Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Lil Stinker NP-g07 <anywhere@uwant2.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rolex
Subject: DRAGONCOLOGY
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:24:29 -0500
Organization: P.U.
Reply-To: over@here.net
Message-ID: <sh7hj1d53nqvu082detsf77tg9kq9m800r@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 267
NNTP-Posting-Host: d65a1e5f.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=E[cPAin55Z0l`aiKB9>hO1L?0kYOcDh@:e9Xhm8m]Vi92:kRn3Vgh37PBKc2^fcVo2hEn^FD88>G2eiXDZ9>gJ`5
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.rolex:227
DRAGONCOLOGY
On the Origin of Dragons
During the middle ages no one ever pondered over the question where
dragons might originate from. They were thought to have existed from
the beginning of the earth. This changed at the turn of modern times.
During the 17th century scientists began to doubt the real existence
of dragons, but conceded that fantastic creatures were at least
possible. As a consequence "faked" dragons compiled of mummified rays,
bats and other ingredients found their ways into the early museums (or
rather cabinets of curiosities) as examples of possible but yet
undiscovered creatures (STECKNER, 1997). Simultaneously a new question
arose. How came dragons into existence? The old Christian explanations
on the creation of the earth crumbled. Additionally there was severe
the Bible never explicitly mentioned creative powers of the Devil.
Could there be another way for the origin of dragons?
In 1683 to 1691 Eberhard Werner HAPPEL published his Relationes
Curiosae, a collection of curiosities. There he commented on events of
the day and reported stories from exotic countries, he presented
scientific discoveries of various disciplines as well as descriptions
of landscapes, their inhabitants and folk lore. The book gained such
popularity that during the ensuing decades faked editions and sequels
were issued.
Of course HAPPEL could not ignore the dragon. He first presents the
story of Deodatus de Gozon, a young knight of St. John who killed a
dragon on the isle of Rhodes in 1345. HAPPEL afterwards lists some
well-known facts: Dragons are many fold - some possess wings and
compared to those of goose, lions or eagles, but all dragons are said
to be venomous. But then he suddenly states that they are monsters or
miraculous creatures which could not spring from an ordinary
copulation of two common animals of different species. (of course he
mentioned the mule as an example of such a bastard). And he gives the
explanation: It is well accepted that dragons inhabit the remotest
dwellings such as caves, cliffs or deserts. Only eagles, vultures and
other birds of prey are their companions. In fact they dwelled there
even before the dragon. To these places they brought their prey -
snakes, birds, rabbits, lambs, dogs, and even little children! - to
lacerate and devour them. And there the remains decayed. But still
remnants of the semen of these unlucky victims survived. Of course it
was impossible that this seed could develop ordinary animals. But
through time the semen of various creatures would intermingle and at
last a kind of "fermentational putrefaction" would give birth to a
dragon. Logically, this dragon will show features of all animals
involved: head and tail of the snake, wings of a bird or bat, ears of
a rabbit and legs of whatever kind of being.
HAPPEL certainly had not invented this strange and peculiar theory.
But where was it derived from? Here we have to leave our friends, the
dragons, for a while and face another phenomenon that puzzled
scientists of the 16th and 17th century: formed stones. The term
"fossil" then was still used in its original, very broad sense for
everything unearthed from the ground - petrified animals as well as
roman coins, minerals or pottery. The origin of formed stones (or
fossils in its modern meaning) was a matter of scientific debate. It
was not before 1708 that Johann Jakob SCHEUCHZER (amongst others)
recognized their real nature. The main theories have been summarized
by Johann Bartholomaeus Adam BERINGER (1667-1740) in his Lithographiae
Wirceburgensis (1726).
The story of his "lying stones" forms one of the most fascinating
chapters in the history of paleontology (KIRCHNER, 1935; JAHN & WOOLF,
1963). BERINGER was a virtuoso - a "learned dilettanti". Figured
stones fascinated him. On May 31, 1725 the worthy physician was
presented three stones, one bearing the figure of the sun, the other
two a kind of worm. His interest was roused. During the ensuing months
(Germany). He not only studied his findings but also reviewed all
theories that could explain their origin. The results were published
in 1726. Soon afterwards he found a stone having his own name engraved
upon it - and suddenly realized that he had been fooled. His treasures
were man-made! He tried to buy back all copies of his book and was
soon financially ruined.
