Content uploaded by Holger Funk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Holger Funk on Apr 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
NEULATEINISCHES JAHRBUCH
JOURNAL OF NEO-LATIN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Herausgegeben von
M
ARC
L
AUREYS UND
K
ARL
A
UGUST
N
EUHAUSEN
Band 13
2011
Olms-Weidmann
Hildesheim · Zürich · New York
2011
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Stiftung
Pegasus Limited for the Promotion of Neo-Latin Studies.
Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des
Verlages unzulässig. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen,
Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung
und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Neulateinisches Jahrbuch : journal of neo-latin language
and literature. - Hildesheim ; Zürich ; New York : Olms
ISSN 1438-213X
Erscheint jährl. - Aufnahme nach Bd. 1. 1999
Bd. 1.1999 -
Empfohlene Abkürzung: NlatJb
ISO 9706
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Papier
Herstellung: KM-Druck, 64823 Groß-Umstadt
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Printed in Germany
© Georg Olms Verlag AG, Hildesheim 2011
www.olms.de
ISBN 978-3-487-14735-2 ISSN 1438-213X
Engelbert Kaempfer’s report on the Persian hyena as the main
source of Linnaeus’ hyaena description in the Systema Naturae
HOLGER FUNK
The beginning of modern zoology has often been dated to 1551, the year in
which the Swiss physician and naturalist Conrad Gesner published the first
volume of his Historiae animalium. Gesner’s initial encyclopaedia was followed
in the next two hundred years by a series of compatible works which, almost
without exception, are written in Latin.1 Not until the second half of the
eighteenth century did zoological treatises in Latin decrease in number com-
pared to those in modern languages. Thus, zoological works from the Renais-
sance up to the Enlightenment are a genuine subject of Neo–Latin studies,2
though hitherto they have rarely attracted scholarly attention.3 With the fol-
lowing brief study we hope to arouse interest also in this special issue of the
Neo–Latin field of research.
1. Introduction: confusions about the hyena
In the history of biology, there have been cases that resisted clarification for a
long time. Reliable knowledge about the hyena is one of these cases, as we can
read in a travelogue of the Scottish naturalist James Bruce, written at the end
of the 18th century:
There are few animals, whose history has passed under the conside-
rations of naturalists, that have given occasion to so much confusion and
equivocation as the Hyaena has done. It began very early among the
ancients, and the moderns have fully contributed their share.4
Bruce was not alone with his criticism. In a volume of the ‚Histoire Naturelle‘
by the French Comte de Buffon published shortly before, the author sneers at
previous zoologists who have confused the hyena with no less than four dif-
ferent species, the jackal, the wolverine, the civet cat and even with the ba-
boon.5 The first to overcome the confused and puzzling ideas about the
1 See Änne Bäumer, Geschichte der Biologie. Band 2: Zoologie der Renaissance — Renais-
sance der Zoologie and Geschichte der Biologie. Band 3: 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Frank-
furt/Bern/New York/Paris 1991 and 1996.
2 See Jozef IJsewijn, Dirk Sacré, Companion to Neo–Latin Studies, Part II: Literary, Lin-
guistic, Philological and Editorial Questions. Leuven 1998, p. 357.
3 A remarkable exception is the Dutch dissertation by Caroline A. Gmelig–Nijboer, Conrad
Gessner’s Historia animalium: an inventory of Renaissance zoology. Meppel 1977.
4 James Bruce, Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770,
1771, 1772 and 1773. Vol. V. London 1790, p. 107.
5 See Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Histoire naturelle générale et particulière.
Quadrupèdes, Tome 3. Deux–Ponts 1787, pp. 250–262.
HOLGER FUNK
76
any.
hyena which had prevailed up to that time was Engelbert Kaempfer from the
small town of Lemgo in Westphalia, Germ
The physician, naturalist and scientific traveller Engelbert Kaempfer (1651–
1716) had made his observations of the hyena between 1684 and 1686 during
his stay in Persia and published them in 1712, placed rather inconspicuously in
a voluminous work of nearly 1000 pages entitled Amoenitates Exoticae.6 In his
report Kaempfer indicates that the traditional, heterogeneous knowledge
about the hyena was familiar to him, but in his description he was not de-
terred by it. In fact, long before Bruce and Buffon, Kaempfer regarded the
knowledge about the hyena (from antiquity to his own time) as entirely insuf-
ficient and therefore attempted a new approach, based on observations of his
own.
The state of knowledge available for Kaempfer when he described the hyena
corresponds exactly to the disparate ideas which were the subject of Bruce’s
and Buffon’s critical remarks. Yet the situation was even more intricate. The
hyena was not only confused with the jackal, the wolverine, and other animals,
but also with the badger or with a fantastic creature by the name of Mantichora.
Actually, sometimes its existence was entirely denied. What was lacking to end
the mistaken ideas were eye–witness accounts. Until the 17th century just a few
Europeans had seen a hyena with their own eyes — and, since Aristotle’s
times, no one had described it in a scientific, zoological manner.7 This was the
6 Kaempfer’s work is now readily available in digitised form at the following address:
http://gdz.sub.uni–goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN487493915. To date, only
parts of the Amoenitates have been translated. Currently, a team around K. A. Neuhausen is
engaged in translating the complete work into German in the context of a project pro-
moted by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). For details, see Astrid Steiner–
Weber, Die Aufzeichnungen eines Fernreisenden: Engelbert Kaempfers Amoenitates Exo-
ticae — ein neulateinisches Editionsprojekt. Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 11 (2009), 226–231.
As to Kaempfer as a Neo–Latin author, see Detlef Haberland/ Karl August Neuhausen,
Institutum nimirum est … in Orientem proficisci: Ein wiederentdeckter programmatischer Brief
Engelbert Kaempfers an Olof Rudbeck (1683). Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 12 (2010), 105–
189. (We refer to Kaempfer’s work as „Amoenitates“ or „AE“ for short.)
