Modern cryptozoologists believe that fossil mammals and dinosaurs have survived to this day. They are tight with concrete evidence (even worse than the characters in The Lost World by Conan Doyle or Plutonia by Obruchev), but there is no shortage of evidence for the existence of dragons in documents and museum relics of the 16th-18th centuries. And these are not just some myths - real shepherds caught and killed the dragon, and the stuffed animal was handed over to the museum. American zoologists decided to seriously deal with one of these dragons, which was described in detail by the Italian scientist of the Renaissance. What kind of monster was it? Where did it come from? And why are the secrets of the dragon's history so much more interesting than the secrets of its "biology"?
The monster, according to historians, was killed near Bologna in 1572. Italian naturalist Ulysses Aldrovandi (1522-1605) - entomologist, zoologist, doctor, founder of one of the first botanical gardens in Europe - bought the corpse of a monster and exhibited it in his museum. The dragon inspired the scientist to write an entire encyclopedia on the topic - the richly illustrated History of Serpents and Dragons. On 427 pages, Aldrovandi talks about basilisks, hydras, creeping and winged dragons, about these monsters in ancient literature, mythology, proverbs, icons and coats of arms. He does not forget about dragon poison, treatment from it, as well as about "ecology" (enemies and victims, favorite habitats). 15 pages of the treatise are dedicated to the Bologna monster. Aldrovandi, as a real naturalist, did not allow the illustrator to take liberties, but demanded to accurately portray the monster.
Ulysses Aldrovandi
Photo: © wikimedia.org
What a dragon is made of: an investigation
A professional zoologist from the United States immediately saw that the head and body of a "dragon" could only belong to a snake. A narrow, forked tongue is characteristic of snakes and some lizards, but the scales on the stomach are only for snakes. As for the species, the light "collar" indicates the "relationship" of the dragon and the common snake (Natrix natrix). The head of the monster, however, is devoid of the characteristic color of snakes: probably as a result of a blow to the head with a stick - this is how the Bolognese shepherd killed the dragon.
Promotional video:
The length of the creature is indicated by Aldrovandi in two Roman cubits, and the diameter is two in diameter of the finger (this Roman measure was equal to 1.8 centimeters). That is, translated into our units of measurement: 87.4 and 4.3 centimeters are quite acceptable parameters for a snake. The yellow color of the eyes and the absence of sharp teeth, which Aldrovandi writes about, also resemble snakes, and the scales on the neck and tail are closer in shape to the scales of a snake, and not a viper.
What's next? The middle part of the body is "swollen" and completely unlike the snake. It can be assumed that the taxidermist stuffed the snake's belly with something to achieve this effect, but this is not the case. Most likely, a fragment of another, not so narrow animal was attached to the middle part of the snake's body. This is indicated by a sharp change in the type of scales on the monster's back: they are larger and greener than the scales on the neck and tail. Scientists think that the lower part of the snake's belly was not touched, but instead of the back and abdomen they sewed the body of another animal. The most likely candidate is a fish that has had its dorsal fins removed.
Photo: © vk.com/bestiarumvocabulum
If we take the figures given by Aldrovandi (the length of the dragon is 87.4 centimeters) and proceed from the proportions of the picture in the book, then the length of the middle part of the body did not exceed 20 centimeters, and the width was 12.5 centimeters. The naturalist writes about six "fingers" (that's 13.1 centimeters). These parameters correspond to several freshwater fish in Italy: river bass and three species from the carp family - carp, goldfish and chub. Aldrovandi mentions separate black and gold scales, which speaks more of a goldfish. Other Italian fish of a suitable size (tench, pike, trout) are not suitable: their small scales do not correspond to the image from the book.
The paws of the "dragon" remained. Four slender toes without claws are visible on each limb (judging by the bend, more of the front than the hind limb). These paws cannot belong to lizards (European lizards have either five or three toes). The amphibians of Europe seem to fit, but they do not have scales, which are clearly painted by the artist on the paws of the "dragon". But the limbs of the common toad are covered with tubercles, which can easily be mistaken for scales. Moreover, the toad is the only amphibian in Europe whose dimensions correspond to the proportions of a dragon calculated by Aldrovandi.
The dragon, the pope and his enemies: Aldrovandi's cunning plan
Modern biologists have exposed the fake "dragon" of the 17th century, if not in a minute, then in a few days. Does this mean that late Renaissance and early modern scholars were so stupid or naive that they believed in dragons and mistook the apparent taxidermist fake for a real monster? No, it's not that simple. As often happens with the "mysteries of nature", the real intrigue unfolded not in biology, but in history.
