Elliot Thompson

The Composite Creatures of Medieval Bestiaries

Much like the centuries preceding it, the late Middle Ages were often characterized by

mystery and fear. It was also filled with newfound curiosity and discoveries, however. In this

regard, it’s easy to imagine a tale such as the following whispered into eager ears of the time:

One day, a farm boy noticed two men on the edge of the forest, staggering toward his

village, although, at first, it was hard to tell if these were even men at all. The boy immediately

hailed his father, and the two carefully made their way toward the visitors. It was soon all too

apparent that these men had suffered something horrific.

Once brought inside, the two soldiers collapsed. Everything from their mangled limbs to

their hairless heads was charred black. What was left of their clothes was in tatters and one

soldier, though he could hardly speak a word, fiercely gripped the handle of a singed wooden

plank, presumably once a sturdy shield. These men were severely burned, but that was not all.

They were covered in something more than just charred skin, and its putrid stench could only be

described as breath from the Mouth of Hell. Within hours, the two soldiers were dead, but not

before one was able to share his account of what had happened.

While traveling from battle, the soldiers entered a nearby forest to hunt for food.

Expecting to find a boar, they instead found a beast previously unseen to their eyes. The curious-

looking creature was the size of an ox, yet had the mane of a horse; even stranger, the pair of

horns atop its head were so curled that they seemed a useless defense. Seizing their opportunity,

the men crept up to the beast, which fixed its eyes upon them. Knowing the horns were no match

for their swords, the soldiers went in for the kill. Soon, however, they realized the beast

possessed a far more brutal and repulsive weapon. The creature quickly spun around and

buckets upon buckets of excrement, covered in balls of fire, exploded from its backside. The men,

along with an acre of forest behind them, were scorched by this ungodly substance. If it had not

been for their shields, they surely would not have lived long enough to tell the tale ...

This story, constructed by this author for the purpose of this paper, describes a beast

known as the bonnacon. It is one of many creatures found in medieval manuscripts devoted to

the various beasts of the earth, also known as a “bestiaries.”

Toward the later part of the Middle Ages, the popularity of bestiary manuscripts greatly

increased. While these works included descriptive texts and illustrated miniatures of

commonplace creatures, such as cows, dogs, or horses, as well as exotic, but still real-life,

animals, such as camels, elephants, and hyenas, many also gave equally straight-faced accounts

of creatures that were purely fictional, if not downright inconceivable. This paper seeks to further

examine the latter category, often referred to as “composite creatures” in medieval historical

literature1. The term is used to indicate made-up beasts assembled from features plucked from

several different creatures. In addition to their physical construction, most composite creatures

have equally bizarre abilities.

Like most medieval bestiary subjects, these creatures are normally accompanied by moral

or religious allegories, which explains the reasoning behind their inclusion in the manuscripts. Of

1 Janetta Rebold Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New York: Abbeville Press, 1992, 16.

course, while the symbolism behind some of the composite creatures is explicit, deeper meaning

for others is not always as apparent.

It should also be noted that although there is an entire subsection in medieval bestiaries of

creatures that are composites of human and beast, this paper focuses solely on all-beast

composite creatures.

Bestiary Origins

Other than the bible, it’s not often that one can determine a single source of inspiration

for an entire classification of manuscripts, but, by most accounts, this is the case with the

medieval bestiaries. This original source is known as the Physiologus. Although any knowledge

of its author has been lost to time, the text is said to have originated in the early antiquity period,

circa 200 AD, most likely in Alexandria.2

What indicates the Physiologus is the clear influential source of medieval bestiaries is not

just the animal content, but how the book approaches the subject. Unlike a standard zoological

textbook, the Physiologus focuses more on animal lore than biological science. Each creature,

which included even trees and rocks, is given a brief description and usually some type of fable

or myth.

Although originally written in Greek, the oldest manuscript copies of the Phsyiologus

that remain today are in Latin. In the centuries since the original copy, Christianity grew

exponentially, which explains why the language of the text shifted and, more importantly, also

explains why the allegories attached to these creatures shifted toward Christian values3.

2 Nona C. Flores, editor, Animals in the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 1996, 103. 3 Willene B. Clark and Meradith T. McMunn, editors, Beasts and birds of the Middle Ages : The Bestiary and Its Legacy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989, 2-3.

The earliest versions of this text also lacked illustrations. From an art history standpoint,

this proved to be a blessing, of course, because it allowed illuminators to use their imagination to

the fullest.

