Bestiaries, Latin
233) com-
ILYA DINES
National Library of Israel, Israel
he inluential literary genre of the medieval
Bestiary has its roots in the text entitled the
Physiologus. he Physiologus (he Natural-
ist) was written in Greek by an anonymous
author, probably in Alexandria in the third
century CE. Its text comprises chapters on var-
ious real and mythological animals and birds,
reptiles, and magic stones. he sources of this
compilation were various pre-Christian and
church authors, the Bible, and fables. Each
chapter includes quotations from the Bible
combined with descriptions of the zoological
and pseudo-zoological characteristics of the
animal, and also a moralization explaining
the animal’s characteristics in light of Chris-
tian doctrine. he Physiologus was designed
to employ the characteristics of animals and
other creatures to guide Christians with
moral lessons throughout their lives. he
Physiologus became popular, presumably
among the less educated, as is evident from
its rapid translation into several languages. By
the fourth or ith century the Physiologus was
translated into Latin, and toward the ninth
and tenth centuries it had spread throughout
western Europe. he original manuscripts
of the Latin Physiologus have not survived,
and the texts we currently possess exist in
four main versions, A, B, C, and Y, which
were made in the eighth to tenth centuries.
Version B was the basis for all western bes-
tiaries, whether they were written in Latin
or a vernacular language. he bestiary got its
name from the usual title of the B version –
Incipit liber Physiologus de natura animalium
vel avium seu bestiarum. he text of version
he Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature in Britain, Edited by Siân Echard and Robert Rouse.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118396957.wbemlb232
B (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS lat.
prises 36 chapters. By the twelth century the
Physiologus had reached England, and from
this period on the development of the bestiary
tradition took place mostly in that country.
SUBDIVISION INTO FAMILIES
he tradition of bestiary manuscripts was
irst described by the prominent English
scholar Montague Rhodes James, who in
1928 divided all illustrated bestiaries known
to him into four groups or “families” accord-
ing to their texts. As result we currently
possess about 70 manuscripts of so-called
BIs, H, Second, Transitional, hird and Fourth
families produced from the twelth to the
sixteenth century. According to various esti-
mations, this number represents about 20
percent of the total number of manuscripts
produced. In 1960, Florence McCulloch
divided James’s First Family into two subfam-
ilies, the B-Is and Transitional (McCulloch
1962). he next subdivision was undertaken
in 1985 by Brunsdon Yapp, who proposed a
subdivision of the Second Family into four
subfamilies. he most recent division, in
which the Transitional Family is subdivided
into four subfamilies, and in which it follows
Second Family, was proposed by me in 2007.
HISTORY OF TRANSFORMATIONS
BIs FAMILY
By the twelth century, version B of the
Latin Physiologus was transformed into a
proper bestiary by additions to the ends
of all chapters except seven excerpts from
book XII of the Etymologiae of sixth-century
archbishop of Seville and famous encyclopedist
2 BESTIARIES, LATIN
Isidore of Seville. It was named “B-Is” by
McCulloch to show the character of these
manuscripts as based on the order and text of
B, with Isidorian additions. his family is rep-
resented by manuscripts of both English and
French origin, which were produced from the
twelth to the iteenth century. hus far, the
logic of the chapter order has not been traced.
In the development of the bestiary from this
family onwards, one of the most noteworthy
processes was the gradual omission of scrip-
tural quotations and moralizations from the
bestiary chapters.
H FAMILY
he family is represented by manuscripts of
French and English origin. It has approxi-
mately 36 chapters which also depend on the
B version and have considerable BIs mate-
rial, but the additions are usually put at the
beginnings of the chapters. he family got its
name as the result of erroneous ascriptions,
beginning as early as the thirteenth century,
to the famous twelth-century Parisian the-
ologian Hugh of St. Victor. he date of origin
as well as provenance and authorship of the
H version are unknown; the earliest surviving
bestiaries with the full H text are all of French
origin and date to the thirteenth century. In
the manuscripts where they appear they are
usually preceded by an Aviarium (by Hugh
of Fouilloy, c. 1096–1172). Some scholars
suggest that the H Family originated indepen-
dently on the basis of the Physiologus B, prob-
ably in the twelth century. Others suggest,
rightly I think, that one of the H-type BIs bes-
tiaries was used as a source for the H Family.
