a museum of wonders or a cemetery of corpses? the commercial

Ausdruck vom 12.5.2011

A Museum of Wonders or a Cemetery of Corpses?The Commercial Exchange of Anatomical Collections in

Early Modern Netherlands

Dániel Margócsy

1713 was a sad year for Hendrickje Dircksz. Her husband, the Leiden anatomyprofessor Govard Bidloo died on April 20. A few months later, she put his libraryand anatomical museum on auction. Books were sold on October 23, 24 and 25and brought in almost three thousand guilders. The museum was sold on the af-ternoon of the 25th. It contained 131 anatomical preparations, i.e. human organspreserved by the injection of wax, which were valued at just over 177 guilders,a small sum of money. Only four years later, the Amsterdam professor FrederikRuysch cashed in over thirty thousand guilders when the Russian czar purchasedhis anatomical cabinet. For this money, Ruysch could have afforded five or six ele-gant houses on one of the more fashionable canals of Amsterdam, and the deal wasalmost equivalent to winning the lottery. When Ruysch’s daughter won the jackpotin 1720, she received seventy-five thousand guilders for her ticket. Bidloo’s fam-ily, on the other hand, would scarcely have managed to survive until the followingsummer on 177 guilders. While the contrast between these two sales appears quiteshocking, it would not have surprised contemporaries. The two anatomists wereknown to despise each other, and spent the better half of the 1690s on a bitter pam-phlet war over the role of preparations in anatomical research. Their respectivepositions foreshadowed the divergence of the sales prices. Ruysch claimed thathis anatomical preparations offered a faithful representation of the body. Bidloocountered that the specimens offered deceptive evidence, and anatomical atlaseswere better equipped to visualize anatomical structures.

This chapter analyzes the role that preparations in anatomical research playedin the debates and working practices of these Dutch professors. In their strugglesto depict living organisms through the use of dead specimens, they hit on philo-sophically novel concepts of objectivity. Their debates thus echo historical con-

185


Dániel Margócsy

troversies over methods of visualizing the body, e.g. the pre-Galenic argumentsbetween the rationalists’ reliance on (animal) cadavers and the empirical empha-sis on wound observation, or recent debates on the comparative advantages offMRI and PET scans. Yet the significance of Bidloo’s and Ruysch’s research wentbeyond the realm of philosophy, and also had direct relevance for the materialvalue of anatomical specimens. Their pamphlet war played out in early modern,capitalist Netherlands, where visual representations were busily traded commodi-ties. The Dutch Golden Age saw the production of over five million paintings, aswell as the invention of the telescope, the microscope, mezzotints and color print-ing. Scientific entrepreneurs were eager to exploit and market these inventions toliefhebbers, i.e. curious gentlemen. It is thus no surprise that the age-old debateon the proper representation of human anatomy also had financial overtones. Foranatomical preparations, price and epistemological status went hand in hand.1

Anatomical Preparations as Transparent Representation: FrederikRuysch’s Cabinet of Curiosities

For much of the early modern period, first-hand observation provided the bestmeans to visualize the human body in Dutch medical research and education. Nextto the perusal of classical texts and the lectures of professors, university studentsalso attended dissections. From its foundation, for instance, Leiden University reg-ularly requested suitable cadavers from state authorities to hold anatomy lessons.Within the guild system, apprentice surgeons and midwives also relied on practi-cal anatomy to acquaint themselves with the human body’s structures. The largerpublic could benefit from public dissections in the theaters of Amsterdam, Delft,Utrecht, The Hague, Rotterdam, Dordrecht and Middelburg. Forthcoming dissec-tions were advertised in newspapers and commemorated in more than a dozenpaintings. Despite their popularity, these lessons often had a limited role in edu-cation and research. Because the performance was frequently geared towards theentertainment of authorities and paying visitors, students could not discuss con-troversial issues at length. They were also seated at a considerable distance fromthe dissecting table, behind the rows of professors and municipal officials. Row-diness only exacerbated the situation, and strict rules needed to be established to

1 For the Ancient debates on human anatomy, see Cosans, “Galen’s Critique;” Hankinson,“Galen’s Anatomical Procedures.” For modern brain imaging, see Alac, “Working with BrainScans”; Beaulieu, “Images”; Joyce, “Appealing Images.”

186


A Museum of Wonders or a Cemetery of Corpses?

regulate the audience’s behavior. For these reasons, the finer details of the humanbody remained hidden from the public view.2

In the 1650s, anatomical preparations offered the promise of providing bet-ter and more widespread access to the human body’s internal structures. In thoseyears, the Flemish nobleman Lodewijk de Bils hit upon a novel method of prepar-ing and preserving human organs. He developed a special, and expensive, liquor inwhich the organs could be bathed, and also injected the body’s vessels with a wax-like material to visualize the circulatory systems. Unlike fresh cadavers, the pre-served preparations could be examined repeatedly. Since they did not decay, onecould hope that the number of specimens in circulation would steadily increase.The discovery raised the interest of medical professionals throughout the Nether-lands. A group of anatomists at Leiden University, including Reinier de Graafand Jan Swammerdam, began using oil of turpentine and wax for preparations.Their results were disseminated through the chemical and anatomical textbooksof Stephanus Blankaart and Carel Maets in the 1680s.3

Frederik Ruysch perfected his own technique in these Leiden circles. Bornin 1638 into a family of civil servants in The Hague, he first trained there as anapothecary. A few years later he also obtained a medical degree from Leiden. Hemoved to Amsterdam as praelector of anatomy at the surgeons’ guild in 1667where he was subsequently appointed city obstetrician and professor of botany.He was elected to the Leopoldine Imperial Academy in 1705, became an F.R.S. in1720 and was chosen to replace the deceased Isaac Newton as an associé étrangerto the Académie des Sciences in 1727. He died in 1732 at the age of 93. Althoughhe was a pharmacy-trained artisan, a scholarly physician and an internationallyrenowned natural philosopher at various points in his life, he did not clearly com-mit to any of these socio-professional roles.4

Back in his day, Ruysch was mostly known for the museum of anatomicalpreparations that were created according to his own version of the wax-injectionmethod. Thousands of specimens were preserved in bottles, and they filled theshelves of elaborately decorated cabinets (Figure 1). They provided a comprehen-sive overview of anatomy including even the minutest organs. For Ruysch, the

2 On Leiden University, see Otterspeer, Groepsportret. On anatomical theatres, see Ferrari, “Pub-lic Anatomy”; Rupp, “The New Science”; Rupp, “Theatra anatomica”; and Slenders, Het the-atrum anatomicum. On anatomical portraits, see Hansen, Galleries.

3 On De Bils, see Jansma, Louis de Bils; Fokker, “Louis de Bils”; Cook, “Time’s Bodies.” On thehistory of preparations, see also Cole, “The History of Anatomical Injections”; Kooijmans, Dedoodskunstenaar.

4 On Ruysch, see Kooijmans, De doodskunstenaar; Scheltema, Het leven van Frederik Ruysch;Berardi, Science into Art; Luyendijk-Elshout, “An der Klaue”; Hansen, “Resurrecting Death.”

187


Dániel Margócsy

Figure 1. An allegorical representation of Ruysch’s museum. Ruysch, Alle de werken, frontispiece.c�The Wellcome Collection. Note the presence of anatomical preparations at the front.

188



epistemological role of his specimens could hardly be overestimated. He believedthat the body was composed exclusively of the vessels of the various circulatorysystems. By injecting wax, one could preserve the shape and position of thesevessels in their natural state. In the absence of other building blocks, wax couldfaithfully capture the structure of the whole body.