7 When Kaempfer wrote his hyena report, five recent zoological encyclopaedias and an
account of a journey through Persia with entries on this animal were available. In
chronological order these were: Conrad Gesner, Historiae animalium lib. I: De quadrupedibus
viviparis (…). Zurich 1551; Edward Wotton, De differentiis animalium libri decem. Paris 1552,
Edward Topsell, The Historie of Foure–footed Beastes, Describing the True and Lively
Figure of Every Beast. London 1607; Ulisse Aldrovandi, De quadrupedibus digitatis viviparis
libri tres, et de quadrupedibus digitatis oviparis libri duo. Bologna 1645 [11637]; Johannes Jonston,
Historiae naturalis de quadrupedibus libri cum aeneis figuris. Frankfurt 1650; Pietro della Valle,
Eines vornehmen Römischen Patritii Reiß–Beschreibung in unterschiedliche Theile der
Welt, Nemlich in Türckey, Egypten, Palestina, Persien, Ost–Indien, und andere weit
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 77
situation when Kaempfer made his observations in the 1680s and subse-
quently published them in 1712. With his hyena report he fulfilled an an-
nouncement from the Praefatio of his work, only to describe things which „had
been recognised nowhere before or just insufficiently“ and which are there-
fore „controversial in the scholarly world“.8
In the text below, we document Kaempfer’s hyena description first by provid-
ing the original Latin together with a commented translation. Subsequent to
the translation, we analyse Kaempfer’s zoological classification. Finally, we
discuss the reception of Kaempfer’s report by one of the most eminent 18th
century zoologists, Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), who increasingly util-
ised Kaempfer’s description in the various editions of his Systema Naturae. As a
result, the zoological name of the striped hyena, which was the subject of
Kaempfer’s report, is today connected with his name: Hyaena hyaena Linnaeus,
1758. Without Kaempfer’s achievement, surely this would have been impossi-
ble.
2. Text and translation
Source: Engelbert Kaempfer, Amoenitatum exoticarum politico–physico–medicarum
fasciculi V (…). Lemgo 1712. Therein Fasc. II, Relatio IX: Memorabilia montis
Benna, in Persidis Provincia Laar, pp. 381–427. Kaempfer’s report on the hyena
is contained in § V, entitled Ferae montis Benna, pp. 411–412.
The Sloane Collection at the British Library also preserves an unpublished
manuscript (Sloane.2923) with notes on the hyena, which obviously were made
in situ and served as an aide–mémoire for Kaempfer’s report.
For reasons of readability, the useless (and often erroneous) indications for
short or long vowels (quòd, orâ etc.) of the original text have been omitted;
simple errata have been corrected. In the translation, the archaic measures
(spithamalis, orgya, leuca) are converted to modern measuring units.
Kaempfer’s report consists of one single text block. To make it easier to read
and to reveal the structure, we have broken up the text into sections and add-
ed numbers for referencing.
entlegene Landschafften (...). Genf 1674 [Italian 1650, French 1661, Dutch 1664]. Four of
these works were demonstrably known to Kaempfer (Gesner, Aldrovandi, Jonston, della
Valle); whether the other two were is not certain.
8 vel nusquam nobis, vel non satis cognitarum notitias and in foro philosophico controversae — AE, Prae-
fatio, p. XVII.
HOLGER FUNK
78
Hyena
(1) Kaftaar, i. e. Taxus porcinus, sive Hyena veterum, (vid. in Tab. §
4. num. 4.) animal est porci, seu scrofae grandioris, magnitudinem
ejusdemque formam corporis obtinens, si caput, caudam & pedes
excipio.
(2) Pilis vestitur longis, incanis, in ora dorsi, porcino more, longioribus,
pene spithamalibus, apicibus nigris; caput habet lupino non dissimile,
rostro nigro, fronte longiori, oculis rostro propinquioribus nigris &
volubilibus, auribus nudis, fuscis & acuminatis; cauda donatur praelonga,
villis densis longioribus vestita, circulisque nigricantibus ad decorem
intercepta.
(3) Crura in orbem quodammodo variegata, posteriora prioribus sunt
longiora; pedes in quaternos ungues divisi, quos lupino more contrahit,
ne videantur. Corpus habet striis a dorso ventre–tenus pictum paucis,
latis & inaequalibus, alternatim fuscis & nigris.
(4) Ignota haec Occidenti fera est, quam ex convenientia appellare possis
Lupum porcinum, vel satius Taxum porcinum, de cujus existentia dubitat
Cl. Rajus in Synop. quadrup. p. 185.
(5) Ad lupum capite, nec absimili cauda pedibusque, tum rapacitate &
agilitate corporis accedit. Porcum totus corporis habitus, magnitudo &
compressa ventris figura exprimit. Cum taxo ingenium convenit; mira
enim vi terram effodit, cavernisque abditum se illatebrare amat, diu sine
cibo vivit, & raptu victum quaerit. Addo, quod & crura anteriora
posterioribus habeat breviora, & vilis tegatur fere similibus.
(6) Ex ceteris attributis palmarium est, quod ferox et carnivora bestia sit,
quippe in humana saeviens cadavera, quae noctu ex tumulis || <p. 412>
impigre effodit, coemeteriis infestissima. Hanc in demortuos saevitiam,
cum Plinius ceterique veteres Zoographi in descriptione Hyaenae, ferae
recentioribus ignotae, potissimam constituant notam, non dubito
affirmare, taxo–porcum nostrum veram hyaenam veterum, quamvis
reliquae, a Plinio Lib. 8. c. 30. relatae proprietates perquam monstrosae
eidem minus conveniant. Quis enim in descriptionibus Plinianis omnium
circumstantiarum veritates exigat?
(7) Hyaenam marem Isphahani curiositatis causa alebat dives quidam
gabr, seu ignicola, suburbii Gabristaan, captam, dum ubera sugeret, in
latibulis vicini montis. Ad eam spectandam, dum in Regia morarer, cum
Cl. Jagero meo progressus, bestiam eo situ depinxi, quo in fovea subdiali
duarum orgyarum profunditatis (cui inclusa servabatur) cubantem inveni.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 79
t.
(8) Desiderio nostro possessor omni ex parte satisfacturus, eam educi
quoque curavit in aream; quod ut tuto fieret, demisso fune rostrum prius
illaqueabat; mox descendentes servi protracta utrinque labra funiculo, ex
pilis contorto, strenue colligabant.
(9) Hoc facto, educitur, laxatoque fune, qui rostrum fraenabat, bestia
latius discurrere permittitur, non semel apprehensa, more athletico, in
terram projicitur, ac variis lacessitur vexationibus. Quibus illa, irrito
nocendi nisu obluctata, subinde mugitum edidit vitulino simillimum.
(10) Narrabant gabri, sic fraenatum nuper se opposuisse duobus leonibus,
quos, adspectante Serenissimo, in fugam verterit. Foeminam eodem
modo servari dicebat apud concivem; a qua videnda nos detinebat
officiosa hospitis nostri humanitas, Kirmanense vinum, ab ignicolis
elaboratum, largiter propinantis.
(11) Clarissimus Ludolfus in Abyssina sua crocutae speciem quandam,
Gesnerus in H. A. nec minus, si recte memini, Jonstonus & Aldrovandus,
Papionem pro hyaena substituunt. Nostra conjectura nomen Taxo
porcino competit.
