Many manuscripts of a particular type have known relationships to others in the type. Various classification systems have been devised over the years to show those relationships.

Latin Bestiary Families

This is a summary of a larger article on the Latin Bestiary Families.

Among the bestiary manuscripts that still exist, many seem to be related to each other. In some cases the text is very similar in two or more manuscripts; in other cases the illustrations in one manuscript appear to be copies of those in another. To organize the bestiary manuscript genre, the classifying concept of "families" of related manuscripts was developed.

The first to propose such a grouping was M.R. James in his 1928 book The Bestiary: Being A Reproduction in Full of Ms. Ii 4. 26 in the University Library, Cambridge, with supplementary plates from other manuscripts of English origin, and a preliminary study of the Latin bestiary as current in England, where he coined the term "families" and listed the Latin manuscripts he thought belonged in each group. James defined four families, into which he placed 41 manuscripts.

From the start, the concept of bestiary families has been controversial, not so much as to whether bestiary manuscripts can be grouped, as to how many groups there should be, and which manuscripts belong in each group. Since 1928 many scholars have attempted revisions of James's family classification, with varying levels of acceptance. The family classification was revised by Florence McCulloch in Medieval Latin and French Bestiaries where she divided James's First Family into three sub-families, which she gave the names "B-Is", "H", and "Transitional". These subdivisions and their names have been generally accepted and are used by most scholars. The system was updated in 1989 by Willene B. Clark and Meredith T. McMunn in Beasts and Birds of the Middle Ages: The Bestiary and its Legacy, where the family divisions and the grouping of manuscripts as defined by McCulloch was left intact. Clark and McMunn also listed bestiaries in other languages, but kept them separate from the other categories. Ron Baxter, in his 1998 Bestiaries and their Users in the Middle Ages, took issue with some of the previous manuscript classifications (particularly McCulloch's), though he did not abandon the family concept.

First Family, B-Is Version

McCulloch's first division of the First Family consists of manuscripts that are based on the "B" version of the Physiologus with the addition of excerpts from Book XII (De animalibus) of the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville. The text of these manuscripts follows the order and content of the "B" Physiologus, but each beast chapter ends with a quote from Isidore, often explicitly attributed to him. The manuscripts date from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries.

First Family, H Version

McCulloch's second division of the First Family consists of manuscripts that are based on the B-Is version, but with major differences in the order and content. The text is that of Book II of the De bestiis et aliis rebus (incorrectly attributed to Hugo of St. Victor). Book I of De bestiis et aliis rebus is an Aviarium, a book on birds, now generally attributed to Hugh of Fouilloy. The manuscripts all date from the late thirteenth century.

First Family, Transitional Version

McCulloch's third division of the First Family consists of manuscripts that display attributes of both First and Second family bestiaries. They retain the first 24 to 40 chapters of the First Family B-Is or H versions, then include sections from the Etymologiae. The chapters are separated into those for beasts (essentially mammals), birds, fish (including whales and dolphins, as well as other swimming creatures), and serpents (snakes, dragons and other reptilian creatures). The manuscripts date from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries.

Second Family Version

This family is the largest and most well known group of manuscripts. The basic B-Is chapters are still present, but additions from other sources more than double the number of chapters. Most of the additions come from Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae, but some are taken from Gaius Julius Solinus, the Hexaemeron of Saint Ambrose, and Rabanus Maurus. The chapters are divided according to the classification in Book XII of the Etymologiae. Many chapters omit the usual moral explanations. The manuscripts are dated from the twelfth to sixteenth centuries, though most are from the thirteenth century.

Third Family Version

The third Family manuscripts have more chapters than the Second Family version. They begin with Isidore of Seville's account of fabulous races of humans, followed by a commentary on animals, and extracts from the De mundi universitate or Megacosmus of Bernardus Silvestris. The bestiary chapters are next, beginning with domestic animals, followed by beasts, fish, snakes, and insects, then an excerpt from Isidore on mythological creatures, and finally the fire stones. The manuscripts all date from the thirteenth century.

Fourth Family Version

This family consists of a single manuscript, of the fifteenth century (Cambridge University Library, Gg.6.5). It includes extensive extracts from the De proprietatibus rerum of Bartholomaeus Anglicus and the Etymologiae of Isidore. The text is unfinished and ends with the chapter on trees.

