Lions, Elephants, and the Medieval Imagination

Gianni Sarcone

Lions had already appeared in Roman arenas, where they were set loose to devour Christians. Hannibal famously dragged elephants across the Alps. Yet, strangely enough, very few artists left us reliable images of these exotic beasts from the time.

So, centuries later, European artists faced a minor problem: how do you draw an animal you have never seen?

Simple. You copy someone who also never saw it.

This was the medieval version of the telephone game. A lion might be described in a manuscript, copied from an older drawing, or reported by a traveler as “a huge cat with a mane.” Each artist then copied, misunderstood, embellished, and passed the result on. After enough generations, the lion could acquire a human face, bizarre feet, and the general appearance of a creature that had escaped from someone’s nightmare.

The same problem survived well into the Renaissance. Take Albrecht Dürer’s famous 1515 rhinoceros. Dürer had never seen a rhinoceros. He worked from a written description and a sketch made after a real Indian rhino arrived in Portugal. He added armor-like plates that the animal did not actually have.Yet his rhinoceros became so influential that Europeans kept copying Dürer’s imaginary details for centuries.

There is something wonderfully philosophical about this: we rarely inherit reality itself. We inherit other people’s descriptions of it—and then confidently mistake the copies for the truth.

Details and Attributions for Each Picture

Top Row (Left to Right)

1. Top-Left (Manticore / μαντιχώρας)
Author / Artist: Unknown Medieval/Renaissance Illuminator (Greek manuscript tradition)
Date: Unknown (c. 16th Century / Early Modern Era)
Source / Context: Greek bestiary depicting the legendary Manticore with a lion’s body, human head, and scorpion-like tail.

2. Top-Middle (Elephant and Dragon / “De La Nature Del Olifaunt”)
Author / Artist: Unknown French Illuminator
Date: Unknown (c. 13th–14th Century)
Source / Context: Old French bestiary manuscript (Bestiaire) detailing the natural history and allegorical nature of the elephant and its rival, the dragon.

3. Top-Right (Monkey Riding an Elephant / Text: “aut letanias omnium”)
Author / Artist: Unknown Medieval Illuminator
Date: Unknown (c. 13th–14th Century)
Source / Context: Medieval manuscript marginalia / Book of Hours depicting a caped monkey riding a castle-bearing elephant (Howdah).

Bottom Row (Left to Right)

4. Bottom-Left (Smiling Lion in Floral Border)
Author / Artist: Unknown European Illuminator / Miniature Artist
Date: Unknown (c. 15th Century)
Source / Context: Illuminated manuscript page with ornate floral acanthus border work showing a stylized lion.

5. Bottom-Middle (Trumpet-Trunked Elephant with Trees in Framed Border)
Author / Artist: Unknown English or Northern European Illuminator
Date: Unknown (c. 13th Century)
Source / Context: Latin Bestiary miniature showing a stylized medieval elephant with trumpet-like trunk and tusks.

6. Bottom-Right (Paw-Raising Lion under Fruit Trees)
Author / Artist: Unknown Medieval Illuminator
Date: Unknown (c. 13th–14th Century)
Source / Context: Medieval Bestiary illustration depicting a lion gesturing toward fruit trees.

Authors Write Books. Publishers Rename Them

Gianni Sarcone

Many people believe that a book’s title is born directly from the author’s brilliant mind. Cute idea… but often completely wrong.

In reality, titles are frequently chosen by publishers — and, above all, by their marketing teams, who sometimes treat a book title like a product label rather than a piece of literature.

Take one of the most famous titles of the 20th century: 1984 by George Orwell, the great English political writer. When Orwell wrote the novel in 1948, its working title was The Last Man in Europe. His publisher found it a little too gloomy and uninspiring, suggested reversing the last two digits of the current year, and voilà: 1984 was born.

Not a bad decision. That “commercial” title went on to become a cultural landmark, and many ideas and expressions from the book are still part of today’s political vocabulary.