The hyena
(1) The Kaftaar, i.e. Taxus porcinus [„pig–badger“] or the Hyena of the an-
cients (see plate 4, no. 4),9 is an animal like a pig or a larger wild boar.10
It has its size and build, if I disregard the head, the tail and the fee
Cut–out from plate 4 of the Amoenitates exoticae with hyena (Kaftaar) (no. 4).
9 See the following figure as well as the rendition of the entire figure from the Amoenitates in
the appendix below; in the bottom right–hand corner of the drawing a golden jackal
(Sjechaal) is pictured which Kaempfer describes after the hyena.
10 In classical Latin, scrofa is the name for a breeding sow, in contrast to sus and porcus/porca
(young pig) or aper (wild swine). Here, however, Kaempfer probably refers to a wild boar,
as scrofa is used in modern times, for instance by Linnaeus in the zoological designation for
wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758).
HOLGER FUNK
80
5.
(2) It is covered with long, grey hairs which are longer at the edge of the
back than is common in pigs, almost a span long [circa 20 cm] and with
black tips. Its head is not dissimilar to that of a wolf, with a black muz-
zle, longish forehead, black, movable eyes which are close to each other
on the muzzle, and with naked, brown, erect ears. It has a very long tail
which is covered with dense, fairly long shags and is intersected as
adornment by blackish rings.
(3) The legs are in a certain way patterned in rings and the hind legs are
longer than the forelegs. The feet are each with four claws which are re-
tractable as in wolves so that they cannot be seen. From the back to-
wards the belly the body is marked with a few stripes which are broad
and uneven and alternately brown and black.
(4) In the Western world, this wild animal is unknown and could be
named Lupus porcinus [„pig–wolf“] or even better Taxus procinus [„pig–
badger“], a beast whose existence the well–respected Ray11 disputes in
his Synopsis quadrupedum, p. 18
(5) It resembles the wolf because of its head, but not because of the dis-
similar tail and feet, and it is also similar in its rapacity and the mobility
of the body. The pig–like appearance is due to the entire habitus of its
body as well as the size and compact shape of its belly. It has its disposi-
tion in common with the badger because it digs up the soil with remark-
able power and prefers to hide reclusively in dens. It can go for a long
time without food and seizes its prey by violently snatching it. I want to
add that the forelegs are shorter than the hind legs and covered with al-
most uniform shags.
(6) As to the other characteristics, it is most remarkable that it is a wild
and carnivorous animal and, because it does not refrain even from hu-
man bodies but grubs them out busily at night from their graves, be-
comes a great danger for burial sites. Because Pliny as well as the other
ancient zoographers declare this ravage against the dead in their descrip-
tions of the Hyaena, a wild animal which was unknown to the more re-
cent writers, to be well–established, I assert without doubt that our pig–
badger is the true Hyaena of the ancients, albeit the other, exceedingly
impressive characteristics which are reported by Pliny in Book 8, chapter
11 Joannes Rajus (John Ray), Synopsis Methodica Animalium Quadrupedum et Serpentini Generis
(…). London 1693. At the cited place (p. 185) Ray describes not the hyena but the badger,
in Neo–Latin taxus, which is said to have some traits in common with the hyena. For de-
tails, see the next section.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 81
30, apply to it to a lesser extent.12 But who might be able to check the
truth of all details in Pliny’s descriptions?
(7) A female hyena was kept as a curiosity by a certain rich Gabr13 from
Gabristan, a suburb of Isfahan. It was captured in its den in the nearby
mountains while suckling its cubs. In order to visit it while still at court, I
went there together with my friend, the well–respected Mr de Jager14 and I
have pictured the animal at this place where I found it lying under the
open sky in a pitfall which was two metres deep and in which it was
locked.
(8) At our request the owner also arranged, after being satisfied in every
respect, for the hyena to be brought up to the ground, and so for reasons
of safety a rope was lowered and its muzzle tied around with it. Then the
servants descended, and, after dragging the animal out, bound its lips
tightly shut with a rope that was made of plaited hair.
(9) When this had been done, the hyena was led upwards and, the rope
which restrained its muzzle having been released, it was permitted to run
a short way, in the course of which it was attacked more than once and
wrestled to the ground and provoked with various torments. After vainly
striving to inflict harm on its tormentors, the beast bellowed several
times, in a similar manner to a calf.
(10) The Gabri report that the hyena, enfettered in such a manner, had
opposed two lions and put them to flight right before the eyes of His
Highness [i.e. the Shah]. It was also said that a female was held in the
same manner by a fellow citizen. However, we were deterred from going
to see her as well by the obliging philanthropy of our host, who copi-
12 At the cited place (NH 8, 30) in his Naturalis historia Pliny the Elder describes first an
animal by the name of crocottas, and subsequently a fantastic creature called leucrocotas. The
hyaena is described by Pliny in NH 8, 44–46. In his unpublished notes on the hyena men-
tioned before (Sloane.2923 manuscript of the British Library), Kaempfer again refers in the
most general sense to „Pliny’s hyena“ (Hyena Plinii).
13 The Gabri (in India mainly called Parsi) were (or still are) followers of the Persian prophet
Zoroaster (Zarathustra) who venerate fire.
14 Kaempfer became acquainted with the Dutch scholar Herbert de Jager (1639–1694) dur-
ing his stay in the Persian capital of Isfahan in 1684, where de Jager lived while serving the
Dutch East India Company (VOC). Kaempfer and de Jager were still on cordial terms with
each other many years later. See also Kaempfer’s letters to de Jager in Engelbert Kaempfer,
Briefe 1683–1715. Kritische Ausgabe Vol. 2. Edited by Detlef Haberland. München 2001,
letters no. 48, 86, and 94.
HOLGER FUNK
82
ously drank to our health with Kerman wine,15 which the fire worship-
pers cultivate.
(11) In his Historia aethiopica the highly–respected Ludolf16 substitutes a
certain species, the crocuta, for the hyena, as does Gesner17 in the Historia
animalium; if I remember correctly, Johnston18 and Aldrovandi19 equate the
hyena with the papio.20 In our opinion the name Taxus porcinus [„pig–
badger“] is very appropriate for it.
3. Kaempfer’s zoological classification of the hyena
The report starts with a description of the physical appearance and a nomen-
clatoric classification of the hyena which is one of the most difficult parts of
the entire text and needs some explanation. Kaempfer writes:
Kaftaar, i. e. Taxus porcinus, sive Hyena veterum, animal est porci, seu
scrofae grandioris, magnitudinem ejusdemque formam corporis obtinens, si
caput, caudam & pedes excipio. (1)
15 Kerman is a province in the south–east of Persia or present–day Iran.
16 Jobus Ludolfus (Hiob Ludolf alias Leutholf), Historia Aethiopica (…). Frankfurt a. M.
1681, L. I. c. 10 (no pagination). Ludolf describes a „black dotted“ hyena, i.e. a spotted
hyena (Crocuta crocuta).
