When Zoo Became Nature Copenhagen Zoo and Perceptions of Animals and Nature Around 1900

TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 22

When Zoo became Nature Copenhagen Zoo and perceptions of animals and nature around 1900

Anne Katrine Gjerløff Københavns universitet [email protected]

Keywords Abstract History of animals, This article points out central historical themes in the debates and arguments given by the conservation, directors of Copenhagen Zoo for the zoo as an alternative to nature. When Copenhagen Copenhagen Zoo, Zoo was founded in 1859, its purpose was divided equally between entertainment, perceptions of nature, enlightenment and symbolizing the glory of the Danish capital. During this period animal protection though, it also became possible for the zoo to stage itself as a kinder place for animals than “real” nature. In the early 20th century, the zoo attracted attention from animal rights movements, wherefore the debates came to be structured around two radically different perceptions of nature. The article takes its outset in the arguments formulated by the three successive directors: Julius Schiøtt, Waldemar Dreyer and Theodor Alving.

Nature in here This was a time when anthropomor- This article will investigate an institution phic and popular descriptions of animals that is readily associated with nature by were challenged by new ideas of animal most, but which in fact is a cultural phe- welfare, as well as by a professionalized and nomenon; ‘the zoo’. ‘Nature’, as presented scientific approach to zoo keeping. At the in zoos, is not untouched, authentic or same time, developments made it possible wild. Rather, the presence of animals and for zoos to stage themselves as worthy alter- many institutionalized and conscious dis- natives to an externalized nature, through courses about nature are effectuated in the the discourse of conservation and ideals zoo, making it an excellent location for regarding realistic surroundings and land- identifying definitions and perceptions of scaping for the animals. nature. The following pages will trace con- “Nature itself” will not be analyzed, ceptions of ‘the wild’ as something, which is nor (unlike Hanson 2004 or Hancocks “out there” – in contrast to ‘cultural nature’. 2001) will the attempts to recreate nature This will be done by analyzing Copenhagen in the zoo, but rather it is the idea of nature Zoo and especially its discourse on zoo ani- that is of concern, as this was communicat- mals in the decades around 1900. ed – more or less indirectly – by staff and

22 Tidsskrift for kulturforskning. Volum 9, nr. 1 • 2010, s. 22-37 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 23

commentators of Copenhagen Zoo. It will house designed by Norman Foster. In addi- be the historical discourse on the animals tion, a new “savannah” was opened and and their (place in) nature, which is the increased emphasis was placed on the main theme – not an analysis of animals as importance of zoos in wildlife conserva- such. tion. Its beginnings were humbler, but had This article therefore differs from sever- equally strong aspirations (see e.g.Bing al critical zoo-studies (f.ex. Mullan & 1984, Jørgensen 1984). Marvin 1999; Malamud in Marino et al. In the autumn of 1859, the amateur 2009), by being a historical analysis, rather ornithologist Niels Kjærbølling announced than a cultural analysis. Other zoo-studies the opening of a zoo that was inspired by have been less radical than these, such as larger and well known zoos in London and Elizabeth Hanson and David Hancocks’ Germany. Copenhagen Zoo was thus not works. Hancocks argues, while remaining founded by a scientific institution or socie- quite critical towards zoos as institutions in ty (as were the zoos in London or Bronx), general, that an increase in natural sur- nor developed from an existing menagerie roundings and landscapes in zoos may have (like zoos in Paris and Vienna). Copen - a positive effect on attaining the education- hagen Zoo was the result of private initia- al purpose of zoos. Hanson covers much tive and an ambition to create an institu- the same ground as Hancocks, but seems to tion that would enhance the glory of the equate the presence of animals with the Danish capital by providing entertainment presence of nature. These studies thus dif- and education for its citizens. The early fer in their definitions of nature at the zoo years were characterized by few and non- and in their attitudes to whether zoos can exotic animals, poor buildings and be considered nature at all, or must be cramped space, but support from the King viewed as altogether cultural (or artificial) and the government allowed for Copen - institutions. hagen Zoo to expand and become a popu- Cultural studies are not interested in lar place of amusement. nature per se, but rather perceptions, uses In terms of financing, the zoo was in and definitions of nature. This is the main constant trouble and its organisation and point in Jennifer Price’s book Flight Maps– management were problematic at best. Adventures with nature in modern America When Kjærbølling died, it was re-consti- (Price 1999). It is not nature “out there” tuted as a non-profit, joint-stock company, that is in focus for the historian, anthropol- aimed at maintaining the garden. The fact ogist or cultural studies researcher, but that the board, directors and employees nature “in here”. In this case, Copenhagen were in constant conflict regarding money Zoo may be used as a case study, which and personal matters, overshadowed the highlights the debates on these issues in the few positive developments in the last early 20th century. decades of the 19th century. Management changed around 1900 and the three charismatic directors that Copenhagen Zoo – History and back- ruled the zoo from then and until 1942, ground had considerably more power, space for ini- Copenhagen Zoo celebrated its 150th tiatives and a much better budget balance, anniversary in 2009 with a new elephant than former directors. Julius Schiøtt was