For Ruysch, wax injection was clearly superior to engraved illustrations onpaper because it was an auto-inscription technology that worked according to thenotions of mechanical objectivity. Guided by the imagination, the hand of the en-graver could always introduce fictitious elements into paper representations. Sci-entific illustrations, on their own, had no guarantee that they were truthful. Led bythe body’s own vessels, on the other hand, wax-injected preparations were unableto lie. Consequently, Ruysch’s publications mostly discussed discoveries madewith the help of wax injection. The scientific arguments were always supportedby the evidence of a prepared specimen. If critics disagreed with Ruysch’s claims,they were invited to visit his museum where the specimen was exhibited. Avail-able for public viewing, the preparations served as the ultimate arbiter for bringinga controversy to closure.5

In addition, wax-injected specimens were beautiful curiosities that evokedwonder. As wax replaced blood in the circulatory system, the cadaver’s collapsedorgans were restored to their natural state of life. Ruyschian preparations appearedto vanquish the power of death. When the Russian czar was shown the body ofa young girl, he thought that she was only asleep and kissed her. Apart from en-tertaining royalty, the cabinet also served as an excellent educational tool. Insteadof poring through textbooks, students of medicine could subscribe to Ruysch’scourse on anatomy where the secrets of the human body, fish and birds were dis-cussed with the help of the exhibits. Anatomical preparations thus trumped otherforms of representation in every imaginable scenario, and Ruysch never ceasedto praise their marvelous qualities in his publications. A malicious contemporary,possibly Govard Bidloo, took the pains to count how often Ruysch used the wordmirum and its cognates in his relatively brief Epistolae and Observationum cen-turiae. The list ran to 96 occurrences.6

5 “Ik hebbe kleene Kinderkens, die ik over twintigh jaaren heb gebalsemt, en tot nu toe soo netjesbewaard, datse eer schynen te slapen; als ontzielt te zyn.” Ruysch, Alle de werken, 487. On theconcept of auto-inscription, see Brain and Wise, “Muscles”; Chadarevian, “Graphical Method”;Douard, “E.-J. Marey’s Visual Rhetoric.” For mechanical objectivity, see Daston and Galison,“The Image”; Daston and Galison, Objectivity.

6 The anecdote of the baby is recounted by several authors, incl. Dúzs, “Hogyan.” For the satire,see Mirabilitas mirabilitatum. A copy survives at the British Library, cat. no. 548 F 16. (12.),which bears a note of identification on the title page: “Q. an a Godofredo Bidloo conscripta?”

189


Dániel Margócsy

Problems with Wax-Injection: Johannes Rau and Hermann Boerhaave

Bidloo’s death in 1713 may have caused sorrow for his widow. It also provided acareer opportunity for the lithotomist Johannes Rau, who was appointed to the va-cated anatomy chair in Leiden and delivered his inaugural lecture soon afterwards.In this lecture, Rau discussed the best methods for learning anatomy. It was essen-tial that students frequently read the texts of the ancients and the moderns, attendthe lectures of the professors and participate in private dissections. Anatomicalpreparations were supposed to play only a secondary role. They could offer someguidance in research. The method of wax-injection, however, also distorted thestructures of the human body. As it filled the veins and the arteries, it distendedthe walls of the blood vessels and made them appear bigger than in reality. Nolonger transparent, preparations only offered an approximate representation of thehuman body.7

Rau’s criticism of Ruyschian preparations was shared by his colleagues. Ina letter published in the early 1720s, Hermann Boerhaave repeated the claimthat preparations enlarged the circulatory system. When wax was injected intothe liver’s portal artery, the vessel expanded to the extent that the neighboringanatomical structures were suppressed. This shortcoming was decisive for Boer-haave. Based on theoretical arguments, he had already surmised the existence ofglands in the human body. In these glands, bodily fluids were mixed and separatedlike chemical substances in a retort. It was necessary that such structures shouldexist. Otherwise, the blood would circulate in the body without undergoing anymodification in its composition. Since wax injection potentially suppressed theseglands and only visualized the circulatory system, its anatomical use was heavilylimited.8

While recent studies have emphasized the theoretical underpinnings of Boer-haave’s criticism, it is important to note that the concept of visual evidence wasalso under debate. The existence of glands simply could not be detected with theRuyschian preparation technique. The Leiden professor instead suggested an al-

7 Rau, Oratio, 9 and 29.8 “Maar wy begrypen ook, dat door de aangedronge stoffe die vaten uytgespannen en opgevult

worden, dewelke gelyk takken uyt een bloetvoerende slagader, als haar stam, voortkomen, maarwelkers oorsprong echter naauwer is in zyn natuurlyke opening, als dat die het rode deel van‘t bloet tot zich kan nemen, schoon zy fynder deeltjes als dit dikste deel gemakkelyk ontfangt:en waarom ook deze vaatjes, tot een tegennatuurlyke grootte vergroot zynde, Valschelyk voorbloetvoerende pypies gehouden worden; dewyl deze in gezontheit alleen Wyvoerende, als ik zospreken mag, geweest zyn.” Ruysch, Alle de werken, 1183-1184; where Boerhaave’s letter isreprinted in its entirety.

190



ternative technology, recently dubbed by Domenico Bertoloni Meli as the micro-scope of disease. Originally invented by Marcello Malpighi, this method relied onthe observation that certain illnesses caused the glands to grow into an abnormallylarge tumor. These tumors magnified the shape and structure of healthy glands sothat they became visible to the human eye. Unlike preparations, the microscopeof disease confirmed Boerhaave’s claims. Ruysch was understandably upset bythese criticisms and called Boerhaave a redenkonstenaar, i.e. a sophist. Instead oftrusting the auto-inscription of preparations, Boerhaave mistakenly used reason totheorize and tumors to visualize the glands.9

Paper Epistemologies:The Debate Between Govard Bidloo and Frederik Ruysch

Throughout his career, the most vociferous opponent of Ruysch’s preparationswas the anatomist and playwright Govard Bidloo, born in 1649. As a surgeon ap-prentice in Amsterdam in the 1670s, he was already acquainted with the higherechelons of society. He was briefly associated with Nil volentibus arduum, a liter-ary society that aimed at modernizing Dutch culture with the precepts of Frenchclassicism, and became a medical doctor in 1682. While Ruysch established hiscareer with a museum of anatomical specimens, Bidloo put his stakes on the flour-ishing print culture of the Netherlands. He published a Dutch translation of PierreCorneille’s Pompée in 1684, ridiculed the Nil in 1685 in a satirical pamphlet andwrote the libretto for Ceres, Venus and Bacchus, the first Dutch opera in 1686. Hismonumental Anatomia humani corporis came out in 1685, cementing his fame asa medical professional (Figure 2). This atlas contained over a hundred folio en-gravings on human anatomy, which were designed by Gerard de Lairesse, themost-praised classicist painter of the period. Thanks to these publications, Bidloobecame a client of Prince William of Orange, soon to become William III of Eng-land. After various posts, he was appointed professor at Leiden University at theinstigation of the King in 1694. William later also called him to London where

9 “Wat my aanbelangt, ik zal in tegendeel myne zake alleen door proeven beweren, en zodanigbybrengen, welke met de Ogen des lichaams konnen gezien worden, want dit is ondervind-ing; maar die alleen een beschouwing door de Ogen des verstants vereisschen, zal ik aan an-deren overlaten, die vermeynen, dat de redeneringen boven de waarnemingen te schatten zyn.”Ruysch, Alle de werken, 1196. On the Boerhaave-Ruysch debate, see Knoeff, “Chemistry.” Onthe microscopy of disease, see Bertoloni Meli, “Blood.” For Boerhaave’s work on glands, seeRuysch, Alle de werken, 1165-66. Some major works on early modern visual culture includeFreedberg, The Eye of the Lynx; Ogilvie, The Science of Describing; Elkins, “Two Concep-tions”; Alpers, The Art of Describing.

191


Dániel Margócsy

he had the dubious honor of assisting to the King’s fatal illness. Left without apatron, Bidloo returned to Leiden where he taught until his death in 1713.10

Like Boerhaave and Rau, Bidloo thought that anatomical preparations lackedthe transparency required to depict the body. He instead proposed paper as theideal for anatomical representation. His claim was supported by three distinct ar-guments. While preparations were frozen in time, sequential images could rep-resent on paper the changing shape of an active, living organ. Paper also offeredthe possibility to juxtapose and compare representations produced with variousobservation techniques, e.g. microscopy or even wax-injection. Third, engravedimages had a higher resolution than anatomical specimens. They could magnifyminute details that not even microscopes could detect.

