Te Martyrdom of Heinrich Vogtherr

Gabi Schafzin
21 July 2014
HSCI S-154
Early study of anatomy required practices which found varied acceptance across Renaissance
Europe. In fact, the dissection (and, sometimes, vivisection) of animals and humans was an
uncomfortably popular practice in both Italy and The Netherlands, often attracting crowds to
specially built anatomical theaters. But where those theaters and the practices within were not
allowed, anatomists, surgeons, and barbers required other ways to familiarize themselves with
the inner-workings of the human body. Artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius,
Heinrich Vogtherr, and others sought to create representations that would be both accurate and,
where necessary, stand in for the lack of real-world object. Vogtherrs work, in particular, seeks
to mimic the dimensionality of the human body through a technique pioneered by the artist
himself. It is not the novelty of his creations, however, that is of primary interest. Rather, in a
time when becoming one with nature was of high value to the artist, Vogtherr did just that,
offering himself up as a martyr in the effort to depict accurately the human body.

Heinrich Vogtherrs Anatomies (fig 1)
are a set of two figuresone male, one
femalesurrounded by visual
representations and textual descriptions
of the organs in each human body. The
pieces are particularly notable for the
way in which those organs are put on
display within the human figures:
through flaps, adhered to the sheet of
gure 1
linen in layers. Viewers of the illustrations can navigate through the inner-workings of a human
body by browsing each layer, beginning by lifting up the torso, followed by the various organs
within (veins, liver, spleen, heart, lungs, etc.).

The works themselves were produced by the artist in his printshop in Strasbourg c.1538, and use
a combination of woodcut illustrations with hand-drawn color inking for the human bodies and
their organs, as well as metal type for the textual descriptions. The two figures share many
individual parts, including the legs, arms, and general torso structure. Further, save for the
gender-specific reproductive organs, all of the internal layers are all outlined identically. This
shared simulacrum speaks to the artists choice of medium in general by illustrating a cost and
time savings associated with not having to re-carve new body parts. As these objects were most
likely sold (Carlino 63), the woodcut process would also allow Vogtherrs shop to reproduce the
piece quickly and without much variation.

Because Vogtherr was both a printer and artist interested in medicine (Belkin), it is likely that he
was closely involved in the construction and reproduction of these pieces. Traditionally, the
16th century print shop was made up of a number of craftsmen, including typesetters, printers,
and proof-readers (Harvard Art Museums), but these pieces have been hand-colored
(Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints), indicating the involvement of another
individual (or team of individuals) tasked with applying the colored ink.

These two combined techniqueswoodcut printing
and hand-coloringresult in two pieces that verge on the
realm of naturalist, but come up just short. Dimensionality is
added to the piece through the shadow-lines cut into the
woodblock (fig 2), something that Vogtherr may have been
influenced to do by Albrecht Drer, who had published his
Underweysung der Messund (A Manual of Measurement)
during the previous decade (Mollendorf 7/2, Slide 14). But
the thickness of the linesa property required for a relatively
clear imprint on the press (A Brief Introduction to Relief
Printmaking with Thomas Shahan")hinders the realistic
portrayal of those shadows. The coloring, however, provides
for the inclusion of gradients (fig 3) in darker areas, adding to
the figures realism, especially in the cheeks, sternum, and
arms, though the technique is less successful when color is
placed in areas with many shadow lines, such as the eyes. The
female, in particular, lacks consistent coloring across both of
her irises (fig 4), though this discrepancy, which will be
covered later, exists beyond the shading of her eyes. It should
be further noted that, while the coloring aids naturalism on a
macro-level, a close investigation of the shading reveals areas in which the ink was placed
outside of the woodcut outline (fig 5), breaking the realism of the figure as three-dimensional.
gure 2
gure 3
gure 5
gure 4
As touched upon during an evaluation of the female
eyes, there is a distinct lack of symmetry and proportionality
in both figures, though this quality is exaggerated in the
female form. For instance, a close inspection of the womans
face reveals eyes that are not level with one another, irises that
are not colored similarly, and a cheek bone that seems to
protrude on her left, but not her right side. Certainly, the
human form is not perfectly symmetrical, and so one might be
able to interpret these shortcomings as purposeful and
naturalistic, but the extreme to which they are visible creates
an uncomfortable viewing experience, one that indicates a
lack of attention to the true form. This asymmetry is not as
extreme in the male figure, whose face does not suffer from
the same contortions as the female form (fig 6). Further, his
pectoral muscles, abdomen, and legs (save for the awkwardly
perspectivized feet) seem to model the muscularity of ancient roman gods, as often portrayed
in sculpture form. His belly bloats ever so slightly around the organs (fig 7), a quality which may
be attributed to the fact that the scale of the organs is capped on the small-end by the limitations
of the woodcut process. Because of his muscular stature, however, this bloating is not very easy
to notice offhand.

