Classic sources

These conceptions about nature in the 16th century lean heavily on the Classic period. Naturalists referred almost exclusively, not to mention extensively, to classic authors, with Plinius and Aristotle as the most important sources.

Plinius worked under the assumption that nature was flexible enough to constantly produce new creatures, as well as some curious cross-breeds. In his Naturalis Historia he described creatures such as a sea urchin with little horse heads on its body, created when a gust of wind touched first a horse and then the ocean. Aristotle didn’t take things quite as far as Plinius, but he too believed that nearly all animals could be spliced, creating the possibility of all kinds of strange combinations.

These ideas about the flexibility of nature were christened in the Middle Ages and presented as a consequence of the omnipotent creator. As a result, people expected to find all kinds of strange creatures in nature. And when it came to sea creatures, these expectations went even further. In general, the sea was seen as the most fertile environment for such curiosities, as it was fluid as well as full of food. This nurtured existing assumptions about mermaids, and even sea monks and sea bishops. Our dragon is a sea dragon as well, in a way; as we can see, Aldrovandi and other scholars didn’t just discuss it in the context of snakes, but in works on fish and other water creatures as well.