Biodiversity Heritage Library - Program news and collection highlights from BHL
Blog Reel, Campaigns, Featured Books, Fossil Stories

Early Innovations in Paleontology: Gessner and Fossils

Until the end of the 18th century, it was generally believed that species could not become extinct, and despite important scientific advances in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was widely held that since the dawn of life, no new animal or plant species had been created or lost.

Furthermore, until the 19th century, the word “fossil” referred to any object that had been dug up from the ground, including not only what we recognize today as organic remains, but also gemstones, minerals, and other inorganic materials.

Finally, at the time of the 16th and 17th centuries, when the first books on “fossils” were being published, the living equivalent of many “fossil” species had not yet been discovered, making it extremely difficult to draw connections between fossil specimens and living organisms.

These three scenarios together created a daunting challenge for early naturalists trying to classify and understand fossils, and advances in each were required before true fossils could be widely identified as the remains of past life.

Conrad Gessner is one of the most influential naturalists in scientific history. Born in Zürich, Switzerland in 1516, his five-volume masterpiece Historiae animalium (1551–1558) is considered the beginning of modern zoology.

In 1565, Gessner published a short but incredibly important work entitled De rerum fossilium, lapidum et gemmarum maximè, figuris & similitudinibus liber or “A Book on Fossil Objects, Chiefly Stones and Gems, their Shapes and Appearances.” While he, like others of his time, included both organic remains and inorganic objects within his definition of fossils, he correctly recognized the resemblance of some fossils to living organisms. For instance, he recognized the similarity between several fossil echinoids and living sea-urchins, as well as a fossil and living crab. Other specimens, however, were more difficult to relate to living species. For instance, Gessner placed various fossil ammonites alongside gastropods and serpents, and the fossilized spines of cidariods he placed within his chapter on fossil wood.

In addition to correctly drawing correlations between several fossil objects and living species, On Fossil Objects represented three important innovations in the history of paleontology. First, it was the first publication in which illustrations were used systematically to supplement a text on fossils.

On Fossil Objects was also the first work on fossils that clearly refers to a distinct collection of fossil objects. The precursors to museum collections were beginning to be aggregated in university and private collections in the 15th and 16th centuries, and these collections were an important step towards ensuring that naturalists were referring to the same species as they could reference a distinct type specimen. On Fossil Objects references the “fossil objects” collection of physician Johann Kentmann of Torgau as the source of many of the objects described within the book, providing a concrete, verifiable point of reference for other naturalists.

Finally, to support research for his book, Gessner corresponded with naturalists across Europe, and thus On Fossil Objects is also the first work on fossils to employ the use of a cooperative research community. This not only helped form the first scholarly paleontological community, but also ensured that a greater breadth of fossil objects could be represented within the book.

Gessner intended for On Fossil Objects to be merely a prelude to a much larger work on fossil objects akin to his Historiae animalium. Unfortunately, Gessner never had the opportunity to write his next masterpiece. He died of the plague in 1565, shortly after the publication of On Fossil Objects.

This innovative work on fossils, which helped shape the future of paleontology, was the last publication from one of history’s most influential naturalists.

Fossil Stories

Stay tuned all week for more great fossil fun with our #FossilStories campaign, including:
Follow #FossilStories on Twitter and Facebook to learn more.
October 13, 2015by ulib-libraryjobs
Blog Reel, Campaigns, Featured Books, Monsters Are Real

The Quest for the Sea Serpent: An Oarfish or Something More?

In the 16th century, the ocean was a terrifying place. Creatures of unimaginable size and ferocity stalked the waters. One such beast was Soe Orm.

“A very large sea serpent of a length upwards of 200 feet and 20 feet in diameter which lives in rocks and in holes near the shore of Bergen; it comes out of its cavern only on summer nights and in fine weather to destroy calves, lambs, or hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles, lobster, and all kinds of sea crabs. It has a growth of hairs of two feet in length hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark brown color, and brilliant flaming eyes.”

Olaus Magnus gave this gripping description of his sea serpent, accompanied by an equally formidable woodcut, in the 1555 masterpiece Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (ca. 1557 edition available in BHL). Magnus was hardly the first to assert that giant sea serpents existed, but his prestigious reputation (he was, after all, the archbishop of Sweden), and the subsequent recirculation of his descriptions and imagery by other notable historians, solidified a belief in the existence of such monsters.

