Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 15

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: spongius a rugana

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 3-4
317-325
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus, especially of the word rugana that have remained obscure until present days. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Aristotle’s term σπόγγος, denoting different varieties of sponges, which are found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name spongia, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. The sponge is described at Michael Scotus under the name gamen, that probably comes from the Arabic word ghajm, „cloud“, „sea sponge“; it is very likely that the word rugana that we found in medieval encyclopaedias, including those of Czech origin, is the result of deformation of the term gamen and of its connection with the preceding preposition in (misread as ru).
2

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: abareno a kiloka

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 1-2
223-235
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αθερίνη, denoting a mediterranean fish sand smelt (Atherina hepsetus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as abereni and abarino, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form abarenon and at Claretus in the form abareno; Aristotle’s term ακαλήφη, used by Aristotle to describe a sea anemone (probably Actinia equina Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as akaleki, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form kylok and by Claretus in the form kiloka.
3

Esca eius erant locustae. The Origin and Meaning of the Imaginary Quadruped locusta

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2015
|
vol. 138
|
issue 3-4
231-268
EN
The study deals with the term locusta which is used in ancient and medieval Latin texts (e.g. in the encyclopaedia De natura rerum written by Thomas of Cantimpré in the 13th century) with two meanings, denoting two different animals: the locust, which was categorised as a “worm” (vermis), and the lobster, which was seen as an aquatic animal (piscis, animal aquaticum). The same meanings are associated with the terms locusta or locustus in Czech medieval sources written in Latin: the Glossary by the 14th century writer Bartholomaeus de Solencia, also known as Claretus, the work Liber viginti arcium by the 15th century encyclopaedist Paulerinus, and the encyclopaedic dictionary Vocabularius dictus Lactifer composed by the priest Iohannes Aquensis at the turn of the 16th century. The word locusta, however, occurs in several works of the Bohemian Middle Ages with yet another meaning n denoting the sweet-smelling lemon balm or the sweet-tasting tree leaves sucked by bees to produce honey; John the Baptist is said to have used the leaves as food when dwelling in the desert. Here, again, we can trace the influence of Thomas of CantimprE, who claims in one passage of his encyclopaedia that some authors regard the term locusta as a name of a plant and believe John the Baptist ate this plant in the desert. Surprisingly, this assertion can be found in Book IV which is dedicated to quadrupeds, namely in the chapter focusing on the terrestrial animal named locusta. This chapter from Thomasi work influenced probably also Claretusi Glossary which contains an unidentified term locuna in the chapter on animals (De bestiis). The study discusses the possible reasons that might have convinced Thomas of Cantimpré to classify locusta not only as an insect or as a fish, but also as a terrestrial quadruped. Thomas of Cantimpré was probably inspired by Jacques de Vitryis account of creatures which were consumed by John the Baptist in the desert, by Leviticus which lists the name locusta among winged animals that “walk on all fours”, by St. Augustine’s Confessiones, by the commentary Glossa ordinaria and other sources. Its faulty classification was crowned by contamination with information from the commentaries on Proverbs about the hyrax – a quadruped known under the name lepusculus. As a result of misunderstanding, the animal named locusta in his book De quadrupedibus gained new qualities and was transformed into completely different creature.
4

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fele a furion

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 3-4
475-486
EN
The purpose of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret both semantically and linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle or Pliny the Elder. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term ai[louro", denoting the wildcat (Felis silvestris Schreber) or the housecat (Felis silvestris cattus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus in the form furoniorum (gen. pl.), at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form furionz and at Claretus as furion; the same animal is also referred by the second analysed term feles, taken by Thomas of Cantimpré from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia; it appears in the work of Claretus in the form fele.
5

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: asalus a achilon

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2016
|
vol. 139
|
issue 1-2
189-205
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works mention names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret semantically as well as linguistically, and their Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which, according to Thomas, is to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium, translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αισάλων, denoting a species of a bird of prey (not certainly identified), reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name aesalon, which occurs as asalon in Thomas of Cantimpré’s encyclopaedia and as asalus in Claretus’ Glossary, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin in the form achilon, which occurs in one manuscript of the National museum in Prague.
6

