I think a little bit of analysis of the beast in question on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. may be called for, so we can narrow down what we are looking for in identifying it. This is my first draft of my ideas and I though I'd put them out there for some feedback.
Questions:
- How many limbs are displayed?
- Why is the back limb stuck up like that?
- What are the ripples on its back?
- In what order were the plant, beast, paint drawn / applied?
As always, nothing is easy, mainly because the perspective is screwed on the beast. Its body is drawn at an angle but the head is side on. Let's just look at the body:
By cutting off the head it's a bit easier to see what I mean here. The chest is exposed on the animal and an attempt at perspective is made by drawing the nearside top limb in its entirety (event to the point of joining the shoulder onto the chest, albeit in a funny position) and showing only the paw of the back top limb. Also note that both paws have different number of toes (or claws) - the nearside has three, the farside four.
The end limb clearly appears to end in a paw and we must thus assume this is a limb, not a tail. It has three toes, same as the top nearside paw.
In fact, if that end limb went at a straight line instead of at a sudden angle up, the perspective works. Imagine the green smudge (the ground) wasn't there and the limb goes out. We're seeing the animal side-on, as we would expect to.
But the body is then twisted round. JKP has posted an image of a You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., but I don't think anyone has found one with
three legs.
More-ever, there is something scribbled in the distance between the body and the end limb. This could be an attempt to depict the fourth leg - it's impossible to say.
If that scribble there is
not an attempt to depict a fourth limb, then what is it?
There are also some scribbles around where the bottom limb connects to the body. It's so small that I can't get a proper resolution on it, even with the big TIFFs from the Beineicke. It looks like three vertical marks where the limb joins the body. It could just because the artist wanted to shade in the shoulderblade.
In summary: I think this is a four legged animal and the artist drew it too close to the ground. He then didn't leave room for the tail, and tried to draw it in the gap between the third leg and rear of the beast.
Let us look at the second question: why is the back limb sticking up at that angle? It is clearly anti-natural (not that this matters too much in a 15th century depiction).
My suggestion is that it's because the body was too close to the ground to be drawn in its proper place. I think the leg was going to be drawn in the correct fashion, but it was so close to the ground that someone had to draw it sticking upwards at an un-natural angle.
Let us look at the third question: what's that stuff on its back?
We see the body of the animal quite clearly. The artist has drawn the animal. He's then thought that more detail is needed and drawn these loops and whirls over the body and above the neck. The whirls also continue over the back of the beast. It's a covering of some kind.
- It could be scales, but then why draw them ontop of the body?
- It could be wool.
- It could be a crest and scales, but then why extend the crest around the neck?
- It could be an attempt to depict skin markings.
Finally, the question of how the illustration was drawn. Plant, beast, paint.
Well, I think the paint and ground came first. The beast was then drawn, and finally the leaf it is nibbling on.
Look at the way the beast is eating the leaf. The leaf is drawn to vanish into the beast's mouth - ie, the mouth was there and then the leaf was drawn around it.