Magnus, of course, did not come up with the tale of Soe Orm on his own. The creatures he describes are based on accounts from sailors and Scandinavian locales, which in turn were based on encounters with strange aquatic creatures that became immortalized as sea serpents.

One of the earliest illustrations of a sea serpent drawn from an eye-witness account comes from Danish missionary Hans Egede, who claimed to have seen one off the coast of Greenland in 1734.

“The monster was of so huge a size, that coming out of the water its head reached as high as the mast-head; its body was as bulky as the ship, and three or four times as long. It had a long pointed snout, and spouted like a Whale-Fish; great broad paws, and the body seemed covered with shell-work.”

A drawing of Egede’s beast, and this description, was published in Det Gronlands nye Perlustration in 1741. Fourteen years later, Bishop Erik Ludvigsen Pontoppidan of Bergen published The Natural History of Norway, which relates two separate eye witness accounts of a sea serpent, one with a head that resembled a horse, and another with a snake-like body. Pontoppidan asserts that these eye-witness accounts provide “proper authorities for the real existence of this creature.”

Descriptions of sea serpents with manes or growths of hair about their necks (like those of Magnus and Pontoppidan) are common amongst monster lore. This feature provides a clue to one of the animals commonly mistaken for a sea serpent: the Oarfish.

An enigmatic creature, the oarfish is the longest bony fish alive, possibly measuring as long as 45-50 feet. Human encounters with these fish are rare, but they do have a red cockscomb of spines on their head and a red dorsal fin running the length of their bodies. Fleeting glimpses of oarfish could easily be exaggerated into an encounter with a monstrous sea serpent, and, to an untrained eye, the remains of such a fish washed up on a beach could understandably resemble the sea serpent of legend.

Basking Sharks, the second largest living fish (behind whale sharks) measuring up to 40 feet in length, have also been mistaken for sea serpents. In 1808, a badly decomposed carcass washed up on Stronsay. At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural History Society in Edinburgh, it was asserted that this carcass was the same creature described by Egede and Pontoppidan, and it was given the name Halsydrus (“sea water snake”). Later analysis of the skin and cartilage revealed that the “monster” was in fact a basking shark, and hardly a monster. These gentle giants are passive feeders with a diet of zooplankton and small fish and invertebrates.

One of the most infamous sea serpent episodes spanned decades. From 1817-19, a mass of people, including fishermen, military personnel, and pedestrians, reported seeing a sea monster at least eighty, but perhaps one hundred feet, long, with a head resembling a horse, in the harbor off Gloucester, MA. There were so many eye-witness reports that the Linnaean Society of New England formed a special investigating committee to examine the possibility of such a creature.

Then, in October 1817, two young boys found a three-foot-long, serpent body with humps on a beach not far from where the sightings had occurred. The Linnaean Society declared that the Gloucester sea serpent had visited the harbor in order to lay eggs, and that the specimen the boys had found represented one of its young. They invented an entirely new genus and named the sea serpent Scoliophis atlanticus (“Atlantic Humped Snake”). Shortly thereafter, naturalist Alexandre Lesueur examined the specimen and reported that it was, in fact, a deformed common blacksnake (Coluber constrictor).

In 1819, undaunted by Lesueur’s findings, and still believing the Gloucester serpent to be valid, French-American naturalist Constantin Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz gave the creature a scientific name, Pelamis megophias, but admitted that it might constitute its own genus, in which case it should be named Megophias monstrosus.

Enthusiasm and belief in the Gloucester sea serpent continued, with repeated sightings throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (the last documented sighting was in 1962). While the identity of the creature has never been established, several candidates have been proposed, including a row of leaping porpoises, giant eels, sea snakes, whales, seals, and, of course, our good friend the oarfish. The spontaneously-created scientific name Scoliophis atlanticus is now considered a synonym of the basking shark, revealing yet another likely identity for the monster. No evidence confirming the existence of a new-to-science species off the coast of Massachusetts has been found.

