Aesthetics for Birds: Institutions, Artist-Naturalists, and Printmakers in American Ornithologies, from Alexander Wilson to John Cassin Jonathan David Grunert Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Science and Technology Studies Mark V. Barrow, Jr., Committee Chair Matthew R. Goodrum Matthew Wisnioski September 18, 2014 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: Philadelphia, natural history, illustration, ornithology Aesthetics for Birds: Institutions, Artist-Naturalists, and Printmakers in American Ornithologies, from Alexander Wilson to John Cassin Jonathan David Grunert Abstract In this project I explore the development of bird illustrations in early American natural history publication. I follow three groups in Philadelphia from 1812 to 1858: institutions, artist- naturalists, and printmakers. Each of these groups modeled a certain normative vision of illustration, promoting, producing, and publishing images that reflected their senses of what constituted good illustration. I argue that no single set of actors in this narrative did work that would become the ultimate standard-bearer for ornithological illustration; rather, all of them negotiated the conflicting interests of their own work as positioned against, or alongside, those who had come before. Their diverse intentions, aesthetic and practical, sat prominently in their separate visions of drawing birds; utility, artistry, and feasibility of the images directed the creation of the illustrations. How they used their ideal ways of depicting birds changed the ways that their successors would confront the practice of illustrating birds. iii Acknowledgements With the completion of this project, I owe many thanks to many different people. Matthew Goodrum and Matt Wisnioski saw early—and very unrefined—attempts at parts of this thesis in history of science seminars. Their comments and encouragement through the project helped it to move forward. Similarly, Eileen Crist’s enthusiasm for the project provided some momentum when I found myself at a standstill. Mark Barrow read through many drafts of proposals, chapter outlines, and chapters, challenging me to make them better. I hope I’ve succeeded in that. His high standards have been a source of reassurance that the end product would be something worthwhile. The librarians and archivists in Special Collections at Virginia Tech’s Newman Library helped me handle excessively large and deteriorating books, and they let me create a display based on this work. The latter, especially, forced me to consolidate ideas. The folks who maintain Biodiversity Heritage Library are wonderful people, and they’ve embarked on a highly useful project. I’ve joked that without them I’d actually have to go to archives, but the reality is that they’ve saved me countless travel hours and travel dollars. Most importantly, Lissa, Miles, and Adele have pushed me to finish this project. Though the younger ones certainly didn’t do it deliberately, their presence and joyfulness, and all the questions kids ask, inspired efficient writing. Lissa’s patience, strength, and questions pushed this project into the final stages. Making coffee when she knew I needed some helped, too. This project is for her. iv Table of Contents Abstract……….. ............................................................................................................................. ii   Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii   List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v   Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1   Chapter 1   Institutional Standards: The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and Alexander Wilson ....................................................................................................... 12   Chapter 2   The Rogue Illustrator and His Critics: Audubon’s and Nuttall’s Ornithologies ....... 37   Chapter 3   The Rise of the Lithographed Bird and the New Negotiators ................................... 63   Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 93   Appendix:  Illustrations ................................................................................................................. 98   Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 109 v List of Figures 1.1 Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Le Serigue, male et femelle, from 98 Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, 1749-1788 1.2 Mark Catesby, The Parrot of Paradise, from The Natural History of Carolina, 99 Florida, and the Bahama Islands, 1754 1.3 Alexander Wilson, plate XLVI, American Ornithology, 1808-1814 100 2.1 John James Audubon, detail of American Flamingo and Pied Oystercatcher, from 101 Birds of America, 1827-1838 2.2 John James Audubon, Mocking Bird, from Birds of America, 1827-1838 102 2.3 Thomas Nuttall, Blue-Bird, from Manual of the Ornithology of the United States 103 and Canada, volume 1, 1832 3.1 Timothy Conrad, plate 11, accompanying "Description of Fifteen new species of 104 Recent, and Three of Fossil Shells, chiefly from the coast of the U. S.," 1830 3.2 T. Delarne, Caracara Eagle, from John Kirk Townsend’s Ornithology of the 105 United States of North America, 1839 3.3 John James Audubon, Carolina Parakeet, from Birds of America, in double 106 elephant folio and Royal Octavo, 1827-1838, 1840 3.4 W.S.W. Ruschenberger, Orders of Rapacea and Passeriae, from Ornithology: The 107 Natural History of Birds, 1842 3.5 John T. Bowen, Purple-Throated Humming Bird and Ferruginous Buzzard, from 108 John Cassin’s Illustrations of the Birds of California, Texas, Oregon, British and Russian America, 1853 1 Introduction Natural history illustration has long been characterized by a tension between aesthetics and scientific utility, appearance and