Collections, Images and form in Sixteenth‐Century Natural History: The Case of Conrad Gessner

Abstract

The essay examines the function and the meaning of documentary images by examining the geological image collection of the Swiss natural philosopher Conrad Gessner. Gessner’s interest in pictorial documentation can only be understood in the context of his special interest in the formal aspects of nature. His approach marked a turning point in the history of natural philosophy and would be unthinkable without the pictorial techniques used to collect and document the objects of his research. By reconsidering philosophical definitions of form and matter, he set geoscience on a new philosophical foundation. This reorientation is closely connected to the metaphysics of nature. Both aspects were essential to the establishment of a new scientific approach, in which the old epistemological technique of studying texts was coupled to a new source of knowledge: the study of images.

Notes

¹ The drawings (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich, Grafische Sammlung, inv. no. Ehem. Varia Tiere I, 10) have only recently been identified as by Gessner himself; they where formerly attributed to Hans Asper. I am grateful to Dr Jochen Hesse for this information. See Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Hans Asper und seine Zeit, edited by M. Naegeli and U. Hobi (Zurich: Helmhaus, 1981). The literature on Gessner is large, but see H. Fischer, Conrad Gesner. Leben und Werk (Zurich: Kommissionsverlag Leemann, 1966); Conrad Gessner 1516–1565. Universalgelehrter, Naturforscher, Arzt, edited by H. Fischer, G. Petit, J. Staedtke et al. (Zurich: Orell Fussli, 1967); L. Braun, Conrad Gessner (Genoa: Slatkine, 1990); U. B. Leu, Conrad Gessner als Theologe. Ein Beitrag zur Zürcher Geistesgeschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Bern: Lang, 1990); B. W. Ogilvie, The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2006), passim; 198–9 for Gessner and illustrations; A. Fischel, Natur im Bild. Zeichnung und Naturerkenntnis bei Conrad Gessner und Ulisse Aldrovandi (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2009).

² Many of Gessner's watercolours of plants have survived, for which, see H. Zoller and M. Steinmann, Conradi Gesneri Historia plantarum. Gesamtausgabe, 2 vols. (Zurich: Urs Graf Verlag, 1987–91). Gessner showed always the entire plant with roots, leaves, blossoms and seeds. In this respect he may be compared directly to his contemporary, Leonhard Fuchs (1501–56). See S. Kusukawa, ‘The Uses of Pictures in the Formation of Learned Knowledge: The Cases of Leonhard Fuchs and Andreas Vesalius’, in Transmitting Knowledge: Words, Images, and Instruments in Early Modern Europe, edited by S. Kusukawa and I. Maclean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 73–96 (77). Gessner also shows different perspectives of the blossoms and other details in additional drawings, while in his written notes he describes further observations made. Braun, Gessner, 106–7.

⁶ Original quoted in Burmeister, Achilles Pirim Gasser, 295.

³ Very little of Gessner's stone collection has survived, and there are hardly any accounts about the animals that Gessner was said to have. Three of his mineral specimen are preserved in the Museum of Natural History, Zurich (Palaeocarpilius macrocheilus (DESMAREST), inv. no. NMB F1281). I am grateful to Basil Thüring for providing me with this information.

⁴ K.‐H. Burmeister, Achilles Pirim Gasser, 1505–1577, Arzt – Naturforscher – Historiker und Humanist, Bd. III. Briefwechsel (Hürtgenwald: Pressler, 1975), 368.

⁵ The collection of the Museum contains also an ammonite (Amaltheus) and spikes of a sea urchin (Rhabdocidaris).

⁷ See Burmeister, Achilles Pirim Gasser, 302, 321 and 328.

⁸ The great importance Gessner attached to the authenticity of the images is also indicated by the ‘address to the reader’ in his Historiae animalium. He advised that, if the reader desired to colour the images of the book, he should use Gessner's own images as archetypes for the colouring: ‘Optassem equidem cum suis coloribus excudi potuisse effigies: quod quoniam fieri non potuit, typographus pro ijs qui sumptum facere aliquanto maiorem non recusabunt, exemplaria aliquot pictoris manu coloribus illustranda ad archetypum nostrum curavit.’ C. Gessner: Historiae animalium, liber I, de quadrupedis viviparis (Zurich, 1551), ‘Ordinis Ratio, De Picturis Animalium in hoc Opere’, unpaginated.

