The sources of the Bestiaire of Philippe de Thaon.

In Philip's second work, in his Bestiaire, which forms the subject of our investigation, we encounter an Anglo-Norman physiologist who has been preserved in two manuscripts. ... So Philippe did not even know what the Physiologus actually was. If he now cites Physiologus and Bestiaire side by side, it cannot be inferred from this that he used two redactions of Physiologus, one of which may have had the title 'Liber Physiologus', the other 'Liber Bestiarius'. But the source he had in front of him was an editorial redaction called Bestiarius, or a heading like 'Liber de natura animalium'. As in all Physiologus articles, after a few introductory words, the actual presentation often begins with the phrase: 'Physiologus dicit', so it was also the case in Philippe's submission. He interpreted this word in the manner indicated, and so his model actually emerged from two representations: from what the Bestiarius contains, and from what 'Physiologus' reports; For him, the Bestiarius is, as it were, a framework narrative for the reports of Physiologus. He therefore only cites it when his original cites it, and in other cases he often cites the Bestiaire as a source. But for him the writing of Physiologus is a writing of the greatest authority and dignity, which stands far above the Bestiaire and all other writings. ... Philippe therefore only provided a translation with his Bestiaire and must have followed his original exactly. Since Philippe also cites the Bestiary (or Physiologus) as a source for birds and stones, this Bestiary is not to be viewed as an animal book in the true sense of the word, but in a broader sense as a Christian-typological description of the whole of nature, especially of the animal kingdom, as we understand it today under the term Physiologus; In other words, that means: Philippe must have translated a Latin Physiologus, which contained all the animals and stones he treated, in the same order as he did. - [Author]

Language: German