(PDF) CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC AVATARS OF A MONSTRUOUS … · 2015-08-24 · 61 IJCCSEC S p ecial Issue, 2015 CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC AVATARS OF A MONSTRUOUS CREATURE. HISTORY OF THE BAT

61 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC AVATARS OF A MONSTRUOUS CREATURE.HISTORY OF THE BAT
Oana Uţă Bărbulescu1
Abstract: The most important goal of this article is theanalysis and interpretation of a representative corpus of Romaniantexts (from the 17th century to the 18th century), in order toestablish how the imaginary apparitions that give shape to medievaland post medieval cultural anxieties. In ancient times monsters arementioned equally in the Bible, in the works of the Church Fathersand in the so-called popular texts, being a structural part ofspecific topoi, which enjoyed a large circulation in the Europeanculture and in the Romanian one through various sources. In thecase of the bat, monstrosity is bound up with questions ofdeformity and hybridity. We aim to tackle from a cognitiveperspective the attitudes towards the monsters considered as signsof vices or virtues.
Keywords:‛ăṭallēp ↔ νυκτερίς ↔ vespertilio, negative/ positivesemiotisation, categorical knowledge vs. knowledge by properties,etymological and onomasiological perspective on the names given tobats
1. Just like in modern times, in the old age, the monstrous is abroad category with an extension in constant motion, referringequally to hybrid creature, half man, half animal (such as sirens,onocentaurs, etc.) but also to creatures whose genus is not fixedand can be classified as birds, but also as beasts.
In this article, we will try to sketch the evolution ofrepresentations of the bat in ancient Romanian texts, consideringthe manner in which a impure bird turned into a avishermaphroditica2 found its place among monsters, ultimately beingsaved unexpectedly from the trap of the negative evaluations. Therecovery of the cultural history of the bat implies, on the onehand, the establishment of the creature’s “identity” and, on theother, the discussing of the negative semiotizations indiachrony.
2. There are several references to the bat in the old Romaniantexts, but as many times, the representation of the creaturechanges.
The bat appeared firstly in the Biblical text, this being -finally - the source for the negative semiotization to which thatcreature was subjected over time.
2.1. According to the Biblical text, the bat is a special,impure bird3, belonging to genus avium, in Leviticus andDeuteronomy4. The sequence of
1 University of Oxford, UK. 2 See, among others, Alanus abInsulis, De planctu naturae, c. 436D. 3 On criteria that governedthe division of birds in pure and impure, see McConville, 2002, p.249: “the principles underlying the original classifications intoclean and unclean categories are unclear”. However, severalhypotheses have been formulated on the
62 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
Leviticus and Deuteronomy presents in a broader manner (Lev.) orsmaller (Deut.) the pure / impure animals. Their classification inone category or another was made according to principles thatgoverned at the beginning, the life of the chosen people5, acceptedlater on by the entire Christian community. Both sequences seam todependent to the presentation / categorization of the animals atproposed in Genesis 6.
In Lev. 11: 19 and in Deut. 14: 18 listed birds acted uponinterdiction to be consumed by the chosen people:
;(Lev.11:19) ְ֙וֵאת הַ֔הֲחִסידָ הָ֖הֲאָנפָ ּהְ֑לִמינָ ְוֶאת־תַ֖הּדּוִכיפַ ְוֶאת־ ׃ףָהֲעַטֵּלֽ .Deut.14:18)7) הֲ֔חִסידָ ְ֣והַהְ֖וָהֲאָנפָ ּהְ֑לִמינָ תְ֖וַהּדּוִכיפַ ְוָהֲעַטֵּלֽף׃The author ofthe Leviticus uses different terms to describe, on the onehand,
impure four-footed animals, and on the other, impure birds andmarine life. So, ṭāmē’8 is selected exclusively for the firstcategory, while šeqeṣ9, only for the second one. But inDeuteronomy, the distinction between ṭāmē’ and šeqeṣ
principles that could cause division animals pure / impure, andMcConville underlined (”some of the unclean creatures wereapparently used in the worship of other gods [...], several of theprohibited species are scavengers or meat-eaters. This may makethem unacceptable either for hygienic reasons [...], or becausethey consumed blood [...] and/ or fed on carrion, which would causethose who ate them to infringe cultic prohibitions of thesethings”). 4 On the relation between the chapter of Leviticus andthe chapter of Deuteronomy, presenting the impure birds andanimals, see, among others, Noth, 1977, p. 91, where it states that„the chapter handles in great detail the subject of the culticcleanness or uncleanness of animals. Its only parallel in the OldTestament in the section Deut. 14.3-21, where the same subject isdiscussed but in essentially shorter form. There can be no doubt ofthe literary connection between these two pieces, shown by theirpartial verbal correspondence [...]. Judged by its subject-matterit must contain old, perhaps even primitive, regulations whichsomeone – perhaps when the Jerusalem cults came to an end and withit the practices belonging to the royal days – began to write downand then progressively expanded over sometime through furtherdetailed precepts”. 5 McConville, 2002, p. 247: ”in Deut. 14 as awhole, the ‘holy people’ is fused into the cultic life of Israel[...], here by means of eating theme. Holiness is elaborated interms of what may and may not be eaten, and how. From differentangles, a basic distinction is carried through between what isacceptable for the holy people and what is not”. 6 McConville,2002, pp. 244-245: ”both chapters have an evident connection withGenesis 1 in their division of the creatures into those thatinhabit the three spheres of earth, water, and sky, and there maybe a deliberate echo of the classification there”. 7 For the Hebrewtext, we used Quell, 1931 edition (Exodus et Leviticus) and Hempel,1935 edition (Numeri et Deuteronomium). 8 McConville, 2002, p. 249:Ṭāmē’ ”is used of quadrupeds that may not be eaten, [...] connotesimpurity even to the touch”. 9 Ibidem: Šeqeṣ ”is confined tocreatures of the water and air, [...] means impurity only fromeating”.
63 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
disappeared, ṭāmē’ 10being preferred. Even if in Deuteronomythere is used only one hyperonimous for all four-footed animals andimpure birds, the bad preserved its genus, always being consideredin the birds category.
2.2. The bat is creeping back into the biblical text, beingintegrated in a negative context 11 in the Book of Isaiah. Incomparison with the occurrences in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, theone in Isaiah’s (2: 20) preserves the gender of the creature namedas ‛ăṭallēp, in the implicit area. But there is no evidence -textual and extratextual - that ‛ăṭallēp in the Book of Isaiahcould be considered something else but a bird. At the time ofwriting this book, the bat was already subject to a negativesemiotization that was generated by its presence among impurebirds12:
ֹוםַּ֤בּי ַ֙ההּוא יךְ ַ֣יְׁשלִ םָ֔הָאדָ ת֚אֵ יֱ֣אִלילֵ ֹוַ֔כְסּפתְ֖ואֵ יֱ֣אִלילֵ ֹוְ֑זָהב .Is.2:20)13) רֲ֤אׁשֶ ָעֽׂשּו־ ֙לֹותְ֔לִהְֽׁשַּתֲחֹו רַ֥לְחּפֹ ֹותֵּ֖פר ְוָלֲעַטֵּלִפֽים׃2.3. Thetranslators of the Septuagin14 considered that νυκτερίς is theright
correspondent for the word ‛ăṭallēp (present in the Masoretictext in all three contexts). In the Greek version, the verse ofLeviticus and that of Deuteronomy15 were translated:
10 Ibidem: “Deut. 14 has an important terminological differencefrom Lev. 11 in its avoidance of the term šeqeṣ [...]. Deut. 14applies ṭāmē’ to all the cases”. 11 The context where the batappears in the Book of Isaiah (2: 20) seems to be tributary of thecorrespondent of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; see also Wildberger,1991, p. 63: ”If we are to understand the content of v. 20 we needto know that the animals mentioned here, especially the bat,mentioned in the second place, were thought to be unclean, andtherefore were looked on with repugnance (cf. Lev. 11: 19, Deut.14: 18)”. 12 Regarding the framing of the bat as an impure bird(‛ăṭallēp), see Cansdale, 1970, pp. 135-136: ”Bats are includedamong the birds with some logic, for they are the world’s mostexpert fliers [...]. It would hardly seem necessary to class thebats as unclean, for nearly all kinds have a powerful andpersistent musky smell”. 13 For the Hebrew text, we used Kitteredition, 1929 (Liber Jesaiae). 14 As for the meanings of the termregarding the Greek translation of the Old Testament, see Harl,Dorival, Munnich, 2007, p. 41: “What we call today Septuagintrepresents in fact all Old Testament, meaning not only the Greektranslation of all the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also, on theone hand, various additions to the book of Ester, Psalms, Jeremiahand Daniel, and, on the other hand, the “deuterocanonical” or“apocryphal” books. By this terma are designated books that werereceived later in the canon of the Church, books that existed onlyin Greek (Wisdom, II, 19 Maccabees – the end, III and IV) or theGreek translations of the books in Hebrew or Aramaic, non acceptedby the Jewish canon (I Esdras, I Maccabees, II Maccabees 1, 1-2,18, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Psalms of Solomon). InAntiquity, Septuagint reffered to two distinct realities. Since 2ndcentury AD, Septuagint refferd to the entire Old Testament. [...]But according to the Jewish helenophone tradition (Aristeas’Letter, Joseph Flavius), Septuagint contains only the five books ofTorah, that is the Jewish law”. In what follows, we’ll use the termin the extended sense, by Septuagint understanding the Greektranslation of the Old Testament. 15 Leviticus and Deuteronomy aretwo of the five books of the Torah. Jewish Torah “was translated inAlexandria, in the 3rd century BC [...].This initial nucleus wasgradually added
64 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
