#Haesorog

[moonygryffin]

So my original design was basically a wingless peryton but because of the ibis footprints (which I’m guessing is the classic bestiary ibis-ibex mix up, but it said ibis and so ibis legs it gets) I couldn’t stop thinking of it as a deer-headed terror bird. Very cute, very furry

[maniculum]

Bestiaryposting Results: Haesorog

Welcome to this week's bestiaryposting results! This is an unusual one in that the entry is short, but we have plenty of physical details. We're also following up two obvious ones with a description I genuinely think nobody can identify unless they're familiar with the bestiary tradition itself, or the sources thereof.

If any of that was confusing to you, please consult past posts on this matter at https://maniculum.tumblr.com/bestiaryposting. You can also keep up with the current beast of the week -- and participate -- by checking out the tag "maniculum bestiaryposting". The entry that our artists are working from this week can be found here:

Anyway, art below the cut in roughly chronological order:

@silverhart-makes-art (link to post here) took this in a rhinoceros kind of direction, drawing something that reminds me of paleoart depicting prehistoric rhino relatives that I have seen & enjoyed. I was going to say something like "I'm not sure if that was the vibe they were going for", but the linked post cites Brontotherium as an inspiration for the horn, so that's probably what I'm picking up on. The depiction of it defending its young makes this a really interesting image, I think; I like it a lot. Also, the design decisions explained in the linked post are genuinely pretty interesting, so I encourage you to check that out.

@moonygryffin (link to post here) ran with the "ibis feet, deer head" thing to produce something kind of like a flightless peryton, which I think is pretty cool. What's really clever here, I think, is how the body effectively blends elements of both animals so that it looks like a natural transition between the two. It's kind of bird-shaped, but you can see some deer-shaped elements at the top, and it's got this furry kiwi kind of vibe that's plausibly both "deer" and "bird".

Moonygryffin also suggests that the thing with the feet is the result of our favorite game, Manuscript Telephone, and it was originally the footprint of an ibex, which I think is probably correct. From some quick searching, it looks like Pliny just described this beast as having "cloven hooves". I think it's plausible that a later author changed it for purposes of parallelism -- "size of an ox, fur of a bear, head of a deer, feet of an ibex" -- and then someone else misread it and gave it bird feet. (Do ibexes/ibices* have cloven hooves? I'm going to assume they do, they're goats, right?)

*I checked the OED; both plural forms are attested, though the first is the more common. Which is probably why Tumblr is giving the second one the red underline.

@cheapsweets (link to post here) went for a similar concept as the above, but in a different medium and interpretation. Genuinely impressed by the realistic detail on the legs and head here -- CheapSweets has mentioned seeking out some reference material and art books recently, so I'm inclined to assume those are really paying off. Look at that thing. There's a lot of interesting material in the linked post, speaking to influences, research, and design decisions, which I think is definitely worth checking out. One thing I want to point out specifically because I missed it the first time I saw this drawing: take a look at the people & dog in the background at the top left. Now look at the trees next to them. One of them is a Haesorog cleverly disguising itself. Excellent.

(Also thank you for providing alt text.)

@pomrania (link to post here) has collaborated with @theforceisstronginthegirl on this one, which is a delight! Pleased to see you back, Theforceisstronginthegirl. Anyway, they've also clocked the error with the ibis thing: while they don't suggest it's an error for ibex, they do suggest that it refers to cloven hooves, which as previously mentioned is indeed what Pliny says about it. And then they also decided to give it bird feet anyway because that's more fun, which is very much in the spirit of the thing, excellent call. Anyway, the focus of this design is on the camouflage aspect. They've interpreted it as simply having stellar natural camouflage, which is why it's shown next to a tree here -- we can see that the pattern of its fur lets it blend in with the coloration of the trees around it, and that leaves tangled in its antlers along with its ability to stand on two legs enhances the effect.

@sweetlyfez (link to post here) went with a similar quadrupedal design, shaggy deer-like thing with bird legs, but went the opposite direction with the camouflage. Her post indicates it's shown here "shedding some leaves from the last time it turned into a bush," which means this version of the Haesorog is suggested to have actively supernatural camouflage that allows it to shapeshift. (Which is definitely suggested by the text.) There's something very evocative about the eyes here, which I like. (Also, thank you for including alt text.)

