H. G. Muller wrote on Tue, Apr 14, 2020 05:12 PM UTC:
Jean-Louis will probably be able to say more on this, but new translations of the Alfonso Codex have created a sort of consensus that Murphy was indeed completely wrong, and that the 'Unicorno' piece is an N-then-B. It depends a little bit on the interpretation of 'forward', whether this means "in the direction of the promotion rank" or "outward". The manuscript also contains descriptions of the real-life animals on which the pieces are modelled. And from this it is obvious that it is intended to depict a Rhino, even though the illustrator of the manuscript obviously had never seen one in his life, and hasd no clue as to how it looks. The move is supposed to reflect the behavior of the real-life animal, "starting with a leap, and then charging forward in a straight line". That doesn't suggest a reversal of direction after the leap; no real-life Rhino would be agile enough to do that. So it is pretty certain that 'forward' meant 'outward'.
@Greg: Interesting list. One thing I noticed is that it says
Anqa (Arabian) - Legendary Huge Satanic Eagle with Human Face. sometimes can resurrect herself like phoenix did.
So accoding to this Aanca is not Spanish for the mythical Elephant-eating bird, which was called 'Roc' in Arabic, but an Arabian name itself for an entirely different beast. And this latter beast is actually very close to what in Greek / Roman mythology is called a Harpy. This suggest the correct the correct translation for Aanca is Harpy.
[Edit] I looked up the translation of the Alfonso Codex, and from the description of the Aanca is is obvious that this is the Elephant-eating bird. So so much for the accuracy of the list... This is the quote of the translation of the Unicorno description:
The rhinoceros is a very large and very strong beast with two horns – one on its forehead and
one on its nose. Its nose horn is so strong that it can spear an elephant in the gut and lift it from
the ground. The forehead horn is very sharp and cuts powerfully. This rhinoceros is as large as
an elephant and ash coloured. It has ears like a pig and when it is angry its eyes turn as red as
ruby. When it begins to run it runs far after it gives a jump like a horse and so does its piece. The
rhino’s move is composed of two different steps. First, like leaps like a knight. It may remain on
that square if it wishes or may also continue to any square on the diagonal(s) of that square,
maintaining its movement in a forward direction from that square.
I remember having looked at the original text, and although my 13th-century Spanish is just as bad as my modern Spanish, it is still enough like Latin / French / English that is is easy to verify this translation is entirely correct. I had no doubt about that at all.
What I dislike of 'Arachnid' is that it is not the name of a species, but an entire class of species, which not only contains spiders, but also scorpions and other orders of animals. Like calling a piece 'Insect', 'Mammal' or 'Bird'. Or even perhaps 'Vertebrate'.
BTW, the thesis that names from mythology would be better known breaks down completely on this list; for almost any creature in it you can be very sure no one ever heard about it. So the question arises: why bother picking an existing historic mythological creature if no one ever heard of it anyway? The more I think about it, the more I start to like 'Antigryph' (or 'Antigryphon', if you want): a piece that moves opposite to the Gryphon.
Jean-Louis will probably be able to say more on this, but new translations of the Alfonso Codex have created a sort of consensus that Murphy was indeed completely wrong, and that the 'Unicorno' piece is an N-then-B. It depends a little bit on the interpretation of 'forward', whether this means "in the direction of the promotion rank" or "outward". The manuscript also contains descriptions of the real-life animals on which the pieces are modelled. And from this it is obvious that it is intended to depict a Rhino, even though the illustrator of the manuscript obviously had never seen one in his life, and hasd no clue as to how it looks. The move is supposed to reflect the behavior of the real-life animal, "starting with a leap, and then charging forward in a straight line". That doesn't suggest a reversal of direction after the leap; no real-life Rhino would be agile enough to do that. So it is pretty certain that 'forward' meant 'outward'.
@Greg: Interesting list. One thing I noticed is that it says
So accoding to this Aanca is not Spanish for the mythical Elephant-eating bird, which was called 'Roc' in Arabic, but an Arabian name itself for an entirely different beast. And this latter beast is actually very close to what in Greek / Roman mythology is called a Harpy. This suggest the correct the correct translation for Aanca is Harpy.
[Edit] I looked up the translation of the Alfonso Codex, and from the description of the Aanca is is obvious that this is the Elephant-eating bird. So so much for the accuracy of the list... This is the quote of the translation of the Unicorno description:
I remember having looked at the original text, and although my 13th-century Spanish is just as bad as my modern Spanish, it is still enough like Latin / French / English that is is easy to verify this translation is entirely correct. I had no doubt about that at all.
What I dislike of 'Arachnid' is that it is not the name of a species, but an entire class of species, which not only contains spiders, but also scorpions and other orders of animals. Like calling a piece 'Insect', 'Mammal' or 'Bird'. Or even perhaps 'Vertebrate'.
BTW, the thesis that names from mythology would be better known breaks down completely on this list; for almost any creature in it you can be very sure no one ever heard about it. So the question arises: why bother picking an existing historic mythological creature if no one ever heard of it anyway? The more I think about it, the more I start to like 'Antigryph' (or 'Antigryphon', if you want): a piece that moves opposite to the Gryphon.