”καὶ γλαῦκα καὶ ἐρωδιὸν καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶ τὰ ὅµοια αὐτῷ καὶἔποπα καὶ νυκτερίδα” (Lev.11:19);/ „καὶ πελεκᾶνα καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶτὰ ὅµοια αὐτῷ καὶ πορφυρίωνα καὶ νυκτερίδα” (Deut.14:18)16. Theverse from the Book of Isaiah was translated as: ”τῇ γὰρ ἡµέρᾳἐκείνῃ ἐκβαλεῖ ἄνθρωπος τὰ βδελύγµατα αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χρυσᾶἃ ἐποίησαν προσκυνεῖν τοῖς µαταίοις17 καὶ ταῖς νυκτερίσιν” (Is. 2:20). 2.4. Hieronymus18 used the Latin vespertilio to translate theHebrew word ‛ăṭallēp and the Greek νυκτερίς. In the Vulgate,vespertilio was counted among the impure birds:
Erodionem et charadrion iuxta genus suum opupam quoque etvespertilionem” (Lev. 11: 19);/ „Onocrotalum et charadrium singulain genere suo upupam quoque et vespertilionem” (Deut.14:18); ”Indie illa
with other biblical books, translated or written directly inGreek in Egypt, especially in the second and first centuries BC”.(Harl, Dorival, Munnich, 2007, p. 33). 16 For Septuagint, we usedRahlfs, second edition, 2006 (rev. Robert Hanhart). 17 In theoriginal text, there is laḥa parpārōt, which was interpreted bysome researchers as a species of bat (see Wildberger, 1991, p. 58:”whether this really a reference to the shrew, which shuns thelight, or not rather, as Liebermann, HAL 327b conjectures to acertain kind of bat, is a matter for observation”. 18 ForHieronymus, see Schaff, Wace, 1893, p. XI: ”St. Jerome’s importancelies in the facts: (1) That he was the author of the VulgateTranslation of the Bible into Latin, (2) That he bore the chiefpart in introducing the ascetic life into Western Europe, (3) Thathis writings more than those of any of the Fathers bring before usthe general as well as the ecclesiastical life of his time. It wasa time of special interest, the last age of the old Greco-Romancivilization, the beginning of an altered world. It included thereigns of Julian (361–63), Valens (364–78), Valentinian (364–75),Gratian (375–83), Theodosius (379–95) and his sons, the definitiveestablishment of orthodox Christianity in the Empire, and the sackof Rome by Alaric (410). It was the age of the great Fathers, ofAmbrose and Augustine in the West, of Basil, the Gregories, andChrysostom in the East. With several of these Jerome was broughtinto personal contact; of Ambrose he often speaks in his writings[...]; with Augustine he carried on an important correspondence[...]; he studied under Gregory Nazianzen [...] at the time of theCouncil at Constantinople, 381; he was acquainted with Gregory ofNyssa [...]; he translated the diatribe of Theophilus of Alexandriaagainst Chrysostom [...]. He ranks as one of the four Doctors ofthe Latin Church, and his influence was the most lasting; for,though he was not a great original thinker like Augustine, nor achampion like Ambrose, nor an organiser and spreader ofChristianity like Gregory, his influence outlasted theirs. Theirinfluence in the Middle Ages was confined to a comparatively smallcircle; but the monastic institutions which he introduced, thevalue for relics and sacred places which he defended, the deferencewhich he showed for Episcopal authority, especially that of theRoman Pontiff, were the chief features of the Christian system fora thousand years; his Vulgate was the Bible of Western Christendomtill the Reformation. To the theologian he is interesting ratherfor what he records than for any contribution of his own to thescience; but to the historian his vivid descriptions of persons andthings at an important though melancholy epoch of the world are ofinestimable value”.
65 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
proiciet homo idola argenti sui et simulacra auri sui quaefecerat sibi ut adoraret talpas et vespertiliones. (Is.2:20)
We noticed that for the translators of the Septuagint, ‛ăṭallēpdesignates the
same reality as the Greek νυκτερίς. Hieronymus, familiarizedwith the Masoretic and Greek texts, uses vespertilio as equivalentto ‛ăṭallēp and νυκτερίς, confirming the equivalence proposed bythe Septuagint translators (‛ăṭallēp ↔ νυκτερίς ↔ vespertilio).
2.5. The Romanian versions of the Bible19, regardless of theoriginal used 20, are reluctant to innovate in relation to thesource text. In the Bible of Bucharest21, the bat is integratedwith other birds in the category of impure creatures:
„Şi erodion şi haradrion şi aseamenea lor şi pupăza şi liliacul”(Lev.11:19)22;/ ”Şi barza, şi şoiumul şi câte-i samănă lui, şipupăza, şi liliacul” (Deut.14:18)23.
The Vulgate of Blaj and the Bible of Blaj do not forget aboutthe bat,
considered an impure bird, as haradriul / haradionul, pelican orpupăza: The Vulgate of Blaj: „Ierodiul şi haradriul, după feliulsău, pupăza şi liliacul” (Lev.11:19);// ”Onocrotanul şi haradriul,fieştecarea după fealiul său, şi pupăza şi liliacul”(Deut.14:18)24
19 BB – Biblia, adecă dumnezeiasca Scriptură, Bucharest, 1688(the text was confronted with the modern edition, Biblia adecăDumnezeiasca Scriptură a Vechiului şi Noului Testament, firstprinted in 1688 and reprinted after 300 years, in 1988; BibliaVulgata, Blaj 1760-1761, the modern edition reprinted in 2005 bythe Academy Publishing House; Biblia de la Blaj 1795, Roma: 2000.20 Biblia de la Bucureşti was translated after the Greek versionprinted in 1597, Divinae Scripturae nempe Veteris ac NoviTestamenti omnia, graece a vari doctissimo recognita et emendata,variisque lectionibus aucta et illlustrata, Francofurti ad Moenum,apud Andreae Wecheli heredes. Vulgata of Blaj follows the latintext printed in Venice, in 1690, Biblia Sacra, Venetiis, apudNicolaum Pezzana. Biblia of Blaj is based on the Greek text in theLambert Bos’s edition, Vetus Testamentum ex Versione Septuagintainterpretum, secundum exemplar Vaticanum Romae editum,accuratissime demo recognitum, una cum scholiis eiusdem editionis,variis manuscriptorum codicum veterumque exemplarium lectionibusnec non fragmentis versionum Aquilae, Symmachi et Theodotionis(1709). 21 In ms. 45 that preserves the Milescu version of the OldTestament translation, the verses refer also to the bat: ”Şierodiul, şi haradrion, şi asemenea lor, şi cucul, şi liliacul”(Lev. 11:19) – And the heron, and the yellowish bird, and likethem, the cuckoo and the bat / ”Şi pelicanul, şi şoimul şi căte-isamănă lui, şi cucul şi liliacul” (Deut. 14:18) – And the pelican,and the hawk and who is like him, and the cuckoo and the bat. 22 Inoriginal: ”καὶ γλαῦκα καὶ ἐρωδιὸν καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶ τὰ ὅµοια αὐτῷκαὶ ἔποπα καὶ νυκτερίδα” (Lev. 11: 19). 23 In original: ”καὶπελεκᾶνα καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶ τὰ ὅµοια αὐτῷ καὶ πορφυρίωνα καὶνυκτερίδα” (Deut.14:18). 24 In Latin original: „erodionem etcharadrion iuxta genus suum opupam quoque et vespertilionem” (Lev.11: 19);// „onocrotalum et charadrium singula in genere suo upupamquoque et vespertilionem” (Deut.14:18).
66 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
Bible of Blaj: ”Şi erodionul şi haradionul, şi aseamenea lui şipupăza şi liliiacul” (Lev. 11: 19);// „Şi pelicanul şi haradrionulşi ceale ce sânt aseamenea lui, porfirionul şi liliiacul”(Deut.14:18)25. For the Book of Isaiah, the translators of theBible of Bucharest of the
Vulgate of Blaj and of the Bible of Blaj faithfully follows theoriginal, whether the Greek text, or Latin:
„Pentru că în ziua aceaea va scoate omul urâciunele ceale deargint şi ceale
de aur, carele au făcut a să închina, celor deşarte şililiacilor” (BB, Is.2:20)26;/ ”În zioa aceaea idolii cei deargintul său şi bozii cei de aurul său, carii-ş făcusă să li săînchine cârtiţele şi liliecii” (Vulgata, Is.2:20)27;/ ”Că în zioaaceaea va lăpăda omul urâciunile sale ceale de argint şi de aur,care şi-au făcut ca să se închine celor deşearte şi liliiacilor”.(Bible of Blaj, Is.2:20)28 - In that day mankind will cast awaytheir idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made forthemselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats (Englishstandard translation).
As can be seen from comparing different versions of the biblicaltext
(written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Romanian), the creaturenamed ‛ăṭallēp, νυκτερίς, vespertilio or in Romanian, liliacrepresents a bird29. Framing the bat in the category of the impurebirds (listed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) leads to negativesemiotization of the creature in the Book of Isaiah. Therefore, bywhatever name it is known (‛ăṭallēp, νυκτερίς, vespertilio orliliac), creature is doomed - especially in speeches influenced bythe biblical text - to appear in negative contexts.
2.6. The temptation to identify bat species designated by‛ăṭallēp led the specialists to the hypothesis that the Hebrew termrefers to roussettus aegyptiacus30. It is questionable whether theauthors of sacred texts have in view only roussettus aegyptiacuswhen they used the Hebrew ‛ăṭallēp. Even if we admit
25 The Romanian version closely follows the Greek original: ”καὶγλαῦκα καὶ ἐρωδιὸν καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶ τὰ ὅµοια αὐτῷ καὶ ἔποπα καὶνυκτερίδα” (Lev. 11: 19)// ”καὶ πελεκᾶνα καὶ χαραδριὸν καὶ τὰ ὅµοιααὐτῷ καὶ πορφυρίωνα καὶ νυκτερίδα” (Deut.14:18). 26 ”τῇ γὰρ ἡµέρᾳἐκείνῃ ἐκβαλεῖ ἄνθρωπος τὰ βδελύγµατα αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χρυσᾶἃ ἐποίησαν προσκυνεῖν τοῖς µαταίοις καὶ ταῖς νυκτερίσιν” (Is. 2:20). 27 ”in die illa proiciet homo idola argenti sui et simulacraauri sui quae fecerat sibi ut adoraret talpas et vespertiliones”(Is.2:20). 28 ”τῇ γὰρ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐκβαλεῖ ἄνθρωπος τὰ βδελύγµατααὐτοῦ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χρυσᾶ ἃ ἐποίησαν προσκυνεῖν τοῖς µαταίοιςκαὶ ταῖς νυκτερίσιν” (Is. 2: 20). 29 See also DOT, s.v. zoology:”ancient zoological classification certainly did not correspond tothe exactitude of our modern Linnaean system [...]. Likewise,‛ăṭallēp (“bat”) (Lev. 11: 19; Deut. 14: 18), which occurs in thelist of unclean birds, is strictly speaking, a mammal, not a birdat all”. 30 Wildeberger, 1991, p. 120: ”ָֽהֲעַטֵּל is normallytranslated “bat” According to N. H. Tur-Sinai it is the roussettusaegyptiacus, a type of bat with an elongated, doglike snout”.