Ludolf (1624–1704) was a German scholar and Orientalist who was born at Erfurt and
lived in Frankfurt. He is considered to be the founder of Ethiopian studies. Kaempfer re-
fers repeatedly to his history of Ethiopia. An English translation of this work entitled „A
new history of Ethiopia“ was published in London in 1682. The hyena is described there
on p. 57.
17 Gesner, Historia Animalium I (as in Fn. 7), pp. 624–631.
18 Kaempfer is mistaken: Jonstonus (Jonston or Johnston) did not equate the hyena with
the Papio, but rather with the civet cat; see Jonston, Historiae naturalis (as in Fn. 7), pp.
214–223; the Papio is described by Jonston on p. 145.
19 Ulysses Aldrovandus (Ulisse Aldrovandi), De quadrupedibus digitatis (as in Fn. 7), pp. 259–
260. Aldrovandi, too, does not equate the hyena with the Papio, rather he considers the
Papio to be a monkey species; see also the following note.
20 Today, Papio is the zoological designation for the baboon genus. In the first volume of
the Historiae animalium from 1551 Gesner describes the Papio as a wolf–like hyena species
(Gesner, Historiae animalium I (as in Fn. 7), p. 630); see also Gesner’s text with translation
in our study Hyaena. On the Naming and Localisation of an Enigmatic Animal. München
2010, pp. 91–92. In the first edition of the Icones (Gesner, Icones animalium quadrupedum
viviparorum et oviparorum (…). Zurich 1553, p. 64) and in the appendix to the quadrupeds,
published in 1554 in the second volume of the Historiae animalium, Gesner corrects his pre-
vious opinion and describes the Papio as a monkey species (Gesner, Historiae animalium II:
De quadrupedibus oviparis (…). Zurich 1554, Appendix, p. 14 (separate pagination)). For de-
tails, see again our Hyaena book, pp. 79–83.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 83
At the beginning of the report Kaempfer specifies the Persian designation of
the hyena, first in Persian letters, then in Latin transcription: Kaftaar.
Kaempfer was not the first to describe the hyena under this name. Prior to
him, the Italian traveller Pietro della Valle (1586–1652) had already described
the Caftar.
Della Valle stayed in Persia from 1617 to 1621, first privately, then as a guest
at the court of Shah Abbas I („Abbas the Great“); from there he continued
his journey on the same route as later Kaempfer via Shiras, Persepolis and Lar
to Minab near Bandar Abbas, where he stayed until 1623. In 1621 he saw a
captive Caftar at Shiras which he describes as a wild animal such as he had
never seen before. He considered this animal, which was said to feed upon
carrion and dig out corpses, to be the hyaena of the ancients.21
Kaempfer possessed a Dutch translation from 1666 of della Valle’s itinerary,
so it is quite possible that he knew it during his own description of the hyena.
Nevertheless, one must not assume that he was influenced by della Valle, be-
cause Kaempfer comes to a different result from the Italian. While della Valle
describes the Caftar as an animal on the scale of a large dog and with the head
of a pig, Kaempfer says the exact opposite, that his Kaftaar was the size of a
larger pig and had the head of a wolf.
Kaempfer assigns the zoological name Taxus porcinus to the animal. Taxus (or
taxo) is the Medieval Latin or Neo–Latin designation for „badger“ — the Ital-
ian „tasso“, the Old French „taisson/tasson“, or the German „Dachs“ are
derived from it.22 (The classical Latin word for badger is meles, as in the mod-
ern zoological designation for the badger Meles meles.) Taxus porcinus thus
means „pig–badger“, that is, Kaempfer considers the Kaftaar from a zoological
point of view as a badger having features of a pig.
This classification is somewhat surprising. As a survey of the classical and
Hellenistic explanations for hyaena makes apparent, this animal had always
been considered as a kind of wolf but never as a kind of badger.23 Kaempfer,
however, is sure that the ancient writers were mistaken on this issue:
(…) non dubito affirmare, taxo–porcum nostrum veram hyaenam
veterum. (6)
21 Pietro della Valle, Eines vornehmen Römischen Patritii Reiß–Beschreibung (as in Fn. 7),
Part 3, p. 139; see also della Valle’s text with translation in Funk, Hyaena (as in Fn. 20), p.
97.
22 See Friedrich Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, Straßburg
1899, s.v. Dachs.
23 See Funk, Hyaena (as in Fn. 20), pp. 20–25.
HOLGER FUNK
84
The animal which Kaempfer had observed was a hyaena, and according to his
conviction such an animal is actually a kind of badger. Kaempfer is so sure
that he repeats his assumption at the end of his report:
Nostra conjectura nomen Taxo porcino competit. (11)
Of course, the question arises of how Kaempfer came to the firm conviction
that the ancients were mistaken and the hyena would in reality be a kind of
badger. Kaempfer once more discusses the denomination and it is exactly at
this place that the key for his conviction is to be found. As Kaempfer states:
Ignota haec Occidenti fera est, quam ex convenientia appellare possis
Lupum porcinum, vel satius Taxum porcinum, de cujus existentia dubitat
Cl. Rajus in Synop. quadrup. p. 185. (4)
Kaempfer refers in this paragraph to John Ray’s Synopsis Methodica Animalium
Quadrupedum et Serpentini Generis from 1693. However, at the cited place (p.
185) Ray does not describe the hyena but in fact the badger, which is said to
have some features in common with the hyena — cum Hyena convenit, as Ray
declares somewhat later (p. 187).
The hyena is Ray’s subject in another context, namely on the occasion of his
description of the baboon (papio). Ray says there:
The ancients really make up a lot of fables about the hyena, for instance
that it changes its sex every year, that its neck is not divided into verte-
brae but supported by a single straight and continuous bone and that its
eyes constantly in a thousand different hues. Because this does not apply
to any animal, one could rightly assume that such an animal does not ex-
ist in real nature. However, we believe that taxus or meles, the badger, was
the hyena of the ancients.24
This text is remarkable in two respects. For the first time, without mentioning
the name, a clear criticism is made of Pliny’s manner of zoological description.
The listed characteristics, as anybody recognises who has dealt a little bit with
the history of the hyena, all date back to Pliny and his numerous followers. In
this way Ray rejects the tradition of legends and second– and third–hand in-
formation and implicitly demands a return to the Aristotelian approach of di-
rect observation.