When Zoo became Nature. 23 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 24

the director from 1900 till his death in regarding animal care, hygiene and archi- 1910. He was an editor and had a passion tecture (Alving 2009, Hansen 2009). for popularizing scientific knowledge. His Schiøtt, Dreyer and Alving all had strong major journal Frem (literally “Forward”) personalities and ambitions for Copen- was influential in this regard and had the hagen Zoo. They communicated their motto: “Knowledge is power”. views and insights on the zoo and its inhab- Even though the Schiøtt-years were not itants both verbally and in writing. characterized by a scientific approach as Sources on the zoo are scarce and anec- such, they were certainly a turning point in dotal for the time preceding the 20th cen- terms of zoo-popularity. Schiøtt renewed tury. However, one is still left with an the establishment’s failing contacts with the impression regarding perceptions of ani- German animal trader Carl Hagenbeck, mals and nature for that time. The few who provided advice and spectacular col- remaining texts suggest the existence of lections of animals, panoramas and cara- similar notions of animals and nature as vans of exotic people for exhibition tainted by a schism: nature and its animal (Rothfels 2002). Schiøtt also introduced inhabitants are idealised, but the animals music, lotto, exhibitions and other enter- are spoken of as culture, not nature. This is taining activities, such as the “Eiffel tower” found both in popular magazines (En that is still the landmark of Copenhagen Naturforsker 1865, Anon. 1873, Juel- Zoo. Hansen 1874) in texts by zoo directors Schiøtt’s successor was a close friend – (Klein 1896) and by inspired poets Doctor Waldemar Dreyer – who was also (Stuckenberg 1905). an enthusiastic supporter of popular science education. Dreyer wrote extensively about zoology and other natural science Girlish bears and feminist elephants subjects in books and magazines. This body In the decades preceding 1900, Copen- of work includes Fra Naturens Værksted hagen Zoo was described as a place where (”From the Workshop of Nature”), published you could encounter and come to attain a 1912–16. Dreyer was an eager observer and better understanding of nature. Nature was commentator of developments in other tranquil, dark and hidden; a romantic zoological gardens. He admired Carl wilderness in which the animals were noble Hagenbeck and praised the groundbreak- beasts. In almost every early text on ing Bronx Zoo, founded in 1899, which Copenhagen Zoo, nature was idealized as was also committed to wildlife conserva- the opposite of culture. However, when the tion (Hanson 2004, chap.1). texts address actual zoo animals, the When Dreyer died in 1924, the lawyer descriptions swell with anthropocentrisms Theodor Alving became director. Alving and cultural references – the animals are had a long-time passion for zoos and had described essentially as humans. The young spent two years in New York training as a bear Gine is a coquette, a young girl who zoo-director with William Hornaday of wants to have fun, described as bound by a Bronx Zoo. This experience secured Alving leash, but not by marriage. The Elephants the position at Copenhagen Zoo. His main are an old quarrelling couple; the female achievement was a radical reorganisation of teaches the male a lesson or two when he the zoo according to newer principles does not behave properly. The lion king

24 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 25

keeps his females from such behaviour by a mals”) was founded in 1875 and focused good spanking (Klein 1896). Animals in mainly on humane slaughter and the plight Copenhagen Zoo were spoken of as indi- of horses in the cities. Protection of wild viduals, but also as representatives of their birds and moral education of children were kind, and thus as stereotypes. But as types, also among its core activities (Gjerløff they were ascribed character, will, wishes 2008a). and secrets. The animals of Copenhagen Zoo were Copenhagen Zoo was small and did rarely mentioned by Dyrenes Beskyttelse not feature interesting or exotic architec- prior to the 20th century, but with Schiøtt’s ture, or much beautiful landscape. What many activities and advertising of the zoo, the writers described as most popular were they came to the attention of animal pro- the animals, especially the tamed, trained, tectionists. The zoo was criticized by funny and humanlike ones. If the animals Dyrenes Beskyttelse in many cases and represented nature in Copenhagen Zoo, Schiøtt often responded swiftly and effec- then the most appreciated nature was culti- tively. He acknowledged readily that some vated and modelled by humans (Gjerløff of the zoo’s activities did not look too good 2008b, Gjerløff 2009a). for an institution that claimed to like ani- It is an interesting fact that the exotic mals. people-shows presented in Denmark One case in point was a laboratory that around 1900 (only three of them were tested rat-poison in the zoo. The laborato- actually held in the zoo), were praised for ry building was rented by a private compa- exactly the opposite. The best shows were ny, but the zookeepers had helped perform those considered most authentic, most nat- tests on live animals. In fact, the product ural, most untrained. The best animals Ratin was advertised as developed in coop- were the cultivated ones, the best people eration with Copenhagen Zoo. Schiøtt shows were the most naturalistic. Being abolished the contract with the laboratory natural was thus not in itself a positive and apologized to Dyrenes Beskyttelse (Anon word, but employed according to context. 1903, Schiøtt 1903a). This becomes even more apparent in con- Another case was a lottery in the zoo temporary texts about the animals, written with live canary birds as prizes for visitors. in the first decade of the 20th century. This sparked critique in the publications of Dyrenes Beskyttelse, including a heartbreak- ing short story about a little thoughtless girl Protecting the prisoners of the zoo and her soon-to-be-dead bird, won at the Danish animal protection movements were zoo. Schiøtt also terminated this practise latecomers in a European context. The first (Anon 1904, Jensen 1904, Anon 1906). societies were part of a broader philan- Some general concerns were not react- thropic movement, which sought to help, ed upon though and Schiøtt argued with protect and educate the marginal groups of Dyrenes Beskyttelse about the general plight society. Focus was both on protection of of the animals, which were considered animals and the creation of compassionate innocent prisoners by animal protectionists and moral citizens through information on (e.g. Fleuron 1925, Blomqvist 1912). animal protection. The society Dyrenes Animal protectionists in both Sweden and Beskyttelse (literally “Protection of Ani- Denmark found zoos as institutions to be a

When Zoo became Nature. 25 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 26