⁹ See E. Landolt, ‘Materalien zu Felix Platter als Sammler und Kunstfreund’, in Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 72 (1972), 245–306; Felix Platter, Tagebuch, 1536–67, edited by V. Lötscher (Basel and Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1976). For his papers, see M. Steinmann, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Übersicht über die Bestände und deren Erschließung (Basel: Universitätsbibliothek Basel, 1987). For the description of Platter's image albums, see W. Sackmann, Die Handschriften der Signatur K: Naturwissenschaft (Basel: Universitätsbibliothek Basel, 1991). The Gessner images are in a pair of volumes held by the Library of the University of Basel (Signature K 1, I and K1, II), one of which contains images of birds, the other images of minerals, fossils and rocks.

¹⁰ See, for example, Robert Burton's reference to the collection, quoted in Gage's article in this issue. Montaigne visited Platter's collection and showed a special interest in his herbaria. See M. de Montaigne, Tagebuch einer Reise durch Italien, die Schweiz und Deutschland, edited and translated by O. Flake (Frankfurt am Main: Insel‐Verlag, 1988), 26. For Platter's inventory, see Manuscript Collection of the University Library, Basel, MS J I 5.

¹¹ It thus conformed to period Wunderkammern, on which, see, e.g., P. Findlen, Possessing Nature. Museums, Collecting and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1996); H. Bredekamp, Antikensehnsucht und Maschinenglauben, die Geschichte der Kunstkammer und die Zukunft der Kunstgeschichte (Berlin: Wagenbach‐Verlag, 1993).

¹² See Felix Platteri Suppellex Medica, Manuscript Collection of the University Library, Basel, MS J I 5, 46r–67v.

¹³ Platter defined ‘Homo sylvestris’ (forest man) as someone suffering from ‘Hypertrichosis universalis’, a hereditary disease that causes extensive hair‐growth covering the whole body. See R. Wittkower ‘Marvels of the East: A Study of the History of Monsters’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 5 (1942), 159–97. On Gonzalus (whose cases Platter noted in his medical diary, Observationum Felicis Platteri Libri tres [Basel, 1680], 572–3), see R. Zapperi, Il selvaggio gentiluomo. L'incredibile storia di Pedro Gonzalez e dei suoi figli (Roma: Donzelli, 2005).

¹⁴ Among the works used were P. Belon, L'Histoire naturelle des estranges poissons marins, avec la vraie peinture & description du daulphin (Paris, 1551); P. Belon, De aquatilibus, libri duo cum eiconibus ad vivam ipsorum effigiem, quoad eius fieri potuis, expressis, ad amplissimum Cardinalem Castillionaeum (Paris, 1553); G. Rondelet, Histoire entière des poissons (Lyon, 1558); H. Salviani, Aquatilium animalium historiae, liber primus, cum erorumdem formis, aere excusis (Rome, 1554).

¹⁵ Seventeen drawings in this volume are illustrations to Gessner's book on birds, De Avium natura (Zurich, 1555). The remaining drawings are by Platter himself, or derive from other sources. For a complete list of all the images, see Sackmann, Handschriften, 2–7. At some point in the eighteenth century, the drawings were pasted onto new paper but, as the inventory shows, the current arrangement of the drawings is identical with Platter's. See Felix Platteri Suppellex Medica, fols 46r–67v; Steinmann, Handschriften, 23, 31–34.

¹⁶ We find here an early example of ‘cut and paste’, for later incarnations of which, see A. Te Hessen, ‘News, Paper, Scissors: Clippings in the Sciences and Arts around 1920’, in Things that Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, edited by L. Daston (New York: Zone Books, 2004), 297–327. Platter's arrangement is notably close to Kentmann's system, on which, see M. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils. Episodes in the History of Palaeontology (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 12.