We are in a privileged position to scrutinize Bidloo’s complex paper epis-temology and contrast it with Ruysch’s preference for preparations. The twoanatomists spent the better part of the 1690s dissecting each other’s discoveries. Inthe early 1690s, Ruysch printed a part of his extensive correspondence with otheranatomists. These essays on the internal structure of the spleen, on the branchingof the aorta or on the arachneal mater often criticized the plates in the Anatomiahumani corporis. Bidloo did not take these charges lightly and responded in apamphlet titled Vindiciae quarundam delineationum anatomicarum contra inep-tas animadversiones Fred: Ruyschii. The counter-response came almost immedi-ately. The Responsio ad Godefridi Bidloi libellum argued that the Vindiciae hadmisrepresented Ruysch’s original criticism of the Anatomia humani corporis.11

Some of Bidloo’s arguments actually foreshadowed the ideas of Rau andBoerhaave. For instance, Bidloo found it problematic that Ruyschian preparationslooked alive. Cadavers were dead and no art could bring them back to life. Al-though colored wax could make the cheeks of humans rosy again, the underlyingstructures were corrupted beyond repair. The reason for this should by now be fa-miliar: injected cinnabar, scarlet and ceruse made blood vessels appear larger than

10 On Bidloo’s atlas, see Dumaitre, La curieuse destinée; Fournier, “De microscopische anatomie”;Herrlinger, “Bidloo’s ‘Anatomia”’; Vasbinder, Govard Bidloo. For biographical information, seeKooijmans, De doodskunstenaar, 95-97, 107-23 and 217-36; Krul, “Govard Bidloo.” Bidloo’sassociation with the Nil is documented in Dongelmans, Nil, 139-40. A source on Bidloo’s earlycareer is a letter about assisting the Six family in planning the purchase of a house for 13,000guilders. Govard Bidloo to Joachim Oudaen, Amsterdam, May 9, 1676, Amsterdam UniversityLibrary.

11 Cf. Knoeff, “Over ‘het kunstige’.” For the pamphlets, see Ruysch, Alle de werken; Bidloo,Vindiciae.

192



Figure 2. Bidloo, Anatomia, frontispiece. c�The Wellcome Collection. Note how theputto on the right holds up a print, presumably an anatomical representation.

193


Dániel Margócsy

life. The mimesis of preparations was no scientific proof but only a “meretriciousart” to entertain the masses.12

Yet the criticism of the Vindiciae went beyond standard quibbles over distend-ing the vascular system. At stake was the tangled representational relationshipbetween cadavers and animate organisms. For Bidloo, no simple correspondencecould be established between the two because the organs of the living body were inmotion. External and internal pressure constantly changed the shape of the heart,the lungs and the skin. Since anatomical preparations, in contrast, were static andrigid, they could not represent temporal change. The preservation of the heart wasespecially problematic in this respect. In life, the four chambers regularly contractin a well-determined rhythm. Wax injections, on the other hand, filled, distendedand froze the chambers in the state of diastole. The function of the heart was ren-dered incomprehensible through the art of preparations. Observers would not beable to understand the principles of the circulation system.

The rigidity of anatomical preparations was both a philosophical and a phys-iological problem for Bidloo who considered variety and change key constituentsof human nature. In 1685, the same year the Anatomia humani corporis appeared,he ridiculed the Nil volentibus arduum because of its adherence to the artificialand rigid rules of Francophile playwrights. His satire pleaded for a more relaxedinterpretation of classicist poetics. Similarly, if a preparation was preserved andkept in the same shape for centuries, it could not properly mirror the changingworld of life.

The Vindiciae consequently charged Ruysch of too rigid an understandingof the shape of papillary glands in the human skin. Bidloo claimed that theseglands had “the shape of a pyramid with a round base,” i.e. a cone, which Ruyschheavily disagreed with. Bidloo mistakenly thought that the debate hinged on thedefinition of pyramidal. According to him, Ruysch understood pyramidal in astrictly mathematical sense and expected the glands to conform exactly to thiswell-defined shape. Ruyschian representations of their foramina, i.e. the openingsat the cone’s base, created the impression that these glands were similar to marble,i.e. rigid, inflexible and immobile.

12 “Affectata tamen et nova, scilicet, haec condiendi cadavera methodus vulgo atque huic et illiidiotae medicastro placuit: sed, Catone judice, quidquid vulgo placet, vel solum ideo omni sus-picione dignum, etiamsi quoddam virtutis specimen prae se ferre videatur. Sed ineptus sim, etarti Anatomes dirus, si dissimilem atque praelectorem Ruyschium non agnoscam laboriosum,indefessum, die ac nocte rebus intentum anatomicus maxime, intellige, fucandis, adulterandisminio, cocco, cerussa et quavis arte meretricia exornandis: hisce, fateor, se supra communemanatomicorum famam et sortem extulis altissime.” Bidloo, Vindiciae, 14-15.

194



Figure 3. The papillary glands. Bidloo, Vindiciae, 5. c�Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine.

As for himself, Bidloo wrote that “it was never my opinion that these nervous-glandlike organs were mathematically pyramidal, but only comparatively.” Thevaried shapes of the papillae more or less approximated the shape of a cone.Nonetheless, each papilla and its opening had a slightly different form that couldalso change in time as a result of motion, disposition, external pressure and flac-cidity. Consequently, Bidloo preferred to depict a large number of papillae nextto each other in a highly particularistic manner so as to show variability (Figure 3,Fig. I and VI, contrast to Ruysch’s depiction on Fig. IV]. Figure VI could be in-terpreted as a particularistic representation of neighboring papillae whose shapeswere subtly different. Figure I offered a diagrammatic cross-section of the open-ings at the bottom that again accentuated the variability of their forms. Yet I arguethat this figure could also be read in another way. It could be interpreted as a cin-ematic representation of how one opening changed its shape with the passage of

195


Dániel Margócsy

time. As the human skin was pressed and twisted, the opening grew, shrank andshifted in succession. Bidloo offered a rational explanation why these organs wereso fickle. If the papillae could not change their form, the sense of touch would nothave been able to differentiate between the perception of various materials thatbrushed against the skin.13

As it happens, Bidloo misunderstood the debate. Ruysch’s main problem wasnot with the definition of pyramidal, but with the definition of papillary glands.He considered papillae and glands two separate organs. For him, papillae werepyramidal but glands had a globular shape. Definitions were of little importancewhen two separate organs were conflated into one. Yet Bidloo’s misunderstandingis productive in that it highlights his opinion on the visualizing power of prepara-tions and paper. He surmised that Ruysch’s preparations and epistemology wereconnected. Since the preparations could not change their shapes, their maker alsohad to imagine the body’s organs to be rigid. The surface of paper, in contrast, al-lowed Bidloo to set things in motion. He could represent changes to the shape ofa papilla in a chronological order. Atlas images reflected the variability of naturebetter than three-dimensional specimens.

Paper had another advantage. It could accommodate different methods of vi-sualization on the same page and provide the reader with the composite result. Intable XXII of his Anatomia humani corporis, Bidloo provided a large number ofcompeting representations of the heart, each of which visualized and emphasizeddifferent aspects of the same organ (Figures 4 and 5). While Fig. 1 attempted torepresent the heart as it appeared to the eye, this image could not show its build-ing blocks and structure. In order to visualize the structure of the muscles, tendons

13 “Ego hasce papillas pyramidales et subrotundas (vide Fig: 6.) delineavi, non quod vel clariss:Malpighi, vel mea unquam fuerit sententia (egregium vero Ruyschianae inscitiae exemplum)nerveo-glandosa haec corpora mathematice, sed comparative esse pyramidalia et subrotunda:quam crasse porro erraverit, rete subcuticulare foraminulis pertusum vere rotundis, ope micro-scopii (vide fig. IV) adauctaque duplo, eorum magnitudine (vide fig. VI) exhibens, patet, cumpro papillarum motu et dispositione, compressione, intumescentia, flacciditate et similibus cor-poris reticularis foraminum figura mutari debeat: ut proponitur, fig. nova. I. corneum autemcorpus hoc, nec papillas demonstrabit hasce, ut credo, marmoreas; rigidae enim si extrarent,inflexiles et immobiles, eadem esset omnium allidentium contractandarumque materiarum sen-sibus perceptio; posse eas extendi, deprimi, vi externa; intumescere, flaccescere liquorum spiri-tuumque copia, aut penuria atque ab vicinarum partium compressione, vel et inter sese, mutataquarundam figura, aliarum itidem ut et superficiem partis in qua sunt, nec non, consequenter,foramina, sive aperturas corporis reticularis cui inhaerent, figura quoque juxta papillarum cir-cumscriptiones, debere mutari, nemo (Ruyschio excepto praelectore) inficias ibit.” Bidloo, Vin-diciae, 6-7. On early modern and modern cinematography, see Biagioli, Galileo’s Instruments,135-218; Cartwright, Screening the Body.

