Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Copyright
How many has the enormous Sphinx devoured of those who have attempted to divine its enigmas, to pierce its mysteries! What matters it? The work goes and goes
forward. The human eye has penetrated that formidable night.2
Secret, enigma and night the ocean, its mysteries and wonders: the French
natural scientist Arthur Mangin (182487) describes a mood that pervades the
nineteenth century as a whole in his extraordinarily successful work, Les Mystres
de lOcan (1864). The seas riches had been discovered; now, extravagant efforts
were undertaken to achieve dominion over its inhabitants and terrains. In the
early phase of the modern age, a panoply of passions whether scientific or
artistic, reserved for initiates or the seemingly mad emerged and enriched the
popular dramaturgy of riddling and cryptic phenomena with a demimonde of
the hitherto unknown. To be sure, talk of wondrous and strange secrets occurred
everywhere in works of amateur and popular science, to say nothing of scientific literature that prized the aesthetic dimensions of nature. But the sea, with
its unfathomable depths and extraordinary recesses, represented a particularly
significant focal point for both epistemology and media aesthetics. From the
standpoint of popular science, accounts of wondrous marine phenomena had
the peculiarity of being based upon another prodigy not less astonishing than
the former.3 We live in an age of miracles, Jules Michelet (17981874) wrote,
24/04/2015 14:23:41
Epistemologically speaking, the realm of the sea lay beyond human reach and
was accessible only through considerable technological effort this universe
must be experienced by way of artifacts in artificial worlds. In their influential book on oceanographic research, The Machine in Neptunes Garden, Helen
Rozwadowski and David van Keuren write:
[T]he oceans are a forbidding and alien environment inaccessible to direct human
observation. They force scientist-observers to carry their natural environment with
them [O]ceanographys necessary dependence upon technology create[s] a persuasive argument that the machine is the garden. That is, what oceanographers have
learned about the ocean has been based almost exclusively on what various technologies, or machines, have taught them.5
Marine worlds have to be experienced in mediated form, then. The relation between
mankind and the sea is fundamentally based on technology that transforms it so
that it may be grasped by human senses and understanding. For some time now,
historians of science have focused their attention on the emergence and constitution of new objects of investigation. For all that, it is only recently that insights
from the cultural history of media have also been incorporated for example, the
fact that generating scientific objects follows from processes of medialization, that
is, from various transformations that occur by artificial means. Hereby, a threedimensional object yields a two-dimensional view, a colourful continuum turns
into photographic image marked by contrast and so on. And since, as is well known,
media das zu Vermittelnde immer unter Bedingungen stellen, die sie selbst schaffen und sind6 or, in other words, since the medium is always inscribed in what it
lends mediatized form it is necessary to pay attention to the means by which the
sea is made available to us. This holds especially for the conditions and structures of
non-discursive media and the deictic orders they involve.7 Put still differently: for a
history of the wonders of the sea or, alternately, their exploration, unveiling or
decipherment it is essential to consider the constellations of media that enable a
given sphere to be known: what aesthetic practices, technologies and instruments
were employed, by whom and in what cultural-historical context.
It may seem anachronistic to call the sea a treasure house of modern wonders.
Dont monsters, sea serpents and leviathans number among the fears of unenlightened times? Wasnt it precisely the nineteenth century that, with its great passion
for amateur science, diffused knowledge about marine life forms, fostered the
systematic study of the ocean and witnessed the founding of the field of oceanography? Dont we now know that sea serpents do not exist? The possibilities are not
mutually exclusive; all the same, the connections prove complex and intertwined.
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
success as well as the history of modern loss more specifically, the triumphs and
failures of modern natural science and technology prove inadequate on closer
inspection. Hereby, nineteenth-century wonders of technology and wonders
of life occupy the central position. This focus makes it possible to study, in
particularly concrete fashion, the modes of apparition of wonders and the wondrous what histories of rupture and decline cannot account for inasmuch as
they follow from the interplay of continuity and change.
To be sure, the Great Debate on Miracles13 took place; all the same, research
has demonstrated that enormous influence was exercised by traditions that had
nothing to do with modernity in genealogical terms. Likewise, it is true that
Enlightenment science identified the causal relations underlying natural phenomena and advertised its success at unmasking putative wonders. Finally,
wonder indeed ceased to provide a rubric under which objects of scientific
investigation were examined. Nevertheless, it was precisely long-known objects
such as fossils, monstrosities, machines, automata, microscopic close-ups and
astronomic perspectives that commanded scientific attention in the nineteenth
century and inspired the staging of wondrous states and facts.