Sea Serpent proponents enjoyed a brief moment of triumph in 1845 when Albert C. Koch, a German collector, exhibited a full skeleton of what he called Hydrarchos sillimani at the Apollo Saloon on Broadway. Claiming to have found the entire skeleton in Clarksville, Alabama, his sea serpent was 114 feet in length. The glory was short-lived. Harvard anatomist Jeffries Wyman debunked the skeleton as an “artfully assembled collection of bones from at least five fossil specimens of Basilosaurus, a 45-foot long ancestral whale.” (Ellis, pg. 56).

In the late nineteenth century, Olaus Magnus’ accounts were again repurposed, this time in Antoon Cornelis Oudemans’ The Great Sea-Serpent. An entomologist by training, Oudemans spent a majority of his free-time amassing a wealth of information on sea serpents, in which he fully believed. His book represents a systematic collection and analysis of the sightings supporting the sea-serpents’ existence. He claimed that all verified sightings of the beast belonged to the creature classified by Rafinesque, but that the monster was not a reptile at all but a mammal that belonged within the order Pinnipedia. Demonstrating some transformation in public opinion by the end of the nineteenth century, Oudemans’ book was highly criticized at its release. Times (London) went so far as to call it “a joke.” Nevertheless, it is an invaluable resource as record of sea serpent lore and sightings.

Does the Sea Serpent Exist?

Accounts of sea serpents continue to this day, including the still unresolved debate regarding the Cadborosaurus. Many have been unquestionably linked to known species, while others are associated with likely candidates.

So, does a sea creature roaming the seas, seen by countless witnesses over the centuries, really exist? Yes. It just goes by the more common name of Oarfish…or Basking Shark…or Humpback Whale…or Eel…It’s just another classic case of mistaken identity flavored with some good-old-fashioned embellishment…

Then again…

…Unlike the hydra and mermaids, questions as to the existence of the legendary sea serpent still remains. It’s a favorite topic within cryptozoology. The rediscovery of the coelacanth in 1938, believed extinct for 70 million years, and the discovery of the megamouth shark in 1976, leads many proponents to insist that an undiscovered marine titan, or a surviving dinosaur, is yet to be found.

Does an unidentified species of untold length, serpentine in appearance, lurk in the ocean depths, waiting to be discovered? Only time will tell…though we’d venture to guess it does not come ashore at night to feast on livestock….

More Monsters Are Real fun!

Reference:

  • Ellis, Richard. Monsters of the Sea. New York: Alfred A. Knopp, Inc., 1994. Print.
October 29, 2014by michelle.underhill
Blog Reel, Campaigns, Featured Books, Monsters Are Real

A Whale of a Tale…The Leviathan

The Devil Whale

In the 6th century AD, St. Brendan, an Irish cleric, and eighteen other monks, sailed out from Ireland to cross the ocean. Amidst their journey, they came upon a black, treeless island and decided to make camp for the night. Several monks set up a cooking station and lit a fire. And then the island began to move. Terrified, the monks fled back to their boat, leaving the food and fire behind. St. Brandon urged them not to be afraid; it was simply the great fish Jasconius, “which laboreth night and day to put his tail in his mouth, but for greatness he may not” (Navigatio sancti Brendan abbatis, 9th century, translated from Latin).

Gessner describes Jasconius by another name: the Trol whale or Devil Whale, which lies asleep in the water and is often mistaken for an island by hapless sailors. Gessner was likely inspired by Magnus, who claims that the whale’s skin is like sand, lending to its confusion with a beach. When the whale is disturbed by the sailors’ dinner fires, it sinks, causing such a whirpool that the ships themselves are often sunk.

For centuries, men have imagined all manner of aquatic monsters. The ocean was a strange and foreign place, and even several hundred years ago, was very little explored. “If the very body of the ocean presented a fearsome aspect, with its dark, roiling waters, its threatening visage, and its intimidating vistas, its occupants were the quintessence of terror,” wrote marine biologist Richard Ellis in his book Monsters of the Sea. “The landlubbers’ only contact with the large creatures of the sea was at best sporadic and often completely incomprehensible” (Ellis, pgs. 193-194).

This sporadic contact spawned tales of horrible beasts. Quite often, these horrible beasts were, in truth, cetaceans.

