V17,97-99

63 herodius V17,95

64 ibis V17,96

65 ibos A 1 ,23 un 24,58

66 ispida A 1 ,23 un 24,61

67 kiches, koky V 1 7 ,100

68 kynius, karbolus A1 ,23,62,63

69 lagus, lucidius V17,101

70 lagepus A 1 ,23 un 24,70

71 linachos V17,103

72 luscinia V1 7,102

73 magnales A 1 ,23 un 72

74 merula V17,107

75 mergus V17,105

merillus, meropes V17,106

melancorisus, mor A1 ,23 un 24, 73-74 160

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

78 mennonides, meauce A1, 23 un 24, merustiones 75, 77

79 miluus V17 ,108 omits one sentence of Jorath from Hortus Sanitatis, "Avianus" for "Avia- rio" in Vincent

80 monedula, muscicapa V17 ,109

81 musca V21 ,147-148 "Actor" omitted

82 nicedula V17 , 110

83 nisus V17 ,112

84 nocticorax V17 ,111

85 nepas A1, 23 un 24,85

86 onocroculus V17 ,113

87 opimachus V21 ,149

88 oriolus, ortigomatra V17 ,115

89 osyna, ossifragus V1 7 ,116

90 othus V17 ,117

91 ova ft

92 passer V17 ,120-121 omits Phys.

93 pauo V17 ,112-125 omits 1 Phys. pass­ age

94 palumbus V17 ,118-119

95 platea, pluvialis V17 ,133

96 papiliones V21 ,150 161

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

97 pellicanus V17,127 "Actor" omitted

98 perdix V17,128“130 "Isidore" reference not in Vincent

99 pica V17,131

100 picus V17,132

101 piralis V21,153

102 psitacus V17,135

103 porphirio V17,134

104 regulus V17,136

105 scrabrones V 2 1 ,157

106 scarabei V 2 1 ,157 varies greatly with Hor­ tus Sani- tatis

107 scinifes V21,159, A 1 ,22,94

108 strix, selentides A 1 ,23 un 24,103 strophilos V17,137

109 strutio V17,138-139 omits part of Vincent Phys., source for Rasz. quote unknown

110 strutio camelo, V17 ,140 sturnus

111 tarda, tragopa V17,141

112 turdela, turdo V17,142 162

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

113 turtur V17,14 3-144 omits Phys. from Vin­ cent

114 uanellus V17,145 omits buch der natur

115 vespertilio V17,146 omits Vincent's reference to the Law

116 uespa V21,175-179

117 ulula V17,147

118 upupa V17,148

119 uultur V1 7,149-153 omits 1 Phys. passage

120 xyon *

121 ybos V17,154

122 zelentides A1,23 un 24, "zelen 114 cides"

Von den fischen

1 abremon, achandes, V18,29 alphoram, accipen- der, Albirem

2 anguilla V18,31

3 alec V18,30

4 araneos V18,32

5 aspidochelon, V18,33 no Phys. aurata reference in Hortus Sanitatis but in Vincent 163 lapter Name of Creature Source Variation