Advertising poster for of animals than that of Dyrenes Beskyttelse. Copenhagen Zoo from While the animal protectionists saw the around 1900. The text animals as victims and life-time prisoners, addresses one of the issues the zoo manager constructed the relation- that was criticised by Dyrenes ship between human staff and captive ani- Beskyttelse: “100 male harz- mals as a system of mutual responsibilities, er-canaries will be distrib- which included notion of the “natural”. uted for free, by drawing lots This will be exemplified here with three among the paying visitors cases, which were continuously mentioned during the 4 Easter holi- in the literature and debates about zoos, in days”. The poster depicts free the first half of the 20th century: the birds flying into the sky, but Imprisoned Eagle, The Feeding of the many of the canaries suc- Snake and The Natural Death. cumbed to less fortunate fates. The Imprisoned Eagle and the Feeding of the Snake No animals were more symbolic in critical as well as positive accounts of the zoo than the birds of prey. Ever since Kjærbølling (who was an avid ornithologist: an anec- cruelty towards animals and wanted them dote reports that a live kite was his first closed altogether. In Stockholm, the inspiration for the zoo), visitors had felt Women’s Society for the Protection of uncomfortable by the sight of large birds Animals held a party for the children of behind bars (Sehested 1903, Barfoed Stockholm in the local zoo at Skansen, and 1913). The eagle was the incarnation of lib- was criticized for morally corrupting the erty and power. A caged eagle therefore children (Anon 1909). seemed a mistake, indeed a perversion. Just Although Hagenbeck’s ideas about like the lion, the imprisoned eagle thus exhibiting animals were praised by the became a symbol of maimed and enchained directors of Copenhagen Zoo, some animal nature. Not having the freedom to fly protectionists were less than happy. In a degraded the bird to something other than report from the International Animal an animal; something un-natural. The Protection Congress in Copenhagen essence of the bird vanished and more than August 1911, Hagenbeck’s park and train- one visitor considered it a fate worse than ing methods were severely criticized and death. compared to old-fashioned and cruel Other animals were regarded in the menageries (Blomqvist 1912). Basically the same way, mainly large predators. These question was whether it was cruel to keep animals, considered the wildest and most animals in zoos, no matter how well they untameable, were seen as subjects of mis- were cared for. Neither Schiøtt nor Dreyer treatment by being kept behind bars. The accepted the views of zoos as cruel institu- animal rights movements of the time rea- tions. The two directors had a radically dif- soned that the zoo-visitor could not possi- ferent perception of nature and the nature bly learn anything from such unnatural

26 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 27

exhibitions. Dyrenes Beskyttelse argued that cism from ornithologists and Dyrenes a truer representation of nature could be Beskyttelse, who started a campaign to pur- created by using professional taxidermy chase protected areas for the birds. and presenting the stuffed animals in natu- The case of the melancholy eagle was a ral surroundings. A dead animal in a realis- question of two different perceptions of tic setting was considered more natural nature: one where birds could feel and love than a live animal behind bars. This was freedom and one where birds only fly high- indeed a radical argument that linked the er to eat one another. The eagle was both a zoo to another constructed nature, the nat- symbol of pride and freedom, but also a ural history museum. Also, it points to the bloodthirsty villain. discussion of what purpose Copenhagen The imprisoned eagle nevertheless kept Zoo was supposed to fulfil. Was it the ani- on provoking sensitive visitors. A most dis- mal’s character, behaviour or “essence” that turbing example is found the short story by should be visible in the zoo – was this at all the famous writer Martin A. Hansen: possible? Who was to decide what that Dialogue with the Golden Eagle from 1938, essence was; and was the zoo a museum, in where the visitor seeks out a reaction from which only the appearance and taxonomic the eagle and asks about his loss of liberty. categories of animals should be exhibited? The eagle refuses at first, but then answers Both Dreyer and Schiøtt reacted to the from inside his cage: criticisms by arguing for another, less anthropomorphic interpretation of the ani- In here are my true mountains and mal mind. The eagle’s love of freedom was abysses. Freedom! You cackle. Only here a human construct they claimed. The eagle do I know it, only here do I reign over flies only to scout and hunt, but since feed the kingdom, where my wings carried is given to it at the zoo without effort, the me in my prime, when I attacked the eagle will rest happily in the cage (Schiøtt bucks like a spear from the skies. Only 1903b). Dreyer also mentioned that here do I fathom everything! (Hansen imprisonment gave the bird a chance to 1938, 65) grow old, unlike in nature where it would be hunted by humans and compete with The visitor walks on to the small budgeri- other birds for food. He added that an gars and concludes that only in confine- eagle behind bars meant survival for many ment can freedom truly be appreciated. But small creatures in the wild. The eagle was simultaneously the visitor is portrayed with compared to a human criminal who was irony as a man who philosophizes about behind bars for murder (Dreyer 1915a: the animal’s soul to appease his own dis- 372). This was actually the way many comfort about the imprisoned eagle. hunters perceived birds of prey in the early (Hansen 1938) 20th century and Dreyer himself was a The feeding of the big snakes was hunter. The landed aristocracy culled birds another case in which discomfort was a of prey in the thousands to protect the prey prominent emotion and where audience of human hunters, like hares, partridges wishes and beliefs clashed with the inten- and pheasants (Laursen 2009). The tions of zoo directors and animal protec- hunter’s wish to exterminate the birds of tionists. Feeding the snakes was a precarious prey like other vermin raised much criti- problem at the zoo. Apparently the snakes