196



Figure 4. The heart according to Bidloo. Bidloo, Anatomia, Table XXII. c�The Well-come Collection.

197


Dániel Margócsy

and their fibers, the heart needed to be boiled first. Figs. 2 and 3 thus showed thefront and back of a boiled heart. Yet boiling was not the best method for the in-vestigation of the ventricles. These chambers could be best seen with the help ofdesiccated specimens. Figs. 7 and 8 consequently depicted a dried heart from dif-ferent perspectives to show the cavities. Fig. 9 then aimed to show the connectionsbetween the chambers of the heart. Bidloo inserted several quills into a desiccatedheart that pierced through the barely visible valves. Thanks to these quills, theconnections between the atria and the ventricles were adequately shown. Finally,Fig. 11 visualized the coronary arteries and veins on the surface of the heart withthe injection of mercury and wax. While Fig. 11 offered a good picture of theelaborate structure of these vessels, it also emphasized the distortions of wax-injections when compared to Fig. 1 on its left.

Table XXII on the heart thus offered a functional theory of representation.There was no single method that could transparently depict all building blocksof the heart. The muscles, chambers, valves and blood vessels each required aspecific mode of visualization. Table XXIII Fig. 15 on the infant circulatory sys-tem employed the same approach and emphasized that the art of wax injectionwas only one, imperfect method of representing the body. The blood vessels wereshown in the state when they were filled with wax. Yet this representation wasonly approximate, as Bidloo admitted explicitly, because wax could not reachsome blood vessels that were hidden in the muscles and around the bones. In or-der to highlight potential distortions, he even offered a detailed explanation howhis method of wax-injection worked. This way, readers could judge for themselveshow this method could produce artifacts.14

Bidloo’s visualization of the heart and the blood vessels was therefore a directattack on Ruysch. The response did not wait long. In his Third Letter to Gaubius,Ruysch argued that Bidloo did not correctly display the circulatory system ontable XXIII. The heart’s coronary arteries were especially problematic. Havingread Bidloo’s wax-injection method, Ruysch could only repeat that he and hisson were the only anatomists who knew the true secret of preparation. Bidloo’sarguments for the imperfections of preparations held true for his own specimens,which were truly awful, but not for Ruysch’s specimens. It was no surprise that

14 “Fig. XV. Referente Arteriae aortae, cera repletae, in corpore sex post partum mensium infantis(quam separatam reservo), praecipuas e trunco distributiones; Minores enim sub involucris,ossibus atque musculis reconditae, cultello persequi saepius non potui. Ex hac videre est quamdiversimode interdum ejus propagines ducantur atque sint situatae. Lubet huic divaricationisdescriptioni, modum, quo vasa haec impleantur, ut et quorundam curiositati satisfiat, praefigere.”Bidloo, Anatomia, Tab XXIII Fig. 15.

198



Figure 5. The heart according to Ruysch. Ruysch, Alle de werken. c�Francis A. CountwayLibrary of Medicine.

199


Dániel Margócsy

Bidloo’s anatomical museum was not open to the public. He must have been afraidthat visitors would see how useless they were. In fact, some specimens in Bidloo’smuseum “were not [even] prepared by himself but acquired elsewhere.” The doorsof Ruysch’s cabinet, in contrast, were always open to everybody.15

Bidloo’s counter-response is especially interesting because his argument intro-duced a third reason for the superiority of paper over preparation. Wax-injectionwas an auto-inscription technique that blindly followed the arteries. Paper, in con-trast, allowed for the intervention of reason in making a faithful representation.And only the dictates of reason could help correctly depict the coronary arteries.At first sight, Bidloo’s claim might appear to conform to recent work on “paperepistemologies.” Since Bruno Latour’s classic article, many authors have claimedthat paper is the best medium to simplify and standardize the chaos inherent inthe outside world. The intervention of reason allows paper to control and rep-resent nature in the form of abstracted diagrams. From a historical perspective,Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison have argued that enlightened anatomical at-lases, in particular, retouched images of the body so that they could better accordwith the idealism of mathematics and the Classics. Many of these analyses thusally the use of paper and reason with an abstracted or idealized representationof nature. Bidloo’s argument subverts this correlation. According to him, paperimages’ reliance on reason did not lead to abstraction. It served only to correctlydepict chaotic nature in all its whimsical particularities.16

Bidloo’s depiction of the coronary arteries on table XXIII might help disen-tangle his rather complex theoretical position (Figure 6, letter B). He claimed thatthe smaller branches of these arteries could be seen properly neither with a mi-croscope nor with the help of a preparation. Yet reason postulated the existence ofthese branches because, together with the capillaries, they were needed to connectthe arteries to the veins. How could one then visualize these barely visible struc-tures? One option would have been to present an abstract diagram that showed arough sketch of the coronary arteries’ branchings without any claim to naturalism.Bidloo’s solution was radically different. He offered a particularistic representa-tion of the blood vessels with a plethora of idiosyncratic detail. For instance, theartery below the engraved letter B meandered downwards and then branched into

15 “Indien zyn Cabinet voorzien, en verciert is met diergelyke doode lichamen van Jongelingen,over de twee Jaaren bewaart, waarom legt hy ze dan niet ten toon, gelyk ik gedaan hebbe inde voorlede honds-dagen?” Ruysch, Alle de werken, 252. “abunde enim scio, pleraque, quae inMusaeo ejus pauperculo inveniuntur non esse ab ipso praeparata, sed aliunde accersita.” Ruysch,Alle de werken, 33.

16 Latour, “Drawing Things Together”; Daston and Galison, “The Image”; Daston and Galison,Objectivity; Heesen, “News”; Klein, Experiments; Johnston, Making Mathematical Practice.

200



Figure 6. The aorta and the coronary arteries according to Bidloo. Bidloo, Anatomia, Table XXIII.Fig. 15. Fragment. c�The Wellcome Collection.

two. Of the two branched vessels, the right one disappeared inside the heart. Theleft one, in contrast, again branched into four smaller arteries. Reason on its owncould not have vouchsafed for these details’ necessary truth. Why did Bidloo de-pict four of these small, practically invisible arteries, and not three or five?

