I made a quick search, but I think we haven’t got a link to this interesting book as yet.
Anyway, to make things double sure, here we go:
Thanks for the link.
Do you, or anyone else, know which animal this is? (click for larger image)
I think, my guess would be as good as yours…..
kimon;65918 wrote:
Thanks for the link.
Do you, or anyone else, know which animal this is? (click for larger image)
According to Rietstap’s Armorial General it is a donkey’s head and neck.
Quote:
Ahnen — Pom., Suède, Dan. (M. et.) D’arg, à une tète et col d’àne, au nat. C: le meuble de l’écu. L. d’arg. et de gu.
James
Three cheers and a tiger for good ol’ Rietstap….
James Dempster;65924 wrote:
According to Rietstap’s Armorial General it is a donkey’s head and neck.
James
I never would’ve guessed that.
It looks more like a llama than a donkey
The illustrated head hardly looks like that of a donkey but rather more like a llama, an alpaca, a vicuna or a baby camel. Without the name below the arms, I suppose that would never be identifiable. The competence of the artist really does matter.
Looks well enough like a donkey. It was the 19th century, when an artist had to rely mostly on etchings and engravings within books. Surely, not every artist had the pleasure to be raised on a farm with donkeys to fact check those engravings.
It’s worth noting that this is a heraldry page put up by a high school sophmore. It’s good to see young people taking an interest in these things.
kimon;65918 wrote:
Thanks for the link.
Do you, or anyone else, know which animal this is? (click for larger image)
It could be a Lamb’s head.
Marcus K;65935 wrote:
It could be a Lamb’s head.
A I missed the blazon from Rietstap. so it should be a Donkey then.
xanderliptak;65932 wrote:
Looks well enough like a donkey. It was the 19th century, when an artist had to rely mostly on etchings and engravings within books. Surely, not every artist had the pleasure to be raised on a farm with donkeys to fact check those engravings.
Surely, in the 19th century, pack animals weren’t restricted to farms. They couldn’t have used horses for -everything-.
Durer’s rhinocerus was still considered an accurate description of the animal until the beginning of the 19th century, slowly being replaced by more accurate examples up ‘til the 1930’s. Surely if 20th century man can not get a rhinoceros correct, with photography, cars, ships and planes, a 19th century artist may not have the most accurate engravings of a donkey available him.
And donkeys not restricted to farms alone? I am not sure why a pack of donkeys would have been marched through the city of London, New York or any major city.
When traveling by horseback and foot, finding and traveling to a farm to sketch a donkey could take a whole day. Not something an artist with a deadline would request time for, for one etching. The same reasons with travel and time requirements that would have prevented someone from simply going to the London zoo at the time to sketch a real rhinoceros and rely on Durer instead.
Besides, how many here have ever seen a donkey in real life, and not from a photo on Google?
xanderliptak;65941 wrote:
And donkeys not restricted to farms alone? I am not sure why a pack of donkeys would have been marched through the city of London, New York or any major city.
Do you think every single cart would have been pulled by horses? Your argument strikes me as being similar to "No heraldic artist would know what a truck looks like, because they live in big cities where only cars are ever driven." Have you ever seen a truck?
Quote:
Besides, how many here have ever seen a donkey in real life, and not from a photo on Google?
I have. But then again, donkeys aren’t used much for labour or transportation any more.
Madalch;65944 wrote:
Do you think every single cart would have been pulled by horses? Your argument strikes me as being similar to "No heraldic artist would know what a truck looks like, because they live in big cities where only cars are ever driven." Have you ever seen a truck?
Saying that the artist may have never seen a donkey because he lives in a city is no more ridiculous than saying the artist must have seen a donkey because he lives in a city. Yes, donkeys were used to transport goods, but that does not mean that they were used in the artist’s home city in mass numbers, or that the animal ever passed near by the artist so he could see or that he watched them long enough to dictate them to memory.
In heraldry, often artists relied upon the drawings, sketches, engravings and etchings of others because it was difficult to travel far in past times to see the animals themselves. We have seen how this has influenced the tyger and lion and other fanciful beasts. Yet, no one sits and ridicules those artists for believing in such ridiculous and fanciful beasts based on the drawings, sketches, engravings and etchings of others.
I don’t think one can compare the animals.
Donkeys, mules, horses, chicken, sheep, etc. were *very* common in Europe and seen in towns and cities throughout Europe well into the 20th century.
On the other hand, "exotic" animals such as lions, tigers, panthers, rhinos, etc. were extremely rarely seen.