6 alphoram A 1 ,24 un 4

7 asturam A 1 ,24 un 5

8 aureum vellus A 1 ,24 un 8

9 afferus, astralus, A 1 ,24 un 9, arbucium, amnis, 11,12,13, 14 ahaniger

10 abides A 1 ,24 un 16

11 ahuna A 1 ,24 un 17

12 barchora A 1,24 un 19

13 borbotha, botha, V18,35 brenna

14 balena V18,34

15 babilonicus, belue A 1 ,24 un 22

16 cancer V18,36-39 Isidore quote not in Vincent

17 caab, canis marinus V18,103

18 caucius, capitatus, V18,40 carpera

19 cetus V18,41-43

20 celethy, ceruleo V18,104

21 chilon, circos V18,105

22 conche V18,44

23 cochlee V18,45

24 conger, corem, V18,46 coruus marinus

25 cocodrillus V18,106-108

26 draco marinus V18,114 164

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

27 delphin V18,109-113

28 dentrix dies V18,47, A1,24 un 42

29 erachoides, exo- A 1 ,24 un 50-52 chinus, eritius

30 elchus, exposita A 1 ,24 un 47

31 eceola V18,48

32 equus marinus V18,115

33 effimerion, escarus V18,52

34 estinis A1,24 un 48

35 eriox, erox A 1 ,24 un 49,49a

36 ethenay, echini V18,49-51

37 ezox V18,53

38 felchus, foca, V18 ,11 6 large omis­ galat sion from Hortus Sani- tatus

39 fastalean, fasten, V18,54 f icis

40 gardus, gladius, V18,55 galucus

41 gobius, granus V18,56 "Actor" omitted

42 gamanem, gonger A 1 ,24 un 55,59

43 hamius, hyrundo V18,57

44 icinus marinus V18,58 omits Vincent 59

45 kalaos, karkora, V18,60 kilock 165

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

46 karabo, kylone V18,117

47 koky V18,118

48 leo marinus V18,61

49 lepus marinus V18,61-62

50 leuiathan, ludola- V18,119) chra ) same entry ) in 51 loligo V18,119) Vincent

52 locusta marina V18,63

53 lucius V18,64

54 lupus marinus V18,65

55 megar, milagius, V18,66 miluus

56 mugilus V18,67 Pliny not in Hortus Sanitatis

57 mus marinus V18,74

58 murix V18,73

59 murena V18,71-72

60 multipes V18,68

61 mulus V18,69-70

62 monachus marinus V18,120

63 narcos, nautilos, V18,75 nubes

64 nereides, orcha V18,121

65 orbis V18,76

66 ostrea V18,76-77 166

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

67 pagrus, pauus,pec- VI8,78 tine, perca

68 plataniste, perna AT,24 un 99

69 pistris A1 ,24 un 98

70 pinna, plais V18,79

71 porcus marinus V18,80

72 polippus V18,123-126

73 pungitiuus V18,81

74 purpura V18,82

75 rayte, raha V18,84

76 rana marinus V18,85

77 rumbus V18,86

78 rubus, ryache A1,24 un 102

79 salmo, salpa V18,87

80 sparus, staurus A1,25 un 114,116

81 sepia V18,89-90

82 serra, scilla V18,127

83 syrena V18,129

84 spinachia, squatina V18,94

85 Solaris, solea V18,93

86 scolopendra, scorpio V18,88

87 spongia, scuamis, A1,24 un 106 santhi

88 stoncus, stincus V18,128

89 sturio V18,95, A1,24 un 105 167

Chapter Name of Creature Source Variation

90 Stella V18,95

91 sfungia V18,91-92

92 teucha, titimallus V18,96

93 trebius, tructa V18,97

94 testeum A 1 ,24 un 125

95 testudo A 1 ,25 un 123

96 tigruis A 1 ,24 un 124

97 thinnus V18,132-133

98 tortuca V18,134

99 uacca, vitulus ^16,135 marinus

100 uerit, verich, V18,98 vipera, vmbra

101 uergiliales A 1 ,24 un 134

102 uranoscopus, V18,99 vrtica, vulpes marine

103 ypotamus V18,136-137

104 zedrosus V18,138

105 zitiron V18,139

106 zifius A 1 ,24 un 139 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, Pauline. "The Animal History of Albertus Magnus and Thomas of Cantimpre." Speculum, XXII (1947), 205-225.

Albertus Magnus. De Animalibus Libri XXVI (Nach der Coiner Urschrift). ed. Hermann Stadler. Vol. 16 of Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters.

Ambrose, Saint. Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. Translated by J. J. Savage. New York, 1961. Vol. 42 of The Fathers of the Church, 3-283.

Arber, Agnes. Herbals, Their Origin and Evolution, 1470- 1670. Cambridge: The University Press, 1912. Re­ print, 1953.

"Ars Dictamini," The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967 Vol. 1.

Bartholomaeus Anglicus. Liber de proprietatibus rerum. Strassburg, 1505.

Bay, J. Christian. "Hortus Sanitatis." Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. XI (1917), 57-60.