When Zoo became Nature. 27 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 28

would only eat live food. For this reason prey, is not an argument used by Dreyer they were fed live rabbits, mice, chickens and Schiøtt; they both pointed out that and guinea pigs. Already in the 1880s mice, rabbits and rats could not experience Dyrenes Beskyttelse had questioned the prac- such a complicated emotion as fear of tise of letting the snakes (and thus the pub- death. More to the point, it was argued that lic) relish in the death and fear of the prey. Danish rodents had never evolved a fear of It was not only considered cruel to the ani- big snakes, since these did not exist as nat- mal, but also a threat to public morale. ural enemies in the Danish countryside. During Schiøtt’s reign the question was The magazine Dyrevennen claimed that raised once again in several letters pub- some international zoos had stopped feed- lished in the magazine Dyrevennen (The ing their snakes live prey, but whether the Friend of Animals) published by Dyrenes practice was ceased in Copenhagen, is diffi- Beskyttelse (Sehested 1903, Barfoed 1913). cult to determine. Schiøtt claimed so These words are representative of the (Schiøtt 1903a), but Dreyer mentioned debate: feeding the animals with live food (Dreyer 1916a:317), even though he did not let it The audience gathers in droves to see happen in public. The practise was the poor mouse or rabbit’s fear of death, described in detail in the novel: The its quivering and agony before the snake Imprisoned Wilderness by the popular catches it; later to see the spasms of the nature writer Svend Fleuron in 1925 little defenceless animal, while it is still (Fleuron 1925), but with a satisfying cli- in the jaws of the snake… zoo is a max where the fictive zoo director (no hotbed of cruelty towards animals doubt inspired by Dreyer himself) was (Sehested 1903:87). killed and devoured by a large python. Today the snakes at Copenhagen Zoo It is interesting that such words were to are fed dead animals, but the rabbit’s body come from the same party that wished for has to be pushed around by the zoo keeper the eagle to be set free to hunt, and it to make it look like it moves, so that the demonstrates the broader question: is snake will go for the “kill”. Other feeding nature a loving or a cruel place? Is it not practises in Copenhagen Zoo includes more natural for the snake to eat live and complete, large (but dead) herbivores for kicking food, than to be forced to eat by the lions and polar bears. This is recognized getting the food literally stuffed into its by the staff as important for the enrich- mouth? Is it less cruel when small animals ment and health of the predators, but the are seized by a free flying eagle, than if they public sometimes reacts with disgust. As in are fed to a snake in captivity? It seems that the case of the polar bears who are some- the ideal is “the natural”. It was perceived as times given horse’s head as a snack, which natural for predators to hunt live prey, but the local newspaper judged: “...a bit too not to be fed live feed. “The natural” also natural...” (Anon. 2006). involved the possibility for the prey to escape, while such fair-play had no place in the zoo at feeding-time. A Natural Death Curiously, the argument regarding The snake example highlights a complex whether it was natural or not to use live question: What is a natural death when it

28 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 29

comes to animals? To most humans, ‘natur- this view was both hypothetical and even al death’ means a death by ageing, but is hypocritical, since most zoo animals in this also the case for wild animals? Are ani- those days actually succumbed to disease mals still wild when managed by humans? and seldom survived long in captivity. Not Even the most radical animal protectionists till later on in the 20th century did the would not deny that wild animals kill each argument become even remotely legiti- other in nature. What is important, howev- mate. er, is that many of them envision nature as Copenhagen Zoo claimed a responsi- a grand drama, a glorious tragedy, where bility to keep the animals healthy, but also animals were the heroes. The American to put them down without pain, if needed. nature writer Ernest Thompson Seton To feed the snakes with live animals was expressed this notion in his book: Wild ani- therefore inappropriate. According to the mals I have known: ”The life of a wild ani- animal protectionists, man had the right to mal always has a tragic end” (Seton 1898: use animals, but also to secure them a life introduction), but the point in the book is with only a little pain and a stress-less that the most tragic thing that could hap- death. pen to animals was man, who corrupted One illustrative case, where a zoo ani- the natural cycle of life and death in nature. mal had to be put down, was the young ele- This romantic notion of the drama of phant born in Copenhagen Zoo in 1915 nature is evident in much popular literature (Dreyer 1916b). The baby was unable to of the period – from Jack London to travel use its legs or stand and after a few weeks it accounts and fictions on human prehistory. was put down with chloroform at the Royal The animals in the zoo were evidently Veterinary School. The photo of the infant not considered wild animals or a part of the elephant with its small trunk in a bottle of circle of life by Dyrenes Beskyttelse. The chloroform makes a pitiful sight, but the Society argued strongly that man’s use of killing was rationalized as an act of mercy. animals – in every way – made him respon- In the wild it would have been easy prey for sible for them. This responsibility also predators, but in the zoo it was delivered included the right to a painless death, a from pain and its body donated to science; goal Dyrenes Beskyttelse sought to reach Copenhagen Zoo had demonstrated itself when advocating humane slaughter. to be a kinder place than nature. Copenhagen Zoo was thus absolutely Some animals even thrived at Copen- not expected to recreate the dramatic circle hagen Zoo. Eating well, mating and giving of life – the food chain. Zoo animals were births to live and healthy offspring was not supposed to kill each other or to suffer generally considered proof of animal wel- painful deaths. This was a view the direc- fare. In Copenhagen Zoo elephants, ungu- tors used themselves as an argument for the lates and lions were the most fertile. With very existence of the zoo (Schiøtt 1903b, reference to those animals, the directors of Dreyer 1915a). The zoo, they argued, was Copenhagen Zoo could stage their garden in fact a place better than nature itself. In as a paradise, where the animals were never the zoo, it was possible for animals to die of hungry, cold or hunted – in contrast to old age; they would certainly not be hunt- their relatives in the wild. In 1915 Dreyer ed by predators, and would be given med- wrote about herbivores: ical care if sick. From a modern perspective,