There can be no doubt that a transformation occurred around 1800. All
the same, the victory march of modern natural science hardly exhausted the
significance of wonders. Instead, it was precisely here, in the realm of science
and technology, that they flourished in terms of content, structure, aesthetics, as well as rhetoric. Wonders did not represent foreign bodies or carryovers
from premodern times; instead, they constituted a key feature of modernity. The
Enlightenment may have managed to exclude wonder as an explanatory category in the accelerating sciences, but the magical-mythical and aesthetic-poetic
dimensions defining it as a dispositive of experience remained unaffected.
To account for modern wonders modes of apparition, some preliminary clarification is required. What is it that defines them especially in contrast to what
is normally taken to characterize modernity? A distinction must be observed
between wonder and the wondrous. The point is to avoid the common mistake of essentializing or ontologizing wonders. Needless to say, the study at hand
does not seek to answer the question, posed time and again, whether miracles
really do or do not occur; instead, it stands as historical fact that wonders are
cultural phenomena. The matter involves representations and practices that
achieve expression or, alternately, are given form in texts, images, artifacts,
performances and stagings. Accordingly, our point of departure is that human
beings experience wonder and voice their amazement. Thus, in this study, wonder refers to a category that classifies perceptions and experiences culturally and
determines discursive positions. The wondrous, on the other hand, is understood in terms of media-based productivity that is supposed to lend expression
to wonderment, convey it or evoke it. The wondrous is distinguished by self-
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
and recurred, shifting its contents and its meaning in innumerable ways.18 At
the same time, however, one cannot overlook the fact that their account, which
focuses on elite culture, displays pronounced narrative elements. Daston and
Park do not just describe the ascent of wonders as an integral component of the
study of nature; they also present them as cherished elements of lite culture at
the end of the eighteenth century. When marvels themselves became vulgar, an
epoch had closed.19 Ever since, an odor of the popular has clung to them.20
Needless to say, such a summary and elitist assessment is problematic. Above
all, it cannot hold for the people who were responsible for nineteenth- and twentieth-century works of wonder and enthusiastically celebrated them. To be sure,
the culture of European elites offers an interesting site for exploring the relative
value attached to marvels. That said, if one focuses exclusively on the members
of the Royal Society and Acadmie Royale des Sciences, one leaves out an array of
important actors who played key roles in the movement and modes of apparition of wondrous objects: craftsmen, technicians, artists, collectors, merchants,
traders, travellers, conquerors and amateurs. The many excellent studies exploring
the avenues of exchange between elite and popular cultures include the collection of essays edited by Pamela Smith and Paula Findlen, Merchants and Marvels:
Commerce, Science and Art in Early Modern Europe (2002); Stephen Greenblatts
Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World (1991) still represents a milestone in literature on the topic. The latter work provides the point of departure
for the argument to follow, which qualifies the claim that wonder that is, the
culture of wonders wound up tainted, after 1800, by the odor of the popular.
Copyright
The Discovery and Conquest of the New World
The discovery of America, according to Greenblatt, witnessed the birth of the wondrous in the modern world. The event decisively changed European notions about
what is possible and impossible, what counts as marvellous and what is natural.
Accordingly, the following does not address what really happened, but the representational practices that the Europeans carried with them to America when
they tried to describe to their fellow countrymen what they saw and did.21 Front
and centre stands the figure of amazement, which served to convey the experience
of discovery in both emotional and intellectual terms and, for this reason, gave rise
to a particular practice of representation that enabled wonders to be approached
with a certain kind of instrumentally rational interest.22 With the wondrous riches
that subsequently flowed to Europe, reports from the New World also spread; they
invoked the experience of amazement so frequently it seems they radiated an almost
irresistible force. The manifold aspects of this process receive abbreviated treatment
in the book at hand, but paradigmantic instances serve to illustrate symbolic thresholds in a wide-ranging history. Throughout, the aim is to show how, when the New
and Old Worlds met, a neue Nomenclatur des Wunderbaren (new nomenclature
24/04/2015 14:23:41
of the wondrous)23 took the place of images of ancient, Christian, medieval and
courtly wonder as known from Plinys natural history, the travel reports of Marco
Polo and Mandeville, chivalric romances and pious hagiographies.
