[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The transmission of zoological knowledge and concepts from late antiquity to the Byzantine Middle Ages is a key topic for both historical Human-Animal Studies and for the history of science. This period not only witnessed extensive copying, editing, and adaptation of earlier works, which thereby found their way into medieval and modern archives, but also saw changing attitudes towards the kosmos and ancient (now labelled ‘pagan’) knowledge. This shift, accompanying the development of Christianity into the mainstream religion, lends special significance to this period.
While the social, political, and economic ‘transformations’ of late antiquity have been a topic of increased interest for some time already, scholarly attention is now turning towards the developments of ‘anthropozoological’ knowledge and concepts. One recent example is the 2019 volume edited by Ingo Schaaf (Animal Kingdom of Heaven) on the consolidation of Christian attitudes towards human-animal relations between the first century AD and the early Middle Ages.[1] In the 2020 Companion to Byzantine Science (edited by Stavros Lazaris), one of the editors of the present volume, Arnaud Zucker, discussed the necessity to explore further the development of zoological knowledge after antiquity. His remark that hitherto zoological writing in Byzantium has been considered rather unproductive and insignificant is reflected in the sparse documentation of the extant material in dictionaries and overviews of Byzantine literature.[2]
While previous research on the topic, such as the chapter in Herbert Hunger’s authoritative compendium, concentrated on the organization of the extant works and the identification of ancient source material, the present volume targets the processes of knowledge transmission as such (selection, adaptation, translation, reinterpretation).[3] A focus visible in all contributions concerns the epistemology of animal-related knowledge. Closely connected is the question of the scientific, pedagogical, but also social and political functions of zoological knowledge, and their effects on the choices of authors, copyists, and translators to preserve or discard source material.
As the editors emphasize, the volume is no systematic or all-encompassing study but a collection of case studies. The preface by Oliver Hellmann and Arnaud Zucker is brief and provides, apart from summaries of the contributions, few remarks on the organizational principles of the volume. Nonetheless, the careful selection of the articles speaks for itself, making the volume a useful panorama of the transmission of zoological knowledge. An aim common to many of the contributions is to go beyond the mere identification of ancient source material and beyond qualitative comparisons of zoology in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The focus is on the intellectual attitudes and interpretative goals that made specific elements of zoological knowledge authoritative and legitimate at a given time and place, thus defining the rules of selection, preservation, and dissemination.
The extent of legitimate zoological knowledge proves particularly problematic when considering the often fantastic accounts of animals such as those we find in the Physiologos tradition. Álvaro Pires points to the tensions between the claim to gain divine insight from the interpretation of observable natural phenomena (physiologia) and the inclusion of hybrid creatures such as the siren or hippocentaur. In contrast to the Physiologos’ standard version, Pires singles out the WO family (first recension), in which both creatures are explicitly described as fictional. For him, this approach reflects Alexandrian hermeneutics and Platonizing Biblical exegesis of the imperial period, in which fictional hybrids were instrumental to the interpretation of enigmatic motifs in authoritative texts. Pires is not the first to connect the Physiologos to Alexandrian hermeneutics, but with the discussion of the WO version he offers concrete evidence for a reading of the Physiologos that relied on fictionality as a means to create legitimate knowledge.
Another ‘classic’ of zoological literature is Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron. Diego De Brasi’s analysis focuses on Basil’s epistemology, i.e., how the late antique bishop re-functionalized and recontextualized elements from ancient (book) knowledge, thereby guaranteeing its relevance and further transmission. Important in the context of Christian zoology is the idea that Basil’s goal was not limited to moral exhortation, but also to provide instruction about nature as such, both relying on and reworking Aristotelian concepts. The discussion of Basil’s target audience highlights another important factor in knowledge transmission. De Brasi shows how different lexical levels and the combination of erudite knowledge with entertaining stories catered to people of heterogenous social background and education level, which underscores the role of the zoological homily for the education of Christian communities.