"Bestiaires," Encyclopasdia Universalis. 1968. Vol. III.

"Bestiary," Encyclopedia Britannica. 1972. Vol. III.

"Bestiary," Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. 1965.

Blankenberg, Wera von. Heilige und damonische Tiere. Leipzig: Koehler and Amelang, 1943.

The Bodley Version of Mandeville1s Travels. ed. M. C. Seymour. New York: Oxford University Press, 196 3.

The Book of Beasts. Translated and edited by T. H. White. New York: Putnam, 1954.

168 169

Bolgar, R. R. The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries. London: Cambridge University Press, 1954 (Harper edition 1964).

de Boor, Helmut. Die deutsche Literatur, I. 7th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966.

Breydenbach, Bernhard von. Die Reise ins Heilige Land. Ubertragung und Nachwort von Elizabeth Geek. Wiesbaden: G. Pressler, 1961.

Brunner-Traut, Emma. "Altagyptische Mythen im Physiologus." Antaios 10 (1968), 184-198.

Carmody, Francis. "Bestiary." New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. Vol. II.

______. "De Bestiis et aliis rebus and the Latin Physiologus." Speculum, XVIII (1938), 153-159.

______. "Physiologus." New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. Vol. XI.

______. "Quotations in the Latin Physiologus from Latin Bibles Earlier than the Vulgate." Univer­ sity of California Publications in Classical Philology, XIII, No. 1 (1944), 1-8.

Carus, J. Victor. Geschichte der Zoologie. Vol. XII of Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Deutschland. Munich, 1872.

Castiglioni, Arturo. A History of Medicine. Translated by E. B. Krumbhaar. 2nd ed. revised and enlarged. New York: Knopf, 1947.

___ . L'Orto della Sanita. Bologna: Librerie Riunite, 1935.

Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century now in the British Museum. Parts I-VIII. Lithographic Reprint. London, 19 63.

Choulant, Johann Ludwig. Graphische Incunabeln fur Natur- geschichte und Medizin. Leipzig: R. Weigel, 1858. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg 01ms Verlag, 1963.

_ . Handbuch der Bucherkunde fur die altere Medizin. Leipzig: L. Voss, 1841. Re­ print, 1912. 170

Cirlot, J. E. A Dictionary of Symbols. Translated from the Spanish by Jack Sage. New York: Philosophical Library, 1962.

Cronin, Grover, Jr. "The Bestiary and the Medieval Mind— Some Complexities." MLQ, II (1941), 191-198.

Crook, A. H. "The Early Herbal and the Study of Pharma­ cology. " Hong Kong Naturalist, V (1934), 112-116.

"Johann von Cuba." Biographisches Lexlkon der hervor- ragenden Aerzte aller Zeiten und Volker. 1885, Vol. II.

Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Translated by Willard R. Task. New York: Pantheon Books, 19 53. Harper Edition, 1963.

Dawson, Warren R. "Studies in Medical History: (a) The Origin of the Herbal." Aegyptus 10 (1929), 47-57.

Dolezal, Helmut. "Johann von Cube." Neue Deutsche Bio- graphie. 1957. Vol. III.

Druce, George C. "The Mediaeval Bestiaries, and their influence on Ecclesiastical Decorative Art." Journal of the British Archeological Association. Vol. 25, N.S. 1919, 41-82.

Duff, E. Gordon. Early Printed Books. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893.

Ehrismann, Gustav. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur bis zum Ausgang des M ittelalters. Vol. 11,1. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966.

Eis, Gerhard. "Mittelalterliche Fachprosa der Artes." Deutsche Philologie im AufriB. Vol. 2,2. Oberar- beitete Auflage. ed. Wolfgang Stammler. Berlin: E. Schmidt, 1966.

The First Printers and their Books. Compiled by Elizabeth Morgan and Edwin Wolf, II. The Free Library of Philadelphia, 1940.

Fischer, Hermann. Mittelalterliche Pflanzenkunde. Munich: Verlag der Miinchener Drucke, 1929. 171

Freeman, Margaret B. Herbs for the medieval household and divers uses. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1943. Renewed 1971.

