86 Chinese Clay Figures 



draughtsmen who had set before them the task of portraying a rhinoceros 

 saw themselves in the same predicament as Dtirer, in that they were 

 lacking all personal experience of the animal, and for this reason were 

 actuated by the same psychological factors. They, on their part, 

 resorted to the classical definitions of the animal, as laid down in the 

 ancient dictionaries Erh ya and Shuo wen; they did not intend to picture 

 a rhinoceros true to nature and directly from nature, simply because they 

 were deprived of this opportunity, but they composed and pieced to- 

 gether the creature from certain notions which they formed from bits 

 of information gathered from their literary records. Whatever carica- 

 tures their achievements may be, however, there cannot be the slightest 

 doubt that they intended to represent a rhinoceros, not some other 

 animal. Durer's work, from a scientific viewpoint, is in details highly 

 inaccurate and untrue; the modern naturalist may even pronounce 

 the verdict that what he represented is far from resembling a rhinoceros 

 at all ; but the bare fact remains — and this is the essential point — 

 that the artist, as expressly stated in the legend by his own hand, had 

 the intention of representing in this work a rhinoceros. As in most 

 cases, the artist does not reproduce an object as it appears in the world 

 of reality, but conveys to us his own notions of things as they are pro- 

 jected in his mind. Exactly as it happened in China, so Durer's model 

 found many adherents and followers, even among the naturalists who 

 copied him again and again, and who surpassed him in fanciful additions 

 of scales, wrinkles, and other decorations. Even Bontius, 1 who pre- 

 tends that he saw the animal in exotic forests and stables, and boasts of 

 furnishing a figure of it free from Durer's defects, represents it, instead of 

 with hoofs, with a paw very similar to that of a dog, only that it is 

 somewhat larger. 



own theory in regard to the second horn. But it is desirable that, as suggested by 

 Reinach, the iconographic question should be studied in detail. Neither should the 

 differences between the two be overlooked. Durer's posterior horn is directly behind 

 the ears; in the Pompeiian picture it is far behind the ears, above the front legs; in 

 the same spot Diirer has a small triangular point, the significance of which is not clear. 

 It is certainly astonishing that the artists of Pompeii could commit this error, as the 

 two-horned African rhinoceros was perfectly known in the Roman circus, and is 

 correctly represented on the coins of Domitian mentioned above. — Ulysses Aldro- 

 vandus (Quadrupedum omnium bisulcorum historia, p. 354, Francofurti, 1647) has 

 the figure of a rhinoceros, with an additional horn in the shape of a corkscrew placed 

 on the shoulders. 



1 Jacobi Bontii, Historiae naturalis et medicae Indiae Orieft talis libri sex, p. 51 

 (Amsterdam, 1658). The horn is correctly drawn. Bontius avails himself of the word 

 abada, which was used by old Spanish and Portuguese writers for a rhinoceros, and 

 adopted by some of the older English narrators. The word is probably connected 

 with Malayan badak, "rhinoceros" (see Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 1). 

 In G. de Mendoza (Dell' historia del gran regno della China, 1586, p. 437) the word 

 abada is identified with the rhinoceros. 