67 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
that‛ăṭallēp reffrs striclty to roussettus aegyptiacus31, theidentification of the species of bat in Leviticus, Deuteronomy andIsaiah does not lead to a better understanding of the mechanism oftranslation of the Hebrew text into Greek and then in Latin.Whatever species designated by ‛ăṭallēp, in the transition from theMasoretic text in the Greek version, and then to Latin, theidentification of the creature and the determination of lexicalcorrespondences were based on a familiar genus and not a species,which the translators could not know32. Translating the Sacrestexts, the Greek translators of the Septuagint and then Hieronymushave to find an appropriate equivalent ‛ăṭallēp, which has in thesemantic configuration, the features [+bird] [+flying during night]etc.
2.7. It is possible that the equivalence of ‛ăṭallēp by νυκτερίςor vespertilio have been motivated not only by the existence of acommon reference of the three terms, but also their structure.‛Ăṭallēp is a term whose origine has generated numerous discussionsamong scholars and commentators of the sacred text. The term wasinterpreted as a compound, the structure of which can be found inat („to fly”) and alaph (”darkness, night”)33. Other researchersbelieve that ‛ăṭallēp has to be linked to the term Phoenicianoθολαβαδ (Gesenii Monumenta Phoenicia, apud Brown, Driver, Briggs,s.v.)34. It is possible that the Septuagint translators andsubsequently Hieronymus established the correspondence ‛ăṭallēp ↔νυκτερίς ↔ vespertilio as to the interpretation of the Hebrew termas a compound, the structure of which have recognized alaph(„întuneric, noapte”). Both νυκτερίς and vespertilio have ananalyzable structure, being formed from νῦξ35 and vesper36, meaning”night”. Compared to the equivalent of Greek and Latin, theRomanian
31 The hypothesis proposed by N.H. Tur-Sinai according to which‛ăṭallēp refers to roussettus aegyptiacus is questionable, because”the Egyptian Fruit-bat, Rousettus aegyptiacus, is liable to becomea pest in the increasing areas of fruit orchards now beingestablished in Israel. Its numbers were probably negligible inbiblical times” (Cansdale, 1970, p. 136). 32 See also Cansdale,1970, pp. 135-136: ”Only experts distinguish most of these species,especially in the field, and though bats would be known to theHebrews one would certainly not expect them to have more than oneor two names [...]. Bats, like several other animals which are hardto identify precisely, were used almost to set the scene ofdesecration or desolation”. 33 See Clark, 1846, p. 541: ”The bat -ףלטע (atalleph), so called, according to Parkhurst, from טע (at),to fly, and ףלע (alaph), darkness or obscurity, because it fliesabout in the dusk of the evening, and in the night: so theSeptuagint νυκτερις, from νυξ, the night; and the Vulgatevespertilio, from vesper, the evening. This being a sort of monsterpartaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well beclassed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in foodshould be avoided”. 34 See also Brown, Driver, Briggs, s.v.:”LewyFremdw. 17 cp. ἀττέλεβος, name of a locust in North Africa”.35 For the etimology of νυκτερίς, see Liddel, Scott, s.v.:”νυκτερίς, -ίδος, ἡ (νύξ, νύκτερος) a night-bird, a bat, Lat.vespertilio”. 36 For the etimology of vespertilio, see, amongothers, OLD s.v.: ”vespertilio, -onis m. [vesper; term. dub., butperh. influenced by papilio and sm. words] ”.
68 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
term has an opaque structure. The choice is motivated strictlyby the existence of a common reference to νυκτερίς andvespertilio.
2.8. The biblical text requires the bat, as impure bird to occurespecially in negative scripts. The negative semiotization, whichis already manifest in the Book of Isaiah, influenced therepresentation of the creature in the texts of the ChurchFathers37. The bat begins to be associated with idola and,eventually, with the devil. Most often, the Church Fathers areconvinced that the bat is a creature of darkness.
2.9. Saint Basil of Caesarea38 states that vespertilio is asymbol of demonic. Commenting on the verse from the Book of theProphet Isaiah, Basil of Caesarea identifies bat demons, puttingthe creature to serve the demon:
Ταῖς δὲ νυκτερίσι προσκυνεῖ ὁ τὴν τῶν δαιµόνων δύναµιν συγγενῆοὖσαν τῷ σκότει θεοποιῶν. Ἡ γὰρ νυκτερὶς ζῶόν ἐστι νυκτὶ φίλον καὶσκότει ἐνδιαιτώµενον, αὐγὴν ἡλίου µὴ φέρον, ἐν ἐρηµίαις φιλοχωροῦν.Τί δὲ οἱ δαίµονες; Οὐ τοιοῦτοι; ἐρηµοποιοὶ, τὸ φῶς ἀπο φεύγοντες τὸἀληθινὸν, τὸ τοῦ κόσµου παντός; Ἡ νυκτερὶς καὶ πτηνόν ἐστι καὶ οὐκἐπτέρωται, ἀλλ' ὑµένι σαρκίνῳ δια πέταται τὸν ἀέρα. Τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱδαίµονες· ἀσώµατοι µέν εἰσιν, οὐκ ἐπτέρωνται δὲ τῷ θείῳ πόθῳ, ἀλλ'οἱονεὶ ἀπεσαρκώ θησαν, ταῖς τῶν ὑλικῶν ἐπιθυµίαις προστετηκότες. Ἡνυκτερὶς καὶ πτηνόν ἐστι καὶ τετράπουν, ἀλλ' οὔτε τοῖς ποσὶν ἀσφαλῶς ἐστήρικται, οὔτε τὴν πτῆσιν βεβαίαν ἔχει. Τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱδαίµονες· οὔτε Ἄγγελοί εἰσιν, οὔτε ἄνθρωποι· τῶν µὲν τὴν ἀξίανἀπολέσαντες, τῶν δὲ τὴν φύσιν µὴ ἔχοντες. Καὶ ὀδόντας ἔχουσιν, ὅπεροὐκ ἔχουσιν ὄρνιθες· ἀµυντικοὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ δαίµονες, ὅπερ οὐ ποιοῦσινἌγγελοι. Ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐκ ὠοτοκοῦσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ ὄρνιθες· ἀλλ' εὐθὺς ζῶατίκτουσι. Τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ δαίµονες· εὐθὺς καὶ σὺν πολλῷ τῷ τάχειτελεσιουργοῦντες τὴν πονηρίαν. Ὥστε οἱ δαίµοσι προσκυνοῦντες,νυκτερίσι τροπικῶς εἴρηνται προσκυνεῖν. (col. 277)39
37 For the whole discussion, see Uţă, 2013, p. 54. 38 For Basilthe Great, see CODWR, s.v. Basil S. The Great: „Basil ‘the Great’(c.330–79). One of the three Cappadocian fathers, and the first ofthe three Holy Hierarchs of the E. Church. Besides his eloquenceand personal holiness, Basil was known for his talent foradministration. His two monastic rules […] determined the structureof E. Christian monasticism ever since. He built hospitals andhostels alongside church buildings in Caesarea, and organizedrelief for the poor. His writings, in addition to letters, are atreatise On the Holy Spirit, three anti-Arian books AgainstEunomius, and homilies”. 39 See also the Latin translation inGarnier edition: ”Adorat autem vespertiliones, qui daemonumpotestatem tenebris plane cognatam & affinem pro Deo habet. Estenim vespertilio animal noctis amans, versans in tenebris, solissplendorem non ferens, & in desertis locis perlibenterinhabitans. Ecquid autem daemones? Annon eiusmodi sunt? Nonnevastitatis sunt opifices; cum veram totius mundi lucem aversentur.Vespertilio est & volucris, nec tamen pennis instructa est, sedmembrana carnea per aerem volat. Eiusmodi sunt & daemones,incorporales quidem; sed divini amoris pennis destituuntur; imorerum carnalium desideriis dediti, veluti carnis naturam induerunt.Vespertilio & volatilis est, & quadrupes; nec tamen pedibustuto fulcitur, nec validi est volatus. Eiusmodi autem sunt&
69 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
All features of the bat seem to find a faithful correspondent inthose of the demons. Starting from the definition of νυκτερίς, St.Basis analyzes the specific differences and indicates for each oneof them an equivalent taken from the definition of the demons. Thiscreates a wide range of correspondences between two distinct areasof reference, [material → νυκτερίς] vs. [abstract → δαίµονες]. Thefeature ζῶόν νυκτὶ φίλον καὶ σκότει ἐνδιαιτώµενον is associatedwith τὸ φῶς ἀπο φεύγοντες τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ τοῦ κόσµου παντός, whileπτηνόν καὶ οὐκ ἐπτέρωται is equalized by οὐκ ἐπτέρωνται δὲ τῷ θείῳπόθῳ, ἀλλ' οἱονεὶ ἀπεσαρκώ θησαν, ταῖς τῶν ὑλικῶν ἐπιθυµίαιςπροστετηκότες, but καὶ πτηνόν ἐστι καὶ τετράπουν, ἀλλ' οὔτε τοῖςποσὶν ἀσφα λῶς ἐστήρικται, οὔτε τὴν πτῆσιν βεβαίαν ἔχει correspondto οὔτε Ἄγγελοί εἰσιν, οὔτε ἄνθρωποι. Finally, ὀδόντας ἔχουσιν,ὅπερ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὄρνιθες is connected to ἀµυντικοὶ, and εὐθὺς ζῶατίκτουσι to εὐθὺς καὶ σὺν πολλῷ τῷ τάχει τελεσιουργοῦντες τὴνπονηρίαν.
