The Medieval Bestiary: Difference between revisions

From Cultures of the Book at Penn
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
This article will describe some digital humanities resources concerning the medieval bestiary.
This article will describe some digital humanities resources concerning the medieval bestiary.


== Section 1 ==
== The Medieval Bestiary: Animals in the Middle Ages ==


== Section 2 ==
== Section 2 ==

Revision as of 11:55, 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 Physiologus , each animal’s entry included things like etymological information, natural history, observations, habitats, and an often wildly inaccurate illuminations. 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. (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, 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.

This article will describe some digital humanities resources concerning the medieval bestiary.

The Medieval Bestiary: Animals in the Middle Ages

Section 2