¹⁷ Similar arrangements, if not quite as expansive, can be seen on the following pages. They show illustrations of artefacts such as styli and slates, prehistoric stone axes and jewellery. Other pages show fossil imprints, among them the so‐called glossopetrae (snailstones) and petrifactions of echinoids, lodestones and corals, as well as a collection of bladder and kidney stones.

¹⁸ The functions of this series of paintings thus differ from the functions of the atlas in the nineteenth century, as described in L. Daston and P. Galison, ‘Das Bild der Objektivität’, in Ordnungen der Sichtbarkeit: Fotografie in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technologie, edited by P. Geimer (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002), 29–99.

¹⁹ On this work, see Rudwick, Meaning of Fossils, 1–49.

²⁰ See G. Agricola, De natura fossilium libri X [1546], translated and revised by G. Fraunstadt in cooperation with H. Prescher (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1958); History of Modern Science and Mathematics, 4 vols., edited by B. S. Baigrie (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002), vol. 3, 1–44.

²¹ The profile of research into fossils that Gessner presents in his book is markedly different to natural historical work undertaken prior to mid century. Up to that time, the forms of fossils had played no important role; indeed, the term ‘fossils’ itself had been used to refer to all objects whose origin lay beneath the earth's surface. This practice may be traced back to Avicenna, whose De mineralibus had a formative influence on the mineralogy of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. Avicenna uses the term res fossiles to refer to the entire sphere of the ores, stones, minerals and all other substances that could be found in subterraneous places, that is, the res subterranes. For the history of the term ‘fossils’, see History of Modern Science and Mathematics and Rudwick, Meaning of Fossils.

²² This same row shows the models used for illustrations in Figures 2, 3 and 4 on pages 106v and 107r of Gessner's fossil book. Like all other illustrations in the book, they correspond exactly with the drawings from the fossil album although often the printed images are reversed.

²³ C. Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, gemmis, lapidibus, metallis, et huismodi, Libri aliquot, plerique nunc primum edit (Zürich, 1565), 107r.

²⁴ See Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, 107r.

²⁵ See the section, ‘De Lapidibus qui aquatilium animantium effigiem referunt’, in Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, 162.

²⁶ In presenting this interpretation, Gessner conformed entirely to commonly held opinion. See Rudwick, Meaning of Fossils, 32.

²⁷ See Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, Preface, unpaginated.

²⁸ Rudwick (Meaning of Fossils, 20–2) discovers here signs of Hermetic thinking in Gessner's science, despite the fact that Gessner made no reference to Hermeticism in his text. Indeed, while he did employ the terminology of similarity, he did not do so in a neoplatonic sense. Except for the title page, showing twelve stones (traditionally symbols of the twelve clans of Israel), and the scarab (a symbol of Hermetic wisdom), there is no evidence of Hermetic thinking in Gessner's book.