The analogy (νυκτερίς = δαίµονες) in St. Basil’s text representsa superior step of the negative semiotization, in a form of anascendent climax. If in the text of Hieronymus, vespertiliocompared to idola is the intermediate stage of negativesemiotization, in that of St. Basil of Caesarea, νυκτερίς treatedas equivalent to δαίµονες, reached the end point of the process ofsemiotization.
It appears that the text of St. Basil the Great, νυκτερίςreceives another genus than that mentioned in Hieronymus’commentary (where vespertilio is a nocturna avis, with the feature+ murium similis). In St. Basil’s commentary, νυκτερίς is definedfirst as ζῶόν, then as καὶ πτηνόν καὶ τετράπουν. Moving from thegeneric term to the syntagm with a cumulative meaning reveals thechange occurred in the categorization of the creature, slowlyapproaching monsters.
2.10. The equivalence of the bat with the devil led not only tothe fulfilment of the negative semiotization, but also to thechange of the cultural representation of the second one. In Dante’sInferno, the representation of the devil is influenced by thesymbolic relation developed between this one and the bat40:
Sotto ciascuna uscivan due grand’ali, quanto si convenia a tantouccello: vele di mar non vid’io mai cotali. Non avian penne, ma divispistrello era lor modo…41
daemones. Neque angeli, neque homines sunt: illorum siquidemdignitatem amiserunt, horum vero natura non donantur. Quin &dentes habent vespertiliones, aves aliae non item: daemones etiamad vindictam sunt parati, id non efficiunt angeli. Vespertilionesinsuper avium ritu ova non edunt, sed statim pariunt animalia:tales sunt & daemones; actutum & cum plurima celeritatenequitiam perficiunt. Quare qui adorant daemones, per metaphoramdicti sunt vespertiliones adorare” (col. 278). 40 Cohen, 2008, p.233: ”Dante was instrumental in forging bat-wings to the figure ofthe devil in the Italian art”. 41 Dante, Inferno, XXXIV: 46-50.
70 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
Dante's Inferno Devil has bat wings. The representation proposedin Dante's Inferno goes further than the mere poetic status as itis accepted in another semiotic system than literary, appearing inthe frescoes of Giotto, Nardo di Cione Orcagna or AndreaOrcagna42.
The consequences were not slow to appear and did nothing but topress once again the bat, since the fifteenth century “mostFlorentine devils had bat wings” (Cohen, 2008: 234).
3. Sometimes the creature is released from negativesemiotization, imposed by the biblical text. Thus a newrepresentation of the bat becomes possible. The manner ofrepresentation of the bat, in some texts of the Church Fathers,combines this time, ”the naturalistic” with the analogycircumscribed to Christian values.
Among the Church Fathers, Basil the Great and Ambrose43 are thefirst who construct a new representation of the bat, very differentfrom the one of the Biblical text.
3.1. The Great’s Hexaemeron highlights the way in which thepositive semiotization is realised in Christian writings.Commenting on the first six days of Creation, ” in a liturgicalcycle from Monday until Friday”44, St. Basil mentions also the bat,in a positive context:
Πῶς τετράπουν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πτηνὸν ἡ νυκτερίς. Πῶς µόνη τῶνὀρνίθων ὀδοῦσι κέχρηται, καὶ ζωογονεῖ µὲν ὡς τὰ τετράποδα,ἐπιπολάζει δὲ τῷ ἀέρι, οὐχὶ πτερῷ κουφιζοµένη, ἀλλ᾿ ὑµένι τινὶδερµατίνῳ. Πῶς µέντοι καὶ τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ φιλάλληλον ἐν τῇ φύσει, καὶὥσπερ ὁρµαθὸς, ἀλλήλων αἱ νυκτερίδες ἔχονται, καὶ µία τῆς µιᾶςἤρτηνται· ὅπερ ἐφ᾿ ἡµῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ ῥᾴδιον κατορθωθῆναι. Τὸ γὰρἀπεσχισµένον καὶ ἰδιάζον τοῦ κοινωνικοῦ καὶ ἡνωµένου τοῖς πολλοῖςπροτιµότερον. (VIII, 7)45
42 Cohen, 2008, p. 233-234: ”Florentine painters of theTrecento, such as Giotto (in the Capella degli Scrovegni, Padua,1314), Nardo di Cione (in the Strozzi chapel at Santa MariaNovella, Florence, 1350-1355) and Andrea Orcagna (in Santa Croce,Florence, ca. 1350), as well as Dante illuminators, followed hisdescription in visualizing the figure of Lucifer in Hell”. 43 ForAmbrose, see CODWR, s.v. Ambrose S.: ”Ambrose (c.339–97). Bishop ofMilan. He was trained in rhetoric and law, and assumed the see inc.374, after having been civil governor. He was famous as apreacher and champion of orthodoxy (e.g. against the Arians). Hewas a strong advocate of monasticism, writing on asceticism, andalso interpreting Eastern theology for the West. He is one of thefour original Doctors of the W. Church”. 44 Anton, 2003, p. 129. 45See also the Latin translation in Garnier edition: ”Quomodo idemquadrupes sit et volatile, vespertilio; quomodo sola ex volucribusdentibus utatur, et pariat quidem catulos velut quadrupedia;vagetur vero in aere, non pennis elata, sed membrana quadamcoriacea. Quomodo et hoc mutuum amorem natura insitum habeat,sibique invicem vespertiliones in modum catenae adhaerescant et unaab altera pendeat: quod non facile fieri inter nos homines solet.Nam sejuncta et privata vita a plerisque societati praefertur,atque conjunctioni” (VIII, 7).
71 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
The positive semiotization of the bat of possible because Basilof Caesarea
„si era assunto l’impegno di mediare ad un pubblico di fedeli –e non a specialisti e lettori di trattati – un’esegesi piuttostoaccurata dei primi capitol della Genesi traendo gli argomenti nonsolo dale Scritture e dalla riflessione filosofico-teologica, maanche da una vasta, se non profonda, enciclopedia «laica»,dall’astronomia alla fisica alla zoologia. Egli è così il primoautore cristiano a trasformare la semplice menzione di pesci,uccelli, rettili e quadrupedi della Bibbia in un vero e proprio«bestiario eamerale» o «creazionistico»” (Gonnelli, 1996, p. 106).Freed from the negative context imposed by the Biblical script (seeLeviticus, Deuteronomy and Isaiah), the bat is subject torecategorization and therefore a recontextualization that show a(rather) secular. Basil the Great’s perspective in presenting theanimals is different from the alegory of the Phisiologus46, beingdependent - to some extent – to the manner of representation of theworld works for the ancient ”naturalists”47.
Basil the Great insists on particular aspects of the morphologyof the bat, without any connections to the demonic or monstrous,because his perspecive is reduced to ”the observaton of theanimals”, in an attemp to ”perceive the wonderful work of God”(Anton, 2003: 131): ”Πῶς τετράπουν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πτηνὸν ἡ νυκτερίς.Πῶς µόνη τῶν ὀρνίθων ὀδοῦσι κέχρηται, καὶ ζωογονεῖ µὲν ὡς τὰτετράποδα, ἐπιπολάζει δὲ τῷ ἀέρι, οὐχὶ πτερῷ κουφιζοµένη, ἀλλ᾿ὑµένι τινὶ δερµατίνῳ”48.
From a creature of the darkness, the bat becomes a creature,which, although it seems hard to fit in a certain genus, ”is notaccidental on earth”, since ”God created the world out of love”(ibidem). The sequence dedicated to bat in Hexaemeron does notcontain any reference to Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Isaiah, so thebird considered impure in the Biblical text is able to become inthe Eighth Homily of Basil of Caesarea, the symbol for τὸφιλάλληλον (mutuum amorem). The positive semiotization of the batis the consequence of the natural change of perspective done byBasil the Great in relation to the Biblical text and is determined,on the one hand, by te the re-contextualization of the creature,and, on the other, by the ranking of different morphologicalaspects specific to it. The same
46 See also Anton, 2003, p. 131: ”The animals of Basil theGreat’s zoology differ from the animals that belong to theallegorical tradition of the exegesis, according to which God,making the world, put spiritual features inside the animals. Justlike the discourse of the Phisiologist, Basil’s has a theologicaldestination, but being uncontaminated by the allegorical method, itreflects a new way of seeing the world of the animals in theChristian culture. The landmark of this knowledge is scientificobservation”. 47 Gonnelli, 1996, p. 107: ”Sugli animali, piuttosto,doveva già circolare in quest’epoca quello che per noi èl’archetipo dei bestiari medievali, il Physiologus, ma nel pianobasiliano l’opera risultò poco utile, importata com’era su unalettura esclusivamente allegorico-tipologica del mondo animale, pervedervi signa di verità metafisiche. Basilio invece, pur nonignorando del tutto certi spunti allegorici ormai entrati nell’uso,opta nella lettura del mondo per un limpido letteralismo: glianimali sono innanzitutto mirabili di per sé, testimonia dellasapienza divina, occasionalmente anche exampla di morale”. 48 Ourunderlining.
72 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
(particular) features of the bat, underlined by Basil the Greatin his commentary on the Book of Isaiah appeared in the descriptionfrom Hexaemeron: ”καὶ ὥσπερ ὁρµαθὸς, ἀλλήλων αἱ νυκτερίδες ἔχονται,καὶ µία τῆς µιᾶς ἤρτηνται· ὅπερ ἐφ᾿ ἡµῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ ῥᾴδιονκατορθωθῆναι. Τὸ γὰρ ἀπεσχισµένον καὶ ἰδιάζον τοῦ κοινωνικοῦ καὶἡνωµένου τοῖς πολλοῖς προτιµότερον”. Unlike the comment on the Bookof Isaiah, the one on Hexaemeron is constructed in such a mannerthat the principles of focalizaton on the monstrous character ofthe creature became futile (because in the Hexaemeron, the themethat ensures the semantic unity of the text is the eulogy of God’sCreation). As a result, atypical features of the creature becomesecondary to its peculiarities circumscribed to τὸ φιλάλληλον(mutuum amorem).
