Bodmer_Publication

He ascribes the few prints he was aware of invariably to the 1845 edition without
taking the two previous editions into account, thus not really recognizing Schinz’s
true significance. 29
Today, Schinz’s works on natural history subjects are all but forgotten, simply
because they are no longer of scientific relevance. But the prints he produced from
Bodmer’s images remain much sought-after collector’s items, often fetching top
prices on the U.S. antique market. But in comparison with the original Bodmer
aquatints they are quite price-worthy and a good bargain.
Next to Prince Maximilian, Schinz can undoubtedly take credit for being one
of the first to recognize and appreciate the quality and authenticity of Bodmer’s
repre sentations of Native Americans and for making them known to a large
audience in comparatively short time. But, above all, he was the first to publish
a number of the watercolors by his fellow citizen – the “Indian Bodmer” from
Zurich, as he came to be known – well before Prince Maximilian issued his elaborate
aquatint atlas. He thus triggered a decisive shift in the popular conception of
the North American Indian, at least in the German-speaking part of Europe.
The tribes from the eastern part of the country as well as the western coastal area
which once used to dominate the image of the American Indian were replaced
by Native Americans from the continent’s interior, and this has basically not
changed to this day.
Notes
1 Wied 1839 – 1841: 42 (Vol. I)
2 See Bolz and Kolls 2004: 195,
Figs. 4 – 6
3 Sievernich 1990
4 Bolz and Kolls 2004: 193 – 196
5 Joppien and Smith 1988
6 See Brown 2000
7 See his obituary in:
Naturforschende Gesellschaft
Zürich, 1863
8 Schmidt 1985: 10, Roth 1995: 13
9 Schinz 1824: 12
10 Schinz 1827: 21
11 Schinz 1827: 21 – 22
12 Schinz 1827: 26
13 Läng 1976: 129
14 Läng 1976: 127
15 Läng 1976: 127
16 Läng 1976: 129
17 Schmidt 1985: 107
18 Wied 1839 – 1841: 363 (Vol. I);
Hunt et al. 1984: 189, Fig. 191
19 Schinz 1835: 123
20 Hunt et al. 1984: 133, Fig. 133
21 Schinz 1835: 123
22 Hunt et al. 1984: 257, Fig. 260
23 Schinz 1835: 123
24 Schinz 1835: 123
25 Schinz 1840: 126
26 Schinz 1840: 125
27 See Bodmer 1991
28 Ewers 1968: 194
29 Ruud 2004: 172, 190, 228, 352;
see also Läng 1976: 127, note 1
84