²⁹ ‘Philosophus quartá[m] Qualitatis speciem facit figuram, & suá[m] cuiusqu[e] rei formam, externam scilicet & in superficie apparenté[m]. Huic & curvitatem & rectitudinem, & si quid huiusmodi (inquit) est, annumerat. Figuram eruditi definiunt, qualitatem seu differentiam quandam superficiei secundum angulos, quos vel habet, vel eis caret. Figurae autem differentiae vidé[n]tur propriae, rotundum & angulosum, angulosi verò, triangulum, quadratum, pentagonon, hexagonú[m], &c. Haec rursus aut in superfice tantùm, aut in solidis corporibus spectá[n]tur. Videtur autem figurę[m] nomen simplicius aliquid significare ut, quae vel ex una linea constare possit, ut circulus: vel superficie una, ut sphaera: vel paucis certè[m] lineis, tribus, aut quatuor. Quod si lineae duae sint, angulus & curvitas accedú[n]t in superficie mathematica: in solida autem, tribus minimùm opus est. Forma verò è[x] multis varijsq[ue] lineis, anguli, & superficiebus có[n]stat, nec uno nomine communi appellari solet, ut figura: quae nullá[m] materiam sibi propriam habet, ut mathematicae figurae omnes. quare cogitatione etiam abstrahi à[b] materia, & sine illa definiri ac considerari possunt. Forma verò sua cuiqu[e] est, ut interior & essentialis, quae ratione sola cognoscitur: sic etiam externa, quae è[x] pluribus figuris (ut totum è[x] partibus) earumqu[e] differentijs constat: & certo partium singularum ordine, situ, ac proportione seu inter se mutuò comparatione constat, quae si probè se habeant, formosa, pulchra, aut bene formata & moderata: […] sin[e] contrà, deformia, informia. Figura verò absolutè dici solet. Eadem ut simplicior est, ita suum nomen habet, & à[b] quovis facilè pingitur. Forma nomen non habet, nequ[e] interna, nisi fingamus ut […] sicut Platonici fingebant: neque externa, nisi cicumloquamur, ut forma bovis, forma equi: quam & figuram aliqui nominant, sive impropriè, sive generis nomé[n] pro specie ponentes, ut fieri solet. Figuram verò primò propriequ[e] dictá, nemo formae nomine vocitat in superficie praesertim una solaqu[e]: cum formam rotundam, teretem, triangulam aut similiter dicere non fit usitatum. Errant, Simplicio teste, qui formá[m] animalibus propriá[m] faciunt: figuram inanimatis. Sunt qui formam rebus naturalibus omnibus attribuant: figuram mathematicis solúm. Nos in hisce figuram primò dici // putamus, nò tamen solis: ut formam non naturalibus tantùm, etsi id magis propriè, sed artificiosis quoqu[e] tribuimus: ut cum statua hominis, eiusdem forma dicitur. Ergo quae figurata & formata sunt, pingi possunt, quae figura formaqu[e] carent, non possunt, ut elementa & similaria seu simplicia […] corpora tum mundi huius, tum singulorum etiam mixtorú[m]: quoru[m] sua cuiqu[e] proxima propiaqu[e] sunt elementa: ut homini sanguis, pituita & utraqu[e] bilis.’ Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, Chapter 1, 1v–3r.

³⁰ The treatise is, as are all works by Gessner, basically desciptive. He describes his objects and cites the opinion of other authors, but he does not convey his own interest in the term ‘form’. See Rudwick, Meaning of Fossils, 1–49.

³¹ Although some authors, such as Agricola, described the form of fossils, form was for them only one attribute among many others. See, e.g., Agricola, De natura fossilium libri X [1546], 34–5 and 181–2.

³² See Burmeister, Achilles Pirim Gasser, 290 and 363.

³³ Gessner's adherence to an Aristotelian conception of form may be seen in his assertion that although the shapes of stones are manifest in matter, they can in principle be abstracted from it.

³⁴ See Sancti Thomae Aquinatis doctoris Angelici opera omnia, (Rome: Sanctae Sabinae, 1996), vol. 25, ‘Quodlibet VIII, Questiones de quolibet’, q. 3 ad 3.

³⁵ The interest in concrete figures and forms of nature he articulates here is, however, not limited to fossils but was already evident in his Historiae animalium published ten years earlier. It is, above all, his great appreciation of images that allows us to see links between his fossil book and his Historiae, even if the images in the latter are not tied in with the analytical conception of form. For more information about the function of images in Gessner's Historiae, see Chapter 2 in Fischel, Natur im Bild.

³⁶ As Gessner put it: ‘veluti nuda[m] ostentando formam, si nõ[n] utile opus, dignũ[m] tamen admiratione cõ[n]templatione qu[e] efficere, omnio verisimile est.’ Gessner: Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. We find an equivalent to Gessner's understanding of images in the writings of the Italian Counter‐Reformation art theorist, Gabriele Paleotti. For Paleotti, the representation of the ‘true form’ of an object is the central function of imaging. As Steinemann argues, this way of comprehending images is based on the idea of the image as visual analogy. See H. Steinemann: Eine Bildtheorie zwischen Repräsentation und Wirkung. Kardinal Gabriele Paleottis ‘Discorso intorno alle imagine sacre e profane’ (1582) (Hildesheim: Olms, 2006), 72.

