You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
A Defense of the “Monstrous” Animals of Pliny, Aelian, and Others
Kenneth F. Kitchell Jr.
Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural
Vol. 4, No. 2 (2015), pp. 125-151
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/preternature.4.2.0125
Page Count: 27
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Animals, Animal tales, Pelicans, Moths, Authors, Humans, Snakes, Classical literature, Literary criticism, Literary history
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
It is customary to criticize ancient and medieval authors on animal lore for being gullible and repeating any story no matter how incredible. This article seeks to mitigate this criticism by pointing out four factors that are often overlooked by such critics. First, a great number of the stories are based on real facts that became distorted through misobservation or because such stories often traveled vast distances on their way to Greek and Roman authors. Seven examples, from stories ranging from the self-castrating beavers to a blood-sucking moth, provide evidence of these processes. Moreover, we must consider the ancients' inherent awe before nature, an attitude that was supported and augmented by mirabilia displayed by conquerors of far-off places. Finally, reverence for previous authors and a faith-based agenda are adduced for the Middle Ages.
Copyright © 2015 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.