The Sperm Whale: Chief Among the Leviathans

Even before sailors encountered whales in the ocean, washed up carcasses, sometimes badly mutilated, ignited a fear of the creatures of the deep. According to Ellis, “the sperm whale, with its mysterious habit of stranding on shallow beaches, was probably responsible for many of the legends and myths of sea monsters.” (pg. 194).

The record of sperm whale strandings is quite dramatic. Quite often, they are stranded en masse. For instance, in 1723, seventeen whales were stranded ashore the Elbe River in Germany. In 1784, thirty-one made landfall in Brittany. In 1888, sixteen washed up in Cape Canaveral, and in 1974, 72 were found on the coasts of New Zealand.

A variety of circumstances can result in a stranding, including rough weather, illness or age, difficulty giving birth, hunting mishaps, or even attempts to rescue another whale in distress.

The sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) is a strange animal, even among whales. The largest toothed whale, and toothed predator, in the world, the sperm whale holds many records. It has the longest intestinal tract and largest brain in the animal kingdom. It also has the largest nose of any animal and cavities within its head hold reservoirs of liquid wax called Spermaceti. This behemoth can reach up to 67 feet long and weigh as much as 125,000 pounds!

A Whole Order of Leviathan Inspiration

While their strange appearance and prolific beachings likely inspired many monster stories, sperm whales are not the only cetaceans that natural history writers had contact with. For instance, a blue whale – the largest animal to have ever lived – is documented as having come ashore as early as 1692, in Scotland. A 95-foot specimen was placed on exhibit in Europe in 1827, “further enhancing the image of the whale as a gigantic monster” (Ellis, pg. 197). Interactions with right whales, bowheads, baleens, and orcas also inspired Leviathan legends.

Whales From Hell

The range of monsters inspired by cetaceans is charmingly diverse, including many varieties in addition to the Devil Whale. Most are likely the result of an amalgamation of many species, and some (like the Devil Whale) may also have been shaped by religious undercurrents.

Pristers

Pristers are found in multiple forms throughout Carta Marina and in many subsequent publications. Magnus actually identified these beasts as whales, describing them as “two hundred cubits long, and very cruel.”

The common feature among them is the presence of two blowholes, most often acting as water cannons drowning unlucky vessels. Magnus warns, “to the danger of Sea men, he will sometimes raise himself beyond the sail yards, and cast such floods of waters above his head, which he had sucked in, that with a cloud of them, he will often sink the strongest ships…Sometimes, not content to do hurt by water only…he will cruelly over throw the ship like any small vessel, striking it with his back, or tail.” If that isn’t bad enough, Magnus also claims that it has a mouth like a Lamprey, “whereby he sucks in his meat or water.”

How can such a beast be defeated? Not by cannon-fire. Magnus warns that the beast’s layer of fat is too thick for such absurdities. Instead, try sounding a trumpet, which will startle the monster, or dump some empty barrels in the ocean, with which the creature will become distracted and stop to play.

What species is this monster likely based on? Well, Baleen Whales do actually have two blowholes, and Magnus refers to the beasts as Physeter. The modern-day suberfamily including sperm whales is Physeteroidea.

The Ziphius

“The sword-fish is like no other, but in something it is like a whale. He hath as ugly a head as an Owl; his mouth is wondrous deep, as a vast pit, whereby he terrifies and drives away those that look into it. His eyes are horrible, his back Wedge-fashion, or elevated like a sword. His snout is pointed. These often enter upon the Northern Coasts as Thieves and hurtful Guests, that are always doing mischief to ships they meet, by boring holes in them, and sinking them.”

Thus Magnus describes the Ziphius (translation via John Ashton’s Curious Creatures in Zoology (1890)), whose name comes from the Greek xiphias, meaning sword (recall Magnus’ comparison of its fin to a sword). This bizarre, owl-headed creature is depicted with a seal in its jaws. This, and the shape of the fin, suggest that the monster may be based on an Orca. A Great White Shark has also been suggested.

And the porcupine-fish attacking the Ziphius? Jury’s still out on that one…

The Case for the Leviathan

We all know whales are real, and we know that they can grow to extraordinary sizes (the largest size on earth, in fact). They have even been documented to attack and sink ships (for instance, in 1820, the vessel Essex was sunk by a sperm whale), so those crews wishing to harpoon a whale has reason to be cautious.

