The Medieval Bestiary: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In today’s globalized age, the internet grants access to a near infinite level of information. Yet in that vast wealth of knowledge, many people find themselves accessing it solely to look at cute animal pictures. This seemingly innate fascination with animals extends far back to the Middle Ages, wherein bestiaries were a popular genre. | In today’s globalized age, the internet grants access to a near infinite level of information. Yet in that vast wealth of knowledge, many people find themselves accessing it solely to look at cute animal pictures. This seemingly innate fascination with animals extends far back to the Middle Ages, wherein bestiaries were a popular genre. | ||
Simply put, a bestiary is a compendium of animals. In medieval bestiaries (many of which draw from the | Simply put, a bestiary is a compendium of animals. In medieval bestiaries (many of which draw from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiologus|Physiologus] , each animal’s entry included things like etymological information, natural history, observations, habitats, and an often wildly inaccurate illuminations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript). While somewhat analogous to a zoological encyclopedia, bestiaries were hardly scientific. Each description was usually a Christian allegory or comparison to guide the reader’s morality; nor was any of the information itself guaranteed to be true to reality. For example, as a puppy’s tongue can supposedly cure internal wounds, someone’s sins can be cleansed by a priest in confession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)#Christianity) . (Folio 19v, Aberdeen Bestiary. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/ms24/f19v). On top of this, there are many entries for mythological creatures, such as dragons, phoenixes, and jaculi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaculus) , which are listed alongside real animals as if to make their existence more credible. As for whether bestiaries were taken seriously by medieval people, there seems to be no consensus among scholars. |
Revision as of 11:47, 2 December 2020
In today’s globalized age, the internet grants access to a near infinite level of information. Yet in that vast wealth of knowledge, many people find themselves accessing it solely to look at cute animal pictures. This seemingly innate fascination with animals extends far back to the Middle Ages, wherein bestiaries were a popular genre.
Simply put, a bestiary is a compendium of animals. In medieval bestiaries (many of which draw from the [1] , each animal’s entry included things like etymological information, natural history, observations, habitats, and an often wildly inaccurate illuminations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript). While somewhat analogous to a zoological encyclopedia, bestiaries were hardly scientific. Each description was usually a Christian allegory or comparison to guide the reader’s morality; nor was any of the information itself guaranteed to be true to reality. For example, as a puppy’s tongue can supposedly cure internal wounds, someone’s sins can be cleansed by a priest in confession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)#Christianity) . (Folio 19v, Aberdeen Bestiary. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/ms24/f19v). On top of this, there are many entries for mythological creatures, such as dragons, phoenixes, and jaculi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaculus) , which are listed alongside real animals as if to make their existence more credible. As for whether bestiaries were taken seriously by medieval people, there seems to be no consensus among scholars.