SECOND FAMILY
he largest family consists of four subfami-
lies: IIA, IIB, IIC and IID. It is represented by
manuscripts of English, French, and German
origin. he main characteristics of this family
are: 1. he number of chapters comes to
about 115, mostly on account of additions
from Isidore and from the third-century
Latin grammarian and compiler Solinus;
the chapter order starts with Leo, Tigris, and
Pardus and follows Isidore to some extent.
2. Many bestiaries in this family contain at
the end Isidore’s On Trees and Plants, On
the Nature of Man, and On the Ages of Man.
he process of omission of moralizations
has reached its peak, especially in IIB. 3. An
anonymous sermon Quotienscumque peccator
is placed at the end of the chapter on dogs.
IIA (all manuscripts are of English ori-
gin) is characterized by Creation and Naming
cycles placed at the beginning of the bestiaries
and by many iconographical and textual sim-
ilarities. It also contains many chapters taken
from the Aviarium.
IIB represents the mainstream of the Sec-
ond Family and of the genre of bestiaries as a
whole. Most of the manuscripts are of English
origin, but there are several French and Ger-
man ones. Most lack Creation and Naming
scenes in the preface. Naming scenes, when
they are present, appear at the beginning of
the section on domestic animals.
IIC is represented by two bestiaries of
English origin. he manuscripts include sev-
eral Aviarium chapters, many additions from
the ninth-century archbishop and theolo-
gian Hrabanus Maurus’s De universo, from
the Topographia Hibernica by the famous
twelth-century author, Gerald of Wales, and
also from the thirteenth-century theologian
Garnerius de Rochefort.
IID has more birds than any other bestiary
except Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley
764 (IIC). It contains long interpolations
taken from various sources, including the
Pantheologus written by late twelth-century
author Peter of Cornwall, an Augustinian
canon at Holy Trinity, Aldgate in London.

TRANSITIONAL FAMILY
he manuscripts are much less homogeneous
than those of other families, but represent
four recessions. he manuscripts are of
English and French origin. he number
of chapters is about 110. he order of the
chapters follows that of BIs and H in the
irst 24–40 chapters (depending on the
manuscript), then follows Second Family
chapters, again BIs, etc. Some manuscripts
include excerpts from twelth-century the-
ologian Honorius Augustodonensis’s Imago
mundi book I.2, Isidore’s Etymologiae books
V, VII, XI, XIV, XVII, and the Cosmographia
of twelth-century Platonist philosopher
and poet Bernard Silvestris. he prefatory
material in some manuscripts includes text
taken from Genesis 1:1–31 and illustrations
of Creation scenes. An expanded text of
Quotienscumque peccator follows the section
on Adam naming the animals.
THIRD FAMILY
his family is represented by manuscripts
of English origin. he number of chapters is
about 160. he manuscripts difer from all
other bestiaries. hey start with the Isido-
rian text beginning Cum voluntas conditoris
(Etymologiae XI.iii) accompanied by pic-
tures of the Fabulous Nations, and proceed
to Adam naming the animals, and then to
the domestic animals. his section is fol-
lowed by chapters on wild beasts, birds, ish,
snakes and insects. he bestiaries end with
chapters on fabulous monsters. he core
of the material has been taken from IIB,
BIs, Isidore Etymologiae XII, and the writ-
ings of Church Fathers. he moralizations
are mostly diferent and have been derived
from Distinctiones theologicae, Numerale
and Versarius of the late twelth-century
chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral William de
BESTIARIES, LATIN 3
Montibus (1140–1213). Quotienscumque
peccator is absent. he iconographic program
is diferent than in any other manuscripts.
he manuscripts contain absolutely diferent
additional texts that appear at the end: Rota
fortunae, extracts from Pseudo-Seneca’s De
remediis fortuitorum, De septem mirabilibus
mundi, and extracts from the Policraticus,
a twelth-century text by John of Salis-
bury.