I would suggest that Bidloo’s decision was based on the chaotic nature of the

201


Dániel Margócsy

human body. At and beneath the microscopic level, the structure of the circulatorysystem continuously varied from person to person. Some coronary arteries mean-dered to the right, others to the left. In some people, certain arteries branched intofour capillaries. In others, the same arteries branched into two, three or five. Be-cause of this limitless variability, Bidloo’s particularistic depiction of the arteriessimply could not go wrong. Whether he depicted three or four smaller arteries,some people in a sufficiently large population must have featured a configura-tion that matched the representation. The law of large numbers ensured that atleast a few people in the world had a coronary artery that meandered to the right,branched into two and then again into four. Unlike other Enlightenment atlases,Bidloo’s Anatomia humani corporis did not represent an ideal or average humanbody. But, by all probability, it corresponded to at least one specimen among themillions of people. Bidloo dubbed this mode of naturalist depiction the “mind’seye” and exclaimed happily: “Is there anyone of sane mind, who does not gladlyagree that it is possible to see the coronary arteries with the mind’s eyes and tounderstand in what way they should spread out in the heart?”17

Bidloo expounded his theory of rationally naturalist representation when hediscussed his illustration of the aorta’s branchings on the very same table XXIII.Ruysch was very critical of this image and claimed that the positions of thebranchings were incorrect. Bidloo’s defense was eloquent. He first affirmed thatvariability was essential to these structures, and wrote that “nature often playswith the origins of the bronchial artery.” The aorta of many humans might havebranched in accordance with Ruysch’s observations. Yet the continuous variabil-ity of nature also ensured that other people’s circulatory systems conformed toBidloo’s illustrations. Bidloo’s representation might not have been typical but itreferred to an extant configuration nonetheless. His image of the aorta’s branch-ing actually relied on the dissection of a cadaver. Yet the same laws of ficklenesscould represent the coronary arteries without recourse to visual evidence. Vari-ability ensured that naturalism could be objective even in the absence of first-hand observation. Refuting Ruysch’s qualms about the potential fictional qualityof printed images, Bidloo argued that the illustrator’s hand could never lie becauseimaginative nature would always produce at least one corresponding original.18

17 “Posse mentis oculis videri, concipi, quomodo arteriae coronales divaricari debeant in corde,quis mente non carens, lubens non annuit?” Bidloo, Vindiciae, 19.

18 “Ipsi Epist 2 pag 10 arteriae mammariae interiores bis inordinata ramificatione, inordinato,credo ipsum velle insolito, irregulari, cursu distribuuntur. Quo jure negat, in aorta ejusque di-varicatione, ab me observatum? placet, enim, ut ipse ait, naturae aliquando varietate frui. Epist.sexta. pag. 11. ludit, ipsi, natura saepius circa arteriae bronchialis exortum, sed vasis, mihi de-lineandis, ludere non licet, hisce more solito, modeste, incedendum est: sed monente Seneca,

202



Bidloo’s argument of the mind’s eye offers an alternative to the representa-tional regimes that Daston and Galison have posited for scientific atlases. Dastonand Galison differentiate between truth-to-nature and mechanical objectivity, bothof which impose a regime of regularity on the observer. Mechanical objectivity re-lies on an automated, trustworthy representational technique that works by elim-inating human intervention. Enlightened, truth-to-nature objectivity, in turn, canfunction only because the scientist’s desire for rational order creates an archety-pal, characteristic or abstracted image of nature. In contrast, Bidloo accepted thatfickle nature obeyed no rules, within certain limits. As a result, he suggested thatthe draughtsman should have a relatively free choice in representing the aorta’sbranchings or the coronary arteries. The artist’s hand only imitated nature’s ownwhim. Judgment was supplemented by creativity.

To sum up, Bidloo’s visual epistemology and stance towards preparationswere therefore based on three fundamental points. First, anatomical preparationscould not capture the temporal, sequential changes that the organs of the humanbody underwent. Secondly, anatomical preparations offered only one, and more-over distorted, image of the human body, and not a transparent representation.Thirdly, anatomical preparations had a low power of resolution whereas the tech-nique of the mind’s eye could offer particular representations of microscopic or-gans inferred with the help of reason. Anatomical preparations were therefore onlyof limited use for Bidloo’s anatomical research. Ruysch’s museum turned into a“Ruyschian cemetery” where distastefully decorated dead bodies were paraded astrue representations.19

The debate between Bidloo and Ruysch is thus an important step towards un-derstanding how an anatomist could turn towards a functionalist interpretation ofimages. Bidloo did not simply break with the tradition of Ruyschian preparations,but also disposed of the idea of transparent representation. For him, no single im-age could present a faithful image of an organ in the human body. Anatomistsfirst had to decide what they wanted to learn about a particular organ and onlythen could they choose a proper way of imaging the body. Paper’s great advantagewas to allow for the juxtaposition of various modes of representation within theborders of a single page. Instead of establishing a world-class museum, Bidlootherefore decided to publish a luxurious atlas.

ignorat naturae potentiam, qui illi non putat aliquando licere, nisi quod saepius facit.” Bidloo,Vindiciae, 16. For the concept of typical, see Daston and Galison, “The Image,” 87-88.

19 Bidloo never criticized Ruysch’s museum catalogues because “catalogum enim Rariorum, ob-servationibus annexum, non tango, ne Ruyschiana coemeteria, violare profanus dicar.” Bidloo,Vindiciae, 60.

203


Dániel Margócsy

The Material Value of Anatomical Preparations

Both Ruysch and Bidloo used their anatomical research to further their own ca-reers. Ruysch received aristocratic guests in his anatomical museum, used hisspecimens in private lessons and, at a later stage in his life, decided to sell thecollection in toto. Bidloo, on the other hand, used his anatomical atlas to gainthe patronage of William III, who later secured him a professorship in Leiden.Consequently, the two anatomists’ debates on the use of preparations also playedout on a material level. Their epistemological standpoints corresponded well withthe size, value and circulation patterns of their collections of their specimens.Ruysch’s anatomical museum was the most important repository of anatomicalcuriosities in the Netherlands, whereas Bidloo’s collection was insignificant evenwhen compared with lesser-known cabinets of the period.

The Ruyschian museum was a major financial enterprise, and its sale elevatedRuysch into the highest echelons of Amsterdam society. His first anatomical col-lection, which also included some animal and plant specimens, was sold to czarPeter the Great in 1717. Ruysch received 30,000 guilders for roughly two thou-sand specimens, and an additional 5,000 guilders for divulging his secret methodof wax injection. Soon thereafter, he started a new cabinet. Ruysch’s ultimateaim was to sell this second collection as well. In December 1730 he authorizedhis grandson Juriaan Pool to begin inquiries about potential customers. Ruyschspecified that the museum could not be sold for less than 22,000 guilders. Un-fortunately, he died the following year and left behind 1,300 specimens that wereauctioned off soon afterwards. This data suggests that Ruysch’s preparations wererather expensive. In 1717, a single specimen cost 15 guilders on average. Based onRuysch’s estimation from 1730, his preparations were worth roughly 16 guildersa piece, the equivalent of an expensive, illustrated folio encyclopedia.20

While these two data sets only offer bulk estimates of the value of the col-lections, some information is also available on the financial value of individualpreparations. The collection of pharmacist Albertus Seba, a friend of Ruysch, wasput on auction in 1752. Seba owned 73 Ruyschian preparations, which includedanimal and plant specimens and went for more than 560 guilders (Table 1). Twodecades after the maker’s death, the price of anatomical curiosities went downslightly. Wet preparations fetched roughly 10 guilders on average, whereas dryspecimens were worth slightly over 4 guilders per lot. Despite the drop, these

20 On the first sale, see Driessen, De kunstkamera. On the authorization of Pool, see GA Amster-dam 5075, Notarial Archives, Inv. 7648 Abraham Tzeewen, Act 981, December 28, 1730. Forthe second catalogue, see Ruysch, Catalogus.

204



prices were still quite high. At the same auction, Seba’s exotica were less valuablethan even the dry preparations. Pickled snakes and birds cost almost 1.5 guilderson average. Preparations of fish were sold for just below 2 guilders, while exoticinsects could be purchased for 5 guilders per lot. Other animals were priced atroughly 4 guilders.21

Table 1. Sales Prices from the Auction of Albertus Seba’s Collection in 1752.Source: Seba, Catalogus.