purpose, form and function.1 For many nineteenth-century United States naturalist-illustrators, that tension meant an adherence to conventions promoted by scientific institutions, like the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia (ANSP). Nevertheless, many illustrators also paid careful attention to the aesthetics that were critical for reaching a wider audience. The early decades of nineteenth-century America saw two major efforts to identify, describe, and illustrate the birds of the United States. Both Alexander Wilson’s American Ornithology (1808-1814) and John James Audubon’s Birds of America (1827-1838) found success, though among different audiences. Wilson’s birds continued in the tradition of illustrators like Mark Catesby (1683-1749), whose Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands (1729-1747) was the first published catalog of North American wildlife. The British naturalist, along with those who followed, like Wilson, depicted birds in profile and on a mostly blank page, a style that reflected scientific utility. Audubon’s birds contrasted with Wilson’s and Catesby’s, focusing on artistic aesthetics instead of scientific purpose. Illustrated to the actual size of the birds—“of natural size”—Audubon’s illustrations fit one species to a page, unlike Wilson’s several species of birds per plate.2 Furthermore, Audubon eschewed the practice of stuffing his birds for illustration, and he painted them as he saw them in nature: existing with 1 Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007); Martin Kemp, "Taking It on Trust: Form and Meaning in Naturalistic Representation," Archives of Natural History 17, no. 2 (1990); Francesco Panese, "The Accursed Part of Scientific Iconography," in Visual Cultures of Science, ed. Luc Pauwels (Hanover, N. H.: Dartmouth College Press, 2006); Thomas Hallock, "Vivification and the Early Art of William Bartram," in A Keener Perception: Ecocritical Studies in American Art History, ed. Alan C. Braddock and Christoph Irmscher (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2009). 2 John James Audubon, "Account of the Method of Drawing Birds, employed by J. J. Audubon, Esq. F. R. S. E. In a Letter to a Friend," Edinburgh Journal of Science viii (1828), 48. Introduction | 2 other birds and in their natural environment. Later illustrators—that is, those who followed Audubon and Wilson—were inheritors of the conflicting ways of drawing birds.3 This project is concerned with the negotiations that occurred between the various parties involved in ornithological illustration. In nineteenth-century Philadelphia, institutions, artist- naturalists, and printmakers each embraced a normative vision of depicting nature. Believing that certain aspects of bird representation were more important than others, they promoted and produced sets of published drawings that reflected those values of good illustration. In this thesis, I argue that no single set of these actors established themselves as a standard-bearer for ornithological illustration. Rather, all of them negotiated the conflicting interests of their own work as positioned against, or alongside, those who had come before. Beyond illustration practices, this case speaks to larger tensions in American natural history in the nineteenth century. Institutionally lauded scientific practices enjoyed great success. In representing nature, though, an individual could gain recognition outside scientific societies. Regardless of which carried more intellectual weight, both aesthetics and scientific utility mattered in natural history illustration. In this project, I assume that conversations happen between illustrators, naturalists, and printmakers, through the medium of the illustrations, in the same way that writers converse through articles and books.4 These illustrations help to convey where negotiations are, especially in changes in style from one book to the next. Examining the relationships surrounding the creation of the various illustrations reveals how they developed in a particular way. 3 Jonathan Elphick, Birds: The Art of Ornithology (New York: Rizzoli, 2005); Darryl Wheye and Donald Kennedy, Humans, Nature, and Birds: Science Art from Cave Walls to Computer Screens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). 4 Lorraine Daston, "Speechless," in Things that Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, ed. Lorraine Daston (New York: Zone Books, 2004). Introduction | 3 The physical reality of illustration also matters, as does the way in which that drawings came to be. When it became permanently fixed on the page, it also became fixed in the span of knowledge. In this way, the development of a style of illustration reflected knowledge transmission and the ways information could be passed through generations. Lorraine Daston and contributors to Things that Talk focus on the discourse between objects, especially artistic objects.5 For the volume, the artistry in scientific things, such as representational illustrations, represents a conversation that bridges the perceived gaps between historians of art and of science. Discussing the importance of things to the production of knowledge, Daston identifies “things that are simultaneously material and meaningful.”6 Fruitful discussion of natural history illustrations reflects the process of knowledge production in natural history communities. One early and significant community that illustrated natural history existed in Philadelphia. Amy R. W. Meyers’ Knowing Nature: Art and Science in Philadelphia, 1740-1840 analyzed the large artistic and scientific community in and around that city. Meyers and her collaborators provide “a dynamic picture of how the visual and material interpretation of the natural world functioned not only in colonial and early republican science but across the culture of the period more generally.”7 The edited volume discusses the connections between art, science, and social hierarchies that were present in Philadelphia society. Like Meyers’ volume, this project centers on Philadelphia, where art and science centered around conceptualizations of “self-definition and communal affiliation.”8 Geographically central to the new republic of the 5 Lorraine Daston, ed., Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science (New York: Zone Books, 2004). 