While illustrated versions of the Physiologus appeared as early as the 9th century, the

heyday for medieval manuscripts really began around the 12th century and finally began to trail

off around the 15th century4. The bestiaries referenced in this paper all fall into this time period

-- the earliest being the Worksop Bestiary (1185)5, now housed at the Morgan library in New

York, and the latest being an untitled French bestiary (1450), which can be found at the Museum

Meermanno in The Hague, Netherlands.6 The styles of illustrations vary wildly throughout these

few hundred years, and unlike such animals as dogs, horses or even elephants, the composite

creatures have no real-life visual standard of appearance to which they must remain faithful.

Each miniature is that particular illuminator’s interpretation of a written description and so, in

turn, the viewer is treated to some of the most bizarre, grotesque and genuinely fascinating

illustrations found in any medieval manuscript.

Ancient Composite Creatures

The idea of a “composite creature” was around long before any medieval bestiary. Pagan

societies such as the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans celebrated all sorts of imaginary beasts. Not

all of those creatures, however, made it into the medieval bestiary. In fact, very few did. But the

ones that did can be grouped as “ancient composite creatures.”

4 The Aberdeen Bestiary, “What Is a Bestiary?” The Aberdeen Library, http :// www . abdn . ac . uk / bestiary / what . hti , (accessed May, 2012).5 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012)6 Museum Meermanno: Interactive Presentation Manuscripts, “Den Haag, MMW,” 10 B 25, Museum Meermanno http :// collecties . meermanno . nl / handschriften / showmanu ? id =1466 , (accessed May, 2012).

The griffin, also spelled gryphon, is one example. Griffins appear in Greek mythology,

pulling the chariots of Zeus, as well as in the art of ancient Persia. In fact, a statue of a double-

sided griffin from the 4th century BC still stands today in Persepolis in Iran.7 More important to

this paper, the griffin also happens to be one of the more ubiquitous composite creatures of the

medieval bestiaries.

The simplest description of a griffin is a creature that is half lion and half eagle.

Typically, it’s the front half that is eagle, including the head and beak, wings and two front

talons, while the backside is all lion with two powerful back legs and a long tail.

The two examples provided [Figs.1]89 of the griffin depicted in medieval bestiaries are

from The Ashmole Bestiary (early 1200s), now in the Bodleian Library, and the Untitled French

bestiary (1450), mentioned earlier. Although centuries apart, the two images are fairly similar.

Both depict a majestic griffin clenching a smaller creature in its talons. Stylistically, it appears

that the illustrator of the latter of the two chose a more literal approach. There is almost an exact

point in the chest of the griffin where the lion part of the body fades into the eagle half. The

Ashmole griffin, on the other hand, seems to be a more harmonious combination of beasts. For

instance, the illustrator chose to give the eagle half the same shade of gold typically associated

with a lion’s coat, but he or she also gave the illusion of a mane of fur streaming down the neck

of the griffin. The ears, as well, appear more cat-like than bird.

7 Patrick Hunt, “Achaemenid Persian Griffin Capital at Persepolis," Stanford University: Archeolog, entry posted October 21, 2008, http :// traumwerk . stanford . edu / archaeolog /2008/10/ achaemenid _ sculptural _ stone _ te . html (accessed May, 2012).8 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012)9 Museum Meermanno: Interactive Presentation Manuscripts, “Den Haag, MMW,” 10 B 25, Museum Meermanno http :// collecties . meermanno . nl / handschriften / showmanu ? id =1466 , (accessed May, 2012).

Fig. 1. Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 1511, Folio 15v

Fig. 2. Museum Meermanno, MMW, 10 B 25, Folio 5r

It isn’t difficult to deduce the symbolism of such a creature. With their strength, vision

and speed, both the eagle and the lion are powerful beasts. A combination of the two is

undoubtedly an animal worthy of respect. It is also an animal worth fearing, as seen in the two

miniatures. In fact, a majority of the bestiary illustrations show the griffin conquering some other

helpless creature. In terms of Christian symbolism, the duality of the griffin as graceful yet

powerful made it a common symbol of God/Christ and his ability to protect or punish10.

The following two examples of ancient composite creatures found in medieval bestiaries

are some of the most legendary imaginary beasts in popular culture today -- the unicorn and the

dragon. They are also examples of some of the few composite creatures that can be found in the

Old Testament, which makes it easy to understand their inclusion in medieval bestiaries.