Does the Leviathan exist? Yes. Even within the sixteenth century writings of Magnus and Gessner, Leviathan monsters such as Devil Whales and Pristers are identified as whales. However, are you likely to mistake a whale for an island and try to cook your dinner on it? Is a whale prone to kill a human simply for the fun of it? Probably not.

As is the case with all monsters inspired by real animals, limited – and sometimes dramatic (think witnessing a breaching near your boat for the first time, or stumbling upon the decomposing corpse of a sperm whale) – contact with these mammals fueled fear and sensationalism, resulting in harrowing tales of great beasts roaming the oceans.

But, in the end, a Leviathan, by any other name, is simply a whale (or perhaps an Orca) and most definitely not a monster.


References:

October 28, 2014by michelle.underhill
Blog Reel, Campaigns, Featured Books, Monsters Are Real

Monsters Are Real…

They just look a little different in the light of day. 

“HIC SUNT DRACONES.”

This phrase translates from the Latin as “here are dragons.” It is etched on the eastern coast of Asia on one of the oldest terrestrial globe maps, the Lenox Globe, dating to 1510.

Though the phrase itself is found on only one other historical artifact, a 1504 globe crafted on an ostrich egg, the depiction of monsters and mythological beasts are common on early maps. They crop up most commonly in the unexplored reaches of the oceans, warning would-be explorers of the perils of these unknown territories.

One of the most famous of these maps is Olaus Magnus’ Carta Marina, drawn in 1527-39. A detailed map of Scandinavia-one of the oldest ever created-it depicts the Norwegian Sea as so teaming with monsters that it would seem impossible to escape these waters uneaten.

Magnus (1490-1557) was the Catholic archbishop of Sweden and a prominent historian. His travels brought him farther north than any of his contemporary European intellectuals, lending a great deal of perceived credibility to his accounts and publications. In 1555, Magnus published Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (“A Description of the Northern Peoples”), which not only related the history, customs, and beliefs of the Scandinavian people, but also reprinted and described the creatures found on Carta Marina. His standing and reputation secured the widespread acceptance of his stories.

Olaus’ descriptions and drawings were copied repeatedly, with little to no modification, for centuries by such historical titans as Conrad Gessner (whose Historia Animalium, replete with Magnus’ drawings, is the first modern zoological work attempting to describe all known animals), Edward Topsell, Ulisse Aldrovandi, and John Jonstonus. Such repurposing ensured that these creatures were ingrained in the public mind as truth. And over the centuries, many new monsters were added to the mix as well.

Creating Myth from Reality

Where did the accounts of monsters come from in the first place? Were they simply fairytales invented to scare curious minds and small children?

Henry Lee, who wrote extensively on sea creatures and monsters, emphasized that many classical monsters are not simply pure myth. In his publication Sea Fables Explained (1883), he wrote, “…the descriptions by ancient writers of so-called ‘fabulous creatures’ are rather distorted portraits than invented falsehoods, and there is hardly any of the monsters of old which has not its prototype in Nature at the present day.”

How did these “distorted portraits” come about? By the 1500s, extensive European oceanic exploration was still limited, and the fauna that called these places home remained virtually unknown. Publications by Magnus and those who copied him represented some of the first attempts to systematically aggregate and describe these animals. More often than not, their information came not from first-hand observations, but from sailors’ accounts of mysterious encounters while at sea. Less often, the decomposing remains of a washed-up carcass also fueled confidence in the existence of these terrible beasts.

Sailors, or those unlucky beachgoers who had the misfortune to stumble upon a rotting basking shark, had no experience with such creatures. So, they explained them with what they did have experience with – myths and legends. If they enlivened their accounts with some embellishments, that simply made for a better story. And so, an oarfish became a 200 foot long sea serpent. A giant squid became a blood-thirsty kraken. A manatee became a mermaid. Olaus and others like him gobbled up the stories and published them alongside authentic species. The more the stories were circulated and published, the more likely people were to mistake what they did see for a monster. And the cycle continued.