³⁷ The first books on botany with naturalistic illustrations are Otto Brunfels, Herbarium vivae eicones (Strassbourg, 1532) and Leonhard Fuchs, De historia stirpium comentarii insignes (Basel, 1542). They were followed by anatomical works such as Andreas Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica libri septem (Basel, 1543). On the uses of images in these works, see F. David Hoeniger, ‘How Plants and Animals were Studied in the mid‐Sixteenth Century’, in Science and Arts in the Renaissance, edited by J. W. Shirley and F. David Hoeniger (1985), 130–48; S. Kusukawa, ‘Leonhart Fuchs on the Importance of Pictures’, Journal for the History of Ideas, 58 (1997), 403–27; W. H. Lack, Ein Garten Eden, Meisterwerke der botanischen Buchillustration (Cologne: Taschen, 2001); Ogilvie, Science of Describing.

³⁸ ‘Huc pertinet etiam quod proditum est, summos olim viros anatomes, hoc est dissectionis partium corporis humani perquam studiosos fuisse, & pueros etiamnum inter prima mathematica literarum in ea exercuisse. Petebant autem cognitionem illam partium corporis nostri, non ex ipsis statim humanis corporibus, sed aliarum animantium, ut simiarum, porcorum, canum, & aliarum quadrupedum inspectis, ut his rudimentis imbuti, promptius deinde ac certius in dissecando humano corpore versarentur. In primis autem Marcus Romanorum imperator, corporum consectionis, & singularum partium naturae peritus fuisse memorantur. Aegyptij reges suis ipsi manibus anatomen administrare non dubitarunt. Iam Boëtus & Paulus Sergius Romanorum consules, & alij quidam principes viri, Galeno animalia dissecanti saepe adfuisse leguntur.’. Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. English translation C. A. Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner's “Historia animalium”, an Inventory of Renaissance Zoology (Meppel: Kripps, 1977), 159.

⁴⁰ Aristotle, Metaphysics, translated by W. D. Ross, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), vol. 1, 980a–981b.

³⁹ Since the translation of his Natural History in the thirteenth century, Aristotle had been the most important inspiration for natural history in general. See, e.g., S. Perfetti, Aristotle's Zoology and its Renaissance Commentators (1521–1601) (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 2000); J. G. Lennox, Aristotle's Philosophy of Biology. Studies in the Origins of Life Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

⁴² ‘Quis formicularú[m] mirifica & apicularu[m] corpuscula, ingenia, opera, & in tantillis membris tantas animas, satis digne vel admiretur vel praedicet. Atqui nullũ[m] est animal in quo non aliqui suū[m], illustre, rarū[m]: imó non aliquid, ut ita dicam, divinitatis spectetur […] Illiberalis hercle & sordidus est animus, quisquis ubiqu[e] utilitatē[m] & lucru[m] spectat. Quam plurima enim & pulcherrima nullum de se emolumentu[m] afferunt possidenti, sed ipsa sui pulchritudine sola placent, & animos sibi devinciunt.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. English translation Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner, 150.

⁴¹ Indeed, the above quote from the Metaphysics was an important starting point for Early Modern notions of curiosity and wonder. See A. Marr, ‘Introduction’, in Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, edited by R. J. W. Evans and A. Marr (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 1–20 (1).

⁴³ ‘Sic natura in parvis quibusdam & inutilibus (ut videtur) animalculis, maiori nisu & cõ[n]tentione quantũ[m] praestare possit, & experiri ipsa & nobis ost[n]tare videtur. Nam in omni re quae ex matria et forma cõ[m]ponitur, praestãtior huius, uilior illus dignitas est. At corpus materiae ratione[m] habet: anima verò eisqu[e] sentiendi, movendi & agendi facultas, formae, quare ubi eadē[m] omnes secundũ[m] forma[m] & anima[m] facultates, motus, actiones qu[e] fuerint in minimo & proprè[m] nullo corpore, quale formicarũ[m] apicularum, & similiũ[m] est, naturam se quantu[m] fieri potuit à materia abstrahere voluisse, & veluti nuda[m] ostentando formam, si nõ[n] utile opus, dignũ[m] tamen admiratione cõ[n]templatione qu[e] efficere, omnio verisimile est.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. English translation Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner, 151.