@coolest-capybara (link to post here) continues to deliver beautifully stylized art. I'm really delighted by the the pose the second Haesorog is taking in order to blend in with the very pretty Stylized Plants around it -- I think this is maybe not the environment where color-shifting is hugely useful, as I have no doubt the first Haesorog is fully aware of its presence. Something that makes this particular design interesting is that between the default coloration displayed on the left and the shape of the feet, you get a kind of "this thing is a step too human for a quadruped" feeling that makes it a little more unique-looking than it might be otherwise. (Also, thanks for including alt text.)

Over all of these entries, I'm noting that one effect of the clear physical description is that it does provide a more restricted space in which artists can play -- it's much more obvious than in other weeks that all of these are the same animal. Whether that's an upside or a downside is, I think, wholly subjective. Now let's look at the Aberdeen Bestiary.

...

Okay, we can't do that actually. The page with the illustration is missing from the Aberdeen Bestiary. So we're looking over to its sister manuscript, the Bodley Bestiary. (MS. Bodl. 764, also digitized online.)

So this beast is of course the Parander.

Yep, bet everyone feels foolish for not recognizing such a common and well-known animal as the parander.

Also, of course, known as the Tarand or Tarander, of course. Or parandrus / tarandrus in Latin.

Right, so the reason that I was so confident nobody without a thorough background in the bestiary tradition (or Pliny the Elder) would recognize this one is because it's not a real animal. And it's not even one of the mythical ones that managed to get a foothold in the modern consciousness.

I might be overstating the "not a real animal" line, actually; odds are good it's based on one. Let's talk about that.

There have been some guesses as to the parander's identity in scholarship. The Bostock translation of Pliny has a footnote that cites two competing theories: "reindeer" and "elk [aka 'moose']". The reindeer one gets an explanation -- differently-colored summer and winter coats -- but the elk one is just kind of tossed out there as a proposed alternative. My guess (based on it already being past 10:30pm here and not wanting to put in the time to track down a source that's cited only by a last name with no other identifying information) is that that one's about the parander's size being emphasized.

You may say, "excuse me Maniculum, neither of those animals lives anywhere near Ethiopia. What are you playing at? Are you going to try and convince me that the pre-modern definition of 'Ethiopia' was so broad it encompassed the Arctic Circle?" The solution is that the parander wasn't originally described as being from Ethiopia -- Pliny says it's from Scythia. Which... also seems a bit too far south. But it's entirely reasonable that the Scythians were reporting on something seen on a trip north or something they heard about from northern neighbors, which would put "reindeer" and "elk/moose" both back in as options. Scythia is close enough to the range of both of those animals that it's plausible they would be familiar with them.

Someone you may have heard of took a stance on this issue, interestingly. An 18th-century biologist named...

... Linnaeus. Yep, it's codified right into the scientific name for "reindeer" now, and has been for as long as binomial nomenclature has been a thing. Anyone who wants to make the "elk/moose" argument is going to have a bit of an uphill battle.

All that out of the way, now take a moment and scroll back up to that medieval illustration. Mentally compare it to the description and the art shared in this post. There's something different, right?

You may notice that the artist has given it cloven hooves rather than bird's feet, having not been confused at all by the "footprints of an ibis" thing. Now, often this is the result of the art not actually being directly based on the text, but copied from art in a previous manuscript, so a scribe can write down the wrong word and it won't affect the art at all because the artist may or may not even be reading the text as they work.

Often, but not always. In this case, I would like to float an alternate explanation.

On the left is the translation of the Bodley Bestiary I have on my shelf, to which I referred when filling in material from missing pages in the Aberdeen Bestiary. On the right is the Bodley Bestiary digitized manuscript.

Now. I am not trained in Latin paleography, so it's possible that I'm misinterpreting an abbreviation. But that word on the right... the penultimate letter certainly looks like a C, doesn't it? Not, e.g., an S? (It would be a long s here, but that doesn't actually help.)

Which means that the manuscript says ibex. The ibex -> ibis confusion is a case of Manuscript Telephone, but it was telephoned in the 1990s.