That the selection and transmission of zoological knowledge were strongly connected to educational ideals becomes clear also in Caroline Bélanger’s study of Solinus’ encyclopedic handbook Collectanea rerum memorabilium. With its descriptive (vs. explanatory) approach, its preference for literary knowledge over autopsy, and the acceptance of the marvelous as legitimate knowledge, the work reflects late Roman learning. As with the Physiologos, the question remains to what extent marvel and wonder were accepted by the audiences as factual knowledge. The most important contribution of this chapter is conceivably the contextualization of the zoological material in Solinus in the wider knowledge canon that constituted the paideia of fourth-century elites. Aptly characterized as a ‘layman’s approach to conventional philosophical ideas about animal nature’ (p. 59), Solinus’ text presents zoological ‘facts’ in combination with other types of knowledge (geographical, ethnological, historical) sought by educated circles.
The embedding of zoology in other types of socially relevant knowledge is also evident in Steven D. Smith’s chapter on Theophylaktos Simokates’ Quaestiones Physicae and his (fictional) epistolography. In Simokates’ case, the determining function of paideia for the framing of zoological knowledge goes hand in hand with the author’s “creation of his own rhetorical personality” (p. 84) and self-presentation before Alexandrian and later Constantinopolitan elites. The examples discussed by Smith in detail are rarely exclusively zoological but comprise references to ancient mythology and Homeric literature. This confirms the impression from Bélanger’s study that the value of zoology is to be understood within a larger corpus of knowledge relevant for social status and advancement. Smith’s study enhances the volume’s general perspective by showing the utility of zoological knowledge for the rhetorical approach through which Simokates commented on his society – including topics such as the role of the learned rhetorician, barbarian incursions, and the reception of Neoplatonist philosophy.
The transmission and functions of zoological knowledge beyond pure scientific interest are relevant also for Daniil Pleshak’s study of Georgios Pisides’ Hexaemeron. The Hexaemeron’s introductory and concluding parts openly praise emperor Herakleios and patriarch Sergios (Pisides’ patron). Pleshak sees political references in line with Herakleios’ imperial ideology also within the zoological information that forms the main body of the text. As Pleshak shows, the text contains elements that can be interpreted with a political subtext in mind, such as the vilification of the ‘Persians’ (l. 930) and Pisides’ pronounced interest in the ability of small animals to prevail over larger ones, potentially alluding to the formidable might of Herakleios’ enemies. All in all, however, the text is sparse when it comes to direct political references, which makes it difficult to prove that specific displays of zoological knowledge were in fact more than demonstrating ‘la perfezione assoluta del creato.’[4] An example is Pisides’ description of animals that cure themselves from poison and illness; they might indeed be a reference to the empire’s purification ‘from the defilement of Phocas and various non-Christian groups’ (p. 106), but it could equally well be a mere repetition of ancient knowledge. Pleshak’s assumption that the values and topics familiar to Pisides from his work as court propagandist might even unconsciously have influenced the selection of topics in the Hexaemeron’s zoological excursus is, therefore, worth considering. One critical remark concerns Peshak’s assumption about Hexaemeron 1087–1168 that Pisides applied ‘such words as “wisdom” (σοφία) and “intelligence” (λόγος) … to almost every species mentioned’ there (p. 111). Even though Pisides shows an obvious fascination for animals’ divinely granted ‘natural’ wisdom, he does not generally question the status of animals as aloga (i.e., without logos).
Cristiana Franco takes a different approach to the volume’s general topic by focusing on the development of motifs and values attributed to an individual species – here, the dog in ancient pagan, Jewish, and early Christian discourse. As a companion species deeply embedded in people’s everyday life, dogs represent one of the most popular case studies of human attitudes towards animals. Franco shows the tensions resulting from their largely negative evaluation in biblical texts and the more diverse notions in Graeco-Roman literature. The literary reactions by early Christian authors in dealing with this heritage, either by selective appropriation, harmonization, and/or systematizing, had consequences for the transmission of authoritative notions on canine behavior that we see in later medieval bestiaries.
A final thematic block relevant for the transmission of zoological knowledge concerns the translation from Greek into other languages of the Mediterranean. Pieter Beullens examines Bartholomew of Messina’s (thirteenth century) role in the translation of hippiatric texts into Latin. Closely comparing the Latin versions with the Greek, he modifies previous research, suggesting the existence of further, now lost Greek versions as a base for the translations and highlighting passages in the Latin text that betray Bartholomew’s style or deviate from it due to other translators’ activities or posterior editing. The benefit of the chapter beyond this case-study is the discussion of translation as a factor in the development of zoological knowledge across time, space, and languages. Opting for an approach that goes beyond ‘purely linguistic or narrowly literary matters’ (p. 151), Beullens uses the hippiatrica as an example of practical literature where ‘translation’ necessarily includes practices of reworking, modifying, and improving. These practices created multiple intertextual relations among the Greek original(s) and their literary environment, between original(s) and translation(s), and within the receiving area of Latin hippiatric knowledge.