But Ray does not only offer criticism: he also provides a solution of his own
for the old problem of which animal might hide behind the designation hyaena:
24 Ray, Synopsis Methodica (as in Fn. 11), p. 158; see Ray’s text with translation in Funk,
Hyaena (as in Fn. 20), pp. 98–99.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 85
it is the badger, to be more precise, the so–called „dog–badger“ (Taxus caninus)
in contrast to the so–called „pig–badger“ (Taxus porcinus).
Ray had come across these two kinds of badger while analysing Gesner, who
in his Historiae animalium had discriminated between Taxus caninus and Taxus
suillus, in German between Hundsdachß („dog–badger“) and Sauwdachß („sow–
badger“), as they are called in his Thierbuch.25 In contrast to Ray, Gesner ex-
plicitly rejected equating the hyena and badger.26
But it was precisely this that Ray believed to be an error. He adopts Gesner’s
distinction of dog–badger and pig–badger or sow–badger, but is convinced
that the hyena was meant by dog–badger, whilst he reckons the existence of a
pig–badger to be doubtful. To cite Ray:
The authors of the Historia Animalium have two kinds, namely Taxus
caninus and Taxus porcinus or suillus, the dog–badger and the pig–badger or
sow–badger. We have never seen the pig–badger and doubt whether such
a creature exists at all, whereas we have viewed the dog–badger, which is
quite common in England, several times, and have also described it in
the following.27 (our translation)
Such is the complex initial position. On the one hand there are Gesner’s dog–
badger and pig–badger which he does not want to be confused with the hye-
na; on the other hand there is solely Ray’s dog–badger which he believes to be
the hyena. In this situation Kaempfer follows Ray in equating the badger and
hyena, but in contrast to Ray he identifies the pig–badger and not the dog–badger
with the hyena he had observed in Persia.
This is the genealogy of Kaempfer’s surprising statement in paragraphs (1),
(4), (6), and (11) that Taxus porcinus, the pig–badger, should be the hyaena of the
ancients. He follows Ray halfway, but then finds a different solution.
Kaempfer’s (or Ray’s) equating of the hyena and badger is not as extraordi-
nary as might seem today. Already Pliny had said in the text passage to which
25 See Gesner, Historiae animalium I (as in Fn. 7), p. 779 on Taxus caninus, Taxus suillus, and
Taxus porcinus; and Conrad Gesner, Thierbuch, Das ist Außführliche beschreibung und
lebendige ja auch eigentliche Contrafactur und Abmahlung aller Vierfüssigen thieren (…).
Zurich 1563, p. 33R.
26 Gesner, Historia animalium I (as in Fn. 7), p. 625: Est autem non alia quam hyena, quamvis
interpres Rasis taxonem interpretatur, hoc est melem. „ [As to the Akabo – a vernacular name,] it is
nothing other than the hyena, but the translator of Rasis renders this name with taxo, in
other words meles (badger). “ On p. 778, Gesner repeats his objection to the Rasis transla-
tion once more in similar words; apparently it was important for him to stress that hyaena is
not a taxus or meles, i.e. not a badger.
27 Ray, Synopsis Methodica (as in Fn. 11), p. 185.
HOLGER FUNK
86
Kaempfer refers in section (5) that the leucrocotas, a variant of the hyena, had
a badger–like head (capite melium — NH 8, 30).
Actually, none of the notable zoologists of the 18th century objected to
Kaempfer’s determination of the hyena. In his Systema Naturae Linnaeus cites
Kaempfer’s designation Taxus porcinus as well as Buffon in his Histoire Na-
turelle. James Bruce, too, who, in his report on the exploration of the Nile
sources is hard on the previous describers of the hyena, accepts only
Kaempfer’s denomination.28 Thomas Shaw,29 J. C. D. Schreber30 and Georg
Forster31 also conjectured independently of each other that the hyena is re-
lated or similar to the badger.
Thus one can put on record that Kaempfer’s assumption that the hyena might
be a special kind of badger was shared by leading naturalists. Nonetheless, an
uneasy feeling remains: how could Kaempfer associate the badger — which is
clearly smaller (75 cm without tail), lighter (15–20 kg) and actually looks quite
different from an average striped hyena — with the hyena, especially when in
paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) he at the same time highlights the similarity to the
wolf?
Kaempfer seems to have felt this indecisiveness himself when he points out
that the animal was hitherto completely unknown in Europe and that with his
nomenclatoric classification he is entering unknown territory. He therefore
suggests in paragraph (4) not only Taxus porcinus but also Lupus porcinus as a
designation, the former name appearing „more appropriate“ (satius) to him.
From today’s point of view, both designations are incommensurate: either the
animal is a pig–badger (Taxus porcinus) or a pig–wolf (Lupus porcinus). Common
to wolf and badger is only that they belong to the Canoidea suborder, but
there the similarity ends: the wolf belongs to the dog family (Canidae), where-
as the badger belongs to the weasel family (Mustelidae).
In the 17th and 18th centuries this taxonomic distinction was yet unknown and
thus it is no wonder that Kaempfer does not tie himself down in his report
28 See Bruce, Travels (as in Fn. 4), p. 115. Some pages before Bruce remarks: „I do not
think there is any one that hath hitherto written of this animal who ever saw the thou-
sandth part of them that I have. “ (p. 108).
29 Thomas Shaw, Travels Or Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the
Levant. Vol. I. Edinburgh 1808 [11738], pp. 316–318.
30 Johann Christian Daniel Schreber, Die Säugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit
Beschreibungen. Dritter Theil. Erlangen 1778, p. 373.
31 Georg Forster, Herrn von Büffons Naturgeschichte der vierfüßigen Tiere. Sechster Band.
Berlin 1780. In Georg Forsters Werke. Schriften zur Naturkunde. Erster Teil. Berlin 2003,
p. 787.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 87
and in one place prefers the badger, in another the wolf. It is a late insight of
the 19th century that both classifications are incorrect and that the hyena is a
member of the Feloidea („cat–like“ carnivores) suborder.
4. Linnaeus’ utilisation of Kaempfer’s report
Kaempfer’s description of a hyena — albeit not free of errors — was the de-
cisive breakthrough in the efforts to end the general confusion in the discus-
sions about this animal. He thrust aside the ballast of traditional prejudices
and misinterpretations which until then had been associated with the hyena.
Moreover, Kaempfer provided the first description of a hyena species which
complies with scientific demands in the sense of today’s zoology and on
which further hyena research could be based.