Garrison, F. H. "Herbals and Bestiaries." Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. VII, No. 12 (1931), 891-904.

______. An Introduction to the History of Medi­ cine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1929.

Gart der Gesuntheit. See Herbary of 1509.

Glendinning, Robert J. A Critical Study of the Old High German Physiologus and its Influence. (Master's Thesis). University of Manitoba, 1959.

Goldstaub, Max. "Der Physiologus und seine Weiterbildung, besonders in der lateinischen und in der byzantinischen Literatur." Philologus, Suppl. VIII (1899-1901), 339-404.

Hain, Luovicus. P.epertorium Bibliographicum in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum M D . Milan: Gorlich, 1948.

Hammerich, L. L. "Physiologus." Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon. Vol. Ill Berlin: De Gruyter, 1943.

Heider, Gustav. "Physiologus nach einer Handschrift des XI. Jahrhunderts." Archiv fur Kunde Osterreichischer Geschichtsguellen." V(1850), 541-582. Unveranderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe 1850 - 1965.

Henkel, Nikolaus. Studien zum Physiologus im Mittelalter. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1976.

Herbary oder Gart der Gesuntheit. Two volumes. Printed by Johannes Prtiss. Strassburg, 1507-1509.

Hommel, Fritz. "Zu den Quellen der altesten Krauterbucher." Festschrift fur Alexander Tschirch zu seinem 70. Ge- burtstag. Leipzig: Tau.chnitz, 1926.

Hortus Sanitatis. Printed by Jakob Meydenbach. Mainz,1491.

Hugo of St. Victor (Pseudo). "De bestiis et aliis rebus." Patrologia Latina, CLXXVII, Paris, 1879. 172

Incunabula in American Libraries. edited by Margaret B. Stillwell. New York: Bibliographical Society of America, 1940.

Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi. Etymologiarum sive Originum. edited by W. M. Lindsay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. Reprint, 1971.

James, Montague Rhodes. The Bestiary. Oxford, 1928.

______. "The Bestiary." History, New Series, XVI, No. 61, April 1931, 1-11.

Jessen, Karl F. W. Botanik der Gegenwart und Vorzeit in Culturhistorischer Entwickelung. Leipzig, 1864. Reprint, 19 48.

Klebs, Arnold C. "Introduction." in Karl Becher's A Catalogue of Early Herbals, Mostly from the Well- Known Library of Dr. Karl Becher. Bulletin XII. Lugano: L'Art Ancien, 1925.

. :Incunabula Lists." The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. XI (1917), 75-92; XII, 41-57.

. Incunabula Scientifica et Medica. Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1963.

Kolloff, Eduard. "Die sagenhafte und symbolische Thierge- schichte des Mittelalters." in Historisches Taschen- buch. ed. Friedrich von Raumer. 4te Folge, 8ter. Jhrg. Leipzig, 1867.

Kroeber, Ludwig. " ' Krauterbiicher' in alter und neuer Zeit." Festschrift fur A lexander Tschirch. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1926.

Lauchert, Friedrich. Geschichte des Physiologus. Strassburg, 1889.

. "Zu Manns Recension meiner Geschichte des Physiologus." Englische Studien, XIV (1890), 296-297.

______. "Zur Eingliederung des 'Physiologus' in die altchristliche Literatur." Theologische Revue, XXX (1931), No. 9/10, cols. 405-417. 173

Lawrence, George H. M. "Herbals, Their History and Sig­ nificance." History of Botany (Two Papers Presented at a Symposium at William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, December 7, 1963). Published 1965

Lemoine, Michel. "L'oeuvre encyclopedique de Vincent de Beauvais." Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, IX, 3 (1966), 574-579.

> M

Manitius, Max. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters. Miinchen: C. H. Beck, 1911-1931.

Mann, M. F. "Die althochdeutschen Bearbeitungen des Physiologus." Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Vol. 11 (1886), 310-329.