French Bestiaire Versions

This is a summary of a larger article on the French Bestiaire Versions.

The French versions of the bestiary (called the bestiaire) are all by known (or commonly attributed) authors. They are all in a dialect of early French: Norman, Anglo-Norman, Picard, etc.

Bestiaire by Philippe de Thaon

Written by the Anglo-Norman poet Philippe de Thaon in the early thirteenth century, this is a 3194 line verse bestiary, composed in the Anglo-Norman dialect of French. The bestiary consists of 38 chapters, divided into Beasts, Birds, and Stones. It is thought that Philippe used a Latin bestiary of the B-Is type as a basis for his translation. He cites both the Physiologus and Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae, though it is not clear whether he had access to Isidore's text directly. The manuscripts date from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries.

Bestiaire of Gervaise

Almost nothing is known about Gervaise. His Bestiaire, in 1280 lines of rhymed verse, is thought to have been written around the beginning of the thirteenth century, in France (probably Normandy). Gervaise says in his prologue that he translated a Latin bestiary that he attributes to "Crisosthomus" or John Chrysostom, who in the Middle Ages was said to be the author of a bestiary titled Dicta Chrystostomi. The text appears in only one manuscript.

Bestiaire of Guillaume le Clerc

Also called the Bestiaire divin, the Bestiaire of Guillaume le Clerc at 3426 lines is the longest of the French bestiaries. It was written around 1210 by the Norman cleric Guillaume, who probably based his rhymed verse on the B-Is Latin bestiary version. Each of the beast chapters includes allegorical details. It was the most popular of the French bestiaries, now existing in at least 23 manuscripts, which date from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.

Bestiaire of Pierre de Beauvais

This prose bestiary, written some time before 1218, is by Pierre de Beauvais, also called Pierre le Picard. The earliest version of it is in the French Picard dialect. There are two forms, both by Pierre: a short version of about 38 chapters; and a long version of about 71 chapters. The short version is based on the B-Is Latin version. The long version contains all of the chapters from the short version, with additions from a variety of other sources. The manuscripts date from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries.

Bestiaire d'amour by Richard de Fournival

Richard de Fournival's thirteenth century prose Bestiaire d'amour is not a traditional bestiary. While it uses bestiary themes, animal descriptions and illustrations, it does not use them as a basis for allegory. The purpose of the Bestiary is to attempt to persuade an unnamed lady to give in to Richard's amorous wishes. Some copies of the Bestiaire include a response from the lady, firmly rejecting Richard's advances. Richard also wrote a version of the Bestiaire in verse, found in one manuscript.

Bestiaries in Other Languages

This is a summary of a larger article on the Bestiaries in Other Languages.

Bestiaries in languages other than Latin or French are uncommon. They are generally based on the Physiologus with additions from other sources.

Italian Versions

The Italian bestiaries combine a vernacular Italian (or Tuscan) translation of the Physiologus with a variety of new materials, including fables. They first appear in the fourteenth century. In some manuscripts the text is also known as the Libro della natura degli animali. The bestiaries include the Tuscan Bestiary and the Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbio

Catalan Versions

The Catalan Bestiary manuscripts are in the Catalan language, and are translated copies of the Tuscan Bestiary. They date from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries.

Physiologus Versions

This is a summary of a larger article on the Physiologus Versions.

The Physiologus is not a bestiary, but it is the origin of the bestiary tradition. In a manner similar to the way bestiary manuscripts are grouped into families, the Physiologus manuscripts are grouped into versions.

Latin Physiologus Versions

There are six versions of the Latin Physiologus into which most of the manuscripts have been grouped. Many Latin Physiologus manuscripts have not yet been classified. The Latin Physiologus text, or extracts from it, was also incorporated into many other kinds of manuscripts.