The value of this achievement was recognised by Linnaeus, who integrated
Kaempfer’s information in his biological systematics. Linnaeus held Kaempfer
in high esteem. In 1736 he praised him as „one of the best travelling research-
ers“ (inter optimos numeratur peregrinatores),32 shortly afterwards he called
Kaempfer the „most inquisitive of all travelling researchers“ (inter Peregrinatores
omnium curiosissimus); ten years later Linnaeus called Kaempfer again an „out-
standing traveller“ (Peregrinator eximius).33 Alone in the 10th edition of the
Systema Naturae34 Linnaeus repeatedly refers to Kaempfer’s Amoenitates as well
as to his posthumous History of Japan from 1727 (Scheuchzer edition). Thus,
after all, it is no surprise that Linnaeus exploited also Kaempfer’s hyena de-
scription for his purposes.
The hyena in Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae
Because Linnaeus certainly never had seen a hyena personally, not even a cap-
tive one, he had to take over the contents of his description from someone
else. In the first instance, this was not Kaempfer.
32 Carolus Linnaeus, Bibliotheca Botanica recensens Libros plus mille de plantis huc usque editos secun-
dum Systema Auctorum Naturale (…). Amsterdam 1736, p. 109.
33 Carolus Linnaeus, Hortus Cliffortianus. Plantas exhibens Quas In Hortis tam Vivis quam Siccis
(…). Amsterdam 1737, no. 167 (no pagination); Carolus Linnaeus, Flora Zeylanica. Sistens
Plantas Indicas Zeylonae Insulae (…). Stockholm 1747, chapter Autores (no pagination). In or-
der to appreciate Linnaeus’ characterisation, one had to clarify among others, what the
term peregrinator exactly means within his biological theory. We are preparing a paper on this
specific issue with respect to Linnaeus’ esteem of Kaempfer.
34 Cf. Tom. I on animals: pp. 40 (hyena), 43 (ichneumon), 69 (Capricerva paseng, the wild
or bezoar goat), 128 (Kinmodsuis, a Japanese duck), 221 (Coluber naja, a snake), 231
(torpedo fish), 647 (Medina worm); Tom. II on plants: pp. 843 (genus Kaempferia), 897
(Fagara piperita, Japanese pepper), 1050 and 1370 (Illicium anisatum or Fanna Skimmi, a
Japanese anise tree), 1066 (Calycanthus floridus, a Japanese jasmine flower).
HOLGER FUNK
88
A look into the different descriptions in the decisive editions of the Systema
Naturae sheds light on this fact. In the first edition from 1735, the hyena is
described only briefly:35
I. Quadrupedia, Ferae: Hyaena — Collum superne iubatum. Cauda brevis. Hyaena
Veter. Vivam Londine nuper vidit & descripsit Arted.
I. Quadrupeds, predators: Hyena — neck with mane on top. Short tail.
The hyaena of the ancients. Artedi has recently seen and described a liv-
ing individual at London zoo.
This first description is totally influenced by the ancient tradition. Aristotle
had already pointed to the hyena’s mane (Historia animalium VIII, 5), and
thereafter Pliny (misleadingly) extended this note: „Neck and mane form a
continuation of the spine“ — collum ut iuba in continuitatem spinae porrigitur
(Naturalis Historia 8, 44). Linnaeus’ dependency on this tradition extends to the
choice of words (collum, iubatum), and his conclusion once more corroborates
it: the hyena is identical to the hyaena of the ancients.
Really remarkable is the reference to a certain „Arted“ in the last sentence.
This person was the Swede Peter Artedi (1705–1735), a classmate from the
university and close friend of Linnaeus since then. In 1732 their ways sepa-
rated: while Linnaeus travelled to Lapland, Artedi left for England where in
1734 he stayed for a short time in London. In the same year he went on to
Holland and there met Linnaeus again at Leiden. Artedi then worked in Am-
sterdam, where in 1735 he was drowned in a canal into which he fell one
night.
Artedi, a gifted naturalists, did not publish any writings in his lifetime; his un-
published manuscripts were inherited (and in parts edited) by Linnaeus. One
of the unpublished manuscripts must have been a description of the hyena
which Artedi had observed at London zoo. Obviously, this description was
Linnaeus’ only newer source at this time. Linnaeus already knew Kaempfer’s
work around 1735, as we know from his correspondence.36 The earliest refer-
ence to Kaempfer in Linnaeus’ public writings likewise dates from 1735 (first
edition of the Systema Naturae).37
35 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae, sive, Regna tria naturae systematice proposita per classes, ordines,
genera, & species (…). Leiden 1735, p. 12 (no pagination, counted from the title page).
36 According to a letter from Johan Frederik Gronovius to Carl Linnaeus from 19 October
1735.
37 For details, see H. H. Hume, Kamel-Kaempfer-Linnaeus. The American Camellia Year-
book 1952, 259-264.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 89
The situation remained the same from the second (1740) until the fifth edition
(1747) of the Systema Naturae. However, a quite different picture with respect
to the hyena is provided by the 6th extended edition from 1748. In this edition
Linnaeus describes the animal as follows:38
Canis pilis cervicis erectis longioribus. Hyaena — Filfras
Hyaena s. Taxus porcinus. Kaempf. 407. f. 4.
Dog with erect, lengthy hackles. Hyena — wolverine.
Hyaena or Taxus porcinus. [According to Engelbert] Kaempfer
[Amoenitatum exoticarum politico–physico–medicarum fasciculi V (…).
Lemgo 1712], Plate 407, Fig. 4.
This second description is based almost entirely on Kaempfer’s report.
Linnaeus cites Kaempfer’s nomenclature Taxus porcinus and refers to the draw-
ings from the Amoenitates (see the reproduction in the appendix below). The
note to the erect, lengthy hackles also comes from Kaempfer’s report, where
he talks of the „almost 20 centimetre long hairs“ (Pilis longioribus, pene
spithamalibus). The only information that is not solely Kaempfer’s work is the
identification of the ancient hyaena with the wolverine (in the original Swedish
„Filfras“), a mistake that was introduced in the third edition of the Systema
Naturae from 1740. Linnaeus had taken this classification from Gesner (and
Aldrovandi) who, first in his Icones, then later also in his ‚Thierbuch‘, had
equated the hyena and wolverine.39
In the authoritative 10th edition of the Systema Naturae from 1758,40 the de-
scription is finally much more extensive than in the 1st or 6th edition. Linnaeus’
third description begins as usual with a short description of characteristics,
followed by a series of name variants:
Hyaena. 3. C. cauda recta, pilis cervicis erectis, auriculis nudis. Syst. nat. 5.
Lupus marinus. Bellon. aquat. 33. t. 34. Jonst. quadr. t. 57. Gesn. quadr. 674.
Taxus porcinus s. Hyaena veterum. Kaemph. amoen. 411. t. 407. f. 4.
38 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae sistens regna tria naturae, in classes et ordines, genera et species
redacta tabulisque aeneis illustrata. Stockholm 1748, p. 5.