______. "Recension --- F. Lauchert, Geschichte des Physiologus." Englische Studien, Vol. 14 (1890), 123, 127, 297-299.

______. "Zur Bibliographie des Physiologus." Anglia Beiblatt. Vol. X, No. IX (Jan.1900),274-287; Vol. XII, No. 1 (Jan. 1901),13-23; XIII (1902), 18-21.

McCulloch, Florence. Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,1962.

"Review of White's Book of Beasts." Speculum, XXX (1955), 694-696.

Menhardt, H. "Wanderungen des altesten Physiologus." Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum. Vol. 74 (1937), 37-38.

Mettler, Cecilia. History of Medicine. Philadelphia: Blakiston Co., 1947.

Michaud-Quantin, Pierre. "Les petites encyclopedies du XIII siecle." Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, IX, 3 (1966), 580-595.

Milstatter Genesis und Physiologus Handschrift. Voll- standige Facsimileausgabe der Sammelhandschrift 6/19 des Geschichtsvereins fiir Klirnten im Karntner Landes- archiv. Klagenfurt: A. Kracher, 1967. 174

Morgan, Elke Boesherv. Studien zum spa tmit. tela Iter lichen Krauterbuch Gart dcx Gp.sun_clhc_ iX• Bin Beitray zur deutschen medizinischen Fachprosa des 15/16. Jahr- hundcrts. Dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1977.

Nissen, Claus. Die botanische Buchi1lustration. Band I: Geschichte. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1951.

______. Die illustrierten Vogelbiicher . Stuttgart: Hiersernann, 1953.

______. Die zoologische Buchi1lustration. Band I. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1969.

______. Herbals of Five Centuries. Zurich: L'Art ancien, 1958.

Payne, J. F. "Old Herbals: German and Italian." The Magazine of Art. VIII (1885), 362-368.

______. "On the 1Herbarius' and 'Hortus Sanitatis'." Transactions of the Bibliographical Society. Vol. VI, part 2 (1900-1902), 63-126.

Perry, B. E. "Physiologus." Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclo- padie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung. Vol. XX. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1941.

Peterson, Erik. "Die Spiritualitat des griechischen Physiologus." Fruhkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Rom: Herder, 1959.

Physiologus (German). Der altdeutsche Physiologus. Die Miilstatter Reimfassung und die Wiener Prosa. ed. Friedrich Maurer. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1967.

Physiologus (Greek). edited by Francesco Sbordone. Milan, 1936.

Physiologus Bernensis. Voll-Faksimile-Ausgabe des Codex Bongarsianus 318 der Burgerbibliothek Bern. Basel: Alkuin, 1964.

* Physiologus Latinus (Editions preliminaires Versio B). edited by Francis J. Carmody. Paris: E. Droz, 1939.

Physiol ogus Latinus Versio Y. edited by Francis J. Carmody, in University of California Publications in Classical Philology, Vol. 12, No. 7 (1941), 95-134. 175

Physiologus Sancti Patrls Nostri Eplphanii, Episcopi Con­ stant:! a o Cypri, ad Physiologum. edited by Ponce de Leon. Antwerp, 1588 (printed by Christopher Plantinus).

Physiologus (Theobaldi) in Patrologia Latina. CLXXI, cols. 1217-1224.

Physiologus, A Metrical Bestiary of Tv/elve Chapters by Bishop Theobald. Translated by Alan W. Rendell. London, 192 8.

"Der altere und jungere Physiologus." Denkmaler deutschcr Prosa des 13.. und 12. Jahrhunclcrts. edited by Friedrich Wilhelm. Abteilung A: Text, 1914. Ab- teilung B: Kommentar. Munich, 1916-1918. Reprint, 1960.

Physiologus. Translated from the Greek and other languages by Francis J. Carmody. San Francisco: The Book Club of California, 1953.

Der Physiologus. (Jbertragen und erlautert von Otto Seel. 2te Auflage. Stuttgart: Artemis, 1967.

"Physiologus." Der grosse Brockhaus. Neubearbeitete 16. Auflage. 1956. Vol. IX.

"Physiologus." Encyclopedia Britannica. 11th ed. 1911. Vol. 21.

"Physiologus." The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Pinney, Roy. The Animals in the Bible. Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1964.