When Zoo became Nature. 29 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 30

One can, without exaggeration, say that These two approaches to nature were they are outlaws everywhere, that their also part of a more extensive debate around life is one of fear and terror, that they 1900, between humane activists and natu- must be on guard everywhere, sur- ral scientists, and regarded conservation rounded as they are by countless dan- and hunting (Lutts 1990) and in the field gers, and that few, a very few of them, of animal psychology between anthropo- die a “natural” death, get to live their morphism and behaviourism (Gjerløff life to the fullest, until they die from 2009b). The bone of contention was the sickness or old age. The struggle for nature of the beast: Was it instincts or con- existence is always bitter and at all sciousness which formed the basis of ani- times, even where Man does not partake mal behaviour, and which consequences therein (…) I think they would chose would the answer have for human respon- the Garden [the zoo] with it’s life of sibility towards the animals? milk and honey, the good, safe life, a In the context of zoos, this was prima- roof over the head in the cold winter rily a dispute about whether zoos should nights, a mate, or perhaps many, and a replicate one of those natures for the bene- lovingly family life (Dreyer 1915a:371). fit of the animals. Most visitors and staff chose to envision the zoo as romantic, rather than tragic, but for both versions of A tale of two natures nature it was evident that nature was some- Obviously the three themes just described thing out there, something that was far – the eagle, the snake and natural death – from the zoo and its urban environment. A all have their discourses interwoven in two new consciousness of distant nature and is different perceptions of nature. These may interaction with humans developed in the roughly be labelled: Romantic nature and early 20th century though. It became Darwinian nature. Romantic nature was impossible for any observer to deny that no nature perceived as a paradise, where all matter how one interpreted the earthly par- creatures lived in harmony, surrounded not adise of nature, a dangerous snake had by fences but by love, freedom and life. It entered it. Of course, that snake was man. was an idealized nature, a place where However, parallel to the growing con- nothing could be spoiled and everything sciousness of humans as a threat to nature, was genuine, including feelings of love, it was suggested that man could also be its trust, courage and loyalty. It was a nature, only saviour. not without tragedies, but with noble tragedies. Darwinian nature in contrary was a Paradise in the Ark battle zone. Nature was defined by the It was no secret that species could be exter- struggle for survival, a struggle won by the minated by man’s actions. The best known strongest, for the benefit of future genera- examples were the extinctions of the Dodo, tions. It is in this conception of nature that the great Auk and Steller’s Sea Cow. In the we find the “Let nature take its course”. decades around 1900, other species became Here, instincts rather than feelings domi- extinct or threatened by extinction. These nate; instincts to reproduce, feed and kill, birds and mammals attracted the greatest to fear, flee and survive. awareness of concerned observers and con-

30 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 31

servationists (Adams 2004). The Passenger “collected” the last surviving individuals of Pigeon and the Bison are the best known threatened species (Fra Naturens Værksted examples of this development. The last 1912-16, Dreyer 1913a). Dreyer did not Passenger Pigeon: Martha, died in have much faith in modern civilization and Cincinnati Zoo in 1914. This bird had for its relationship to nature: “The story of centuries been the most numerous in extinction of the American bison is an America. The Bison, on the other hand, example above all others of the almost became the focus of many conservation unbelievable cruelty and lack of thought attempts. This was the first case of direct humans display even in our “civilized” intervention by conservationists and Bronx ages” (Dreyer 1912:371). Nevertheless he Zoo played a major role. Controlled breed- expressed some hope: “The ruthless slaugh- ing and protection in national parks, zoos ter of animals in nature is a disgrace for our and private parks was believed to be the last overly praised western culture, but now in hope for the bison. Indeed, such measures many place serious efforts have been made became crucial for the survival of other to do something about it” (Dreyer species such as the Père David’s deer and 1913:30). the Przewalsky horse. As the secretary for Given the death of Martha the passen- London’s Zoological Society Chalmers ger pigeon, Dreyer’s misanthropic views Mitchell (who later created Whipsnade were once more justified: “September 1st Zoo as enlargement of London Zoo) wrote 1914, the curtain went down following the in 1912: final act in the most shameful of all shameful animal tragedies our time has witnessed, The resourceful and aggressive higher may it be the last time a species is permit- races have now reached into the ted to disappear! But alas…!” (Dreyer remotest parts of the earth and have 1915c:27) Simultaneously with this bleak become the exterminators. It must now vision of nature’s future, the dangers of be the work of the most intelligent and exploitation and extinction for animals and provident amongst us to arrest this their habitats, invested the zoos with a new course of destruction and to preserve potential for identity. They could now what remains (Chalmers Mitchell 1912: frame themselves as life rafts – or arks – and 355). present themselves as a better and safer alternative to nature. In Copenhagen, Dreyer was a keen observ- The new self-proclaimed responsibility er of international zoological news and a for zoological gardens became, not only to sharp writer on the negative development grant the individual animal a life free of among several species. He lamented the pain and stress, but to preserve endangered passenger pigeons, criticized massacre on species. A central factor in this develop- penguins and praised initiatives like Bronx ment of a new zoo identity was the novel- Zoo’s conservation activities. In Dreyer’s ties of animal keeping that Carl Hagenbeck view, species were eradicated because of developed and described. The keywords in human greed and folly: American tastes for this effort were space, fresh air and kind- hunting and women’s tastes in hats with ness. Animals should have space to move, exotic feathers. He lashed out at museums bars should be banished and replaced with and zoos in particular, who hunted and moats, heating was unnecessary and train-