The unicorn dates as far back as ancient Greece, where chroniclers such as Aristotle

spoke of a creature that was similar to a small horse, but also had a single, long horn protruding

from its head.11 As previously mentioned, the unicorn makes several appearances in the Old

Testament, in both the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate versions.

Just as most illustrations of the griffin depicted it mid-preying, nearly all visual portrayals

show the unicorn in the arms of a maiden, usually while being stabbed with a spear by pursuing

hunters. The unicorn appears in this manner in the 12th century Worksop Bestiary [Fig. 3].12

Although one soldier carries an ax in this miniature, it is always the spear that inflicts damage to

the unicorn. The second example is from the Der Naturen Bloeme (c. 1350), now located at the

Koninklijke Bibliotheek in the Hague.13 In this illustration there are no miniatures, but a very

similar maiden is present, holding the unicorn’s head. While the first image, from the 12th

century, shows more artistic use of color, painting the unicorn blue, the second, from the mid-

14th century, contains much more expressive facial expressions in both the maiden and the

10 Janetta Rebold Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New York: Abbeville Press, 1992, 129-130.11 University of Adelaide: eBooks, “On the Parts of Animals, by Aristotle, Book 3” The University of Adelaide, http :// ebooks . adelaide . edu . au / a / aristotle / parts / book 3. html , (accessed May, 2012).12 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012).13 Museum Meermanno: Interactive Presentation Manuscripts, “Den Haag, MMW,” 10 B 25, Museum Meermanno http :// collecties . meermanno . nl / handschriften / showmanu ? id =1466 , (accessed May, 2012).

unicorn. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the latter was scribed and illustrated by Jacob van

Maerlant, a Flemish poet -- not a monk like most scribes of earlier manuscripts.14

Fig. 3. Morgan Library, MS M.81, Folio 12v

Fig. 4. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, KB, KA 16, Folio 63r

The standard myth surrounding unicorns is that they are creatures of immense cunning

and speed. The only they way in which any hunter can catch one is to place a virgin in its path. It

14 Koninklijke Bibliotheek: Expositions & Collections, “Der Naturen Bloome,” Koninklijke Bibliotheek, http :// www . kb . nl / galerie /100 hoogtepunten /006- en . html , (accessed May, 2012).

is said that the unicorn, out of love and respect for the virgin, will immediately stop and place its

head in her lap15. In this way, these illustrations contain some of the most explicit allusions to

Christ of all the bestiary miniatures. The spear piercing the defenseless creature’s side is a visual

that every Christian associates with Christ on the cross being stabbed by Longinus. When you

combine this with the imagery of the “virgin” maiden, clearly an allusion to Mary, mother of

Christ, caressing this sensitive creature, allusion to Christianity must have been unavoidable for

even the most ignorant of observers.

Finally, there is no shortage of references to the ancient composite creature known as the

dragon. This menacing beast has appeared in mythology around the globe from the Greeks and

the Persians to as far off as East Asia.16 Not surprisingly, it is in the Book of Revelation that the

dragon makes his biblical cameo.

In medieval bestiaries, the dragon is mostly defined by its personality traits. These

include a hatred of elephants, the dragon’s sworn enemy. It also includes the beast’s vulnerability

to the peridexion tree, particularly its shadows, which make the tree ideal for sheltering small

creatures such as doves17. Aside from the fact that the dragon is a giant serpent, there are only a

few standard physical traits associated with it, most commonly a long powerful tail and a set of

wings, both of which allow the creature to be an even more effective predator. Because of these

lack of specifics, however, visual depictions of dragons tend to vary from manuscript to

manuscript.

15 Janetta Rebold Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New York: Abbeville Press, 1992, 74.16 Janetta Rebold Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New York: Abbeville Press, 1992, 42-43.17 Michael J. Curley, Physiologus: A Medieval Book of Nature Lore. University of Chicago Press, 2009, 28.

The first example comes from the French Bestiaire of Guillaume le Clerc (late 13th

century) [Fig. 5], now located at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris.18 It depicts the

dragon roaring angrily beside a peridexion tree while two birds reside under its shade and remain

unharmed. The second example appears in the earlier Aberdeen Bestiary (c. 1200) [Fig. 6],

which still remains today at the library in the city of its origin, Aberdeen, Scotland.19 In this

miniature, the dragon surrounds its enemy, the elephant, in serpent-like fashion, as he takes a bite

out of its shoulder. Although these two depictions are roughly a couple of centuries apart, they

prove that there was no exact standard for what a dragon should look like.

