12 Ichthyological Topics of the European Reception of Du Bartas Paul J. Smith An important difference between the reception histories of Ronsard and Du Bartas lies in the way in which the two poets are presented as a poeta doc- tus by their contemporary editors, printers, and commentators. In the case of Ronsard, the poet’s presentation by Rémy Belleau and Marc-Antoine de Muret highlights mainly his humanist learning in the field of classical mythology and his profound knowledge of the ancient poets (in particular Ovid, Tibullus, Propertius, Theocritus, Anacreon, Virgil, and Homer, in order of frequency), and Petrarch and Marullus among the moderns.1 As for Du Bartas, the com- mentators Simon Goulart and Pantaleon Thevenin mainly assume a different kind of learning: Aristotle, Pliny, and Aelian, but above all contemporary work, namely the natural histories by Pierre Belon, Guillaume Rondelet and Conrad Gessner. It is precisely this natural history aspect that is consistent with the emerging interest in natural history, and is therefore one of the causes of the difference in popularity between the two poets in the 17th century, especially in reader circles where there was a general growing interest in natural history. It is known that even some early modern scientists, such as Ambroise Paré, Nicolas-Abraham de La Framboisière, Scipion Dupleix, and Simon Girault,2 liked to quote Du Bartas in their work. It is less or not at all known that there was also interest in Du Bartas among some zoologically, and in particular ichthyologically interested readers. I would like to demonstrate the latter for Du Bartas on the basis of one of Du Bartas’s most quoted passages in natural 1 See Belleau Rémy, Commentaire au Second Livre des Amours de Ronsard, eds. M.-M. Fontaine, F. Lecercle (Geneva: 1986) 87 (“Index des auteurs cités dans le commentaire du Second Livre des Amours de 1560, par ordre de fréquence”); Muret Marc-Antoine de, Commentaires au Premier Livre des Amours de Ronsard, eds. J. Chomarat, M.M. Fragonard and G. Mathieu-Castellani (Geneva: 1985) 73–74 (“Index des auteurs allégués ou cités”); and Ronsard Pierre de – Muret Marc-Antoine de, Les Amours, leurs Commentaires. Texte de 1553, eds. Ch. De Buzon and P. Martin (Paris: 1999) 449–504 (“Index des graphies de la préface et des commentaires de Muret aux Amours”). 2 See Giacomotto-Charra V., “Le poète aimé des savants: la réception scientifique de Du Bartas entre 1580 et 1630”, Littératures classiques 85, 3 (2014) 249–260. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004438569_013 256 Smith history, that is, the passage from the Fifth Day of La Sepmaine, presenting the analogy between the aquatic and the terrestrial flora and fauna. In order to do so, I first address Goulart’s positioning of Du Bartas as a poeta doctus, and how Goulart’s commentary will take on a life of its own in the international Du Bartas reception. But for my argumentation it is important to begin with a brief overview of the 16th-century rise of natural history, including ichthyology. 1 Du Bartas and Ichthyology The mid-16th century was characterized by a rapid succession of major publi- cations on natural history. Mapping living nature resulted in a rapidly increas- ing number of described and depicted species. Descriptions became more detailed; ad vivum illustrations were used more frequently and systematically. Exchange networks of experts on living nature began to extend all over Europe. Naturalists experimented with classifications of living nature, adapting these to exponentially increasing knowledge. Botany was at the forefront of these developments; zoology followed quickly. Within zoology, new developments can first be observed in ichthyology (‘fish studies’).3 The publication in rapid succession of a number of richly illustrated works on fishes epitomizes the role of ichthyology as scientifically avant-garde within early modern zoology: Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Gessner.4 Compared with works on other groups of animals, illustrated works about fish appeared earlier, were greater in num- ber, and were much more extensive. Around 1550 there was only one significant publication on mammals (Gessner 1551), there were two on birds (Belon 1555; Gessner 1555), and there was one on reptiles (Gessner 1554).5 Fish books had a wide readership, as is evident from the various updated editions and transla- tions. And the publication of these works in the vernacular (French, German) shows that this readership went beyond those who knew Latin. 3 The term “ichthyology” is used here for facility. In fact, it is anachronistic: it came into use only in the 17th century, and it includes the study not only of fish, but of all forms of aquatic animals, including sea mammals and crustaceans. 4 To be more precise: Pierre Belon published three illustrated ichthyological works (1551 (French), 1553 (Latin), and 1555 (French)); Guillaume Rondelet two (1554–1555 (Latin) and 1558 (French)); Ippolyto Salviani (1514–1572) one (1558 (Latin)); and Conrad Gessner two (1558 and 1560 (both in Latin)). 5 Similar observations in Zucker A., “Fonctions des classes dans les traités ichtyologiques de P. Belon et G. Rondelet: empreinte ou alibi antique ?” in Gontier T. (ed.), Animal et animalité dans la philosophie de la Renaissance et de l’Âge classique (Louvain – Paris: 2005) 7–32 (espe- cially 7–8). See also Glardon P., L’histoire naturelle au XVIe siècle. Introduction, étude et édition critique de La nature et diversité des poissons de Pierre Belon (1555) (Geneva: 2011) 6–7..