When Zoo became Nature. 31 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 32

ing should be by kindness, not through During the 20th century most zoos violence. continuously tried to grant their animals Hagenbeck was of course not solely more space, insofar as landscape and driven by altruism. His incentive was not money allowed for it. This development only the plight of the animals, but the was accompanied by a tendency to reduce economy of his animal dealership, the size the number of species present in each zoo. of the audience for shows and the animal The ideal was no longer to represent the park (Rothfels 2002). Still, many of his total number of animals in nature, but to contemporaries considered him an enlight- present the chosen ones in more natural ened and humane man, who sought to bet- and healthy environments (Hagenbeck ter life for the animals in zoos in general. 1911; Chalmers Mitchell 1912; Dreyer Dreyer was a great admirer of Hagen- 1915a; for a modern analysis see Hanson beck. He translated Habenbeck’s autobiog- 2004). raphy into Danish and wrote about him, In the improved zoo, polar bears and his animal park and principles (Hagenbeck seals could be seen side by side. The zoo 1911, Dreyer 1913b). Another of Dreyer’s became a paradise where the lion could lit- and Alving’s idols was William Hornaday erally lie beside the lamb. The same con- at Bronx Zoo (Dreyer 1915a, Alving struction of Eden-like scenery was seen in 2009). Hornaday had – contrary to Hagen- Hagenbeck’s trained animal groups where beck – a conservationist agenda for Bronx tigers performed with horses and dogs with Zoo, which was unequalled in regard to bears. Animals of different species co-habit- space and realistic, natural surroundings for ing cages or enclosures were rather com- the animals. Alving even planned his career mon at zoos around 1900. In Copenhagen, as the director of Copenhagen Zoo in detail monkeys and small bears were displayed and gave up his work as a lawyer to travel together in a large aviary-like cage, which to and live in New York as Hornaday’s was very popular because of its amusing apprentice. inhabitants. Another enclosure was labelled Hagenbeck’s principles were founded “Paradise for Animals” and displayed small- upon older ideas regarding acclimatization of er herbivores together, running free among exotic animals for proliferation and profit each other. Hagenbeck’s panoramas dis- (Rothfels 2002:200ff). Hagenbeck demon- played animals that live in the same envi- strated that exotic animals, such as ostriches, ronmental zones, but without any reflec- monkeys, lions and elephants did not need tions on nature and habitat, only of show- heated buildings, but thrived in open air manship and the spectacular. enclosures in northern Europe. The principles Modern zoos use the idea of displaying also included an abundance of space. Space animals together as a means of reproducing equalled freedom, which was something most environmental niches. This is linked to the people wished for the animals in the zoo. ideal of teaching visitors about the impor- Hagenbeck wanted to create the romantic ver- tance of natural habitats. The new savannah sion of nature inside his zoo. The animals in Copenhagen Zoo is an example of this should be free (or at least look as if they were), trend and the plans for a new Nordic exhibi- and with clever architecture, invisible moats tion, with polar bear, seal, muskoxen and and panoramas, Hagenbeck created his zoo to reindeer, build on the same inherent idea. be an improved version of nature. The question is whether the zoo both then

32 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 33 ined more than ined more had ca. 350 dif- oo, but 1/3 of the oo, Zoo (or The New York The New (or Zoo ferent species and the zoo covered an area of approximately 18 acres (today it is 27 acres). This can be compared to the Bronx to the Bronx This can be compared (today it is 27 acres). 18 acres of approximately an area covered species and the zoo ferent This map from 1907 shows Copenhagen Zoo as it was presented to visitors in a guidebook written by Schiøtt. At this time the zoo Schiøtt. At to visitors in a guidebook written by as it was presented Copenhagen Zoo 1907 shows This map from Zoological Park, which was its official name) described by W. Hornaday in a guidebook from 1909. It covered 264 acres and conta 264 acres covered 1909. It in a guidebook from Hornaday W. which was its official name) described by Park, Zoological 1100 species. The numbers alone suggests the cramped conditions of Copenhagen zoo, having less than 1/10 of the area of Bronx Z of Bronx having less than 1/10 of the area conditions of Copenhagen zoo, The numbers alone suggests the cramped 1100 species. number of species.

When Zoo became Nature. 33 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 34