Fig. 5. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, fr. 1444b, Folio 254r

18 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits: Division occidentale, “fr. 1444b Bestiaire of Guillaume le Clerc,” http :// visualiseur . bnf . fr / CadresFenetre ? O = COMP -1& I =65& M = imageseule , (accessed May, 2012).19 The Aberdeen Bestiary: Folio 65v Translation and Transcription, The Aberdeen Library, http :// www . abdn . ac . uk / bestiary / translat /65 v . hti , (accessed May, 2012).

Fig. 6. Aberdeen University Library, Univ. Lib. MS 24, Folio 50r

As with the unicorn, the idea behind the dragon in Christian mythology is obvious. The

serpent, with its role in the Garden of Eden, represents the root of all evil, and so the idea of a

king of the serpents was certainly something of which to be terrified. To quote the Aberdeen

Bestiary, “Be as careful as you can that you are not caught outside the doors of that house, that

the dragon, the serpent of old, does not seize you and devour you, as Judas was at once devoured

by the devil and perished, as soon as he had gone forth from the Lord and his brother apostles.”

20

Medieval Composite Creatures

20 The Aberdeen Bestiary: Folio 65v Translation and Transcription, The Aberdeen Library, http :// www . abdn . ac . uk / bestiary / translat /65 v . hti , (accessed May, 2012).

While it’s hard to label fictional beasts such as those described here with any verifiable

date of origin, there are several composite creatures that made no appearance whatsoever in any

recorded ancient mythology, yet appear with descriptions and illustrations in medieval bestiaries.

So, for purposes of organization, it’s easiest to label these creations as “medieval composite

creatures.”

Although some of the specifically “medieval” composite creatures are quite unique,

others are clearly based on ancient predecessors. For instance, two medieval composite creatures

whose creation was obviously influenced by the idea of the dragon are the cerastes and the

jaculus.

The main difference between the cerastes and the dragon is the fact that the cerastes has

no wings. This beast does, however, possess a set of ram-like horns on its head as part of its

arsenal. The visual example provided is another miniature from the Flemish Der Naturen Bloeme

manuscript from the 14th century [Fig. 7].21 Here, the illustrator chose to use color to

differentiate the head from the rest of the body, almost making it appear as though the entire

head belonged to that of a ram.

21 Koninklijke Bibliotheek: Expositions & Collections, “Der Naturen Bloome,” Koninklijke Bibliotheek, http :// www . kb . nl / galerie /100 hoogtepunten /006- en . html , (accessed May, 2012).

Fig. 7. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, KB, KA 16, Folio 123v

While the cerastes may not have the intimidating presence of the dragon, it is just as

deadly, and in craftier ways. The lore behind the cerastes is that the beast hides in the ground

with only its horns poking out in order to lure unsuspecting victims. When they approach, the

cerastes erupts from the earth and sinks its poisonous fangs into the passers-by22.

Unlike the cerastes, the jaculus was similar to the dragon in that it did have a pair of

wings along with the ability to flythe ability to fly. Unfortunately, the jaculus was without any

other limbs, which in a way made it the most serpent-like of the three. The miniature provided is

another from the Worksop Bestiary from the late 12th century [Fig. 8].23 Similar to the Aberdeen

Bestiary account of the dragon, which was illustrated within the same 20-year time frame, the

22 Carol Rose, Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth. W. W. Norton & Company, 200123 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012).

jaculus is painted a dark blue. One could hardly argue, however, that this miniature features a

beast equally as intimidating as the one strangling an elephant in the Aberdeen Bestiary.

Fig. 8.Morgan Library, MS M.81, Folio 86r

Like the cerastes, however, the jaculus has its own crafty means of attack. The winged

creature lurks among the branches of trees, where it waits for just the right moment to launch

itself, fangs-first, into victims below. In fact, both the name “jaculus” and the word “javelin”

share the same latin root as something that quickly darts out24.

The religious symbolism behind the two medieval composite creatures are in sync with

the warnings of the deadly dragon. Just as the devil has many faces and many helpers, so does

the dragon.

The serra, on the other hand, also sometimes referred to as the saw-fish, is an example of

a medieval composite creature that does not have a particular ancient mold from which it was

cast. That is not to say that the serra is completely out-of-this world -- the creature is basically a

large fish with wings.