39 See Conrad Gesner, Icones animalium (as in Fn. 20), p. 31; and Gesner, Thierbuch (as in
Fn. 25), p. 156V. In the first editions of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus relied mainly on
Gesner. — Other naturalists, by the way, took a firm stand against equating the hyena and
the wolverine; see for instance Hiob Ludolf, Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam antehac editam
Commentarius (…). Frankfurt 1691, p. 153. Edward Topsell, Historie of Foure–footed
Beastes, (as in Fn. 7), p. 440, also rejected the equating of these animals.
40 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species,
cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (…). Tomus I. Stockholm 1758, p. 40.
HOLGER FUNK
90
Hyena. 3. Dog with stretched (straight) tail, with erect hackles and small,
naked ears. [Carolus Linnaeus,] Systema Naturae. [Sixth edition
Stockholm 1748,] p. 5.
[The animal is designated as:]
Lupus marinus (with references to Belon (1553), Jonston (1650), and
Gesner (1551)).
Taxus porcinus or hyena of the ancients. [Engelbert] Kaempfer,
Amoenitatum [exoticarum politico–physico–medicarum fasciculi V.
Lemgo 1712], Plate 407, Fig. 4.
Three items in this text, which is the current valid primary description of the
striped hyena, are new. First of all, the abstract in the first sentence is enlarged
compared to the Systema Naturae edition from 1748 (which is referred to): be-
sides the erect hackles (pilis cervicis erectis), the „stretched tail“ (cauda recta) and
the „small, naked ears“ (auriculis nudis) are now also mentioned.
The second extension regards the name variant „Sea wolf“ (Lupus marinus) for
hyaena, a topic that refers to an (erroneous) hyena description by Pierre Be-
lon.41 In this context also the hyena and wolverine are no longer equated as
they were in 1747/48.
Linnaeus took the two additions in the first sentence about the tail and the
naked ears from Kaempfer’s report, however with two modifications that are
both wrong. The first modification relates to the ears, which Linnaeus chang-
es to „small ears“ (auriculae). The second modification relates to the tail, which
in Linnaeus’ description is „stretched“ (or „straight“) (recta) and comes from
Linnaeus himself. Exactly this apposition regarding the tail was the cause of
the clear criticism by Bruce and Forster who had not noticed such a character-
istic in the hyenas they had observed.42
As a third innovation the abstract and the name variants are followed in the
1758 edition by a description of the habitat, appearance and character of the
hyena. Linnaeus’ text reads as follows (p. 40):
Habitat in India.
Magnitudo Suis, Pili dorsi subspithamaei, erecti, apicibus negris. Oculi rostro
propinquiores. Auriculae nudae. Cauda annulis nigricantibus verticilata; crura
41 See Pierre Belon, De aquatilibus Libri duo. Cum eiconibus ad vivam ipsorum effigiem, quoad eius
fieri potuit, expressis. Paris 1553, p. 33; for details on the Lupus marinus, see Funk, Hyaena (as
in Fn. 20), pp. 83–85, 93.
42 See Bruce, Travels (as in Fn. 4), p. 120 and Forster, Büffons Naturgeschichte (as in Fn.
31), p. 738.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 91
annulis nigris variegata. Striae corporis fuscae & nigrae transversales, a dorso ad
ventrem ductae.
Excavat terram degitque in antris, diutius sine cibo vivit, in humana cadavera saevit,
quae e tumulis effodit, coemiteriis infesta.
Lives in India.
Size of a pig. Hairs on the back somewhat shorter than 1 span [c. 20 cm],
upright, with black tips. Eyes are close together by the muzzle. Small,
naked ears. Whorl–like tail with black rings. Legs patterned with black
rings. Dark and black body stripes, transverse, from back to belly.
Digs up the soil and lives in caves, can live without food for a lengthy
time, is fond of human corpses which are grubbed out from hills, is a
danger for burial sites.
In terms of its content this description is based on paragraphs (1) to (6) in
Kaempfer’s report; the Latin text is merely shortened and rephrased in the
usual Linnean telegraphic style. If all sentences which Linnaeus also omitted
are left out of Kaempfer’s report, this congruence becomes evident. As a re-
sult, Kaempfer’s text is condensed by Linnaeus to the following information:
The hyena is an animal like a pig or a larger wild boar. It has its size and
build. (1) — It is covered with long, grey hairs which are longer at the
edge of the back than is common in pigs, almost a span long [circa 20
cm] and with black tips. Eyes which are close to each other and nude,
erect ears. The tail is intersected as adornment by blackish rings. (2) —
The body is from back towards the belly marked with a few stripes
which are broad and uneven and alternately brown and black. (3)
It digs up with remarkable power the soil and prefers to hide reclusively
in dens; it can go for a long time without food. (5) — It is a wild and
carnivorous animal and, because it does not refrain even from human
bodies by grubbing them out busily at night from their graves, becomes a
great danger for burial sites. (6)
A comparative reading demonstrates that Linnaeus’ description consists en-
tirely of text modules from the first half of Kaempfer’s report. Linnaeus’ de-
scription is actually a concise version of Kaempfer’s description. What is
strange is that only „India“ is specified as the hyena’s habitat. But this is obvi-
ously just through an oversight, for in the next corrected edition after
HOLGER FUNK
92
Linnaeus’ death, the 13th edition of the Systema Naturae from 1788, „Persia“
amongst other regions is also specified as its habitat.43
To summarise the three hyena descriptions in the Systema Naturae editions
from 1735, 1758, and 1788, an increasing orientation towards Kaempfer’s re-
port can be observed. While the short description in the first edition from
1735 is based traditionally on Aristotle and Pliny, the second description from
1748 — minus an (erroneous) borrowing from Gesner — had already turned
to Kaempfer as its source.
The third description in the tenth edition from 1758, which is today part of
the zoological name of the hyena in the form of the date, is based almost
entirely on Kaempfer’s report, Linnaeus’ minor additions being inaccurate to
boot. The same applies to fourth description from 1788 in the last edition of
the Systema Naturae.
Today, article 23 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(ICZN) defines the ‚Principle of Priority‘. This rule states that the name of the
person who wrote the first scientifically recognised description of the species
concerned is taken as the name of the primary describer. Furthermore, the
rule specifies that for all animals (except for spiders) the tenth edition of
Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae from 1758 is recognised as the earliest date of a
valid description. Descriptions published prior to 1758 are in general excluded
as valid primary descriptions of an animal.
If the ICZN priority conventions did not exist, Kaempfer rather than
Linnaeus would have to be recognised as primary describer of the striped hy-
ena. At least the subspecies of the striped hyena in southern Iran could in
honour to Kaempfer bear the epithet „kaempferi“, as is the case with many
plants44 and some animals.45 In fact, Kaempfer’s report on the hyena turned
out to be both, the initial and the last description of that animal. As far as we
know, no special study of the Persian subspecies is as yet available.