Type of Object Total Price(Guilders)

Number ofLots

Average Price /Lot

Shells 12772.25 253 50.48Corals 1682.5 72 23.37Petrified specimens 418.5 39 10.73Minerals 2236 484 4.62Agates 1723 312 5.52Fossils 71.5 20 3.58Diverse Rarities 166 20 8.3Animals 579.5 150 3.86Ruyschianpreparations

127.75 30 4.26

Ruyschian wetpreparations

436.5 43 10.15

Exquisite cabinets 643.5 10 64.35Insects 2433 487 5Snakes 573 422 1.36Wet bird specimens 75.75 51 1.49Wet fish specimens 402 214 1.88

Sum Total 24340.75 2607 9.34

Compared to Ruysch’s specimens, the financial value of Bidloo’s collectionwas negligible. It is possible that he initially attempted to shape his anatomicalmuseum according to the Ruyschian model. In the 1670s, Bidloo’s preparationswere much praised by the pharmacist and poet Johannes Antonides van der Goes,a member of the Nil volentibus arduum. Van der Goes’ poem described thesespecimens in the terms of the culture of curiosities, not unlike the way Ruyschpraised his own preparations. The poem claimed that Bidloo’s museum contained

21 Seba, Catalogus. The prices are noted in the copy at the University of Amsterdam Library.

205


Dániel Margócsy

“anatomical wonders, where art and nature competed” and this charming art “gavelife to the dead themselves.” Yet it also pointed towards the practical, research-oriented aspects of the museum. According to Van der Goes, Bidloo’s cabinetcontained dry, wax-injected preparations of the blood vessels, livers, lungs andreproductive organs. Wet specimens, embryos and complex body parts were notmentioned. Unlike Ruysch’s universal collection, Bidloo’s preparations probablyserved to visualize only the circulatory and the respiratory systems.22

While Van der Goes was quite adulatory of Bidloo’s collection, other accountsoffer a more qualified assessment. When Leiden University was about to purchaseBidloo’s herbarium, the curators appointed a certain Dr. Cosson and the pharma-cist Taurinus to evaluate the collection on offer. Cosson and Taurinus reportedthat both Bidloo’s plants and the university’s own herbaria were of mixed quality,and some specimens were in a deplorable condition. The integration of the twoherbaria, however, would have resulted in a good collection. The university cu-rators therefore decided to purchase Bidloo’s plants to complement their own forthe moderate amount of 250 guilders. Bidloo also possessed some exotic animalsand presented the English collector and pharmacist James Petiver with a snake.Characteristically, he was the source of only one specimen. Petiver received morethan a dozen exotica from Ruysch.23

Bidloo’s anatomical museum also lacked a stable environment and visitorshad limited access to it. In the 1700s, Bidloo did not even keep his cabinets athome, but deposited them at the anatomical theater of the university. The travelerJohn Farrington saw some of them during his visit to Leiden in 1710, and mistak-enly claimed that the theater was “now made much more considerable by the largeaddition of Professor Bidloo’s curiosities.” Bidloo in fact did not donate his col-lection to the university but simply used the anatomical theater for the purposes of

22 “Hier streeft de konst natuur voorby / [ . . . ] / Maar Bidloo van een edel vier / Ontsteken, nendoor lust gedreven, / Weerstaet dien trotschen vyant fier, / En schenkt den dooden zelfs hetleven.” Van der Goes, “Op de anatomische wonderheden.”

23 “Den Professor Hotten refereert [ . . . ] dat hy [ . . . ] met de heer Doctor Cosson ende den apothe-caris Taurinus nader onsersoek hadde gedaan van den toestant van het Cabinet van de heerProfessor Bidloo, alsmede van ‘t Cabinet van de Universiteyt, staande in de gallerye van deAcademischen tuyn, ende bevonden dat in ‘t een ende ‘t ander alle vegetable mettertijs waskomen te vergaan, sijnde niets goed gebleven als de mineralen, gesteenten ende verruwstof-fen; ende dat derhalven waeren te raiden geworden de H. C. ende B. te exhorteren tot ‘t com-bineren van de voors. Cabinetten, wanneer men met kleyne kosten een seer completen collectiesoude kennen maeken.” Molhuysen, Bronnen, IV, 135. For Bidloo’s gift to Petiver , see Petiver, Decades, Table VI Fig. 5. For specimens from Ruysch, see Petiver , Decades, Table X Fig. 9,Table XII Fig. 9, Table XXIV Fig. 1; and Petiver , Centuriae, #118, 395, 396, 519, 604, 627,651, 692.

206



storage. Gerard Blanken, the custos anatomiae, complained much about the factthat Bidloo did not keep an order among the preparations. Whenever he needed aparticular specimen for the purposes of research or education, Bidloo took it outfrom the cabinet and did not necessarily return it to the same place afterwards.As a result, the servant could no longer ascertain which preparation belonged toBidloo, and which one to the university. The professor was therefore ordered bythe curators of the university to make a list of his own preparations and then movethem back to his own house. He did not immediately comply with the request, andthe curators had to remind him a year later. The collection functioned more as aresearch tool than a showcase of the art of preparation.24

The practical, hands-on approach to anatomical preparations was reflected inthe financial value of Bidloo’s collection. Since they were not privileged repre-sentations, these specimens did not need to be prepared with the same amount ofcare and attention that Ruysch devoted to them. They were not intended to last forcenturies and could in principle be thrown away after use. As a result, Bidloo’sanatomical collection consisted of only 131 preparations and, as mentioned be-fore, was sold for 177 guilders and 8 stuivers. He also owned 149 wet specimensof animals worth 276 guilders 14 stuivers, 24 kidney stones at 18 guilders 15 stui-vers, and 62 bones, skulls and skeletons at 117 guilders 9 stuivers. Altogether,these specimens were worth just over 590 guilders, still much less than Ruysch’scollection.25

On average, Bidloo’s anatomical preparations cost 1.35 guilders, significantlyless than Ruyschian specimens. Apart from the size of the collection, the pricedifference was the result of two different factors. First, most of Bidloo’s specimenswere dry, which were (and still are) significantly less expensive to make than wetpreparations. Expensive alcohol was a necessary ingredient for the preservativeliquid. Ruysch’s dry preparations were also worth only 40% of the price of wet

24 On Farrington’s visit, see Farrington, An Account, 11-12. On Blanken’s complaint, see “DenCustos Anatomiae aen de heeren Curat: en Burgermeesteren hebbende bekent gemackt, dat denProfessor Bidloo van intentie was om eenige kassen met rariteijten, dewelke hij voor heen optTheatrum Anatomicum had doen brengen, wederom van daar te laten transporteren, versoek-ende hij Custos te mogen weeten hoe hijs sigh daar omtrent soude hebben te gedragen. Waarop gedelibereert sijnde en goedgevonden en verstaen, dat den gemelten heer Bidloo sal wordenaengesegt, dat hij een Lyste sal overleveren van ‘t geene hij oordeelt aen hem toe te behooren,om ‘t selve gesien sijnde, nader te resolveren soo als men na redelijckheijt sal oordeelen te be-horen.” Leiden University Library AC1 29, Resolutien van de Curatoren en Burgermeesteren1696-1711, March 24, 1710, f. 539. For the reminder, see Leiden University Library AC1 30,Res. Cur. 1711-1725, f. 65.

25 For Bidloo’s sales catalogue, see Bidloo, Bibliotheca. The prices are noted in a copy in StPetersburg, but not in the British Library. One guilder equals twenty stuivers.

207


Dániel Margócsy

specimens. Second, comparisons of similar items in the two collections suggestthat the quality of Bidloo’s preparations was inferior to Ruysch’s.

For instance, a customer at Seba’s sale purchased a lot that contained a “pieceof a penis, artfully prepared” by Ruysch, a preparation of intestines, a book, and amole skeleton for the sum of 23 guilders. In 1713, Bidloo’s “most charming moleskeleton” was sold for 4 guilders 10 stuivers. Human intestines “decorated withwax and mercury and a corium humanum” were also available for 1 guilder 10stuivers. A “penis siccatus” fetched 1 guilder and 2 stuivers together with “twotesticles injected with mercury.” As part of a separate lot, several “penes viriles etcanini” were purchased for 14 stuivers, even though a dog’s baculum was alsoadded. Adding together Bidloo’s mole skeleton, intestines and penis, the totalamount is 7 guilders 2 stuivers, and it also includes an extra corium humanumand the two testicles. Discounting the additional book on Seba’s sale, Ruysch’sspecimens were still worth three times as much as Bidloo’s.

Preparations of foetuses offer another opportunity for a comparison. At Seba’sauction, four Ruyschian foetuses were on sale. Three were worth roughly 12-13 guilders. A fourth one, probably in worse condition, sold for only 7 guilders.In comparison, Bidloo’s best foetus was worth 8 guilders. Another one sold for6 guilders, and three specimens fetched only 2 guilders. These numbers sug-gest again that Bidloo’s preparations were worth 1/3 of the price of comparableRuyschian specimens. In sum, Bidloo’s museum contained only a few specimens,most of which were dry and of low quality.