Just like previous examples of the cerastes and the jaculus, the illustrations of the serra

provided are also from Der Naturen Bloeme [Fig. 9]25 and the Worksop Bestiary [Fig. 10].26 The

24 Carol Rose, Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth. W. W. Norton & Company, 200125 Koninklijke Bibliotheek: Expositions & Collections, “Der Naturen Bloome,” Koninklijke Bibliotheek, http :// www . kb . nl / galerie /100 hoogtepunten /006- en . html , (accessed May, 2012).26 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012).

former, another interpretation by the 14th century scribe/illustrator Jacob van Maerlant, shows

the serra in about as simplified a depiction as possible. The wings, which are not only a different

color from the rest of the fish, seem to be made of completely different material. In fact, the

unnatural way in which they are attached to the fish almost gives the impression that they were,

in fact, ripped off some bird and stitched to a fish. This would, of course, make it a true

composite creature.

Fig. 9. Koninklijke Bibliotheek, KB, KA 16, Folio 109r

The next example, from 12th-century Worksop Bestiary, seems to merge the composites

with a little more grace. The serra displayed in this miniature glides in the air over a small boat

while the two voyagers, who appear to be monks, point and watch.

Fig. 10. Morgan Library, MS M.81, Folio 69r

Christian symbolism, especially in the latter example, is at the core of the serra and its

inclusion in medieval bestiaries. In a translated quote from the French Sloane Bestiary, (13th

century), now at the British Library, the serra, or “saw-fish,” is described as such: “The saw-fish,

that is that beast which availed not to beat the ship in sailing, affords a symbol of those persons

who at first eagerly engage in good works, but who afterwards do not persevere in them, and are

led astray by faults of different kinds (that is, of greed, pride, drunkenness, and luxury), which

toss them about as it were upon the waves of the sea and plunge them down to the depths of

hell.”27

In this way, the serra reminds us that not all bizarre beasts are ones to fear. The serra is a

example of the way in which the minds behind the medieval bestiaries used these creatures to

27 George C. Druce, “On the Legend of the Serra or Saw-Fish,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries Second Series 31 (1919)

reflect the nature of mankind. And although this allegory ends in failure of sorts, it still possesses

a motivational message, as opposed to one driven by fear.

Finally, we return to the beast mentioned in the tale at the very beginning of this paper --

the bonnacon. As described, the bonnacon is an ox-sized creature with curled horns, which emits

flaming dung from its bowels as a way of protecting itself.

The first example provided here comes the same 15th century untitled French bestiary as

the earlier miniature of the griffin. It displays two hunters fleeing in horror from a stream of

excrement shooting from the bonnacon’s backside [Fig. 10]28. We can assume that because the

soldier closest to the beast is covering his nose and mouth, there is an unpleasant odor included

with the attack. This detail, along with the almost pleased look of the bonnacon, suggests a hint

of light-heartedness to this particular miniature. Since the manuscript was created in the 15th

century, it’s possible that the legend of the bonnocan was not was quite as frightening as in

previous centuries.

Fig. 11. Museum Meermanno, MMW, 10 B 25, Folio 8r

28 Museum Meermanno: Interactive Presentation Manuscripts, “Den Haag, MMW,” 10 B 25, Museum Meermanno http :// collecties . meermanno . nl / handschriften / showmanu ? id =1466 , (accessed May, 2012).

The second visual depiction, however, comes from the Ashmole Bestiary from the early

12th century, over 200 years earlier [Fig. 11]29. The scene is less comical, and although the

soldiers are still suffering from the bonnacon’s attack, they are protecting themselves with a

shield, and they have still manage to strike a blow with their spear into the beast, who appears

more distressed than the one in the previous miniature.

Fig. 12. Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 1511, Folio 18r

The bonnacon is an interesting case -- not just because of the revolting and bizarre

method of attack, but because the symbolism is not as clear as with other composite creatures

such as the unicorn, dragon or the serra. Though judging from a purely aesthetic standpoint, it’s

remarkable how similarly constructed the miniature of the Ashmole bonnacon is to that of the

unicorn miniature in The Worksop Bestiary, created around the same time period. Viewing them

side-by-side reveals that one is almost a mirror image of the other.

29 COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,” The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ? ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012)

Both contain two soldiers, one with an axe and one with a spear, the latter of which has

been plunged into the side of the creature. Of course, there is no evidence that the bonnacon has

any religious symbolism similar to that of the unicorn, but the visual similarities are there

nonetheless. The bonnacon’s inclusion in many bestiaries may just be an example of the readers’

curious nature and thirst for the new and exotic; and any visual similarities with the Ashmole

Bestiary unicorn are there simply because certain religious imagery was an artistic reflex. If one

compares it to the later 15th century miniature, that bonnacon seems to be on display more for its

bizarreness than anything else.

