h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

if that is what a dragon is, then i would have to say i'm a dragon too. mind you, I've never come across that interpretation yet. There was a conversation about mythical creatures in which I voiced my view of why we have mythical creatures and things like that, you'll probably be able to find it if you go to my page.
let me just say that I had absolutely no idea what a Wyvern was. i'm still kind of in the dark about it, but i have a better idea now. however, if you have a picture, i think it would help me greatly. do you have one? if so, would you give it to me?

Hey there,

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away for three weeks over Easter. Not necessarily away from computer's I could post from, but kinda busy all the same (and my Mum's computer is awful slow).

It's just my interpretation of dragons. In my gap year I started drawing this group of dragons who became very independant and characterful in my head. From the characters of these dragons as they evolved I noticed a pattern of behaviours and interests that I decided defined dragons for me. (I hope this is making some sort of sense) They were very humanoid and played together in a jazz band, not like any other dragons I'd ever drawn or seen before which were more like zoological illustrations.

There must be some wyvern's and lindorms in Celtic and Norse mythology. (in fact I know there are, I just can't remember the names of the stories) It works like this: A classical dragon has four legs and wings, a wyvern has two wings and two hind legs (a bit like gryphons, or indeed birds) a lindorm has only legs, possibly only two. Dragons have appeared in many different forms all over the world and at different times, but these 3 types seem to predominate in European legend. (The most often cited Australian legend is of the Bunyip)

As for pictures I don't have any online just now. See however, if you can find Paollo Ucello's 'George and the Dragon', which is in fact George and the Wyvern if you're being pedantic. Also the wyvern was used a lot in alchemical literature (I have no idea what it symbolised - firey elements?) and is also fairly common in heraldic beasts (count the legs)

So, I should go and catch my train, but I hope this is of some use...
PD

Actually it's strange you should mention alchemy, because that is something I have felt strangely drawn to over the past few months, Even though I can't find much information on it. I am beginning to suspect that it is considered evil, and the 'ones in charge' are trying to cover it up. A taboo, as it were. Would you happen to know any more than me about it, or know where I could find more information? That would be great. I am studying chemistry, and I am interested in spiritual things. alchemy seems to be a perfect subject for me, as it is a combination of the two, being the basis of chemistry, but also being an actual occultist thing.

Damn it's taken me a long time to reply to this. Sorry 'bout that.

I don't know too much about alchemy, except what I learnt on a history and philosophy of science course that I did in my first year at uni.

The really interesting thing I learnt about that was that 'the scientific way' as it were didn't exist until very recently and that magic was much more commonly accepted. Isaac Newton for example firmly believed in magic. The reason there are seven colours in the rainbow are because Newton refracted light through a prisim and defined the colours he saw. However because of his belief in magic he knew there should be seven colours. Now I'm not saying he made things up, but when you've seen refracted light, could you very clearly tell the difference between say, indigo and violet?
In France, incidently, the rainbow only has five colours.

Anyhew, I think what I'm saying is that Alchemy was actually a lot more scientific and True Science a lot more magical than anybody likes to remember. As such I don't think that alchemy is particularly evil, or even seen as such. Possibly more as an early chemical curio. I guess the whole language of mystical symbols and the fact that alchemists generally were obviously erring on the side of eccentric makes it all more confusing, and probably not so easy to study historically/scientifically. Could be a really interesting project though.

I'm better on early physists (only by virtue of this course) but try looking up
Tycho Brahae (an astronomer from Prague)
Copernicus (he who decided the solar system was solar centric)
If you can find stuff on why they were doing what they did rather than what they came up with and (in Copernicus' case the results) you'll probably find it very interesting.

I hope this is useful. Again I appologise for having taken so long to reply. I hope you haven't deserted H2G2 in the mean time.

PD

Desert h2g2! I would never! Do you know what the number on the back of my senior jersey is? 42! This is a wonderful site!

Thank you for the leads, I will make sure I look for something. The rainbow is only generalized into so many different colours, the colours actually graduate from red to blue, the distinctions between the colours are smaller than atoms. What makes you think that alchemy is more scientific than not?