Talk:Physiologus

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This article appears neutral already, although open to misreading. If the first paragraph were reordered, the neutrality might be more obvious. Possibly:

It consisted of descriptions animals, birds, fantastic creatures; sometimes stones and plants, often with moral content. Each animal was described, and an anecdote followed, together with the moral and symbolic qualities of the animal, which were to be imitated or avoided. Some descriptions were meant as Christian allegories, connecting the subject being described with, for example, enticements of the Devil or Christ-like qualities.

Little Crow[edit]

The hyperlink for Little Crow leads to an Australian crow, which cannot possibly be what the ancient Greco-Egyptian text is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.250.229 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Latin "translation"[edit]

There is a problem here. At one point in the article, as it now stands, we are told that the translation into Latin occurred around 700 AD; later in the article we are given a date three centuries earlier.

The first date (furthermore) cites T. H. White incorrectly: in the edition I have (Capricorn, 1960, p. 232) what White actually says is that "the earliest Latin translation of him [the Physiologus]which we have is of the eighth century."

Is there any evidence of a ca-400 Latin version? If not, it might be better to eliminate the specific reference to 400, and to clean up the White reference by replacing it with something like: "By the eighth century, if not sooner, the Physiologus had been rendered into Latin".

Mjhrynick (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basil links to the article about the herb?[edit]

Under the attributions section, is Basil supposed to redirect to the article about the herb? It's surrounded by names of people so I suspect not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.212.41 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @199.111.212.41: Thanks for bringing our attention to this issue. Daask (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References -- Comment[edit]

This entry has been at least temporarily removed because it seems very incomplete:

Möbius and Hominel in the publications quoted above. --My2100 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]