The atmosphere of the day also fed people’s willingness to believe such tales. The 1500s were rampant with superstition. The Scientific Revolution would not start to make headway until later in the seventeenth century. There was no division between magic and reality – the two simply coincided. Thus, there was no reason that mythical beasts could not be real. And even when scientists began to embrace the scientific method, they still struggled to reconcile previous beliefs in the supernatural with science. It would take hundreds of years of dedicated scientific study and exploration to overturn classical and common opinion. In the case of some creatures (i.e. sea serpents), sightings and questions of authenticity still remain.

Are Monsters Real?

So what’s the moral of the story? The animals that inspired such hair-raising tales as the sea serpent, leviathans, and hydra, and authenticated stories of mermaids and the kraken, are real. They just received some creative embellishments (and sometimes blatant artistic fraudulence) along the way. And in a world just beginning to turn away from superstition, but still inclined to embrace elements of mysticism, it’s not surprising that the tales were accepted. Besides, who doesn’t love a good monster story?

Monsters Are Real…Learn More!

October 27, 2014by ulib-libraryjobs
Blog Reel, Featured Books

Monsters, the Scientific Revolution, and Physica Curiosa

Schott, Gaspar. Physica Curiosa (1662).

From Superstition to Scientific Reasoning

The seventeenth century was a time of great advancement for science, but it also presented a curious juxtaposition between superstition and science. A part of Europe’s Early Modern period and the birth of the Baroque cultural movement, the 1600s also encompassed the early years of the Scientific Revolution, when superstition and religion gave way to scientific reasoning. Furthermore, the Enlightenment, which attempted to replace ideas based on faith or tradition with scientific method, began to take hold later in the century.

By the end of the 17th century, electricity, the telescope and microscope, calculus, universal gravitation, Newton’s Laws of Motion, air pressure and calculating machines had entered the scene. And yet, as with all great shifts in cultural thinking, the transition from superstition to science was not instantaneous. Many of the era’s great thinkers attempted to reconcile previous beliefs with new discoveries. Case in point: Monsters.

Monsters and the 16th and 17th Centuries

View Full Size ImageMany of the publications of the 17th century, while beginning to embrace scientific method and conclusions based on experiments, still also accepted fantastical explanations for marvelous occurrences. Books depicting monsters were extremely popular, and many recycled the same illustrations repeatedly, introducing them to new generations (case in point: Gessner hydra, 1560; Aldrovandi hydra, 1640; Joannes Jonstonus hydra, 1657). Furthermore, global exploration had begun on an unprecedented scale, and those that traveled published accounts of biodiversity from regions they visited. However, they recorded not only the creatures they saw with their own eyes, but also those described by locals – many of which were beings of myth and folklore. While fantastic to us today, for most during this time, there was no division between magic and reality – they simply coincided. Thus, these fabulous beasts could be a reality. Many were based on briefly-glimpsed real creatures given religious or superstitious twists. What’s more, many “monsters” heralded during the time were actually humans or animals with deformities.

For example, Ambroise Paré, a surgeon of the 1500s, authored “the” monster book of the Renaissance: Des Monstres et Prodiges (1573). Translating to “Monsters and Marvels,” the work depicted malformed humans and animal-human hybrids. Conjoined twins were a popular example of human “monsters.” For instance, Paré illustrates a pair of 15th century female pygopagus conjoined twins that were exhibited in Italian cities for curious spectators.

Gaspar Schott: Jesuit, Mathematician, Natural Historian, Monster Authority

An exceptional example of the “monsters” proliferated during the 17th century can be found in Gaspar Schott’s Physica Curiosa. Schott (1608-1666), a German scientist and Jesuit, specialized in the fields of physics, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He wrote extensively on the mechanical developments of his time, and produced the first published account on Otto von Guericke’s experiments on vacuums. His most famous works include Magia Universalis, Technica Curiosa, and Physica Curiosa – essentially encyclopedias magical, mechanical, and natural history knowledge. Schott was a great compiler, and relied on an extensive library for his own research. Most of Schott’s publications are aggregations of the writings and research existing on various topics.

Physica Curiosa

Physica Curiosa is an encyclopedia of the natural sciences of the age. In keeping with Schott’s character, it compiles many of the illustrations and literature previously published. As with many natural history publications of the era, it depicted fantastical creatures alongside real ones. Divided into twelve books, the first six books (digitized by the Smithsonian Libraries) are devoted to “miraculous” subjects, including Demons and Angels, spectres, demonic possessions, human and beastly monsters, and portents. The last six books deal with the “marvels” of nature – real creatures from exotic locales, such as elephants and rhinos.