There were many riddles about the authors of this hoax. One
explanation often heard was that the stones had been used by a lover
occupied for a significant time. Others spoke of a foul joke by some
of his students. However, the hoax had an academic background. The
artifacts had been produced and laid out by J. Ignaz RODERIQUE,
professor of geography, algebra and analysis at the University of
who systematically ruined their colleague (KIRCHNER, 1935) because "he
was so arrogant and despised them all" (JAHN & WOOLF, 1963).
BERINGER had pondered much over the origin of formed stones. The
english translation of his Lithographiae Wirceburgensis (JAHN & WOOLF,
1963) is supplemented with notes by the editors which give a good
synopsis of the most important theories. A common explanation well in
accordance with the doctrines of Christianity interpreted fossils as
tokens of the omnipotence of the allmighty God. Some people believed
that formed stones were extraordinary manifestations of platonic
archetypes. And for others they were just a lusus naturae, a caprice
or fancy of nature. BERINGER was inclined to that view.
Robert PLOT (1640-1696), the first keeper of the Ashmolean Museum,
secretary of the Royal Society, and editor of the Philosophical
Transactions rejected both these popular theories as well as the idea
of an universal Noachian Deluge (see below) as the origin of formed
stones. His basic observation was that salts allways crystallized into
specific geometrical figures such as, e.g., cubes or octahedrons. He
attributed this phenomenon to a special plastic power (vis plastica).
And if that power could form salt into complicated geometrical shapes,
why could it not create stones with the appearance of animals? To him
formed stones were lapides sui generis generated by a "plastick power
[or virtue] or whatever else it is that effects these shapes".
Johann Jakob SCHEUCHZER (1672-1733) rejected these ideas. He was a
dedicated follower of the diluvial theory. You may remember his famous
paper Homo Diluvii Testis (1726) in which he misinterpreted the
skeleton of a Miocene giant salamander (which today bears his name:
Andrias scheuchzeri TSCHUDI) for the remains of an unlucky human
drowned in the Noachian Flood. His most remarkable book, however, is
Piscium Querelae et Vindiciae - "The Grievances and Claims of the
Fishes". Fossil fish from all over Europe appeare before an imaginary
- or should I say "virtual"? - court. They accuse and attack the
adherents of odd theories, such as the vis plastica, lusus naturae or
aura seminalis, who deny their true nature. According to SCHEUCHZER
they are real fish that once had lived and had been drowned during the
water and therefore will never drown! SCHEUCHZER of course had thought
of that. With a few exceptions (e.g., the eel or the salmon) fish
prefer and are restricted to water of a specific salinity. During the
Deluge marine fish were exposed to fresh water. On the contrary
lacustrine and fluviatile fish were washed into the sea. Both could
not endure the enormous amounts of mud created during the flood. They
were suffocated and perished (remember that not a single creature
besides those on the ark survived; Gen. 7, 23).
point of view. He assumed that formed stones originate within the
earth where animal seeds were activated by sbterranean heat, proper
fluid matter, latent plastic power and the seminal breeze. He stated
that this process is more rapid than that of natural generation, but
in most cases terminates in the creation of a partial body. Snow water
should exert a major positive influence on this process.
However, this was not an original theory. LANG had just modified an
older hypothesis by Edward LHWYD (1660-1709). LHWYD succeeded PLOT as
the keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in 1691, but he never subscribed to
became one of the greatest proponents of the "Spermatick Principle" or
aura seminalis. For centuries it had been assumed, that the active
power of reproduction belonged exclusively to the male. It was
believed that the head of a sperm allready containes a tiny creature
resembling the later adult. Of course this sperm needs an appropriate
environment and nutrient to develop which are provided by the female.
But why could not also the earth contain some sort of nutrient to
stimulate development, a kind of "saline moisture of an occult sort"?