The Collections of Lambert Ten Kate, Abraham van Limburg and Johannes Rau

Looking at a few other sales, it appears that Ruysch’s creations were more ex-pensive than average anatomical preparations (Table 2). His name functioned asa valuable brand. As we have seen, Seba’s auctioneers deemed it important tospecify Ruysch as the maker of the preparations. At the post-mortem auction ofwheat merchant and educational pioneer Lambert ten Kate, the makers of mostspecimens were not mentioned. The only exceptions were the ivory models of theauditory organs “from the Cabinet of Professor Ruysch” and a “book of Profes-sor Ruysch” that contained prepared specimens of plants. Ruysch’s preparationswere therefore branded like Fahrenheit thermometers or Hartsoeker microscopes.Ruysch’s art was also imitated by other anatomists. The collection of the Ams-terdam physician Abraham van Limburg was sold in 1720. The sales catalogueclaimed that Limburg’s specimens were done according to Ruysch’s method.Nonetheless, Limburg’s preparations were much cheaper than the originals. Out of

208



the forty specimens on offer, 33 were sold in the end. They fetched 2.77 guilderson average, still twice as much as the 1.35 guilders for Bidloo.26

Table 2. Summary Financial Data on Select Anatomical Collections in the Nether-lands.

Anatomist Total Price(Guilders)

Number ofLots

AveragePrice / Lot

Ruysch (1717 est’d) 30000 2000 15Ruysch (1732 est’d) 22000 1300 16.92Ruysch Wet Specimens inSeba’s Collection

436.1 43 10.15

Ruysch Dry Specimens inSeba’s Collection

127.73 30 4.26

Bidloo (anatomicalpreparations)

177.4 131 1.35

Bidloo (wet animalspecimens)

276.7 149 1.86

Bidloo (kidney stones) 18.75 24 0.78Bidloo (bones, skeletons) 117.45 62 1.89Limburg 91.4 33 2.77Rau Donation 471 N/A

My last example shows that the anatomical collections of Ruysch’s other crit-ics were also considerably smaller and less valuable than the Ruyschian museum.Johannes Rau’s museum contained 476 specimens at his death, which were storedin one small and two large cabinets. Like Bidloo’s, this collection was not de-signed for the entertainment of visitors, either. When the German traveler BaronZacharias Conrad von Uffenbach visited, he wrote in his diary that Rau’s collec-tion was “not for decoration, but for use.” Uffenbach also complained that severalbottles of wet specimens were only partially filled with alcohol, conjecturing thatthe anatomist wanted to save on the expensive liquid.27

26 For Ruysch’s specimens, see “’t Gestel van ‘t oor en de gehoor-deelen van yvoir, uit het Cabinetvan den Heer Professor Ruysch” and “Een Boekje van den Heer Professor Ruysch; waerin17 Sceletons van Bladen etc.” Ten Kate, Catalogus, 88 and 96. On Limburg’s collection, seeLimburg, Musaeum.

27 “Er haette seine Sachen nicht zum Zierrath, sondern zum Gebrauch.” Uffenbach, MerkwürdigeReise, III, 622.

209


Dániel Margócsy

Although larger than Bidloo’s cabinet, Rau’s collection still lagged behind theRuyschian enterprise. Upon his death, Rau donated it to Leiden University withoutspecifying its financial worth. Leiden’s reaction suggests that the preparations hadlimited value. When the university curators appointed Bernhard Siegfried Albinusto make a catalogue of the collection, he was ordered to throw away worthlessduplicates and triplicates. According to the catalogue, most specimens directlyrelated to Rau’s anatomical work on the bones, the eyes and the testicles. Morethan 20% of the collection consisted of skulls: 52 skulls of adults, children andfoetuses, 42 skulls of aborted foetuses, and 9 fragments. Another 10% of the col-lection, or 52 bottles, contained parts of a complete set of the auditory bones.16 bottles of adult teeth, 38 eyes or eye parts and 33 preserved testicles were alsolisted. In contrast, the catalogue did not mention any wet preparations of embryos,or larger parts of the human body. Instead of offering a transparent representationof the body, Rau’s specimens served his particular research interests.28

Some of Rau’s preparations are still extant today at the Leiden UniversityMedical Center’s Anatomical Museum. Most of the specimens are exquisitely pre-served bones, but their arrangement does not facilitate careful observation. Severalbottles hold so many bones that they occlude each other. The largest and most im-pressive specimen is a wax-injected placenta. In comparison with Ruysch’s spec-imens, this exhibit certainly appears less impressive. Unfortunately, the wax hasescaped from the blood vessels at several points and has flooded and dyed largeparts of the placenta, making its fine qualities indistinct.

Bidloo’s Books

The epistemological debate between Ruysch and Bidloo was related to the mone-tary value of their anatomical collections. Similarly, Bidloo’s preference for booksover preparations was also expressed in financial terms. He was both an avid bookcollector and a prolific author whose output ranged from occasional pamphletsto luxury atlases. His library contained over 1800 items that were worth almost2900 guilders (Table 3). Although cheaper than Ruysch’s cabinets, the library wasnonetheless ten times as expensive as Bidloo’s preparations. The folio volumes onmedicine, or on natural history, on their own brought in more money than all theanatomical specimens. An average folio volume was worth more than a prepara-tion. Compare the prices of 5.07 guilders for works of anatomy, 4.38 for naturalhistory, and 5.4 guilders for the Classics to 1.35 guilders for an average specimen.

28 Albinus, Index.

210



Table 3. Summary Financial Data on Bidloo’s Library. Bidloo, Bibliotheca.

Book Type Total Price(Guilders)

Numberof Lots

AveragePrice / Lot

Anatomy Folio (F) 218.05 43 5.07Medicine F 208.1 67 3.1Natural History F 249.8 57 4.38Philosophy and Maths F 72.15 24 3.01Greek and Latin F 232 43 5.4Misc F 613.85 86 7.14

Folio Subtotal 1593.95 320 5.14

Anatomy Quarto (Q) 111.8 74 1.51Medicine Q 221.5 174 1.27Natural History Q 70.95 28 2.53Philosophy and Maths Q 86.45 66 1.31Greek and Latin Q 69.95 30 2.33Misc Q 129.45 135 0.96

Quarto Subtotal 690.1 507 1.36

Anatomy Octavo (8) 86.7 104 0.83Medicine 8 93.8 225 0.42Natural History 8 64.55 55 1.17Philosophy and Maths 8 21 50 0.42Greek and Latin 8 77 67 1.15Misc 8 207.6 212 0.98

Octavo Subtotal 550.65 71 3 0.77Duodecimo Subtotal 46.7 257 0.18Prohibited Subtotal 4.7 7 0.67

Total 2886.1 1804 1.6

Bidloo’s commitment to the culture of print is shown even more clearly in hiscareer as an author. He aimed to corner with his publications the same high-endmarket that Ruysch dominated in the field of preparations. His Anatomia humanicorporis was arguably the first major anatomical atlas published since AndreasVesalius. Bidloo claimed to have dissected almost 200 bodies during the prepara-tions for the atlas. The images were drawn by Lairesse and then cut by AbrahamBlooteling, one of the leading engravers of Amsterdam. An anecdote about Bid-

211


Dániel Margócsy

loo’s intended readers might enlighten the social stakes involved in the printingof the Anatomia. King William III dislocated his shoulder during a fall from ahorse in 1702, an accident that contributed to his death a few weeks later. Uponhearing about this event, Bidloo rushed to the King, holding the Anatomia humanicorporis in one hand and a skeleton in the other, in order to explain what exactlyhappened during the fall.29

The price of the volume was considerable. It cost roughly 30 guilders andwas one of the most expensive one-volume, illustrated encyclopedias in contem-porary Europe. At the auction of Bidloo’s library, the English translation of theAnatomia sold for 27 guilders, higher than any other book. It was also among themost expensive works sent to English bookseller Samuel Smith by his Europeancorrespondents.30