For the Christian west, the voyage of Cristobal Coln (14511506) marks
a caesura in many respects. When Columbus sighted one of the islands of the
Bahamas on 12 October 1492 and thought he was in the Far East, the European
Weltbild (world picture) was convulsed, in the experience of the traveller and
explorer, by amazement on a scale hitherto unknown. The wondrous encounter
initially took form as lasting enchantment and Columbus repeatedly remarks in
his journal, yo no s ya cmo lo escriba and digo que es verdad que es maravilla
(I dont know anymore how I should describe it. I say it is a true miracle).24
The entries of Columbus, the rapt discoverer of worlds, offer far more than a
description of his inner spiritual landscape. His accounts of wonder opened the
space for a new discourse of wonder indeed, at its core, almost everything he
recorded seems to be concerned with the miraculous nature of the New World.25
The ways that Europeans found to confront their amazement proved radical
and irreversible. The very first wonder that Columbus invoked did not concern
the land itself so much as possessing it. This perspective was new: in the Middle
Ages, the experience of wonder had still been tied to a feeling of resourcelessness
acknowledgement of the worlds manifold and impenetrable nature.26 According to Jacques LeGoff, medieval wonders can be understood to represent a certain
kind of cultural resistance to appropriation and exploitation.27 For Columbus, on
the other hand, amazement does not simply mean acknowledging the unusual; it
also connotes a certain excess, a hyperbolic intensity, a sense of awed delight.28
The conquerors amazement seemed to extend beyond all measure. It
entailed boundless mania for possession that could only be relieved by destroying the newly discovered realms of wonder and subjugating their inhabitants.
In 1492, Europe initiated a campaign of discovery that colonized the world of
wonders both materially and discursively. Taking possession of the marvellous
did not occur only through violence; it also took place by naming and classification confiscating, cataloguing and inventorying objects within the parameters
of European-modern science. According to standard accounts, through the conquest and colonization of the New World and its treasures, Europe entered a
new age of wonder. From the inception, it implied a revolution:
Copyright
New objects, new people and new knowledge flooded into peoples consciousness
The great period of wonder of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ad came
into being as a result of an excess of novelty, and was brought to an end, as nature
prescribes and Bacon and Descartes had foreseen, by a wave of explanation and classification Not only were the tools for preserving and developing knowledge vastly
improved, but as explorers travelled to all continents the limits of knowledge of this
planet were being reached. In a sense the age of wonder of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought wonder to an end.29
24/04/2015 14:23:41
This view must be challenged. When conquistadores shared their amazement, it did
not provoke the loss of wonder, which then vanished more and more as Europeans
claimed the world for themselves. On the contrary, in the centuries that followed,
the astonishment that Europeans experienced shook standing categories and coordinates time and again. Wonders did not cease; rather, the wondrous proliferated.
As Greenblatt observes, amazement did not yield knowledge of the other in European representational practice, but its medial objectification; the principal faculty
involved in generating these representations is not reason but imagination.30 Here
began a varied aesthetic praxis of representing wonders, lending them a degree of
visibility unknown before this time. The results were not Baroque models that
then ceased production; instead, they represented a constant feature of European
world conquest, renewed over and over by the influx of shiploads of exotic and
wonderfully strange objects and organisms until the early twentieth century.
Copyright
Because there are many kinds of marvelous, or at least many different ways in which it
manifests itself, it cannot be said that the marvelous as a cultural force expired in the
18th century thanks to the ascendency of neoclassicism or the Enlightenment. It is
true that the former established new rules of taste and that the latter preferred not to
see the world as full of marvels and mysteries, wondrous to contemplate, but as a site
of social, political, and economic problems to be solved, forces to be tamed, including
24/04/2015 14:23:41
Compared to those of earlier times, modern wonders involve the transformation and recombination of elements. For the seventeenth century, the glowing
calf s head described by Robert Boyle (162791) represents a typical object of
wonder. The item in question was altogether familiar; nor is it likely that this was
the first specimen displaying a strange radiance. Suddenly, however, Boyle and
his employees had become aware of the phenomenon. In the mid-nineteenth
century, something similar occurred when sea anemones and algae were declared
wondrous. These forms of life had led a quiet existence for centuries on the
coasts of England now, the accounts offered by natural scientists made them
into marvels to be sought out and collected.