Conclusion

To reiterate an earlier point, the medieval bestiaries were never intended to be interpreted

as scientific textbooks. Those who produced them did so for the allegorical meanings behind

them. There must have been, however, a reason behind the bestiaries rise in popularity between

in the late Middle Ages other than that the public suddenly became more interested in religious

or moral allegories.

To fully understand the popularity of the bestiary, one must consider the context of the

time period. After the turn of the millennium, a huge change began to sweep over Europe.

Because the world had in fact not ended when 1000 AD came around, as many had predicted and

believed would happen, people began to travel more, and western cities began to grow. This time

period was also at the heart of an event that affected nearly everything in the world: The

Crusades. Legions of soldiers throughout Europe were deployed to the Middle East, and those

who returned surely brought back their share of exotic tales, so that even those who would not

get the chance to travel to such places were at least getting first- or second hand accounts.

It would, therefore, not be a stretch to assume that these factors led to a rise in curiosity

among the medieval public and so in turn, led to a rise in popularity of these, literally and

metaphorically, colorful manuscripts.

Bibliography

1. Janetta Rebold Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New

York: Abbeville Press, 1992.

2. Nona C. Flores, editor, Animals in the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 1996.

3. Willene B. Clark and Meradith T. McMunn, editors, Beasts and birds of the Middle Ages : The

Bestiary and Its Legacy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.

4. J. L. Schrader, A Medieval Bestiary. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1986.

5. Raymond Clemens and Timothy Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies. Cornell University

Press, 2007.

6. Carol Rose, Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth. W.

W. Norton & Company, 2001.

7. Michael J. Curley, Physiologus: A Medieval Book of Nature Lore. University of Chicago Press,

2009.

8. Koninklijke Bibliotheek: Expositions & Collections, “Der Naturen Bloome,” Koninklijke

Bibliotheek, http :// www . kb . nl / galerie /100 hoogtepunten /006- en . html , (accessed May, 2012).

9. COSAIR: The Online Catalog of the Pierpont Morgan Library, “MS M.81Worksop bestiary,”

The Pierpont Morgan Library, http :// utu . morganlibrary . org / medren / Manuscript _ images . cfm ?

ACC _ NO = M .81 , (accessed May, 2012).

10. LUNA: The Bodleian Library Imaging Services, “MS. Ashmole 1511,” Bodleian Library -

University of Oxford http :// bodley 30. bodley . ox . ac . uk :8180/ luna / servlet / view / search / what / MS .

+ Ashmole +1511? q = ashmole & sort = Shelfmark %2 csort _ order , (accessed May, 2012).

11. Museum Meermanno: Interactive Presentation Manuscripts, “Den Haag, MMW,” 10 B 25,

Museum Meermanno http :// collecties . meermanno . nl / handschriften / showmanu ? id =1466 ,

(accessed May, 2012).

12. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits: Division occidentale, “fr. 1444b

Bestiaire of Guillaume le Clerc,” http :// visualiseur . bnf . fr / CadresFenetre ? O = COMP -

1& I =65& M = imageseule , (accessed May, 2012).

13. The Aberdeen Bestiary, “Folio 65v Translation and Transcription,” The Aberdeen Library,

http :// www . abdn . ac . uk / bestiary / translat /65 v . hti , (accessed May, 2012).

14. George C. Druce, “On the Legend of the Serra or Saw-Fish,” Proceedings of the Society of

Antiquaries Second Series 31 (1919)

15. The Aberdeen Bestiary, “What Is a Bestiary?” The Aberdeen Library,

http :// www . abdn . ac . uk / bestiary / what . hti , (accessed May, 2012).

16. University of Adelaide: eBooks, “On the Parts of Animals, by Aristotle, Book 3” The University

of Adelaide, http :// ebooks . adelaide . edu . au / a / aristotle / parts / book 3. html , (accessed May, 2012).

17. Patrick Hunt, “Achaemenid Persian Griffin Capital at Persepolis," Stanford University:

Archeolog, entry posted October 21, 2008,

http :// traumwerk . stanford . edu / archaeolog /2008/10/ achaemenid _ sculptural _ stone _ te . html

(accessed May, 2012).