Again, like I said, I'm not an expert. I've never translated a single page of a Latin manuscript, much less had a book-length translation published in a handsome slipcover edition. So it's very possible I'm missing something. But right now I'm pretty sure that everyone's been drawing bird feet not because of an error made by a medieval scribe, but by the modern translator.

Anyway, that was exciting, right? I hope that makes up for me posting this a few hours later than usual.

[silverhart-makes-art]

I have been patiently waiting for any excuse to do an ungulate-animal for Bestiary Posting and when the description for the Haesorog this week mentioned horns I got excited. Ungulates are by far my favorite critters to draw, and they're well known for their ornamental head gear.

Here I'm depicting a defensive mother haesorog lifting her dorsal crest and lowering her head in response to a perceived threat, which her young seems more curious than fearful of.

Originally I was leaning towards an antelope-like animal - particularly a pronghorn, but the 'ibis footprints' made me pause. Ibises have four toes I believe, but I could see their footprints only showing three toes, which means we've got an odd-toed ungulate on our hand. Rhinoceros have three toes, and as a bonus they come with horns! As the haesorog is thick furred, I went with a Sumatran rhino for my jumping off point.

That said, I still wanted an antelope feel, so I made my haesorog more gracile; slimming and shrinking the face and head to be more 'stag-like'; giving it longer, more slender legs; a longer neck; etc. Overall I just wanted a more antelope-like build for my rhino-creature, specifically thinking of large antelope like the Giant Eland (who's dewlap I included but it got a bit lost in the pose).

For it's horns I did consider something closer to a pronghorn, but decided that a nasal horn was just more fun. In order to fit the 'branching horns' description, I went with something like the prehistoric brontotherium horn. I also added some horny eyebrow ridges - just for fun.

For coloration, it's described as being colored like a bear with a thick coat, so I chose a nice ruddy brown fading to grey, with darker legs as you often see in brown bears. It's grey-brown fur is perfect for blending into the rock and scrub of it's home. As it's also said to change appearance when afraid, I decided to give it a dorsal crest that you see in some antelope. The pose is also inspired by nyala, the males of whom put their heads down while they raise their crest to display to other males.

[sweetlyfez]

One last minute haesorog for the bestiary challenge. I've taken the description very literally so it's furnished with the head of a stag, feet of an ibis and hair of a bear. And it's just shedding some leaves from the last time it turned into a bush.

[cheapsweets]

The Recondite Haesorog

My response to this week’s BestiaryPosting challenge from @maniculum

Now, I actually have a suspicion what this creature might be - I wasn't deliberately trying to work it out, but when I was throwing around concepts for the drawing, something clicked... If it is what I think it is, it's at the same time a really cool description, with some bits which are wildly out... I didn't pursue that particular line of thinking with my piece this week, but I'm going to be interested to see what this one turns out to be :D

Jinhao shark fountain pen with a fine, hooded nib, with Monteverde Raven Noir ink, over initial pencil sketch. I'm going to do some experimenting with the brush pen and the fude-nib in future pictures again; I appreciate the consistency of the lines that this pen is giving me, but I suspect those other pens would give a little more character to the lines.

As an aside, I'd genuinely encourage anyone looking at these challenges to give it a try; its given me a bit of focus to get back into something I used to enjoy, without too much pressure (both in terms of the time and also this mostly being about fun!)

As ever, reasoning under the cut…

"Ethiopia is the home of a creature called the Haesorog, as large as an ox, with the footprints of an ibis, branching horns, the head of a stag, the colouring of a bear and the same thick coat."

Okay! For such a short description, we've actually got a fairly good amount of detail. Of course, some of it doesn't really make sense together - bird feet with horns and a bear's thick coat? What could be going on here?

I figured that, rather than trying to work out something realistic, I'd actually treat the description at face value as much as possible. As such, we have an ox-sized, deer-headed creature with long, bird legs and feet, covered in shaggy hair! I actually tried to put a bit of deer anatomy into the legs, but they were primarily referenced from ibis photos - I'd set myself on that particular pose, but it was impossible to find a front-facing picture of an ibis with its leg raised (not perfect, but turned out better than I was fearing!)