To understand the qualification of wonder, it is important to consider the different media employed, which aestheticize that is, make available to the human
senses a natural world which would otherwise prove inaccessible. Both in the
seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, looking through microscopes
disclosed marvellous new realms. In equal measure, Baroque observers and later
nature-lovers would speak of the wonders they beheld in the tiniest dimensions.
Of course, transformation and new contextualizations occurred alongside continuities. In the nineteenth century, objects that had long counted as
wondrous e.g. fossils and monsters still featured in the canon of scientific
marvels. Even if opinion no longer held that they were the skeletons of giants or
or cyclops-skulls, but instead the remains of dinosaurs and mammoths, they continued to be presented at worlds fairs and as Wonders of the Natural History
Museum.34 In the following, it is less a matter of taking stock of modern wonders
than of describing exemplary sites and techniques of display, which bear on the
forms wonders assumed after they supposedly vanished around 1800.
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
10
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41
11
Where the wonders of the sea stand at issue, discourse both stretches into the
past, back to when life first emerged and assumed its manifold forms, and
toward the future, which promises improvement if not a return to paradise.39
The marvels of the deep provide aesthetic evidence for the law of progress in
evolutionary biology, which applies to the history of peoples and cultures as
much as to that of animals and plants.
Copyright
This study follows a monograph on the conquest of aerial space and its oceanic
dimensions;41 now, attention goes in the opposite direction: by way of exem-
24/04/2015 14:23:41
12
plary cases, it describes the emergence of a wondrous science of the sea that,
metaphorically, constitutes an entire cosmos. Comprehensiveness is not the
aim. When discussion concerns, e.g. shells, fossils or oceanographic research,
the point is not to narrate the history of shell-collecting, fossil-interpretation or
marine research especially since excellent historical treatments aleady exist on
the emergence and development of paleontology, geology and oceanography.
Instead, the items named are conceived as catalysts which, in different forms of
medialization, came to provide objects of curiosity and amazement. Standing
in for the sea, they represent the varying forms of mankinds paradoxical and
ambivalent relation to the ocean which, until now, scholars have not discussed
in terms of themes of wonder. Accordingly, the focus is how the perception and
experience of the sea, in the west, are interwoven with a particular history of
knowledge, imagination and the medial and aesthetic practices they involve.
As in the earlier study on the wonders of technology that permitted the conquest of the the skies, the concepts of wonder and ignorance are not equated.
Just as the wondrous works of technology do not imply that the technology
in question has not been understood, the marvels of nature hardly mean that
nature defies comprehension. Instead, the experience of amazement and admiration means an intensified encounter with nature in its vast and extravagant
dimensions, which only grows as more knowledge is gained (e.g. in terms of evolutionary biology). In the words of Matthias Jakob Schleiden (180481), the
nineteenth century found in the sea eine so unerschpfliche Zeugungskraft der
Nautur, wie sie uns in gleicher Flle nirgends sonst auf Erden entgegentritt (an
inexhaustible procreativeness of nature which cannot be found anywhere else on
earth).42 Especially in this context, this means rejecting historiographic clichs
of mankinds primal fear of the ocean and its forbidding foreignness which are
supposed to have dominated European culture for millennia before finally being
dispelled in the nineteenth century. After all, Egyptian and Greco-Roman cosmogonies already featured the idea of a creative, primal ocean and ascribed to it
opposing metaphysical qualities, viewing it as both masculine and feminine (e.g.
in the Greek gods Okeanos and Thetys), gently lapping and furiously raging,
a mirror-like surface and a black abyss, beautiful and terrifying and fertile and
fatal.43 The aim, then, is to observe transformation as well as continuity in the
way submarine wonders were encountered and represented in the nineteenth
century; despite all the discoveries the age witnessed, the mobility of marine
objects of wonder hardly vanished. That is: even though, following the Enlightenment and in a time of progress, the sea began to change, in the words of Jean
Delumeau, from a kind of taboo and site of fear par excellence44 into a landscape
of scientific research and investigation, this did not mean that it ceased to be
perceived as a realm of wonders and secrets; if anything, this dimension thrived
in ways unimaginable until then as it still does now.
Copyright
24/04/2015 14:23:41