3.2. Following Basil the Great, Ambose proposes the samerepresentation of the creature49. He underlines that vespertilio ismember of nocturnal birds, but do not forget to add that it isignobile:
”Vespertilio animal ignobile a vespere nomen accepit” (XXIV,87). Ambrose continues by presenting the morphology of the bat(retrieving
many elements of the text of Basil the Great):
Est autem volatilis, eademque quadrupes, et dentibus utitur,quos in aliis avibus reperire non soleas. Parit ut quadrupedia, nonova, sed pullos viventes. Volitat in aere avium more; sedcrepusculo vespertino consuevit offundi. Volitat autem non aliquopennarum, sed membranae suae fulta remigio, quo suspensa velutpennarum volatu circumfertur atque vegetatur. (ibidem)
He also resumes the analogy νυκτερίς = τὸ φιλάλληλον,translating it into
Latin under the form of the equivalence vespertilio =c(h)aritas: ”Habet et illud hoc vile animal, quod sibi invicemadhaerent, et quasi in speciem botryonis ex aliquo loco pendent: acsi se ultima quaeque laxaverit, omnes resolvuntur. Quod fit quodammunere charitatis, quae difficile in hominibus huius mundireperitur” (ibidem).
When the bat representation does not follow the model of theBiblical text,
it seems to be influenced by the naturalistic perspectivepresent in ancient works, plus interpretatio christiana as theeulogy of God’s Creation. The bat is saved to the limit. Althoughthe Church Fathers openly acknowledge that the bat genus is
49 Anton, 2003, p. 125: ”The hexaemeric tradition of organizingthe knowledge on world, for the articulation of a theologicalknowledge related to the Old Testament starts intheJewish-Hellenistic universe of thinking, with the interpretationof the Pentateuch by Philon of Alexandria (first century A.D.),continuing through Christian thinkers like Teophilos of AntiochOrigen, and through Basil the Great’s Homilies to ”Hexaemeron”,this way of glorifying the spendor and sanctity of the universe,but also of knowledge transmission is taken by Saint Ambrose ofMilan for the Western Christianity and by John Exarch for theSlavic East”.
73 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
questionable (νυκτερίς: καὶ τετράπουν καὶ πτηνὸν// vespertilio:autem volatilis, eademque quadrupes), they cannot they cannotquestion the justice of the divine act of creation of everything.Therefore, they try to motivate the categorization of the bat as aGod’s creation, by emphasizing a feature that allows the analogywith the Christian values circumscribed to τὸ φιλάλληλον/caritas.
3.3. Basil the Great’s Hexaemeron is ”the most known”50commentary on the six days of Creation, as it was proved by itslarge circulation in both West and East. Its status of ”OldTestament exegesis treaty of reference in the Western Middle Ages”was provided by the translation into Latin, which was probably donein the year 40051 by Eustathius52. The Hexaemeron was also known ifthe Romanian space, beginning with the 18th century, when it wastranslated for the first time, from Greek into Romanian, by thehieromonk Ilarion Bou Rău53, who ”at the initiative of the Bishopof Rădăuţi, Dositei Herăscu” translated the text ”around 1775, atDragomirna Monastery” (Anton, 2003: 132-133).
The Romanian version closely followed Basil the Great’s Greekoriginal:
Cum jivină cu patru picioare acéiaşi iaste şi zburătoareliliiacul. Cum numai sângur el din toate din toate paserile şidinţi are, şi dobitoc adecă naşte ca céle cu patru picioare, darplutéşte pre aer, nu prin péne uşor făcându-să şi sus înălţându-să,ci prin piéliţă oarecaré de piiale. Cum încă şi acesta are preiubirea cea între sineşi a unora cătră alţii în fire sădită şi caşi şirul unii de alţii să ţin liliecii şi unul de altul să atârnă,care lucru între noi oamenii nu iaste cu lesnire să se facă. Pentrucă viaţa cea dejghinată şi osăbită mai cinstită şi mai unită iastemultora decât cea împărtăşită însoţirii ceii de obşte şi unită.(Hexaemeron, 209v-210r)
The bat has the same (uncertain) genus as in the source-text(jivină cu
patru picioare acéiaşi iaste şi zburătoare). The creature namedliliac (”bat”) in the Romanian version preserves the samemorphology as in the original text (dinţi are// naşte ca céle cupatru picioare// plutéşte pre aer, nu prin péne ... ci prin piéliţăoarecaré de piiale). The analogy νυκτερίς = τὸ φιλάλληλον becomesin the Romanian text liliac = iubirea cea între sineşi a unoracătră alţii. Ilarion Bou Rău translated τὸ φιλάλληλον by a largersyntagm, as a result of the translation of each element of theoriginal compound (iubirea cea între sineşi). He insisted on one ofthe elements present in the configuration of φιλάλληλον,introducing a phrase that repeats emphatically the idea of sharing/ reciprocity involved in the love of the close ones (a unora cătrăalţii).
50 Anton, 2003, p. 132. 51 Anyway, after Basil of Caesarea’sdeath (379). 52 See also Anton, 2003, p. 132. 53 Regarding theactivity of Ilarion Bou Rău, see Ursu, 1994, pp. 58-83; Timotin,Timotin, 2002, pp. 104-116, Anton, 2003, p. 133.
74 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
Ilarion Bou Rău’s translation was copied many times in theRomanian space54, and it was preserved in manuscripts dating fromthe 18th and 19th century. In the 19th century it was printed bythe Wallachian Metropolitan, Grigore Dascălul55. However, it isdifficult to say to what extent the representation of the bat,proposed by Basil the Great was able to influence the perception ofthe creature in the Old Romanian era. It is possible that cognitivetype and the positive semiotization of the bat in Hexaemeron didnot exceed the level of perception the Romanian society of thattime.
3.4. The fact that in the works of a Christian writer and aFather of the Church as Basil the Great can coexist twodiametrically opposed representations of the bat highlights thefollowing:
a. the pressure exercised by the Biblical text on thecommentators, requiring them one reading grid that meets theManichean vision of the world (all things are divided in pure andimpure, divine and demonic, and once categorized, things can not betransferred from one class to another);
b. the survival of classical culture, a phenomenon whichmanifests itself by recovery of common place56 in the writings ofthe Fathers and the circulation of representations that couldconflict with the biblical message (the phenomenon is particularlyevident when the Fathers do not comment the Biblical text);
c. the commentary on the nature of the bat depends on the scriptproposed in the original followed by Church Fathers and updatesdifferent sets of knowledge. (If the scenario is negative, then theallegorical interpretation will observe the biblical text andchoose the negative semiotization. On the contrary, if the scriptis positive or even neutral, it is possible to produce positivesemiotization and to activate another set of knowledge about theworld.)
4. In the medieval world begins the formation of ”a veryprecise, figurative speech, about demonic kingdom, placing exactlythe notion of sin in order to induce the Christian convincingly” toact and "to confess”57. The animals are a part of a moralizing andallegorized - according to their morphology, but also theprejudices - emblem of virtue or vice. The bat is associated withlust”58. What was described as mutuus amor in Basil’s Hexaemeronand then in Ambrose’s becomes
54 Regarding the description of the manuscripts that preservethe text of the translation, see Anton, 2003, p. 134. 55 Ibidem. 56Regarding different representations of the bat in ancient texts,see Arnott, 2007, pp. 221-222. 57 Muchembled, 2002, p. 35. 58 Seealso Zink, 1985, p. 59: ”Dans la littérature médiévale, l’animal,comme le reste de la création, n’est digne d’attention que pourautant qu’il est porteur de sens. L’élucidation de ce sens est laraison d’être des bestiaires, qui décrivent chaque animal et sesmoeurs de manière à faire apparaître sa signification allégorique,dans le domaine religieux, ou parfois amoureux”.
75 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
the sign of the sinfull in Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbio andlussuria in Fiore di virtù. The same feature of the bat is treateddifferently in some texts, as a symbol of mutuus amor, while inothers it becomes a sign of lechery. The change produces in therepresentation of the bat can be explained if one takes intoaccount (and) extralinguistic context in which these texts arewritten. Both Basil the Great and Ambrose write at the beginning ofChristianity, which leads them to insist on the idea of communityand harmony among Christians59. It is no less true that the reasonswhy the two have come to value the idea of unity among Christiansare different. Basil invites Pope Damasus to visit East in anattempt to establish ”bridges between the Church of Rome and theEastern Churches, convinced that by eliminating devouring dissent,both political power”, but also ”the spiritual power, the orthodoxywill benefit” (Anton, 2003: 127). Instead, Ambrose fights againstArianism60. No matter how different were the reasons why Basil theGreat and Ambrose talk about the unity of Christians, theargumentative and rhetorical strategies used by the two aresimilar. The bat thus comes to be positively semiotizated, caring afeature that allowed the analogy with the love for the close oneand hence the unity of the Church. If the positive semiotization ofthe bat is possible and in the same time, relevant for the 4thcentury, in the Middle Ages it changes under the pressure ofprejudices that led to the re-categorization of the creature. It ispossible that ”the point of view on animal evolution” in general,and the bat in particular, have been determined, finally, by ”thefear of the human being for the inner beast [...], able to erasehis skills related to reason and spirituality, to not let subsistthan bestial appetites, like concupiscence”. (Muchembled, 2002:47).
4.1. The same nuclear content (NC) of the bat is valueddifferently depending on the idiosyncrasies and prejudices of theera. As a result, bat morphology becomes interpreted as a symbol ofluchery, after being placed in a context 61. The transition fromavis to animal autem volatile idemque quadrupes shows how it is put”in crisis the categorial system” and how ”it seeks to readjust theframe”. And so it continues in parallel, readjusting thecategorical statements in the light of new observatories andrecognizing that true observation statements according to thecategory are accepted. According to categories, it is expected toidentify new properties (of course, in the form of disorderedencyclopaedia); and as a found property is put in the rearrangementof the category” (Eco, 2002: 250). Changing essentialy its genus,the bat has come slowly but surely along the path of semiotizationfrom impure bird to a creature of an uncertain genus and finally,to a symbol of the sinful man and for lussuria.