The horns gave me cause for thought - horns don't tend to branch, but they're very distinct from antlers (antlers being bone, and shed yearly, while horns are covered in a keratin sheath which is not generally shed). In the end, and given the description of it having a deer's head, I went with antlers, specifically taking inspiration from the wapiti (American/Asian elk) and red deer for the grand, branching antlers rather than palmate antlers of the fallow deer I'm most familiar with. I did give them a little texture, as a nod to the horn though.

Charles Knight's Animal drawing was really useful here - the short essays in that book made me consider more carefully some aspects that I wouldn't have just looking at the drawings, including things like ear position, and the general vibe of the animals I was referencing.

Still experimenting with plants and trees for the background - some came out better than others, but I've learned a few more things from this about what does and doesn't work well!

I'm now kinda wishing I'd drawn a fuzzy horned dinosaur for this, but I'm still happy with the directionI went 😅🦖

"It is said that the Haesorog changes its appearance when it is afraid and, when it hides itself, takes on the likeness of whatever is near — a white stone or a green bush or whatever other shape it prefers."

Well, this is cool; an ox-sized animal that is also a master of disguise. You can see my nod to this in the background where a hunting party (plus dog) are walking straight past a Haesorog disguised as a tree...

I did a little look into medieval costume (and dog breeds) from Ethiopia; I know that this is a bit of a catchall term for Sub-Saharan Africa, but it gave me a place to start. Turns out that the figures were too tiny to put in any detail of the clothing (or to make the Ethiopian Highland Dog) distinct, but the history there is fascinating (including Ethiopian delegates to Florence in 1441 being frustrated about the Europeans constantly referring to their kind as 'Prester John' 😆

This seeming magical power of disguise also gave me a couple of extra influences in the style - the forest god from Princess Mononoke, and the goats from that film and from the Nausicaä manga. Not sure how much it came across!

[coolest-capybara]

A new creature from the Maniculum Bestiaryposting Challenge, the Haesorog!

This one had a less abstract description than some of the previous entries, so I decided to pretty much stick with it. Bird feet ("the footprints of an ibis"), branching horns, a stag's head, and fur like a bear.

Then there was this bit: "It is said that the Haesorog changes its appearance when it is afraid and, when it hides itself, takes on the likeness of whatever is near — a white stone or a green bush or whatever other shape it prefers."

Now those of you with extremely keen powers of observation might notice a second Haesorog that has taken on the colors of the Stylized Plants around it, presumably to avoid an awkward social interaction.

[pomrania]

Here's my rendition of the haesorog, from @maniculum's Bestiaryposting. My progress thread for this piece can be found here.

This was a collab with @theforceisstronginthegirl; she came up with what it looked like, and I drew it. (And also she gave some incredibly helpful advice when I hit a snag in the colouring.) Here's what she wrote about the design:

Haesorog is a odd combination of extremely distinctive and surprisingly incompatible features. The footprints of an ibis likely means they are cloven, but the imagery of bird legged was too good to pass up. With its extraordinary camouflage this large deer headed animal must be striped to blend in with its surroundings creating such optical illusions to pass as a tree when upright. Or maybe it's just those branches growing from their head that make it seem like a tree when standing on hind legs.

[maniculum]

Bestiaryposting -- Haesorog

As a reminder, all previous entries in this series can be found at https://maniculum.tumblr.com/bestiaryposting .

Ethiopia is the home of a creature called the Haesorog, as large as an ox, with the footprints of an ibis, branching horns, the head of a stag, the colouring of a bear and the same thick coat. It is said that the Haesorog changes its appearance when it is afraid and, when it hides itself, takes on the likeness of whatever is near — a white stone or a green bush or whatever other shape it prefers.

Remember to tag posts with #Haesorog so folks can find them.

[cheapsweets]

Well, my guess was waaay off... I had a sneaking suspicion that this creature might have been a chameleon (great at camoflague, ibis-like feet referring to it's unusual feet, horns...); obviously the lack of fur and ox-like size were marks against this theory 😅

Another fun one, despite the restrictions of the more detailed description.