1984

As an author, I’ve often had to fight battles to prevent publishers from giving my books painfully dull — or downright silly — titles. One of my books, for example, was given the wonderfully imaginative title Optical Illusions by the publisher. A title so original it could probably hide in a crowd of a thousand other books.

And yet… this “masterpiece of originality” went on to win the Royal Society Young People’s Book Prize for the best science book for children.

Yes, yes. Sometimes even a boring title can carry a surprising little trick inside.

The Deceptive Oriental Fan

Gianni Sarcone

One of my earliest color illusions, created back in the 1990s, when I was immersed in exploring the physiology of color perception.

Do the pleated sections of the fan really have two different shades of brown?

They don’t. Every pleated “accordion” section is exactly the same brown. Only the thin light and dark bands bordering each fold differ. Those subtle edge contrasts trick your visual system into seeing alternating tones where none exist.

The color is perfectly uniform, but your brain interprets it differently depending on the surrounding contrast—a classic example of simultaneous brightness contrast.

Art as an Open Circuit

Gianni Sarcone

Art is sharing—an offering from the artist to the audience. Every audience calls for its own officiant.

In technological terms, a work of art is an output searching for an input. Without that exchange, it remains only a possibility. It comes into existence through its encounter with another mind, where it can generate emotion, doubt, rejection, or wonder. A work is born once in the artist’s mind, and then again in the mind of the person who experiences it.

The artist is a translator between an inner vision and the outside world. They offer a fragment of themselves, without ever being able to control how that offering will be interpreted. Every audience recognizes the artists who resonate with its own sensibility, its questions, and its time. Every audience calls for its own officiant.

But does an art exist that cannot be shared?

If we define art not as the final object—the painting, the book, the symphony—but as the state of consciousness and the act of creation itself, then that art is fundamentally impossible to communicate. The finished work is only a trace, the imprint of an inner experience that no one else can truly access. What the audience receives is never the act of creation itself, but its remainder: its echo, its shadow, and sometimes even its misunderstanding.

share your art
(To illustrate this point, I’ve added an ironic image circulating on the net. I hope you appreciate the irony—and my sense of humor.)

Topsy-Turvy Illusions from the Past

Gianni Sarcone

“The Lawyer and the Client” (1790), an etching by John Kay, is a clever visual joke—and a rather pointed one about the legal profession.

The Lawyer and the Client - Etching

Look at it one way and you see a smug lawyer. Turn it upside down and the same face becomes a worried client. A simple rotation changes the character completely, showing how appearances—and perhaps even justice—can depend on the point of view.

Below, another of Kay’s reversible caricatures: “Before and After Marriage.”

Before and After Marriage - Etching

John Kay (1742–1826) was a Scottish caricaturist and etcher known for his satirical portraits of Edinburgh society. Topsy-turvy caricatures were popular in the 18th and 19th centuries because they combined visual wit with social criticism, hiding two meanings in a single image.

The Cruel Paradox of Eternal Life

Gianni Sarcone

If there truly were a God, He would not promise eternal life. It would not be a reward but the most exquisite form of punishment. Hell may not be fire at all. It may simply be time that never ends.

What surprises me is how few believers seem to have stopped and asked what eternal life would actually mean for a mortal being. We long for immortality without ever considering its consequences, as though anything infinite must also be desirable.

Death is not merely the end of life; it is what gives life its shape. Without a horizon, there is no journey. Without an ending, there is no story. Life may have no inherent meaning, yet it is precisely its fragility that gives it value.

Eternity, by contrast, is an idea that would drive any intelligent mind to madness. Our lives are built around transitions. We leave childhood behind, then adolescence, then middle age. At every stage, part of us dies so that another version can emerge. We are never quite the same person twice. Death is simply the final transition, perhaps the only one that truly completes the narrative.

Mentally healthy people do not wish to live forever. They simply hope to live well, and for as long as it makes sense. Not to accumulate centuries, but to have enough time to do what matters to them, and then look back without feeling that everything important was endlessly postponed.

