Other major differences... the Hildegard image is clearly labeled as thunder, and the VMS image appears to be part of a visual-narrative sequence.


The manuscript Michelle linked does, however, have many themes in common with the VMS even if they are displayed in a different style (I think I've included some of them in blogs).

P.S., Michelle, I wanted to thank you for crediting the authors who submitted the content to Bax's site. This is often omitted and it's only fair to acknowledge those who provided the research.

Hi, JKP:

No problem!  I doubt l will be able to be the first to spot something (unless it’s newly online)  and l think the interconnections make it all the more interesting.  

I’ve tried to read everything out there and pulling strings together is one of my favorite things about this kind of research.

That being said, l am well aware this could all be circumstantial - as much as l’d like there to be a clear “source” or even “geographical location of creation” it’s pretty clear it depends on what aspects or details of the manuscript you choose to focus on.

So, content to add another bit of info to the pile.

So are these dog-heads? dragon-heads? or an imaginary animal?


Dragons often had ears. They were sometimes shown with flame-like emissions from their mouths (sometimes flames, sometimes heat, othertimes maybe something else), so that might connect them to thunder and lightening.

But I'm not sure they are dragons.

In the Middle Ages, some people believed that there used to be a race of dog-headed humanoids.

In the illustration on the right. between the heads, aren't those wings? Dogs with wings are improbable. Dragons with wings are possible. Dragons already are imaginary animals.

What if thunder flies with wings and barks like dogs?

           

It reminds me somehow of gargoyles on buildings like churches.

Old or new.

But if they had ears, they'd be deaf.

JKP, looking at the image you provided, I'm tempted to just say it uses a visual metaphor to liken thunder to a group of monsters, and leave it at that. The artistic traditions of the Classical World (among many, many other places) have a long tradition of ad hoc combinations of hideous, exotic, and powerful features from throughout the animal kingdom, on a single animal, as a way of implying "the most terrifying beast (or by metaphor, phenomenon) one could ever imagine!". Sure, there were some forms that became set over time and became tropes in their own right, like the chimera, the gryphon, the gargoyle, and the garuda. But I always got the sense that no matter how populated the Western imagination has become with very specific mythical beasts, there has always been, and still is, a vibrant tradition of artists and storytellers trying to top each other by coming up with newer and more dreadful combinations of features. I'm pretty sure this tradition is what Mark Twain was satirizing in *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn* with the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Source: I was raised on children's fables and mythology from around the world, instead of TV.

I think Koen might be on the right track in interpreting this...

There are arrows coming out of the mouths. If these are lightening bolts and the beasts are winged (personification of lightning), then the mouths would create an association with sound (thunder).