Anthův střet s koněm a jeho odraz ve středověkých encyklopediích a glosářích

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 1-2
7-39
EN
Aggressive and defensive behaviour of birds takes various forms and has multiple causes. Besides intraspecies and interspecies aggressivity that comes through in skirmishes taking place during wooing, defending one’s territory and food source, the attack or defence of a bird is also caused by efforts to protect its progeny or the whole community from an imminent danger. For this purpose, the birds use in particular wide array of acoustic and optical signals, partly to warn other members of the flock, partly to distract the enemy or to intimidate and chase away the intruder. Some of these aspects of birds’ behaviour were already noticed by authors of antiquity and Middle Ages; descriptions of conflicts between various bird species and of their defence against each other or against the raptors and predators from other animal classes can be found in Latin sources of the Czech Middle Ages too. In these texts, many descriptions of birds are connected with Latin names known from the works of Roman natural philosophers and encyclopaedists, and their origin and meaning were explored and ascertained satisfactorily. Other terms, however, have been not deciphered yet, and the often sketchy descriptions of the appearance and behaviour of these birds – together with sometimes obscure equivalents in the Old Czech – don’t make the identification of these Latin words any easier. The names of birds achantis and ibos, featuring in the Glossary of the 14th century lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia called Claretus, in the 15th century encyclopaedia Liber viginti arcium by Pavel Žídek, and in the 15th/16th century Vocabularius dictus Lactifer by a Franciscan preacher Iohannes Aquensis, have so far belonged to similarly unclear words. Whereas the term achantis has been described and determined to a degree in the Dictionary of Medieval Latin in Czech Lands, the word ibos has still been lacking any explanation whatsoever. During a closer examination of these terms it turned out that both have a rich history: they got to the medieval works by different ways from ancient treatises where they denote one and the same bird that was called ανθος in Greek. The name of this bird is preserved in two works of antiquity: in the Metamorphoses written by a mythographer Antoninus Liberalis, and in the zoological treatise Historia animalium written by Aristotle. In both of these tracts, the main topic is the hostility between the bird ανθος and the horse, resulting either in chasing away of one or another from the meadow they both feed on, or in a death of one or another. From Aristotle, this name made its way to Middle Ages through two different ways and in two completely different forms. The first way led through the Plinius Maior who latinised the term into anthus. Plinius’s work was a source for a medieval encyclopaedist Thomas of Cantimpré who, however, mistakenly connected the description of this bird with the name of acanthis denoting the goldfinch. The other way led through the translation of Aristotle’s treatise from Greek to Arabic, and then from Arabic into Latin by Michael Scotus. Here the name of the bird appears in the form of ibos and iboz that originated possibly during the transcription of the Greek term into Arabic and then into Latin. The purpose of this paper is not only to search for the origin of the word iboz but also to identify the bird who was called ανθος and iboz. Besides the traditional determination of the Greek name as the Cattle Egret or the Yellow Wagtail, the paper proposes a third possible identification – the Lapwing. Nevertheless, mediaeval authors surely didn’t know which birds were denoted by Latin variants achantis and iboz. The uncertainty of the Czech lexicographers is evidenced by the Czech equivalent konystrass (“horse-intimidator”), obscure Czech word komur (or konur) and a loan word ybozek that were used to translate the Latin names.
7

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: calopus

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2016
|
vol. 139
|
issue 3-4
439-447
EN
The aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of the Latin zoological term calopus in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. The name and the description of an unidentified quadruped similar to ibex has the origin in an early Christian writing Physiologus, which was written between the 2nd and 4th century AD in Alexandria. In the Latin versions of this work, there are varieties of the name of this animal, such as autolops, autolopus, antelups and more, which resulted in the name “antelope” in modern languages and the deformed name calopus in the encyclopaedia of Thomas of Cantimpré and in the glossary of Claretus.
8

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: sporcia

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2017
|
vol. 140
|
issue 1-2
233-245
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term in the work of Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. The name sporcia, included in the Glossary’s chapter De piscibus and accompanied by the Czech equivalent veprzik (piglet), originates most likely from the classical Latin name porcus marinus. This name, denoting a marine animal with the appearance or behaviour of land pig, appears in several ancient and medieval scientific writings, including the encyclopaedia Liber de natura rerum of Thomas of Cantimpré, an important source for Claretus. In ancient and medieval texts, the same term usually stands for both land and sea animals: porcus – porcus marinus; equus – equus marinus; vacca – vacca marina; lepus – lepus marinus; hirundo – hirundo maris; mus – mus marinus; vipera – vipera maris etc. Claretus, perhaps in an effort to compensate for the lack of the adjective marinus or maris, sets both groups apart by applying phonetic and morphological changes, the most important of which would be the change of gender. Therefore, in Czech medieval context, all the sea counterparts of land animals get their specific names (such as sporcia, equida, vaccus, lepo, yrundia, muria, vipperus), not found in any other medieval sources.
9