6 Daston, “Speechless,” in Things That Talk, 17. 7 Meyers, “Introduction,” in Amy R. W. Meyers and Lisa L. Ford, Knowing Nature: Art and Science in Philadelphia, 1740-1840 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2011), 4. 8 Meyers, “Introduction,” in Knowing Nature, 6. Introduction | 4 United States, Philadelphia became the young nation’s capital of political, artistic, and scientific life, playing a prominent role in the development of American culture.9 Though it might stand in for American culture writ large, Philadelphia hosted a localized community that produced many important sets of bird illustrations. Alexander Wilson became interested in natural history and ornithology by way of William Bartram, who cultivated an historic garden across the Schuylkill River from central Philadelphia. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia promoted knowledge of the natural world, as one of the first natural history societies in the Early Republic. John James Audubon tended to his family’s farm at Mill Grove, a few miles northwest of Philadelphia. Lithography first appeared in the United States in a Philadelphia journal, and it quickly became a favorite medium for printing images in the city. Insofar as it hosted these several prominent people, institutions, and media of illustration, Philadelphia offers a prime site for the study of developments in the history of bird illustration. We can learn about the negotiation of image-making between printmakers, institutions, and artist-naturalists in the relatively confined area of Philadelphia. The images themselves, and not solely in the context of their makers, have scientific and cultural meaning, as demonstrated by the histories of natural history illustration that have focused on those meanings. Emblematic of this idea is Objectivity, wherein Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison explore the development of the scientific standard of objectivity—the development of what mattered when it came to representations of scientific knowledge.10 As they noted, the nineteenth century’s focus on “truth to nature” illustration was a culturally accepted standard by 9 I use the culture of Philadelphia to stand in for an American culture, though other Atlantic port cities developed concurrently and to varying degrees of prominence: Boston, New York, Baltimore, and Charleston. 10 Daston and Galison, Objectivity. Introduction | 5 which natural objects could be meaningfully represented.11 The questions they ask regard the development of meaning for visual representations, continuing the tradition in science studies of addressing social construction in illustration and scientific representation.12 In a similar line, though focusing specifically on natural history illustrations in the United States, Ann Blum and Margaret Welch explore the development of zoological books within broader cultural movements.13 Blum and Welch discuss illustration and printed books as media for providing information to the masses. In Picturing Nature, Blum traces the transition in the United States of the naturalist-as-illustrator to the artist-as-naturalist, the internal struggle with self-identification for those who observed and drew nature, who would need to identify which part—art or nature—was most important in their illustration.14 Margaret Welch extends Blum’s argument to the printed book as a sort of “social history of natural history in the United States.”15 She positions publication centrally in the transmission of scientific knowledge and focusing on individual contributions to American natural history instead of institutional efforts. 11 Illustrations validated their observations through some variation on the epigraph “drawn from nature,” which accompanied the naturalist’s name. See Chapter 2, “Truth-to-Nature,” in Objectivity, 55-114. 12 Alex Soojun-Kim Pang provides a fair review of the appropriate literature in “Visual Representation and Post-Constructivist History of Science.” In it, he examines the academic treatment of images in science, with regard to the sociology of science and art history, identifying ways in which the fields are mutually informative. Alex Soojun-Kim Pang, "Visual Representation and Post-Constructivist History of Science," Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 28, no. 1 (1997). Additional works include the following: Brian S. Baigrie, ed. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996); Brian J. Ford, Images of Science: A History of Scientific Illustration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Caroline A. Jones, Peter Galison, and Amy E. Slaton, eds., Picturing Science, Producing Art (New York: Routledge, 1998); Timothy Lenoir, Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998); James Mussell, Science, Time and Space in the Late Nineteenth-Century Periodical Press: Movable Types (Burlington, Ver.: Ashgate, 2007). 13 Ann Shelby Blum, Picturing Nature: American Nineteenth-Century Zoological Illustration (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993); Margaret Welch, The Book of Nature: Natural History in the United States, 1825-1875 (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998). 14 Blum, Picturing Nature. 15 Welch, The Book of Nature, 4.