Physica Curiosa‘s target audience was other scholars, educators, and the rich nobility of the time, as this was the demographic that could afford the publication. Though books were beginning to be more prolifically published in relation to the previous century, they were still made by hand and very expensive. The illustrations in this work are copper engravings, which were very practical for scientific illustration as they allowed for much more detail than wood blocks. A single printing of 500-1,000 copies concluded the run of this publication.

Monsters

Physica Curiosa begins with a discussion of diabolical magic – that of demons. In his publication Magia Universalis, Schott wrote that magic was once an honorific practice, but that legitimate magic was corrupted after the flood. The remaining natural magic was likely the result of a pact with a demon and was prohibited. He also asserts that demons are the cause of many of the world’s “monsters.”

Physica Curiosa not only depicts deformed humans as monsters, but also Centaurs, Satyrs, Monk and Bishop Fish, and Sea Devils, to name a few. Human deformities as monsters has been discussed at length, but many other creatures presented by Schott exemplify the practice of misrepresenting real creatures, or imposing religious elements on natural entities. For example, the monk and bishop fish, which were popular beings illustrated throughout the 16th-17th centuries, demonstrate how religious tensions resulted in the association of clerical figures with monsters. Nevertheless, many authors still purported these creatures to be real. In the late 1600s, Johann Zahn wrote that the bishop fish he illustrated in Specula Physico-Mathematico-Historica was fished out of the Baltic Sea in 1531.

The Sea Devil was also a popular monster, which Conrad Gessner, in the 16th century, recorded as having been captured in both Norway and Rome. Historians today postulate that this creature was actually based on the monk seal. Seals were extremely disliked by both fisherman and farmers as nuisances. Aristotle recorded accounts of seals raiding orchards, which Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi maintained.

Reality…Kind of

While Schott clearly saw a distinction himself between fantastical creatures and those found in the natural world (as evidenced by the division within his book), he still asserts some incredible beliefs associated with real animals. For instance, he claims that “both fish and bird are made from water,” barnacle geese are born from rotting wood, and that angels may have carried men and animals to the New World and distant islands. This demonstrates the tie between magic and science that still permeated Baroque Europe.

Impact on Science

It may seem, with extensive conversations about diabolical magic, demons, and monk fish, that Physica Curiosa is little more than a perpetuation of the superstition that characterized the Dark Ages. But believe it or not, Physica Curiosa played an important part in the development of scientific reasoning. For instance, while it still purports some “mystical” explanations for certain miraculous events, Schott also condemns a great deal of the accepted superstitions of the time. For instance, he discredits the use of divining rods to locate treasure, rejects the notion that a corpse bleeds in the presence of its murderer, and condemns drinking the blood of one’s beloved in order to cure infatuation. Indeed, within Physica Curiosa, Schott writes regarding many accepted beliefs, “I do not approve of all, because I know that some are doubtful, if not false; others superstitious; others perhaps even manifestly false.” Schott also acknowledges that many unexplained phenomena may indeed be scientifically true when he “implores the reader not to be so inhuman as to refuse to believe anything unless he sees it with his own eyes, [as] many things which antiquity thought fabulous are now proved true by frequent experiment.”

Thus, Physica Curiosa represented a critical step along the journey of accepting science over superstition. Furthermore, this work and the others of its time, by aggregating the fanciful beliefs of the era in a single publication, presented an excellent body of work against which those of the Enlightenment could react. By comprehensively recording what was accepted as truth during the time, the authors made it easier for future scholars to pinpoint and address widespread, unscientific doctrine.

In conclusion, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were a fascinating time in history, as we watch science battle superstition, and see scholars like Schott struggle to make sense of their cultures and their reasoning. Monsters were a inherent part in this discovery process. Deciphering truth from myth, and exploring medical and natural explanations for the unexplained, is what science is all about.

Physica Curiosa Illustrations

You can see more books about the Curious and the Bizarre in BHL. See a collection of fascinating “monster” illustrations in Flickr. See illustrations from the first six parts of Physica Curiosa in Flickr.