Eternity destroys urgency. Why create today what can always be created tomorrow? Why love now, travel now, write now, learn now, or take risks, if tomorrow never stops arriving? Infinity drains every moment of its value. It replaces desire with procrastination, curiosity with habit, and life with endless repetition.

We do not fear death as much as we fear leaving behind what we love. Yet perhaps death is what saves life from becoming meaningless. Without it, all that would remain is an eternity so vast that, in the end, it would erase even the memory of what it once meant to be alive.

The Geometry of Wonder

Gianni Sarcone
impossible objects: nested tribars

One of my finest sculptures: nested triangles, the central one in wood, the others in stainless steel…

nested tribars

Just kidding. It’s an impossible tribar composition — a sculpture that can exist only in the eye and the mind.

The Penrose triangle (or Penrose tribar) is generally credited to Roger Penrose, who, together with his father Lionel Penrose, published it in 1958 as an “impossible object.” However, the visual idea of creating paradoxical triangular forms and impossible geometries has older precedents.

Japanese visual culture is often mentioned in discussions of geometric illusion because Edo-period (1603–1868) art, decorative motifs, and craft traditions reveal a deep fascination with complex patterns, ambiguous spaces, and unconventional perspectives. Elements found in traditions such as sankaku mokkō (triangular motifs), karakusa patterns, architectural ornamentation, and woodworking designs show how Japanese artists and craftsmen explored visual structures that challenge perception. While no confirmed direct predecessor of the Penrose tribar has been identified in Japanese art, these examples belong to a broader historical tradition of creating forms that play with geometry and the limits of visual interpretation.

Japanese tribar

A glimpse below into traditional Japanese fabric patterns, where triangular designs reveal how interlaced geometry can create the sensation of impossible structures.

Kagome patterns

To round things off, it’s worth mentioning the Valknut, a Scandinavian symbol dating back to around the 7th century whose interlocking triangles closely resemble the tribar.

valknut

Triple Klein Bottle

Gianni Sarcone

Τριαλάβαστρον (Trialábastron), a triple Klein bottle, is an artistic exploration of Klein bottle geometry. In topology, the Klein bottle is a non-orientable surface that cannot be embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space without self-intersection, though it can be smoothly realized in four dimensions.

A close relative is the Möbius strip, another non-orientable surface in three-dimensional space. On such surfaces, a continuous path can return to its origin with reversed orientation, revealing how geometry can twist the notion of inside and outside.

a triple Klein bottle

Here is another representation of a triple Klein bottle—UK sculptor Alan Bennett’s striking construction of three Klein bottles nested within one another. Of course, “inside” only applies in the sense of their embedding in physical space; from a topological standpoint, they remain entirely separate, non-interacting surfaces.

recursive Klein bottle

Why W Is Called “Double-U”

Gianni Sarcone

The letter W ultimately derives from the letter V, but its history is more layered than a simple invention after the Norman Conquest.

In classical Latin, inherited from the Greek and Phoenician alphabet traditions (Fig 1), the letter V served a dual function: it represented both the vowel /u/ and the consonantal sound /v/. There was no distinct symbol for /w/. In contrast, Old English (Anglo-Saxon) already had a need for this sound and used a separate rune, “wynn” (ƿ, Fig. 2), to represent it.

After the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, scribal practices shifted toward continental Latin conventions. The rune wynn gradually fell out of use, and scribes began representing the /w/ sound by writing a doubled form of U (or V, since the two were not yet fully distinguished, Figs. 3-4). This “double u” convention eventually evolved graphically: two V-shaped characters were written side by side, then gradually joined.

From this duplication comes the modern name “double U,” which preserves the historical origin even though the visual form is closer to two V’s than two U’s. The lowercase w developed directly from this doubled form, simplifying over time into a continuous script shape.

In short, W is not a direct Roman invention, but a medieval solution: a hybrid born from Latin writing habits adapting to a sound already present in Old English.