Alia terra alios mores postulat. Asijští lidojedi ve vokabuláři zvaném Lactifer

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2012
|
vol. 135
|
issue 1-2
63-90
EN
The dictionary Vocabularius dictus Lactifer was written at the brink of the 16th century by the preacher and author of religious texts Jan Bosák Vodňanský (Iohannes Aquensis). It is the latest bohemical source of excerption for entries in the Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum. The author provided the description of nouns and adjectives, verbs and adverbs in the first three books of the Vocabulary. Its second part is a form of encyklopaedia of natural sciences which lists, within nine books, various human monsters, illnesses, trees, herbs, stones, birds, four-legged animals, fish and, finally, snakes and worms. The fourth book (De monstruosis hominibus) is a rich source of various names as it is dedicated to humans, individuals and exotic peoples, mythological characters, who differ, in their appearrances of behaviour, from what was perceived as normal in the Middle Ages. Amongst all the deviations listed by the author, based on classical and medieval sources, the most interesting are the descriptions of unusual eating habits in certain Asian and African peoples. Besides describing fantastic peoples who, according to Jan Vodňanský, survive on the odour of flowers and fruits alone, consume wheat seeds through an opening above the mouth, or eat the meat of rather unusual animals (these peoples are the topic of my first study, cf. Listy filologické 134, 2011, pp. 341–366), Jan Vodňanský also speaks of various kinds of cannibals in his Vocabulary. He found mentions of these peoples in the works of ancient historiographers as well as in reports of medieval merchants, diplomats, and missionaries who had visited distant lands in Asia. Vodňanský’s texts reflect Herodotus’ remarks on Scythian anthropophagists, information gathered by medieval historians on the Mongolian and Cuman invasions into Europe, as well as mentions in the works of Odoric of Pordenone and Marco Polo of cannibals living on the islands of Java, Sumatra, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These peoples had the distasteful habit of eating the flesh of foreigners as well as members of their own tribe which persisted until modern times and became the topic of modern anthropological study.
10

Vliv egyptské kultury na popis a výklad dudka ve Physiologu

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 1-2
27-57
EN
One of the significant differences between an early Christian writing Physiologus Graecus (it was written in the mid-4th century AD in Alexandria, and deals predominantly with animals) and Greek zoology is the former’s considerable focus on Egyptian fauna. Bearing this in mind, the authors of first essential monographs on Physiologus (e.g. Max Wellmann, Francesco Sbordone) have pointed out that some descriptions of the animals found in this treatise are similar to or even nearly identical with those in the Hieroglyphica, written in the 4th century AD by Horapollo. Moreover, a German Egyptologist Emma Brunner-Traut in her several papers tried to find specific connections between the treatment of certain animals in the Physiologus and the role of these animals in the Old Egyptian mythology, religion and art. Other scholars, however, did not continue to explore the Old Egyptian influence on the Physiologus: egyptologists have devoted their papers almost entirely to a description of the animals’ roles in the Old Egyptian culture, while studies by classicists and mediaevalists have focused on a tradition stemming from the ancient scientific literature. This paper tries to combine both of these sources of inspiration: taking the hoopoe (Physiologus Graecus, rec. I, 8; Physiologus Latinus, versio Y, B, Bis, 10) as an example, it tries to describe different views on a behaviour of this bird held by Greek and Roman scientists and by the author of the Physiologus, and it tries to specify to what degree the author could have been influenced by his surroundings where he was composing his treatise. A Greek name of the hoopoe, κουκούφα, is probably of an Egyptian origin; there existed a sign for the hoopoe in the hieroglyphic script (with a value of a phonogram); and the hoopoe was a plentiful bird in the Egyptian territory, as evidenced by his numerous representations on the mastabas of Egyptian dignitaries, either in his natural environment, or in interaction with people. Whereas the Horapollo’s treatment of the hoopoe concords with that in the Physiologus (the hoopoe being described as a bird that affectionatelly takes care of its aged parents), in Greek and Jewish tradition the hoopoe is seen rather negativelly as an unclean bird that dwells on the graves and rummages in excrements which he uses also for construction of its nest and as a food for its younglings. It is quite likely that the author of the Physiologus did not draw, in this case, on the scientific literature of ancient Greece, but was influenced by the considerable role the hoopoe played in the Egyptian culture and in everyday life of Egypt’s inhabitants.
11