59 See also Anton, 2003, p. 127: ”Basil the Great manifests aspecial interest for the unity of the Church and for its doctrinaltradition. He is so concerned both with the division betweenEastern Christians and between the bishops from West and East”. 60For the whole discussion, see Duval, 1998, passim. 61 See alsoDobrovoľskij, Piirainen, 2005, p. 135: ”However, languages often donot choose biological features [...] for denoting abstract conceptsbut make use of a kind of cultural filter, which allows only a fewbiological features from a relevant set to pass through into thegiven conceptual domain”.
76 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
4.1. In medieval literature, the bat is most often a negativesymbol. The Bible and the Church Fathers’ texts - the main sourceof inspiration for medieval texts - condemned the bat at a negativesemiotization, placing it in the category of impure birds /animals, which are associated with the devil. Everything is underthe sign of the devil playable through symbolic bat. The sinner andsin are encoded in allegorical language through a single symbol:the bat. Transforming the sign bat for sinful man, but also forlussuria is an example of polysemy in the manifestation ofsymbols62.
4.1.1. The bat is a minor character in bastiaria, which grants asmaller space than other creatures. In addition, a few versions ofbestiaria63 contain information about the bat. The creature ispresented in different manners, depending on the sources consideredby the authors and on the prejudices of the times when a version oranother was written. In Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbio64, lanoctola, name that is assigned for the bat occurs in a contextmarked by negative semiotization:
La noctola, de sì vile natura, né bestia non pare, né ucello, eva volando per l’aire oscura e schifa lo giorno kiaro e bello. Cosifa l’omo k’en pecato dura; non se lascia vedere lo taupinello aquelli ke de l’anima tengono cura, cotanto è verso Dio malvasgio efello. (Carrega, 1983, p. 121)
The author of the bestiarium uses the analogy between thenocturnal
character of the bat and the fear of the sinner for the light offaith, in order to transmit, by the chosen image, ”a default set ofhierarchical values”65: the unnatural flight of the creatureimplies wonder (the wonderer is also the one living sinfully),
62 See also Dobrovoľskij, Piirainen, 2005, p. 266. 63 See suprathe few versions of medieval bestiaries that put in evidence thepositive semiotization of the bat. 64 Regarding the presentation ofthe text, see Carrega, 1983, pp. 15-30, but most of all theobservations from the page 19: ”il Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbiosi configura come raccolta di 64 sonetti ciascuno dei quali trattauna o più proprietates animali e ne svolge la conseguenteapplicazione alla sfera simbolica e morale. Ciò conferisce altesto, per le ragioni sopra enunciate, un carattere paradigmatico efa di esso un documento di singolare interesse. Si tratta, ineffetti, dell’unico esemplare noto dotato di tali caratteristiche,dal momento che la particolare forma metrica sfruttata dall’anonimoautore lo differenzia sensibilmente dagli altri bestiari in versiconosciuti, apparteneti o meno all’aerea italiana”. See also,Agostini, 1978, pp. 101-105, where it is stated the the text isfrom the first half of the XIVth century. 65 Zafiu, 2012, p.606.
77 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
and living in darkness supposes the association with the devil(as the sinner will go to hell).
In the commentary of the Italian text, the modern editor saysthat in the works of the Christian writers, the bat was subjected,in turn, to a positive and a negative semiotization. The idea isthat „la tradizione mistica aveva individuato nella nottola(pipistrello) un simbolo di Cristo il quale scelse di rifuggiredale luci del mondo. L’autore del sonetto ignora tale tradizione ead essa dimostra di preferirne una seconda che privilegia il nessoanalogico esistente fra l’animal e i peccatori che vivono nelletenebre e che con le tenebre verrano ripagati dal giudizio divino”(Correga, 1983, p. 121). But we have to add that the bird that theeditor claims to be positively semiotizated is not the bat, but theowl. Correga considers that the text of the Greek Physiologusimposed the positive semiotization of the bat. In the GreekPhisiologist66, there is the word νυκτικόραξ, meaning ”owl”. As aconsequence, the owl is the symbol for Jesus Christ and not thebat. The symbolic function of the owl in the Greek Physiologus isnatural, because the positive semiotization of this bird had begunsince the Antiquity67.
The modern editor of the medieval bestiarium confused creaturestogether. The confusion is probably because in Italian, nòttola(with the variant noctola) is a polisemantic word, meaning both owland bat (GDI, s.v.). With the second meaning, of bat, nòttola isattested not only in Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbio68, but also intext written after the 14th century (GDI, s.v.). Nòttola isborrowed from the late Latin (GDI, s.v.), being a reflex ofnoctula, a derivative of diminutive suffix from noctua („owl”). InLatin, noctula was attested for the first time in the translation(dated from the 5th or 6th century) of Soranus’ text, where noctulameans the bat69. The Italian word preserves the meaning of itsdirect etymon (lat. noctula „liliac”), but at the same time,registrates the meaning “owl”, probably under the influence ofnottua (borrowed from Latin noctua, base which was derived lat.noctula).
4.1.2. Other bestiaria propose an analogy between the bat andthe lechery. Leonardo da Vinci’s bestiarium70 from the 15th centuryand a Serbian version of the Phisiologis71 from the 17th centuryare dependent, both in structure and as thematic,
66 For the Greek Phisiologist, we used the Sbordone edition,1991, pp. 20-21. 67 For the positive semiotization of the owl, seeDobrovoľskij, Piirainen, 2005, p. 349. 68 In GDI, s.v. theatestation from the Bestiario... is not mentioned and the referenceis made to later texts. 69 See also TLF, s.v. noctule. 70 For thepossible sources of Leonardoţs text, see Dolcetti Corazza, 1992, p.86: ”l’Acerba di Cecco d’Ascoli [...] figura anche nell’elenco deilibri posseduti da Leonardo, e da questa, oltre che dal Fiore diVirtù e dal volgarizzamento della Naturalis Historia di CristoforoLandino, Leonardo desunse material per quell «bestiario» checompare tra gli appunti del ms. H (1493-1494)”. 71 Regarding thedescription of the text, see Dolcetti Corazza, 1992, p. 45: ”Dianimali appartenenti alla tradizione fisiologica si parla anche inun’operetta serba dagli intenti moraleggianti e didascaliciconservata in un manoscritto del XVII secolo, che mescola citazionidai Padri della Chiesa a storie d’animali. La particolarità che haattirato l’attenzione
78 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
to the Flower of Gifts. As a result, the symbolic function ofthe bat, acquired in the two texts, is the result ofintertextuality. The origin of this new analogy must to be soughtin Fiore di virtù.
4.2. Both Physiologus and Flower of Gifts aim that “byassembling the short narratives accompanied by spiritualinterpretations to open the road for the receptors to understandmystical or moral truths of the Christian religion” (Velculescu,2001: 3). By subjecting the explanation to persuassion, the entiretextual construction is based, in both texts, on analogy. Inrelation to the speech of the Physiologus, which is characterizedby ”deliberate removal of any clarification on the details ofsymbolic values of animal stories”72, the Flower of Gifts tries tomotivate the relation vice/virtue ↔ the animal, emphasizing thecommon semantic features of the symbolized and the symbol.
The bat functions in the Flower of Gifts as a contingent symbol,being ”context depending” and having “an increased ambiguitytowards the conventional symbols” (DŞL, s.v. simbol). The Italianoriginal73 gives a ”definition” of a luchery and then reminds usthe symbol the vice is associated with. Of all the animals, the batis chosen to codify the luchery:
”Luxuria ch’è c[on]trario vitio de la virtude de la [ca]stitadesi co[me] si co[n]ta i[n] la Soma di vitii si è de quarto mainere[…] E posse ap[ro]priare la luxuria a lo balbistrello ch’è pluieluxurioso animale che sia. E p[er] la sup[er]clia volu[n]tade ch’ela de ço n’oserva mai alcuno naturale ordene i[n] lo so cordo co[m]’fa li altri animali. Che’l masclio cu[m] lo masclio e l’una femenacu[m] l’altra si come se trovano fa çu[n]geno i[n] seme” (FdV.113).
4.2.1. Different Romanian versions of the Flower of Giftspreserve intact
the symboic equivalence between bat and luchery.
degli studiosi consiste nel fatto che la sequenza con cui sonopresentati gli animali tiene conto essenzialmente del vizio o dellavirtù che simboleggiani, e ad ogni virtù segue il vizio ad essacontrario in un gioco di antitesi senza dubbio accattivante estimolante per il lettore o per l’ascoltatore”. 72 Velculescu,2001, p. 5. 73 Regarding the sources of this text, see Olteanu,1992, p. 19: ”Almost all the sources of the animal simbolism havebeen identified in Flower of gifts, because of specialists like: K.Mc. Kenzie, H. Vaenhagen, G. Mazzatini, C. Segre, Maria Corti etc.There were different bestiaries and encyclopedias in thelatin-italian literature, circulating in the time of the author, inNothern Italy. This way, only from the works of Bartolomeo Anglico,De animalibus, or Liber della natura degli animali, and DeProprietatibus rebus, the author of the Flower... took about 16fables of animals. Other simbolizations of animal are traced inVincenzo di Beauvais’s, Speculum naturale (s. XVI), in Dalbestiario moralizzato […], in Liber monstruorum by Aldhelin deMalsmesbury, in Proverbia super natura feminarum […], inEncyclopedia of Isidor of Sevilla etc.”.
