| |
|
I can't let this topic alone...
You may or may not be interested to know that the heraldic dragon, when blazoned 'proper' (i.e. in its natural appearance) is depicted as being green, with a red underbelly and red claws and tongue.
I've found my Encyclopaedia of Monsters and wish I could summon up the energy to transcribe the entire entry, but I had rather a large lunch so I won't... it does, however, state categorically that 'there is no authentic connection between dinosaurs and dragons' (for what any categorical statement's worth in such matters...). It does, however, give an account of the apparent origins of the idea of the dragon, saying that it originated in exaggerated reports of large snakes, probably pythons, which attacked elephants - c.f. Edward Topsell (1608), translating Gesner:
'They [the dragons] hide themselves in trees, covering their head and letting the other part hang down like a rope. In those trees they watch until the Elephant comes to eat and croppe of the branches; then suddenyl, beofre he be aware, they leape into his face and digge out his eyes. Then doe they claspe themselves about his necke, and with their tayles or hinder parts, beate and vexe the Elephant untill they have made him breathlesse, for they strangle him with theyr fore parts as they beat him with the hinder... And this is the disposition of the Dragon that he never setteth upon the Elephant but with the advantage of the place, and namely from some high tree or rock.'
It says it's unclear how the dragon acquiredits legs, wings, ability to breathe fire, etc. - 'They seem ot have been added bit by bit over the centuries by people who thought that a simple snake, no matter how large, was not a sufficinet symbol of pure evil.' But the belief that a dragon was more than just as snake was reinforced by mediaeval forgers who pieced together parts of different animals to make monsters (you know the sort of thing, you can still see them in old cabinets of curiosities and so on). and constructed baby dragons (they had to be passed off as babies because of their small size). Apparently (it says here) 's group of fourteenth-century monks, trying to attract pilgrims to their monastery, sewed seven weasels' heads onto a snake's body and displayed the result as the seven-headed dragon of the Apocalypse.'
It does, however, suggest, that finds of gigantic bones belonging ot extinct mammals may well have fuelled dragon legends in Europe - this is how Athanasius Kircher developed his theory that dragons had lived underground - because their remains were usually found there rather than on the surface.
This particular book decries the idea that the Chinese and Western dragons have any similarity beyond the theory that they probably both originated in reports of large reptiles (it suggests the Chinese alligator, as the Chinese dragon is associated with water) and was subsequently influenced by other factors, including again the discovery of the bones of extinct animals. When Westerners saw depictions of the Chinese lung, they associated it with what they called the dragon, and called it so, hence a dregree of mistaken identification.
I have to say that this seems a little unsatisfactory as it doesn't really account for the degree of power which the idea of the dragon (or large and powerful creature with a reptilian aspect) holds in both cultures, or the existence of dragons in other cultures. Perhaps it's a relatively simple matter of respect being accorded to a large and fierce predatory creature, and elaborated from that point? |
|
|