As the only contributor who extends the focus beyond the Graeco-Roman world into the medieval Arab world, Jean-Charles Ducène investigates the Greek and Arab sources of al-Marwazī’s (twelfth century) Kitāb ṭabā’ al-ḥayawān (On the Nature of Animals). The question of translation is particularly relevant with regard to the partly paraphrased fragments of Greek sources in the Arabic text and when it comes to the transliteration of animal terminology, occasionally betraying the translator’s ignorance of the corresponding concepts. In analyzing the extant and lost sources mentioned by al-Marwazī, Ducène concentrates on geographers with zoological interests (Ptolemy, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Munağğim, and al-Ğayhānī). The chapter connects to other contributions in showing once more that Mediterranean zoology was embedded in ‘la littérature scientifique au sens large’ (p. 161). Tracing al-Marwazī’s frequent allusions back to works lost today, Ducène points to other defining characteristics of the transmission of zoological knowledge: the considerable loss of sources that, whether by conscious selection or transmission bias, never made it to the desks of modern-day researchers.
The case studies gathered in this volume are, overall, well-structured and present clearly formulated goals, which facilitates the identification of their specific contribution to the overarching topic of knowledge transmission. Basing their arguments on a close analysis of linguistic and lexical features, many of the papers present nuanced insights into the complex and often gradual development of elements of knowledge, motifs, and concepts via different text versions, compilations, translations, and paraphrases. The strong focus on literary transmission follows logically from this methodology, but it also indicates the need for further research incorporating other forms of transmission (pictorial, figurative, oral, performative, etc.) as well as animal knowledge generated through physical contact and direct observation.
The volume illuminates the connection between the transmission of zoological knowledge and practices of defining and legitimizing different types of knowledge in late antique and medieval society. That a preponderance of papers focuses on late antiquity reflects the significance of that period in the transmission and transformation of knowledge. The glimpses given into later periods, however, indicate the potential for further research on the transmission of zoological knowledge during the Middle Ages and beyond.
Authors and Titles
Preface by Oliver Hellmann and Arnaud Zucker
- Álvaro Pires, A Fiction of Nature and the Nature of Fiction: The Role of Fictionality in the Allegorical Hermeneutics of the Greek Physiologus
- Diego De Brasi, Basil of Caesarea’s Homilies on the Six Days of Creation: Scientific Transfer and Moral Education between Aristotle and the Bible
- Caroline Bélanger, Marvellous, Exotic, and Strange: Zoological Knowledge in Solinus’ Collectanea rerum memorabilium
- Steven D. Smith, Theophylaktos Simokattes: Zoological Knowledge and Sophistic Culture at the End of Antiquity
- Daniil Pleshak, Animals and Ideology in George of Pisidia’s Hexaemeron
- Cristiana Franco, Quorum postremo naturae est extra homines esse non posse. Appraisals of Canine Ethology in Early Christian Writers
- Pieter Beullens, Bartholomew of Messina’s Role in the Transmission of the Greek Hippiatrica
- Jean-Charles Ducène, Parmi les sources d’al-Marwazī (XIIe s.): Ptolémée, Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Munağğim (XIe s.) et al-Ğayhānī (Xe s.)
Notes
[1] Ingo Schaaf (ed.), Animal Kingdom of Heaven. Anthropozoological Aspects in the Late Antique World. Millennium-Studien 80 (Berlin and Boston, 2019).
[2] Arnaud Zucker, “Zoology”, in A Companion to Byzantine Science, ed. Stavros Lazaris. Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 6 (Leiden and Boston, 2020), 261–301, at 261–62.
[3] Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 2. Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaften 5.2 (Munich, 1978), 265–70.
[4] Luigi Tartaglia, “L’excursus zoologico dell’Esamerone di Giorgio di Pisidia”, Nea Rhome 2 (2005), 41–57, at 42.