⁴⁴ See, for example, A. van Helden and M. G. Winkler, ‘Representing the Heavens, Galileo and Visual Astronomy’, Isis, 83:2 (1992), 195–217; G. Galilei, Siderius Nuncius (Nachricht von neuen Sternen), Dialog über die Weltsysteme, Vermessung der Hölle Dantes, Marginalien zu Tasso, edited and introduced by H. Blumenberg (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1980), 21; H. Bredekamp, ‘Gazing Hands and Blind Spots, Galileo as Draftsman’, Science in Context, 13:3–4 (2000) 424–62.

⁴⁵ ‘Hinc est quod D. Paulus ad Romanos scribit, ethnicos etiam inexcusabiles esse, quòd cum Deum agnoverint ex operibus eius, quantum inde scilicet homini cognoscere datur, non tamen ut Deum colverint, nequ[e] grati fuerint.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Testimonia sacra’, unpaginated. English translation Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner, 156. For additional contextual information about this passage, see U. Friedrich, Naturgeschichte (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1995), 46.

⁴⁷ ‘Constitui posthac, Aviene doctissime, quàm diu mihi vita divinitus co[n]cessa fuerit, quota[n]nis montes aliquos, aut saltem unum co[n]scendere, cum in suo vigore plantae sunt, partim earum cognitionis, partim honesti corporis exercitii, animique delectationis, gratia. Quanta enim voluptas, qua[n]tae sunt putas animi, ut par est affecti, deliciae, montium moles immensa specta[n]do admirari, & caput tan quam inter nubes atollere. Nescio quo pacto altitudine stupenda mens percellitur, rapiturque in summi illus architecti consyderatione[m]. Quibus vero socors est animus, nihil mirantur, domi torpent, non prodeunt in mundi theatrum, latitant in angulo ur glires per hyemem, no[n] cogita[n]t hominum genus in mundo constitutum esse, ut es eius miraculis maius quidpiam, summu[m] ipsum colligeret numen […] Sapie[n]tiae studiosi pergent terrestris huius paradisi spectacula coporeis animique oculis conte[m]plari: inter que minimé postrema sunt, aedita praeruptiaque montium fastigia, inaccessa praecipitia, ad coelum tendens laterum immanitas, rupes arduae opacae sylvae.’ C. Gessner, Libellus de lacte (Zurich, 1541) 2r–v. German translation in Conrad Gessner 1516–1565. Universalgelehrter, Naturforscher, Arzt, 206.

⁴⁶ This is, of course, very much in the tradition of Petrarch's ascent of Mont Ventoux. See T. Macho, ‘Mit sich allein. Einsamkeit als Kulturtechnik’, in Einsamkeit, edited by A. and J. Assmann (Munich: Fink, 2000), 27–44.

⁴⁸ ‘Verũ[m] hęc nequ[e] verbis nequ[e] cogitatione humana, satis exprimi aut cogitanti possunt. nõ[n] ideo tamen ab omni cõ[n]templatiõ[n]e absterreri & abstinere nos cõ[n]venit. Quin potuis aliquousqu[e] cõ[n]templando progressos, potentiã[m] eius humiliter agnoscere, infirmitaté[m] nostram boni consulendo: sapientiã[m] eius admirari, nostram inscitiam emendando: dinqu[e] bonitati eius gratias agere, malitiã[m] nostram deprecando oportet.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. English translation Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner, 154.

⁵⁰ ‘Sic quid[m] divinitas in res tum supra naturã[m] sitas tum naturales descendit: nos veró ad eius contemplation[m] vice versa per eosdem gradus cõ[n]scendimus. Ipsa interim divinitas perpetuò una eademqu[e] & sibi nunquã[m] non similis perserverat, nec in se ipsa decrescit: sed in corporibus tanqu[e] speculis p[er] materiae fomarũ[m]qu [e] diversitate magis minúsque Iucidis aliter atque aliter refulget. Sic in corporibus nostris anima licet tota toti insit corpori, nec ulla pars ea careat, illustrius tamen facultates alias in alijs exercet partibus. Verũ[m] anima ita cõn[n]exa est corpori, idqu[e] movet ac perficit, ut aliquid ab eo vicissim[um] patiatur, & damna eius nõ[n]nulla sentiat, & corpore suo ceu loco & domicilio circũ[m]scribatur, quore nihil in Deũ[m] cadit: qui ita omnibus se com[m]unicat, ut nequ[e] substantia nequ[e] pars eorum nulla fit, nequ[e] afficiatur ab eis quicquã[m], nec includatur, sed fit ubiqu[e] & omnia in omnibus ut extra omnia emineat, et mundũ[m] universum ac coelos omnes superior ipse terminet ac cõ[n]cludat.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Epistola nuncupatoria’, unpaginated. English translation Gmelig Meyling‐Nijboer, Conrad Gessner, 154.