Pritzel, Georg August. "Meister Johann Wonnecke von Caub." Botanische Zeitung. 4. Jahrgang (1846), 46. Stuck, 785-790.

Thesaurus Literaturae Botanicae. Lipsia: Brockhaus, 1854.

Reed, Howard S. A Short History of the Plant Sciences Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Co., 1942.

Rose, William. "Introduction to 'Physiologus'." The Epic of the Beast. New York: Dutton, 1924. 176

Rowland, Beryl. A nimals with Human Faces . Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1973.

Sarton, George. Introduction to the History of Science. Vol. I, 1927; Vol. II, 19 31. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.

______. "The Scientific Literature transmitted through the Incunabula." Osiris 5 (1938), 41-245.

Sauser, E. "Physiologus." Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche. Vol. VIII. Freiburg: Herder, 1963.

Schmidtke, Dietrich. "Physiologus Theobaldi Deutsch." Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur. Band 89, Heft 2/3 (1968), 270-301.

Schreiber, W. L. "Die alten Krauterbucher." Zeitschrift fur Bucherfreunde, 8. Jhg. (1904/05), Heft 8, Ok- tober 1904, 29 7-311,39 3-405.

______. Die Krauterbucher des 15. und 16. Jahr- hundcrts. Miinchen: Verlag der Miinchener Drucke, 1924 .

Schuster, Julius. "Secreta Salernitana und der Gart der Gesundheit." Mittelalterliche Handschriften . . . Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstage von Hermann Degering. Leipzig, 1926.

The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation. New York: Harper and Brothers, n. d.

Shaffer, Ellen. The Garden of Health. Book Club of California, 1957.

Short-Titie Catalogue of Books Printed in the German- Speaking Countries and German Books Printed in Other Countries from 1455 to 1600 now in the Bri :ish Museum. London, 1962.

Singer, Charles. "Early Herbals." From Magic to Science. New York: Dover, 1958.

_ . "The Herbal in Antiquity and its Trans­ mission to Later Ages." Journal of Hellenic Studies. XLVII (1927), 1-52. 177

Stackmann, Karl. "Physiologus." Die deutsche Literatur des Mi ttelalters : Verf asser'lexikon , V (Nachtruge) . Berlin: De Gruyter, 1955.

Stadler, H. "Albertus Magnus, Thomas von Cantimpre und Vincenz von Beauvais." Natur und Kultur,IV(1904),86-90.

‘Stillwell, Margaret B. The Awakening Interest in Science during the First Century of Printing 1450-1550. New York: The Bibliographic Society of America, 19 70.

______. The Beginning of the World of Books 1450 to 1470. New York: The Bibliographic Society of America, 19 72.

Sudhoff, Karl'. "Johann von Wonnecke (Dronnecke) . Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, IV. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1953.

Taylor, Henry Osborn. The Medieval Mind, Vol. II. 4th ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. 2nd printing with revisions. New York: Macmillan, 1929.

The Travels of Sir John Mandeville. New York: Dover Publications, 1964

Vincentius Bellovacensis. Speculum Naturale. ca. 1481-86, Klebs 1036.1.

. Speculum Naturale, Vol. I of Speculum Quadruplex. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlaganstalt, 1964-65. Photomechanical reproduction of the 1624 edition: Dvaci, Ex officina Typographica B. Bellerie.

______. Speculum Naturale. R-Printer. ca. 1486.

Voigt, Ernst. "Uber Lauchert, Physiologus." Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie, Vol. 22 (1890), 236-242.

Vouilleme, Ernst. Die deutschen Drucker des fiinfzehnten Jahrhunderts. 2te Auflage. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1922. Reprint, 1971. 178

Wellmann, Max. "Der Physiologus eine religions-geschicht- lich-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung." Philologus, Supplementarband, XXII, Heft I (1930), 1-116.

White, Beatrice. "Medieval Animal Lore." Anglia: Zeit- schrift fur englische Philologie. Vol. 72, Heft 1 (1954), 21-30.

Woodruff, Helen. "The Physiologus of Bern." Art Bulletin, Vol. XII (1930), 226-253.