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: ypnapus, vipperus a rais

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2018
|
vol. 141
|
issue 3-4
487–503
EN
The material of the Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum includes the terms ypnapus, vipera and rais, preserved, like dozens of other zoological names, in the Glossary written by the fourteenth-century lexicographer Bartholomaeus of Chlumec. Although the creatures denoted by these names belong to different animal classes and the words are found in two separate chapters of the Glossary, Claretus’ Czech equivalents (ohltan, ohltnik and ohlta) are derived from the same stem. The main aim of this article is to identify the origins and meanings of the Latin terms, in all probability borrowed by Claretus from Thomas of Cantimpré’s encyclopaedia, and explore the motives behind the creation of the three Czech equivalents.
12

Rejsek nebo hranostaj? Nový význam Aristotelova termínu mygalé ve středověku

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2015
|
vol. 138
|
issue 1-2
119-146
EN
In the Czech Medieval sources we can find different Latin variants of originally Greek noun μυγαλη, denoting some smaller representative of the family Soricidae from the order Insectivora. Czech glosses attached to the Latin variants migale, micale, mitale, merhale, iugale and others testify, however, that the Czech lexicographers and authors of various scientific treatises did not connect this word with the shrew but with some significantly bigger animal – probably with the ermine (family Mustelidae, order Carnivora). This paper tries to illuminate how and when did this change happen: whether it was caused by a mistake, originating sometimes during the two thousand years when the Greek word μυγαλη found its way from the ancient treatises into the Czech Medieval works, or whether it was motivated by a mistaken interpretation of the Czech authors. The word μυγαλη spread into the Middle Ages from two very different texts: from Aristotle’s treatise Historia animalium, and from the Bible (Lev 11,29–31) where the shrew belongs – together with the mouse, weasel and other beasts – to the ritually impure animals that are forbidden to eat. As it seems, the Medieval encyclopedists, who combined the scientific knowledge of Aristotle with the colourful narrative of biblical exegesis in their descriptions, found the meaning of this word not clear enough and so they likened this animal to the chameleon, or often considered it unidentifiable. The Medieval illuminators, in their turn, depicted this animal as a smaller beast of prey resembling the weasel. However, the animal called gali was depicted in a similar way. This word comes from Aristotle’s Historia animalium where it denotes indeed the weasel or other weasel-like beast of prey, and it occurs for the first time in the Middle Ages in the 13th century, in the Latin translation of Aristotle’s zoological treatise translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. The word gali itself remained obscure for the Medieval encyclopedists and they were unable to identify the respective animal – this is best exemplified by the suggestion of Albert the Great who considered the gali to be the fox. It comes as no surprise, then, that Bartholomaeus Anglicus put the description of both animals together into a single passage. The names gali and mygale thus multiplicate the many nouns available in the Middle Ages for the weasel-like beasts of prey (mustela, putorius, furunculus, erminium and others), and the word mygale is almost exclusively used to denote the ermine in the 14th and 15th centuries.
13

From the Dictionary of Medieval Latin in Czech Lands: gracocenderius

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2017
|
vol. 140
|
issue 3-4
455-470
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term transmitted in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals which mediaeval authors became acquainted with through Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term (genitive plural) κορακοειδων from the phrase το των κορακοειδων ορνίθων γένος, „the birds of the raven group“, appears at Michael Scotus as cracocenderon, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form gracocenderon and at Claretus in the form gracocenderius. The meaning of the name remained hidden to medieval encyclopedists and lexicographers, and illustrators of Thomas’ encyclopaedia and related works were apparently also at a loss as to the looks of the chaste bird: each took a different approach, which resulted in very divergent visual interpretations.
14

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fatator a fetix

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2012
|
vol. 135
|
issue 3-4
405-413
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify origin and meaning of two Latin names of birds, fatator (probably the blackbird) and fetix (probably the swallow), in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation from Arabic made by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified.
15

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: albirus

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 1-2
111-119
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term Ἀχιλλειον (σπόγγος), denoting a fine quality of sponge called the “elephant ear” (Spongia officinalis var. lamella Schulze), appears at Michael Scotus as albuz, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form of albirez and at Claretus in the form of albirus and albinus.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.