Special thanks to Lilla Vekerdy, Head of Special Collections, Smithsonian Libraries, for her consultation on this post. The Smithsonian Libraries’ collection contains 16 books by Schott. The version of Physica Curiosa digitized for BHL is from the Smithsonian Libraries’ collection.

References

  • Gillispie, CC. “Schott, Gaspar.” Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1980.
  • Thorndike, L. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1923. 596-608.
  • Michon, Scott. “Sea Monsters.” Strange Science, 16 May 2013. 17 May 2013. http://www.strangescience.net
May 24, 2013by michelle.underhill
BHL News, Blog Reel

Natural Histories: Exploring Rare Books and Scientific Illustration

Have you ever wanted to browse the stacks of a rare book library? To explore the pages of Gessner’s sixteenth century masterpiece Historiae Animalium and ask an expert why a walrus is illustrated with wing-like appendages? Or study Alexander Wilson’s passenger pigeon illustration and learn from a rare book authority the scientific implications of the depictions of now-extinct species?

Of course, you can examine the digital surrogates of many incredible rare books on BHL, but where can you go to get expert knowledge of the importance of these titles, or even understand what these authors of long-ago wrote in the first place if you can’t read Latin?

The American Museum of Natural History can help you get answers to some of your burning rare book questions. A new book, Natural Histories: Extraordinary Rare Book Selections from the American Museum of Natural History, provides insight into a selection of spectacularly illustrated volumes from the AMNH’s rare book library. The work, edited by Tom Baione, the Harold Boeschenstein Director of Library Services at AMNH and BHL Institutional Council member, features 40 essays from museum curators, scientists, librarians, and other experts discussing each rare book’s unique qualities and scientific contributions. Furthermore, Natural Histories includes 40 “suitable-for-framing” prints selected from the illustrations found within the rare tomes discussed.

The books highlighted in Natural Histories span from the 16th century to the early 20thcentury and include such critical works as Gessner’s Historiae Animalium, Robert Hooke’s Micrographia, Alexander Wilson’s American Ornithology, Ernst Haeckel’s Kunstformen der Natur, and John James Audubon’s The viviparous quadrupeds of North America. According to Baione,

Natural Histories came about because we wanted to let people know about our rich rare book collection, which contains more than 14,000 volumes and is used by researchers from around the world and includes many unique and hard-to-find volumes.

Natural Historiesfocuses in particular on the importance of the scientific illustrations found within each rare book discussed. As Baione articulates,

In the days before photography and printing, original art was the only way to capture the likeness of organisms, people, and places, and therefore was the only way to share this information with others. Printed reproductions of natural history art enabled many who’d never seen an elephant, for instance, to try to begin to understand what an elephant looked like and how its unusual features might function…I hope this collection of essays and plates will give readers a better understanding of the science behind these works and an appreciation of the art illuminating their pages.
The best part is, you can own your own copy of Natural Histories today. Dazzle your friends with the knowledge you’ll glean from the book’s essays and spruce up your décor by framing the 40 extraordinary prints included within it! Once you get your copy, read it with the Internet at your fingertips, so that you can not only learn about these books, but also explore many of them page-by-digital-page in BHL.  It’s the next-best thing to viewing the works in person.
Learn more about Natural Histories in an interview with the book’s editor, Tom Baione, below. And, if you find yourself at the American Museum of Natural History this summer, be sure to check out the Natural Histories exhibit, which will open in June.
January 29, 2013by Grace Costantino

Help Support BHL

BHL's existence depends on the financial support of its patrons. Help us keep this free resource alive!

search

About BHL

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is the world’s largest open access digital library for biodiversity literature and archives. BHL operates as a worldwide consortium of natural history, botanical, research, and national libraries working together to digitize the natural history literature held in their collections and make it freely available for open access as part of a global “biodiversity community.”

Join Our Mailing List

Sign up to receive the latest news, content highlights, and promotions.

Subscribe Now

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 319 other subscribers

Subscribe to Blog Via RSS

Subscribe to the blog RSS feed to stay up-to-date on all the latest BHL posts.

Access RSS Feed

Inspiring Discovery through Free Access to Biodiversity Knowledge.

The Biodiversity Heritage Library makes it easier than ever for you to access the information you need to study and explore life on Earth…for free, anytime, anywhere.