79 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
In the oldest version of Flower of Gifts (from the ms. 4620)74,the bat is the symbol for fornication ”Rom. curviie”:
Curviia, unde easte, răutate curăţiei easte în patru chipure […]Şi poate să se închipuiască curviia liliacului, ce easte maicurvaru de toate gadinele în lume. Şi de multă pohtă ce are, nuferescu vreo fire de pohte în cuibul ei, cum fac şi alte gadine: cebărbătesc cu bărbătesc şi muieresc cu muieresc, cum să află, aşa seîmpreunează. (Fl.D. sec. XVI, 616r-617r) Where it appears, thefornication is bad for the purity in four manners [...] And you canimagine the fornication of the bat, which is the most immoral ofall the beasts in the world. And because it has so much lust, ithas no fear of lusts in its nest, like other beasts do: and male tomale, female to female, as they are, fornicate. (Fl.D. 16thcentury, 616r-617r)
The negative semiotization is repeated in other Romanianversions, no
matter the original they are based on:
Că curviè e(s)[te] protivă (se aseamănă) liliiacilo(r) că maicurvare gadină nu e(ş)[te] în lume, că ei curvescu to(ţi) şibărbaţi [cu bărbat] şi muere cu muere” (Codex Neagoeanus, 315)/ ”Căcu(r)viia să protiveaşte liliaculu(i) că ia(s)[te] ma(i) curvariude toate gadinile. Şi de mu(l)t ce a(u) preacu(r)viem eicu(r)ve(s)[c] bă(r)bat cu bă(r)bat şi muiare cu muiare cu(m) săaflă (versiunea din 1693, copiată de Costea Dascălul, 342)/ Curviiaiaste păcatul împrotiva curăţiei, precum spune la Cartea păcatelor.Şi aceasta să împarte în patru oarecarele [...] Şi poţi să aseamenicurviia pre liliacĭ carele iastea cea mai curvare hiară a lumiipentru că din multă pohtă ce are spre dânsa, nu păzeaşte în vreunchi(p) ceaia ce iaste după hire, precum fac celelalte heri, cemearge parte bărbătească la [parte] bărbătească şi parte muereascăla parte muerească, precu(m) să află şi să împreună unul cu altul.(versiunea tipărită de Antim în 1700, 150-152) That fornicaton issimilar to that of the bats, because there is no other beast morelustful then the bat, because they all fornicate, male to male andfemale to female”. (Codex Neagoeanus, 315)/ ”The luchery issuitable for the bat, because it is the most lustful among all thebeasts. And because they have to must lust inside, they fornicatemale to male and female to female, as they are”. (the 1693 version,copied by Costea Dascălul, 342)/ ”The lust is the sin againstpurity, as it is said in the Book of sins. And it is divided infour [...] And you can compare the lechery to that of bats, themost lustful beast of the worls, because due to its large lust,does not care about what is natural, like other creatures, but malegoes to male, and
74 Regarding the description of the text, see Moraru, 1996, pp.15-112.
80 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
female goes to female, as they are and fornicate one with theother”. (the version printed by Antim, in 1700, 150-152)
The bat from the Flower of Gifts is not though the impure birdof the Bible,
because it belongs to a different genus to that of the creaturefrom the Old Testament. In the original text, balbistrello75 (avariant of pipistrello) is named animale, so, through a genericterm (hyperonim), and not through a hyponim as osello or volatilie(which names different birds in Fiore di virtù).
The Romanian translations of the Flower of Gifts uses thegeneric term gadina (”beast”), for ”liliac” (bat) and ”vasilisca”(charmed snake) (ms. 4620, 499r), also for ”leoscoarda” (unicorn,in Codex Neagoeanus, 225 şi în ms. 4620, 593v), ”armenica”(hermeline, in Codex Neagoeanus, 244), ”sobol” (sable, ms. 4620,508v), ”sirena” (mermaid, ms. 4620, 517v), ”pinara” (mole, ms.4620, 560r) etc.
Both in Physiologus and in Flower of Gifts, ”gadina” means wildanimal and animal, in general. In old Romanian, ”gadina”, borrowedfrom Bulgarian76, is synonymous to the inherited term, ”fiară”(”hiară”), in contexts where the substitution of the last one ispossible. The relationship between the two terms is only apparentlymore complicated in some versions of popular books. Thus, in oneversion of the Physiologus by Seraphim the Hieromonk, copied fromBistrita Monastery, animals are divided into three categories:hieri, gadini şi păsări77. Among gadini there are gorgonia, aspida,şarpele, endropul and hineiul (gorgon, asp, snake, endrop, seaurchin) (Velculescu, 2001: 39-40). Hence, the reptiles, fish andmonsters are also gadine. In the category of heri there are pil,leu, zâmbru, cerbu, inorogu, lup (elephant, lion, aurochs, deer,unicorn, wolf) etc. (they are all wild, animals, real orimaginary). The initial division is however contradicted in theactual text of the Physiologus, where a gadina precum snake isdefined as ”o hiară cumplită, mai veninată decât toate jigăniile”(a terrible beast, more venomous then all the bugbears) (idem, 40),and a hiara like pilul (the elephant) is described as “o gadinămare” (a large beast). In the version translated from Greek by themonk Filotei Sfântagoreţul and printed by Antim Ivireanu at Snagov,the bat is defined as hiara. The Romanian term is equivalent to theGreek πράγµα (”făptură”), but also for ζῷον (= lat. animal,Liddell, Scott, s.v.)78. As it can be seen, neither in the original(written in Greek) nor the Romanian version, the bat is classifiedas bird.
75 The variant balbistrello is dialectal, specific for Bologna,see Olteanu, 1992, p. 21. 76 Cf. DA, s.v.: ”From bg. gadinъ “animal(n general), beast, reptile, birds, insects”. 77 See Velculescu,2001, p. 35. 78 See the text of the Greek version, printed inVenice, in 1603: ”καὶ ἠµπορὴ νὰ ὀµοιάσης τὴν πορνείαν εἰς τὴννυκτερίδα, ὁποῦ εἴναι τὸ πλέο πορνικὸν πράγµα ὡς καθὼς ποιοῦν τὰἕτερα ζῶα” (Olteanu, 1992, p. 416). There is known that FiloteiSfântagoreţul translated Flower of gifts, following a Greekoriginal. There is not less true that the Romanian translationpresents ”some differences” to 1603 Greek version (Olteanu, 1992,p. 346).
81 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
4.2. At the end of the 18th century, in a Greek- Italian versionof Flower of Gifts, the bat was replaced by the rabbit, whichbecame a symbol for ἀκολασία/ lussuria. Once again, the categorialsystem has been in crisis by new observative statements, inconsequence, the bat was expelled from the ”scale” of the animalsthat were symbols for luchery. The bat is no more the mostdebauched of animals, which offers a new semiotization andimplicitly a new categorization.
5. The biblicat text and the works of the Church Fatherscontroled the representations of the bat for a long period of timp,imposing its negative (rarely positive) semiotization. According tohis tradition, the bat is an impure creature, which comes to beassociated with darkness and the devil and, finally, to turn into asymbol of the heretic, the sinner and fornication (as happens inbestiaria). In parallel, genus avis is discussed by the ChurchFathers, taking into account the fact that they note that the batis murium simile. It reaches a hybrid representation of the bat,which is at the same time, volatilis, and quadrupes or né bestia,né ucello (as in Bestiario moralizzato di Gubbio). From hybrid tomonster there was only a step.
The biblical text appoints the bat genus avis. When the ChurchFathers present the bat and establish for it another genus, they donot necessary follow the biblical pattern. The cultural mutation isproduced under the pressure of another bookish tradition andeventualy, of a different categorial frame, controlled by newobservative statements, which insinuated in the texts of the ChurchFathers79.
6. Middle Ages sorts things out and proclaims the supremacy offerm categorization on structures ”imagined by the classicalAntiquity” in an attempt to give the image a world full of ”signsand symbols, reflecting divine omnipotence” (Boia, 2011: 49).
Echoing the ancient theory of the four elements, the medievalimaginary develops balanced and harmonious structures (at least inappearance), proposing to to put there all that is known (“in theMiddle Ages, the ordering power of the four elements was total.[...] Consistent with other mediaeval structures, the animalkingdom was built upon the same concept of four elements; beingswere sorted out into animals of the air, of water, and of earth.The elements, functioning as physical realms, served to keep apartthe denizens of each realm by providing boundaries to establish thedistinct identities of bird, beast, and fish by isolating them onefrom the other. The elements, then, acted as containers”, Williams,1996, pp. 175-176).
In the Antiquity, the bat preserved a complicated image: on theone hand, it is considered a hybrid (both bird and quadruped) and,on the other, Holy Fathers associate it with the devil (from theearly 4th century A.D., see supra). With such a nuclear content andin such a horizon of expectations, the bat could not be categorizedbut as a monster80. 79 For the whole discussion, see Uţă, 2013, pp.74-81. 80 Williams, 1996, p. 191: ”the bat, a monster parexcellence, unnaturally combining earth and air. Flying mammal,creature of the dark, the bat was thought of in the Middle Ages asa monstrous bird possessing wings, but no feathers, a creature thatsuckled its young and slept upside down, signifying, perhaps, theinversion of the natural realms that it personified. Probablybecause of its avoidance of the light and its generally repulsiveappearance, the bat carried with it a highly negativesymbolism”.
82 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
6.1. Medieval encyclopaedias81 are, more often, works ofsynthesis, where the sequences taken from secular texts ofantiquity stand alongside the Bible and the works of the HolyFathers. A summary of medieval culture provides an ungratefulstatus for the bat which provided it the monster emblem parexcellence82.