⁴⁹ See Leu, Conrad Gessner als Theologe, 58–100.

⁵¹ For similar terminology, as used by Fuchs, see Kusukawa, ‘The Uses of Pictures’, 77.

⁵² ‘[…] verae sunt, hoc est, vel ad naturam factae: vel ad archetypum alterius authoris qui semper nominatur.’ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Praefatio, De Iconibus’, unpaginated.

⁵³ See, e.g., Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Ordinis Ratio, De Picturis Animalium in hoc Opere’, unpaginated. In mediaeval times, the term vera icon was used for images of Christ or Mary, mostly in reference to those that were preternatual in origin and therefore posessed a particular authenticity. See D. Freedberg, The Power of Images (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1989); H. Belting, Bild und Kult, eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich: Beck 1990); G. Wolf, Schleier und Spiegel. Traditionen des Christusbildes und die Bildkonzepte der Renaissance (Munich: Fink, 2002); H. Bredekamp, ‘Bildmedien’, in Kunstgeschichte, eine Einführung, edited by H. Belting, H. Dilly, W. Kemp, W. Sauerländer and M. Warnke (Frankfurt am Main: Reimer, 2003), 355–78 (357–60).

⁵⁴ ‘[…] omnes ad vivum fieri aut ipse curavi, aut ab amicis fide’. Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Praefatio, De Iconibus’, unpaginated. We should note that in his printed books Gessner provided detailed information on the production of the illustrations and the sources of the images. For instance, he listed fifty‐one suppliers of pictures at the beginning of the Historiae, where they stand pari passu with the list of the ancient and contemporary authors quoted.

⁵⁵ Gessner, Historiae animalium, ‘Praefatio, De Iconibus’, unpaginated.

⁵⁶ It is worth noting that a hand‐coloured copy of the Historiae was one of the first natural history books to enter the Bodleian Library in Oxford. See A. Marr, ‘Learned Benefaction: Scientific Books donated to the Bodleian Library before 1605’, in The Book Triumphant: The Book in the Second Century of Print, edited by A. Pettegree (forthcoming).

⁵⁷ The full German title reads: C. Gessner, Thierbuch, Das ist ein kurtz beschreybung aller vierfüssigen thieren / so auff der erde und in wassern wonend / sampt irer waren conterfactur: alles zu nutz un gutem allen liebhabern der künsten / Artzeten / Malern / Bildschnitzern / Weydleüten und Köchen gestelt, erstlich durch den hochgeleerten herren D. Cunrat Geßner in Latin beschriben / yetzunder aber durch D. Cunrat Forer zu mererem nutz aller menglichem in das Teütsch gebracht / und in ein kurtze komliche ordnung gezogen (Zurich, 1563).

⁵⁸ Indeed, most of the animals pictured in the book could not be observed in everyday life. The utility of the book is alluded to in the title of the German version, the Tierbuch, which reads: ‘This is a short description of all four‐footed animals, living on the earth and in the water, together with their true portraits: for the benefit and use for all lovers of the arts, physicians, painters, scultpures, hunters and cooks […].’ See above, n. 57.

⁵⁹ On this point, we should note that although Gessner uses the terms species und genus, his understanding of these words is not identical with their later use in taxonomy. See S. T. Riedl‐Dorn, Wissenschaft und Fabelwesen. Ein kritischer Versuch über Konrad Gessner und Ulisse Aldrovandi (Vienna: Böhlau, 1989), 2.