FOURTH FAMILY
his family is represented by a single manu-
script of English origin. It contains about
170 chapters. he text is based on IIB,
Isidore’s Etymologiae, and the text of the
thirteenth-century encyclopedia De pro-
prietatibus rerum by Bartholomew the
Englishman.
In addition to those just mentioned, there
are several abnormal bestiary manuscripts
that do not fall to any of the canonical
families.
ILLUSTRATIONS
More than 75 percent of bestiaries are illus-
trated or contain space let for illustrations.
In most of them the illustrations are simple
and were probably made by scribes. here
are only a handful of manuscripts which
are iconographical masterpieces, and which
were produced by extraordinarily talented
masters from important medieval ateliers.
hese examples give evidence of patronage
for the production of bestiaries. he illustra-
tions of many bestiaries look as though they
were copied or imitated from the illustrations
in another manuscript of the same family.
he contours of the illustrations in many
bestiaries were pricked for transferring the
images to other manuscripts.
4 BESTIARIES, LATIN
AUTHORSHIP
So far the authorship has not been deter-
mined either of the archetype of any family
or of any concrete manuscript. here is a
possibility that the archetype and some later
bestiaries of BIs were produced in southern
England, probably in Canterbury. he only
exception is the lost archetype and some
other manuscripts of the hird Family which
were most probably produced in Lincoln
diocese in the circle of William de Montibus,
and were intended to teach novices and
young monks in monasteries and cathedral
schools of the diocese. here is also some
evidence to suggest that a few Transitional
Family manuscripts were produced in the
same area of Lincoln diocese.
PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE
To some extent, every manuscript served its
own purpose. But overall, the genre of bes-
tiaries, similarly to the Physiologus, was one
of the main didactic tools used in cathedral
schools and monasteries all over England.
his conclusion is based on several factors,
particularly on the popularity of these books
in the monasteries and cathedrals. Accord-
ing to the surviving catalogues of medieval
libraries, most monasteries and cathedrals
had bestiaries in their collections, and the
contemporary and late medieval provenance
of the manuscripts, when available, points
mostly to those centers. he size and layout
of manuscripts it perfectly to the most usual
size and layout of medieval school books.
he various teaching aids included in some
bestiary manuscripts, such as illustrations,
glosses, rubrics, corrections, and mnemonic
verses, attest to their use in classrooms. A
inal argument in favor of monasteries as the
venue for bestiary production is the fact that
the era of bestiary production in England
ends with the dissolution of monasteries,
priories, and convents undertaken by Henry
VIII between 1536 and 1541.
INFLUENCE
he question about the inluence of bestiaries
as a genre on other genres is one of the most
diicult in the entire bestiaries ield. It seems
that bestiaries were a “closed” genre – that
is, they did not inluence other genres. Some
scholars have argued that various medieval
sermons and fables were written under the
strong inluence of bestiaries. However my
research has shown that these materials used
texts from Isidore’s Etymologiae or from the
Physiologus rather than from the bestiaries.
he same might be argued about various
medieval encyclopedias, and medical and
alchemical texts. he situation is very similar
in medieval art. Many Romanesque and
Gothic capitals, windows, textiles, and mis-
ericords show various bestiary motifs, but
in almost all cases, they are taken from the
Physiologus and not from bestiaries.
SEE ALSO: Exemplum; Gerald of Wales;
Glosses and Glossing; John of Salisbury;
Schools and Education
REFERENCES
James, Montague Rhodes. 1928. he Bestiary: A
Reproduction in Full of MS Ii. 4.26 in the Uni-
versity Library, Cambridge. Oxford: Roxburghe
Club.