6.2. The last great encyclopaedist of the Middle Ages, PetrusBerchorius83, gives the bat a large presentation space. Thedescription is nothing but a synthesis of numerous ancient andmedieval literature common places, plus interpretatio christiana ofeach feature of the bat. In the face of Berchorius’ scientificaccuracy, bat has no chance to escape the negative semiotization.Right from the start, Berchorius refers to the Book of Isaiah,announcing the interpretation grid that will be used for bat:
Vespertilio secundum glossam Esa. 2 lucem odit et tenebras amat.Nam in die in parietum foraminibus se abscondit. Caeca est ad modumtalpae, et pulverem lingit. Tales sunt cupiditi, maxime usurari,quia coeci, et duces caecorum. Matt. 15 ad modum talpae, quaesemper est in terra, ubi optime se regit, et ibi quaerit victum.Ideo tales lucem manifestationis odiunt et abhorrent. [...] et sictenebras obscuritatis diligunt, quia quae in oculto ab eis fiunt,turpe est dicere ad Ephe. 5. [...] Et lumen manifestationis fugiuntet devitant. (cap. 72)
After announcing the manner of interpretation used andpresenting one the
bat features, Berchorius discussed the creature’s genus. Anentire sequence is devoted to new hypotheses argument, that the batshould be considered rather bestia than avis:
Vespertilio quamvis propter alas et propter volatum avis essecredatur, esse tamen bestia sex rationibus comprobatur. Primo quianon ovat, imo more bestiarum pullos concipit et procreat, quodtamen inter volucres non habetur. Secundo quia dentes habet. Tertioquia cauda caret. Quarto quia lac et mamillas habet. Quinto quiaper terram currit, et quattuor pedibus
81 For the description of medieval encyclopaedias, see 2000,s.v. encyclopaedias, medieval: ”No medieval work bore the titleEncyclopaedia. But many attempted to order the whole of knowledgeand could claim an encyclopaedic status, starting with theEtymologies of Isidore of Seville, undisputed model until theirruption of Aristotelian thought into Western thought. [...] Theencyclopaedic work took a great variety of titles, contents andforms. Some constants can be disengaged: it was always a work ofcompilation, which accumulated ancient knowledge and had novocation to innovate: it was a «book of books», which offered thereader the best of all that had been written by all known ancientauthors, patristic and medieval authors, and, as far as they werein circulation, the great Judaeo-Arabic and Aristotelian texts”. 82For the whole discussion, see Uţă, 2013, pp. 82-86. 83 PetrusBerchorius, Reductorium morale, lib. VII, cap. 72.
83 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
graditur. Sexto quia muri in corpora similatur, sicut in librode natura rerum dicitur, et etiam Isid. quorum est magnam partemdicit Pli.li.10.c.61.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the bat is considered a monster,being
presented as a creature without sex or, conversely, one of aninterregnum. The bat suffered successive recategorizations, whichremoved it from being the creature described by the ancientnaturalists.
The bat was the victim of medieval prejudices. Because it was nobird or quadruped, the bat could only become a monster. An entirecultural iconography presented the bat as a monster placed in acontext84, who will establish that non-removable features85 of thecreature are [impurity]+[of an interregnum]+[demonic].
7. Contrary to expectations, the cultural history of old age bathas a happy ending. The creature insinuates in Dimitrie Cantemir’sHyeroglyphic History, a work strongly influenced by thePhysiologus86. Apart from Physiologus, Cantemir used other sources,building – on his own -, a coherent synthesis of all informationabout animals, which he discovered in the works read by the time ofwriting the Hieroglyphic History.
In Hieroglyphic History ”the animal world has a stricthierarchy” (Moraru, 1972, p. 484), within which ”forms ofinter-regnum” try to insinuate (idem, 487). A universe organized,hierarchical oppose aberrant forms, monstrous multiplyingthroughout the Hieroglyphic History. One of the hybrid monsters inCantemir’s novel is the bat. The creature is not yet come from thePhysiologus, because the variants known by Cantemiry do not containany information about the bat. This means that the prototype afterwhich the bat was categorized must be surch somewhere else.
We advance the hypothesis according to which the bat – „carilecu aripile ce zbura şi cu slobodzeniia prin aier ce îmbla, spreceata zburătoarelor, adecă supt stăpînirea Vulturului a fi îlarăta, iară amintrilea într-însul alalte hirişii socotindu-să, înneamul jiganiilor, supt domnia Leului îl da”87 (CII, 7-8) – iscategorized in
84 We used the term with the meaning indicated by Eco, 2002, p.242: ”a network of intertextual connections and a system ofexpectations”. 85 See also Eco’s observations, 2002, p. 243:”Sometimes the context can be common to a time and a culture, andonly in these cases the dictionary properties that send to the waythat specific culture classified the known objects appear asnon-eliminable”. 86 Moraru, 1972, p. 482: ”The manner DimitrieCantemir uses the content of Phisiologus regards not only thetransfer of the fable or of is meanings [...]. Relevant in therelation of Hieroglyphic History with Phisiologus is the adaptationof the animal allegory as a way of building the unity of the entirenovel. [...] Cantemir’s work is definitely allegorical and allows adiminishing, for the value of the novel, and yet coherent and realhistorical reference”. 87 “who flown with its wings and wonderedfreely through the air, to the army of birds, hence being under thepower of the Eagle, but inside it considered itself of anothernature, of the beasts, under the power of the Lion”.
84 IJC
CSE
C S
peci
al Is
sue,
201
5
the Hieroglyphic History after the model presented inReductorium morale88 by Petrus Berchorius.
Because it is cannot be framed in only one ”power”, the bat isdefined by consequence, as a monster. The syntagms ”the breedlessbreed” and ”the faceless face” express the monster status of thebat. Initial formulas of designation are accompanied by scholarlyexplanations through which Cantemir tries to compensate the toovague nature of proximate genus: ”adecă jigăniuţa sau păsăriţa ceacu prepus, iubitoriul nopţii, fugătoriul dzilei, vădzătoriulîntunerecului şi orbul luminii”89 (CII, 159). The followingexplanation contains numerous syntagms, semantically equivalent,but antithetically built (groups appointing the bat aresymmetrically contrastive or oxymoronic): iubitoriul nopţii,fugătoriul dzilei, vădzătoriul întunerecului şi orbul luminii -loving the night, avoiding the day, the one who sees into thedarkness and is blind into the light). A possible source ofexplanatory sequence inserted in the Hieroglyphic History is PetrusBerchorius’ Reductorium morale, a text Cantemir knew since he wrotethe Divan. ”The lover of the nighe” // ”the avoider of the day”//”the one tho sees into the darkness” // ”the one who is blind intothe light” are syntagms to be found in Berchorius’ text. Thecorrespondence manifests at the lexical level. The selection of theRomanian terms seems to be conditioned by the equivalences offeredby Berchorius’ text: ”Vespertilio [...] lucem odit et tenebrasamat”// „Caeca est”// „Ideo tales lucem manifestationis odiunt etabhorrent. [...] et sic tenebras obscuritatis diligunt”// „Et lumenmanifestationis fugiunt et devitant” (Reductorium morale, lib. VII,cap. 72).
In the Hieroglyphic History, the explanatory sequence is flankedby an
argumentative one, which demonstrates the character ofCantemir’s monstrous creature:
Că pre amănuntul sama de-i vom lua, toată anomaliia şi rătăcireafirii la dînsa vom afla. Şi macar că iute la zburat şi bineîntr-aripat ieste (care lucru aievea monarhiii Vulturului îlsupune), însă şi alte multe a multe jiganii hirişii are, carile nupuţină materie de gîlceavă şi de scandală înainte pune: întîi căfată ca dobitoacele, a doa că la cap ieste ca şoarecele, la aripica albinele ieste, a patra că la picioare în fire pe altul să i săasemene nu are, de vreme ce aripile în picioare şi picioarele înaripi îi sint. A cincea că dzua orbăcăieşte, iară noaptea capuhacea purecele în prav ascuns zăreşte. Adevărat dară, iarăşi sădzic, că arătarea firii în jigănuiţă într-aceasta să arată”90.(CII, 215)
88 See also the observations in Creţu, 2010, p. 3: ”Here is theBat, no bird, no animal, or, depending on the perspective, bothbird and animal, dividing the two kingdoms. Nothing more natural,because in Cantemir’s bestiarium it takes the exact place of theinterval that it has in most of the zoological systems, ancient ormedieval”. 89 “the suspected little beast or bird, loving thenight, avoiding the day, the one who sees into the darkness and isblind into the light”. 90 “If we will search it in detail, we willdiscover all the anomaly and the error of the nature in this. Andeven if it is rapid in flight and well winged (the reason for eachis is a subject in
85 IJCC
SEC
Sp
ecia
l Iss
ue, 2
015
The argumentative sequence is constructed following Berchorius'stext,
sometimes constituting an adaptation of the original Latin:”Primo quia non ovat, imo more bestiarum pullos concipit etprocreat, quod tamen inter volucres non habetur. Secundo quiadentes habet. Tertio quia cauda caret. Quarto quia lac et mamillashabet. Quinto quia per terram currit, et quattuor pedibus graditur.Sexto quia muri in corpora similatur” (Rep. morale, lib. VII, cap.72).
In Berchorius’s text it is stated that tha bat “volucris etquadrupedis
formam gerit, et tam voce quam stridore sonum reddit, in dielatet, in nocte patet”. Paraphrasing the latin model, Cantermiradded that:
”jiganiia aceasta din fire scurtă şi puţină la voroavă ieste,din gura a căriia mai mult decît interiecţia: ţis, ţis, a ieşi nupoate şi fără decît sămnul tăcerii, adecă decît tăcerea, altă n-auînvăţat”91 (CII, 216).
Berchorius’s Reductorium morale explains the manner ofcategorization of
the bat in the Hierogyphic History, but it does not representthe model for the original scenario, by which the creature isbrought to the fore:
”Care lucru pricina cercetării, apoi şi gîncevii între doaămonarhii fu: fietecarea socotind că chip ca acela şie supus a fis-ar cuvini şi de nu s-ar şi cuvini, să i să cuvie a sili, i s-arcuvini”92 (CII, 8).
The scenario seems to be an adaptation93 of an Aesopus’s fable,about the
conflict between the birds and the animals, on the one hand, andthe imposibility
the Eagle’s kingdom), is has many features of beasts, which is acause of debate and scandal: first of all, it breeds like animals,secondly, its head is like one of a mouse, its wings are like ofbees, in the fourth time, it has legs like no one else, because itswings are places in its legs and its legs are placed in its wings.In the fifth time, because during the day time it fumbles, butduring the night it is able to see the flea hidden in the dust,just like an owl. Therefore the truth I say it again, the nature ofthis one is that of a beast”. 91 “the beast is short and sharp intalking; from its mouth, more than the interjection tsis, tsisnothing else can come

(PDF) CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC AVATARS OF A MONSTRUOUS … · 2015-08-24 · 61 IJCCSEC S p ecial Issue, 2015 CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC AVATARS OF A MONSTRUOUS CREATURE. HISTORY OF THE BAT - DOKUMEN.TIPS (2023)