By some indirect evidence, it becomes clear that Aldrovandi knew that in front of him was a fake. First, the naturalist had an idea of "fake" dragons: in a footnote to drawing no. 117 from Tavole di animali (another of his works), he writes that this is a stingray, which was shaped like a snake by a joker or charlatan. Secondly, Aldrovandi, in his description of the "dragon", gave several quite transparent hints. He repeatedly compared the front and back of the body of the monster with snakes, and the middle with fish, and the patterns in the back of the head with the collar of a snake (Natricis torquatae). Further, Aldrovandi with a serious air set forth facts that would have made even a naturalist of the 17th century laugh. For example, a dragon is a young individual, since the nails on its paws have not yet grown (although at that time they knew very well thatthat newborn mammals and reptiles are born with nails). Or that the sharp (!) Tail of the "dragon" is used as a sting, like a scorpion.
Photo: © amshistorica.unibo.it
All these facts hint that Aldrovandi wanted to show his awareness of the real origin of the "monster" (already with the body of a carp and toad paws). But why didn't the scientist reveal the fake? The most obvious explanation is that it was not profitable for him: crowds of curious people would not run to look at such a "dragon", and the private museum of Aldrovandi would lose its visitors.
However, there is also a more exciting explanation - the political one. The "dragon" was discovered in the vicinity of Bologna, the hometown of Hugo Boncompagni, who became Pope Gregory XIII (yes, it was under him that the Gregorian calendar was introduced). And just on the day of his election as pope, May 13, 1572, a dragon was found near Bologna! It should be recalled that at that time in Europe these monsters were considered a symbol of evil and the dragon was supposed to become a bad omen. It is quite possible that the "dragon" was blinded by the enemies of the new pope, who sought to denigrate him in the eyes of superstitious Italians.
The naturalist Aldrovandi, having made the bold decision to give a scientific description of the dragon, was forced to walk literally on the edge of a knife: not to quarrel with the pope, not incur the disgrace of his enemies (by exposing the fake) and not become a laughing stock among scientists. Aldrovandi eventually made the Solomon decision. Having described the "dragon" in detail as a natural phenomenon, he knocked the ground out from under the feet of those who insisted on its supernatural origin, saw in it a warning from above. Refusing to call the monster a fake of taxidermists, the scientist did not allow an investigation to be conducted that would point to the pope's enemies - then these people could brutally take revenge on the "truth-teller" Aldrovandi. Finally, by abundantly dressing his description of the animal with hints of the real origin of its body parts, Aldrovandi defended his reputation among serious naturalists who could understand these hints.
Giovanni Faber. Photo: © wikimedia.org
Dragons defending science and technology
This is not the only intrigue that swirled around dragons in the scientific world: a famous scientist, a brilliant anatomist, friend of Galileo and the inventor of the very term "microscope", Giovanni Faber, in all seriousness, described the "dragon" for thirty pages, whose skeleton was kept in the collection of Cardinal Francesco Barberini (patron of the scientist). Faber, who boldly anatomized wolves and hares in order to determine their specific origin (or refute Herodotus' idea of hermaphroditism of hares), this time limited himself to references to ancient and medieval authors and recognized the reality of Dracunculus barberinus.
Photo: © babel.hathitrust.org
Modern historians are sure that Faber took this step out of a desire to appease his patron cardinal. In those years, after the conviction of Galileo Galilei, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei (which included Faber), the main national center for progressive science, was in crisis and under the close supervision of the Inquisition. Completing a 400-page description of Mexican fauna with an apparently "fake" tale of a cardinal's dragon is the price Faber was willing to pay in sacrificing his scientific honor.
Finally, dragons have helped not only science but technology as well. The exposer of the "monster" Aldrovandi, paleontologist Phil Senter, had previously revealed the mystery of the skeleton in an engraving in 1696 - the skeleton of a dragon that allegedly lived near Rome. It turns out that it was all assembled from dog jaws, fish ribs, bear limbs and artificial wings. It was made by the Dutch engineer Cornelius Meyer, who was commissioned to build a dam near the Eternal City.
Photo: © palaeo-electronica.org
This project frightened local residents: what if the dragon that was killed there 30 years ago is still alive and the workers will only make it angry? An engineer made a skeleton of a dragon to prove to the peasants (as well as his workers) that the monster has long been dead and does not threaten anyone. A wise decision: if Meyer just tried to convince the common people that dragons do not exist, they would not believe him and the construction of the dam would stop.
The moral of this tale is this: the scientists of the 17th century, who supposedly believed in dragons, turn out to be much more intelligent people than many of their colleagues from the 21st century. We're not even talking about those naive people who admitted the survival of an isolated population of plesiosaurs in a Scottish lake. Creationists, supporters of the theory of the "young earth" (6-7 thousand years), in Meyer's engraving saw the pterosaur Scaphognathus crassirostris, which survived to the Middle Ages. For many years it did not even occur to them to conduct an elementary anatomical analysis of the "remains"!
Anna Polonskaya