43 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species,
cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (…). Tomus I. 13th ext. and revised edition. Leipzig
1788, p. 72.
44 See Wolfgang Muntschick, Engelbert Kaempfer als Erforscher der japanischen Pflan-
zenwelt. In Detlef Haberland (ed.), Engelbert Kaempfer. Werk und Wirkung. Stuttgart
1993, pp. 222–247, and the same, The Plants that Carry His Name: Engelbert Kaempfer’s
Study of the Japanese Flora. In Beatrice M. Bodart–Bailey, Derek Massarella (eds.), The
Furthest Goal: Engelbert Kaempfer’s Encounter with Tokugawa Japan. Japan Library
(Curzon Press) 1995, pp. 71–95.
45 See Lothar Weiß, Engelbert Kaempfers Name in der Nomenklatur der Zoologie. In Sa-
bine Klocke–Daffa et al. (eds.), Engelbert Kaempfer (1651–1716) und die kulturelle Be-
gegnung zwischen Europa und Asien. Lemgo 2003, pp. 283–303.
ENGELBERT KAEMPFER’S REPORT ON THE PERSIAN HYENA 93
Appendix: Illustrations
Figure 1: Kaempfer’s panorama view of the Benna mountains, taken from his Amoenitates,
Lemgo 1712 (Fasc. II, Plate 4), together with some animals which he had observed there.
The animal no. 4 to the right shows the hyena (Kaftaar) in lateral view and with the head
alone. Below the hyena a golden jackal is depicted (Sjechaal, no. 3).
HOLGER FUNK
94
Figure 2: Kaempfer’s original drawing of the Persian hyena (Kaftaar). Taken from the
Sloane.2923 manuscript, p. 42; unpublished, © The Sloane Collection at the British Library,
UK.
Holger Funk
Conspectus rerum
In memoriam
CHRIS L. HEESAKKERS, In memoriam Ari Hendrik Wesseling................................ 5
LAURENT GRAILET, In memoriam René Hoven ................................................... 13
FIDEL RÄDLE, Nachruf auf Paul Gerhard Schmidt ............................................... 21
I. Commentationes
HANS BERNSDORFF, Zur Symbolik von Vegetation und Gestirnen
in Paul Melissus’ Ad Genium suum (1575/1586) ........................................................25
EVA VON CONTZEN, Die Verortung eines Nicht–Ortes — Der fik-
tionale Raum in Thomas Morus’ Utopia .....................................................................33
KRZYSZTOF FORDOŃSKI, „Starched like Horace’s Odes“? Samuel
Taylor Coleridge (Mis)Translates Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski.......................... 57
HOLGER FUNK, Engelbert Kaempfer’s report on the Persian hyena
as the main source of Linnaeus’ hyaena description in the Systema
Naturae................................................................................................................................75
REINHOLD F. GLEI, Aetnaei fratres. Die Centonen des Menapius (ali-
as Friedrich Grick) gegen die Rosenkreuzer (Teil I).............................................. 95
THOMAS HAYE, Die Felsinais des Marco Girolamo Vida — Das ver-
schollene Epos nach 500 Jahren wiederentdeckt .................................................. 123
JAKOB JUNG, Die Eclogae des Pierre Mambrun und die Rezeption
antiker Literatur.........................................................................................................139
WALTHER LUDWIG, Das emblematische Willkommbuch der Bene-
diktiner–Universität Salzburg für ihren Fürsterzbischof Johann
Ernst Graf von Thun im Jahr 1687.......................................................................... 181
DAVID MARSH, Filelfo and Alberti ........................................................................... 209
ULLI ROTH/REINHOLD F. GLEI, Eine weitere Spur der lateinischen
Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia................................................................... 221
HELGA SCHEIBLE †, Willibald Pirckheimer: Apologie der Nonnen
von St. Klara vor dem Nürnberger Rat, <Nürnberg, Frühjahr
1530>..........................................................................................................................229
SONJA SCHREINER, At enim vero inter omnes disciplinas Philosophicas, si
excipias Mathesin, nullam difficiliorem esse Politica… — Geschichts-
kenntnis und Politik in der Dissertatio epistolaris de necessaria licet difficili
coniunctione politices cum historiarum cognitione (Leipzig 1761).................................... 287
WILT ADEN SCHRÖDER, Carl Siedhof, Elegia in obitum F. J. Muelleri
(1845). Eingeleitet, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit Erläuterungen
versehen .......................................................................................................................... 313
II. Investigandarum rerum prospectus
REINHOLD F. GLEI, Neulateinische Forschungsprojekte....................................... 345
FLORIAN SCHAFFENRATH/STEFAN TILG, Neulateinische Literatur
und das moderne Europa — Kurzvorstellung des Ludwig Boltz-
mann Instituts für Neulateinische Studien.............................................................. 351
WALTHER LUDWIG, Stammbuchforschung als Humanismusfor-
schung. Rückschau und Ausblick ...........................................................................363
JAN BLOEMENDAL, Dynamics of Neo-Latin and the Vernacular .....................367
III. Librorum existimationes
María Teresa Santamaría Hernández (Hg.), La Transmisión de la
ciencia desde la Antigüedad al Renacimiento (MICHAEL SCHULZE
ROBERG) .....................................................................................................................371
Germán Santana Henríquez, La tradición clásica en la literatura
española e hispanoamericana (siglos XVIII–XX) (MICHAEL SCHUL-
ZE ROBERG)................................................................................................................376
Günter Hess, Der Tod des Seneca. Studien zur Kunst der Imagina-
tion in Texten und Bildern des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (FIDEL
RÄDLE)........................................................................................................................381
Conrad Gessner. Mithridate / Mithridates (1555). Introduction,
texte latin, traduction française, annotation et index par Bernard
Colombat et Manfred Peters (TOON VAN HAL) ..................................................389
Frank Pohle, Glaube und Beredsamkeit. Katholisches Schultheater
in Jülich–Berg, Ravenstein und Aachen (FIDEL RÄDLE) ....................................393
IV. Quaestiones recentissimae
KARL AUGUST NEUHAUSEN, Plagiat und Plagiatoren in der neula-
teinischen Literatur (I)..............................................................................................405
V. Nuntii
JEAN–LOUIS CHARLET, XXII° Convegno internazionale „Feritas,
humanitas e divinitas come aspetti del vivere nel Rinascimento“ .........................455
KARL AUGUST NEUHAUSEN, Nova Bonnensis Almae Matris docu-
menta Latinitate donata (XI) ...................................................................................461