gure 6
gure 7
The female form, on the other hand, begins to suffer significantly from the frugality of its creator
at this point of comparison. Because the male and female must share torso, arms, and legs, much
of her figure is thrown well out of proportion, strongly disrupting any chance at a naturalist
representation. Her breasts seem to float nonsensically on her chest, sitting well above her
swollen belly, that is itself perhaps an indication of pregnancy (especially possible considering
the presence of a small human form inside her uterus). The size of her breasts, however, and the
awkward shadowing on her abdomen (which make it look, ironically, almost flat) create
inconsistencies in supporting this theory. Finally, her arms and legs are extremely muscular,
something that, while contemporary representations of the female form may exhibit without
raising any questions, is highly unlikely in a time when most females (at least, those of the lower
classes) were not participants in sport (Howell and Howell 30).

These striking inconsistencies leads one to question the artists emphasis on frugality over
realism (orif one is to admit his or her contemporary biasesfairness to the female form). For
instance, could Vogtherr have designed some organs to be present only around the body, rather
than in, precluding the need for the complicated and expensive flap system? Perhaps, but in
doing so, the main motivation to create these sheets would have most likely been jettisoned.
Specifically, as an artist interested in medical learning in 16th century Germany, Heinrich
Vogtherr had very little, if no access to the human dissections occurring in The Netherlands and
Italy. As such, adding dimensionality to a portrayal would have been an extremely novel concept
indeed, Vogtherrs flap anatomies are considered the first such flap-based illustrations of the
human body (Osborn). By layering the organs (albeit out of order as they exist in a normal
human body), Vogtherr sought to convey a knowledge that was not widely available.

Further, an investigation of the text that accompanies the illustrations supports this theory. While
each organ is labeled in Latin, their descriptions are in vernacular Germanindicating that the
pieces were meant for those who were not necessarily academic or learned (Carlino 63), a large
swath of the population. This is not to say that Vogtherr disregarded the importance of including
the Latin namean action that seems to mirror Leonhart Fuchss approach when he sought to
stem any confusion about the names of the organisms in his 16th century documentation of
plants. As paraphrased by Sachiko Kusukawa, confusion of names means confusion of things
That is, special care was needed in attributing powers to plants, since a false attribution could
endanger life (413). As Vogtherrs piece was most likely used by surgeons and barbers, a
concern over life endangerment would certainly have been a valid one. Both of these strategies
layering the organs as if the artist had been present at a dissection itself and the integration of
detailed, accessible text with the illustrationsindicate an emphasis on imago contrafacta on the
part of the artist. That is, he wished to become one with nature by bringing what he felt was an
accurate representation of that same nature to a broad audience (Mollendorf 7/9, Slides 29-30).
No other element of the anatomies provide stronger evidence for this, however, than the human
forms themselves, specifically their faces and the poses in which they were placed.

Contemporary viewers may find unsettling the inclusion of dissected organs in a figure that is
clearly still alive: both man and woman have their eyes open and their bodies in deliberate repose
the female has even taken the time to stylishly arrange her hair. Certainly, if dissection was not
commonplace in 16th century Germany, vivisection was not something to even be considered, let
alone practiced. Why then the choice to include a living dissection subject? A return to the
primary goal of imago contrafactafor the artist to be one with naturepoints in the right
direction, as does an investigation into the artist himself. As seen in a 1547 self-portrait of
Vogtherr (fig 8, Blanchard 2), the male figure in the anatomies bears a striking resemblance to
the artist. Placing the two side-by-side (fig 8a, horizontally flipped for comparison) reveals that
the artist and the dissection subject are, if not the same individual, quite closely modeled after
similar figures. One of Vogtherrs most famous works was a booklet he created for artists who
could not afford the time or money to travel to a human model (Belkin), and so he drew detailed
studies of various body parts; he was not a craftsman who struggled with portraying the human
form. And yet he used his likeness for this project. Heinrich Vogtherr became one with nature in
his flap anatomies by showing his anatomy.
1
gure 8
gure 8a
This may also provide insight into the disgured form of the female gureperhaps Vogtherr
1
sought to save money by hiring neither a male, nor female model for the pieces and was not
working from nature when arranging her external anatomy.
Imago contrafacta is exhibited further by a brief
investigation into the story of the woodblocks which
Vogtherr used for the prints. According to Andrea Carlino,
author of Paper Bodies: A Catalogue of Anatomical
Fugitive Sheets , the artist eventually left the blocks for use
2
by another printer, Jacob Frilich, who produced a Latin
version of the sheets. The blocks were then copied by a
number of other artists and printers who used them as
templates for the flap anatomy form, which had, by then,
grown in popularity (63). Perhaps by accident, or perhaps
quite purposefully, the face of Vogtherr became the face of
the male figure in flap anatomies.