and now – more or less instinctively – seeks gate whether Kasper was mistreated during to imitate paradise. But in arguing that the training (Dreyer 1916b; C.N. 1908; Copenhagen Zoo (and others) could become Anon 1910a; Anon 1910b). better than nature, one last element had to be The reasons for the major points of cri- considered: The animals had to stop dying! tique from animal protectionist and the The high number of animal deaths wider public – the cramped conditions and caused by catching, transporting and keep- the painful deaths in Copenhagen Zoo – ing animals, tainted the claim of zoos being were slowly disappearing during the first a safe and protective place. In the first half half of the 20th century. The zoo directors of the 20th century, the circumstances grad- could with some degree of honesty claim ually improved and an increasing number their zoo to be a paradise for animals and of animals in professional and dedicated even an ark to save the species threatened in zoos survived for a longer period. Already the cruel and wild nature. in the early 20th century some changes As mentioned, while a level of blissful could be observed, mainly due to the existence was sought in many places, it was Hagenbeck principles that helped the however, and not least in Copenhagen Zoo, healthy animals stay healthy, and later by curbed by lack of funding, space or enthu- hygienic measures and the trend in zoo- siasm. In the latter half of the 20th century, architecture labelled ‘bathroom-architec- when animal protection movements ture’; easy to clean, but not very natural reached a new peak of popularity, zoos were (Hancocks 2007; Hansen 2009). once again criticised for confining the ani- However, the animals must not only mals it places that were too small and survive, but also reproduce. Successful mat- lacked natural surroundings (Hancocks ing and breeding were very important for 2001; Marino et al 2009). Still, a major the new identity of zoological gardens, argument for the relevance of zoos was since it reinforced beliefs in the wellbeing their protection of endangered species and of the animals and made it hypothetically the support of conservationist projects out- possible that breeding of rare species could side the zoo itself (Zimmermann et al succeed. Breeding was considered the most 2007). Also, a new emphasis was placed on fundamental of natural animal behaviour enrichment of animals lives to prevent and offspring in the zoo was a sign that unhealthy mental and physical reactions to basic needs were being satisfied. In addi- the life in the zoo. With catalogues of ideas tion, one should not forget the public for enrichment, most zoos, including goodwill and support that cute furry babies Copenhagen, did not attempt to copy the provided. natural environment of the animals, but When the elephant Ellen delivered the sought to provide stimuli and challenges rare event of a newborn elephant in 1908 that would emulate their natural environ- in Copenhagen Zoo, the visitors were ments. And yet, on the whole, while natu- ecstatic. Schiøtt advertised the baby ral surroundings and behaviour was sought (Kasper) intensively and secured a record among the animals, certain aspects were income for the zoo. When Kasper was later still strictly administered or banished, such handed over to a circus director for train- as hunting, escaping and reproducing. ing, it resulted in a public outcry and Dyrenes Beskyttelse made the police investi-

34 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 35

Praise the Prison In 1915 Dreyer wrote the article “Zoos The first decades of this development do of the Future”, where he argued that most not suggest any explicit environmental animals had “reason to praise imprison- rhetoric among source texts written by the ment, rather than the tragic unsafe and directors of Copenhagen Zoo, but rather a painful life out in the free nature” (Dreyer species preservation discourse. Dreyer 1915a:377). His colleague Chalmers wanted to preserve species in captivity, not Mitchell of London Zoo had uttered the necessarily in their natural environment same argument two years earlier: “They can and he suggested domestication as a means live long, and live happily (…) Space, open to preserve some endangered species. He air, scrupulous attention to hygiene and did not think that man’s consumption of diet, the provision of some attempt at nat- nature would ever end, but that the animals ural environment and receiving attention themselves could be rescued: “The time that they [the animals] have never received will come, when the majority of fur will before” (Chalmers Mitchell 1912:364). stem from semi-domesticated animals. This The protection of animals and of nature will save several animal species, which most that had begun around 1900 and since certainly would disappear in the wild, but grew to a global challenge, includes a small will be preserved by being tame or half-way irony. Even the small parts of nature that tame” (Dreyer 1915b:121). are left have become organized by humans. Dreyer created a paradox in suggesting Rare and wild animals can only exist in that endangered species only could be pro- areas where they are monitored and man- tected by removing them from their natural aged. As Greg Mitman has phrased it: ”If habitat; they could not stay in nature, but the Zoo was becoming more like nature, must be transplanted to cultured settings nature was also becoming more like the such as in parks, reserves or zoos. Only here Zoo” (Mitman 1996:121) animals could be controlled and protected From the first decades of the 20th cen- accordingly. This reasoning offered the zoo tury, zoological gardens began slowly but a new rhetorical toolbox for becoming steadily to stage and present themselves as nature. It was a kind of nature that perhaps an alternative to nature, or literally as an was not an untouched paradise or a battle alternative nature. In the analysis of the zone, but rather defined as a place where debates on Copenhagen Zoo around 1900, healthy animals could live their lives in rel- a change in discourse and the self-under- ative freedom. Nature was where the ani- standing among zoo-directors is evident: mals were. The opposition between the The zoo changed from being a place for notions of Romantic and Darwinian nature recreation, for education and for entertain- could thus be erased, for no matter how ment, to being a place of necessity: Not ‘nature-out-there’ was defined, it was only a necessity for the visitors, but certain- apparently disappearing as a victim of ly also for the animals themselves. human conquest. Nature was now defined by new rules. A disappearing and disturbed All quotes from Danish sources are translated nature could not longer be the ideal place by the author. for animals. Perhaps – just perhaps – one could argue that a zoo was preferable to true nature.

When Zoo became Nature. 35 TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 36