The atlas’ publication process was a serious financial enterprise, financed byfour different publishers including Hendrick Boom. Although it is not knownwhether it brought in a large profit, the appearance of translations in several lan-guages hints that printers in other countries also considered it a potentially goodinvestment. The original publishers came out with a Dutch translation in 1689.London booksellers Samuel Smith and Benjamin Walford contracted with Boomin 1695 to publish an English version of the atlas. They ordered three hundredcopies of the illustrations from Boom and hired English surgeon William Cowperfor the translation. For the English translation, this number was an impressive printrun, given that it was supposed to circulate almost exclusively on the British Isles.Importantly, Boom had to print new impressions off the original plates, whichsuggests that the transaction did not simply serve to dispose of remainders fromthe Latin and Dutch editions. Cowper added nine extra plates, emended the textand published it as his own work, literally scraping off the name of Bidloo fromthe title page.31

Bidloo and his publisher were understandably enraged. Significantly, Boomwas more concerned about the loss of potential profit than about the omission ofthe author’s name. He was worried that Cowper’s corrected edition with its extraillustrations would dominate the European market. A simple English translationwould not have sold well on the Continent, but a second edition could easily lowerthe value of the original version. A pamphlet war erupted and Bidloo asked theRoyal Society to condemn Cowper. The Royal Society refused to do so and it is

29 Ronjat, Lettre, 23.30 Hoftijzer, Engelse boekverkopers.31 For details of the publication contract, see Van Eeghen, De Amsterdamse boekhandel, IV, 129-

131.

212



not known how the sales of the original version were affected. A few years later,a Russian edition was also planned and a manuscript translation was executed forPeter the Great. Finally, a new Latin edition was published in 1735.32

Bidloo’s Anatomia was clearly successful among the contemporary public. Itsillustrations were copied in the second edition of Stephanus Blankaart’s Anatomiareformata, an affordable textbook that discussed anatomical topics in 700 pagesand sold for around 14 stuivers. The Anatomia reformata was well-known enougheven in the farthest corners of Europe that the Transylvanian physician FerencPápai Páriz decided to order it in the 1690s. Importantly, Bidloo did not start acopyright debate with Blankaart. The octavo edition was not a financial competitorfor the original folio, but helped spread the author’s fame among medical students.Two of the images were also included in the Italian physician Bernardino Genga’sAnatomia in 1691.33

Bidloo’s paper representations thus circulated widely in contemporary Europein various authorized and unauthorized formats. Expensive atlases could travel, bepirated, and serve as the source of gesunkenes Kulturgut. Bidloo’s cheap and dis-posable preparations were used instead locally. Looking at the scientific half-lifeof Bidloo’s works, the same pattern can be observed. While none of the prepa-rations survive today, a simple web search reveals more than 100 copies of theAnatomia humani corporis in libraries all around the world.

Conclusion

The debate between Bidloo and Ruysch has served to illuminate how epistemo-logical concerns can determine what scientific objects turn into consumer goodsthat circulate commercially. Although the two anatomists differed on almost anytopic, they both agreed that one needed to produce expensive curiosities to becomea successful anatomist with a respected social status. They also concurred that notall products of anatomical research would have a significant financial value. Yet

32 Boom said that “Ik meene ook dat u E. wel kunt afneemen dat het ons omtrent het verkoopenvan onze Anatomie niet min schaadelijk zijn zal. Wy hebben een tijd lang niet kunnen bevatten,wat’er van geweest zy, als ons nu ‘t elkens voorquam, dat’er in Engeland een nieuwe, en beeterwerd gedrukt, als de onze is: maar nu werden wy daar in verlicht: indien wy dit hadden gedacht,dat u. E. op deze wijze daar mede zoude gehandeld hebben, wy kunnen u. E. wel verzeekeren,dat u E. noit figuren van ons zoude gehad hebben”: Bidloo, Gulielmus Cowper, 8. On the RoyalSociety’s response, see Robert Southwell to Govard Bidloo, n.d., Wellcome MS 7671/5.

33 Blankaart, Anatomia; Pápai Páriz, Pax; Genga, Anatomia. For the price of Blankaart’s book, seeBidloo, Bibliotheca, 50.

213


Dániel Margócsy

they vehemently disagreed on what objects had a potential to become lucrativecommodities in the booming markets of contemporary Europe.34

Studies on the transmission of knowledge and material objects have alreadyexplored how information and objects need to be made durable to enter globalsystems of exchange. Marc Ratcliff, for instance, has argued that Abraham Trem-bley’s strategy of generosity hinged on his ability to keep microscopic specimensalive when sent from The Hague to Paris. Harold Cook has argued, in turn, thattechniques of preparation were originally designed to ensure that commoditieswould withhold the ravages of time. In similar ways, durable preparations allowedRuysch to become a successful scientific entrepreneur in the long-distance mar-kets of naturalia.35

Yet, as Bidloo argued, the art of preservation might also be interpreted asthe objectification of human life. Anatomical preparations could not capture thevariability of nature. They were rigid and static and could not simulate temporalchange. Paper, in contrast, was flexible. It also allowed for the juxtaposition ofmultiple representational techniques. Wax-injected, desiccated and boiled heartscould be displayed on the same page. Moreover, the variability of nature allowedpaper to visualize the particular details of the circulatory system, whose existencewas only inferred by reason. Therefore, Bidloo did not subscribe to the abstractingand idealizing tendencies of other enlightened atlases and opposed the mechanicalobjectivity of anatomical preparations. Instead of relying on learned judgment, heembraced the naturalism of the mental eye. When nature itself was fickle, thecreative imagination of the draughtsmen was unable to lie.

Consequently, Bidloo’s preparations failed to become luxurious goods thatwould circulate commercially. They functioned well only within the walls ofthe laboratory, where they served as disposable tools in the production of moretrustworthy paper atlases. Outside the private research of the anatomist, Bidloo’spreparations had little epistemological and financial value. The larger public couldnot trust them as faithful representations of the body, and would not consider themas worthy investments. Bidloo’s museum was not visited by aristocrats and did notelevate his social status. He instead invested in the publishing business to producevaluable and curious scientific atlases.36

34 On commodification, and the circulation of scientific objects in various systems of exchange,see Anderson, “Kuru”; Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier; Appadurai, The Social Life.

35 Cook, “Time’s Bodies”; Ratcliff, “Abraham Trembley’s”; Margócsy, “Advertising Cadavers.”36 On the history of cabinets of curiosities, see Findlen, Possessing Nature; Daston and Park, Won-

ders; Bergvelt and Kistemaker, De wereld; Impey and Macgregor, The Origins; Cook, Matters;Pomian, Collectors; Schnapper, Collections.

214



One can thus observe a dialectical relationship between paper and preparation.For Ruysch, anatomical preparations had both an epistemological and financialprimacy. They were prized curiosities for collectors in England, in the Nether-lands, in Germany and in Russia. They promised transparent representation forcenturies and around a thousand of these preparations indeed survive to this dayin St Petersburg. Ruysch’s publications served primarily to advertise his prepara-tions and had no epistemic function on their own. For Bidloo, in contrast, prepara-tions were cheap, disposable tools used locally in the process of making expensiveatlases. It was the publication of Anatomia humani corporis that spread his famein the Netherlands, in England, in Russia, and the rest of Europe. While none ofhis preparations survive, the illustrations of the Anatomia are still popular.�

� Research for this chapter has been funded by the New York Academy of Sciences Klemperer fel-lowship, the Harvard Committee on Graduate Studies Sheldon Traveling Fellowship, the Mindade Gunzburg Center for European Studies Traveling Fellowship, the Social Science ResearchCouncil International Dissertation Research Fellowship and the NSF (SES-0621009). The au-thor would like to thank Mario Biagioli, Ann Blair, Katharine Park, Benjamin Schmidt, HarmBeukers, Stephen Johnston, Mihály Köllo, Márk Somos, Matthew Underwood and Hugo vander Velden.

215

a museum of wonders or a cemetery of corpses? the commercial

Documents