The flap anatomies then, are exemplary of early anatomical representations in a number of ways.
In form, they are a natural precursor to the type of dimensionality exemplified by the work of
Andreas Vesalius, who sought the use of shadows and light to present highly realistic figures (fig
9, Mollendorf 7/14, Slide 17)though certainly Vogtherr falls short, especially in comparison to
Vesalius. They also follow the 1509 work by Leonardo Da Vinci to illustrate the female anatomy
without a true representation of her external form (fig 10; note the male pectoral muscles on the
female form (Mollendorf 7/14, Slide 11). Both Da Vincis work and Vogtherrs flaps show a
disregard for the true female structure, the former privileging the male figure in both the
gure 10
gure 9
The term fugitives sheets stems from a literal translation of the German iegende Blatter,
2
also ying leaves (NIH 1, footnote 1).
accuracy of the portrayal and the quality of the print (for
instance, the awkward line across the females neck where a
new block was used, fig 11).

Most strikingly, however, Vogtherrs flap anatomies represent a concept that would eventually be
prevalent, too, in the Dutch tradition of anatomical theatres, especially those described by Jan
Rupp in his essay, Matters of Life and Death. The anatomical theatre in Leiden was an art-
museum a museum of Vanitas art. It represents the ethos, shared by the artists and the learned
men, of the relativity of the human existence and of the necessity of temperance (273). By
placing living forms in a situation where the living would never survive, Vogtherrs work is a
symbol of memento mori: the reminder that everyone dies.

Certainly, the spread of accurate anatomical knowledge was a major concern of Vogtherrs and
his contemporaries. In considering the reproducibility and frugality which guided the creation of
his Flap Anatomies, the formal choices he made are put into context. But when Heinrich
Vogtherr used living human forms to represent dissected bodies, he reminds his viewer of lifes
impermanence. In using his form to represent the male, he seeks martyrdom. He becomes one
with nature by killing himself for the good of the field of anatomy. These practitioners often
saw natural knowledge as an area in which they could gain new authority and legitimacy, writes
Pamela Smith in The Body of The Artisan, all based not upon their birth nor upon their
knowledge of elite learning but instead upon their ability to undertake particular practices and
produce tangible effects of objects (19).
gure 11
Works Cited
Blanchard, Donald L. "Vogtherr's Bchlin." Documenta Ophthalmologica 93.1-2 (1997): 73-79.
Springer. Web.
A Brief Introduction to Relief Printmaking with Thomas Shahan. Dir. Thomas Shahan. Perf.
Thomas Shahan. YouTube. YouTube, 22 Nov. 2011. Web.
Carlino, Andrea. Paper Bodies: A Catalogue of Anatomical Fugitive Sheets, 1538-1687. London:
Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1999. Print.
Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints. Dir. Jennifer R. Novak. Perf. Theresa Smith.
Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints. N.p., 8 Nov. 2011. Web.
Kristin Lohse Belkin and Josef !. Mancal. "Vogtherr." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art
Online. Oxford University Press. Web. <http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/
grove/art/T090061pg1>.
!"#"$%&%' )%*+,$-. /01-2+%34 5"*+# -2 6+1 789-36%2*1 -: ;,*6"31#'< !"#$%&' ") *+, -./*"$0
") 12,&/ => ?@AABCD EFGHIB.

Maxwell L. Howell and Reet Howell. Women In The Medieval And Renaissance Period:
Spectators Only*. Sport History Review 17.1 (1986): 11-37. Human Kinetics Journals. Web.
Mollendorf, Miranda. "Lecture 4, Light and Shadow." Cambridge, MA. 2 July 2014. Lecture.
Mollendorf, Miranda. "Lecture 7, Anatomy." Cambridge, MA. 14 July 2014. Lecture.
Mollendorf, Miranda. "Organizing and Representing Nature." Cambridge, MA. 9 July 2014.
Lecture.
Osborn, Catherine. "Flipping through Anatomical Fugitive Sheets." Dittrick Museum. N.p., 26
June 2014. Web.
"Research Tools." Harvard Art Museums. N.p., n.d. Web.
Rupp, Jan C. "Matters of Life and Death: The Social and Cultural Conditions of the Rise of
Anatomical Theatres, with Special Reference to Seventeenth Century Holland," History of
Science 28 (1990): 263-287.