McCulloch, Florence. 1962. Medieval Latin and
French Bestiaries. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.
Yapp, Brunsdon. 1985. “A New Look at English
Bestiaries.” Medium Ævum 54: 1–19.
FURTHER READING
Barber, Richard. 1993. Bestiary: Being an English
Version of Bodleian Library Oxford. MS Bodley

764 with All the Original Miniatures Reproduced
in Facsimile. Woodbridge: Boydell.
Baxter, Ronald. 1998. Bestiaries and heir Users in
the Middle Ages. Stroud: Sutton; London: Cour-
tauld Institute.
Bleskina, Olga. 2003. Bestiario de San Petersburgo.
Madrid: AyN Ediciones.
Clark, Willene Buckman. 1992. he Medieval Book
of Birds, Hugh of Fouilloy’s “Aviarium.” Bing-
hampton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early
Renaissance Studies.
Clark, Willene Buckman. 2006. A Medieval Book
of Beasts: he Second-Family Bestiary. Commen-
tary, Art, Text and Translation. Woodbridge:
Boydell.
Cullus, Fabienne. 1998. “Dragons, serpents et rep-
tiles dans un bestiaire manuscrit du XIVe siècle
(Brussels, BR MS 8327-42).” Unpublished thesis,
Université Catholique de Louvain.
De Hamel, Christopher. 2008. he Book of Beasts:
A Facsimile of MS. Bodley 764. Oxford: Bodleian
Library.
De Hamel Christopher, and Lucy Freeman Sandler,
eds. 2001. he Peterborough Bestiary. Luzern:
Faksimile Verlag Luzern.
Dines, Ilya. 2008. “A Critical Edition of the Bes-
tiaries of the hird Family.” Unpublished PhD
thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Dines, Ilya. 2013. “he Problem of the Transitional
Family of Bestiaries.” Reinardus: Yearbook of the
International Reynard Society: 29–52.
Dines. Ilya. Forthcoming. Westminster Bestiary:
Text and Commentary. Burgos: Siloé.
Hassig, Debra. 1995. Medieval Bestiaries: Text,
Image, Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
BESTIARIES, LATIN 5
Ives, Samuel A., and Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt.
1942. An English 13th-Century Bestiary: A New
Discovery in the Technique of Medieval Illumina-
tion. New York: H.P. Kraus.
James, Montague Rhodes. 1921. Peterborough
Psalter and Bestiary of the Fourteenth Century.
Oxford: Roxburghe Club.
Mann, Max Friedrich. 1888. “Der Bestiaire Divin
des Guillaume le Clerc.” Französische Studien 6
(2): 37–73.
Millar, Eric George. 1958. A hirteenth-Century
Bestiary in the Library of Alnwick Castle. Oxford:
Roxburghe Club.
Muratova, Xenia. 1984. he Medieval Bestiary.
Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Poirion, Daniel, and Xenia Muratova, et al. 1988.
Le Bestiaire. Paris: P. Lebaud.
Ponzi, Silvia. 1974. Il bestiario di Cambridge: il
manoscritto II, 4, 26 della Cambridge University
Library. Parma, Milano: F.M. Ricci.
Unterkircher, Franz, ed. 1982, 1986. Bestiarium:
Die Texte der Handschrit Ms. Ashmole 1511
der Bodleian Library Oxford in lateinischer und
deutscher Sprache. Graz: Adeva – Akademische
Druck- u.Verlagsanstalt.
Van den Abeele, Baudouin. 2000. “Un Bestiaire à
la croisée des genres: Le manuscrit Cambridge
UL MS Gg.6.5 (‘quatrième famille’ du Bestiaire
latin).” Reinardus 13: 215–36.
White, Terence Hector. 1954. he Book of Beasts,
Being a Translation from a Latin Bestiary of the
Twelth Century. London: Jonathan Cape.