[On the artful, yet pernicious body. A cultural-historical interpretation of Bidloo's anatomical atlas].

Among historians of science and medicine it is well known that early modern anatomical representations, in addition to illustrating ideas on the body, also teach a moral lesson. The anatomical cabinets of Frederik Ruysch (1638-1731) are exemplary. His exhibits show 1) the divine design of the body and 2) the fragility of life and man's dependence on God for his existence. Govard Bidloo (1649-1713), in his anatomical atlas, the Anatomia humani corporis (1685), does not seem to answer this standard view on the 'moral teaching' of anatomy. It has been argued that his depictions of dead and mutilated (parts of) bodies indicate a more realistic way of representation, devoid of metaphor and morality. Yet, taking the fierce controversy between Bidloo and Ruysch as my starting point, I show that in fact there is a moral lesson in Bidloo's anatomy. It reflects two important aspects of Bidloo's Mennonite faith, i.e. the aversion against beautiful decoration and the fascination with suffering and death found in martyr stories.