- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
- Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
-
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
R. Sale > 03-08-2023, 06:58 PM
The 'armadillo' identification has been a support for purported New World connections. There have been various other interpretations. Not only is there a certain degree of ambiguity in the VMs illustration, there are widespread, imaginative representations in many medieval manuscripts.
The 'critter' is not the key to the interpretation. The key is the nebuly line. What sort of creature is associated with a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary? There is also the matter of structure compared with other historical examples. And then, there is provenance. -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-11-2025, 05:00 PM
Aplogies for asking again, but what are the arguments against the critter of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being a pangolin?
Pangolins today are found in Asia and in Africa. While we may not have Medieval European pictures or descriptions of them, surely there were at least some Europeans who had seen them, or seen pictures of them in non-European books (Arabic, Persian, Indian, ...).
Thus, even if one hates the "Chinese" Theory, I don't see how one can dismiss the possibility that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. critter was meant to be a pangolin. The Scribe could have copied it from a sketch by the Author, or cribbed it from any some book (now lost) that he could have used as inspiration for the decorative parts of his drawings.
Although it is also quite possible that it was meant to be a dragon, which in turn was meant to be an arch-snake, to emphasize that the the treatment of snake bites was a topic of that page...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Koen G > 19-11-2025, 05:14 PM
If we have people arguing that the same image may be of an armadillo, a pangolin, a dragon or a ram, then what should our conclusion be? -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
rikforto > 19-11-2025, 05:43 PM
(19-11-2025, 05:14 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we have people arguing that the same image may be of an armadillo, a pangolin, a dragon or a ram, then what should our conclusion be?
That we should, using the definition of a compromise that no one is happy, label it as the Pleiades as a placeholder -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-11-2025, 05:59 PM
(19-11-2025, 05:14 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we have people arguing that the same image may be of an armadillo, a pangolin, a dragon or a ram, then what should our conclusion be?
Fortunately we can exclude the armadillo because of the C14 date. (Unless one assumes a modern forgery, which I don't).
And I think we can also exclude the ram, because these images were drawn after those in the Zodiac, and the ram there looks like a ram. Or at least like a goat.
So we seem to be left with pangolin or dragon (or griffin). I see some arguments for the latter; however, if the artist wanted to draw a dragon, I think he would have done a better job than that...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
R. Sale > 19-11-2025, 06:02 PM
Conclusion: While the presence of the nebuly line is integral to the interpretation of the illustration, the failure to recognize its existence and the inability to use the correct terminology throw open the doors to misguided explanations. -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Bluetoes101 > 19-11-2025, 06:08 PM
Something that I think probably doesn't get accounted for enough, is the manuscript it self.
There's a lot of "squinting" at "it", but if you turn the page backwards there is a curled up "deer-like" animal that certainly does not curl up in self defence.
Then there are several animals, including a human/animal.. thingy, and the painter chooses green only for the lizard(-thing).
It just seems a bit baffling if you were to sit and "read it", first you would see a curled up "deer" and a green "lizard" then see a green curled up thing and go "Armadillo?".
.. just think we might be shouting over the top of the manuscript.
Granted, the blue rat-thing does not help my case..
[Edit - also R. Sale's point above] -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-11-2025, 06:23 PM
(19-11-2025, 06:02 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Conclusion: While the presence of the nebuly line is integral to the interpretation of the illustration, the failure to recognize its existence and the inability to use the correct terminology throw open the doors to misguided explanations.
Those nebuly lines (thanks for the term) are present everywhere in the Cosmo and Biological sections, in the most varied graphical contexts -- canopies, edges of ponds, frames of diagrams.
One interpretation is that they are just a type of decorative element that the Scribe was fond of using. Like the patterns of notches and dashes on the outermost band of f67r2, or the scalloped fields of the big fold-out, or the naked nymphs.
Or they may be his conventional way to say "clouds" or "pond", depending on the context. But then what is the "doorknob" on top of the "cloud" at the NW corner of f79v?
It seems that you have another interpretation based on heraldry. What is it?
Why should we assume either of these interpretations?
The "pangolin" is standing on a cupola with a nebuly border, from which rain seems to be dripping. What is the connection between those elements?
It is easy to propose an interpretation. Not so easy to bring up arguments...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
Koen G > 19-11-2025, 06:49 PM
(19-11-2025, 05:59 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So we seem to be left with pangolin or dragon (or griffin).
Unfortunately, there are many options for scaled creatures. I wrote about this in 2019: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If the thing actually has (reversed) scales (and not scallop-patterned wool or fur), then arguing about the exact species depicted is pointless, as Lisa said in the other thread. -
RE: Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?
KnoxMix > 19-11-2025, 07:44 PM
(19-11-2025, 05:00 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Aplogies for asking again, but what are the arguments against the critter of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being a pangolin?
Pangolins today are found in Asia and in Africa. While we may not have Medieval European pictures or descriptions of them, surely there were at least some Europeans who had seen them, or seen pictures of them in non-European books (Arabic, Persian, Indian, ...).
Thus, even if one hates the "Chinese" Theory, I don't see how one can dismiss the possibility that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. critter was meant to be a pangolin. The Scribe could have copied it from a sketch by the Author, or cribbed it from any some book (now lost) that he could have used as inspiration for the decorative parts of his drawings.
Although it is also quite possible that it was meant to be a dragon, which in turn was meant to be an arch-snake, to emphasize that the the treatment of snake bites was a topic of that page...
All the best, --stolfi
----------
Hi,
The drawing shows an animal with a big neck, paws like a fox or wolf, nose like a fox or wolf, tail like a fox or wolf, ears like a fox or wolf, in the same posture as a pouncing fox.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Knox