Bestiaryposting Results: Haesorog

Welcome to this week's bestiaryposting results! This is an unusual one in that the entry is short, but we have plenty of physical details. We're also following up two obvious ones with a description I genuinely think nobody can identify unless they're familiar with the bestiary tradition itself, or the sources thereof.

If any of that was confusing to you, please consult past posts on this matter at https://maniculum.tumblr.com/bestiaryposting. You can also keep up with the current beast of the week -- and participate -- by checking out the tag "maniculum bestiaryposting". The entry that our artists are working from this week can be found here:

Anyway, art below the cut in roughly chronological order:

@silverhart-makes-art (link to post here) took this in a rhinoceros kind of direction, drawing something that reminds me of paleoart depicting prehistoric rhino relatives that I have seen & enjoyed. I was going to say something like "I'm not sure if that was the vibe they were going for", but the linked post cites Brontotherium as an inspiration for the horn, so that's probably what I'm picking up on. The depiction of it defending its young makes this a really interesting image, I think; I like it a lot. Also, the design decisions explained in the linked post are genuinely pretty interesting, so I encourage you to check that out.

@moonygryffin (link to post here) ran with the "ibis feet, deer head" thing to produce something kind of like a flightless peryton, which I think is pretty cool. What's really clever here, I think, is how the body effectively blends elements of both animals so that it looks like a natural transition between the two. It's kind of bird-shaped, but you can see some deer-shaped elements at the top, and it's got this furry kiwi kind of vibe that's plausibly both "deer" and "bird".

Moonygryffin also suggests that the thing with the feet is the result of our favorite game, Manuscript Telephone, and it was originally the footprint of an ibex, which I think is probably correct. From some quick searching, it looks like Pliny just described this beast as having "cloven hooves". I think it's plausible that a later author changed it for purposes of parallelism -- "size of an ox, fur of a bear, head of a deer, feet of an ibex" -- and then someone else misread it and gave it bird feet. (Do ibexes/ibices* have cloven hooves? I'm going to assume they do, they're goats, right?)

*I checked the OED; both plural forms are attested, though the first is the more common. Which is probably why Tumblr is giving the second one the red underline.

@cheapsweets (link to post here) went for a similar concept as the above, but in a different medium and interpretation. Genuinely impressed by the realistic detail on the legs and head here -- CheapSweets has mentioned seeking out some reference material and art books recently, so I'm inclined to assume those are really paying off. Look at that thing. There's a lot of interesting material in the linked post, speaking to influences, research, and design decisions, which I think is definitely worth checking out. One thing I want to point out specifically because I missed it the first time I saw this drawing: take a look at the people & dog in the background at the top left. Now look at the trees next to them. One of them is a Haesorog cleverly disguising itself. Excellent.

(Also thank you for providing alt text.)

@pomrania (link to post here) has collaborated with @theforceisstronginthegirl on this one, which is a delight! Pleased to see you back, Theforceisstronginthegirl. Anyway, they've also clocked the error with the ibis thing: while they don't suggest it's an error for ibex, they do suggest that it refers to cloven hooves, which as previously mentioned is indeed what Pliny says about it. And then they also decided to give it bird feet anyway because that's more fun, which is very much in the spirit of the thing, excellent call. Anyway, the focus of this design is on the camouflage aspect. They've interpreted it as simply having stellar natural camouflage, which is why it's shown next to a tree here -- we can see that the pattern of its fur lets it blend in with the coloration of the trees around it, and that leaves tangled in its antlers along with its ability to stand on two legs enhances the effect.

@sweetlyfez (link to post here) went with a similar quadrupedal design, shaggy deer-like thing with bird legs, but went the opposite direction with the camouflage. Her post indicates it's shown here "shedding some leaves from the last time it turned into a bush," which means this version of the Haesorog is suggested to have actively supernatural camouflage that allows it to shapeshift. (Which is definitely suggested by the text.) There's something very evocative about the eyes here, which I like. (Also, thank you for including alt text.)

@coolest-capybara (link to post here) continues to deliver beautifully stylized art. I'm really delighted by the the pose the second Haesorog is taking in order to blend in with the very pretty Stylized Plants around it -- I think this is maybe not the environment where color-shifting is hugely useful, as I have no doubt the first Haesorog is fully aware of its presence. Something that makes this particular design interesting is that between the default coloration displayed on the left and the shape of the feet, you get a kind of "this thing is a step too human for a quadruped" feeling that makes it a little more unique-looking than it might be otherwise. (Also, thanks for including alt text.)