Then nothing would prevent development once the spawn or semen of an
animal had insinuated itself through cracks and fissures into the
earth. The result, however, should not be a perfect creature. Only the
female uterus could provide the environment for the proper growth and
development of the offspring. Semen embedded into the womb of Mother
Earth will accommodate to this new milieu and bring forth stony
adults. And sometimes it has not enough power to create complete
specimens so that major parts of the petrified animal could be
missing.
modified to explain the creation of dragons. We should add, that some
followers of this theory saw the whole world saturated with semen:
Water contains the spawn not only of fish. When it evaporats the spawn
not simply desiccates and dies, but is transferred into a new medium,
the air. Later it will be washed to the ground again during rainfalls.
We should thus not be astonished by the idea that semen of various
it shurely gets intermingled before it finds its appropriate "saline
moisture". Similar to spawn in rock fissures the semen of a single
animal is not able to develop a complete, proper creature. But mixed
with other sperms it will bring forth a monster or dragon.
The "Spermatick Principle" was only a short-lived episode in the
history of palaeontology. However, it gained much popularity amongst
common people, so that, e.g., in 1734 ZEDLER still could attribute the
creation of dragons to this hypothesis.
The Basilisk
The basilisk was considered the most poisonous creature on earth. His
appearance was allways a matter of dispute. Early wood-cuts (e.g., in
Ulisse Aldrovandi: Serpentum et Draconu Historiae libri duo. -
Bologna, 1640). show an animal with a domed body, eight legs, a
Athanasius Kircher (Mundus Subterraneus, Roma, 1678) described his
later emanation: the cockatrice. Others considered him a dragon. The
antique Romans called him "regulus" or little king, not only because
of his crown, but because he terrorized all other creatures with his
deadly look and poison. His colour was yellow, sometimes with a kind
of blackish hue. Plinius mentioned a white spot on his head, which
could be misinterpreted as a diadem or a crown. Others speak of three
spikes on his forehead. Most authors agree, that Africa was his
homeland. There he was hatched from the egg of an ibis or a black
stork. His manifestation as cockatrice was rather associated with a
Regarding his dangerousness three main types were distinguished. The
golden basilisk poisoned everything by his mere look. Another with
only a golden head terrorized and killed every creature by his evil
eye. A sting of the sanguineous basilisk made the flesh fall off the
bones of his victim. All three had a deadly breath which could even
make rocks crumble. The basilisk took his home in deep wells and
rotten cellars or vaults. It is said that mother nature made these
creatures seek these remote dwellings in order to spear both humans
and other animals from its deadly look.
In 1587 a basilisk killed three persons in Warszawa (Poland).
Playing hide-and-seek two children - a boy and a girl, both five years
old - intended to hide in an old cellar which had been abandoned for
30 years. When they reached the lowest step they suddenly fell dead on
the floor. They were not found before the evening, when they were
missed by their mothers. A servant was sent out in search. She really
found them, but when she went down into the cellar to waken the
apparently sleeping children she was herself struck by death. However,
an old woman had noticed her entering the abandoned building. She
found them all three lying on the ground. All her shouting remained
unanswered. Neighbours came and recovered the corpses with long
clasps. The bodies were swollen, and so were their lips and tongues.
Their skin had turned to yellow. From these signs some learned persons
guessed, that a serpent or rather a basilisk had caused their deaths.
A poor sinner was found who had been sentenced to death. He was clad
in leather clothes draped with mirrors. His eyes were protected by
strong glasses. With a candle in one hand and pincers in the other he
strange creature of the size of a cock sitting in a crevasse of the
wall. It was at once killed when it saw its own image reflected by the
mirrors. The man took it with the pincers and brought it up to bright
daylight. It was identified as a basilisk with the head of an indian
cock but the eyes of a toad. Its body and wings were coloured with
yellow, blue, red, and green specks. The long, yellow feet were that
of a rooster, but its curved tail resembled that of a snake.
An italian nobleman was killed by a basilisk when he went hunting. For
a long time his dog had barked at a heap of stones when his master
tried to find out what embarrassed his dog. He found a winged serpent.
When he tried to slay her, the serpent spread the wings and blew
poisonous breath into his face. At once he fell to the ground and
lived just long enough to tell his companions what he had seen.
Lil Stinker
"just havin' fun!"
|
|