1. Latin Version A: Version A is found in one manuscript. It has 36 chapters.
2. Latin Version B: Version B is derived from Version Y, with the oldest manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century. It has 36 or 37 chapters.
3. Latin Version C: Version C is called version X by some authors
4. Latin Version Y: The Latin Physiologus Y Version has 48 or 49 chapters. The earliest manuscript is from the ninth century.
5. Dicta Chrysostomi (DC) Version: This version of the text is based on the Physiologus B version, but differs in some details and in the chapter order. It was called the Dicta Chrysostomi because of its medieval attribution to John Chrysostom, a fifth century Patriarch of Constantinople. The text usually begins: Incipiunt dicta Johannis Crisostomi de naturis bestiarium. It is thought that the Dicta Chrysostomi text originated in France around 1000 CE. The manuscripts date from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, with most produced in Germany.
6. Theobaldus Version: The metrical (verse) moralized Latin Physiologus version attributed to Theobaldus Episcopus has 12 chapters. The identity of Theobaldus is uncertain; he may have been an eleventh century abbot of Monte Cassino. The numerous manuscripts date from the early eleventh century to the fifteenth century.

Physiologus in Other Languages

Unlike the bestiaries, which were only translated into a small number of European languages, the Physiologus was translated into many European, Asian and North African languages. There are Physiologus manuscripts in Arabic, Armenian, English, Ethiopian, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Icelandic, Syriac, and various Slavic languages.

Aviary Groups

An aviary is a moralized text on birds, like the bestiary is moralized text on beasts. The De avibus ("On birds") or Aviarium was written by Hugh of Fouilloy. The Aviary manuscript groups were defined by Willene B. Clark in Medieval Book of Birds: Hugh of Fouilloy's Aviarium; the description of each group below is adapted and/or quoted directly from that book (page 40-89).

Heiligenkreuz Aviary Group

This group is named for the Aviary at Stiftsbibliothek Heiligenkreuz in Austria, Codex Sancrucensis 226. The Heiligengkreuz Group is the largest of the Aviary groups and is strongly Cistercian. In its text and illustrations the Heiligenkreuz Aviary is probably closer than any other copy to the original. There are 13 manuscripts in this group.

Paris Group

All manuscripts of this group date from well into the thirteenth century. Most are from Paris of the 1230s and 1240s. Based on Aviary variants, and to some extent on iconography, these manuscripts could be seen as a subgroup of the Heiligenkreuz Group. Features which set them apart from the latter are the bestiaries which usually accompany the Aviaries here. There are nine manuscripts in this group.

Ter Duinen Aviary Group

The first luxury copies of the Aviary appear in this group: the Clairmarais Aviary, made nevertheless for Cistercians, and the two Getty manuscripts, of unknown early provenance. Like the manuscripts of the Heiligenkreuz Group, most members of this group contain not only the Aviary but also other works by Hugh of Fouilloy. There are nine manuscripts in this group.

St. Martin Group

The Aviary text of this group derives from a model which had much in common with the text of the Ter Duinen Aviary. Here, however, the work has undergone modifications of chapter order and number, which are substantial enough even to warrant consideration of these manuscripts as a separate version. Nonetheless, the basic text remains close to the main tradition, and it seems best to view these copies of the Aviary as eccentric parts of that tradition. There are 11 manuscripts in this group.

Aberdeen Bestiary Group

Beyond any doubt the most luxurious of Aviaries are those which are incorporated directly into a Second Family bestiary in the famous Aberdeen and Ashmole Bestiaries. The two manuscripts were decorated by closely related painters, and before the Aberdeen Bestiary was mutilated (at an unknown date), they were virtually identical in contents. In both, the Aviary text appears as part of the bestiary section on birds and has lost nineteen whole chapters and parts of others, and some, but not all of the typical Aviary iconography. There are seven manuscripts in this group.

Independent Aviary Copies

The Aviary texts of these manuscripts do not have clear kinship with any others. Their illustrations vary the standard program to a greater or lesser extent and in some cases have nothing to do with it. There are six manuscripts in this group.

Manuscript Letter Codes

To refer more easily to manuscripts of a particular text, letter codes have been assigned to many of them. The letters are not usually meaningful in themselves; they are just a way to provide a shorter way to reference manuscripts rather than use the sometimes long and complicated manuscript shelfmarks. The codes do not necessarily categorize the manuscript or show relationships between them. The letter codes are usually defined by the editor of the first full edition of the text, but are often added to or modified by later editors. Once established the codes are generally used consistently by later authors and editors.

Many of the Encyclopedia articles on authors and their texts use the letter codes in manuscript lists; see, for example, the articles on Guillaume le Clerc and Jacob van Maerlant.