Over all of these entries, I'm noting that one effect of the clear physical description is that it does provide a more restricted space in which artists can play -- it's much more obvious than in other weeks that all of these are the same animal. Whether that's an upside or a downside is, I think, wholly subjective. Now let's look at the Aberdeen Bestiary.

...

Okay, we can't do that actually. The page with the illustration is missing from the Aberdeen Bestiary. So we're looking over to its sister manuscript, the Bodley Bestiary. (MS. Bodl. 764, also digitized online.)

So this beast is of course the Parander.

Yep, bet everyone feels foolish for not recognizing such a common and well-known animal as the parander.

Also, of course, known as the Tarand or Tarander, of course. Or parandrus / tarandrus in Latin.

Right, so the reason that I was so confident nobody without a thorough background in the bestiary tradition (or Pliny the Elder) would recognize this one is because it's not a real animal. And it's not even one of the mythical ones that managed to get a foothold in the modern consciousness.

I might be overstating the "not a real animal" line, actually; odds are good it's based on one. Let's talk about that.

There have been some guesses as to the parander's identity in scholarship. The Bostock translation of Pliny has a footnote that cites two competing theories: "reindeer" and "elk [aka 'moose']". The reindeer one gets an explanation -- differently-colored summer and winter coats -- but the elk one is just kind of tossed out there as a proposed alternative. My guess (based on it already being past 10:30pm here and not wanting to put in the time to track down a source that's cited only by a last name with no other identifying information) is that that one's about the parander's size being emphasized.

You may say, "excuse me Maniculum, neither of those animals lives anywhere near Ethiopia. What are you playing at? Are you going to try and convince me that the pre-modern definition of 'Ethiopia' was so broad it encompassed the Arctic Circle?" The solution is that the parander wasn't originally described as being from Ethiopia -- Pliny says it's from Scythia. Which... also seems a bit too far south. But it's entirely reasonable that the Scythians were reporting on something seen on a trip north or something they heard about from northern neighbors, which would put "reindeer" and "elk/moose" both back in as options. Scythia is close enough to the range of both of those animals that it's plausible they would be familiar with them.

Someone you may have heard of took a stance on this issue, interestingly. An 18th-century biologist named...

... Linnaeus. Yep, it's codified right into the scientific name for "reindeer" now, and has been for as long as binomial nomenclature has been a thing. Anyone who wants to make the "elk/moose" argument is going to have a bit of an uphill battle.

All that out of the way, now take a moment and scroll back up to that medieval illustration. Mentally compare it to the description and the art shared in this post. There's something different, right?

You may notice that the artist has given it cloven hooves rather than bird's feet, having not been confused at all by the "footprints of an ibis" thing. Now, often this is the result of the art not actually being directly based on the text, but copied from art in a previous manuscript, so a scribe can write down the wrong word and it won't affect the art at all because the artist may or may not even be reading the text as they work.

Often, but not always. In this case, I would like to float an alternate explanation.

On the left is the translation of the Bodley Bestiary I have on my shelf, to which I referred when filling in material from missing pages in the Aberdeen Bestiary. On the right is the Bodley Bestiary digitized manuscript.

Now. I am not trained in Latin paleography, so it's possible that I'm misinterpreting an abbreviation. But that word on the right... the penultimate letter certainly looks like a C, doesn't it? Not, e.g., an S? (It would be a long s here, but that doesn't actually help.)

Which means that the manuscript says ibex. The ibex -> ibis confusion is a case of Manuscript Telephone, but it was telephoned in the 1990s.

Again, like I said, I'm not an expert. I've never translated a single page of a Latin manuscript, much less had a book-length translation published in a handsome slipcover edition. So it's very possible I'm missing something. But right now I'm pretty sure that everyone's been drawing bird feet not because of an error made by a medieval scribe, but by the modern translator.

Anyway, that was exciting, right? I hope that makes up for me posting this a few hours later than usual.