References Dreyer, W. 1915a. ”Fremtidens Zoologiske Adams, William M 2004: Against Extinction. haver”. In: Fra Naturens Værksted, pp. the Story of conservation. Earthscan, 370–77. London. Dreyer, W. 1915b. ”Ræveavlen i Canada”. In: Alving, T. 2009. Slip dyrene fri. I Zoologisk Fra Naturens Værksted, pp. 113–21. have. Direktør Alvings erindringer 1925– Dreyer, W. 1915c. ”Den sidste vandredue 1942. Forlaget BIOS, København. død!”. In: Fra Naturens Værksted, pp. Anon 1873. ”Fra den Zoologiske Have”. In: 26–7. Illustreret Tidende, nr. 718, 29.06., pp. Dreyer, W. 1916b. Elefantfødsler i Zoologisk 357–8. Have. København. (also printed as an arti- Anon 1903. ”Forsøg med Ratin i zoologisk cle in Fra Naturens Værksted the same year.) have”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. 166–68. En Naturforsker 1865. ”En Morgentour til Anon 1904. ”Fugle som Tombolagevinst”. In: Zoologisk Have”. In: Illustreret Tidende, Dyrevennen, pp. 61–62. nr. 300, 25.06., pp. 315–18. Anon 1906. ”Fugle som Tombolage vinster”. Fleuron, Svend 1925. Det Fængslede Vildnis. In: Dyrevennen, p. 113. Fra en zoologisk have. Gyldendalske Anon 1909. ”I Sverige”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. boghandel, København. 190–91. Fra Naturens Værksted 1912–1916. Anon 1910a. ”Kaspar”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. Gjerløff, Anne Katrine 2008a. ”Kvinder, børn 125–28 og andre dyr. Kvindeforeningen til yrenes Anon 1910b. Zoologisk have. In: Dyre- beskyttelse og dens kamp for menneske- vennen, pp. 113–16. ligheden i 1800-tallets slutning”. In: 1066 Anon 2006. ”Lidt for Naturligt”. In: – Tidsskrift for Historie, (2), pp. 13–25. Lokalavisen Frederiksberg. 24.5. Gjerløff, Anne Katrine 2008b. ”Mellem Barfoed, Chr. 1913. ”Om zoologiske haver”. fornøjelse og belæring. Zoologiske haves In: Dyrevennen, pp. 143–145. mange funktioner”. In: Bulletin för Bing, P. 1984. Okapiens Jubilæumsskrift. I Trädgårdshistoria, no. 21, pp. 22–24. anledning af Zoo’s 125 års jubilæum Gjerløff, Anne Katrine 2009a. ”Folk og andre 1859–1984. København. fæ”. In: Humaniora, (1), pp. 18–23. Blomqvist, Axel 1912. ”Menagerier och Gjerløff, Anne Katrine 2009b. ”Fra aber i Zoologiska trädgårdar”. In: 16. Inter - anekdoter til katte i kasser – evolutionste- nationale Dyrebeskyttelseskongress. Køben - orien rolle i dyrepsykologiens udvikling”. havn 1.–5. August 1911. Pp. 24–29. In: Slagmark – tidsskrift for Idehistorie, no. Chalmers Mitchell, P. 1912. “Zoological 54, pp. 47–62. Gardens and the Preservation of Fauna”. Hagenbeck, Carl 1911. Dyr og Mennesker. In: Science, vol. 36, no. 925, pp. 353–65. Gyldendalske Forlag, København og C.N. 1908. ”Elefantungen i Zoologisk have”. Kristiania. In: Dyrevennen, pp. 12–14. Hancocks, D. 2001. A Different Nature. the Dreyer, W. 1912. ”Den Amerikanske Bisons”. Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their In: Fra Naturens Værksted, p. 371. Uncertain Future. University of Cali- Dreyer, W. 1913a. ”Om Dyrearters Uddøen”. fornia Press. In: Dyrevennen, no. 3, pp. 28–32. Hancocks, D. 2007. “Zoo Animals as Dreyer, W. 1913b. ”Carl Hagenbeck”. In: Entertainment Exhibitions”. In: R. Dyrevennen, no. 5, pp. 75–78. Malamud (ed.): A Cultural History of

36 Anne Katrine Gjerløff TfK 1-2010 ombrukket_TfK 1-2-2007 02.03.10 15.55 Side 37

Animals in the Modern Age. Berg, Oxford. Mitman, Gregg 1996. “When nature is the Pp. 95–118. zoo: vision and power in the art and sci- Hansen, Martin A. 1938. “Dialog med ence of Natural History”. In: Osiris, 11, Kongeørnen”. In: Abrahamsen, Lars (ed.) pp. 117–43. 2002. Dyrebar. Zoologisk Have og Mullan, B. & G. Marvin 1999. Zoo Culture. Kunstnerne. Sophienholm. Pp. 63–68. University of Illinois press. Hansen, Anders Lundt 2009. ”Primaternes Price, Jennifer 1999. Flight Maps. Adventures perfekte verden. Internationalt lys på en with nature in moderne America. Basic dansk zoo’s historie”. In: Den Jyske Books, New York. Historiker 123. temanummer: Folk og Fæ – Rothfels, N. 2002: Savages and beasts. The mennesker og dyr i historie. Pp. 91–107. birth of the Modern Zoo. John Hopkins Hanson, E. 2004. Animal Attractions. Nature University press. on Display in American Zoos. Princeton Schiøtt, J. 1903a. “Forsøg med Ratin i University Press. Zoologisk Have”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. Jensen, P. 1904. ”Ida Lises Fugl”. In: 185–86. Dyrevennen, pp. 62–64. Schiøtt, J. 1903b. ”Zoologisk have og Juel-Hansen, N. 1874. ”Den Zoologiske Dyrebeskyttelsen”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. Have”. In: Illustreret Tidende, nr. 770, 87–88. 28.6., pp. 361–62. Sehested, E. 1903. ”Zoologisk Have og Jørgensen, Bent 1984. Zoo. Rhodos, Dyrebeskyttelsen”. In: Dyrevennen, pp. København. 85–87. Klein, A. von 1896. Blandt Dyrerne. Seton, Ernest Thompson 1898. Wild Animals København. I have Known. The Echo Licrary, 2006. Laursen, J. 2009. Herregårdsjagt i Dan mark. Stuckenberg, V. 1908. ”Zoologisk have”. In: Gads Forlag, København. Brikker til en mosaik om Zoologiske Have. Lutts, R.H. 1990. Nature Fakers.Wildlife, Frederiksberg, 1998, pp. 45–50. Science and Sentiment. University press of Zimmermann, A. et al (eds.) 2007. Zoos in Virginia. the 21st Century. Catalyst for conservation? Marino, L., Bradshaw, G. & R.Malamud Cambridge University Press 2009. “The Captivity Insustry”. In: Best Friend Magazine, march/april, pp. 24–27.

When Zoo became Nature. 37